Survey

Opinions of some iGEMers

We conducted a small survey on the concepts of living and bioart, inviting the iGEMers to participate in our reflection. Questions are made ​​so as to bring out the nuances it may have on the boundary between living and machine and the use of living organisms to produce an artwork. The reviews collected are quite diverse and it is interesting to note that the views on these issues are far from fixed. With the aim of highlighting at best the received answers, we considered necessary to represent them graphically and to expose the notes of reflections of some.

Note that we received 83 responses and the target population was only participants in 2014 iGEM competition. The number of response obtained are not sufficient to infer informations on all participants, so the following Results concern only the sample we have received.

First of all, we wanted to capture the proportion of participants who were already in contact with these subjects and we noted that most of them (72%) didn't done synthetic biology before iGEM but have already heard of BioArt.

On the border between "Living" and "Machine", the results are more difficult to apprehend. We first focus on the two following issues:

• Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?

• Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?

Let us try to look in depth the data to identify trends by looking at the answers to the two questions in independent way. We developed a scoring system on a gradual echelon from 1 to 10. Now look at the extreme values ​​that is to say, 1 and 2 on the one hand that represent the NO-answer, on the other hand the YES-answers represented by 9 and 10.

Machine ~~> Living 

Create life from inert matter seems to be a great dream of humans. Some would say that "life" is a property that emerges from the interaction of many complex systems. For this, the previous dream is now accessible by simulations of biological systems known.

By submitting this question to iGEMers, There has been (30+5)% of NO against (4+12)% of YES. These positions are well represented by this following comment: "Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools."

Living ~~> Machine

The opposite approach seems more perilous. Reduce the capacities of decision of a living organism, alter its natural functioning that is disrupt the internal interactions of the systems which composeit, to "reprogram" it in a way, leads to a "new" organism which would act as a "machine".

Extreme responses were lowered, giving (20+7)% for NO against (1+6)% of YES. Opinions are more temperate here; This is certainly due to the relative high regard that people still carry on living. This is precisely what emerges from this comment :"Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result."

Finally by the ratio NO/YES of the extreme values ​​of the two issues, we can say that overall, what emerges is that the passage "Machine ~~> Living" is slightly more acceptable than the reciprocal path that is to say "Living ~~> Machine".

The breakout of the borderline  

Let's turn to the central issue: does the distinction between "living" and "Machine" remains ?

This question is particularly relevant With the technological changes that are taking place, particularly the revolution that opened the doors to many biological phenomena, one is able to bioengineering. It's a powerful tool and it raises a new kind of ethics questions!

However, a more striking observation on the data relative to the two last question, is that the majority of ratings are between 3 and 8 (considered has median value). This expresses what we said at the beginning: the opinions are not fixed! The passage "Living ~~> Machine" has strong median values ​​which cushioned the transition. This reluctance is not even weakened by the experience "on the ground" allowed by the iGEM environment. Even by considering that synthetic biology is changing our way of seeing living beings, a large majority (77%) maintains a clear boundary between the "living" and "the machine". It's a bit curious compared to the responses to both of earlier questions. This is well summarize by the person who say that "Synthetic biology have the potential break or to move the boundary rather than only iGEM experience. I think we have to meditate about what could and what should be synthetic biology in the future, in parallel of the future evolution of the world and the society. I mean, the actual living being/machine concept are pretty clear for common people. It's like comparing a dog and a robot. But with the evolution of sciences and technologies, the comparison between living being and machine is more and more difficult like virus or an engineered organisms or an very smart AI for example."

Have you already done synthetic biology before iGEM?	Have you already heard of bioart ?

Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?	Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?
With the iGEM experience, do you think that the boundary between living beings and machines is broken ?	In general, do you think that synthetic biology transforms our vision of living beings ?

The boundary between living and not living was broken way before synthetic biology. Synthetic biology only helped to intertwine these two seemed to be opposites together.	Synthetic biology have the potential break or to move the boundary rather than only iGEM experience. I think we have to meditate about what could and what should be synthetic biology in the future, in parallel of the future evolution of the world and the society. I mean, the actual living being/machine concept are pretty clear for common people. It's like comparing a dog and a robot. But with the evolution of sciences and technologies, the comparison between living being and machine is more and more difficult like virus or an engineered organisms or an very smart AI for example.	I my opinion living beings are all machine-like anyway, every cell has complex internal molecular machinery. Synthetic biology really just industrializes organisms in an attempt to provide cost-effective methods to solve many of the world's problems.
Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools.		Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result.
Living beings were first classified by Aristo as those that are beneficial and those that are unnecessary. This viewpoint is in complete disparity, however it does also indicate that other organisms are in a sense meant to be in the servitude of man. This does not dictate that one should be violent towards other living beings but they have no compunction or self-thought. They only act on instinct encrypted in to those beings in their creation. If one's use of those living beings is for the good of all, then it would not be an unjust act. Going to a lab and isolating bacterial DNA for fun is not appropriate though.
I do not believe that interspecies gene transfer makes a machine.	I think of a machine as tool designed to perform an action. I think of a living being as something which reduces the entropy of its local system. I see no incompatibility between the two.
The grey areas regarding the division between life and machines is ever-expanding - not because of our progress necessarily but in many ways due to our realization that our attempts to classify things as one or the other do not work for all organisms or systems (e.g. think viruses).	It's hard to imagine a living thing acting like a machine ....	If the AI contains no organic parts and has nothing that resembles cell processes or a capacity to 'evolve', I do not think it is considered a living creature. I also don't think the ability to learn and feel makes something living since most organisms (bacteria and plants, for example) do not have this capacity but are technically alive. That all being said, I think this AI could still be considered 'pseudo-life'.
The words 'machine' and 'living' each bear two separate meanings, one based on the literal phenomena the words represent and the other based on the common understanding of what the word means. In the first question, 'living' is used in the common sense (shares qualities of what we think of as life) while 'machine' is used in the literal sense (an object absent of the biological characteristics that define life). In the second question, 'living' is used in the literal sense (an object with the biological characteristics that define life) while 'machine' is used in the common sense (shares the qualities of what we think of as mechanical). It is for this reason that both statements can be true while the third, about bluing the boundary between the two, is not by necessity also true.

On the use of living beings in an artistic purpose 

In this last part, we are interested in the question of how far will the legitimacy of the use of science to produce an artwork. We ask only in three points:

• Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?
• Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?
• Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?

In general, iGEMers who answered to our survey are quite receptive to the use of living things in a work of art. And the term "use" is seen in a broad sense including use of scientific techniques up to the transformation. The use of "living" can also be seen in a more general framework for example in classic art like danse ( "We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing)").

Nevertheless, there is still some reticence. More precisely, some of the reserved emit is relative to the organisms used that is exactly what is say in "I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast."

Futhermore, an interesting observation is that the more we specify the scientific methods used, the less the intervention of science to make art is legitimate. It's range from 93% of YES for the first question to 69% for the last one that is to say when we talk about "transforming" organism.

The score remains above 50%, reflecting relatively positive opinions. Let's finish with this beautiful exemple of the 'collaboration' between art and science : "The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations."

Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?	Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?
Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?

In general, (Bio)Art or ArtScience is one of the fields or areas that connects wet lab work and research to the actual community. It often does so, as is (or should be, for that matter) inherent to art, by exploring and crossing boundaries. We (as Life Science participants) should be grateful for the exposure.		I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast
Art is a reflection of humanities beliefs and reservations, it is the way that we explore who we are and what we want to be.	I think using bacteria is fine, but using stuffed animals for example is not	Anything with a brain shouldn't be used in art - they might feel pain
I heard about some guy growing cultures in radioactive medium so that when grown, bacteria resemble someone's face for example. I think the technique is quite nice but it lacks some creativity. Art is about creativity. Using scientific techniques is of course legitimate for making art. I agree with using living dancers to dance on stages. I believe altering and transforming living creatures is a very powerful way to do art like Stelarc. And for centuries humans used insects and plants and maybe even mushrooms to produce colors, why whould changing some genes make a difference. It is all legitimate. Wish you all good luck with your project :D
I have a pretty low opinion of art so maybe my opinions are biased.	Defense of animals and living beings rights is key to the equilibrium of our society and of the planet. It is already a complex subject when regarding medicine, domestic pet, and so on. Why add art to the list? Everyone might say that using bacteria is ok. But where to stop? Mice? cats and dogs?	I think you can make engineered butterflies to be even more beautiful !
I only agree in using lower organisms like fungi and bacteria for bioart.		It's fine with bacteria but its a different matter with higher beings.
The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations. Nor ancient nor innaceptable.		Transforming higher living creatures for art should be subject to ethics review
We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing).
Art is universal; therefore art possesses no boundaries. The field of science is no boundary either. So, who can complain if one was to make cells draw Mona Lisa? Would that not be art?

--->