"
Team:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews
From 2014.igem.org
Contents |
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 practiced: the history of art and archaeology in 1980, nursing homes in 1982, carpentry in 1986, landscaping in 1998, and architecture in 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 biology 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.
Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA as "the experts in designer"
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)
General questions about art and science
According to you, what is the link between art and science?
Therèse Bichon: In my mind, the artist has to be careful about the audience and the purpose of his work. With scientific work it is not the same. The scientific wants to answer a specific question, improve a system or create 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 Grinbaum: 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.
Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?
Morgan Meyer: I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides technical support, or the scientist who really thinks about his work. About reactions, every kind of reaction can also be found. Some scientists, who are skeptical about art, may say that there is no precise purpose, and that it will not change science. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.
Thérèse Bichon: Art allows to underline the link between science and reality. Because scientists are often individualistic, art opens a new window on their research and make them aware about potentially danger.
Morgan Meyer : Art and science are distinct by the fact that they belong to different domains. For an artistic work, the author, who may or may not be a scientist, should suggest to the audience the way to look at his/her work. It is not only about beauty, it is also about how spectators will understand your work.
Bioart point of view
What is the main goal of Bio-Art?
Thérèse Bichon : To my mind there are two main goals of Bio-Art. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bio-Art gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that Bio-Art educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frighten people about biology. Indeed, with shocking pieces they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it.
Alexei Grinbaum : If we use synthetic biology, it has to be useful. However, a project such as a Bio-Art work may help to prove the feasibility of a synthetic biology approach. It may also improve scientific knowledge. But Bio-Art it is not only about knowledge, it much more than that. As the work is exhibited, it is also about aestheticism, admiration… The goal is to show something to people, with a question behind it or not.
Morgan Meyer : Bio-Art has a complex set of goals. The visible metaphor is obviously very important. But what I think is that the role of the artist is not only to produce something aesthetic but also to create debate, to raise questions, and to see the biologist in a different light. It allows people to understand better, to enrich the debate and to be more interested in biology because in the end, biology is everywhere. Bio-Art has also the power of popularization. It presents something complex such as synthetic biology with a visual work, sometimes easier to understand. It is an issue which has been raised a lot of times about scientific papers. These works are too difficult to be understood by everyone. Finally, the academic jargon is obscure and we always have to make it more accessible, simplify it without being simplistic.
Emmanuel Hirsch: Your goal is purely an aesthetic goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bio-Art takes part in society’s education showing what is possible.
What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?
Morgan Meyer : I do not think that I can answer to your question. But I can say that some rules and controls exist, especially with manipulations in a laboratory. Furthermore, if you are a researcher in a laboratory, you went through a training, you studied, you passed a PhD, and so I think that these persons are aware about risks and dangers. 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 Bichon: To my mind, using a bacteria in an artistic approach is almost the same as using it to produce medicines. Both of them have a goal but it is not the same. For the first one, you want to raise a specific 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.
Is there a hierarchy between organisms according to you? Is it the same to use bacteria or a rabbit?
Emmanuel 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 creates 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. You can identify yourself as the dog but not really as the bacteria. And there is a question of inheritance. If you modify these bacteria, has it an impact on future generations?
Morgan Meyer: For Humans, some laws and right exist. Then, humans have the ability to talk and to express feelings. We made some unethical experimentation until not so long ago. And nowadays, it is very difficult to do some experiments with humans (hopefully). However, for animals it is not the same. We can consider that they have some rights too, and currently some societies defend their rights. For bacteria, mushrooms and algae, 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 a living being?
Morgan Meyer: To my mind, there is a fundamental difference between inert matter which is stabilized and living matter which we know can change. Between the living 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.
Partick Saint-Jean and Dominique Sciamma: First, I think it is obvious that we need to know how to define living-being. Science exposes one kind of rules to answer to this question. With this rules we are able to classify something as living-being or not. Research’s goal is to question these rules, find new rules, adjust old rules. Because nature is changing, our definition of living-being has to change too. But to my mind, a modified bacteria is still alive and thus belongs to living-being.
Thérèse Bichon: It is a difficult question. I do not think I can answer 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 Meyer: I think that yes it does. We already talked 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 approximately 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?
Morgan Meyer: It is an interesting project. It is interesting to use bacteria in order to try to understand what a lemon is, its color, odor, living being? When you say to me « ceci n’est pas un citron”-this is not a lemon- it obviously reminds me Magritte’s work. It is a project that I believe is enough challenging and quite new. Then the main question which is wondering if it is still alive or if it is non-living, I think is a great question to ask. Your project is not only to create a bacteria-lemon, it is also to underline this question and bring clue about the ethical, philosophical, sociological and also cultural answers that this question is challenging. Finally, you create two things in the same time, a questioning and an artificial bacteria with the odor and color of the lemon. It reminds me that when I was in University, these questions interested me a lot: Is it real, artificial, natural? And I analyzed movies as « The Fly » or also « Jurassic Park”. Because I wondered if these dinosaurs were really natural as they where artificially produced from DNA found. I think with your project you really highlight all these issues, about the fact that synthetic biology blurs border between the living and the nonliving, the artificial and the natural, the real and the artificial.
Alexei Grinbaum : Your project is to recreate the exact copy of the “natural” lemon with bacteria. It will have the same exterior view and may have the same interior composition. Only with our simple view we cannot distinguish who is who. However, can we consider that these two lemon are the same? Yes, your project raise this question about the bounder between natural and artificial
Emmanuel Hirsch: It is very interesting to distinguish what you are doing, to say that you are participating in the education of society/social awareness by highlighting what is possible with Synthetic Biology. You intervene to say that there are new opportunities, but limited to an artistic/aesthetics aspect (odor, color, shape ...), in order to raise questions. It's a great ethical approach. This is a “limited” process that you define by yourself and that no one has forced you to do. Ethics do not impose anything because ethical reflection will always lag behind the scientific and technical progress."
