Unit 8: Nanotechnology + Art

Although the word “nanotechnology” evokes fascination, the field itself is often not fully understood. For instance, one of the misconceptions mentioned by Dr. Gimzewski resonated with me, in that I also held the notion that nanotechnology has to do with robots in laboratories. In reality, nanotechnology is prevalent in the tasks and objects of our daily lives, such as in sunscreen and cosmetics (Gimzewski). I was surprised to learn that some nanotechnology has roots in ancient times, and that nanotechnology can even be found in nature. The pervasiveness and versatility of nanotechnology illustrates its inherent power and potential to vastly improve our lives.

Nanostructures give this butterfly's wings their blue color

Computer simulation of a nanobee particle

It is interesting to consider how as our society advances, things become smaller. Although this may seem counterintuitive, the ability to contain the same, or increased, functionality in a reduced amount of material or space essentially expands our capacity and efficiency. Ray Kurzweil describes how our technological capacities have progressed exponentially through time, predicting we will eventually reach the “Singularity” as this technology becomes increasingly integrated into our lives (Kurzweil). Combining this increase in technological capacity with artistic creativity can result in previously unimaginable solutions to enhance human life. One of the most intriguing examples of this pairing is the nanobee, a self-assembling nanoparticle that can selectively target cancer cells (“Making Stuff: Smaller”). This exciting idea combines evolutionary advancements refined by nature with nanotechnology applications and innovative design elements to revolutionize the way we treat disease.

Nano "lock box" created using DNA folding

Another example of the innovative creations that can arise from blending nanotechnology with art is the concept of DNA folding. Having previously studied the characteristics and processes of DNA, I am wholly familiar with its base pairing properties. However, the idea of capitalizing on these traits to construct new shapes and objects had never occurred to me, and represents an inventive new way of thought. Utilizing DNA as a blueprint or building sequence allows for not only the creation of nano-artwork, but also essentially nano-circuits, which can eventually lead to self-assembling molecules and objects (Rothemund). Thus, by viewing the established scientific concept of DNA from the perspectives of nanotechnology, along with an art, we are able to arrive at a new way to understand and advance human life. In this way, blending nano-science and art blurs the lines of perception and promotes the shift towards a “third culture” that paves the way for new biological and aesthetic understandings (Gimzewski and Vesna 19).

References

Ericson, Gwen. “Tumors feel the deadly sting of nanobees.” The Source, Washington University in St. Louis, https://source.wustl.edu/2009/08/tumors-feel-the-deadly-sting-of-nanobees/. Accessed 27 May 2018.

Gimzewski, Jim. “Nanotech for Artists.” YouTube, uploaded by uconlineprogram, 21 May 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7jM6-iqzzE.

Gimzewski, Jim and Vesna, Victoria. “The Nanomeme Syndrome: Blurring of fact & fiction in the construction of a new science.” Technoietic Arts, vol. 1, no. 1, 2003, pp. 7-24.

Kurzweil, Ray. “A university for the upcoming singularity.” TED, Feb 2009, https://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_announces_singularity_university.

“Making Stuff: Smaller.” NOVA. PBS, 26 Jan 2011. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/making-stuff.html#making-stuff-smaller. Accessed 27 May 2018.

Mu, Zhongde, et al. “In situ synthesis of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) in butterfly wings for surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS).” J. Mater. Chem. B, vol. 1, 2013, pp. 1607-1613.

Rothemund, Paul. “DNA folding, in detail.” TED, Feb 2008, https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_rothemund_details_dna_folding.

Slonczewski, Joan. “Nanorobot Detects Cancer.” Ultraphyte.com, https://ultraphyte.com/2012/02/26/nanorobot-detects-cancer/. Accessed 27 May 2018.

Unit 7: Neuroscience + Art

Neuroscience is one of the most intriguing topics of study since, as is commonly described, it comprises the mind attempting to understand itself. Since art is conceived and created from the mind itself, it stands to reason that the two fields would complement and enhance each other with such harmony.

Drawing of cerebellum cells by Ramon y Cajal

Neuroscientist Santiago Ramon y Cajal epitomizes the union of these two worlds. His studies exploring neuroanatomy contributed significantly to our understanding of the structure of the brain at a microscopic level, earning him the Nobel Prize (Vesna). However, art also played a large role in the work he was able to produce. His description of neurons as the “butterflies of the mind,” and view of himself as an entomologist (Vesna) illustrates the way he perceives himself as a scientist creating art, or equally, an artist studying science. Indeed, his images of neurons achieve not only scientific clarity, but also serve as artistic creations that expand our ability to visualize and perceive the mind. 

fMRI image of brain in action

The advancements and technology of today’s modern world allow this interface between neuroscientist and artist to attain even greater reach and potential. For instance, inventor Christopher deCharms utilizes fMRI scans to visualize brain activity in real time (deCharms), enabling us to visualize the abstract concept of thought and thereby allowing for new insights into what it means to think. Professor Michael Cohen pursues a similar purpose with a twist, utilizing special inverting goggles to explore the effects of distorted perception (Cohen).

Indeed, the connections between neuroscience, the study of the mind, and art, the product of the mind, tie the two fields and their success together. As D.T. Max observes, “writers and musicians lead the way to new theories with inspiration, while scientists mop up with hard data” (Max 711). The creativity and lack of boundaries defining art allow for full exploration of the mind’s elements and capabilities. And in a similar way, understanding the way the brain works enables us to apply it and express its holdings to their full potential. Writer John Lehrer captures the mutual duality of this relationship, expressing “science needs art to frame the mystery, but art needs science so that not everything is a mystery” (Frazzetto and Anker 820). 

"Brainbow" image of neurons, illustrating the potential of neuroscience combined with art

References

Cohen, Mark S. “Neuroscience.” YouTube, uploaded by Victoria Vesna, 12 May 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDq8uTROeXU.

deCharms, Christopher. “A look inside the brain in real time.” TED, Feb 2008, https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_decharms_scans_the_brain_in_real_time?language=en.

Frazzetto, Giovanni and Anker, Suzanne. “Neuroculture.” Nat Rev Neuroscience, vol. 10, no. 11, 2009, pp. 815-821.

Max, D.T. “Swann’s Hypothesis.” The New York Times, 4 Nov 2007, pp. 711.

Moore, Pamela. “TED deCharms.” Newton Street, https://newtonstreet.org/ted-christopher-decharms/. Accessed 20 May 2018.

Ramon y Cajal, Santiago. “Trabajos Escogidos.” Estructura de los centros nerviosos de las aves. 1905, Madrid. Harvard Medical School, https://hms.harvard.edu/news/butterflies-soul. Accessed 20 May 2018.

Vesna, Victoria. “Consciousness/Memory.” YouTube, uploaded by uconlineprogram, 17 May 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzXjNbKDkYI.

Weissman, Tamily. “Brainbow.” Cell, https://www.cell.com/pictureshow/brainbow. Accessed 20 May 2018.

Event 2: The Construction of the "Environment" in Epigenetics Research: A Social Study

Flyer describing Pinel's talk

For my second event, I attended a talk presented by Clemence Pinel, entitled “The Construction of the ‘Environment’ in Epigenetics Research: A Social Study.” Pinel is a PhD student from King’s College London, studying the social science of epigenetics research. Her research focuses on the production of scientific knowledge, and explores the cultural, historical, and social contexts surrounding the process.

Prior to attending Pinel’s talk, I was intrigued by the idea of epigenetics research serving as the subject of a social study. Usually, the epigenetics research itself would be the study, so I was curious as to how one could study a scientific study from a social perspective. As a science major involved in research, I have attended talks in the past that have been similar in setting to this one, but wholly contrasting in subject material.  Being accustomed to the traditional presentation of a hypothesis supported by scientific data and analysis of that data, usually accompanied by numerous graphs, charts, and fluorescent images, it was interesting to see how a social sciences study and talk were structured.

Pinel presenting an interview excerpt during her talk

Pinel’s talk focused on how the environment of epigenetics and epigenetics research is conceived and constructed. She first introduced an ethnographic study she had done involving two labs: a lab studying breast cancer and another lab performing computational research on the microbiome. However, instead of focusing on the methods and results of their research, Pinel explored the physical and conceptual environments of the labs, including the opinions and motivations of their occupants. Rather than quantitative data, Pinel supported her points with analysis of relevant literature and excerpts from interviews she had conducted during her study. Particularly, one central idea forming the basis of her analysis was Stephen Hilgarten’s conception of knowledge production within the realm of “knowledge-control regimes” (Hilgarten). With knowledge as a form of their capital, scientists, in a sense, act as entrepreneurs in their pursuit of research, fitting with Bruno Latour’s conception of scientists as “wild capitalists” (Latour). Thus, tools such as collaborations are utilized by scientists as resources to enhance the environment of their research in the capitalist world it takes place in (Pinel). Pinel distilled this conceptualization of scientists and their research into three contributing factors: profitability, marketability, and versatility (Pinel).

I found Pinel’s work intriguing since it attempts to view and understand research from a different perspective. As a researcher myself, it was interesting to think about these underlying motivations and external factors surrounding and shaping the actual scientific work that is usually the center of my focus. Pinel’s work illustrates how an artistic perspective to science, and even something as niche as epigenetics research, can complement and enhance one’s understanding and execution of the work. All in all, I gained a new outlook on science and research, and the role creative analysis can play, by attending this talk. I would definitely recommend events like this one to my classmates as a way to broaden their perspectives on what they believe they already know, or introduce them to new ways of thought altogether!

Selfie with Pinel answering audience questions in the background

References

Hilgartner, Stephen. Reordering Life: Knowledge and Control in the Genomics Revolution. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2017.

Latour, Bruno. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1987.

Pinel, Clemence, Prainsack, Barabara, McKevitt, Christopher. “Searching for ‘Amazing Data’: Ethnography of an Epigenetic Research Laboratory.” Epigenomics of Common Diseases Conference 2016, Cambridge, UK, 2016.