http://2014.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SylvieL&feed=atom&limit=50&target=SylvieL&year=&month=2014.igem.org - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T04:44:09ZFrom 2014.igem.orgMediaWiki 1.16.5http://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/EthicsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics2014-10-17T21:58:39Z<p>SylvieL: /* How did we answer? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Introduction=<br />
<br />
<br />
===Our concerns===<br />
<br />
Synthetic Biology in itself is a great source of philosophical and ethical issues. We were concerned about the right to act on nature and especially to modify it. But we discovered that synthetic biology was not created fifteen or ten years ago, it is a very old concept. Indeed, in the last century, our ancestors used crosses between species in order to improve the quality of the food, to increase the yield or also to “create” organisms more resistant to diseases. Thus, the modification of living-being is not a current subject. However, with the technical support in laboratory, synthetic biology can now go further, upsetting already ambiguous definition as living-being. (pas terminé)<br />
<br />
===How our project reflects our concerns===<br />
<br />
Our project reflects all the questions we were interesting in. We mimic, imitate the shape, odour, colours of a “natural lemon” with genetically modified bacteria. At first sight, our lemon and a “natural” lemon cannot be distinguished. However, can they be consider as identical? This aspect reveals '''the confused limits between natural and artificial, living-being or non-living being'''. Moreover, after further reflection, we can also emit the hypothesis that the “interior” of the lemon is the same: same taste, same nutritional quality. However, will you estimate it to be identical? '''Would you be ready to eat artificial food created and printed by a 3D printer?''' But is it really artificial? Finally, the use of bioart allow us to raise some questions about the''' concept of art, the link between art and science and to underline question as the right to use living organisms and to modify t hemfor an artistical purpose'''.<br />
<br />
===How did we explore these questions?===<br />
We explored these questions through essay, survey, discussion and also interviews. We tried to ask as many person as we can, coming from very diverse backgrounds (ethicists, scientists, sociologists, artists and designers). The philosophical and historical traits were analysed in an essay. We pursued and improved the analysis of the living-being definition by developing the scientific, sociological and cultural aspects of it. One survey was carried out the international population of iGEMers as subjects in order to collect a maximum of point-of-views and we tried to find trends about the opinion of the iGEM community on these subjects. A debate with French iGEMers was also organised in order to deepen our reflection. Finally, because we chose a lemon to reflect our questionning, we also explored the potential impact of synthetic biology on the food that will be eaten in the future.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/EthicsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics2014-10-17T21:42:02Z<p>SylvieL: /* How our project reflects our concerns */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Introduction=<br />
<br />
<br />
===Our concerns===<br />
<br />
Synthetic Biology in itself is a great source of philosophical and ethical issues. We were concerned about the right to act on nature and especially to modify it. But we discovered that synthetic biology was not created fifteen or ten years ago, it is a very old concept. Indeed, in the last century, our ancestors used crosses between species in order to improve the quality of the food, to increase the yield or also to “create” organisms more resistant to diseases. Thus, the modification of living-being is not a current subject. However, with the technical support in laboratory, synthetic biology can now go further, upsetting already ambiguous definition as living-being. (pas terminé)<br />
<br />
===How our project reflects our concerns===<br />
<br />
Our project reflects all the questions we were interesting in. We mimic, imitate the shape, odour, colours of a “natural lemon” with genetically modified bacteria. At first sight, our lemon and a “natural” lemon cannot be distinguished. However, can they be consider as identical? This aspect reveals '''the confused limits between natural and artificial, living-being or non-living being'''. Moreover, after further reflection, we can also emit the hypothesis that the “interior” of the lemon is the same: same taste, same nutritional quality. However, will you estimate it to be identical? '''Would you be ready to eat artificial food created and printed by a 3D printer?''' But is it really artificial? Finally, the use of bioart allow us to raise some questions about the''' concept of art, the link between art and science and to underline question as the right to use living organisms and to modify t hemfor an artistical purpose'''.<br />
<br />
===How did we answer?===<br />
We answered to these question through essay, survey, discussion or also interviews. We tried to ask as many person as we can, coming from very diverse areas (ethics, scientists, sociologists, artists and designers), and different ages. The philosophical and historical traits was analysed in an essay and tried to made an overview of the answers for years and concepts. We pursued and improve the analysis of the living-being definition developing scientific, sociologic and cultural aspects. One survey was made in an international polupation of iGEMers in order to collect a maximum of point-of-view and generalised what is thinking about this subject in the iGEM community. A debate with French iGEMers was also performed in order to share a deeper reflexion. Finally, we had a reflexion of what the future food could be.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/EthicsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics2014-10-17T21:37:50Z<p>SylvieL: /* Our concerns */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Introduction=<br />
<br />
<br />
===Our concerns===<br />
<br />
Synthetic Biology in itself is a great source of philosophical and ethical issues. We were concerned about the right to act on nature and especially to modify it. But we discovered that synthetic biology was not created fifteen or ten years ago, it is a very old concept. Indeed, in the last century, our ancestors used crosses between species in order to improve the quality of the food, to increase the yield or also to “create” organisms more resistant to diseases. Thus, the modification of living-being is not a current subject. However, with the technical support in laboratory, synthetic biology can now go further, upsetting already ambiguous definition as living-being. (pas terminé)<br />
<br />
===How our project reflects our concerns===<br />
<br />
Our project reflects all questions we are interesting in. We mimic, imitate the shape, odour, colours of a “natural lemon” with genetically modified bacteria. By comparing the exterior view of our lemon and a “natural” lemon, nothing can distinguish the two. However, can they be consider equal? This aspect reveals '''the confused limits between natural and artificial, living-being or non-living being'''. Moreover, after further reflexion, we can also emit the hypothesis that the “interior” of the lemon is the same: same taste, same nutritional quality. However, will you estimate it to be identical? '''Would you be ready to eat artificial food created and printed by a 3D printer?''' But is it really artificial? Finally, the use of bioart allow us to raise some questions about the''' concept of art, the link between art and science and to underline question as the right to use living organism and to modify it for an artistical purpose'''. <br />
<br />
<br />
===How did we answer?===<br />
We answered to these question through essay, survey, discussion or also interviews. We tried to ask as many person as we can, coming from very diverse areas (ethics, scientists, sociologists, artists and designers), and different ages. The philosophical and historical traits was analysed in an essay and tried to made an overview of the answers for years and concepts. We pursued and improve the analysis of the living-being definition developing scientific, sociologic and cultural aspects. One survey was made in an international polupation of iGEMers in order to collect a maximum of point-of-view and generalised what is thinking about this subject in the iGEM community. A debate with French iGEMers was also performed in order to share a deeper reflexion. Finally, we had a reflexion of what the future food could be.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/SurveyTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Survey2014-10-17T21:33:53Z<p>SylvieL: /* Opinions of some iGEMers */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Survey=<br />
<br />
<br />
==Opinions of some iGEMers==<br />
We conducted a survey on the concepts of living and bioart, inviting the iGEMers to participate in our reflection. <br />
Questions are made so as to bring out the nuances there may be on the boundary between living and machines 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
On the border between "Living" and "Machine", the results are more difficult to apprehend. We first focus on the two following issues:<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?''<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Machine ~~> Living===<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
By submitting this question to iGEMers, there has been 35% of NO against 16% 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."''<br />
<br />
===Living ~~> Machine===<br />
<br />
The opposite approach seems more perilous. Reduce the capacities of decision of a living organism, alter its natural functioning that is disrupt internal interactions of the systems which compose it, to "reprogram" it in a way, leads to a "new" organism which would act as a "machine".<br />
<br />
Extreme responses were lowered, giving 27% for NO against 7% 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."''<br />
<br />
<br />
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"''.<br />
<br />
<br />
===The breakout of the borderline===<br />
<br />
Let's turn to the central issue: does the distinction between "living" and "Machine" remain ? <br />
<br />
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 ethic questions! <br />
<br />
However, a more striking observation on the data relative to the two last questions, 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."''<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already done synthetic biology before iGEM?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already heard of bioart ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/26/Paris_Saclay_survey2.png"><br />
<figcaption> 28% of YES and 72% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/84/Paris_Saclay_survey7.png"><br />
<figcaption> 61% of YES and 39% of NO </figcaption> <br />
</figure> <br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<table> <br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), <br />
that could learn </br> or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, <br />
it will turn into a machine ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/05/Paris_Saclay_survey3.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:30% | 2:5% | 3:14% | 4:6% | 5:6% | 6:5% | 7:4% | 8:14% | 9:4% | 10:12% |<br />
</figcaption> <br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/d/d0/Paris_Saclay_survey4.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:20% | 2:7% | 3:14% | 4:8% | 5:16% | 6:8% | 7:8% | 8:10% | 9:1% | 10:6% <br />
</figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
With the iGEM experience, do you think that the boundary between<br />
living beings and machines is broken ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
In general, do you think that synthetic biology transforms our vision of living beings ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/a/ad/Paris_Saclay_survey5.png"><br />
<figcaption> 23% of YES and 77% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/b1/Paris_Saclay_survey6.png"><br />
<figcaption> 63% of YES and 37% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "3"><br />
Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan ="2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I do not believe that interspecies gene transfer makes a machine.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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).<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's hard to imagine a living thing acting like a machine ....<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
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'.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
===On the use of living beings in an artistic purpose===<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?''<br />
*''Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?''<br />
*''Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?''<br />
<br />
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)"'').<br />
<br />
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."''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The score remains above 50%, reflecting relatively positive opinions. Let's finish with this beautiful exemple of the 'collaboration' between art and science : <br />
''"The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/34/Paris_Saclay_survey8.png"><br />
<figcaption> 93% of YES and 7% of NO <figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/4/4e/Paris_Saclay_survey9.png"><br />
<figcaption> 77% of YES and 23% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/2b/Paris_Saclay_survey10.png"><br />
<figcaption> 69% of YES and 31% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think using bacteria is fine, but using stuffed animals for example is not<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Anything with a brain shouldn't be used in art - they might feel pain<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I have a pretty low opinion of art so maybe my opinions are biased.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think you can make engineered butterflies to be even more beautiful !<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I only agree in using lower organisms like fungi and bacteria for bioart.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's fine with bacteria but its a different matter with higher beings.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations. Nor ancient nor innaceptable.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Transforming higher living creatures for art should be subject to ethics review<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing).<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You can share your opinions too in this following [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Pb71Tu3RjWq5rcHf-GwxIOVB3DL_OM8PCr1z_wNwFKA/viewform?usp=send_form link survey].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Events/CuriositasTeam:Paris Saclay/Outreach/Events/Curiositas2014-10-17T20:54:18Z<p>SylvieL: /* Curiositas */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/outreach_header}}<br />
=Curiositas=<br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
Curiositas, held in Orsay, was an art and science festival that took place on October 4th to 9th. During a dynamic and constructive debate about bioart and bioethics, our team talked with Marion Laval-Jeantet, artist and promoter of the festival, the Parisian iGEM teams (Paris Bettencourt and Evry teams) and the audience. The debate was facilitated by a mediator, Alexandre Peluffo, biologist and ethics student.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_curiositas2.JPG|200px|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Every IGEM team described their projects and Marion Laval-Jeantet went back over her artistic project : she has injected herself with horse blood plasma. The ultimate goal was to explore trans-species relationships: the project was more artistic and sentiment-oriented than purely scientific. Initially, the blood came from a panda to have a critically endangered species in her body, but it was controversial because all panda related projects require the authorization of the Chinese government. The theoretical part was done in a French lab to purify horse blood and separate all immunoglobulins. She prepared her body to accept different horse immunoglobulins over the course of several months before the real injection of horse blood plasma. This in vivo part cannot be made in France, because the European Union has a strong legislation on experiments using animal-based products in human medicine and other areas like art, this part was made in Switzerland. This project was a success and this experiment provided data for many studies on immunoglobulin use in medicine.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the questions of the debate was the definition of life. The subject was introduced by a quote from biologist François Jacob "There is no life in labs". This definition is the center of artistic work, Marion Laval-Jeantet said, and different artists' visions create different definitions. Other views of our ethic reflection were brought up, which allowed us to collect complementary viewpoints from different participants and from the public's questions.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay curiostias3.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Events/CuriositasTeam:Paris Saclay/Outreach/Events/Curiositas2014-10-17T20:52:14Z<p>SylvieL: /* Curiositas */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/outreach_header}}<br />
=Curiositas=<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Curiositas, held in Orsay, was an art and science festival that took place on October 4th to 9th. During a dynamic and constructive debate about bioart and bioethics, our team talked with Marion Laval-Jeantet, artist and promoter of the festival, the Parisian iGEM teams (Paris Bettencourt and Evry teams) and the audience. The debate was facilitated by a mediator, Alexandre Peluffo, biologist and ethics student.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_curiositas2.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Every IGEM team described their projects and Marion Laval-Jeantet went back over her artistic project : she has injected herself with horse blood plasma. The ultimate goal was to explore trans-species relationships: the project was more artistic and sentiment-oriented than purely scientific. Initially, the blood came from a panda to have a critically endangered species in her body, but it was controversial because all panda related projects require the authorization of the Chinese government. The theoretical part was done in a French lab to purify horse blood and separate all immunoglobulins. She prepared her body to accept different horse immunoglobulins over the course of several months before the real injection of horse blood plasma. This in vivo part cannot be made in France, because the European Union has a strong legislation on experiments using animal-based products in human medicine and other areas like art, this part was made in Switzerland. This project was a success and this experiment provided data for many studies on immunoglobulin use in medicine.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the questions of the debate was the definition of life. The subject was introduced by a quote from biologist François Jacob "There is no life in labs". This definition is the center of artistic work, Marion Laval-Jeantet said, and different artists' visions create different definitions. Other views of our ethic reflection were brought up, which allowed us to collect complementary viewpoints from different participants and from the public's questions.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay curiostias3.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Events/CuriositasTeam:Paris Saclay/Outreach/Events/Curiositas2014-10-17T20:49:48Z<p>SylvieL: /* Curiositas */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/outreach_header}}<br />
=Curiositas=<br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Curiositas, held in Orsay, was an art and science festival that took place on October 4th to 9th. During a dynamic and constructive debate about bioart and bioethics, our team talked with Marion Laval-Jeantet, artist and promoter of the festival, the Parisian iGEM teams (Paris Bettencourt and Evry teams) and the audience. The debate was facilitated by a mediator, Alexandre Peluffo, biologist and ethics student.<br />
<br />
<br />
Every IGEM team described their projects and Marion Laval-Jeantet went back over her artistic project : she has injected herself with horse blood plasma. The ultimate goal was to explore trans-species relationships: the project was more artistic and sentiment-oriented than purely scientific. Initially, the blood came from a panda to have a critically endangered species in her body, but it was controversial because all panda realted projects require the authorization of the Chinese government. The theoretical part was done in a French lab to purify horse blood and separate all immunoglobulins. She prepared her body to accept different horse immunoglobulins over the course of several months before the real injection of horse blood plasma. This in vivo part can't be made in France, because the European Union has a strong legislation on experiments using animal-based products in human medicine and other areas like art, this part was made in Switzerland. This project was a success and this experiment provided data for many studies on immunoglobulin use in medicine.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the questions of the debate was the definition of life. The subject was introduced by a quote from biologist François Jacob "There is no life in labs". This definition is the center of artistic work, Marion Laval-Jeantet said, and different artists' visions create different definitions.Other views of our ethic reflection were brought up, which allowed us to collect complementary viewpoints from different participants and from the public's questions.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay curiostias3.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Inspirations/VanityTeam:Paris Saclay/Project/Inspirations/Vanity2014-10-17T19:31:28Z<p>SylvieL: /* From the definition of living being to the place of Humans in the universe. */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/project_header}}<br />
<br />
=Vanity: Speech about the place of Humans in the universe=<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===The Dutch golden age painting===<br />
took place during the XVII century. By this time, the united-provinces were the most prosperous nation of Europe due to their strong economy, art and sciences dynamics.<br />
Although the Dutch golden age painting is part of the baroque tradition, it can be distinguished by its own specificities such as the apparition and the development of several new kinds of pictorials.<br />
<br />
===Influences of the Reform===<br />
North of Europe was facing the protestant reform, which saw idolatry in the cult of Saints and the Virgin. Thus, some leaders of the movement, such as Jean Calvi, did not hesitate to promote the destruction of religious images that were considered to be pegan heresy. In this context, vanities replaced human representations by everyday objects that were used to support the new religious morality. Paintings of “modest” size appeared to support forms of devotion that were far from the splendor of the Catholic Church: the finitude of man, the fragility of its existence and its assets are all themes dear to this troubled time.<br />
<br />
===Antique origins of Vanity…===<br />
Often wrongly associated to a particular type of still-life, Vanity is closer to a meditation theme rather than a type of pictorials. Thus, in Greek antiquity, Vanity was studied in philosophy, literature or painting. The millenary problem of the place of humans in the universe traveled through centuries, taking the form of compositions, assays, “trompe l’oeil” or genre scenes. <br />
In terms of philosophy, Stoics developed a thorough reflexion about the fugacity of terrestrial goods. They distinguish “lent” things (life, material properties, beauty …) to those that are “given” (willingness, reason …). There is no doubt that this heritage has been transmitted by the Humanist movement during the Renaissance, and strongly inspired painting of Vanity in Europe.<br />
<br />
=== … And a biblical origin===<br />
The Vanity theme also originates from an episode of the Bible (Ecclesiates), as shown in this quote: “Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities; all is vanity”. Here, Qoheleth, son of David and king of Jerusalem, asks himself about the meaning of life. “There is no remembrance of past things; nor even for those of the future: they will not be remembered by those who will come later”. Furthermore, the Hebraic word of Vanity literally means “light vapor or ephemeral breathe”. Thus, vanities invite us to meditate about the ephemeral and vain (hence Vanity) nature of human life that faces an unavoidable death.<br />
<br />
====Pieter Claesz, Nature morte avec huitre (1633)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Nature.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 38x53 cm, Staatliche<br />
Junstsammlungen, Kassel<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Vanity===<br />
Vanity uses symbols (such as skulls, candles, sandglass …) to highlight the transient character of human life, together with the fragility of terrestrial goods. As we previously mentioned, vanities are part of a long Greek-Roman tradition. However, this theme has been extensively developed during the first half of the XVII century. By evoking the place of humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones. The aim is to meditate about the fact that pleasures are useless in regard of death that awaits.<br />
From 1620 to 1630, the dominant representation of still-life remains the « monochrome breakfast ». There is a limited amount of items, positioned under a diagonal light beam in a gray atmosphere. (Pieter Claesz and Willem Claesz Heda). In the second half of the XVII century, colors became more vivid and compositions more complex. For example, this evolution can be seen in Nicolaes Van Veerenael artwork.<br />
<br />
====Nicolaes Van Veerenael, Vanité (1680)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanity_2.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 34x46 cm, musée des beaux arts<br />
de Caen<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
==Presentation of the artwork==<br />
This painting was achieved in 1630 in Mauristhuis (La Haye) by a Dutch painter named Pieter Claesz (1597-1661). It represents Vanity- Still life and measures 39.5 × 56 cm (oil on canvas).<br />
<br />
==Description of the painting==<br />
We can see a table on which several distinct objects are dispatched: a book, a burnt candle, a skull, a bone (probably a femur), a pen and an inkwell. The painter used a quasi- monochromatic color palette, conferring an austere and ephemeral atmosphere to the painting, as do the smokes escaping from the candlestick. The painter offers a lateral point of view of the scene, ensuring that the spectator does not crosses the gaze of the skull. The glass is represented lying between the book and the table. The ribbon, to which a key is attached at the tip, seems to be retained on the table only by the presence of the inkwell. Finally, the pen is in equilibrium on a used parchment. All together this staging confers tension to the composition.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
“By evoking the place of Humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones.”<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Analysis of the artwork==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Symbolism===<br />
Typically, this painting is part of the monochrome movement of the beginning of XVII century and thus presents some distinct aspects of Vanity genre:<br />
* bones (skull and femur) directly refer to Death and to the time that goes by,<br />
* the candlestick and the totally burnt candle suggest that all is over,<br />
* the glass suggests the fragility and the futility of human life,<br />
* the book and the pen represent a vanity as they refer to knowledge that diverts humans from God.<br />
* The inkwell, as a terrestrial good, reminds us that every property is ephemeral and vain compared to Death and the divine Word.<br />
<br />
===Composition===<br />
The way the light has been used is remarkable as while shaping objects, it also seems to indicate the spectator a “reading” direction. Indeed, we can see that most items are oriented toward the left and faces the light beam: the glass falls toward the left, the skull “looks” toward the left, the key falls toward the left and the pen tip is oriented toward the left … The painter seems to place the spectator in an observation role. We are also part of the painting as the painter link the spectator to this scene by creating a path.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Vanity theme is neither about death or life but rather about the transition from one to the other through time. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Between fascination and repulsion, vanities cultivate the art of ambivalence. Indeed, the interesting paradox of this painting genre consists in that the painting immortalizes the beauty of the world while denigrating it and underlying its fugacity.<br />
<br />
==Why vanity?==<br />
<br />
===From the definition of living being to the place of Humans in the universe.===<br />
As we previously mentioned, Vanity evoke the place of humans in the universe, the transience of human existence and the fragility of terrestrial goods. This reflection is linked to our effort of defining the living.<br />
<br />
« For Descartes, there are man-made machines, and life, the machines made by God whose are, in the quote above : ''incomparably better arranged, and adequate to movements more admirable than is any machine of human invention''.»<br />
« The definition of life by entropy is significantly later, but it occurs before the birth of the fathers of thermodynamics and evolution in organisms, Ludvig Boltzmann(1844-1906) and Charles Darwin(1809-1882), in Marie François Xavier Bichat(1771-1802). The latter, sometimes regarded as a vitalist (something Foucault refuses), consider life as mysterious principle which fight against an inert environment. He describe life by : « All the forces that fight against death ».<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Leïla''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Completed text.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review Alice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Inspirations/VanityTeam:Paris Saclay/Project/Inspirations/Vanity2014-10-17T19:30:43Z<p>SylvieL: /* Vanity */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/project_header}}<br />
<br />
=Vanity: Speech about the place of Humans in the universe=<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===The Dutch golden age painting===<br />
took place during the XVII century. By this time, the united-provinces were the most prosperous nation of Europe due to their strong economy, art and sciences dynamics.<br />
Although the Dutch golden age painting is part of the baroque tradition, it can be distinguished by its own specificities such as the apparition and the development of several new kinds of pictorials.<br />
<br />
===Influences of the Reform===<br />
North of Europe was facing the protestant reform, which saw idolatry in the cult of Saints and the Virgin. Thus, some leaders of the movement, such as Jean Calvi, did not hesitate to promote the destruction of religious images that were considered to be pegan heresy. In this context, vanities replaced human representations by everyday objects that were used to support the new religious morality. Paintings of “modest” size appeared to support forms of devotion that were far from the splendor of the Catholic Church: the finitude of man, the fragility of its existence and its assets are all themes dear to this troubled time.<br />
<br />
===Antique origins of Vanity…===<br />
Often wrongly associated to a particular type of still-life, Vanity is closer to a meditation theme rather than a type of pictorials. Thus, in Greek antiquity, Vanity was studied in philosophy, literature or painting. The millenary problem of the place of humans in the universe traveled through centuries, taking the form of compositions, assays, “trompe l’oeil” or genre scenes. <br />
In terms of philosophy, Stoics developed a thorough reflexion about the fugacity of terrestrial goods. They distinguish “lent” things (life, material properties, beauty …) to those that are “given” (willingness, reason …). There is no doubt that this heritage has been transmitted by the Humanist movement during the Renaissance, and strongly inspired painting of Vanity in Europe.<br />
<br />
=== … And a biblical origin===<br />
The Vanity theme also originates from an episode of the Bible (Ecclesiates), as shown in this quote: “Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities; all is vanity”. Here, Qoheleth, son of David and king of Jerusalem, asks himself about the meaning of life. “There is no remembrance of past things; nor even for those of the future: they will not be remembered by those who will come later”. Furthermore, the Hebraic word of Vanity literally means “light vapor or ephemeral breathe”. Thus, vanities invite us to meditate about the ephemeral and vain (hence Vanity) nature of human life that faces an unavoidable death.<br />
<br />
====Pieter Claesz, Nature morte avec huitre (1633)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Nature.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 38x53 cm, Staatliche<br />
Junstsammlungen, Kassel<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Vanity===<br />
Vanity uses symbols (such as skulls, candles, sandglass …) to highlight the transient character of human life, together with the fragility of terrestrial goods. As we previously mentioned, vanities are part of a long Greek-Roman tradition. However, this theme has been extensively developed during the first half of the XVII century. By evoking the place of humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones. The aim is to meditate about the fact that pleasures are useless in regard of death that awaits.<br />
From 1620 to 1630, the dominant representation of still-life remains the « monochrome breakfast ». There is a limited amount of items, positioned under a diagonal light beam in a gray atmosphere. (Pieter Claesz and Willem Claesz Heda). In the second half of the XVII century, colors became more vivid and compositions more complex. For example, this evolution can be seen in Nicolaes Van Veerenael artwork.<br />
<br />
====Nicolaes Van Veerenael, Vanité (1680)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanity_2.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 34x46 cm, musée des beaux arts<br />
de Caen<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
==Presentation of the artwork==<br />
This painting was achieved in 1630 in Mauristhuis (La Haye) by a Dutch painter named Pieter Claesz (1597-1661). It represents Vanity- Still life and measures 39.5 × 56 cm (oil on canvas).<br />
<br />
==Description of the painting==<br />
We can see a table on which several distinct objects are dispatched: a book, a burnt candle, a skull, a bone (probably a femur), a pen and an inkwell. The painter used a quasi- monochromatic color palette, conferring an austere and ephemeral atmosphere to the painting, as do the smokes escaping from the candlestick. The painter offers a lateral point of view of the scene, ensuring that the spectator does not crosses the gaze of the skull. The glass is represented lying between the book and the table. The ribbon, to which a key is attached at the tip, seems to be retained on the table only by the presence of the inkwell. Finally, the pen is in equilibrium on a used parchment. All together this staging confers tension to the composition.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
“By evoking the place of Humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones.”<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Analysis of the artwork==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Symbolism===<br />
Typically, this painting is part of the monochrome movement of the beginning of XVII century and thus presents some distinct aspects of Vanity genre:<br />
* bones (skull and femur) directly refer to Death and to the time that goes by,<br />
* the candlestick and the totally burnt candle suggest that all is over,<br />
* the glass suggests the fragility and the futility of human life,<br />
* the book and the pen represent a vanity as they refer to knowledge that diverts humans from God.<br />
* The inkwell, as a terrestrial good, reminds us that every property is ephemeral and vain compared to Death and the divine Word.<br />
<br />
===Composition===<br />
The way the light has been used is remarkable as while shaping objects, it also seems to indicate the spectator a “reading” direction. Indeed, we can see that most items are oriented toward the left and faces the light beam: the glass falls toward the left, the skull “looks” toward the left, the key falls toward the left and the pen tip is oriented toward the left … The painter seems to place the spectator in an observation role. We are also part of the painting as the painter link the spectator to this scene by creating a path.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Vanity theme is neither about death or life but rather about the transition from one to the other through time. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Between fascination and repulsion, vanities cultivate the art of ambivalence. Indeed, the interesting paradox of this painting genre consists in that the painting immortalizes the beauty of the world while denigrating it and underlying its fugacity.<br />
<br />
==Why vanity?==<br />
<br />
===From the definition of living being to the place of Humans in the universe.===<br />
As we previously mentioned, Vanity evoke the place of humans in the universe, the transience of human existence and the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. This reflection is linked to our effort of defining the living.<br />
<br />
« For Descartes, there are man-made machines, and life, the machines made by God whose are, in the quote above : ''incomparably better arranged, and adequate to movements more admirable than is any machine of human invention''.»<br />
« The definition of life by entropy is significantly later, but it occurs before the birth of the fathers of thermodynamics and evolution in organisms, Ludvig Boltzmann(1844-1906) and Charles Darwin(1809-1882), in Marie François Xavier Bichat(1771-1802). The latter, sometimes regarded as a vitalist (something Foucault refuses), consider life as mysterious principle which fight against an inert environment. He describe life by : « All the forces that fight against death ».<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Leïla''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Completed text.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review Alice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Inspirations/VanityTeam:Paris Saclay/Project/Inspirations/Vanity2014-10-17T19:30:11Z<p>SylvieL: /* Antique origins of Vanity… */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/project_header}}<br />
<br />
=Vanity: Speech about the place of Humans in the universe=<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===The Dutch golden age painting===<br />
took place during the XVII century. By this time, the united-provinces were the most prosperous nation of Europe due to their strong economy, art and sciences dynamics.<br />
Although the Dutch golden age painting is part of the baroque tradition, it can be distinguished by its own specificities such as the apparition and the development of several new kinds of pictorials.<br />
<br />
===Influences of the Reform===<br />
North of Europe was facing the protestant reform, which saw idolatry in the cult of Saints and the Virgin. Thus, some leaders of the movement, such as Jean Calvi, did not hesitate to promote the destruction of religious images that were considered to be pegan heresy. In this context, vanities replaced human representations by everyday objects that were used to support the new religious morality. Paintings of “modest” size appeared to support forms of devotion that were far from the splendor of the Catholic Church: the finitude of man, the fragility of its existence and its assets are all themes dear to this troubled time.<br />
<br />
===Antique origins of Vanity…===<br />
Often wrongly associated to a particular type of still-life, Vanity is closer to a meditation theme rather than a type of pictorials. Thus, in Greek antiquity, Vanity was studied in philosophy, literature or painting. The millenary problem of the place of humans in the universe traveled through centuries, taking the form of compositions, assays, “trompe l’oeil” or genre scenes. <br />
In terms of philosophy, Stoics developed a thorough reflexion about the fugacity of terrestrial goods. They distinguish “lent” things (life, material properties, beauty …) to those that are “given” (willingness, reason …). There is no doubt that this heritage has been transmitted by the Humanist movement during the Renaissance, and strongly inspired painting of Vanity in Europe.<br />
<br />
=== … And a biblical origin===<br />
The Vanity theme also originates from an episode of the Bible (Ecclesiates), as shown in this quote: “Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities; all is vanity”. Here, Qoheleth, son of David and king of Jerusalem, asks himself about the meaning of life. “There is no remembrance of past things; nor even for those of the future: they will not be remembered by those who will come later”. Furthermore, the Hebraic word of Vanity literally means “light vapor or ephemeral breathe”. Thus, vanities invite us to meditate about the ephemeral and vain (hence Vanity) nature of human life that faces an unavoidable death.<br />
<br />
====Pieter Claesz, Nature morte avec huitre (1633)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Nature.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 38x53 cm, Staatliche<br />
Junstsammlungen, Kassel<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Vanity===<br />
Vanity uses symbols (such as skulls, candles, sandglass …) to highlight the transient character of human life, together with the fragility of terrestrial goods. As we previously mentioned, vanities are part of a long Greek-Roman tradition. However, this theme has been extensively developed during the first half of the XVII century. By evoking the place of humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones. The aim is to meditate about the fact that pleasures are useless in regard of death that awaits.<br />
From 1620 to 1630, the dominant representation of still-life remains the « monochrome breakfast ». There is a limited amount of items, positioned under a diagonal light beam in a gray atmosphere/background. (Pieter Claesz and Willem Claesz Heda). In the second half of the XVII century, colors became more vivid and compositions more complex. For example, this evolution can be seen in Nicolaes Van Veerenael artwork.<br />
<br />
====Nicolaes Van Veerenael, Vanité (1680)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanity_2.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 34x46 cm, musée des beaux arts<br />
de Caen<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
==Presentation of the artwork==<br />
This painting was achieved in 1630 in Mauristhuis (La Haye) by a Dutch painter named Pieter Claesz (1597-1661). It represents Vanity- Still life and measures 39.5 × 56 cm (oil on canvas).<br />
<br />
==Description of the painting==<br />
We can see a table on which several distinct objects are dispatched: a book, a burnt candle, a skull, a bone (probably a femur), a pen and an inkwell. The painter used a quasi- monochromatic color palette, conferring an austere and ephemeral atmosphere to the painting, as do the smokes escaping from the candlestick. The painter offers a lateral point of view of the scene, ensuring that the spectator does not crosses the gaze of the skull. The glass is represented lying between the book and the table. The ribbon, to which a key is attached at the tip, seems to be retained on the table only by the presence of the inkwell. Finally, the pen is in equilibrium on a used parchment. All together this staging confers tension to the composition.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
“By evoking the place of Humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones.”<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Analysis of the artwork==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Symbolism===<br />
Typically, this painting is part of the monochrome movement of the beginning of XVII century and thus presents some distinct aspects of Vanity genre:<br />
* bones (skull and femur) directly refer to Death and to the time that goes by,<br />
* the candlestick and the totally burnt candle suggest that all is over,<br />
* the glass suggests the fragility and the futility of human life,<br />
* the book and the pen represent a vanity as they refer to knowledge that diverts humans from God.<br />
* The inkwell, as a terrestrial good, reminds us that every property is ephemeral and vain compared to Death and the divine Word.<br />
<br />
===Composition===<br />
The way the light has been used is remarkable as while shaping objects, it also seems to indicate the spectator a “reading” direction. Indeed, we can see that most items are oriented toward the left and faces the light beam: the glass falls toward the left, the skull “looks” toward the left, the key falls toward the left and the pen tip is oriented toward the left … The painter seems to place the spectator in an observation role. We are also part of the painting as the painter link the spectator to this scene by creating a path.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Vanity theme is neither about death or life but rather about the transition from one to the other through time. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Between fascination and repulsion, vanities cultivate the art of ambivalence. Indeed, the interesting paradox of this painting genre consists in that the painting immortalizes the beauty of the world while denigrating it and underlying its fugacity.<br />
<br />
==Why vanity?==<br />
<br />
===From the definition of living being to the place of Humans in the universe.===<br />
As we previously mentioned, Vanity evoke the place of humans in the universe, the transience of human existence and the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. This reflection is linked to our effort of defining the living.<br />
<br />
« For Descartes, there are man-made machines, and life, the machines made by God whose are, in the quote above : ''incomparably better arranged, and adequate to movements more admirable than is any machine of human invention''.»<br />
« The definition of life by entropy is significantly later, but it occurs before the birth of the fathers of thermodynamics and evolution in organisms, Ludvig Boltzmann(1844-1906) and Charles Darwin(1809-1882), in Marie François Xavier Bichat(1771-1802). The latter, sometimes regarded as a vitalist (something Foucault refuses), consider life as mysterious principle which fight against an inert environment. He describe life by : « All the forces that fight against death ».<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Leïla''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Completed text.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review Alice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Inspirations/VanityTeam:Paris Saclay/Project/Inspirations/Vanity2014-10-17T19:28:55Z<p>SylvieL: /* Vanity */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/project_header}}<br />
<br />
=Vanity: Speech about the place of Humans in the universe=<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===The Dutch golden age painting===<br />
took place during the XVII century. By this time, the united-provinces were the most prosperous nation of Europe due to their strong economy, art and sciences dynamics.<br />
Although the Dutch golden age painting is part of the baroque tradition, it can be distinguished by its own specificities such as the apparition and the development of several new kinds of pictorials.<br />
<br />
===Influences of the Reform===<br />
North of Europe was facing the protestant reform, which saw idolatry in the cult of Saints and the Virgin. Thus, some leaders of the movement, such as Jean Calvi, did not hesitate to promote the destruction of religious images that were considered to be pegan heresy. In this context, vanities replaced human representations by everyday objects that were used to support the new religious morality. Paintings of “modest” size appeared to support forms of devotion that were far from the splendor of the Catholic Church: the finitude of man, the fragility of its existence and its assets are all themes dear to this troubled time.<br />
<br />
===Antique origins of Vanity…===<br />
Often wrongly associated to a particular type of still-life, Vanity is closer to a meditation theme rather than a type of pictorials. Thus, in Greek antiquity, Vanity was studied in philosophy, literature or painting. The millenary problem of the place of humans in the universe traveled through centuries, taking the form of compositions, assays, “trompe l’oeil” or genre scenes. <br />
In terms of philosophy, Stoics developed a thorough reflexion about the fugacity of terrestrial goods/properties. They distinguish “lent” things (life, material properties, beauty …) to those that are “given” (willingness, reason …). There is no doubt that this heritage has been transmitted by the Humanist movement during the Renaissance, and strongly inspired painting of Vanity in Europe.<br />
<br />
=== … And a biblical origin===<br />
The Vanity theme also originates from an episode of the Bible (Ecclesiates), as shown in this quote: “Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities; all is vanity”. Here, Qoheleth, son of David and king of Jerusalem, asks himself about the meaning of life. “There is no remembrance of past things; nor even for those of the future: they will not be remembered by those who will come later”. Furthermore, the Hebraic word of Vanity literally means “light vapor or ephemeral breathe”. Thus, vanities invite us to meditate about the ephemeral and vain (hence Vanity) nature of human life that faces an unavoidable death.<br />
<br />
====Pieter Claesz, Nature morte avec huitre (1633)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Nature.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 38x53 cm, Staatliche<br />
Junstsammlungen, Kassel<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Vanity===<br />
Vanity uses symbols (such as skulls, candles, sandglass …) to highlight the transient character of human life, together with the fragility of terrestrial goods. As we previously mentioned, vanities are part of a long Greek-Roman tradition. However, this theme has been extensively developed during the first half of the XVII century. By evoking the place of humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones. The aim is to meditate about the fact that pleasures are useless in regard of death that awaits.<br />
From 1620 to 1630, the dominant representation of still-life remains the « monochrome breakfast ». There is a limited amount of items, positioned under a diagonal light beam in a gray atmosphere/background. (Pieter Claesz and Willem Claesz Heda). In the second half of the XVII century, colors became more vivid and compositions more complex. For example, this evolution can be seen in Nicolaes Van Veerenael artwork.<br />
<br />
====Nicolaes Van Veerenael, Vanité (1680)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanity_2.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 34x46 cm, musée des beaux arts<br />
de Caen<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
==Presentation of the artwork==<br />
This painting was achieved in 1630 in Mauristhuis (La Haye) by a Dutch painter named Pieter Claesz (1597-1661). It represents Vanity- Still life and measures 39.5 × 56 cm (oil on canvas).<br />
<br />
==Description of the painting==<br />
We can see a table on which several distinct objects are dispatched: a book, a burnt candle, a skull, a bone (probably a femur), a pen and an inkwell. The painter used a quasi- monochromatic color palette, conferring an austere and ephemeral atmosphere to the painting, as do the smokes escaping from the candlestick. The painter offers a lateral point of view of the scene, ensuring that the spectator does not crosses the gaze of the skull. The glass is represented lying between the book and the table. The ribbon, to which a key is attached at the tip, seems to be retained on the table only by the presence of the inkwell. Finally, the pen is in equilibrium on a used parchment. All together this staging confers tension to the composition.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
“By evoking the place of Humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones.”<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Analysis of the artwork==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Symbolism===<br />
Typically, this painting is part of the monochrome movement of the beginning of XVII century and thus presents some distinct aspects of Vanity genre:<br />
* bones (skull and femur) directly refer to Death and to the time that goes by,<br />
* the candlestick and the totally burnt candle suggest that all is over,<br />
* the glass suggests the fragility and the futility of human life,<br />
* the book and the pen represent a vanity as they refer to knowledge that diverts humans from God.<br />
* The inkwell, as a terrestrial good, reminds us that every property is ephemeral and vain compared to Death and the divine Word.<br />
<br />
===Composition===<br />
The way the light has been used is remarkable as while shaping objects, it also seems to indicate the spectator a “reading” direction. Indeed, we can see that most items are oriented toward the left and faces the light beam: the glass falls toward the left, the skull “looks” toward the left, the key falls toward the left and the pen tip is oriented toward the left … The painter seems to place the spectator in an observation role. We are also part of the painting as the painter link the spectator to this scene by creating a path.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Vanity theme is neither about death or life but rather about the transition from one to the other through time. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Between fascination and repulsion, vanities cultivate the art of ambivalence. Indeed, the interesting paradox of this painting genre consists in that the painting immortalizes the beauty of the world while denigrating it and underlying its fugacity.<br />
<br />
==Why vanity?==<br />
<br />
===From the definition of living being to the place of Humans in the universe.===<br />
As we previously mentioned, Vanity evoke the place of humans in the universe, the transience of human existence and the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. This reflection is linked to our effort of defining the living.<br />
<br />
« For Descartes, there are man-made machines, and life, the machines made by God whose are, in the quote above : ''incomparably better arranged, and adequate to movements more admirable than is any machine of human invention''.»<br />
« The definition of life by entropy is significantly later, but it occurs before the birth of the fathers of thermodynamics and evolution in organisms, Ludvig Boltzmann(1844-1906) and Charles Darwin(1809-1882), in Marie François Xavier Bichat(1771-1802). The latter, sometimes regarded as a vitalist (something Foucault refuses), consider life as mysterious principle which fight against an inert environment. He describe life by : « All the forces that fight against death ».<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Leïla''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Completed text.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review Alice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Inspirations/VanityTeam:Paris Saclay/Project/Inspirations/Vanity2014-10-17T19:28:15Z<p>SylvieL: /* Description of the painting */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/project_header}}<br />
<br />
=Vanity: Speech about the place of Humans in the universe=<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===The Dutch golden age painting===<br />
took place during the XVII century. By this time, the united-provinces were the most prosperous nation of Europe due to their strong economy, art and sciences dynamics.<br />
Although the Dutch golden age painting is part of the baroque tradition, it can be distinguished by its own specificities such as the apparition and the development of several new kinds of pictorials.<br />
<br />
===Influences of the Reform===<br />
North of Europe was facing the protestant reform, which saw idolatry in the cult of Saints and the Virgin. Thus, some leaders of the movement, such as Jean Calvi, did not hesitate to promote the destruction of religious images that were considered to be pegan heresy. In this context, vanities replaced human representations by everyday objects that were used to support the new religious morality. Paintings of “modest” size appeared to support forms of devotion that were far from the splendor of the Catholic Church: the finitude of man, the fragility of its existence and its assets are all themes dear to this troubled time.<br />
<br />
===Antique origins of Vanity…===<br />
Often wrongly associated to a particular type of still-life, Vanity is closer to a meditation theme rather than a type of pictorials. Thus, in Greek antiquity, Vanity was studied in philosophy, literature or painting. The millenary problem of the place of humans in the universe traveled through centuries, taking the form of compositions, assays, “trompe l’oeil” or genre scenes. <br />
In terms of philosophy, Stoics developed a thorough reflexion about the fugacity of terrestrial goods/properties. They distinguish “lent” things (life, material properties, beauty …) to those that are “given” (willingness, reason …). There is no doubt that this heritage has been transmitted by the Humanist movement during the Renaissance, and strongly inspired painting of Vanity in Europe.<br />
<br />
=== … And a biblical origin===<br />
The Vanity theme also originates from an episode of the Bible (Ecclesiates), as shown in this quote: “Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities; all is vanity”. Here, Qoheleth, son of David and king of Jerusalem, asks himself about the meaning of life. “There is no remembrance of past things; nor even for those of the future: they will not be remembered by those who will come later”. Furthermore, the Hebraic word of Vanity literally means “light vapor or ephemeral breathe”. Thus, vanities invite us to meditate about the ephemeral and vain (hence Vanity) nature of human life that faces an unavoidable death.<br />
<br />
====Pieter Claesz, Nature morte avec huitre (1633)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Nature.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 38x53 cm, Staatliche<br />
Junstsammlungen, Kassel<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Vanity===<br />
Vanity uses symbols (such as skulls, candles, sandglass …) to highlight the transient character of human life, together with the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. As we previously mentioned, vanities are part of a long Greek-Roman tradition. However, this theme has been extensively developed during the first half of the XVII century. By evoking the place of humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones. The aim is to meditate about the fact that pleasures are useless in regard of death that awaits.<br />
From 1620 to1630, the dominant representation of still-life remains the « monochrome breakfast ». There is a limited amount of items, positioned under a diagonal light beam in a gray atmosphere/background. (Pieter Claesz and Willem Claesz Heda). In the second half of the XVII century, colors became more vivid and compositions more complex. For example, this evolution can be seen in Nicolaes Van Veerenael artwork.<br />
<br />
====Nicolaes Van Veerenael, Vanité (1680)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanity_2.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 34x46 cm, musée des beaux arts<br />
de Caen<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
==Presentation of the artwork==<br />
This painting was achieved in 1630 in Mauristhuis (La Haye) by a Dutch painter named Pieter Claesz (1597-1661). It represents Vanity- Still life and measures 39.5 × 56 cm (oil on canvas).<br />
<br />
==Description of the painting==<br />
We can see a table on which several distinct objects are dispatched: a book, a burnt candle, a skull, a bone (probably a femur), a pen and an inkwell. The painter used a quasi- monochromatic color palette, conferring an austere and ephemeral atmosphere to the painting, as do the smokes escaping from the candlestick. The painter offers a lateral point of view of the scene, ensuring that the spectator does not crosses the gaze of the skull. The glass is represented lying between the book and the table. The ribbon, to which a key is attached at the tip, seems to be retained on the table only by the presence of the inkwell. Finally, the pen is in equilibrium on a used parchment. All together this staging confers tension to the composition.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
“By evoking the place of Humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones.”<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Analysis of the artwork==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Symbolism===<br />
Typically, this painting is part of the monochrome movement of the beginning of XVII century and thus presents some distinct aspects of Vanity genre:<br />
* bones (skull and femur) directly refer to Death and to the time that goes by,<br />
* the candlestick and the totally burnt candle suggest that all is over,<br />
* the glass suggests the fragility and the futility of human life,<br />
* the book and the pen represent a vanity as they refer to knowledge that diverts humans from God.<br />
* The inkwell, as a terrestrial good, reminds us that every property is ephemeral and vain compared to Death and the divine Word.<br />
<br />
===Composition===<br />
The way the light has been used is remarkable as while shaping objects, it also seems to indicate the spectator a “reading” direction. Indeed, we can see that most items are oriented toward the left and faces the light beam: the glass falls toward the left, the skull “looks” toward the left, the key falls toward the left and the pen tip is oriented toward the left … The painter seems to place the spectator in an observation role. We are also part of the painting as the painter link the spectator to this scene by creating a path.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Vanity theme is neither about death or life but rather about the transition from one to the other through time. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Between fascination and repulsion, vanities cultivate the art of ambivalence. Indeed, the interesting paradox of this painting genre consists in that the painting immortalizes the beauty of the world while denigrating it and underlying its fugacity.<br />
<br />
==Why vanity?==<br />
<br />
===From the definition of living being to the place of Humans in the universe.===<br />
As we previously mentioned, Vanity evoke the place of humans in the universe, the transience of human existence and the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. This reflection is linked to our effort of defining the living.<br />
<br />
« For Descartes, there are man-made machines, and life, the machines made by God whose are, in the quote above : ''incomparably better arranged, and adequate to movements more admirable than is any machine of human invention''.»<br />
« The definition of life by entropy is significantly later, but it occurs before the birth of the fathers of thermodynamics and evolution in organisms, Ludvig Boltzmann(1844-1906) and Charles Darwin(1809-1882), in Marie François Xavier Bichat(1771-1802). The latter, sometimes regarded as a vitalist (something Foucault refuses), consider life as mysterious principle which fight against an inert environment. He describe life by : « All the forces that fight against death ».<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Leïla''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Completed text.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review Alice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Inspirations/VanityTeam:Paris Saclay/Project/Inspirations/Vanity2014-10-17T19:27:46Z<p>SylvieL: /* Symbolism */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/project_header}}<br />
<br />
=Vanity: Speech about the place of Humans in the universe=<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===The Dutch golden age painting===<br />
took place during the XVII century. By this time, the united-provinces were the most prosperous nation of Europe due to their strong economy, art and sciences dynamics.<br />
Although the Dutch golden age painting is part of the baroque tradition, it can be distinguished by its own specificities such as the apparition and the development of several new kinds of pictorials.<br />
<br />
===Influences of the Reform===<br />
North of Europe was facing the protestant reform, which saw idolatry in the cult of Saints and the Virgin. Thus, some leaders of the movement, such as Jean Calvi, did not hesitate to promote the destruction of religious images that were considered to be pegan heresy. In this context, vanities replaced human representations by everyday objects that were used to support the new religious morality. Paintings of “modest” size appeared to support forms of devotion that were far from the splendor of the Catholic Church: the finitude of man, the fragility of its existence and its assets are all themes dear to this troubled time.<br />
<br />
===Antique origins of Vanity…===<br />
Often wrongly associated to a particular type of still-life, Vanity is closer to a meditation theme rather than a type of pictorials. Thus, in Greek antiquity, Vanity was studied in philosophy, literature or painting. The millenary problem of the place of humans in the universe traveled through centuries, taking the form of compositions, assays, “trompe l’oeil” or genre scenes. <br />
In terms of philosophy, Stoics developed a thorough reflexion about the fugacity of terrestrial goods/properties. They distinguish “lent” things (life, material properties, beauty …) to those that are “given” (willingness, reason …). There is no doubt that this heritage has been transmitted by the Humanist movement during the Renaissance, and strongly inspired painting of Vanity in Europe.<br />
<br />
=== … And a biblical origin===<br />
The Vanity theme also originates from an episode of the Bible (Ecclesiates), as shown in this quote: “Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities; all is vanity”. Here, Qoheleth, son of David and king of Jerusalem, asks himself about the meaning of life. “There is no remembrance of past things; nor even for those of the future: they will not be remembered by those who will come later”. Furthermore, the Hebraic word of Vanity literally means “light vapor or ephemeral breathe”. Thus, vanities invite us to meditate about the ephemeral and vain (hence Vanity) nature of human life that faces an unavoidable death.<br />
<br />
====Pieter Claesz, Nature morte avec huitre (1633)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Nature.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 38x53 cm, Staatliche<br />
Junstsammlungen, Kassel<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Vanity===<br />
Vanity uses symbols (such as skulls, candles, sandglass …) to highlight the transient character of human life, together with the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. As we previously mentioned, vanities are part of a long Greek-Roman tradition. However, this theme has been extensively developed during the first half of the XVII century. By evoking the place of humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones. The aim is to meditate about the fact that pleasures are useless in regard of death that awaits.<br />
From 1620 to1630, the dominant representation of still-life remains the « monochrome breakfast ». There is a limited amount of items, positioned under a diagonal light beam in a gray atmosphere/background. (Pieter Claesz and Willem Claesz Heda). In the second half of the XVII century, colors became more vivid and compositions more complex. For example, this evolution can be seen in Nicolaes Van Veerenael artwork.<br />
<br />
====Nicolaes Van Veerenael, Vanité (1680)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanity_2.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 34x46 cm, musée des beaux arts<br />
de Caen<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
==Presentation of the artwork==<br />
This painting was achieved in 1630 in Mauristhuis (La Haye) by a Dutch painter named Pieter Claesz (1597-1661). It represents Vanity- Still life and measures 39.5 × 56 cm (oil on canvas).<br />
<br />
==Description of the painting==<br />
We can see a table on which several distinct objects are dispatched: a book, a burnt candle, a skull, a bone (probably a femur), a pen and an inkwell. The painter used a quasi- monochromatic color palette, conferring an austere and ephemeral atmosphere to the painting, as do the smokes escaping from the candlestick. The painter offers a lateral point of view of the scene, ensuring that the spectator does not crosses the gaze/sight of the skull. The glass is represented lying between the book and the table. The ribbon, to which a key is attached at the tip, seems to be retained on the table only by the presence of the inkwell. Finally, the pen is in equilibrium on a used parchment. All together this staging confers tension to the composition.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
“By evoking the place of Humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones.”<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
==Analysis of the artwork==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Symbolism===<br />
Typically, this painting is part of the monochrome movement of the beginning of XVII century and thus presents some distinct aspects of Vanity genre:<br />
* bones (skull and femur) directly refer to Death and to the time that goes by,<br />
* the candlestick and the totally burnt candle suggest that all is over,<br />
* the glass suggests the fragility and the futility of human life,<br />
* the book and the pen represent a vanity as they refer to knowledge that diverts humans from God.<br />
* The inkwell, as a terrestrial good, reminds us that every property is ephemeral and vain compared to Death and the divine Word.<br />
<br />
===Composition===<br />
The way the light has been used is remarkable as while shaping objects, it also seems to indicate the spectator a “reading” direction. Indeed, we can see that most items are oriented toward the left and faces the light beam: the glass falls toward the left, the skull “looks” toward the left, the key falls toward the left and the pen tip is oriented toward the left … The painter seems to place the spectator in an observation role. We are also part of the painting as the painter link the spectator to this scene by creating a path.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Vanity theme is neither about death or life but rather about the transition from one to the other through time. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Between fascination and repulsion, vanities cultivate the art of ambivalence. Indeed, the interesting paradox of this painting genre consists in that the painting immortalizes the beauty of the world while denigrating it and underlying its fugacity.<br />
<br />
==Why vanity?==<br />
<br />
===From the definition of living being to the place of Humans in the universe.===<br />
As we previously mentioned, Vanity evoke the place of humans in the universe, the transience of human existence and the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. This reflection is linked to our effort of defining the living.<br />
<br />
« For Descartes, there are man-made machines, and life, the machines made by God whose are, in the quote above : ''incomparably better arranged, and adequate to movements more admirable than is any machine of human invention''.»<br />
« The definition of life by entropy is significantly later, but it occurs before the birth of the fathers of thermodynamics and evolution in organisms, Ludvig Boltzmann(1844-1906) and Charles Darwin(1809-1882), in Marie François Xavier Bichat(1771-1802). The latter, sometimes regarded as a vitalist (something Foucault refuses), consider life as mysterious principle which fight against an inert environment. He describe life by : « All the forces that fight against death ».<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Leïla''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Completed text.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review Alice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Inspirations/VanityTeam:Paris Saclay/Project/Inspirations/Vanity2014-10-17T19:26:53Z<p>SylvieL: /* From the definition of living being to the place of Humans in the universe. */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/project_header}}<br />
<br />
=Vanity: Speech about the place of Humans in the universe=<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===The Dutch golden age painting===<br />
took place during the XVII century. By this time, the united-provinces were the most prosperous nation of Europe due to their strong economy, art and sciences dynamics.<br />
Although the Dutch golden age painting is part of the baroque tradition, it can be distinguished by its own specificities such as the apparition and the development of several new kinds of pictorials.<br />
<br />
===Influences of the Reform===<br />
North of Europe was facing the protestant reform, which saw idolatry in the cult of Saints and the Virgin. Thus, some leaders of the movement, such as Jean Calvi, did not hesitate to promote the destruction of religious images that were considered to be pegan heresy. In this context, vanities replaced human representations by everyday objects that were used to support the new religious morality. Paintings of “modest” size appeared to support forms of devotion that were far from the splendor of the Catholic Church: the finitude of man, the fragility of its existence and its assets are all themes dear to this troubled time.<br />
<br />
===Antique origins of Vanity…===<br />
Often wrongly associated to a particular type of still-life, Vanity is closer to a meditation theme rather than a type of pictorials. Thus, in Greek antiquity, Vanity was studied in philosophy, literature or painting. The millenary problem of the place of humans in the universe traveled through centuries, taking the form of compositions, assays, “trompe l’oeil” or genre scenes. <br />
In terms of philosophy, Stoics developed a thorough reflexion about the fugacity of terrestrial goods/properties. They distinguish “lent” things (life, material properties, beauty …) to those that are “given” (willingness, reason …). There is no doubt that this heritage has been transmitted by the Humanist movement during the Renaissance, and strongly inspired painting of Vanity in Europe.<br />
<br />
=== … And a biblical origin===<br />
The Vanity theme also originates from an episode of the Bible (Ecclesiates), as shown in this quote: “Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities; all is vanity”. Here, Qoheleth, son of David and king of Jerusalem, asks himself about the meaning of life. “There is no remembrance of past things; nor even for those of the future: they will not be remembered by those who will come later”. Furthermore, the Hebraic word of Vanity literally means “light vapor or ephemeral breathe”. Thus, vanities invite us to meditate about the ephemeral and vain (hence Vanity) nature of human life that faces an unavoidable death.<br />
<br />
====Pieter Claesz, Nature morte avec huitre (1633)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Nature.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 38x53 cm, Staatliche<br />
Junstsammlungen, Kassel<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Vanity===<br />
Vanity uses symbols (such as skulls, candles, sandglass …) to highlight the transient character of human life, together with the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. As we previously mentioned, vanities are part of a long Greek-Roman tradition. However, this theme has been extensively developed during the first half of the XVII century. By evoking the place of humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones. The aim is to meditate about the fact that pleasures are useless in regard of death that awaits.<br />
From 1620 to1630, the dominant representation of still-life remains the « monochrome breakfast ». There is a limited amount of items, positioned under a diagonal light beam in a gray atmosphere/background. (Pieter Claesz and Willem Claesz Heda). In the second half of the XVII century, colors became more vivid and compositions more complex. For example, this evolution can be seen in Nicolaes Van Veerenael artwork.<br />
<br />
====Nicolaes Van Veerenael, Vanité (1680)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanity_2.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 34x46 cm, musée des beaux arts<br />
de Caen<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
==Presentation of the artwork==<br />
This painting was achieved in 1630 in Mauristhuis (La Haye) by a Dutch painter named Pieter Claesz (1597-1661). It represents Vanity- Still life and measures 39.5 × 56 cm (oil on canvas).<br />
<br />
==Description of the painting==<br />
We can see a table on which several distinct objects are dispatched: a book, a burnt candle, a skull, a bone (probably a femur), a pen and an inkwell. The painter used a quasi- monochromatic color palette, conferring an austere and ephemeral atmosphere to the painting, as do the smokes escaping from the candlestick. The painter offers a lateral point of view of the scene, ensuring that the spectator does not crosses the gaze/sight of the skull. The glass is represented lying between the book and the table. The ribbon, to which a key is attached at the tip, seems to be retained on the table only by the presence of the inkwell. Finally, the pen is in equilibrium on a used parchment. All together this staging confers tension to the composition.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
“By evoking the place of Humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones.”<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
==Analysis of the artwork==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Symbolism===<br />
Typically, this painting is part of the monochrome movement of the beginning of XVII century and thus presents some distinct aspects of Vanity genre:<br />
* bones (skull and femur) directly refer to Death and to the time that goes by,<br />
* the candlestick and the totally burnt candle suggest that all is over/finished/ it’s the end,<br />
* the glass suggests the fragility and the futility of human life,<br />
* the book and the pen represent a vanity as they refer to knowledge that diverts humans from God.<br />
* The inkwell, as a terrestrial good, reminds us that every property is ephemeral and vain compared to Death and the divine Word.<br />
<br />
===Composition===<br />
The way the light has been used is remarkable as while shaping objects, it also seems to indicate the spectator a “reading” direction. Indeed, we can see that most items are oriented toward the left and faces the light beam: the glass falls toward the left, the skull “looks” toward the left, the key falls toward the left and the pen tip is oriented toward the left … The painter seems to place the spectator in an observation role. We are also part of the painting as the painter link the spectator to this scene by creating a path.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Vanity theme is neither about death or life but rather about the transition from one to the other through time. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Between fascination and repulsion, vanities cultivate the art of ambivalence. Indeed, the interesting paradox of this painting genre consists in that the painting immortalizes the beauty of the world while denigrating it and underlying its fugacity.<br />
<br />
==Why vanity?==<br />
<br />
===From the definition of living being to the place of Humans in the universe.===<br />
As we previously mentioned, Vanity evoke the place of humans in the universe, the transience of human existence and the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. This reflection is linked to our effort of defining the living.<br />
<br />
« For Descartes, there are man-made machines, and life, the machines made by God whose are, in the quote above : ''incomparably better arranged, and adequate to movements more admirable than is any machine of human invention''.»<br />
« The definition of life by entropy is significantly later, but it occurs before the birth of the fathers of thermodynamics and evolution in organisms, Ludvig Boltzmann(1844-1906) and Charles Darwin(1809-1882), in Marie François Xavier Bichat(1771-1802). The latter, sometimes regarded as a vitalist (something Foucault refuses), consider life as mysterious principle which fight against an inert environment. He describe life by : « All the forces that fight against death ».<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Leïla''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Completed text.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review Alice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Inspirations/VanityTeam:Paris Saclay/Project/Inspirations/Vanity2014-10-17T19:25:13Z<p>SylvieL: /* The Dutch golden age painting */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/project_header}}<br />
<br />
=Vanity: Speech about the place of Humans in the universe=<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===The Dutch golden age painting===<br />
took place during the XVII century. By this time, the united-provinces were the most prosperous nation of Europe due to their strong economy, art and sciences dynamics.<br />
Although the Dutch golden age painting is part of the baroque tradition, it can be distinguished by its own specificities such as the apparition and the development of several new kinds of pictorials.<br />
<br />
===Influences of the Reform===<br />
North of Europe was facing the protestant reform, which saw idolatry in the cult of Saints and the Virgin. Thus, some leaders of the movement, such as Jean Calvi, did not hesitate to promote the destruction of religious images that were considered to be pegan heresy. In this context, vanities replaced human representations by everyday objects that were used to support the new religious morality. Paintings of “modest” size appeared to support forms of devotion that were far from the splendor of the Catholic Church: the finitude of man, the fragility of its existence and its assets are all themes dear to this troubled time.<br />
<br />
===Antique origins of Vanity…===<br />
Often wrongly associated to a particular type of still-life, Vanity is closer to a meditation theme rather than a type of pictorials. Thus, in Greek antiquity, Vanity was studied in philosophy, literature or painting. The millenary problem of the place of humans in the universe traveled through centuries, taking the form of compositions, assays, “trompe l’oeil” or genre scenes. <br />
In terms of philosophy, Stoics developed a thorough reflexion about the fugacity of terrestrial goods/properties. They distinguish “lent” things (life, material properties, beauty …) to those that are “given” (willingness, reason …). There is no doubt that this heritage has been transmitted by the Humanist movement during the Renaissance, and strongly inspired painting of Vanity in Europe.<br />
<br />
=== … And a biblical origin===<br />
The Vanity theme also originates from an episode of the Bible (Ecclesiates), as shown in this quote: “Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities; all is vanity”. Here, Qoheleth, son of David and king of Jerusalem, asks himself about the meaning of life. “There is no remembrance of past things; nor even for those of the future: they will not be remembered by those who will come later”. Furthermore, the Hebraic word of Vanity literally means “light vapor or ephemeral breathe”. Thus, vanities invite us to meditate about the ephemeral and vain (hence Vanity) nature of human life that faces an unavoidable death.<br />
<br />
====Pieter Claesz, Nature morte avec huitre (1633)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Nature.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 38x53 cm, Staatliche<br />
Junstsammlungen, Kassel<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Vanity===<br />
Vanity uses symbols (such as skulls, candles, sandglass …) to highlight the transient character of human life, together with the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. As we previously mentioned, vanities are part of a long Greek-Roman tradition. However, this theme has been extensively developed during the first half of the XVII century. By evoking the place of humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones. The aim is to meditate about the fact that pleasures are useless in regard of death that awaits.<br />
From 1620 to1630, the dominant representation of still-life remains the « monochrome breakfast ». There is a limited amount of items, positioned under a diagonal light beam in a gray atmosphere/background. (Pieter Claesz and Willem Claesz Heda). In the second half of the XVII century, colors became more vivid and compositions more complex. For example, this evolution can be seen in Nicolaes Van Veerenael artwork.<br />
<br />
====Nicolaes Van Veerenael, Vanité (1680)====<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanity_2.png|300px|left]]<br />
Huile sur bois, 34x46 cm, musée des beaux arts<br />
de Caen<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
==Presentation of the artwork==<br />
This painting was achieved in 1630 in Mauristhuis (La Haye) by a Dutch painter named Pieter Claesz (1597-1661). It represents Vanity- Still life and measures 39.5 × 56 cm (oil on canvas).<br />
<br />
==Description of the painting==<br />
We can see a table on which several distinct objects are dispatched: a book, a burnt candle, a skull, a bone (probably a femur), a pen and an inkwell. The painter used a quasi- monochromatic color palette, conferring an austere and ephemeral atmosphere to the painting, as do the smokes escaping from the candlestick. The painter offers a lateral point of view of the scene, ensuring that the spectator does not crosses the gaze/sight of the skull. The glass is represented lying between the book and the table. The ribbon, to which a key is attached at the tip, seems to be retained on the table only by the presence of the inkwell. Finally, the pen is in equilibrium on a used parchment. All together this staging confers tension to the composition.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
“By evoking the place of Humans in the universe, artists emphasize the insignificance of human’s works in regard of God’s ones.”<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
==Analysis of the artwork==<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Vanite.png|600px|center]]<br />
<html><hr class="cleanhr"/></html><br />
<br />
===Symbolism===<br />
Typically, this painting is part of the monochrome movement of the beginning of XVII century and thus presents some distinct aspects of Vanity genre:<br />
* bones (skull and femur) directly refer to Death and to the time that goes by,<br />
* the candlestick and the totally burnt candle suggest that all is over/finished/ it’s the end,<br />
* the glass suggests the fragility and the futility of human life,<br />
* the book and the pen represent a vanity as they refer to knowledge that diverts humans from God.<br />
* The inkwell, as a terrestrial good, reminds us that every property is ephemeral and vain compared to Death and the divine Word.<br />
<br />
===Composition===<br />
The way the light has been used is remarkable as while shaping objects, it also seems to indicate the spectator a “reading” direction. Indeed, we can see that most items are oriented toward the left and faces the light beam: the glass falls toward the left, the skull “looks” toward the left, the key falls toward the left and the pen tip is oriented toward the left … The painter seems to place the spectator in an observation role. We are also part of the painting as the painter link the spectator to this scene by creating a path.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Vanity theme is neither about death or life but rather about the transition from one to the other through time. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Between fascination and repulsion, vanities cultivate the art of ambivalence. Indeed, the interesting paradox of this painting genre consists in that the painting immortalizes the beauty of the world while denigrating it and underlying its fugacity.<br />
<br />
==Why vanity?==<br />
<br />
===From the definition of living being to the place of Humans in the universe.===<br />
As we previously mentioned, Vanity evoke the place of humans in the universe, the transience of human existence and the fragility of terrestrial goods/properties. This reflexion is linked to our effort of defining the living.<br />
[lien wiki essai pierre]<br />
« For Descartes, there are man-made machines, and life, the machines made by God whose are, in the quote above : ''incomparably better arranged, and adequate to movements more admirable than is any machine of human invention''.»<br />
« The definition of life by entropy is significantly later, but it occurs before the birth of the fathers of thermodynamics and evolution in organisms, Ludvig Boltzmann(1844-1906) and Charles Darwin(1809-1882), in Marie François Xavier Bichat(1771-1802). The latter, sometimes regarded as a vitalist (something Foucault refuses), consider life as mysterious principle which fight against an inert environment. He describe life by : « All the forces that fight against death ».<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1- Préciser ce qu’est le thème de la nature morte, sinon on ne comprend pas pourquoi la Vanité y est souvent assimilé avec. Pourquoi ? « La vanité est souvent assimilée à tort à un type particulier de nature morte ».<br />
<br />
2- Définir le dogme de la religion protestante. Du coup mettre aussi que la religion catholique était luxueuse pour bien comprendre l’influence de la Reforme.<br />
<br />
3- Je n’ai pas compris. « Cependant nous sommes intégré malgré nous par ce tableau, le peintre nous invite à prendre part à cette mise en scène en créant un chemin intégrant l’observateur à la scène ».<br />
<br />
4- Peut-être réorganiser les paragraphes ? C’est-à-dire mettre en premier Le paragraphe sur les origines de la Vanité puis parler de l’Age d’or de la peinture néerlandaise. <br />
<br />
5- Préciser la différence entre la Vanité gréco-romaine et la celle du 17eme.Y avait dans l’antiquité cette même perception de la place de l’homme ou était-elle différente ?<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Leïla''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Completed text.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review Alice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/ProjectTeam:Paris Saclay/Project2014-10-17T19:23:47Z<p>SylvieL: /* Boston Installation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/project_header}}<br />
=Project=<br />
<br />
IGEM teams use live organism systems to do specific issues, as mechanics build a machine. Working with life still a lot of ethical questions like life representation and our teams has chosen Bioart to explore this subject. To illustrate these questions, we chose an object "made-in-nature", a lemon, and we tried to make an equivalent "made-in-IGEM". This object has the same external properties of a lemon: smell, form and a slowly changing colour from green to yellow, like a lemon when it rips.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In a collaboration with iGEM Paris-Bettencourt team in our [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop iGEM French Meeting], we made a video to introduce the project.<br />
<html><div style="width:560px; margin:0 auto;"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oYY6H_yvft0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div></html><br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Marie''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** General introduction of the project.<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review par Sylvie.<br />
<br />
==[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Inspirations Inspirations]==<br />
<br />
== Scientific part==<br />
Our project is based on the construction of a bacterial lemon that will look like lemon but is made only of ''Escherichia coli'' modified to produce a lemon scent and to change colour from green to yellow. We will achieve our project by genetically modifying ''Escherichia coli'' to be devoid of any unpleasant odour by deleting the genes involved in ''E. coli'''s odor, by introducing genes for the production of the lemon scent and finally by adding a yellow-blue chromoprotein whose expression is controlled by a tRNA suppressor for the colour switching.<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Odor-free_ecoli Remove the bad smell of ''E. coli'']===<br />
Our lemon should smell like a lemon. Our chassis is ''Escherichia coli'' , a bacterium known to have a foul odor. We thus have to remove the genes involved in this particular phenotype. The ''tnaA'' gene is required for the degradation of tryptophane into indole, the main molecule at the origin of ''E. coli'' smell. We use a phage transduction method to reach our goal.<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Lemon_Scent Lemon Scent]===<br />
The particular odor of lemon is mainly due to 3 monoterpenes: limonene, beta-pinene and geranial. We will clone the 3 monoterpene synthases responsible for the production of these 3 molecules into our bacteria to allow them to produce this fragrance. We will also improve the production of the GPP precursor using a synthetic mevalonate pathway using the construction of the team of T. S. Lee.<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Salicylate_Inducible_System Lemon appearance and Ripening]===<br />
Since vision is one of the most important senses in humans, we want the lemon look like as real as possible. To achieve this, we plan to make our lemon look green or yellow, as a real one. Furthermore, we also want to simulate the ripening process of the lemon by changing its color gradually from green to yellow.<br />
<br />
==Artistic Part==<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Lemon_Shaping Lemon Shaping]===<br />
<br />
1st idea<br />
<br />
We basically wanted to build up a lemon tree in which one we would have put lemons we had made. As lemons pass from green to yellow, we would have simulated the season’s cycle.<br />
<br />
===Boston Installation===<br />
<br />
2nd idea<br />
<br />
the idea was to project the shadow of a little sculpture in a screen or a wall : the positioning of the light compared to the sculpture would have enable the creation of shadow ten times bigger than the sculpture itself. The aim of this structure would have been to show the gap between a object and its image, between real things and decoys.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
3rd idea (chosen for Boston )<br />
<br />
Finally we decided to modify the second idea (for logistic reasons). The element which could this time reveal the gap between an object and its image, between real things and decoys, would be a mirror … <br />
<br />
<br />
====Countdown====<br />
This page is under '''Leïla''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Text<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review by Solenne.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/SafetyTeam:Paris Saclay/Safety2014-10-17T16:25:38Z<p>SylvieL: /* Countdown */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/labwork_header}}<br />
=Safety=<br />
<br />
==In the Lab==<br />
Our project uses strains and reagents that are used in biosafety level 1 laboratories; we use non-pathogenic derivatives of E. coli strain K-12 (in the event of accidental or otherwise release, the health risks are minimal). <br />
Our BioBricks are not supposed to confer a pathogenic attributes to E. coli, and there is no data to suggest that they could have any detrimental effects on the environment.<br />
At that level, there are no special precautions required, other than those specified for work in laboratory: no food and drinks in the laboratory, gloves and other appropriate personal protective equipment worn during experiments. Our project involves regular use of BET, a DNA-intercaling agent known to cause cancer, and the use of UV light, for visualization of electrophoresis gel. We must prepare culture with antibiotics, which could be harmful to humans in large doses. We also work with Bunsen burner to maintain a sterile environment, which do involve having an open flame on the lab bench. The laboratory is equipped in case of fire. Students participating in this project received safety training to begin the project. The safety training consisted of a presentation covering the various aspects of safety found in molecular biology laboratories. Students were also supervised by instructors throughout the duration of the project.<br />
<br />
[[File:Safety.jpg|500px|centre]]<br />
<br />
==Safety form:==<br />
===Your Training===<br />
''a) Have your team members received any safety training yet?''<br />
<br />
Yes, we have already received safety training.<br />
<br />
''b) Please briefly describe the topics that you learned about (or will learn about) in your safety training.''<br />
<br />
How to safely work with UV rays, BET, phenols, gases. How to correctly dispose of biological waste. <br />
<br />
''c) Please give a link to the laboratory safety training requirements of your institution (college, university, community lab, etc). Or, if you cannot give a link, briefly describe the requirements.'' <br />
<br />
* Read the rules of procedure of IGM (Institut de Genetique et de Microbiologie)<br />
* Read the CNRS guidelines at http://www.dgdr.cnrs.fr/SST/CNPS/guides/risques/guide.htm<br />
* Meet BioSafety Officer and visit the laboratory<br />
<br />
===Your Local Rules and Regulations===<br />
<br />
''a) Who is responsible for biological safety at your institution? (You might have an Institutional Biosafety Committee, an Office of Environmental Health and Safety, a single Biosafety Officer, or some other arrangement.) Have you discussed your project with them? Describe any concerns they raised, and any changes you made in your project based on your discussion.''<br />
<br />
Biosafety Officer ACMO (IGM Institut de Genetique et de Microbiologie Service Hygiene et Securite) Florence Lorieux. <br />
<br />
''b) What are the biosafety guidelines of your institution? Please give a link to these guidelines, or briefly describe them if you cannot give a link.''<br />
<br />
* http://www.sciences.u-psud.fr/fr/la_faculte/service_d_hygiene_et_de_securite.html<br />
* http://www.dgdr.cnrs.fr/SST/CNPS/guides/risques/guide.htm<br />
<br />
''c) In your country, what are the regulations that govern biosafety in research laboratories? Please give a link to these regulations, or briefly describe them if you cannot give a link.''<br />
<br />
* http://www.inrs.fr/accueil/risques/biologiques/prevention-risques/cadre-prevention.html<br />
* http://www.hautconseildesbiotechnologies.fr/IMG/pdf/Manuel_HCB_utilisation_confinee_OGM.pdf<br />
<br />
===The Organisms and Parts that You Use===<br />
<br />
Please visit this page to download a blank copy of the spreadsheet for question 3. (If you need a CSV version instead of XLS, visit this page.)<br />
Complete the spreadsheet. Include all whole organisms that you will handle in the lab, whether you are using them as a chassis or for some other reason. Include all new or highly modified protein coding parts that you are using. If you submitted a Check-In for an organism or part, you should still include it in this spreadsheet.<br />
You may omit non-protein-coding parts, and you may omit parts that were already in the Registry if you are using them without significant modifications.<br />
<br />
Click here to show/hide instructions for completing the spreadsheet<br />
https://2014.igem.org/File:Paris_Saclay_Safety2014_Spreadsheet.xls<br />
<br />
===Risks of Your Project Now===<br />
<br />
Please describe risks of working with the biological materials (cells, organisms, DNA, etc.) that you are using in your project. If you are taking any safety precautions (even basic ones, like rubber gloves), that is because your work has some risks, however small. Therefore, please discuss possible risks and what you have done (or might do) to minimize them, instead of simply saying that there are no risks at all.<br />
<br />
''a) Risks to the safety and health of team members, or other people working in the lab:''<br />
<br />
All bacteria (Escherichia coli K12 and Escherichia coli MG1655Z1) used in our project belong to the risk group 1, so they do not represent any risk for the health of the members of the team. The only real risks come from certain chemicals and the Bunsen burners.<br />
<br />
''b) Risks to the safety and health of the general public (if any biological materials escaped from your lab):''<br />
<br />
Our final system or any of the intermediate strains constructed do not represent any risk or danger for the general public as they are all derived from Escherichia coli K12 and Escherichia coli MG1655Z1 (belonging to the risk group 1), strains that cannot colonize the human colon and does not produce toxins.<br />
<br />
''c) Risks to the environment (from waste disposal, or from materials escaping from your lab):''<br />
<br />
The strains used and constructed derive from strains of E. coli with low levels of survival outside the laboratory. The bacteria do not produce harmful compounds either.<br />
<br />
''d) Risks to security through malicious mis-use by individuals, groups, or countries:''<br />
<br />
The genes used in this system do not code for toxins or for enzymes synthesizing products toxic to humans or harmful for the environment.<br />
<br />
''e) What measures are you taking to reduce these risks? (For example: safe lab practices, choices of which organisms to use.)''<br />
<br />
We wear gloves when using BET or other toxic chemicals, under a fume hood.<br />
<br />
===Risks of Your Project in the Future===<br />
<br />
What would happen if all your dreams came true, and your project grew from a small lab study into a commercial/industrial/medical product that was used by many people? We invite you to speculate broadly and discuss possibilities, rather than providing definite answers. Even if the product is "safe", please discuss possible risks and how they could be addressed, rather than simply saying that there are no risks at all.<br />
<br />
''a) What new risks might arise from your project's growth? (Consider the categories of risk listed in parts a-d of the previous question: lab workers, the general public, the environment, and malicious mis-uses.) Also, what risks might arise if the knowledge you generate or the methodsyou develop became widely available?''<br />
<br />
Our project is a BioArt project, therefore is not designed for mass production and/or commercialization. <br />
<br />
''b) Does your project currently include any design features to reduce risks? Or, if you did all the future work to make your project grow into a popular product, would you plan to design any new features to minimize risks? (For example: auxotrophic chassis, physical containment, etc.)''<br />
Such features are not required for an iGEM project, but many teams choose to explore them.<br />
Even though we are working on a BioArt project, we are aware that we use GMOs. We intend to keep our bacteria in a confined state to prevent our work from contamination from the outside and vice versa.<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/SafetyTeam:Paris Saclay/Safety2014-10-17T16:24:29Z<p>SylvieL: /* In the Lab */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/labwork_header}}<br />
=Safety=<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Romain''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review by Olivier<br />
<br />
==In the Lab==<br />
Our project uses strains and reagents that are used in biosafety level 1 laboratories; we use non-pathogenic derivatives of E. coli strain K-12 (in the event of accidental or otherwise release, the health risks are minimal). <br />
Our BioBricks are not supposed to confer a pathogenic attributes to E. coli, and there is no data to suggest that they could have any detrimental effects on the environment.<br />
At that level, there are no special precautions required, other than those specified for work in laboratory: no food and drinks in the laboratory, gloves and other appropriate personal protective equipment worn during experiments. Our project involves regular use of BET, a DNA-intercaling agent known to cause cancer, and the use of UV light, for visualization of electrophoresis gel. We must prepare culture with antibiotics, which could be harmful to humans in large doses. We also work with Bunsen burner to maintain a sterile environment, which do involve having an open flame on the lab bench. The laboratory is equipped in case of fire. Students participating in this project received safety training to begin the project. The safety training consisted of a presentation covering the various aspects of safety found in molecular biology laboratories. Students were also supervised by instructors throughout the duration of the project.<br />
<br />
[[File:Safety.jpg|500px|centre]]<br />
<br />
==Safety form:==<br />
===Your Training===<br />
''a) Have your team members received any safety training yet?''<br />
<br />
Yes, we have already received safety training.<br />
<br />
''b) Please briefly describe the topics that you learned about (or will learn about) in your safety training.''<br />
<br />
How to safely work with UV rays, BET, phenols, gases. How to correctly dispose of biological waste. <br />
<br />
''c) Please give a link to the laboratory safety training requirements of your institution (college, university, community lab, etc). Or, if you cannot give a link, briefly describe the requirements.'' <br />
<br />
* Read the rules of procedure of IGM (Institut de Genetique et de Microbiologie)<br />
* Read the CNRS guidelines at http://www.dgdr.cnrs.fr/SST/CNPS/guides/risques/guide.htm<br />
* Meet BioSafety Officer and visit the laboratory<br />
<br />
===Your Local Rules and Regulations===<br />
<br />
''a) Who is responsible for biological safety at your institution? (You might have an Institutional Biosafety Committee, an Office of Environmental Health and Safety, a single Biosafety Officer, or some other arrangement.) Have you discussed your project with them? Describe any concerns they raised, and any changes you made in your project based on your discussion.''<br />
<br />
Biosafety Officer ACMO (IGM Institut de Genetique et de Microbiologie Service Hygiene et Securite) Florence Lorieux. <br />
<br />
''b) What are the biosafety guidelines of your institution? Please give a link to these guidelines, or briefly describe them if you cannot give a link.''<br />
<br />
* http://www.sciences.u-psud.fr/fr/la_faculte/service_d_hygiene_et_de_securite.html<br />
* http://www.dgdr.cnrs.fr/SST/CNPS/guides/risques/guide.htm<br />
<br />
''c) In your country, what are the regulations that govern biosafety in research laboratories? Please give a link to these regulations, or briefly describe them if you cannot give a link.''<br />
<br />
* http://www.inrs.fr/accueil/risques/biologiques/prevention-risques/cadre-prevention.html<br />
* http://www.hautconseildesbiotechnologies.fr/IMG/pdf/Manuel_HCB_utilisation_confinee_OGM.pdf<br />
<br />
===The Organisms and Parts that You Use===<br />
<br />
Please visit this page to download a blank copy of the spreadsheet for question 3. (If you need a CSV version instead of XLS, visit this page.)<br />
Complete the spreadsheet. Include all whole organisms that you will handle in the lab, whether you are using them as a chassis or for some other reason. Include all new or highly modified protein coding parts that you are using. If you submitted a Check-In for an organism or part, you should still include it in this spreadsheet.<br />
You may omit non-protein-coding parts, and you may omit parts that were already in the Registry if you are using them without significant modifications.<br />
<br />
Click here to show/hide instructions for completing the spreadsheet<br />
https://2014.igem.org/File:Paris_Saclay_Safety2014_Spreadsheet.xls<br />
<br />
===Risks of Your Project Now===<br />
<br />
Please describe risks of working with the biological materials (cells, organisms, DNA, etc.) that you are using in your project. If you are taking any safety precautions (even basic ones, like rubber gloves), that is because your work has some risks, however small. Therefore, please discuss possible risks and what you have done (or might do) to minimize them, instead of simply saying that there are no risks at all.<br />
<br />
''a) Risks to the safety and health of team members, or other people working in the lab:''<br />
<br />
All bacteria (Escherichia coli K12 and Escherichia coli MG1655Z1) used in our project belong to the risk group 1, so they do not represent any risk for the health of the members of the team. The only real risks come from certain chemicals and the Bunsen burners.<br />
<br />
''b) Risks to the safety and health of the general public (if any biological materials escaped from your lab):''<br />
<br />
Our final system or any of the intermediate strains constructed do not represent any risk or danger for the general public as they are all derived from Escherichia coli K12 and Escherichia coli MG1655Z1 (belonging to the risk group 1), strains that cannot colonize the human colon and does not produce toxins.<br />
<br />
''c) Risks to the environment (from waste disposal, or from materials escaping from your lab):''<br />
<br />
The strains used and constructed derive from strains of E. coli with low levels of survival outside the laboratory. The bacteria do not produce harmful compounds either.<br />
<br />
''d) Risks to security through malicious mis-use by individuals, groups, or countries:''<br />
<br />
The genes used in this system do not code for toxins or for enzymes synthesizing products toxic to humans or harmful for the environment.<br />
<br />
''e) What measures are you taking to reduce these risks? (For example: safe lab practices, choices of which organisms to use.)''<br />
<br />
We wear gloves when using BET or other toxic chemicals, under a fume hood.<br />
<br />
===Risks of Your Project in the Future===<br />
<br />
What would happen if all your dreams came true, and your project grew from a small lab study into a commercial/industrial/medical product that was used by many people? We invite you to speculate broadly and discuss possibilities, rather than providing definite answers. Even if the product is "safe", please discuss possible risks and how they could be addressed, rather than simply saying that there are no risks at all.<br />
<br />
''a) What new risks might arise from your project's growth? (Consider the categories of risk listed in parts a-d of the previous question: lab workers, the general public, the environment, and malicious mis-uses.) Also, what risks might arise if the knowledge you generate or the methodsyou develop became widely available?''<br />
<br />
Our project is a BioArt project, therefore is not designed for mass production and/or commercialization. <br />
<br />
''b) Does your project currently include any design features to reduce risks? Or, if you did all the future work to make your project grow into a popular product, would you plan to design any new features to minimize risks? (For example: auxotrophic chassis, physical containment, etc.)''<br />
Such features are not required for an iGEM project, but many teams choose to explore them.<br />
Even though we are working on a BioArt project, we are aware that we use GMOs. We intend to keep our bacteria in a confined state to prevent our work from contamination from the outside and vice versa.<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/OutreachTeam:Paris Saclay/Outreach2014-10-17T15:51:02Z<p>SylvieL: /* Countdown */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/outreach_header}}<br />
<br />
=Outreach=<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Terry''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Text about surveys (Eugène, Raphaël) and interviews (Maher, Juliette, Terry, HV)<br />
** Videos<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review by Sylvie.<br />
<br />
==Thanks==<br />
<br />
In addition to the team, many people have contributed to the project. We would like to thank them. <br />
<br />
We thank Lia Giraud, a very prolific Bio-Artist for guiding us and helping us to define our project. We discussed Bioart and Ethics with her.<br />
I invite you to visit her [http://www.liagiraud.com/ website].<br />
<br />
We thank another Bio-Artist, Marion Laval-Jeantet, who we met on several occasions and gave us valuable advice.<br />
<br />
We also thank [http://agapakis.com/ Christina Agapakis], who came to see us this summer to answer our questions on the Art & Design Track and ethics.<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Meting_Christina.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
Lucile, Antoine and Elise, thank you for answering our interviews.<br />
<br />
We thank Philippe Perez for the Fast-Lemon videos that you can go watch on our wiki and Lucile a wonderful actress.<br />
<br />
We thank everyone who answered our [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/Interviews surveys], and all [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations iGEM teams] with whom we collaborated. We thank, [http://ateliers-artistes-belleville.fr/ Therese BICHON], [http://iramis.cea.fr/llb/Phocea/Pisp/visu.php?id=35&uid=%20alexei.grinbaum Alexei GRINBAUM], [http://emmanuelhirsch.fr/ Emmanuel HIRSCH], [http://ifris.org/membre/morgan-meyer/ Morgan MEYER], Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA.<br />
<br />
And most of all, we thank all members of the iGEM team Paris Saclay (Advisors, Instructors and All students). Thank Alexandre, Alice, Anais, Arnaud, Caroline, Christina, Claire, Damir, Dimitri, Eugène, Eric, Fabio, Fanny, Floriane, Hoang-Vu,Jean-Luc, Jérémy, Juliette, Laëtitia, Laura, Leila (X2), Lucie, Maher, Marie, Mathias, Mathieu, Meghane, Mélanie, Nadia, Olivier, Philippe, Pierre, Raphael (X2), Rémi, Romain, Sean, Solenne, Sylvie, Terry, Xavier. All these people have been essential for the successful completion of this project and this wonderful adventure.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_iGEMTeamBrainstorming.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Events==<br />
<br />
This ethical process is built on questions about life representation and biotechnologies; exchange with people became obvious to progress, especially with general public. Ethics was discussed with some French iGEM teams and we pursued our actions during some public events.<br />
<br />
<br />
If you are interested in knowing more about one of this three folowing events, just clik on the name of the event !<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup]===<br />
Our team co-hosted the [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup] along with Bettencourt and Evry, from 2 August 2014 to 3 August 2014. There were 5 teams in total: Bettencourt, Bordeaux, Evry, Lyon, Saclay. We learned a lot about the different projects and exchanged ideas, notably about ethics during our workshop.<br />
<br />
===Curiositas===<br />
<br />
Curiositas, held at Orsay, is art-and-science festival that took place on October 4th to 9th. During a dynamic and constructive debate about bioart and bioethics, our teams talked with Marion Laval-Jeantet, artist and promoter of the festival, the Parisian iGEM teams (Paris Bettencourt and Evry teams) and the audience.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay curiostias3.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Science Festival===<br />
<br />
On October the 12th, on the occasion of the French Science Festival, laboratories of the Paris-Sud University arranged visits and events for general public. Because it is sometimes difficult to talk about science to children, we tried to didactically approach this with experiments and simple visual presentations to illustrate synthetic biology and our project.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay science festival.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Meeting with high school students===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of the iGEM competition is to promote synthetic biology and to make people aware about the future challenges that it will represent. Thus, we decided to introduce synthetic biology to students from a high school in order to present what synthetic biology exactly is and to collect their feelings about this new science. We were greeted at the high school: “Lycée Jacques Prévert” in the city of Longjumeau near Paris.<br />
<br />
We first described briefly what a gene is and how it is expressed to clear their heads up. Hopefully, they knew perfectly this subject. <br />
We wanted to know what were their first thought when we told about synthetic biology without described it. They usually answered by explaining the meaning of each words: built something with biological organisms. <br />
They were surprised to learn that a bacteria can be used as a machine to produce so many things. Then they realised that maybe we can do whatever we want and it could be dangerous.<br />
<br />
The question of GMOs was raised at this point. They said that GMOs were only profitable for company who made them. They underlined the fact that GMOs were used for a short period and maybe we do not know yet all the effects and it might occur some side effects too. Underlying the fact that GMOs can also produce some medicine, they finally believed that it must be a good tool for high and effective production. <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, they had all the arguments to make their own project when we asked them to write on a paper what they wanted to do with synthetic biology. We collected the paper and realised that they understood what we presented to them.<br />
Here are some of their projects:<br />
*Feed poor countries with specific transformed plant which can survived to the dryness<br />
*Transform human to have wings<br />
*Create a bacteria which can produce paper<br />
*Rainbow human: decrease racism with humans genetically modified to change their skin colour all along the day <br />
<br />
This experience was very helpful to really understand what young students think about this new science. We did not expect them to be so open-minded and it made us confident about the future for synthetic biology.<br />
<br />
==[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations Collaborations]==<br />
Throughout the project, we exchanged and collaborated with many iGEM teams.<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/OutreachTeam:Paris Saclay/Outreach2014-10-17T15:50:12Z<p>SylvieL: /* Science Festival */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/outreach_header}}<br />
<br />
=Outreach=<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Terry''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Text about surveys (Eugène, Raphaël) and interviews (Maher, Juliette, Terry, HV)<br />
** Videos<br />
** Mettre la discussion lycéens.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review by Sylvie.<br />
<br />
==Thanks==<br />
<br />
In addition to the team, many people have contributed to the project. We would like to thank them. <br />
<br />
We thank Lia Giraud, a very prolific Bio-Artist for guiding us and helping us to define our project. We discussed Bioart and Ethics with her.<br />
I invite you to visit her [http://www.liagiraud.com/ website].<br />
<br />
We thank another Bio-Artist, Marion Laval-Jeantet, who we met on several occasions and gave us valuable advice.<br />
<br />
We also thank [http://agapakis.com/ Christina Agapakis], who came to see us this summer to answer our questions on the Art & Design Track and ethics.<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Meting_Christina.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
Lucile, Antoine and Elise, thank you for answering our interviews.<br />
<br />
We thank Philippe Perez for the Fast-Lemon videos that you can go watch on our wiki and Lucile a wonderful actress.<br />
<br />
We thank everyone who answered our [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/Interviews surveys], and all [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations iGEM teams] with whom we collaborated. We thank, [http://ateliers-artistes-belleville.fr/ Therese BICHON], [http://iramis.cea.fr/llb/Phocea/Pisp/visu.php?id=35&uid=%20alexei.grinbaum Alexei GRINBAUM], [http://emmanuelhirsch.fr/ Emmanuel HIRSCH], [http://ifris.org/membre/morgan-meyer/ Morgan MEYER], Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA.<br />
<br />
And most of all, we thank all members of the iGEM team Paris Saclay (Advisors, Instructors and All students). Thank Alexandre, Alice, Anais, Arnaud, Caroline, Christina, Claire, Damir, Dimitri, Eugène, Eric, Fabio, Fanny, Floriane, Hoang-Vu,Jean-Luc, Jérémy, Juliette, Laëtitia, Laura, Leila (X2), Lucie, Maher, Marie, Mathias, Mathieu, Meghane, Mélanie, Nadia, Olivier, Philippe, Pierre, Raphael (X2), Rémi, Romain, Sean, Solenne, Sylvie, Terry, Xavier. All these people have been essential for the successful completion of this project and this wonderful adventure.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_iGEMTeamBrainstorming.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Events==<br />
<br />
This ethical process is built on questions about life representation and biotechnologies; exchange with people became obvious to progress, especially with general public. Ethics was discussed with some French iGEM teams and we pursued our actions during some public events.<br />
<br />
<br />
If you are interested in knowing more about one of this three folowing events, just clik on the name of the event !<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup]===<br />
Our team co-hosted the [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup] along with Bettencourt and Evry, from 2 August 2014 to 3 August 2014. There were 5 teams in total: Bettencourt, Bordeaux, Evry, Lyon, Saclay. We learned a lot about the different projects and exchanged ideas, notably about ethics during our workshop.<br />
<br />
===Curiositas===<br />
<br />
Curiositas, held at Orsay, is art-and-science festival that took place on October 4th to 9th. During a dynamic and constructive debate about bioart and bioethics, our teams talked with Marion Laval-Jeantet, artist and promoter of the festival, the Parisian iGEM teams (Paris Bettencourt and Evry teams) and the audience.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay curiostias3.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Science Festival===<br />
<br />
On October the 12th, on the occasion of the French Science Festival, laboratories of the Paris-Sud University arranged visits and events for general public. Because it is sometimes difficult to talk about science to children, we tried to didactically approach this with experiments and simple visual presentations to illustrate synthetic biology and our project.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay science festival.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Meeting with high school students===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of the iGEM competition is to promote synthetic biology and to make people aware about the future challenges that it will represent. Thus, we decided to introduce synthetic biology to students from a high school in order to present what synthetic biology exactly is and to collect their feelings about this new science. We were greeted at the high school: “Lycée Jacques Prévert” in the city of Longjumeau near Paris.<br />
<br />
We first described briefly what a gene is and how it is expressed to clear their heads up. Hopefully, they knew perfectly this subject. <br />
We wanted to know what were their first thought when we told about synthetic biology without described it. They usually answered by explaining the meaning of each words: built something with biological organisms. <br />
They were surprised to learn that a bacteria can be used as a machine to produce so many things. Then they realised that maybe we can do whatever we want and it could be dangerous.<br />
<br />
The question of GMOs was raised at this point. They said that GMOs were only profitable for company who made them. They underlined the fact that GMOs were used for a short period and maybe we do not know yet all the effects and it might occur some side effects too. Underlying the fact that GMOs can also produce some medicine, they finally believed that it must be a good tool for high and effective production. <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, they had all the arguments to make their own project when we asked them to write on a paper what they wanted to do with synthetic biology. We collected the paper and realised that they understood what we presented to them.<br />
Here are some of their projects:<br />
*Feed poor countries with specific transformed plant which can survived to the dryness<br />
*Transform human to have wings<br />
*Create a bacteria which can produce paper<br />
*Rainbow human: decrease racism with humans genetically modified to change their skin colour all along the day <br />
<br />
This experience was very helpful to really understand what young students think about this new science. We did not expect them to be so open-minded and it made us confident about the future for synthetic biology.<br />
<br />
==[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations Collaborations]==<br />
Throughout the project, we exchanged and collaborated with many iGEM teams.<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/OutreachTeam:Paris Saclay/Outreach2014-10-17T15:48:40Z<p>SylvieL: /* Collaborations */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/outreach_header}}<br />
<br />
=Outreach=<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Terry''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Text about surveys (Eugène, Raphaël) and interviews (Maher, Juliette, Terry, HV)<br />
** Videos<br />
** Mettre la discussion lycéens.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review by Sylvie.<br />
<br />
==Thanks==<br />
<br />
In addition to the team, many people have contributed to the project. We would like to thank them. <br />
<br />
We thank Lia Giraud, a very prolific Bio-Artist for guiding us and helping us to define our project. We discussed Bioart and Ethics with her.<br />
I invite you to visit her [http://www.liagiraud.com/ website].<br />
<br />
We thank another Bio-Artist, Marion Laval-Jeantet, who we met on several occasions and gave us valuable advice.<br />
<br />
We also thank [http://agapakis.com/ Christina Agapakis], who came to see us this summer to answer our questions on the Art & Design Track and ethics.<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Meting_Christina.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
Lucile, Antoine and Elise, thank you for answering our interviews.<br />
<br />
We thank Philippe Perez for the Fast-Lemon videos that you can go watch on our wiki and Lucile a wonderful actress.<br />
<br />
We thank everyone who answered our [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/Interviews surveys], and all [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations iGEM teams] with whom we collaborated. We thank, [http://ateliers-artistes-belleville.fr/ Therese BICHON], [http://iramis.cea.fr/llb/Phocea/Pisp/visu.php?id=35&uid=%20alexei.grinbaum Alexei GRINBAUM], [http://emmanuelhirsch.fr/ Emmanuel HIRSCH], [http://ifris.org/membre/morgan-meyer/ Morgan MEYER], Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA.<br />
<br />
And most of all, we thank all members of the iGEM team Paris Saclay (Advisors, Instructors and All students). Thank Alexandre, Alice, Anais, Arnaud, Caroline, Christina, Claire, Damir, Dimitri, Eugène, Eric, Fabio, Fanny, Floriane, Hoang-Vu,Jean-Luc, Jérémy, Juliette, Laëtitia, Laura, Leila (X2), Lucie, Maher, Marie, Mathias, Mathieu, Meghane, Mélanie, Nadia, Olivier, Philippe, Pierre, Raphael (X2), Rémi, Romain, Sean, Solenne, Sylvie, Terry, Xavier. All these people have been essential for the successful completion of this project and this wonderful adventure.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_iGEMTeamBrainstorming.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Events==<br />
<br />
This ethical process is built on questions about life representation and biotechnologies; exchange with people became obvious to progress, especially with general public. Ethics was discussed with some French iGEM teams and we pursued our actions during some public events.<br />
<br />
<br />
If you are interested in knowing more about one of this three folowing events, just clik on the name of the event !<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup]===<br />
Our team co-hosted the [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup] along with Bettencourt and Evry, from 2 August 2014 to 3 August 2014. There were 5 teams in total: Bettencourt, Bordeaux, Evry, Lyon, Saclay. We learned a lot about the different projects and exchanged ideas, notably about ethics during our workshop.<br />
<br />
===Curiositas===<br />
<br />
Curiositas, held at Orsay, is art-and-science festival that took place on October 4th to 9th. During a dynamic and constructive debate about bioart and bioethics, our teams talked with Marion Laval-Jeantet, artist and promoter of the festival, the Parisian iGEM teams (Paris Bettencourt and Evry teams) and the audience.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay curiostias3.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Science Festival===<br />
<br />
On October the 12th, in the occasion of the French Science Festival, laboratories of the Paris-Sud University arranged visits and events for general public. Because it is sometimes difficult to talk about science to children, we tried to didactically approach this with experiences and simple visual presentations to illustrate synthetic biology and our project.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay science festival.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Meeting with high school students===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of the iGEM competition is to promote synthetic biology and to make people aware about the future challenges that it will represent. Thus, we decided to introduce synthetic biology to students from a high school in order to present what synthetic biology exactly is and to collect their feelings about this new science. We were greeted at the high school: “Lycée Jacques Prévert” in the city of Longjumeau near Paris.<br />
<br />
We first described briefly what a gene is and how it is expressed to clear their heads up. Hopefully, they knew perfectly this subject. <br />
We wanted to know what were their first thought when we told about synthetic biology without described it. They usually answered by explaining the meaning of each words: built something with biological organisms. <br />
They were surprised to learn that a bacteria can be used as a machine to produce so many things. Then they realised that maybe we can do whatever we want and it could be dangerous.<br />
<br />
The question of GMOs was raised at this point. They said that GMOs were only profitable for company who made them. They underlined the fact that GMOs were used for a short period and maybe we do not know yet all the effects and it might occur some side effects too. Underlying the fact that GMOs can also produce some medicine, they finally believed that it must be a good tool for high and effective production. <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, they had all the arguments to make their own project when we asked them to write on a paper what they wanted to do with synthetic biology. We collected the paper and realised that they understood what we presented to them.<br />
Here are some of their projects:<br />
*Feed poor countries with specific transformed plant which can survived to the dryness<br />
*Transform human to have wings<br />
*Create a bacteria which can produce paper<br />
*Rainbow human: decrease racism with humans genetically modified to change their skin colour all along the day <br />
<br />
This experience was very helpful to really understand what young students think about this new science. We did not expect them to be so open-minded and it made us confident about the future for synthetic biology.<br />
<br />
==[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations Collaborations]==<br />
Throughout the project, we exchanged and collaborated with many iGEM teams.<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/OutreachTeam:Paris Saclay/Outreach2014-10-17T15:47:18Z<p>SylvieL: /* Meeting with high school students */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/outreach_header}}<br />
<br />
=Outreach=<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Terry''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Text about surveys (Eugène, Raphaël) and interviews (Maher, Juliette, Terry, HV)<br />
** Videos<br />
** Mettre la discussion lycéens.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review by Sylvie.<br />
<br />
==Thanks==<br />
<br />
In addition to the team, many people have contributed to the project. We would like to thank them. <br />
<br />
We thank Lia Giraud, a very prolific Bio-Artist for guiding us and helping us to define our project. We discussed Bioart and Ethics with her.<br />
I invite you to visit her [http://www.liagiraud.com/ website].<br />
<br />
We thank another Bio-Artist, Marion Laval-Jeantet, who we met on several occasions and gave us valuable advice.<br />
<br />
We also thank [http://agapakis.com/ Christina Agapakis], who came to see us this summer to answer our questions on the Art & Design Track and ethics.<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Meting_Christina.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
Lucile, Antoine and Elise, thank you for answering our interviews.<br />
<br />
We thank Philippe Perez for the Fast-Lemon videos that you can go watch on our wiki and Lucile a wonderful actress.<br />
<br />
We thank everyone who answered our [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/Interviews surveys], and all [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations iGEM teams] with whom we collaborated. We thank, [http://ateliers-artistes-belleville.fr/ Therese BICHON], [http://iramis.cea.fr/llb/Phocea/Pisp/visu.php?id=35&uid=%20alexei.grinbaum Alexei GRINBAUM], [http://emmanuelhirsch.fr/ Emmanuel HIRSCH], [http://ifris.org/membre/morgan-meyer/ Morgan MEYER], Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA.<br />
<br />
And most of all, we thank all members of the iGEM team Paris Saclay (Advisors, Instructors and All students). Thank Alexandre, Alice, Anais, Arnaud, Caroline, Christina, Claire, Damir, Dimitri, Eugène, Eric, Fabio, Fanny, Floriane, Hoang-Vu,Jean-Luc, Jérémy, Juliette, Laëtitia, Laura, Leila (X2), Lucie, Maher, Marie, Mathias, Mathieu, Meghane, Mélanie, Nadia, Olivier, Philippe, Pierre, Raphael (X2), Rémi, Romain, Sean, Solenne, Sylvie, Terry, Xavier. All these people have been essential for the successful completion of this project and this wonderful adventure.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_iGEMTeamBrainstorming.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Events==<br />
<br />
This ethical process is built on questions about life representation and biotechnologies; exchange with people became obvious to progress, especially with general public. Ethics was discussed with some French iGEM teams and we pursued our actions during some public events.<br />
<br />
<br />
If you are interested in knowing more about one of this three folowing events, just clik on the name of the event !<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup]===<br />
Our team co-hosted the [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup] along with Bettencourt and Evry, from 2 August 2014 to 3 August 2014. There were 5 teams in total: Bettencourt, Bordeaux, Evry, Lyon, Saclay. We learned a lot about the different projects and exchanged ideas, notably about ethics during our workshop.<br />
<br />
===Curiositas===<br />
<br />
Curiositas, held at Orsay, is art-and-science festival that took place on October 4th to 9th. During a dynamic and constructive debate about bioart and bioethics, our teams talked with Marion Laval-Jeantet, artist and promoter of the festival, the Parisian iGEM teams (Paris Bettencourt and Evry teams) and the audience.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay curiostias3.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Science Festival===<br />
<br />
On October the 12th, in the occasion of the French Science Festival, laboratories of the Paris-Sud University arranged visits and events for general public. Because it is sometimes difficult to talk about science to children, we tried to didactically approach this with experiences and simple visual presentations to illustrate synthetic biology and our project.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay science festival.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Meeting with high school students===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of the iGEM competition is to promote synthetic biology and to make people aware about the future challenges that it will represent. Thus, we decided to introduce synthetic biology to students from a high school in order to present what synthetic biology exactly is and to collect their feelings about this new science. We were greeted at the high school: “Lycée Jacques Prévert” in the city of Longjumeau near Paris.<br />
<br />
We first described briefly what a gene is and how it is expressed to clear their heads up. Hopefully, they knew perfectly this subject. <br />
We wanted to know what were their first thought when we told about synthetic biology without described it. They usually answered by explaining the meaning of each words: built something with biological organisms. <br />
They were surprised to learn that a bacteria can be used as a machine to produce so many things. Then they realised that maybe we can do whatever we want and it could be dangerous.<br />
<br />
The question of GMOs was raised at this point. They said that GMOs were only profitable for company who made them. They underlined the fact that GMOs were used for a short period and maybe we do not know yet all the effects and it might occur some side effects too. Underlying the fact that GMOs can also produce some medicine, they finally believed that it must be a good tool for high and effective production. <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, they had all the arguments to make their own project when we asked them to write on a paper what they wanted to do with synthetic biology. We collected the paper and realised that they understood what we presented to them.<br />
Here are some of their projects:<br />
*Feed poor countries with specific transformed plant which can survived to the dryness<br />
*Transform human to have wings<br />
*Create a bacteria which can produce paper<br />
*Rainbow human: decrease racism with humans genetically modified to change their skin colour all along the day <br />
<br />
This experience was very helpful to really understand what young students think about this new science. We did not expect them to be so open-minded and it made us confident about the future for synthetic biology.<br />
<br />
==[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations Collaborations]==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/OutreachTeam:Paris Saclay/Outreach2014-10-17T15:45:03Z<p>SylvieL: /* Thanks */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/outreach_header}}<br />
<br />
=Outreach=<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Terry''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Text about surveys (Eugène, Raphaël) and interviews (Maher, Juliette, Terry, HV)<br />
** Videos<br />
** Mettre la discussion lycéens.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review by Sylvie.<br />
<br />
==Thanks==<br />
<br />
In addition to the team, many people have contributed to the project. We would like to thank them. <br />
<br />
We thank Lia Giraud, a very prolific Bio-Artist for guiding us and helping us to define our project. We discussed Bioart and Ethics with her.<br />
I invite you to visit her [http://www.liagiraud.com/ website].<br />
<br />
We thank another Bio-Artist, Marion Laval-Jeantet, who we met on several occasions and gave us valuable advice.<br />
<br />
We also thank [http://agapakis.com/ Christina Agapakis], who came to see us this summer to answer our questions on the Art & Design Track and ethics.<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_Meting_Christina.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
Lucile, Antoine and Elise, thank you for answering our interviews.<br />
<br />
We thank Philippe Perez for the Fast-Lemon videos that you can go watch on our wiki and Lucile a wonderful actress.<br />
<br />
We thank everyone who answered our [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/Interviews surveys], and all [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations iGEM teams] with whom we collaborated. We thank, [http://ateliers-artistes-belleville.fr/ Therese BICHON], [http://iramis.cea.fr/llb/Phocea/Pisp/visu.php?id=35&uid=%20alexei.grinbaum Alexei GRINBAUM], [http://emmanuelhirsch.fr/ Emmanuel HIRSCH], [http://ifris.org/membre/morgan-meyer/ Morgan MEYER], Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA.<br />
<br />
And most of all, we thank all members of the iGEM team Paris Saclay (Advisors, Instructors and All students). Thank Alexandre, Alice, Anais, Arnaud, Caroline, Christina, Claire, Damir, Dimitri, Eugène, Eric, Fabio, Fanny, Floriane, Hoang-Vu,Jean-Luc, Jérémy, Juliette, Laëtitia, Laura, Leila (X2), Lucie, Maher, Marie, Mathias, Mathieu, Meghane, Mélanie, Nadia, Olivier, Philippe, Pierre, Raphael (X2), Rémi, Romain, Sean, Solenne, Sylvie, Terry, Xavier. All these people have been essential for the successful completion of this project and this wonderful adventure.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_iGEMTeamBrainstorming.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Events==<br />
<br />
This ethical process is built on questions about life representation and biotechnologies; exchange with people became obvious to progress, especially with general public. Ethics was discussed with some French iGEM teams and we pursued our actions during some public events.<br />
<br />
<br />
If you are interested in knowing more about one of this three folowing events, just clik on the name of the event !<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup]===<br />
Our team co-hosted the [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup] along with Bettencourt and Evry, from 2 August 2014 to 3 August 2014. There were 5 teams in total: Bettencourt, Bordeaux, Evry, Lyon, Saclay. We learned a lot about the different projects and exchanged ideas, notably about ethics during our workshop.<br />
<br />
===Curiositas===<br />
<br />
Curiositas, held at Orsay, is art-and-science festival that took place on October 4th to 9th. During a dynamic and constructive debate about bioart and bioethics, our teams talked with Marion Laval-Jeantet, artist and promoter of the festival, the Parisian iGEM teams (Paris Bettencourt and Evry teams) and the audience.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay curiostias3.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Science Festival===<br />
<br />
On October the 12th, in the occasion of the French Science Festival, laboratories of the Paris-Sud University arranged visits and events for general public. Because it is sometimes difficult to talk about science to children, we tried to didactically approach this with experiences and simple visual presentations to illustrate synthetic biology and our project.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay science festival.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Meeting with high school students===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of iGEM competition is to promote synthetic biology and to make people aware about the future challenges that it will represent. Thus, we decided to introduce synthetic biology to student from a high school in order to present what synthetic biology exactly is and to collect their feelings about this new science. We were greeted at the high school: “Lycée Jacques Prévert” in the city of Longjumeau near Paris.<br />
<br />
We first describe briefly what a gene is and how it is expressed to clear their head up. Hopefully, they knew perfectly this subject. <br />
We wanted to know what were their first thought when we told about synthetic biology without described it. They usually answered by explaining the meaning of each words: built something with biological organisms. <br />
They were surprised to learn that a bacteria can be used as a machine to produce so many things. Then they realised that maybe we can do whatever we want and it could be dangerous.<br />
<br />
The question of GMOs was raised at this point. They said that GMOs were only profitable for company who made them. They underlined the fact that GMOs were used for a short period and maybe we do not know yet all the effects and it might occur some side effects too. Underlying the fact that GMOs can also produce some medicine, they finally believed that it must be a good tool for high and effective production. <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, they had all the arguments to make their own project when we asked them to write on a paper what they wanted to do with synthetic biology. We collected the paper and realised that they understood what we presented to them.<br />
Here are some of their projects:<br />
*Feed poor countries with specific transformed plant which can survived to the dryness<br />
*Transform human to have wings<br />
*Create a bacteria which can produce paper<br />
*Rainbow human: decrease racism with humans genetically modified to change their skin colour all along the day <br />
<br />
This experience was very helpful to really understand what young students think about this new science. We did not expect them to be so open-minded and it made us confident about the future for synthetic biology.<br />
<br />
==[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations Collaborations]==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/ProjectTeam:Paris Saclay/Project2014-10-17T14:48:18Z<p>SylvieL: /* Countdown */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/project_header}}<br />
=Project=<br />
<br />
IGEM teams use live organism systems to do specific issues, as mechanics build a machine. Working with life still a lot of ethical questions like life representation and our teams has chosen Bioart to explore this subject. To illustrate these questions, we chose an object "made-in-nature", a lemon, and we tried to make an equivalent "made-in-IGEM". This object has the same external properties of a lemon: smell, form and a slowly changing colour from green to yellow, like a lemon when it rips.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In a collaboration with iGEM Paris-Bettencourt team in our [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop iGEM French Meeting], we made a video to introduce the project.<br />
<html><div style="width:560px; margin:0 auto;"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oYY6H_yvft0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div></html><br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Marie''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** General introduction of the project.<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review par Sylvie.<br />
<br />
==[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Inspirations Inspirations]==<br />
<br />
== Scientific part==<br />
Our project is based on the construction of a bacterial lemon that will look like lemon but is made only of ''Escherichia coli'' modified to produce a lemon scent and to change colour from green to yellow. We will achieve our project by genetically modifying ''Escherichia coli'' to be devoid of any unpleasant odour by deleting the genes involved in ''E. coli'''s odor, by introducing genes for the production of the lemon scent and finally by adding a yellow-blue chromoprotein whose expression is controlled by a tRNA suppressor for the colour switching.<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Odor-free_ecoli Remove the bad smell of ''E. coli'']===<br />
Our lemon should smell like a lemon. Our chassis is ''Escherichia coli'' , a bacterium known to have a foul odor. We thus have to remove the genes involved in this particular phenotype. The ''tnaA'' gene is required for the degradation of tryptophane into indole, the main molecule at the origin of ''E. coli'' smell. We use a phage transduction method to reach our goal.<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Lemon_Scent Lemon Scent]===<br />
The particular odor of lemon is mainly due to 3 monoterpenes: limonene, beta-pinene and geranial. We will clone the 3 monoterpene synthases responsible for the production of these 3 molecules into our bacteria to allow them to produce this fragrance. We will also improve the production of the GPP precursor using a synthetic mevalonate pathway using the construction of the team of T. S. Lee.<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Salicylate_Inducible_System Lemon appearance and Ripening]===<br />
Since vision is one of the most important senses in humans, we want the lemon look like as real as possible. To achieve this, we plan to make our lemon look green or yellow, as a real one. Furthermore, we also want to simulate the ripening process of the lemon by changing its color gradually from green to yellow.<br />
<br />
==Artistic Part==<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Lemon_Shaping Lemon Shaping]===<br />
<br />
===Boston Installation===<br />
====Countdown====<br />
This page is under '''Leïla''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Text<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review by Solenne.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/OutreachTeam:Paris Saclay/Outreach2014-10-17T09:45:30Z<p>SylvieL: /* Science Festival */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/outreach_header}}<br />
<br />
=Outreach=<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Terry''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Text about surveys (Eugène, Raphaël) and interviews (Maher, Juliette, Terry, HV)<br />
** Videos<br />
** Mettre la discussion lycéens.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review by Sylvie.<br />
<br />
==Thanks==<br />
<br />
'''Juliette''' : Je remercierais aussi personnellement les personnes qui ont accepté de répondre<br />
à nos sollicitations pour des entretiens, Lucile, Antoine et Elise (respectivement la sœur<br />
de Terry, le fils de Claire et sa copine)<br />
<br />
In addition to the team, many people have contributed to the project. We would like to thank them. <br />
<br />
We thank Lia Giraud, a very prolific Bio-Artist for guiding us and helping us to define our project. We discussed Bioart and Ethics with her.<br />
I invite you to visit her [http://www.liagiraud.com/ website].<br />
<br />
We thank another Bio-Artist, Marion Laval-Jeantet, who we met on several occasions and gave us valuable advice.<br />
<br />
We also thank Christina Agapakis, who came to see us this summer to answer our questions on the Art & Design Track and ethics.<br />
<br />
We thank Philippe Perez for the Fast-Lemon videos that you can go watch on our wiki.<br />
<br />
We thank everyone who answered our surveys, and all iGEM teams with whom we collaborated.<br />
<br />
And most of all, we thank all members of the iGEM team Paris Saclay (Advisors, Instructors and All students). Thank Alexandre, Alice, Anais, Arnaud, Caroline, Claire, Damir, Dimitri, Eugène, Eric, Fabio, Fanny, Floriane, Hoang-Vu,Jean-Luc, Jérémy, Juliette, Laura, Leila (X2), Lucie, Maher, Marie, Mathias, Mathieu, Meghane, Mélanie, Nadia, Olivier, Philippe, Pierre, Raphael (X2), Rémi, Romain, Sean, Solenne, Sylvie, Terry, Xavier. All these people have been essential for the successful completion of this project and this wonderful adventure.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_iGEMTeamBrainstorming.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Events==<br />
<br />
This ethical process is built on questions about life representation and biotechnologies; exchange with people became obvious to progress, especially with general public. Ethics was discussed with some French IGEM teams and we pursued our actions during some public events.<br />
<br />
<br />
If you are interested in knowing more about one of this three folowing events, just clik on the name of the event !<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup]===<br />
Our team co-hosted the [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup] along with Bettencourt and Evry, from 2 August 2014 to 3 August 2014. There were 5 teams in total: Bettencourt, Bordeaux, Evry, Lyon, Saclay. We learned a lot about the different projects and exchanged ideas, notably about ethics during our workshop.<br />
<br />
===Curiositas===<br />
<br />
Curiositas, held at Orsay, is art-and-science festival that took place on October 4th to 9th. During a dynamic and constructive debate about bioart and bioethics, our teams talked with Marion Laval-Jeantet, artist and promoter of the festival, the Parisian IGEM teams (Paris Bettencourt and Evry teams) and the audience.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay curiostias3.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Science Festival===<br />
<br />
On October the 12th, in the occasion of the French Science Festival, laboratories of the Paris-Sud University arranged visits and events for general public. Because it is sometimes difficult to talk about science to children, we tried to didactically approach this with experiences and simple visual presentations to illustrate synthetic biology and our project.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay science festival.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Meeting with high school students===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of iGEM competition is to promote synthetic biology and to make people aware about the future challenges that it will represent. Thus, we decided to introduce synthetic biology to student from a high school in order to present what synthetic biology exactly is and to collect their feelings about this new science. We were greeted at the high school: “Lycée Jacques Prévert” in the city of Longjumeau near Paris.<br />
<br />
We first describe briefly what a gene is and how it is expressed to clear their head up. Hopefully, they knew perfectly this subject. <br />
We wanted to know what were their first thought when we told about synthetic biology without described it. They usually answered by explaining the meaning of each words: built something with biological organisms. <br />
They were surprised to learn that a bacteria can be used as a machine to produce so many things. Then they realised that maybe we can do whatever we want and it could be dangerous.<br />
<br />
The question of GMOs was raised at this point. They said that GMOs were only profitable for company who made them. They underlined the fact that GMOs were used for a short period and maybe we do not know yet all the effects and it might occur some side effects too. Underlying the fact that GMOs can also produce some medicine, they finally believed that it must be a good tool for high and effective production. <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, they had all the arguments to make their own project when we asked them to write on a paper what they wanted to do with synthetic biology. We collected the paper and realised that they understood what we presented to them.<br />
Here are some of their projects:<br />
*Feed poor countries with specific transformed plant which can survived to the dryness<br />
*Transform human to have wings<br />
*Create a bacteria which can produce paper<br />
*Rainbow human: decrease racism with humans genetically modified to change their skin colour all along the day <br />
<br />
This experience was very helpful to really understand what young students think about this new science. We did not expect them to be so open-minded and it made us confident about the future for synthetic biology.<br />
<br />
==[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations Collaborations]==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/OutreachTeam:Paris Saclay/Outreach2014-10-17T09:44:21Z<p>SylvieL: /* Curiositas */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/outreach_header}}<br />
<br />
=Outreach=<br />
<br />
==Countdown==<br />
This page is under '''Terry''''s responsibility<br />
<br />
* Deadline: 08/oct.<br />
** Text about surveys (Eugène, Raphaël) and interviews (Maher, Juliette, Terry, HV)<br />
** Videos<br />
** Mettre la discussion lycéens.<br />
* Deadline: 12/oct<br />
** Final review by Sylvie.<br />
<br />
==Thanks==<br />
<br />
'''Juliette''' : Je remercierais aussi personnellement les personnes qui ont accepté de répondre<br />
à nos sollicitations pour des entretiens, Lucile, Antoine et Elise (respectivement la sœur<br />
de Terry, le fils de Claire et sa copine)<br />
<br />
In addition to the team, many people have contributed to the project. We would like to thank them. <br />
<br />
We thank Lia Giraud, a very prolific Bio-Artist for guiding us and helping us to define our project. We discussed Bioart and Ethics with her.<br />
I invite you to visit her [http://www.liagiraud.com/ website].<br />
<br />
We thank another Bio-Artist, Marion Laval-Jeantet, who we met on several occasions and gave us valuable advice.<br />
<br />
We also thank Christina Agapakis, who came to see us this summer to answer our questions on the Art & Design Track and ethics.<br />
<br />
We thank Philippe Perez for the Fast-Lemon videos that you can go watch on our wiki.<br />
<br />
We thank everyone who answered our surveys, and all iGEM teams with whom we collaborated.<br />
<br />
And most of all, we thank all members of the iGEM team Paris Saclay (Advisors, Instructors and All students). Thank Alexandre, Alice, Anais, Arnaud, Caroline, Claire, Damir, Dimitri, Eugène, Eric, Fabio, Fanny, Floriane, Hoang-Vu,Jean-Luc, Jérémy, Juliette, Laura, Leila (X2), Lucie, Maher, Marie, Mathias, Mathieu, Meghane, Mélanie, Nadia, Olivier, Philippe, Pierre, Raphael (X2), Rémi, Romain, Sean, Solenne, Sylvie, Terry, Xavier. All these people have been essential for the successful completion of this project and this wonderful adventure.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris_Saclay_iGEMTeamBrainstorming.jpg|450px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Events==<br />
<br />
This ethical process is built on questions about life representation and biotechnologies; exchange with people became obvious to progress, especially with general public. Ethics was discussed with some French IGEM teams and we pursued our actions during some public events.<br />
<br />
<br />
If you are interested in knowing more about one of this three folowing events, just clik on the name of the event !<br />
<br />
===[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup]===<br />
Our team co-hosted the [https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Project/Workshop French Meetup] along with Bettencourt and Evry, from 2 August 2014 to 3 August 2014. There were 5 teams in total: Bettencourt, Bordeaux, Evry, Lyon, Saclay. We learned a lot about the different projects and exchanged ideas, notably about ethics during our workshop.<br />
<br />
===Curiositas===<br />
<br />
Curiositas, held at Orsay, is art-and-science festival that took place on October 4th to 9th. During a dynamic and constructive debate about bioart and bioethics, our teams talked with Marion Laval-Jeantet, artist and promoter of the festival, the Parisian IGEM teams (Paris Bettencourt and Evry teams) and the audience.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay curiostias3.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Science Festival===<br />
<br />
On October the 12th, in the occasion of the Science Festival laboratories on Paris-Sud University arrange visits and events for general public. Because it is sometimes difficult to talk about science to children, we tried to didactically approach with experiences and simple visual presentations to illustrate synthetic biology and our project.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay science festival.JPG|300px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===Meeting with high school students===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of iGEM competition is to promote synthetic biology and to make people aware about the future challenges that it will represent. Thus, we decided to introduce synthetic biology to student from a high school in order to present what synthetic biology exactly is and to collect their feelings about this new science. We were greeted at the high school: “Lycée Jacques Prévert” in the city of Longjumeau near Paris.<br />
<br />
We first describe briefly what a gene is and how it is expressed to clear their head up. Hopefully, they knew perfectly this subject. <br />
We wanted to know what were their first thought when we told about synthetic biology without described it. They usually answered by explaining the meaning of each words: built something with biological organisms. <br />
They were surprised to learn that a bacteria can be used as a machine to produce so many things. Then they realised that maybe we can do whatever we want and it could be dangerous.<br />
<br />
The question of GMOs was raised at this point. They said that GMOs were only profitable for company who made them. They underlined the fact that GMOs were used for a short period and maybe we do not know yet all the effects and it might occur some side effects too. Underlying the fact that GMOs can also produce some medicine, they finally believed that it must be a good tool for high and effective production. <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, they had all the arguments to make their own project when we asked them to write on a paper what they wanted to do with synthetic biology. We collected the paper and realised that they understood what we presented to them.<br />
Here are some of their projects:<br />
*Feed poor countries with specific transformed plant which can survived to the dryness<br />
*Transform human to have wings<br />
*Create a bacteria which can produce paper<br />
*Rainbow human: decrease racism with humans genetically modified to change their skin colour all along the day <br />
<br />
This experience was very helpful to really understand what young students think about this new science. We did not expect them to be so open-minded and it made us confident about the future for synthetic biology.<br />
<br />
==[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Outreach/Collaborations Collaborations]==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/SurveyTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Survey2014-10-17T09:38:01Z<p>SylvieL: /* On the use of living beings in an artistic purpose */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Survey=<br />
<br />
(En cours)<br />
== Opinions of some iGEMers ==<br />
<br />
We conducted a small survey on the concepts of living and bioart, inviting the iGEMers to participate in our reflection. <br />
Questions are written so as to bring out the nuances there may be on the boundary between living beings and machines 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 retranscribe the comments we collected on of some of the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, we wanted to capture the proportion of participants who had already been in contact with these subjects and we noted that most of them (72%) had not done any synthetic biology before iGEM but had already heard of BioArt. <br />
<br />
On the border between "Living" and "Machine", the results are more difficult to apprehend. We first focus on the two following issues:<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?''<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
=== Machine ~~> Living ===<br />
There has been (30+5)% of NO against (4+12)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools."''<br />
<br />
=== Living ~~> Machine ===<br />
<br />
(20+7)% for NO against (1+6)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
><br />
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"''.<br />
<br />
=== The breakout of the borderline ===<br />
Let's turn to the central issue: does the distinction between "living" and "Machine" remains ? <br />
<br />
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 bioengineer the living. It's a powerful tool and it raises a new kind of ethics questions! <br />
<br />
However, a striking observation of the data is that the majority of ratings for this question are between 3 and 8. 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.<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already done synthetic biology before iGEM?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already heard of bioart ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/26/Paris_Saclay_survey2.png"><br />
<figcaption> 28% of YES and 72% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/84/Paris_Saclay_survey7.png"><br />
<figcaption> 61% of YES and 39% of NO </figcaption> <br />
</figure> <br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<table> <br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), <br />
that could learn </br> or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, <br />
it will turn into a machine ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/05/Paris_Saclay_survey3.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:30% | 2:5% | 3:14% | 4:6% | 5:6% | 6:5% | 7:4% | 8:14% | 9:4% | 10:12% |<br />
</figcaption> <br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/d/d0/Paris_Saclay_survey4.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:20% | 2:7% | 3:14% | 4:8% | 5:16% | 6:8% | 7:8% | 8:10% | 9:1% | 10:6% <br />
</figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
With the iGEM experience, do you think that the boundary between<br />
living beings and machines is broken ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
In general, do you think that synthetic biology transforms our vision of living beings ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/a/ad/Paris_Saclay_survey5.png"><br />
<figcaption> 23% of YES and 77% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/b1/Paris_Saclay_survey6.png"><br />
<figcaption> 63% of YES and 37% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "3"><br />
Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan ="2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I do not believe that interspecies gene transfer makes a machine.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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).<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's hard to imagine a living thing acting like a machine ....<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
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'.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
=== On the use of living beings in an artistic purpose ===<br />
<br />
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 ...<br />
<br />
''"The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations."''<br />
<br />
''"We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing)."''<br />
<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is still some reticence. More precisely, some of the reservations expressed are relative to the organisms used.<br />
<br />
<br />
''"I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/34/Paris_Saclay_survey8.png"><br />
<figcaption> 93% of YES and 7% of NO <figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/4/4e/Paris_Saclay_survey9.png"><br />
<figcaption> 77% of YES and 23% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/2b/Paris_Saclay_survey10.png"><br />
<figcaption> 69% of YES and 31% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think using bacteria is fine, but using stuffed animals for example is not<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Anything with a brain shouldn't be used in art - they might feel pain<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I have a pretty low opinion of art so maybe my opinions are biased.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think you can make engineered butterflies to be even more beautiful !<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I only agree in using lower organisms like fungi and bacteria for bioart.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's fine with bacteria but its a different matter with higher beings.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations. Nor ancient nor innaceptable.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Transforming higher living creatures for art should be subject to ethics review<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing).<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
---> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* <br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/SurveyTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Survey2014-10-17T09:31:31Z<p>SylvieL: /* The breakout of the borderline */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Survey=<br />
<br />
(En cours)<br />
== Opinions of some iGEMers ==<br />
<br />
We conducted a small survey on the concepts of living and bioart, inviting the iGEMers to participate in our reflection. <br />
Questions are written so as to bring out the nuances there may be on the boundary between living beings and machines 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 retranscribe the comments we collected on of some of the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, we wanted to capture the proportion of participants who had already been in contact with these subjects and we noted that most of them (72%) had not done any synthetic biology before iGEM but had already heard of BioArt. <br />
<br />
On the border between "Living" and "Machine", the results are more difficult to apprehend. We first focus on the two following issues:<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?''<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
=== Machine ~~> Living ===<br />
There has been (30+5)% of NO against (4+12)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools."''<br />
<br />
=== Living ~~> Machine ===<br />
<br />
(20+7)% for NO against (1+6)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
><br />
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"''.<br />
<br />
=== The breakout of the borderline ===<br />
Let's turn to the central issue: does the distinction between "living" and "Machine" remains ? <br />
<br />
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 bioengineer the living. It's a powerful tool and it raises a new kind of ethics questions! <br />
<br />
However, a striking observation of the data is that the majority of ratings for this question are between 3 and 8. 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.<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already done synthetic biology before iGEM?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already heard of bioart ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/26/Paris_Saclay_survey2.png"><br />
<figcaption> 28% of YES and 72% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/84/Paris_Saclay_survey7.png"><br />
<figcaption> 61% of YES and 39% of NO </figcaption> <br />
</figure> <br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<table> <br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), <br />
that could learn </br> or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, <br />
it will turn into a machine ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/05/Paris_Saclay_survey3.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:30% | 2:5% | 3:14% | 4:6% | 5:6% | 6:5% | 7:4% | 8:14% | 9:4% | 10:12% |<br />
</figcaption> <br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/d/d0/Paris_Saclay_survey4.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:20% | 2:7% | 3:14% | 4:8% | 5:16% | 6:8% | 7:8% | 8:10% | 9:1% | 10:6% <br />
</figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
With the iGEM experience, do you think that the boundary between<br />
living beings and machines is broken ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
In general, do you think that synthetic biology transforms our vision of living beings ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/a/ad/Paris_Saclay_survey5.png"><br />
<figcaption> 23% of YES and 77% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/b1/Paris_Saclay_survey6.png"><br />
<figcaption> 63% of YES and 37% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "3"><br />
Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan ="2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I do not believe that interspecies gene transfer makes a machine.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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).<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's hard to imagine a living thing acting like a machine ....<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
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'.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
=== On the use of living beings in an artistic purpose ===<br />
<br />
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 ...<br />
<br />
''"The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations."''<br />
<br />
''"We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing)."''<br />
<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is still some reticence. More precisely, some of the reserved emit is relative to the organisms used.<br />
<br />
<br />
''"I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/34/Paris_Saclay_survey8.png"><br />
<figcaption> 93% of YES and 7% of NO <figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/4/4e/Paris_Saclay_survey9.png"><br />
<figcaption> 77% of YES and 23% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/2b/Paris_Saclay_survey10.png"><br />
<figcaption> 69% of YES and 31% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think using bacteria is fine, but using stuffed animals for example is not<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Anything with a brain shouldn't be used in art - they might feel pain<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I have a pretty low opinion of art so maybe my opinions are biased.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think you can make engineered butterflies to be even more beautiful !<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I only agree in using lower organisms like fungi and bacteria for bioart.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's fine with bacteria but its a different matter with higher beings.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations. Nor ancient nor innaceptable.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Transforming higher living creatures for art should be subject to ethics review<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing).<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
---> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* <br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/SurveyTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Survey2014-10-17T09:28:32Z<p>SylvieL: /* The breakout of the borderline */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Survey=<br />
<br />
(En cours)<br />
== Opinions of some iGEMers ==<br />
<br />
We conducted a small survey on the concepts of living and bioart, inviting the iGEMers to participate in our reflection. <br />
Questions are written so as to bring out the nuances there may be on the boundary between living beings and machines 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 retranscribe the comments we collected on of some of the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, we wanted to capture the proportion of participants who had already been in contact with these subjects and we noted that most of them (72%) had not done any synthetic biology before iGEM but had already heard of BioArt. <br />
<br />
On the border between "Living" and "Machine", the results are more difficult to apprehend. We first focus on the two following issues:<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?''<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
=== Machine ~~> Living ===<br />
There has been (30+5)% of NO against (4+12)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools."''<br />
<br />
=== Living ~~> Machine ===<br />
<br />
(20+7)% for NO against (1+6)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
><br />
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"''.<br />
<br />
=== The breakout of the borderline ===<br />
Let's turn to the central issue: does the distinction between "living" and "Machine" remains ? <br />
<br />
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 bioengineer the living. It's a powerful tool and it raises a new kind of ethics questions! <br />
<br />
However, a more striking observation on the data, is that the majority of ratings are between 3 and 8 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.<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already done synthetic biology before iGEM?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already heard of bioart ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/26/Paris_Saclay_survey2.png"><br />
<figcaption> 28% of YES and 72% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/84/Paris_Saclay_survey7.png"><br />
<figcaption> 61% of YES and 39% of NO </figcaption> <br />
</figure> <br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<table> <br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), <br />
that could learn </br> or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, <br />
it will turn into a machine ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/05/Paris_Saclay_survey3.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:30% | 2:5% | 3:14% | 4:6% | 5:6% | 6:5% | 7:4% | 8:14% | 9:4% | 10:12% |<br />
</figcaption> <br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/d/d0/Paris_Saclay_survey4.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:20% | 2:7% | 3:14% | 4:8% | 5:16% | 6:8% | 7:8% | 8:10% | 9:1% | 10:6% <br />
</figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
With the iGEM experience, do you think that the boundary between<br />
living beings and machines is broken ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
In general, do you think that synthetic biology transforms our vision of living beings ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/a/ad/Paris_Saclay_survey5.png"><br />
<figcaption> 23% of YES and 77% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/b1/Paris_Saclay_survey6.png"><br />
<figcaption> 63% of YES and 37% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "3"><br />
Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan ="2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I do not believe that interspecies gene transfer makes a machine.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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).<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's hard to imagine a living thing acting like a machine ....<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
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'.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
=== On the use of living beings in an artistic purpose ===<br />
<br />
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 ...<br />
<br />
''"The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations."''<br />
<br />
''"We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing)."''<br />
<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is still some reticence. More precisely, some of the reserved emit is relative to the organisms used.<br />
<br />
<br />
''"I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/34/Paris_Saclay_survey8.png"><br />
<figcaption> 93% of YES and 7% of NO <figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/4/4e/Paris_Saclay_survey9.png"><br />
<figcaption> 77% of YES and 23% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/2b/Paris_Saclay_survey10.png"><br />
<figcaption> 69% of YES and 31% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think using bacteria is fine, but using stuffed animals for example is not<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Anything with a brain shouldn't be used in art - they might feel pain<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I have a pretty low opinion of art so maybe my opinions are biased.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think you can make engineered butterflies to be even more beautiful !<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I only agree in using lower organisms like fungi and bacteria for bioart.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's fine with bacteria but its a different matter with higher beings.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations. Nor ancient nor innaceptable.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Transforming higher living creatures for art should be subject to ethics review<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing).<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
---> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* <br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/SurveyTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Survey2014-10-17T09:27:49Z<p>SylvieL: /* The breakout of the borderline */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Survey=<br />
<br />
(En cours)<br />
== Opinions of some iGEMers ==<br />
<br />
We conducted a small survey on the concepts of living and bioart, inviting the iGEMers to participate in our reflection. <br />
Questions are written so as to bring out the nuances there may be on the boundary between living beings and machines 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 retranscribe the comments we collected on of some of the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, we wanted to capture the proportion of participants who had already been in contact with these subjects and we noted that most of them (72%) had not done any synthetic biology before iGEM but had already heard of BioArt. <br />
<br />
On the border between "Living" and "Machine", the results are more difficult to apprehend. We first focus on the two following issues:<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?''<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
=== Machine ~~> Living ===<br />
There has been (30+5)% of NO against (4+12)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools."''<br />
<br />
=== Living ~~> Machine ===<br />
<br />
(20+7)% for NO against (1+6)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
><br />
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"''.<br />
<br />
=== The breakout of the borderline ===<br />
Let's turn to the central issue: does the distinction between "living" and "Machine" remains ? <br />
<br />
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 powerfull tool and it raises a new kind of ethics questions! <br />
<br />
However, a more striking observation on the data, is that the majority of ratings are between 3 and 8 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.<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already done synthetic biology before iGEM?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already heard of bioart ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/26/Paris_Saclay_survey2.png"><br />
<figcaption> 28% of YES and 72% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/84/Paris_Saclay_survey7.png"><br />
<figcaption> 61% of YES and 39% of NO </figcaption> <br />
</figure> <br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<table> <br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), <br />
that could learn </br> or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, <br />
it will turn into a machine ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/05/Paris_Saclay_survey3.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:30% | 2:5% | 3:14% | 4:6% | 5:6% | 6:5% | 7:4% | 8:14% | 9:4% | 10:12% |<br />
</figcaption> <br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/d/d0/Paris_Saclay_survey4.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:20% | 2:7% | 3:14% | 4:8% | 5:16% | 6:8% | 7:8% | 8:10% | 9:1% | 10:6% <br />
</figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
With the iGEM experience, do you think that the boundary between<br />
living beings and machines is broken ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
In general, do you think that synthetic biology transforms our vision of living beings ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/a/ad/Paris_Saclay_survey5.png"><br />
<figcaption> 23% of YES and 77% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/b1/Paris_Saclay_survey6.png"><br />
<figcaption> 63% of YES and 37% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "3"><br />
Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan ="2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I do not believe that interspecies gene transfer makes a machine.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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).<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's hard to imagine a living thing acting like a machine ....<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
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'.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
=== On the use of living beings in an artistic purpose ===<br />
<br />
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 ...<br />
<br />
''"The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations."''<br />
<br />
''"We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing)."''<br />
<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is still some reticence. More precisely, some of the reserved emit is relative to the organisms used.<br />
<br />
<br />
''"I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/34/Paris_Saclay_survey8.png"><br />
<figcaption> 93% of YES and 7% of NO <figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/4/4e/Paris_Saclay_survey9.png"><br />
<figcaption> 77% of YES and 23% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/2b/Paris_Saclay_survey10.png"><br />
<figcaption> 69% of YES and 31% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think using bacteria is fine, but using stuffed animals for example is not<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Anything with a brain shouldn't be used in art - they might feel pain<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I have a pretty low opinion of art so maybe my opinions are biased.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think you can make engineered butterflies to be even more beautiful !<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I only agree in using lower organisms like fungi and bacteria for bioart.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's fine with bacteria but its a different matter with higher beings.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations. Nor ancient nor innaceptable.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Transforming higher living creatures for art should be subject to ethics review<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing).<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
---> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* <br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/SurveyTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Survey2014-10-17T09:26:28Z<p>SylvieL: /* Opinions of some iGEMers */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Survey=<br />
<br />
(En cours)<br />
== Opinions of some iGEMers ==<br />
<br />
We conducted a small survey on the concepts of living and bioart, inviting the iGEMers to participate in our reflection. <br />
Questions are written so as to bring out the nuances there may be on the boundary between living beings and machines 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 retranscribe the comments we collected on of some of the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, we wanted to capture the proportion of participants who had already been in contact with these subjects and we noted that most of them (72%) had not done any synthetic biology before iGEM but had already heard of BioArt. <br />
<br />
On the border between "Living" and "Machine", the results are more difficult to apprehend. We first focus on the two following issues:<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?''<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
=== Machine ~~> Living ===<br />
There has been (30+5)% of NO against (4+12)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools."''<br />
<br />
=== Living ~~> Machine ===<br />
<br />
(20+7)% for NO against (1+6)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
><br />
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"''.<br />
<br />
=== The breakout of the borderline ===<br />
Let's turn to the central issue: does the distinction between "living" and "Machine" remains ? <br />
<br />
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 powerfull tool and it raises a new kind of ethics questions! <br />
<br />
However, a more striking observation on the data, is that the majority of ratings are between 3 and 8 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.<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already done synthetic biology before iGEM?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already heard of bioart ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/26/Paris_Saclay_survey2.png"><br />
<figcaption> 28% of YES and 72% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/84/Paris_Saclay_survey7.png"><br />
<figcaption> 61% of YES and 39% of NO </figcaption> <br />
</figure> <br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<table> <br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), <br />
that could learn </br> or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, <br />
it will turn into a machine ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/05/Paris_Saclay_survey3.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:30% | 2:5% | 3:14% | 4:6% | 5:6% | 6:5% | 7:4% | 8:14% | 9:4% | 10:12% |<br />
</figcaption> <br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/d/d0/Paris_Saclay_survey4.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:20% | 2:7% | 3:14% | 4:8% | 5:16% | 6:8% | 7:8% | 8:10% | 9:1% | 10:6% <br />
</figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
With the iGEM experience, do you think that the boundary between<br />
living beings and machines is broken ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
In general, do you think that synthetic biology transforms our vision of living beings ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/a/ad/Paris_Saclay_survey5.png"><br />
<figcaption> 23% of YES and 77% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/b1/Paris_Saclay_survey6.png"><br />
<figcaption> 63% of YES and 37% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "3"><br />
Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan ="2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I do not believe that interspecies gene transfer makes a machine.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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).<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's hard to imagine a living thing acting like a machine ....<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
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'.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
=== On the use of living beings in an artistic purpose ===<br />
<br />
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 ...<br />
<br />
''"The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations."''<br />
<br />
''"We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing)."''<br />
<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is still some reticence. More precisely, some of the reserved emit is relative to the organisms used.<br />
<br />
<br />
''"I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/34/Paris_Saclay_survey8.png"><br />
<figcaption> 93% of YES and 7% of NO <figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/4/4e/Paris_Saclay_survey9.png"><br />
<figcaption> 77% of YES and 23% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/2b/Paris_Saclay_survey10.png"><br />
<figcaption> 69% of YES and 31% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think using bacteria is fine, but using stuffed animals for example is not<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Anything with a brain shouldn't be used in art - they might feel pain<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I have a pretty low opinion of art so maybe my opinions are biased.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think you can make engineered butterflies to be even more beautiful !<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I only agree in using lower organisms like fungi and bacteria for bioart.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's fine with bacteria but its a different matter with higher beings.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations. Nor ancient nor innaceptable.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Transforming higher living creatures for art should be subject to ethics review<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing).<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
---> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* <br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/SurveyTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Survey2014-10-17T09:24:58Z<p>SylvieL: /* Opinions of some iGEMers */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Survey=<br />
<br />
(En cours)<br />
== Opinions of some iGEMers ==<br />
<br />
We conducted a small survey on the concepts of living and bioart, inviting the iGEMers to participate in our reflection. <br />
Questions are written so as to bring out the nuances there may be on the boundary between living beings and machines 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 retranscribe the comments we collected on of some of the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
On the border between "Living" and "Machine", the results are more difficult to apprehend. We first focus on the two following issues:<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?''<br />
<br />
*''Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
=== Machine ~~> Living ===<br />
There has been (30+5)% of NO against (4+12)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools."''<br />
<br />
=== Living ~~> Machine ===<br />
<br />
(20+7)% for NO against (1+6)% of YES.<br />
<br />
''"Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
><br />
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"''.<br />
<br />
=== The breakout of the borderline ===<br />
Let's turn to the central issue: does the distinction between "living" and "Machine" remains ? <br />
<br />
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 powerfull tool and it raises a new kind of ethics questions! <br />
<br />
However, a more striking observation on the data, is that the majority of ratings are between 3 and 8 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.<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already done synthetic biology before iGEM?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Have you already heard of bioart ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/26/Paris_Saclay_survey2.png"><br />
<figcaption> 28% of YES and 72% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/84/Paris_Saclay_survey7.png"><br />
<figcaption> 61% of YES and 39% of NO </figcaption> <br />
</figure> <br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<table> <br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), <br />
that could learn </br> or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, <br />
it will turn into a machine ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/05/Paris_Saclay_survey3.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:30% | 2:5% | 3:14% | 4:6% | 5:6% | 6:5% | 7:4% | 8:14% | 9:4% | 10:12% |<br />
</figcaption> <br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/d/d0/Paris_Saclay_survey4.png"><br />
<figcaption> <br />
| 1:20% | 2:7% | 3:14% | 4:8% | 5:16% | 6:8% | 7:8% | 8:10% | 9:1% | 10:6% <br />
</figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
With the iGEM experience, do you think that the boundary between<br />
living beings and machines is broken ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
In general, do you think that synthetic biology transforms our vision of living beings ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/a/ad/Paris_Saclay_survey5.png"><br />
<figcaption> 23% of YES and 77% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/b1/Paris_Saclay_survey6.png"><br />
<figcaption> 63% of YES and 37% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "3"><br />
Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan ="2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I do not believe that interspecies gene transfer makes a machine.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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).<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's hard to imagine a living thing acting like a machine ....<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
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'.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
=== On the use of living beings in an artistic purpose ===<br />
<br />
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 ...<br />
<br />
''"The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations."''<br />
<br />
''"We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing)."''<br />
<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is still some reticence. More precisely, some of the reserved emit is relative to the organisms used.<br />
<br />
<br />
''"I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<head><br />
<meta charset="utf-8" /><br />
<br />
<style><br />
<br />
body <br />
{<br />
font-family: Arial;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
# bloc_page<br />
{<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
#survey_cells<br />
{<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align : center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
<br />
figcaption<br />
{<br />
font-size: x-small;<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#citation<br />
{<br />
font-family: Papyrus;<br />
}<br />
<br />
table<br />
{<br />
border-collapse: collapse;<br />
width: 100%; <br />
margin: auto;<br />
text-align: justify;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
background: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#cite<br />
{<br />
text-align: center;<br />
padding: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 20px;<br />
border: 1px solid black;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#img_survey<br />
{<br />
width: 95%;<br />
}<br />
<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<body><br />
<div id = "bloc_page"><br />
<br />
<section><br />
<table><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/34/Paris_Saclay_survey8.png"><br />
<figcaption> 93% of YES and 7% of NO <figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/4/4e/Paris_Saclay_survey9.png"><br />
<figcaption> 77% of YES and 23% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "survey_cells"><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<figure><br />
<img id = "img_survey", src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/2b/Paris_Saclay_survey10.png"><br />
<figcaption> 69% of YES and 31% of NO </figcaption><br />
</figure><br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table id = "citation"><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" ><br />
I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
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.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think using bacteria is fine, but using stuffed animals for example is not<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Anything with a brain shouldn't be used in art - they might feel pain<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I have a pretty low opinion of art so maybe my opinions are biased.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I think you can make engineered butterflies to be even more beautiful !<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
I only agree in using lower organisms like fungi and bacteria for bioart.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
It's fine with bacteria but its a different matter with higher beings.<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2"><br />
The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations. Nor ancient nor innaceptable.<br />
</td><br />
<td id = "cite"><br />
Transforming higher living creatures for art should be subject to ethics review<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing).<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3"><br />
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?<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
</section><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</body><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
---> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* <br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T09:17:38Z<p>SylvieL: /* How does synthetic biology challenge this definition? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals of bioart. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to the society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bioart gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frigthen people about biology. Indeed, with a shocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology, it has to be useful. However, a project such as a bioart work may help to prove the feasibility of a synthetic biology approach. It may also improve scientific knowledge. But bioart 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 or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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, but also 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 at the end, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart 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 time 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do.<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is there a hierarchy between organisms according to you? Is it the same to use bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is a living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T09:15:41Z<p>SylvieL: /* What is living being? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals of bioart. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to the society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bioart gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frigthen people about biology. Indeed, with a shocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology, it has to be useful. However, a project such as a bioart work may help to prove the feasibility of a synthetic biology approach. It may also improve scientific knowledge. But bioart 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 or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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, but also 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 at the end, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart 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 time 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do.<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is there a hierarchy between organisms according to you? Is it the same to use bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is a living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T09:13:03Z<p>SylvieL: /* What is living being? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals of bioart. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to the society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bioart gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frigthen people about biology. Indeed, with a shocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology, it has to be useful. However, a project such as a bioart work may help to prove the feasibility of a synthetic biology approach. It may also improve scientific knowledge. But bioart 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 or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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, but also 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 at the end, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart 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 time 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do.<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is there a hierarchy between organisms according to you? Is it the same to use bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T09:12:11Z<p>SylvieL: /* What is living being? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals of bioart. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to the society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bioart gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frigthen people about biology. Indeed, with a shocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology, it has to be useful. However, a project such as a bioart work may help to prove the feasibility of a synthetic biology approach. It may also improve scientific knowledge. But bioart 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 or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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, but also 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 at the end, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart 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 time 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do.<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is there a hierarchy between organisms according to you? Is it the same to use bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T09:10:41Z<p>SylvieL: /* Is there a hierarchy between organisms according to you? Is it the same to use bacteria or a rabbit? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals of bioart. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to the society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bioart gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frigthen people about biology. Indeed, with a shocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology, it has to be useful. However, a project such as a bioart work may help to prove the feasibility of a synthetic biology approach. It may also improve scientific knowledge. But bioart 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 or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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, but also 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 at the end, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart 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 time 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do.<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is there a hierarchy between organisms according to you? Is it the same to use bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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?<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T09:08:17Z<p>SylvieL: /* Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals of bioart. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to the society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bioart gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frigthen people about biology. Indeed, with a shocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology, it has to be useful. However, a project such as a bioart work may help to prove the feasibility of a synthetic biology approach. It may also improve scientific knowledge. But bioart 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 or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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, but also 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 at the end, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart 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 time 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do.<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is there a hierarchy between organisms according to you? Is it the same to use bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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?<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T09:06:38Z<p>SylvieL: /* What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals of bioart. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to the society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bioart gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frigthen people about biology. Indeed, with a shocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology, it has to be useful. However, a project such as a bioart work may help to prove the feasibility of a synthetic biology approach. It may also improve scientific knowledge. But bioart 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 or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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, but also 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 at the end, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart 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 time 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do.<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T09:04:34Z<p>SylvieL: /* What is the main goal of Bioart? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals of bioart. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to the society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bioart gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frigthen people about biology. Indeed, with a shocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology, it has to be useful. However, a project such as a bioart work may help to prove the feasibility of a synthetic biology approach. It may also improve scientific knowledge. But bioart 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 or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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, but also 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 at the end, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart 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 time 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do.<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': 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.<br />
<br />
====Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T09:02:00Z<p>SylvieL: /* What is the main goal of Bioart? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals of bioart. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to the society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bioart gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frigthen people about biology. Indeed, with a shocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology, it has to be useful. However, a project such as a bioart work may help to prove the feasibility of a synthetic biology approach. It may also improve scientific knowledge. But bioart 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 or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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 question but also to see the biologist in a different light. It allow people to understand better, to enrich the debate and to allow people to be more interested in biology because finally, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart has also the power of popularization. It presents something complex as synthetic biology with a visual work, sometime easier to understand. It is a review which has been raised a lot of time about scientific paper. These work 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do.<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': 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.<br />
<br />
====Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T08:57:55Z<p>SylvieL: /* What is the main goal of Bioart? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals of bioart. The first one is to inform, because the power of deciding belongs to the society. However, someone who is ignorant cannot choose as he does not know the choices. Thus, Bioart gives an opportunity to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educates its spectators. You learn something when you see a bio-artistic work. However, some artists, such as Eduardo Kac, frigthen people about biology. Indeed, with a shocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology it has to be useful. However, a project as bioart work may only help to prove the feasibility. It may be a project to improve the knowledge. Bioart it is not only the knowledge, it much more than that. As the work is exhibited it is also about aesthetic, admiration… The goal is to show something to people with a question behind or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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 question but also to see the biologist in a different light. It allow people to understand better, to enrich the debate and to allow people to be more interested in biology because finally, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart has also the power of popularization. It presents something complex as synthetic biology with a visual work, sometime easier to understand. It is a review which has been raised a lot of time about scientific paper. These work 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do.<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': 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.<br />
<br />
====Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T08:53:30Z<p>SylvieL: /* What can art and science share to open up new horizons? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals about bioart. The first one is to inform. Because the power belongs to the society, population makes the decision. However, someone who is ignorant cannot chose as he does not know choices. Thus, Bioart gives the choice to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educate its spectators. You learn something when you see a bioartisical work. However, some artist as Eduardo Kac , afraid people about biology. Indeed, with a chocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology it has to be useful. However, a project as bioart work may only help to prove the feasibility. It may be a project to improve the knowledge. Bioart it is not only the knowledge, it much more than that. As the work is exhibited it is also about aesthetic, admiration… The goal is to show something to people with a question behind or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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 question but also to see the biologist in a different light. It allow people to understand better, to enrich the debate and to allow people to be more interested in biology because finally, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart has also the power of popularization. It presents something complex as synthetic biology with a visual work, sometime easier to understand. It is a review which has been raised a lot of time about scientific paper. These work 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do. <br />
<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': 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.<br />
<br />
====Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T08:51:42Z<p>SylvieL: /* Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': I think that there are every kind of collaboration: the scientist that only provides a technical support, or the scientist who really think 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. Through the collaboration between scientists and artists, we can have a global view about what life is.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Art and science are distinct by the fact that they belong to different domain. To be an artistical work, the author who can be scientist or not, should suggest to the audience the way to look at his/her work. It not only about beauty, it is also about how spectators will understand your work.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals about bioart. The first one is to inform. Because the power belongs to the society, population makes the decision. However, someone who is ignorant cannot chose as he does not know choices. Thus, Bioart gives the choice to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educate its spectators. You learn something when you see a bioartisical work. However, some artist as Eduardo Kac , afraid people about biology. Indeed, with a chocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology it has to be useful. However, a project as bioart work may only help to prove the feasibility. It may be a project to improve the knowledge. Bioart it is not only the knowledge, it much more than that. As the work is exhibited it is also about aesthetic, admiration… The goal is to show something to people with a question behind or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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 question but also to see the biologist in a different light. It allow people to understand better, to enrich the debate and to allow people to be more interested in biology because finally, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart has also the power of popularization. It presents something complex as synthetic biology with a visual work, sometime easier to understand. It is a review which has been raised a lot of time about scientific paper. These work 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do. <br />
<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': 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.<br />
<br />
====Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T08:46:17Z<p>SylvieL: /* Can it be a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Is it possible to have a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Art and science are distinct by the fact that they belong to different domain. To be an artistical work, the author who can be scientist or not, should suggest to the audience the way to look at his/her work. It not only about beauty, it is also about how spectators will understand your work.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals about bioart. The first one is to inform. Because the power belongs to the society, population makes the decision. However, someone who is ignorant cannot chose as he does not know choices. Thus, Bioart gives the choice to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educate its spectators. You learn something when you see a bioartisical work. However, some artist as Eduardo Kac , afraid people about biology. Indeed, with a chocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology it has to be useful. However, a project as bioart work may only help to prove the feasibility. It may be a project to improve the knowledge. Bioart it is not only the knowledge, it much more than that. As the work is exhibited it is also about aesthetic, admiration… The goal is to show something to people with a question behind or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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 question but also to see the biologist in a different light. It allow people to understand better, to enrich the debate and to allow people to be more interested in biology because finally, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart has also the power of popularization. It presents something complex as synthetic biology with a visual work, sometime easier to understand. It is a review which has been raised a lot of time about scientific paper. These work 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do. <br />
<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': 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.<br />
<br />
====Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T08:45:32Z<p>SylvieL: /* According to you, what is the link between art and science? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': In 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 specific 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Can it be a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Art and science are distinct by the fact that they belong to different domain. To be an artistical work, the author who can be scientist or not, should suggest to the audience the way to look at his/her work. It not only about beauty, it is also about how spectators will understand your work.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals about bioart. The first one is to inform. Because the power belongs to the society, population makes the decision. However, someone who is ignorant cannot chose as he does not know choices. Thus, Bioart gives the choice to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educate its spectators. You learn something when you see a bioartisical work. However, some artist as Eduardo Kac , afraid people about biology. Indeed, with a chocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology it has to be useful. However, a project as bioart work may only help to prove the feasibility. It may be a project to improve the knowledge. Bioart it is not only the knowledge, it much more than that. As the work is exhibited it is also about aesthetic, admiration… The goal is to show something to people with a question behind or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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 question but also to see the biologist in a different light. It allow people to understand better, to enrich the debate and to allow people to be more interested in biology because finally, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart has also the power of popularization. It presents something complex as synthetic biology with a visual work, sometime easier to understand. It is a review which has been raised a lot of time about scientific paper. These work 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do. <br />
<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': 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.<br />
<br />
====Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/InterviewsTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Interviews2014-10-17T08:44:25Z<p>SylvieL: /* Experts */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Expert's opinion=<br />
==Introduction==<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experts==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Therese BICHON''' as "the artist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alexei GRINBAUM''' as "the scientist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Emmanuel HIRSCH''' as "the ethics expert"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Morgan MEYER''' as "the sociologist"<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Partrick SAINT-JEAN and Dominique SCIAMMA''' as "the experts in designer" <br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
Partick Saint-Jean is the director of the Srtate design school localized at Sèvres near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
Dominique Sciamma is a lecturer in computer graphics, in the design department at ENS Cachan near Paris (France)<br />
<br />
==General questions about art and science==<br />
<br />
====According to you, what is the link between art and science?====<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
====Can it be a real collaboration between the artist and the scientist?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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.<br />
<br />
====What can art and science share to open up new horizons?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Art and science are distinct by the fact that they belong to different domain. To be an artistical work, the author who can be scientist or not, should suggest to the audience the way to look at his/her work. It not only about beauty, it is also about how spectators will understand your work.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bioart point of view==<br />
<br />
====What is the main goal of Bioart?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''' : To my mind there are two main goals about bioart. The first one is to inform. Because the power belongs to the society, population makes the decision. However, someone who is ignorant cannot chose as he does not know choices. Thus, Bioart gives the choice to understand synthetic biology or biology in general. Then, I would say that bioart educate its spectators. You learn something when you see a bioartisical work. However, some artist as Eduardo Kac , afraid people about biology. Indeed, with a chocking work they go against the principle of education. Thus, we can be afraid and completely reject it. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''Alexei Grinbaum''' : If we use synthetic biology it has to be useful. However, a project as bioart work may only help to prove the feasibility. It may be a project to improve the knowledge. Bioart it is not only the knowledge, it much more than that. As the work is exhibited it is also about aesthetic, admiration… The goal is to show something to people with a question behind or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : Biart 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 question but also to see the biologist in a different light. It allow people to understand better, to enrich the debate and to allow people to be more interested in biology because finally, Biology is everywhere. <br />
Bioart has also the power of popularization. It presents something complex as synthetic biology with a visual work, sometime easier to understand. It is a review which has been raised a lot of time about scientific paper. These work 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''Emmanuel Hirsch''': Your goal is purely an aesthetical goal, is it useful? Is art useful? The approach is especially for sensitization and popularization. Bioart takes part of the society’s education showing what is possible to do. <br />
<br />
<br />
====What do you think about using living being in an artistic purpose?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''' : 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Therèse Bichon''': 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.<br />
<br />
====Does a hierarchy of organism exist according to you? Is it the same to use a bacteria or a rabbit?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Ethic.png|left]]<br />
'''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 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
==Living or non-living, natural or artificial, reel or fake?==<br />
<br />
====What is living being?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Design.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Artist.png|left]]<br />
'''Thérèse Bichon''': 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?<br />
<br />
<br />
====How does synthetic biology challenge this definition?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''Morgan Meyer''': 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
====How does our project raise this question?====<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Sociologist.png|left]]<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethic-Interview-Scientist.png|left]]<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/Round_TableTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Round Table2014-10-17T08:42:42Z<p>SylvieL: /* Bio-art */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Round Table=<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Summer 2014 – Parisian teams decided to organize a French meet up in the Paris-Sud University. Teams from France came as Evry-Genopole, Paris-Bettencourt, Bordeaux and Lyon’s teams.<br />
<br />
During the event, our team suggested to raise some ethical issues about synthetic biology and Bio-Art. Indeed our project is based on ethical reflection and we thought that having the point of view of teams from other tracks should be interesting. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Bio-art==<br />
<br />
At the beginning, we asked what Bio-art really is according to the participants. This question provoked a long discussion, as it is very difficult to obtain a very specific and exact definition. Indeed, Bio-art can include many things because there are no exact frontiers for the word art. A simple modification of a bacterium could be seen as Bio-art, as well as a "modification" of a human body. Behind the meaning of art, there is especially human thought and interpretation. Science and art are both similar when they look for something new. <br />
Because Bio-art involves living science as biology and art, an important question was raised: what aspect should be more represented? Is one of these 2 aspects more visible than the other one? Indeed, for instance, if the scientific aspect is more visible, we may miss the artistic trait, and only think that it is a scientific work. Thus, could someone be scientist as well as artist? Is it compatible? We thought that artistic and scientific traits could co-exist together in a person; however, according to the background of the person, one aspect will prevail over the other one.<br />
<br />
Art is also a way to report uncommon practices and to raise questions about made facts. Use science as living science allows to bring a different angle of vision to the artist in order to deliver his message. <br />
<br />
Art’s mount is already very diversified: blackboard, stone, body’s expression… Thanks to biology a new mount appears: living being.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay ethics.3.JPG|300px| center]] <br />
<br />
[[Biology]]<br />
<br />
However, can we define precisely what living being really is? Synthetic biology raised this question: Actually what is living being? Until where are we allowed to transformed the nature? Is there a limit? We realized that we did not share the same definition of living. For some of us, a living organism is something that is able to reproduce itself. However, a computer program could also reproduce itself, would it therefore belong to living organism?<br />
<br />
For example a lot of granolas, (as corn and wheat) belong to varieties that are selected by human according to their advantages: size of the grain, resistance to insect… but we do not call them GMO (Genetically modified organism)! Whenever we act on the genome, the responsibility of those who practice it is very important because there is no fundamental difference between making a cross and make a GMO. Indeed, if there is a human desire to make a cross, there is no fundamental difference between a genetically modification made directly to the laboratory. <br />
<br />
Nowadays, we already find some genetically modified organism as:<br />
<br />
* Alba rabbit from Eduardo Kac (Febrary 2000). The use of fluorescence is here the innovative part.<br />
<br />
* Plant from Eduardo Kac (2003-2008). This hybride plant comes from the cross between human and plant DNA.<br />
<br />
* Human bio-art with Marion Laval-Jeantet’s work. Indeed, she transfused horse’s blood in order to test “limits of the embodied conscious”. <br />
<br />
[[Art support]]<br />
<br />
An important question must be raised: Using animal in an art purpose is it considered as animal abuse? Does animal’s pain the only criteria that we have to consider when we use animal in an art purpose? We think that it should not be the only criteria to make a decision but it should be primordial for the decision and should be very well questioned. Finally it is the artist’s choice and he/she must justify his/her choice to use living being for his/her work. <br />
But the distinction between plants and animals is not really based or justified because the only fundamental thing that differentiates is the cell structure. Indeed we took for example the sea anemone. Conceptually, many people associate the anemone to a plant because, it’s very far of the definition that we have about an animal, and however anemone is part of the animal kingdom. So for this question, we conclude that what distinguish two living organism is the intelligence and that why humans are more disturbed by the killing/genetically a mouse than bacteria, a plant or an anemone. A man will have more qualms about manipulating a being with whom he interacts. <br />
<br />
[[File: Paris Saclay ethics.2.JPG|300px| center]] <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Ethics]]<br />
<br />
Some artists use this new concept to denounce the use of transgenic organism. We deeply believe that it exists a huge paradox to denounce the use of transgenic method usine transgenic organism themselves. <br />
<br />
Bioart is a useful tool to show our thoughts but we do not have to forget limits we defined. It may also be issue because some persons who are not familiar with biology could be afraid about this genetic manipulation. We believe that humans always try to innovate and this innovation with biological material may be dangerous. <br />
<br />
Some skeptical against contempory art raise some issues about the current manipulation of living being and its “banalisation”. Bioart may be part of this fear because it open a huge window on a world we do not know yet. However, Bioart raise all these questions and make people aware about these current issues. Indeed, interest about biology increases since bioart was created.<br />
<br />
However, scientists and artists are very different because they have different background about biology and more precisely about safety. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethics.JPG|300px| center]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Bioart is a new tool for artistical communication and it allows to show an innovative science<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bioart may be considerated as a new step in the future’s art that tends to shake already admitted code.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/Round_TableTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Round Table2014-10-17T08:38:58Z<p>SylvieL: /* Bio-art */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Round Table=<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Summer 2014 – Parisian teams decided to organize a French meet up in the Paris-Sud University. Teams from France came as Evry-Genopole, Paris-Bettencourt, Bordeaux and Lyon’s teams.<br />
<br />
During the event, our team suggested to raise some ethical issues about synthetic biology and Bio-Art. Indeed our project is based on ethical reflection and we thought that having the point of view of teams from other tracks should be interesting. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Bio-art==<br />
<br />
At the beginning, we asked what Bio-art really is according to the participants. As it is very difficult to obtain a very specific and exact definition, we had a long discussion. Indeed, Bio-art can include many things because there are no exact frontiers for the word art. A simple modification of a bacterium could be seen as Bio-art as well as a "modification" of a human body. Behind the meaning of art, there is especially human thought and interpretation. Science and art are both similar when they look for something new. <br />
Because Bio-art involves living science as biology and art, an important question was raised: what aspect should be more represented? Is one of these 2 aspects more visible than the other one? Indeed, for instance, if the scientific aspect is more visible, we may miss the artistic trait, and only think that it is a scientific work. Thus, could someone be scientist as well as artist? Is it compatible? We thought that artistic and scientific trait could exist together in a whole person, however, according to the background of everyone one aspect will prevail over the other one.<br />
<br />
Art is also a way to report uncommon practices and to raise questions about made facts. Use science as living science allows to bring a different angle of vision to the artist in order to deliver his message. <br />
<br />
Art’s mount is already very diversified: blackboard, stone, body’s expression… Thanks to biology a new mount appears: living being.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay ethics.3.JPG|300px| center]] <br />
<br />
[[Biology]]<br />
<br />
However, can we define precisely what living being really is? Synthetic biology raised this question: Actually what is living being? Until where are we allowed to transformed the nature? Is there a limit? We realized that we did not share the same definition of living. For some of us, a living organism is something that is able to reproduce itself. However, a computer program could also reproduce itself, would it therefore belong to living organism?<br />
<br />
For example a lot of granolas, (as corn and wheat) belong to varieties that are selected by human according to their advantages: size of the grain, resistance to insect… but we do not call them GMO (Genetically modified organism)! Whenever we act on the genome, the responsibility of those who practice it is very important because there is no fundamental difference between making a cross and make a GMO. Indeed, if there is a human desire to make a cross, there is no fundamental difference between a genetically modification made directly to the laboratory. <br />
<br />
Nowadays, we already find some genetically modified organism as:<br />
<br />
* Alba rabbit from Eduardo Kac (Febrary 2000). The use of fluorescence is here the innovative part.<br />
<br />
* Plant from Eduardo Kac (2003-2008). This hybride plant comes from the cross between human and plant DNA.<br />
<br />
* Human bio-art with Marion Laval-Jeantet’s work. Indeed, she transfused horse’s blood in order to test “limits of the embodied conscious”. <br />
<br />
[[Art support]]<br />
<br />
An important question must be raised: Using animal in an art purpose is it considered as animal abuse? Does animal’s pain the only criteria that we have to consider when we use animal in an art purpose? We think that it should not be the only criteria to make a decision but it should be primordial for the decision and should be very well questioned. Finally it is the artist’s choice and he/she must justify his/her choice to use living being for his/her work. <br />
But the distinction between plants and animals is not really based or justified because the only fundamental thing that differentiates is the cell structure. Indeed we took for example the sea anemone. Conceptually, many people associate the anemone to a plant because, it’s very far of the definition that we have about an animal, and however anemone is part of the animal kingdom. So for this question, we conclude that what distinguish two living organism is the intelligence and that why humans are more disturbed by the killing/genetically a mouse than bacteria, a plant or an anemone. A man will have more qualms about manipulating a being with whom he interacts. <br />
<br />
[[File: Paris Saclay ethics.2.JPG|300px| center]] <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Ethics]]<br />
<br />
Some artists use this new concept to denounce the use of transgenic organism. We deeply believe that it exists a huge paradox to denounce the use of transgenic method usine transgenic organism themselves. <br />
<br />
Bioart is a useful tool to show our thoughts but we do not have to forget limits we defined. It may also be issue because some persons who are not familiar with biology could be afraid about this genetic manipulation. We believe that humans always try to innovate and this innovation with biological material may be dangerous. <br />
<br />
Some skeptical against contempory art raise some issues about the current manipulation of living being and its “banalisation”. Bioart may be part of this fear because it open a huge window on a world we do not know yet. However, Bioart raise all these questions and make people aware about these current issues. Indeed, interest about biology increases since bioart was created.<br />
<br />
However, scientists and artists are very different because they have different background about biology and more precisely about safety. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethics.JPG|300px| center]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Bioart is a new tool for artistical communication and it allows to show an innovative science<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bioart may be considerated as a new step in the future’s art that tends to shake already admitted code.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/Round_TableTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Round Table2014-10-17T08:32:55Z<p>SylvieL: /* Bio-art */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Round Table=<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Summer 2014 – Parisian teams decided to organize a French meet up in the Paris-Sud University. Teams from France came as Evry-Genopole, Paris-Bettencourt, Bordeaux and Lyon’s teams.<br />
<br />
During the event, our team suggested to raise some ethical issues about synthetic biology and Bio-Art. Indeed our project is based on ethical reflection and we thought that having the point of view of teams from other tracks should be interesting. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Bio-art==<br />
<br />
At the beginning, we asked what Bio-art really is according to the participants. As it is very difficult to obtain a very specific and exact definition, we had a long discussion. Indeed, Bio-art could mean everything because there are no exact frontiers for the word art which is endless. Simple modification of a bacteria could be seen as Bio-art as well as human body. Behind the meaning of art, there is especially human thought and interpretation. Science and art are both similar when they look for something new. <br />
Because Bio-art involved living science as biology and art, an important question was raised: what aspect should be more represented? Is one of these 2 aspects more visible than the other one? Indeed, for instance, if the scientific aspect is more visible, we may miss the artistic trait, and only think that it is a scientific work. Thus, could someone be scientist as well as artist? Is it compatible? We thought that artistic and scientific trait could exist together in a whole person, however, according to the background of everyone one aspect will lead the other one.<br />
<br />
Art is also a way to report not common practices and to raise questions about made facts. Use science as living science allows to bring a different angle of vision to the artist in order to deliver his message. <br />
<br />
Art’s mount is already very diversify: blackboard, stone, body’s expression… Thanks to biology a new mount appears: living being.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay ethics.3.JPG|300px| center]] <br />
<br />
[[Biology]]<br />
<br />
However, can we define precisely what living being really is? Synthetic biology raised this question: Actually what is living being? Until where are we allowed to transformed the nature? Is there a limit? We realized that we did not share the same definition of living. For some of us, a living organism is something that is able to reproduce itself. However, a computer program could also reproduce itself, would it therefore belong to living organism?<br />
<br />
For example a lot of granolas, (as corn and wheat) belong to varieties that are selected by human according to their advantages: size of the grain, resistance to insect… but we do not call them GMO (Genetically modified organism)! Whenever we act on the genome, the responsibility of those who practice it is very important because there is no fundamental difference between making a cross and make a GMO. Indeed, if there is a human desire to make a cross, there is no fundamental difference between a genetically modification made directly to the laboratory. <br />
<br />
Nowadays, we already find some genetically modified organism as:<br />
<br />
* Alba rabbit from Eduardo Kac (Febrary 2000). The use of fluorescence is here the innovative part.<br />
<br />
* Plant from Eduardo Kac (2003-2008). This hybride plant comes from the cross between human and plant DNA.<br />
<br />
* Human bio-art with Marion Laval-Jeantet’s work. Indeed, she transfused horse’s blood in order to test “limits of the embodied conscious”. <br />
<br />
[[Art support]]<br />
<br />
An important question must be raised: Using animal in an art purpose is it considered as animal abuse? Does animal’s pain the only criteria that we have to consider when we use animal in an art purpose? We think that it should not be the only criteria to make a decision but it should be primordial for the decision and should be very well questioned. Finally it is the artist’s choice and he/she must justify his/her choice to use living being for his/her work. <br />
But the distinction between plants and animals is not really based or justified because the only fundamental thing that differentiates is the cell structure. Indeed we took for example the sea anemone. Conceptually, many people associate the anemone to a plant because, it’s very far of the definition that we have about an animal, and however anemone is part of the animal kingdom. So for this question, we conclude that what distinguish two living organism is the intelligence and that why humans are more disturbed by the killing/genetically a mouse than bacteria, a plant or an anemone. A man will have more qualms about manipulating a being with whom he interacts. <br />
<br />
[[File: Paris Saclay ethics.2.JPG|300px| center]] <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Ethics]]<br />
<br />
Some artists use this new concept to denounce the use of transgenic organism. We deeply believe that it exists a huge paradox to denounce the use of transgenic method usine transgenic organism themselves. <br />
<br />
Bioart is a useful tool to show our thoughts but we do not have to forget limits we defined. It may also be issue because some persons who are not familiar with biology could be afraid about this genetic manipulation. We believe that humans always try to innovate and this innovation with biological material may be dangerous. <br />
<br />
Some skeptical against contempory art raise some issues about the current manipulation of living being and its “banalisation”. Bioart may be part of this fear because it open a huge window on a world we do not know yet. However, Bioart raise all these questions and make people aware about these current issues. Indeed, interest about biology increases since bioart was created.<br />
<br />
However, scientists and artists are very different because they have different background about biology and more precisely about safety. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethics.JPG|300px| center]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Bioart is a new tool for artistical communication and it allows to show an innovative science<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bioart may be considerated as a new step in the future’s art that tends to shake already admitted code.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieLhttp://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/Round_TableTeam:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Round Table2014-10-17T08:32:04Z<p>SylvieL: /* Round Table */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}}<br />
=Round Table=<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Summer 2014 – Parisian teams decided to organize a French meet up in the Paris-Sud University. Teams from France came as Evry-Genopole, Paris-Bettencourt, Bordeaux and Lyon’s teams.<br />
<br />
During the event, our team suggested to raise some ethical issues about synthetic biology and Bio-Art. Indeed our project is based on ethical reflection and we thought that having the point of view of teams from other tracks should be interesting. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Bio-art==<br />
<br />
At the beginning, we asked what Bio-art really is according to them. As it is very difficult to obtain a very specific and exact definition, we had a long discussion. Indeed, Bio-art could mean everything because there are no exact frontiers for the word art which is endless. Simple modification of a bacteria could be seen as Bio-art as well as human body. Behind the meaning of art, there is especially human thought and interpretation. Science and art are both similar when they look for something new. <br />
Because Bio-art involved living science as biology and art, an important question was raised: what aspect should be more represented? Is one of these 2 aspects more visible than the other one? Indeed, for instance, if the scientific aspect is more visible, we may miss the artistic trait, and only think that it is a scientific work. Thus, could someone be scientist as well as artist? Is it compatible? We thought that artistic and scientific trait could exist together in a whole person, however, according to the background of everyone one aspect will lead the other one.<br />
<br />
Art is also a way to report not common practices and to raise questions about made facts. Use science as living science allows to bring a different angle of vision to the artist in order to deliver his message. <br />
<br />
Art’s mount is already very diversify: blackboard, stone, body’s expression… Thanks to biology a new mount appears: living being.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay ethics.3.JPG|300px| center]] <br />
<br />
[[Biology]]<br />
<br />
However, can we define precisely what living being really is? Synthetic biology raised this question: Actually what is living being? Until where are we allowed to transformed the nature? Is there a limit? We realized that we did not share the same definition of living. For some of us, a living organism is something that is able to reproduce itself. However, a computer program could also reproduce itself, would it therefore belong to living organism?<br />
<br />
For example a lot of granolas, (as corn and wheat) belong to varieties that are selected by human according to their advantages: size of the grain, resistance to insect… but we do not call them GMO (Genetically modified organism)! Whenever we act on the genome, the responsibility of those who practice it is very important because there is no fundamental difference between making a cross and make a GMO. Indeed, if there is a human desire to make a cross, there is no fundamental difference between a genetically modification made directly to the laboratory. <br />
<br />
Nowadays, we already find some genetically modified organism as:<br />
<br />
* Alba rabbit from Eduardo Kac (Febrary 2000). The use of fluorescence is here the innovative part.<br />
<br />
* Plant from Eduardo Kac (2003-2008). This hybride plant comes from the cross between human and plant DNA.<br />
<br />
* Human bio-art with Marion Laval-Jeantet’s work. Indeed, she transfused horse’s blood in order to test “limits of the embodied conscious”. <br />
<br />
[[Art support]]<br />
<br />
An important question must be raised: Using animal in an art purpose is it considered as animal abuse? Does animal’s pain the only criteria that we have to consider when we use animal in an art purpose? We think that it should not be the only criteria to make a decision but it should be primordial for the decision and should be very well questioned. Finally it is the artist’s choice and he/she must justify his/her choice to use living being for his/her work. <br />
But the distinction between plants and animals is not really based or justified because the only fundamental thing that differentiates is the cell structure. Indeed we took for example the sea anemone. Conceptually, many people associate the anemone to a plant because, it’s very far of the definition that we have about an animal, and however anemone is part of the animal kingdom. So for this question, we conclude that what distinguish two living organism is the intelligence and that why humans are more disturbed by the killing/genetically a mouse than bacteria, a plant or an anemone. A man will have more qualms about manipulating a being with whom he interacts. <br />
<br />
[[File: Paris Saclay ethics.2.JPG|300px| center]] <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Ethics]]<br />
<br />
Some artists use this new concept to denounce the use of transgenic organism. We deeply believe that it exists a huge paradox to denounce the use of transgenic method usine transgenic organism themselves. <br />
<br />
Bioart is a useful tool to show our thoughts but we do not have to forget limits we defined. It may also be issue because some persons who are not familiar with biology could be afraid about this genetic manipulation. We believe that humans always try to innovate and this innovation with biological material may be dangerous. <br />
<br />
Some skeptical against contempory art raise some issues about the current manipulation of living being and its “banalisation”. Bioart may be part of this fear because it open a huge window on a world we do not know yet. However, Bioart raise all these questions and make people aware about these current issues. Indeed, interest about biology increases since bioart was created.<br />
<br />
However, scientists and artists are very different because they have different background about biology and more precisely about safety. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Paris Saclay Ethics.JPG|300px| center]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Bioart is a new tool for artistical communication and it allows to show an innovative science<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bioart may be considerated as a new step in the future’s art that tends to shake already admitted code.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}</div>SylvieL