Week 6: BioTech + Art

This week's topic, Biotechnology and Art, is a controversial topic for many reasons, ranging from the safety of consuming and using genetically modified produce, to the ethics of testing on animals in both controlled and uncontrolled environments. A succinct definition for biotechnology comes from Merriam Webster, as the manipulation (as through genetic engineering) of living organisms or their components. It is in the manipulation of "living" organisms that the subject has been the source of heavy scrutiny. History presupposes us to the notion that science can be dangerous, and tells us to constantly examine whether live subject experimentation is ethical, and whether our perception of what is and is not ethical is wide enough to even cover the myriad of possibilities. 

The roots of what we now consider biotechnology come as early as the Neolithic period, when early humans began to selectively grow crops in a way that ensured only plants maximally beneficial to them survived. This sort of selective breeding of crops, though in no sense scientifically technical, was the progenitor of modern biotechnology. Other examples include Pasteur's experiments, the discovery of penicillin, and genomics as a whole (Fenn). Biotechnology has for the most part been given a pass when the desired outcome is, or at least was posited to be, a result that would have practical benefit to the human race. When developing strains of crops that could feed exponentially more people or creating medicines to cure deadly diseases, most people would say that the ends justify the means, the means being the lives of thousands of various formerly living organisms (McLean). However, when discussing the integration of art into biotechnology, fewer people are willing to condone what otherwise would be acceptable. Herein lies the issue, the question, of whether the same set of ethical standards should be applied to both modifying organisms for the sake of art, and modifying organisms for the sake of science, and whether it is acceptable to apply the same degree of leniency to both. The question of whether there even is a distinguishable difference between "art" and "science" arises.  

A replica of an ear created by the group, SymbioticA
https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredsc
ience/images/2007/12/13/bioart_ear_2.jpg

A question posed by Ruth West is an effective place to start discussion: Is life itself a valid expressive medium, and are there, or should there be, limits to human creativity? I personally believe that yes, life itself is a valid expressive medium. In fact, I don't think that outside of some semantic argument, there is any medium that is forbidden. The only reason why many individuals shy away from manipulating life itself is human inhibition. There is no physical or technical barrier preventing any artist or scientist from choosing to express their creativity on living beings; the decision comes as a direct result of self-ascribed morals. Life as a medium is, in many respects, taboo because we have deemed it such, legally and ethically. The decision to restrict ourselves from using life as a medium is, conceptually, something I do not agree with. 

I think that in a more ideal world, ethical standards would not exist, and individuals would have complete creative liberty over what they choose to do and how they do it, both scientifically and artistically. Neither category of peoples, and I'm not confident if they should even be separated into such, would be obligated to abide by an extrinsic entity, only held back by an internal moral code. Restrictions should be less stringent for both artists and academics using biotechnology, and the first step to doing so would be to allow for all biotechnological experimentation on non-sapient organisms. i believe that those willing to go to such lengths to achieve some scientific progress, only to be prohibited by the law, would be better off if no such restrictions existed. Similarly, artists willing to be so provocative as to manipulate living beings benefit from having the restrictions lifted. My reasoning is that any individual who wishes to pervert life out of sheer malice in the confines of their own domicile cannot be stopped by the law. In an academic setting, when funding is considered, both for artists and scientists, when one is judged by a jury of their peers, experiments would be no more ethically atrocious than they'd be already. The belief that life is sacred and valuable, even human life, should be reevaluated on a legal and individual level. 

Bioart involving bioluminescent bacteria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioArt#/media/File:FPbeachTsien.jpg

I also posit that to at least some degree, researchers and artists encourage the pushing of ethical boundaries to include expression on biological life, whether it be pre-natal or post-natal, because it satisfies some internal God Complex, a term coined by Ernest Jones. This absolute biological superiority, stemming from the fact that the individual has absolute control over life, death, and creation, and the power dynamic between the actor and the subject, is an externalized gratification of the desire to exert power. This presumption is completely speculative, but I genuinely believe that it has, and always been a motivator for those who choose this path. As much concern as this might pose to the position stated in the previous paragraph, I don't think it really matters from where an individual is coming. 

Ultimately, the individual is in complete control over where they draw their own line. Biotechnology has contributed great advancements to the field of medicine, while sometimes also being considered morally repugnant. A famous example of this juxtaposition was Demikhov's canine head transplants in the 1950s. Bioart itself has come under great scrutiny and public outrage for the perception that it may directly harm animals for no pragmatic gain. And though I understand where this perspective may be coming from, I think that it's fundamentally wrong to set different standards of acceptable practice for different disciplines, and that a reevaluation of the framework for these standards is long overdue.

Demikhov Dog Experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Demikhov#/media/File:
Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-61478-0004,_Kopftrans
plantation_durch_Physiologen_Demichow.jpg

References

“Biotechnology.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biotechnology.

Fenn, Craig W. “Louis Pasteur, Spontaneous Generation, and Germ Theory.” ZME Science, 1 Feb. 2019, www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/louis-pasteur-spontaneous-generation-germ-theory/.

Jones, Ernest. Essays in Applied Psycho-Analysis. Hogarth Press, 1964.

McLean, Margaret R. “Thinking Ethically About Human Biotechnology.” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, Santa Clara University, 1 Jan. 2000, www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/thinking-ethically-about-human-biotechnology/.

Photograph of a tissue-grown ear, Dec. 2007. Wired, https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/images/2007/12/13/bioart_ear_2.jpg

“Science: Transplanted Head.” Time, Time Inc., 17 Jan. 1955, content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,891156,00.html.

Shaner, Nathan. "FPbeachTsien" Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 1 Jan, 2006, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioArt#/media/File:FPbeachTsien.jpg

"The last dog head transplant performed by Vladimir Demikhov on January 13, 1959 in East Germany."  Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Jan. 1959, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-61478-0004%2C_Kopftransplantation_durch_Physiologen_Demichow.jpg