Week 6 Biotech + Art

The most interesting thing in this week’s material to me has been an abundance of trivial questions that make my head spin. It seems that the human need to label and categorize things sometimes obscures the real issues at hand. Is it art or science? Is it alive or not? Is it a genetically modified? Is it organic? Ellen Levy asks, “Is it property?” Chris Kelty asks, are they outlaw biologists, biohackers, DIY biologists or Victorian gentleman? I’d like to ask, “Who cares?”

We should really be asking the questions of basic morality: Is it just? Is it dangerous? Will there be psychological harm inflicted? Will a much greater number of people be benefited than harmed? And these are questions to ask of individual actions rather than broad categories of actions with similar themes because not every experiment/invention/art piece is the same.

A lot of people think that man made chemicals are more dangerous than natural (organic) chemicals and GMO foods and organisms are inherently dangerous but I’d like to assert that in fact labels like “man-made” and “genetically modified” only serve to stigmatize and obscure the true chemistry, physics, and psychology of what is really happening with individual inventions/experiments.

Here are a few examples that might confuse the assumptions than many people have about organic and genetically modified foods/organisms. The most toxic natural compound is 100,000 times more toxic than the most toxic synthetic compound (Reeser). 40% to 75% of the food in an American supermarket contains genetically modified food (Weise), yet the first person to ever get sick or die from GMO food since it’s incorporation into American food 20 years ago happened this year as a result of an allergy (Johnson) (in comparison around 150 people die each year from peanut allergies (howstuffworks)). A scientific study to determine whether death is possible from sleep deprivation involved prodding rats for 11-32 days until they all eventually died from mental exhaustion or were sacrificed because they were very close to death (Everson). This study received little attention or criticism but a glowing GMO Bunny that lived a relatively normal life was met with outrage.   

I’m not trying to suggest that all GMO organisms/food are safe or ethical but instead that you cannot clump them all together into the same group when determining if they are so. Instead we should all do the research in investigating specific situations of GMO’s or biotech experiments/inventions when determining they’re legitimacy.

Does being GMO have anything to do with the ethics of Alba? (Hoyt)

This graph shows the relative toxicity of natural and synthetic compounds (Reeser)

Are non-GMO's really safer or better for you, or it is a marketing ploy? 

Works Cited

Everson, Carol A., Bernard M. Bergmann, and Allan Rechtschaffen. "Sleep deprivation in the rat: III. Total sleep deprivation." Sleep 12.1 (1989): 13-21.

"How Many People Die Each Year from Peanut Allergies? - HowStuffWorks." HowStuffWorks. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2015.

Hoyt, Dale. "Eduardo Kac Flunks the Rabbit Test." Eduardo Kac Flunks the Rabbit Test. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2015.

Johnson, Barbara. "Doctors Confirm First Human Death Officially Caused by GMOs." World News Daily Report Doctors Confirm First Human Death Officially Caused by GMOs Comments. World New Daily, n.d. Web. 11 May 2015.

Kelty, Chris. "Meanings of Participation: Outlaw Biology?" N.p., n.d. Web.

Levy, Ellen K. "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classification." (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

Reeser, Dorea. "Natural versus Synthetic Chemicals Is a Gray Matter." Scientific American Global RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2015.

Weise, Elizabeth. "Genetically Engineered Foods Q & A." Genetically Engineered Foods Q & A. USA Today, n.d. Web.