Integrated HP
What values—environmental, social, moral, scientific, or other—did you have in mind when designing your project?
Social and environmental values were at the forefront of our project. Our guiding mission for this project was to link the worlds of art and science. The two fields are often considered separate and independent. However, it is important to acknowledge that in order to maximize innovation, integration of a variety of fields is key. Currently, it is uncommon to see an interdisciplinary approach between the art and sciences. We believe that through intentional outreach and conscious education, our project can serve as a model and jumping stone for the scientific world to collaborate with the artistic world. Furthermore, on an environmental note, we aim to use science to find a method of creating environmentally conscious art. By using alternative materials and manufacturing bacteria that consume CO2 rather than omit it, we hope that the art will not emit more CO2 than current leading art materials and moreover, have a positive impact on the environment.Which resources or communities did you consult to ensure those are appropriate values in the context of your project?
+
The Sciencenter is a model educator and resource in connecting youth with bioart. As a museum tailored for children and youth, they emphasized the importance of having interactive activities to actively engage with the youth. Through active engagement,
with children and adults alike, there is an increased chance that the educational value of the material presented will be retained. Furthermore, Ali Jackson emphasized the intersection of science and art as an exciting way to engage youth.
+
Suzanne Anker is a trailblazer in the field of combining art and science. She offered vital information on how to bring about a project with our focus of combining the art and science worlds. Anker challenged us to narrow our focus to increase potential impact by focusing on our product, rather than external factors. She suggested that scientists can learn from artists and vice versa. Each group brings together their strengths and can work together to create something innovative and new. Anker made us acknowledge that happy accidents can happen and should be welcomed; to conform to the typical scientific method can be limiting.
+
Dr. Joey Davis is an MIT professor and professional in industry. He offered insight on the potential breadth of the project and suggested important scientific suggestions on how to make CO2 uptake possible. From this conversation, we started looking towards utilizing cyanobacteria, in addition to E. Coli, as a potential bacterium for CO2 uptake. Davis also pushed for us to narrow our primary focus on the use of ar in the micromural and thus, secondarily, focusing on environmental aspects.
+
Dr. Savage is a UC Berkeley professor and researcher in bioart space. Through our interview, Savage provided further scientific insight and offered suggestions on limitations of E. Coli model organisms. He had worked with an E. Coli strain that was able to uptake CO2. However, he noted that a large part of this uptake was due to the polysaccharides involved. This interview was crucial to the design of CO2 uptake, the environmental component of this project.
+
Adan Shulman is a student at Cornell University, studying Architecture, Art & Planning with a focus on land art. Shulman offered a student’s perspective on current efforts to join the worlds of art and science from the art perspective. Furthermore, Shulman gave his feedback on what might entice him to join a bioart lab, such as having socially-motivated projects. He showcased that there is much interest in bioart from the art world; artists have already taken steps to link the fields and have had difficulty with scientists who were willing to take the extra step to bridge the gap.
What evidence do you have to show that your project is responsible and good for the world?
Interviews have shown us that there is a need in the world for scientists to make an effort in connecting science and art. Time and time again, scientists choose to focus on traditional scientific research. Why? Because there is funding for this research. There is not a lack of interest to combine science and art; there is simply a lack of resources that make this research accessible from a financial standpoint from the science perspectives. Artists, who often face similar financial burdens, are interested in bioart but have struggled with connecting with willing scientists. Furthermore, there is a lack of resources available combining these two fields due to this disconnect. Therefore, we hope to create a bioart hub, starting at our college, Cornell University. This hub will connect interested art and science contacts, showcase different interdisciplinary opportunities, and will be equipped with a consolidated list of potential funding. We hope to take these first steps in forming this hub and are in contact with the colleges and their advising committees to do so. After all, interdisciplinary work is essential to foster diversity of thought and innovation, including science-art work.Furthermore, global warming is something that burdens our generation. Crops have gone extinct, ecosystems disrupted, and so on. Research has corroborated this global warming phenomenon. In fact, one of the leading causes of global warming is due to excess carbon dioxide, also known by its chemical compound CO2 [1]. In an attempt to address this, the idea of uptaking CO2 through art was born. Our interviews have shown us that this art has the potential to not produce more waste than current art materials while sparking conversations about the intersection of science and art. Furthermore, there is a possibility to decrease the negative impacts of CO2 pollution through uptake. By doing so, this art can environmentally be impactful despite the small size of the micromural. As it is said, a small impact is still an impact.
[1] Fecht, S. (2021, March 17). How exactly does carbon dioxide cause global warming? State of the Planet. Retrieved August 17, 2022, from https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
Engaging with potential users, stakeholders, and other experts
Our team is dedicated to seeing all sides of the bioart world. For us, that meant reaching out to scientists, artists, bioartists, policy makers, ethics experts, educational leaders, and art manufacturers. We aimed to have a diverse, well-rounded group of individuals who could act as our technical, ethical, and artistic guides. By asking them to help us fill in the gaps in our own team's initial knowledge of the project, we worked towards creating a project that fulfilled our teams’ core values and created a product that would be enjoyed by many. The values upholding our project came from the stakeholders themselves - by asking others what issue they saw in the worlds of art and science, and employing them to consider any novel solutions to the issue, we reached our guiding goals. These values driving our project and the corresponding interviews that influenced these values are:+
- The interview with Christina Agapakis taught us to not just promote awareness of the importance of science-art education to the general public. She encouraged us to promote dialogue between professionals of the currently disconnected fields of science and art.
- The interview with Suzanne Anker reinforced this idea that there is a lack of communication between science and art disciplines. She brought up the idea of creating a bioart lab, where professionals of these disciplines can come together and collaborate.
+
- The interview with David Savage helped us to hone into the technical aspects of the uptake of CO2. As a bioart researcher, he articulated that although not conventionally thought of, bioart can be used for environmental help.
- The interview with Cortica Gardens was essential in our deep dive of using the biophilia effect. As a competitor, they are motivated to utilize the biophilia effect to improve people’s mental health through vertical walls filled with vegetation. We were inspired to incorporate this effect in our product by tapping into the concept of bacterium creating visually-pleasing art.
+
- The interview with Ali Jackson of the Ithaca Sciencenter was important as it showcased that all audiences, especially children, tend to be engaged in educational activities that are interactive. We took this into consideration as we created educational activities surrounding the bio-art space.
- The interview with Xiaowen Chen, an art professor at Cornell University, was integral in understanding that there is an interest in art-science education. He had taught a course on bioart and emphasized that there was significant interest from students. With this idea in mind, we honed our education efforts to be attune with our audiences’ interests.
Currently, art and science are seen as separate entities. As with all things, looking at a product from multiple perspectives allows room for improvement. Therefore, our idea for an art-science product and the project-driving values were formed from interviews with a diverse range of stakeholders, as outlined above. With these informed values, we hope to impact society positively. By creating dialogue between artists and scientists, we hope to promote innovation and to showcase the impact of interdisciplinary work. Interdisciplinary work is essential as it allows multiple perspectives to be explored and thus, a wider range of needs can be addressed and audiences reached. Furthermore, we intend to make this product environmentally conscious as global warming has posed to be a major issue of our generation. In an attempt to address climate change, we hope to create a product that will not negatively contribute to increased global warming. Moreover, we are designing our product with the biophilia effect in mind; the biophilia effect references the positive feelings invoked as a result of the stimulation of senses by elements of nature. If we can uplift others, we will choose to do so; we plan to apply the biophilia effect through this product that uses biological elements to create visually appealing art in hopes to invoke positive feelings to viewers. Our last value is important to us as we hope to promote science and art as both individual and interdisciplinary fields to a wide variety of audiences. On a broader note, we encourage our audiences to acknowledge the impact of interdisciplinary work and to apply these principles with them as they progress through life. Creative ideas often develop from interdisciplinary, unconventional fields after all and can often benefit society in broader ways. To ensure our project maintains our values, we have check-ins with stakeholders to keep the project on track and truly reflective of our intentions.
Interview Preparation Process
Prior to actually conducting the interviews with various experts and stakeholders, our team wanted to be prepared. We did so by developing a basic outline of the project that varied in how detailed and technical it was depending on who we were interviewing. If it was a hardware technical based interview, we focused more on emphasizing the work that our product development subteam did and if it was focused on the use of bacteria and traditional synthetic biology, we gave more details about the work our wet lab team conducted.In order to prepare for the interview-like setting, our policy and practices subteam members hosted mock interviews with the wet lab and product development subteam leads. This gave us valuable experience in explaining our project and asking questions similar to the real interview setting. The other leads gave us valuable feedback on our interview skills and the way that we presented the project. This helped shape the way that we explained our project for future interviews.
Before each interview, a question document was prepared and sent to the entire team to add any additional questions. Interviewees were thoroughly researched and asked individualized questions. After the interview was finalized, interviewees were sent a consent form to verify that they consented to participating in our work. The consent form was approved by Vanessa McCaffrey, an IRB administrator at Cornell. When the interview was conducted, subteam members from wet lab and product development were present to ask follow up questions. Throughout the entire season, our team reached out to over 150 people.
Interviews
+
As a part of our preliminary exploration into our project during the brainstorming phase, we met with Professor Tamer Uyar, an associate Professor of Fiber Science in the College of Human Ecology at Cornell University. As the Head PI of NanoFibTex, a
NanoFibers and Nanotextiles Laboratory on Campus, Dr. Uyar’s research interests include developing nanofibrous biosensors, photocatalysis, VOC removal, and molecular filters. We interviewed Dr. Uyar to learn more about his work creating nanofibers
with environmentally-friendly properties. He recommended using cyclodextrin nanofibers within our hydrogel to create a “nanofiber hydrogel,” since this material is non-toxic, able to uptake VOCs (volatile organic compounds), and transparent enough
to let the pigment to show. We also asked about the functional changes that could occur to our hydrogel if the nanofibers were implemented, and Dr. Uyar mentioned that this would be quite negligible. An important takeaway from this meeting is
that this project is likely to have size limitations, since he noted that his lab had success with creating an approximately 8 inch by 6 inch cyclodextrin nanofiber lattice for wastewater treatments. He also offered to help our team with engineering
the cyclodextrin nanofibers to be able to uptake volatile organic matter out of the atmosphere, ensuring that we fulfill our environmental values that are driving the project. Overall, Dr. Uyar’s advice was pivotal in aiding with the product development
and wet lab components of our project.
+
In this stage, we were primarily exploring the micro mural idea. We interviewed Dr. Savage of UC Berkeley, a researcher in the bioart space with an expertise in E. coli CO2 uptake. He agreed to lend us his CCMB1 strain of E. coli that
was useful in CO2 uptake. Dr. Savage affirmed that it was likely that embedding hydrogels would still allow the strain to work as intended. He also reminded us of the nutrient components needed to sustain the strain: glucose. This glucose
enables cell growth. Through discussion, he posed the limitations of using E. coli, such as the paper he had authored did not specifically investigate the credibility of CO2 uptake within the strand. Thus, he optimistically assumed
that the strain continued to about 20% of CO2 uptake and also suggested looking into cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria may be better for visual purposes as it is essentially a living pigment and comes in a variety of colors. As a result,
we researched cyanobacteria as another method for uptaking CO2. We were also cautious of this limitation as we investigated using the E. coli strain further.
+
We interviewed with Dr. Joey Davis of MIT, an expert in cell structure and construction in regards to the micro murals idea. He challenged us to think more broadly about the project and relayed some similar projects that were done in the past to help
guide our research. For example, he suggested that we consider using cyanobacteria rather than E. coli as another organism that may be useful for CO2 uptake. Dr. Davis thought that cyanobacteria could be a feasible aspect as
vibrant colors could be retained from the pathways and that there was likely a biobrick available already. He maintained the stance that having a programmable art strain and CO2 uptake is ambitious, especially in our short timeline.
Based on his suggestions, we found a potential biobrick that could be used for the implementation of this idea. We also further analyzed the difference between using E. coli and cyanobacteria for uptake. Agreeing with his point about how it is
better to have a more narrow focus, we started shifting gears to just creating art using synthetic biology, instead of trying to incorporate CO2 uptake. We also referenced the projects he suggested to ensure that we knew how to tackle
potential issues. Furthermore, we contacted the people he suggested to provide more insight about the intersection of the art and biology industries.
+
We interviewed Ali Shapiro of Ithaca Sciencenter, a stakeholder of the art industry we are looking to work with. With Ali, we discussed the potential of displaying our micro mural ideas in their museum or similar museums. Through the interview, we learned
that it may be possible to have a short-term gallery with museums after she guided us through museum art recruiting strategies. She expressed enthusiasm at the idea of having a short-term interactive partnership through a day program to conduct
outreach with children. Ali also reinforced that science-art education is an effective means to increase scientific curiosity within young children. This information inspired us to move towards doing day programming to cultivate this science knowledge
in young children.
+
As this season’s project, MicroMurals, relies heavily on the emerging BioArt industry, our Policy and Human Practices Team reached out to Suzanne Anker, a pioneer of BioArt and the Fine Arts Department Chair at the School of Fine Arts in New York City.
Professor Anker also leads the Bio Art Lab at SVA, and given her role in pioneering bio-art and working at the intersection of the life sciences and art for decades, we wanted to reach out and learn more about her art and how her interest in bio-art
began. She drew our attention to Utrecht, a sustainable paint company that creates cadmium-free products, a toxin chemical that is often found in commercial paints. In fact, she recommended that our team should work on producing red pigments in
bacteria or a similar shade as an initial goal of the project, since red paint has been found to contain a higher proportion of chemicals in comparison to other colors. One key takeaway from this presentation is that Professor Anker offered our
team a new perspective on this project, both as a stakeholder and as a BioArt professional. As Professor Anker has guest lectured at Cornell and other universities, she noted that she would be happy to support us further, and encouraged us to
try and get a bioart lab started at Cornell. Thanks to Professor Anker’s advice, this project now has a local impact, and we hope to start a BioArt Lab at Cornell in conjunction with creating MicroMurals.
+
In order to build on our environmentally-oriented goals of creating art that does good for the world, we reached out to Buz M. Barstow, a Professor of Biological and Environmental Engineering in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell
University. He is the PI of the Barstow Lab, where he and his research team study sustainable energy technologies. Given Dr. Barstow’s work on CO2 uptake in microbes, we wanted to reach out and learn more about how this process
works, and how we could potentially implement it into our project. At this point, our team was debating between using cyanobacteria, E. coli, or dinoflagellates as the primary organism responsible for CO2 uptake in the hydrogel; Dr.
Barstow suggested using E. coli, as the other organisms are more difficult to transform, have a slower proliferation rate, and would likely require an additional photobioreactor to grow. In response to our concerns about maintaining and feeding
the bacteria, he noted that keeping the display sterile would be a challenge itself and recommended that we opt for a temporary display. One key piece of advice was that he also suggested using curli nanofibres to provide more structure to the
hydrogel; while these fibers would create a slightly acidic environment, he said that E. coli would probably be able to sustain it, reinforcing the idea that E. coli is the ideal microbe for this project. From this interview, we were able to build
on our sustainability and environmental goals by gaining advice on the wet lab components of the project.
+
While BioArt, the intersection of the life sciences and the visual arts, is a newly emerging field, green wall technologies – vertical walls filled with vegetation that are both aesthetically pleasing and good for the environment – are also a rising industry.
In order to learn about this industry and possible competitors, we reached out to Linda Kang and Claudia Bolognesi, the founders and CEO partners of Cortica Gardens. Cortica Gardens is a sustainable and environmentally-friendly company that creates
cork living wall systems. As leaders in the organic wall decor industry and their familiarity with coupling sustainability with aesthetics, we met with the founders to learn more about the company and how this idea began. One extremely interesting
point that Linda and Claudia brought up was this concept of the biophilia effect, the idea that there is an innate human need to connect with nature. They also noted that plants, or more broadly nature-based art has positive effects on mental
health and stress relief. In addition, Linda and Claudia also advised our team of refraining from “over-engineering” the microbial murals; they mentioned that instead of creating art that would be completely self-contained and minimal effort,
it could also be helpful to encourage “symbiosis” between the product and the audience. Interviewing Cortica Gardens truly helped us with learning about a number of thematic elements to drive the project while building on potential marketing strategies
too.
+
We interviewed Christina Agapakis who is the Creative Director at Ginkgo Bioworks and an art expert in regards to the micro mural ideas. We learned the importance of using communication as a projection, rather than as a reflection tool. She stressed the
importance that it should do more than just ‘look nice’. Additionally, she challenged us to think more specifically than the general public. She is personally inspired to target scientists to emphasize the importance of social science perspectives
in the sciences. This discussion inspired us to pivot our project and ensure that we actively involve both scientists and artists from the developmental phase in order to inspire cross-discipline communication and collaboration. Thus, we actively
began to reach out to artists with no insight into the traditional biology field and biologists with no insight into the traditional art field. We hope to incorporate both perspectives as we create the micromurals. As a part of outreach, we hope
to be able to foster cross-disciple communication
+
As part of addressing the artist perspective as outlined in the interview with Christina Agapakis, we met with Stelarc. Stelarc is a world-renowned artist who is known for projects combining art and human aspects. For example, he is currently working
on a project creating a third ear made of tissue to be attached to his arm. As an artist, he emphasizes that art should be: experiential, unexpected, implicit, and to incorporate the accidental. He finds that just simply bringing artists and scientists
together may be problematic, as each group are specialists in their fields. He advises each person to lean into their role as they collaborate across the project to form a collective vision. Stelarc encouraged our idea of implementing an app to
showcase our art piece. Furthermore, he suggested that we have an exhibit with visuals projecting our product on all four walls. These values which define art, such as being unexpected, will inform our project as we move forward. It is important
to not think of art in a traditional way but to see how we can incorporate the unexpected, such as through the use of apps as opposed to a traditional art gallery.
+
As we begin to make strides into this BioArt - oriented season project, it became necessary to source opinions and advice from both scientists and artists. With his extensive experience in art education and years of working at the intersection of technology,
sound, and art, we contacted artist Mark E. Grimm for a brief interview. Professor Grimm is a visiting critic in the Department of Fine Arts in the College of Art, Architecture and Planning at Cornell University, and he is a key stakeholder. Professor
Grimm was crucial in drawing connections between artists and scientists, since he noted that both fields rely heavily on experimentation and often involve incomplete or ongoing projects. Drawing from his background in art education, he also reiterated
the importance of the process of self-discovery, innovation, and learning in any academic discipline. Professor Grimm also noted that the creation of a BioArt Lab would be a great idea, especially as a place that fosters interdisciplinary education
like Cornell; he recommended that instead of simply collaborating between the science and art departments, we expand this initiative to more departments like the fashion department, which also does work that overlaps with our project. Overall,
Professor Grimm enabled us to gain new perspectives about the intersection of art and science while supporting us with the educational goals of this project.
+
Adam’s expertise in land art and knowledge of the current state of Cornell’s art program, especially in regard to its correlation to bio art, make him an ideal stakeholder. Adam Shulman is a student in Cornell’s AAP program, and he has completed many
different projects that work to incorporate nature into artwork. During our interview, Adam described a variety of unique artistic approaches and projects that aimed to combine the sciences and art. A recurring theme of the interview was that
artists are incredibly open to the idea of working with science. Furthermore, the pieces that do incorporate science focus on technology or on gender expression. It became clear that our project has the potential to fulfill a gap in the scientific
communities’ contribution to the combination of art and science. By dispelling myths about the amount of science one needs to understand to contribute to the scientific world and opening a space where scientists and artists could work together,
we aim to move the world of STEAM one step further in becoming truly inclusive to those of any background. Adam made a phenomenal comment on how all the collaborative projects he has seen so far work to use a scientific concept to fulfill the
human agenda, and that is exactly what we would like to do.
+
Our project is focused on the use of 3D bioprinting using hydrogel bioinks, and we had the opportunity to interview Dr. Anne Meyer, who researches 3D bioprinting in her lab at the University of Rochester. The three key components of our project that were
improved from the guidance of Dr. Meyer were the printhead extruder, our printing code, and the modeling of our hydrogels. Our original 3D bioprinter design was going to feature a custom designed printhead that would house our entire extruder
assembly, including a syringe and needle for the extruder, taking the place of the traditional heating element and fan. When talking with Dr. Meyer, she agreed with removing the heating element, however she suggested that we look into other needle
replacements for our printer, including a blunt end needle tip or a micropipette tip in order to provide more precise results. We took her advice and moved away from putting a syringe in the print head, and instead moved the pump/motor assembly
out of the head and fed them to the extruder using only a syringe. As per the printing code, we were initially debating creating our own 3D printing code from scratch or modifying the existing 3D printing code. In talking with Dr. Meyer, she gave
us better guidance, suggesting we use existing 3D printing code, with specific changes made to remove the heating code and to substitute the extrusion with pump speed. Lastly, since our hydrogel is produced by bacteria, we are unable to produce
large amounts to help test our printer as this would be resource and cost intensive. Instead, we opted to use other hydrogels with similar properties to our final hydrogel in order to test extrusion and 3D bioprinter. We were initially having
trouble choosing an appropriate hydrogel, and we had some difficulties producing the hydrogels. Dr. Meyer suggested we try alginate, as that is what she uses in her lab, as well as giving us advice in developing our own hydrogels. This ended up
helping us in developing our test hydrogels that are made of gelatin and glutaraldehyde, and were used to test extrusion and overall 3D bioprinter.
+
As we gathered more artists' perspectives, we talked to Xiaowen Chen, an artist and professor at Cornell University. He has taught a course in bioart previously and spoke to its nicheness in the art field. It is not something that many engage in but he
sees a promising future in the bioart movement, especially as the world turns towards having a biotechnology revolution. He emphasizes that art is 1) creative 2) thought-provoking 3) spiritual. It is a creative process in which the artist has
full ability to create it in whatever way they please. It must be thought-provoking. Although it may be abstract, it should cause a change in thought, similar to Einstein's theory of relativity, which proves gravity even though it is not something
tangible that one can see. Spirituality comes into play where people truly believe in the art and feel as if it can make some difference. This could be in the sense of creating dialogue about an underrepresented topic that could inspire discourse
about how, as a society, we can be more socially responsible. At the very end of the day, Xiaowen reminds us, people simply want to make some sort of positive difference, including scientists and artists alike. Through his bioart experiences,
he says that it is a niche field in part due to the lack of resources. It is expensive for artists to engage in the biological aspects without the knowledge base or physical tools to create the biological pieces. He indicates that there is a large
need for a funded bioart lab. This bioart is something we aim to achieve as we move forward. Furthermore, we will ensure that our team creates this product under the values as he defines arts, especially the need to create discourse to encourage
social responsibility.
+
In order to gain another perspective into the bioart field, we interviewed Meghan Moe Beitiks. Beitiks is an artist that focuses on asking and making ecological commentary through her art, combining the natural and artistic world. They completed a fellowship
under SymbioticA where they received some of their bioart training. Given her background as a bioartist with an initial background in art, she emphasized the importance that art is more than just something that is supposed to be pretty, that to
them, the importance of art is to be able to use it to ask questions about certain societal issues and work, which often is important in science as they argued that artists can help ask those questions that scientists may overlook. Another big
takeaway from this interview was that she emphasized that our project and a hand-held 3D printer would be well-received as bioartists and artists in general are always interested in using new and unique mediums that allow them to be creative,
which our project would allow us to do. She also gave us good feedback on what to consider when starting a bioart lab and mentioned that our biggest hurdle would be funding and resources as considering that bioartists can use so many different
mediums, the importance is having the resources for them to use, which is one of the biggest challenges with a bioart lab.
+
Liz Karns is a lawyer and epidemiologist that teaches on topics such as statistical evidence, occupational illnesses, and assault and harassment. Her expertise in data ethics drew us towards her as a starting point for our project’s ethical analysis.
During the interview, Dr. Karns described how essential it is to consider the worst-case scenario with projects. Furthermore, she discussed the importance of having clear goals for the project; specifically, considering how the project is going
to positively or negatively impact the world. After this interview, our team was able to flush out our ethics analysis with the questions Dr. Karns posed, and we took steps to incorporate Dr. Karns advice into our discussions around the project’s
inclusivity and purpose.
+
In an effort to gain a better understanding of what the field of bioart research is like, we interviewed Guy Ben-Ary. Ben-Ary is an artist and researcher based in SymbioticA, which is a large bioart research lab based in Australia. His background is in
biotechnological artwork and tissue engineering. He mainly spoke to us about what he felt to be the importance of bioart and understanding the ethical implications of such work. To him, bioart and art in general is important because it involves
looking at what exactly we are making and the purpose behind it, what we want to convey essentially. He mentioned that when we actually design our art and our exhibition, it would be important to get input from actual art students in order to
display our work better, which is something that we have begun to look into. He was also the one that suggested that we look at the IRB board at our university as at SymbioticA bioart research projects go through the same ethical approval process
that biological projects do. The biggest takeaway from this interview was that we really need to focus on how society places most of the importance on projects in science and often disregards cultural projects, as though science projects have
more of an impact on society than cultural ones do. For instance, he brought up one of the first ethical review cases at SymbioticA where they wanted to create a project with goldfish that would be viewed by thousands of people in an exhibition.
However, the ethical review board almost rejected their use of the fish under the pretense that the impact that the art would have was not worth the lives of two goldfish, whereas this type of work that is often far more involved, gets easily
approved in science. He argued that the value should be placed on both equally, something that we agree with and want to make one of the central arguments and purposes of our project.
+
Vanessa McCaffery is a member of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), employing her immense experience as a research project team leader to fulfill the tasks required of a compliance administrator at Cornell. McCaffery discussed our team’s work in regard
to human research, reminding us of the importance of going through the IRB before conducting any surveys. She was also able to provide a thorough dive into the many committees involved in policy review, including the human welfare committee, the
conflict of interest committee, and the institutional biosafety committee. Our interview with Vanessa McCaffery was the basis for our policy handbook and encouraged us to think more deeply about how our project will impact people within our community.
+
In this meeting with Dr. Uyar, we discussed how cyclodextrin nanofibers can be incorporated into our gelatin and glutaraldehyde hydrogels. Initially, we were unsure of when the nanofibers needed to be added to the hydrogels in order for the solutions
to mix well. Dr. Uyar suggested that we use a method that involves suspending the nanofibers and gelatin powder into one solution by using a sonicator. After this, we would mix the solution and let it crosslink for a certain amount of time and
have our hydrogels. Additionally, Dr. Uyar offered his sonicator for us to use while creating the hydrogels. For our bacteria-produced hydrogels, a powder form would not work with the color production, Dr. Uyar suggested we simply dilute the hydrogels
produced by bacteria. These diluted solutions would then be added to the sonicator with the cyclodextrin nanofibers and we would follow a similar procedure as the gelatin hydrogels from that point forward. Overall, Dr. Uyar has been pivotal to
our production of cyclodextrin nanofiber hydrogels and has proposed great procedures for us to follow.
+
Members of our team attended a seminar held by Professor Neel Joshi at Cornell University’s campus. Though this was not an actual interview, it still served as an important interaction with a stakeholder. Professor Joshi’s talk centered around the bacterial hydrogel biomaterials both his lab and our team have been studying/using. One paper that his lab published in 2021 actually inspired the Wet Lab aspects of our project. At this seminar, we learned about the applications of the bacterial hydrogels already being studied, as well as the future applications that could be applied. Joshi discussed both medical and environmental applications of the technology, which was useful for us to learn since we explored applications of the hydrogels in an environmental context. Further, we were able to ask Professor Joshi about longevity and durability questions we had developed through the creation of our project, and his answers were very helpful in helping us better understand the hydrogels we have been studying.
+
In an effort to better understand the Cornell student body and whether bioart would be something they are interested in, we reached out to various science students at the university. Erica Adusare is a student studying Nutritional Science in the College
of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She mentioned that she doesn’t have any experience with the arts and prior to the interview, she had never heard about bioart and was unaware of what the field intailled. As part of the interview, we showed her
various pictures of traditional work in the field, ranging from the simpler agar art to the more controversial and intense works of Stelarc. In general, she would be interested in hearing more and exploring bioart as traditional art mediums like
paint can get boring and repetitive, so this opens up a unique perspective.
+
Kate Ivanovich is a Biological Sciences student here at Cornell University. We talked to her to gain a further understanding of current biology student’s interest in the intersection of biology and art. She was unsure originally what bioart was, she guessed
it was “making art out of nature, like leaves and things”. I explained to her about MicroMurals and how we planned to make our art and she was very interested. When asked if she would be interested in a bioart lab here at Cornell she was very
enthusiastic.
+
We interviewed Jessica Dai, a biological sciences major at Cornell University, to find out more about STEM major’s interest in bioart projects. We told her a bit about MicroMurals and how we planned on making our art with ‘paint’ from E. coli and printing it through our 3D printer. She was much more interested in this process than I thought she would be. Jessica even told me she would be interested in learning more about bio-art and potentially even joining a bio-art lab here at Cornell. It was good to get this confirmation that biology students have this interest in the intersection of biology and art. It confirmed that proceeding with creating a bioart lab would be a worthwhile endeavor.
+
Victoria Gong is a student studying information science and applied economics and management. She mentioned that she doesn’t have any experience with the more traditional art like painting and drawing, but could be considered artistic because of her strong
background in singing. Prior to the interview, she mentioned that she did know about art created from artificial intelligence and using coding to produce art or to design digital structures, but she is not as aware of the bioart field that we
are the most interested in. She loves the idea of bioart because of how novel the field is. However, she was hesitant about some of the more intense tissue engineering approaches due to the ethical implications of it. She also thinks that interdisciplinary
work is important because fields intersect regularly and while Cornell has a lot of interdisciplinary opportunities, she is unaware of those combining biology and art, emphasizing that we are meeting a need for the intellectual community on campus.
+
Gloria Geng is a student studying Computer Science at Cornell. She does consider herself to be an artistic person as she has been involved with the more traditional art that iGEM is interested in and as she has played numerous musical instruments for
many years. Prior to the interview, she did not really know anything about bioart, but she understood where the craze for the field came from. She thinks that bioart would be an interesting field to consider because it can literally include using
living things to create art. She also thinks that interdisciplinary work is extremely important because in the real world, all fields are intertwined, but it's easy to lose sight of that in college. She reaffirmed that raising awareness about
interdisciplinary fields is important.
Closing the Loop: Stakeholder Check-Ins
+
We then closed the loop by following up with Mark Grimm in regards to his interview. After reviewing some of our reference papers with us, he commended us for acknowledging that art was so challenging to define because “everyone has a different perspective,” and said that art was similar to religion in the way. This comment encouraged us to explore the intersection of art, religion and philosophy in our bioethics guide. He also noted that again, there seems to be a lot of interplay between art and science, as both art and science can be “experimental, tightly regulated, and methodical.” He recommended that we consult quotes from how other prominent artists have defined art, and commented that Picasso and Bertolt Brecht’s definitions of art have been particularly inspiring for him. Overall, Professor Mark Grimm was fundamental in helping us expand our perspective and realizing that art and science are extremely intertwined in reality.
+
We closed the loop with Stelarc who had no formal feedback but encouraged us to continue our project development. He had found our work thus far very interesting and applicable to the bioart world.
+
We closed the loop by checking in with Alyssa Johnson, a stakeholder we interacted with at the Sciencenter. Alyssa reinforced that we made the correct decision to conduct an outreach event with the Sciencenter, rather than an exhibit of micromurals as the outreach event is easier to implement logitiscally due to financial and safety constraints. Furthermore, she enjoyed our activities as she “really loved [how it showcased the] science process”. She also said that we had engaged the children well through the use of short preambles introducing the activity and leading questions. The activities selected, especially the paint and shoeboxes activities, showcase the basic science processes which in turn, develops science literacy. For the future, she recommends that we conduct activities that are very hands-on, especially those attune to the paint and shoebox activity.
+
Adam Shulman met with us for a second time this fall to find out how our project had progressed and assist us with designing our bioart exhibit. Adam continued to find our project interesting, poignant, and relevant - he even showed us a biological art project currently showing in the AAP buildings on Cornell’s campus to comment on the relevance of bioart. As for our exhibit, Adam was pivotal in designing the layout and aesthetics of the exhibit. Thanks to our check-in with Adam, our exhibit has an intentional and interactive design that integrates PD work with the project’s mission of expanding the public’s understanding of science and art’s intersectionality.
Understand the impact and uses of potential real-world products
Our Business PlanIt is essential to understand the physical and business aspects of this project and other applications to ensure that our practices are sustainable and aligned with our values.
- The understanding of physical elements is vital. To be aligned with our value of being environmentally-conscious, our product must be developed in a manner that does not bring adverse impacts to the environment. Climate change is already a large issue and we do not intend to contribute towards it but instead, to alleviate it. We model our project after current forms of sustainable arts such as alternative painting and paint bindings. In particular, Utrecht is a cadmium free paint. Furthermore, there are ink-based alternatives to paint, such as soil-based ink & strata ink. We also looked into binding paint with honey as an environmentally safe alternative to the traditional binding.t. Our interview with Adam Shulman, an Architecture, Arts & Planning student at Cornell University, provided insight into the potential impact of being eco-friendly. By having eco-friendly art, awareness is brought to climate change and dialogues will be sparked. As we created this product, we kept this in mind to maintain sustainability practices and to stay true to our values.
- Furthermore, business is an important component of creating a product. We had an interview with Cortica Gardens, a competitor, to understand how they handle business components. Based on this, we looked at marketing concepts and market sizing when deciding how to develop the brand of this product.
- Furthermore, we have several educational efforts about science-art. At the Splash! event, we spoke to high school students about women in synthetic biology to encourage underrepresented groups to enter the field. At the Ithaca Sciencenter, there was an exhibit held in which art, biology, and bioart activities were conducted. We provided educational information about science-art and encouraged young children to explore this space. These events were conducted and influenced by our interviews, especially the interview with Ali Jackson of the sciencenter. Jackson had promoted interactive events to promote educational efforts in the science-art space. Furthermore, we hosted another exhibit event at Cornell University to showcase and promote the interdisciplinary nature of science and art. This event was encouraged by several science and art professors, researchers and students at the university, as seen through our interviews, including Xiaowen Chen, Adam Shulman, and Dr. Tamer Uyer. As seen through collected surveys, these events were seen as highly effective. The following videos showcase our events.
Developing new philosophical and ethical insight
+
Our project lies in a unique area, which must consider both the ethics of art and the ethics of science. Throughout our review of how morality, ethics, and philosophy relate to both fields, we found recurring themes. The primary themes were that it is essential to give credit where it is due and to consider the impacts of your work on the world. Both art and science have concerns about copyright, so we wanted to ensure that all information we gained through interviews were well documented. Furthermore, any parts or devices we were given from other labs were given due credit for their contributions. As for the concern of our project’s implications, this was a topic we spent a great amount of time working on and developing. A huge goal of our project is to bridge the gap between arts and sciences. While this initially appeared simple, interviews with artists and scientists revealed that there were many things we needed to consider before we could claim this as our project’s impact. First of all, was the project safe to display even with the modified E. Coli? With the addition of a kill switch, yes. Suggesting that the purpose of our project is solely to increase communication between fields can be perceived as demeaning to people whose careers are based on bioart. Thus, our focus shifted to creating art that elaborates on the artistry of the scientific process whilst also encouraging dialogue between artists and scientists. Our ethical analysis provided the stepping stones to enhance the work our team completed to be ethically and morally conscious, and we aim to offer other teams a guideline for how art and science combine ethically, philosophically, and morally in our ethics handbook.
+
While previous teams have had success in utilizing solely the SEG, AREA, and ELSA frameworks to highlight how their project ethically engages with the world, our team found it useful to reference other ethical theories to guide our project. Specifically, the Cornell 2022 iGEM team uses the utilitarian ethical framework and the common good framework, both of which fall under a generalized consequentialist ethical theory. The Utilitarian approach was introduced by Greek philosopher Epicurus, with significant contributions from Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill. Together, the framework underscores the idea that the best way to make ethical decisions is to choose the option that creates the least amount of distress, pain, or consequences for all parties involved. In other words, the utilitarian framework operates under the principle that any action will inherently have good and bad qualities associated with it; the best course of action is to move forward with the one that inflicts the least amount of harm or the greatest ratio of good over bad by considering all stakeholders involved and weighing the advantages or consequences. This ethical framework is often applied to justify environmental action, which is a key theme of our project. Similarly, the Common Good approach, a framework that falls under the consequentialist theories, highlights that one should strive to have their actions contribute to communal well-being. Put forth by Aristotle, Plato, and Jean Jaques Rousseau, this way of thinking emphasizes the fact that all actions are done with the general will of the people at mind. Both these ethical frameworks were considered in combination while devising the MicroMurals project.
The Consequentialist Ethical Theory as a whole is directly applicable to the seasonal project since MicroMurals were designed with the community’s well being at the forefront of our minds. Using the Utilitarian approach, we knew that it was important to combat climate change and air pollution with our project. However, during the initial brainstorming sessions, it was clear that it was close to impossible to create a completely carbon neutral. While that would be the end goal, it would be extremely difficult considering our team’s knowledge, experience, and resources. Instead, by using the utilitarian approach, we aimed to impose the least amount of consequences with the project. Since MicroMurals and its associated parts produce less net carbon emissions and toxic chemical/VOC release than leading paint brands by considering all stakeholder perspectives, this product is considered ethically good for the environment, as it minimizes or reduces the harm inflicted on the Earth.
In addition, a number of artists like Stelarc, Mark Grimm, and Adam Shulman noted about the lack of utilitarianism in art, and the fact that most artists create art in response to ideas and forms that personally resonate with themselves. However, our project diverges from the fine arts because we hope to create art that does consider other stakeholders through the Common Good ethical framework. We want to create art that does not attempt to maximize personal gain but rather have a net benefit for all individuals involved by prioritizing our local community and designing a product that directly supports their needs. This line of thought also justifies the need for an interdisciplinary bio art lab that operates as a true collaboration between the art, science, and engineering departments instead of something that may fall under the College of Art, Architecture, and Planning (AAP) or something that students can pursue on their own using creative license.
https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions
https://www.capsim.com/blog/five-ways-shape-ethical-decisions-utilitarian-approach
The Consequentialist Ethical Theory as a whole is directly applicable to the seasonal project since MicroMurals were designed with the community’s well being at the forefront of our minds. Using the Utilitarian approach, we knew that it was important to combat climate change and air pollution with our project. However, during the initial brainstorming sessions, it was clear that it was close to impossible to create a completely carbon neutral. While that would be the end goal, it would be extremely difficult considering our team’s knowledge, experience, and resources. Instead, by using the utilitarian approach, we aimed to impose the least amount of consequences with the project. Since MicroMurals and its associated parts produce less net carbon emissions and toxic chemical/VOC release than leading paint brands by considering all stakeholder perspectives, this product is considered ethically good for the environment, as it minimizes or reduces the harm inflicted on the Earth.
In addition, a number of artists like Stelarc, Mark Grimm, and Adam Shulman noted about the lack of utilitarianism in art, and the fact that most artists create art in response to ideas and forms that personally resonate with themselves. However, our project diverges from the fine arts because we hope to create art that does consider other stakeholders through the Common Good ethical framework. We want to create art that does not attempt to maximize personal gain but rather have a net benefit for all individuals involved by prioritizing our local community and designing a product that directly supports their needs. This line of thought also justifies the need for an interdisciplinary bio art lab that operates as a true collaboration between the art, science, and engineering departments instead of something that may fall under the College of Art, Architecture, and Planning (AAP) or something that students can pursue on their own using creative license.
https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions
https://www.capsim.com/blog/five-ways-shape-ethical-decisions-utilitarian-approach
Cultural Ethics versus Biological Ethics
One idea that our team has constantly encountered is the difference in emphasis that society places on cultural projects versus scientific projects. This can have various repercussions for how the art work is perceived and supported. This includes how these projects get approved.In an interview with Guy Ben-Ary, a bioart researcher at SymbioticA, one of the pioneering boart institutions, he described to us the process of how bioart projects get approved ethically. At his institution, bioart research projects go through the same approval process of meeting with an institutional ethics board and they need to meet the same requirements as a scientific research project would. He told us a story of how when bioart was in its infancy he and his colleague tried to get ethical approval for a project that would be put in a gallery seen by hundreds of people. Except, since his project required the use of fish neurons, he needed approval from the board. He described to us how his project was almost denied approval because the impact of the project was not worth the lives of the goldfish. While the point is not whether the project really was worth it or not, the point is that if the project was a science based research project, Ben-Ary argued that the project would have been approved in a heartbeat. To certain members of the board, the science project would be more valuable than the art project regardless of the fact that numerous scientific research projects are rarely successful on the first iteration and that Ben-Ary’s exhibit would be seen by hundreds of people.
Unfortunately, artwork, despite the immense power they have to make people feel things and understand the world from the artist's perspective and despite the number of people that may see the work, is constantly undervalued in society. People don’t realize the full potential and value of the art field. Culturally based projects are constantly shoved aside for more scientifically based ones. Our team hopes to address this issue, highlighting that science and art can coexist and emphasizing that both culture and science have their own unique and important purposes.
Bioart Ethics Resource Guide
Cornell iGEM's Ethics HandbookIn an effort to fully complete an ethical analysis of our project, Cornell iGEM created a compiled list of ethical, philosophical, and moral articles related to both biology and art. Our compiled resources guide to the ethics of bioart provides teams developing their projects with a plethora of resources to guide their understanding and development of how ethics plays into creating a “good for the world” project, specifically a biological based art project.
Researching Policies and Practices
Overview
+
Our outreach focused highly on exploring and educating about the intersection of art and science. Throughout our interviews, we found that many people felt there was a disconnect between the world of art and the world of science. Our project centers on how science can be employed to create art, and how the experimental process is an artistic process itself. Thus, in many of our outreach events, we wanted to demonstrate to people how much art revolves around biology and how the scientific world is artistic in nature. Our first outreach event was Splash!, a Cornell event in which high school students could spend a day learning about any topic they found interesting. Our presentation touched on the women of synthetic biology; by combining a PowerPoint presentation with hands-on activities, we showed how powerful synthetic biology work can be (especially when the work is female-led). Our following outreach event worked with children in the Ithaca area. Collaborating with BBBS of Ithaca, we held a match event with presentations on our project and some interactive science activities. After matches heard our presentation on bioart, they got to answer a few questions on what they learned before they could jump to the fun science activities. These answers were highly informative for us, as they showed what parts of the presentation were getting across to students and how we could improve in our presentation.
+
Every step of our work aimed to accomplish the goals of integrated human practices. Throughout our work talking with students, professors, and industry professionals, we implemented changes based on their feedback and used their guidance to decide on the key values of our project. While the technical interviews with biology professors and bioart companies helped modify our scientific and wetlab process, interviews with art students and ethics professors were essential to illuminating the key ethical, policy, and human practice issues in the bioart world. We employed other team’s frameworks in addition to the information gained from interviews to guide our HP analysis, including the ELSA and AREA framework created by the Exeter team. All our interviews and HP analysis provided the background to thoughtfully complete education and inclusivity work, aiming to educate on the topics of bioart in a manner that is inclusive and comprehensive. For us, that looked like showing information on past work that integrated art and science from a diverse group of artists. These presentations were formatted so that groups of any age could understand them.
+
Our collaboration was spread across work with many different teams. Our in-person collaboration was conducted with the University of Rochester iGEM. In addition to an in-person meet-up, our teams traded samples to confirm experimental results, worked with the University of Rochester advisor to improve our 3D printing work, and led the BBBS match event together. These endeavors were beneficial to both teams, as we were able to interact in both a social and scientific way. As for our virtual collaborations, we worked with the McGill and Concordia iGEMs to hold a hybrid min jamboree. Our team focused on leading the virtual aspect of the jamboree, in addition to working with the Canadian teams on planning the event and getting sponsors/judges. This collaboration was phenomenal as it offered our team a chance to practice our presentation and hear other teams’ work before the giant jamboree in October.
Bioethics
Artists are known for pushing the boundaries of what is considered normal, engaging in out of the box thinking to make important social commentary and communicate important ideas . Scientists as well are known for their creative thinking as they explore how to tackle some of the world’s biggest issues. Bioartists do the best of both worlds. Yet with such a creative field, that means that it is hard to place limits on what they can and can’t do. Where do we draw the line?
The biggest ethical concern with this project is that there are technically no limits on what can be done within the scope of the project. Unlike the scientific community where there are standardized regulations that limit the scope of research, no such limitations nor a forum, where limitations can be discussed, exist in the bioart community. As art is a creative field, focused on thinking outside of the box, it is especially important to engage in discussions about what can be done and what is considered to be going too far. This idea has repeatedly appeared in interviews; artists feel as though they have a responsibility to the community to ensure that they don’t overstep from an ethical perspective. Many of the restrictions placed within the bioart community are more on an individual level and come from self-awareness. This is something that our team will keep in mind when working on our project to ensure that we don’t surpass our limits and stay within the parameters of what is considered to be safe for ourselves and those who will engage with our product.
In addition, from conversations we have had with various bioart researchers in the field, including those at SymbioticA, a prominent bioart research lab, we learned that the process in which they go through for institutional ethics approval is no different from any other scientific research project. Therefore, as part of our own personal ethics review, we went through Cornell’s IRB and IBC ethics approval process to self-evaluate whether our project would need approval and meet its ethical guidelines for conducting safe and ethical research.
In general, synthetic biology is a field of science which involves the engineering or redesigning of what naturally occurs in the world. Because this is changing what is natural, we chose not to pursue a project that would be releasing engineered organisms into the environment because of the possible implications it could have on the rest of the environment. In addition, despite synthetic biology’s potential for good, there is also room where this bioengineering technique may be used in a negative manner. One of the biggest bioethical concerns is the idea that scientists now have the ability to “play God'', doing as they please, as they are manipulating what is naturally in the world in the name of bioart. As people doing research, there are limitations on the work we do and we can not anticipate the possible effects modifying natural organisms could have on its surroundings. In addition, there is always the fear of how such technologies can be misused when in the wrong hands Therefore, it cannot be under emphasized the importance of being aware of our actions and implications the technology we create could have for future research to ensure that we don’t abuse such technology.
The biggest ethical concern with this project is that there are technically no limits on what can be done within the scope of the project. Unlike the scientific community where there are standardized regulations that limit the scope of research, no such limitations nor a forum, where limitations can be discussed, exist in the bioart community. As art is a creative field, focused on thinking outside of the box, it is especially important to engage in discussions about what can be done and what is considered to be going too far. This idea has repeatedly appeared in interviews; artists feel as though they have a responsibility to the community to ensure that they don’t overstep from an ethical perspective. Many of the restrictions placed within the bioart community are more on an individual level and come from self-awareness. This is something that our team will keep in mind when working on our project to ensure that we don’t surpass our limits and stay within the parameters of what is considered to be safe for ourselves and those who will engage with our product.
In addition, from conversations we have had with various bioart researchers in the field, including those at SymbioticA, a prominent bioart research lab, we learned that the process in which they go through for institutional ethics approval is no different from any other scientific research project. Therefore, as part of our own personal ethics review, we went through Cornell’s IRB and IBC ethics approval process to self-evaluate whether our project would need approval and meet its ethical guidelines for conducting safe and ethical research.
In general, synthetic biology is a field of science which involves the engineering or redesigning of what naturally occurs in the world. Because this is changing what is natural, we chose not to pursue a project that would be releasing engineered organisms into the environment because of the possible implications it could have on the rest of the environment. In addition, despite synthetic biology’s potential for good, there is also room where this bioengineering technique may be used in a negative manner. One of the biggest bioethical concerns is the idea that scientists now have the ability to “play God'', doing as they please, as they are manipulating what is naturally in the world in the name of bioart. As people doing research, there are limitations on the work we do and we can not anticipate the possible effects modifying natural organisms could have on its surroundings. In addition, there is always the fear of how such technologies can be misused when in the wrong hands Therefore, it cannot be under emphasized the importance of being aware of our actions and implications the technology we create could have for future research to ensure that we don’t abuse such technology.
+
Critical Art Ensemble is a group of artists, professors, and more who are known as some of the pioneers of the bioart field. Their work focuses on the intersectionality of art, technology, and science in order to make important criticisms and statements about political and societal issues. In 2002, the group won the Creative Capital Award for, GenTerra, their project that sought to engage in the public discussion around genetically modified organisms. They used a mixture of performance art and bioengineering to do so.
However, in 2004, one of the heads of the organization, Professor Steven J. Kurtz became the target of a bioterrorism investigation after firefighters found two different kinds of bacteria and what they considered to be suspicious equipment after they were called to his house after his wife’s passing from a heart attack. He was indicted a month later and accused of planning with the former chairman of the University of Pittsburgh’s human genetics department to gain harmful organisms improperly. This raised many questions across the bioart community about how safe this type of work is considering how serious misusing it can be. People thought that his wife’s heart attack was a direct result of the edited bacteria, making it all the more dangerous.
Investigators determined that the equipment in his home was standard lab equipment that is typically used for DNA extraction and amplification, and it was just part of his artwork. They also determined that his wife had passed away from natural causes, independent of the bacteria in his home. In 2008, the charges against him were dropped because they were insufficient. This case highlights that our team needs to be very aware of how our work is kept and stored to ensure that we are being as safe as possible. Ultimately, while Professor Kurtz did not commit any crime, this case study gives us a better idea of the ethical questions that do arise in bioart projects and the paranoia that most of the public has with projects like this that they don’t understand.
Citations:
However, in 2004, one of the heads of the organization, Professor Steven J. Kurtz became the target of a bioterrorism investigation after firefighters found two different kinds of bacteria and what they considered to be suspicious equipment after they were called to his house after his wife’s passing from a heart attack. He was indicted a month later and accused of planning with the former chairman of the University of Pittsburgh’s human genetics department to gain harmful organisms improperly. This raised many questions across the bioart community about how safe this type of work is considering how serious misusing it can be. People thought that his wife’s heart attack was a direct result of the edited bacteria, making it all the more dangerous.
Investigators determined that the equipment in his home was standard lab equipment that is typically used for DNA extraction and amplification, and it was just part of his artwork. They also determined that his wife had passed away from natural causes, independent of the bacteria in his home. In 2008, the charges against him were dropped because they were insufficient. This case highlights that our team needs to be very aware of how our work is kept and stored to ensure that we are being as safe as possible. Ultimately, while Professor Kurtz did not commit any crime, this case study gives us a better idea of the ethical questions that do arise in bioart projects and the paranoia that most of the public has with projects like this that they don’t understand.
Citations:
[1] “How Critical Art Ensemble Pioneered Bio Art” Creative Capital. , n.d., online, Internet, 1 Oct. 2022. , Available: https://creative-capital.org/2020/01/27/how-critical-art-ensemble-pioneered-bio-art/.
[2] Nora S. Vaage, “What Ethics for Bioart?” Nanoethics. 10 (2016): 87–104, online, Internet, 1 Oct. 2022. , Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791467/.
[3] The Associated Press, “Charge Dropped Against Artist in Terror Case” The New York Times. , 22 Apr. 2008, sec. New York, online, Internet, 1 Oct. 2022. , Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/nyregion/22bioart.html.
Law Policy Review
+
Since MicroMurals represents a project that could advance BioArt, a rapidly emerging and innovative field that brings together science and art, we researched existing science policies related to the project. Specifically, we relied heavily on guidelines from FASEB (Federation of American Scientists for Experimental Biology) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Volume 8, this project would be categorized as Class 1 (general controls) with components such as “multipurpose culture medium,” “colony counters,” and “quality control kits for culture media.” Title 21 notes that as Class 1 materials, this project is exempt from premarket notification requirements.
While developing this microbial art product, we made sure to conduct interviews with companies like Cortica Gardens that were also working in similar sectors, such as green wall technologies. Cortica Gardens is a sustainable and environmentally conscious company that creates cork living wall systems. While Cortica gardens and other companies work with plant material, our work differs in that we are using microorganisms. While working with the microbes in the lab, all lab members made sure to use proper personal protective equipment and adhere to Cornell University’s research policy and guidelines. Members completed lab training modules, a “Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)” presentation, and relevant coursework.
In addition, as MicroMurals is a project that operates at the intersection of the arts and the sciences, it was also important to reference patents and copyright laws for artists. Under Title 17 of the United States Code, eight types of work are protected under copyright law; MicroMurals is likely to fall under the “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work” category.
While developing this microbial art product, we made sure to conduct interviews with companies like Cortica Gardens that were also working in similar sectors, such as green wall technologies. Cortica Gardens is a sustainable and environmentally conscious company that creates cork living wall systems. While Cortica gardens and other companies work with plant material, our work differs in that we are using microorganisms. While working with the microbes in the lab, all lab members made sure to use proper personal protective equipment and adhere to Cornell University’s research policy and guidelines. Members completed lab training modules, a “Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)” presentation, and relevant coursework.
In addition, as MicroMurals is a project that operates at the intersection of the arts and the sciences, it was also important to reference patents and copyright laws for artists. Under Title 17 of the United States Code, eight types of work are protected under copyright law; MicroMurals is likely to fall under the “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work” category.
Policy Safety
Safety is important to account for in any project, especially the ones dealing with synthetic biological materials. MicroMurals is a project where engineering bacteria will be used to extrude colors in a hydrogel to create art, placed in petri dishes. These petri dishes will be sealed to prevent any byproducts from escaping into the air. In this case, cyclodextrin fibers in a hydrogel and E. Coli bacteria are used in this project as its main biological materials. Cyclodextrin fibers are approved by the FDA for delivering human drug use. Therefore, it is safe to say that cyclodextrin fibers are safe to use in this art setting as it will be placed within petri dishes, following standard lab practices. Additionally, the current risk assessment for e. Coli bacterium is a level one risk and thus, does not pose risk for concern as standard lab practices are followed. It is important to note that these materials cannot be used outdoors as engineered bacteria will be used and may pose the risk of causing ecosystem dysfunction if it is released outdoors as it is not tested for potential outdoor interactions. All materials will be tested by: recording qualitative data during growth in terms of color production; completing chemical assays for CO2 & VOC Uptake; recording absorption & concentration levels; conducting growth + color time trials; potentially imaging nanofibers (TEM). If any irregularities are found, the kill switch of the MircoMural will be activated and procedures will be analyzed and adjusted accordingly to ensure compliance with standard laboratory practices. Thus, the potential of hazardous byproducts and cross contamination will be easily identified. While working with the microbes in the lab, all lab members made sure to use proper personal protective equipment and adhere to Cornell University’s research policy and guidelines. Members completed lab training modules, a “Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)” presentation, and relevant coursework. Furthermore, it is important to follow COVID safety guidelines during the development of this product and its display. For unvaccinated people, it is recommended to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Furthermore, if anyone is feeling any COVID-19 symptoms or exposed to the virus, it is recommended for them to test for the virus. Furthermore, if one tests positive for COVID-19, it is highly recommended that they quarantine for five days and mask for an additional five days. COVID–19 guidelines are especially important to follow in this project as some of our target groups, children and the elderly, tend to be vulnerable groups for the virus. As always, safety is our top priority; it is important to leave room for experimentation and the beauty of art to occur, as long as safety is not compromised in this process.
Submitting a formal research proposal for MicroMurals would have required us to follow the procedures outlined in Cornell Research Services website. The first step would have been sourcing a Private Investigator (PI) to lead this research. While our advisor’s background in bio-engineering would make Professor Cira a good fit, reaching out to some of the bio artists like Suzanne Anker or the plethora of bio artists at Symbiotica we had the chance to interview would be an even better choice. Another viable option would be to have a multi-PI group, where one of our PIs would have a background in biology and the other in the fine arts. The Cornell Research Services Policies page highlights more on PI eligibility requirements on Form 5. Next, it would be important to secure funding sources. While our Business subteam excelled in applying and earning funding through grants, nonprofit organizations, center grants, and state/national funding from institutions like the NIH could have also helped us carry out our work.
Cornell Research Services also recommends submitting applications for a NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) to the OSP team for approval. Following this, we would have consulted with a variety of groups to finish the bulk of the proposal preparation. Research Development Services would have been a good starting point, as the group could have helped us by providing us with an overview of the process, major awards, and funding resources. Since Cornell iGEM also falls under an organization in the College of Engineering, we would have had the opportunity to receive support from the Pre-Award Research Operations (PRO) team. If the project intended to use animal models or animal cells (including human cells), then we would have also needed to consult with the College Research Office at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine or Weill Cornell Medicine. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is an alternative resource that we could have consulted with. However, since MicroMurals was a project devised by our undergraduate-run project team and only uses microbes, we did not need to follow through with the research proposal process.
Submitting a formal research proposal for MicroMurals would have required us to follow the procedures outlined in Cornell Research Services website. The first step would have been sourcing a Private Investigator (PI) to lead this research. While our advisor’s background in bio-engineering would make Professor Cira a good fit, reaching out to some of the bio artists like Suzanne Anker or the plethora of bio artists at Symbiotica we had the chance to interview would be an even better choice. Another viable option would be to have a multi-PI group, where one of our PIs would have a background in biology and the other in the fine arts. The Cornell Research Services Policies page highlights more on PI eligibility requirements on Form 5. Next, it would be important to secure funding sources. While our Business subteam excelled in applying and earning funding through grants, nonprofit organizations, center grants, and state/national funding from institutions like the NIH could have also helped us carry out our work.
Cornell Research Services also recommends submitting applications for a NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) to the OSP team for approval. Following this, we would have consulted with a variety of groups to finish the bulk of the proposal preparation. Research Development Services would have been a good starting point, as the group could have helped us by providing us with an overview of the process, major awards, and funding resources. Since Cornell iGEM also falls under an organization in the College of Engineering, we would have had the opportunity to receive support from the Pre-Award Research Operations (PRO) team. If the project intended to use animal models or animal cells (including human cells), then we would have also needed to consult with the College Research Office at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine or Weill Cornell Medicine. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is an alternative resource that we could have consulted with. However, since MicroMurals was a project devised by our undergraduate-run project team and only uses microbes, we did not need to follow through with the research proposal process.
Policy Handbook
The Cornell iGEM compiled useful resources, information, and instructions for how to complete policy review relvant to an iGEM team, as well as how to start a proposal should one’s project require it!
Cornell iGEM Policy Handbook
Submitting a formal research proposal for MicroMurals would have required us to follow the procedures outlined in Cornell Research Services website. The first step would have been sourcing a Private Investigator (PI) to lead this research. While our advisor’s background in bio-engineering would make Professor Cira a good fit, reaching out to some of the bio artists like Suzanne Anker or the plethora of bio artists at Symbiotica we had the chance to interview would be an even better choice. Another viable option would be to have a multi-PI group, where one of our PIs would have a background in biology and the other in the fine arts. The Cornell Research Services Policies page highlights more on PI eligibility requirements on Form 5. Next, it would be important to secure funding sources. While our Business subteam excelled in applying and earning funding through grants like XXXXXX, nonprofit organizations, center grants, and state/national funding from institutions like the NIH could have also helped us carry out our work.
Cornell Research Services also recommends submitting applications for a NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) to the OSP team for approval. Following this, we would have consulted with a variety of groups to finish the bulk of the proposal preparation. Research Development Services would have been a good starting point, as the group could have helped us by providing us with an overview of the process, major awards, and funding resources. Since Cornell iGEM also falls under an organization in the College of Engineering, we would have had the opportunity to receive support from the Pre-Award Research Operations (PRO) team. If the project intended to use animal models or animal cells (including human cells), then we would have also needed to consult with the College Research Office at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine or Weill Cornell Medicine. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is an alternative resource that we could have consulted with. However, since MicroMurals was a project devised by our undergraduate-run project team and only uses microbes, we did not need to follow through with the research proposal process.
Cornell iGEM Policy Handbook
Submitting a formal research proposal for MicroMurals would have required us to follow the procedures outlined in Cornell Research Services website. The first step would have been sourcing a Private Investigator (PI) to lead this research. While our advisor’s background in bio-engineering would make Professor Cira a good fit, reaching out to some of the bio artists like Suzanne Anker or the plethora of bio artists at Symbiotica we had the chance to interview would be an even better choice. Another viable option would be to have a multi-PI group, where one of our PIs would have a background in biology and the other in the fine arts. The Cornell Research Services Policies page highlights more on PI eligibility requirements on Form 5. Next, it would be important to secure funding sources. While our Business subteam excelled in applying and earning funding through grants like XXXXXX, nonprofit organizations, center grants, and state/national funding from institutions like the NIH could have also helped us carry out our work.
Cornell Research Services also recommends submitting applications for a NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) to the OSP team for approval. Following this, we would have consulted with a variety of groups to finish the bulk of the proposal preparation. Research Development Services would have been a good starting point, as the group could have helped us by providing us with an overview of the process, major awards, and funding resources. Since Cornell iGEM also falls under an organization in the College of Engineering, we would have had the opportunity to receive support from the Pre-Award Research Operations (PRO) team. If the project intended to use animal models or animal cells (including human cells), then we would have also needed to consult with the College Research Office at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine or Weill Cornell Medicine. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is an alternative resource that we could have consulted with. However, since MicroMurals was a project devised by our undergraduate-run project team and only uses microbes, we did not need to follow through with the research proposal process.
+
Applying what we learned through creating our Policy Handbook, our team determined that there were three different boards that our team would need to reach out to: the Institutional Review Board (IRB), Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), and the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC).
Since we were interviewing people directly, we needed to see if we needed IRB approval. To ensure that we were conducting our expert interviews ethically, we were required to explain to the interviewees what the project was like and what their role would be. We also made sure to send out a consent form with information on iGEM and what their interview would be used for, and we only used their information if they agreed to it. While this is interviewing people for research, we made sure that we would not need IRB human-participant research training or approval to do so as we are interviewing people not to do research on them or their thoughts regarding themselves, but rather to gain a better understanding of their knowledge in the field of the research we are doing. We had an interview with Vanessa McCaffery who is an IRB Compliance Administrator at Cornell and she reaffirmed that we wouldn’t need to go through traditional IRB approval. She also looked over our interview consent form and said that it covered the necessary areas, so we made sure to send the consent form to all those who interviewed with us.
We also checked whether we would need ethics approval from the Animal Review Council and complete IACUC training. However, since E. coli does not fall under the organisms that need this training, which are specifically live vertebrate animals, we did not need to complete the training beyond confirming that our work was not under its jurisdiction.
The last organization that we needed to check was Cornell’s IBC. IBC is important as it is primarily used to protect those doing research, the environment, and the community from exposure to hazardous or engineered material. Since this approval is primarily for biohazardous material and given that lab strain material of E. Coli is risk safety level 1, we would not need to receive IBC approval. In addition, this was a large reason why when initially deciding which project idea to pursue, we avoided those that would involve releasing an organism into the environment.
However, while we don’t need the approval from these different review boards, just in case, our team has received IRB Human Participant Research training, IACUC training, and RCR, or Responsible Conduct of Research, training. After receiving the training, this affirmed our belief that we would not need to seek approval from these boards.
Since we were interviewing people directly, we needed to see if we needed IRB approval. To ensure that we were conducting our expert interviews ethically, we were required to explain to the interviewees what the project was like and what their role would be. We also made sure to send out a consent form with information on iGEM and what their interview would be used for, and we only used their information if they agreed to it. While this is interviewing people for research, we made sure that we would not need IRB human-participant research training or approval to do so as we are interviewing people not to do research on them or their thoughts regarding themselves, but rather to gain a better understanding of their knowledge in the field of the research we are doing. We had an interview with Vanessa McCaffery who is an IRB Compliance Administrator at Cornell and she reaffirmed that we wouldn’t need to go through traditional IRB approval. She also looked over our interview consent form and said that it covered the necessary areas, so we made sure to send the consent form to all those who interviewed with us.
We also checked whether we would need ethics approval from the Animal Review Council and complete IACUC training. However, since E. coli does not fall under the organisms that need this training, which are specifically live vertebrate animals, we did not need to complete the training beyond confirming that our work was not under its jurisdiction.
The last organization that we needed to check was Cornell’s IBC. IBC is important as it is primarily used to protect those doing research, the environment, and the community from exposure to hazardous or engineered material. Since this approval is primarily for biohazardous material and given that lab strain material of E. Coli is risk safety level 1, we would not need to receive IBC approval. In addition, this was a large reason why when initially deciding which project idea to pursue, we avoided those that would involve releasing an organism into the environment.
However, while we don’t need the approval from these different review boards, just in case, our team has received IRB Human Participant Research training, IACUC training, and RCR, or Responsible Conduct of Research, training. After receiving the training, this affirmed our belief that we would not need to seek approval from these boards.
Designing Human Practices Frameworks and Tools
Following the guidance of previous iGEM team’s work (namely Exeter, whose frameworks consitutate the basis for our analysis), our team worked to analyze as many aspects of our human practices as possible.The most applicable framework to our project was SEG
SEG is another ethical framework brought to our attention from the Exeter 2018 team. SEG stands for Safe, Ethical, and Good for the World. Micromurals meets the safety criteria of SEG because the project was completed by strictly adhering to Cornell’s research policy and guidelines. All new members completed an online training course created by the director and staff of Student Project Teams in Cornell’s College of Engineering. In addition, members received lab training, attended Responsible Conduct of Research presentations, and always used personal protective equipment while working with microorganisms and lab materials. Our project fulfills the Ethical criteria of the SEG framework because our Policy and Practices subteam conducted extensive research on the bioethics of the product and the Bio-Art industry as a whole. Since we are not yet experts in this field, we conducted interviews with prominent bio-artists like Professor Suzanne Anker, Stelarc, Guy Ben-Ary, and more to discuss the implications of Bio-Art. In addition, our artwork aims to employ the use of bacteria that will uptake CO2 and VOCs (volatile organic compounds) from the environment, making it environmentally conscious and good for the earth. Finally, our project succeeds in addressing the “Good for the World” criteria of the SEG framework in a plethora of ways. While the primary goal of the project is to engineer bacteria to uptake CO2 and VOC’s, we also aim to use MicroMurals as a prime educational tool to encourage intercourse between the arts and the sciences. Reflecting on both personal experiences and the lack of funding toward the art departments in K-12 and collegiate education, we have noticed that there are stark differences between how students view the arts or the sciences; more often than not, students are seen gravitating toward one while almost completely dismissing the other, resulting in a complete lack of a different perspective. By heavily combining science and art through this project, we hope to encourage more students to pursue interdisciplinary work and even careers in both the arts and the sciences.Two additional frameworks, both from the Exeter iGEM team, were used to analyze our project - the AREA and ELSA frameworks
AREA
AREA stands for anticipate, reflect, engage, and act. This framework looks at a project’s ability to modify research and innovation in response to societal issues. AREA analyzes how projects continuously change and improve based on stakeholders’ and innovators' feedback.
How this applies to our project:
ELSAHow this applies to our project:
- Anticipate: Our project will have a positive impact on society due to its environmental impact and educational impact. We aim to provide a new, sustainable form of art creation in parallel to current canvas and paint methods. Since our methodology is fairly niche and requires a unique set of materials, it is unlikely it will completely eliminate other art methods or take away jobs from any art material distributors. Furthermore, our focus on sharing the intersectionality of art and science through outreach, educational games, and our bioart exhibit improves the public’s understanding of the power bioart holds.
- Reflect: The purpose behind our research is to find an environmentally conscientious art alternative by combining the power of art and science. The main societal issue we want to resolve is the lack of cohesion between the arts and sciences. Thus, this project aligns well with that goal since it employs scientific research and methods to create art pieces. This is backed by the support of multiple stakeholders, including people such as Cornell AAP student Adam Shulman. Additionally, the value that is placed on cultural/artistic pursuits in comparison to scientific ones is often disproportionate. Even when both types of projects aim to do the same thing, society often places a higher value on scientific projects under the impression that cultural projects don't actually "do anything" or have "no impact" - which often is not true. An example of this is the fish research vs ethics board, as mentioned in the Guy Ben-Ary interview.
- Engage: The list of our stakeholders and interviewees represents a wide range of opinions and backgrounds. We have stakeholders from the fields of biological research, bioart, art, education, etc. We have not only engaged with these stakeholders; we succeeded in engaging the Cornell community through our bioart exhibit, the local senior community with our outreach to Longview, and the local youth community through our Sciencenter and BBBS outreach events. This engagement was meant to gain new perspectives, encourage generational impact, as well as generational influence.
- Act: Acting on the advice and information gained from our interviews and research, we have started to create environmentally conscious art. By engineering bacteria to encode for a variety of colorful hydrogels that we can arrange in a design, we are able to bring forth a new variety of art. Additionally, we can supplement this art by modifying the material to uptake carbon dioxide and VOCs to help the environment, essentially creating a living material that can perform all these functions.
ELSA stands for ethical, legal, and social aspects. ELSA was created after interviewing a variety of people in the community, as the Exeter team knew they didn't have the expertise to make informed decisions on HP topics entirely on their own. Exeter 2018 chose this approach as they wanted to explore the ethical, legal, and social aspects of the project.
How this applies to us:
How this applies to us:
- Ethical: Upon review, we believe this project has been conducted in the most ethical manner possible and that the project is itself ethical. Upon analyzing a variety of ethical references and guides (see the Bioart Ethics Resource Guide), we found that our work is ethical in the sense that we allow for freedom of expression and attempt to make our art accessible to all through our app. Furthermore, work was conducted in a lab setting in adherence with iGEM and Cornell lab regulations. Policy and practice work met IRB regulations and requirements. All interviews were conducted and recorded with the consent of the interviewees. This project did not harm anyone in the process of its creation, and we plan to exhibit the art in a manner that is inclusive.
- Legal: MicroMurals abides by all laws and regulations that pertain to both synthetic biological work and artistic creation. We followed all lab safety rules when performing wetlab and PD work, including Cornell’s lab safety regulations. When using others’ research or ideas as a jumping board for our project, we gave credit where it is due. Nothing dangerous or biologically changed was released into the environment, in accordance with EPA regulations.
- Social: Our project is highly based on its social implications. We aim to provide a new, sustainable form of art creation in parallel to current canvas and paint methods. Since our methodology is fairly niche and requires a unique set of materials, it is unlikely it will completely eliminate other art methods or take away jobs from any art material distributors. Our app is accessible to all who have the technology to run it. We also engage artists and scientists within society, as our interviews have suggested that making a bioart lab would garner the interest of both groups within our Cornell community.
Finally, our team made an HP framework of our own - EUDI
Our EUDI Framework
Education, Inclusivity, and Outreach
BioArt Exhibit
BioArt Lab
For our project, one of our biggest focuses was on the education of how science and art can be integrated as one interdisciplinary field of bioart. Given that our university places a high value on the idea of “any person, any study”, we felt this would align with our university’s values and motto. Yet to our surprise, there was no major bioart focus or initiative on our campus. After speaking with bio artist Suzanne Anker and hearing about her lab and labs being started at the University of Buffalo and SVA, we decided that introducing a bioart lab to Cornell’s campus was important to us and would be one of the biggest focuses of our education on campus.We started this process by reaching out to the College of Engineering and the Cornell Project team's admin, Lauren Stulgis, to get a better understanding of the process behind starting a lab at Cornell and what we would need to consider and cover. One of the first steps was to look at possible faculty that would be interested in a project like this. Because we wanted the focus to be on booth art and science, we thought it would be interesting to either have two PIs for a joint lab or to have a main PI who is in the sciences as they would be the one more in charge of safety and training of the actual engineering lab materials and techniques and have an art professor serve as another advisor. We looked at professors like Tamer Uyar who specializes in fiber and polymer science for possible PIs as well as artists like Oasa DuVerney, who has a special interest in interdisciplinary art. However, many professors and faculty at Cornell have obligations and labs of their own, meaning that if we were to introduce a lab on campus, it would have to be with new faculty.
The next step in this process was looking at different lab spaces. Since we wanted to emphasize that this is still under the field of scientific research, it was one of our goals to make sure that the lab space was in one of the bioengineering or science buildings on campus. We looked at Weill, which is where the biomedical engineering department is located; Olin Hall, which is where the chemical engineering department is located; and Baker Laboratory, where the chemistry department is located. Unfortunately, after speaking with the admin of these departments, it was clear that there is no additional space available for our lab. We also looked at one of the future buildings on campus, Atkinson’s Hall, a building that is focused on interdisciplinary work on campus, directly aligning with our mission. However, this building is just in its first stages and isn’t ready for us to use or have access to at this point. This was one of the biggest setbacks in our efforts to create the bioart lab.
After looking at locations, we started to look into funding. To start a lab, considering that this lab would still fall under science research, we looked at traditional grants that labs that are just starting at would apply for. The NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services had a few grants that would be related to starting a bioengineering lab. For bioart specific work, we looked at some individual grants that bio artists that we work with could look at. One grant that caught our attention was the Creative Capital Wild Futures grant. This grant has a focus on “funding freedom of expression through groundbreaking ideas in art” with a specific focus on technology and bioengineering which directly aligns with the motivation of our lab. However, this grant is only individually funded which is great for those who may join our lab, but doesn’t give funding directly to our lab. We also looked at the National Endowment for the Arts Research Labs grant as it directly aligns with our work focusing on transdisciplinary research between art and non-art fields.
One of the biggest components of a bioart lab would be to actually have the technology and resources for the bio artists to use. One of the suggestions that we received from bioartist Meghan Moe Beitiks was to find a space that already has these resources for us to use and to start with an artist whose medium is based in one of these resources. That way, we have the resources ready for them to use and it helps us reduce the funding needed initially. This was one of the biggest motivations for why we wanted to have a lab space within one of the science buildings because they have a lot of those resources already. Some of the resources that bio artists use depend on the research they plan on conducting. For instance, given that iGEM works primarily with traditional genetic engineering techniques, a bioart lab to serve our purposes would include material like microscopes, micropipettes, etc
The last criteria that we looked into was the requirements for who would be joining our lab. We couldn’t get too in detail into this as this would depend on the resources that we have available on campus and whether they align with the mediums that the artist uses. However, some other things that we wanted to consider were that we wanted the lab to have both artists and scientists. While a majority of bioart labs have research that is conducted primarily by artists, we thought that having members of the lab in various engineering and science related fields would help with training and would also encourage them to pursue art related research projects in the lab. We also wanted to include people through different ages and experience levels including the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate level because we think that this field is something that people should be aware of and involved in regardless of their prior experience. Specifically, we reached out to multiple people to gauge interest on our campus and have gotten positive interest from undergraduate and graduate students in art history, global development, biology and more. In our survey, 100% of respondents were interested in being a part of a bioart lab.
Ultimately, despite the research and steps we took to start a bioart lab on campus, unfortunately, it is out of our scope to be able to start a bioart lab on our own. This is something that we do hope to look at further through the years to see if we can start in the future as lab space and funding from the College of Engineering opens up. We are also considering promoting bioart on campus on a smaller scale through introducing a class on campus or starting a club. Either way, bioart is something that we think is important to promote and relevant to our university’s mission, making it all the more important that we raise awareness about it around campus and beyond.
MicroMurals Mission: the Game
Check out our educational video game! (The web version currently only launches successfully on the Safari browser)
Splash! Outreach Event
iGEM Cornell presented a program about women in synthetic biology to high school students through an educational showcase, Splash! at Cornell. The goal of our event was to promote diversity in the STEM field for underrepresented groups, particularly within female and non-binary high school students. As we completed this outreach event, there were several things of note. Students enjoyed the hands-on components the most as seen through their engagement and activity-driven questions. Furthermore, we realized that being able to adapt on the spot was key to creating a successful educational experience and platform where students could feel free to ask questions. We strived to create an inclusive environment where no questions or comments were seen negatively. Engaging with younger students is central to good outreach as they are the future of this field. Furthermore, we hoped to encourage female and non-binary-identifying children especially into the field, reinforcing the narrative that there is a space for everyone in any field, including STEM. It is important to actively engage and thus, encourage students to tap into their scientific curiosity. The extra time available for answering student questions was an excellent use of resources and seemed much appreciated. It was important to foster this two-way dialogue, enabling children to gain confidence in satiating their curiosity and to explore further applications of the topics introduced. To improve upon future outreach, we thought we could alter the presentation to be more engaging. While the presentation went well, we believe with additional practice and interactive questions would have engaged the students more. This point was furthered as seen when our extra time was given to answering student questions. Furthermore, pre-packaging materials and making group decisions on how long everything will take would improve the activities, since that way nothing would need to be cut and could improve flow. For the future, it is also important to be more aware of our audience. Although these activities were thoroughly enjoyed by our cohort, especially the interactive ones, they may have been a bit too juvenile for this age range. Overall, everyone seemed to really enjoy themselves and thought the outreach went well! For next time, increased preparation, communication, and a run-through may improve the effectiveness of the outreach.Sciencenter
iGem Cornell conducted an outreach event at the Sciencenter, a children’s museum located in Ithaca, NY. The event consisted of three educational stations: one science station, one art station, and one integration of science and art stations. At the science station, children played with biobricks to explain the components of biology. At the art station, children had the opportunity to follow the scientific process through a paint activity. Children placed a number of bouncy balls into a cardboard box filled with a piece of paper and paint. Before shaking the box, they established their prediction. Then, they conducted the experiment. Afterwards, they drew conclusions, determined if the results were aligned with their predictions, and pondered about potential implications and results if the scientific procedure was adjusted. At the science-art station, children were exposed to the creation of oobleck through everyday materials. Furthermore, they were encouraged to draw with markers to make the oobleck their own. At each station, there was a slight educational introduction done by our team but the activity was primarily driven by the child as we wanted to conduct inquiry-based education. After our interview with Ali Jackson, a stakeholder who works at the Sciencenter, she recommended completing interactive activities to maximize retention and engagement with our audience of children. We prioritized creating an inclusive environment, purposely engaging and individualizing our messages to the audience at hand. The children tended to be towards the younger side but despite that were very engaged. Having stations enabled children to move through the stations as they pleased and receive individual attention from the people manning each station. It made the interactions more meaningful. In addition to these one on one interactions, children were engaged due to the interactive activities. Each station had an activity where children were hands-on. These activities were well-structured, providing an educational background first, completing the activity, and finally reinforcing the connection between the educational segment to the activity. The station that was the most popular was the cornstarch oobleck station; this activity showcased the connection between art and science and reinforced that this medium has the potential to spark scientific curiosity. For improvement of the activities, one may consider utilizing small lid-sealed containers, rather than cardboard boxes, for the ball and paint activity to ensure the containers would not break and could easily be held in a small child’s hand. Despite some shortcomings, this outreach event engaged children thoroughly and allowed them to gain insight into the intersection between science and art.Longview Senior Living Community
iGEM Cornell conducted an outreach event to Longview Senior Living Community, a retirement center located in Ithaca. The event consisted of first a presentation on the history of bioart and important people in the field. We made sure that the font on the presentation was large so that if any residents were hard of hearing, they could still read the slides, and we used microphones to be as loud as possible. We presented two sides of the bioart ethics argument to them, emphasizing that while the field has immense potential for creativity and raising important questions about moral issues using biotechnology techniques, there are also questions about how ethical it is to modify naturally occurring organisms to do so. As part of the presentation we also presented four different case studies about morally ambiguous art pieces so that the residents had a better understanding about what bioart actually looks like in the world and the questions that arise as a result. After the presentation, we hosted a debate session with the residents where we asked them a series of questions about bioart to start off the debate including questions like how should bioart be defined, how should the field be regulated, and more. They were engaged and kept questioning why these questions were even important. They brought up possible examples of bioart that we had never considered before including tattoos and jewelry made of human remains like children’s teeth or the ashes of loved ones, a practice that has been around for ages. The reason why we chose to hosts the debate at a residential community instead of people around our age group was largely because we wanted to be inclusive to a different generation which means they have different ideas and experiences that shape the way they think about the world, allowing them to bring up examples and perspective that we may not have even heard of. We also asked them, given their experience, whether they thought that bioart would be a field that faded or whether it would stand the test of time. It was a great experience because while we were able to teach and raise awareness to the residents about this field that they hadn’t heard of before, we were also able to learn a lot about how the older generation and public may feel about the ethical issues surrounding the project. At the end of the event, we got feedback from the residents about how they felt about the event both verbally and through handwritten notes. The residents mentioned to us that they really appreciated that the event helped to engage them and allowed them to really think while teaching them about something they hadn’t heard before. One future improvement they suggested for us to consider for a debate event with senior citizens would be to not just have microphones for ourselves, but also to hand them out to the residents because at times, they couldn't understand what other residents were saying as well. Ultimately, the outreach debate event was a great learning experience for both us and the residents as well and will be an event we continue to host in the future.
BBBS Match Event
Our collaboration with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Ithaca and University of Rochester was an exceptional chance to engage with both the Ithaca community and other iGEM teams! During our event, BBBS matches came to the Ithaca Youth Bureau to complete activities centered around the inner workings of synthetic biology and bioart. With a total of four stations, matches had a variety of options for ways to learn more about science. The positive feedback from the sciencenter outreach event resulted in our team choosing to continue using the same general set of activities: one station explaining synthetic biology with legos, one station using paint to explain the scientific process, and one station using oobleck to model hydrogels. The target audience for this presentation was BBBS matches, with participants ranging from the ages of 8-45 years old. Because of the diversity of the audience, all content was presented in understandable language the materials were non-toxic and washable (for easy and safe clean up). By combining hands-on activities with verbal explanations, it gave matches ample opportunity to engage with the content and discuss their thoughts on the project with the team.Next Steps for MicroMurals for Increasing Inclusivity
In essence, the Cornell iGEM Policy and Practices team truly believes that MicroMurals serves as a catalyst for introducing the field of bioart into an educational setting. This bioart project integrates the sciences and the arts into aesthetic microbial art, enabling us to use this project as a way to advocate for sustainable art and encourage students to pursue interdisciplinary careers in STEM and the liberal arts. While this project is certainly a step in the right direction, there are many ways in which we can further expand our outreach efforts and educate wider groups of people. One way in which our project might be made more inclusive is if we continue to intentionally reach out to populations that might not have immediate access to art. While we had the opportunity to share our BioArt with local senior centers and youth centers like Big Brothers and Big Sisters, we hope to share our project with marginalized communities like those who are incarcerated, experiencing homelessness, and the large migrant worker population in Upstate New York to shed light on this new development in art and science that they otherwise might not have encountered; this would occur in combination with continued outreach to local schools and universities through presentations, ethical debates, and demonstrations. Through this, we hope to combat some of the exclusivity often associated with art and emerging technologies. We are also cognizant of the fact that some may be financially limited from engaging with MicroMurals. As such, we will continue to choose convenient locations and minimize any costs associated with attending some of our outreach events to make MicroMurals accessible to all. In fact, all of our outreach events thus far were free and open to the public!As aforementioned, one of the defining characteristics of MicroMurals is that they represent a combination of the arts and the sciences. In order to complete the ethics and policy analysis surrounding this project, we had to reference perspectives from leaders in BioArt, microbiology, visual arts, psychology, engineering, bioethics, policy, technology, and education to build a quality project. Continuing to source opinions and insights from a broad range of disciplines would help make our project more inclusive, since it would include more perspectives, which can then reach a wider and more diverse audience. In terms of the microbial art itself, we hope to eventually add a sensory component or tactile materials to MicroMurals so that those who may be visually impaired can still engage with our project. This could accompany our existing exhibit set up, which consists of the MicroMural itself, a written explanation of the project and the design process, and an audio description guide.