Anthony Dunne, Fiona Raby’s chapter “Consuming Monsters: Big, Perfect, Infectious” within the book Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming pinpoints contradicting society’s ethical standards towards the intersection of biotechnology and media. Biotechnologies’ social ethics depend on the practicality and purpose of their design. The technological design must be assimilated into the concept of a real object so that it creates familiarity, thus allowing the technology to be accepted by a living thing.
In the practical sense of biotechnology, medical advances are based on references to the human body. Medical advances are supported by biotechnology when devices are made to extend the human experience. An example of this is when amputees receive a prosthetic arm or leg that can connect with their neurological system. In an article written by Maria Niedernhuber, Damiano G. Barone, and Bigna Lenggenhager, titled “Prostheses as Extensions of the Body: Progress and Challenges” they state that “…evidence in healthy individuals suggests that an artificial hand must be aligned with the hidden hand and look like a human hand to be incorporated. This raises the possibility that a prosthesis might need to be aligned with a phantom to increase its incorporation” (2). The design of the prosthetic being familiar with the person’s skin color, size, weight, and appearance assists amputees with creating a sense of autonomy and agency. In other words, the person receiving the prosthetic feels ownership and control of their prosthetic. There are similarities between a prosthetic and a bioengineered flower created by Eduardo Kac. His art piece entitled “Natural History of the Enigma” is a “…genetically engineered hybrid of a Petunia flower and himself, essentially a transgenic flower” (Dunn and Raby 54). In this example, Kac’s DNA fuels the veins of the engineered flower and serves as an extension of his body. Comparing prosthetic development and bioengineering of a flower identifies the vital connection between technologies and living organisms.
Autonomy and agency are associated with bodily connections of actual tissue or DNA or in my example the connection between mind and body. Whereas the brain makes neural connections with the custom-made prosthetic allowing the body to accept it and perform as its original body part. Biotechnology makes it possible for the body and technology to combine to offer those with a physical disadvantage opportunities to live more fully. For someone like myself, prosthetics and braces are crafted wearable artwork. They support me and allow me to stand, walk, and get around my environment in ways I could not without them. Through physical training and the evolving customization of my braces, my body has made neural connections to adapt and utilize this technology to enhance my daily living. As a person of advocacy and charity, a downside to this technology is the cost and accessibility. Due to the customized nature of each piece, these are often not transferable to another person. Prosthetics are less likely to be donated due to the concern that the prosthetic will not work for that individual.
In Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr’s piece, “Victimless Leather: A Prototype of Stitch-less Jacket Grown in a Technoscientific “Body””, they developed a scientific device to grow tissue as an expression of art. During the exhibition of the piece, the tissue grew too large and had to be “euthanized” (Dunn and Raby 55). On a more controversial level, how does one morally or ethically dispose of generated living tissue? The proper management of bodily connections and materials in artwork with biotechnology is unclear, yet it provides individuals with an understanding of autonomy and agency in the medical field and media.