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
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 55,873
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology.Paul Rabinow - 1998 - Journal of the History of Biology 31 (1):143-145.
The Ideology of the Aesthetic.Terry Eagleton - 1991 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49 (3):259-261.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Collaborative Healthcare Research: Some Ethical Considerations.Mohsin Raza - 2005 - Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2):177-186.
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.

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 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes