This talk gave a broad overview of international issues and policies in agriculture and food security, and showcased three research projects that explore Agricultural BioDiversity, Genetically Engineered Crops and the difference between European and United States food laws.
If you are willing to accept some non-human based research in pursuit of the human, you might find these helpful. They have a pretty heavy biological and philosophical bent to them. Some like Gablik, Miller, Darwin, and Dissanyake provide pretty sweeping theories for the evolution of art and design (with varying levels of detail and different forms of evidence). Others deal mainly with theory and
research derived from observation of non-human animals. Still others use social science and humanities based approaches to the question (Loos/Danto (with Gablik replying in ‘progress in art’), Bergson, Luhmann). Also see Bobbi S. Low’s cite for what may be the only scientifically testable prediction in the bunch.
Donath, J.S. Signals, Truth and Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, forthcoming.
Burke, E. 1757. A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. R. and J. Dodsley, London.
Endler, J. A. 1992. Signals, signal conditions and the direction of evolution. American Naturalist 139:S125-S153.
Gablik, S. 1976. Progress in Art. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., New York.
Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female preference. Evolution 36:1-12.
Miller, G. F. 2001. Aesthetic fitness: How sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts 2:20-25.
Ryan, M. J. 1990. Sensory systems, sexual selection, and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys of Evolutionary Biology 7:157-195.
Scheib, J. E., S. W. Gangestad, and R. Thornhill. 1999. Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 226:1318-1321.
West-Eberhard, M. J. 1979. Sexual selection, social competition and evolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 123:222-234.
Loos, A., & Opel, A. (1997). Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays. Ariadne Press (CA).
Ellen Dissanayake, Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000),
Christy, J. H., and P. R. Y. Backwell. 1995. The Sensory Exploitation Hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:417-417.
Laland, K. N. 1992. A Theoretical Investigation of the Role of Social Transmission in Evolution. Ethology and Sociobiology 13:87-113.
Miller, G. 2000. The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. Doubleday, New York.
Nettle, D. and H. Clegg. Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans. Proc. R. Soc. B (2006) 273, 611–615
Kavolis, V. Community Dynamics and Artistic Creativity. American Sociological Review, Vol. 31, No. 2. (Apr., 1966), pp. 208-217.
Luhmann, N. Art as a social system. Stanford University Press. Stanford, Calif. 2000.
Network Theory—the Emergence of the Creative Enterprise. Albert-László Barabási. Science 29 April 2005:Vol. 308. no. 5722, pp. 639 – 641
Low, Bobbi S. 1979. Sexual selection and human ornamentation. In Chagnon, Napoleon A., and William Irons, eds., 462-87. – describes a test of sexual selection for art as the comparison of stable versus unstable symbolic systems
Danto, A. C. 1986. The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art. Columbia University Press, New York.
Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, London.
Endler, J. A., and A. L. Basolo. 1998. Sensory Ecology, Receiver Biases, and Sexual Selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13:415-420.
Lenski, R. 1999. A Distinction Between the Origin and Maintenance of Sex. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12:1034-1036. -distinguishes between the orgin and maintenance of sexual reproduction
Turney J. (2004). THE ABSTRACT SUBLIME: Life as information waiting to be rewritten. Science as Culture, 13, 89-103. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from
Dissanayake, E.: What Is Art For? Seattle, University of Washington
Press (1988)
Dissanayake, E.: Homo Aestheticus : Where Art Comes from and Why. 1st University of Washington Press ed. Seattle, University of Washington Press (1995)
Healy, S., & Braithwaite, V. (2000). Cognitive ecology: a field of substance? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15(1), 22-26.
Bergson, H. (2005). Creative Evolution. Cosimo Classics.
Ryan, M. J., Phelps, S. M., & R, A. S. (2001). How evolutionary history shapes recognition mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(4), 143-148. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH9-42PC695-G&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7e622bb148b27c4cbf3d290d0a790563
Arak, A., & Enquist, M. (1995). Conflict, Receiver Bias and the Evolution of Signal Form. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 349(1330), 337-344.
Endler, J. A., & Basolo, A. L. (1998). Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(10), 415-420.
Jansson, L., & Enquist, M. (2003). Receiver bias for colourful signals. Animal Behaviour, 66(5), 965-971. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9W-49J8TBN-J&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d7fd52368874c927aac68023a8029efd
Scourfield, J., N. Martin, G. Lewis, and P. McGuffin. 1999. Heritability of social cognitive skills in children and adolescents. Br J Psychiatry 175:559-564.
The word mitochondrion comes from the Greek μίτος or mitos, meaning thread and χονδρίον or chondrion, meaning granule (thanks! wikipedia). But this isn’t about the mitochondrion itself. Rather, this is a story about how the genetic information that helps mitochondria reproduce and silk threads are rewoven together.
What is a mitochondrion? It’s an organelle (kind of like an organ in your body) for a cell. They generate much of the chemical energy used by a cell to carry out its different processes.
I have been working on a project for the last few months that extends work on what I call Silking Systems. By calling it Silking Systems, I’m trying to emphasize the patterning of silk and textile production as a set of relationships, things and interactions to accomplish varieties of silk/non-silk relationships, rather than as modes of behavior or production which are static – or should I say pre-threaded?
In 2008, some of my students researched How Silk is Made (after How Stuff is Made) for my class on Design for Sustainability. Their work documents the collection and processing of the silk fiber from cocoons to the thread you find in finished textiles.
Steps to a square cocoon.
About a year later, I worked with students at CEMA to develop square cocoon. Yes, a square cocoon. However, we also succeeded in learning a lot about sericulture – the raising of silk moths and worms – for silk cocoons which are then turned into thread. You can see some of process for making a square cocoon – as well as a lot of other aspects of silk production – in this flickr set documenting some of our work on Silking Systems.
In attempting to learn about sericulture from scratch, I visited some local producers in Karnataka, India and pulled in some textual research and advice – including Joseph Needham’s classic series on Science and Technology in China (1998 ed).
The most recent concept that I want to document here is pretty simple. Human mitochondrial genome sequences are woven in sequence using silk to produce a pattern that matches the mitochondrial nucleotide patterns.
Ashwathnarayann
Before I go further, I should acknowledge the assistance of Ashwathnarayan who aided me tremendously is becoming knowledgeable about silk production and weaving. He also did all of the weaving by hand with some help from me in reading the sequence. Nonetheless it was a true collaboration throughout. David Matthew was also instrumental in helping to build some of the loom pieces as well as providing emergency translation from Kannada to English when my conversations with Ashwathnarayan became difficult or too complex. At the beginning too was Millie who accompanied us to a silk production house in Vijayapura, Karnataka – just north of Bangalore. Millie did some great translation acrobatics using her English and knowledge of Tamil to translate for me and to speak with Ashwathnarayan – who in turn was speaking with the silk producers in Kannada.
Checking the loom's warp.
I have a few implicit goals and a few explicit ones as well. An implicit one is that I am attempting to push the relationship between craft, production, economic agency, and hybridity. I am drawing to some extent from the idea that economic value is generated through recombination – that goods and/or services emerge and create value when they are mixtures of other (especially unrelated) things.
Eric Beinhocker details this concept of value through hybrids along with an evolutionary algorithmic perspective on economics in his book The Origin of Wealth (2006). The book was recommended to me by Cesar Hildago, a Research Fellow at Harvard University’s Center for International Development. Cesar’s work on complex networks has also influenced this project, starting with his article on the Product Space of Nations (2007) and continuing with images like figures 1 and 2 which came out of his research. The network graphs make it easy to see how different economies differ in the products they export.
Fig 1. This image maps the products produced by the United States in 2000. The squares are things they are good at – in the US's case vehicles, chemicals, forest products, for example.
Fig 2. This image maps the products produced by India in 2000. The squares are things they are good at – in India's case textiles, chemicals, and diamonds, for example.
My thinking is that by challenging some aspects of the status quo in silk and textile production, new value propositions might be found. This comes, perhaps, by demonstrating that square cocoons are possible or by remixing molecular genetics and weaving to create a series of silk stoles based on a mitochondrial haplotype found frequently in southern India.
Another goal is to simply visualize the mitochondrial genome – and to make it as accessible for teaching and learning as possible. Making it tactile and making it in silk allows people to touch, feel, and to see individual sequence variation. Silk thread is a good scale for this sort of thing – not too small and not too big either. So in viewing these stoles (which measure about 5 meters each in length) one is challenged to look for patterns and they are rewarded with the same.
The mitochondrial sequence used to produce the pattern next to shuttles that carry the silk thread through the warp.
The process is pretty simple. I started with the stored Genbank sequence of the M2 haplotype which is traceable to early settlers of India. I took the nucleotide sequence information (atctcgctagatagacat, etc) and printed it out in BIG type so that we could follow the pattern easily. By assigning a color to each base type, patterns will reveal themselves. For our first prototype, I chose yellow, blue, green, and red. These are used commonly in genomic sequencing and prediction software (at the University of Michigan, for example) and I wanted to start with something that would resonate with biologists and would also suggest a playfulness associated with childhood and formative development.
Checking and threading the warp. You can see the silk fibers and how thin a single one is. It takes years to master silk weaving because it is a very delicate and dexterity-rich process.
Weaving the pattern is excruciatingly slow. In fact, this kind of work goes against a lot of how silk waving is organized from a production standpoint. There are no repeated patterns and each thread is individually sequenced – that’s the point! We accepted that we might introduce our own errors into the fabric, but then that fits well with the concept; as we try to speed up we might lose fidelity with the original sequence. There are a handful of good correspondences between the weaving process and DNA replication, and they are themselves teachable moments for students that encounter the project. It also gets them thinking critically about what correspondences do or do not exist, as a way of developing their own comprehension.
Finished pattern stretched on the loom.
I’ll expand this article as the project develops further, but I’ll end now with one nagging curiosity. The pattern that is being produced is engaging and pleasing. It makes me wonder if it in some ways exploits a bias we humans may have towards certain arrangements. Specifically I’m thinking about pink noise patterns…but I need to search more.
References
Needham, J., & Kuhn, D. (1988). Science and civilisation in China: spinning and reeling. Vol. 5. Chemistry and chemical technology. Pt. 9. Textile technology. Cambridge University Press.
Beinhocker, E. D. (2006). The origin of wealth: evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics. Harvard Business Press.
Hidalgo, C. A., Klinger, B., Barabasi, A., & Hausmann, R. (2007). The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations. Science, 317(5837), 482-487. doi:10.1126/science.1144581
Daniela Plewe’s discussion brings me back to some thoughts and notes I made about Marcel Duchamp’s Coefficient d’Art. Duchamp described it as:
“An arithmetical relation between the unexpressed but intended and the unintentionally expressed.”
It is intended to describe the difference between what artists intend and what the spectator perceives. For Duchamp, this difference is in the act of communication or transaction, where certain differences and attributions of value are made out of the interaction among individuals. It this coefficient that structures the viewers engagement with artifacts and allows them opportunities to appropriate objects to their own needs and ends.
For Duchamp, the coefficient of art could be good (+), bad (-) or indifferent (=), but the sign of the coefficient had no bearing on the effectiveness of the work itself–only the difference between the agency of the artists to produce a desired effect in the minds of the spectators. The effect itself is up for further negotiation between them.
Mutual information is a similar concept to the coefficient of art, but it comes from information theory and describes the amount of information one thing tells about another thing. In other words, it is the reduction in uncertainty of one thing due to knowledge of another. If we ask how information (and consequently, meaning) is shared between different sources of uncertainty (like an object and a spectator or an object and its artist), we may be able to get a sense of how they are connected and how they might respond to each other.
Mutual information is helpful as a concept because we want to understand how interactions vary with one another–i.e. how interaction values may/may not change as a result of signals, actions, and assumptions.
A component of mutual information is information entropy. Entropy is a measure of uncertainty associated with a variable and quantifies the information contained in a message. It is similar to the coefficient of art; it may describe the uncertainty associated with an artwork as judged by the spectator. Conversely, it could describe the absence of meaning when one does not know the value of the work. Likewise the spectator may themselves exhibit high entropy (high uncertainty) relative to the artist if the artist knows little about the spectator and how they will perceive the artwork….at least that’s how I think it would go.
The coefficient of art is a compelling concept. It suggests that that art has an effect, and if an effect–value in context. Describing that value is very close to the describing what difference the work of art makes, either to the spectator or some chain extending through them.
Borrowing from evolutionary and network theory, one could pull in a set of relationships between interacting agents that describe how networks evolve and persist. Relationships endure over time from the benefits of interaction. In network reciprocity, entities pay a cost, c, while their number of neighbors, k, receive a benefit, b. If b/c > k, where the ratio of benefits to costs is greater than the sum of neighbors, the network persists because its members are gaining as a result of their interactions.
Duchamp’s coefficient of art (hereafter described using the greek letter psi, ϕ; see also: epistasis), approximates the number of neighbors, but as indicated by it separation from the actual effect of the work itself, says nothing about costs and benefits. ϕ approximates k, or rather the reciprocal of k, because as the number of neighbors (or spectators of the work) increases, the likely ability of the artwork to communicate intent, decreases. This is because of variation among the spectators who may either not be well-understood by the artist or who are perceiving differently or because the artist. Interestingly, ϕ always assumes artistic intent. If ϕ is low, it may be the ‘fault’ of the spectator, the inability of the artist to realize that intent, or of some other intervening factor.
But what about art that is created beyond intent such as generative, algorithmic, or emergent artworks?
ϕ may also be a bound on the ability of artifacts to bridge social groups, as in the case of boundary objects that have multiple uses. The intent of the maker of that object is only partially achieved, but may clearly be appropriated to serve other purposes. Here we might similarly invoke a coefficient of use–or a measure of intent in use that transforms the intent of the artist.
Far from achieving certainty, at least the idea of ϕ, of a coefficient of art, starts to unlock more questions about translation and meaning between objects and people–and of the directionality of interactions between people.
This was a post that I initially wrote for the ‘Telling Stories’ discussion group that is made up of recipients of the Wellcome Trust’s International Engagement Award. The group practices public engagement with public health and science from a variety of different perspectives and goals. In this post, I was exploring the role of narration and also looking at the idea of suspense as created by communication (or the lack of) between researchers and members of the public.
Part 1.
I can start by locating the visual arts as a source or medium for engagement. The answer is: myriad. In the last ten years or so (and even before) the arts domain has taken on science and technology in bushels. Some of the response of the arts has been driven out of curiosity and the desire to take on the mantle of science for aesthetic reasons. For others it has been a source of tactical engagement with the very substance of knowledge production in the sciences, defense and military establishments, and the diffusion of technology in everyday life.
There are way too many example to adequately cover here, except to say that the Wellcome Trust is a major stakeholder in this area and has been for at least a decade as far as I know. I remember a festival in South Kensington that I happened upon almost ten years ago called Sparks which featured may artists working specifically with the life sciences in some form or another. Exhibitions were held at the Royal College of Art, the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the Natural History Museum, among others (http:/ /news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/festival_of_science/91…). It was largely a cultural series of events, continuing a dialogue which I have witnessed firsthand in many forms and places afterwards. It seems to me that the role of the arts in these debates has largely been restricted to Europe, but I have seen some signs in the US and now in Asia that the visual arts are playing a more tactical and more integral role in the development of engagement vectors with the public, practitioners, and policy makers.
Some examples:
Last year we conducted a workshop for artists at NCBS (http://cema.srishti.ac.in/content/bioart) which focused on introducing cell and molecular biology methods to artists so they could use them as media for performance, communication, and engagement. It was conducted in collaboration with Oron Catts, a well-know bioartist from Australia (http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/) with extensive experience in using the trappings and discourse of the lab to open up critical thinking about future scenarios and paths of social and technological development.
A group of our students is taking part this week (and won an award) in the international genetically engineered machines (iGEM) competition held at MIT in Boston, USA. This is a group of art students working at NCBS (our host in Bangalore) to develop synthetic organisms, in part to provide a forum for engagement and critical dialogue at these meetings that is not just motivated by the accumulation of capital wealth or basic functional research via biotech (http://hackteria.org/). The result was a highly influential discussion about the role of amateurs in creating public knowledge using science and technology.
Project Vision (htt p://symphysis.wordpress.com/designing-for-converging-cultures-a-diplo…) is an ongoing project here in Bangalore that uses new media (i.e. web 2.0, sensors, physical computing, interactive story-building software, locative media like mobiles and GPS) to develop forms of intimate science where urban, poor, school-aged students run their own experiments and communicate first-hand experiences with nature and their environment.
Moon Vehicle is a community project maintained by Joanna Griffin (http://www.aconnectiontoaremoteplace.net) that bridges storytelling, artifacts, and arts-based methodologies to create peer communities between the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), astronomy buffs, schoolchildren, and others in order to reconstitute new narratives of science and technology as they apply to satellites, space exploration and the once and future missions to the moon.
Another timely example comes from Denmark. The Rethink exhibition (http://www.rethinkclimate.org/) combines contemporary art into political debates surrounding climate change responses in anticipation of Copenhagen.
In the US, The Center for Post-Natural History (http://postnatural.org/) takes on biotech and the conversion of biological organisms to intellectual property.
There are many, many others. But I think it’s safe to say that they have had varying impact and effect. Unfortunately (in my view) we haven’t yet developed a coefficient of art to assess its effect on other domains. Some of the examples I have cited have a distinctly critical edge. Others are more about raising awareness or, more to the point, about connecting different social communities and groups (e.g. science practitioners and schoolchildren).
One of the most important things I have learned in the last few years about public engagement with science comes from the field of science and technology studies. Sociologists, philosophers, and historians have started to demonstrate the value of media (especially visual) in the production of science and technology and the resolution of debates about scientific truth and public acceptance. The production of artifacts, objects, and “things we can wrap our heads around” is very important it turns out.
I think the lessons from history and sociology leads to some clarifying questions such as “What is the material basis for engagement?” and “What is engagement made of and where does it live?”
Part 2.
My perspectives
Many of my perspectives on public engagement are shaped by my experiences as both a practicing scientist studying evolution, ecology and behavior in lab and field settings, as an artist and designer working to develop communication and engagement tools, and now working to assess options for better decision making in public health, energy, and infrastructure.
As a biologist, my perspective is further shaped by host-parasite dynamics and their implications for disease in populations. I am also influenced by network science and complex systems. As such, the interaction is the focal point of engagement. How the interaction is created and maintained is significant for me.
As a designer, so-called design thinking influences my approach to engagement. This often means thinking critically about how the engagement process can transpire as part of everyday life–that is, part of the daily routine that people struggle with and recreate everyday.
I think the questions raised in previous posts about the motivation behind “science’s” engagement with the “public” and who makes up the “public” are critical because they help to identify the costs and benefits of engagement and the location of engagement as it pertains to the public. Still I think we need to constantly open up our assumptions further to scrutiny.
Of Scientists and Risk
I know scientists to be a very heterogeneous community involved with many others in the production of knowledge. In general, the people are exceedingly nice, driven by their own curiosity and desire to create understanding that will make a difference, however far downstream. Science, however, is also composed of lots of others, including the organisms and the tools used to develop new hypotheses and results. By far the most practical defining feature might be its place–where it is done and how that place structures the kind of interactions that in turn lead to what we call new knowledge.
Let’s be clear. In the West, science and by extension public health is hardly the product of scientists alone. Many individuals are involved from students, to researchers, financial managers, glassware technicians, viruses, lab rats, secretaries, publishers, reviewers of literature, politicians, middle-school teachers, clergy, university boards, ethics review panels, biotech company shareholders, news media and so on. All of these individuals are possibly working to do one thing–identify sources of risk and manage the uncertainty that arises out of the everyday interactions of people and their environment. If they can scrape out a living in the meantime, all the better for them. So yes, in a sense I would also say that because risk and uncertainty are trying to be minimized, science and technology have a lot to do with securing and locating ways to create wealth. And yes, all of this scales greatly with the complexity of the science (think: CERN or the HapMap project).
I prefaced this as part of the Western tradition 1) because it is of direct lineage from Christian emphasis on divine intervention and design, and 2) because I have found that (in Asia at least) very different traditions underlie the identification of risk and the communication of uncertainty. My sense is that in Asia these are intrinsically related to variation in the ordering of time, and I’m anxious to discuss this with others that know more than I do.
“The Public”, User Needs, and Witnessing
On the public side, I would prefer to say civil society–that is those who are engaged in social contracts relating to economics, technology, common goods, governmentality and so on. And I agree that it is correct to say that it is an even more heterogeneous group.
One way to think about civil society is much like designers think of their users. There is a simple axiom that underscores the work of many successful designers: user needs drive the acquisition of a product or service. Public heath knowledge and science can be that product. Yes, this is a very functionalist way of looking at it, but this principle of participatory design involves end users in the design process to help ensure that it meets user needs and is usable. It has been a successful strategy for architecture, software, and business (the customer is always right, right?). Why should science and its cognitive technologies be an exception?
By adopting user perspectives the scientific community can recognize that its practices may or may not resonate with user needs: socially, by ensuring equal access for disenfranchised groups, economically: by creating new opportunities for capital development and financial transactions, and politically: by improving the quality, speed, and sensitivity of social technologies to the needs of local users. It’s not that science doesn’t already do these things. It just isn’t always evident to the average user. In the realm of health, sometimes it’s just a matter of making the benefits clear so that they justify whatever costs there are in the user’s mind.
One of my favorite case studies come from evolution and its approximately 50% public acceptance in the United States. Margret Evans, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, studies some of the ways that children, potential users of evolutionary theory and biology, acquire evolutionist and creationist beliefs. Evans describes how Western religious and philosophical traditions emphasize essentialism, teleology, and intention, and in the process limit the cognitive appeal of natural explanations for the origins of species. She argues that because these ideas tend to show up repeatedly in public representations, they constrain the inferential reasoning capacities of the developing mind. It’s an observation that suggests science’s own predilection for categorization is at the root of evolutionary biology’s social friction.
I think these cognitive biases come into play often, for good and bad. I’ll want to describe some others, but I need to take a detour first.
Engagement, Stories, Suspense, Scenarios, and Fallacies
I personally feel that if scientists, policy-makers, and funding bodies are willing to involve cultural workers like artists and designers in the process of science and its associated applications, there is good news for broader participation because they cultural workers tend to excel at reconfiguring essentialist categories, and they often like to do it in public. There is some indication that this may be a general rule because visualization involves so much codification, creation of meaning, and translation of concepts and ideas into tangible, material artifacts for cognition and discourse. In effect, the sensory object is a vector for witnessing.
Witnessing
In their book, Leviathan and the Air Pump, authors Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer describe three types of public witnessing of science: the direct performance of experiments in social spaces (imagine if the laboratory were a chapel or temple), reporting experimental methods in a manner that enables someone to replicate the experiments themselves (like primary journal articles that recount the plot), and virtual witnessing by producing in a reader’s mind an image of an experimental scene that displaces the need for direct witness or replication (this, I argue, is much like a story in someone’s mind constructed from the plot). We need more of this public witnessing if science is going to connect with society in a dynamical way.
Suspense and Narration
The idea of witnessing in science is intimately tied to the production of suspense in narrative. Richard Allen discusses suspense in his book about [Alfred] “Hitchcock’s Romantic Irony”. Allen cites Meir Sternberg’s distinction that, “suspense derives from a lack of desired information concerning the outcome of a conflict that is to take place in the narrative future, a lack that involves a clash of hope and fear; whereas curiousity is produced by a lack of information that relates to the narrative past, a time when struggles have already been resolved, and as such it often involves and interest in information for its own sake.” So when thinking about public engagement we should decide if we desire to create curiosity or suspense and design our process accordingly. Allen also incorporates Ian Cameron’s view that suspense is a “channeling of emotions”. Clearly emotions can be powerful, but how and why? In Allen’s analysis, suspense is something that happens in us as we are forced to take up the prospect of narrative outcomes that are contrary to the ones we desire. Suspense is constructed out of moral uncertainty, balancing our expectations with potential outcomes.
Allen discusses Hitchcock and develops descriptions of two types of suspense: pure and impure. Pure suspense is broad and objective, prolonged by tension, delay, and narration that is unrestricted, moving between vantage points and locations. It leads to an anxious uncertainty and an increased expectation of a bad outcome as the deadline looms. Arbitrary delays segment time and increase the tension because a bad outcome seems close at hand. Often, the audience sees a threat before the protagonist and surprise happens through the manipulation of time. The outcome almost always favor of the moral victory, especially in popular media.
Impure suspense on the other hand is local and subjective. It is developed from points of view that provide different sources of knowledge often through the eyes of the protagonists and antagonists, keeping the audience informed while the characters remain unwitting. Deadlines are set early on and acceleration commonly heightens the alert attentiveness of the spectators who are active participants in the construction of the suspense. Knowledge is not made by the director. It is made by the audience in cooperation with the information provided to the characters. All too often, the audiences senses the outcome before the characters do by filling in blanks sources of meaning that haven’t been provided. Impure suspense favors empathy for the character, as if we were living through them. The moral outcome is less certain and often unrealized.
The difference between surprise and suspense is also relevant. This passage from a conversation between Francois Truffaut and Alfred Hitchcock in the book Hitchcock/Truffaut helps to make the difference clear.
“We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let us suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, “Boom!” There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the audience knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware that the bomb is going to explode at one o’clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions this same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: “You shouldn’t be talking about such trivial matters. There’s a bomb beneath you and it’s about to explode!”
“In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed.”
Suspenseful Science?
My reason for taking this detour is to try to show some of the different narrative techniques that can be used in the construction of public health engagement and of science in the collective mind of civil society. Curiosity, surprise, and suspense (pure/impure) are all narratives tactics for engagement.
Curiosity is important for people attending to and learning on their own, but I don’t think it necessarily develops in people unless the benefits are of satisfying it are known to them.
Surprise is also relevant and critical to sensations of astonishment–and of being placed in a new reality that will cause dissonance and therefore growth.
Suspense, while composed and related to surprise and curiosity, has a more pedagogical function. It builds up knowledge of scenes and constraints using what I think Shapin and Schaffer described as virtual witnessing. The audience/spectators build the story themselves, creating it from the narration and plot to fit their own needs, and to adapt it to their own context and location-based experience. I think this is especially true for impure suspense because pure suspense rings of master narratives and the hindsight needed to create contrasts among moral outcomes. Life is not so much like that. Impure suspense allows us to decide the moral outcome during the process. We are never sure if we have chosen the right one, and we may not know even after the “movie” has ended.
So how can public engagement efforts use suspense to build better acclimation and participation among its audiences?
Scenarios and Fallacies
One possibility lies in the construction of scenarios about the future. Scenarios are descriptions of alternative future states where narration helps to articulate the shape and distribution of actors, procedures, and resources. Scenarios can be general or highly detailed, and they can be shown or represented in a variety of ways from verbal description, acting or role playing, visualization and imagery.
I’ve recently delved into the techniques of scenario development. They serve a number of important functions for individuals and organizations. The most important is perhaps building out aspirations and ideas of what the future could hold–even if the present lacks those characteristics. In this way preferred futures can be imagined, but even when the future is imagined to contain destructive relationships, it aids the processes of critical thinking and adaptation. For individuals, recognizing opportunity and constraint is the first step to capitalizing on it or avoiding its pitfalls. Arjun Appadurai has been highly influential in defining aspirations, or the capacity to aspire to a better future, as an important feature of cultural capacity. Scenarios, as extensions of aspirations, are a way to work forward, to rearrange the systems and see what new hybrids emerge and how they might affect well-being.
For organizations, scenarios can help create common ground. The dredge up assumptions and interactions to create a big picture where knowledge can be exchanged. When scenarios are combined with games and simulations, they provide an opportunity to work through challenging situations, to create memories of the future, and out of these take the confidence to undertake critical adaptive change without incurring any of the risks that real experiences entail.
One of the discussion themes asked what happens when artists and others ‘misinterpret’ the science or present it in a biased or misleading way. Rather than seeing this as something necessarily counterproductive, creative interpretations provide circumstantial detail that may be critical for the social fluency of science. A creative depiction of evolutionary technologies, such as Chris Landau’s The Flocking Party (http://theflockingparty.com/), should therefore be seen as a ‘minority report’, suggesting possible avenues for experimentation or areas of conflict between science and society.
On the contrary, critics of scenarios have argued that they aren’t effective in the development of policy precisely because of the detail they incorporate into their ‘worlds’. Morgan and Granger (2007) have argued that scenarios come with an implicit expectation of liklihood–that any particular scenario is more likely to occur in the future. As I already stated, predicting the future is not a goal for scenarios, but critical responsiveness to uncertainty is. Morgan and Keith based their argument on a common fallacy (and I will include another) that I think are important for us to consider as we take on public engagement through narrative.
In adding detail to a scenario or, let’s say, a compelling tale of science, we create compounding descriptions that run the risk of invoking the conjunction fallacy. A frequent example was developed by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. They gave respondents the statement:
Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.
and asked: Which is more probable?
1. Linda is a bank teller.
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
Logic and probability tell us that #1 is more probable since it is increasingly unlikely that she is both a bank teller and active in the feminist movement.
The issue here is that we want to include more detail and visualization in our stories, but in doing so we possibly risk compounding peoples’ expectation of what is and is not likely to happen.
Vividness is another concern. According to wikipedia, “The logical fallacy of misleading vividness involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem. Although misleading vividness does little to support an argument logically, it can have a very strong psychological effect because of a cognitive heuristic called the availability heuristic.”
The availability heuristic says that we often place events we have just seen or experienced in our memory more prominently, even if we know them to be less frequent occurrences. I can’t tell you how many times my Mom called me late in the evening when I was in college to warn me abut something she might have just seen on the evening news as a possible risk. The detail that many forms of media and engagement provide can also bias judgments that we would otherwise weigh more carefully.
I think somewhere there is a sweet-spot. I like this account of The Critical Art Ensemble as a group that routinely replicates scientific experiments in public spaces such as malls and parks in an effort to publicly verify political claims ranging from the presence of GMOs in the food chain to the terror threat of biological warfare. One of CAE’s projects with co-collaborator Beatriz de Costa is described by Regine Debatty from the blog we-make-money-not-art this way:
GenTerra is essentially a participatory “theater”…Scientists and artists are talking the public through the process and implications (whether they are purely profit-driven or feature some utopian qualities) of transgenics. Materials are then provided to allow people to get a hands-on experience by creating their own transgenic organism…After that they become actively involved in risk assessment by deciding whether or not to release bacteria from one of petri dishes of the release machine.
Even if the feedback generated doesn’t make it back to the lab or policy office, it’s a form of participatory design that seeks out users of science.
Another example was developed in Europe and has now spread. Some of you may have read about Science Shops as one possible form of engagement that pits user needs in direct contact with professional researchers. Here is a blog post about this that I wrote awhile back (http://blog.cstep.in/?p=319).
Yesterday I made a point of visiting the exhibition “Design in the Age of Darwin” at the Block Museum of Art on Northwestern University’s campus in Evanston, IL. The title of the exhibition caught my attention when I was flipping through a Chicago guide while visiting with some family there. The terms “design” and “Darwin” are usually brought up in a controversial opposition. However, this exhibition promised to take a deeper look at the relationships present in the fundamental orderings of Darwin’s work on natural selection and decorative design.
The exhibition takes a sort of auteur-like approach, focusing on a few men prominent in the decorative arts at th turn of the century and just before the birth of so-called modernism. The title includes the notables William Morris and Frank Lloyd Wright as well as C.F.A. Voysey, Louis Sullivan, and Christopher Dresser, an English botanist turned industrial designer.
I wrote in the comment book that the exhibition was well-presented, but that it lacked an engagement with the discipline of evolution as well as any other social and cultural field beyond traditional notions of design.
The missed opportunity lies in the ability to untangle well-tread debates of form versus function from ideas about natural and sexual selection, the role of mutation as a creative force, and the cultural and social appropriation of “selection” in the burgeoning onslaught of mass production and “upward mobility”.
I would have liked to see, for instance, a more overt discussion of Frank Lloyd Wright’s spandrel and the famous (at least within evolutionary biology) paper “The Spandrels of San Marcos”. In it Gould and Lewontin take on the adaptationist perspective which basically says that form must have function and needs a explanation. The adaptationists neglected the role of happenstance (technically, genetic drift) and frequently created “just so” stories to explain the unexplained. Gould and Lewontin’s view was that evolution is a side-effect of a true adaptation, where some traits arise from correlations between a networked body (i.e. gene networks), rather than arising from natural selection. Admittedly, I haven’t read the catalog for the exhibition, but here was a golden opportunity to flesh out the role that complex dynamism plays in evolution. As it stands, the exhibition just furthers the paradigm of intention and selection in the interplay of form and function.
I would agree with the curator’s thesis that Darwin’s ideas contributed to the design sensibility of the age, but it was probably only the case insofar as both Darwin and these designers relied on the metaphor of selection.
Another missed opportunity was the role that social Darwinism played in the development of modernism. For an excellent paper on the subject, see Christina Cogdell’s “Products and Bodies: Streamline Design and Eugenics as Applied Biology.”
What was there were some fantastic examples of Arts and Crafts and Prairie-style decorative and architectural renderings from Chicagoland area collections. It seems almost like the curator was constrained in the availability of ideas and objects to articulate the thesis, and while the show is a unified presentation, there isn’t anything novel to suggest that accounts of art history haven’t yet “speciated”. For the discipline’s sake, let’s hope it doesn’t go extinct.
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581-598. Retrieved August 13, 2008, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/77447
Cogdell, C. (2003). Products or Bodies? Streamline Design and Eugenics as Applied Biology. Design Issues, 19(1), 36-53. Retrieved August 13, 2008, from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/074793603762667683
This afternoon we concluded a week-long workshop in the so-called bioarts (go here for a nuanced discussion of the term) at the National Center for Biological Sciences (NCBS) in Bangalore, India. The workshop, conducted by Symbiotica and organized through a collaboration between NCBS, The Arts Catalyst and the Center for Experimental Media Art at the Srishti School of Art Design and Technology, brought together both Indian and international artists to engage with the tools of biotechnology as a way of investigating opportunities for research at the intersections of biology and art practice.
The capstone to the week was a community discussion among the participants and graduate students and faculty from NCBS. The conversation wa quite lively as it had been all week beginning with a opening keynote from Oron Catts about bioart and its role in cultural and scientific discourse.
Mukund Thattai moderated the discussion and acted as a provocateur by highlighting the potential for artists to become long-term interlocutors within the NCBS community. He particularly asked for skeptics of this art/biology engagement to share their concerns. Some of questions and concerns raised were:
How does the arts research percolate ‘down’ into culture given that these are two “ivory towers” largely speaking to each other?
Why is it that artists seem to be so vague in their proposals, seemingly lacking the precision of language to communicate ideas?
That the sciences practiced in institutions like NCBS are not intended for the average person and that possibly they shouldn’t be involved in it’s production because of the responsibility involved.
That the artworks produced appear to be superficial.
That the ideas or concepts presented through the work are already known and aren’t progressive enough to indicate value.
That biological research is drawing on ancient and traditional ways of knowing that largely obviate the need for any questioning of its categories and ways of understanding life.
That biologists just need to become better communicators and all of the problems associated with, e.g. acceptance of evolution, will disappear (this was actually raised during our first day’s interaction with the NCBS community).
These questions were sincere and engaging, and I was happy that there was such a good turnout to discuss these issues. People shared many different perspectives that varied widely in their desire for further such engagements, different models of engagement, and skepticism for the value of the kinds of activities that we were engaged in.
I was somewhat restrained from entering the fray directly because one of my main goals is to elicit the widest possible display of concerns from a community like this. Sometimes I feel it is better to just listen and use the issues raised as areas for getting tactically involved.
This brings me to a rationale for art/science engagement that I think deals with many of the concerns raised. Art, when engaged with biology, performs a social function of ‘witnessing.’ Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer (Leviathan and the Air Pump, 1985) highlights this process in their analysis of Robert Boyle’s experiments with pneumatics and Thomas Hobbes’s critiques of his experimental program. They describe three processes that effectively multiply witnesses to experimentation and the resulting production of scientific knowledge: 1) facilitating replication–so that users can perform experiments themselves, 2) performance of experiments in a social space–i.e. sharing in the embodied experience, and (perhaps most importantly) 3)virtual witnessing–i.e. production in a user’s mind an image of the experimental scene such that it obviate the need for direct witness.
In the context of the workshop, I think this process of witnessing is increasingly relevant for the production of the biological program and its social contract with society. On the one hand, by teaching artists to use the tools of biology, Symbiotica creates an expectation that non-specialists could theoretically repeat experiments for themselves and verify their validity. Indeed, simple hypothesis testing was performed using environmental sampling of microorganisms and transformation of E. coli with a green fluorescent protein marker. Another example where replication of an experimental program is facilitated comes from the Critical Art Ensemble’s Marching Plague in which US military experiments in biowarfare were replicated with a critical eye for how the results did or did not support defense practice and the politicization of biotechnology. Each of these examples demonstrate how the practices of biology can be effectively replicated to allow for a wider social engagement of science and it’s relationship to other social groups and cultural concerns.
The second aspect of witnessing in shared spaces is perhaps the easiest to show. There were twenty residents at NCBS during the week, engaging in shared processes, visiting labs, and discussing the methods and implications of biological research in India. There’s a worldwide trend of artists working in labs with organizations. Kevin Kelly has a nice list of these residencies here.
What follows from these forms of replication and shared space is the dissemination of a virtual reality of the experimental program. I think that what comes out of artists’ engagement is a type of circumstantial evidence for scientifically-produced knowledge. It relies not on fact or even certainty but solely the residue of artistic engagement. Shapin and Schaffer point to these as circumstantial, stylized, accounts that do not exist as pure forms but instead as publicly acknowledged moves towards or away from “the reporting of contingencies.” Contingencies here means events or things that might jeopardize the validity of the experiment. By allowing the full spectrum of the experimental ‘scene’–perhaps through the inclusion of additional perspectives, political persuasions, or ideas–a better picture of experimentation and its context can be understood. The CEMA blog this week documented the workshop in detail. How often do you see that level of detail in the daily working of, say, a genetics lab? Consider also how art exports knowledge into other spaces and disciplines, either though its images or simply through the engagement itself.
Reflecting on all of this (and I’m tired now), I think one of the interesting questions to pursue is to ask what difference artistic engagement makes along each of these three axes. Does it differ from other methods of communication, and if so what are the behaviors and practices that make it so?
