Without innovation, there is no progress. This is what
science aims to do, to lead us towards progression of the future. Many people
today are genetically engineering everything from food to DNA in hopes of
making life more understandable and easier for the future. With that said, it
all sounds easy, but “everybody’s a critic”. There are many ethnical concerns
whenever it comes to genetic engineering or using living subjects as an art
platform. As Ellen K. Levy says, there is an ambiguous line between nature and
culture. She talks about the Glofish that were going to be sold, but because of
ethical and nature concerns, it had trouble doing so. Ultimately, I feel that all these
controversies narrow down to the intentions of the project and the stereotypes
that live behind the person running the project. If you see an artist working
with an animal, more people are likely to reject the idea than if a scientist
were to conduct the same experiment because they believe that science is good.
Whereas, the artist would be critiqued that he or she is just doing the
experiments for fun and not for the better of the future. Example of this is
Eduardo Kac’s Alba. In terms of science, it was a breakthrough because GFP is
widely used today for studies, but at first it was critiqued because there was
no real reason for it other than for art. All of this comes down to how much
participation the public gets. When the public gets more say in it, more
problems appear because you want to satisfy everyone.
For example, in terms of food, many of them are modified to
grow faster and larger, basically so that people get the most bang for their
buck. “Normal” people would be happy about this, but then there are others who
believe that food should not be altered and what not because of the harmful
side effects that could take place. Many of the meats that we eat at fast food
restaurants are probably tampered with in terms of additives and what not. To
certain populations such as the lower class, this wouldn’t matter to them
because they are worried about being fed for the cheapest price. But then
again, there are people complaining of the living conditions of the animals and
how it is inhumane. There is just a never ending amount of debates in terms of
science. I feel that sometimes it’s just better for the public not to know what
is going on with research as long as nothing is harmed along the way.
Genetically modified apple
(http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2013/09/27/syringes-gas-masks-and-frankenfood-visuals-of-the-gmo-debate)
Works Cited
Clendaniel, Morgan. "The Genetically Modified Food You
Eat Every Day." Co.Exist. Fast
Company, 13 Nov. 2014. Web.
"Genetically Modified Food." Wikipedia. Wikimedia
Foundation. Web.
Glenn, Linda. "Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering
and Transgenics." Actionbioscience.
AIBS, 1 Nov. 2013. Web.
Kelty, Christopher. Outlaw, hackers, Victoria amateurs: diagnosing public participation in
the life sciences today, Jcom 09(01)
(2010) C03
Levy, Ellen. “Defining Life: Artists
Challenge Conventional Classifications.”Context Providers: Conditions of
Meaning in Media Arts. Eds. Margot Lovejoy, Christiane Paul, and Victoria
Vesna. University of Chicago Press: 2011.
UConlineprogram. “Robotics pt1-pt3.” Youtube. Youtube, 15 April 2012. Web.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how the food are modified using biotechnology. Understanding genome information makes a great contribution to the food industry. However, up to now it has not been proved yet whether the genetically modified food could induce any side effect to human bodies. That might be a reason for limited productions in current market.
Hi Vivian,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about the way the public views using animals and humans in different projects, scientific or artistic. I definitely question where the line is drawn in terms of animal cruelty, as things like testing for makeup purposes are highly frowned upon but the use of lab rats for research is widely accepted. Who determines what is appropriate and worthwhile? For me, the insertion of the glow-in-the-dark gene into the transgenic bunnies toed across this line. How is making a rabbit glow in the dark significant for human improvement? While in the grand scheme of things the topic of transgenics is monumental, this first step seems to be controversial.
What and who defines harmful research? Do you really feel that not letting the public know about such research is okay as long as it’s not deemed “harmful”? Research must be transparent, even in light of all the debate revolving around science. Educating people about the progress of research is key to further expanding on current ideas and possibly creating new ones.
ReplyDeleteThat begin said, I agree that harmful research should be carefully regulated to a limited amount. After all, would Alba have such an impact on genetics had the research been axed due to being marked as harmful? Turning a blind eye can sometimes turn out for something unexpectedly good.