Housing living neurons

Jill Scott is Professor in the Institute of Cultural Studies in Art, Media and Design at Zurich University of the Arts, co-director of the Artists-in-Labs Program and vice-director of the Z-Node PhD program on art and science at the University of Plymouth, UK. She has exhibited many video artworks, conceptual performances and interactive environments and more recently interactive media and electronic sculptures based on studies she has conducted in neuroscience particularly somatic response and artificial skin and on retinal responses and neuromorphology.

Jill Scott at the hYbrid Exhibition

Bio-ethical discourses are of extreme significance in today’s society. What are the roles scientists and artists can play in this debate?

First, I would like to say that for me the term "ethics" requires a sense of shared responsibility about the future of scientific research and its impact on society. Unfortunately, bio-ethical discourses are not yet very transdisciplinary, and this presents a problem as combined expertise may help to boost the sharing of ethical responsibilities onto a new level. For me a conference like "Hybrid" in Portugal, for example, became especially interesting when we started to discuss the difference between provocation and activism in relation to the raising of public awareness and also in relation to expanding the audience for bioart. We definitely need more debates and discussions because while artists and scientists may feel like they are playing significant roles they are not really working out any strategies together. Certain obvious debates like the impact of genetically modified food on society may need these strategies before presentation to the general public. Presently the public is voting for decisions for which they are not informed.

Art can play an important part in bringing science closer to the public. Do you see art as a way to generate debate and inform the public of scientific advancements?

Yes, I think actually art can be catalyst to raise public awareness, but perhaps art needs to becomes more scientifically robust, so that it is understood by the scientific community. We believe that scientific illustration of biological processes is a separated field of study. Art on the other hand may even challenge scientific reductionism or the actual processes in the laboratory environment itself. It would certainly help if the museums and public spaces became more trandisciplinary. I would actually like to see artwork properly exhibited alongside scientific illustration in Science Museums and scientific illustrations shown in art galleries, so that interpretation would compliment illustration. This has already taken place in the Exploratorium in San Francisco or the Natural History Museum in London. In vary rare instances art could be commissioned by scientists to interpret their research in the foyer of the lab or in the lab itself. This commission should not condone scientific visualization or educational therapy, as then an artist would loose his or her own voice of self-reflection. Self-reflection seems to be an essential bridge to the heart of the society.

From your experience with the artistsinlabs program and Z-node you are well positioned to comment on science and art projects. What are the main outcomes for the artists and the scientists? Is it a symbiotic relation?

At the moment many organizations are often like marriage councillors who encourage collaborations, but they could also aim to raise respect between the disciplines. I really do think that we still have to introduce and encourage these necessary meetings, but we are also trying to give scientists the opportunity to experience more contemporary art or discuss the poetic interpretations of ethical issues. In turn we pay the scientists to teach their lab processes and encourage the artist to understand the ethical debates from the scientific perspective, before communicating anything to the public. In our partners bio-science labs artists have access to the full processes of biological analysis. Therefore, a conceptual art background seems to be very beneficial. Any real symbiosis between an artist and a biologist depends on many correlating factors including the development of a good friendship. On the one hand, a media artist who is resident in bio-informatics, may have a better chance to actually collaborate with scientists because of their shared interest in constructing models and inventing software tools. On the other hand, the atmosphere in the bio-lab is much friendlier but the access to actual materials, is also more restrictive. After having hosted 20 artists in 17 labs since 2003, we have learnt that the most important issue is the Know-how transfer and the enthusiasm to learn from both sides.

With regard to your artistic practice, can you tell us what are your main scientific interests?

My main interests are in Neuroscience, because my background is in interactive media. I was always interested in the human body and I often used media to augment perceptive neural responses to our environment. This has included a four years study 2002-2006 of the somatic sensory system (e-skin) and a two-year study (2006-2007) about neuromorphology of the visual system (The Electric Retina). In each case I was an unofficial resident (meaning no support) in labs at the University of Zurich (The Artificial Intelligence Lab at the University of Zurich and the Brain Institute at the Neurobiology Lab, Institute of Zoolology). The results attempted to combine personal interpretation with scientific research and they took the form of sculptures and wearable artworks for impaired people. Now I am moving into material science because of researchers into the structural potentials of biomaterials to house living neurons. I am looking forward to start a new project in September 08 about this subject.