Art-Science Collaboration in an EPSRC/BBSRC-Funded Synthetic Biology UK Research Centre

NanoEthics 14 (1):93-111 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Here I examine the potential for art-science collaborations to be the basis for deliberative discussions on research agendas and direction. Responsible Research and Innovation has become a science policy goal in synthetic biology and several other high-profile areas of scientific research. While art-science collaborations offer the potential to engage both publics and scientists and thus possess the potential to facilitate the desired “mutual responsiveness” between researchers, institutional actors, publics and various stakeholders, there are potential challenges in effectively implementing collaborations as well as dangers in potentially instrumentalizing artistic work for science policy or innovation agendas when power differentials in collaborations remain unacknowledged. Art-science collaborations can be thought of as processes of exchange which require acknowledgement of and attention to artistic agendas as well as identification of and attention to aesthetic dimensions of scientific research. I suggest the advantage of specifically identifying public engagement/science communication as a distinct aspect of such projects so that aesthetic, scientific or social science/philosophical research agendas are not subsumed to the assumption that the primary or only value of art-science collaborations is as a form of public engagement or science communication to mediate biological research community public relations. Likewise, there may be potential benefits of acknowledging an art-science-RRI triangle as stepping stone to a more reflexive research agenda within the STS/science communication/science policy community. Using BrisSynBio, an EPSRC/BBSRC-funded research centre in synthetic biology, I will discuss the framing for art-science collaborations and practical implementation and make remarks on what happened there. The empirical evidence reviewed here supports the model I propose but additionally, points to the need to broaden the conception of and possible purposes, or motivations for art, for example, in the case of cross-sectoral collaboration with community engaged art.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,937

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Collaborative healthcare research: Some ethical considerations.Mohsin Raza - 2005 - Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2):177-186.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-04-21

Downloads
72 (#291,514)

6 months
11 (#345,260)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within.Carl Mitcham, Roop L. Mahajan & Erik Fisher - 2006 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 26 (6):485-496.
The Story of Art.E. H. Gombrich - 1951 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 9 (4):339-340.

View all 11 references / Add more references