“...art is about asking questions, questions that may not be answerable” (Maeda, 2012)
Synthetic Biology has been able to bring different species together: artists, designers, scientists, and engineers. I think, an important discussion by Agapakis (2013) and Ginsberg (2014) is the differences in “design mindset” of these species in their respective fields. Both argues that designing synthetic biology within the paradigm of industrialization will limit its future into the so called “myopic & monolithic” consumptive industrial biotechnology. Agapakis (2013) explains that, while synthetic biology brings analytic science to technology and innovation, design will bring technology to society. Opening dialogue between these species would provoke more questions and discussion to where the future of synthetic biology will head on. Explorative imagination of art and design (bioartist) would open new ideas and possible futures for synthetic biology (Yetisen, 2015).
Another keypoints from the papers is the idea that synthetic biology will have different, or maybe its own definition of design. While engineers always long for standardization and predictability, we cannot ignore the fact that designing a complex living system will not be fully predictable. Acknowledging the unpredictability of designing living system will bring another perspective on design, the “speculative design”, that will likely to be working in the social and environmental context of the real world:
“we should approach the design of biological systems with more humility and with design principles that are more biological, emphasizing not control but adaptability, not streamlining but robustness, and not abstraction but complexity” Agapakis (2013)
An interesting part is on p.xviii of Ginsberg (2014):
“Some people assumed that our aim is outreach: a public relations activity on behalf synthetic biology to beautify, package, sanitize, and better communicate the science.”
It is a proof that some people involved in synthetic biology (especially with certain political/industrial standing) still view the translation of science and technology is one way, like the central dogma mentioned in Agapakis (2013). Art and design truly can bring dialogues and more future possibilities to synthetic biology. But, when synthetic biology is heavily commercialised, will this bioart, the “expressions of discord and controversy” (Yetisen, 2015), be heard by those with policy making power?
Additional references
Maeda, J. 2012. How art, technology and design inform creative leaders. TED Talk. Available: https://www.ted.com/talks/john_maeda_how_art_technology_and_design_inform_creative_leaders
0 comments :
Post a Comment