Week 6: Art + Biotech

There are certainly many positive outcomes that can arise out of the use of biotechnology--for instance, the ability to create modified sources of fuel that are more sustainable, the development of new forms of medicine, and the enhancement of foods to make them plentiful and more packed with nutrients (Verma, Agrahari, Rastogi & Singh).  

A hyperbolic representation of the biotechnology/genetic
modification already prevalent in our lives 

But some would argue that biotechnology is unnatural and unnecessary, especially when it crosses over into the realm of art. As biotech has become increasingly important to our society in the last couple of decades, instances of biotechnological tinkering have raised some ethical questions in the scientific community. The idea that artists are using real life as a means to an artistic end is an uncomfortable one, especially when the consequences of doing so cannot be immediately known (Zurr & Catts).  

An example of an ethically questionable piece of art/biotechnology is the creation of bioluminescent trees (Fang), which could potentially be a source of electricity-free light to line the streets at night.

Leaves genetically modified to emit light 

 This sounds like a fairly harmless idea at first--no one would reject the the option to be able see at night without having to waste electricity. But critics of the innovation say that the implementation of this genetically modified tree won't come without consequences. 

An instance of "synthetic biology" such as the dissemination of glowing trees does not currently have a precedent in the wild, and we therefore can't be sure what will happen when the seeds are released. By accepting the spread of these bioluminescent trees, people will also be more accepting of biotechnology on a larger scale, which could have disastrous effects down the road if we aren't careful (Lukacs). Once synthetic biology has been domesticated, some predict that being able to design your own living beings may cause more harm than good. Tom Philpott, writing for Mother Jones, asks: "What if these new life forms behave in ways we can't predict--or mutate in ways we can't predict--altering food chains or larger biosystems?" (Philpott). 

Soon, plants like the one pictured above could be
giving off light--making street lamps unnecessary! 

Ultimately I think that before people start to tamper with modifying genes, even for art's sake or the advancement of biotechnology (such as was the case with the GFP bunny (Kac)), more research should be done on the possible consequences and effects of synthetic biology. 

Works Cited: 

Fang, Janet. "Bioluminscent Trees Could Light up Our Streets." IFLScience. 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 7 May 2015.  

Kac, Eduardo. "GFP BUNNY." 2000. Web. 8 May 2015.  

Lukacs, Martin. "Kickstarter Must Not Fund Biohackers' Glow-in-the-dark Plants." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 6 June 2013. Web. 9 May 2015.  

Philpott, Tom. "The Scary Side of Synbio Glowing Plants." Mother Jones. Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress, 10 June 2013. Web. 10 May 2015.  

Verma, Ashish, Shishir Agrahari, Shruti Rastogi, and Anchal Singh. "Biotechnology in the Realm of History." Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences. Medknow Publications Pvt Ltd. Web. 10 May 2015.  

Zurr, Ionat, and Oron Catts. "The Ethical Claims of Bio Art: Killing the Other or Self-cannibalism?" Web. 8 May 2015. <http://www.tca.uwa.edu.au/publication/TheEthicalClaimsofBioart.pdf>. 

Picture links: 
http://inhabitat.com/glowing-plant-project-kickstarter-campaign-creates-bioluminescent-plants-for-natural-lighting/
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/bioluminscent-trees-could-light-our-streets
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/label-genetically-modified-foods.html