Week 6: BioTech + Art

Advances in the life sciences and biological technology have no doubt improved life for millions. Learning about life, its processes, and how we may manipulate these to better the human condition can have positive outcomes. But when art is involved, when other motives besides solely helping the human condition is in play, biotech can get quite controversial.

Golden Rice

When I first hear the word biotech, I think of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and especially how this is applied to the food industry. In third world countries, a severe lack of certain vitamins and nutrients causes severe malnutrition. One vitamin lacking in third world countries is vitamin A. A chronic lack of vitamin A in one's diet can eventually lead to blindness. Researchers developed a GMO product called Golden Rice, which has an inserted gene  which produces an enzyme which produces beta-carotene, which is eventually metabolized to vitamin A. Golden Rice has the potential to help many people in developing nations, but it has been met with a lot of resistance. People start to get uncomfortable as soon as Big Bio inserts genes, changes the natural functions of natural things. But why? As a society, are we just prone to be afraid of new technology?

Maybe people are afraid because they've seen what some artists have done to living organisms in the name of aesthetics. Eduardo Kac created a GFP bunny named Alba, in which by zygotic microinjection, created a bunny that expressed the fluorescent protein in all of its cells. At first glance his project is frivolous, silly and maybe even outright cruel. But his project, and his dialogue surrounding it is anything but silly. Through Alba, he has encouraged the dialogue between artists and scientists, and pushed the boundary as to what is art.

Kac and Alba

According to Ellen Levy, art has the potential to expose the public to scientific discovery and technology. I agree. Artists like Kac have been successful in their attempts to acclimate the general public to science. But still this is met with a lot of backlash. Chris Kelty explains through his essay how these artist interact with science. He calls for public acceptance and participation in this form of science, but before this can happen, we must make people comfortable with it. He argues that  a new language is needed to talk about science and innovation.

How far will animal experimentation go in the name of art?

I agree with Kelty. When we think about and talk about biotech, the words "mutilation" and "mutation" are frequently used. While in their most basic sense, they mean to alter the genetic of physical characteristics of an organism, these words carry a stigma. They carry connotations of pain, horror, and a Frankenstein-style of science. We must change the words we used to talk about scientific innovation so that beneficial important advancements to the  human condition can be made. The question of "Is life an appropriate artistic medium?" should also be explored to ensure that the animals used in research and biotech art are not abused nor harmed in anyway.




Sources:

 "Golden Rice Project." The. Web. 7 May 2015. http://www.goldenrice.org/

Levy, Ellen K. "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications"  http://nanobioart.artscicenter.com/hybrid/sites/default/files/Ellen_Levy_BioArt.pdf

Kelty, Christopher. "Meaning in Participation: Outlaw Biology?" Journal of Science Communication. 1824-2049. http://www.desminopathy.info/pdf/jcom09012010c03.pdf

 "5 Bioart Pt1 1280x720." YouTube. YouTube. Web. 7 May 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaThVnA1kyg

BIO ART: Transgenic works and other living pieces. Web. 7 May 2015. http://www.ekac.org/transgenicindex.html