Biology is more than genetics!

            The article “The Ethics of Experiential Engagement with the Manipulation of Life” by Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr talked about how many artists, social scientists or humanities scholars do not understand the complexities of life or biology enough, and assumes that biology = genetics. I was really surprised when I first read that because I always thought that people would think about animals when they think about biology, instead of genetics. If anything is connected to genetics, I think biotechnology would be more relevant since there is a lot of genetic manipulation in biotechnology and biomedical research. However, I did notice that the idea of transgene is used a lot in Bioart, especially the use of Green Fluorescence Protein, and the use of bacteria to express various proteins from DNA codes. As a life science major, I think that Biology is so much more than fluorescence proteins and bacteria with fancy mechanisms. What fascinates me the most in Biology, and also what I think Biology is about, is the extremely complex, intricate and tightly regulated systems that work to make the cell versatile to all kinds of environmental conditions. And to think that everything is contained within a cell, which is only 100 micrometers in diameter, is incredible. I think this is where the beauty of Biology lies, and studying Biology allows us to better understand these naturally occurring systems that are more intricate than any artificially designed systems. Personally, I am not sure how this aspect of Biology can be presented through art, but I definitely think that it will be amazing if an art piece could present this beauty about Biology to the public.

Motor Proteins - Little guys that carry cargos around the cell by attaching to the cargo on one end, and literally walking on microtubules on the other end. How cool can biology get???

(Source: 9gag.com) 

            With regards to the discourse pertaining to ethical issues, I definitely agree with the authors that it will only be productive if everyone involved understands Biology in depth at all levels – genetic, cellular, tissue, or organismal level. I think that this will not only allow better communication between people from different fields, but to make a more sound judgment on whether something is ethical, especially with the technology available; sometimes there is no choice but to use animals because the relevant technological replacements are not available. In addition, it also allows the committee to better explore alternatives. Personally, as I have mentioned in my first blog post, I had a difficult time trying to reconcile my passion for animal welfare with my passion in biological research because of the use of animal models. I do not feel comfortable with working with animal models bigger than a fly, but I do acknowledge the importance of working on models such as mouse. To reiterate my point from Week 1, I believe that the only solution now is to respect the animals that we sacrifice in the name of science, but at the same time, actively seek for non-animal alternatives, which is what the article touched on, but has not gone far enough.

Imagine one day we can stop sacrificing these animals for science. But it will only happen if scientists are consistently aware of the harm we are doing to the animals, and actively push for alternatives instead of settling into the comfort zone of working on animal models. 

(Source: mnn.com)

            The article talked about using tissue cultures that are not whole animals to minimize suffering, but they talked about how even this will not resolve the issue since the serum or other nutrients used to grow tissue/cell cultures are animal-derived. The article took an extra step to seek for non-whole animal alternatives, but it has not gone enough to explore non-animal derived culture setups. Currently, antibodies that are primarily animal derived, are being synthesized artificially in labs. It is only not widely used because labs are skeptical about how well the synthetic antibodies will work. However, I believe with time and advancements in technology, synthetic antibodies will become more popular, and non-animal derived alternatives for calf serum-equivalent nutrients can be produced. In all, I feel that on this issue, scientists just need to keep seeking for alternatives and never stop until the day working at the lab bench is no longer at the expense of any animals.

It is possible to make recombinant antibodies that are not animal-derived! 

(Source: prolabmarketing.com)

REFERENCES

Catts, Oron, and Ionat Zurr. "The Ethics of Experiential Engagement with the Manipulation of Life." Tactical Biopolitics Art, Activism, and Technoscience (2008): 125-142. 

Echko, Michelle, and Samantha Dozier. "Recombinant Antibody Technology For The Production of Antibodies Without the Use of Animals." Emerging Technologies, Non-Animal Methods for Toxicity Testing. Web, 15 Sep. 2010. 10 May. 2016. 

NEAVS. "Alternatives in Testing." Alternatives, New England Anti-Vivisection Society, n.d. Web. 10 May. 2016. 

Physicians Committee. "Shifting Away From Animal-Derived Antibodies in Medical Research." ResearchPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Web, n.d.. Web. 10 May. 2016. 

Zenbio. "Human Serum & Animal Free Growth Supplement." Advanced Cell Based Solutions and Services, Zenbio, n.d. Web. 10 May. 2016.