Creating life and the media: translations and echoes

Analysing bio-art’s epistemic landscape: from metaphoric to post-metaphoric structure

Since its emergence, bio-art has developed numerous metaphors central to the transfer of concepts of modern biology, genetics, and genomics to the public domain that reveal several cultural, ethical, and social variations in their related themes. This article assumes that a general typology of metaphors developed by practices related to bio-art can be categorised into two categories: pictorial and operational metaphors. Through these, information regarding several biological issues is transferred to the public arena. Based on the analysis, this article attempts to answer the following questions: How does bio-art develop metaphors to advance epistemic and discursive agendas that constitute public understanding of a set of deeply problematic assumptions regarding how today’s biology operates? Under the influence of today’s synthetic biology, could bio-media operationally reframe these epistemic agendas by reframing complex and multi-layered metaphors towards post-metaphoric structures? Finally, what are the scientific, cultural, and social implications of reframing?

The rose and the name: the unresolved debate on biotechnological terms

The largest survey on the perception of synthetic biology‐related disciplines (Porcar et al., 2019,EMBO Rep 20) recently revealed that the Spanish society does not have a very positive perception of the term synthetic biology. On the other hand, the terms biotechnology and even genetic engineering received relatively higher scores. The issue of nomenclature and perception is a classical one in science perception studies. Synthetic biologists have been debating their neologism (Synthetic Biology, from now on SB) for years. Even in a 2006 blog, Rob Carlson discussed the various labels for the new field, such as intentional biology, constructive biology, natural engineering, synthetic genomics and biological engineering. This diversity of names, along with the above mentioned negative public perception of the term synthetic biology, raises the question on whether the term itself is suitable or whether it could, in an extreme scenario, be replaced by another combining scientific consensus with public acceptance.