There should not be limits to human
creativity; however, intentionally destructive behavior (harming
autonomous beings) should be limited. This begs the question as to
whether artistic expression via biological mediums is destructive.
Further, if a behavior is destructive in the short term, should
potential long-term benefits make it permissible? This is a question
of ethics.
The following interview with professor
of practical ethics at the University of Oxford, Julian Savulescu,
discusses some of the ethical implications or genetic engineering:
http://ideas.ted.com/the-ethics-of-genetically-enhanced-monkey-slaves/
Using the principle of utilitarianism,
an ethical framework proposed by Jeremy Bentham, I argue that if the
positive benefits of the short-term destructive behavior outweigh the
negative affects, the short-term destructive behavior may still be
ethical. To an extent, this is already an established standard in
scientific research: animal tests for the sake of developing medical
technologies for human use. I believe the same standard should be
applied to artists using biological mediums.
As artwork is more abstract than
scientific research, it may be harder to determine the potential
long-term benefits of an artistic work. For instance, Eduardo Kac's
GFP Bunny is not obviously useful in a scientific or medical context,
but perhaps the social outcome of the creation of the bunny still
satisfies the requisite net positive benefit. As stated by Kac
himself, the GFP Bunny project was a complex social project motivated
by nine social goals (Kac).
Source: Kac
Although estimating the net outcome of
a particular task is necessarily difficult, I believe it is the best
way to determine whether or not an action should be taken, or
restricted. And once the standard has been set, I think it should be
applied universally to scientists and artists alike.
For an alternative view on the ethics
of bio-engineering, please view Paul Wolpe's talk:
Images & Videos
“As
a species, we have a moral obligation to enhance ourselves.” TED.
TED, 19 Feb 2014. Web. 13 July 2016.
TED-Ed.
“It's
time to question bio-engineering - Paul Root Wolpe.” YouTube.
YouTube, 15 Aug 2013. Web. 13 July 2016.
Sources
& Links
Kac,
Eduardo. “GFP Bunny.”
ekac.org.
ekac.org, n.d. Web. 13 July 2016.
TED.
“Barry
Schuler: An introduction to genomics.”
YouTube.
YouTube, 23
Jan 2009.
Web. 13 July 2016.
Woollaston,
Victoria. “Google
says humans could live for 500 YEARS - and is investing in firms
hoping to extend our lives five-fold.” DailyMail.
DailyMail, 9 Mar 2015. Web. 13 July 2016.
Pena,
Miguel. “Stem
Cells: The Solution to Living Over 100 Years?”
Dartmouth
Undergraduate Journal of Science.
Dartmouth University, 29 Jan 2013. Web. 13 July 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment