Team:Osaka/ETHICS

ETHICS

Overview The use of Biology, its protocol and tools in art has considerable effect on bioethics, and science and technology. This work is actively pursued in these days. And this type of work are categorized into bio-art that is a crossover of art and the biological science[1]. Although bio-art is one of contemporary art, the origin of it can be linked to two former originators. The one is an artist, photographer Edward Steichen, and the other is a scientist, the discoverer of penicillin, Alexandr Fleming. We don't intend to elaborate their works, meanings and effect. But the important things are that their works didn't attract much attention and, more importantly, were reductively defined only in the terms of beauty[2]. Recent bio-art is more controversial and can't be judged only in the term of beauty. For example, by using transgenic technique, they created transgenic organism that raised issues of how we should consider care for a bioengineering life. Artists try to criticize a number of issues related to current biotechnology such as gene recombination, gene diagnosis and cloning technology. These bioethical issues are closely linked to synthetic biology. To tackle these issues, interdisciplinary work between scientist and artist must be needed. This year, our iGEM project is strongly oriented to Bio-art (See PROJECT for overview our project). As a ethical project, herein we discuss bio-art from the view of "media (expressing something)" and "Bioethics". Both aspects are highly affected by recent advance of synthetic biology and cross each other. Considering synthetic biology in art and the reverse offers a new insight on both science and art.

Biomedia New media At the present day, we use computer technology to express a lot of things such as photo, movie and music, in other words, use computer technology as "medium". And this cross over between computer technology and traditional media gave rise to the term of "New media". New media is mostly digital, which has characteristics of being is expressed numerical. Numerical expression enable manipulation and programming, even material from traditional media. Adobe photoshop and CG in Matrix may be good and simple example to imagine what is new media. On the other hand, what is "bio media"? The structure determination of DNA, human genome projects make us recognize that life can be described in numerical way. Genomic information of DNA(AGTC) is absolutely digital one. However in bio media, we cannot separate DNA information (software) from hardware which composed of organism. In iGEM, all participants try to make life system by programming DNA information. They are sometimes work as designed but mostly not. Although more systems biological knowledge should be needed to answer this question, synthetic biologists have attempted to regard biological organism as modularized information. Regardless of consequence of this trial, we all have already started to make bio media and try to accomplish something that is done by computer or none has done yet.

Personalization of biology beyond standardization When technology develops very well and becomes inexpensive enough to prevail in average citizen, it will be used not only for original purpose but for unexpected one. For example, in 1970s, personal computer started to be sold at a low price. Before then, electronic computers was available only to people in academic or research institutions. Due to the introduction of microprocessor, computer was rapidly personalized. And this personalization of computers created new usages of computer such as computer art and music . Same kind of stream could potentially occur in Biology and now is going on[3]. The concept of iGEM and BioBrick intends to follow the model of open source in software industry. Through iGEM competition every year, we make a lot of genetic parts standardized with respect to assembly process and ultimately aim to create simple and man-made biological system. Genetic manipulation are sill expensive technology and not accessible for no-expert people. However, if the cost of genetic engineering decreases and regulatory and ethical problem is alleviated to the some degree, more and more people would be able to hack biology by programing the genetic parts. The participation of amateur will activate not only life science but also bio-art.

Biomedia art in synthetic biology Participating in iGEM allow students to get a lot of genetic parts. This means personalization of DNA parts. We can do whatever we want to do provided that we have fund and facility. Increasing the numbers of well characterized parts enable us to programming biological devise partially (The usage of these constructed systems is still limited). The time to use biomedia for art and design comes. Synthetic Biologists try to regard biological parts as Lego blocks. This attitude should encourage the development of bio media as in the case of computer technology. However as long as we treat biological media, we couldn't help but face to several conflicts. Biological parts haven't been modularized perfectly yet and sometimes behaves unexpected way. So simple reduction to electronic devise is dangerous. And biological organism has an emergent property. In a word, biomedia is polyphenic. Once it looks like hard device. But other times it is unpredictable and acts voluntary. Probably, it is first time for us to treat this kind of media. We cannot say that it has brilliant future like a 20th computer technology. But What artists express by using both property of biomedia must be new one that deserves a lot of reception from various view.

Bioethics Show public biotechnology and its problem Needless to say, current development of biology and biotechnology gives rise to a number of ethical issues. Cloning technology, embryonic cell and genetic recombination are representative example. There are lot of augments and misunderstanding between expert and non-expert. In these situation, what does bio-art do? Artists could mediate new biotechnology to a broader public through their works. For example, Eduardo Kac created a transgenic rabbit, GFP bunny. By experimenting with a rabbit, Kac deliberately sought a provocative dialogue both about the use of animals in science and about the selective breeding of domestic pets. As final step, Kac tried to take GFP bunny back to his home. But for several reasons, Kac couldn't do that. His work emphasize our ethical responsibility towards animals with which we cohabit and seek to control. Other kind of work tried to make us think about "Care for bioengineered life" or "who is responsible for created living thing". These bio-art and their placement in the public of gallery enable wider access to the debate about biotechnology, its application and how and who is responsible for the result of this technology. So bio-art can open up a space for critical dialogue beyond specialists. To prevail the concept of iGEM or BioBrick, reception by non-expert must be needed. The use of synthetic biology in art can give the opportunity to general citizen to know, think and evaluate its potential effect on general public. Art can play a role of criticism of developed technology in newly formed discipline. What is life? One of the the Holy Grail in synthetic and systems biology is to create a life. But start one's discussions from scratch, who knows "what is life?". To answer this question, interdisciplinary study must be needed. And synthetic approach such as making cells might offer a new avenue for this question. In any age, artists have tried to express these kind of question. At the moment, however, they get the technology to manipulate or even create living things at molecular level. This radical shift takes artists to the front line of this issue. As an example in above, artists created a transgenic animal to express something or only because he can. Now, bio art goes beyond aesthetic criteria. That is why, bio art has to be self reflective. Because it has the dangerousness to be the one that it criticizes. However, bio art, as a one of art, can be powerful and precious reminder that stimulate us to rethink the existing ethical view and expose how we treat living organism and think about life. In this year, we made a lot of art works (See WORKS)using living, genetically manufactured, spontaneously moving bacteria. Although you can see these only through computer media, it was assuredly made by or from still living stuff. So, we have one question for you. The question is "Are you feel life from this works?".

Conclusion Bio art has multilateral nature. Although it is relatively newly appeared development in contemporary art, its potential to force people to rethink various bioethical issues is considerable. For dissemination of biotechnology in our society, bio art should play a critical role with respect to the opportunity to get close to science. And success of bio art possibly revolutionize our traditional view of life.

Reference [1]Kac, E. Signs of life: Bio Art and beyond. MIT Press, (2007). [2]Stracey, F. Bio-art: the ethics behind the aesthetics. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10, 496-500 (2009). [3]Kubota, A. & Iwasaki, H. Biomediaart. (2009).

Acknowledgment This ethics was birth from valuable discussion with A. Kubota and H. Iwasaki at the second annual meeting of the Japanese society for cell synthesis research</a>. We all appreciate their encouragement of our art work.

<script type="text/javascript">