BioTech 177

So far along in the class, the lectures have cover a wide variety of grounds, taking the particular perspective from the art to look at current advances in medicine, technologies, and genes.  The two-culture lecture focuses on the necessity to reconnect the dichotomies of art and science disciplines and emphasize the not-so-obvious parallels between the two. The topic compels me to step out of my South-campus perspective to scrutinize this latent connection and rethink the commonly stereotyped-divide between art and science.  In particular, I think Amy Francheschini’s commentary is very fitting, which goes in the effect of - “Science and art are essentially the same; except for science the research needs to match the reality.”  As an undergraduate researcher, I can definitely see the parallel that artists and scientists alike possess a similar degree of imagination, creativity, and aspiration; but while art is boundless, the science only receives credit when it shows proof of significance with the facts and provides real-life applications.

The lecture on food discusses the few critical art projects like the Critical Art Ensemble and others and raises the concerns over GMOs and GM foods currently dominating the market.  It is quite refreshing and intersting as a scientist to view from the objective of these art projects and understanding what are the public opinions on GM food.  I do not necessarily agree with the general concern of the detrimental health effects of GMOs, which may sometimes be distorted and exaggerated by the media, but the environmental effects of GM food on the global ecosystem do concern me.  Yet the initiatives taken by these art projects do help instigate public discourse on the widespread implications of GMOs.

The lecture on animals and genetic manipulations perhaps epitomizes the height of the ethical issues and public fear toward genetic engineering and trangenic animals.  The thought and realization of engineering the phenotype of one species, say the flourescent GFP protein from the jelly fish, into other lab animals, opens the pandora’s box of all possibilities of cross-species mixing.  Artists increasingly use these genetic technologies to make artworks that make statements about the biotechnology and intend to provoke public discussions.

My midterm project directly arises from this trend in art and its stance and effect on the social discourse of biotechnology and genetic engineering.  I feel that while these art projects make powerful statements about the genes and DNA, not enough section of the public actually understands the mechanism of transmission for genetic information that make all these technologies possible.  I think there is a tremendous need to find an effective and interactive project to educate the general public about the molecular mechanism of genes and DNA in order to make the public discourse on such subject effective and un-shrouded by misplaced fears and misunderstanding.

My midterm project focuses on the idea of using DNA for its leteral purpose, as a mode of information transmission.  My DNA Postal Service project will be based on the real-life application of mail communication to make the analogy between the DNA and the alphabet.  The purpose of the project will be enable the participant to learn the mechanism of information transmission in order to code or decode a message through DNA.  This project aims to re-orient and dispel the unfounded fears for biotechnology and produce more productive discussion of the genes and their applications.

I found the lecture topic on GM food very interesting because of the controversy it raises and the public discussions that arise from the issue.  According to Gaskell et al. - “GM food and the misperception of risk perceptions” - the current public discourse on the concerns of GM food is dominated disproportionally by risks analysis; while the obvious benefits driving the advances for genetically engineered crops are often glossed over without much emphasis.

I think that this is a particularly interesting viewpoint that strays and poses a different position from the common discussion of GM foods.  While some genetically engineered crops may have detrimental effects to the crops, they intention behind GM foods is fueled by the benevolent purpose to increase production, higher crop quality and yield, pesticide resistance, and higher nutrition values.  And with a deeper reflection on all agrotechnologies, shows that genetic engineering is not so different at all from other types of crop selection.

The ethical concerns with GM foods, to me, arise from the politics of the agro-biotechnology.  Patenting the process of genetically engineering crops, in combination with the global economy, raises ethical concerns at a worlwide level.  The GM food phenomenon in the context of the global economy leads to the situation in which third world countries dependent heavily on crop exports become financially in debt to the developed countries with the patent.  Moreover, GM food patent also dramaticalyl changes the cycle and agricultural practices - farmers cannot keep the seeds of the GM crops to use for the next cycle, but instead they have to purchase the seeds again to begin the next cycle of harvest.

Also, the environmental effects of GM food is often unforeseable.  Personally, my main concern is not necessarily with the issue of genetic engineering, but its politics and environmental effects on the global economy.  While I do think that GM food, like most technology, is driven by benevolent intention, the most critical aspects of GM food that need to be addressed are its impacts on the global economical inequalities and ecosystem.  I feel that the disproportionate focus on the detrimental consequences of the science is detracting from these aspects that need the most attention.

This past week’s guest lecture by Gil Kuno was truly inspiring and very interesting.  I personally felt very privilleged to be able to share the compilation of his works and hear from the artist’s own perspective of his projects.  This talk give us the opportunity to understand the works from the artist’s standpoint and reach a different level of appreciation.

I am tremendously impressed by Gil’s creative and unique viewpoint as a design mediat artist.  He is able to branch out and composed interdisciplinary works - the giant six-string guitar and wiggle are only two representative works that partcularly stood out to me.  The deconstruction of the usual six-stringed guitar may seem nonsensical at first glance; yet after listening to Gil’s inspiration for the peice, it truly demonstrates a amazingly creative treatment of musical instruments - the deconstruction of the guitar allows an exponential increase in the possibility of the sounds created by the instrument.  In addition, the work wiggle on Gil’s website - Unsound - is a ground-breaking approach for design media art because it incorporates the idea of chance evolution to enable the creation of complex composition from simple musical sounds.  As a biologist, the peice challenges my perspective on genes, mutations, and evolution and really forces me to wrap my head around the idea of applying similar concepts to music.  Wiggle really impressed me by its ingenuity and the cross-discipline connection it makes.

My current thoughts for the final project are still not definite yet.  I would like to expand my DNA Postal Service idea to incorporate other related activities.  These may include board games to involve a younger audiece; or fortune cookies containing DNA sequence to encourage the general public to decode their own DNA fortune.  In the final project, I would like to demonstrate the wide applicability of the genetic code as a langauge to code for virtually everything possible for the human expressions.  By expanding the scope of the DNA Postal Service idea, I hope to make an additional connection of DNA not as a fundamental bio-alphabet, but also to make the statement that DNA is important because all living organisms share and communicate in a universal language.  And it is because the language of biology is universal for all life forms, transgenic manipulations, cross-species genetic alterations common in GM foods and other research experimentations are possible.  Therefore, the project aims to present an alternative view to genetic engineering by clarifying the importance of DNA, genes, and instilling an appreciation for the molecular mechanism of genetic transmission that make all such technologies possible.

I am submitting this late because I spent the second half of last week in a hospital. I’m all better now!

Unable to come to school on Monday, I will write this week’s blog on my reflection of the class as well as its application to my final project.

This class has definitely given me a new perspective on life and all the little quirks that come with it. Learning about biotechnology through the persective of an artist is not something I would have done on my own becuase I saw no purpose in it. In fact, it seemed plain silly to me to combine science and art so freely. Now, however having listened to several lectures on GMO and nanotechnology, to name a few, and seeing how these concepts are represented by artists, I am amazed at how effortlessly the two can be combined. The topic that stood out the most to me was GMO and gene splicing. This is something that affects everyone, whether they choose to pay attention to it or ignore it altogether in the monotony of everyday life. It may be a bizarre concept to think that the food we eat may one day eat us, but we are so ignorant of the world around us that this just may be the case. Also, the video on McDonald’s fries was something that merits more discussion. At first, I thought it was a good thing that the fries stay so “fresh” and it may be better to eat those fries than one of the burgers that was sporting a moldy outfit by day 3. Then, however, with a little guidance from the teacher, I realized that if nature can’t decompose those fries, there’s no way in hell my body can decompose it any better. Although that video was no art, per se, it could definitely inspire active minds to rebell against the food industry. Although some might see it as biting the hand that feeds you, it would be more analogous to biting the hand that poisons you.  But I digress.

I realized that for my final project I would have to create something more drastic than an hour-long exhibition. Thus, I am modifying my original idea to include sounds created by the body, as well as textures. Instead of having an exhibition at an art gallery, it would be more beneficial to the individual to create their own “mini-me’s”. Similar to the commercial for a lion’s head that you water to grow grass, people would be able to purchase a “starter pack mini-me” that would include a bare body cut in half to reveal the insides. As the days go by, people would be able to input their data, such as number of glasses of water consumed, amount of daily streneous exercise, number of cigarettes smoked, amount of alcohol consumed, etc. Upon inputting the data on a daily basis, the “mini-me” would adjust in shape and color to represent the insides of its owner. For example, someone who constantly eats junk food would be able to see his (or her) own arteries being damaged by atherosclerosis. Similarly, those who are quitting smoking, may be able to see their lungs regain their original healthy color and state. These mini-me’s would be kept at home in an accessible place. Thus, when neighbors or friends stop by for a visit, they could see your “inner state” and provide social support or acknowledgement whenever necessary.

Thank you for a wonderful quarter!!!

 What is Art? What is science? 

I think Amy Franceschini put it best in her lecture when she said something to the effect of, “Art and science are similar in the sense that they involve research and theories. However, science has the extra burden of needing to match research with reality.” 

I believe this highlights an important distinction between art and science, but one that is being gradually blurred. Art in many ways is interested in representing reality in different ways or giving a new perspective, whereas science is often interested in searching for an objective truth or discovering reality. However, both are similar in their creative processes or in the experimental nature of any artistic or scientific experiment. 

Due to this similarity in the thirst for knowledge, and as stated in the article “Toward a Third Culture: Being in Between”, art and science can work together in important ways. For example, Amy Franceschini described a project in her lecture that was both artistic and scientific in nature. She made a vehicle and placed a plant on it, and she hoped the vehicle would move just due to photosynthesis that occurred in the plant. The science was in the process in the plant, and the art was using this creatively to find a new way to propel an object. She also talked about her projects involving a seed library, garden vehicles with toolboxes, a hydrogen-algae bioreactor, and trying to power a game boy with lemons. 

I think science is the process of discovery and accurately describing reality, and art is using discoveries in interesting and creative ways. Both naturally then work together, as evidenced by many of Amy Franceschini’s projects, which use discoveries to create something unique or offer a new perspective to an existing discovery. Still a barrier exists, as talked about in the reading, in that the artistic community and scientific community need to make more efforts to understand each other and collaborate without letting preconceived biases affect their interactions.

Unfortunately, I was out of town when Jason Reed spoke so I missed his lecture on nanotechnology. However, from my own research and what I have read in other students’ blogs, it sounds like a truly fascinating field. For north campus majors and other science outsiders like me, it all seems complicated and difficult to understand at first. Because of this, I wanted to look into nanotech as art rather than nanotech as science: it’s more visual than theoretical, so it makes more sense to me.

A few years ago, National Geographic ran an article on a LACMA biotech exhibit that professor Vesna and Jim Gimzewski put on (you can read it here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1223_031223_nanotechnology.html). The exhibit allowed visitors to interact with elements of nanotechnology by manipulating buckyballs and exploring atomic and molecular structures.

But this exhibit just skims the surface of nanotech as art. The Scanning Tunneling Microscope can taken some fantastic images of tiny particles. Here are a few:

This first image is quinacridone on graphite; the second is of gold. Since up-close photos convey very little context, they force the viewer to wonder what they are. I like this because it gets people thinking about nanotechnology: the art is provocative.

But the other side of nanotechnology, the science side, is just as important. Nanotech is being used for everything from skin creams to forensic tools to light-weight materials, as several people in the class have already mentioned. Where will it go from here?  What else can we make on a molecular level that will benefit people? I would like to find out, so the next chance I have to see someone like Mr. Reed speak, I’m going.

This could be considered as a late submission for my week 4 blog…

Recently, Dr. Vesna sent us an email and had a chance to talk with Dr. Gimzewski about GM Monkeys. These monkeys have glowing feet as they have recieved green fluorescnet protein (GFP) into their gene. 

These monkeys have been created from a group of Japanese scientists led by Erika Sasaki and 91 of embryos recieved GFP, and 80 were transferred to mothers. The science community praises this discovery as a break through in finiding cures for diseases such as HIV and Parkinsons. Their research for GM monkeys in the beginning rasied a number of ethical concerns that could increase number of experiments on primates. But some also claimed that this could actually reduce the number of tests being done on primates because “GM monkeys could reduce the number of animals needed because they provided better models for human diseases.” 

In my search for Genetically Modified Organisms, I ran into this interesting website featuring five bizzare Transgenic animals. 

This is called Lemurat. A cross breed of a lemur and a cat. They say this is very popular among Chinese ladies as a symbol of their wealth. 

This is Glofish. As in GM monkeys, they have recieved GFP of jellyfish so they could have glowing body as seen in the picture. 

This is called dolion. This is a crossbreed between lion and a dog. And they say this is the most remarkable example as to how far DNA and modern feritliation techniques could go. 

The spider is a cross between a common Italian Wolf spider and the ponga fern. The purpose of this bizarre crossbreed was to study the survival rates of spiders with built in camouflage versus those without in a series of studies on Natural Selection in New Zealand.

From a Oncomouse to Dolly to GM Monkeys, we humans have come a far away in creating genetically modified animals. The creating of these animals is to get better understanding of human diseases and find a possible cures through testing with these animals.  Finally, the incurbale diseases for centuries could be cured with help of these animals. But my thing is this. Do we really have to??? It is important saving lives of people but where we are at a point meeting overpopulation and food shortage, global warming due to ever growing human population. Prolonging life would not do us any good at this point. Is it really necessary in advancing our technology in this aspect right now?  Sacrificing animals, modifying their genetics to benefit oursleves. We are not only sacrificing them but also we are constantly destroying their home, the nature, with tremendous pollutions. It is true that these animals could only be produced in laboratory condition. But with the rapid rate of animal extinction, one day might come that we have to feed ourselves on GM animals like GM foods. And we already show a strong opposition to GM foods, then imagine eating GM animals. It is great that we are showing progress in this field of science. But sometime I feel we need to get our priority striaght. 

Nanotechnology

How ironic is it that I started the very first blog talking about nanotech and possible future of treating cancer patient using nanotech drug delivery system. This nanotech drug delivery system is researched by two UCLA faculties Dr. Zink and Tamanoi and they have high hope to targeting the high water insoluble caner drugs only to the cancer cells and limit the effect of spreading the cancer cells to other rapid growing cells of the body. Last time I did not know how to attach pictures to the blog so this time I am including the pictures of the nanoparticles (silica glass) that will carry the cancer drug and it will be activated upon activation with light.

Source: http://www.chem.ucla.edu/dept/Faculty/zink/research.php

Another interesting project is the conducting nanofiber polymers from my own inorganic professor, Dr. Richard Kaner. The research lab has synthesized the facile polyaniline nanofibers  that have dimension of 30 – 120 nm. These nanofibers have special photothermal effect and when attached them with gold particles it can have unique conduction and sensor capabilities. When these nanofibers have placed between two aluminum electrodes and attached to the nanoparticles of gold, it has electrical switchable bistability and it can be used for flash memory devices as well. His lab has also demonstrated the effect of thermoelectric devices where it can be quickly switched two temperature gradients driving the electrical current into the desire direction by using parallel p-type and n-type materials. These devices can be used to either cool or heat in desire direction just by switching the electrical current. This method is also used on the space shuttle to generate electricity by utilizing the temperature gradient in the outer space. This is the demonstration of the thermoelectric device on freezing and boiling the water droplet instantaneously using the reverse electrical current: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXA4I-1kbBc

So, we have advanced from using micro size materials such microchips, automobile airbags, blood pressure monitors to using nanotechnology. Another interesting idea of using nano-sized porous silicon particles that is also similar to the cancer drug delivery is the use to smart Petri dish from the research of UCSD. Smart Petri dish allows observing the changes in cellular structure in real time. This method of using Petri dish is very similar to the conventional method but give advantage in better sensitivity of toxic changes using light scattering method and able to detect the changes much faster than the conventional Petri dish. This Petri dish will also adapt similar optimal physiology environment of fluid flow rate which will more accurate for studying the behaviors and changes of the cells.

http://nano.cancer.gov/news_center/nanotech_news_2006-06-12c.asp

            Morph concept of nanotechnology is definitely attractive technology side of nanotechnology since it can detect and response to environment and also can harvest sun light energy from the environment and it is a self efficient device that many people would like to have in the future. Morph is the concept that proposed from Nokia and Cambridge Nanoreserach Center and it actually formulate many of these features that are based on the many unique ascept of the animal such as spider silk. The project idea is featured in the MoMA exhibition of “Design and the Elastic Mind”. Here is a very cool youtube video explaining the concept of the Morph:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-gTobCJHs

http://www.nokia.com/A4852062