BioArt involves the combined use of biology, technology,
genetics, engineering and creativity. While one can view this new phenomenon of
artists working hand-in-hand with scientists in the laboratory as an extension
of art and expression, many people view it as being frivolous and needless.
Eduardo Kac introduced “transgenic art” where one transfers
natural or synthetic genes to create unique living beings. Eduardo successfully
created the GFP Bunny, Alba, an albino bunny that had genes from a fluorescent jellyfish
inserted into it. While he received a lot of criticism from scientists and
animal rights activists alike, he defended his unique creation by saying that Alba,
the bunny, was unharmed and it would help stimulate discussions between
different disciplines- art, science, technology and genetics.
I believe that Eduardo’s creation was important to bring to
light how seemingly different disciplines can actually interact. In contrast,
Marta Menezes artwork in nature was horrifying. Menezes modified the wing
patterns of butterflies by going into the cellular structure and altering the patterns.
She believed that this form of artwork has a lifespan, the lifespan of a
butterfly and successfully blurs the lines between art and biology. While her
goals were admirable, her methods were not. People noticed that the modified
butterfly wings had holes in them.
In the early 2000’s, the term “designer baby” made its way
from sci-fi movies to the Oxford English Dictionary. A designer baby is a
controversial topic. While it is a prospect that is still fiction, with the
rapid progress in science and genetics, it might soon become a reality in the
coming years. Many people believe that children with specifically chosen,
desired characteristics will be an asset to society, sealing our position as
the dominant species, others consider the ethical implications of such “baby
ordering” to be absolutely appalling.
In this way we see that while there is tremendous scope for
the integration of art, science, technology and genetics, we must be sure to
keep it in check and within reasonable bounds.
WORKS CITED:
Agar,
Nicholas. “Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations.”ActionBioscience.
April 2006. Web. 9 May 2015.
<http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html>.
Gallagher,
James. “Desginer Babies Debate Should Start, Scientists Say.” BBCNews. 19 January 2015. Web. 9 May
2015. <http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30742774>.
Ghose,
Tia. “Children to Order: The Ethics of Designer Babies.” LiveScience. 13 March 2014. Web. 9 May 2015. <http://www.livescience.com/44087-designer-babies-ethics.html>.
Kac, Eduardo. “Eduardo Kac: Transgenic Artist.” Online
Video. YouTube. Chicago Humanities
Festival, 9 December 2013. Web. 9 May 2015.
Hi Lyssa,
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to you, I also explored how BioArt triggered a dialogue about ethical issues. I enjoyed how you provided two different examples. One on how BioArt can show integration of different fields and the other on how BioArt can lead to a more methodically harmful case. I am a true believer of the notion that creativity breeds creativity and like you said, we need to keep things in check by monitoring current and future experiments and projects.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Lyssa,
ReplyDeleteI didn't write my blog based off the ethical issues concerning BioArt, however, I definitely see why it is such a contraversial topic. The fact that we are biologically modifying living species for our own curiousity and entertainment is morally subject to consequence. However, there definitely is positive side to BioArt as it helps us understand and communicate specific natural patterns. This relates back to your idea of how we are sealing our position as the dominant species. As if it's our RIGHT to understand what's going on and control other animals. Great job on your blog!
Best,
Ariel Jao