William S. Burroughs' Preserved Poop Inspires 'Bio-Art' Piece

Feb 11, 2011 – 3:16 PM
David Moye

Controversial 20th-century novelist William S. Burroughs was best known for his novel "Naked Lunch," and now two "bio-artists" are hoping to turn the remains of his last lunches into art.

Adam Zaretsky and Tony Allard are the creators of "Mutate or Die: A W.S. Burroughs Biotechnical Bestiary," an ongoing project that basically turns a piece of Burroughs' poop into a piece of art.

Burroughs died in 1997 at the age of 83 in Lawrence, Kan., and the poop being used belongs to a family friend and is covered in epoxy, presumably until it could be used for a higher purpose such as this.

Courtesy Adam Zaretsky

Artists Adam Zaretsky and Tony Allard are creating an art piece using a piece of poop that was once in the colon of controversial writer William S. Burroughs.

Zaretsky, who has a background in biotech, and Allard, a college professor in San Diego, say their plan is to "take a glob" of the preserved poop, isolate the DNA and make lots of copies of it.

After that, they will soak the DNA dust in gold dust and load it into a "gene gun," a modified air pistol used to insert DNA into plants, worms, rats and humans for experiments.

The DNA dust collected from the poop will be loaded into the pistol, which will then be shot into a mix of blood, poop and semen and then, according to the artists, be declared either a "living bio-art," a "new media print," a "living cut-up literary device" or a mutant sculpture.

Allard admits the concept is, for many people, like poop itself: not easy to grasp even if you're fully aware of its purpose.

"The main response we get from people is, 'Are you serious?' " he told AOL News. "But this is not your typical art project. We see this as a paradigm shift from representational art, since, in this case, the art is in the living organism."

The idea for turning Burroughs' poop into art dates back to October 1996, when Allard was living in Kansas City, Mo., and tried to get the author's DNA sequenced at the scanning electron microscope at the University of Missouri at Kansas City.

That didn't happen, but Allard was able to make things happen after he met Zaretsky at a symposium.

"He asked me what I could do with [Burroughs'] s--t," Zaretsky said. "I told him we could isolate and amplify the DNA from the turd and make a bucket of DNA, and I could throw it in his face.

"But, I also mentioned that if we could raise some money for a gene gun, I could shoot the genes into his balls. After some fundraising, I think we have ourselves a potential to go on a gonad bender."

Allard believes this attempt to make what he calls a "transgenic mutation" fits in better with the spirit of Burroughs' work than the original plan. It also has the complete approval of Burroughs' estate.

"One of Burroughs' most famous quotes is 'Mutate or die!' and mutants run through his work," Allard said.

So do bodily fluids. The mixing of Burroughs' poop and DNA with blood and semen belonging to others is meant to be sort of a shout-out to the author's pioneering "cut-up" technique of writing, in which he cut random book pages in half and mismatched them with other pages.

And the fact that the DNA is being shot with a gun is also an allusion to the 1951 incident when Burroughs shot and killed his wife while playing a drunken game of "William Tell."

But Allard says just the fact they are doing this with DNA is what is truly Burroughsian about the project.

"In the scientific community, transgenic mutations are common," he said. "A piece of corn might have the gene of a flounder to keep it drought-resistant. However, there are controls. It's normalized.

Allard says the randomness of this project flushes that notion down the toilet.

"The exact sciences are obsessed with tight controls over random factors," he said. "They don't do things like this just to see what will happen, but this is what we're interested in. Burroughs was opposed to any kind of control system. He believed in diversity through mutation, which is what this is."

Although Allard and Zaretsky have joked that the combination of blood, sperm and poop could somehow create a race of Burroughs-bred turd monsters, Allard is quick to point out that the amount of the writer's DNA in the poop is actually small.

"The amount of DNA in the s--t is fairly minuscule; it's more like the DNA of what was in his gut at the time," he said.

But the reaction to the project has been robust in just the few days since they announced it -- and that reaction is the first part of what they expect to be a two- to three-year project.

"The first part is announcing the project and having the public comment on it, but we probably won't extract the DNA sample until the fall," he said. "We're creating a context for a dialog.

"In most cases, s--t is an ending point. Here, it's a starting point."

http://www.aolnews.com/discuss/2011/02/11/william-s-burroughs-preserved-poop-inspires-bio-art-piece

'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

Thursday, 20 May 2010
By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News

Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell.

The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell.

The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated" by the synthetic DNA.

The advance, published in Science, has been hailed as a scientific landmark, but critics say there are dangers posed by synthetic organisms.

The researchers hope eventually to design bacterial cells that will produce medicines and fuels and even absorb greenhouse gases.

The team was led by Dr Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Maryland and California.

He and his colleagues had previously made a synthetic bacterial genome, and transplanted the genome of one bacterium into another.

Now, the scientists have put both methods together, to create what they call a "synthetic cell", although only its genome is truly synthetic.

Dr Venter likened the advance to making new software for the cell.

The researchers copied an existing bacterial genome. They sequenced its genetic code and then used "synthesis machines" to chemically construct a copy.

Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism.

"As soon as this new software goes into the cell, the cell reads [it] and converts into the species specified in that genetic code."

The new bacteria replicated over a billion times, producing copies that contained and were controlled by the constructed, synthetic DNA.

"This is the first time any synthetic DNA has been in complete control of a cell," said Dr Venter.

'New industrial revolution'

Dr Venter and his colleagues hope eventually to design and build new bacteria that will perform useful functions.

"I think they're going to potentially create a new industrial revolution," he said.

"If we can really get cells to do the production that we want, they could help wean us off oil and reverse some of the damage to the environment by capturing carbon dioxide."

Dr Venter and his colleagues are already collaborating with pharmaceutical and fuel companies to design and develop chromosomes for bacteria that would produce useful fuels and new vaccines.

But critics say that the potential benefits of synthetic organisms have been overstated.

Dr Helen Wallace from Genewatch UK, an organisation that monitors developments in genetic technologies, told BBC News that synthetic bacteria could be dangerous.

"If you release new organisms into the environment, you can do more harm than good," she said.

"By releasing them into areas of pollution, [with the aim of cleaning it up], you're actually releasing a new kind of pollution.

"We don't know how these organisms will behave in the environment."

Dr Wallace accused Dr Venter of playing down the potential drawbacks.

"He isn't God," she said, "he's actually being very human; trying to get money invested in his technology and avoid regulation that would restrict its use."

But Dr Venter said that he was "driving the discussions" about the regulations governing this relatively new scientific field and about the ethical implications of the work.

He said: "In 2003, when we made the first synthetic virus, it underwent an extensive ethical review that went all the way up to the level of the White House.

"And there have been extensive reviews including from the National Academy of Sciences, which has done a comprehensive report on this new field.

"We think these are important issues and we urge continued discussion that we want to take part in."

Ethical discussions

Dr Gos Micklem, a geneticist from the University of Cambridge, said that the advance was "undoubtedly a landmark" study.

But, he said, "there is already a wealth of simple, cheap, powerful and mature techniques for genetically engineering a range of organisms. Therefore, for the time being, this approach is unlikely to supplant existing methods for genetic engineering".

The ethical discussions surrounding the creation of synthetic or artificial life are set to continue.

Professor Julian Savulescu, from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, said the potential of this science was "in the far future, but real and significant".

"But the risks are also unparalleled," he continued. "We need new standards of safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections from military or terrorist misuse and abuse.

"These could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons imaginable. The challenge is to eat the fruit without the worm."

The advance did not pose a danger in the form of bio-terrorism, Dr Venter said.

"That was reviewed extensively in the US in a report from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a Washington defence think tank, indicating that there were very small new dangers from this.

"Most people are in agreement that there is a slight increase in the potential for harm. But there's an exponential increase in the potential benefit to society," he told BBC's Newsnight.

"The flu vaccine you'll get next year could be developed by these processes," he added.

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm