In preparation to create a proposal form for a piece of artwork for the Sir John Innes Centre, I thought it would be important for me to first familiarise myself with exactly the work they were doing. I hoped this would sit somewhere alongside the knowledge of carefully preserved iconic species demonstrated in the archive. I also wanted to take into account the library setting as well as the centre's place as a research facility, and make my work somehow involved with the nature of this place as a quiet zone for learning, growth and study.
I began to explore areas of their research and exactly how it fitted in in conjunction with the archives and the theme and style of the material I had seen. Some of their work on the Germplasm Resource Centre seemed very much in the direction of preserving, cataloguing and maintaining specimens of a variety of functional grains, wheat and peas. However as I continued to do more digging, I found some troubling use of implied threat and bias tactics in the descriptions on their website. This for me went a little against how I feel like scientific institutions should present their studies and findings, as science should be aware of and attempt to minimise bias wherever possible. I also found significant evidence that commercial viability was their main interest in choosing which projects to work on, which is another thing that I don't think is necessarily the most responsible way to go about science of this groundbreaking a nature.
(SEE MY FULL BREAKDOWN AND LANGUAGE ANALYSIS ON THE JOHN INNES CENTRE AREAS OF RESEARCH IN MY RESEARCH FILE)
On the whole, although many people are skeptical of genetic modification, there is little solid evidence to prove any detrimental effects from consumption of GM products. However my concern is less with human consumption of the products, as people invariably funnel far worse things into their bodies on a daily basis than any highly tested, modified crop, but instead situates itself much more on the potential ecological effects of these organisms. When adapted with enhancements specifically designed to make them hardier and well adapted to more conditions (exactly as the "Designing Future Wheat" research), there is always a risk of invasion and outcompeting between the new super effective wheat and natural species formed by evolution alone.
One instance in particular springs to mind surrounding a weedkiller resistant wheat strain created by US big pharma corp Monsanto, but never approved or marketed. Open field tests of this wheat were trialed between 1998 and 2005. However in 2013, 8 years after the trial had been suspended and in an entirely different part of America, a farmer sprayed herbicide on his crops and a small patch refused to die. Scientists and the US Government alike were never able to explain happened, and international wheat markets for American wheat were affected for months following. Monsanto themselves blamed anti GM saboteurs, however irregardless of the cause I think this case alone is an important reminder of the interconnectedness of our world, and how making a small change to something somewhere could still be transmitted through the environment and have far reaching effects elsewhere.
The wheat being designed by the JIC under the 'Designing Future Wheat' and 'Genes in the Environment' campaigns is specifically being created to be hardy, fast and better growing to meet mankinds growing demand. This is exactly the sort of creation which could have ramifications in the way I am suggesting, by outcompeting weaker / low lieing species with their voracious prevelance and success. This, coupled with what I believe are highly corporate, commercial and dare I say it, capitalist values, makes me a little uncertain if I can wholeheartedly endorse the program with any of my work, nay I may even be inspired to make it a contemplatory piece upon the very nature and ethics of the work they do.
Immediately after leaving the JIC, it was the inside front cover etchings of the patrons and symbolic dioramas which were still highly prominent in my mind. I thought of how at the time I had considered the interesting interplay between the actual study of botany, and the funds and vested business interests of the patrons who supported the work. Given the way that the JIC seemed to specifically centre its practice around the act of securing funding and commercial gain, I felt like there could be interesting connotations to exploring these images further. Using these pieces as a key inspiration, would also give me room to explore symbolism and suggestion, giving me lots of room to express my views subtly, whilst still nodding to my experience at the JIC, and in a way which would still beautiful and sit well within the space and environment. Although on the whole I felt uncomfortable with the work of the JIC, Sarah, our guide on the visit, had been absolutely lovely, and I had really enjoyed my time and exploration of the centre's archives, so it was highly important to me that the piece was not overly challenging or provocative. However it was absolutely essential that I still conveyed my concerns adequately, due to the nature of my discomfort, and close alignment with this subject. I had lots to think about before preparing a proposal.
No comments:
Post a Comment