Some of the key characteristics I would like to see in a material:
1) Malleable - to allow for a fluid shape that can form a robotic "skin" that not only protects but allows for flexibility in movement. "Smart metals" or "shape memory alloys" are particularly interesting for this, as they allow a material to take a predetermined shape by running a current through it or magnetic field across it. This could allow the robot to perform actions by morphing adn using very little power.
http://www.fastcompany.com/fast50_04/winners/flowers.html
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~database/MEMS/sma_mems/sma.html
2) Temporary Adhesive - so the robot can "grip" objects firmly without having to use an appendage, thus saving work and energy. The gripping mechanism is intended to be similar to many biological models. Many insects have adhesive pads on the surfaces of their appendages. These allow them to adhere to many steep surfaces with minimal effort.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4054/is_200212/ai_n9158309
3) Cellular - This would allow the material to be easily repaired. In the case of a robot, this could prove especially useful. This would allow parts to be fixed at ease, without the need for complete part replacement. In this way, only damaged sections of "cells" could be removed and replaced, reducing replacement cost and time. For self-sufficient robots, they could simply gather the necessary materials to rebuild the damaged cells and continue their operation. This concept is very closely related to the idea of cellular automata. The goal is less to create a cellular network, though, and more to create an interconnected network of many independent easily replaceable parts. In this way, I am less concerned with the aspect of communication between "cells" and more with the connection.
http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~sipper/papabs/epcm.pdf
Ethics of genetic manipulation:
The current foray into genetic manipulation and mutation as a form of art represents a much larger issue at hand. Biotechnology is rocketing forward at an unprecedented rate that is rapidly unlocking the secrets of the human genome. With each new discovery, the scientific community draws ever nearer to fully defining human structure. The question that should arise from this observation is simply "what do we do with this information?" Almost invariably, the answer is to try and improve humanity through genetic manipulation, i.e. eugenics. The word "eugenics" often conjures up negative connotations associated with World War II era Nazi Germany. The harsh methodologies of that period (genocide, isolation, crude experimentation) are no longer necessary for the oncoming wave of eugenics. This new movement is based upon direct manipulation of the human gene code. While a seemingly cleaner and more acceptable approach, this methodology is not without issues. Fundamentally altering the human genetic code represents a massive step in the ability to predetermine human development. The obvious benefits include the prevention of deformities, disease, and other genetic ailments. Some research has been done to check the viability of gene splicing between species to obtain desirable attributes in other species. The main objective of most studies is to extend and sustain human life for as long as possible. This is a noble goal, indeed, but it is not the only goal. There is also a movement toward gene tailoring, predetermining human qualities that some might call arbitrary. These include traits such as eye color and hair color. While these may be nice options to some prospective parents, where does it end? At what point do we stop to assess the possible damage? Is it truly desirable to create a super race of humans? Does such a thing exist as an ideal human genetic blueprint? What effects does this ultimately have on evolution and the sustainability of the species? My personal concerns lie in the area of human definition. If a standard blue print is developed, does all humanity have to conform to a single archetype? Do we force sameness on the species, insisting that "normal/natural" humans represent a threat to the advancement of the species? If you completely predetermine the genetic blueprint of a human, is it any different that programming a machine? This field is often referred to as "genetic engineering," after all. Is longer, healthier life really worth eliminating random chance and natural evolution altogether? Maybe genetic engineering of an "ideal" human will only makes us more vulnerable to new diseases, as the lack of variation will make each human just as vulnerable as the next. Finally, and most importantly to me personally, is the issue of natural human evolution. Some may call genetic engineering "guided" evolution, since it is a direct approach to altering the genetic code in a supposedly beneficial way. It makes me wonder, though, where is humanity headed? What are we to become? There are multitudes of theories about the next step in human evolution, and any number of them may very well be true. If we rush ahead in our instinctive impatience to "better" our lives and forever alter the course of genetic evolution, will we ever get to where we're headed? The real question to ask is "what is more important: human idealities or human potentialities?"