This week had me thinking
a lot about ethics and playing “god.” In a previous post I mentioned designer
babies and how “A research team in China genetically engineered human embryos”
(Sepkowitz). I believe that this could qualify as biological art. My reasoning
is because like Edwardo Kac’s GFP Bunny, a scientists would be changing the DNA
of a living creature. In Kac’s case he claimed the GFP bunny as one of his
works of art (Vesna). I stand in the middle of the animal rights activists and
the scientists on this matter because although we have expanded technology and
the things we can accomplish, is that really in our best interest to be playing
“god?” I do feel that while it is extremely interesting, animals cannot consent
to these procedures so it is difficult to say if we should be doing this if all
it accomplishes is meeting a new aesthetic.
This
brings me to another issue of “biological art” that has been going on for
hundreds of years, that is breeding and the way pure bread pets are treated as
commodities or status symbols. More recently, the teacup versions of pets have
become increasingly popular. Although, I do think they are cute, but these
animals will likely live short and miserable lives because they have so many
health issues, even more than the average pure bread (Jobe). These issues
usually begin with the breeding process, which is very risky because the
mothers are so small (Jobe). I believe that this is what happens when people
try to play god too much. This is why being able to modify a human’s DNA for
aesthetic purposes alone is unethical to me. The individuals who are changing
the DNA in living things are the Victorian Gentlemen. They find that changing
biology “to be useful primarily in a critical re-configuration of the tradition
of the Still Life” (Kelty). As with anything that can bring about huge change,
we should all approach with caution because of the ethical implication and
potentially harmful consequences. Although there are fascinating artistic and
medical contributions that can be made from this, is it really worth putting a
living thing through a life that no one is sure will be a “normal” or even
pleasant one? I believe that ethical practices should outweigh any artistic endeavors
dealing with DNA that purely seek aesthetic deviations.
Jobe, Mat. "Cuteness Kills: The Case Against
Teacup Dogs - Terribly Terrier." Terribly Terrier: The Dog Site with Bite.
Terribly Terrier, 2015. Web. 6 May 2015.
Kac, Eduardo. "GFP BUNNY." GFP BUNNY. KAC,
2000. Web. 6 May 2015. < http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor>.
Kelty, Chris. "Meanings of Participation: Outlaw
Biology?" Web. 5 May 2015.
Pena, Melvin. "No Small Problem: The Ethics of
Teacup Dogs." Dogster. I-5 Publishing, 25 June 2014. Web. 6 May 2015.
Sepkowitz, Kent. "Are Designer Babies Finally
Real?" The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 26 Apr. 2015. Web. 27
Apr. 2015. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/26/are-designer-babies-finally-real.html>.
Vesna, Victoria. “5 bioart pt1.” UC
online program. Youtube, 18 Sept 2013. Web. 5 May 2015. < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaThVnA1kyg&hd=1>.
The teacup versions of pets is a great example of human manipulation of organisms that has been around for a long time. It is very sad that they have such poor health purely for the sake of a specific aesthetic appeal. Considering that art is almost always intended to create some kind of aesthetic appeal, would you say that artists should be restricted from incorporating biotechnology or manipulating living organisms for their art because there may be unintended, hurtful consequences? Or do you think there are situations where it may still be ethical for an artist to genetically modify a living thing?
ReplyDelete