Saturday, May 9, 2015

Week 6: BioTech + Art

The intersection of biotech, medtech, and even robotics with art are all interrelated. Each discipline brings with it creative solutions to old problems, but along with innovation comes the question of ethics. Animal testing is generally frowned upon, but is it okay if it’s to improve the human condition? The line between necessary and excessive is blurry, but I believe that genetic modification should for the most part be reserved to humans.  

OncoMice: Transgenic mice, unnatural but necessary? 

 The OncoMouse is a mouse that has been genetically modified to be more susceptible to cancer, making it a better subject for cancer research. The mouse is a genetically significant to human illness research, but I believe that the ultimate result of a closer cancer simulation is not a significant enough reason to justify the animal suffering.    

Stelarc's Ear On Arm

Alba, a GFP Bunny described by scientists as "interesting but silly"
The question I do not yet have a stance on is that of how much modification is too much. Stelarc’s Ear On Arm appears frivolous, or as scientists responding to Eduardo Kac’s GFP Bunny might say, “interesting but silly.” However, Stelarc’s justification of allowing for a possibly more convenient type of communication gives the project a more than valid purpose. It could even be modified to be a means of hearing for the conventionally deaf.

 George Gessert’s hybridizing of wild irises is harmless, done only for aesthetics. His project Genetic Folk Art emphasizes how humans perceive and author nature. However, when the same concept is applied to human modification, we end up with scientists modifying for genetic superiority. I don’t think humanity will agree upon what is “too much” modification until we have a uniform idea of what makes us human.  

Gessert's hybridized iris


Vesna, Victoria. "BioArt Pt. 3." YouTube. YouTube. Web. 9 May 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL9DBF43664EAC8BC7&v=3EpD3np1S2g>.

Kac, Eduardo. "GFP BUNNY." Rabbit Remix. Eduardo Kac. Web. 9 May 2015. <http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor>.

High, Kathy. "The Politics of Empathy." Embracing Animal. Web. 9 May 2015. <http://www.embracinganimal.com/ratlove.html>.

Gessert, George. "George Gessert: Genetics and Culture." George Gessert: Genetics and Culture. Web. 9 May 2015. <http://www.viewingspace.com/genetics_culture/pages_genetics_culture/gc_w02/gc_w02_gessert.htm>.

"World Intellectual Property Organization." Bioethics and Patent Law: The Case of the Oncomouse. Web. 9 May 2015. <http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/03/article_0006.html>.

Stelarc. "Stelarc // Ear on Arm." Stelarc // Ear on Arm. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. <http://stelarc.org/?catID=20242>.


1 comment:

  1. Hello Amy, your post was really interesting. It's definitely apparent that bioart and trangenic art motivate such discussions about social and ethical implications. Although I hold my own opinions on the matter, I was wondering whether you think, ethically, animals possess the same rights as we do as human beings? Furthermore, extending the notion that animals shouldn't be subject to research, including genetic modifications, should animals be then used for human consumption? Either way benefits humans but leaves little to no benefit for the species of these animals. Just wondered about your two-cents. :)

    ReplyDelete