Week 5- Biotech + Art

We are entering a new era. Not long ago, the possibility manually altering life through manipulation of genes was deemed nothing more than a myth. In an era in which mice have been cloned from a single drop of blood (Briggs), we face certain ethical dilemmas. One issue involves the question of “Big Bio” versus “DIY Bio”. On one hand, large, regulated, well-financed, government-approved biotech projects might be safer and ethically sound, however, a Silicon Valley model for biotech research might lead to faster advancements in research and more medicinally-beneficial experimentation driven by personal interest and private funding (Yunes). Private funding, however, has its own caveats. A Silicon Valley model could lead to extremely unregulated and possibly grotesque research. This also inevitably leads to the question of the ethicality of genetic improvement or manipulation for artistic means.

http://rt.com/files/opinionpost/21/58/c0/00/000_par7319356.jpg

Like any frontier science or new technology, often it is the projects that provoke the questions of ethics and future regulations of the new practice. Artist Stelios Arcadiou has begun asking some of these questions, unintentionally perhaps, by having a third ear implanted upon his arm (Vesna). Life has become a medium of art in the case of Alba, a rabbit that is fluorescent in the presence of black light due to the splicing of jellyfish genes into its DNA. Another example are the flowers that are bred by George Gessert, which are selectively hybridized over and over to create new, aesthetically appealing forms.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/artscience/files/2013/02/Designer-Genes-petunia-600.jpg

Things start to get really sticky when we delve into human experimentation and replication. Michael Bays’ film The Island explores the question of using genes to synthesize organs in surrogate humans (The Island). Although the movie is dramatized and action-oriented, this work of art poses some questions that are still being discussed today.  Should biotech research only be used to fix “problems” or can it also be used to improve forms of life? At what ethical boundaries should exist to keep us from destroying autonomous forms of life even if they are created in a lab environment?

http://memberfiles.freewebs.com/72/27/101372772/photos/undefined/NeXt_Img_The.Island_15.jpg

In order to address these questions, we must form a working definition of what life means, something that is still being debated today. Slime mold, for example, acts as one organism, however it is made up of genetically unique entities that posses their own “autopoesis” (Levy). Is it ethically acceptable to experiment on the colony of slime mold? If not, is it allowable to experiment on fragments of it even if they have their own unique metabolism? Do these questions apply to humans and our cells?

References

5 Bioart Pt1 1280x720. Victoria Vesna. UC Online Program, 2013. Film.

Briggs, Helen. "Mouse Cloned from Drop of Blood." BBC News 27 June 2013. BBC News. Web.

The Island. DreamWorks Home Entertainment, 2005. Film.

Levy, Ellen. "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications." (2012). Print.

Yunes, Nour Diab. "Meanings of Participation: Outlaw Biology?" NourDiabYunes. Wordpress, 8 Feb. 2010. Web. 10 May 2015.