Week 6: Some very complicated questions about biology and art
So this week we approached the topic of life and life as an art medium with all of the ethics and dillemas behind it. And it all started with a cute little bunny who got a protein added from a fluorescent jellyfish that made it glow.
Alba's story and Eduardo Kac's arguments for how people's preconceptions about life, biology and art made me feel both horrified and inspired before I looked more deeply into them and I would like to analyze the first two because on the surface level I agreed with them but as I researched further I started having some concerns and attempting to gain a more meaningful response to them. But I also don't completely disagree with them, and think that the answer might lie somewhere in the middle. [1]
His first argument, to enhance the ongoing dialog between professionals in different areas of society from art, to science, to lawyers and to the public is incredibly compelling and a touches on many arguments we have approached throughout the past six weeks but seems. However, Olivier Réchauchère of INRA or the National Institute of Agricultural Research says that the project that Eduardo Kac claimed as his was in fact part of their own research, and they would allow the artist to display her for artistic pursuit's but not to claim her and have her live with his family as he refers to in his blog post about the subject. So it seems a little shortsided that the person arguing for dialogue seems to not be following through with his own argument. [2]
His second argument about contesting the supermacy of DNA in life creation to incorporate work at the genetic level by humans touches on the question of research and the "naturalness" of using animals as test studies for everything from cosmetics, to antibiotics, to the ways that diseases replicate and multiply in organisms. According to the National Institute of Health, animals from Syrian Hamsters to Nonhuman primates were used to test how the mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 acted and whether it protected them from the virus. [3]
This usage is widely accepted as the norm, since it provides a service to humans so it's natural to question why shouldn't animals be used as artistic vehicles, which quickly moves down the slippery slope of ethics such as mutilation, harming etc. In my view, because animals are incapable of giving informed consent which renders references for research like the Belmont Report usesless [4][5] it is up to legislation and legislating bodies to codify these protections so the interests of both animals and humans can be kept in mind. Both France and the European Union, where Alba was born have these protections, and they touch on the question of justification for why the research test is being performed. This is important as it touches on the rights of the animal and the individual. Furthermore, since these justifications are required to be reported to the government which can audit them and stop a project at any time, as well as require a cost benefit analysis proof for the use of animals, they are most likely to consider all sides before continuing with a project. [6][7]
I can see the counterargument from a comment for scientific and medical procedures in humans like genetic manipulation to attempt to improve the quality of life for people with diseases like Down Syndrome and Cystic Fibrosis and life created in laboratories for in vitro firtilization.[8] And even for the research underlying even Alba's creation to tag embryonic cells in the womb allows for a myriad of applications from both being able to differentiate multiple births in animals to look at the genetic defects. However, humans can give their informed consent for medical procedures and animals can't, such as humans are allowed to consent to appear naked in movies. This is where legislation and public debate have to come in to define what "purposes" or "justifications" fit within the norms that society is willing to accept for those that can't give consent.
Congress: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-letting-deadlines-pile-pushing-back/story?id=81540542
Works Cited
[5] The American Psychological Association. “Human Research Protection.” American Psychological Association, https://www.apa.org/research/responsible/human. Accessed 6 May 2022.
[4] Department of Health and Human Services. “The Belmont Report.” HHS.gov, https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html. Accessed 6 May 2022.
[6] Festing, Simon, and Robin Wilikingson. “The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research.” NCBI, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2002542/. Accessed 6 May 2022.
[1] Kac, Eduardo. “GFP BUNNY.” Eduardo Kac, https://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html. Accessed 6 May 2022.
[7] National Human Research Institute. “Genetic Disorders.” National Human Genome Research Institute, 18 May 2018, https://www.genome.gov/For-Patients-and-Families/Genetic-Disorders. Accessed 6 May 2022.
[3] NIAD Media Team. “The Important Role of Animal Research in mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Development.” National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), 18 August 2021, https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/role-animal-research-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-development. Accessed 6 May 2022.
[7] Recherche Animale. “Regulations.” Recherche animale, https://www.recherche-animale.org/en/discover-the-animal-research/regulations. Accessed 6 May 2022.
[2] Young, Emma. “Mutant bunny.” New Scientist, 22 September 2000, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16-mutant-bunny/. Accessed 6 May 2022.
I was fascinated by your discussion surrounding the ethical code in bioart and the ways in which DNA modification with animals is right or wrong. As genetic modification becomes possible in the field, it is now important to address whether it is ethical as you did here. Great job!
ReplyDelete