September 29, 2006 at 9:20 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
Where do proteins hang out in a cell? Who do they associate with and what do they do? You can answer these and other questions with Organelle View, a visuospatial translation of structured biological information.
nformation design
The goal of Organelle View is to develop visual translations of biological databases so that human users can creatively interact with and apply biological information in ways that seek to maintain a link to the organism and its processes.
Future directions include animated cellular cycles, additional organisms, and network connectivity among different databases.
Organelle View and and its parent database Organelle DB recently appeared in Science Magazine’s NetWatch section (Sept 29, 2006).
Organelle View is an ongoing collaboration between nformation design (principals: Chris Landau and Jamie Cope), current A&D grad student Gabriel Harp, and the Kumar Lab at the University of Michigan Life Sciences Institute. The project was supported initially through a GROCS grant which provided the space and resources to launch the process.
Future directions include animated cellular cycles, additional organisms, and network connectivity among different databases.
http://organelledb.lsi.umich.edu/
nformation design
Science Magazine’s NetWatch
September 24, 2006 at 10:40 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
Here is a community event linking the humanities and genetics research concerns. It will be held at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago on Septemberr 26th, 2006.
This program, a town hall meeting, will kick off the IHC’s year-long series, Future Perfect: Conversations on the Meaning of the Genetics Revolution. Leading authorities in genetic medicine, bioethics, social thought, and the arts will engage the audience in an exploration of the issues and the science that are affecting public and private life.
What does the genetics revolution mean to you? What are the big questions we should be thinking about given the rapid advance of genetic science? Audience members will be encouraged to express their opinions and review the opinions of others in the room by using audience response technology.
Panelists
* Rex Chisholm, Ph.D., Director, Center for Genetic Medicine, Northwestern University
* Liz Lerman, Founding Artistic Director, Liz Lerman Dance Exchange
* Jon Miller, Ph.D., John A. Hannah Professor of Integrative Studies, Michigan State University, will moderate this panel.
Prairie.org: Why Should We Care About Genetics?
Also currently on view at the MCA is MASSIVE CHANGE
September 11, 2006 at 7:06 am · Filed under Uncategorized
On Thursday and Friday (September 7-8, 2006), I had the opportunity to participate in the second Image and Meaning workshop at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.
These workshops grew out of a conference a few years back that brought scientists, artists, designers and others interested in the visual communication of science. This workshop was a regional effort to bring together interested participants in hopes of building community and skills. The workshop was supported by IIT, MIT’s Envisioning Science Project, Harvard’s Initiative in Innovative Computing, and Sigma Xi: the Scientific Research Society.
I didn’t have many expectations heading into the workshop. I didn’t really have an idea of who would attend. Would there be artists? Scientific illustrators? Lab Researchers? A few of my contacts had attended earlier events in this series- most notably Andy Yang who contributed some great artwork to Endless Forms: Engaging Evolution and served as a group facilitator during this workshop.
The “meat” of the workshop largely took place in the impressive McCormick Tribune Campus Center. This being my first visit to the campus, I couldn’t help but reflect on my involvement in this “return to innovation” in the visual expression of science. The roots of Modernist design made themselves felt in the architecture and surorundings (as they do in much of Chicaago)- up to and including the Mies van der Rohe designed campus on land that formerly played host to the development of jazz and blues in neighborhood clubs.
Before arriving, participants were asked to submit with some brief biographic information two images and some questions that they pose. These images and their descriptions allowed each of us to gather a rough idea of the kind of questions to expect. Other than that, I can only say that I was curious about how this experience was going to help me improve my understanding of visual communication strategies.
IM2.2 Photo by Dan Armendariz
I made no assumptions about the kinds of scientific “flavor” to expect (though I hoped for a biology-versed crowd). I did find out that there were many physics-influenced attendees. Nonetheless, it was an extremely interdisciplinary group. I will say that I was surprised to find just how much the arts communities activities in this area were actively suppressed or discouraged by the organizers. Lately, I’ve come to view artists’ behaviors as the most significant obstacles to active collaboration in science/art endeavors, despite significant efforts by arts-oriented groups to encourage cross-fertilization. Yet, at this workshop, I experienced what I felt to be a genuine effort to reinforce the disciplinary boundaries of science through actions, dialogue, content, and discourse. I guess there is something about how science is learned and practiced that presupposes all irrational behavior to be at odds with scientific inquiry and (surprisingly) communication. The experience reiterated in my mind, the somewhat anachronistic practice-based behaviors that result in missed transdisciplinary opportunities.
Despite these criticisms, it was a wonderful workshop. I can’t say enough about how well the organizers and group leaders implemented the concepts and challenges. The more I think about it, each interaction and outcome take on greater significance and meaning. My only regret is that it hadn’t been longer or cannot continue indefinitely. It was that good.
The thing that made it so effective was its focus on process. My group, led by Rachael Brady (Duke) and Donna Cox (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), began by briefly presenting ourselves and our work (8 minutes). We left our first evening session with a task that fed into Friday’s sessions and the threads of casual, probing conversation.
The next day we had to define criteria for choosing an image to workshop in the afternoon, choose the image, and finally develop strategies and solutions for making the image more consistent with the author’s objectives and the message it aimed to communicate. My experience in the morning was both frustrating and fulfilling for a multitude of reasons which I still haven’t completely processed. I give a ton of credit to our group members and facilitators for making it a positive and genuinely enriching experience.
I met the afternoon with some surprise that my submission had been chosen by both of the other groups as their afternoon focus. I was asked to elaborate on the ORGANELLE VIEW project, and I was most encouraged by comments that cited the submission’s capacity for inciting multiple discussion topics as one criterion for choosing the project. By the end of the day, I was flattered at the attention and what amounted to an hour-long critique of the project. The inventiveness, quality, and eagerness displayed by everyone amazed me.
Our own group chose a problem based on the crystallization of a supersaturated solution. What started out as a simple figure became a narrative comic, 3-D sculpture, Braille-like map, a picturesque landscape, and mosaic-like line drawing. Innovation unfolded among the group as a result of individual ideas and many pairwise and group interactions; it was incredible to watch and experience.
In summary, the experience provided a wealth of ideas and experiences for the scientists and non-scientists alike. One benefit that became apparent to me was that the simple act of choosing an idea, image, project, and/or concept to work on as a group stimulated a cascade of questioning, repositioning, and re-questioning. It was said more than once that not only were designs improved and communication strategies articulated, but each group delved into some pretty complex and extensive scientific content. Coming out the other end was a great deal of understanding of the science, the process, ourselves, and each other.
Thank you to the University of Michigan School of Art & Design for the opportunity to participate in this benchmark-raising workshop.
As I get images and media from the event, I’ll add them to this post.
For more info about Image and Meaning, visit their homepage.
For the Organelle View team: I have a synopsis of the design review forthcoming…
