Being raised by religious parents, I was somewhat familiar
with the ongoing controversy in the field of biotechnology and nanotechnology.
One of the reasons for this controversy, as Vesna states, is because “artists
are actually meddling with the genetic structures of natural systems.” Up until
this week’s lecture, I was indifferent about the ethical dilemma involved in
this topic. In my opinion, there is a major different between artists and
scientists experimenting with the general structures of living organisms.
Scientists in this field have experimented with things such
as transgenic rats using glowing jellyfish genes. Osamu Shimomura was the first
person to inject these genes into mice for research purposes. These mice served
as animal models “for studying biological processes and diseases that
luminescent jellyfish genes can be used to tag certain genes or proteins.” According
to High, genetically manipulated animals are promising tools. This type of
genetic modification can be very beneficial because it can lead to discovering
new treatments and an easier way to study cells.
On the other hand, artists are using this type of genetic
manipulation to create artwork with living animals. The purpose for artists
using live organisms as a form of art has nothing to do with advancing
scientific knowledge. The instance that bothered me the most was learning about
the artist who mutilated butterfly wings just to create an artwork. This artist
ruined the butterfly’s wings, and as a result, trying to make the wings more
aesthetically pleasing, inevitably killed the butterfly. In my opinion, using
this type of biotechnology to advance medical research is acceptable because it
is for the greater good. However, some artists have selfishly used animals as
an expressive medium. There should be different sets of rules for artists and
scientists using such technology.
Sources:
"Artificial versus Natural Genetic Modification & Perils of
GMOs." The Permaculture Research Institute. N.p., 11 Aug. 2014. Web. 15
May 2017.
High, Kathy. "How did Matilda, Tara and Star Barbie become
Transgenic Rats?" Embracing Animal :: All About Transgenic Rats. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 15 May 2017.
"GNN - Asymmetrical Butterfly Wings." GNN - Genome News
Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2017.
Vesna, Victoria. "Biotechnology and Art Part 1." Lecture.
"#2012 . Archive | Essential Lens." Annenberg Learner. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 15 May 2017.
Hi Scott, I agree with your statement about drawing the line when it comes to scientists changing the genetic makeup of an organism, compared to an artist. It also bothered me that artists have modified the DNA of organisms for their art, but essentially created a failed organism that could never survive in nature. I think it's unethical to change the DNA of an organism just for the entertainment of man, the only time I believe it is ethical is when the altered genes can help the survival of a species or help eliminate disorders.
ReplyDelete