Bioeconomics - Question Time

With the Cult of the New Eve were the beer and bread actually engineered?

Oh yeh.

Did you have to get approval?

No we didn't go for approval because one of the things we found in terms of getting approval was that the approval structures are designed to let the corporations do whatever they want but for those who might be doing something else its impossible. But what did we do? I mean we didn't just go "Lets just make a yeast and transfer some bacteria, transfer some human genes and kind of see what happens." We got a number of consultants and we do have a Molecular Biologist on our team as well as an Evolutionary Biologist, so we go in and make sure that what we're doing is OK. Just to prove it - we test it on ourselves first. I drunk so much of that damn beer that if something is wrong with it I'm in serious trouble. So it's not a question of going through authorities but ensuring that we take responsible steps before doing these things. All our projects are real. We don't fake or simulate anything.

I would like to direct my question to Craig. Do you actually publish all your statistics?

Yes we do. They are all on our website : www.biotechnology.gov.au.

I wanted to ask about the reaction of scientists to your work? From what you have said the tendency is a laughable kind of reaction. And I want to know if there was more funding, popular press or magazine backup that represented you to the Scientific world - how would that help you? Do you think it would make a big difference?

Regarding the artists in such a exhibition?

What I'm trying to say is that the scientific community has a huge publication and we as artists don't have anything like that within our community. My question is, if we are going to work with Bio-economics and Bio-technology then how, as artists do you envisage that happening and would a publication of some kind help?

First of all Nature ran a story about Biological Artists. It was a very funny story. Was centred around one person but what was interesting about it was the way it was presented - that only scientists who already have an established reputation can afford having artists working within the laboratory. So for example we worked with J Mc?. In Harvard Medical School, Joe Davis?. was working with the Rich in MIT and Adam was working with MIT Biology Department. So what came out of it was that it's like a status symbol. If you are a successful scientist and you don't have to worry about your reputation - you have an artist. Then the argument becomes "you should take an artist so people perceive you as a successful scientist".

Just last week there was a story about Adam's last installation in 'New Scientists' and it ended up with THAT question - it's not science for sure BUT is it Art? And that is an increasing issue for us - once we say we're using tissue technologies, that's enough for them to say 'We don't understand any of this - therefore it's not Art. It's the same problem computer artists had at the beginning.

The first half of your question 'What do scientists think?', I find its about evenly split. There are those who don't like the way artists are representing their our projects, particular the assembly of knowledge.

But then there are those that are quite enthusiastic about it. There is a large collection of people in the sciences, particularly in the Biological sciences, that are quite concerned about how their work is being taken and applied and where it's going once it's 'released'.

Certainly the Scientific Entrepreneur category hate us - but that's a very small population as an aggregate. The second part in terms of publications helping us, I don't know if it really would or not. For those trying to do strong interventionist work I'm never sure that publicity works that well it usually undermines the intervention.

I think the answer is not publication but publications. That's not about creating new ones but piggy backing on existing ones. And it's quite true what Steve said, you'll get a lot of scientists who are interested in moving into Art forms because they are trying to communicate a concept that you can't always put into words - you need other ways to communicate. It's an act of communication and a lot of scientists in the last couple of years have realised that they are developing scientific material in isolation to society. So a lot of scientists with a vision, are saying that it is helping them interact with Society and therefore it's a good thing. When those come together it's very powerful.

I've got a question for Craig. When the Human Genome Project data was released last year and there was something like a third of the number of genes found, a lot of scientists suggested that demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding about what was going on. I was wondering whether you think that has influenced public opinion?

It didn't appear to make a big impact on public opinion at all. There were a couple of big stories overseas and a short media splash but the actual effect on people here was minute. I think for most people there was an awareness that the Human Genome Project existed but there was almost no understanding of it.

But were they reacting positively or negatively.

It didn't really rate as either. It was something that, we're aware that there's been a big scientific development, this big thing called the Human Genome Project and now it's finished.

What is the difference between say natural mutation and a human release of a retro virus.

Its a matter of control - that we can at least have some control or maybe even the illusion of control.!

Yeh but how can an individual take responsibility for the effects on Society. We look really stupid if we're going to cure one person of heart disease and kill three million others. As always the finger would be pointed at the scientists.

That's a really good example because in the scientific data to date it says that AIDS came from monkeys as a cross over, but people tend to be of the view that anything in Nature can't be that bad but if its created by Humans then it's perceived as bad. AIDS was so bad that it had to be Humans. There is no way it could have existed in nature because Nature's not that bad surely... But we know Scientifically that Nature is bad. There were a lot of diseases for thousands of years. Another good example of this risk is GM food - in Nature there are so many foods that are poisonous; green potatoes, tomato leaves, things that are toxic. If you follow the research and believe the authorities, GM Foods are safer than most natural foods ?but they're not natural. Therefore the perception is that they are much more dangerous than eating green potatoes etc.

Then there's perceived risk - Nature is benign but anything that Humans do is going to be dangerous. People believe they are entitled to have food that is 100% safe and Nature is safe.

Can you tell us a little bit about your population and sampling data base and how are you conducting the service? Where's your, how wide it is?

Yes. We do lots of surveys. The largest surveys we did looked at a population base of approx. 1,200 people. Normally we would do a telephone survey first to about a thousand people - they're 20 minutes long (considered long surveys). These are then followed up with focus group sessions. In focus sessions we sit down with people who are broken up with particular demographics - suburban, rural metropolitan, low socio-economic, high socio-economic etc to profile different parts of the population. Now we tend to do focus groups first (to give insights into the issues and concerns which lead to question development) as well as at the end of the process. The sample size is randomly generated via CTAI computer making sure it is a proportional representation of the Australian population viz. the states, metro and regions, genders, age as well as non-English speaking populations.

I would like to ask Steve, while you were taking a lot of these interventionist or provocative issues to the street, were you tempted to go to the other end and interact with the big medical conference or something like that?

Yes. To get to the medical conferences is much harder. You have to have some an inside introduction to that and that's been difficult. Now that we have generated some press we do get a lot of doctors and scientists come and check our work. Just look in to find a mistake. Almost every time they'd say 'I hate what you're doing but I can't find anything wrong with it'.

Why did they hate it?

That position of vested commercial interest. Once they're threatened they get very defensive. So much money is on the line and the competition to get research money is so intense that the idea of controversy is unacceptable.

It's a bit different in our case cause usually the scientists that we work with really want their name as part of our project. We're working a lot with scientists and I think our best performance is in the lab interacting with them so we can see their reaction when they open the incubator and they see pig wings and the whole thing. So in some respects we were lucky. Scientists are people like us - curious and concerned.

We tend to be ambiguous you know in our work. We have to generate questions. We are not about imposing values. We are about making people aware that there are cultural tools that can equip people to deal with the questions that are out there.