Glossary

Actor-Network Theory

Actor-network theory (ANT) was developed in the 1980s. Two of its best-known proponents are the French sociologists Bruno Latour (b. 1947) and Michel Callon (b. 1945) (Seng 2018). According to this theory, instead of focusing solely on humans, non-human actors such as machines, inanimate objects, and microorganisms are also seen as agents. In ANT, humans and non-humans are equal, meaning there is no hierarchy between their actions (Latour 2014, 81). Actors form a network by engaging in social actions with each other. “Social” in this context captures “a particular type of association between hitherto ‘unassociated’ forces” (Latour 2014, 112), which can be both material and semiotic (Seng 2018, 28).

Actor-network theory is an important starting point for interdisciplinary research and offers new perspectives for explaining innovation. In particular, ANT decisively broadens the view of the causes and main influencing factors of innovations. From the perspective of ANT, innovations are created by linking heterogeneous actors into networks and by coordinating their behavior within this framework (Schulz-Schaeffer 2000, 277).

Looking at the work of Anna Dumitriu and Alex May against this background, yeast fungi and bacteria are to be understood less as material than as actors. In Fermenting Futures, yeast is not only an essential “player” in solving environmental problems, and the sedentarization of humans, but also a co-author of several works.

Latour and Pasteur: Yeast as a Player

Yeast plays an interesting role in Bruno Latour’s work, in which he uses it to exemplify the actor-network theory. In Les Microbes. Guerre et paix, suivi de irréductions (The Microbes: War and Peace Followed by Irreductions), Latour raises the question of how Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) arrived at insights such as pasteurization on the one hand and the development of vaccines on the other. Latour parallels Pasteur’s achievements with Tolstoy’s novel War and Peace, using the latter to demonstrate that great discoveries cannot be the result of a single actor (Knorr-Cetina 1985, 578). Consequently, Pasteur’s achievement could be attributed to an “unknown mass” in which the reaction of yeast also played a role (Knorr-Cetina 1985, p. 578).

Allianztechnik

The term “Allianztechnik” (alliance technology) appears in the 37th section of the multi-volume work Das Prinzip Hoffnung (The Principle of Hope) by the German philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885-1977), a publication devoted to “Will, Nature, the Technical Utopias.” The following sections elaborate on what Bloch means by alliance technology, but without using the term explicitly. Bloch described alliance technology as the “co-productivity of a possible subject of nature” (Bloch 1985, 802-807). According to Bloch, the various forces at work in nature cannot be traced back to a single factor. Rather, these forces are based on a chain of mutually influencing factors, amongst which human-made tools and techniques are only one aspect. Here Bloch is indicating that humans are also part of nature. By building houses and shaping their environment, humans create their own second nature that, nonetheless, remains subject to the laws of nature. Therefore, if the work of humans and nature cannot be separated, then every technical development is only a new form in which the forces of nature are expressed. For example, the steam engine is an apparatus that allows the inherent forces of heated water to become visible.

Alliance technology shows that humans cannot impose their will on nature, but that each human development takes place in relation with nature, taking into account the “co-productivity of nature” (Bloch 1985, 802-807). Human creative capacity and natural forces go hand in hand in every development, and with every new technology the question arises as to the consequences for the entire biosphere. How can technologies contribute to a successful life? Bloch’s alliance technology is an attempt to see humans and nature as equal agents. In this context, technological achievements are not necessarily opposed to nature, but their effects must be seen in the overall context of nature.

Art and the Natural Sciences

The demarcation of art as a discipline to be distinguished from the sciences is of comparatively recent date and goes back essentially to the cult of genius of the 18th century and the founding of modern aesthetics by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) (Kultermann 1987, 117).

The Latin term ars as well as its Greek equivalent technē initially designate a skill that includes craftsmanship as well as artistry. The classification of artes liberales goes back to antiquity, and distinguishes between two groups. The first group includes grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic or logic. The second includes arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy, and from the early Middle Ages, mechanics and medicine. Opposite the liberal arts were the practical ones, the artes mechanicae, under which, amongst other things, was included the art of building. There was no hard division between art and science, as we understand it today.

With the Renaissance, the relationship between art and science began to be questioned. At the same time, personalities such as Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528) emerged-artists who were also concerned with researching scientific laws, such as perspective, anatomy and proportions. 

The concept of art in the modern sense, which considers artistic creation detached from any craftsmanship, appeared primarily with Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (1714-1762) and Immanuel Kant. For Baumgarten, art was an expression of sensual cognition. Kant subsequently introduced taste as a category largely detached from understanding, which serves to grasp the beautiful in order to further define art as the purpose-free beautiful (Kant 1993, 77). Decoupled from understanding and purpose, art began to separate from the natural sciences. This divergence persisted until the technological revolution of the mid-20th century. With initiatives such as GRAV – Groupe de recherche d’art visuel at the beginning of the 1960s in Paris, or the experiments carried out in 1966 by artists in the aeronautics center of the Art and Technology Program at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in California, a rapprochement began to occur (Fiorentini 2010). Since the 1990s, institutions such as the ZKM in Karlsruhe have focused on the complementarity of science and art. Art as science and science as art is now provided a firm framework with artistic research that is also recognized through science funding.

BioArt & Transgenic Art

The term “BioArt” was first used in 1981 by Peter Weibel (born 1944) in his essay Biotechnology and Art. Weibel, currently director of the ZKM Karlsruhe, thus captured the connection between art and biology. Today, BioArt refers to art that deals with the molecular biological level of organisms and includes, amongst other things, tissue engineering, i.e. the cultivation of biological tissues.

A special variety of BioArt is Transgenic Art. Transgenics are organisms to which exogenous (i.e. foreign) DNA has been inserted. The recombination of DNA across species boundaries was developed in 1973 by Herbert Wayne Boyer (b. 1936) and Stanley Norman Cohen (b. 1935) and has been a topic in art since the 1980s (Reichle 2005, 92; Reichle 2018). Transgenic Art as a term for this art movement was introduced in 1998 by Brazilian media artist and theorist Eduardo Kac (b. 1962). Transgenic Art is characterized by working with organisms whose genetic code has been altered with the use of molecular biological technologies.

Clearly distinguished from BioArt and Transgenic Art is Artificial Life Art, which works with computer-based simulation models such as algorithms and artificial intelligence (Reichle 2005, 3). It deals with the “bringing to life of the technical” while Transgenic Art deals with the “technification of the living” (Reichle 2005, 189-192).

BioArt and Transgenic Art: Lines of Development

In BioArt and Transgenic Art, two lines of development can be distinguished: one in which the artists themselves apply technologies of molecular biology, and a second in which their goal is to provoke a discourse about these methods without themselves working on modified organisms in the laboratory. New molecular biology tools (for example CRISPR/Cas) always require social processes of negotiation, which are also conducted in BioArt or even initiated by it. In this context, the interests of BioArt artists have shifted over time, as Ingeborg Reichle describes (Reichle 2018, 45). In the early years of this art movement, artists were mainly interested in using the newly developed processes of biotechnology in creative ways. More recently, the climate crisis has been one of the main thematic focuses of BioArt, particularly the extinction of species and the potential of ecological collapse. Anna Dumitriu and Alex May take up these themes in their work Fermenting Futures.

BioArt and Transgenic Art: Reference Positions

There are two major trends in Transgenic Art, whose main representatives are Eduardo Kac (born 1962) and Joe Davis (born 1950). Kac became known worldwide through his work GFP Bunny (http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html). In a laboratory, green fluorescent protein (GFP) was inserted into a rabbit via gene transfer. However, the animal was never handed over to Kac. Nevertheless, the project brought ethical debates about genetic research into the international press. Crucial to this work is its staging, in which Kac makes equal use of references to art and cultural history as well as scientific illustrations. Through works such as GFP Bunny, Kac aims to raise awareness of the fact that interventions in DNA make it possible to “design” new living beings according to aesthetic criteria. He also sees the manipulation of human genes as already within reach: “Being human will mean that the human genome is not a limitation, but our starting point.” (Reichle 2005, 50).

Joe Davis, on the other hand, works directly in the laboratory, and is considered one of the first artists to trade his studio for a lab. Since 1992 Davis has been based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, where he first became artist-in-residence and later associate researcher in the laboratory of biology professor Alexander Rich. Davis’ research is on “coding and sequencing problems of the genetic code” (Reichle 2005, 80). His work Microvenus (1986) shows how the Germanic symbol for life and the earth is translated first into a binary code and then into a DNA sequence (https://www.clotmag.com/biomedia/joe-davis; Reichle 20055, 83). Another example of Transgenic art is the Tissue Culture and Art Project, a collaboration between Australian artists Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr. Catts and Zurr often work with living cell material, taking the laboratory situation directly into the exhibition (figures: https://tcaproject.net/)

Anna Dumitriu and Alex May, like Joe Davis, work in the lab themselves, delving as deeply into the field of biotechnology as Davis does. Ingeborg Reichle wrote in her 2003 dissertation that Davis was perhaps the only true “artist researcher” (Reichle 2005, 112). However, from today’s perspective, this statement is no longer valid, since Dumitriu and May also develop the complex molecular biological content of their works themselves while in close exchange with the scientific community. At the same time, they make use of a rich system of references to art and cultural history, which is reminiscent of Kac’s way of working. Dumitriu and May thus combine characteristics of the two major currents of Transgenic Art.

Through Dumitriu and May’s working methods and the close cooperation with scientists, a rapprochement between art and science occurs. At the same time, the works enable a discourse between research and the public, taking on a mediating role, and inviting viewers to discover their complex scientific and historical backgrounds. Like Kac, Dumitriu and May thus succeed in sensitizing viewers to the ethical issues involved in molecular biology without losing sight of its opportunities.

Cabinet of Curiosities

Artfully formed objects, whether created by nature or by man, aroused a passion for collecting early on and found their way into specially created cabinets. Such compilations, known as chambers of art and curiosities, brought together objects from art and nature in order to place them in a context, arranged according to themes. The four elements were used as a criterion of order, often combined with the cardinal points and the known regions of the world. The first known chambers of art and curiosities were found at princely courts, such as that of Archduke Ferdinand II. (1529-1595) at Ambras Castle in Tyrol or Rudolf II. (1552-1612) in Prague Castle. The chambers were intended to reflect the richness of the universe in a microcosm and to illustrate connections between nature, art, science, and technology (Bredekamp 2012, 70). Accordingly, they were subdivided into Naturalia, Artificalia, Antiquitates, Exotica, Mirabilia, and Scientifica without hierarchy. The classifications of objects were based less on a scientific than on a purely associative basis.

At the same time, the chambers of art and curiosities also reflected the perception of the world typical of the time, which placed the earth at the center. Often, this was underlined by a corresponding perspective spatial design.

The forerunners of the chambers of art and curiosities can be seen as the Museien, the temples of antiquity intended as seats of the Muses. The designation studiolo, common in 14th-century Italy, underscores their function as study cabinets that served scholarly exchange, but also the demonstration of claims to power and dominion.

Holistic vs. Reductionist View of the World

The chambers of art and curiosities (Wunderkammern) were determined by a holistic view of the world, in which everything was interrelated. This was countered by a reductionist view which came to the fore at the latest in Renaissance. The reductionist view attributed a cause to every effect, which could be traced back to the smallest unit via a chain of causalities. The order of the chambers of art and curiosities gave way to special collections. Natural and art objects found their way into natural history and art museums separately from each other. The striving for universal knowledge was replaced by specialization in one field, guided by the idea that each field could be understood in isolation from others.

With regard to the cooperation of art and science, the chamber of art and curiosities appears as a historical precursor. Not only did the disciplines stand on equal footing here, but the spatial proximity also made it possible to discover previously unseen relationships between objects (Brakensiek 2006, 7). Another parallel emerges when considering the boundaries between objects of art and nature: they were fluid in the chambers of art and curiosities – an aspect around which BioArt also revolves. After all, the “Wunderkammer” was not only a collection space, but also a laboratory and a place for exchanging knowledge (Bredekamp 2012, 53). Against this background, contemporary laboratories in which artists work may be seen as (modern) chambers of art and curiosities, too.

Cooperative Research Networks

The Kunst- und Wunderkammer, established at courts of the European aristocracy since the 16th century, have much in common with the ways that virtual networks can be continually restructured and reknit. If the chambers of art and curiosities contain physically tangible objects, the Internet contains virtual objects whose substance is a binary storage code (Brakensiek 2006, 5). Yet in both spaces—the real and the virtual—juxtaposition forces the formation of associations.

All objects have several meanings, which become apparent through various combinations with other objects. In the historical Kunst- und Wunderkammer, the position of the objects was decided according to a certain systematic approach, remaining spatially static. However, the order and groups in which individual objects were ultimately placed, was flexible. In this way subjective order triumphed over alphanumeric systems that later became common in museums, libraries, and institutionalized collection contexts. On the other hand, digital collections, especially when they combine to form research networks, leave assignments largely open. Associations between objects are made anew with each unique site visit, and with regard to the respective individual search terms used (Brakensiek 2006, 12).

CRISPR in Laboratory Practice

CRISPR/Cas refers to both the enzyme and the procedure that can be used to intervene on the base sequence of a DNA. Colloquially, CRISPR/Cas is known as gene scissors.

CRISPR stands for “Cluster Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats” and refers to sections of repeated DNA, which in turn provide the prerequisite for various modifications. When CRISPR/Cas is used, parts of the genome can be removed, inserted or exchanged. In this way, for example, genes with undesirable traits can be specifically eliminated or genes from extraneous organisms can be introduced.

CRISPR/Cas is also being used at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main. During a visit to the Institute for Molecular Bio Sciences, where, among other things, research is conducted at yeast, Professor Dr. Eckhard Boles and his team explain how the gene scissors work and provide insights into laboratory practice (see video: Die Genschere im Laboreinsatz).

DNA as a storage medium

DNA is not only capable of storing human genetic information. For researchers, DNA as a storage medium for any kind of data is an interesting topic because it is more robust and durable than many storage media. While a CD can only hold data for about 30 years, DNA is said to be able to store the data it contains for hundreds of years. The American artist Joe Davis, one of the pioneers of BioArt, worked with DNA as a storage medium as early as 1986. With Microvenus, he created an image that was encoded into a genetically modified bacterium. The image shows an ancient Germanic symbol, a rune, which symbolizes life and the female earth (Davis 1996, 70-74).  Davis was interested in exploring communication possibilities with extraterrestrial intelligences, which NASA has been doing for decades (Davis 1996, 70-74).   

Encoding language in DNA

In order to translate language, a complex sequence of 26 letters and special characters, into DNA, an equally complex sequence of 4 nucleotides abbreviated A, T, G, and C, a number of steps are necessary. For the translation, Anna Dumitriu used the ASCII code (American Standard Code for Information Interchange), which is based on the binary system (also called dual system). In the ASCII code, each letter is assigned a specific 7-digit combination of the binary elements 0 and 1.

M becomes 1001101.
A becomes 1100001.
k becomes 1101011.
And e becomes 1100101.

Besides the binary system, which only knows the digits 0 and 1, there are other systems. The most common number system for us is the decimal system, consisting of the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The genetic information stored in DNA is based on the arrangement of four different bases: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G) and Cytosine (C). If we assign a digit to each of these bases (A=0, T=1, G=2 and C=3), we see that genetic information is stored in the form of a quaternary system, a system of 4 digits (0, 1, 2, 3). If we now translate the letters within ASCII into a quaternary system, we obtain new numbers in each case, which now consist of four digits or four DNA bases.

That means:

(M) 1001101 becomes 1031 resp. TACT
(a) 1100001 becomes 1201 or TGAT
(k) 1101011 becomes 1223 or TGGC
(e) 1100101 becomes 1211 or TGTT

The DNA base sequence TACT TGAT TGGC TGTT thus encodes the word “make”.

 This DNA sequence is created chemically with the help of the so-called phosphoramidite synthesis. Modified nucleotides are linked one after the other in the intended sequence via chemical reactions until the desired sequence is synthesized. After a specific region in the DNA has been excised, e.g. with the “gene scissors”, the synthesized DNA can be placed exactly at this empty site via homologous recombination, a natural DNA repair mechanism.

Fermenting Futures

Fermenting Futures is inspired by a number of recent scientific findings on yeast research and was developed in close collaboration with the Institute of Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, and the Austrian Center of Industrial Biotechnology (acib). The project by Anna Dumitriu and Alex May consists of four works, each exploring different stories around yeast and investigating the potential of these often unnoticed micro-organisms. From an artistic perspective, collaborating on yeast research is also about transforming and recontextualizing ideas and materials (Schachinger 2020).

Yeast research at BOKU

Yeast is one of the most studied organisms in molecular biology. The scope of their bioeconomic applications is wide, ranging from the manufacture of biofuels to drug production.

In 2015, the team led by Prof. Dr. Diethard Mattanovich succeeded in explaining the metabolic pathway of the yeast species Pichia pastoris. Pichia pastoris is a non-fermenting yeasts (which means it cannot be used for baking bread), but can metabolize methanol (BOKU 2015). Uncovering this mechanism forms the basis for enabling yeast to metabolize carbon dioxide (Dumitriu et al 2021). This was achieved in 2019 by a genetic modification in which eight genes from plants, bacteria, and other yeast species were inserted into Pichia pastoris. At the same time, three genes were switched off. Therefore the modified yeast now uses carbon dioxide for its metabolism instead of methanol and has the potential to reduce CO₂ emissions. In another research project, the originally non-fermenting Pichia pastoris was made to ferment by gene editing.

At the same time, a different yeast species, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, was genetically modified to produce lactic acid. Lactic acid is the raw material for polylactide (PLA) – a biodegradable plastic.

Yeast

In biology, the term yeast does not describe a monophyletic group (group that arose from one ancestor) like, for example, mammals, but rather a plethora of different organisms that simply share a certain characteristic: All yeasts are unicellular fungi that reproduce asexually by budding from a cell.

Yeast is found almost everywhere and can be utilized in numerous different applications. Live yeast is classically used in bread baking or beer brewing, but it can also serve as a probiotic. Non-live yeast is often used as a flavor enhancer or as a highly nutritional food additive.

Fermenting Futures

Fermenting Futures brings together two research projects. BOKU researchers succeeded in combining the carbon capturing properties of a modified Pichia pastoris and the lactic acid producing capabilities of a modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae: The result is a Pichia pastoris “super yeast” that can absorb carbon dioxide and release lactic acid as a basic material for manufacture of biodegradable plastic PLA. This simultaneously tackles two environmental challenges at once – CO₂ reduction and plastic pollution (Dumitriu et al 2021).

In their artwork, Dumitriu and May illustrate what Gotthold Ephraim Lessing called the “fertile moment” of this complex process. On view is a bubbling liquid-filled, large glass vessel with silicone tubes protruding from its neck. The installation alludes to the fermentation process of the yeast, which, as a genetically modified organism, is not allowed to leave the laboratory alive for safety reasons. Therefore the yeast floating in the vessel has been killed prior to exhibition. The vessel is positioned on a pedestal made of horse chestnut wood, indicating the natural habitat of Pichia pastoris. It is commonly found on horse chestnut trees and feeds on their sap.

3D prints of based on photogrammetry scans of yeast cultures swarm across the vessel. These are made of PLA. One small white yeast form is made of PLA of the lactic acid produced by the gene-modified yeasts P. pastoris and S. cerevisae. The production quantities are still extremely small, but the research team is working on increasing the tolerance of the yeast to the cell-toxic lactic acid through directed evolution in order to increase production.

Culture

Culture shows architectural models surrounded by a layer of earth. The interiors of the models seem lived-in and some even have electricity and television.

The exterior of the model is covered with bread crumbs. This bread was baked with a fermenting Pichia pastoris yeast developed at BOKU, which can serve as baker’s yeast thanks to genetic modification.

The models and their interiors represent the development of culture since humans first started to put roots down in the Neolithic period. It is suggested that yeast played an important role in this process, enabling the baking of bread and the brewing of beer. Earth also refers to agriculture and the cultivation of grain. It is, both figuratively and literally, the top soil on which civilization is founded: a thin, fragile layer on and with which a constantly growing world population must be nourished.

With Culture, Dumitriu and May achieve a significant change of perspective. Not humans, but a small microorganism becomes a ‘player’ that will perhaps determine our fate in the future just as it did thousands of years ago.

Lactate Dehydrogenase Gene Duet

A sound composition complements the exhibition. Its starting point is the DNA base sequence of the lactate dehydrogenase gene, which is responsible for the production of lactic acid.

Bio-archeology of Yeast

Yeast as a non-human agent is also the focus of the sculpture series Bio-archeology of Yeast. The work is based on 3D photogrammetry scans of colonies of black yeasts. This yeast belongs to an extremophile species, which has adapted to extreme environmental conditions that are generally considered hostile to life. The sculptures are cast in building materials that black yeast likes to colonize. The casts are hand-painted based on the original hues of the black yeast, which actually occur in varying shades such as pink, orange or black. Finally, some of the original small colonies of yeast that were scanned the laboratory were applied to the sculptures.

By revealing the sculptural potential of the yeast fungus, which in other contexts is perceived as a nuisance or even a pest, Dumitriu and May highlight its aesthetic qualities. Decay as a negatively connoted and usually even dangerous process in works of art is re-evaluated as a process of artistically productive material transformation.

Pigments

Pigments investigates another natural property of yeast, namely its ability to produce pigments. For example, yeasts protect themselves from sunlight by producing melanin – a mechanism we also know from human skin. With their textile works, which are dyed with pigments from microorganisms, Dumitriu and May want to stimulate discussion about alternatives to chemical dyes. These could be used both in the fashion industry and in food production.

Genetic Research – Historical Outline

Classical Genetics: Gregor Johann Mendel

Genetic sequences, i.e. the transmission of traits through predispositions fixed in the organism, have been known for a long time. In continuous research, the exact relationships between hereditary code and traits were then gradually explored and revealed.

After Charles Darwin (1809-1882) had described in a first version in 1838 the emergence and change of biological species as an evolutionary process in which the dominant trait prevails in each case, the Augustinian monk Gregor Johann Mendel (1822-1884) turned specifically to the transmission of phenotypic traits by cross-breeding. Between 1856 and 1865, Mendel tested various crosses on pea plants and evaluated them statistically. Since the pea plant expressed different traits, such as purple and white flowers or green and yellow seeds, the transmission of traits could be traced by Mendel performing pollination by hand, i.e., transferring the pollen of one variety to the stigma of the other. The method of crossing developed by Mendel was subsequently applied to crops in order to propagate their seeds and successively improve the variety.

Molecular Genetics

Classical genetics, which includes the rules established by Mendel, was replaced by molecular genetics around the middle of the 20th century. The focus is now on the molecular basis of heredity – DNA and RNA.

The findings that and how molecular structure and hereditary information are interrelated, developed successively, beginning with the isolation of nuclein from the cell nucleus, the discovery of nucleic acid, and culminating in DNA sequencing in 1975, which led to the sequencing of the first eukaryotic genome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, baker’s yeast, in 1993.

Eukaryotes refer to cells with a nucleus and rich compartmentalization, in contrast to prokaryotes, cellular organisms that, like bacteria, lack a nucleus.

Stages in the Development of Molecular Genetics

As early as 1943, Barbara McClintock (1902-1992) identified in maize the transposon, a DNA segment in the genome that changes its position, thus refuting the idea that the genome is constant. She was awarded the Nobel Prize for her discovery in 1983.

In the 1980s, Richard A. Jorgenson (*1951) discovered RNA interference. RNA interference (RNAi) refers to the suppression of a specific sequence of a genetic disposition induced by RNA molecules. It occurs due to the double strand of RNA responsible for translation and transcription. For developing a method to specifically access RNA interference and thus specifically silence genes, Andrew Zachary Fire and Craig C. Mello were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2006.

In 1987, Yoshizumi Ishino and his colleagues found repetitive DNA segments in Escherichia coli K12, commonly referred to as CRSPR. The term CRISPR was first used by Ruud Jansen and his colleagues in 2002.

In 2012, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier published their article A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity in the journal Science, describing how specific DNA areas can be precisely targeted and cut.

Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) first used CRISPR/Cas9 in mice and human cells in 2013. In 2018, He Jiankui claimed to have used the technique in human embryos after artificial insemination, sparking worldwide debate. Because the changes occur in the embryo, it affects egg and sperm cells and consequently is passed down through generations. The unforeseeable consequences were generally criticized as unjustifiable.

Imitation of Nature

Nature is derived from the Latin natura, which corresponds to the early Greek physis. The term denotes the entire process of becoming, growing, blossoming and rising, as well as the innate characteristics of a being.

Until the 17th century, artistic creation was characterized by the imitation of nature. Nature was both a model and a source of inspiration, and art sought to mimetically capture the natural world. The aim was to perfectly duplicate nature, equating its productive power with the power of artistic creation. (Rosen 2003).

Make Do and Mend

This group of works was created in 2017 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the first use of penicillin on a patient in 1941. The centerpiece is a patched women’s suit from that period. The patches, like the textile works, contain bacterial material modified with gene editing. Following on from the rationing of scarce goods such as clothing during World War II, Anna Dumitriu creates a link to the issue of antibiotic resistance, as the over-use of these lifesaving medicines has led to bacteria evolving the ability to resist them.

FEAT Residency

Make Do and Mend was created as part of a FEAT (Future Emerging Art and Technology) residency program. Here, Anna Dumitriu collaborated with members of the MRG-GRammar consortium at research institutions in Israel and the United Kingdom. The MRG-GRammar project investigates gene regulation and the interaction between so-called “enhancer genes” and those responsible for the production of proteins. The research results are of great importance for the development of personalized DNA therapies, among other things.

Slogan Make Do and Mend

The slogan “Make Do and Mend,” promoted during World War II, was intended to encourage British women to repair clothing during the rationing period of the war, thereby saving resources (Dumitriu). The motif of mending, which is addressed here, appears twice in the work and refers on the one hand to the visible patching of the clothing, and on the other hand to the invisible artistic gene-editing intervention. Thus, the holes of the women’s suit are plugged and mended with silk.  The silk is treated with E. coli bacteria grown on a dye-containing agar and thus could dye the fabric pink (Breedlove 2019, 198-199).

From the genome of the E. coli bacteria and by using CRISPR/Cas, Dumitriu removed an ampicillin antibiotic resistance gene that had previously been inserted into the bacterium for research purposes. Ampicillin is part of the penicillin group. By removing the resistance gene, Dumitriu simulated a condition the bacterium must have had before 1941, i.e. before antibiotics had been developed. The artist then repaired the “defect” using a technique called “homologous recombination” by inserting a synthetically produced DNA fragment. The fragment contains – translated into the four DNA bases – the slogan “Make Do and Mend” (Medina 2019, 317-318).

The textile works belonging to the group of works are also dyed with gene-edited bacteria, again emphasizing the central process of repair.

Manual Work

Sewing, embroidery and mending – in Make Do and Mend, the first thing that jumps out is the use of typically female connotated needlework techniques. The small toy sewing machine (owned and played with by the artist’s mother during WWII) takes up the idea of a rather simple, almost old-fashioned production process and thus reinforces the impression of a low-tech aesthetic. However, this contrasts strongly with the highly complex and modern processes of genome editing that were used in the development of the work in the laboratory. High-tech and low-tech, manual labor and science, perhaps even the clichés of feminine (manual labor) and masculine (research in the laboratory) work are hereby juxtaposed. Yet despite their apparent opposites, they touch each other: the one illustrates the other, since in both fields we speak of activities such as cutting, patching, or plugging holes. According to Anna Dumitriu, both types of work are tricky and require patience, care and diligence – or, as Annick Bureaud aptly puts it: Science is manual labor.

Controlled Commodity

Sewn onto the suit is the British Board of Trade logo CC41, an abbreviation for Controlled Commodity 1941. This label marked rationed goods for about ten years from 1941, which could be obtained exclusively through coupons. These included products and raw materials that were only available to a limited extent during the war and post-war period, could only be imported, or were reserved for war-related purposes such as the production of uniforms. 

The restrictions called up via the label are now to point out within the artwork the risky handling of antibiotics. Then as now, antibiotics are not protected as a controlled commodity and scarce resource from careless and excessive use. As a result, more and more pathogens are developing resistance to antibiotics, which were once considered miracle cures, and their effectiveness is waning. The increasing threat of multi-resistant germs such as MRSA or tuberculosis are examples of this. Against this background, how should we proceed with new methods such as CRISPR/Cas, which are also hailed as miracle cures?

Penicillin

In 1928, the Scotsman Alexander Fleming, physician and bacteriologist (1881-1955), left a bacterial culture with staphylococci open in his laboratory and went on vacation. Upon his return, he noticed that the mold Penicillium notatum was grown on the unsealed Petri dish and destroyed the bacteria. Beginning in 1929, Fleming reported regularly in The British Medical Journal on penicillin, its effects, and its potential uses.

The antibiotic penicillin was first administered to a patient in 1941 and played an important role in wartime medicine. Four years later, in 1945, Alexander Fleming was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology. Even then, Fleming warned in his speech at the Nobel Prize ceremony against careless use of the supposed miracle drug. Today, penicillin has lost its effectiveness when used on humans because bacteria have developed resistance.

Terpenes

Terpenes are a diverse group of substances whose representatives are all built up from a variable framework of individual isoprene molecules. Due to the presence of atomic carbon double bonds in the isoprene building blocks, these have an almost unlimited number of connection possibilities, in which ring formations (cyclic terpenes), or the formation of long chains as in plastics (polyterpenes) is possible. These hydrocarbon structures form a huge family of over 8000 known different substances with varying sizes. In plants, terpenes can serve a wide variety of biological purposes, many of which are still considered largely unexplored. Most importantly, however, they play a major role in defense against pests through their widely observed antimicrobial and antiviral properties and their use as chemical messengers/pheromones. Often extracted from plants, essential oils mainly consist of a mixture of various terpenes and closely related groups of substances. The best-known application is the production of natural rubber from the milky sap of the Mexican rubber tree, which is used, for example, in the manufacture of car tires.