Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
DOI 10.1007/s11673-010-9279-6
Art and Bioethics: Shifts in Understanding Across Genres
Paul Ulhas Macneill & Bronaċ Ferran
Received: 16 May 2009 / Accepted: 25 November 2010 / Published online: 17 December 2010
# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract This paper describes and discusses over-
lapping interests and concerns of art and bioethics and
suggests that bioethics would benefit from opening to
contributions from the arts. There is a description of
recent events in bioethics that have included art, and
trends in art that relate to bioethics. The paper
outlines art exhibits and performances within two
major international bioethics congress programs
alongside a discussion of the work of leading hybrid
and bio artists who experiment with material (includ-
ing their own bodies) at the ambiguous intersections
between art, bio art and bioethics. Their work seeks to
engage audiences in challenging ethical precepts and
assumptions about life and existence. We consider the
response of art and social theorists and compare these
with the responses of bioethicists to comparable cases
in bioethics. We note divergent views within the arts
and within bioethics in relation to some pivotal
questions including questions about what limits, if
any, can apply in particular cases and on what basis.
P. U. Macneill (*)
Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School
of Medicine, National University of Singapore,
Dean’s Office, 1E Kent Ridge Road,
NUHS Tower Block, Level 11,
Singapore 119228, Singapore
e-mail: medpum@nus.edu.sg
B. Ferran
Innovation Design Engineering Department,
Royal College of Art,
London, UK
This approach allows for a transfer of information and
perspectives, challenges assumptions in both art and
bioethics and opens up a space for future exchange
and dialogue along the shifting borders between these
genres.
Keywords Humanities [K01] . Art [K01.093] .
Medicine in Art [K01.093.530] . Ethics [K01.316] .
Bioethics [K01.316.070] . Hybrid art . Bioart
Introduction
This paper, written by a “bioethicist” and an “art
theorist,” is a collaboration across the genres of art
and bioethics that aims to explore their relation to
each other. To do so, the paper describes trends in art
that relate to bioethics and recent events in bioethics
that have included art. The paper goes on to discuss
one of the ethical issues that emerges from these
descriptive accounts from the perspectives of both art
and bioethics, to open up and explore the possibility
of a deeper level of engagement across these genres.
“Recent events in bioethics” refers to the inclusion
of art exhibitions, performance and film in two major
international bioethics conferences. Both the World
Congress of Bioethics held in Rijeka, Croatia in 2008,
and the World Congress of Bioethics held in
Singapore in 2010 included an arts program. The
“trends in art that relate to bioethics” refers to the
work of hybrid artists and bio artists that has raised
72
issues relevant to bioethics. These two threads
became entwined in that in the interim between the
two World Congresses of Bioethics, organisers of the
2010 events explored the work of hybrid and bio
artists and incorporated a symposium that discussed
this work in the 2010 Congress arts program.
What follows is: a description of the arts events in
both Congresses; and a discussion of the work of
hybrid and bio artists that serves as an example of
theoretical implications and potential shifts in under-
standing that could result from a dialogue and deeper
engagement between the genres of bioethics and art.
This leads into a consideration of a broader context in
which art relates to science and ethics relates to art,
and to a discussion of the value of bioethics opening
to contributions from artists and social theorists so as
to broaden the scope of enquiry within both art and
bioethics.
Arts and Bioethics Programs
Arts and Bioethics Program, Croatia 2008
A desire for conversation across genres, and a
perceived need to build a new plurality within
bioethics discourse (with material from a broader
range of contributors and cultures) were motivations
in developing an arts and bioethics program within
the 9th World Congress of Bioethics, held in Rijeka,
Croatia, in September 2008, and the comparable
program in the 10th World Congress of Bioethics,
held in Singapore, in July 2010. Various components
of these programs are described here to set the scene
for a more exploratory discussion about bio art and
bioethics and an examination of some shared critical
issues.
The arts programs in the two Congresses were the
first of their kind in major international bioethics
conferences. The Croatian program comprised a
broad range of arts events as well as conference
papers. Topics addressed ranged from stem cells and
genetic manipulation, embryo creation, organ trans-
plants, mental illness, pharmaceutical marketing, and
abortion, to death and dying. The Singapore Congress
arts program addressed ethical challenges from hybrid
art, and ethics in documentary filmmaking.
World Congresses of Bioethics are held under the
auspices of the International Association of Bioethics,
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
which supports several networks—including an Arts
and Bioethics Network that was inaugurated in the
Croatian Congress (Bioethics Network 2010). This
Network was founded on the belief that the arts enrich
bioethics by opening it to new and creative
approaches to bioethical themes and in framing the
perception of ethical concerns. Issues such as cloning
and genetic engineering have been the subject of
movies, cartoons, novels, and the visual arts.1 Some
of these have captured the public imagination and
have recast the debates around these issues: for
example, the film Gattaca depicted a society in which
children were selected before implantation following
genetic diagnosis, and Bladerunner portrayed cloned
humans used for dangerous or menial work.
For the Croatian Congress, a broad approach was
taken to “arts and bioethics.” An invitation to
contribute “dance, dramatic performance, poetry
recitations, short films, music .... readings from fiction
... paintings, photos, posters, and installations”—or
papers on art and ethics—was widely distributed by
email and via relevant arts and bioethics web group
listings, as well as to specific artists with national and
sometimes international reputations, known to be
working on relevant themes. The resulting program
included an exhibition, a performing arts session, a
film, and academic papers, and is described as
follows.
The Exhibition
The “Art of Bioethics” exhibition comprised installa-
tions, ceramic art, painting and photography, and was
mounted (away from the main Congress venue) in the
Mali Salon, a downtown gallery of the Rijeka
Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art.
1
Movies: Bladerunner, 1992; Jurassic Park, 1993; The Lost
World, 1997; Alien Resurrection, 1997; Mimic, 1997; Gattaca,
1997; Metal Gear Solid, 1998; Johnny 2.0, 1998; Star Wars
Episode II: Attack of the Clones, 2002; Hulk, 2003; and The
Incredible Hulk, 2008. Cartoons: Gonick and Wheelis, 1991.
Novels: The Boys From Brazil, Ira, 1977; Brain Child, Turner,
1991; Glory Season, Brin, 1993; Beggars Ride, Kress, 1997;
Chromosome 6, Cook 1997; The Klone and I, Steele, 1998; The
Elementary Particles, Houellebecq, 2000; The Sacred Helix:
Do We Dare Do the Unthinkable? Garon, 2000; The Jesus
Thief, Lankford, 2003; The Christ Clone Trilogy, BeauSeigneur,
2003–04; Germline, Erlick, 2003; and Slatewiper, Perdue,
2003. Visual arts: ‘Multiplicity: 24 Artists Look at Cloning’,
Elvi, 1998; “Reinterpreting Science as Art,” Hunter.
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
An installation entitled “The Lake,” by Julie Free-
man, was a play of light and sound that resulted from
signals transmitted from bio-acoustic tags implanted
into fish to track their movement and behaviours in their
natural environment. The fish effectively composed
their own music, and provided the rhythm, patterning
and direction for movements of light (see Fig. 1). The
installation was accompanied by a video portraying the
project’s development. Partitioned off, behind heavy
curtains, the music and light display attracted consid-
erable interest and comments like “exuberant,” “rest-
ful,” “meditative,” and “good fun.” Freeman’s work
consistently engages with the leading edges of scien-
tific research. Through exhibiting and with participa-
tory events in science museums and other public
spaces, her work connects research in laboratories
(often hidden from the public domain) to new
audiences through hands-on experiment, dialogue,
observation and play. She provides communication
bridges between scientists and the general public and
scope for ethical considerations to be aired in dynamic,
half-serious, half-playful ways (Freeman 2010).
The installation “Closed Reality—Embryo,” by
Croatian Artist Andreja Kulunčić, was created as an
internet-based interactive game and was installed in the
exhibition with two computers stationed opposite—
each other and connected to the “Embryo” internet site.
Pairs of people attending the Exhibition sat at one
computer each, or linked in with anyone else who
connected from the internet, and designed an embryo—
each, unseen by the other—choosing preferred geneti-
cally determined “traits” from various options presented
on the web site for the game (Kulunčić 1999–2000). In
Photo: Sébastien Duprat
Fig. 1 Image from Julie Freeman ‘The Lake’
73
this way, partners (in the gallery or on the internet)
created virtual embryos, with traits contributed by each
partner. On the walls were graphs of the proportions of
the traits from embryos “conceived” by previous
players in comparisons with the same traits in the
proportions found in a “real” society.
The original project included presentations and
discussions on the topic of cloning and genetic
engineering, and these were shown during the
exhibition on an accompanying video screen. This
project was designed by Kulunčić and collaborators,
following the war between Serbia, Croatia, and other
ex-Yugoslavic countries in the mid-1990s. It had been
intended as a project to lift people’s vision beyond
issues of war. The artist also wanted to bring people
together—whose usual discourse was within their
separate enclaves—and have them talk across barriers
(Kulunčić, personal communication). Kulunčić is a
prolific visual artist with an international standing.
Many of her projects are politically provocative and
a number concern “bioethical” issues (for example
“Teenage pregnancy,” 2004; “Cyborg shop,” 2004; and
“Distributive Justice,” 2002. See http://www.andreja.org/
curric.html).
Whilst the issue of designer babies has been common
to many bioethics discussions, Kulunčić brought an
artistic sensibility to the topic through a different
medium from the usual debates on the subject in
conference settings (although the video discussions
that were a part of the project captured this form).
Participants reported a sense of responsibility for their
choices, in selecting the genetic makeup of a child, that
challenged previous intellectual positions.
Australian ceramicist Gus Clutterbuck exhibited
“sculptural objects” in bone china and porcelain that
were made using a variety of ceramic casting techni-
ques (Clutterbuck 2010). He was directly influenced
by bioethical sources in creating the exhibits “Balance
of power,” (see Fig. 2), “Drugs for healthy people,”
and “Strings attached: promotional mugs.” These
works were prompted by criticisms of pharmaceutical
companies’ marketing and its adverse impact of on
the medical profession (Clutterbuck, personal com-
munication). What Clutterbuck’s pieces did, with
considerable irony, was to bring to the surface implicit
messages behind drug company “gifts”: for example
“Strings Attached” featured an exhibit displaying
coffee mugs bearing the words “beneficence” and
“trust.”
74
Photo Michal Kluvanek
Fig. 2 ‘Balance of power’
The “Smile of a stem cell: a dialogue between
science and society” exhibit was a collection of 56
photos curated by Sébastien Duprat comprising
microscopy images of stem cells (see Fig. 3). All of
the photos were produced by researchers rather than
photographers per se, although they were produced
with apparent sensitivity to the beauty of their images.
Whilst this was a project to open communication
between a collaborative group of researchers and the
public—one that the presenters saw as “neutral”
(Duprat 2009)—it could nevertheless be seen as
carrying a vested political agenda in the charged area
of stem cell research (ESTOOLS 2010).2
“Quantum Gene” (Fig. 4), a painting by Chamun-
deeswari Kuppuswamy, interpreted changing concep-
tions brought about by quantum physics and genetics.
It was prompted by questions about the prerogative of
developmental biologists to define the “beginning of
life,” and whether there is any basis for distinguishing
between the living and the non-living organisms
following the sequencing of genes (Kuppuswamy,
personal communication).
The Performing Arts Session
The Performing Arts Session (held as a part of the
Congress program within the Congress venue) in-
2
Gigliotti raises the “inglorious possibility” (with reference to
Lestral) that artists working with biological technologies (and
by implication researchers producing photos such as these) are
“being manipulated—and not necessarily consciously either—
by technologists and multinationals; that they are serving to
legitimize practices that our cultures otherwise find it hard to
accept” (Gigliotti 2006).
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
Photo: Paul Ulhas Macneill
Fig. 3 Sébastien Duprat with photos from ‘Smile of a Stem
Cell’ collection
cluded The Carousel Ride, by Katherine Koller, a
play about a Canadian family with a seriously ill son
who was in need of a replacement kidney. A pivotal
scene from the play was presented as readers’ theatre,
in which the characters’ parts were read and acted by
invited Congress attendees following a single rehears-
al.3 In this scene, Brazilian nanny Esperança, in the
process of offering to “donate” one of her own son’s
kidneys, demanded $10,000 from her employer
Helen, mother of the ill son (see Fig. 5). Set against
the poverty of Esperança’s family and Helen’s
desperation, the morality of money exchanged for a
body organ was not as easily judged as it may appear
in the context of more abstract, “sanitised” papers
given in conference settings (Koller 2010).
Nettie Scriven and Peter Rumney’s “Icarus Project”
examined ethical implications of stem cell technologies
by way of Greek myth juxtaposed against “real life”
stories from the media in Britain. These stories repre-
sented topics debated amongst scientists, politicians and
the public (Dragon Breath Theatre Company 2010).
The original intention of the project was to work with
teenage school students who participated in creating
works of art to provide a stimulus for “experiential
learning in the science classroom” (Rumney, personal
communication) (see Fig. 6).
203 Days, a documentary by independent film-
maker Bailey Barash, was about stresses within a
3
Katherine Koller commented that “‘readers’ theatre’ can
become, in these circumstances, even more engaging for the
audience, because they know their readers as colleagues [and]
not using professional actors in this setting is actually helpful
for this reason” (Koller, personal communication).
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
Photo: Sébastien Duprat
Fig. 4 ‘Quantum gene’
family, and the struggles of family members coming
to terms with the impending death of the family
matriarch. On video, the dying woman described her
experience throughout those “203 days” and the
family revealed their difficulties in supporting her
and in contributing to her medical management. One
of Barash’s reasons for contributing to the Congress
was to engage with academics on the issues she
was exploring through documentary (Barash, personal
communication).
Severina’s Story was a documentary, produced by
Debora Diniz and Eliane Brum, about a young
Photo: Paul Ulhas Macneill
Fig. 5 ‘The Carousel Ride’ actors: Angela Thachuk &
Florencia Luna
75
Photo: Paul Ulhas Macneill
Fig. 6 Nettie Scriven & Peter Rumney ‘The Icarus Project’
woman in Brazil who had been required to give birth
to an anencephalic baby. The Brazilian Supreme
Court had given a preliminary authorisation for a
termination of this woman’s pregnancy but had
subsequently cancelled the authorisation (Diniz and
Brum 2005). In the Brazilian Penal Code abortion is a
crime except in the case of rape or to save a woman’s
life. There was no provision (at the time) to allow
abortion of non-viable foetuses (Diniz 2007). Just
days before this documentary was presented in the
Performing Arts Session in Croatia it was also
presented in Brazil by Diniz as evidence during a
Supreme Court public hearing that was considering
whether the Penal Code should be revised (Diniz,
personal communication). In this documentary, issues
of critical importance were presented in a moving and
compelling aesthetic work relevant to bioethics and
health law. Congress audience members, aware of the
Brazilian Supreme Court public hearing, reported a
sense of witnessing history as it was being written.
Two presentations in the performance session that
contributed effectively to the cultural diversification
of the Congress included: Sébastien Duprat’s reading
(in French) of his, ‘La vie, ma vie, c’est quoi? c’est
quand?’, a poem depicting life as an evolving concept
and describing the passage of a woman from her birth
to her death and the questions she faced as she aged;
and a dance performance by Chamundeeswari Kup-
puswamy of Savithri (see Fig. 7), a story of love
conquering death based on the tale of a royal couple,
Savithri and Satyavan, drawn from the Mahabhar-
atha, a major and ancient Hindu text (that continues
to be cited in discussions of ethics: Sen 2009).
76
Film
Raimond Gaita, a Professor of Moral Philosophy and
author of Romulus, My Father—a memoir of his early
life with his father and mother (see Fig. 8)—introduced
a screening of a film based on the book. Set in Australia
in the early 1960s, the film depicts some of the serious
challenges of mental illness in a society that lacked
understanding (as is often still the case today). Professor
Gaita spoke of what he had learned from the example
of his father about the ethical perspective one needs if
one is to respond without condescension to people,
including the severely mentally ill, whose affliction
often deprives them of all visible dignity and social
standing (Gaita, personal communication). In producing
a narrative memoir of this experience, Gaita under-
scored the affective capacity of literature, and—in the
event—film, to communicate in ways that build
empathy beyond the scope of philosophical discourse.
Academic Papers
Academic papers in the 2008 arts program included a
narrative account of a dying person’s experience,
another discussing an art workshop in a hospital setting,
and a paper that explored the potential of art to challenge
negative perceptions of one’s sexual organs.
Photo: Paul Ulhas Macneill
Fig. 7 Chamu Kuppuswamy performing ‘Savithri’
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
Arts and Bioethics Program, Singapore 2010
In comparison with the wide invitation and the diversity
of arts events in the 2008 Congress, the arts program in
the Singapore World Congress of Bioethics held in July
2010 was relatively focussed, with two Symposia
comprising panels of specifically invited presenters.
One Symposium was on “ethical challenges from hybrid
art,” and the other on documentaries that explored
themes relevant to bioethics.
Ethical Challenges from Hybrid Art Symposium
The “Art and bioethics: ethical challenges from
hybrid art” Symposium was proposed as a means to
take the arts program from the earlier Congress
forward by exploring an area of considerable interest
to artists. Surprisingly, hybrid art has attracted little
attention in bioethics journals thus far, yet it appears
to raise many relevant issues.4 The Symposium
provided an opportunity to stimulate discussion and
continued debate about these issues within bioethics.
The Symposium focussed on the work of bio artists
who play with biological forms and technologies and
engage in manipulating life forms in artistic explora-
tions. It also included discussion of do-it-yourself bio
art and “transhumanism” in its quest for radical
changes to humanity through technology.
The presenters at this Symposium included Ionat
Zurr, who is a researcher and academic coordinator of
SymbioticA: a “Centre of Excellence in Biological
Arts” (University of Western Australia) for artists and
researchers from other disciplines who use techniques
acquired from the life sciences to produce art
(SymbioticA 2010). She described “Tissue Culture
& Art(ificial) Wombs (AKA the Semi-Living Worry
Dolls)” as an example of their work (see Fig. 9). This
was an exhibit composed of cells cultured on polymer
scaffolds, each of which represented a “worry doll.”
Doll “A” for example (one of a series from “A” to
4
A search [Oct 2010] on “bioethics” + “hybrid” + “art”
produced no references on Philosopher’s Index, Web of Science,
or Medline databases. A search on “bioethics” + “bio art”
revealed one reference: “Bioterror and ‘Bioart’” (Annas 2006).
The only other references discovered (from other sources) were:
“Bioscience moves into galleries as bioart” (Cohen 2002);
"Bio-art: the ethics behind the aesthetics" (Stracey 2009);
Bioethics in the Age of New Media (Zylinska 2009); and
Spaulding (Spaulding 2008).
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85 77
Fig. 8 Bodi Janka as young
Raimond, Franka Potente as
Christina and Eric Bana as
Romulus in a scene from
‘Romulus, My Father’

“G”) stood for “the worry about Absolute Truths and The Documentaries Symposium
people who think they hold them.” These dolls were
offered with the hope that they might “take those The film and documentary symposium (entitled “Art
worries away.” This was clearly an artistic project but and bioethics: film and documentary”) was a contin-
expressed through emerging biological technologies uation of a documentaries strand presented in the
in a tone that was both serious and playful. Symbio- Croatian Congress. Bailey Barash, who also presented
ticA’s work, whilst often tongue-in-cheek, aims to in 2008, showed excerpts from her documentary The
draw attention to assumptions and ethical conventions AIDS Chronicles—Here to Represent. This documen-
within art, science and culture and open these up for tary portrayed the social and cultural impact of HIV/
critique and deeper understanding (Catts and Zurr AIDS on people from the urban African American
2002). population in the United States. Barash described her
Zurr also presented a paper on “Unnatural relations approach as “journalistic ethics in telling the stories”
between artistic research and ethics committees” in a which requires “accuracy, balance, and objectivity.”
further Singapore Congress session. She described
challenges that members of animal ethics committee
members had faced in deciding on the ethics of
artistic proposals. For example, committee members
had considerable difficulty evaluating a proposal from
SymbioticA to receive mice, left over from other
research projects, and give them names, a “nice
home,” and allow them to live out their “natural
lives.” Committee members were concerned about the
“lack of objectivity” and apparently had little com-
prehension of the difference between a scientific and
an artistic project nor any appreciation of the irony
inherent in the proposal itself.
Denisa Kera, another of the panellists in the
“hybrid art symposium,” described the proliferation
of “do-it-yourself” science groups, and the rise of a
street science movement inspired by people deter-
mined to “democratise” science. A third part of the
Symposium (led by author P. M.) was a discussion of
ethical challenges from hybrid and bio art, the main
Fig. 9 ‘The Slow Death of a Semi-Living Worry Doll G: An
points of which are incorporated in the discussion Irreversible Performative Execution’ (2007). The Tissue Culture
below. & Art Project (Oron Catts & Ionat Zurr)
78
Whilst being committed to the community she works
with, and to respecting her subjects’ life choices and
culture, she was also committed to showing an
undistorted view of their lives and living with the
disease. Ethical considerations extended into editing
(including considerations of pace, action, aesthetics
and the need for dramatic effect) so as to keep an
audience’s attention yet remain “true” to the reality of
the struggles of Afro-American people struggling
with AIDS.
Suzette Rosales Cody, a documentary filmmaker
working in Singapore, described herself as an
advocate for cancer awareness and environmental
protection. She presented excerpts from her docu-
mentary Pink Paddlers, which was about breast
cancer survivors who re-found passion for life
through dragon boat racing. The highlight of the
documentary was a race against fellow survivors in
the first “Breast Cancer Survivor Dragon Boat World
Championship” held in Singapore. Cody was
concerned to accurately portray the views of breast-
cancer survivors, whilst protecting them by editing
portions that might have embarrassed them (such as
scenes displaying angry outbursts between the partic-
ipants). Her documentary was intended to give hope
to others that living with a diagnosis of breast cancer
did not mean “giving up.” Some of the people who
featured in the documentary also attended the Sym-
posium and spoke of their experience of living with
breast cancer, and of being included in the documen-
tary project.
Debora Diniz, whose documentary Severina’s
Story had been included in the 2008 Congress
program, spoke in the 2010 Symposium about the
need she felt for balance between protecting her
subjects from harmful exposure and her desire to
draw public attention to the issues of a woman
carrying an anencephalic foetus. This concern—for
balancing protection of the subjects of the work with
achieving publicity and dissemination—was shared
by all three of these documentary filmmakers.
Discussion
In this discussion we take our investigation of the
relation between art and bioethics further in three
ways: by (1) exploring one particular topic—ethical
issues raised by the work of hybrid and bio artists—to
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
illustrate how discussion of issues in art could be
developed through bioethical commentary and analy-
sis; (2) considering art and bioethics within the
broader relationships of art and science, ethics and
aesthetics; and by (3) returning to the arts events
described in this paper to consider the value to
bioethics of opening to aesthetic explorations in this
way.
Hybrid and Bio Art
“Hybrid art” is a term that has been defined as the
work of artists who are “fusing different media and
genres into new forms of artistic expression” and
“transcending the boundaries between art and re-
search, art and social/political activism, art and pop
culture” (Ars Electronica 2010). In “bio art,” the
medium is living matter and works of art may be
produced by a range of techniques, including genetic
engineering, tissue culture, and cloning.
Artists working in hybrid ways include Paul
Vanouse (from the United States) who writes of a
“remaking of the world” wherein we “control our own
destinies.” In this new world, “reproduction is no
longer tied to sex, and sex is no longer tied to
reproduction.” Some of the “new possibilities” in-
clude placing pleasure neurons “anywhere in the
body” and tweaking them “to amplify sensation”
(CoNE 2010).
Other artists, notably Australian Stelarc and French
artist Orlan, have used their own bodies as substance
and material for their aesthetic explorations (Stelarc
2010; Orlan 2010). They take ideas of synthetic
augmentation and experiment, in a complex way, with
surrender and resistance to “the violation of the
subject” (Virilio 1988). As a result, “the self” is no
longer “a product of a fixed body and unchanging
identity, but emerges through the process of converg-
ing with technologies” (Toffoletti 2007, 119–20).
Stelarc’s work over 30 years has been seminal in
hybrid art. He has challenged notions of art itself, and
societal acceptance, in performances that include
suspending himself naked, in various settings, by
hooks through his flesh; and enabling a worldwide
internet audience to stimulate electrodes in his body
and control movements of a robotic third arm. In
2007, Stelarc had an “ear” implanted beneath the skin
on his forearm that represented for him a “prosthetic
augmentation” that is “not ... a sign of lack but rather
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
... a symptom of excess”. He has acknowledged the
ethical difficulties this creates for his surgeons and
medical advisors:
The problem is that it goes beyond mere
Cosmetic Surgery. It is not simply about the
modifying or the adjusting of existing anatom-
ical features (now sanctioned in our society), but
rather what’s perceived as the more monstrous
pursuit of constructing an additional feature that
conjures up either some congenital defect, an
extreme body modification or even perhaps a
radical genetic intervention (Stelarc 2010).
Orlan, in sculpting her body with images from the
history of Western art, offers a further challenge to
medicine. She has turned surgical operations into
baroque theatre with poetry, music, and costume
revealed in video and photographic images broadcast
live to galleries around the globe (Jeffries 2009; Orlan
2010).
Art and Cultural Theorists
Art and cultural theorists regularly debate issues
raised by hybrid and bio art. Gigliotti (writing in a
journal focussing on cultural issues) accuses bio
artists of failing to confront difficult ethical issues
raised in the use of animals in their work, and of
obscuring and frustrating responses that might illumi-
nate those issues (Gigliotti 2006).
Dominique Lestel’s concern is whether art and
artists play different roles from (say) surgeons, in
ethical debates concerning bio and cognitive technol-
ogies with the potential to manipulate life itself. In her
view, “the question is no longer what humans can do
... but what humans are authorised to do” and she
describes this as “the ethical question” (Lestel 2007).
She notes that, “[w]hilst the reasons for transforming
living organisms for the benefits of humans are
sometimes questioned, the instrumental justifications
brought to these practices have rendered them
acceptable. But artistic manipulations belong to a
different category” (Lestel 2007). Lestel’s position,
however, is relatively conservative.
There are more radical calls for a new morality as a
consequence of new technologies and changing
conceptions of “the human.” Joanna Zylinska (who
describes herself as a “cultural theorist”) proposes “a
new ethics of life” rooted in the relation between the
79
human and non-human (both animal and machine)
that has become important as an outcome of techno-
logical advancement (Zylinska 2009). Philosopher of
science Joan Broadhurst Dixon questions the sustain-
ability of “an ethics of objective boundaries” when
the nature of being human is fluid and in question
(Broadhurst Dixon and Cassidy 1998, 164–66).
Although (as noted) there has been little if any
debate about the ethics of hybrid and bio art in
bioethics literature, blogger Eric Spaulding has taken
issue with what he terms “ethically questionable
practices” on Bioethics.com, where he writes of the
“macabre works of artists-turned-biotechnologists like
Oron Catts, who, for a recent exhibition made a steak
from artificially grown frog muscle cells, chewed it
up, and then spit [sic] out the remnants for use in a
later work” (Spaulding 2008).
Wannabe Amputees
As a means of redressing the lack of discussion in
bioethics literature we turn to a related and difficult
area in medicine: surgery for reasons other than
health. This includes cosmetic surgery, sexual reas-
signment surgery, and amputations of healthy limbs
by choice. Of these we look more closely at
“amputations by choice” (or “wannabe amputees”)
as this is the most controversial of the three and
because it has some elements that make it comparable
to requests from hybrid artists for changes to their
bodies for the sake of art, such as Stelarc’s “prosthetic
augmentation,” Orlan’s facial surgery, and Vanouse’s
amplification and multiplication of pleasure centres.
The purpose is to identify the salient ethical features
of requests for surgery in the case of “wannabe
amputees” and to consider if these arguments apply
equally to requests for surgery for the sake of art.
In a study of “wannabe amputees,” bioethicist Carl
Elliott was “struck by the way wannabes use the
language of identity and selfhood in describing their
desire to lose a limb” (for example: “[m]y left foot
was not part of me”). Some have carried their desire
through to amputation by self-mutilating an unwanted
limb to such an extent that it has required amputation
by a surgeon. He concedes that, “there is a simple,
relentless logic to these people’s requests for ampu-
tation.” Elliott also acknowledges that surgery has
been used for fat reduction, lengthening penises,
augmenting breasts, redesigning labia, and (in perfor-
80
mance artists) implanting silicon horns5 and splitting
the tongue like a lizard’s. Nevertheless he has a
number of reservations about surgery for wannabe
amputees (Elliott 2003, 208–36).
Others, however, are less circumspect. Julian Savu-
lescu concluded that, “not only might amputation be
permissible in some situations, it might be desirable”
(Savulescu 2006). Psychiatrist Christopher Ryan, in
considering the “ethical management” of “Body
Integrity Identity Disorder” (BIID—the condition
now attributed to “wannabe amputees”) concludes that
“amputation of the healthy limb may be appropriate” in
some circumstances and that “[s]ufferers of BIID might
be relieved to know that members of the medical
profession will take their concerns seriously and that ...
elective amputation of their troubling limb is a real
possibility” (Ryan 2009).
Dan Patrone disagrees and observes that “BIID
demands for amputation, at present, are considered to
be requests for unethical treatment and are not honoured
by any surgeon or hospital in the west” (Patrone 2009).6
He notes that in papers supporting amputation, it is
“the autonomy argument that does the lion’s share of
the justificatory work.” But these people lack the
necessary competence to make autonomous decisions,
as “BIID patients” do not have the capacity to meet the
“standards of autonomous and informed decisions” in
that they suffer from “neurotic compulsion” (Patrone
2009). Both Elliott and Patrone draw attention to
surgical amputation as “irreversible and disabling” and
refer to the “first do no harm” principle that is
fundamental to medical ethics.
Johnston and Elliott consider that this is an issue of
the “proper scope of medicine,” which is a question
that may ultimately be settled in courts of law. This is
similar to the question raised by Lestel (above) about
“what humans are authorised to do” (Lestel 2007).
Unless medical opinion were to shift significantly it is
doubtful that the courts would find amputation to be
within the “public interest” even if it is accepted that
the person desiring an amputation was competent to
consent (Johnston and Elliott 2002).
5
This is apparently a reference to Orlan.
6
This may be true “at present” although there are documented
exceptions: Scottish surgeon Robert Smith amputated limbs
from two patients (Dyer 2000; Johnston and Elliott 2002) and
United States surgeon John Ronald Brown was convicted of
second-degree murder following the death of a patient whose
limb he had amputated (Dotinga 2000).
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
However, the legal response to hybrid art chal-
lenges may not be so restrictive. The surgery
requested by Stelarc could be distinguished from
“wannabe amputee” surgery on a number of grounds.
The issue of consent appears to be much less
compromised. In Stelarc’s own descriptions of his
proposal for an ear on an arm, obsession of the nature
exhibited by the “wannabe amputees” is not apparent.
Furthermore, on the issue of harm, Stelarc has argued
cogently that this is augmentation rather than harm
(Stelarc 2010).
This leaves the issue of “proper medical treatment”
and “public interest” to be resolved (Johnston and
Elliott 2002). On the one hand, the public may find
Stelarc’s proposal to be a “monstrous pursuit” (to use
Stelarc’s words) but he could argue, nonetheless, that
there is a public interest in supporting the arts. If
legally challenged, would a court see this as out-
weighing any repugnance toward the disfiguring nature
of an “ear on the arm”? We would anticipate that
Stelarc would have a chance of succeeding. Similarly,
an argument for Orlan’s facial surgery, based on
medical and societal acceptance of cosmetic surgery,
would be hard to resist. It may be different for
Vanouse’s proposal to augment sexual pleasure centres.
Although no one is currently proposing surgery to do
so, it is reasonably predictable that, at least for now,
courts would respond more conservatively.
Many Perspectives
It is apparent that there is divided opinion between art
and cultural theorists on hybrid and bio art. From the
survey of a related field within bioethics (above) it is
predictable that opinion would be divided within
bioethics also. Nevertheless, we believe bioethics has
a valuable contribution to offer in that both hybrid
and bio artists raise ethical questions about medicine,
human composition, and life—but from different
perspectives. It is likely that bioethics itself may be
challenged in that answers that rely on common-place
formulations such as “balancing benefits and harms”
are not so easily applied to aesthetic projects.
The broad questions arising from hybrid and bio art
call for consideration from a range of perspectives
including, of course, the artists involved. Catts and Zurr
(from SymbioticA) describe their work with tissue
culture as “an effective methodology to confront the
complexities and to contest dominant ideologies.” They
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
contend that critics miss the irony in works such as their
laboratory cultured “victim-less” steaks (critiqued by
Spaulding above), which exposed to satire the fact that
animals lose their lives in producing the nutrients
needed to grow the tissue culture (Catts and Zurr 2008).
This discussion also draws attention to the trans-
gressive nature of art and the conservative nature of
society. Artists often challenge societal norms work-
ing with and against the boundaries of taste and
expectation. In turn society comes to accept a woman
surgically transforming her face into historical icons
of beauty, naked men hanging from hooks, and may
also accept an ear on the inside of a man’s arm, or
works of art generated from tissue culture, genetic
engineering, and cloning. Nevertheless, a considered
reflection on the ethical questions raised by this work
would benefit from a range of views, including those
from bioethics.
Art and Science/Ethics and Aesthetics
A relationship between art and bioethics can be
situated within broader relationships: between art
and science; and ethics and aesthetics. European
Union policy and funding bodies have supported
artists in engaging with social, scientific, ecological,
medical and technological concepts and concerns as
part of the day-to-day material of their work (Ferran
2006). Many of the benefits emerging from these
intersections between disciplines have been noted
(Leach 2006; Brickwood et al. 2007) and these
include a growing recognition of the arts as an
effective way of stimulating debate and engaging
people with social, cultural and ethical issues around
contemporary science (Webster 2006). In reverse, a
potential for art to stimulate creativity in science has
been observed (Arts Science Encounters 2009).
Similarly the value of embracing the “humanities”
within medicine continues to be advocated (Cassell
1984; Ahlzén 2007; Gordon 2008; Hooker 2008;
Evans 2008).
Surgeon and bioethicist Miles Little has written in
this journal of an overlap in the discourses encom-
passing art and bioethics. In common with philoso-
phers from ancient to relatively recent times, he
suggests that there is a “nexus between ethics and
aesthetics”. He argues that this relationship is even
more apparent today and observes that discussions of
moral subjects are influenced by images especially
81
when those images have emotional and aesthetic
qualities. He notes that powerful images in common
currency in the media become “tacit knowledge” and
tend to frame our approach to ethical issues. This is to
play on the empirical reality that an aesthetic
experience can open one to a moral dimension.
Consequently, discourses of art and ethics tend to
overlap. He concludes that aesthetics and ethics “do
more than illuminate one another. In significant ways,
they constitute one another” (Little 2010).
These broader considerations apply to the relation-
ship between art and bioethics also. Just as there is a
valuable complementarity in the relationship of art
and science, we claim that there is complementarity
and potentially illuminating relationship between art
and bioethics. Many of the ethical issues within
bioethics are shaped and influenced by powerful
emotional and aesthetic qualities.
Value of Arts Events in a Bioethics Program
Having canvassed the value of bringing a bioethics
perspective to the “ethical challenges from hybrid and
bio art,” and considered the complementarity of the
relationship between art and bioethics (as above), we
contend that the need for bioethics to open to
aesthetic explorations becomes apparent. The partic-
ular question we are considering here is the value to
bioethics of arts events in a World Congress of
Bioethics. We offer the following assessment in terms
of the value to Congress audiences, and to the wider
readership of a bioethics journal.
The goals for the Art and Bioethics Programs in
both World Congresses were to: enrich the programs
by encouraging conversation across the genres of art
and bioethics; bring both a creative approach to, and a
visceral experience of, common themes; and offer
new perspectives (from a broader range of contrib-
utors and cultures) to encourage diversification of
bioethics discourse.
These goals were partially achieved within the 2008
Congress. Many of the works allowed registrants to
participate in new ways relative to other bioethics
conferences. For example The Carousel Ride, presented
as “readers’ theatre,” engaged both the naïve actors
and, vicariously, the rest of the audience in a family
drama concerning organ transplantation. Similarly, the
installation “Closed Reality—Embryo” invited partic-
ipants to make choices in creating “virtual embryos.”
82
Anyone entering this “game” was drawn, unwittingly,
into the artist’s perspective and experienced the issue
emotionally as well as cognitively. The documentary
Severina’s Story was compelling because of the
suffering conveyed and the empathic response it
induced. These works also had the effect of diversify-
ing and broadening Congress content in terms of both
the topics raised and contributors’ disciplinary and
cultural perspectives. Similarly, in the 2010 Congress,
the Film and Documentary Symposium conveyed the
personal, social and cultural impact of HIV/AIDS on
African American people through the imagery and
stories of people living with the disease. The docu-
mentary Pink Paddlers portrayed the enthusiasm and
hope engendered in breast cancer survivors—by
participating in a dragon boat race—in a manner not
so easily communicated by other means.
In the 2008 Congress, however, the overall impact of
the arts events was limited by key factors. Firstly the arts
program was not fully integrated in terms of timing and
location. Only a small proportion of the Congress
registrants attended the exhibition and the film, although
a larger number attended the performance session that
was run within the program and held in the main venue.
Secondly, the 2008 arts program was broad and
addressed areas of ethics in variable and diffuse ways.
The range of the artistic works included was also
diffuse. Ideally a program of this kind would be curated
by an arts specialist to provide focus and a strand of
communication and interpretation so as to make the
program more accessible to new audiences.
The 2010 Congress addressed some of these
factors by including symposia within the main
Congress program and on-site (rather than in an off-
site gallery and theatre as in Croatia). The symposia
were also on topics that were more obviously related
to bioethics than some of the events and exhibits in
the 2008 Congress, and both symposia drew good
audiences. The 2010 Congress included fewer actual
exhibits and performances and the presentations
included examples of the artists’ work in the mode
of “talking-about” rather than actual performance.
This appears to have been more successful (judging
by audience size and participation) in the context of
an academic conference. As in 2008, not all Congress
registrants attended these symposia although those
that did responded positively.
What is perhaps obvious is that not everyone
working within the field of bioethics and attending a
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
World Bioethics Congress will be attracted to an arts
program (at least when choosing between competing
events). However, we suggest that a professional and
critical approach to curation, communication and
interpretation, especially given the challenging nature
of avant-garde work at the edges of art and ethics,
could enable and encourage more engagement and
response from those attending, whether or not they
are familiar with the overlapping concerns of the arts
and bioethics.
The inclusion of an arts strand within major
bioethics events and within the related literature is
likely to lead to a further positive outcome. Artists
engaging with these themes and topics could benefit
from specialist input from bioethics at formative
points in the development of their work, as well as
in the later stages of production and dissemination.
The value of documenting this mutual exchange for
broader dissemination would also enable others
working in the broader field of arts and science, and
those working on the borders of bioethics, to find
their way through often contested and difficult areas
of debate.
When major bioethics programs include arts events
and performances there is, we claim, a potential shift
in perception about the breadth of the field, even for
those who may not be directly involved. The
inclusion of an arts and performance program not
only enriches and enhances the experience of all
involved, it brings a variety of perspectives into the
bioethics arena, broadens both the scope of enquiry
within art and bioethics, and the potential for
understanding. Whilst few may be affected directly,
many more are influenced by a widening of the
agenda and diversification of the recognised forms of
bioethics discourse. This includes readers of a
bioethics journal.
Conclusions
It is evident from this brief survey of the work of
artists working at the boundaries of art, science, and
ethics, and from the description of exhibits and
activities within two World Congresses of Bioethics,
that engagement at a deeper level across the genres of
art and bioethics offers a broad range of experiences
and insights. The Congresses introduced art work
relevant to bioethics from a range of media, including
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
the work of hybrid and bio artists who intentionally
raise ethical concerns—some of which are in the area
of bioethics. From the literature of both art and
cultural theory there is clearly an overlap of interest in
ethics and many of the issues raised are of concern
within bioethics.
A major premise of the paper is that the approaches
of artists, bioethicists and art theorists differ and that
bringing them together is potentially illuminating.
Artists can act as probes and catalyse the involvement
of a wider audience in direct and visceral ways. They
demonstrably enliven and animate significant topics
and themes, including many of interest to bioethics,
and develop new forms of engagement that allow for
participation and discovery through enactment and
embodiment and not just through abstraction or
theory. Relative to the consistent seriousness of
science, medicine and bioethics, their work can also
employ fun, light-hearted or ironic strategies and
techniques, although with an equally serious intent. In
their various ways, artists working within the terrains
of bioscience and biomedical research have drawn
attention to ethical issues that challenge bioethics to
evolve by including multiple perspectives and more
diverse voices: work that requires an ongoing en-
gagement to address adequately the ethical issues and
theoretical concerns that are raised. In turn engage-
ment with bioethicists could provide a resource for
addressing some of the most contested areas of
disagreement and divergence within the arts and
cultural studies. A sustained collaboration of this kind
would bring attention to ethical elements in the
complex negotiation across art and science borders
and add to the repertoire of approaches in both art and
bioethics. In turn, this has the potential to shift
understanding in the discourses surrounding both of
these genres.
Acknowledgments Thanks to: Chamundeeswari Kuppuswamy,
Co-convener and organiser (with author P.M.) of the 2008 World
Congress of Bioethics “Arts and Bioethics Program”; the artists and
presenters in both Congresses—Bailey Barash, Gus Clutterbuck,
Suzette Rosales Cody, Debora Diniz, Sébastien Duprat (for photos
and poetry), Julie Freeman, Raimond Gaita (art exhibition opening
and movie discussant), Katherine Koller, Andreja Kulunčić,
Chamu Kuppuswamy (for dance and painting), Peter Rumney,
Nettie Scriven, Ionat Zurr, and all the artists for commenting on
earlier drafts of this paper; the 2008 Congress organisers (and in
particular Congress Secretary General Dr Iva Sorta-Bilajac,) for
generous support with materials and venues, providing volunteer
staffing for the Exhibition, and assistance in event organisation; the
83
2010 Congress organisers (and in particular Professor Alastair V.
Campbell, Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Calvin Ho and
Charmaine Chan) for assistance with the 2010 Arts program; to
Nataša Ivančević (Acting Director of the Rijekan Museum of
Modern and Contemporary Art—MMCA); Ivo Matulić (MMCA
Exhibition Coordinator), Tonči Samardžija, Vanja Pužar (MMCA
exhibit mounters); the Rijekan City Council (providing MMCA
resources); MMCA for making Kulunčić’s “Closed Reality—
Embryo” installation available; BLITZ Film, Croatia for permis-
sion to show the movie Romulus, My Father; Tamara Asmar
(Arenafilm and Footprint Films), Sébastien Duprat, Michal
Kluvanek, and Ionat Zurr (SymbioticA) for permission to use
photographs taken/supplied by them. Thanks also to the journal
reviewers of earlier versions of this paper.
Artists and Performers Bailey Barash is an independent
television producer and journalist from Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Winner of 2005 and 2007 CINE Golden Eagle Awards for her
documentaries and several journalism fellowships. Her current
work focuses on issues of aging, public health, and health care
and economic disparities among low-income Americans. URL:
http://www.bbarash.com/ (last accessed October 2010).
Gus Clutterbuck is an Australian visual artist, currently based at
JamFactory Craft & Design, Adelaide, where he produces
contemporary ceramics and works on paper, which are
exhibited in Australia and Internationally: http://www.avicam.
com/profile/clutterbuck.php (last accessed May 2010).
Suzette Rosales Cody is Managing Director/Producer of Green
Mango Productions, writer, and documentary filmmaker, and
an advocate for cancer awareness and environmental protection.
URL: http://greenmango.com.sg/index_files/Page1470.htm
(last accessed October 2010).
Debora Diniz is a documentary filmmaker, Adjunct Professor at
the University of Brasilia, and researcher at the Institute of
Bioethics, Human Rights and Gender (ANIS), Brasilia, Brazil.
Sébastien Duprat, poet, and curator of the “Smile of a Stem
Cell”, is Training and Outreach manager for ESTOOLS, a
research project funded by the European Commission’s 6th
Framework Program, concerning human embryonic stem cell
science, ethics and law.
Julie Freeman was (at the time of writing) artist in residence,
Microsystems and Nanotechnology Centre, Cranfield University,
UK. “The Lake” was originally exhibited at Tingrith Fishery, UK,
and has subsequently shown in London, Brazil, Russia, and the
USA. Translating Nature, http://www.translatingnature.org/ (last
accessed November 2010).
Raimond Gaita is Professor of Moral Philosophy at King’s
College London, and Foundation Professor of Philosophy at the
Australian Catholic University and Fellow of the Australian
Academy of the Humanities.
Denisa Kera is Assistant Professor within the Communications
and New Media Programme in the Faculty of Arts & Social
Sciences, National University of Singapore and member of
Science, Technology, Society (STS), and the research cluster:
Asia Research Institute.
Katherine Koller is a Canadian playwright with plays per-
formed on CBC radio, in theatre festivals, and various
playhouses in Canada. Her work includes short plays on health
ethics issues for presentation and discussion in clinical settings.
http://www.katherinekoller.ca/ (last accessed Novembner 2010).
Andreja Kulunčić is one of Croatia’s most internationally
84
recognised artists, with solo and group exhibitions in Croatia
and around the world. She is renowned for her political art
activism (or “intervention” in her terms): http://www.andreja.
org/ (last accessed November 2010).
Chamundeeswari Kuppuswamy is a Lecturer, School of Law,
University of Sheffield; and Indian dancer (in the Bharathanatyam
style); a painter; and co-founder (with author P.M.) of the Arts
Bioethics Network within the International Association of Bioethics.
Peter Rumney and Nettie Scriven are Senior Lecturers, Notting-
ham Trent University; and Artistic Directors of the Dragon Breath
Theatre Company. http://www.dragonbreaththeatre.com/ (last
accessed November 2010).
Ionat Zurr is Assistant Professor, Academic Coordinator and
researcher at SymbioticA—The Centre of Excellence in
Biological Arts, School of Anatomy and Human Biology,
University of Western Australia.
References
Ahlzén, R. 2007. Medical humanities—Arts and humanistic
science. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10(4):
385–393.
Annas, G.J. 2006. Bioterror and “Bio art”—A plague o’ both
your houses. The New England Journal of Medicine 354
(25): 2715–2721.
Ars Electronica. 2010. website: http://new.aec.at/prix/en/kategorien/
?cat=Hybrid%2520Art. (last accessed November).
Arts Science Encounters. 2009. Recording in collaboration
with Cafe Scientifique website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/arts-
science/recordings. (last accessed December 2010).
Barash, Bailey. 2006. ‘203 Days’. University of Connecticut
Health Center website: http://fitsweb.uchc.edu/Days/days.
html. (last accessed November 2010).
Bioethics Network. 2010. website: http://www.bioethics-
international.org/iab-2.0/index.php?show=networks. (last
accessed May).
Brickwood, C., B. Ferran, D. Garcia, and T. Putnam (eds.).
2007. (Un)common ground: Creative encounters across
sectors and disciplines. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
Broadhurst Dixon, J., and E. J. Cassidy, eds. 1998. Virtual
futures: Cyberotics, technology and posthuman pragma-
tism. London and New York: Routledge. http://www.
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415133807/qid%
3D980123857/sr%3D1-1/ref%3Dsc%5Fb%5F1/103-
8486940-7546219/digitalartsource/104-9993805-5743152.
(last accessed November 2010).
Cassell, E.J. 1984. The place of the humanities in medicine.
New York, Hastings-on-Hudson: The Hastings Center.
Catts, O., and I. Zurr. 2002. Growing semi-living sculptures: The
tissue culture and art project. Leonardo 35(4): 365–370.
Catts, O., and I. Zurr. 2008. The ethics of experiential
engagement with the manipulation of life. In Tactical
biopolitics: Art, activism, and technoscience, eds B. da
Costa and K. Philip, 125–142. Cambridge, Massachusetts;
and London, UK: The MIT Press. Available at http://www.
scribd.com/doc/25895911/8822-Tactical-Bio-Politics-Art-
Activism#fullscreen:on. (last accessed November 2010).
Clutterbuck, G. 2010. website: http://www.avicam.com/profile/
clutterbuck.php. (last accessed November).
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
Cohen, H. 2002. Bioscience moves into galleries as bio art. The
Scientist 16(22): 57.
CoNE. 2010. website: http://critical-art.net/Original/cone/coneWeb/
welcome/bg1.html. (last accessed November).
Diniz, D. 2007. Selective abortion in Brazil: The anencephaly
case. Developing World Bioethics 7(2): 64–67.
Diniz, D. and E. Brum. 2005. Severina’s Story (Uma História
Severina). Brasília: ImagensLivres. http://hub.witness.org/
fr/node/8605 (last accessed November 2010).
Dotinga, R. 2000. Salon (29 August): 1–2. Available at http://
www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/08/29/amputation/.
(last accessed November 2010).
Dragon Breath Theatre Company. 2010. website: http://www.
dragonbreaththeatre.com/. (last accessed November).
Duprat, S. 2009. Art and human embryonic stem cells: From
the bench to the high street. Stem Cell Research 2: 97–
100.
Dyer, C. 2000. Surgeon amputated healthy legs. BMJ 320(7231):
332.
Elliott, C. 2003. Better than well: American medicine meets the
American Dream. New York and London: Norton.
ESTOOLS. 2010. website: http://www.estools.eu/estools/index.
(last accessed November).
Evans, H.M. 2008. Affirming the existential within medicine:
Medical humanities, governance, and imaginative under-
standing. The Journal of Medical Humanities 29(1): 55–59.
Ferran, B. 2006. Creating a program of support for art and
science collaborations. Leonardo 39(5): 443–445.
Freeman, J. 2010. website: http://www.translatingnature.org/.
(last accessed November).
Gigliotti, C. 2006. Leonardo’s choice: The ethics of artists
working with genetic technologies. AI & Society 20(1):
22–34.
Gonick, L. and M. Wheelis. 1991. The cartoon guide to
genetics: A soft approach to hard science. http://bancroft.
berkeley.edu/Exhibits/Biotech/cartoon.html. (last accessed
November 2010).
Gordon, J. 2008. Humanising doctors: What can the medical
humanities offer? The Medical Journal of Australia 189
(8): 420–421.
Hooker, C. 2008. The medical humanities—a brief introduc-
tion. Australian Family Physician 37(5): 369–370.
Jeffries, S. 2009. Guardian (1 July): http://www.orlan.net/download/
guardian_july09.pdf. (last accessed November 2010).
Johnston, J., and C. Elliott. 2002. Healthy limb amputation:
Ethical and legal aspects. Clinical Medicine 2(5): 431–435.
Koller, K. 2010. website: http://www.katherinekoller.ca/. (last
accessed November).
Kulunčić, A. 1999–2000. “Closed Reality—Embryo.” Created by
A. Kulunčić (artist), T. Lane (designer), G. Sabol (sociolo-
gist), M. Puzar (programmer), I. Martinović (photographer):
http://embryo.inet.hr/. (last accessed November 2010).
Kulunčić, A. 2010. website: http://www.andreja.org/curric.
html. (last accessed November).
Leach, J. 2006. Extending contexts, making possibilities: An
introduction to evaluating the projects. Leonardo 39(5):
447–451.
Lestel, D. 2007. Liberating life from itself: Bioethics and
aesthetics of animality. In Signs of life—bio art and
beyond, ed. E. Kac, 151–160. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
Bioethical Inquiry (2011) 8:71–85
Little, J.M. 2010. Is there a real nexus between ethics and
aesthetics? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7(1): 91–102.
Orlan. 2010. website: www.orlan.net. (last accessed November).
Patrone, D. 2009. Disfigured anatomies and imperfect analo-
gies: Body integrity identity disorder and the supposed
right to self-demanded amputation of health body parts.
Journal of Medical Ethics 35(9): 541–545.
Ryan, C. 2009. Out on a limb: The ethical management of
bodily identity disorder. Neuroethics 2: 21–33.
Savulescu, J. 2006. Autonomy, the good life and controversial
choices. In The Blackwell guide to medical ethics, ed. R.
Rhodes, L. Francis, and A. Silvers. New York: Blackwell.
Sen, A. 2009. The idea of justice. London and New York:
Penguin.
Spaulding, E. 2008. Vision for bioaesthetics. http://bioethics.
com/. Scroll to Author/Eric Spaulding/entry for 2 February
2008/A Living Art, Part 3 (last accessed November 2010).
85
Stelarc. 2010. website: http://web.stelarc.org/.(last accessed No-
vember, 2010); and http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/projects/
extra_ear/index.htm (last accessed November).
Stracey, F. 2009. Bio-art: the ethics behind the aesthetics.
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 10: 496–500.
SymbioticA. 2010. website: http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/.
(last accessed November).
Toffoletti, K. 2007. Cyborgs and Barbie Dolls—Feminism,
popular culture and the posthuman body. London: I. B.
Tauris.
Virilio, P. 1988. Interview with Paul Virilio. Block 14 Special Issue
Edition 5—The Work of Art in the Electronic Age: 4–7.
Webster, S. 2006. Art, science and the public. In. Engaging Science:
Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, ed. J. Turney London,
UK: Wellcome Trust: 74–79.
Zylinska, J. 2009. Bioethics in the age of new media.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.