Art-Science Collaboration in an EPSRC/BBSRC-Funded Synthetic Biology UK Research Centre.

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Nanoethics Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-04-21 DOI:10.1007/s11569-020-00367-3
Michael Reinsborough
{"title":"Art-Science Collaboration in an EPSRC/BBSRC-Funded Synthetic Biology UK Research Centre.","authors":"Michael Reinsborough","doi":"10.1007/s11569-020-00367-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 (RRI) 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\" (René von Schomberg) 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 (how can science be a conceptual and material resource for new aesthetics work) as well as identification of and attention to aesthetic dimensions of scientific research (how are aesthetics and affective framings a part of a specific epistemological resource for 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":18802,"journal":{"name":"Nanoethics","volume":"14 1","pages":"93-111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228991/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nanoethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-020-00367-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/4/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 (RRI) 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" (René von Schomberg) 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 (how can science be a conceptual and material resource for new aesthetics work) as well as identification of and attention to aesthetic dimensions of scientific research (how are aesthetics and affective framings a part of a specific epistemological resource for 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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

EPSRC/BBSRC 资助的英国合成生物学研究中心的艺术与科学合作。
在此,我将探讨艺术与科学的合作在审议讨论研究议程和方向方面的潜力。负责任的研究与创新(RRI)已成为合成生物学和其他几个备受瞩目的科学研究领域的科学政策目标。虽然艺术与科学的合作为公众和科学家提供了参与的可能性,从而有可能促进研究人员、机构参与者、公众和各利益相关者之间所期望的 "相互响应"(René von Schomberg),但在有效实施合作方面也存在潜在的挑战,而且当合作中的权力差异仍未得到承认时,艺术作品有可能成为科学政策或创新议程的工具。艺术与科学的合作可以被视为一种交流过程,需要承认和关注艺术议程(科学如何成为新美学工作的概念和物质资源),以及识别和关注科学研究的美学维度(美学和情感框架如何成为科学研究的特定认识论资源的一部分)。我建议将公众参与/科学交流作为此类项目的一个独特方面,这样做的好处是,美学、科学或社会科学/哲学研究议程就不会被艺术与科学合作的主要或唯一价值是作为一种公众参与或科学交流的形式来调解生物研究社区的公共关系这一假设所淹没。同样,承认艺术-科学-RRI 三角关系是 STS/科学传播/科学政策社区内更具反思性的研究议程的垫脚石,也可能有潜在的好处。BrisSynBio 是一个由 EPSRC/BBSRC 资助的合成生物学研究中心,我将通过该中心来讨论艺术-科学合作的框架和实际实施,并对在该中心发生的事情发表评论。本文所回顾的经验证据支持我所提出的模式,但也指出有必要拓宽艺术的概念和可能的目的或动机,例如,在跨部门合作与社区参与艺术的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nanoethics
Nanoethics HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: NanoEthics: Ethics for Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale will focus on the philosophically and scientifically rigorous examination of the ethical and societal considerations and the public and policy concerns inherent in nanotechnology research and development. These issues include both individual and societal problems, and include individual health, wellbeing and human enhancement, human integrity and autonomy, distribution of the costs and benefits, threats to culture and tradition and to political and economic stability. Additionally there are meta-issues including the neutrality or otherwise of technology, designing technology in a value-sensitive way, and the control of scientific research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信