Week 6
A fluorescent bunny sounds awesome doesn't it? Eduardo Kac created a bunny that glowed fluorescent due to injection of jellyfish genes into its system. However interesting this project may have been, it incited lots of controversy. Animal activists deemed it unethical and scientists did agree that the project was "silly." I agree with animal activists; for the sake of art, mutilating another species is unethical. I feel the same way about Marta de Menezes' work; she manipulated a butterfly's wings to the point where it had holes in them. Animals develop certain traits that make their survival more likely, but through manipulations such as the ones done from de Menezes and Kac, could harm their well-being even if they were never meant to live in the wild. Kathy High's Transgenic Rats is where the line gets blurry for me; her work isn't just for art but serves as research for decoding "physiological processes and cure diseased metabolisms." I believe that High's work is more ethical than de Menezes and Kac's work.
 |
| Eduardo Kac's Alba |
 |
| Marta de Menezes's butterfly |
I believe artists should have more strict standard for artists using biotechnology than scientists in the industry/academia if the scientists are using biotechnology for scientific advancement in some form. Art does advance society, but because there are alternate ways to create that advancement, which is not necessarily true for scientists in some of their work, I do believe biotechnology use should be more limited for artists. Having the technologies to create art in this way doesn't necessarily mean we should do it. Combining nature and art is not a new idea; from an article in Wired, they brought up how Mary Shelley's Frankenstein thought up of this long ago. Though these creations are "a surrealist's dream becoming a reality," and we must take into precaution what we are manipulating to make our dreams come true (Solon, 2011).
A big controversial topic that could be the grey area between art and science is food. Food is considered art in a sense, but I would argue for less restrictions on genetically modified foods as they allow us to protect our crops from weeds and insects which reduces the need for certain pesticides in our food. There is still much suspicion regarding the safety of consuming such crops, but many studies have proven their safety through no proof of harm, but studies are also careful to note that knowledge is somewhat limited in this stage of research. Informing the public to the best of the producer's ability is key in letting the public decide if they want to consume genetically modified foods or not.
A big controversial topic that could be the grey area between art and science is food. Food is considered art in a sense, but I would argue for less restrictions on genetically modified foods as they allow us to protect our crops from weeds and insects which reduces the need for certain pesticides in our food. There is still much suspicion regarding the safety of consuming such crops, but many studies have proven their safety through no proof of harm, but studies are also careful to note that knowledge is somewhat limited in this stage of research. Informing the public to the best of the producer's ability is key in letting the public decide if they want to consume genetically modified foods or not.
 |
| Mary Shelley's Frankenstein |
Sources
Kac, Eduardo. “GFP Bunny.” GFP BUNNY, www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html.
“Marta De Menezes.” Marta De Menezes - The Museum for Insects, hypernatural.com/museum/marta_de_menezes.html.
Solon, Olivia. “Bioart: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Using Living Tissue as a Medium.” Wired, Conde Nast, 28 July 2011, www.wired.com/2011/07/bioart/.
Patell, Cyrus R.K. “Frankenstein and Technophobia.” Electra Street, Wordpress, 21 Nov. 2015, electrastreet.net/2014/11/frankenstein-and-technophobia/.
Acker/Bloomberg, Daniel, and Becky Harlan. “Scientists Say GMO Foods Are Safe, Public Skepticism Remains.” National Geographic, National Geographic Partners, 17 May 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/05/17/scientists-say-gmo-foods-are-safe-public-skepticism-remains/.
Acker/Bloomberg, Daniel, and Becky Harlan. “Scientists Say GMO Foods Are Safe, Public Skepticism Remains.” National Geographic, National Geographic Partners, 17 May 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/05/17/scientists-say-gmo-foods-are-safe-public-skepticism-remains/.
“Transgenic Bunny by Eduardo Kac.” GNN - Genome News Network, www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml.
Bjerga, Alan. “Biotech-Label Rule Begs Question: How Much GMO Makes a GMO Food?” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 3 May 2018, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-03/biotech-label-rule-begs-question-how-much-gmo-makes-a-gmo-food.
High, Kathy. “How Did Matilda, Tara and Star Barbie Become Transgenic Rats?” Embracing Animal :: All About Transgenic Rats, www.embracinganimal.com/transrats.html.
Enlightening point when you brought that even though can do it, it does not necessarily mean that we should. Your article really digs deep into the moral and ethical issues that art and biotechnology can bring. Your stance on the reconciliation between the two issues is very valid and I agree with it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that there should be less restrictions on genetically modified food for not only we would have healthier food but also we can solve world hunger. Genetically modified food allow us to produce more food more efficiently that can finally match our demand. Our resources are finite so genetically modified food is the only solution I can see right now. While I understand that the studies are somewhat limited in regard to the harmful effect, I still think it is worth a try rather than let children die from starvation.
ReplyDelete