Talking about the relationship between biotechnology and art
raises many serious questions about ethics, regulations, and boundaries to name
a few. Altering bacteria’s DNA to produce art was what Joe Davis, the founder
of bioart, did best (Vesna).
His controversial work challenged ethical
scientific limitations and what should be considered art. Because bacteria are
not conscious, I think his work is relatively harmless. I believe that bioart
in Davis’ sense is acceptable and should be explored deeper without any
hindrances from the public. On the other hand, Eduardo Kac’s “GFP Bunny” in
2000 produces quite a few concerns. The “GFP Bunny” was created by inserting
the Aequorea Victoria jellyfish’s fluorescent gene into the rabbit’s fertilized egg cell (Vesna). Kac named her Alba,
and once she was born he stated that, “She immediately awoke in me a strong and
urgent sense of responsibility for her well-being” (Kac).
Compared to changing
bacteria’s DNA, “GFP Bunny” impedes more dramatically into this animal’s life,
and Kac felt an obligation to take care of her, showing just how real this experiment is. Because Alba was
unharmed in her gene modification, I believe inserting the fluorescent gene
into her egg is worthy of being considered art because Alba’s life is a valid
expressive medium. On the other hand, Alba is conscious and capable of a wide
range of emotion, and this act can’t help but anticipate thoughts of gene
modification in humans. Modifying animals for aesthetic rather than medical
reasons can be a slippery slope. On the notion of legality, the inclusion of
the public into the scientific world makes it increasingly difficult to mandate
any regulations. Chris Kelty explains the different faces of science today: the
outlaw, the hacker, and the Victorian Gentlemen (Kelty). Although generally optimistic
throughout, the article inspired fear into me that DIY biology could lead to
inventions like destructive viruses or genetic warfare if put in the wrong
hands.
There is no telling how biotechnology and art will influence our world, but we will be part of the era that finds out.
REFERENCES
Cetcopra, Sacha. DIY Bio logo. Digital image. Synenergene. Synenergene, 13 Dec. 2014. Web. 5 May 2015.
Davis. Digital image. Networked Performance. Networked Performance, 22 Oct. 2008. Web. 5 May 2015.
Fontaine, Chrystelle. Alba. Digital image. GFP BUNNY. KAC, n.d. Web. 5 May 2015.
Kac, Eduardo. "BIO ART." BIO ART. KAC, n.d. Web. 05 May 2015.
Kac, Eduardo. "GFP BUNNY." GFP BUNNY. KAC, n.d. Web. 05 May 2015.
Kelty, Chris. "Meanings of Participation: Outlaw Biology?" (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 5 May 2015.
Kac, Eduardo. "BIO ART." BIO ART. KAC, n.d. Web. 05 May 2015.
Vesna, Victoria. "Unit 7." DESMA 9. United States, Los Angeles. 5 May 2015. Lecture.
Hi Madison!
ReplyDeleteI thought you brought up a lot of really interesting ethical questions in your blogpost for this week - specifically what you said regarding the "slippery slope" of altering animal DNA for aesthetic rather than medical reasons. I too broached upon this question in my own blogpost for this week because, personally, I think that it's a little cruel and inhumane to mess with animal DNA for aesthetic experimentation. I briefly touched upon this question by bring up the upcoming film "Jurassic World," which hints at the potential dangers and consequences of DIY biology. Although the movie is obviously fictional, I think it's important to consider the dangers of altering the DNA of "other" life forms for our own purely aesthetic pleasure - something to be very wary of!