Biological advancements have been aided with the help (or sacrifice) of animals, through animal testing. Fairly common things like “Surgical procedures, pain relievers, psychoactive drugs, medications for blood pressure, insulin, pacemakers, nutrition supplements, organ transplants, treatments for shock trauma and blood diseases,” (Science, Medicine, and Animals) have all come about as a result of animal testing. These advancements through the animals enabled many artists to explore the depths of these tests, whether it would be in the form of transplantation or manipulation of the animals’ genetic code. However, these advancements and mediums of expression have been met with protest of animal violence and ethical implications. While few of these pieces of life are relatively harmless in the eyes of the animal, like injecting a rabbit zygote with a glowing gene, or encoding the milky way onto the ear of a rat (Bio Art pt.1), the few that have drawn eyes to the field are those that harm the animals. This has led to a series of ethical questions that has closely tied and surrounded to this field, which include, “is life a valid medium of expression,” “are the animals lives worth the sacrifice for human advancement,” and “what animals can and can’t be tested, where is the line to how far one goes?”
Lab Rat with an Ear Transplanted onto it Rat that was given the Glowing Gene
To give my input on the matter, there is no right or wrong answer to any of these questions, it simply depends. Artistic pieces like taking the neural networks of a goldfish’s mind, and being able to transcribe the pulses onto a canvas so that it “draws with its mind” seems like a relatively harmless mode of expression (Bio Art pt. 2). Yet, others like genetically modifying the code of a butterfly's wing patterns, also creating holes in the wings at the same is where the line is starting to be drawn. I believe that if one can avoid the ability of harming an animal, for an artistic pursuit, no ethical boundaries should need to be drawn. One should be able to express themselves without the harm of others, regardless if it is a human or not. In ORLAN’s “genetic coat” (Bio Art pt.4) she was able to create something from consenting individuals. In the case of “Blood Wars,” only consenting individuals participated in the experiment, just like ORLAN (Bio Art pt.3). Another fairly common genetic modification that came about as a result of artists working in the field, the creation of hybrid flowers. George Gessert was one of the first to make flower hybrids a mainstream mode of expression (Bio Art pt. 5). In all, I agree with those who express the sentiments of making restrictions more stringent on artists, for the sake of the animals.
George Gessert, Iris
National Academy of Sciences (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Use of Animals in Research. “SCIENCE, MEDICINE, AND ANIMALS.” Science, Medicine, and Animals., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Jan. 1991, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223354/#:~:text=Surgical%20procedures%2C%20pain%20relievers%2C%20psychoactive,before%20being%20used%20in%20humans.
Vesna. “5 Bioart pt1 1280x720.” YouTube, 18 Sept. 2013, youtu.be/PaThVnA1kyg.
Vesna. “5 BioArt pt2.” YouTube, 17 May 2012, youtu.be/MdSt-Hjyi2I?list=PL9DBF43664EAC8BC7.
Vesna. “5 BioArt pt3.” YouTube, 17 May 2012, youtu.be/3EpD3np1S2g?list=PL9DBF43664EAC8BC7.
Vesna. “5 BioArt pt4.” YouTube, 17 May 2012, youtu.be/2qSc72u9KhI?list=PL9DBF43664EAC8BC7.
Vesna. “5 BioArt pt5.” YouTube, 17 May 2012, youtu.be/z7zHIdsFS3A?list=PL9DBF43664EAC8BC7.
“Animal Biotechnology.” YouTube, 25 July 2008, youtu.be/qCIvAuwaf-o.
Comments
Post a Comment