WorkHorse Zoo Introduction: On the grand scale, molecular biology is simultaneously seen in Utopic and Dystopic lights. A great deal of hope is invested in the products of genetic engineering. Many novel strains of life are being used to bolster markets like global agriculture, animal husbandry/IVF, drug development and gene therapy (somatic and germline). The possible elimination of many inherited or acquired diseases keep a great many suffering people watching for promising results from recent clinical trials. A great deal of fear is also cathected to the biotechnological sector. It is not unusual to confront Biophobic visions of environmental apocalypse or intuit military applications. To top it off, we are becoming Posthuman and slowly dealing with the loss of human identity as we had thought we were. It is for this reason that my hopes and fears coagulate around the central question of ‘What Is Bad Taste?’ as it becomes imbedded in life’s cascade. Scientific and industrial organisms, created for specific utilization or for the furtherance of comprehension, are also expressions of aesthetic choices. This is why I feel it is my duty as an artist to learn these technologies. Instead of phobic reaction, I am attempting to critically embrace the processes of life’s permanent and inheritable alteration. New reproductive strategies are opening the doors to rapid evolutionary trends, nationalized, racialized, popular and corporate. Are there more aesthetic organisms? The lack of a common global aesthetic and a historical track record of bad taste (i.e. ethnic cleansing, line dancing, liposuction and most painting) provides me with the impetus, the eclectic fecundity to guarantee iconoclasm in a situation which could all too easily lead to the erasure of the same. This is the impediment and the allure that epitomizes the crossroad between biology and the arts. Description: I feel a strong desire to surround myself with the most known and least know organisms on earth, the industrial workhorses of molecular biology. When I say surround myself I mean in a teeming and messy way, uncontrolled pestilence, flies and worms and frogs. These animals are research subjects but they are living beings as well. I would like to fill a portable cleanroom (an aseptic containment facility) with the least aseptic barrage of industrial life possible. One three meter by four meter CleanRoom able to house a variety of the workhorses of Molecular Biology together in environment of coexistence and natural integration. A sample list would include Escherichia Coli (bacteria), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Brewer’s Yeast), Drosophila M. (vinegar fly), C. Elegans (worm), Arabidopsis Thaliana (mustard plant), (Zebrafish), Xenopus Laevis (African Claw Toed Frog), Murine (Mice). By the way, this is not a transgenic art so my ease in playing on fear of uncontained wild life is not an illegal and irresponsible act. Within the cleanroom these microenvironments should overlap allowing free range for all the animals to hunt and be hunted in this ‘natural’ setting. The Zebra Fish should enjoy eating the C. Elegans whom, in turn should enjoy any E. Coli snacks they come across. Xenopus do eat zebrafish and each other. I guess we will see whether the mice are good at fishing after 50 years of domesticity. And don’t worry, if the mice starve, the flies will suck on anything that rots, as will the mustard plants in a more subtle way (mulch). Eventually I would like to find a way to establish a dynamic- equilibrium in this semi-closed food chain. _ That seems implausible but at least I will know how to raise them separately and find time to analyze their funky temperaments. Perhaps I will enact the quintessential ‘playing God’ by dressing in a white robe and fake beard and adding food or more organisms to adjust the balance of power over time. I know two hungry xenopus will put away fifteen zebrafish in five minutes. It is plausible that I might live in an installation like this for a week or so, to document interactions and to be a spectacular lifeform as well. I recently invited an old friend to join me, e-excerpt follows: AZ -- > I’m planning a zoo of industrial critters: > > I’m wondering if you > Wanna live in it with me for a week > in a cleanroom > in a museum in Kansas > filled with flies and worms and mice, etc? > we could wear full aseptic containment facility wardrobe. > we could net tropical fish and fry them > or just have friends feed us Doritos like fish. KW -- >Hey Adam, the gallery sitting sounds fun, can we take showers? or does that >have to be on exhibit too, or no shower? I have to say, I love this one and look forward to swimming with the Zebrafish. I think it’s apropos for me to accentuate how this comments on the state of the ‘natural’ in our divisive social landscape. For me, it comes down to a rift between two visions of Nature and my third yet least popular version of the world of life. The first envisions Mother Nature as a vestal virgin. Clean, untouched and essentially a victim of human rape. The subtext reads loudly that we are dirty and sinful humans with our predominant motives being gluttony and destruction. This truth emphasizes the human destruction of all the gifts that evolution has provided. We are destroying ourselves. We are the temporary heads of the food chain and dealing, badly, with the behaviors that got us here. This is Deep and cynical Ecology. Another paradigm sees Nature as red in tooth and claw, a beast that maims and kills indiscriminately. Through the application of our inherited talents to survive, we will overcome all the trials and tribulations of any chaotic situation that confronts our precarious situation. We are like a giant mass immune system ready to battle polio, syphilis and cancer, enemies of life and joy. In this battle we may have to study all of the possible problems of life regardless of conventional moral bias. This is the manifest destiny of Health Science rhetoric. Both Ideas presume moral superiority. Both claim to be humane. And neither is truly represented by the Workhorse Zoo. Instead, I am curious and slightly obsessed with the life cycle, so Let’s Just Let It Cycle. In a strange way I think am a demented naturalist, as is nature in many ways. So, more than any essential anality on either side lets set a precedent for bioart as a love for slimy, gooey, sticky, pulsating, throbbing, jumping, flapping, living and dying, eating and having sex, Everyday Life. Public Knowledge Purpose: To introduce the public these particular species in an installation environment. I feel as if the display of these animals, (preferably wild type, not genetically modified but the fish, frogs and mice could be wild-type albinos), in a spectator arena is an aid towards intelligent discussion about animal research, pro or con, without the moral superiority of pat answers. These are the organisms that shoulder the brunt of scientific invasiveness. These are the organisms whose genomes have been sequenced, partially annotated and altered beyond the plausible. These are the evolutionary templates whom we search for homologies to assess our own inherited pains. Much of the public has little or no idea how much the study of these select strains effects their health and potential physical future. Personal Knowledge Purpose: To get to know the life cycle and habitat of most of the major WorkHorses of the modern Life Sciences. In particular, the organisms with completed genomes should be in the repertoire. I want to learn the lab protocols for keeping these funky guys alive. And, I want to understand the conditions of their environment outside of the lab. My preference for learning both habitats is to be able to blend perfect lab conditions with things like soil and rotting fruit. Also, It is important to contrast their preferred niches to an industry standard, protocol driven recipe for animal maintenance. Finally, I am not sure of the interactions between these organisms and look forward to finding out how dynamic this complex semi-closed system will be. Artistic Purpose: To show an exuberance of life in an environment at once artistic, scientistic and ‘natural’. To compare or perhaps exacerbate the division between natural and artificial worlds. To compare the concepts of Nature and Domesticity by a botched version of the wild being presented under NIH standard biological rules of containment (HEPA Filters!) To fall in love with these particular strains as they may be a big part of my life’s work. Delivered-To: mit@emutagen.com X-Sender: protocol@sfsu.edu Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:56:30 -0700 To: zaretsky@mit.edu From: Committee for the Protection of Human and Animal Subjects Subject: Animal Subjects Protocol Cc: swalters@cluster1.sfsu.edu October 4, 2001 Dear Mr. Zaretsky: The SFSU University Animal Care and Use Committee has reviewed your protocol #01-028 "Conceptual information Art". YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE COMMITTEE AND THE RESEARCH MAY NOT PROCEED. If you have questions, please contact me at 338-1093 or protocol@sfsu.edu. Sincerely, Linda Blackwood, PhD Chair, University Animal Care and Use Committee To: emutagen@emutagen.com From: Committee for the Protection of Human and Animal Subjects Subject: Animal Subjects Protocol Cc: fonteyn@cluster1.sfsu.edu, swalters@cluster1.sfsu.edu >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:38:45 -0700 >To: kmorison@sfsu.edu, swalters@sfsu.edu >From: Paul J Fonteyn >Subject: Zaretsky Animal subjects protocol >Cc: lblackwo@sfsu.edu >Status: U > > ; margin-bottom: 0 } -->l Keith and Sylvia, > Normally, I don't inform you about decisions concerning actions taken on >protocols made by the Committee for the Protection of Human and Animal >Subjects but I feel I must this time to ensure that Mr. Zaretsky does >comply with the decision of the committee. I feel that I must in form you >because what he proposes to do involves, among other things, housing >multiple species together, allowing dead animals to decay, and not >providing either food or water for the mice in the installation. In short, >his project breaks all the rules for animal care and use. > If he were to carry out his project on our campus and the USDA or an >NIH Inspector were to find out, SFSU would be shut down from conducting >any research on this campus. If our students and faculty saw this >project,they undoubtedly would notify PETA, and the members of this >organization would rightfully be all over the university because the >project,in the words of one of the committee member's, "shows a totally >cavalier and disrespectful attitude for animals." > If you have any additional concerning this project, please don't hesitate >to contact Linda Blackwood, the Chair of SFSU's University Animal Care and >Use Committee. > Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter. >-- > Paul J. Fonteyn > > Dean of Graduate Studies, > Associate Vice President, Research > and Sponsored Programs > San Francisco State University > Voice: (415) 338-2231 > > October 11, 2001 Dear Mr. Zaretsky: Your proposal "Workhorse Zoo" contained two major grievous violations of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Specifically, these are: 1) proposing to withhold food, clean water and care, and 2) housing multiple species together. These serious violations resulted in your proposal being denied by the SFSU UACUC after their initial, preliminary review. I feel I must point out that your proposal reflected a very cavalier attitude toward laboratory animals. Your stated project represents abuse of animals, in direct contrast to the Animal Welfare Act that the Committee must support, and does so willingly and ardently. Working with laboratory animals is a privilege that carries with it enormous responsibility for the welfare of these animals on the part of both the institution and the researcher. The violations stated above leave us with no alternative but to deny your application. Sincerely, Linda Blackwood, Chair SFSU UACUC Hi Linda I understand the position of the Committee and though my temperament differs, I am not as of yet objecting. I would like to reword an acceptable version of this project. I hope to arrive at an artistic compromise that coincides with this particular moment in protocol. I ask again whether its proper to appeal or reapply? In conjunction, I would hope for a direct answer about being allowed access to the electric discussions of the committee. I believe I read that proper review of these records is in order? I do understand that this preparatory research on an art installation did not get past initial, preliminary review. As a neophyte in the realm of Human and Animal Subject Protocol on a State Campus, the committee's commentary may be an irreplaceable teach-tool. Adam Zaretsky Delivered-To: emutagen@emutagen.com Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:24:54 -0700 To: emutagen@emutagen.com From: Jean Gustin Subject: frog dayz Hey Adam, Great domain name/email address. Tryin' to initiate dialog whenver/however ya' can i see. A quick survey of lab personnel sez that we're injecting a female with HCG tonight (monday, 10/15), and we'll be collecting her eggs and doing fertilizations tomorrow (tues., 10/16), throughout the day. I imagine we'll start collecting eggs around 9 or 10am.....the quantity of eggs varies with each frog, so we get from 1-6 clutches of eggs, depending. And unfortunately, we sometimes get NO eggs. We'll have to wait 'n see. You can either stop by tomorrow, or just give us a call (8-6998) and see how things are going. If all goes well, one of the students will be injecting the resulting embryos with a fluorescent compound (rhodamine). see ya'/talk to ya' soon, jean Domingo Laboratory Department of Biology San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway, HH201 San Francisco, CA 94132 (415) 338-6998; fax (415) 338-2295 Feel free to advise. October 16, 2001 Dear Mr Zaretsky: In order for your protocol to be reconsidered for review by the UACUC, there are certain absolute criteria that need to be met. They are: l. Different species must be housed separately. 2. All animals must receive adequate food, water and care. 3. Housing must be available for all animals proposed. While rodents may be easy to accommodate, Xenopus housing may not be currently available and may need to be provided by the investigator. 4. Appropriate permits for the Xenopus must be provided to the committee before they will review a protocol proposing their use. Since the interaction between species seems to be integral to you project, it is unclear to me how you could redesign this project to meet federal guidelines for animal care and housing. If, however, the proposed project is substantially altered to address these issues, the committee will review it. Sincerely, Linda Blackwood, PhD Chair, SFSU UACUC Delivered-To: emutagen@emutagen.com Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:23:19 -0700 To: Adam Zaretsky From: Jean Gustin Subject: Re: frog dayz Oh I'm sure you'll have puh-lenty of other opportunities..... Nothin's happenin' on this particular Wednesday....aside from looking at the embryos that we'll make on Tuesday (today). Katy might be making some explants/extirpations, so there might some microsurgery stuff happening. Nothing to do with the adults though. There's a possibility that we're setting up another female on thursday nite, for eggs/embryos/ferts on Friday during the day. If that happens, we'll be injecting her embryos with an in vitro transcribed mRNA that encodes a "wnt" molecule (mWnt-1). This is supposed to give ya' "twin- ing of the axis" in the tadpoles, ie., two heads. We wouldn't see anything 'til next week. And we may do those injections next Monday as opposed to this coming Friday. Of course we're not just doin' this for fun...it give you information on the expression of certain (wnt) receptors in the xenopus embryos. that's all for now folks! have fun exploring, jean >Thanks Jean > >Im at the Exploratorium with my class until 5 >whats up at night or on Wednesday!!! > >Sorry to miss the team in action. >Adam Domingo Laboratory Department of Biology San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway, HH201 San Francisco, CA 94132 (415) 338-6998; fax (415) 338-2295 To: plevine@sfsu.edu From: Adam Zaretsky Subject: Analysis Cc: swilson@sfsu.edu, swalters@sfsu.edu, morrison@cluster1.sfsu.edu Bcc: X-Attachments: Here are my personal writings about the Zoo rejection: Subject: Re: clarifying the educational intentions of zaretsky class proposals for animal studies Let me clarify some of the objections of the Review Board.  l. Different species must be housed separately. This means that vertebrates involved in scientific experiments on campus must be separated, by species, before the sun sets each day. There are many rules for housing (i.e. air cycling, light and temperature qualifications, etc.) One of the rules is that multiple species cannot stay over night at each other's houses! For this installation, I assumed that the clean room would be their house, as well as my own. I even stated that this was a way of researching housing alone. I even hinted that there was no experiment whatsoever, only ‘US’ living together. Finally, I insisted that this was not for the scientific purposes whatsoever. 2. All animals must receive adequate food, water and care. By this they mean two things: FOOD: The plan to try to establish a self-sufficient experimental eco- system within the clean room exposes vertebrates to the possibility of becoming-food. Many organisms could be eaten by many others. Since the outcome of any research is uncertain, the possibilities have caused qualms. Highly probable would be the eating of zebrafish by xenopus frogs (I’ve seen it happen.) Xenopus frogs eat live fish in their natural environment but in the lab they are only allowed to eat fish pellets or cow's liver. Using vertebrates as live food is deemed cruelty to animals, as is allowing them to determine how they, with their own agency, would prefer to forage. (Foraging for loin, a major joy on earth is also a process that is usurped by transgenic protocols with no reference to the Oedipal cruelty involved.)  The frogs and the fish also eat flies, worms and each other's eggs but since none of these are vertebrates… embryos included... they are not covered by the animal care committee. The worms and flies, yeast and E. Coli may be carnivorous in a closed system, but that part of FOOD was not explored. This is probably because of the size and dissimilarity of these organisms to the anthropocentric values of the Animal Care Committee guidelines. (A side note: Animal Rights activists join animal researchers in their predisposition to ‘care on a sliding scale’. Bilateral Symmetry, Spinal Columns and Brain size are arbitrary hierarchies of vital worth.) The withholding of processed food in an environment chock full of juicy live food does not seem like abuse to me. It seems more like a process of De-Suburbanizing Research subjects. Hunting and gathering does not seem like a Luddite's suggestion for a frog or a mouse. The only avenue of nourishment available to many human urbanites is pre-masticated, faddishly shaped and repackaged/retitled food. Perhaps a deer hunt or a lesson in living off the land would do these tunnel visionaries well.  Experimental workhorses would not eat pelletized (and web advertised) versions of their ordinary caloric intake without bourgeois (read suburban) food aesthetics. The particular version of care that our fetishized domestication promotes brings us right back to the Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny fallacy. The more homogenized the food is does not imply the degree of love, culture or even luxury that the animal receives. Finally, the assumption that a water garden, with aeration and filtration… even a little stream… would not be enough water for the mice is absurd. When I mentioned this to Linda Blackwood, head of animal care, she said, “Oh, that old water.” I think that there is nothing less drinkable about frog or fish water unless you need your animals quarantined for repeatable results. DEATH Death of vertebrates assumes removal and proper disposal of corpses from the experimental environment. I had suggested that the death of any vertebrates, my own included, would be followed by burial within the eco- system. This is an example of holism. Any field ecology experiment that doesn’t figure in mortality is missing an essential part of life’s cycling. I admit that burial is also a mammal-centric cultural banality. There is no reason not to just aerate the dead, they just smell more and force mortal analysis. I still support the burial of any art casualties. This is mostly because I want to feed the plants. As a former organic farmer, I can tell you that plants are not vegetarians. They are patient hunters who love blood and bones as much as they love rock dust and manure. The process of rejoining the earth after death is not animal abuse. Death itself is not a bad thing. The denial of death, whether it is to feed another, old age or animal experimentation, is one of the issues I hope to make more transparent with this art piece. 3. Housing must be available for all animals proposed. While rodents may be easy to accommodate, Xenopus housing may not be currently available and may need to be provided by the investigator. As I have said, housing animals is separate from researching them. If anything, the definition of the animals in my installation would not be ‘research subjects’ or ‘pets’ but, as in the zoo, they would be thought of as entertainers. The fish and game department has rules for Animal Entertainers, which are different from the rules for pets and research subjects. I will be comparing these in a further communiqué. 4. Appropriate permits for the Xenopus must be provided to the committee before they will review a protocol proposing their use. This is true and I am in process of applying. There is also the issue of animal care contra animal rights. The committee is set up to buffer criticism and attacks from ideologically polarized campus groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.) This means that art, 'with no educational or use value', can never be justified to cause any harm... without threatening an halt of animal experimentation and a federal review. I would like to make it clear that I support animal research as a tool for aiding human health and the environmental understanding. I also support animal experimentation, within appropriate review, for both pure R&D (curiosity based research) and simply educational goals. I think the zoo has some deep educational goals which should not be censored because the 'ART' genre of educational and cultural knowledge production is prejudged to be frivolous or mere entertainment.  I hope art is not held in such a vaporous light by the committee. If this art is deemed to be the cultural equivalent of 'survivor' on TV, then by all means, fear the consequences of PETA's overtly righteous stance. But, if this project has any redeeming social value, the committee should be as vigilant to protect the intellectual expression of their coleagues campus wide reguardless of paradigmatic avenues of investigation. If you can learn to remove mouse ovaries in a classroom educational context, as Linda Blackwood teaches here on campus then art classes should be able to express their educational needs to teach human-animal interrelation in a very real and viscous way, outside of any scientific context. Otherwise, the sciences are being privileged as more integral to shared cultural knowledge and the committee should rescind jurisdiction over other equal but different majors here on campus. Is the Creative Art Department merely a decorative craft major or a celebrated avenue for research and development in this University setting? Is Creative Arts a real and respected department here on campus? My vision of The Zoo is still a vision of unfettered play. I will not condone over mothering as ‘care.’ My major concern lies with the display of more- than-ordinary, independent interactions of domesticated, laboratory animals, humans included. The artifice of the zoo is just a dichotomous abstraction of a larger vitality that is more or less, subject to containment. Animal care is not just suburban values placed on animals otherwise interrogated for utility. Care is not just taming or a ‘making comfortable’ these living mirrors of our assumed civility. And art is not science but should be treated to equal respect, consideration and even protection of the legal, ethical and social committees that exist here on campus. Delivered-To: emutagen@emutagen.com Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:45:36 -0800 To: From: Jean Gustin Subject: Re: XenoRinse Hey Adam, I checked all our guys....we had no luck with that round of injections. There were no GFP +ve guys, and no dual-axis tadpoles. The results suggest RNAse contamination.....the cells should've at LEast been GFP labelled. We tried again today.....this time out, I boosted the concentration of GFP RNA and Wnt RNA... The injections (4.6nl/8-cell embryo) were as follows..... -100pg GFP RNA + 100pg Wnt RNA/4.6nl -100pg GFP RNA + 10pg Wnt RNA/4.6nl -100pg GFP RNA/4.6nl keep yer' fingers crossed, and we'll check 'em mañana..... jean p.s. I put some clean buffer on the guys you injected last week and cleaned out all the deaders. Nothin' to see though..... >Hi Jean >Adam here >I haven't been in this weekend to rinse the micro-injected in the incubator. >I also wont be in tomorrow. So is it possible you might ask someone to >change their MBS to encourage development. Also, thanks for your (an >Carmen's) openness. > >AdamZ Domingo Laboratory Department of Biology San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway, HH201 San Francisco, CA 94132 (415) 338-6998; fax (415) 338-2295 >X-Sender: mwhary@hesiod (Unverified) >Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:27:31 -0500 >To: demain@mit.edu >From: Mark Whary >Subject: Adam Zaretsky >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >Dr. Demain - we received an email from a veterinarian in California >inquiring about Adam Zaretsky and 30 xenopus frogs that he brought with him >from MIT. His office address in the phone book is the same as your lab. Can >you shed any light on this? Thanks. >Mark T. Whary DVM PhD ACLAM >77 Massachusetts Ave Bldg. 16-825A >Cambridge, MA 02139 >617-253-9435 >617-258-5708 Fax > To: Arnold Demain From: Adam Zaretsky Subject: Re: Xenopus Cc: mwhary@MIT.EDU, aiqi@mit.edu, swalters@sfsu.edu, plevine@cluster1.sfsu.edu, swilson@cluster1.sfsu.edu Bcc: X-Attachments: Arny and Mark, Sorry this letter took so long. I am teaching full time. I did bring one Xenopus frog to california. I was not aware of the Fish and Game License needed for this species. The Origin of the Xenopus was Rockefeller University, not MIT and again... the number was one, not 30. Perhaps thirty refers to the number of embryos given to me in NYC... or the number of frogs I expect will be in my exhibition? The vet was a member of  Committee for the Protection of Human and Animal Subjects whom I applied to be allowed to research Workhorse interactions. Although I disagree with the committee's rejection, my art research has ceased on campus. I do continue to apply the effects of wnt-1 mRNA on Xenopus development, but that is under the tutelage of an approved embryological lab here on campus. http://www.fondation-langlois.org/e/projets/618-5-2001/618-5-2001.html http://www.fondation-langlois.org/e/projets/618-5-2001/618-5- 2001_artiste.htm Feel free to contact me if further details are nec. Adam Zaretsky, Professor, Conceptual/Information Arts (CIA) Art Dept, 1600 Holloway, San Francisco State University,SF,CA 94132 (415) 338-2291   Dear group - Adam's course seems to inadvertently be annoying alot of people and in particular is annoying the graduate division dean (also deanof research and sponsored programs)(see below). Keith and I are both concerned that this could easily have a negative impact on future dealings with Dean Fonteyn and with others on the animal care committee. We need to meet about this ASAP please. In the interim, I am requesting Adam not contact anyone in Dean Fonteyn's office. Adam, if you need to reach that office, please let me know so I can help you achieve whatever it is you need. Please let me know what your available meeting times are for next monday-tuesday so we can schedule a confab. Thanks Sylvia >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:18:49 -0800 >To: kmorison@sfsu.edu, swalters@sfsu.edu >From: Paul J Fonteyn >Subject: Fwd: Zaretsky > >Keith and Sylvia, > >Enough is enough with the Visiting professor. > >At this point, I view him as someone who is out to harass the members >of Animal Use and Care Committee (see message below). The Committee >is not some unit to be used as a class experiment ("an experiment in >social interaction" Zaretsky's words see below.) It is composed of >well meaning faculty members who are conducting this service on >behalf of their university colleagues. Their precious time should >not be wasted. > >I also want you to know that today, for the first time in the ten >years my secretary, Vicki, a person of infinite patience, hung up on >someone--that someone was Zaretsky. She hung up after he mentioned >three times about making of a bomb and laughing inappropriately as >he spoke about it. > >This is second incidence this semester I have had to deal with Mr. Zaresky. > >Please get his person under control. > > > > > > >>X-Sender: protocol@sfsu.edu >>Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:51:30 -0800 >>To: fonteyn@cluster1.sfsu.edu >>From: Committee for the Protection of Human and Animal Subjects >> >>Subject: Zaretsky >> >> Hi Linda Et. Al. I have sent a rather large bindle of requests for vertebrate art projects. Some verbotten to be sure, others quite sane and joyous, a few trudging the borderlines. These are inspired for the sake of debate, young artists learning the ropes of free expression in a rule based world. I would appreciate the same consternation with which you treat the scientific investigations proposed by undergrads to be applied here. This is not a joke but an experiment in social interaction. As an interactive project, I should like to contact the individual members of the committee for their personal views on my rejected project and my student's applications. Would it be possible to have a list of the members and their e-mails? I would also like to invite any and all members of the committee to come to my friday class and discuss issues of Animal Care and research to an open, varied and freethinking roundtable. Adam Zaretsky, Professor, Conceptual/Information Arts (CIA) Art Dept, 1600 Holloway, San Francisco State University,SF,CA 94132 (415) 338-2291 >> >>Sincerely, >>Linda Blackwood, PhD >>Coordinator for the Protection of Human and Animal Subjects >>Professor of Biomedical Laboratory Science > >-- >   Paul J. Fonteyn > > Dean of Graduate Studies, >      Associate Vice President, Research >                                      and Sponsored Programs >                                      San Francisco State University >                                      Voice: (415) 338-2231 Dear group - Adam's course seems to inadvertently be annoying alot of people and in particular is annoying the graduate division dean (also deanof research and sponsored programs)(see below). Keith and I are both concerned that this could easily have a negative impact on future dealings with Dean Fonteyn and with others on the animal care committee. We need to meet about this ASAP please. In the interim, I am requesting Adam not contact anyone in Dean Fonteyn's office. Adam, if you need to reach that office, please let me know so I can help you achieve whatever it is you need. Please let me know what your available meeting times are for next monday-tuesday so we can schedule a confab. Thanks Sylvia Sylvia, Et. Al. This is disrespectful to the artists under my tutelage. They may be irreverent but they are filling out forms that the committee is legally bound to review. Their ideas of what research is and the definitions of experimentation, social or otherwise, are no more or less important than the time it takes for the committee to review their other peers. The fact is, Linda Blackwood returned four of my applications as they pertained to human subjects and told me to forward them to CPHS, which is run by Paul Fonteyn. They were all signed by you Sylvia. The Peace Dove performance, The Electric Urinal, The Wired Seance and, strangely... The Manure Bomb. The manure bomb for world peace was labeled "NOT ANIMAL PRODUCT" Strange, I consider poop to be an animal product. I wasn't sure if that meant that scat munitions were under Paul's Jurisdiction or we were just free to go ahead with our weapons plans. So I called Paul's Office. This was not harassment, just plodding by the book. Unfortunately, as the secretary in the office can attest, I had an epiphany of absurdist gestalt while asking whether the manure bomb project fell under the jurisdiction of CPHS or not. Human subjects would surly be effected in the long run. Many innocent lives would be saved if demagogues were forced to fight with excrement instead of shrapnel, radiation or bio-weaponry. Pacifism inherent in the project aside, the ridiculous social pimple of my tactical gaming from within this system of rule based logic, found me in the open terrain of what is known as the giggles. I can apologize for being human. This instance made my semester as I was caught unaware in a silly circumstance inadvertently caused by a botched collaboration between Art and Science. I should mention, before Vicky hung up, that she told me to just send all of the Applications to CPHS. So the four projects (including the one that puts logic back into scatology) are due to be dealt with again in the near future. My students have applied. Their projects are real concepts. The committee may reject but they can not choose not to review. That is their job. I'm sorry if the paper trail is not to their liking, but they get paid for their precious time. This said, I will meet with you Teusday lunch or Wednesday day or you can come and meet my class tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. I think that would be appropriate as these are student research projects. The afternoon speech might be quite rewarding as well. Adam Zaretsky, Professor, Conceptual/Information Arts (CIA) Art Dept, 1600 Holloway, San Francisco State University,SF,CA 94132 (415) 338-2291   Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:58:06 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Wilson Reply-To: Stephen Wilson To: fonteyn@sfsu.edu, protocol@sfsu.edu cc: morrison@sfsu.edu, Sylvia Walters , paula levine , emutagen@emutagen.com, Stephen Wilson Subject: clarifying the educational intentions of zaretsky class proosals for animal studies To: Paul Fontyn, Director of Research and Sponsored Programs Linda Blackwood, chair of the committee on protection of animal subjects Members of the committee on protection of animal subjects From: Stephen Wilson, director, conceptual/information arts program, Art Tepartment cc: Keith Morrison, Dean of Creative Arts; Sylvia Walters, Chair of the Art Department; Paula Levine; Adam Zaretsky I am sorry there has been so much agony around the activities of our visiting professor, Adam Zaretsky. This document has several goals: 1. Clarifying the educational motivations behind the submission of proposals to your committee; 2. Attempting to find a workable solution that honors both the realities of your committee's workload and the educational purposes of the submission of the proposals; and 3. Initiating a discussion about future arrangements to deal with similar projects for other classes. I am writing this memo because I am head of the Conceptual/Information Arts area of the Art Department that recommended Zaretsky be hired. Eventhough I am on sabbatical this year, I felt it was important to attempt to clarify what is going on. **** 1. Clarifying the educational motivations: Artists around the world are beginning to focus on biological and medical research as critical areas of cultural activity. Coming from a variety of ideological positions, they are creating projects that probe and celebrate this research. Increasingly you will see projects in the arts that propose to work with living materials. This growing interest and activity is a positive development because it will greatly expand public understanding of the complexities of research, increase the sophistication of public debate, and help build a reapproachment between the arts, humanities, and sciences. ## The proposals Zaretsky's class submitted are not the last that committees like yours will need to ponder in the future. We were very pleased to find Adam Zaretsky. Internationally he is one of the leading young artists working in this area of the arts. His proposal for the multiple species project was among the 20 competitively chosen out of 300 submitted to the Langlois Foundation in international competitions for art projects that explore the integration of art and science. We were impressed with the scope of his thinking about the topics of art and biology. He values the research enterprize and has taken steps through internships to actually work with biological researchers. Unlike some in the art world, he does not come with a calcified philsophical position but rather approaches the topics with an open mind. As part of this approach he has attempted to increase the understanding of the students in his innovative course "Art-Biology Studio" about the ethical and scientific issues in research. He is not mocking your committee. Rather, he respects your work greatly. He sees university committees on protection of animal and human subjects as critical culture focus points. These committees are the place in which a society debates the ethical and scientific issues in research and in which the competing agendas are articulated. He is getting students interested in illustrative places of dispute and unclarity - for example, why are vertebrates more protected than invertebrates? how do different disciplines (lab biology, field biology, and psychology) approach the questions differently? why are standards different in other settings where humans come in contact with animals such as entertainment, zoos, pet care, food preparation, agriculture, education? how does a society weigh the benefits and costs of animal research? how might the sciences and the humanities differ in these assessments? Zaretsky can speak more articulately about these topics. Preparation and submission of proposals for art projects using living subjects is part of an educational strategy to get students thinking about research and how their ideas fit in these larger issues. If you can pull back a moment from the unorthodoxy of the proposals and the increased workload, you may recognize the marvelous educational accomplishment. Here are 15 arts and humanities students who were probably not even aware that committtes such as yours existed now actively trying to understand the cultural issues underlying your work by actually preparing proposals. I would hope you could approach these proposals with some degree of seriousness despite their humor, irreverence, and their attempt to move outside of the forms of traditional studies. If you had the time, you might find these proposals entertaining and possibly enlightening as mirrors of how those outside the science disciplines approach animal research. **** Attempting to find a workable solution: I can appreciate the consternation your committee might feel. After serving for 20 years on university review committees, the last thing I would like to see is 15 more unorthodox proposals that have to be considered and debated. I apologize that Zaretsky did not have more preparatory discussions with the research office. Zaretsky does not have much experience with university life yet and may not have realized the consequences and time away from teaching/research that his submissions cause. Nonetheless, the educational goal of the submission of proposals is extremely important to students of this class. The committee's feedback is the completion of that activity. Would it be possible for a couple of volunteer members of the committee to meet with the students to discuss how each proposal would be received, what issues they would raise, and generally engage with students in exploration of how research is assessed? This kind of discussion would honor the educational goals of the university. **** Initiating a discussion about future arrangements: With the growing interest of the arts in human and animal research, there will be more such incidents in the future. How can we handle them? How can we avoid overloading these review committees? Can we perhaps begin to think about some kind of interdisciplinary committee that would review interdisciplinary proposals? My colleagues and I would look forward to such a discussion. A phone discussion soon between you and Sylvia Walters, the chair of the Art Department would be a good way to start. **************************** Stephen Wilson, Professor, Conceptual/Information Arts (CIA) Art Dept, 1600 Holloway, San Francisco State University,SF,CA 94132 (415) 338-2291 swilson@sfsu.edu http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~swilson *************************** Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:53:39 -0800 From: Paul J Fonteyn To: Stephen Wilson Cc: protocol@sfsu.edu, swalters@sfsu.edu, kmorison@sfsu.edu Subject: Re: clarifying the educational intentions of zaretsky class proosals for animal studies Dear Mr. Wilson, The Committee will be sending Zaretsky latest bindle (his word) of proposals to Sylvia Walters for her review and action. Some do not need committee review; some need to considered by the Committee for Protection of Human Subjects, and some perhaps must be reviewed by the Animal Use and Care Committee. For clarification, you should be made aware that Mr. Zaresky's proposal was dismissed out of hand by the Committee because it involved the abuse of animals, which can never be allowed. I could not agree with you more that "Zaretsky does not have much experience with university life." I am surprised that the Langlois Foundation did approved his project. My hope is that they did not realize animals were going to be abused in the project. Paul J. Fonteyn Dean of Graduate Studies,      Associate Vice President, Research                                      and Sponsored Programs                                      San Francisco State University                                      Voice: (415) 338-2231 Here are my personal writings about the Zoo rejection: Subject: Re: clarifying the educational intentions of zaretsky class proposals for animal studies Let me clarify some of the objections of the Review Board. l. Different species must be housed separately. This means that vertebrates involved in scientific experiments on campus must be separated, by species, before the sun sets each day. There are many rules for housing (i.e. air cycling, light and temperature qualifications, etc.) One of the rules is that multiple species cannot stay over night at each other's houses! For this installation, I assumed that the clean room would be their house, as well as my own. I even stated that this was a way of researching housing alone. I even hinted that there was no experiment whatsoever, only ‘US’ living together. Finally, I insisted that this was not for the scientific purposes whatsoever. 2. All animals must receive adequate food, water and care. By this they mean two things: FOOD: The plan to try to establish a self-sufficient experimental eco- system within the clean room exposes vertebrates to the possibility of becoming-food. Many organisms could be eaten by many others. Since the outcome of any research is uncertain, the possibilities have caused qualms. Highly probable would be the eating of zebrafish by xenopus frogs (I’ve seen it happen.) Xenopus frogs eat live fish in their natural environment but in the lab they are only allowed to eat fish pellets or cow's liver. Using vertebrates as live food is deemed cruelty to animals, as is allowing them to determine how they, with their own agency, would prefer to forage. (Foraging for loin, a major joy on earth is also a process that is usurped by transgenic protocols with no reference to the Oedipal cruelty involved.) The frogs and the fish also eat flies, worms and each other's eggs but since none of these are vertebrates… embryos included... they are not covered by the animal care committee. The worms and flies, yeast and E. Coli may be carnivorous in a closed system, but that part of FOOD was not explored. This is probably because of the size and dissimilarity of these organisms to the anthropocentric values of the Animal Care Committee guidelines. (A side note: Animal Rights activists join animal researchers in their predisposition to ‘care on a sliding scale’. Bilateral Symmetry, Spinal Columns and Brain size are arbitrary hierarchies of vital worth.) The withholding of processed food in an environment chock full of juicy live food does not seem like abuse to me. It seems more like a process of De-Suburbanizing Research subjects. Hunting and gathering does not seem like a Luddite's suggestion for a frog or a mouse. The only avenue of nourishment available to many human urbanites is pre-masticated, faddishly shaped and repackaged/retitled food. Perhaps a deer hunt or a lesson in living off the land would do these tunnel visionaries well. Experimental workhorses would not eat pelletized (and web advertised) versions of their ordinary caloric intake without bourgeois (read suburban) food aesthetics. The particular version of care that our fetishized domestication promotes brings us right back to the Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny fallacy. The more homogenized the food is does not imply the degree of love, culture or even luxury that the animal receives. Finally, the assumption that a water garden, with aeration and filtration… even a little stream… would not be enough water for the mice is absurd. When I mentioned this to Linda Blackwood, head of animal care, she said, “Oh, that old water.” I think that there is nothing less drinkable about frog or fish water unless you need your animals quarantined for repeatable results. DEATH Death of vertebrates assumes removal and proper disposal of corpses from the experimental environment. I had suggested that the death of any vertebrates, my own included, would be followed by burial within the eco- system. This is an example of holism. Any field ecology experiment that doesn’t figure in mortality is missing an essential part of life’s cycling. I admit that burial is also a mammal-centric cultural banality. There is no reason not to just aerate the dead, they just smell more and force mortal analysis. I still support the burial of any art casualties. This is mostly because I want to feed the plants. As a former organic farmer, I can tell you that plants are not vegetarians. They are patient hunters who love blood and bones as much as they love rock dust and manure. The process of rejoining the earth after death is not animal abuse. Death itself is not a bad thing. The denial of death, whether it is to feed another, old age or animal experimentation, is one of the issues I hope to make more transparent with this art piece. Housing must be available for all animals proposed. While rodents may be easy to accommodate, Xenopus housing may not be currently available and may need to be provided by the investigator. As I have said, housing animals is separate from researching them. If anything, the definition of the animals in my installation would not be ‘research subjects’ or ‘pets’ but, as in the zoo, they would be thought of as entertainers. The fish and game department has rules for Animal Entertainers, which are different from the rules for pets and research subjects. I will be comparing these in a further communiqué. Appropriate permits for the Xenopus must be provided to the committee before they will review a protocol proposing their use. This is true and I am in process of applying. I hope art is not held in such a vaporous light by the committee. If this art is deemed to be the cultural equivalent of 'survivor' on TV, then by all means, fear the consequences of PETA's overtly righteous stance. But, if this project has any redeeming social value, the committee should be as vigilant to protect the intellectual expression of their colleagues campus wide reguardless of paradigmatic avenues of investigation. If you can learn to remove mouse ovaries in a classroom educational context, as Linda Blackwood teaches here on campus then art classes should be able to express their educational needs to teach human-animal interrelation in a very real and viscous way, outside of any scientific context. Otherwise, the sciences are being privileged as more integral to shared cultural knowledge and the committee should rescind jurisdiction over other equal but different majors here on campus. Is the Creative Art Department merely a decorative craft major or a celebrated avenue for research and development in this University setting? Is Creative Arts a real and respected department here on campus? My vision of The Zoo is still a vision of unfettered play. I will not condone over mothering as ‘care.’ My major concern lies with the display of more- than-ordinary, independent interactions of domesticated, laboratory animals, humans included. The artifice of the zoo is just a dichotomous abstraction of a larger vitality that is more or less, subject to containment. Animal care is not just suburban values placed on animals otherwise interrogated for utility. Care is not just taming or a ‘making comfortable’ these living mirrors of our assumed civility. And art is not science but should be treated to equal respect, consideration and even protection of the legal, ethical and social committees that exist here on campus. Hi Steve and Paula, the message below from Linda Blackwood strikes me as a reasonable request. I have forwarded it to Adam letting him know that I intend to honor it and I have asked him to pass it along to his class. >X-Sender: protocol@sfsu.edu >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:22:10 -0800 >To: swalters@cluster1.sfsu.edu >From: Committee for the Protection of Human and Animal Subjects > >Subject: Mr. Zaretsky's student protocols >Cc: fonteyn@cluster1.sfsu.edu >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >November 14, 2001 > >Dear Sylvia: > >I am returning to you the protocols that students in Mr. Zaretsky's class >have submitted to the UACUC. Clearly, some of these projects are not >legitimate and will not be actually undertaken. I feel it is the >department's responsibility to screen protocols that are sent forward, and >determine which warrant review. Both the Committee for the Protection of >Human Subjects and the University Animal Care and Use Committee have very >dedicated and overworked members who receive no release time for their >efforts. Using their valuable time on theoretical classroom exercises >should not be their responsibility. > >Several of the protocols submitted involve the use of human, rather than >animal, subjects. For those projects that actually will be conducted, the >students should complete the human subjects forms found at >sfsu.edu/~orspwww. In addition, we will require that, unless the >instructor and the students can document acceptable training in conducting >human subjects research, they must complete the NIH on-line training for >human subjects research found at the web site. > >Sincerely, >Linda Blackwood, PhD >Coordinator for the Protection of Human and Animal Subjects >Professor of Biomedical Laboratory Science > Hi Sylvia Et. Al. I thought we screened these so as to warrant any of your misgivings. We happily scratched the killing of the cow with a ballpeen hammer and then grinding it up into sculpting material for a bust of George Bush. We even scratched a request for human organ donation to mice to see if the mice might have more longevity. This is the kind of project the NIH might even fund. In the name of your anti cruelty stance, and with the respect due to you for taking the time to visit our class, we were congenial, even convivial! I do want to thank you profusely as we are a lively and contentious crew. If you didn't notice, we are also flexible, amiable, even familial. I dont mind the obvious attempts at paring down workloads for the Committees involved. But don't mistake flexibility for submission. They have all the time in the world for hard science. Does the word stalling mean anything to you? I would say that the word legitimacy is not a value free term especially in terms of art projects directed towards a science review board. We have met with repeated insults about time wastage in terms of any art project applied for through this committee. Personally, I consider all the projects legitimate art projects. Dont you? Since they all fall under the jurisdiction of animal care or human protection, they should be reviewed. In fact, if you do not sign forward our projects after our agreed upon alterations (which were fit to suit your particular moral stance...) two troublesome things might happen. One, you could be written up as a censor of legitimate art without the agreement of the students involved and Two... worse... the art might be undertaken without review. Then the rejection of due review by your act of disavowal might make you (at the committee's avoidance request) culpable for the actions of young artists asking for permission through the channels provided them here at State. If my students seek guidance and do not receive it then is this an implicit go ahead for them to act on their own accord? The actual undertakeness of the plans are at the artist's discretion but are not implausible in any way. If they ask if they are allowed, and they are misconstrued as pure theoreticians, thus rebuked, what is the status of their further actions? Please let the committee do their job. The projects are real. The responses of the committee may be under study but this does not rescind any of the committee's official responsibility. After talking to Laurie Zoloth, one of the committee members, it appears that there is no precedent to these applications. Paul and Linda may think this is a trap to inflame PETA on campus. If any animal art is positively reviewed on campus, PETA may have a reaction. This is not the aim of these projects. This is not an attack on the committee. PETA has not been contacted regarding these issues. Art research protocols alone are called into question. Animal research has to stand on its own two feet, even within the multi- disciplinary nature of campus wide education. My student's projects represent a myriad of expressive, individual wishes to act which happen to fall under the Committee for the Protection of Human and Animal Subjects' jurisdiction. I personally support responsible animal research and responsible animal art. Otherwise, I wouldn't have initiated dialogue with the ethical bodies that enforce state and federal law here on campus. Im sure the committee's overworked volunteerism includes a dedication to undergraduate education and a responsibility to review all warranted applications. These are legitimate conceptual art projects. There may be some mockery of the rules but the committee doesn't make the rules, they just enforce them. Please give me details as to how and why any and all art projects recently re-reviewed are now deemed unwarranted for review. I will respect any gag order you have requested of me and not forward any of this inflammatory ranting to protocol@sfsu.edu or fonteyn@cluster1.sfsu.edu, but I am ccing my class and you have them to answer to as well as myself. Adam Zaretsky To: "Sylvia S. Walters" From: Adam Zaretsky Subject: E-Pollogies Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: Sylvia I owe you an apology for my last letter. Upon talking to you, I realized that it was incendiary and ineffectual to say the least. I talked to the young artist who came up with the Non-Violent Bombing Project and she reiterated your major points quite eloquently. She reminded me that this was a conceptual process, that the projects were not all meant to be actuated. She also said that we had achieved our aims and she did not feel maligned by having her application rejected by the art office any more or less than by animal care or the protection of human subjects. With my innate absurdism intact, I may have been getting too serious about being taken seriously. It seems counterintuitive upon reflection. I do take art research and Federal Guidelines for Human and Animal Subjects seriously. But the Project of Applying was to feel the boundaries not pound at them. I do feel bad because, as you said, new information came up and you were just keeping us informed. So let me get off my high horse and apologize again. I will let the chips fall where they may. It is your authority and responsibility to determine which applications warrant review, which are not legitimate and which will probably not actually be undertaken. But the most important thing is that we attempted dialog and the results can be reviewed and written up as a sociological event. This is a ten year project, not to be accomplished in a semester. I am also sorry if the emailing of students your letter and my response was a breach of our privacy. I have made it a practice to treat my students like adults so this class has been privy to all of my back and forth correspondence on these issues this semester. I felt that your request to forward your letter did not preclude any initial response I might have being appropriate for their eyes. By admitting my potential for conduct disorder, misplaced and overstated aggressive (and passive aggressive) textual style and plain bratitude (and a penchant for neologisms) I invite you to roast me as an olive branch towards a furtherance of this commensurate art- o'cracy. Here are their emails if you feel the need cc this apology to them and include any response that you might have: nada@spaz.org, tbonetommy@hotmail.com, sanpuru@pacbell.net, manwiththehex@hotmail.com, natashiamitchell@yahoo.com, rlawson@hotmail.com, michaellrich@hotmail.com, cbursell@sfsu.edu, sbrimer@hotmail.com, djtekizu@aol.com, samtag@juno.com, ericbembe@hotmail.com, mayu77@pacbell.net, ben_j_pearson@yahoo.com, ravenangeline@yahoo.com, tsuruko99@hotmail.com, studio45x@hotmail.com, sekhemet@hotmail.com, slschultz1@msn.com, adelapp@sfsu.edu, reeces_p@hotmail.com, huan@sfsu.edu, rumbaart@aol.com, taisho1@pacbell.net, mariahleila@hotmail.com, arthur09@hotmail.com, luke@whiteoutfilms.com, gloriag123@yahoo.com, amaiai923@yahoo.com, jreodica13@hotmail.com, manwiththehex@hotmail.com, gloriag123@yahoo.com, zaretsky@MIT.EDU, emutagen@emutagen.com, ecerpa@earthlink.net, ventifus@concentric.net, mdlclshero@aol.com, natashiamitchell@yahoo.com, tbonetommy@hotmail.com, dumbestguy@hotmail.com, figarokun@yahoo.com, eightyminusthree@hotmail.com, mike@symmetrynetwork.com, nathan_grover@excite.com, batsheva@sfsu.edu, lawrencejose@earthlink.net, mitzilani@hotmail.com, darthgolden77@yahoo.com, syklone@sfsu.edu, kei1004@sfsu.edu, ischiller@earthlink.net, david@iownthesky.com, djtek124@aol.com, vivsaya@yahoo.com, david@iownthesky.com, snoopy_vv@yahoo.com, ravenangeline@yahoo.com, ezzypoo@excite.com, neysablackbyrd1@hotmail.com, carolinehofer@hotmail.com, ventifus@concentric.net, tjuckwalker@hotmail.com, dumbestguy@hotmail.com, stellardesign@aol.com They are good students and the class is great. I hope to leave here with a piquant but yummy flavor. Adam Zaretsky > >Sylvia, > > I am not Adams student. I am a CIA major yes, but I really despise what >Adam is doing in our department. I have repeatedly asked Adam to remove my >name from his list of students. > > Did you know that he has genetically modified animals in less than >secure environments? These animals are roaming free right now all over the >fifth floor of the art building. I don't know if you know this but it is >illegal for Adam to have these creatures. I found out that he got them from >Berkley, don't ask me how he got them. If just one of those animals mates >with a native species it could cause drastic effects on the environment. > > Please do not over look this man's doings because he claims to be an >artist. If you would go to the fifth floor you would see how he has trashed >our department with his so-called bio art projects. If you could stand the >smell of stagnant decaying organic matter and the swarm of genetically >mutated fly's buzzing around your face, you would see not art but a pig's >sty. > >Thank you, > XXXXXXXXXXXXX Recently removed from this list, unnamed CIA major. > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:20:09 -0800 To: swalters@sfsu.edu From: Adam Zaretsky Subject: Antennapedia Cc: swilson@sfsu.edu, plevine@sfsu.edu, zaretsky@mit.edu Bcc: X-Attachments: :focii:112292:bughead.jpg: Sylvia I read Lawrence’s letter. I suppose one polemicist deserves another. I also met with Fredrico. He can attest to the fact that the CIA studio is not a pigsty. There are some smelly paper mache animals we are preparing as enrichment toys for the lions and tigers at the Zoo. And last week there were some mold paintings that were a little too successful. I threw them away. How is that for censorship? Regardless, we will be clean sweeping and Lysol-ing Thursday night and Friday in class. I will also do a clean up finals week. The CIA lab will be returned to its previous pristine state or better before I leave town.  As far as the mutant flies, they are an Antennapedia strain of D. melanogaster, (vinegar flies not fruit flies) order # WW-17-2470 at https://www3.carolina.com/onlinecatalog/ $5.30 Per culture. I do think they are cleared for use with K through 12 but that does not excuse my laxity in training the students to keep them more properly contained.  I am woeful about any unintentional release as it makes bio-artists look irresponsible. I feel badly for not making the students involved more aware of the importance of understanding their potential to permanently effect hereditary morphological remodeling according to human will and desire (even unintentionality) in the environment as we think we know it. I am not even sure what I have allowed take place.  In a less philosophical mode, this is not an unusual occurrence in Labs and Classroom on every campus. You have worked with Drosophila; did any ever get away? For breadth, I posted an Email to bionet.drosophila: I am a teacher at SFSU and have been using Antennapedia Drosophila to explain to my class about life cycle and mutagenesis. Unfortunately, they were not perfectly contained and now some students are asking if we have destroyed the environment? Even the department chair is a bit worried about safety. That is probably because we are in the Art Department, not Biology. What should I tell them? Adam Zaretsky We should have some expert opinions in a couple of days. There were also two fish and a frog that died. We are trying to understand collaboration with life and we are not always successful. These were unfortunate accidents. The students do learn from inept nurturing, I hope. To wrap it up, I will re-educate myself along with the students involved about the issues and realities of responsible bio-art. We will have a little ‘extra time-out’ planned to cover these issues before the end of the semester. I will insure that only wild-type (and wild-type mutant) organisms will be used in any final projects. I am sure this will be an educational experience for the whole class. On a brighter note, we can forget about the Committee debacle until my next appointment, which is in another hemisphere. Laurie Zoloth has offered to ‘review’ our applications in person: Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 18:15:57 -0800 To: Adam Zaretsky From: "Laurie Zoloth, Ph.D." Subject: Re: Art Protocols I would love to come to see your projects! I will be on campus on the 18th, the 19th, and even the 21st. Laurie So, honoring Steve’s invitation towards a win-win situation, we will invite her to come to an optional coffee/class during finals week and forsake our actual applications for conceptual review. You are welcome to attend. That’s all for now, Sorry to be consistently atrocious, this one was a surprise to me. AdamZ I guess we are ok. also: a fine point in case you are asked: A new study by Casares and Mann (1998) challenges the interpretation that the normal Antennapedia protein is not involved in specifying legs. Rather, it seems to be responsible for inhibiting the production of antennae. Hows that? Adam Delivered-To: emutagen@emutagen.com Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:47:28 -0500 To: emutagen@emutagen.com (Adam Zaretsky) From: Brad Jones Subject: Re: Antennapedia in the Classroom, Literally. Dear sir, I have been a Drosophila biologist going on 15 years. Drosophila melanogaster is a common species found wherever humans are found. Yes, it is true that your escaped flies could mate with wild Drosophila, though it is unlikely that the your flies will survive living in your classroom. They need a source of food, and to mate they need to find other flies. The mutation that causes the antennapedia phenotype, while induced by mutagenesis in the lab, can, in theory occur naturally in wild populations. Spontaineous mutations occur naturally at a certain rate, and the antennapedia mutation has probably occurred naturally many times over the millions of years of that the fly has been in existence You must realize that such a mutation is actually quite detrimental to the fly and will ultimately not propagate through the population, as a fly carrying such a mutation will be at a major disadvantage, and natural selection will quickly remove it. These are sick flies and will not survive in competition with healthy flies. In fly labs, flies get loose all the time. Almost any mutation that is introduced will make a fly that will not last in the wild, and laboratory stocks are, in general, not healthy. Population biologists have been studying wild Drosophila for a hundred years, and have not found any affect of laboratory strains on wild Drosophila. There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about your antennapedia flies ruining the environment. Sincerely, Brad Jones. Delivered-To: emutagen@emutagen.com Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:47:47 -0500 (EST) From: l sian gramates Subject: Re: Antennapedia in the Classroom, Literally. To: emutagen@emutagen.com (Adam Zaretsky) X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] : I am a teacher at SFSU and have been using anttenapedia Drosophila to : explain to my class about life cycle and mutagenesis. Unfortunately, : they were not perfectly contained and now some students are asking if : we have destroyed the environment? Even the department chair is a : bit worried about safety. That is probably because we are in the Art : Department, not Biology. What should I tell them? The short answer is that they have absolutely nothing to worry about. The longer answer is that mutant Drosophila (including Antennapedia) exist at a low level in the wild, and always have. Mutant flies routinely escape from labs. The most likely consequence is that they'll survive less long than their wildtype cousins. The worst case scenario is that they'll interbreed with the local Drosophila, resulting in less healthy progeny, meaning less fruitflies hanging out around the kitchen. Dr. Sian Gramates. Ph.D. University of Massachusetts Delivered-To: emutagen@emutagen.com Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:51:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Antennapedia in the Classroom, Literally. From: Laurence von Kalm To: Adam Zaretsky Adam, I guess a lot of people have already replied but in case they haven’t there is absolutely no risk of any kind posed by the release your mutant flies. If anything those flies are much less able to cope in the wild than regular flies. Laurence von Kalm Assistant Professor Department of Biology University of Central Florida Orlando, FL 32816-236 Delivered-To: emutagen@emutagen.com X-Sender: kam@exchkc02.stowers-institute.org (Unverified) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 08:19:15 -0600 To: emutagen@emutagen.com From: Keith Maggert Subject: Re: Antennapedia in the Classroom, Literally. X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2001 14:19:26.0760 (UTC) FILETIME=[57A9A280:01C17FF3] First, the caveat: I am not an evolutionary biologist, but I am a Drosophila geneticist. In answer to your question, I think that there is almost no risk. Antp is a pretty sick stock, especially if it's also marked with ebony [very dark bodies], as most are. If some got out, I don't think they would have a prayer of survival. And, since it's dominant, even if it _did_ happen to mate or lay a few eggs, the affected progeny would be immediately ill (no heterozygosis to cover that mutation!). If you are really concerned, try putting an Antp fly in with a lot of wild-type flies, and see how many Antp appear in the next generation. Do this for a few generations, and I'd be surprised if you had any. Most of us discard of flies in morgues (bottles filled with mineral oil or ethanol), but not all do. Many Drosphilists just dump them in the trash. The stocks that we have, compared side-by-side to "wild" Drosphila are so pathetically weak that even our heftiest flies are no match. Keith Maggert, Ph.D. The Stowers Institute for Medical Research Kansas City, MO 64110 kmaggert@stowers-institute.org Delivered-To: emutagen@emutagen.com Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 21:02:06 -0700 From: locke Reply-To: Mcdermid_locke@v-wave.com Organization: home X-Accept-Language: en To: Adam Zaretsky Subject: Re: Antennapedia in the Classroom, Literally. Adam, I am a researcher in the field of Drosophila genetics and have worked with mutations like Antennapedia. I work at the University of Alberta in the Biological Sciences Dept. From your post below, I take it that you have let loose some Drosophila fruit flies that have Antennapedia mutations. This is not an environmental or safety hazard. The flies with these mutations will probably die "in the wild" before procreating. Even if they do survive the Antennapedia mutation will put them at a severe reproductive disadvantage and the mutation will be lost from the "wild" population very quickly. Even though this not a problem it is still not a good idea to let them escape. Your students can be assured that their escape has not destroyed the environment (except the few the are flying around and get into your coffee cups) and your dept. chair can be assured that they are not a safety problem either. You can eat them and there is no danger. We often find them in our coffee cups and sometimes not (it was too late - down they go). Hope this helps. Sincerely, John Locke john.locke@ualberta.ca PS: Why is a CIA teacher "explaining to my class about life cycle and mutagenesis"? Lawrence, You can write directly to me if you like. I appreciate your criticism and even your rowdy textual style. You also have brought up some fine points. As far as the mutant flies, they are an Antennapedia strain of D. melanogaster, (vinegar flies not fruit flies) order # WW-17-2470 at https://www3.carolina.com/onlinecatalog/ $5.30 Per culture. I do think they are cleared for use with K through 12 but that does not excuse my laxity in training the students to keep them more properly contained.  I wrote this to Sylvia and I meant it: "I am woeful about any unintentional release as it makes bio-artists look irresponsible. I feel badly for not making the students involved more aware of the importance of understanding their potential to permanently effect hereditary morphological remodeling according to human will and desire (even unintentionality) in the environment as we think we know it. I am not even sure what I have allowed take place."  The fact that 3 PhDs said we had done nothing wrong was just the standard pat answer, thats why their responses were so similar. It seems that scientific pompous belittling of intuitive risk assessors aids artists who are incompetent and lack intergenerational foresight as well. Interdisciplinary introgressive permission granted at SFSU. A recent article in nature: Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico David Quist, Ignacio H. Chapela SUMMARY: Concerns have been raised about the potential effects of transgenic introductions on the genetic diversity of crop landraces and wild relatives in areas of... CONTEXT: ... (Popular Subsistence), which distributes subsidized food throughout the country. Negative controls were cob samples of blue maize from the Cuzco Valley in Peru (P1) and a 20- seed sample from an historical collection obtained in the ...... Nature414, 541 - 543 (29 Nov 2001) Letters to Editor                             A breif: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/11/29_corn.htm                                                                                                                                   Transgenic DNA discovered in native Mexican corn, according to a new study by UC Berkeley researchers 29 November 2001 By Sarah Yang, Media Relations Berkeley - Some of Mexico's native varieties of corn grown in remote regions have been contaminated by transgenic DNA, a finding that has both surprised and dismayed the University of California, Berkeley, researchers who made the discovery. "This is very serious because the region where our samples were taken are known for their diverse varieties of native corn, which is something that absolutely needs to be protected," said Ignacio Chapela, assistant professor of microbial ecology in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management at UC Berkeley's College of Natural Resources. In the study, published Thursday (Nov. 29) in the journal Nature, Chapela and David Quist, lead author and UC Berkeley graduate student in environmental science, policy and management, compared indigenous corn with samples known to be free from genetic engineering as well as with genetically modified varieties. The native corn, or "criollo," samples were taken from four fields in the remote, mountainous region of Sierra Norte de Oaxaca. Control samples that had not been genetically modified came from blue maize grown in the Cuzco Valley in Peru, and also from a collection of seeds from the Sierra Norte de Oaxaca region taken in 1971, before the advent of transgenic crops. Using highly sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based tests, the researchers checked for various elements of transgenic DNA constructs used when bioengineered genes are introduced into a plant genome. They found no signs of transgenic DNA in the Peru and 1971 seed collection. In the criollo samples, however, four out of six samples tested showed weak but clear evidence of p-35S, a promoter from the cauliflower mosaic virus widely used in transgenic crops. When they sequenced the DNA of the transgenic-positive criollo samples, the researchers found that the CMV promoter matched those used in commercial transgenic crops. The presence of the nopaline synthase terminator sequence (T-NOS) from Agrobacterium tumefasciens, another telltale sign of transgenic contamination, was detected in two of the six criollo samples tested. One criollo sample tested positive for the actual cry-1A gene of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), the insecticidal bacterium that kills pests feeding on corn. "I repeated the tests at least three times to make sure I wasn't getting false-positives," said Quist. "It was initially hard to believe that corn in such a remote region would have tested positive." Chapela and Quist said the contamination likely came from multiple pollinations over time. They were able to identify the DNA fragments flanking the CMV promoter sequence through inverse PCR tests. Those fragments were diverse, suggesting a random insertion of the transgenic sequence into the maize genome. "If this contamination was the result of a single gene transfer event, we would expect to find the transgenic DNA in a consistent location on the criollo genome," said Quist. "Instead, we're finding it at different points along the genome." The researchers first detected the transgenic DNA in October 2000 while working with the Mycological Facility in Oaxaca, a locally-run biological laboratory where Chapela serves as the scientific director. Soon after the initial discovery of the transgenic contamination, Chapela alerted the Mexican government, which then proceeded to conduct its own tests. Reporting the results in a September press release, Mexico's Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources found transgenic DNA in three to 10 percent of the Sierra Norte de Oaxaca maize, supporting the results of the UC Berkeley researchers. Just how the contamination occurred remains a puzzle. Agricultural experts and proponents of biotech crops maintain that corn pollen is characteristically heavy, so it doesn't blow far from corn fields by the wind. Chapela said this assumption may need to be reevaluated in light of the recent findings in Mexico. In addition, Mexico imposed a moratorium in 1998 on new plantings of transgenic maize. The closest region where bioengineered corn was ever known to have been planted is 60 miles away from the Sierra Norte de Oaxaca fields, said Chapela. "It's not clear if the moratorium was poorly enforced, or if the contamination occurred before the moratorium was enacted," said Chapela. While new plantings are banned in Mexico, it is still legal to import biotech corn into the country. "Whatever the source, it's clear that genes are somehow moving from bioengineered corn to native corn," he said. Such a prospect is almost certain to fuel the already contentious debate over the use of genetically modified crops. Proponents of transgenic agriculture say biotechnology helps to increase crop yields for feeding a rapidly growing world population, improve the food's nutritional value and reduce the use of pesticides. Opponents say not enough is known about the health and ecological effects of biotech crops and that the risks outweigh the benefits. To date, more than 30 million hectares of transgenic crops have been grown, according to "Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture," a white paper published in 2000 by a group of seven national science academies around the world, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London. Genes from genetically modified crops that spread unintentionally can threaten the diversity of natural crops by crowding out native plants, said Chapela. A wealth of maize varieties has been cultivated over thousands of years in the Sierra Norte de Oaxaca region, providing an invaluable "bank account" of genetic diversity, he said. Chapela added that genetically diverse crops are less vulnerable to disease, pest outbreaks and climatic changes. "We can't afford to lose that resource," said Chapela. I would continue your critical stance and research further. A nice start might be to email letters to the following PhDs that poopooed your worries. They got me off the hookwith their degrees and their authoritative stance, btu I still dont know the effects of what I have done. Some points of contention: Spontaneous mutation occurs naturally at a certain rate. THere may be one organic Antennapedia on the planet, but we had over 500 upstairs. Natural selection does not remove detrimental inherited mutations as all animals have a propensity to inherited disease. There are easy ways to critique the laxity of release/containment practices. I am willing to meet with you, even though you have preJudged me so harshly. First off, You are right to a certain extent. Second, I spammed you a bit so I deserve a flame for it. Third, I would like to help you in your critique of certain forms of environmental idiocy. I may not be an enemy. Instead I may be a thinly veiled green agent, a sadistic, sardonic mock-neophyte antihero. It is just acting, performative attitude. I have spent two years in a lab but I have also spent two years as an organic farmer. Nonetheless, the release of antennapedia was not just an act or a metaphor. It is a symbolic equality of corruption as deed. The flies or their progeny (or certain alleles in their progeny) may exist all over Northern California right now and for eternity in a hereditary cascade of unknown effect due to my failure to teach Mike the importance of containment. Oh well, Its spooky but its to late to take back. This is not symbolism or metaphorical art, this is the dream (or nightmare) become real. Lifting off the canvas and into the air, the leg-headed flies are humping wild types on a Baby Ruth wrapper in a trash can near a beautiful vista point in the Presidio. If you would like to try the experiment of putting an Antp fly in with a lot of wild-type flies, and see how many Antp appear in the next generation, I will have more antennapedia this week. I would suggest putting a few Wild Type fly in with a lot of ANTP flies, and see how many Antp appear in the next generation. That is stacking the deck in your favor but could prove that intermingling can produce hybrids that are wild, competitive and demented morphologically. Ask David Quist, Ignacio H. Chapela at UC Berkeley if Antennapedia are safe for the environment. I mean it, email them, call them, go to their offices and ask. I bet you will get a much different answer. Perhaps it will bolster your argument? I dont know if you expected such a warm reaction? I do think you stance is righteous. Continue, even if it means trashing me! Adam Z Delivered-To: emutagen@emutagen.com X-Originating-IP: [65.141.28.87] Reply-To: andrea@chinstroke.com From: "Andrea Rester" To: emutagen@emutagen.com Bcc: Subject: Taken from my online diary--you should read the sex parts WOW Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 07:09:11 +0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Dec 2001 07:09:12.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[645BBCC0:01C189EE] Adam. I can‚t remember how we actually met. 22 and I watched him, a suzerain and his cortege float across the campus; their voices loud and their life blood pouring out in an effluvium of uncontainable and therefore unrestrained superiority fused with hostility. The underpinnings of this temperament still sit within him, confined by loss and life. It is different somehow but still swirls around him swinging and hitting with intention. There is always great animosity hurled in his general direction. I have heard it on the edges of tongues that prattle his name. I have been angry at him but only because we are so much alike. Selfish with huge egos that blast their way into people‚s lives demanding attention and refusing absolutely to be ignored and so childish are we both that it surprises us to experience anything less than contempt. We are both brilliant asinine comrades and exist as an apotheosis for one another. We are brother and sister and therefore exist in contemptuous love exist in hate exist with and without one another. I can‚t stand him. He sees me for who I am and therefore I feel nothing. Yesterday I went to say goodbye. He flies away to further fill the young with what they come to school to pay witness to. I ring up to find out if I can bring Igor. Can I bring a 14lb dog to this engagement? Long pause. Yes, I suppose so. We are killing and eating a small rabbit today. I think a dog would be ok. Is that your contribution to the meal? But none of you understand that this is a serious question here in Adamland and I laud him for it. He pleads with people to be shocked by his mien and they are. People rise up in hysterics at his shows, denigrating his actions. His application is calm in its viciousness. He always manages to somehow answer up to the hysteria because there is always an answer. Always. I arrive. I eat. I smoke (started again because I was simply too happy with myself) and this is what happens. A Young Man, a student of Adam‚s is completing his final off campus because what he is about to do is illegal on school property. The dining room table is removed and the floor is layered in blue tarp. A white plastic pickle bucket sits beneath a post clamped to the open window from which dangle two hangman's nooses miniaturized so each may hold the foot of a rabbit as its blood flows from it. The room cleared with the announcement that the killing of the bunny was about to commence. Over 2/3‚s of the guests departed. Six of us were left to circle around the killing area. The young man holds the white bunny in his arms and strokes him. I shut Igor into the bathroom. Adam starts filming. The Young Man begins by describing the origins of his project. At Safeway I am waiting in line at the butcher‚s area and someone ordered a catfish. You know how they have the live catfish swimming in the grayish water. They killed it there on the block. It was gory. Guts and blood splattering everywhere. The man in front of me protested loudly. This is abhorrent. This is disgusting. I will not shop here. He left. I asked the butcher what the protestor was about to order. A salmon steak. I am a meat eater. This project will allow me to continue to eating meat. I don‚t think I really have a right to eat it unless I have the guts to kill it. The Young Man went into acute detail about what he was about to do to the bunny. The bunny with hind feet made for stomping slumped limply in the young man‚s arms. The stroking so calming, it‚s vulnerability aching for all to feel. The Young Man spoke with an acuity and firmness alien to one so tender of age. I will do this. I will. I couldn‚t believe what courage he had. I fell in love with him in an instant. This Young Man with so much integrity standing there in front of the camera committing such a detestable and gruesome act. I will hang him upside down holding his hind feet with one hand and his head with the other. I will then exert enough force to twist and break his neck with my right hand. I really hope I can do this on the first try. It takes quite a bit of force. I practiced on one last night. Mr. Jones at the rabbit factory was a bit suspicious that I wanted a rabbit to kill and eat. He suggested that I might have a snake at home. Quite a normal fellow really. Not handsome enough to be in a movie, perhaps a documentary? Mr. Jones told me that the kill should be quick or the adrenaline would ruin make the meat touch. After his neck is broken, I will hang him upside down from this pole. His body will convulse for awhile. After it stops I will proceed to cut off his head and his front paws. I will then slice him here and here (pointing to the rabbit‚s ankles and shoulders). I will pull the skin down in one swift motion and cut out the internal organs. Is everyone ready? I‚m not. I muttered. I wasn‚t ready. You don‚t have to watch if you don‚t think you are ready. No, you see, I should watch this. I must watch this because if I don‚t I will know I am weak. I am fake. I am dishonest if I cannot watch this. I need to watch this. The bunny sits there. It has no choice. It is white and it‚s eyes are red and puffy as though the previous evening had been spent in paroxysms of tears. The Young Man does as he said. It is over in a matter of minutes. Hung, head removed and skin being pulled away. It appears a naked little man dangling upside down in his little bunny shoes. The silence is respectful. We are mourning. I admire the Young Man more than I have admired anyone in my entire life. I admire his conviction and his courage. I think to myself that only Adam could have cultivated this sort of action. Only he could have pushed for it and given the Young Man what he really came to school for. How does everyone feel? I release Igor from the bathroom. He senses something. I macerate the kidneys and stomach for him because the young man wants every part of this bunny to be used. I lay claim to the lucky rabbit's foot. I hold it in my hand. It is warm. The edges of the white fur are matted with globs of blood and gore. I feel like crying but not really. I hate them. But not really. I don‚t feel anything. But I do. I feel horrible because I am unaffected. I place the foot in salt. I try to feel somber. I act somber in order to feel it. We are outside smoking. The guts wrapped in a plastic garbage bag and sepulchered in a plastic trashcan outside. People mummer death. People mummer life. I am glad he picked a bunny. Why? I can‚t think of another animal more appropriate. It is so close to being a pet that it really is a vulgar kill. I leave after a bit more talk. I nibble on a pot cookie. I want to see if I can think differently. I journey home to try and feel things. When I get home I realize that I have left my lucky rabbit‚s foot behind sitting in a plastic Ziplock bag on the dining room table. Andrea Rester www.chinstroke.com An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools. --Ernest Hemingway UnMediated Vision at Salina Art Center explores blurring of boundaries http://www.salinaartcenter.org/uv/workhorse_site/wwww.html UnMediated Vision, a new exhibition about art, science, technology and culture curated by Art Center exhibition coordinator Stacy Switzer, will focus on artists using biotech and surveillance technologies. Video, installations, web-based projects, performance and documentation by American and international artists will consider the expansion and redefinition of what we call "nature" and related issues of real/virtual, organic/inorganic, public/private. The exhibition will include a residency by artist Adam Zaretsky, professor of Conceptual and Information Arts at San Francisco State University. Zaretsky will construct and live in a portable cleanroom in the Art Center gallery for a week as part of his installation, "Workhorse Zoo." Zaretsky will literally surround himself with the "work horses" of molecular biology: the animals and plants used in labs which bear the brunt of scientific examination and invasiveness: flies, mice, fish, frogs, bacteria. The artist hopes to introduce the public to these species, perhaps as an aid toward intelligent discussion about animal research, and to compare the division between artificial and natural worlds. Zaretsky says, "Much of the public has little or no idea how much the study of these select strains affects their health and potential physical future. These are the evolutionary templates whom we search for homologies to assess our own inherited pains." Zaretsky has been a research affiliate at the Laboratory for Industrial Microbiology and Fermentation, Department of Biology, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Zaretsky will be available for interviews beginning Jan. 14. Bay Area Artist, Julia Reodica, is also a Life Sciences Intern and Exhibit Facilitator at the Exploratorium, San Francisco, California. She will be the Workhorse Zookeeper during the weeklong performance at the Salina Art Center. As a collaborator in Adam's performance, she will interact with the public, maintain the organisms in the various developmental stages of their life cycles and take on various performative roles as she sees fit. Description: We feel a strong desire to surround ourselves with the most known and least know organisms on earth, the industrial workhorses of molecular biology. When we say surround ourselves, we mean in a teeming and messy way, flies and worms and frogs. We have filled a portable cleanroom (an aseptic containment facility) with the least aseptic barrage of industrial life possible. The 8 foot by 8 foot Simplex Isolation System CleanRoom houses a variety of the workhorses of Molecular Biology together in environment of coexistence and natural integration. These organisms include: Escherichia coli (bacteria), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Brewer’s Yeast), Drosophila melanogaster (vinegar fly), Caenorhabditis elegans (round worm), Wheat and Arabidopsis thaliana (mustard plant), Danio rerio (Zebrafish), Xenopus laevis (African Claw Toed Frog), Mus musculus (Mice) and Homo sapiens (human). In a strange way we are demented naturalists, as is nature in many ways. So, more than any essential anality on either side lets set a this is bioart as a love for slimy, gooey, sticky, pulsating, throbbing, jumping, flapping, living and dying, eating and having sex, Everyday Life.      Public Knowledge Purpose: To introduce the public these particular species in an installation environment. we feel as if the display of these animals, (they are wild type, not genetically modified but the fish, frogs and mice could are wild-type albinos), in a spectator arena is an aid towards intelligent discussion about animal research, pro or con, without the moral superiority of pat answers. These are the organisms that shoulder the brunt of scientific invasiveness. These are the organisms whose genomes have been sequenced and partially annotated. These are the evolutionary templates with whom we search for homologies to assess our own inherited pains. Much of the public has little or no idea how much the study of these select strains effects their health and potential physical future. Personal Knowledge Purpose: To get to know the life cycle and habitat of most of the major WorkHorses of the modern Life Sciences. In particular, the organisms with completed genomes are in the repertoire. We want to learn the lab protocols for keeping these funky guys alive. And, we want to understand the original conditions of their environment outside of the lab. My preference for learning both habitats is to be able to blend perfect lab conditions with things like soil and gardens. Finally, I am not sure of the interactions between these organisms and look forward to finding out how dynamic this complex semi-closed system will be. Artistic Purpose: To show an exuberance of life in an environment at once artistic, scientistic and ‘natural’. To compare or perhaps exacerbate the division between natural and artificial worlds. To compare the concepts of Nature and Domesticity by a museumified version of the wild being presented under NIH standard biological rules of containment (HEPA Filters!) To fall in love with these particular strains as they may be a big part of our life’s work. The workhorse Zoo had 9 organisms cohabitating in an 8' X 8' X 8' HEPA Filtered space. including Escherichia coli (bacteria), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Brewer’s Yeast), Drosophila melanogaster (vinegar fly), Caenorhabditis elegans (round worm), Arabidopsis thaliana (mustard plant), local wheat, Danio rerio (Zebrafish), Xenopus laevis (African Claw Toed Frog), Mus musculus (Mice) and Homo sapiens (human).  These organisms were all ordered and shipped through the mail from laboratory grade sources except for the Zebrafish which were a wholesale purchased through a pet distributor. The human was not air mailed but instead was a consenting and informed Homo Sapiens who boarded a plane to Salina Kansas voluntarily. For the seven days of the Workhorse Zoo, each organism was given a favorable micro-environment similar to both natural and ordinary laboratory niches. These micro-environments overlap so inter-species socializing can occur. During the first five days of this cohabitation art-installation all the animals were fed processed food and water was provided. During the sixth and seventh days water was provided for the mice and humans and the multi-species environmental care was continued but processed food was withheld. Live interactive foraging for all the organisms was observed if not encouraged. The mice ate wheat and Arabidopsis. The frogs ate fish. The fish ate worms and flies. The human ate frogs, mice, wheat and Arabidopsis. The flies ate yeast. Etc. On the Eighth Day The Homo Sapiens left the 8' X 8' X 8' Clean Room after eating baby food and an apple. The other 8 organisms remain in the Glass House for another seven weeks. The museum staff feeds them and takes care of the environmental upkeep. At the end of the show, the vertebrates will have to continue their existence in another environment. The Local Zoo is considering taking the Fish and the Frogs. The Local Pet Store may take the Mice. A National Park in Africa has been contacted and the Albino African Xenopus Claw Toed Frogs are being considered for a reintegration in their original environs. \ The Organisms E. coli C. cerevisiae A. Thaliana C. elegans D. melanogaster D. rerio X. laevis M. musculus H. sapiens Respond Links Sponsors unmediated vision humanThe Workhorse Zoo CD-1 mouseThe Workhorse Zoo Xenopus LaevisThe Workhorse Zoo DrosophilaThe Workhorse Zoo ZebrafishThe Workhorse Zoo Julia and wormsThe Workhorse Zoo Mustard Plant Arabidopsis thaliana C. cerevisiaeThe Workhorse Zoo E. coli bacteriaThe Workhorse Zoo E. coli E. coli is a strain of bacteria found in the gastrointestinal tract of many animals, including humans. This strain was actually isolated from a human fecal sample. It is estimated that one third of your solid excrement is living E. coli. They are very tiny. They look like hotdogs. There are strains of E. coli that are harmful, even deadly. Some of them produce toxins that can cause food poisoning. Usually this is due to the mishandling of meat. The strain of E. coli used the Workhorse Zoo in is known as K-12. Related strains are found inside of most humans. These are bacteria that aid you in your digestion of what you eat. Some of them even protect you from foreign bacterial dangers. K-12 is usually a symbiotic organism. It is not a pathogenic strain. Of course some researchers might disagree. http://www.biotech-info.net/ecoli_GE.html These cells are also not genetically engineered. K-12 is a wild-type, which means it was found outside of the lab and kept as a control organism to compare to genetic variants produced from the original stock of K-12. These alterations can be done for research, profit and even for a sense of beauty. K-12 represents a starting point from which repeatable bacterial experimentation can begin. This particular strain has a whole history of industrial uses. It is probably the most manipulated bacteria on the planet. E. coli is used as a metabolic factory to convert simple mixtures of chemicals into more complex products. It was one of the first organisms to have its full genome sequenced. Many of our vitamins, other supplements (i.e. MSG) and quite a few pharmaceuticals are derivatives of massive fermentations of fine tuned E. coli concoctions.< http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/dlc-me/zoo/ AND http://www.asmusa.org/mbrsrc/archive/SIGNIFICANT.htm E. coli is also one of the major organisms that are utilized during the process of sequencing the genomes of other organisms, including The Human Genome Project. (http://www.er.doe.gov/production/ober/hug_top.html) Loops of DNA (also known as plasmids) are often inserted into these bacteria. The bacteria then divide at an exponential rate thereby cloning the original sequence many times. In some ways they are used as the Xerox machines of industrial microbiology. E. coli may be the backbone of industrial fermentation, but they are also quite curious creatures. Although they replicate asexually, there are hairy ones (F. +) and ones without hair (or F. -.) and some times they get together and practice something called conjugation. When a hairy E. coli touches a hairless E coli, the connecting hair becomes erect and DNA shoots through the hollow hair or 'pilus' and into the hairless strain's cytoplasm. This transfer of DNA represents a kind of microbial sex. After the genetic injection, the hairless E. coli will begin to grow hairs of its own. Hair will grow on all subsequent generations and they will pass hairiness on to all hairless E. coli with which they conjugate. http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~rwinning/genetics/bactrec2.htm Yeast C. cerevisiae is commonly known as yeast. You can use it to make beer and bake bread. Arabidopsis thaliana (mustard plant) Although Arabidopsis Thaliana has been studied for over a hundred years, its consideration as a model organism began with a scientist named F. Laibach in 1943. It is a weed from the mustard family. It is not a cash crop. But in most cases, before any work is done genetically engineering a new trait for a cash crop, Arabidopsis is studied first. "Findings should be applicable to other plants, possibly to different organisms. A tool should be efficient and convenient, providing maximum information with minimal requirements for labor, facilities and expenditures." (http://arabidopsis.org/info/aboutarabidopsis.html) Other plant workhorses: Antirrhinum (snapdragon) Crops: Wheat, rice soy, corn sorghum Drugs: tobacco, poppy, coffee, marijuana and chocolate. Why Mustard? : I am of the opinion that most of these workhorses were not chosen by accident, efficiency or ease alone. Each workhorse represents aesthetic choices, even a certain kind of charisma on the organism's account. The mustard family, in particular, is laden with implicit and explicit symbolism due it its central role in one of Jesus Christ's parables. It is not impossible that the choice of this workhorse was influenced Dr. Laibach's personal interpretation of The Parable of the Mustard Seed. The seeds are very small, almost microscopic. The plants seem innocuous at first as well. But each plant is quite fertile, producing as many as 5000 seeds in a one month cycle. This little plant is also quite adept at 'spreading the word' as its genome has been sequenced and there are more papers on the web about the little mustard seed than any other plant in the world. http://www.arabidopsis.com/ The genetic control of flower organ development in Arabidopsis and has been studied extensively. Mutants are available which produce only stamens or only pistils instead of both. Mutants are available that produce extra flowers and mutants are available which fail to produce petals. Profit motives can be realized through control of speed, number and placement of fruiting bodies on a plant. Control of sexual expression in floral development can also be read as a perverted monomania. This does not in any way delimit the potential of this erotic focus to create hyper-yields from our fields. As usual, it depends how and why technology is yielded. As usual, it also depends what kind of profit is the goal. It is not unusual for the vitalphiliac (lover of life) obsession to spur cultivated results. Just look at the concentrated hybridization that created corn from common grass. It is also a habitual compulsion which finds these incredible results bought off by the equally perverse but much more boring fetish of amassing as much capital as possible. Community of Mind and the Mother's of Invention are not solely in existence to be brought to market. Market value is actually too fickle and tasteless an avenue for most invention. A broader view of Life Science might include some of that far sighted stewardship that gets talked about here in Salina Kansas at The Land Institute. http://www.landinstitute.org Smart Worms: Caenorhabditis Elegans as Ideal Models Earthworms, mealworms, night crawlers... these are familiar worms to us all. Earthworms may evoke a nervous response from the timid or to a fisherman they may represent satisfying live bait. Their miniscule relative, Caenorhabditis Elegans (C. Elegans) has become a giant in the field of microbiology and research. Wild type C. Elegans are tiny, nearly microscopic nematodes (worms) that live in the soil all around us, especially in temperate regions. Although small in size (about 1mm, the length of Abraham Lincoln's nose on a penny), it is a hearty round worm that has become one of the most important model organisms in the area of developmental genetics. In 1963, molecular biologist, Sydney Brenner, introduced the nematode as an efficient and reproductively bountiful research tool in biology and neurology. He acknowledged the importance and need of ideal model organisms for successful research and development. Despite the nematode's simple make-up, there is little repeated DNA in the genome, which makes it a good example of completed sequencing (http://elegans.swmed.edu/Sydney.html). The Riddle Lab in Missouri, documents that the "C. Elegans is about as primitive an organism that exists which nonetheless shares many of the essential biological characteristics that are central problems of human biology (http://biotech.missouri.edu/Dauer-World)." But why study this worm? Even though the worm's physical make-up is simple, there is a complexity of the different sexes, organs and reproduction that has helped answer questions of cell migration, longevity and cell fate. In the search of the proverbial fountain of youth, the Kenyon Lab at UC San Francisco, Ca has found genes that regulate aging. The C. Elegans, when faced with impending overpopulation or starvation will produce a "dauer" larvae (German for "endurance"). That generation will slow down motility and even aging in a sort of suspended animation until sufficient space and food resources are recovered (http://wormworld.ucsf.edu). The C. Elegans have two sexes: a self-fertilizing hermaphrodite and a male. The adult is essentially a tube containing a pharynx, gut and reproductive system that makes for over 60% of the worm's body. Cell fate research benefits from the simple reproductive system. Anchor cells that assign body parts can be manipulated through laser ablation to see what stage the cells will or will not begin its "programming." In the hermaphrodite, anchor cells around the vulva area were ablated in the embryonic state. The result was a "squashed vulva" in the adult making it impossible to lay eggs. The eggs hatch out inside the adult body causing a "bag of worms" effect and the young must burst out of their maternal home. Humans and worms have many similarities. These similarities make the nematode useful in the study of human diseases and how to improve or develop treatments for these conditions. Discoveries help the quality of life and perhaps answer queries of better health care and management. They are also really squiggly and fun to look at. Here is a famous letter where Sydney Brenner spelled out his desire to map and trace the lineage of every cell of the adult worm: Differentiation in a Nematode Worm Part of the success of molecular genetics was due to the use of extremely simple organisms which could be handled in large numbers: bacteria and bacterial viruses. The processes of genetic replication and transcription, of genetic recombination and mutagenesis, and the synthesis of enzymes could be studied there in their most elementary form, and, having once been discovered, their applicability to the higher forms of life could be tested afterwards. We should like to attack the problem of cellular development in a similar fashion, choosing the simplest possible differentiated organism and subjecting it to the analytical methods of microbial genetics. Thus we want a multicellular organism which has a short life cycle, can be easily cultivated, and is small enough to be handled in large numbers, like a micro-organism. It should have relatively few cells, so that exhaustive studies of lineage and patterns can be made, and should be amenable to genetic analysis. We think we have a good candidate in the form of a small nematode worm, Caenorhabditis briggsae, which has the following properties. It is a self- fertilizing hermaphrodite, and sexual propagation is therefore independent of population size. Males are also found (0.1%), which can fertilize the hermaphrodites, allowing stocks to be constructed by genetic crosses. Each worm lays up to 200 eggs which hatch in buffer in twelve hours, producing larvae 80 microns in length. These larvae grow to a length of 1 mm in three and a half days, and reach sexual maturity. However, there is no increase in cell number, only in cell mass. The number of nuclei becomes constant at a late stage in development, and divisions occur only in the germ line. Although the total number of cells is only about a thousand, the organism is differentiated and has an epidermis, intestine, excretory system, nerve and muscle cells. Reports in the literature describe the approximate number of cells as follows: 200 cells in the gut, 200 epidermal cells, 60 muscle cells, 200 nerve cells. The organism normally feeds on bacteria, but can also be grown in large quantities in liver extract broth. It has not yet been grown in a defined synthetic medium. To start with we propose to identify every cell in the worm and trace lineages. We shall also investigate the constancy of development and study its control by looking for mutants. The words of Sydney Brenner, 1963 from The Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, WB Wood and the community of C elegans researchers, eds., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, 1988. Nematode Mutant Vulva References Aroian, R. V., Koga, M., Mendel, J. E., Ohshima, Y. & Sternberg, P. W. 1990 The let-23 gene necessary for Caenorhabditis elegans vulval induction encodes a tyrosine kinase of the EGF receptor family. Nature 348, 693-699. Beitel, G. J., Clark, S. G. & Horvitz, H. R. 1990 Caenorhabditis elegans ras gene let-60 acts as a switch in the pathway of vulval induction. Nature 348, 503-509. Ferguson, E. L., Sternberg, P. W. & Horvitz, H. R. 1987 A genetic pathway for the specification of the vulval cell lineages of Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 326, 259-267. Horvitz, H. R. & Sternberg, P. W. 1991 Multiple intercellular signalling systems control the development of the Caenorhabditis elegans vulva. Nature 351, 535-541. Kenyon, C. 1995 A perfect vulva every time: Gradients and signalling cascades in C. elegans. Cell 82, 171-174. Kenyon, C. & Kamb, A. 1989 Cellular dialogs during development. Cell 58, 607-608. Simske, J. S. & Kim, S. K. 1995 Sequential signalling during Caenorhabditis elegans vulval induction. Nature 375, 142-146. Sternberg, P. W. 1993 Intercellular signalling and signal transduction in C. elegans. Annual Review of Genetics 27, 497-521. Sternberg, P. W. & Horvitz, H. R. 1989 The combined action of two intercellular signalling pathways specifies three cell fates during vulval induction in C. elegans. Cell 58, 679-693. zebra fish These little fishies can be bought by the dozens at your local pet store. Vinegar Fly Drosophila are vinegar flies, not fruit flies. They like to swarm around over ripe fruit. You may have seen some in your kitchen, usually hovering over a darkened banana. This is how they were first isolated. Around 1900 William Castle a Harvard University professor of embryology was looking for a project for a vigilant but needy grad student. He left out old grapes as bait and then just ordered the student to capture and study whatever showed up. These days Drosophila are bred in labs all over the world. They have a two week life cycle, a genome of 160 million base pairs, and the females lay about 400 eggs in their lifetime. Some of the chromosomes in their saliva producing glands are quite easy to read due to swollen landmarks that can be imaged microscopically. The game of naming new genes in Drossophila labs is an art that deserves mentioning in this context. The study of Homeotic genes ( also known as Hox, Pax, homeobox or Master genes) has yielded some of the more obscure and surreal mutations of developmental body plan. For most researchers this is a way of understanding how to prevent developmental birth defects. A more 'Pure Research and Development' angle would underscore the long term importance of a depth understanding of morphology and love of full-on fleshy three dimensional organismness. For me, the purpose of the radical reshaping of model organisms is just the dipping of one toe into a taboo and attractive futurity where we have the potential to permanently effect hereditary morphological remodeling of all life, including new-type models according to our human will and desire (or even our unintentionality) in the environment as we think we know it. " Previously valued in academic labs mainly for its hardiness, availability, and rapid reproductive cycle, the fruit fly turns out to offer another bonus: genetically, it has more in common with you and me than scientists ever suspected. In a recent magazine article, a scientist described drosophilae as ''little people with wings.'' For example, even though human hearts look nothing like the fruit fly's simple, tubelike one, the same ''tin man'' gene is fundamental to building both. If a human copy of the gene is substituted in drosophila for a mutant fly gene involved in sex determination, the human DNA will supply the missing function. ''Drosophila research today is bigger than it's ever been and growing very rapidly,'' says the 52-year-old Baker. ''Back in the mid- 1980s, few people would have said that humans and flies are built the same way. Yet, what the last 10 to 15 years have shown us is that the same genes working in largely the same way underlie a vast array of biological processes.'' These similarities raise worrisome questions that could affect social policy and psychological theory for generations. The research of Baker and others shows that genes in fruit flies control not only body construction but also complex sexual behaviors. Male flies with one mutant form of fruitless, for example, no longer court the opposite sex. In a test tube, half a dozen such males march in step in what Hatzidakis calls a ''conga dance.'' They're telling females, ''Shoo, fly, don't bother me.'' It is not known yet whether a similar master gene influences human courtship. Scientists have identified a gene on the Y chromosome that determines gender, but they're just starting to dissect the genetic underpinnings of sexual behavior. A recent article in the journal Science disputed earlier findings linking male homosexuality to a small region of genes on the X chromosome. If the parallels between flies and humans are stretched far enough, ethicists warn, they could justify genetic screening of job and insurance applicants not only for medical conditions but also for aggressive or antisocial propensities. Or they could lead to eugenics - breeding to reduce or eliminate behaviors that are considered undesirable. " -- May 23 1999 Boston Globe Magazine Some amazing facts about Xenopus Laevis: They do not have teeth or tongues. Instead they just eat with their hands. The name Xenopus means Strange Foot in Latin. That is because they have five toes on each foot but only three claws on each foot. There are about 15 lines or grooves up and down the sides most Xenopus frogs. These are sense organs but nobody is really sure what they sense or how. Our Xenopus frogs are albino. That means they were born without any pigment in their skin or eyes. That's why they look like uncooked chicken. More frog fun for Kids: http://allaboutfrogs.org/info/species/clawed.html Xenopus Frogs used to be utilized mainly as an early pregnancy test. The urine of pregnant women will make them bloat and sometimes even lay eggs. Now they are used all over the world as model organisms for the study of Vertebrate Developmental Biology. All of the stages of development from conception to adult frog can be seen here: Stages of Development: http://www- cbd.upstlse.fr/organismes/nieuwkoop/nieuwkoop.html For an Amphibian Embryology Tutorial: http://worms.zoology.wisc.edu/frogs/mainmenu.html Like most of the workhorses of molecular biology, Xenopus frogs are in the process of having their genome sequenced. If you would like to access some of the genome of these frogs, Axeldb is a database focusing on gene expression in the frog Xenopus laevis: http://www.dkfz- heidelberg.de/abt0135/axeldb.htm One of the more interesting things about Xenopus research is the range of developmental abnormalities that can be induced in the lab. Developmental mutants can be made through microsurgical techniques (transplantation or explantation), chemical additives (also known as teratogens) and transgenic microinjection techniques. The grandfather of Xenopus experimental embryology is Hans Spemann who got the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Spemann Organizer in 1935. http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1935/spemann-bio.html A video of a Spemann organizer Transplant can be found at: http://www.gastromaster.com/video/ For the practical vivisectionist, here is a site where you can Virtually Dissect a frog: http://www-itg.lbl.gov/cgi-bin/vfrog_script If you would like to see an embryo engineered to have two heads there is a picture of one at: http://www.xenbase.org/intro.html Xenopus frogs come from Africa and a national park you might want to visit some time to see them in their native environment is Mlawula Nature Reserve, Swaziland. http://www.sntc.org.sz/mla.html Plan your vacation early. Since airfreight from Africa is expensive, we got our lab-bred albino frogs from Nasco, a major supplier and one of the Workhorse Zoo sponsors.http://www.enasco.com/prod/BrowseSummary?major=Frogs&mi nor=Xenopus+la s&quickkey=125&major_search_word=yes&is_search_word=item&title= Science Recently the Hayes Lab at University of California, Berkeley has used Xenopus as a model to attempt to determine if there are any adverse effects of a pesticide that seems to be a Midwest favorite. They have had quite interesting results, which point to the possibility that we may inadvertently be giving male frogs obscure gender rerouting. This is a scoop worth investigating. http://www.exploratorium.edu/frogs/researcher/researcher_4.html Mice Most of the mice in this exhibit are CD-1 mice. They are pedigree lab mice which means that their lineage can be traced back to two male and seven female albino mice from the Laboratory of Dr. de Coulon in Switzerland. Dr. Clara Lynch of the Rockefeller Institute brought them to the US in 1926. They are now available to research institutions from Charles River Labs (1-800-LAB-RATS.) I ordered one timed pregnant (17 day) mouse and one lactating mouse with a litter (10 pups varied genders) all of the CD-1 (Copyright) Nomenclature on Jan. 21st 2002. They are wild-type albino research models. They are also just mice. The plan to try to establish a self-sufficient experimental eco-system within the clean room exposes vertebrates to the possibility of becoming-food. Many of the organisms may be eaten by many of the other organisms. Since the outcome of any research is uncertain, the possibilities have caused qualms. Highly probable will be the eating of zebrafish by xenopus frogs (I've seen it happen.) Xenopus frogs do eat living fish in their natural environment but in the lab they are only allowed to eat processed fish pellets or cow's liver. Some people deem the use of vertebrates as live food as cruelty to animals. For others, it is crueler to never allow an animal to determine how they, with their own agency, would prefer to forage. (Foraging for loin, a major joy on earth is also a process that is usurped by many lab protocols^J transgenic procedures in particular^J with no reference to the Oedipal cruelty involved.) The frogs and the fish also eat flies, worms and each other's eggs but since none of these are vertebrates^J embryos included... they are not covered by the animal care/rights continuum. The worms and flies, yeast and E. coli may be carnivorous in a closed system, but that part of FOOD are les explored due to size-ism. This is probably because of the dissimilarity of these organisms to the anthropocentric values of the human-centric moral systems. (A side note: Animal Rights activists join animal researchers in their predisposition to 'care on a sliding scale'. To me, Bilateral Symmetry, Spinal Columns and Brain size are arbitrary hierarchies of vital worth.) The withholding of processed food in an environment chock full of juicy live food does not seem like abuse to me. It seems more like a process of De-Suburbanizing Research subjects. Hunting and gathering does not seem like a Luddite's suggestion for a frog or a mouse. The only avenue of nourishment available to many human urbanites is pre-masticated, faddishly shaped and repackaged/re-titled food. Perhaps a deer hunt or a lesson in living off the land would do these tunnel visionaries well. Experimental workhorses would not eat pelletized (and web advertised) versions of their ordinary caloric intake without bourgeois (read suburban) food aesthetics. The particular version of care that fetishises popular domestication brings us right back to the Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny fallacy. The more homogenized the food is does not imply the degree of love, culture, advancement or even luxury that a domesticated animal receives. My vision of The Zoo is still a vision of unfettered play. I will not condone over mothering as 'care.' My major concern lies with the display of more- than-ordinary, independent interactions of domesticated, laboratory animals, humans included. The artifice of the zoo is just a dichotomous abstraction of a larger vitality that is more or less, subject to containment. Animal care is not just suburban values placed on animals otherwise interrogated for utility. Care is not just taming or a 'making comfortable' these living mirrors of our assumed civility. This is all a disclaimer for insuring adequate food supply for our lactating mice and their pups. I do plan to add wheat to the plant workhorse crop for the new mothers in the zoo. Mice are predominantly vegetarian. They do eat meat (and even their young) when they are hungry. There is just not enough late stage Arabidopsis in the installation to make self-sufficiency for mice anything less than desperate from the start. I do believe that mice can live on Arabidopsis seeds and plants alone if the quantities were great enough. They just don't seem plentiful enough at this time to start off with even a potential equilibrium of life and death forces. Wheat is also a major workhorse and The Land Institute has been so kind as to offer some of their extra wheat so^J I wish a Happy Valentines Day to the new moms. This is sentimental. This is an admission of botched planning. This may even be last minute mothering instincts popping up. Oh well, it works for me. Humans Humans are just another workhorse in this zoo. We have voyeuristically exposed our own genome to become a thing of research. We utilize the partially annotated results of the Human Genome Project to reference our selves in relationship to anything and everything we learn about the other organisms in this installation. I will be representing our genus and species in this tableau of diversity. I don't delineate much difference or superiority to Homo sapiens. We are not better or more advanced. If anything, we are just, hereditarily, a more pompous organism than the rest. We are also organisms whom are being used every day in scientific experiments, hopefully as informed human subjects. I am broadening the horizon of experimental activities to include creative acts. This does not in anyway imply that I am any more or less just towards the animals contained in the exhibit. I can lay claim to the ideal of inclusion. I must go through the experience of living in tight quarters, relying on food from other's kindness and even hunger. But all of these privations are self-imposed. I designed this obstacle course; I ordered the animals from their respective suppliers. I put them in this silly containment zone. If we were capable of interspecies communication, I'm sure that many of the organisms would say that they would rather not be on exhibit in an artificially hungry food chain in a Clean Room in Salina this month. They will try to escape and some of them will. How is their fate decided? How am I responsible? It is not unusual to find yourself feeling like a research subject or a pet or both at the same time these days. Some people like to think that they are even a little bit wild once in a while. But, it is an odd day when we realize that we have become symbolically interpreted by some other species as a food source. It has been a point of contention for some that there is little chance that my life will be taken to become food for any of the organisms in this exhibition. Since other animals may become food for each other or myself, how just is this installation for the organisms involved? Most of these animals haven't seen the sun in many generations. The frogs won't eat the fish right away because they don't recognize them as food anymore. The chance for even a few of them to live in a multi-organismic airlock between the outside world (which is often unforgiving) and the laboratory (which is often unforgiving) may have a symbolic ripple effect. There may even be a workhorse morphogenetic field established. This may have a worldwide, lab animal consciousness altering effect. This does not imply that the Workhorse Zoo (or any zoo) is a perfect Eden. My trite comparisons to TV shows like The Real World, Survivor or even that new SadoMasochistic gameshow known as The Chair do not belie a admonition on my part as to the inanity of these shows or even the Workhorse Zoo. Even in a strictly Darwinist sense, these are pallid comparisons to real ecosystems with real competition or risk. Instead, the artistic notion of artifice is implicated and stained by the inclusion of life, birth, death and food chains imbedded in what is supposed to be a mere representational display. Some of the intended annoyance is the fact that this is a show but a show that is difficult for some to take lightly. As a display human, I am taking some risks but I am surely not much of a stunt man during this event. These risks have been calculated and my own survival is not assured but it is a probable outcome by the end of a week. I might ingest more than my usual ration of E. coli, which will conti