[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[BKARTS] genetically modifed art?

In a message dated 6/8/04 5:30:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
siegel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

<<  "Ms. da Costa [a colleague] told the Times
 that the bacteria was produced legally in "cooperation with a
 microbiology lab in Pittsburgh to create a transgenic E. coli that was
 completely harmless." >>

I wasn't familiar with the word transgenic. Turns out that transgenic is the
nice way of saying genetically modified organism.  So, it seems that this
artist (nut) was actually conducting DNA modifications of E. coli, at home?!
So, if he was actually doing what his friends say he was doing, then how could
anyone actually know that his work was completely harmless?  After all, isn't
that the entire basis for the arugment against genetically modifed foods: How
do we know that it's harmless?

And, most important to this discussion, lets make it clear that Kurtz is not
being investigated because of his art..  He's being investigated because he
had inappropriate labratory equipment in a residential enviroment, perhaps, in
violation of the law.

Clearly, the goverment is, in this case, not suppresing artist expression
(which is the only reason I looked into this case, because suppression of art is
a very serious matter to me) instead they are investigating the use of
biological labratory equipment in a residence.  Good!  That is a proper role of the

Thus, to claim that this incident is the suppresion of art by goverment, in
anyway shape or form, is, in my opinion,  simply silly.



                       Spring[binding]Hath Sprung
         Worldwide Springback Bind-O-Rama and Online Exhibition
            Full information at <http://www.philobiblon.com>
                   ENTRY DEADLINE -- September 1, 2004

      Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive at: <http://www.philobiblon.com>

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]