 |
MAIN EXHIBITION | |
簡介 /
豈止科技和工具？ 數碼文化是創意、是情感， 也是學習和美學
Lighthouse是間數碼文化機構，設於英國布萊頓，一直支持、贊助及展覽藝術家和電影工作者的作品。它創造朝氣十足、誘發思考的節目，帶出藝術家和電影製片人在日新月異的媒體文化裡擔任的重要角色。Lighthouse投身數碼藝術及流動影像，並將作品展於布萊頓的基地及國內外。Lighthouse為數碼藝術家及創作家提供一個交流平台，展示數碼文化不單是科技和工具，也是創意、情感、學習和美學。
Lighthouse同時舉辨英國主要的電影人指導計劃Guiding Lights，培育有潛質的電影工作者，將他們引廌到電影界翹楚，如森·曼德斯、亞力斯·加蘭、尼克·霍恩比及簡尼夫·班納。
豈止科技和工具？ 數碼文化是創意、是情感， 也是學習和美學
Lighthouse是間數碼文化機構，設於英國布萊頓，一直支持、贊助及展覽藝術家和電影工作者的作品。它創造朝氣十足、誘發思考的節目，帶出藝術家和電影製片人在日新月異的媒體文化裡擔任的重要角色。Lighthouse投身數碼藝術及流動影像，並將作品展於布萊頓的基地及國內外。Lighthouse為數碼藝術家及創作家提供一個交流平台，展示數碼文化不單是科技和工具，也是創意、情感、學習和美學。
Lighthouse同時舉辨英國主要的電影人指導計劃Guiding Lights，培育有潛質的電影工作者，將他們引廌到電影界翹楚，如森·曼德斯、亞力斯·加蘭、尼克·霍恩比及簡尼夫·班納。
作品 /
實驗室生活
實驗室生活由惠康基金資助
實驗室生活是個獨特的互動藝術科學實驗室，由Lighthouse及The Arts Catalyst組成。藝術家安迪·格雷西構思並發起組織一班國際藝術家及科學家與 年輕一輩的醫生、科學家及藝術家合作，於Lighthouse的生活實驗室裡共同研究 一系列的尖端醫療科技。
藝術家及科學家創作了五個藝術科學項目，組成一個引人入勝的展覽的基礎，當 中涉及的技術包括：DNA紋身、天體生物學、微生物紡織品等等。這些項目有：
大家都誤會了科學／由布斯·吉傑思主領
合作團隊：吉·珍露、西蒙娜·卡茜圖、大衛·路菲亞、德卡·帕圖
這組藝術家及科學家用數天時間調查大眾對科學的理解程度。實驗室的到訪者 先聆聽一段關於合成科學的陳述，其後把聆聽所得的資料以繪畫形式表現出來， 展示他們對科學訊息及定律的理解。
感染性布料／由安娜·德妙主領
合作團隊：露絲·西域、莎娜·羅拔絲、布萊恩·迪加、梅科莎·格蘭特
這組藝術家及科學家的藝術創作以紡織品為基礎，在一條攝政式禮服上染上細菌 色素並以抗生素製作花紋圖案。
給果蠅的任務／由安迪·格雷西主領
合作團隊：哥威新·亞迅、珍妮·芬頓、梅雷迪·沃爾
這組藝術家及科學家使用各表型果蠅作為天體生物學的實驗基礎，因為果蠅在 發育生物學及遺傳學的研究裡擔當重要的角色。
新種刺青／由亞當·沙域奇主領
合作團隊：鍚·旦域、海倫·布德、西門·凱
這組藝術家及醫生研究新概念「D N A 紋身」的可行性及探討當中涉及的倫 理、法律及健康議題。他們正創造一種簡稱為Shecan的「新媒體」並提取其中的 混合DNA。他們繼而改造一把紋身槍，意圖把這新序列的混合DNA注射到一個 活細胞的細胞核內。這想法在統計學上雖然是不可行的，但理論上是可行的。
花園小房式實驗空間／由基拉·奧賴利主領
合作團隊：菲萊麗·法咸、哥倫巴·格利、吉納維夫·麥斯韋
這組藝術家及科學家建立了一個空間去探索生物科技與日常經驗如烹飪、修補東 西、園藝等之間的關係。
實驗室生活
實驗室生活由惠康基金資助
實驗室生活是個獨特的互動藝術科學實驗室，由Lighthouse及The Arts Catalyst組成。藝術家安迪·格雷西構思並發起組織一班國際藝術家及科學家與 年輕一輩的醫生、科學家及藝術家合作，於Lighthouse的生活實驗室裡共同研究 一系列的尖端醫療科技。
藝術家及科學家創作了五個藝術科學項目，組成一個引人入勝的展覽的基礎，當 中涉及的技術包括：DNA紋身、天體生物學、微生物紡織品等等。這些項目有：
大家都誤會了科學／由布斯·吉傑思主領
合作團隊：吉·珍露、西蒙娜·卡茜圖、大衛·路菲亞、德卡·帕圖
這組藝術家及科學家用數天時間調查大眾對科學的理解程度。實驗室的到訪者 先聆聽一段關於合成科學的陳述，其後把聆聽所得的資料以繪畫形式表現出來， 展示他們對科學訊息及定律的理解。
感染性布料／由安娜·德妙主領
合作團隊：露絲·西域、莎娜·羅拔絲、布萊恩·迪加、梅科莎·格蘭特
這組藝術家及科學家的藝術創作以紡織品為基礎，在一條攝政式禮服上染上細菌 色素並以抗生素製作花紋圖案。
給果蠅的任務／由安迪·格雷西主領
合作團隊：哥威新·亞迅、珍妮·芬頓、梅雷迪·沃爾
這組藝術家及科學家使用各表型果蠅作為天體生物學的實驗基礎，因為果蠅在 發育生物學及遺傳學的研究裡擔當重要的角色。
新種刺青／由亞當·沙域奇主領
合作團隊：鍚·旦域、海倫·布德、西門·凱
這組藝術家及醫生研究新概念「D N A 紋身」的可行性及探討當中涉及的倫 理、法律及健康議題。他們正創造一種簡稱為Shecan的「新媒體」並提取其中的 混合DNA。他們繼而改造一把紋身槍，意圖把這新序列的混合DNA注射到一個 活細胞的細胞核內。這想法在統計學上雖然是不可行的，但理論上是可行的。
花園小房式實驗空間／由基拉·奧賴利主領
合作團隊：菲萊麗·法咸、哥倫巴·格利、吉納維夫·麥斯韋
這組藝術家及科學家建立了一個空間去探索生物科技與日常經驗如烹飪、修補東 西、園藝等之間的關係。
問與答 /
參觀者如何協助或妨礙藝術家
和科學家的創作過程？
大眾投入「實驗室生活」的方式有三：了解 （與藝術家和科學家對談）、參與（加入製作作品）和「必要參與」（作品必須靠公眾參與才可完成）。在「給果蠅的任務」和「花園小房式實驗空間」這兩個實驗室中，公眾不能直接參與作品，但可向科學家和藝術家查詢。由於參觀者眾，提問甚多，令大眾變成展覽的障礙—我們只好在最嚴峻的時間，關閉其中一所實驗室，或甚至全關。另外兩間實驗室︰「感染性布料」及「新種刺青」， 可供觀眾參與實驗、繪圖及研究，可說是受惠於大眾投入的創意。第五個實驗室「大家都誤會了科學」，需要大眾繪畫，以製成最終的動畫。
從實際角度出發，跟越多人互動，專注於作品的時間越少，然而往往一個來自大眾意想不到的評語或觀點，即能促進作品的討論和創作過程。
為何果蠅是生物和基因研究中最為重要的生物？
果蠅為其中一種常用於研究人類疾病起因及治療的生物；其實只要對一種動物有具體細緻的了解，明白該動物的身體如何運作，任何動物均可用作研究。
果蠅獲廣泛採用，因其體形細小，在實驗室容易飼養；此外果蠅的生命週期短促，令數代生物的研究能於數週完成。事實上，果蠅的基因組，已以二千種方法排序及出版，是以我們對其基因結構認識透徹。
果蠅可有進化過？它們跟遠古時是否一樣？如是，果蠅是否較人類更歷久不衰的品種，不如人類般靠進化續命？
果蠅和其他蒼蠅一樣，隸屬雙翅類。雙翅類動物早見於三疊紀中葉，亦即二億二千萬年前。雙翅類中，包括果蠅的短角亞目，在一億八千萬年前進化。自此之後，我們可以說果蠅的身體變化不大，雖然大量亞種、毒株、突變體和顯型叢生。
昆蟲一向是頑強的生還者，在數度令大量生物絕種的災難中安然渡過，而蒼蠅類已證明能擁有令一種生物捱過浩劫的特質。事實上從進化角度看，細小並具適應力的生物，比體型較大的生物更歷久不衰。話雖如此，但人類尚未遇過大規模的絕種災難，也許我們該看人類如何面對此等逆境才再作定論。
什麼使大眾誤解科學？
「實驗室生活」使大眾有機會接觸科學家，以及埋首探究科學思維的藝術家。他們工作的方式，以及把實驗過程放諸現場，均製造了新鮮感、視覺刺激和向長期閉關於實驗室的科學家提問的機會，從而吸引了參觀者。我們對此計劃的評估，反映大眾對科學的知識有所增加；而且幾乎所有參觀者，都有興趣和藝術家及科學家交流。跟實驗室一樣的公開討論空間，提供了安全、自由的環境，令大眾能對科學提問及表達想法。它同時亦是個引發好奇心的空間；所有提問都依據現場的實驗室環境出發。或許令大眾誤解科學的原因，是缺乏與科學家及藝術家接觸的機會。而另一難題，則為科學用語過分複雜專門，此問題在布斯．吉傑思的「大家都誤會了科學」中，以公眾繪畫的畫作製成的動畫，獲得剖析。其他大眾誤解科學的原因，包括坊間虛假的科學知識、抽離的科學教育，以及普羅大眾抱有「科學非我所能明白」的觀念。
理白科學和受惠於科學之間，可有關連？
有人可以完全不明白一個科學領域，
卻受惠於它嗎？
日常生活中，縱使一人全然不懂科學，依然能受惠；醫藥和數碼娛樂就是例證。大部份人都不知阿斯匹靈以水楊酸製成，但其治癒頭痛之效依然。但是，大眾亦能因明白科學而受惠；例如了解藥廠如何製藥，有助明瞭本土及全球藥物的政治，反思藥物如何影響人類。多舉一例，理解科學可使人產生對科學的興趣，自發研習，越是投入和理解科學，越能主動發掘科學的益處。
顯而易見，在「實驗室生活」中，對背後的科學過程多作了解，令大眾同時明白了藝術家及科學家的作品內所探討的哲學性疑問。大眾在參觀展覽過後，增加了對生物醫學的了解及好奇，而那是在參觀前所欠奉的。好奇心和信心有利於他們日後在日常生活中接觸科學。
參觀者如何協助或妨礙藝術家
和科學家的創作過程？
大眾投入「實驗室生活」的方式有三：了解 （與藝術家和科學家對談）、參與（加入製作作品）和「必要參與」（作品必須靠公眾參與才可完成）。在「給果蠅的任務」和「花園小房式實驗空間」這兩個實驗室中，公眾不能直接參與作品，但可向科學家和藝術家查詢。由於參觀者眾，提問甚多，令大眾變成展覽的障礙—我們只好在最嚴峻的時間，關閉其中一所實驗室，或甚至全關。另外兩間實驗室︰「感染性布料」及「新種刺青」， 可供觀眾參與實驗、繪圖及研究，可說是受惠於大眾投入的創意。第五個實驗室「大家都誤會了科學」，需要大眾繪畫，以製成最終的動畫。
從實際角度出發，跟越多人互動，專注於作品的時間越少，然而往往一個來自大眾意想不到的評語或觀點，即能促進作品的討論和創作過程。
為何果蠅是生物和基因研究中最為重要的生物？
果蠅為其中一種常用於研究人類疾病起因及治療的生物；其實只要對一種動物有具體細緻的了解，明白該動物的身體如何運作，任何動物均可用作研究。
果蠅獲廣泛採用，因其體形細小，在實驗室容易飼養；此外果蠅的生命週期短促，令數代生物的研究能於數週完成。事實上，果蠅的基因組，已以二千種方法排序及出版，是以我們對其基因結構認識透徹。
果蠅可有進化過？它們跟遠古時是否一樣？如是，果蠅是否較人類更歷久不衰的品種，不如人類般靠進化續命？
果蠅和其他蒼蠅一樣，隸屬雙翅類。雙翅類動物早見於三疊紀中葉，亦即二億二千萬年前。雙翅類中，包括果蠅的短角亞目，在一億八千萬年前進化。自此之後，我們可以說果蠅的身體變化不大，雖然大量亞種、毒株、突變體和顯型叢生。
昆蟲一向是頑強的生還者，在數度令大量生物絕種的災難中安然渡過，而蒼蠅類已證明能擁有令一種生物捱過浩劫的特質。事實上從進化角度看，細小並具適應力的生物，比體型較大的生物更歷久不衰。話雖如此，但人類尚未遇過大規模的絕種災難，也許我們該看人類如何面對此等逆境才再作定論。
什麼使大眾誤解科學？
「實驗室生活」使大眾有機會接觸科學家，以及埋首探究科學思維的藝術家。他們工作的方式，以及把實驗過程放諸現場，均製造了新鮮感、視覺刺激和向長期閉關於實驗室的科學家提問的機會，從而吸引了參觀者。我們對此計劃的評估，反映大眾對科學的知識有所增加；而且幾乎所有參觀者，都有興趣和藝術家及科學家交流。跟實驗室一樣的公開討論空間，提供了安全、自由的環境，令大眾能對科學提問及表達想法。它同時亦是個引發好奇心的空間；所有提問都依據現場的實驗室環境出發。或許令大眾誤解科學的原因，是缺乏與科學家及藝術家接觸的機會。而另一難題，則為科學用語過分複雜專門，此問題在布斯．吉傑思的「大家都誤會了科學」中，以公眾繪畫的畫作製成的動畫，獲得剖析。其他大眾誤解科學的原因，包括坊間虛假的科學知識、抽離的科學教育，以及普羅大眾抱有「科學非我所能明白」的觀念。
理白科學和受惠於科學之間，可有關連？
有人可以完全不明白一個科學領域，
卻受惠於它嗎？
日常生活中，縱使一人全然不懂科學，依然能受惠；醫藥和數碼娛樂就是例證。大部份人都不知阿斯匹靈以水楊酸製成，但其治癒頭痛之效依然。但是，大眾亦能因明白科學而受惠；例如了解藥廠如何製藥，有助明瞭本土及全球藥物的政治，反思藥物如何影響人類。多舉一例，理解科學可使人產生對科學的興趣，自發研習，越是投入和理解科學，越能主動發掘科學的益處。
顯而易見，在「實驗室生活」中，對背後的科學過程多作了解，令大眾同時明白了藝術家及科學家的作品內所探討的哲學性疑問。大眾在參觀展覽過後，增加了對生物醫學的了解及好奇，而那是在參觀前所欠奉的。好奇心和信心有利於他們日後在日常生活中接觸科學。
Introduction /
MORE THAN TECHNOLOGY AND TOOLS, DIGITAL CULTURE IS ABOUT IDEAS, EMOTION, LEARNING AND AESTHETICS
Lighthouse is a digital culture agency based in Brighton in the UK. We support, commission and exhibit work by artists and filmmakers. Lighthouse creates vibrant, inspirational programmes that show how important artists and filmmakers are in a changing media landscape. We work with digital art and moving image, which we present in our own venue in Brighton and beyond, nationally and internationally. By supporting artists and filmmakers, through commissioning, exhibition and professional development, we provide a platform for digital artists and creators to demonstrate that digital culture is about more than technology and tools; it is about ideas, emotion, learning, and aesthetics.
Lighthouse also runs the UK’s leading mentoring programme for filmmakers – Guiding Lights – which supports rising film talent by connecting them with some of the industry’s greatest names, including Sam Mendes, Alex Garland, Nick Hornby and Kenneth Branagh.
MORE THAN TECHNOLOGY AND TOOLS, DIGITAL CULTURE IS ABOUT IDEAS, EMOTION, LEARNING AND AESTHETICS
Lighthouse is a digital culture agency based in Brighton in the UK. We support, commission and exhibit work by artists and filmmakers. Lighthouse creates vibrant, inspirational programmes that show how important artists and filmmakers are in a changing media landscape. We work with digital art and moving image, which we present in our own venue in Brighton and beyond, nationally and internationally. By supporting artists and filmmakers, through commissioning, exhibition and professional development, we provide a platform for digital artists and creators to demonstrate that digital culture is about more than technology and tools; it is about ideas, emotion, learning, and aesthetics.
Lighthouse also runs the UK’s leading mentoring programme for filmmakers – Guiding Lights – which supports rising film talent by connecting them with some of the industry’s greatest names, including Sam Mendes, Alex Garland, Nick Hornby and Kenneth Branagh.
Exhibition /
LABORATORY LIFE (2011)
* Laboratory Life has been supported by the Wellcome Trust
Laboratory Life was a unique, interactive art-science laboratory, organised by Lighthouse and The Arts Catalyst. Conceived and led by artist Andy Gracie, a group of international artists and scientists worked with young doctors, scientists and emerging artists, to create a series of projects exploring the cutting edge of medical technology in a living laboratory at Lighthouse.
The artists and scientists created five art-science projects which formed the basis of a fascinating exhibition, featuring DNA tattooing, astrobiology, microbiological textiles and much more. The projects are:
Public Misunderstanding of Science led by Bruce Gilchrist. (UK)
Collaborators: Kate Genevieve, Simona Casonato, David Louwrier, Daksha Patel
This group of artists and scientists spent several days testing the public’s understanding of science. Visitors to their laboratory were invited to draw and illustrate their understandings of scientific information and protocol, while listening to scientific discourse on synthetic biology.
Infective Textiles led by Anna Dumitriu (UK)
Collaborators: Rosie Sedgwick, Sarah Roberts, Brian Degger, Melissa Grant
This group of artists, doctors and scientists worked on the development of a textile-based artwork that takes the form of a Regency-style dress stained with bacterial pigments and patterned by antibiotics.
The Quest for Drosophila Titanus led by Andy Gracie (UK/SPAIN)
Collaborators: Kuaishen Auson, Janine Fenton, Meredith Walsh
This group of scientists and artists were engaged in an astrobiological experiment using various phenotypes of Drosophila melanogaster (the fruit fly), one of the most important organisms used in developmental biology and genetics.
Tattoo Traits led by Adam Zaretsky (US)
Collaborators: Zack Denfield, Helen Bullard, Simon Hall
This group of artists and doctors examined the feasibility of a new notion – “DNA Tattooing”. They explored the ethical, legal, and health issues that might be raised by such a process. Their work involved the creation of a “new media” which they have referred to as Shecan, and the extraction of hybrid DNA from this media. They then adapted a tattoo gun, with the intention of tattooing a novel sequence of hybrid DNA into the nucleus of a living cell, something which is statistically improbable, but conceptually possible.
The Garden Shed Lab led by Kira O’Reilly (UK)
Collaborators: Valerie Furnham, Columba Quigley, Genevieve Maxwell
This group of artists and scientists created a space for exploring the relationship between biotechnologies and domestic everyday experiences, such as cooking, tinkering, composting, and gardening.
LABORATORY LIFE (2011)
* Laboratory Life has been supported by the Wellcome Trust
Laboratory Life was a unique, interactive art-science laboratory, organised by Lighthouse and The Arts Catalyst. Conceived and led by artist Andy Gracie, a group of international artists and scientists worked with young doctors, scientists and emerging artists, to create a series of projects exploring the cutting edge of medical technology in a living laboratory at Lighthouse.
The artists and scientists created five art-science projects which formed the basis of a fascinating exhibition, featuring DNA tattooing, astrobiology, microbiological textiles and much more. The projects are:
Public Misunderstanding of Science led by Bruce Gilchrist. (UK)
Collaborators: Kate Genevieve, Simona Casonato, David Louwrier, Daksha Patel
This group of artists and scientists spent several days testing the public’s understanding of science. Visitors to their laboratory were invited to draw and illustrate their understandings of scientific information and protocol, while listening to scientific discourse on synthetic biology.
Infective Textiles led by Anna Dumitriu (UK)
Collaborators: Rosie Sedgwick, Sarah Roberts, Brian Degger, Melissa Grant
This group of artists, doctors and scientists worked on the development of a textile-based artwork that takes the form of a Regency-style dress stained with bacterial pigments and patterned by antibiotics.
The Quest for Drosophila Titanus led by Andy Gracie (UK/SPAIN)
Collaborators: Kuaishen Auson, Janine Fenton, Meredith Walsh
This group of scientists and artists were engaged in an astrobiological experiment using various phenotypes of Drosophila melanogaster (the fruit fly), one of the most important organisms used in developmental biology and genetics.
Tattoo Traits led by Adam Zaretsky (US)
Collaborators: Zack Denfield, Helen Bullard, Simon Hall
This group of artists and doctors examined the feasibility of a new notion – “DNA Tattooing”. They explored the ethical, legal, and health issues that might be raised by such a process. Their work involved the creation of a “new media” which they have referred to as Shecan, and the extraction of hybrid DNA from this media. They then adapted a tattoo gun, with the intention of tattooing a novel sequence of hybrid DNA into the nucleus of a living cell, something which is statistically improbable, but conceptually possible.
The Garden Shed Lab led by Kira O’Reilly (UK)
Collaborators: Valerie Furnham, Columba Quigley, Genevieve Maxwell
This group of artists and scientists created a space for exploring the relationship between biotechnologies and domestic everyday experiences, such as cooking, tinkering, composting, and gardening.
Q & A /
In what way do the visitors to the lab assist or impede the artists and scientists in the creative process?
There were three different ways for the public to engage; enquiry (talking to artists and scientists); participation (taking part in the making of the works); and ‘required participation’ (where work couldn’t have been made without the public). In the two Labs of Drosophila Titanus and Garden Shed Lab, the public could not participate in the works directly, but could engage scientists and artists through making enquiries. Due to the sheer volume of visitors, the flood of enquiries led to the public impeding activity – which we managed by closing one or both of the Labs in critical periods. The other two Labs, Infected Textiles and Tattoo Traits, engaged the public through participation, where the public could take part in the experiments, drawing and investigation. These Labs benefited from creative input by the public. The fifth Lab, Public Misunderstanding of Science, required participation from the public to create drawings to form the final animation.
From a practical standpoint the more people you interact with the less time and focus you have for your work. However, there are always occasions in which an unexpected comment or point of view from a member of the public will stimulate both the discussion about the work and the working process itself.
What makes the fruit fly the most important organism used in developmental biology and genetics?
The fruit fly, Drosophila, is one of the model organisms used in studies of biological phenomena that concerns causes of and treatments for human diseases. Any creature can be used as a model organism if there is a wealth of biological data that allows us to understand in vivid detail of the way in which the organism works.
Drosophila melanogaster is widely used as it is small and easy to breed in the laboratory. It also has a very short generation gap that allows for several generations to be studied within a few weeks. The fact that its complete genome was sequenced and published in 2000 means that we already have had a very deep understanding of the genetic mechanisms of the organism.
Have they ever been to the evoluation process or what they are now is the original/ ancient form? If that being the case, are they the fitter and more durable species than us human who required the evoluation process to survive?
Drosophila belongs to the family of Diptera, along with most other flies. These creatures first appeared in the mid Triassic, about 220 million years ago. The suborder Brachycera, which includes the Drosophila, then evolved further about 180 million years ago. Since then it is fairly safe to say that the organism has remained fairly stable in evolutionary terms, despite the appearance and development of a large number of subspecies, strains, mutants and phenotypes.
Insects in general have proved to be great survivors, having come through several large scale extinction events, and the fly family has proven to have what it takes to make it through. The truth is that most of the smaller adaptable organisms are fitter (in the evolutionary sense of the word) and more durable than larger organisms such as mammals and large reptiles. Having said that, Human species have yet to face any large-scale extinction event, we should wait to see how we are under those circumstances before giving a final verdict.
What causes the lack of understanding of science in the public?
Laboratory Life gave people an opportunity to directly engage with scientists and artists who were making genuine enquiries into scientific thinking. The methods that they used and the visibility of the process drew audiences in through curiosity, visual stimulation and the opportunity to ask scientists who are usually lab-locked questions. Our evaluation of the project gave us feedback that the audience’s understanding of science had increased, and almost all visitors were interested in exchanging ideas with artists and scientists. Creating this open forum for debate, whilst in lab conditions, created a space of safety and freedom to enquire and express ideas about science. It also created a space of curiosity where any question is valid. Perhaps what is lacking in the public learning of science is the opportunity to engage with scientists and artists. Another problem is that scientific language is often complex and specific. This problem was explored by Bruce Gilchrist’s Public Misunderstanding of Science in a series of automatic drawings by the public. Other causes to cite include: a mixture of spurious scientific claims, media mishandling of scientific news, lack of engagement in scientific education and a widely held belief that ‘science is beyond me’.
Is there any relationship between understanding science and being benefited from science? Can someone be benefited from a field of science without any understading of which?
People definitely can benefit from science without understanding it on a daily basis, from medicine to components of digital entertainment technology. The vast majority of us do not understand that Aspirin comes from salicylic acid but it still cures our headaches.
But people can also benefit from science through understanding it – for example, understanding how drug companies put pharmaceuticals together can place you in a better position to understand the politics of medicine locally and globally, and to stimulate you to think about how medication impacts upon you. Another example might be of how understanding science might encourage someone to study that scientific subject or to further explore it for personal interest. The more we engage and understand science the better equipped we are to draw on its benefits even more in a less passive sense.
What was apparent in Laboratory Life is that when people gain an understanding of the underlying scientific process they begin to understand the questions raised philosophically by the work of artists and scientists. It leaves people with a sense of understanding and a curiosity about biomedical science that they did not have when they first arrived. This curiosity and confidence can then benefit them in their everyday interaction with science.
In what way do the visitors to the lab assist or impede the artists and scientists in the creative process?
There were three different ways for the public to engage; enquiry (talking to artists and scientists); participation (taking part in the making of the works); and ‘required participation’ (where work couldn’t have been made without the public). In the two Labs of Drosophila Titanus and Garden Shed Lab, the public could not participate in the works directly, but could engage scientists and artists through making enquiries. Due to the sheer volume of visitors, the flood of enquiries led to the public impeding activity – which we managed by closing one or both of the Labs in critical periods. The other two Labs, Infected Textiles and Tattoo Traits, engaged the public through participation, where the public could take part in the experiments, drawing and investigation. These Labs benefited from creative input by the public. The fifth Lab, Public Misunderstanding of Science, required participation from the public to create drawings to form the final animation.
From a practical standpoint the more people you interact with the less time and focus you have for your work. However, there are always occasions in which an unexpected comment or point of view from a member of the public will stimulate both the discussion about the work and the working process itself.
What makes the fruit fly the most important organism used in developmental biology and genetics?
The fruit fly, Drosophila, is one of the model organisms used in studies of biological phenomena that concerns causes of and treatments for human diseases. Any creature can be used as a model organism if there is a wealth of biological data that allows us to understand in vivid detail of the way in which the organism works.
Drosophila melanogaster is widely used as it is small and easy to breed in the laboratory. It also has a very short generation gap that allows for several generations to be studied within a few weeks. The fact that its complete genome was sequenced and published in 2000 means that we already have had a very deep understanding of the genetic mechanisms of the organism.
Have they ever been to the evoluation process or what they are now is the original/ ancient form? If that being the case, are they the fitter and more durable species than us human who required the evoluation process to survive?
Drosophila belongs to the family of Diptera, along with most other flies. These creatures first appeared in the mid Triassic, about 220 million years ago. The suborder Brachycera, which includes the Drosophila, then evolved further about 180 million years ago. Since then it is fairly safe to say that the organism has remained fairly stable in evolutionary terms, despite the appearance and development of a large number of subspecies, strains, mutants and phenotypes.
Insects in general have proved to be great survivors, having come through several large scale extinction events, and the fly family has proven to have what it takes to make it through. The truth is that most of the smaller adaptable organisms are fitter (in the evolutionary sense of the word) and more durable than larger organisms such as mammals and large reptiles. Having said that, Human species have yet to face any large-scale extinction event, we should wait to see how we are under those circumstances before giving a final verdict.
What causes the lack of understanding of science in the public?
Laboratory Life gave people an opportunity to directly engage with scientists and artists who were making genuine enquiries into scientific thinking. The methods that they used and the visibility of the process drew audiences in through curiosity, visual stimulation and the opportunity to ask scientists who are usually lab-locked questions. Our evaluation of the project gave us feedback that the audience’s understanding of science had increased, and almost all visitors were interested in exchanging ideas with artists and scientists. Creating this open forum for debate, whilst in lab conditions, created a space of safety and freedom to enquire and express ideas about science. It also created a space of curiosity where any question is valid. Perhaps what is lacking in the public learning of science is the opportunity to engage with scientists and artists. Another problem is that scientific language is often complex and specific. This problem was explored by Bruce Gilchrist’s Public Misunderstanding of Science in a series of automatic drawings by the public. Other causes to cite include: a mixture of spurious scientific claims, media mishandling of scientific news, lack of engagement in scientific education and a widely held belief that ‘science is beyond me’.
Is there any relationship between understanding science and being benefited from science? Can someone be benefited from a field of science without any understading of which?
People definitely can benefit from science without understanding it on a daily basis, from medicine to components of digital entertainment technology. The vast majority of us do not understand that Aspirin comes from salicylic acid but it still cures our headaches.
But people can also benefit from science through understanding it – for example, understanding how drug companies put pharmaceuticals together can place you in a better position to understand the politics of medicine locally and globally, and to stimulate you to think about how medication impacts upon you. Another example might be of how understanding science might encourage someone to study that scientific subject or to further explore it for personal interest. The more we engage and understand science the better equipped we are to draw on its benefits even more in a less passive sense.
What was apparent in Laboratory Life is that when people gain an understanding of the underlying scientific process they begin to understand the questions raised philosophically by the work of artists and scientists. It leaves people with a sense of understanding and a curiosity about biomedical science that they did not have when they first arrived. This curiosity and confidence can then benefit them in their everyday interaction with science.
