New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Better Than a Dog

The search is on for a sensor that bests a canine at detecting explosives

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The terrorist attack on the London subway system provoked calls from politicians for deploy-ment of new technologies that could warn of the presence of bombs before they go off. But a detector that can discov--er the presence of multiple types of explosives quickly, accurately and from a far enough distance to protect peo-ple and property does not exist. The nearest thing is a snif--fer dog, but a canine has a short attention span and needs frequent breaks.

The chemists, materials scientists and electronic engineers who are paid to think about such issues are trying to come up with ideas beyond putting Ritalin in dog chow. Large swaths of the electromagnetic spectrum and the periodic table are fair game. Even the insect kingdom might be recruited to attack the problem. A report by the National Research Council (NRC) last year--Existing and Potential Standoff Explosives Detection Techniques--speculated on far-out ideas for finding concealed bombs that use conventional explosives. Bees could be trained, through altered feeding habits, to swarm a vehicle packed with dynamite. Failing that, robotic "insects" with onboard sensors might do the same.

Gary Stix is the former senior editor of mind and brain topics at Scientific American.

More by Gary Stix
Scientific American Magazine Vol 293 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Better Than a Dog” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 293 No. 4 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican102005-14hYen3P2JLoRf9sTAiANE

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe