Expert's opinion

Introduction

We interviewed some experts about the link between science and art, bioart and more precisely about questions our project raise. We questioned a diverse community of scientist, sociologist, artist and professor of ethic. Our purpose was to confront the different opinion coming from different domains. Questions were determined by our project and the message we want to convey.

Experts

Therese BICHON as "the artist"

Thérèse Bichon is an artist living in Paris. She has studied and put into practice: the history of art and archeology in 1980, the nursing home: 1982, 1986 carpentry, landscaping 1998, architecture 2007.Wondering about the opportunities that society could offer to develop her love of creation, nature and human, she alternately or simultaneously turned to the world of work, studies and that of creation.

Alexei GRINBAUM as "the scientist"

Alexei Grinbaum is a researcher at the LARSIM laboratory in the CEA-Saclay near Paris about the Foundations of physics. He belongs to the Cerna (commission de réflexion sur l’éthique de la recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique or ethic committee about science research and numeric technology) of Allistene. He is also a member of the synthetic biological committee. Since 2003, he is interested on ethical and social questions in correlation with new technologies. His recent work is about synthetic biology and especially the definition of life in an ethical and historical context.

Emmanuel HIRSCH as "the ethics expert"

Emmanuel Hirsch is a well-known person in the ethics sphere. Indeed, he is a medical ethics teacher in the medical university Paris-Sud 11 and director of the department of research ethics in that university. He received the Legion of Honor and the title of Knight of Arts and Letters.

Morgan MEYER as "the sociologist"

Morgan Meyer is a lecturer and researcher at Agro ParisTech and had been involved in the Science in Society (SenS), one unit of INRA (Institut national de la recherche agronomique). He holds a master in biology, a PhD in sociology and he has been a postdoc at the Department of Sociology at the University of Sheffield and at the Centre for the Sociology of Innovation at Mines ParisTech.

General questions about art and science

According to you, what is the link between art and science?

Therèse: To my mind, the artist has to be careful about the audience and the purpose of his work. With the scientific work it is not the same. The scientific wants to answer to a special question, improve a system or create a new technology. The aim of audience and judgement is not equal. These two domains should be in parallel and not in opposition. Science may change Art and Art may improve the impact of science on a public.

Alexei: With the notion of Science there is also the notion of usefulness, but the purpose could be diverse: to prove that we can do it, to improve a mechanism, or to progress the knowledge. Art is beautiful but useless. The aim is different, we want to raise a question or just to make an artistic work.

Can it be a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?

Morgan: I think that there are every kind of collaboration. The scientific only used as a technical support, or the scientist who makes a real reflexion about his work. About reactions, every kind of reaction can also be find. Some scientists, who are sceptical about art, may say that there is no precise purpose, and that will not change science. Though collaboration between scientists and artists we can have a global view about what life is.

What can art and science share to open up new horizons?

Thérèse: Art allows to underline the link between science and reality. Because scientists are often individualistic, art open a new window on their research and make them aware about potentially danger.

Audience/Purpose/technic

Bioart point of view

What is the main goal of Bioart?

What do you think about using living being in a artistic purpose?

Morgan : I do not think that I can answer to your question. But I can say that some rules and control exist especially with manipulation in a laboratory. Furthermore, if you are a searcher in a laboratory, you passed a training, you studied, you passed a PhD, and so I think that these persons are aware about risks and danger. So, if one day you pretend that you are an artist, then yes you can use bacteria for your work, but do you receive all training you need, especially the artistic approach? We cannot consider that the bacteria is the brush, the brush is inert, the brush cannot mute onto another brush! Whereas, your bacteria could become a communicable disease, who knows? In biology we cannot be sure at 100% that we are going to create something without any danger.

Therèse: To my mind, using a bacteria in an artistical approach is almost the same as using it to produce medicines. Both of them have goal but it is not the same. For the first one, you want to raise a special question, for the other one you want to treat people. We can also explain that saying that the first one is about mental health and the second one about physical health.

Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit?

Hirsch: I think this question is biased. It depends on the personality. In a certain way, when it possible to identify yourself to a species you are more susceptible. With the world of the infinitely small, you cannot even see these organisms, so it create a certain distance between you and them. So, I have less consideration for the bacteria than for a dog for example. The dog is more humanized. Can identify yourself as the dog but not really as the bacteria. And there is a question of inheritance. If you modify this bacteria, has it an impact on future generation?

Morgan: For Humans, some laws and right exist. Then, humans has the ability to talk and to express feelings. We made some unethical experimentation until not so far. And nowadays, it is very difficult to do experiment with human (hopefully). However, for animals it is not the same. We can consider that they have some right too, and currently some societies defend their rights. For bacteria, mushrooms and algea, we can claim that it is really different. They have not any brain and cannot communicate with us. On the other hand, if we are human and if we share this planet with other species, have we the right not to respect them?

Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?

What is living being?

Morgan: To my mind, there is a fundamental difference between inert matter which is stabilized and matter which we know can change. Between the matter we do not really know and become dangerous afterall, and the matter which we absolutely do not know every consequences it can have behind its use, there is a difference.

Thérèse: It is a difficult question. I do not think I can anaswer to this question properly. I believe it is more a question about being. Who are these beings. Beings which come from synthetic biology are new being. Who are they?

How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?

Morgan: I think that yes it does. We already talk about this subject a hundred years ago, so the theme is not new. But if we look at the purpose of the current synthetic biology which exists for approximatively ten years, these questions can be raised. “Have we the right to modify living-being ? », « Is it possible to use living being as a machine or a chassis?”. It is interesting especially for your project because it make sense to talk about a “program” and we may understand the bacteria with the function of it different parts. And it is a metaphor but life is not more than a computer.

How does our project raise this question?