NanoEthics 14 (1):93-111 (2020)
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.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s11569-020-00367-3 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge.K. Knorr-Cetina - 1999 - Harvard University Press.
Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology.Paul Rabinow - 1998 - Journal of the History of Biology 31 (1):143-145.
Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes: Commentary On: “What Happens in the Lab Does Not Stay in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory”.Brian Wynne - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):791-800.
The Ideology of the Aesthetic.Terry Eagleton - 1991 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49 (3):259-261.
Seen Unseen: Art, Science, and Intuition From Leonardo to the Hubble Telescope.Martin Kemp - 2006 - Oxford University Press UK.
View all 6 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
BrisSynBio Art-Science Dossier.Maria Fannin, Katy Connor, David Roden & Darian Meacham - 2020 - NanoEthics 14 (1):27-41.
Similar books and articles
Science Policy and Concomitant Research in Synthetic Biology—Some Critical Thoughts.Kristin Hagen - 2016 - NanoEthics 10 (2):201-213.
Setting Up Spaces for Collaboration in Industry Between Researchers From the Natural and Social Sciences.Steven M. Flipse, Maarten C. A. van der Sanden & Patricia Osseweijer - 2014 - Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (1):7-22.
Tools of the Trade: UK Research Intermediaries and the Politics of Impacts. [REVIEW]Matthew Kearnes & Matthias Wienroth - 2011 - Minerva 49 (2):153-174.
Leading with Ethics, Aiming for Policy: New Opportunities for Philosophy of Science.Nancy Tuana - 2010 - Synthese 177 (3):471 - 492.
Collaborative Healthcare Research: Some Ethical Considerations.Mohsin Raza - 2005 - Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2):177-186.
Does Science Need Bioethicists? Ethics and Science Collaboration in Biomedical Research.Angeliki Kerasidou & Michael Parker - 2014 - Research Ethics 10 (4):214-226.
Beyond Patchwork Precaution in the Dual-Use Governance of Synthetic Biology.Alexander Kelle - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):1121-1139.
The EPSRC’s Policy of Responsible Innovation From a Trading Zones Perspective.Joseph Murphy, Sarah Parry & John Walls - 2016 - Minerva 54 (2):151-174.
Putting Responsible Research and Innovation Into Practice: A Case Study for Biotechnology Research, Exploring Impacts and RRI Learning Outcomes of Public Engagement for Science Students.Janice Limson - forthcoming - Synthese:1-26.
What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. [REVIEW]Daan Schuurbiers - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):769-788.
The Place of God in Synthetic Biology: How Will the Catholic Church Respond?Patrick Heavey - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (1):36-47.
Discipline-Building in Synthetic Biology.Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (2):122-129.
“A Good Collaboration is Based on Unique Contributions From Each Side”: Assessing the Dynamics of Collaboration in Stem Cell Science.Michael Morrison - 2017 - Life Sciences, Society and Policy 13 (1):1-20.
The Commercialization of University-Based Research: Balancing Risks and Benefits.Timothy Caulfield & Ubaka Ogbogu - 2015 - BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):1-7.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2020-04-21
Total views
2 ( #1,363,403 of 2,401,778 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #551,897 of 2,401,778 )
2020-04-21
Total views
2 ( #1,363,403 of 2,401,778 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #551,897 of 2,401,778 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads