"Fairy Tales, Monsters, and the Genetic Imagination" and Scientific Adventurism
Jenna Anne Lindley
genetics. Our teacher told us that one day you would be able to go to
a clinic and get a check list of all the things you wanted your
offspring to have. If you wanted your child to be blond, brown eyes,
athletic, smart, tall, you could make it happen. The rest of the kids
in my class thought this was so neat but I thought it just seemed wrong
—that’s not the way things are supposed to happen. You’re supposed to
wait anxiously for 9 months until you meet you baby and then it takes
a whole life time to get to know it, foster it, and see the person
it’s going to become to be. I would be freaked out if my parents told
me they had planned me to be who I was. While this is tangential to
the point of the question, I think it helps me illustrate my point of
view and feelings on the matter. “Fairy Tales, Monsters, and the
Genetic Imagination” is an exhibit currently on display at the Frist
displaying works by contemporary artists who invent humanlike, animal,
or hybrid creatures to symbolize life’s mysteries, desires, and
fears. Obviously in the realm of the humanities, artistic expression
is totally acceptable and extremely encouraged. It is a way for us to
express our outlooks and views on the world and create discussion.
While artist give life to their art; scientist actually have the
ability to create life. This is where I believe Patricia Piccinni’s
point about “unpreparedness in dealing ethically and humanely with the
results of scientific adventurism”. The artist in 2008 created The
Long Awaited, which is a sculpture made of fiberglass, human hair, and
plywood, of a human-walrus like creature lying on a bench next to a
small child. This expression is obviously not harmful and sparks
conversation amongst artists and historians alike as to its importance
and meaning. But what if a scientist was to actually create the
creature envisioned by Piccinni. Is is ethically to create something
that has not previously existed or has not evolved naturally? And if
it was created how would the creature be treated by humans, other
animals, and the world at large? This also seems to relate to the
debate of cloning and steam-cell research. Avatar, a film by James
Cameron, deals with this idea of scientific adventurism. In the
movie, scientist clone and create new Navi alien bodies and then place
the minds of scientists inside of them. The new Navi then travel and
try to relate to the old Navi people in order to establish more of a
common ground. But is it ethically for the scientists to do this? To
transform themselves into another species? Something just seems
strange about it. And by crossing some many lines and barriers worlds
collide and social protocol becomes lost. I’m not sure what my opinion
is on the entire matter but I would say that the rise in technology is
a personal fear of mine. It can be so helpful but has the potential to
do so much harm. I found the exhibit offered by the Frist to
extremely interesting, insightful, and engaging. It is also
interesting to see the inner minds and creativity of different
humans. We all have our own perspectives on things which make life so
interesting. But some of the perspectives were a little creepy and a
little bizarre I have to admit. If I was to review the exhibit, I
think I would ask for a little more inspiration from desires and hopes
than fear.
Zoe Ullman Nagel
ethical debate is is it ethical of scientists to be messing with
nature, gene splicing this and that together, blurring the lines
between humans and animals, as the exhibit accurately displays.
However, it seems that Piccinini is more concerned of another side of
the debate, one that we often fail to recognize. She is less worried
about what could possibly be unleashed and if we can contain these
"monsters," and more concerned with the future of these creations. She
asks questions in place of these genetic creations: "Why was I made?
Who will love me? What is my destiny?" I think that's why Piccinini
created the walrus/grandmother-like being and the child piece that
Jenna refers to. In fusing an animal with a matronly, kind figure in
our society, she's trying to show the compassion that we should feel
and think about in creating such creatures. They have feelings too.
I know that this is a farfetched comparison, but when I read those
questions that Piccinini asked, it made me think of the movie "My Fair
Lady" (bear with me for a second, I swear it relates!). In the film/
play, Eliza Doolittle is plucked from the only life she's ever known:
a life on the streets as a poor beggar, and thrown into the upperclass
world. She is taught how to act like a proper lady so that she can
pass this "test" of Henry Higgins, the professor, so that he can win
his bet (which he basically agrees to out of his own cockiness and
show-offy attitude). After months of preparation, Eliza goes through
her own version of a transformation: new clothes, new speech/dialect,
new attitude, and essentially a new life. She, of course, passes the
test, but then the question becomes what is she supposed to do with
her life now? Higgins has turned her into this upper class woman, but
has provided no future for her; her only purpose was to win the bet,
but now he's transformed her, so she can't go back to her old life,
but she also isn't actually an upper class citizen. She has no real
place in society, no place to go, and Higgins doesn't seem to care or
have thought of these consequences at all. It's quite depressing, and
the movie ends where you're left kind of unsure of what's to become of
Eliza (though we assume she will end up together with the professor).
The point of my tangent is that Piccinini wants us to think of these
consequences before we start playing with nature. We can't just create
these things that we've only read about in fairy tales and expect that
they will automatically fall into place in our society. I think that's
what she means by saying we're "not ready" for these things yet. The
exhibit features many of these things of our imagination in hopes of
fascinating and simultaneously disgusting us. The exhibit is also
trying to show how these "monsters" are only our own cultural fears
(and somewhat hopes) encapsulated in these beasts. As Chief Curator
Mark Scala says of the exhibit, "This idea that the literature of the
past can merge with the biological present and the future in order to
help us understand who we are is really the foundation for this
exhibit." But that's exactly what scares me: the fact that science is
heading to a place where someone might actually be able to create a
real Frankenstein one day, something that we read about and never
thought could actually come to exist.
What's more, if we are able to get to a place where creating these
creatures that we've read about in fairy tales is a common occurrence,
then won't the genre of fairy tales in itself have to have mutated as
well? Part of our definition of fairy tales is that they often include
mystical creatures and magical elements, but if science can replicate
these "magical" beings, then fairy tales no longer are a fictional/
fantastical genre; they'd be realistic representations of our
society.
I think the ethical debate surrounding things like cloning and stem
cell research is still something I'm not sure where I come down on.
From having done projects on stem cell research in the past, I know
how helpful and useful it could be to us, but it also involves using
cells from the human body, often times fetuses. Is this ethical? Is it
ethical when we consider all the lives we can save in using these
human cells? I'm not sure, but I do have to say I'm thankful that
science will not be able to create these things we read about in our
fairy tales while I'm still alive (at least, I'm fairly confident that
science isn't that advanced as of yet).
On Apr 4, 7:33 pm, Jenna Anne Lindley <jenna.a.lind...@vanderbilt.edu>
wrote:
Robert Snook
Huntley Lewis
Jenna and Zoe make compelling arguments. I agree with Zoe that a very underrated concern regarding “unlimited genetic imagination” is the purpose of the those imaginations once they are created. Will these creatures be expected to act human? I suspect that if these genetic mutations were realized that they would not only be expected to act like humans but would also not be treated like humans. When reflecting on Piccinini’s The Long Awaited, I ask “Would I let a child interact with such a genetically different creature?” as well as “Why does this creature need to interact with a child?” The fact that I require hesitation before answering these questions makes agree with Piccinini that we are not ethically or humanely prepared to venture down the genetic mutation highway.
This reminds me of the Movie Gattaca, which documents the life of a natural born human among a world of “humans” that are genetically designed to be stronger, smarter, and better. Particularly, the main character struggles to compete with his brother, who is genetically superior, which makes me question how genetically mutated humans would be related to their genetic origins. For example, would we consider the creatures in Kate Clark’s Bully to be humans or wolves? Or come up with a new name for them? Additionally, could we make another similar creature that was more human and less wolf, or vice versa? By fully exploring our capabilities in the genetic realm, we would uncover a host of ethical questions that we would probably not even have a right to answer. What gives us the right to determine the future of our genetic creations, or how they are perceived? Overall I believe we should strive to let nature take its course and only work for the best interest of humans, without involving genetics from other animals.
By introducing such grotesque scenes, the artists included in “Fairy Tales, Monsters, and the Genetic Imagination” effectively bring these questions into mind. More specifically, they incorporate the perspective of the creatures themselves, bringing us to a realization that our actions have consequences for these creatures and the human race as a whole. If we continue to push the bounds of genetic experimentation, it should be with a very specific and acceptable purpose, not solely for the purpose of pushing the bounds. Additionally, we should consider the purpose of what we are creating, not simply our purpose in creating it.
Huntley Lewis
Mary Elizabeth Gambke
I agree with Zoe’s thoughts regarding Piccinini and her walrus-grandmother creation. It is essential to note that yes, these genetically manipulated creatures would indeed have feelings and could potentially fit into a role such as this. However, will these creatures ever be created? Call me a realist, but I do not think these particular creatures would be something that science would put research and funding into creating. I also feel that fairy tale genre will not necessarily disappear due to the potential creation of mythical beings because the imagination of humans will never disappear. Someone somewhere is always creating something new in their minds that may never come to fruition in real life but can really take on a world of its own on paper.
I also agree with the point that Piccinini wants us to think of the various consequences prior to changing genetics or something more extreme. While I understand Jenna and Zoe’s fear of what the improvement of technology and science can mean to the world we know today, from an engineer’s perspective having studied various up-and-coming technologies, I think much of what we fear will not come into fruition due to moral and ethical backlash…at least in the country we live. I am currently in a class called “Technology Forecasting and Assessments” where each student in the class has to create a 12 page forecast about a future technology. One of our assignments has to deal with “scenarios.” Essentially, this is where we were able to be extremely creative and tell a “made-up” story that brought up various external issues that could be affected by our chosen technology. A common example of a technology scenario is Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. In short, the narrative explains how scientists manipulated DNA in order to recreate dinosaurs on a remote island off the coast of Costa Rica. The story goes on to tell how Jurassic Park became too dangerous as the dinosaurs were attacking and killing humans. Therefore, the park had to be destroyed. This scenario is to show the negative consequences of genetically manipulating, creating and cloning dinosaurs. While this may seem extreme, it is still an example of how scientists and those in the technology industry look at the consequences of a technology being created. Therefore, I disagree with Piccinini’s warning of “our own unpreparedness in dealing ethically and humanely with the results of our scientific adventurism,” because the scientific industry IS dealing with the consequences of their creations.
In addition, I do not think that all genetic manipulation is necessarily a bad thing. While this exhibit showed creations that the artists “most feared” some other genetic manipulation has had or will have an extremely positive impact on our society. For instance, genetic manipulation in an embryo can be positive as to prevent spreading of various diseases or other harmful things that could hurt a mother/child during pregnancy or after the child is born. Also, some of the food we eat regularly is actually from plant hybrids that were genetically manipulated.
I found this Frist exhibit particular entertaining. While you truly are immersed in someone else’s imagination while looking at the various parts of the exhibit, as noted by Mark Scala, the chief creator, this exhibit is a lot of what the artists imagined as their worst fear. In fact, I thought some creatures and scenes created by the artists were extremely grotesque, such as Charlie White’s "Getting Lindsay Linton” and I seriously wonder if this is only their creative nature coming out or if their mind may be slightly screwed up.
Mary E. Gambke
Vanderbilt University '12, School of Engineering
Engineering Science