Week 6: BioTech + Art

Week 6: BioTech + Art

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of biotechnology is genetically modified food. I am personally pro-GM crops and food; however, this is a very controversial topic in today’s society. Genetically modified crops have the potential to increase yields and help with world hunger, increase the nutritional value of crops through crops such as Golden Rice, and decrease the use of pesticides by inserting a pesticide resistance gene directly into the crops. Many people have argued against these benefits saying that by inserting an herbicide or pesticide resistance gene into the crops, this will lead to super-bugs and super-weeds. There are countless studies that supporting GMOs and many others arguing against GMOs, showing how controversial genetic modification can be.

There is always a lot of controversy surrounding the alteration of an organism’s genome. Perhaps one of the most controversial example of biotech and art is Eduardo Kac’s fluorescent bunny Alba. Using transgenic art, Eduardo modified the genes of an albino bunny by inserting genes from a fluorescent jellyfish into its genome. Even though this in no way harmed the bunny, many people were angered by this manipulation of nature and questioned whether this was a humane thing to do to a living organism.




The controversy over modifying animals can further be seen through Joseph Vacanti’s mouse and Marta Diminezas’ butterflies. The Vacanti mouse was a mouse with a human ear growing on its back. Once again, people were upset over this manipulation and deemed it inhumane even though the ear had no effect on the normal functioning of the mouse. Marta’s butterflies, however, were a different story. Her first biological artwork was modifying the wing patterns of live butterflies, and she claimed that by going into the cellular structure and designing the wing she is actually creating an artwork in nature. To her surprise, the butterflies’ wings ended up having holes in them, causing horror in people who witnessed her piece. Marta’s experiment, in particular, shows how even though scientists have a deep understanding of genetics, sometimes they cannot predict the consequences and outcomes of genetic manipulation.


 Moshi, Moshi. "Nature?" Marta De Menezes. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017. <http://martademenezes.com/portfolio/projects/>.


References:

"The "Vacanti Mouse" with an "Ear" Growing on Its Back - Animal Testing - ProCon.org." Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? ProCon.org, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 May 2017. <http://animal-testing.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005463>.

"GFP BUNNY." Rabbit Remix. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017. <http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor>.

Stutz, Bruce. "Wanted: GM Seeds for Study." SEEDMAGAZINE.COM. SEEDMAGAZINE.COM, 14 May 2017. Web. 14 May 2017. <http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/wanted_gm_seeds_for_study/>.

Yeates, Ed. "'Super Weed' Taking Strong Hold in Utah." KSL.com. Deseret Digital Media, 8 June 2009. Web. 14 May 2017. <http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=6754314>.


Uconlineprogram. "5 Bioart Pt1 1280x720." YouTube. YouTube, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 14 May 2017. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaThVnA1kyg>.

Comments

  1. I like how you introduced the genetically modified food and the controversy about it. But how does it connect to art? Besides, I also like that you went deep into the Marta's experiment of live butterflies and used that as the reverse of the combination of art and biotech.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 2: Math + Art

Week 4: MedTech + Art

Week 1: Two Cultures