Anatomy Lesson: Artbiotics blogging seminar

HeLa cell — an immortal cell line

Anatomy lesson
first Artbiotics seminar
7-12 november 2007

TOPIC: biotech art shouldn’t be just another form of subjectivism

provocateur: Antonio Cerveira Pinto (CkS)
participants: to be announced
important notice: I have decided to postpone this seminar to make it to coincide with  ARTE 2.0 {The Knowledge Art Based Show} that will take place in Lisbon in the same week.

terms of discussion:

## defining fields for biotech art

– other motherboards and robots
– the virtual bios
– netorganisms
– playing God with artifacts

## defining content for biotech art

– what knowledge is knowledge?
– nano-esthetics (beware of freaks!)
– intersections (old and new art)
– performative actions (the body still here…)
– group behaviour and virtual communities
– language and translators

## some case studies

A
– Natural Selection by George Gessert
– Nature? by Marta de Menezes
– One Tree(s) bt Natalie Jeremijenko

B
– Microvenus by Joe Davis
– MEART II by SymbioticA/ Guy Ben-Ary, Phil Gamblen
– Tissue Culture and Art (TC&A) by SymbioticA/ Ionat Zurr, Oron Catts
– Phumox by Andy Gracie/ Brian Lee Yung Rowe

C
– GNOM by Santiago Ortiz/ Luis Rico
D
– DogLab by France Cadet

E
– Epidermic! Diy Cell Lab/ “YOUGenics3″ by subRosa

F

– Particles of interest by Diane Ludin and Ricardo Dominguez

## a short story to begin with…

“DNA synthesis is already a relatively cheap technology that is widely distributed; the technology is often provided as a service by commercial firms that accept orders via the internet. Unfortunately, despite several years of ad hoc encouragement and inquiries to different government agencies, not all DNA synthesis companies examine their orders for DNA sequences encoding hazardous biological systems. For example, a recent investigative survey found that only five of twelve DNA synthesis companies systematically check their orders to ensure that they are not unknowingly constructing and delivering the genetic material encoding hazardous biological systems, such as human pathogens. Thus, DNA synthesis currently provides a plausible path for circumventing current best practice in biological safety, including institutional, peer, or government review of genetic research. Furthermore, because a small number of individuals, groups, or nations may continue to choose to intentionally misapply biological technologies, DNA synthesis, as currently practiced and given current biological security strategy, is likely to eventually facilitate the production of threats to human and environmental health. ” — LINK

## and some recent thoughts by George Church

CONSTRUCTIVE BIOLOGY

“The biggest questions I’m asking myself, at least in the laboratory, are: “What is it that makes us individuals?” That’s what we call thepersonal genome project. It’s aim is holistic, in contrast to the usual single disease or tissue.

The second is: how do we engineer biology? which can be called our “constructive biology” or “biological design” efforts. The two might intersect quite nicely in the form of personalized medicine. The first — what makes us who we are — could apply to all living things, but for now let’s say humans. It’s an analytic question: it can be addressed with genomic tools — technologies — which we develop.

The second question, the synthetic one, is how can we redesign living systems to achieve new goals. How can we evolve them in the laboratory, in subtle or in radical ways, to achieve biomedical, or agricultural, or other manufacturing goals. Those are the two big questions that we deal with. ” — in Hedge