Adv Physiol Educ 42: 90–98, 2018;
doi:10.1152/advan.00161.2017.
A PERSONAL VIEW
Using Hawkeye from the Avengers to communicate on the eye
X Barry W. Fitzgerald
Intensified Reaction & Separation Systems, Department of Process & Energy, Delft University of Technology, Delft,
The Netherlands
Submitted 26 October 2017; accepted in final form 6 December 2017
Fitzgerald BW. Using Hawkeye from the Avengers to communi-
cate on the eye. Adv Physiol Educ 42: 90 –98, 2018; doi:10.1152/
advan.00161.2017.—Superheroes, such as Iron Man, Captain Amer-
ica, Wonder Woman, Batman, and Hawkeye, have appeared in nu-
merous films, displaying their range of incredible superpowers and
abilities. Therefore, it is unsurprising that many people would not only
wish to attain these powers, but also to learn about scientific acces-
sibility to these powers. Popular culture characters such as superhe-
roes can provide a unique platform for the communication of difficult
scientific concepts. In the classroom, these characters can be used to
communicate learning objectives to students in an interesting, fun, and
accessible manner by taking advantage of student familiarity with the
characters. Hawkeye, a member of the Avengers, is one such super-
hero who can be utilized by educators. His powers can be attributed
in part to his advanced eyesight, which has physiological aspects in
common with many birds of prey. Hence, Hawkeye can instigate
discussion on the physiology of the human eye, while also allowing
for comparison with other species, such as birds of prey, and reflection
on advancements related to genetic engineering and wearable tech-
nologies. In addition, in my experience, Hawkeye has proven to be a
highly suitable popular culture character for use in scientific commu-
nication and outreach.
education; eyesight; popular culture; scientific outreach; superheroes
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been an upsurge in the popularity
of the superhero genre, motivated in part by the large number
of successful superhero films. Some films focus on superhero
teams, such as the X-Men and the Avengers, with team
members having a diverse range of complementary abilities. In
the Avengers, Iron Man (Tony Stark) wears a powered exo-
skeleton suit that provides him with increased strength and the
ability to fly, whereas Captain America (Steve Rogers) is a
World War II super-soldier whose physiology has been per-
manently altered following treatment with an experimental
serum and radiation exposure (3). Other team members are
aliens, such as Thor, and the Vision is an android powered by
an alien relic known as an Infinity Stone. Nonetheless, the
abilities of some Avengers are firmly based on genetics and
human physiology. Black Widow, or Natasha Romanoff, is a
highly trained Russian spy with Olympic athlete level fitness,
agility, and reflexes and an expert in hand-to-hand combat,
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: B. W. Fitzgerald,
Delft University of Technology, Process & Energy Department, Intensified
Reaction & Separation Systems, Building 34K, Room 34K-0-100, Leeghwa-
terstraat 39, 2628 CB Delft, The Netherlands (e-mail: barry.w.fitzgerald
@gmail.com; b.fitzgerald@tudelft.nl).
90 1043-4046/18 Copyright © 2018 The American Physiological Society
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (145.118.074.186) on February 23, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 American Physiological Society. All rights reserved.
whereas Hawkeye, or Clint Barton, who also possesses many
of Ramonff’s abilities, is an expert archer.
In my opinion, Hawkeye is one of the more grounded
superheroes. He has not been the subject of an experimental
treatment and does not wear an Iron Man-like suit. Just like the
average person, Hawkeye fatigues and must eat to replenish
his energy reserves. For this alone, he is a superhero to
whom the student can relate. Hawkeye’s abilities as an
archer can be attributed to his exceptional eyesight, which
can act as an innovative platform to introduce the physiol-
ogy and anatomy of the eye to students (13). The character
can also be used to motivate discussion on how current
scientific research could be used in the near future to
increase the acuity of human eyesight (13).
Using superheroes such as Hawkeye as a platform for the
communication of learning objectives related to physiology
can have a multitude of benefits for educators and students (3,
61, 62). First, superheroes can be used to motivate the student’s
initial interest in a new topic or subject. Given the popularity of
superhero films, it is likely that the majority of students will
have seen, or, at the very least, be aware of the superhero
character. Second, the use of superheroes in the classroom
represents a departure from traditional analogies used to en-
force or support the delivery of learning objectives. Third, the
topic of superheroes can be used to inspire educators in the
design of laboratory experiments, in-class assignments, student
projects, and final examination questions. The use of superhero
paradigms can also foster stronger links between educators and
students, and between physiological aspects of the human body
and the world of the student. In addition, Hawkeye can be used
in scientific outreach to help bridge the gap between academic
research and the general public.
In this article I will discuss the physiology of Hawkeye’s
eyes, drawing comparisons with the vision of birds of prey. I
will motivate Hawkeye using one scene from the 2012 film The
Avengers (2). In addition, I also briefly suggest how Hawkeye
can be used to motivate other topics, such as genetic engineer-
ing and transgenesis. Finally, I propose pedagogical applica-
tions of Hawkeye in the classroom and suggest methods for
motivating classroom discussions as well as planning experi-
ments connected to learning objectives.
Hawkeye: the Superhero
Many people will be familiar with Hawkeye, as portrayed by
Jeremy Renner, from films such as The Avengers (2), Aveng-
ers: Age of Ultron (1), and Captain America: Civil War (4).
The character first appeared in the Marvel comic book Tales of
Suspense, no. 57, in 1964 (29), and he joined the Avengers in
 HAWKEYE EYE
Avengers, vol. 1, no. 16, from 1965 (28). His two key physi-
ological characteristics are his speed of reaction and superhu-
man eyesight, which both contribute to his ability as a master
archer. To rapidly fire one accurate arrow after another, Hawk-
eye must be at the peak of human conditioning, with highly
developed tendons and ligaments, as well as exemplary eye-
hand coordination. However, the focus of this article is solely
on his vision.
To motivate this topic, I will refer to one particular scene
from the 2012 film, The Avengers (2). In the film, the Avengers
battle the Chitauri, an alien army, that arrives via a wormhole
above Stark Tower in New York City. During the fight scene,
Hawkeye is perched on a skyscraper firing arrows at Chitauri
gliders flying through the New York City skyline. At one point,
Black Widow flies an alien glider with Loki, the main antag-
onist of the film, in pursuit. Sensing the danger, Black Widow
contacts Hawkeye for assistance. Hawkeye calmly loads an
arrow in his bow and tracks the gliders of Black Widow and
Loki. The camera then zooms in on the pair of gliders, and, in
doing so, gives the audience an impression of Hawkeye’s
advanced vision. Hawkeye confidently states “I got him” and
fires an arrow at Loki. Although Loki catches the arrow, it
explodes, destroying Loki’s glider and allowing Black Widow
to escape.
Hawkeye and Birds of Prey
Hawkeye’s accuracy with the bow and arrow is dependent
on his eyesight, which is more advanced than the average
human eyesight. As indicated previously, Hawkeye has not
been enhanced via experimentation, technology, or alien arti-
facts. He has not been administered an experimental serum like
Steve Rogers (3), and he has not been genetically modified
after exposure to cosmic rays like the Fantastic Four. Hence, I
must conclude that he has inherited the genetic propensity for
advanced eyesight from his parents. The nickname “Hawkeye”
reflects this and suggests that he has many attributes in com-
mon with birds of prey (Fig. 1). There are several aspects of the
eye that could be central to Hawkeye’s vision. For brevity, I
will highlight what I believe are three key aspects, which are
advanced accommodative mechanisms, differing retinal struc-
Fig. 1. Sketch of the eye of a bird of prey. [Image credit: Jean-Philippe Frimat.
From Fitzgerald (13) with permission.]
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00161.2017 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (145.118.074.186) on February 23, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 American Physiological Society. All rights reserved.
91
Fig. 2. The human eye with the cornea, lens, optic nerve, retina, and fovea all
indicated.
ture, and increased photoreceptor density in the eyes. I will also
compare the position and associated visual field of his eyes
with those of birds of prey.
Accommodative mechanism. First, I will consider the accom-
modative mechanism in the human eye (Fig. 2). The human
eye is sensitive to electromagnetic waves, with wavelengths
ranging from 390 nm up to 700 nm, extending from violet to
red. When light enters the eye, it is refracted by the cornea and
the lens to focus the light onto the retina, the light-sensitive
part of the eye, where the light excites photoreceptor cells,
leading to chemical and electrical nerve impulses (Fig. 2).
Neurons, known as retinal ganglion cells, collect the impulses
and transmit them via the optic nerve to the brain. The cornea
has a fixed spherical shape, acts as a converging lens, and
accounts for roughly two-thirds of the refractive power of the
eye. The ciliary muscles surrounding the lens change the
refractive power of the lens, a process known as accommoda-
tion. To resolve distant objects, the lens will assume a thin and
flat geometry, whereas, for closer objects, the lens is thicker
and rounder.
The accommodative process in birds of prey is different than
for humans (23, 60) (Fig. 3). While the ciliary muscles con-
nected to the lens change the refractive ability of the transpar-
ent lens in a human eye, accommodation is facilitated in birds
of prey through the deformation of both the lens and cornea.
Corneal accommodation plays a key role in the overall vision
of birds. In front of the cornea is a layer of air, and behind the
cornea is the aqueous humor, which is a waterlike liquid. With
increased curvature, the cornea has greater refractive power
and can thus exploit to a greater extent the interface between
the air and aqueous humor, which have differing refractive
indexes. This process is facilitated by the anterior sclerocorneal
muscles, which are striated or striped muscles in the eye.
The refractive power of an optical device is a measure of the
degree by which it bends light and is calculated from the
reciprocal of the focal length (P ⫽ 1/f). It is measured in units
of diopters (D) or m⫺1. For a human eye, the refractive power
is ~60 D, with ~40 D due to the refractive power of the cornea.
While the refractive power of the eyes in birds of prey is only
slightly larger, the corneal and lenticular accommodative pro-
cesses allow for greater flexibility and adaptivity for focusing
images on the retina. In addition, some avian species can be
92
Fig. 3. An example of the anatomy of an avian
eye. [From Whittow (60) with permission from
Elsevier.]
emmetropic and myopic at the same time (23). This means that
a bird can simultaneously focus on two objects: one that is
distant and one that is closer to the bird. Such accommodative
mechanisms can explain why Hawkeye is able to track multiple
targets at varying distances in the film The Avengers (2).
While Hawkeye temporarily retires from the Avengers in
Avengers: Age of Ultron (1) and returns to action in Captain
America: Civil War (4), he will eventually have to permanently
retire due to degradation of his accommodative abilities. In a
normal human eye, the process of accommodation deteriorates
over time, leading to the condition of presbyopia, a decrease in
the eye’s ability to focus on close objects. While this condition
will not affect Hawkeye’s ability to focus on distant objects
and could be corrected with advanced surgical techniques (14),
Hawkeye will certainly suffer some loss of corneal and lentic-
ular accommodation with age, just like many avian species
(23). In fact, Hawkeye is shown as blind in the Old Man Logan
comic book (37), where it appears that he has developed
cataracts in his eyes and suffered serious eye trauma rather than
experienced degradation of his accommodative mechanisms.
We have yet to see Hawkeye using his trusted bow and
arrow underwater in the Marvel Cinematic Universe films. The
human eye loses the refractive ability of the cornea when
underwater, because the refractive index of water is approxi-
mately the same as the refractive index of the fluids in the eye.
As a result, the lens is unable to compensate for the missing
refractive power, leading to the projection of an image beyond
the retina, known as hyperopia. This explains why someone
sees blurry images when underwater. If Hawkeye were trying
to incapacitate a villain underwater, he would need additional
accommodative mechanisms from certain birds of prey to
retain visual acuity. The gannet is a bird of prey that seemingly
retains visual acuity when moving from air to water. Gannets
are large seabirds that search for fish from above the water
before plunging into the water after the prey. They can capture
prey during two different phases of the dive. First, they can
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00161.2017 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (145.118.074.186) on February 23, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 American Physiological Society. All rights reserved.
HAWKEYE EYE
capture prey in the momentum phase of a dive or when the
gannet first enters the water. Second, prey can be acquired
during the wing-flapping phase, where the gannet pursues the
prey through the water. An experimental study of plunging
gannets suggests that they switch from aerial vision to clear
underwater vision in ⬍0.1 s (8, 32). The study suggests that the
clear aquatic vision is due to the reshaping of the lens against
the iris, which controls the amount of light entering the eye.
When underwater, the ciliary muscles pull the lens forward
rather than deforming the lens in the traditional manner. The lens
then slightly protrudes beyond the iris and increases the refractive
ability of the lens. For Hawkeye, this process may be sufficient
to correct for the loss of refractive power of the cornea while
underwater and allow him to retain his advanced accommoda-
tive mechanism.
Photoreceptor cells and foveae. While Hawkeye’s accom-
modative mechanisms are crucial for focusing light onto his
retina, his visual acuity is also dependent on his retinal struc-
ture. In the human eye, there are two main types of photore-
ceptor cells, referred to as rods and cones. Four genes are
associated with these cells: one gene for rods and three genes
for cones. The RHO gene leads to the production of the protein
rhodospin, which is found in the rods. The other three genes are
OPN1SW, OPN1MW, and OPN1LW, which encode for the
blue-sensitive opsin protein, green-sensitive opsin protein, and
red-sensitive opsin protein, respectively (40). Here SW stands
for short wave, MW is medium wave, and LW is long wave.
The breakdown of cones in the eye is ~65% red cones, 33%
green cones, and 2% blue cones, where the blue cones have the
greatest sensitivity (48). Hence, humans, like cats (50), have
trichromatic vision, given that we possess cones sensitive to
three wavelength ranges. Rods provide lower resolution, but
they are very sensitive to lighting conditions. Thus they are
important for vision in poorly illuminated conditions. At the
lowest luminance, where the rods are primarily active, vision is
referred to as scotopic. On the other hand, cones allow for high
 HAWKEYE EYE
spatial resolution or visual acuity, while being insensitive to
light intensity. For indoor lighting or sunlight, cones mainly
contribute to variances in vision, since the contribution from
the rods saturates, a vision referred to as photopic (48).
In the average human eye, rods and cones are located in
differing parts of the retina (22, 48). The human eye comprises
between 90 and 120 million rods and, on average, 4.5 million
cones. Cones are packed into the fovea centralis in the center
of the macula lutea in the retina, whereas rods are found in
other regions of the retina. In an investigation on the photore-
ceptor count in eyes from 21 donors, the density of cones in the
fovea region has been shown to be in excess of 125,000
cones/mm2, whereas the density of rods peaks somewhere in a
ringlike area 3–5 mm from the fovea at 150,000 rods/mm2
(22). In comparison, an eagle can have up to 1,000,000 cones/
mm2 in its fovea (10).
In recent years, there has been a notable advancements in
relation to noninvasive medical imaging of microvascular flow
in the vicinity of the skin (25, 34, 35, 44), imaging of bowels
(31), and the imaging of the human eye (21, 46, 59), as well as
the eyes of birds of prey (51). For the latter two cases, the
noninvasive approach means that the retinal structure of both
birds of prey (51) and humans (59) can be studied in a manner
that is both accurate and safe for the subject. One approach that
is ideally suited for ophthalmic imaging, such as retinal cross-
sectional imaging, is optical coherence tomography (OCT) (21,
46, 51). Similar to ultrasonic pulse-echo imaging, OCT is a
technique that has been developed to facilitate noninvasive
cross-sectional imaging in biological systems. OCT uses inter-
ferometry to generate a two-dimensional image of tissue using
back-reflected photons from tissue of low-coherence light, with
a wavelength of 830 nm. Three-dimensional images of the
retinal structure for two diurnal hawks using OCT show that
diurnal hawks are bifoveate, meaning that they possess two
foveae in the retina, classified as the deep fovea and shallow
fovea (51). Just like the human eye, these foveae contain cones
and are associated with acute vision. The deep fovea is located
in the nasal or central region, which is close to the nasal part of
the bird’s skull, whereas the shallow fovea is found in the
temporal region, which is closer to the temple of the bird (see
Fig. 3). Therefore, the retinal structure in birds of prey is
markedly different from the retinal structure of the human eye.
Of the two foveae, the deep fovea is more clearly discernible
and developed. For a Broad-winged Hawk, the depth of the
deep fovea has been shown to be 66% of the total retinal
thickness (51), whereas the shallow fovea is imaged as a slight
depression in the retina. Conversely, retinal images of another
species, the Short-tailed Hawk, clearly demonstrate the pres-
ence of the shallow fovea. This suggests that the extent of the
shallow fovea could depend on the species or on an individual
from that species (51). Typically, the central fovea contains a
higher density of photoreceptor cells in comparison to the
shallow fovea (Fig. 4).
As shown in the OCT study of Ruggeri et al. (51), some
individuals in avian species do not have a noticeable shallow
fovea. It may very well be the case that Hawkeye does not have
a shallow fovea, given that the human eye ordinarily does not
have such a fovea. However, there is credible evidence from
the film The Avengers (2) that suggests the contrary. At one
instance in the Battle of New York City, we find Hawkeye
perched on a skyscraper with an arrow loaded and ready to fire.
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00161.2017 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (145.118.074.186) on February 23, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 American Physiological Society. All rights reserved.
93
Fig. 4. Relative receptor density for an ideal bird of prey. [From Tucker (55)
with permission.]
As he carefully tracks one glider, he appears to focus on a
second glider at the same time. Without checking on the
position of the first glider, he fires the arrow, hits the target and
then prepares to fire at the second glider. As mentioned in the
previous section, this multitargeting capability may also be
facilitated by the combination of corneal and lenticular accom-
modative processes. Nonetheless, this multitracking example
offers support for the proposal that Hawkeye is bifoveate.
The positions of Hawkeye’s foveae would be markedly
different from birds of prey as influenced by the skull structure.
For birds of prey, the deep fovea has a line of sight that is
greater than 30° to the side of the reference line through the
skull (Fig. 5). On the other hand, the shallow fovea makes an
angle of ~15° with the same reference line. These angles are
dependent on the species and on the extent to which the eye can
rotate in the socket, as many avian species have limited
movement of the eye in the socket (23). As a result, a bird of
prey needs to move its head in order for the light from an object
of interest to fall on the deep or shallow fovea. For objects at
distances ⬎20 m, one study has shown that birds of prey spend
most of their time looking at the objects sideways in order for
the light to fall on the deep fovea, the region with the highest
visual acuity (55), while a recent study has also shown that
birds of prey, such as the Northern Goshawk and Red-tailed
Hawk, search for prey using random head turns (42). Given
that his eyes can move in their sockets, it is unlikely that
Hawkeye has to significantly move his head when focusing on
targets using either his supposed deep or shallow fovea. Birds
of prey do not have the same luxury. When facing forward,
light from an object of interest will predominantly fall on the
shallow fovea (Fig. 5). While this is in the binocular vision
field, it does not provide the bird with the greatest visual acuity.
Unlike birds of prey, Hawkeye does not appear to search for
prey in a random fashion. In The Avengers (2), Hawkeye scans
his surroundings in a seemingly methodical fashion, which
may indicate that his bifoveate eyes make similar angles with
the reference line of his skull. Given the physiology of his eyes,
94 HAWKEYE EYE
Fig. 5. An illustration of the frontal section of the head of an idealized bird of
prey, such as a raptor, showing the positions of the deep and shallow foveae.
The line of sight (LOS) through the pupil to the deep fovea is shown in the
diagram. [From Tucker (55) with permission.]
eye rotation in his sockets is apparently not an issue. If he
possesses both a deep and shallow fovea, unlike some birds of
prey, Hawkeye can rely on both eye and head rotation to allow
light for an object to fall on either the shallow or deep fovea.
For Hawkeye to possess the visual acuity suggested in the “I
got him” scene from The Avengers (2), he would certainly need
a deep fovea similar to that of birds of prey, a photoreceptor
density similar to that of birds of prey and advanced avian-like
accommodative mechanisms outlined in the previous section.
In the scene, Hawkeye is perched on a building looking down
East 42nd Street toward the East River. At the moment that his
vision is shown to zoom in on the gliders of Black Widow and
Loki, the gliders are ~700 m from Hawkeye’s position. From
the film, I estimate that the gliders are ~3 m in length and 1.5
m in width. The golden eagle is reported to be able to instantly
adjust its vision to zoom in on a rabbit with a length of up to
0.5 m that is a distance of more than 3 km from the eagle (15).
Therefore, the advanced vision and automatic zooming ability
of his eyes attributed to Hawkeye in this scene from The
Avengers (2) is representative of the ability of birds of prey.
Finally, in this section, I will reflect on the structure and
additional cone in the eyes of birds of prey and potentially
possessed by Hawkeye. Many avian species, including hawks,
are tetrachromats, meaning that their retina contains four dif-
ferent cones, where the additional cone is sensitive to ultravi-
olet (UV) wavelength. UV vision has been shown to be
important for tracking the scent marks of prey while hunting
(19). For example, scent marks deposited by voles have been
shown to have a UV spectra (57). Another study has shown
that the UV cones are magnetoreceptors, used by certain
species to enable orientation with the Earth’s magnetic field
(41). The structure of cones in birds of prey is further compli-
cated by the presence of oil droplets in the cone. When light
interacts with a cone, it passes through the oil droplet before
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00161.2017 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (145.118.074.186) on February 23, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 American Physiological Society. All rights reserved.
interacting with the photosensitive component of the cone. The
droplet, of which there are six different types, acts as a filter for
different wavelengths, meaning that the response of each cone
is dependent on the cone type and the type of oil droplet. Thus
birds of prey can process a much larger range of colors in
comparison to the human eye (23). From the films, thus far,
there is no evidence to suggest that Hawkeye can detect UV
wavelengths through the presence of a fourth cone. To
strengthen the association with birds of prey, it might be an
idea for writers of future Marvel Cinematic Universe films to
reveal that Hawkeye can “see” or detect UV light.
Size, position, and visual fields. I now reflect on the size,
position, and visual field of the human eye in comparison to
birds of prey. One of the most striking aspects of the anatomy
of birds of prey is the size of their eyes in comparison to their
skull. In the case of humans, the eyes take up ~5% of the
volume of the skull, whereas for many birds of prey, the eyes
occupy ~50% of the volume of the skull (23). The position of
the eyes in humans and birds of prey is also noticeably
different. Humans have front-facing eyes, whereas the eyes of
many birds of prey are angled away from the midline or
reference line of their skulls (Fig. 5).
Birds of prey and humans have markedly different visual
fields. Figure 6 shows a comparison of the horizontal visual
fields of a Red-tailed Hawk and a human. For the Red-tailed
Hawk, this is the visual field when their eyes are fully con-
verged or fully forward toward the reference line of the skull
(Fig. 5). The Red-tailed Hawk has a binocular field of ~33°,
which extends 16.5° left and right of the skull reference line.
The lateral or monocular field, shown in white in the figure,
extends a further 122° on either side of the binocular field,
while their blind spot makes up the remaining 82°, which is
more or less directly behind them. The visual field is species
dependent, with some having larger or smaller binocular fie-
lds and blind spots. For example, the species Cooper’s Hawk
has a binocular field of 36° and a blind spot of 66° (45). For the
human eye, the binocular field is ~120° with a monocular field
of roughly 35° either side of the binocular field. A blind spot of
170° makes up the rest of the human visual field, which is over
twice the size of the blind spot for the Red-tailed Hawk.
Experiments have found that some birds of prey spend more
time looking sideways at objects when the distance to the
object is larger than 20 m, which indicates that, to use the acute
Fig. 6. Comparison of the horizontal visual fields for a Red-tailed Hawk and
a human. The binocular field is shaded in gray, the lateral field is in white, and
the blind spot is in black. For the Red-tailed Hawk, this is the visual field when
the eyes are converged toward the frontal part of the skull or closer to the
reference line (see Fig. 5).
 HAWKEYE EYE
vision of the deep fovea, birds of prey look at objects using a
single eye and the monocular field of vision (55). In a recent
study involving a species known as Harris’s Hawks, the birds
displayed a high frequency of head movements, and hence
sideways head positions, when selecting a target, which may be
associated with their increased dependence on their monocular
vision field (47).
Given his appearance, it is clear that Hawkeye, and the actor
Jeremy Renner who plays the character for that matter, cannot
have the same visual field of a bird of prey such as the
Red-tailed Hawk. Hawkeye’s eyes are front facing in his skull
and certainly not angled away from the midline of his skull.
Even if Hawkeye is bifoveate, possesses a larger density of
photoreceptor cells, and has advanced accommodative mech-
anisms, his only recourse to overcome the limitations presented
by the size of his blind spot is to rotate his head. In The
Avengers (2), Hawkeye can be seen continually moving his
head as he assesses the attack formation and flight paths of the
Chitauri gliders in New York City, whether perched above the
city on a skyscraper or engaging targets from a ground posi-
tion. Hawkeye’s head movement is a necessity as he tries to
mimic the visual field of a bird of prey. In one scene, it appears
that Hawkeye takes down a glider behind him without looking
or turning his head. However that scene takes place after a
verbal exchange with Iron Man during which the focus of the
film moves from Hawkeye on the rooftop to Iron Man flying
down a New York street. The film focuses on Iron Man for
approximately 4 s, which would have been sufficient time for
Hawkeye to quickly look behind himself, identify a target, and
then use his experience as an archer to predict the correct
moment to blindly fire the arrow at the glider.
Just like birds of prey, head movement is important for
Hawkeye to identify and focus on targets. Hawkeye normally
uses his advanced eyesight to isolate a target from a stationary
position and then fire an arrow at the target, such as in The
Avengers (2). Thus it is rare that Hawkeye will be traveling at
large speeds while firing arrows. Nevertheless, head position is
crucial for birds of prey when engaging a prey. As shown by
Tucker (55), birds of prey tend to hold their head in a sideways
position when viewing a prey that is straight ahead. Birds of
prey keep their head in this position to ensure that light from
the target falls on the deep fovea, thus providing maximum
visual acuity. However, in maintaining a sideways position, the
bird experiences increased aerodynamic drag. Tucker suggests
that a bird can follow a logarithmic spiral flight path to
minimize the effects of aerodynamic drag and still keep its
head sideways during flight (55). Despite having to fly a longer
path, the bird of prey could, in theory, engage a prey faster due
to the associated decrease in aerodynamic drag. While the issue
of aerodynamic drag does not affect Hawkeye, the approach
could be of interest to Falcon, another member of the Aveng-
ers. Falcon wears a flight pack that deploys wings enabling
flight. Similar to a bird of prey, Falcon also needs to move his
head to observe targets, which could in turn lead to undesired
fluctuations in the aerodynamic drag force, and possibly the lift
force, he experiences during flight. The hydrodynamic forces
experienced by a real falcon have been investigated in the past
by placing a live subject in a wind tunnel, where it was noted
that, as the air speed increased, the falcon decreased wing span
and lift coefficient (56). In the future, it may prove beneficial
to model bird-of-prey aerodynamics using hydrodynamic co-
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00161.2017 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (145.118.074.186) on February 23, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 American Physiological Society. All rights reserved.
95
efficients for nonspherical particles that experience drag and
lift forces in industrial processes (33, 36).
Creating Hawkeye’s Eyesight
From the outset of this article, I have argued that the only
feasible biological explanation for Hawkeye’s advanced eye-
sight is thousands of years of genetic evolution in the form of
adaptation, genetic drift, or mutation of his DNA. This sug-
gests that members of Barton’s family also have similar eye-
sight. In the Marvel comic books, this is the case, as Clint’s
brother, Barney Barton, is also an accomplished archer, thanks
to his augmented vision. While evolution could lead to the
emergence of Hawkeye-like sight in the human species in the
future, although it is highly unlikely, we may have to wait
millennia and many generations for these genetic changes to
take hold. The genetic mutation of the Barton DNA to allow
for the family’s advanced vision is associated with precise
changes of the nucleotides, the subunits of DNA, in the
double-helix structure of the DNA. The three primary means of
instigating mutation in DNA is by changing of a nucleotide,
deletion of a nucleotide, or the insertion of a nucleotide
between two existing nucleotides. Once the DNA changes, it
can be passed onto the next generation via genetic inheritance
(13). For example, Barton’s DNA, just like our DNA, contains
the genes OPN1SW, OPN1MW, and OPN1LW behind the
production of the blue, green, and red photoreceptor cones in
his foveae. For Barton to have the visual acuity of birds of
prey, he will certainly need a density of these cones compara-
ble to birds of prey in his foveae. The production of photore-
ceptor cones are regulated by transcription factors (TFs), which
are proteins that control how often a gene is transcribed into a
protein. In the case of the human eye, the TFs for photoreceptor
cones include OTX2, NR2E3, and CRX (54), whereas, in birds,
the TFs will be slightly different (7). Thus the TFs for birds are
in some way linked to the larger density of cones, in compar-
ison to humans, in their foveae.
Rather than wait for the TFs in human DNA to mutate and
change over many generations to match those of birds, we
could speed up the process by using genetic engineering
approaches. The field of genetic editing and DNA site-specific
modification has been reinvigorated recently following the
development of the genetic engineering tool CRISPR/Cas9
(11, 13, 20, 27, 49, 53). CRISPRs, which stands for clustered
regularly interspaced palindromic repeats, are DNA chains of
base sequences separated by gaps in a genetic sequence,
whereas Cas9 is a restriction endonuclease or enzyme that can
cut a DNA sequence at defined locations or sites. The CRISPR/
Cas9 method can be used to remove or disrupt specific genes,
which is why it is popularly referred to as the genetic disruptor
(26), or, after a cut is made in the DNA, a new gene can be
inserted at the location of the cut. CRISPR/Cas has been used
to study the development of fins in zebrafish (39), prevent the
browning of mushrooms (58), store images and films in living
bacteria (52), and remove the genetic code for muscular dys-
trophy from human embryos (30). The study on human em-
bryos has implications for the modification of the human
germline (18), as CRISPR/Cas is not entirely accurate and can
produce “off-target cuts” in a genome (11).
In theory, CRISPR/Cas could be used to replace human TFs
with those from birds of prey in an effort to replicate the
96 HAWKEYE EYE
photoreceptor cell density of birds of prey and Hawkeye. This
process is known as transgenesis, and in the past it has been
used to modify goats to produce spider silk in their milk (6).
There are a number of other human genes that would also have
to be replaced with avian genes to fully replicate avian vision
abilities, such as the genes associated with the development of
two foveae and the corneal accommodation mechanism. This
represents a difficult biological problem that could in the future
be feasible using an advanced implementation of a tool such as
CRISPR/Cas. Nonetheless, future geneticists will only be able
to explore transgenesis involving avian and human DNA,
subject to stringent evaluation and scientific scrutiny (18).
Rather than rely on genetic engineering, we could replicate
Hawkeye’s eyesight by adapting bionic lenses. Companies
such as Ocumetics (43) and Alphabet (or Google) (5) are
developing bionic lenses that could replace lenses that have
cataracts and provide a patient with 20/20 vision. In the case of
the Ocumetics bionic lens, the damaged biological lens in the
eye is replaced via cataract surgery, and the bionic lens is
connected to the ciliary muscles of the eye. This will provide
the wearer with a larger range of vision capabilities that could
in theory be significantly greater than 20/20 vision. Alphabet’s
bionic lens (patent pending) works in a slightly different way
from the Ocumetics lens. The Alphabet lens would be injected
into the eye and be integrated with the biological lens, if it is
still present. The optical power of the lens can be varied using
an external controller, and the lens could also communicate
with external devices. These lenses are not designed to enhance
a person’s eyesight beyond the limit of human vision.
In addition there have been major advancements related to
electronic retinas (38) and the stimulation of ciliary muscle
response (17). Diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa and age-
related macular degeneration can have detrimental effects on
the photoreceptor cells in the retina and, as a result, lead to
blindness. In recent years, electronic retinal implants have been
developed and implanted in patients in an effort to restore
photoreceptor functionality (38). One example is the Argus II
electronic epiretinal device, developed by the company Second
Sight Medical Products, which has been shown to help a
number of blind subjects identify letters and words (9). How-
ever, an electronic retina such as the Argus II is a long way
from fully reversing the effects of blindness caused by retinitis
pigmentosa or age-related macular degeneration. Nonetheless,
when the technology does reach this level, it offers the poten-
tial to be adapted for multiple advanced electronic foveae in the
human eye, like those possessed by Hawkeye. In addition, in a
recent study, the ciliary muscles of 27 patients with early
emmetropic presbyopia were subjected to electrostimulation in
an attempt to improve their near-vision capabilities (17). Re-
sults from the study showed that electrostimulation of the
ciliary muscles did improve the vision of the patients. In the
future this could prove to be a valuable course of action when
treating the condition. On the other hand, electrostimulation of
the ciliary muscles could be used to facilitate greater flexibility
and range of motion, thus facilitating larger deformation of the
lens. In conjunction with the bionic lens mentioned earlier and
the possibility of electronic foveae, these treatments certainly
do open up the possibility of a technological route toward
creating Hawkeye in real life. This certainly would be an easier
path towards creating Hawkeye’s vision in the real world and
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00161.2017 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (145.118.074.186) on February 23, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 American Physiological Society. All rights reserved.
avoid many of the ethical issues associated with genetic engi-
neering.
Pedagogical and Communication Model
In the past, I have used popular culture icons to motivate
interest among audiences in biological and physical sciences at
schools, universities, and public events. From my experience,
scientific and engineering concepts can be interwoven with
superhero characters such as Hawkeye to create a connection
with an audience and enable communication of difficult-to-
grasp concepts. Such an approach can be referred to as the
“middle-ground hypothesis” (62). The idea to write this article
and the related chapter in my book Secrets of Superhero
Science (13) stemmed from the positive engagement of audi-
ences with the material.
In the classroom environment, popular culture can make the
learning process more engaging, invigorate the content linked
to key learning objectives, and potentially address issues stu-
dents have with key concepts (16). There are many ways that
a character like Hawkeye can be used in conjunction with
learning objectives. First, teachers can focus on differences
between standard human eyes and Hawkeye’s eyes to explain
the function of the human eye and highlight limitations. Com-
parison of human vision with that of birds of prey can also be
used to emphasize differences in the sensory systems of dif-
ferent animals. Second, the possibility of replicating the eye-
sight of birds of prey in humans can prompt discussions on
DNA, protein synthesis, advanced genetic engineering tech-
niques, such as the CRISPR/Cas9 genetic engineering tool, and
transgenetics. These topics can, in turn, motivate dialogue with
regard to responsible innovation and proper ethical practice in
genetics. Third, it is also possible to examine recent advance-
ments in modern technologies, such as wearable bionic lens,
that can give the wearer enhanced eyesight or electronic
retinas. Fourth, Hawkeye can inspire student projects. Students
could investigate the limitations of Hawkeye’s sight and pres-
ent strategies for how he might defeat villains under specific
circumstances.
Hawkeye can form the basis for in-class assignments and
final examination questions. Relevant questions that could be
used in the classroom include the following:
1. With reference to the The Avengers (2), discuss the
limitations, if any, of Hawkeye’s eyesight as portrayed in
the final battle scene in New York City.
2. If one of Hawkeye’s eyes were damaged in a fight scene,
how would the functionality of his two foveae change?
3. With reference to other muscle fibers in the human body,
are there any fibers in the body that could be used to
replace the ciliary muscles, such that Hawkeye’s lens
could be changed into shapes that are ordinarily inacces-
sible?
4. If Hawkeye is able to see in the UV spectrum, would this
have any effect on his ability to target objects in the
visible spectrum?
5. If we could use a genetic engineering tool such as
CRISPR/Cas to modify human DNA to create an avian-
human hybrid, consider the different aspects of the eye
that would have to be changed to duplicate bird of prey
vision.
 HAWKEYE EYE
In this paper I have motivated the discussion of Hawkeye
with reference to one principal scene from the film The Aveng-
ers (2). However, there are many film scenes where Hawkeye
uses his advanced vision that could be used to motivate a
scientific-based discussion. For example in Captain America:
Civil War (4), Hawkeye frees Captain America from Spider-
Man’s spider web by firing an arrow across an airport terminal.
The arrow is seen passing straight through the spider web bound
around the Captain’s hands. Based on the vision limitations of
birds of prey, an interesting exploratory study would to be esti-
mate how far away Hawkeye must have been when he fired the
arrow to cut precisely through a small point in the spider silk. One
way of estimating the distance would be to use the average speed
of an arrow and count the seconds from the time of release to the
time that it cuts through the arrow. However, would hawklike
vision allow Hawkeye to resolve a small target only millimeters in
size in the spider silk from that distance?
For the general public, superheroes have a “wow” factor.
Before the release of any superhero film, there is always
increased media coverage where actors, the director, and film
studios seek to promote their latest production. Marketing of
these films uses TV advertisements, sharing of social media
content, and promotional posters on billboards and at bus stops.
While some people may have never seen a superhero film, such
publicity campaigns ensure that most people are at least famil-
iar with the superheroes. At the outset of most presentations or
workshops, I ask the audience if they have seen a superhero
film. Almost everyone will have seen at least one superhero
film, while those that have not seen a superhero film are at least
familiar with characters such as Batman, Superman, Iron Man,
Spider-Man, and Wonder Woman, mainly due to the superhero
film revolution. While the comic books can also be used to
communicate difficult scientific concepts (24), I have opted to
concentrate on the films in my outreach for the primary reason
that most people will not have read the comic books. Hawkeye
has become an integral part of my scientific outreach program
when discussing the limitations and possible augmentation of
human vision.
Conclusion
In this article, I have discussed the advanced eyesight of the
superhero Clint Barton, otherwise known as Hawkeye. Using a
scene from The Avengers (2), I have highlighted some of the
key aspects behind his vision, all of which can be related in
some way to the eyesight of birds of prey. In recent years,
popular culture icons such as superheroes have become more
prominent in society, due in part to the success and frequency
of superhero films in modern cinema. In a superhero world
where Thor is an almost invincible god, Tony Stark has
developed and wears the advanced Iron Man exoskeleton suit,
and Captain America is a genetically modified super soldier,
Hawkeye is unique in that he does not rely on technology and
has not been genetically engineered. His natural ability is
unmatched in the Avengers, a fact that is often overlooked by
his peers.
Just like many superhero characters (3, 13, 61), and even
Santa Claus (12), the character Hawkeye provides a unique
platform for the communication of scientific concepts. In the
classroom, Hawkeye can be used to highlight the physiological
aspects of eyesight while also comparing the physiology of
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00161.2017 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (145.118.074.186) on February 23, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 American Physiological Society. All rights reserved.
97
birds of prey. Hawkeye can also motivate discussion in relation
to ligaments and tendons, bodily reflexes, and neural networks.
He can also be used to discuss the ethical aspects of genetic
engineering and allow students to reflect on the emergence and
morality of emerging genetic engineering approaches. In addi-
tion, Hawkeye can be used to invoke interest in the latest
advancements in modern wearable technology, such as bionic
lens, and the implications of such technologies for future health
care.
Outside of an educational environment, Hawkeye can be
used to bridge the gap between academia and a nonspecialist
audience. E. Paul Zehr has noted that “Pop culture contains
many compelling stories, and it makes sense to use these for
our purposes in communicating science” (62). While Hawkeye
may not have the ability to fly like Superman or the healing
powers of Wolverine, his powers and abilities fascinate many
people. He can be used as part of focused classroom teaching
or in the dissemination of new and innovative research. With-
out a doubt, Hawkeye can truly be a superhero for educators
and scientific communicators.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Jean Philippe Frimat for stimulating discussions on the subject,
sharing my enthusiasm for superheroes, and contributing an artistic image to
the article.
DISCLOSURES
No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the author.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
B.F. conceived and designed research, performed experiments, analyzed
data, interpreted results of experiments, prepared figures, drafted manuscript,
edited and revised manuscript, approved final version of manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Avengers: Age of Ultron (motion picture). Whedon J, director. Burbank,
CA: Marvel Studios, 2012.
2. The Avengers (motion picture). Whedon J, director. Burbank, CA:
Marvel Studios, 2012.
3. Brown SP, Smith JW, McAllister M, Joe L. Superhero physiology: the
case for Captain America. Adv Physiol Educ 41: 16 –24, 2017. doi:
10.1152/advan.00106.2016.
4. Captain America: Civil War (motion picture). Russo A, Russo J, direc-
tors. Burbank, CA: Marvel Studios, 2016.
5. Conrad AJ (Inventor); Google Inc. (Assignee). Intra-occular device. US
patent 2016/0113760 A1. 2016 April 28.
6. Copeland CG, Bell BE, Christensen CD, Lewis RV. Development of a
process for the spinning of synthetic spider silk. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 1:
577–584, 2015. doi:10.1021/acsbiomaterials.5b00092.
7. Coy SE, Borycki AG. Expression analysis of TALE family transcription
factors during avian development. Dev Dyn 239: 1234 –1245, 2010.
doi:10.1002/dvdy.22264.
8. Cronin TW. Visual optics: Accommodation in a splash. Curr Biol 22:
R871–R873, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.053.
9. da Cruz L, Coley BF, Dorn J, Merlini F, Filley E, Christopher P, Chen
FK, Wuyyuru V, Sahel J, Stanga P, Humayun M, Greenberg RJ,
Dagnelie G; Argus II Study Group. The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis
system allows letter and word reading and long-term function in patients
with profound vision loss. Br J Ophthalmol 97: 632– 636, 2013. doi:
10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-301525.
10. Denny M, McFadzean A. Engineering Animals: How Life Works. Cam-
bridge, UK: Belknap, 2011. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674060852.
11. Doudna JA, Charpentier E. Genome editing. The new frontier of
genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346: 1258096, 2014.
doi:10.1126/science.1258096.
12. Fitzgerald BW. Secret Science of Santa Claus. Eindhoven, the Nether-
lands: BW Science, 2016.
98 HAWKEYE EYE
13. Fitzgerald BW. Secrets of Superhero Science. Eindhoven, the Nether-
lands: BW Science, 2016.
14. Glasser A. Restoration of accommodation: surgical options for correction
of presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom 91: 279 –295, 2008. doi:10.1111/j.1444-
0938.2008.00260.x.
15. Grambo RL. Eagles. Minneapolis, MN: Voyageur, 2003.
16. Greenwald SJ, Nestler A. Using popular culture in the mathematics and
mathematics education classroom. PRIMUS (Terre Ht Ind) 14: 1– 4, 2004.
doi:10.1080/10511970408984071.
17. Gualdi L, Gualdi F, Rusciano D, Ambrósio R, Jr, Salomão MQ, Lopes
B, Cappello V, Fintina T, Gualdi M. Ciliary muscle electrostimulation to
restore accommodation in patients with early presbyopia: Preliminary
results. J Refract Surg 33: 578 –583, 2017. doi:10.3928/1081597X-
20170621-05.
18. Gyngell C, Douglas T, Savulescu J. The ethics of germline gene editing.
J Appl Philos 34: 498 –513, 2017. doi:10.1111/japp.12249.
19. Honkavaara J, Koivula M, Korpimäki E, Siitari H, Viitala J. Ultra-
violet vision and foraging in terrestrial vertebrates. Oikos 98: 505–511,
2002. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980315.x.
20. Hsu PD, Lander ES, Zhang F. Development and applications of
CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157: 1262–1278, 2014. doi:
10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010.
21. Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, Schuman JS, Stinson WG, Chang W,
Hee MR, Flotte T, Gregory K, Puliafito CA, Fujimoto J. Optical
coherence tomography. Science 254: 1178 –1181, 1991. doi:10.1126/
science.1957169.
22. Jonas JB, Schneider U, Naumann GO. Count and density of human
retinal photoreceptors. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 230: 505–510,
1992. doi:10.1007/BF00181769.
23. Jones MP, Pierce KE, Jr, Ward D. Avian vision: a review of form and
function with special consideration to birds of prey. J Exot Pet Med 16:
69 – 87, 2007. doi:10.1053/j.jepm.2007.03.012.
24. Kakalios J. The Physics of Superheroes. New York: Gotham Books,
2006.
25. Leahy MJ, Enfield JG, Clancy NT, O’Doherty J, McNamara P,
Nilsson GE. Biophotonic methods in microcirculation imaging. Med
Laser Appl 22: 105–126, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.mla.2007.06.003.
26. Ledford H. CRISPR, the disruptor. Nature 522: 20 –24, 2015. doi:
10.1038/522020a.
27. Ledford H. CRISPR: gene editing is just the beginning. Nature 531:
156 –159, 2016. doi:10.1038/531156a.
28. Lee S. The old order changeth! In: The Avengers. New York: Marvel
Comics, vol. 1, no. 16, May, 1965.
29. Lee S, Heck D. Hawkeye, the marksman! In: Tales of Suspense. New
York: Marvel Comics, vol. 1, no. 57, September, 1964.
30. Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, Huang R, Zhang Z, Lv J, Xie X,
Chen Y, Li Y, Sun Y, Bai Y, Songyang Z, Ma W, Zhou C, Huang J.
CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes.
Protein Cell 6: 363–372, 2015. doi:10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5.
31. Lin J, Clancy NT, Hu Y, Qi J, Tatla T, Stoyanov D, Maier-Hein L,
Elson DS. Endoscopic Depth Measurement and Super-Spectral-Resolu-
tion Imaging. New York: Springer, 2017, p. 39 – 47.
32. Machovsky-Capuska GE, Howland HC, Raubenheimer D, Vaughn-
Hirshorn R, Würsig B, Hauber ME, Katzir G. Visual accommodation
and active pursuit of prey underwater in a plunge-diving bird: the Aus-
tralasian gannet. Proc Biol Sci 279: 4118 – 4125, 2012. doi:10.1098/
rspb.2012.1519.
33. Mahajan VV, Nijssen TMJ, Fitzgerald BW, Hofman J, Kuipers H,
Padding JT. Fluidization of spherocylindrical particles. EPJ Web Conf
140: 06019, 2017. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201714006019.
34. McNamara PM, O’Doherty J, O’Connell ML, Fitzgerald BW, Ander-
son CD, Nilsson GE, Leahy MJ. Tissue viability (TiVi) imaging: utility
in assessment of rapid changes in the cutaneous microvasculature. Proc
SPIE 7563: 75630W, 2010. doi:10.1117/12.852383.
35. McNamara PM, O’Doherty J, O’Connell ML, Fitzgerald BW, Ander-
son CD, Nilsson GE, Toll R, Leahy MJ. Tissue viability (TiVi) imaging:
temporal effects of local occlusion studies in the volar forearm. J Biopho-
tonics 3: 66 –74, 2010. doi:10.1002/jbio.200910061.
36. Mema I, Mahajan VV, Fitzgerald BW, Kuipers H, Padding JT. Effect
of lift force on dense gas-fluidized beds of non-spherical particles. In:
Proceedings of 12th International Conference on CFD in Oil and Gas,
Metallurgical and Process Industries. Trondheim, Norway: SINTEF,
2017.
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00161.2017 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (145.118.074.186) on February 23, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 American Physiological Society. All rights reserved.
37. Millar M, McNiven S. Wolverine: Old Man Logan. New York: Marvel
Comics, vol. 3, no. 66 –72, September, 2010.
38. Mills JO, Jalil A, Stanga PE. Electronic retinal implants and artificial
vision: journey and present. Eye (Lond) 31: 1383–1398, 2017. doi:
10.1038/eye.2017.65.
39. Nakamura T, Gehrke AR, Lemberg J, Szymaszek J, Shubin NH.
Digits and fin rays share common developmental histories. Nature 537:
225–228, 2016. doi:10.1038/nature19322.
40. Neitz J, Neitz M. The genetics of normal and defective color vision.
Vision Res 51: 633– 651, 2011. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.002.
41. Niessner C, Denzau S, Gross JC, Peichl L, Bischof HJ, Fleissner G,
Wiltschko W, Wiltschko R. Avian ultraviolet/violet cones identified as
probable magnetoreceptors. PLoS One 6: e20091, 2011. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0020091.
42. Ochs MF, Zamani M, Gomes GMR, de Oliveira Neto RC, Kane SA.
Sneak peek: paptors search for prey using stochastic head turns. Auk 134:
104 –115, 2017. doi:10.1642/AUK-15-230.1.
43. Ocumetics Technology Corp. Ocumetics Bionic Lens (Online). www.
ocumetics.com [1 Dec 2017].
44. O’Doherty J, McNamara PM, Fitzgerald BW, Leahy MJ. Dynamic
microvascular responses with a high speed TiVi imaging system. J
Biophotonics 4: 509 –513, 2011. doi:10.1002/jbio.201000112.
45. O’Rourke CT, Hall MI, Pitlik T, Fernández-Juricic E. Hawk eyes I.
Diurnal raptors differ in visual fields and degree of eye movement. PLoS
One 5: e12802, 2010. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012802.
46. Podoleanu A, Charalambous I, Plesea L, Dogariu A, Rosen R. Cor-
rection of distortions in optical coherence tomography imaging of the eye.
Phys Med Biol 49: 1277–1294, 2004. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/49/7/015.
47. Potier S, Bonadonna F, Kelber A, Martin GR, Isard PF, Dulaurent T,
Duriez O. Visual abilities in two raptors with different ecology. J Exp Biol
219: 2639 –2649, 2016. doi:10.1242/jeb.142083.
48. Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D, Hall WC, LaMantia AS,
McNamara JO, Williams SM (Editors). Neuroscience (3rd Ed.). Sun-
derland, MA: Sinauer, 2004.
49. Rath D, Amlinger L, Rath A, Lundgren M. The CRISPR-Cas immune
system: biology, mechanisms and applications. Biochimie 117: 119 –128,
2015. doi:10.1016/j.biochi.2015.03.025.
50. Ringo J, Wolbarsht ML, Wagner HG, Crocker R, Amthor F. Trichro-
matic vision in the cat. Science 198: 753–755, 1977. doi:10.1126/science.
910161.
51. Ruggeri M, Major JC, Jr, McKeown C, Knighton RW, Puliafito CA,
Jiao S. Retinal structure of birds of prey revealed by ultra-high resolution
spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
51: 5789 –5795, 2010. doi:10.1167/iovs.10-5633.
52. Shipman SL, Nivala J, Macklis JD, Church GM. CRISPR-Cas encod-
ing of a digital movie into the genomes of a population of living bacteria.
Nature 547: 345–349, 2017. doi:10.1038/nature23017.
53. Sternberg SH, Richter H, Charpentier E, Qimron U. Adaptation in
crispr-cas systems. Mol Cell 61: 797– 808, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.
2016.01.030.
54. Swaroop A, Kim D, Forrest D. Transcriptional regulation of photore-
ceptor development and homeostasis in the mammalian retina. Nat Rev
Neurosci 11: 563–576, 2010. doi:10.1038/nrn2880.
55. Tucker VA. The deep fovea, sideways vision and spiral flight paths in
raptors. J Exp Biol 203: 3745–3754, 2000.
56. Tucker VA, Parrott GC. Aerodynamics of gliding flight in a falcon and
other birds. J Exp Biol 52: 345–367, 1970.
57. Viitala J, Korplmäki E, Palokangas P, Koivula M. Attraction of kestrels
to vole scent marks visible in ultraviolet light. Nature 373: 425– 427, 1995.
doi:10.1038/373425a0.
58. Waltz E. Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation. Nature
532: 293, 2016. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.19754.
59. Wells-Gray EM, Choi SS, Bries A, Doble N. Variation in rod and cone
density from the fovea to the mid-periphery in healthy human retinas using
adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Eye (Lond) 30: 1135–
1143, 2016. doi:10.1038/eye.2016.107.
60. Whittow GC (Editor). Sturkie’s Avian Physiology. Cambridge, UK:
Academic, 2000.
61. Zehr EP. From Claude Bernard to the Batcave and beyond: using Batman
as a hook for physiology education. Adv Physiol Educ 35: 1– 4, 2011.
doi:10.1152/advan.00120.2010.
62. Zehr EP. Avengers Assemble! Using pop-culture icons to communicate
science. Adv Physiol Educ 38: 118 –123, 2014. doi:10.1152/advan.00146.
2013.