Critical Art Ensemble - Molecular Invasion

Once again, what appears to us in the mystical guise of pure science
and objective knowledge about nature turns out, underneath, to be

political, economic, and social ideology.
R. C. Lewontin
Introduction
Contestational Biology
Over the past five years Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) has
traveled extensively doing participatory performances that
critique the representations, products, and policies related
to emerging biotechnologies. When we do projects con-
cerning transgenics, one of the most common questions
participants ask is whether CAE is for or against geneti-
cally modified organisms (GMOs). The reply from group
members is always the same: We have no general position.
Each product or process has to be taken on a case-by-case
basis. Some appear disastrous (primarily to the environ-
ment), while others seem soundly engineered and useful.
The real question of GMOs is how to create models of risk
assessment that are accessible to those not trained in
biology so people can tell the difference between a product
that amounts to little more than pollutants for profit and
4 The Molecular Invasion
those which have a practical and desirable function, while
at the same time have no environmental impact. Making
such decisions is further complicated by a general lack of
understanding of safety testing procedures. For those with-
out scientific training, the question of what constitutes
scientific rigor seems to be a mystery, and reading a study
on the safety of transgenic products appears to be a moun-
tain that is too high to climb. The concerned public can be
further bamboozled by specialized vocabularies. The result
is that individuals are left with the implied obligation that
they should just have faith in scientific, government, and
corporate authorities that allegedly always act with only
the public interest in mind.
The perception that science is too difficult for anyone
other than a specialist to understand is socially ingrained
in those separated from the discipline on an everyday life
basis. The walls of the division of technical labor seem
unbreachable. The common English expression its not
rocket science, usually made as a sarcastic remark when
someone has inordinate trouble with an easy task, is but
one example of a manifestation of public reverence for the
intellectual intensity of science and its separation from
common daily activities.
However, while such perceptions have a serious degree of
truth to them, they are also overexaggerated. Within a
very brief period of time, anyone who is modestly literate
can learn the fundamentals of scientific study and ethics.
To give an example of how scientific matters are often
easily understood, consider the following. Studies should
be replicated numerous times not just by a single lab, but
in conjunction with other labs to see if the same or very
Introduction 5
similar results are consistently obtained. If each lab shows
the same findings, then the hypothesis or theory guiding
the tests is said to be reliable. Reliability is a key indicator
of test validity. Until reliability studies are done, a given
result is suspect. Obviously, one does not need to be a
scientist to understand that if a study has not been repeated
by independent sources, the data are questionable. If the
only replications were done by the lab (usually the lab is
corporate, but academic labs are suspect too) that will
financially benefit, one does not need a Ph.D. in ethics to
know that this violates scientific codes of conduct due to
a conflict of interest that could radically skew data inter-
pretation (if not the data itself). Currently, biotech
corporations are the primary if not sole suppliers of data to
the Environmental Protection Agency and the United
States Department of Agriculture for commercial licens-
ing permits for genetically modified organisms. Amateur
discourse clearly has a place in the transgenic debates since
some levels of study can be reviewed by nonexperts. The
stakes are too high for product safety testing to be left solely
in the domain of corporate and scientific experts.
Representations of the transgenic face a deep contradiction,
albeit one that emerges from imperial and/or corporate
culture. The spectacle of transgenics, as usual, tends to
consistently support profit initiatives, and promote the
idea that the free market always works in the public
interest by saving us from environmental, health, and
population problems. Unfortunately for corporate culture,
the historical representation of the rules of social purity
and pollution clash with the utopian representations of
transgenic products. While the former insists on maintain-
ing natural purities and claims that it is unwise, if not
catastrophic, to intervene in the engines of creation, the
latter presents a world of molecular exchange that will
benefit everyone. This second position is not doing very
well at convincing the consuming public that genetic
engineering is a good idea. After all, dislodging ideological
imperatives that have settled deeply into every classist and
racist separation for the past three millennia is not an
enviable task. This ideological contradiction is all the
more difficult to reconcile because capital does not want to
disrupt effects beneficial to colonial and endocolonial
initiatives that the current ideology of separation pro-
vides, thus the construction of a doublethink is required in
which mixing the categories of nature is sometimes good
and sometimes not. While the manner in which such
imperatives are structured and selected actually depends
on what is most profitable, it cannot be represented that
way. Somehow this contradiction must be mythically
represented and thereby normalized through the filtering
code of the natural. Biotech companies have failed to solve
this problem, and while they still try a variety of public
relations campaigns, the fundamental strategy has been to
just produce and deploy whatever transgenic products are
predicted to be profitable, and not emphasize the quan-
dary, hoping that as the consuming public builds habitual
associations with the products, the problem of public
hysteria will solve itself.
As a cultural resource for artistic material, transgenics is becom-
ing a trendy exploitable topic for savvy career-minded
cultural producers. Not that this trend is atypical: When-
ever new vision technologies appear, and less endowed
areas of specialization (like art production) finally gain
access to them, there are those who will immediately seize
Introduction 7
the opportunity to exploit new aesthetic possibilities. It
seems reasonable to assume that at this very moment, some
artists are exchanging their web cams for electron micro-
scopes. And already, the art world has begun to see work
derived from molecular biology drifting out of the labora-
tories and into various cultural spaces. With two decades
of the vision-tech explosion behind us, what is ahead is
relatively predictablemonumental molecular landscapes
emphasizing the paradox of scale and the colorful beauty of
the micro-world, and the next step in living sculpture,
consisting of expressions of frankensteinian desire in the
form of manufactured or intentionalized life forms (glow-
in-the-dark rats and proteins performing textual patterns).
To be sure, these projects of technological and/or formal
novelty will be more depressing this time around, because
so much of the highly visible is and will be as apolitical (or
hiding its politics) as possible and designed to further feed
the cultural commoditys market for novelty. In terms of
political economy in general, such work does help educate
the public, but also functions on behalf of corporate culture
to calm public skepticism by ripping bio-imaging out of the
realm of political debate and fortifying it within the
spectacularized and specialized bunker of aestheticization.
Corporate and state culture could not ask for better public
relations work, and hence the willingness of corporations to
fund high-profile cultural manifestations such as Ars
Electronica in Europe, or the museum extravaganzas at the
Whitney Museum of American Art and San Francisco
Museum of Modern Art in the US.
Finally, the problem of policy comes ready-made. Developments
in transgenics will follow the path of all goods and services
under capitalthat is, they will rarely be in the public
interest. Pancapitalist policy only fuels, strengthens, and
expands the profit machine. Molecular invasion and
control is rapidly being transformed into new types of
colonial and endocolonial control. The focus seems to be
on consolidating the food chain from molecular structure
to product packaging. With the ability to better control
species expression, corporations have a better chance than
ever to intensify developing nations dependency on west-
ern corporate economy. Food must either be purchased
from corporate food suppliers, or the necessary organic and
chemical materials must be purchased. Either way, re-
source management is controlled by western capital.
Farmers can be leveraged either to grow cash crops like
cotton or any combination that is most advantageous to
the colonizer. This plan has existed since the inception
of industrial farming, so food resource hegemonies have
simply been given another powerful tool that fits per-
fectly into the current structure of domination.
In addition, any form of molecular capital can now be
appropriatedit is an open frontier. As with all named
and controlled objects, now, genomes, enzymes, bio-
chemical processes, etc., will all be privatized. What was
once communal and controlled by traditional authority
and common understanding is now usurped by separating
its molecular or chemical value from its holistic pheno-
typic value. For example, a plant used in traditional
medicine that had general (economic, political, spiri-
tual) value can be transformed into something of solely
economic value as a chemical compound. This com-
pound can be patented, and while the plant could still be
used, the active ingredient cannot, thus functionally
removing the plant from the common resources. In a
Introduction 9
moment of eco-piracy disguised as Lockean property
rights, the labor of separating the various micro-proper-
ties of the plant overrides any holistic function and
collective ownership.
The standard argument for eliminating any trace of the
commons is to say that common property is an inefficient
way to manage resources. If efficiency is increased, more
goods are available, so everyone gets more for less. How-
ever, we know after two centuries of capital that the only
people who get more are the owners, while the poor and
disenfranchised completely lose the little resources they
once had access to. The assumption that efficiency is a
totalizing good is nothing more than a disgraceful ex-
ample of the particular values of the powerful being
represented and internalized as universal.
Efficiency stings in other territories as well. Environmen-
tal neglect, pollution, and exploitation in regard to
transgenics are all occurring in the name of efficiency.
Capital in the US is obsessed with speed in general, but
in this case its interests are in closing the gap between the
time when a product is developed and its arrival on the
market. Efficiency, in this case, means profitability. Once
a product is shown to function, it is ready for distribution.
Transgenic products are being made available as soon as
possible in order to establish a firm market niche. At
present, no one knows how transgenic products will
affect the environment. While the prognosis is generally
optimistic for the short term, the long term is another
matter. No long-term studies have been done on new
types of crops and creatures, and could not be, because
the technology is too new. One would hope that the
producers of such products would want to err on the side of
caution and wait a few decades before releasing genetically
modified organisms so that proper long-term testing could
be done, but for the most part it is too late now. The engine
of progress (i.e., profit) moved forward, leaving the general
public unaware that it had left the station. Should there be
any future difficulties, those who released the GMOs will
not even be held responsible for cleaning up the mess.
Secondary hazards are just part of the risk of doing business.
What can be done to alter this situation? The answer is as
singular as the pancapitalist machine itselfdisturb the
profit flows. Certainly, the use of traditional and elec-
tronic methods of contestation will be useful, but how can
the new molecular/biochemical front be directly engaged
as a means to disrupt profits? This is an area that is
completely undertheorized, and is the subject matter of
contestational biology. Two immediate hurdles that must
be cleared are the connection of bioresistance to violence
and the tendency of resistance to be urban-based. Given
that living organisms are of concern, it is quite likely that
introducing inertia into the profit system will damage
genetically modified life. Industrial culture has had the
environment under fire for decades (and in some areas for
as long as two centuries), so CAE is only proposing
returning fire.* Further, the rules of engagement are pretty
well established. If one assumes that bioresistance should
use violent methods only as a last resort, and only to the
extent necessary to be effective, a number of possibilities
that will not lead to jail time present themselves. Corpo-
rate culture has long maintained that violence through
secondary consequences is not the fault of an individual
agent or institution. For example, if a manufacturing
Introduction 11
process causes acid rain, the manufacturers are not respon-
sible for any ill effects on flora, fauna, or other
environmental elements, nor are they responsible for any
type of clean-up. If the resistance can locate itself in the
same fuzzy field, legal counter fire is possible that would be
disturbing and effective.
The second problem is deciding how to redeploy resistant
forces. Currently, the majority tends to focus its activities
in urban areas. Only the green movement has developed
methods for rural and wild areas. The means by which rural
capital can be used for resistant purposes is only modestly
theorized. Bioresistance is still waiting for the day when a
demonstration of 20,000 people will be launched at a
Monsanto test site in Alabama, or when farms dedicated to
the development of resistant species will appear. This
logistical problem and need for redeployment gives no-
madic capital quite an edge in terms of maintaining its
*This method provides an escape from the current renaissance of
propaganda by deeda very gratifying experience, but one that leads to
little in the way of profit disturbance or policy shift, and that justifies
escalation of violence by the authorities against all resistant manifesta-
tions. Propaganda by deed was a late 19th century, early 20th century
tactic in which a revolutionary makes a bold, violent gesture to get
media attention and fan the flames of the fire burning in the hearts of
revolutionaries worldwide. A good example of this type of heroism was
Alexander Berkmans attempt on the life of the Carnegie Corporations
Chairman of the Board Henry Frick in reaction to the Homestead
lockout. The attempt failed, although it still had international implica-
tions for the morale of revolutionary parties, but did not affect steel
manufacture or labor management policy. This idea had some merit at
the time, but seems less significant in an era when commercial media is
monopolized by capital.
activities in territories where social and political friction is
minimal.
In the following chapters, CAE examines how to use rogue
representational capital for purposes of consciousness rais-
ing, and attempts to model the possibility of contestational
biology. Hopefully, this book will be a helpful contribution
to the development of increasingly complex ways and
means of slowing, diverting, subverting, and disturbing the
molecular invasion through radical appropriation of knowl-
edge systems and appropriation of the products and processes
developed by imperial powers.
Introduction 13
He turned his thinking
Toward unknown arts, changing the laws of nature.
Ovid
1
Fear and Profit in the
Fourth Domain
One symbolic, dual directional, vertical flow that continu-
ously proves fruitful in the examination of cultural
structures and dynamics is the continuum between
purity and pollution. The social organization of norma-
tive conditions tends to place purity at the top of the
cultural value hierarchy, while pollution tends to lie at
the bottom. There is no cross-cultural consistency in
expressions of this separation in terms of belief, behav-
ior, and representation, and within each culture, there
are always contradictions and exceptions to the rules.
To be sure, the endless negotiation of how to navigate
through and organize the perceived manifestations of
purity and pollution is a primary part of cultural becom-
ing, and in many ways is key to describing and
understanding cultural difference.
In western cultures, centuries of intense cultural ex-
change among the nations of Europe and North America
have given rise to fundamental metanarratives that chan-
nel the expression of the categories of purity and pollution.
Two fundamental and often linked metanarratives are
God and Nature, which are charged with symbolically
managing thoughts, behaviors, representations, and all
other forms of expression by associating with them vari-
ous degrees of value, legitimacy, and acceptability. Purity
is a positive subcategory of these primary codes, and
hence purity is associated with signs of goodness, legiti-
macy, and the authoritative. However, human agents are
not only discouraged from fully realizing the category of
purity on an earthly plane, they are forbidden from doing
so. This quality is transcendent and beyond the capacity
of humans. Anyone who claims purity (to be without sin
or sickness, for example) will be punished by being
classified and treated as a hypocrite, a criminal, a heretic,
a schizophrenic, etc. Individuals instead are supposed to
attempt to approximate the ideological phantasm of
purity as best they can. However, even this expectation
cannot exist in an unblemished form without endanger-
ing a given social constellation and the individuals within
it. At times, pollution may or must be embraced. For
example, if we accept the Freudian thesis that cleanliness
(freedom from pollution) is a necessary part of civiliza-
tion and associated with purity, it could be said that the
accepted presentation of an individual covered in sand
while at the beach is a retro-norm. Or, when a cancer
patient must endure chemotherapy, thus allowing impu-
rities to enter the body, this form of pollution is socially
accepted and even encouraged, when it is medically
authorized.
Fear and Profit in the Fourth Domain 17
Even though the purity/pollution polarity is one of imper-
fection and approximation, there are elements of the
profane, the unclean, and the polluted that are strictly
taboo. One of these general elements is the mixing of
natural separations. Not only is such mixing not toler-
ated (unless it is due to the intervention of entities and/or
forces outside of and in some way superior to humans), it
has traditionally not even been believed possible. For
example, in a crude system of classification, such as ani-
mal, vegetable, and fungi, normative standards deny that
these fundamental elements may be mixed. Historically
speaking, these are categories of purity of form that are
transcendent. To mix them would be a crime against God
and/or Nature. The problem now is that what was once
thought to be impossible in terms of hybridity (the mixing
of animal and plant for example) is now an actuality.
Transgenic practices have thrown understanding of the
natural order into an unresolved, contradictory rift, thus
giving rise to a whole series of new questions about which
authority may designate exceptions to the codes of organic
purity. At present, there is no stable authority in regard to
this matter, and hence a profound sense of ideological
dissonance now haunts the western world.
The Fourth Domain
If popular, yet significant biological classification systems, such
as animal and vegetable, are forgotten for the moment, and
one instead examines the classifications used by specialists
in biology, we find a general system of three domains.
1
This
scheme is relatively new and is based in molecular studies
that reveal the existence of a small group of organisms now
known as archaebacteria. Formerly, these organisms were
placed in the kingdom Monera (a classification reserved
solely for bacteria), because they appeared to be just
another form of bacteria. However, since it has been
recently discovered that these organisms have significant
differences from bacteria in the composition of their 16s
rRNA sequences, cell walls, plasma membranes, and other
key molecular features, many scientists now believe that
they should have their own unique classification. Further-
more, in terms of evolutionary distance from bacteria and
eukaryotes, archaebacteria seem to require a domain of
their own.
2
Some biologists believe that the traditional
general classification system of the five kingdoms (which
is primarily based on morphology) is no longer suitable,
given recent developments in molecular biology, and they
now favor the domain classification system. Following this
trend, and for the purposes of this essay, CAE will also use
the domain system: bacteria are in the domain Bacteria;
archaebacteria are in the domain Archaea; and eukaryotes
are in the domain Eukarya.
However, since DNA from these domains is now transver-
sal, given new breakthroughs in transgenic practices, it
seems that the time is right to suggest the creation of a
fourth domain (Transgeneae). This domain would be re-
served for organisms that were manufactured by mixing
genomes (or parts thereof) from the three domains, in a
manner different from species emergence through evolu-
tionary process. Whether mixing genomic elements from
the various domains (along with mixing genomic elements
from different species of the same domain) will have the
effect of creating creatures with significant enough differ-
ences to warrant such a radical classification is open to
speculation.
3
However, if molecular difference and evolu-
tionary distance can give rise to such considerations, it
would seem that radical intervention into the evolution-
ary process (both in terms of selection and velocity) and
into genomic construction could make such a reclassifica-
tion necessary. It should also be noted that classification
systems are in a constant state of flux because of the rapid
leaps in knowledge that various biological specializations
are making on a regular and immediate basis. What at first
might seem premature can quickly become necessary.
In the end, however, CAE is more than willing to leave
biological classification systems to the specialists. At the
same time, however, scientists must realize that no semiotic
system is pure. Even scientific systems are affected by the
recombinant nature of language. Social, political, and
economic meanings all inform any textual configuration.
While the fourth domain, from the point of view of the
specialized position of molecular biology, may currently
fall somewhere between the nonsensical and the specula-
tive at best, it still represents a significant series of social,
political, and economic separations. The appearance of
organisms conceived within an ideological matrix of cat-
egorical mixing, and removed from the evolutionary chain
via the process of manufacture, will have profound effects
on biological sign and exchange value, will alter the
construction of western cosmologies, and will dramati-
cally affect the development of industries of applied biology
and the general technological apparatus of all fields of
communication and research. Perhaps the fourth domain
will only function as a socio-political interpretive model,
but even if this turns out to be the case, it will be compel-
ling nonetheless.
The Mythology of the Fourth Domain
While the material appearance of the fourth domain has coin-
cided with giddy euphoria among many biological
specialists, industry leaders, and those willing to swiftly
embrace new scientific and technological developments,
its traditional mythic place has not been one of such
positive associations. This domain was among the un-
nameable, either in its purity as the domain of the power
of God(s), or in its profanity as unthinkable taboo in the
realm of humans. This latter possibility is what defined its
tendency for people in the west, thus establishing it as one
key site associated with the ideology of fear. The fourth
domain was the category of the monstrous: A location
where mixing categories by humans conjured the sinful,
the perverse, and the horrific, and thus offended God and/
or Nature. For those who were willing to do what ought not
be done, punishment was swift and harsh, coming from
both secular and metaphysical forces. Entering the fourth
domain was the ultimate challenge to the authority of
order and all its institutional manifestations.
One need only look back to foundational mythic texts (in
the broadest sense of the term) of the western world to see
that hybridity was a concept stratified in accordance with
social relations. A central text for issues of transformation,
synthesis, and recombination is Ovids Metamorphoses.
This work is a full compendium of becomings that reveal
the rules of who has the power and ability to rearrange the
natural order, and explains the consequences of such
arrangements. Ovid offers two key rules about interven-
tions in the natural order. The first is that creation,
invention, and movement beyond the flow of the logos is
limited to the will of the gods. The second is that such
activity among humans (when not guided by the hands of
the gods) will end in disaster. Punishment for such trans-
gressions is contained within the process of recombination.
Appropriating the power of the gods (whether manifesting
as either a spiritual entity or as a natural force) will only
speed a mortals confrontation with deaththe harshest
penalty is always issued for such excessive appropriations
and is quickly delivered without remorse or pity.
Let us examine a myth that illustrates each of the two
principles. One less well-known myth is the story of
Achelous and Peremele. Achelous (a river deity) tells this
story to Theseus and some other honorable warriors while
they wait for a river flood to subside. Achelous explains
how he fell in love with and seduced the daughter
(Peremele) of a local king. When the king discovered his
daughters indiscretion, he concluded that the proper
punishment was death, and tossed her off a cliff into the
ocean. Achelous prayed to Neptune for aid; his prayer was
heard, and Peremele was transformed into an island as a
means to raise her above the sea. The separations regarding
certain types of commingling are readily apparent.
Peremele, from the human perspective, is perceived as
radically transgressive for mixing her mortality with im-
mortality. As usual, the punishment for engaging in this
process is death. However, this is not what this myth
emphasizes. That lesson, while consistent with the general
text, is of secondary value. The primary lesson is that the
gods have the power and the right to make any alteration
in the natural order that they think is necessary, and it is
only when they do it that there can be a positive outcome.
This is not to say that there will always be a positive
outcome. Conflicts among the gods (most notably be-
tween Jove and Juno) can lead to monstrous outcomes.
Even in a sacred sphere, recombination can take less than
desirable turns. Polyphemus the cyclops or Io the heifer are
such examples of the many monsters or unfortunate vic-
tims that populate this mythic landscape.
The myth becomes even more compelling when Pirithous,
one of the honorable warriors, challenges the story saying:
These are fairy tales;
The gods have no such powers, Achelous,
To give and take away the shapes of things.
The soldiers hearing this challenge are horrified, and the
wise elder Lelex replies:
The power of Heaven has no bound or limit.
Whatever the gods will is done, believe it.
Lelex represents a consensus among heroes concerning the
natural order. While there are spheres, even incredible
spheres, open to heroic humans, there is still another one
beyond human control that must be left to transcendental
forces. This is the realm of creation and recombination.
A better known myth in Ovids volume is the story of
Daedalus and Icarus. Held prisoner on Crete, Daedalus
bemoans his fate and his inability to escape by sea routes
that are well controlled by Cretan forces. However, he
notices that the heavens are an open field that is not under
the control of any king. He then devises a scheme to create
wings that would allow him and his son to fly off the island
and back to their homeland. He successfully transforms
himself into a recombinant creature by appropriating some
of the forms of a bird. Daedalus and his son fly from the
island; however, Icarus, being young and impetuous, does
not follow his fathers advice of staying the middle course (a
quick lesson in Aristotelian ethics), and pushes the limits of
his recombinatory nature by flying too high. The wax that
holds the feathers in his wings melts due to the heat of the
sun, releasing the feathers into the air, and Icarus falls from
the sky, landing in the ocean where he drowns.
This myth focuses on what occurs when humans attempt
to appropriate the space and skills of the gods. Rearranging
the natural order is a fatal art that ends in accursed
consequences. (Eventually such practices will be renamed
the black arts, but they remain just as fatal.) Daedalus
crime is clear:
He turned his thinking
Toward unknown arts, changing the laws of nature.
He transgresses the limits of human agency and ability, and
pays an exceptional price in the death of his son. Much of
the story also describes commoners (fishermen, farmers,
and shepherds) who see the two flying overhead. They are
content with their sphere of influence, and perceive those
who challenge the sky as necessarily being gods. Separa-
tion and law are intimately linked, and neither must be
transgressed for any reason. As shall be shown, this story
resonates through time well into the industrial period (if
man were meant to fly, he would have wings), and onward
into the postindustrial period, with our current fears and
concerns over transgenics.
Mythologies like the above do not fade away after the
Greco-Roman period, but instead continue to harden in
their expression. The little flexibility afforded humankind
in Greco-Roman myth is tightened all the more in the
Christian paradigm. The chain of being was a fearsome
catalogue of separations that put a clear limitation on
when and how what could mingle with what. Only now,
the intensity of horror was increased. The monstrous
became cruel, grotesque, and ever-present. Constant temp-
tations to transgress the natural order became a part of the
human burden, and monsters and demons born of human
failure, folly, and lack walked the earth. Further, the
polarities between good and evil with regard to categorical
mixing became less ambiguous. The kingdom of God was
perfect. Unlike in the world of pagan gods, no monsters of
the earth were spawned by conflicts in heaven. The
recombinant beings of heaven were always delightful. For
example, angels could have wings, for unlike Daedalus and
Icarus, they were designed by God to be a part of the
heavens. Flight was a natural part of their domain. On the
other hand, demonic creatures were recombinant as part of
their fight against the natural and spiritual order. They
were manifestations of perversity and evil, where the most
repulsive and dangerous physical characteristics of the
earthly domain were mingled together in a manner that
reflected an inner being of defiance and disobedience.
The paintings of Hieronymous Bosch are excellent visual
texts revealing the continuance of the association of fear,
monstrosity, and death in the fourth domain. Bosch illus-
trates the shifting and differing elements between pagan
and Christian ideas about the nature of the fourth domain.
His paintings are filled with recombinant creatures that
mingle with humanity, and he also represents the transfor-
mation of humans themselves into recombinant creatures
because of their unrepentant transgressions. The variety of
creatures representing various depravities in the form of
recombination are too numerous to catalogue in this essay.
Throughout his work, and most notably in The Garden of
Earthly Delights (GED), The Haywain (TH), The Last
Judgment (LJ), and The Temptation of St. Anthony (TSA),
viewers get a smorgasbord of possible recombinations. The
human form is combined with birds (TSA and LJ), with
fish (TW), with rats (GED), and with plants (TSA)all
of which are grotesque and frightening to behold.
Bosch also populates his landscapes with human transfor-
mations. For example, the berry-head (middle panel,
bottom-center-right) in GED represents voracious carnal-
ity as a metamorphic catalyst. The phrase to pluck fruit,
a common vulgarity at the time for a sexual escapade,
becomes the metaphor for the fate of a sinful minglerthe
loss of humanity, and a reduction of status in the chain of
being to that of a plant.
In addition, Bosch catalogues numerous unnatural acts
in the form of deviant intimacy between animals and
humans. This may be read literally, as it seems quite
probable that bestiality was on his list of perversions, but
there are additional layers. The bird sodomizing a man
with its beak in GED (middle panel, top-center-left)
indicates a concern for sodomy itself and the sinfulness of
homosexuality in general. The pig in a sexual embrace
with a nun in GED (third panel, bottom-left) is a reminder
of similar sins, but is also a charge against the decadence of
the Church, and its fall from the natural order.
Boschs images, much like so many representations of
earthly recombinancy that sprang from the medieval imagi-
nation, are visions of horror and the monstrous that have
considerable currency in the present. The model has not
changednot in Gothic horror of the 19th century, nor in
the present flights of horrific fantasy that Hollywood
presents. Perhaps Hollywood has increased the intensity of
the image by increasingly presenting explicit depictions of
the codes of the monstrous, but the codes themselves are
quite stable.
Beginning with Gothic tales of Frankenstein, the change
that occurs is that the recombinant becomes secularized.
The natural order is not part of the intention of God; the
delightful and the monstrous are just an emergent part of
nature itself. Science as the daedalean intervention can
help improve the human relationship with the natural
order; however, it must stay within the fairly traditional
sphere of human intervention. This means that encroach-
ment upon the fourth domain, the domain of hybridity
through recombination, should be off limits. When this
boundary is crossed, the monstrous appears, and it is usually
to the mortal detriment of the one who conjured it. Traces
of both pagan and Christian wisdom continue to appear in
the notion that transcendent forces, which will bring doom
if disturbed, should be left alone.
David Cronenbergs remake of The Fly
4
demonstrates the
power and longevity of the representation of the monstrous
as recombinant, its new grounding in the secular, and the
persistence of the belief that certain creative boundaries
should not be crossed. Here, a scientist hoping to make the
greatest breakthrough in transportation history begins to
fiddle with ideas of teleportation. An investigation into
increasing transport velocity is acceptable, and this is not his
transgression. The problem begins when he wants to teleport
flesh, rather than limiting himself to inanimate objects.
However, his computer is unable to reintegrate living tissue.
This is the point where he crosses the boundaries of cre-
ationhe programs his computer to be imaginative in the
manner in which it reassembles the molecules of the flesh.
When a fly is caught in the teleportation chamber with him,
rather than reintegrating the two as separate entities, the
computer combines them, so they might mingle and im-
prove at the molecular level. At first this synthesis has
positive effects, but as time goes on and the less desirable
traits of the fly begin to assert themselves, the character Seth
Brundle becomes increasingly monstrous, until he can no
longer be part of the natural or the social order. The moral,
in this case, is that messing with time/space for the purpose
of transporting objects is fine, since that is within the
confines of human agency, but insinuating oneself into the
integration of the flesh is unacceptable, and carries with it
its own harsh punishment. No character in the film is afraid
of teleportation (in fact, most are thrilled by it); rather, the
molecular reconstruction of the flesh is what causes fear and
skepticism among them. This concern is later amplified by
the fact that Brundles transgression affects his reproductive
system, ending in the passing of his monstrous becoming (a
genomic time bomb that removes the stability of species
boundaries) on to another generation. The curse of the fly
has a germline effect, and that element provides the narra-
tive for The Fly II.
While this data may only be impressionistic, the countless
examples of the interconnection between recombinancy,
the monstrous, and the ideology of fear are too numerous
to ignore. These inescapable, traditional ideological struc-
tures are internalized by individuals within western cultures,
and send waves of panic whenever they are made manifest.
Hence, capital must contend with the nonrational fears
that often accompany biotechnological initiatives that
explore recombination in the form of the transgenic.
Fear, Imperialism, and Ideological
Dissonance in the Fourth Domain
The idea that contamination through the blending of natural
separations leads to the monstrous easily slides out of the
biological and into the social. In general terms, this mythic
structure is among the primary roots that feed the fear of
the other. For the west, the semiotic regulatory system of
the monstrous (that which has been contaminated by
deviant mixing) blends with rational, pseudo-scientific
systems, such as Social Darwinism, to create an ideology of
separation. The establishment of this ideology has long
served colonial and endocolonial initiatives. From the first
western imperialist expeditions onward, civilization has
been represented as a purifying categoryone that liber-
ates the cultural other from the profane and unclean
positions of savagery or barbarism. The process begins with
a reinscription of the territory of the other with the signs
of civilizationmanufacturing, commodities, resource
management, and the full host of social relations that
accompany these materials and processes, all tied together
under the sign of providence or progress. Progress assures
that the appearance of this symbolic order is presented as
enormously positive and indisputable in its generosity,
while the signs of the indigenous regimes are parodied,
ridiculed, assimilated, or destroyed. Those who refuse
assimilation and/or resist their placement in the newly
introduced system of separations tend to be categorized as
dysfunctional excess ready for disposal. Whether the tradi-
tional model of military intervention, or the newer model
of commodity desire linked with global market pressures
(the replacement for muskets and battering rams) is used,
the result is the same: First and third world separation is
maintained, and cultural mingling is structured for the
material and social benefit of the civilized.
As functional and successful as this form of cultural/
economic imperialism may be, the system is still imperfect
due to its limitations. First, earthly frontier space is finite,
and is about to run out. At present, there is no space that
is not under capitalist invasion. All that is really left are
zones of contestation (such as in Islamic or Maoist cul-
tures). Second, while the body can be made to reflect the
signs of civilization, the flesh itself is not fully rationalized
to best approximate the ideal demands of capital in terms
of market adaptability and efficiency. Consequently, and
in relation to this latter difficulty, capital has since the late
19th century placed a great emphasis on constructing an
apparatus that would manufacture flesh in accordance
with its needs and values. For the first one hundred years
capital made clear what needed to be done, but had no idea
how to accomplish the task. The various eugenics move-
ments in the west between 1900 and 1945 were failures due
to both theoretical and technical impoverishment. How-
ever, this situation has recently changed with the
appearance of molecular biology and the increased sophis-
tication of genetics. In addition, the former problem of
finite territory has also been temporarily solved. The
molecular invasion of the body is the new frontier where
untold resources and profits may be appropriated.
Transgenic processes are a key part of this development,
but they have also left capital with a major ideological
problem to solve, because stable, naturalized categories are
in theory and practice becoming fluid. The traditional
social pressures regarding what constitutes deviant mixing
hold back experimental transgenic research and applica-
tions. What makes this problem so complicated is that it
cannot be neutralized solely through rational argument,
nor through the appearance of seductive technologies (as
occurred with information, communications, and trans-
portation technologies). The fear factor, which has been
refined over the past two millennia, will not disappear in
light of any promissory rhetoric or new technology. In fact,
the new technology only seems to intensify the level of
fear. The unnatural reproduction of the flesh still tends to
be seen as taboo within the human/cultural sphere. Fur-
ther, when the flesh becomes unnaturally mixed, the fear
heightens all the more (for example, consider the fear and
legislation generated by the prospect of human cloning).
Throughout history, ideology has always exclaimed that
such mingling is perverse and will bring about punishment
and catastrophe, and this is also the common perception of
transgenic practices.
For example, the first everyday-life, public interaction
with transgenic forms has arrived in the form of genetically
modified (GM) food. Certainly there are many rational
arguments about why tampering with the food supply at
the molecular level should proceed with tremendous cau-
tion, if at all. But this is not the sole source of public
caution. People are simply afraid of GM food. All varieties
of ungrounded speculations exist, particularly fears about
the consequences of pollution. Perhaps these foods may
cause illness, or could affect ones own genes. Anxiety
about personal catastrophe following eating (mingling
with) these perverse foods permeates public perception.
The monstrous will reproduce the monstrous, and every
bit of folk wisdom and cultural mythology concurs with
this conclusion.
In addition, capital must not only find a way to disrupt this
deeply internalized, nonrational belief system, but must
also maintain it for other purposes. It must continue to be
used to support functional social separations and the
imperial apparatus. Developing this kind of doublethink is
a common occurrence in capital, and generally it is rela-
tively prepared for constructing complementary
contradictions. The construction of the metanarrative of
nature provides an excellent example. On the one hand,
the romantic model of nature associates it with goodness
and morality. People should do what is natural, and avoid
the unnatural. On the other hand, the Hobbesian model
defines nature as a blind, barbarous force that runs on an
engine of conflict. The role of civilization is to tame these
powerful, random, and violent forces, so they might submit
to human need. Obviously there are many more narratives
of nature that stand in conflict with one another, but this
multiple structure allows the code to be deployed in a
tactical manner. The narrative that best fits a situation is
the one used, and at times, various combinations can be
used simultaneously. For example, the colonial subject
represents the conflicted status of nature. On the one
hand, this subject/animal must be tamed by civilization
through the repression of instinctual activity. On the
other hand, the rituals and behaviors of the colonial
subject are savage (such as scarification or cannibalism)
and are perversions and distortions of natures perfection.
In spite of this ideological flexibility, capital will have a
difficult time managing this current ideological disso-
nance; it is close to causing a serious legitimation crisis on
the level of the scientific apparatus and in terms of the
relationship of corporate structure (at least that of biotech
companies) with public welfare.
For movements that challenge capitals hegemony, this
moment of cultural confusion offers an exploitable glitch
in dominant representation. There is a chance to amplify
these legitimation crises and undermine areas of tradi-
tional authority. However, activists will have as hard a
time as capital at intelligently organizing within a spec-
tacle of fear.
The Activist Paradox, or
Whose Work Are We Doing?
For capital, the first step in resolving these active ideological
contradictions is to restructure the rhetoric that accompa-
nies biotechnology in general. Instead of using the
enlightenment promissory rhetoric of creating a new body
through technological extensions (a McLuhanesque model
that worked very well in structuring the cyborg body), one
that can all too often conjure associations with eugenics
and other related bio-atrocities, there has been a switch to
the promissory rhetoric of Christianitythe public is
promised miracle cures, edenesque abundance, immortal-
ity, and a new universalism. Hence the abundant use of
biblical metaphors when describing biological advance-
ments (for example, the trope that the human genome is
Gods blueprint). Of these promises, the most significant
in regard to the fourth domain is a new universalism. DNA
is the common element in all life. The lateral transfer of it,
even through artificial means, is only a way for the natural
constellations to share the bounty of life. On the other
hand, this universal characteristic (the new soul) is also
one that produces complexity and difference. Transgenics
is only going to expand the field of possibilities for life and
culture. This method of naturalizing transgenic manufac-
ture should have the effect of reducing the levels of anxiety
in the minds of those who have internalized the spectacle
of fear associated with the fourth domain. In other words,
the fear factor can be regulated and directed in a more
precise manner, and remain particular to colonial and
endocolonial separations.
To some degree, resistant coalitions and cells concerned
with the current applications of biological research and
with the corporate attitude of profits first, risk assessment
later must calm public fears as well. Biotechnological
research is a very broad field, much of which could be
useful or does not seem to be very dangerous. The most
problematic areas in the field (and these are usually social
and economic policies about managing biotechnical ap-
plication, rather than the technology itself) must be
identified, and resistant efforts focused upon them. Unfor-
tunately, fear does not allow individuals to pick and
choose particular objects of concern. It causes a blanket
dismissal of entire categories. Resistant organization in
such emotionally charged situations is difficult at best. This
leaves cultural and political activists with a two-point
mission: First, to neutralize the fear factor, and second, to
produce an informed public discourse extracted from a
specialized area of knowledge. To accomplish this task, the
mythic past and the sci-fi future have to be separated from
the reality of current research initiatives; utopian rhetoric
must be exposed for the propaganda that it is; and people
must be taught to be informed amateurs and armed with
basic skills in risk assessment. However, the process of
meeting these goals is begging for recuperation by dominant
culture. The risk of doing its work is what makes the
development of this type of pedagogy and subversive repre-
sentation a roll of the dice. Unfortunately, there is not really
any choice. Without fear of the consequences, the US is
moving at top velocity to corner this new colonial market/
territory. Since biotechnology in general and transgenics in
particular is central to profit expansion on a global level,
even the most cautious of capital-saturated cultures must
move quickly into this territory if they do not want to be
locked out of this new economic opportunity.
During this period of molecular invasion, the fourth do-
main will be transformed more than it has been throughout
all the previous periods of history combined. Transforma-
tive times are the most productive moments for subversive
political and social change (which is a double-edged sword).
The construction and manipulations of representation
can have a profound impact on discourse generated by
nonspecialists, and in turn, affect policy construction in
both its process and product, but only if resistant represen-
tation is produced from a critical position with the interests
of the general public in mind.
Notes
1. CAE would like to acknowledge the important contri-
bution of Dr. Mustafa nl of the Mellon Institute to the
development of this section.
2. This system was suggested in 1977 by C. R. Woese and
G. E. Fox after their recognition of archaebacteria as a
distinct form of life. For an excellent summation of new
trends in classification systems, see Protein Phylogenies
and Signature Sequences: A Reappraisal of Evolutionary
Relationships among Archaebacteria, Eubacteria, and
Eukaryotes. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews.
Dec. 1998, 1435-1491.
3. In biological terms, the idea of a fourth domain would be
suspect because only small portions of genomes are being
moved across domain lines or even between species, and
only under tightly controlled, limited conditions. It is
unlikely that profound molecular differences would occur
at this developmental stage of genetic engineering. Fur-
ther, some scientists suggest that eukaryotes are naturally
transgenic, because molecular study has revealed laterally
transferred bacterial traits.

Hundreds of human genes
appear likely to have resulted from horizontal transfer from
bacteria at some point in the vertebrate lineage. For
additional information, see Lander, et al. Initial Sequenc-
ing and Analysis of the Human Genome. Nature. Feb.
2001, 15; 409(6822): 860-921.
4. The Fly is a remarkable film in terms of its continuous
cultural resonance with the cinema-going public in a time
so consumed by developments in biology. It was first made
in 1958, and spawned two sequels. It was remade in 1986.
The remake was followed by another sequel, making five
Fly films in all.
All Edenic projections of plenitude have proven dangerous.
Avital Ronell
2
The Promissory Rhetoric
of Biotechnology in the Public Sphere
Just as the Christian soul has provided an archetypal concept
through which to understand the person and the continuity of
self, so DNA appears in popular culture as a soul-like entity,
a holy and immortal relic, a forbidden territory. The
similarity between the powers of DNA and those of the
Christian soul, we suggest, is more than linguistic or
metaphorical. DNA has taken on the social and cultural
functions of the soul. It is the essential entitythe location of
the true selfin the narratives of biological determinism.
Dorothy Nelkin and Susan Lindee
Popular wisdom in western culture has long told us that science
is our new religion. This trope has been repeated regularly
since Turgenevs creation of the nihilistic Bazarof and
Nietzsches pronouncement of the death of God. Like
most propositions derived from popular perception, there
is an element of truth in it. Science is the institution of
authority regarding the production of knowledge, and
tends to replace this particular social function of conven-
tional Christianity in the west. In keeping with this
position, science has slowly but surely become a key myth
maker within society, thus defining for the general popu-
lation the structure and dynamics of the cosmos and the
origins and makings of life, or, in other words, defining
nature itself. Much as religion once defined the human
role in the cosmos, science does the same in such a way that
the political economy of the day seems to be a part of
nature and attuned to its laws and imperatives. Certainly
the theory of evolution is an example of science fulfilling
the ideological needs of capital.
Science has never been very comfortable with its designa-
tion as the new religion, and rightly so. After all, the
analogy is very loose, since science and religion share very
few master narratives. The rhetoric of science has also
generally strayed far from the rhetoric of theology. Science
has developed its own language to represent itself to the
public (i.e., those outside any scientific specialization),
and the roots of its language are in the secularized speech
of the Enlightenment. However, in the relationship be-
tween science and the public, we find a second suggestion
of why science is often perceived as the new religion.
Science is a key mediator of the publics relationship with
nature, much as the Roman Catholic Church in medieval
times mediated its publics relationship with God. Perhaps
the greens, with their simple, personal relationship with
nature, could be our modern-day Protestants. Again, the
analogy can start to get pretty silly when pushed too far, but
The Promissory Rhetoric of Biotechnology in the Public Sphere 41
in light of the new biotech revolution, this exercise may be
a necessity.
As the key knowledge producer for capital, science finds
itself in a subservient middle-management position. Popu-
lar wisdom fails us when one notes that science as an
institution is not the Church of Innocent III. It is by no
means a general seat of power; its power lies only in the
particulars of knowledge production. Indeed, this position
is one of privilege, but it has definite limits. It must account
for itself, and do so in the way that capital demands by
showing that its knowledge production is profitable (par-
ticularly in the form of application, hence the marriage of
science and technology). Should it fail in this endeavor, it
will not be the great mediator of nature for long; however,
science has been very successful at impressing its boss for
the past century, and shows no signs of retiring. It is willing
and able to exclusively serve the needs of capital, not just
by generating knowledge that can be applied for profit, but
also by not generating any knowledge or applications that
could be detrimental to the maintenance and/or expan-
sion of the system (for example, science has avoided
creating a car that does not use fossil fuel).
In order to justify the selective nature of this variety of
service, to impress and excite the various classes that
monitor and distribute the investment capital marked for
research and development, and to uphold its spectacle as
a benevolent institution providing great marvels to the
general public, science has constructed a rhetoric of prom-
ise derived from Enlightenment political principles to
deploy either as a spectacle of seduction or deflection. This
rhetorical system is most evident when the knowledge
meets the public in the applied form of new technology.
From the building of railways to the construction of the
Internet, utopian promises regarding the latest techno-
logical phenomenon have deluged us. And like those in
every generation since that of the mid-19th century,
critics of technology have tried to puncture these inflated
claims (although usually with only modest success). While
much of this rhetoric does come from scientists for the
reasons given above, they alone are not to blame. These
promises only continue to inflate when redeployed by the
marketing and media agents of capital and by a broad
variety of capitals ideologues. In this generation consider-
able time has been spent on critiquing the value of the
Internet by leftist thinkers such as Pit Schultz, Geert
Lovink, Richard Barbrook, Konrad Becker, Lev Manovich,
Inke Arns, Oliver Marchart, Matt Fuller, Mark Dery,
Critical Art Ensemble, and many others. They have en-
deavored to deflate the promises of marketers in their
many guises, to reveal the ideological infrastructure of the
technology and its representation, and to demonstrate
that even the smallest utopian possibility contained in the
rhetoric would probably not be generally realized by most
of the worlds population.
While the promises made about technology are many and
appear in various permutations, they tend to fall into four
main categoriesdemocracy, liberty, efficiency, and
progress. Democracy appears as the notion that everyone
will be empowered by the new technology, and thereby
have increased agency within the social realm. For ex-
ample, one promise is that new transportation technology
(the elder of the techno-revolutions birthed with capitals
commitment to trains) will create a cosmopolitan state in
which no one is restricted by spatial limits. Of course there
is no real gain, only relative gain. Class structure replicates
itself in the technology. Class strata reveal themselves in
who can go farther, faster, more often, and in what degree
of comfort. While a less privileged person can travel
farther than ever before if so inclined, the relative distance
between what members of different classes can and are
likely to do remains about the same (or increases).
Liberty is usually presented in terms of freedom from
restrictive social elements. This promise can take many
forms. Liberation from drudgery in the form of work is an
example of a typical form; however, decades of
technoculture have taught us only that the greater the
intensity of technology, the greater the workload. Much
the same is true of efficiency. Improved efficiency only
means more profit and speed for capital, while the implied
promise of individual benefit never seems to materialize.
Taken together, a working definition of progress emerges
that means nothing more than the expansion of capital,
but presents itself as advancement of the common good.
This collection of rhetorical truisms has worked well for
over a hundred years, ushering in numerous innovations
both mechanical and electrical, both analogic and digital,
with strong public support. As the biotech revolution is
being set into motion, the standard practice of parading
the utopian principles of bourgeois society should be
happening again, but strangely enough, it isnt. The prob-
lem is that history is disrupting the deployment of another
round of the same old promises. Biology tried to have its
social revolution once before (before it was technically
ready to carry it out), when it was believed that Darwinism
could explain the nature of biological process and its
relationship to social progress. The usual promises were
made: real democracy would emerge through biological
engineering, because all citizens would be fit agents for
political action. A truly self-aware, self-generating equal-
ity would emerge. People would be liberated from biological
destiny by controlling it themselves, and would be able to
apply the values and morals of society to the production of
the flesh. In this manner, biological progress would paral-
lel technological progress.
What appeared instead was the horror show of eugenics
that spawned unspeakable atrocities. The utopian mask
fell from capitals face, and the sight was repulsive: selec-
tive breeding, forced abortions and sterilizations, and in
the worst cases, genocide. All excess populations (i.e.,
those of no use to capital) were viciously attacked or done
away with. At the other end of the spectrum (positive
eugenics), capital worked on a biological means to repli-
cate the populations it required by socially rewarding those
who bred for health, intelligence, and moral character.
The eugenic initiative sliced a wound so deep into the
social body that it has yet to fully heal. To this day it
remains a painful memory that is almost impossible to
acknowledge. In the US, eugenics is considered something
dead and best forgotten. Few American authorities ac-
knowledge that the US was a leader in eugenic philosophy
and practice. The feeling is that it happened somewhere
else (probably in Germany, where there were Nazis).
Unfortunately for the new generation of geneticists and
molecular biologists, the utopian rhetoric that once served
other science and technology producers so well is now
tainted. Using such language could raise up ghosts from the
past that are better left to rest. Since the public has already
seen the true face of capital and its plans for the flesh
(invasion and instrumentalization), it would not be wise to
use representation that could encourage remembrance of
this vision, because it could lead to a popular condemna-
tion of the new trajectory of flesh sciences.
The question now is, what rhetoric can be used to repre-
sent the new biological initiative so that it can keep its
distance from eugenics? If the secular rhetoric of the
Enlightenment is off limits, then what is left? One good
place to turn is the utopian rhetoric of Christianity (and
the Roman Catholic Church in particular).* The Church
survived the eugenics movement reasonably unscathed
at least to the extent that it was not seen as a primary
initiator of the movement, and in some cases was an open
critic of it. Why the Church acted this way is open to
question. Clearly, the idea that creation could be appropri-
ated by humans would not sit well with the Church, and
hence its position was to defend its belief system from a
secular hubris that was out of control. However, one could
also argue that Church denunciation of eugenics was self-
serving. For example, between 1900 and 1920, many of the
marginalized groups in the US that would be negatively
affected by the eugenics movement, such as the Poles, the
Italians, and the Irish, were largely Catholic. The Church
could lose its constituency in America, and hence its
public outcry. This notion of self service is reinforced by
the fact that such protectionism wore off later in the
century when the Jews became the primary target group
affected by eugenics. Be that as it may, the rhetoric of
origination and creation used by the Church remained
disassociated from eugenics, so its rhetoric is still open to
appropriation for those with the authority to use it.
Returning to the popular wisdom that science is our new
religion, in the case of the biotech revolution there may
well be an additional element of truth. The spiritual
promises of a dying institution are now being reborn as a
material reality that is not dependent on faith. In the
process, perhaps we are witnessing another attempt to
solve the conundrum of the skeptic who wants to believe.
This problem was eloquently presented by Dostoyevsky
through the character Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov.
Ivan has a desire to believe in God, but His envelopment
in mystery and otherworldliness leaves Him unaccount-
able for the evils in the world. If indeed there is a God, the
empirical proof of His incompetence is overwhelming. For
instance, Ivan saves newspaper clippings of atrocities
committed against children. How can a good and righ-
teous God allow such things to happen? In deciding
between God and justice (the secular), Ivan feels com-
pelled to choose justice, but suffers greatly for this choice.
Here at the beginning of the next millenium, this paradox
of psychological suffering is no longer so perplexing. All
that was once shrouded in mystery is now open to account-
ability and measurement. The choice is neither to push
through the absurd and leap into transcendental worlds
through uncompromising faith, nor side with justice at the
expense of an empty soul; rather, the best option is to
understand that redemption is grounded in the material.
Whether speaking of questions about a new genesis, heal-
ing, universal connectedness, or even immortality, the
answers are to be found in molecular strata beyond opera-
tional reality; however, this other realm can be measured,
modeled, catalogued, and manipulated. Controlled access
to creation, life, and the cosmos should be considered the
solution to Ivans dilemma.
The Quest for the New Eve
Biblical signs and symbols are entrenched in western culture.
From childhood, we are taught to recognize and interpret
them. For this reason biblical metaphor has always been an
excellent resource for specialized culture to use in speaking
to popular culture. Eve is one of those symbols that is
immediately recognizable, for even the undereducated
and/or the staunchly secular have had this sign of origina-
tion embedded in their cultural vocabulary. Since the
legitimation of the theory of evolution, science has had a
begrudgingly antagonistic relationship with creationist
theory, which clings to the literal interpretation of the sign
of Eve and the narrative of Genesis. It would be best if the
creationists just went away and left science to its work, but
like pesky gadflies they keep on challenging evolutionary
theory with arguments solely supported by unfounded
propositions contained in a sacred book. As the popular
wisdom of the American bumper sticker flatly states: The
Bible says it, I believe it, thats the end of it. In order to
speak back to the nonspecialized public regarding the
matter of the origin of life, science has managed to more
than swat at the creationists with its partly empirically
buttressed argumentsit has appropriated its symbol. We
now have a Simian Evea lovely australopithecus found
in Africa, and believed to be the oldest of our human
ancestors. (One must note that while she is the Simian
Eve, she is also known as Lucy, named for the Beatles song
playing at the moment of her discovery.) Science cor-
rected the Biblical misconception a second time by em-
pirically proving that the first Homo sapiens woman was of
African origin and appeared somewhere between 100,000
and 400,000 years ago. She is known as Mitochondrial Eve
after the genetic trait used to trace her origin and clock her
age. The broad approximation of her age is due to uncer-
tainty among scientists as to how the mitochondrial clock
works. One thing they do agree on is that the first Homo
sapiens is older than the 6,000 plus years that Christian
fundamentalist scholars claim for Eve.
The Human Genome Project has one last Eve for science
to offer us. She is the one who will help the public
understand the beginning of a second genesisone that is
not beholden to any reproductive boundaries that once
separated the speciesand to understand it as a good
thing. She is Eve without the fallan Eve of perpetual
grace, but most amusingly, she is a random Eve.
The mythology of this Eve goes as follows, although the
narrative tended to vary slightly with each scientist CAE
interviewed: When the Human Genome Project (HGP)
began its mission of mapping and sequencing the entire
human genome, it needed DNA in order to start. Since
HGP was an academic/government initiative, ethics com-
mittees were established to make sure that this genetic
investigation did not go into territories best left unex-
plored. One of the concerns among all the participants was
to insure that those who donated blood to the project
would do so anonymously, so their identities would be
protected from the media and various objecters to the
project who might harass willing participants. A review
board with strict procedures was set up to insure the
privacy of blood donors. However, after the first donor was
approved, no other donors were needed. The DNA of the
first approved volunteer was mass produced (copied) as
needed. Why go to the trouble and expense of having any
more? After all, one donor is sufficient for the projects
needs. What is known about this donor is that she is a
woman from Buffalo, New York. She is the Eve of the
second genesis. It will be a curious sight to see if she, too,
is labeled by science with the sign of origination.
New Nature
The ability to copy and recombine presents a cosmological
paradox. On the one hand, the creatures of earth, plant
and animal, great and small, no longer have any essential
traits. Postmodern theory made this proposition years ago,
claiming that all qualities are a matter of performativity
grounded in the social, and are always already becoming
other. To prove their proposition, theorists scoured the
planet for evidence that contradicted biological univer-
sals. For example, Judith Butler followed this formula
when studying human sex and gender. In order to show
that gender was a category of becoming rather than being,
she struck directly at medical and social essentialism by
citing examples of persons who had male genitalia but
double X chromosomes, and hermaphrodites who had
both male and female genitalia. This demonstrated that
the choice of gender is an arbitrary medical determination
reinforced by the dramaturgy of everyday life. While these
biological manifestations are relatively rare, they occur
regularly enough to call into question any universalist
claim about gender. Now that DNA can be replicated and
spliced at will, the concept of the individual (or any living
thing) as a temporary set of organic relations could become
an operational norm. Even Butler would have to admit
that, just ten years ago, gendering was bounded by the
limits of sexual reproduction. In the new version of nature,
there are no limits. The species is completely boundless (in
fact, the idea of a species may now be a biological anach-
ronism). DNA is DNA is DNA, and so the DNA from one
species can be recombined with the DNA of another. The
DNA could come from hundreds of donors, all from
different species. To use Guattaris terms, we are now
literally becoming plant and becoming animal. These
abilities to copy and recombine can be used to remake the
world, and design life in a manner that creates heaven on
earth, a process that molecular biologist Lee Silver calls
remaking Eden.
On the other hand, if all DNA is compatible, is this not the
essential link between all living creatures? Here is a new
universalismthe proverbial we are all one at the mo-
lecular level. Or, as Mellon Professor of the Sciences
Edward O. Wilson puts it:
We are literally kin to other organisms. About 99
percent of our genes are identical to the corresponding set in
chimpanzees, so that the remaining 1 percent accounts for
all the differences between us. Arent these small steps
gradually enlarging the self by degrees until the self is
identified with more and more others?
To once again use the language of Deleuze and Guattari, we will
be able to escape the tyranny of the arboreal that empha-
sizes the perception of interspecies relationships as
fragmented and separate, and thus becoming ever more
remote from one another in their complexity, and hence,
forever more specialized. Instead the living world will
become viewed as more rhizomatic, with each point imme-
diately connected to any other point. In this case, our own
survival and development is intimately connected to that
of all other living things.
This new universalism will have a dramatic impact on how
we perceive the world, and how we act in it. For example,
the new universalism will revolutionize medicine (such as
in pharmacology and gene therapy as answers to surgery
and other forms of mechanical invasion), but will also
revolutionize the very worldview of medicine itself. Many
now complain that modern medicine has become frag-
mented and wish to return to older holistic models. Prior
to the development of western modern medicine, western
medical practice was dominated by a form of holistic
healing based on the Galenic system of the four humors
that determined the character of the person. In this model
the doctor was interested in the patient as a whole
activities (both material and spiritual), environment, diet,
and so on. With the emergence of modern medicine in the
19th century, this type of practice was abandoned and
medical practice became much more specialized in its
interests. It focused on the micro-level, concentrating on
cellular pathologies and micro-body invaders (i.e., germs),
and de-emphasized the person as a whole or the influence
of he/r daily life on he/r health. In light of the new
universalism, medicine could return to a new consider-
ation of the patient; anything (environmental conditions
for example) that affects the molecular level (rather than
focusing on the cell/germ face-off and surgical interven-
tion) could become significant, and therapy could be
skewed toward molecular prevention rather than toward
cure and symptom arrest.
To be sure, this new paradox, in which the temporary and
the permanent exist in the same moment, is going to be
presented as a win-win situation. Whether we are rede-
signing ourselves, or learning to understand our natural
interconnectedness in a tangible (as opposed to mystical)
way, good things are going to happen. These promises go
to the extreme of offering the material reality of immortal-
ity (and not as an angel or condemned soul). In regard to
immortality, there are cautious promises such as this one
by Professor of Biochemistry S. Michal Jazwinski:
We are generating transgenic worms and mice to test the
hypothesis that at least some of the longevity genes isolated
in yeast are important in aging in mammals. If we can
validate this notion, we will have contributed a foundation
for drug discovery efforts aimed at ameliorating some of the
deficits of old age. This in turn would help to further our
goal for everyone to die young at an old age.
And wild promises such as this one from Michael Rose, Profes-
sor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of California
at Irvine:
Death rates go up sharply with increasing age, but once you
go off the edge of that ramp, you reach a plateau where you
are dependent on the quality of your cell repair capabil-
ity. I believe there are already immortal people and
immortal fruit flies. We just need to get the benefits of these
genes conferring immortality at a younger age, before we
suffer too much damage.
Some biologists are convinced that they are coming to under-
stand the mechanisms of aging and cell repair. For example,
one hypothesis is that every time a chromosome directs a
cell to divide, a small piece is shaved off the chromosomes
tip. When the tip becomes too short it stops directing the
cell to divide, and cell repair stops. As the nonreproduc-
tive cell ages it can begin to malfunction, and here the
problems of aging really begin. Biologists believe that if
they can find a way to maintain the tip, it will never give
the cell the message to stop dividing, and in this manner
we can combat age, fight certain illnesses, and perhaps live
forever. This discovery is doubly exciting because it has
long been known that some animals, turtles for example,
do not age (decay). Perhaps a lifelong process of cell repair
can be initiated in humans through molecular therapy.
As always, capital makes techno-revolutions sound good,
and to the extent that the interests of individuals and of
capital overlap, the revolution will be good. Unfortu-
nately, we do not know how big this overlap will be, and
if we are to judge from past experience, we can expect
much more to be worse than better. Further, while the
utopian promises have yet to really manifest themselves,
the numerous problems (too numerous and too great to list
here) are already manifesting themselves.
The most gruesome of these problems is the rebirth of
eugenics. This time, it is primarily a positive eugenics that
has returned in a form designed to solve the problem of
workforce replication during a time of rapid economic
change and expansion.** Now that humans have become
a temporary set of biological relationships, an opportunity
has arisen to redesign their biological matrix to better fit
the needs of capital. To those who submit their offspring
for redesign, capital promises in return to give that child
a predisposition for a competitive edge in the open
market (higher intelligence, better health, better dexter-
ity, more desirable appearance, etc). This form of positive
eugenics is market-driven, and pays for itself, thereby
killing two birds with one stone by achieving both profits
and a better worker/citizen. The values/needs of capital
are now being inscribed on the body at a molecular level.
Just how far this redesign process will go remains to be
seen. Currently, very simple forms of choices are offered,
such as sperm or egg donors with particular traits, embry-
onic testing (at four or eight cells) followed by embryonic
self-termination if the quality is not up to standard,
selective reduction of multiple fetuses, and so on. Re-
combinant traits have not been introduced yet, but given
capitals values of profit, speed, and expansion above all
else, there is no reason to believe the experiments in
redesigning will not continue (most likely they will be
presented as medical research).
The second major problem revolves around privatization.
Under the hegemony of capital it is a miracle that we are
not paying for air, or that there isnt a tax on it at the very
least. However, we will soon have to pay for our genes,
because no biological resource from the molecular level
on up will remain in the public domain. All useful/
profitable genes and biochemicals from various genomes
are being privatized and patented. Emblematic of this
tendency is the patenting of azadirachtin, derived from
the neem tree of India. This tree has been known for
centuries for its general cure-all traits (but it is particu-
larly helpful in relieving infection) and as a natural
pesticide. W. R. Grace isolated the plants most useful
chemical (azadirachtin) and patented it. While the iso-
lation process was known to Indian companies, they did
not patent it; the neem, along with its helpful properties
and the knowledge of how to use them, was considered to
reside in the public domain. After all, understanding of
how to use the medicinal and other useful properties of
the tree had developed over centuries. In a direct act of
colonial aggressioneco-piracy by any other term
W.R. Grace appropriated and now has relative control of
a traditional public resource.
The final problem is the ecological need for diversity.
Biological diversity among species and within species
that share the same operational realm as humans is
beginning to dwindle. The truth of the matter is that
monoculturing is very profitable in the short term, even
though it may spell disaster in the long term, particularly
in regard to food production. Industrial farming is always
looking for ways to maximize land use and to grow as
robust a product as possible. Consequently, those plant
varieties that are less robust or for whatever reason
require too many resources to produce are being lost. For
example, at the turn of the century there were over 7,000
varieties of apples grown in the US; now there are less
than 1,000. This interspecies diversity is a natural de-
fense against parasites and diseases. Should an apple tree
disease similar to the Dutch Elm disease sweep through
this population with its diminished variety, the chance is
small that one of the varieties will have a natural defense
against it. Imagine this problem affecting already
monocultured staples like soy or wheat. Industrial farm-
ing techniques, pushed to the limits by the need to
remain competitive in price, are forcing farmers to use
recombinant seeds developed by corporations. The profit
machine is on, and not even the threat of ecological
disaster will turn it off.
Conclusion: On Miracles
To the philosopher of skepticism, David Hume, a miracle is a
violation of the laws of nature. In Humes day one of these
laws was that only members of the same species could breed
via gendered pairing. This is no longer true. Is the new
biology a miracle in this sense, or is it that there is no
nature left whose laws can be violated? Is all that is left a
collection of resources to be managed for the generation of
profits? Many of the new miracles spoken of in this essay
are truly wonderful unto themselves, but as they are
assimilated into the system, they evolve into creatures less
reminiscent of those in the peaceable kingdom of Eden,
and become more akin to the predators of the Hobbesian
war of all against all. There is no rhetoric glorious enough,
not even the rhetoric of the miraculous, that can hide
humanitys tragic trajectory under the rule of pancapitalism.
Scientific expertise among specialists must be
accompanied by public understanding or
problems will surely arise.
C. Thomas Caskey
3
Transgenic Production
and Cultural Resistance:
A Seven-Point Plan
1. Demystify transgenic production and products
2. Neutralize public fear
3. Promote critical thinking
4. Undermine and attack Edenic utopian rhetoric
5. Open the halls of science
6. Dissolve cultural boundaries of specialization
7. Build respect for amateurism
Part 1: Objectives
Given the complex situation of fear and anxiety about transgenics
that is being carefully prodded with utopian theological
rhetoric, we come to the question, what can resistant
cultural workers do in such an environment? What are the
objectives? For those ready to engage this struggle in the
biopolitical realm of representation, the work appears to
be overwhelming. There is no doubt that resistant cultural
practices and the representation that emerges from these
processes is minimal. The hopeful side is that representa-
tion originating in the biotech industry is not doing that
much better at calming the public (although, as will be
described in Chapter 4, material initiatives on the molecu-
lar level are moving along in an almost uncontested
manner in the US, and only with modest friction else-
where). Deep suspicion and mistrust still reside in the
public sphere. This flow of affective social current is the
point of intervention; however, one must at the same time
be careful not to fan the flames of emotion that lead to
knee-jerk or absolutist activities. The aim should not be to
intensify transgenic fear in the hopes of solidifying rejec-
tion on a nonrational foundation, but to counteract it with
information that makes informed opposition not only
possible, but probable. The first goal should be to neutral-
ize the fear that comes from the centuries-old ideology that
the monstrous emerges out of recombinant impurity.
Contestational representation needs to contain complex
yet accessible information about the nature of biotechno-
logical initiatives, as opposed to the often reactionary
green politics that categorically denies any use for biotech-
nology, or the happy-faced, empty rhetoric of the biotech
Transgenic Production and Cultural Resistance: A Seven-Point Plan 61
industry. The standard job of demystification is in front of
us, and through this process we hope to achieve the
neutralization of fear.
Some may object that resistant culture is doing the work of
industry for them. After all, it is to the benefit of capital
that the public does not fear its production techniques and
products. Certainly any corporation would prefer a public
that is open-minded and willing to give the benefit of the
doubt to any given production process or product line, and
to not have to spend public relations funds on hiding or
misrepresenting their true nature. The classic example of
the hiding strategy is clear when we think of all the
Americans shopping at major grocery chains who are
nearly oblivious to the fact that nearly 100% of the
packaged foods that they are purchasing is genetically
modified. This is the extent to which industry has man-
aged to keep the intensity of the GM transition under
wraps. In the end, capital has no desire for public education
on such matters (perhaps some indoctrination would be
useful). All it seeks is for the public to feel a sense of
security that will neutralize any doubts along with fear.
Consciousness raising, on the other hand, removes fear
through the realization of individual agency and collective
powerthe ability of people to understand and thereby
affect situations allows individual participation in shaping
the policies, laws, products, etc., concerning the biotech-
nological. In the pedagogical process, only the fear
dissipates, the doubt remains.
But the real question is not one of education versus
spectacle. The real question comes as the neutralization
occurs. Once a vacuum in biopolitical space is left by the
reduction of fear, what will fill it? Will it be critical
discourse or will it be the absolute of the commodity? To
be sure, the corporate revenues are available that are
necessary to launch whatever type of campaign may be
needed to sway the public. However, if enough doubt
remains, and people have the ability to formulate their
own questions, then some of them who will productively
and intentionally resist by whatever means they believe
appropriate will maintain a contestational discourse. Its
intensity will vary considerably, and for the most part it
will be weak and underrepresented at this point in time,
but it will be a beginning.
However, to ask good questions, one needs the language to do so.
The means to direct public resentment, mistrust, suspicion
and even hostility in a productive way requires that each
individual know precisely why s/he resists. Hence, the
construction or recuperation of language(s) that adequately
describes the contested situation from a minor position(s)
becomes a necessity. The first step, in the case of transgenic
production, is a nihilistic one. Utopian Edenic rhetoric
must be revealed as the fraudulent clap-trap that it is. To
appropriate public ignorance and fill this absence with a
simulation of mystery to enhance ones authority and to
inspire awe over the mundane is worthy only of the lowest
carnival, spirit-knocker hucksters. What makes matters
worse is that this rhetoric is not used only by industry
promoters, but by scientists and artists as well. Anything
that can be done should be done to expose the social
separation and solidification of authority reinforced by
their claims of being new creators and bringers of plenitude
to the masses. Plenitude for the world is not just around the
corner. The corporate claim that it is producing the means
to feed a hungry world (a motto that has sunk deep into
food economy and is used by corporations, farmers asso-
ciations, food distributors, even charitable organizations)
is a falsehood. The world could be fed before biotechno-
logical means were available. For more than half a century,
starvation has been little more than a military tactic to
bring rogue nations into line or eliminate excess popula-
tions, and will probably remain so long after new, more
efficient means of food production are in global use.
Edenic rhetoric brings its own inversionthe complaint
that the class of people who use it are playing God. This
rhetoric of spiritual trespass is as dangerous and as authori-
tarian as the claim of the Secular Creators. Not only do
both of these rhetorics reinforce one another, but they
deflect the conversation from the critique of production,
commodification, and value onto the trivialities of ethics
and moralsa circular sign exchange that continuously
flows nowhere. Meanwhile, the piratical exchanges of
capitalist political-economy continue relatively uncon-
tested. A key example of this deflectionist strategy is still
cloning. Cloning is presented as the ethical issue of the day
and the cause of considerable public discussion due in part
to the media coverage (the exchange between the media
and its consumers is now looping in terms of causality).
Cloning is a completely underdeployed biotechnology.
The knowledge base for it and its applications are modest.
On the other hand, consolidation of the food chain by
corporations affects at present 40% of people on this
planet, in addition to having a direct linkage to eco-piracy
and molecular and environmental pollution. No need for
ethical discussion here. Exploitation, domination, and
what to do in the face of it are the topics needing discussion
and action, but at present the ethical black hole of cloning
has the spotlight.
When Edenic rhetoric can be understood in general as the
oppressive language that it is, resistant culture can move to
the second part of the initiative, and that is to replace this
rhetoric with a critique of power that reveals the relation-
ships of individuals to biopolitical authority and the
consequences of these relationships. Providing simple,
practical tools of risk assessment that are grounded in
science and placed within historical and cultural context
is the easiest way for doubt to be transformed into insight-
ful critical questions. As always, the constructive task is far
more difficult than the destructive one.
The maintenance of mystification takes more than just a rhetori-
cal formation. The question of access to scientific
institutions is another significant element. To take an
extreme example, Australia has eliminated nonspecialist
intervention in transgenics by sealing off the institutions
involved in such investigations. (Perhaps this was done
in good faith, but CAE will not be questioning that in this
essay.) Given Australias history of ecological problems
due to release of alien species into the environment,
there was a public outcry for caution and care with
transgenic initiatives. This idea is all well and good;
transgenic investigation should proceed with caution.
The problem is that the rules for handling GMOs became
so strict and regulated that for all practical purposes the
public can have no contact with them or the physical
apparatus that produces them. The positive side is that
the likelihood of accidental release is very low; however,
the downside is that what is going on in the labs will
forever be a mystery. Creatures cannot come out of the
lab, and people cannot go in without going to consider-
able difficulty. The consequence is that the public remains
ignorant and is only comforted by a feeling of security.
Reasonable consensus exists among scientists that these
precautions regarding physical containment and impor-
tation are excessive; however, they are necessary to keep
the public from panicking. Education (liberation) about
transgenics could have the same effect, but security
(repression) was seen to be the better (most efficient)
option. The political result is that the power of transgenics
and its knowledge base remains in the hands of bureau-
crats (the regulating agencies) and the scientists, and
therefore is outside democratic process. Just as bad, the
bunkers allow for rumors and conspiracy theories to
spread because no one has experiential evidence to con-
tradict popular fantasy. Only those within the bunker
can dispute it, and they are dismissable because they are
representatives of the conspiracy itself.
While Australia may be the strictest nation in this
regard, the repressive model is fairly representative of
institutional positions worldwide. (The economic rea-
sons for this situation will be described in Chapter 4).
The goal for cultural resistance is to create temporary
public space where education and intersubcultural labor
exchange can occur. Opening the knowledge bases and
dissolving boundaries of specialization is a primary goal.
Creating a space away from Edenic rhetoric becomes a
necessity. Under such conditions, dialogue can occur
that is grounded in the present rather than in utopian or
apocalyptic projections for the future. Understanding
and consensus arises out of interaction, but for it to
actually happen, respect for the knowledge bases of all
participants is necessary. For this reason the space must
be one where the authority of the scientific personality is
not so powerful. The hierarchy of expert over amateur
has to be suspended in this context. If experts have no
respect for the position of amateurs, why would they
come to a place where dialogue is possible? But more
significantly, why would amateurs come to a space of
monologue where the experts dominate? This separation
has to be dissolved through interdisciplinary facilitation:
This is a service that cultural workers can provide and
have a history of providing.
The final question is where should these spaces be cre-
ated? The easiest locations to use are spaces designed for
cultural activity (art museums, natural history museums,
ethnographic museums, etc.). These spaces are useful
and provide a legitimacy that is sometimes necessary;
however, they cannot be used exclusively nor can they
be overdeployed. Other venues have to be appropriated.
Spaces that lend themselves to overlaps in interest in
the organic are tremendously fruitful. Grocery stores,
farmers' markets, zoos, parks, fairs, and so on are loca-
tions that have a participatory dynamic built in, and
where, out of everyday life association, people are pre-
disposed and sympathetic to discussions of biological
issues. They are often spaces where people feel they
have a voice (unlike so many cultural institutions).
These spaces should be exploited for their dialogic
potential. If they can be created with the seven objec-
tives in mind, there is a chance that a complex, tactical
countersymbolic order could be established, and if for-
tune is with us, even thrive.
Part 2: Representational Pitfalls
Monumentality
Anyone who has attended digital media arts festivals over the
past decade should be shocked by the replication of the
monumental as a primary criterion in deciding the
value of a given project. A work has to be big; it has to
be overwhelming; it has to be global; and if one isnt
doing a BIG project, it is somehow an insult to computer
capabi l i ty, hypertextual i ty, i nteracti vi ty, and
nonlinearity. If the project does not possess monumen-
tal scale or volume, its considered just the work of a
common user. This attitude is supported by the struc-
ture of festivals, which all want the biggest attractions;
by the prize system, in which big is a necessity just for
entry; and by the granting system, which seems to
function in accordance with monumentality regardless
of whether the judges are specialists or nonspecialists.
This prejudice in favor of scale is evidently a trace of the
traditional art world replicating itself in a new territory.
In order to intervene in art history, monumentalism has
always been a good tactic, but in the case of electronic
media it has become the only tactic. What makes this
situation very odd is that electronic media research has
not progressed to the point where monuments are really
appropriate. This years monument, after all, is next
years dinosaur. The technology changes too fast, and
monumentalism requires technological stability if it is
to stand the test of time. Perhaps this is putting the
cart before the horse: We are attempting to write
multivolume encyclopedias before writing an article
that can be adequately understood.
As the field of the digital expands into wetware, the
replication of monumentality as the equivalent of quality
is continuing (albeit at a slower pace), and with this
expansion come the same disappointmentsprimarily
product (in every sense of the word) before process, and
scale over concept. The emptiness and lack of experimen-
tal spirit in new biotech work is depressing, but not
surprising. The means to try to cover the emptiness of
content by the use of scale are all the more amusing. Given
that much of the work is in the molecular and cellular
world, how does one make that big? Video projectors
attached to microscopes become necessary, and any other
type of technological superstructure that can fill a room
with an image. The other option is to construct symbolic
monumentalism by making monstrous, heroic claims such
as that one is creating life. The saddest part is that these
claims are often believed by less informed members of the
public. In the end, what an audience gets is a big product
demo (much the same as with ICT), in which standard lab
techniques are dressed up with a slick design job and parade
themselves as new breakthroughs in cultural practice.
The difficulties do not stop there. The monumental also
compromises the work of the content-minded. The two
are almost mutually exclusive, not because an electronic
monument cannot have content, but because the wowie-
zowie effect of the scale overwhelms any content it may
have. (When the project becomes a dinosaur, the content
reappears, and can potentially save the project from ex-
tinction. ) Spectacle can overwhelm even the most critically
minded, and in light of the mystery of technology for the
nonspecialist, and the heroic hype given techno-explor-
ers, audiences are primed to focus on spectacular
entertainment even when conceptual value is available.
Finally, one must ask, is this structural replication of
monumentality desirable (at least in its current form)?
Politically, for anti-authoritarians, monumentalism is gen-
erally undesirable because it tends to transform the specific
into the general (if not the universal). With electronic
media under the domination of white males (with perhaps
the exception of video, the financial runt of the litter), its
hard to support this new wave of monumentalism. At the
same time, there is a technical research component to
monumental works that offers a shred of redemption. If no
one experiments with monumentalism, the possibility of
alternative technical options will be diminished.
Formalism
Formalism presents a second possible pitfall. Recently invented
imaging technologies designed for biological investigation
and the images derived through their use have inspired a
host of new art objects that replicate or abstract the forms
of the micro and molecular landscape. In addition to
traditional formalism, another type has appeared that is
based in the re-presentation of the processes that form
organic matter, ranging from tissue cells to GMOs, and
then products that are derived from these processes are
often displayed. In both cases, functionality is stripped
from the process/object and the ideology is hidden in order
to skew experience toward an enveloping aestheticized
perception. The decontextualization turns processes that
are fascinating in and of themselves into a banal series of
statements. How much more art is needed about the
beautiful or sublime qualities of nature? The only reason
that it can even be stated yet again without people break-
ing into laughter is because the novelty factor is so high.
Artists forming life itself to make a statement about life
what a concept! And what a great sleight of
handmundane cookbook recipes of science that have a
profound effect on knowledge, methodology, and material
culture are transformed into transcendental voodoo. Such
activity is mystification on an intolerable scale that directs
viewers away from an understanding of their world in
general and away from an understanding of the flesh
machine in particular; rather, it redirects discourse into
the disempowering realm of the abstract. The bio-com-
modity is beatifically naturalized, becoming an enchanted/
haunted process/object that accepts the projection of
sublimated desire and is ready for consumption. The end-
game of this style of production is, of course, recuperation
by the corporate state.
CAE hopes that we are not misunderstood on this issue.
We are not arguing for the elimination of visual pleasure.
Tactically speaking, it may not always be useful to produce
such sensations, but pleasure is an option that should be
engaged whenever possible, and that is the grand majority
of the time. The modernist split between beauty and
pleasure on one side and ideology and critique on the other
is a false dichotomy. Or, to put it in concrete terms, we do
not support the John Henry Mackay model of production
in which his love poems are written on a personal level for
beautys sake, and his agitprop novels are written on a
social level for the sake of the proletariat. CAE is in no way
suggesting that all cultural action in regard to biotech
return to the all-too-often repulsive visual language of so
much activist art. Capital should not have a monopoly on
the attractive or seductive image, nor should resistant
culture give the impression of being aesthetic puritans.
What needs to be avoided is the idea of beauty for its own
sake, for beauty is a tactical choice that can aid the critical
dimension of a work or take away from it. After all, beauty
is no more than a cultural construction that can be ma-
nipulated within given parameters. The idea that beauty is
a supreme quality and that other qualities should be
deintensified or eliminated from a work by reducing it to
form is the problem. CAE is suggesting a rhizomatic model
in which visual pleasure is not in opposition to critical
discourse, but harmonizes with it on a multivariate plane
of immanence. Put negatively, the rejection of transcen-
dental categories is what is of concern to us. There is plenty
of pleasure to go around within that which is common, and
it does not have to exist at the expense of the transparent
representation of power relationships within a given pro-
cess/object.
Science Fiction
CAE would like to state at the outset here that we are not
attacking science fiction as a legitimate literary genre, nor
are we attempting to say that it is any better or any worse
than any other genre. In fact, we are only interested in
some basic narratives that would make many sci-fi writers
cringe. Our concern in this section is only with the general
usage (in art, film, TV, text, etc.) of biological sci-fi
narratives in a tactical sense. At times, sci-fi has been
extremely useful to resistant culture, particularly in the
most repressive times. Ideas and discourse that authority
deemed subversive could easily hide in sci-fi fantasies. A
creator had plausible deniability. S/he could always insist
that s/he was just telling a story, and that it had no
allegorical intent nor even that it suggested what could not
be spoken. For example, sci-fi was used tactically and
exceptionally well in the 1950s as a means to speak about
McCarthyist activities and tendencies. Of course, it was
used by the other camp as well to promote military initia-
tives and further red paranoia. Given the current social/
military environment, the need for tactical sci-fi may
come back again, but there are some down sides to this very
popular choice in cultural models.
While sci-fi has generally been a great ally in eliminating
Edenic rhetoric, it has not done so well at disassociating
itself from the recombinant and the monstrous. Perhaps
we are asking too much here, since it is such a profound
cultural code. Without it, is it even possible to have
monsters (in the broadest sense of the term)? The mon-
strous seems prominent in many of the metanarratives
involving mutation, invasion, and all types of biological
corruption (technological, pharmacological, genetic, etc.)
that are necessary for conflict in the sci-fi narrative.
Replayed at a alarming rate (particularly at the pulp level
and in Hollywood), the positive soul of the pure human
either falls prey or finds a way of protecting he/rself from
the agents of the above listed metanarratives. The sci-fi
replication of this narrative of good and evil is a reinforcer
of imperial ideology that justifies bourgeois constructions
of human and other. Such drama brings those who
engage it to high mythic narrative which in turn functions
as a deflector that moves considerations away from the
pragmatic and into first principles and ethical/moral co-
nundrums. Again, there is a tendency for the transcendental
to assert itself at the expense of the plane of immanence.
The second concern is with the temporal. Works of sci-fi
tend to locate themselves in the future to give them that
extra bit of credibility. And why not? The future is open to
any type of speculation. Any narrative moving between
apocalypse and utopia is welcome. The future is a zone of
free speculation, and that spells fun for the producer or
participant. The down side is that such romps take away
personnel who are needed to decipher the present. On
issues like biotechnology in general and transgenics in
particular, so much of the present is misunderstood, dis-
torted, or hidden, that tactically speaking, it would be
better for resistant cultural producers to focus on these
difficult areas. The future appears to be overdeployed in a
cultural sense (especially if we throw in the futurologists),
while the present begs to be understood through accessible
cultural action (the academics are not much help here).
Many will probably say that through future fiction, we
come to understand the present. Perhaps in a transcenden-
tal sense that is truemetanarratives of humanity or
moral principles come into focus (partly because this is
how people have been trained to read the future), but in
terms of mundane everyday life process the future as the
setting for these works is very inefficient in helping people
learn anything. Moreover, the wild speculations that the
talented are able to frame as plausible can end up fanning
the flames of fear without injecting any actual information
that could transform nonrational energy into political
action. For the sake of ease and efficiency, CAE believes
that sci-fi narratives are not the best of tactical choices at
the moment.
Conclusion
Consciousness raising is generally a matter of aiding people in
constructing new grids of interpretation that allow them
to see the exploitive structures and processes around them,
and to help them understand that their subjectivity does
not have to be determined by these negative influences.
To do this, activists, organizers, political artists, etc., could
draw on the life experience of those undergoing the peda-
gogical process. Whether it is class relationships, worker
exploitation, or prejudice and discrimination, the life
experience of the individuals in these situations contains
the means to understand how these structures and tenden-
cies functioned and the ideology that justified and
maintained them. With biotech in general and transgenics
in particular, life experience is minimal or very indirect.
Hence, while agents of cultural resistance may have clear
objectives and know the pitfalls that lie in front of them,
they are left with the difficult pedagogical problem of how
to produce direct experiences for people that reveal the
urgency of countering the molecular invasion. Experience
and pedagogy (doing and thinking) have to occur simulta-
neously, thus making dialogue and individual participation
key elements in resistant cultural initiatives regarding
biotech. Simultaneity is not common in the pedagogical
process. Usually one experiences an action in the world,
and then can critically reflect upon it in a pedagogical
space. These two stages now have to be compressed into a
single experience. The space of everyday life and the space
of pedagogy must become one and the same to make
digestible, accurate information immediately connected
to critical reflection. This is the new and experimental
dimension that needs to be part of cultural projects that
address key issues that are disconnected from everyday life
experience.
Capital has chosen commodity envelopment as the best
means to introduce biotech (by the time the people know
what is going on, they will have internalized a feeling of
dependency on various product lines, and will not want
them taken away or regulated). The spectacle of biotech is
still gentle and cautious, so there is a small chance for
education to triumph over indoctrination on the issues.
Hopefully, this opportunity will not be wasted.
Today, the new technologies convey a certain type of accident,
one that is no longer local and precisely situated, like the
sinking of the Titanic or the derailment of a train, but general,
an accident that immediately affects the entire world.
Paul Virilio
4
Transgenic Accidents
Paul Virilio has commented in a number of interviews that each
new technology that is embraced by a culture is accompa-
nied by a series of possible accidents particular to the given
technology. With information and communications tech-
nology (ICT) or transportation technology, the accidents
have increased in scale and in their intensity of violence,
due to their intimate relationship with the intensification
of speed. In the case of ICT, the accident has hit a zenith
in scale and intensity of violence beyond which it cannot
progress. With the introduction of global, real-time tech-
nology, the possibility of an accident that could occur
simultaneously on a world-wide basis haunts the margins
of the spectacle of techno-utopia. As the world braced
itself for the disaster of the Y2K bug, the meta-accident
lived as more than a theoretical concept, and the means by
which such an upheaval could occur manifested in a
detailed scenario that had a tremendous material impact
on every socio-economic constellation using ICT.
Resource-driven, transgenic biotechnology has a particu-
lar set of accidents that accompany it. The nature of some
of the accidents is already taking shape, but there is a
shortage of details. There are, however, some loose analo-
gies. For example, when nontransgenic species alien to a
given ecosystem are introduced, the results are very diffi-
cult to predict. For the most part, these introductions have
been neutral or positive, but there have also been a modest
number of negative outcomes. Australia is a very interest-
ing case, as it is one of the few countries that prefers
biological environmental resource management to chemi-
cal management, and has remained committed to it over
the past century. And while it has had many successes,
there have also been many problems. Rabbits, feral cats,
European carp, and myna birds are all examples of species
that have been problematic in various ecosystems in Aus-
tralia. Perhaps the most well known example is the
introduction of the cane toad. In 1930, sugar cane farmers
in the coastal regions of Queensland, Australia, became
increasingly concerned about the rising threat to their
crops from the cane grub. Their grumblings about this
problem spurred the government to find a method to
control this pest. It was determined that the cane toad,
although not indigenous to Australia, would serve as a
predator that could adequately hold down the numbers of
cane grubs and beetles that plagued the farmers. In 1932 a
colony of cane toads was collected in Hawaii and trans-
ported to a small pond in Queensland to breed, and breed
they did. Much to the chagrin of the farmers, the toads
Transgenic Accidents 79
failed to curb the grub population. It became clear that the
cane beetle had two incarnations, an airborne manifesta-
tion as well as an earthbound form. The beetle in its flying
form was not readily available to the opportunistic toad,
which preferred to eat life forms on the ground that happen
to be passing by. Further, the cane toad preferred to stay
where there is good ground cover, but the grubs were
available during the season when ground cover in the
fields was at a minimum. Consequently, the toads and the
grubs did not share the same territory. Thus, the cane
beetle was completely unaffected by the introduction of
the toad to Queensland. To make matters worse, it was
soon realized that the toad had neither natural parasites
nor predators in this environment. Now the population is
out of control and has had a devastating effect on the
environment. Cane toads are voracious eaters, and will eat
anything that will fit in their mouths. They also are rapid
breeders. Hence their ever-growing numbers pose a threat
to numerous small insects that are productive in the
Queensland ecosystem. The cane toad has now become a
superpest whose territory is ever-expanding.
In response to this problem, Australian biologists and
resource managers attempted to find an organism that
could control the menace. The first attempt was a study on
a Venezuelan virus. Researching the potential for viruses
to control cane toads involved isolating and purifying
viruses from cane toads in their native habitats in Venezu-
ela. The effects of the viruses on cane toads and native frog
species were then tested in the secure biocontainment
facilities at the CSIRO Australian Animal Health Labo-
ratory. While the viruses proved effective in killing cane
toad tadpoles, they also killed one species of Australian
frog in the trial. This option was rejected. In a second
attempt, the researchers identified two fungal pathogens
that are lethal to cane toads and other amphibians. One
fungus was thought to be responsible for frog fatalities in
Australia and Panama, so this possibility was also dismissed.
The cane toad problem is still unsolved.
Another problem is the accidental release of organisms
alien to a given environment. This type of accident is also
pertinent to transgenics, as many of the genetically modi-
fied organisms are designed to be robust and to have
competitive advantages over wild species (transgenic fish
and yeast are good examples). Consequently they have to be
kept in containment facilities so as not to pollute wild
environments. In this case, the probability of an accident is
higher compared with species that have been designed to
blend in with a given environment. Before transgenics
increased the risk level, there were a number of cases of
environmental pollution from accidental releases that served
as warnings of what could be next. One of the classic
examples of accidental release in the US is the gypsy moth,
Lymantria dispar, one of North Americas most devastating
forest pests. The species originally evolved in Europe and
Asia and has existed there for thousands of years. In either
1868 or 1869, the gypsy moth was accidentally introduced
near Boston by E. Leopold Trouvelot. About ten years after
this introduction, the first ecological disruptions began in
Trouvelots neighborhood. By 1890 the gypsy moth had
become such a pest that the state and federal government
began attempts to eradicate it. These attempts ultimately
failed, and since that time, the range of the gypsy moth has
continued to spread. Every year, isolated populations are
discovered beyond the known range of the gypsy moth, but
these populations are either eradicated or they disappear
without intervention. It seems inevitable that the gypsy
moth will continue to expand its range in the future.
The gypsy moth is known to feed on the foliage of hundreds
of species of plants in North America, but its most common
hosts are oaks and aspen. Gypsy moth hosts are located
through most of the coterminous US, but the highest
concentrations of host trees are in the southern Appala-
chian Mountains, the Ozark Mountains, and in the northern
lake states. Gypsy moth populations are typically eruptive in
North America; in any given forest stand, densities may
radically fluctuate. When densities reach very high levels,
trees may become completely defoliated. Several successive
years of defoliation, along with contributions by other biotic
and abiotic stress factors, may ultimately result in tree
mortality. In most northeastern forests, less than 20 percent
of the trees in a forest die, but occasionally tree mortality
may be very heavy. Over the last 20 years, several million
acres of forest land have been aerially sprayed with pesti-
cides in order to suppress outbreaks of gypsy moth populations.
Though some areas are treated by private companies under
contract with landowners, most areas are treated under joint
programs between state governments and the USDA Forest
Service. The USDA, state, and local governments also
jointly participate in programs to locate and eradicate new
gypsy moth populations in currently uninfested areas. Most
of these projects focus on populations of European origin,
but recently several Asian populations have been discov-
ered and eradicated in the US and Canada.
In eastern North America, the gypsy moth is subject to a
variety of naturally occurring infectious diseases caused by
several kinds of bacteria, fungi, and a nucleopolyhedrosis
virus (NPV), which was inadvertently introduced with the
gypsy moth or its parasites. There are six species of
entomopathogenic (causing disease in insects) fungi known
to infect the gypsy moth. As an alternative to spraying
insecticide, pest managers turned to a biological means of
control. In 1984, researchers isolated an entomophthoralean
fungus (E. maimaiga) from the Asian gypsy moth in Japan
and brought isolates to the United States. Stages of this
fungus now could be maintained year-round in the labora-
tory using several different culture media, rather than having
to be perpetuated on gypsy moth larvae. Host range studies
have shown that E. maimaiga does not infect insects other
than Lepidoptera.
There is general consensus among scientists and pest man-
agers that E. maimaiga is probably responsible for the decline
of gypsy moth outbreaks and damage over the last few years.
It is effective in both high- and low-density gypsy moth
populations, unlike the nucleopolyhedrosis virus, which is
only effective on high-density moth populations. The fun-
gus could play a significant role in the natural control of
gypsy moths, especially in years with a wet spring. Only time
will tell whether increasing the area where E. maimaiga is
established will lead to constant lower populations of the
gypsy moth in North America.
Examples of such accidents and responses to the accidents
could be endlessly recounted. Kudzu, killer bees, purple
loosestrife, catclaw mimosa, etc., all point to the kinds of
accidents that can occur when humans play mix and match
with ecosystems. Transgenic organisms, however, are in a
very fuzzy position in regard to alien species introduction,
because they typically exist at the intersection between the
alien and the localized. For example, transgenic corn tends
to be introduced in corn-growing localities. It is both alien
and localized at the same time. The problem here is that
comparing historical cases of alien organisms' release does
not get the analysis very far; it only throws up abstract
cautionary flags. Does changing a single gene or a single
phenotypic characteristic really change the organism so
drastically that the GMO deserves the designation of alien
species? Not having an answer to this question makes
argument by analogy very sketchy, so the debate continues.
This leaves direct research as the best and only method to try
and work through the transgenic puzzle. Such research takes
a tremendous amount of time, particularly because so much
of the study has to be cross-temporal, ranging over genera-
tions. Such studies are necessary because biological accidents
tend to be low velocity and filled with numerous latent
features (bio time-bombs). Seemingly, one of the new types
of accidents that transgenics can potentially deliver is the
germline or perhaps even the evolutionary accident of
cultural origins (perhaps the biological equivalent of Virilios
ICT real-time meta-accident). Even though such accidents
could be rendered extremely unlikely given proper time and
research, profit-hungry corporations continue to operate
according to a fix it as you go policy, with the idea that a
product is safe until shown to be otherwise.
The Good, the Bad, and the Transgenic
While a tremendous amount of caution and study should be
applied to transgenic organism release into the environ-
ment, there are strategies that reduce the level of risk.
The use of E. coli for DNA replication in the various
genome projects provides a good strategic model. In
order to replicate DNA sequences in reliable mass
quantities, scientists have developed a method that uses
E. coli as a replicating machine. By placing the DNA
sample desired for replication into plasmids (extra chro-
mosomal DNA) within the organisms and then
replicating them, scientists can retrieve as many samples
as they want. The ecological question that follows is
what if this strain of transgenic bacteria escapes from
the laboratory and finds its way into the wild? To
prevent any unforeseen disasters, scientists have placed
safeguards into the bacteria. To be sure, this bacteria is
not of great danger even without the safeguards, but this
take-no-chances policy seems prudent all the same. The
introduction of foreign DNA into bacteria puts it at
considerable disadvantage when competing with wild
bacteria. For the bacteria to replicate, it must not only
replicate itself, but all the extra DNA in its system as
well. This slows its reproduction process to such an
extent that it would be overrun by wild bacteria, or, in
other words, it would be at an extreme disadvantage in
the competition for space. Scientists, however, have
gone a step further in developing safety features by
mutating lab-strain E. coli so that it is fundamentally
incapable of nourishing itself outside of the lab environ-
ment. Lab bacteria is incapable of producing all the
proteins that it needs without a specialized food source
that they are very unlikely to find in the wild (i.e.,
outside the controlled conditions of the lab). Should
they escape, they would again be unable to compete
with wild bacteria because of this crippling feature.
This model of building in safety features has had some
successful industrial applications as well. For example, the
bacteria used for oil spill clean-ups is a very low risk for
release because its termination has been engineered into
its task. When an oil spill occurs and the bacteria are
deployed, they only live as long as the food source (oil) is
available. Once the oil is gone, the bacteria can no longer
sustain themselves in the hostile ocean environment. The
chances that they will find another food source are slim, so
the ecological risk factor is quite low. Certainly, with both
of these examples there is still an infinitely small amount
of risk, but it is within acceptable parameters, given the
benefits that these GMOs provide.
Unfortunately, this strategy of transgenic organism pro-
duction and deployment is not the norm. A more common
example is the socially and ecologically irresponsible cor-
porations production, marketing, and planting of Bt corn
and cotton (and now potatoes and tomatoes as well).
These crops are engineered using a gene from Bacillus
thuringiensis. When this gene is mixed into the genetic
structure of corn (or cotton), it allows the plant to produce
a toxin that is hazardous to many of its insect predators.
The promises from the corporate developers (Monsanto,
Calgene, etc.) are that Bt crops will require less chemical
management and produce higher crop yields. These posi-
tive characteristics are at least true in the short term, and
hence Bt crops have been attractive to farmers. What is
not mentioned by the corporations is the impact that this
toxin could have on the environment. The primary prob-
lems are domestic and wild plant hybridization, the
destruction of nontarget creatures, and unacceptable soil
toxicity levels. For example, corn requires an airborne
fertilization process to reproduce. The toxin produced by
Bt corn is expressed in the pollen. Corn pollen can typi-
cally move up to 60 meters on the breeze (and even further,
given less typical conditions). Like most primary domestic
crops, corn has wild relatives with which it can cross-
pollinate. Should the Bt gene be transferred to these
relatives, they would have a considerable advantage in the
wild. This could produce a superweed that could be very
difficult to eradicate and that could overrun other species,
thus affecting biodiversity. To make matters worse, many
devastating weeds do not become problems immediately.
Often it can take years before a weed becomes a real pest.
Catclaw mimosa is good example. It took 30 years after its
introduction in Australia before its powerful ability to
overrun native species of plants became apparent. Cur-
rently, evidence is mounting that Bt corn is hybridizing
not just with wild relatives but with non Bt corn as well
(much to the dismay of organic farmers).
The destruction of nontarget species has become a second
issue of contentionmost notably, the destruction of
monarch butterfly larvae and green lacewings. On this
issue there are at least some studies; unfortunately, the data
are completely unreliable. The debate stems from differing
opinions on and interpretations of the level of toxicity in
the pollen landing on plants eaten by the above insects,
and from the oldest of all criticisms of lab studiescan a
lab study really reproduce wild conditions? ending with
each side accusing the other of doing ad hoc, impressionis-
tic studies.
The issue of soil toxicity is in the same fuzzy position.
There is agreement that the Bt toxin is expressed and
secreted in the root structure of the plant, but beyond that,
no consensus has been reached. Some studies argue that
the Bt toxin can bind with soil particles, giving the toxin
a much longer lifespan (up to 230 days) for its insecticidal
properties, and that it can increase in concentration over
time. Consequently, damage to the decomposition and
nutrient cycles of the soil could occur, primarily due to the
toxins effect on the many organisms that inhabit the soil
and function as catalysts for these cycles. As to be ex-
pected, there are just as many counter-studies.
Given the degree of scientific conflict over the use of Bt
corn, it would seem prudent to err on the side of caution,
but that is simply not happening. Biotech companies are
taking the position that until there is conclusive evidence
of a problem, no precautions need to be taken. Conclusive
evidence takes a very long time to produce, if it can be done
at all. By analogy, cigarette companies still do not believe
that there is conclusive proof that smoking is a health
hazard. Also, the funding for tests on such matters is
lacking. This situation gives Monsanto the time it needs to
sell as much Bt corn (and other Bt crops) as possible, until
it is too late to stop the process without it having a
devastating effect on the farming industry. (As of 1998, Bt
corn already constituted one-fifth of the corn acreage in
the US, and it is continuing to grow.) If history is any
indicator, Monsanto is taking an almost sure bet that if this
crop is fully interwoven into the market, economic de-
mand will outweigh ecological responsibility.
Unfortunately, the Bt conflict does not stop at the ecologi-
cal level. From the perspective of developing nations, a
much different primary issue arises. In India, for example,
there is not nearly as much concern over ecological or
health risks from transgenic crops as there is in North
America and Europe.
1
These are luxury issues generally
reserved for industrialized nations. The promise of higher
crop yields is very significant in countries where an ad-
equate food supply is always a concern, and this potential
must be balanced against the primary negative issueneo-
colonization. Monsanto is quite open about its goal to
consolidate the food supply. In agrarian nations like India,
where 700 million people are directly dependent on farm-
ing, the fastest way to control a country is to control the
food chain. (Monsanto is also expanding its operations
into water supplies as well.) If biotech companies in
general are able to make the agricultural classes of devel-
oping nations dependent on corporate research, products,
and knowledge, any possibility of food security for these
nations will be out of the question. Moreover, the corpo-
rate method of focusing on product and production as a
way to solve supply problems in locations like India is
practiced at the expense of human capital. The strategy is
to dumb-down the population by stripping them of tradi-
tional agrarian knowledge and to push farmers further into
a serious debt so they will never achieve independent
ownership of the means of production.
One of the countermodels to GM farming that offers a
tremendous amount of hope in India is provided by the
Deccan Development Society. This organization works
with the poorest Indian women to reclaim land thought to
be unusable. By investing in education to teach the women
about seed banks, composting, inter-cropping, manuring,
and soil fertility, they have produced self-reliant farmers
and returned degraded land back to fruitfulness. There are
two key points of great significance here: First, an obvious
alternative to agricultural improvement through product
is land redistribution and ownership! Ownership of per-
sonal property can have the effect of increasing production
every bit as much (or more than) using high-tech seeds.
The other point is the value of investment in human
capital in this type of situation. A key part of this capital
is the reclamation and maintenance of traditional knowl-
edge. Take for example the use of the traditional farming
method of planting a variety of crops. If one fails there are
plenty more to sustain the farmer for the year. The biotech
corporations have been insisting on the planting of single
crops (mostly Bt cottonnot even a food). If the crop fails,
it is a life-and-death situation for the farmers, which has
led to situations like the mass suicide in Warangal, where
over 500 farmers committed suicide by hanging or drink-
ing their insecticide because they could not pay local loan
sharks (the local agrarian product distributors who also
loan money). While even the radical left of India does not
totally reject GM farming, most insist that a hybrid be-
tween these new methods and traditional farming will
serve India best; however, policy must be constructed
around the farmers needs rather than the corporations'.
Only through such positioning can the colonial nightmare
of the molecular invasion be averted.
Risk Assessment
If techno-accidents are taken as a given, and if transgenic
products are accepted or rejected on a case-by-case basis,
the questions must be asked, how should research be
conducted regarding transgenic products and processes,
and what constitutes acceptable risk? No one can say for
sure what the fallout of any new technological direction
may be, but some hypotheses are significantly more edu-
cated than others, and useful theories exist about what
constitutes rigorous scientific study and statistical analysis
in the various specializations in biology.
Currently, research standards for product safety regarding
transgenic products that produce toxins in the US are
unquestionably unacceptable for a number of reasons. The
most obvious reason is that corporations do their own
studies, which are used to apply for product and mass
cultivation approval from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). The conflict of interest is rather
obvious. Allowing corporations to partially police them-
selves when the possibility of a potential accident is so high
does not seem to be in the public interest. When a corpora-
tion wants a product approved, it does test studies and
submits the results to regulating agencies. The agencies
review the data (as opposed to replicating the study), and
decide whether or not approval should be awarded. Testing
from independent sources is not required, but it should be.
The tests should not be left to the corporations, nor should
they be left to even a single independent agency.
The problem appears worse when the nature of the studies
themselves is examined. Problems arise both in sampling
procedures and in study replications. The conflict among
scientists over the danger level of Bt products stems from
these very problems. The Bt studies (whether positive or
negative results were obtained) were small in scope, and
did not have the statistical power to yield convincing
results. Moreover, the replications of the studies for
purposes of comparison were typically very few in num-
ber. For example, Calgenes Bt cotton studies that were
used to obtain product approval for commercial scale
cultivation consisted of four replications, which is hardly
enough to produce a basis for measurement and reliable
data by any standard of scientific rigor. The EPA has
recognized the problems of statistical power and study
replication, and is at least working on guidelines to
measure the impact of a product on nontarget organisms,
but this alone will not be enough. The complexity of the
systems under study cannot be successfully examined
under general guidelines. Each product study will require
its own unique set of guidelines. Even the scientific
advisory panel appointed by the EPA believes this to be
true. Neither the government nor the corporations want
such guidelines, due primarily to cost.
The final problem is that these studies give only immedi-
ate data rather than cross-temporal data. To return to the
Calgene example, its study of the effects of soil toxicity
on earthworms was carried out over only 14 days. An
earthworm lives for years. This study could not measure
long-term effects, nor could it reveal what the toxin
levels might do to subsequent generations. A proper
study must at least last for the duration of an organisms
lifespan, if not longer. If the studies have proper cross-
temporal observation, sampling procedures, replications,
and reliability studies, and find no negative results, the
product could be construed as reasonably safe for mass
cultivation. Will such cautionary measures be intro-
duced? It is very unlikely.
The problem, of course, is that neither the government nor
the corporations will cooperate with such safety standards.
The biotech companies complain that they are being
unfairly targeted by demands for impossible procedures
that are placed as a burden upon them solely as a means to
calm public hysteria. Further, they complain that other
products are not put through such rigorous testing, and
that to do so would raise the cost of bringing a product to
market to unacceptable levels. However, most products do
not appear to have the accident potential that certain
transgenic products do. To compare a toxin-producing
transgenic plant to even another insecticide is a false
analogy. While they may both have the potential for
ecological disturbance, an insecticide does not have the
same potential for long-term disruptive genomic and re-
productive consequences.
Given the financial power that biotech corporations have,
their profound lobbying capabilities, and the grip that they
have already gotten on the worldwide food supply, it seems
unlikely that the public interest will play much of a role in
policy construction, unless focused, informed resistance
forces the issue. However, democracy, as useless as it
usually is, is worth a try in this rare case. It would be
possible to mount a popular front (from radicals to moder-
ates) that could focus pressure on the EPA and USDA
about testing procedures.
2
More stringent research would
have the effect of slowing the spread of GMOs. But for the
public to unite in this manner a great deal of consciousness
raising has to occur. The corporate complaint that the
public is hysterical is not totally without merit. This is
where cultural production will play a major role. It has the
pedagogical power to present information in a compelling
way that can reveal the exploitive capitalist subtexts of
GM production, teach the science at amateur levels,
replace either/or, categorical judgments (Are you for
transgenics or against it?) with tactical analysis, and
redirect fears into informed resistance. Of course, using
resistant cultural production in the hopes of building a
democratic popular front is more or less a utopian strategy.
Other methods of direct resistance by small collectives and
resistant cells have to be developed as well if inertia is to
be introduced into the systems of GMO distribution.
Notes
1. Of all the arguments against rapid deployment of GM
products, the health issue is the least convincing. Cur-
rently, the two main worries are the production of allergens
and carcinogens in food. However, this concern is not
grounds for an argument against the use of GM food in
particular or GM technologies in general. The argument
that can be reasonably made is for proper product labeling
(another thing that food-producing biotech companies
tend to resist). What the body can mingle with, carcino-
gen or not, should be a matter of individual choice, and not
legislated. At the same time, the public should have the
maximum amount of information available on a substance
in order to make the decision that is best for each indi-
vidual. Having such matters legislated just gives the security
state more power in an area (body control) where it has far
too much to begin with.
2. CAE cannot emphasize enough the need for focused
pressure: Find the weak points and concentrate efforts
there. Bioresistance will be most successful when the
weakest link in the product chain is identified and popular
political capital is focused upon it. These links tend to be
at points where the corporations have the least amount of
direct control.
....by any means necessary....
Malcolm X
5
Fuzzy Biological Sabotage
If the left has learned anything from resistance against capital-
driven technocracy, it is that the democratic process is
only minimally useful for slowing the profit machine of
pancapitalism. Since corporations and other capital-satu-
rated institutions own the process, and tend to function
outside national democratic imperatives, other methods of
power appropriation have to be developed. In the case of
biotechnology, the resistance is unfortunately in a posi-
tion of reactivity. Corporations have already infiltrated
most governments and markets at such a furious pace that
all that can be done is attempt to slow them down, while
cells and organizations regroup and decide on a way to
address the many problems that have already arisen, and
the many potential accidents that are in front of us.
Assuming that inertia is always useful in disturbing capi-
talist production and distribution, one must ask how this
principle can be applied to the current molecular inva-
sion. Certainly, traditional tactics have some use, and
electronic civil disobedience (ECD) will be of value,
although it should be added that this is a time for hard-
core ECD (blockage of internal communication systems,
blockage of databases, the disruption of routers, etc.)
Soft-core tactics like denial of service (DOS) can be of
use in disrupting retail services such as assisted reproduc-
tive clinics (eugenics clinics by any other name), but
most of the biotech industry is not about retail, so DOS
is not much use in these cases except as a low-quality
theatrical tactic with little pedagogical value.
In the end, however, resistant culture always needs to
find a means to fight fire with fire. In other words, how do
we develop tactics using biological materials and pro-
cesses? In response to this question, CAE and some rogue
scientists set about trying to form a model of direct
biological action. The first unfortunate conclusion that
we came to is that civil disobedience (CD) will not work
in this situation. While inertia will always disturb a
society of speed, it cannot be implemented on the bio-
logical front by blocking methods partly because the
boundary and territorial models that CD was developed
in response to typically have no place in the organic
realm. Moreover, since our focus is on trying to intervene
in the production of transgenic life-products, almost any
action will have some destructive effect. This problem
puts resistant agents in a very difficult position. We do
not want to make it easy for capitalist spectacle to label
resisters as saboteurs, or worse, as eco-terrorists. These
terms are used very often and generously by authority and
Fuzzy Biological Sabotage 99
tend to have the profound effect of producing negative
public opinion, which in turn allows state police and
corporate posses to react as violently as they desire while
still appearing legitimate and just. Escaping these labels
completely seems nearly impossible; however, we can at
least reduce the intensity and scope of these forms of
labeling, and hopefully escape the terrorist label alto-
gether. In any real sense, the association with terrorism
is completely unwarranted, since it is not possible to
terrorize plants, insects, and single-celled organisms. The
problem with GMOs, however, is that they are not open
to the kind of destruction that occurs when someone kills
a fly or swats a mosquito, because they are more than
organismsthey are private property. Since capital val-
ues property over all (humans included), one can only
expect the strongest types of denunciation and response
to its destruction.
In addition, there is already a very reactive history in
regard to transgenic crops that can be of symbolic use to
authorities. Test sites for new product lines of GMOs in
the US, France, and India have been burned. This was
and is flagrant sabotage. The location attacked was right.
Test sites are a key location to disrupt, because if the
studies being done at the sites are corrupted, they have to
be redone, thus causing a very costly type of inertia in the
developmental system. However, tactical arson plays
right into the hands of the authorities. Such action gives
them the examples of hard-core sabotage that they need
to label, harass, and arrest potential transgressors, as well
as individuals and groups opposed to sabotage who have
little more than a modest philosophical association with
violent resisters.
One interesting element does emerge from the Indian
burnings. The group responsible paid the farmer hosting
the test site for the crop before burning it. The message
here is clear: Do not hurt the farmers/workers physically,
psychologically, or financially. Agrarian complicity, in
many cases, is nearly a given, because people have no real
alternative to the markets dominated by the coercive
power of the biotech industry. Grass-roots harassment is
an unacceptable tactic that the left has debated and is
hopefully pushing aside as the Indian example shows. In
the 1980s, some AIDS activists suggested that pharma-
ceutical salespeople should be harassed as a means of
disrupting distribution and thereby leveraging a price
reduction of the astronomically expensive medicines
needed to combat HIV. This was a terrible idea then, and
it is a terrible idea now. From the corporate perspective,
workers are expendable and there is a large enough
reserve labor army to fill the ranks, so this would have no
effect other than making a working family miserable.
CAE believes that the best response to these ultimately
unsolvable problems is the idea of fuzzy biological sabo-
tage (FBS). The fuzzy saboteur situates he/rself in the
in-betweenin the areas that have not yet been fully
regulated. This situational strategy was very well devel-
oped by Brian Springer in his backhaul video work and in
his laser information conduit interventions. His idea was
to take what was considered private property, but func-
tionally was public property. A backhaul (off-air live
satellite video feeds) was considered the property of the
media, but since it was in the public domain of the
reception of airwaves and existed without copyright, it
could be copied, replicated, and even marketed (now
backhauls are scrambled to stop this process). Springer
was brilliant at finding these little cracks in the system
and exploiting them. The fuzzy saboteur has to stand on
that ambiguous line between the legal and the illegal
(both criminally and civilly). From that point, the indi-
vidual or group can set in motion a chain of events that
will yield the desired final result. The opening activity
the only one to which the saboteur should have any
direct causal linkshould be as legal as possible and
hopefully within the rights of any individual. The more
links in the chain, the better from a legal standpoint, but
extending causal chains increases the difficulty of con-
trolling all the exponentially growing number of variables
that could doom the action. For the most part, such
actions will only have two phasesthe legitimate or
fuzzy act and the upheaval it causes. The authorities then
have the legal conundrum of proving guilt by indirect
actionan unenviable task for any attorney. Moreover,
unlike CD, fuzzy sabotage does not require a physical
confrontation with authority, and in many cases does not
require any type of trespass.
If an action is done correctly, the fuzzy saboteur has an
additional safety net supplied by the various govern-
ments of the worldplausible deniability. For centuries
state forces have sabotaged one another by various means
that cannot be proven within any judicial system other
than by military field justice. Simply by creating a
nonaggressive scenario, or denying activity all together,
agencies of discord have avoided direct charges. This
symbolic shield can be reverse-engineered to serve resis-
tant culture. With any luck, the fuzzy saboteur will never
have to use this shield, but if this is necessary it can create
a platform for public attention where tactical embar-
rassment (to use the RTMark term) can be employed. It
may be nostalgically reminiscent of 19th-century anar-
chism, when it was incumbent upon any member of the
movement who was arrested to use the court or any other
public stage to denounce the bourgeois system, but prac-
tically speaking, and for the health of the tactic, such
public displays should be avoided at all costs. A single
publicity battle can potentially be won through deniability
and campaigning; however, a series of these occurrences
will dilute the plausibility of the denial and allow the
development of spectacular countertactics by the au-
thorities. Like hard-core ECD, FBS is not a public process.
CAE requests that those groups and individuals whose
goal it is to spectacularize hacking and perform as activist
pop stars to do the movement(s) a favor and leave this
method aloneparticularly in its testing stage.
The final question then is, who are the agents of FBS?
CAE suggests the use of wildlife to do the deed. Microor-
ganisms, plants, insects, reptiles, mammals, tactical
GMOs, and organic chemical compounds can all be a
part of the resistance. The use of living nonpathogenic
biological agents as disrupters will depend on each
individuals or groups particular relationship to these
creatures, as well as on localized conditions. Obviously,
considerable arguments will erupt between the various
positions on what constitutes an acceptable relationship
between humans and other living creatures, and how
various creatures will be employed, but let us say at the
outset that we are not proposing that sentient organisms
be considered for suicide missions or other incarnations
of sacrificial economy.
Pranks
If FBS has roots, it is in the realm of pranks. Most readers
probably have a story of a prank that they or someone they
knew did involving a biological agent. Placing a dead
rodent or fish (natures stink bombs) in a heating duct at
school or some other offending institution is one of the
classics. However, these are not among the class of pranks
that are of interest to the fuzzy saboteur. FBS pranks are not
done for a good laugh, for public embarrassment, or simply
to be annoying; rather, they should be done as a form of
psychological disturbancemore along the lines of LSD
in Castros cigars and liquid refreshment before a public
address (to use an example from the CIAs book of practi-
cal jokes). Pranks can be used to stir up internal institutional
paranoia, or they can be used to divert attention toward
useless activities. Pranks can provide their own unique
blend of inertia.
For example, the release of mutant flies in research facili-
ties and neighboring offices can potentially have a
disturbing effect. There are all kinds of mutated flies
available on the market. They come in various colors with
almost any type of deformity one might desire. Labs use
them for cross-generational study because they are easy to
raise, reproduce quickly, and maintain unusual genetic
codes. Choose a set of mutated flies and begin a steady
release of them into biotech facilities (it also works well in
nuclear facilities). They can be set free in lobbies, parking
garages, parked cars, almost anywhere. One does not have
to challenge a fortified sitethe flies themselves will do
the infiltration. If enough flies are acquired or produced,
you just have to be near the site and release swarms of
them. Trespassing is not really necessary, unless there is a
need for specific targeting. It only takes the occasional
observation of them on a regular basis for people to start
wondering what might be causing the appearance of these
strange creatures. Needless to say, the first conclusion will
not be that some fuzzy saboteur must be letting mutated flies
go in the offices. The imagination will provide more exotic
scenarios. The key here is consistency, not quantity. More-
over, relying on the power of the rumor mill that develops
in any workplace, we can be sure that the fear and/or
conspiracy factor will be considerably amplified. A paranoid
work force is an inefficient work force. This approach thus
creates inertia in the system. In the best-case scenario, an
investigation into the origins of the flies would be launched,
which would burn more cash and waste even more employee
time. In the worst-case scenario, the prankster would pro-
vide a topic of conversation at breaktime.
If there are other businesses near the research facility, let
the flies loose in there too. Restaurants are particularly
good locations, since customers are sedentary for a while
there, and flies call attention to themselves in environ-
ments where food is served. This can have the effect of
aiming local business owners and workers suspicions at
what may be occurring in labs nearby. Needless to say,
local tensions could easily increase, and those who never
would join a movement could become unknowing cohorts
or willing allies.
Pranks such as this one are easy and inexpensive. As for the
flies, they really dont care where they are, as long as its a
location that corresponds to their adaptability range. As for
environmental danger, this is negligible. Mutant flies have
no adaptive advantage in the wild and their recessive
characteristics are not likely to be selected for. They are
not overachievers when it comes to survival, so there
should be few worries about environmental pollution in
any ecological sense. The pollution will be in the human
psyche. And isnt it better for a mutant fly to soar free for
the resistance than serve a lifetime in laboratory servitude?
For those who would like to have their own mutant fly
hatcheries, they are fairly easy and inexpensive to start and
maintain. The flies are free, and can be obtained on the
web from the Bloomington Fly Center. To maintain the
flies you will need fly bottles (they hold about 100 flies);
however, if you are on a small budget, you can substitute
milk bottles for this function. The fly food is made from
molasses, yeast, and apple juice. To get the perfect consis-
tency requires a little human power, but a machine to do
this is also available (but they are costly). For optimum
breeding an environment with a relatively stable tempera-
ture is necessary. The flies should be kept at a temperature
between 18-25 Celsius with humidity between 40% and
50%. Flies are fairly robust, but must be kept away from
extreme temperatures (especially heat). The life cycle is
about one month, so producing a swarm (10,000) is a
laborious, assembly-line like task; however, maintaining a
small amount over a long period of time is relatively easy.
Test Site Disruption
Over the past forty years, resistant groups have made tremendous
strides in terms of organizational principles. Many have
said a happy farewell to central committees, unions, and
parties, and replaced them with autonomous cells and
temporary, single-issue coalitions with ever-shifting rota-
tional leadership. The people united will never be
defeated has given way to the more practical idea that
tactical unity among resistant political configurations for
an immediate and specific purpose can have a systemic
impact in spite of differences and contradictions within
coalitions. Such immediatism and decentralization has
proven to be the best defense against infiltration and co-
optation, as well as aiding in the creation, albeit temporary,
of powerful popular fronts. Unfortunately, resistant tactics
have not always maintained the same level of sophistica-
tion and complexity. This is not necessarily the fault of
activists since tactical possibilities do not always present
themselves as clear and easy. Further, as new contestational
situations arise, the reactive tendency of radical subjects
pushes them toward immediate action. There is little time
to think matters through, because with each passing mo-
ment, the object of activists political offense becomes
increasingly entrenched in the system both materially and
ideologically. Radical research and development is some-
thing of a luxury process, and so the balance between
direct action and R&D is one organizational element that
remains underdeveloped.
Such is the case with the response to GMOs. There has
been a good deal of hard-line direct action, but the tactics
are incredibly crude. The use of arson and vandalism by
radicals as a means to insert inertia into corporate initia-
tives is a sign of desperation and a robust imbalance
between thinking and acting. Whether one considers the
examples of Professor Najundaswamy and his followers in
India, Jos Bov and his followers in France, and especially
the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) in the US, the destruc-
tion of assets has been of limited impact, and has functioned
primarily as counter-spectacle ripe for recuperation. This
is not to say that there are no advantages to such tools. Fire,
for example, works on all crops; it is inexpensive to
produce, and insures a devastating kill ratio. The prob-
lems, however, are also clear. The illegality of direct
incendiary sabotage creates a host of difficulties for the
perpetrators. As previously stated, this kind of sabotage
allows for corporate culture to cry terrorism, so they can
represent themselves as the victims of extreme injustice.
In turn, the state and corporate security apparatus grows in
strength because sabotage also creates the opening for the
successful petitioning by security agencies for increased
funds and human resources. Moreover, pancapitalist spec-
tacle can cast guilt through association on all resistant
organizations, leading to more segments of the movement
coming under direct investigation. This also helps create
the public perception that all greens are at least potential
eco-terrorist wackos. At the other end of the spectrum,
saboteurs can count on long-term incarceration if appre-
hended. The loss of committed activists to the prison
system is not helpful in the long term. A short-term stay in
jail for purposes of civil disobedience is fine, since those
confined are returned to the ranks rather quickly. Political
prisoners as living martyrs do not have a desirable or very
useful status as long as other options are available.
If one examines the example of state military sabotage, an
optimized set of attack principles is revealed. First, only use
the minimum amount of force necessary to accomplish an
objective: Mosquitoes should not be killed with a shotgun.
Second, focus the attack on the weakest link in the system.
The classic example is the Allies strategy during World
War II of bombing all the German ball bearing factories.
These metal spheres were necessary for all vehicles. By
focusing on their elimination, vehicle manufacture and
field maintenance was brought to a near halt. Another
principle that was reinforced during these bombings was
the need for accurate and precise targeting systems (a wing
of military research and development that has only acceler-
ated in scope and sophistication to this day). Even from the
military perspective, deficient as it is in financial logic,
carpet-bombing a city to destroy one factory is an unfortu-
nate waste of assets. While activists have done well on the
second principle, they have done poorly on the first and
third. Burning crops and labs is certainly overkill. Targeting
is just as bad. One of the things that greens complain so
much about is the potential death of nontarget species due
to certain GM products. Fire has the same nontarget effect.
In using the above principles and combining them with
fuzzy sabotage, what is the best way to disrupt GMO
research? The choice of research sites as a site of resistance
is an excellent one. In spite of the fact that corporations
generally get a free pass from the EPA and USDA to
market their products, as long as they can produce minimal
research that demonstrates that a product is safe, they
still must produce some research. If they fail to do so, the
product line completely stalls. Since this type of research
is incredibly protocol-laden in order to achieve accepted
standards of scientific rigor, test contamination is very
easy. Samples and study replicants are two fragile areas. If
either are corrupted, the study has to begin anew, because
the research will not generate the statistical power neces-
sary to produce confidence in its validity. For example,
when the growth of worms is studied as an indicator of
safety in regard to soil toxicity related to bt products, all
that is necessary is to add more worms of varying weights
to the sample. While researchers will probably notice that
the sample has been tampered with, they would be unable
to clean the sample. The study would have to start again.
The facility does not need to be burnt to the ground to
place the desired inertia into the system. There is no need
to kill nontarget organisms (humans included), nor dis-
rupt or destroy other research initiatives that are not
causing any harm that may share a given facility. Such an
action is cheap, requires minimal human resources and
minimal force, and is specifically targeted.
The lack of organic boundaries in ecological systems
allows radical subjects to use corporate culture against
itself for purposes of distribution. Canadian organic farmer
Percy Schmeiser had his fields corrupted and seed banks
contaminated by neighboring Monsanto Roundup Ready
crops. In Canada, biotech corporations have the right to
inspect anybodys crops. After sampling Mr. Schmeisers
canola crop, they discovered this hybridization and slapped
the farmer with a lawsuit for patent infringement. Mr.
Schmeiser had been growing canola the traditional way
for 53 years and wanted no part of GM cropping. Unfortu-
nately, not only is he now a part of this system, he is now
being used as a example of what will happen to those who
refuse corporate crops. You will be attacked one way or the
other. As this case has shown, the option for a countersuit
is available, but private citizens fighting against capital-
saturated corporations in costly court battles do not have
significant chances of winning.
The part of this sad story that is of interest to fuzzy
saboteurs is that private boundaries are not recognized as
sovereign if a nonhuman organic agent crosses them. Have
a problem with a test site crop? Go into free-range rat
ranching (reasonably low cost), and release as many as
possible near the offending site. Moles, gophers, ground
hogs, rabbits, mice or any pest not susceptible to given
toxins could also be released en masse near the test site.
After all, laws of private property, trespass, and vandalism
do not apply to them. Again, the whole crop does not have
to be destroyed; the sample just has to be damaged to the
extent that it is no longer representative of the population
from which it was taken.
High-Intensity Resistance
and Precision Targeting
The question which must now be answered is what to do about
the wide variety of potentially dangerous GMOs already
fully distributed? In this case, the use of fire or other
limited means is totally useless. It simply does not pro-
duce the kind of threat that would convince any major
corporation to change policy, because it has neither the
scope nor the impact on profits (at least not as long as
there is corporate insurance and tax write-offs). Offen-
sive mechanisms such as artificial selection are a
possibility. For example, feeding Bt to a population of
pests that is supposed to die from contact with it would
eventually yield a subpopulation of pests that are im-
mune to it. This subpopulation could then be bred to
create a population that could be released into the wild
where it would hopefully spread the resistant gene(s).
While this method would be good only as a long-term
strategy, it could eventually have an impact in that it
would force corporations to increase the speed (which
always costs money) at which they had to respond to shifts
in the pest population. At the other end of the spectrum,
this type of breeding would not have a destructive impact
on the environment, nor increase the pest rate for organic
farmers. The downside to this potential strategy is that it
is a low-efficiency method, and thereby would probably
not be a great enough threat to corporate profits to lever-
age a change in safety policy and research methods.
The real solution, however, is precision in targeting
systems. Any offending organism has its weak link, and it
is precisely the same trait that supposedly makes it strong.
The gene(s) or biological process that modify the organ-
ism can be targeted, and turned from a trait of adaptability
into one of susceptibility. For example, Roundup Ready
(RR)* could fall prey to this strategy. The herbicide
Roundup (glyphosate) kills every plant in its path, in-
cluding unmodified crops.
* CAE is not suggesting that RR is necessarily the best target relative to
its potential for environmental danger; the example given here just
illustrates the point. The preponderance of evidence (although it is not
conclusive) does not show any real problems with RR. The primary
reason RR could be considered as a target is because it is so common. The
creation of an organic substance or creature that could have a devastat-
ing affect on RR would get the attention of all food source biotech
companies. However, it is just as likely they would use force as a
response. In the era of pancapitalism, only the corporations have the
right to manage and control the food supply. If anyone else intervenes,
its terrorism. The danger with this roll of the dice is as significant to
individuals as the potential dangers from undertested GMOs are to the
environment.
Glyphosate works by inhibiting the enzyme 5-
enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSP
synthase), which is found in plants and microorganisms
but (as far as we know) not in any other life form. EPSP
synthase is a necessary enzyme for the organisms that do
have it. It is used to synthesize aromatic amino acids,
without which the organism cannot survive. In nature,
EPSP synthase makes EPSP by bringing shikimate-3-
phospate (S3P) and phosphoenol pyruvate (PEP) together.
Glyphosate binds the enzyme better than PEP and pre-
vents this reaction from occurring, as shown below.
Shikimate-3-phosphate
S3P
Glyphosate 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate
EPSP
COO
-
COO
-
OH
CH
2
-2
O
3
PO
COO
-
-2
O
3
PO
CH
2
P
PEP
-
OOC PO
3
2-
H
N
-2
O
3
PO
COO
-
OH
OH
O
Thus, Roundup kills by literally starving the plants that it
attacks. However, Roundup Ready plants have been geneti-
cally modified to produce a version of the enzyme EPSP
synthase that protects the plants. This version of EPSP
synthase is a natural enzyme found in some bacteria and does
not bind glyphosate very well. By genetically modifying the
target plant to overproduce the resistant enzyme, the GMO
producers insured that the RR plants are immune to the
effects of glyphosate. Using pro-drug theory as a model, it
may be possible to produce a biochemical intervention that
could either specifically inhibit the resistant EPSP synthase
that is present in the GMOs, or one that could set off a
cascade of physiological effects that could retard or mutate
the plant.
Two compounds already exist that may fulfill this func-
tion, both of which were developed or discovered by
Monsanto itself. The best option seems to be pyridoxal 5
phosphate (P5P). This compound, when mixed with
Roundup and exposed to light, will kill the enzymes that
protect the plant. CAE knows it works in the lab, but we
have yet to field-test it. Killing an enzyme in a test tube is
not the same as killing one in a plant. CAE does not know
how well a given RR plant can defend itself against the
introduction of the compound (either from protection
from the cell walls or from increased manufacture of the
enzyme by the plant at a rate faster than the compound can
inhibit the enzymes). However, if it works, this compound
is simple, safe (it is used in vitamins), and fairly inexpen-
sive when produced in bulk. Because it is such a simple
compound, it cannot be patented, so no civil liabilities are
associated with it. Instructions for the creation of the
photocombustible compound are available from the US
medical library. This defense system is available for field
testing now, and the real strength of this system is that it
will only affect the targeted plants (those using Roundup).
The best civil action that CAE has in development is a
model to bond a colorigenic compound (dye) onto the RR
enzyme. A colorigenic compound is one that has been
synthesized so that it is initially colorless. Upon reaction,
the compound is modified and releases a dye. Again, we
would exploit the fact that GMOs carry a specific EPSP
synthase that transforms chemical compounds. The trick
is to create either a PEP or a S3P look alike that is actually
a colorigenic compound that only binds to resistant EPSP
synthase, but not to the plants natural EPSP synthase.
Upon binding to the enzyme this compound could then
release a dye, thus making all RR crops an undesirable
color from the point of view of the consumer.
There are three requirements for this application to be
successful: 1) That a colorigenic compound can in fact be
created; 2) that the compound has an affinity for the active
resistant RR enzyme that is substantially greater than its
affinity for the endogenous enzyme; and 3) that the com-
pound and the effects that emerge from its application are
harmless to living creatures. The best case scenario is that
the compound can be made using FDA-approved food
coloring already available and deemed safe for human
consumption, as opposed to producing the dye from scratch.
If the dye can be developed, it would function as a
contestational marker in the fields, and possibly in super-
markets and homes. Home testing kits are a viable
possibility. This marker would act as a DIY labeling device
that could potentially force a better labeling policy out of
the corporations. Finally, it would demonstrate to corpo-
rate culture that the future of biotechnology and transgenics
in particular will be made a matter of public policy one way
or another.
The hope in transforming this potential into reality would
be to demonstrate to all corporations that they are vulner-
able, and that the public interest must be a part of their
testing and distribution procedures. With such leverage, it
is possible that the corporations would begin kill switch
and other safety feature research on their own simply to
avoid any such potential profit disruptions (it would make
great public relations advertising at the very least). One
must remember, however, that this plan is not a quick fix;
development could take years, but it can be done. Precise
targeting is very difficult to do. Much like advanced
electronic hacking, genetic hacking and reverse engineer-
ing are very specialized tactics. This is why corporations do
not at present fear reverse engineering. The GMO revolu-
tion has been bloodless, because resistance does not have
the capital to mount a counter-offensive on the molecular
level. Much like fighting nomadic (virtual) power with
nomadic tactics, the current molecular invasion has to be
confronted in the molecular theater of operations. For the
resistance to progress on any credible, effective level, rebel
labs and rogue human resources in molecular biology have
to be developed.
With the combination of traditional, electronic, and biological
means of resistance, hopefully enough inertia can be
introduced into the biotech industries that there will be
time to do long-term, replicated studies that will sort out
the useful products from the pollutants for profits. We can
only hope that the processes and products that pose a
threat to the environment will eventually go the way of
DDT, but now what is needed is time in order to produce
the cautious attitude and the rigorous science necessary to
introduce GMOs into fragile ecosystems.
This nowhere gives a tactic mobility, to be sure,
but a mobility that must accept the chance offerings of the
moment and seize on the wing the possibilities that offer
themselves at a given moment.
Michel de Certeau
6
The Question of Access
When speaking about bioresistance, the questions of who will be
able to do what and how individuals will be able to
participate in the movement are crucial. Techno-utopians
would have the public believe that biotechnology will
follow the example of ICT, meaning that as these tech-
nologies are developed, they will become less expensive to
manufacture and slowly make their way into affordable
common usage. While there is some truth in this belief,
there is far more room for skepticism. While we can expect
the products of biotechnology to appear as common com-
modities (pharmaceuticals, food products, home test kits,
etc.), the likelihood that individuals will get tools or access
to tools that could lead to public empowerment is very low.
Even in the case of ICT, the celebratory moment is
minimal. Western bureaucratic and technocratic access to
information has improved, as have communication and
organizational possibilities at the national and global
levels for these demographics. However, a high price has
been paid by those who seek these privilegesincreased
levels of surveillance and work intensification are but
two examples. In the case of biotechnology, the public
has not been empowered in any way, and the current
trajectory of development indicates that that is how
conditions will remain.
What can be expected from biotechnology? Certain pro-
cesses and tasks will become a little more convenient, and
out of that, some levels of micro empowerment will occur.
In reprotech, for example, less expensive home pregnancy
tests should emerge. Tests that provide reliable and early
detection are certainly a boon to family planning. Less
money will be spent on visits to the doctor (much to
insurance companies delight), and time will not be lost
going to clinics for testing. More products like the pill and
RU486 could emerge, giving women better control over
their reproductive process and sexual practice. Pharma-
cology and gene therapy will in all likelihood lower the
rates of invasive surgery and reduce the occurrence of a
small number of inherited illnesses. Biotechnology does
offer some desirable advantages; however, the advantages
will be extremely costly on both the individual and collec-
tive levels (increased environmental pollution and the
resurrection of eugenics are just a couple of examples). At
the end of the day, the public will not have any more
control over medical policy, nor any means by which this
new technology could be used for resistant purposes on a
general level. The commodity always favors capital, not
the consumer.
The Question of Access 119
The Personal Computer and Video
The personal computer is a very interesting case of empower-
ment as a necessary evil from the perspective of capital.
Since capital needed to intensify labor to reduce produc-
tion costs and thereby expand market possibilities, the
workers body had to be modified to accommodate this
requirement. The easiest modification is to extend its
capabilities through electro-mechanical technology. The
PC was extremely useful to this initiative. Not only did it
create a more efficient cyborg, it also created the means by
which cyborgs could be networked. The downside for
capital is that now the worker has a powerful technology
over which s/he has relative control. The device could be
used for other tasks besides work. To make the best of a bad
situation, this carrot of power was dangled in front of
workers so that they would be less resistant to the involun-
tary transition into becoming work machinesthat is,
into becoming organic-based labor stations. The next task
for capital was to increase the odds that workers would use
their free time during which they controlled their informa-
tion options for activities that best suited its own
needsprimarily consumption and training. Even more
so than work, these activities cannot be perfectly policed,
and in this small remaining slice of time people could use
their computers for deviant or resistant activitites. More
importantly, because of the networking component these
activities could occur at a collective level. This possibility
is what makes this tremendously oppressive technology
simultaneously exist as the most empowering.
Video is well-known for offering hope for technological
democratization. Its history of disappointment is well
documented, and in this sense it is slightly more analogous
to the trajectory of biotechnology than is the PC. While
consumer home studios are possible, and in some classes
somewhat common (especially now with video's
interconnectedness to computer hardware and software),
they have yet to show themselves to be a very strong tool
of resistance. At the same time, videos advantage should
be acknowledged. It has been useful as a means to create a
compelling alternative record of events. Activists can stay
in better visual communication, and its use in the court-
room has also saved many from prison by offering
counterevidence to the official story. However, video
consistently remains little more than a weak alternative to
mainstream media. The problem of distribution has never
been solved in spite of the tiny steps made due to streaming
media. Mainstream spectacle is still overwhelmingly domi-
nant in the formation of the public record and opinion.
The great hope that video would decentralize media prac-
tice into more anarchistic zones of contention has not
occurred at any point. Video has even less room for
subversive intent than the PC, and when one considers its
function as an eye of authority in increasingly complex and
monumental surveillance and broadcast systems, the po-
tential for the disruptive use of video appears of minor
concern to capital.
If the more utopian political aspects of the PC and video
were never realized, biotechnology will probably never
even have any such aspects on a general collective level,
for the simple reason that the means of production will not
be given to the public. Biotech will never be offered as a
reasonably priced public tool with which individuals and
groups may do what they wish (even within legal restric-
tions); rather, they will be offered only readymade prod-
ucts or services for use on a personal level.
Technical Specialization
Having just said that the tools for research and production in
biotechnology are not truly available for amateurs, we
should make certain qualifications. To be sure, the free
market allows individuals to purchase most lab supplies
and equipment, and many organic materials are available
for free or at a low cost. One can even rent a lab (including
the necessary labor), so why isnt the public really empow-
ered? The first reason is the cost factor. Any major piece of
equipment costs the equivalent of anywhere from the
average persons annual paycheck all the way to a lifetime
of earnings. Part of the reason for the exorbitant cost is that
the market for such products is so small. For a complex,
specialized piece of equipment, manufacturers would count
their blessings to sell 10,000 units. Hence the markup on
these near-custom-made products is astronomical, and the
possibility of mass manufacture that would lower prices
seems very unlikely.
Now lets say that a mysterious patron has donated the
money to an amateur scientist to buy an electron micro-
scope. Now what? Nothing can really be done with it. This
piece of equipment is only useful if you have a lab apparatus
as a whole in which it is a functioning part. In spite of the
fact that a miniature polymerase chain reaction kit can be
purchased for approximately 10,000 USD (prices are com-
ing down), its pretty much a useless technology unless
plugged into a larger system. Even simple tasks are costly,
leaving lab construction and maintenance to capital-
saturated institutions.
The problem doesnt stop there; another layer of economic
bunkering rests on top of the first two. Labs are also very
specialized in their totality. There are no generic labs.
Each has a specialized function, and to transform one lab
into another type is a complete remodeling job. So once
again, lets say that our mystery patron purchases an entire
lab for public use. One would need to make very careful
choices in this purchase, because after they are made, the
lab is functional only within very narrow parameters. For
the contestational biologist, this type of material lockdown
is not acceptable. In order to respond to the many situa-
tions that rapidly emerge in biotechnology, various kinds
of labs are required. Since the modular lab does not as yet
exist in any practical form, contestational biology can only
exist in a nomadic, parasitical form.
Public Resources
This is the saddest part of the question of accessibility. With
regard to biotechnology, there are no public resources.
Many were fortunate with ICT, because the tools needed
to be distributed in order to further corporate models of
work and consumption (i.e., capital had to be placed in the
hands of the workers). Further, the Internet had to be
made available for similar reasons. Mass marketing of the
equipment brought down the manufacturing and distribu-
tion costs, and opened general access to Internet usage for
free or at an affordable cost for those classes for which it was
designed. Certainly, discrepancies in processing speed,
bandwidth, and so on will continue to be hot issues in
terms of public access, but there is at least an everyday life
level of active integration between the public, the tech-
nology, and the manufacturers and providers.
Biotechnology, on the other hand, has nothing to show for
itself. The separation between specialist and nonspecialist
(the public) is almost complete, and there seems to be no
initiative to construct an intersection in this territory. The
complacency exists on both sides. The public is convinced
that this specialized area should remain in the ivory tower,
and the specialists are happy to stay there.
Even entrepreneurs do not seem to have any interest in
finding a way to capitalize on this divide. The appearance
of biotech cafes seems to be a very unlikely prospect
(except, perhaps, as an ironic one-liner in the art world).
This type of commercialization is unlikely not just because
it is not cost-effective, and there is no demand for the
service, but also because it is beyond the limits of bodily
regulations in regard to leisure. Having a cup of coffee next
to an transgenic bacteria incubator stretches the codes of
leisure to their breaking point.
Nor is it likely that we will see public labs any time in the
future. One would think that this could be a reality. The
model for this type of public education and access has
already been created in public access TV and public access
computer centers. Public labs could be of tremendous use
for contestational biology both on direct action and cul-
tural fronts. However, technical and knowledge-based
specialization rears its ugly head again. Equipment and
personnel would be difficult to get. Sponsorship in general
for such initiatives would be hard to acquire, because the
fundamental assets are not connected to public markets.
Computer companies are willing to sponsor public access
facilities because it is a way to reach potential buyers.
Scientific equipment manufacturers and distributors do
not have this incentive, nor any other.
Finally, there are no popular education outlets for scien-
tific knowledge. The educational structure in both Europe
and North America is geared toward the production and
improvement of specialists only. Conversely, in the US,
computer education has been stratified into many differ-
ent layers. One can access expert knowledge at a reasonable
cost, and classes are offered at almost any level of difficulty.
Anything from basic usage to advanced programming can
be learned on an ad hoc basis. However, when it comes to
scientific knowledge and skills, there are no alternatives.
So, even if the dream public lab was opened, who would
know how to use it? At present, no pedagogical model for
amateur science, a necessary component to contestational
biology, is available or even under discussion. The whole
notion of scientific education would have to be recon-
structed in order to accommodate the current need for
amateur science on political and cultural fronts.
Essentially, the situation is bleak. The only empowering
element available to the public is a reasonable amount of
accessible information on current issues from organiza-
tions such as Greenpeace. While this is a good first step, it
does not help to develop the means for intervention at the
level of knowledge and technological production that is
needed. Nor does it explain how to appropriate and use
scientific tools as resistant mechanisms that can reinforce
resistant political and cultural action.
The Organic and the Synthetic
The final lack of access is due to the very nature of biotechnol-
ogy. Since its subject is life, it is much more carefully
guarded. Life-engineering will not be a public activity, and
if we assume the future to be like the past, it will not even
be publicly discussed. No better power/capital is available
than the control of life configurations (genotypic, pheno-
typic, ecological systems, etc). How life is represented is
a cornerstone of identity and cultural mythology. It is the
heart of ideology. Consequently, the manifestations of life
(bodies) are the locus of authoritarian inscription, disci-
pline, and control. Biotechnology, which falls into this
area of authority, is already so well bunkered that it does
not even reside in the illusion of democracy, and is openly
represented as residing in the realm of benevolent
authoritarianism (although the general tendency is for
power vectors not to call attention to this characteristic).
A more public example of this general process of creating
authoritarian forms of body politics in allegedly demo-
cratic zones is in the war on drugs. When Americas first
drug czar, Harry Anslinger, first began the war in the
1930s, political structure regarding illicit drugs was still
democratic. Proposals and laws regarding drugs had to go
through congress at both the federal and state level. When
Nixon intensified the war in the late 1960s, his plan was to
remove drug policy from the realm of democracy once and
for all. Nixon had two reasons for doing this: One, to
appeal to his law-and-order constituency; removal of drug
laws from democratic process would allow him to make
sweeping, immediate, autocratic changes. Two, he would
be able to attack his enemies in the counterculture through
lifestyle, since he could not think of a way to jail them
simply for dissent. Removing drug policy from the demo-
cratic process would allow him to set the penalties. Nixon
accomplished this goal through the use of scheduling. A
bureaucratic schedule of dangerous drugs was created and
connected to felony activity. More drugs could be added as
needed. Prior to this initiative, each drug required a
specific law. To make marijuana illegal, a specific law was
passed; to make LSD illegal, a specific law was passed; to
make patent medicines illegal, a specific law was passed.
Under these conditions, public intervention was possible.
If citizens didnt like the law or thought penalties were
unfair or overly repressive, they could try to persuade their
representatives to bring their demands to congress. With
scheduling, no specific law needed to be passed. Drugs
could be added to the list by closed bureaucratic decision.
For the most part, we are in a similar place with biotech-
nology. Pharmacology and gene therapy are deep in the
medical bunker, as are assisted reproductive technologies.
In the case of the subject of this book, transgenics, GMOs
are completely outside of the democratic process. Corpo-
rations have the power to engineer life free of public input.
Allegedly, the public is protected, not by elected officials,
but by the bureaucrats (of agencies like the EPA or USDA)
who decide on whether GMOs should be licensed. Clearly,
this is a very thin line of defense. Given this arrangement,
corporations have no reason to cooperate by providing
public education on biotechnological matters. It is in their
best interests to keep the public misinformed or to say
nothing at all, and to maintain judicial territories that
forbid amateur entry. For this reason, we cannot rely on the
democratic process to make any kind of change. Direct
action and cultural resistance is the only option left open.
Attempting to access tools and knowledge that are deep in
the bunker of bioauthority is perhaps the most difficult
task facing resistant culture at present because of the
dearth of resources. Whether a popular front can be
constructed in matters of transgenics or any other biotech-
nological issue is still wide open for debate.
Organizing and Accessing
Assuming that a technically armed popular front is not going to
emerge any time in the near future, and that DIY is not going
to work in this situation, we have to ask how the research
necessary to confront imperial powers on the molecular and
biochemical levels will be done. CAE knows of no organi-
zational models that have been tried or are under construction
in this area of contestation. At present, all the group can
offer is personal experience. Happily, our experience leaves
some room for optimism. The majority of scientists who are
in control of labs are 1960s-generation baby-boomers who
still have a sense of political engagement. While many of
those we have met are extremely focused on their immedi-
ate research tasks, with a little nudge, their former political
sensibilities can be reawakened. Others are already con-
cerned, but dont really know what to do or how to do it, and
they feel they have no time to think through the nature of
their worries. This position is understandable given that
being a principle investigator on a research project is an
unbelievably high-pressure, time-consuming job. However,
if an alternative project just falls in their laps, often they will
take it on as a side project, allow access to their facilities, and/
or provide expert knowledge.
CAE has discovered only one way to build a connection, and
that is the cold call. Preparations can be made to make your
inquiry fairly effective. Go to the websites of local universi-
ties. Find out who is working on what. Just by looking at a
given scientists project you can often make a pretty sound
determination of who will be sympathetic. Individual email
addresses are usually on these sites as well. Write an email,
explain your project in diplomatic terms, and explain that you
would like to have a meeting if possible. CAE usually starts
with asking for aid in an art project to scope out the
potential for cooperation, because art usually appears fairly
innocuous. As we get to know people, we move on to other
projects. Trust and friendship have to be built first, then
access just naturally follows. CAE also suggests that this
process not be done in a cynical manner. Initiatives work
better and for longer terms when the relationship is genuine,
rather than just being a means to an end. In addition, trust is
extremely important, because those who cooperate also need
to know that you will protect them by not publicly exposing
them in a manner that could jeopardize their funding.
Finally, you have to have amateur knowledge of the lan-
guage and literature of the specialization of interest. CAEs
experience is that the experts are fairly patient, and are
happy to act in a pedagogical capacity, but they expect some
effort from the learner as well. In all, to do research, you have
to do adequate preparation. Often it will be rewarded. The
cooperation rate for CAE has been around 50%pretty
decent odds. Also, once you break the ice, introductions to
other sympathetic scientists in different fields is usually just
a request away.
For those interested in contestational biology, making
these connections and organizing is not a difficult process.
Take the matter into your own hands. Do not take the
institutional route and wait for some sanctioned opportu-
nity for collaboration to come about. Not only are there
very few, but the likelihood that you will get stuck with
some person that you cannot work with is high. For
example, the history of art and science/engineering col-
laborations reveal a series of disasters for this reason.
Disney and Claes Oldenburg is a classic case study of a
failed institutionally sanctioned collaboration. When the
corporations agree to do these initiatives, they do it be-
cause they want something, and not out of any notion of
public good or cooperation. The anarchist words of wis-
dom here are work with individuals, not with institutions.
The location for the agents of bioresistance is in the in-
between. To some extent, institutional capital has to be
appropriated on the levels of both knowledge, material,
and human capital. This is a parasitic enterprise due to
the lack of public support systems. DIY is not a viable
option nor in most cases is working with an institution;
however, nonsanctioned appropriation is available. By
locating oneself in the in-between, the liminal, and the
infra-thin, the possibility exists that one can create the
pressure needed to pry open the bunkers of biotechnol-
ogy, and in this manner attain public access to initiatives
and policy constructions that will affect everyone.
No one invents a recipe.
We have been using the same old things since
Cave Man stirred his first stew.
Helen Corbitt
Appendix 1
Betty Crocker 3000 Presents
Food for a Hungry World
Americans must face facts. Even in the most prosperous nation
on earth, the grand majority of people cannot afford
organic and organic-certified foods. Their cost is extraor-
dinary, because their production requires luxurious amounts
of time, land, and human resources. Even with all these
resources, the yield of organic crops is relatively low, which
raises the price even higher. To make matters worse, these
foods are usually only distributed locally or sent to urban
areas for distribution in select markets that further exploit
the low supply and/or modest accessibility. For those of us
without access to the organic bounty and culinary luxury,
we have no choice but to embrace the genetically engi-
neered (GE) foods provided by the food industry. To help
make the best of this situation, the following selection of
menus and recipes is offered in order to show that with a
little imagination, GE foods can be so delicious and appe-
tizing that you will never miss the certified organic products
you cannot afford. This cookbook includes easy recombi-
nant dishes created with the new GE foods. They are
guaranteed to impress even your most resistant foodie
friends, and help you gain maximum pleasure and value
from them.
Orientale Fusion Appetizer:
Monarch wings orientale:
1 package Tysons chicken wings
1 package corn dogs
Kraft Thick and Spicy BBQ Sauce mixed with soy sauce.
With toothpicks fasten chicken wings to corn dogs to
resemble butterflies. Baste with BBQ sauce and run under
broiler till brown and bubbly.
(Cost comparison: GE $ 9.08/Organic $11.27)
South of the Border GE Lunch
Casta casserole with pork and mole sauce
Country Inn Mexican Fiesta Rice (Uncle Bens)
Heinz beans Mexican Style
Casta Casserole (serves 4-14)
Remove the pork chops from 1 Marie Callenders Country
Fried Pork Chop with Gravy Frozen Dinners. Defrost and
dice into small pieces. Finely chop one medium Spanish
onion, 1 medium green chili pepper. Prepare 1 package of
Uncle Bens Chefs Recipe Fiesta Rice. Mix all ingredients
Appendix 1 133
thoroughly. Place in oiled heavy casserole dish and cook in
microwave for 20 minutes, or until a brown crust forms on
top.
Meanwhile, prepare the mole sauce: In a small saucepan
stir together:
1 can of Old El Paso Picante sauce,
4 tbsp. Hersheys Chocolate Syrup
1 tsp. curry powder.
Heat gently for 5 minutes stirring constantly. Spoon over
Casta casserole and serve hot with heated Heinz beans.
(Cost comparison: GE $10.58/Organic $15.57)
Nouvelle Cuisine LMO (Living Modified Organism)
Even a sophisticated French-style dish can be prepared
using select GE foods.
Mock-Lobster recombine (serves 4)
1/2 Package Mrs. Pauls Fish Sticks (thawed)
1 Package Agri-Link Shrimp Voila!Garlic (thawed)
1 Package Knorr Classic Hollandaise Sauce (prepared
according to directions)
1 large egg (beaten)
1 cup Wonderbread (crumbled)
Parsley, Paprika to taste
Defrost fish sticks and simmer gently in a little water
until very soft. Put in blender with one large egg and
breadcrumbs. Puree until mixed into a pliable dough.
On an ovenproof baking platter shape the mock-lobster
dough into a lobster shape. Arrange pieces of Voila!
Shrimp Garlic around mock-lobster. Cover with prepared
Hollandaise sauce. Sprinkle generously with paprika for
that nice red lobster color and garnish with parsley. Heat
under broiler for 10 minutes until bubbly. Serve at once
with split soft dinner rolls.
(Recipe approved by the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals).
(Cost comparison: GE $9.82/ Organic $15.61)
Kids Korner
(Easy heat and eat combinations)
Hormel spaghetti rings with Fishsticks
(Cost comparison: GE $3.69/ Organic $7.28
Power Rangers Pasta with ConAgra corn dogs
(Cost comparison: GE $3.48/ Organic $5.28)
Ore-Ida Tater Tots with Heinz Ketchup
(Cost comparison: GE $2.89/Organic $3.89)
Antibiotic bananas with Hersheys chocolate syrup
(Cost comparison: GE $ .81/ Organic $2.09)
Future Feast GFP Banquet
This menu introduces the public to Green Fluorescent
Protein (GFP). It is derived from jellyfish genes, and has
the characteristic of fluorescing green when exposed to
UV or blue light. It is frequently used as a marker to detect
genetically transformed cells in crops. GFP has no known
Appendix 1 135
allergenic or toxic properties in humans, and should ap-
pear more and more frequently in our diet. Hit up your
scientist friends or molecular biology students for some of
the ingredients that are not yet available in supermarkets.
Suggestion: Serve the dinner under UV lights to enjoy the full
effects of its glow.
Glowing champagne cup with GFP protein strands
Green cheese ball with soy chips
Ragout Alba la Provencale
Green mashed potatoes
(mashed potatoes with GFP parsley)
Salad of GFP greens
Star Link crepes flambe with GFP amoeba sprinkles
Green cheese balls: Soften equal amounts of sharp Ameri-
can, white cream, and Roquefort type cheese. Mix in
generous amounts of chopped GFP parsley and green
onions. Form into large ball. Roll in more GFP parsley.
Arrange on platter surrounded by GFP soy chips.
Ragout Alba la Provencale
(GFP rabbits are being raised in select labs that will not release
them into the wild but might sell them to enterprising cooks for
a special banquet.)
1 GFP stewing rabbit cut into chunks (about 3 pounds)
(Marinate the rabbit in a mixture of wine, vinegar, olive
oil, mashed garlic cloves, a bay leaf, and pinch of thyme for
4 hours.)
2 cups canned chicken broth
2 cups each chopped onions, carrots, celery and red, ripe
tomatoes
1/2 cup chopped GFP parsley
In an oven-proof casserole layer the chopped vegetables
with pieces of marinated rabbit. Pour broth over the top.
Cover tightly and bake in a medium hot oven for 3-4 hours.
Arrange on a platter surrounded by green mashed pota-
toes. Sprinkle generously with GFP chopped parsley for
maximum fluorescence.
(Cost estimate: GFP rabbit and other ingredients free to
participating biotech families)
Appendix 1 137
The turn to biotechnology from their [CAEs]
earlier work on communication technology offered a site
for direct interrogation of the relations of digital capital culture
and the loop to material everyday life.
Rebecca Schneider
Appendix 2
For the past six years Critical Art Ensembles work has focused
on the vast field of biotechnology. The group has tried to
identify key problematic issues and inspire and focus pub-
lic discourse in an effort to exploit the current vacuum of
authority. As tactical mediaists, the group has completed
five major participatory theater projects that examine
particular aspects of biotechnology. These projects pin-
point extreme problem areas in the field, in associated
representation, and in the social policies guiding applica-
tion development and deployment. These works raise
questions concerning (1) eugenic traces in assisted repro-
ductive technology (Flesh Machine); (2) extreme medical
intervention in reproduction and the death of sexuality
(Society for Reproductive Anachronisms); (3) flesh materials
acquisition (Intelligent Sperm On-line); (4) the utopian
rhetoric spinning off of the Human Genome Project (Cult
of the New Eve); and (5) transgenics and biological envi-
ronmental resource management and its relationship to
the ideology of fear (GenTerra). Through the collectives
activity, members hope to replace a general fear with
critical tools and replace public impotence with tools for
direct action.
For more information and documentation visit <http://
critical-art.net>.

Critical Art Ensemble - Molecular Invasion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Art Ensemble - Molecular Invasion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Art Ensemble - Molecular Invasion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Once again, what appears to us in the mystical guise of pure science

and objective knowledge about nature turns out, underneath, to be

You might also like