Growing
Pains
Nurturing The Relationship Between Man & Object
Mike Thompson
Thesis Project 2nd Trimester 2009:
Growing Pains:
Nurturing The Relationship
Between Man & Object
Mike Thompson
IM Masters
Design Academy Eindhoven
In memory of Henry ‘Harry’ Thompson
Acknowledgments
Without the help of the following people, this thesis project would
not have been possible: Joost Grootens, Barbara Visser, Maarten
Baas, Dr Carlijn Bouten, Dr Gerrit Glas, Dr Roel Kuijer, Linda Kock,
Kees Berende, Adam Farlie and Koen Kleijn (thanks for the use of the
‘machete’). Special thanks must go to Dr Rene Van Donkelaar, his
advice on bone growth has been invaluable and Maartje Kunen and
Daniel Rossi in helping me visualise my ideas. And last and no means
least, Susana Camara Leret, and my parents for keeping me sane and
making sure this thesis project made some sense!!
Contents
1.
introduction 01
2.body as material
05
3.considerations
06
4.stem Cell Research 08
5.
Stem Cells & Design Potential
10
6.
Building Tissue: 12
Engineering Techniques and Processes
7.Questions 17
8. 27
Aspects of the relationship with the body-object
9. Conclusion
29
10. Proposal
30
List of Illustrations
33
Endnotes
34
1. The body is a material we can sculpt
1. Introduction
Breakthroughs in biological science have redefined the capabilities of
the human body. As science extends the horizons of what we can do,
we confront complex questions about what we should do.
A new frontier has opened for design, allowing the utilisation of the
body’s material to cultivate products within the human body.
The boundaries of the body are changing. We think of the human body
as a material we can sculpt – we pierce it, adorn it with jewellery,
decorate it with tattoos, we cut and colour our hair. Then of course
there’s cosmetic surgery, with nearly 12 million operations performed
in 2007 in the US alone.
We also consider our bodies as machines. In his 1747 book L’Homme
Machine (The Human Machine) Julien Offray de La Mettrie refers to
the human body as “… a machine which winds its own springs.”1 In
science and education alike, body parts are described in functional
terms as if they are part of a machine: the body machine. We refer to
the heart as a pump and the brain as the most complex of computers.2
The body machine has its own natural chain of production. If you
break a leg new bone grows to repair the fracture. If you cut yourself
you bleed, beginning the healing process. And of course, reproduction
leads to the birth of more humans, body machines in their own right.
Some bodily products we discard. Excessive quantities of materials
such as body fat and body hair are considered undesirable, as are
others such as kidney stones, cysts, abscesses, pus, snot and tears.
Additionally our bodies contain vestiges, parts or organs that have
become functionless in the course of evolution. Examples include the
coccyx, 13th rib, cervical rib and body hair. Whilst they do us no harm,
neither do they serve any real purpose.
Similarly, human remains are kept as mementos, whether as a lock of
hair sealed inside a pendant or the creation of diamonds from carbon
extracted from ashes, creating a symbolic object from non functional
remains.
01
2. Bone graft held in place by steel rods
02
3. Embryo in the lab
Some bodily products we harvest. Blood transfusions, kidney
transplants, skin and bone grafts, the use of blood and urine for health
tests, and umbilical cord blood and bone marrow in stem cell research
illustrate man’s thriftiness, whilst the black-market trade of kidneys
from Egypt3 or real hair extensions from India4 demonstrate the more
debatable use of human materials.
However, most controversial of all are discarded embryos from
unwanted pregnancies or left over from IVF treatment. This is where
the controversy surrounding stem cells begin.
03
4. Lamallae in Compact Bone
04
2. Body As Material
It is in many ways logical to consider the human body as a material.
For the first million years of our existence, humans used five basic
materials for making tools and objects: wood, rock, horn, bone and
leather. Then, following the Neolithic revolution, there was significant
enrichment: clay, wool, plant fibres and, in more recent times,
metals.5 The selective breeding of living organisms reshaped plants
and animals for both functional and aesthetical purposes.6 Is the
manipulation of human biology so vastly different? It makes perfect
sense to look towards nature for inspiration, and indeed as a tool.
“Nature,” says Janine Benyus, “crafts materials of a complexity and
functionality that we can only envy.”7 “Bone, wood, tusks, heart muscle,
antlers, skin, blood vessels, tendons – they are a “bounty of resilience,”
says Benyus, “miracle materials all.”8 Previously, man would have
turned to nature for its source materials. Today we have the capability
to manufacture new ones. But nature has discovered a level of
efficiency that we can only dream of. As British engineer Julian Vincent
explains, “… after 3.8 billion years of evolution, nature has a pretty
good idea of what works, what is appropriate, and what lasts.”9 Indeed,
‘Natural’ often refers to ideal material characteristics.10 Nature has
become the yardstick by which we base all technological developments.
This makes sense as nature is extremely durable and efficient and, yet
nature has had millions of years of evolution in which to figure things
out. This is the big debate within tissue engineering.
05
3. Considerations
i: The relationship between man and body-object.
We might refer to the body as a factory, with its own natural chain of
production, capable of producing life.
It is often stated that our possessions are as much a part of us as our
own flesh and blood. If we were to grow objects within our bodies we
would nurture fresh relationships with objects and question our value
of things, establishing a new, codependent relationship between man
and object.
ii: If we can cultivate material inside the human body, thus
nurturing a relationship with an object, then this (biological)
process enters the field of design.
Throughout this thesis I will focus upon one particular technique:
Tissue Regeneration. Tissue regeneration itself is a vast field
encompassing many different disciplines such as engineering,
chemistry and biology. In order to understand the techniques and the
massive potential of tissue regeneration I have spoken with scientists
such as Dr. Carlijn Bouten and Dr Rene Van Donkelaar at the Technical
University Eindhoven, and Dr Roel Kuijer from the University of
Groningen. It is also important to consider the wider implications
of these technical advancements and I was lucky enough to have the
opportunity to talk with Gerrit Glas, a philosopher specialising in
medical ethics. As broad as the field itself is the literature on tissue
regeneration. Bearing this in mind I have directed my reading towards
understanding the science behind the technique, whilst considering
topics such as the relationship between man and technology, man and
object and the body as a means of production.
06
5. Stem Cell
07
4. Stem Cell Research
The buzz around stem cells comes from the ability to regenerate
one’s own body using one’s own cells. Thus it may be possible to cure
diseases such as Alzheimer’s by regenerating nerve cells in the brain
from a cheek cell, or to grow replacement body parts such as heart
valves or blood vessels. Such techniques already exist in the treatment
of joint damage, where cells can be taken from the damaged knee joint,
cultured in the laboratory and then reintroduced to the area where the
cells grow new cartilage.
This use of stem cells to culture tissues offers the possibility of not
only regeneration, but the capability to engineer the human body.
Such technology has ramifications for not only medicine, but design.
We have the opportunity to reconsider the human body as a material
and as a means of production. We can contemplate using the body to
cultivate ‘non-body’ objects. However, before we focus on the design
possibilities we must first understand stem cell technologies and
consider some rather complex issues.
08
1 Brain
2 Cornea
3 Retina
4 Dental Pulp
5 Spinal Cord
6 Peripheral Blood
7 Blood Vessels
8 Liver
9 Pancreas
10 Fat Cells
11Umbilical Cord
12 Bone Marrow
13 Skin Cells
14 Skeletal Muscles
To date, stem cells have been
found in the aforementioned
parts of the body, however,
there is reason to believe
that there are many more
yet to be discovered.
6. Stem Cell Locations
09
5. Stem Cells & Design Potential
“Grow, cells, grow,” Cedric’s dad whispers.11
Stem Cells are cells with the ability to divide and specialize. Their
job is to replace and replenish cells with more specialized functions,
such as muscle cell contraction or nerve cell signalling.12 They fall
into two categories: Embryonic Stem Cells (ES), which are stem
cells derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo
known as a blastocyst, and are capable of creating every tissue in
the body (Totipotent); and Adult Stem cells (AS), which are already
specialized and can only create tissues specific to where they are from
(Multipotent), although research in the last 10 years shows that these
cells can be manipulated and reprogrammed to create other tissues.*
AS cells are found in human bone marrow, blood, both the cornea
and retina of the eye, the brain, skeletal muscle, and the pulp of our
teeth, among other locations. Utilising stem cells it is possible to grow
materials such as bone and teeth, sharing properties similar to manmade equivalents, thus offering new potential for design.
*On the 27th of February 2009, nature.com published the story that stem-cell researchers at the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute at Mount Sinai Hospital
in Toronto, Canada, and the University of Edinburgh in the UK have managed to transform specialized cells into an embryonic like state, thus rendering them pluripotent (capable of generating all the body’s specialized cell types).
10
7. Bone Marrow Tissue
11
6. Building Tissue:
Engineering Techniques and Processes
There is a subtle difference between tissue engineering, that is tissue
cells cultured in the lab before implantation, and tissue regeneration,
which refers to helping tissue to regenerate. The latter requires the
implantation of a scaffold material into the body with the body
carrying out the rest of the work. Other terms for tissue regeneration
include regenerative medicine, in-vivo (inside the body) tissue
engineering, and functional tissue engineering. From here on in I will
focus on tissue regeneration.
Cultivating tissue requires three interrelated components: the cells
themselves; a scaffold (mould) to provide a structure for the cells
to grow into; and the correct environment for the desired cell type.
For each component there are many options available, each directly
impacting on each other and the resulting tissue.
Cell type, of course, is dependent on what you want to grow. Cells are
removed from the body by inserting a needle into the desired tissue
type. However, before being reintroduced into the body, the desired cell
type must be differentiated from the other cells, after all, a tissue is
a constitution of many tissues. Once you have the population of cells
that you want, they can be seeded into a scaffold for moulding.
There are commonly two types of scaffold, each suited to specific cell
types and environments. Gels, such as Alginate, are mixed with cells,
and poured into a mould to solidify, creating a structure for the cells
to grow into. This is the technique commonly used in the lab for the
cultivation of cartilage.* The other, more publicised type of scaffold,
are mesh’s. By sculpting porous, mesh-like scaffolds into shapes
*
In 2002 engineers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States created a new technique for the repair of cartilage. This technique involves growing cartilage cells within a peptide hydrogel scaffold outside of the body, then delivering the cell-seeded gel into the damaged joint. The new tissue grows and integrates with the normal cartilage surrounding it while the gel slowly degrades, leaving behind functional tissue. The Peptide Scaffold Hydrogel is useful for a wide range of cell/tissue types for tissue regeneration and has been used to support nerve cells and tissues including bone and liver.
12
8. Neural stem cells cultivated in the lab
13
in which cells can settle, cells will organize themselves into real
tissues as the scaffolds dissolve.*13 This was the technique used by Dr
Charles Vacanti to sculpt the ear on the mouse. A three-dimensional,
ear shaped scaffold, was created, seeded with cells, and implanted
under the skin. Using biodegradable polymers, either naturally
derived from collagens, or synthetics such as polylactic acid, scaffolds
can be designed in CAD software and printed in three-dimensions.
Properties can be added to the polymers that directly influence the
final composition of tissue, for instance, you might want part of the
scaffold to remain, creating an inner structure or design feature. It is
also possible to combine the scaffold polymers with growth factors to
further enhance the properties of the material.
Growth factors stimulate cellular division, so by simply injecting
the drug, patients produce cells themselves.14 Bone morphogenetic
proteins, such as BMP2 and BMP8a, might be used independently or in
tandem with the introduction of stem cells, to stimulate the growth of
bone and cartilage. These growth factors can be added to the polymer
of the scaffold so that they are released as the scaffold degrades,
leading to all kinds of design possibilities. You might, for example, use
morphogenetic proteins to manipulate the speed of growth of certain
cell types, leading to differences in tissue thickness or hardness.
The third component, environment, is seen as key to the development
of tissues. Biology is efficient and cells learn from their environment.
For example, if you’re in hospital with a broken leg and you spend
a prolonged period laid in bed, you grow less bone. You can’t grow
strong bone in a place that isn’t loaded. The time taken to cultivate
tissue varies from cell type to cell type and is influenced by many
complex variables. If you break a bone for example, it could take you
6 weeks to 3 months for regeneration, however, the optimisation takes
years.† Ultimately it depends on your aim. ‘How good is good enough’
*
…and by providing the correct environment and nutrients…
† In 1998, the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, studied the use of ultrasound upon tibia fractures. Low-intensity, ultrasound pulses were administered to patients continuously for 20 minutes every day until the fractures were judged to have healed. Results showed the average time of healing was 122 days, 32 days faster
than without treatment. Similarly, electrical stimulation, that is, passing a 9 volt current between two electrodes either side of the fracture, has been proven to be a
14
is a tough question. Material functionality is a different proposition
to a scientist than to a designer. If you understand the intricate
mechanisms that drive natural processes, you can contemplate the
creation of non-organic forms. Rene Van Donkelaar from the Technical
University Eindhoven explains:
“Wherever you put your cells, at that place they will make material…
You have cells of type one inside this tube, so then you can start
culturing it… But if you then put cells inside here as well, maybe cells
of type two, and they like each other, then you would get tissue one
here and tissue two there. You could have a mixture of cell types or
tissue types by separating them while you are seeding them.”15
In effect you could change material properties. You could have a
smoother surface on one side and a rougher one on the other. Here
there is a play between the natural and the man-made. On one hand
man dictates the form of the object by injecting cells into the scaffold
whilst incorporating growth factors to stimulate the growth of specific
cell types, on the other, ‘natural’ forces such as body environment
and mechanical loading hugely influence the growth of material.
These complex variables have the potential to send cells into the
production of weak tissues, or indeed, the wrong type. If we can learn
to understand the intricate mechanisms that drive natural processes,
then we can utilise the efficiency of the body for the production of
more than just replacement body parts.
successful technique for patients who have bone healing problems, or fractures with poor
healing potential.
15
9. The mass production of human material poses many questions
16
7. Questions
Despite the obvious benefits and potential of tissue regeneration, there
are numerous, complex questions we must consider, ranging from the
ethical to the notion of the body as a material.
1 Economics of production
“…[We can create] standardised men and women in uniform
batches… Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical
machines… The principles of mass production at last applied to
biology.”
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World.16
It has been suggested that in the future, industrial opportunities
are going to stem more from the biological sciences than from
chemistry and physics.17 This very thought breeds the fear of the
mass production of the human body. Leon Kass, the chairman of
President Bush’s Council on Bioethics and staunch opponent to
tissue engineering, has written that we are heading towards the
commodification and consequent devaluation of human beings. He said
virtually the same thing about IVF treatment twenty-five years ago and
his dark vision of the future has still to come to fruition.18 As science
extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront
complex questions about what we should do.19 Central to Brave New
World is the mechanized reproduction of humans for the benefit of the
state. Similarly, there is fear from some doctors as to the pressures
of big business as Roel Kuijer from the University of Groningen
states: “The influence of industries is very large, and the influence of
industries to doctors. And this is economic driven. And economy here
is more important than health care. Here’s an ethical issue as far as
I’m concerned.”20 Yes, regenerative medicine has made human body
materials of commercial interest and raised questions concerning the
ownership of these biological materials, but just because we can mass
produce something doesn’t mean we should.21 We clearly disapprove of
the black-market trade of kidneys from Egypt or real hair extensions
from India, so is it likely that society would turn a blind eye to the
mass production of human parts and materials?
17
2 Life or Non-Life?
This is most evident when considering the use of human embryos.
Clearly, regular human embryos have the capability to become
fully grown human beings. The most common argument here is
that ‘scientists are playing God.’ Other opponents prefer to use
Frankenstein as the paradigm– creating life, violating the natural
order, and unleashing forces beyond his or our control,”22 Do we
really have so much to fear? Can we really think of engineered tissues
as human? Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr of The Tissue Culture and Art
Project explain:
“When cells and tissues are removed from the (context of the) host
body and kept alive, they are also being stripped of many other
aspects of what is perceived as a living individual… These cells and
tissues change morphologically, functionally, and in relations to space
/ time.”23
Just because it consists of human material, doesn’t make it human.
These cultivated objects will not bear the hallmarks of what is
perceived to be human. Not all human tissue is human life. If we
consider human waste, as I mentioned earlier, it can be construed
as more than just excrement. Speaking about discarded embryos,
Philosopher Gerrit Glas explains, “they have become waste because we
treat them as waste.”24 He goes on, “It becomes waste in the context
of a laboratory… As far as we use it, it has a use and a meaning. As
far as we don’t use it it’s waste… It becomes a kind of technological
product.”25 Whether body materials can be deemed as waste, or
even human, has more to do with our purpose for them than the
terminology.
If you consider blood donation as an existing practice, you might say,
I donate blood every now and then so my body produces blood. I take
it away. I sell it, or I give it to other patients and my body makes new
blood for me.26 If we propose the body as factory scenario in exactly
the same way, so I use my cells, taken from and cultivated in my body
isn’t this the same? Ethically, where’s the problem? Catholic moral
theologian, Margaret Farley, whilst discussing the use embryos for
research, argued that … because it is a form of human life, it is due
18
10. Is it human?
19
some respect – for example, it should not be bought or sold.’’27 We have
already discussed whether or not we can think of embryos, cells or
tissues as being human, but her point about whether they should be
bought or sold is a valid one. Much the same as the trade of organs
and hair extensions, such actions question the morality and ownership
of such items. Have I done anything illegal for instance?
Here we should consider a contemporary example – the Body Worlds
exhibit. Professor Gunther Van Hagens used his plastination technique
to create sculptures from the deceased which he used to create an
exhibition of the human anatomy. This led some to question whether
it is disrespectful to display bodies in this way, or if it is in fact a
celebration of life. However, some 17 million people have seen the
travelling exhibition worldwide with Van Hagens claiming that some
30% of visitors are ready to donate their bodies to the Institute for
Plastination in Heidelberg, Germany, which equates to some five
million people.28 If that’s true that’s a lot of people! Von Hagens
believes he understands why:
“… plastination opens the hearts of the people to themselves. They
recognise themselves, get a new kind of body pride.””29
Maybe redefining the body as a material for sculpting is not so taboo
after all.
20
11. Professor Gunther Van Hagens Body Worlds exhibit
21
3 The Body & Technology, Man and Machine
It is often suggested that modern science and technology, are blurring
the space between man and machine. Modern prostheses rather than
replacing a missing or malfunctioning part of the body, are alternate
additions to the body’s form and functions.30 But is this not what we
did when we began crafting tools and objects to assist us?
Our experiences of the world changed greatly when we used our
creativity to design and create these more primitive body extensions.
Australian performance artist Stelarc explains, “Technology has
always been coupled with the evolutionary development of the body.
Technology is what defines being human… it’s part of our human
nature…. technology is, and always has been, an appendage of the
body.31 French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty suggests that
technologies become like body parts rather than the other way around.
A foot is not like a ski one can take off: rather, the ski becomes like a
foot, part of the skier’s way of experiencing and relating to the world.32
American philosopher Don Idhe explores Merleau-Ponty’s idea further.
Consider a woman putting on her glasses: Her vision changes from
being vague to clear, the glasses become part of what she can do
(see) and the world gains in important detail. However, the manner in
which technology and the body change depends on to what extent a
technology becomes part of the body… If the woman’s glasses become
dirty she needs to clean them, in which case they are objects to her
rather than parts of her embodiment. If the object is transparent to
someone, he or she does not notice it and it is simply part of his or her
being-in-the-world.33 Here, the transparency of the object is key to a
successful relationship. Some objects we use are considered integral
to the body such as a prosthetic leg, others partly, such as a pair of
reading glasses, and others temporarily, a pair of crutches for example.
But here we are talking about objects that assist the body due to its
physical inadequacies whether permanent or temporary. Everyday
tools and objects, rather, supplement the body, allowing us to hold a
volume of liquid or cut through material. The relationships we share
with these objects are somewhat different as we are not dependent on
them in the same manner, nor are they transparent enough to feel a
part of us. What determines the relationships we share with objects?
22
12. Modern prostheses blur the line between man and machine
23
13. The duality of life and death
24
4 Emotional: life and death (memory and immortality)
We might refer to the body as a factory, with its own natural chain of
production, capable of producing life.
However, one day it will cease production – we die. By facing the
dualities of life and death we are forced to confront the value of
things. During life we face various rights of passage marking a change
in social status, such as puberty, graduation and marriage, each
marked by its own rituals, memories and objects.
We are all familiar with the example of the family heirloom, passed
down from generation to generation – the table finely crafted by
grandfather, a beautiful locket containing a lock of hair. Such objects
come alive, breathing the stories of their past, totally irreplaceable
and invaluable.
Upon death, objects take on extra reverence. For centuries the urn
has existed as an object for holding the ashes of human remains.
More contemporary solutions for the remains of the dead include:
the creation of diamonds from carbon extracted from the ashes,
yielding crystals suitable for pendants or rings; art work created by
sprinkling the ashes of the deceased over a painting; and plastination
– the process pioneered by Dr Gunther Von Hagens where by the body
is injected with plastic thus preserving it for anything up to 4,000
years.”34
Could it be ‘life’ itself, or the feeling that the sentimental object is
‘alive’ that helps to create this bond? There’s nothing like the creation
of life to illustrate the generative capacity of the human body and yet
in contrast, death makes us aware of the value of things – facing our
own mortality makes us aware of the value of life.
Many people later on in their lives prepare for death, having a will
drawn up and making basic funeral arrangements. In this sense we
design our own death, orchestrating how we are remembered, fulfilling
our final wishes beyond our terminal breath. Tissue regeneration
allows the opportunity to create using our own body material, thus we
might cultivate an object that represents us beyond the grave. If we
25
14. Locket of hair
were to grow an object within our bodies, not only would it live on as
a remnant of our being after death, but it might help us come to terms
with our own mortality during its growth. The relationship between
man and object is heightened.
26
8. Aspects of the relationship with the
body-object
Tobie Kerridge’s Bone Ring, grown from a loved ones own bone cells,
and Georg Tremmel and Shiho Fukuhara’s tree implanted with human
DNA, paint poetic pictures of the future for but somehow miss a
stroke. Might it be possible to nurture a relationship with an object if
we somehow cultivated it within our own bodies? Would we treat them
differently than objects bought on the high street?
Thanks to tissue engineering we can reassess the interaction between
man and object. Rene Van Donkelaar explains:
“If you make a load bearing material and you want it optimised, then
you also have to think about what kind of loading you want to apply.
If you just implant the scaffold, with the cells, under the skin then you
would have a skin you could hold, do some trick’s with, so you could
apply mechanical loading.”35
Rene suggests that by ‘holding’ or ‘doing tricks’ with the object under
the skin, a new, codependent relationship between man and object
emerges.
In order for man to cultivate an optimized material inside the
body, he must nurture a relationship with the object. By physically
interacting with the object under the skin we not only increase the
growth potential of the object but also come to terms with its value.
If man treats his cells right they will grow. In this process, the object
is personalised, carrying the indexical traces of its interactions and
experiences in its form.
27
15. A codependent relationship between man and object emerges
28
9. Conclusion
Traditionally the body is perceived as sacred, yet, using stem cell
technologies, it is possible to engineer the human body, giving us an
opportunity to revaluate the generative force of the human body, and
the body as a material.
Of course, regenerative medicine will bring many benefits, such as
the regeneration of body tissues and organs, and the opportunity to
augment the human body, however, with such developments come the
opportunity to question: what should we grow?
As we have seen, such advances in technology are not without
opposition, however, we must not think of such materials as being
living, human entities, rather as cultivated materials. Do you still think
of your wooden table as being a living tree? Man has exploited nature
for millions of years, including the human body. The notion of the body
as material is nothing new, yet we should question why it is that we
prize certain materials over others? Why do we revere a lock of our
grandfather’s hair but not his teeth for example?
Earlier I discussed how the interaction between man and cells is
crucial to growing optimised tissue. On a similar level, Merleau-Ponty
and Idhe examined how technologies become transparent like body
parts. I suggest that objects become body parts, grown from human
tissues within our bodies, thus the bond between man and object is
nurtured within the body.
Implications
In ‘the body as factory’ scenario, new tools are needed to facilitate the
cultivation of objects within the human body. Tools that, in conjunction
with scaffolds or gels (or a combination of the two) inserted into the
body, allow us to enhance and influence the cultivation of the object
within. In this sense we create new relationships with the object
growing within us, interacting with it on a day-to-day basis. These
tools might optimise the growth of the object, or enhance it visually.
They may become ways to show off the growing object to the world, or
similarly, hide it away. Indeed, these tools should not only strengthen
the object but enhance our lives both physically and mentally.
29
10. Proposal
Growing Pains: Nurturing the relationship between man and
object
The bond a mother has with her child originates within the womb.
We can think of the ‘body as factory’ scenario as being similar to a
pregnancy, an entity developing within the body over a period of time.
In this sense we might nurture some sort of relationship between man
and object during ‘pregnancy.’
As we have seen, the outer body functionality of the object is directly
influenced by the interaction between man and object beneath the
skin. I suggest that this codependency should be exploited by design
as a means to strengthen the bond between man and the body, and man
and object.
I suggest that objects become body parts, grown from human tissues
within our bodies, thus the bond between man and object is nurtured
within the body.
If man were to grow an optimized material he must nurture a
relationship with the object, physically interacting with it under the
skin. Through this process, the object is personalised, carrying the
indexical traces of its interactions and experiences in its form. If man
treats his cells right they will grow.
Growing Pains
‘Growing Pains’ is a term referring to the pain symptoms commonly
felt by children during development. Metaphorically, it can also be
applied to the growth we experience throughout life both physically
and emotionally. Utilising the potential of tissue engineering we
can cultivate objects within our bodies that not only represent, but
participate in our most profound life experiences.
Scenario: Death
If we were to cultivate an object that represents us beyond the grave
inside of our bodies, we would grow death inside of us, forcing us
to interact with it on a daily basis whilst nurturing new material
in preparation for our decay. In this instance, new tools are needed
30
to help us interact and nurture the object, tools that customize the
final form. These tools become part of our daily routine, enhancing
our lives whilst preparing us for death. In this growth process, by
physically interacting with the item under the skin, we not only shape
and increase its growth potential, but also come to terms with our
own mortality – you design your own death. Upon death the object is
removed from the body, a representation of the self both physically
and symbolically.
31
32
List of Illustrations
1. Surgery (Flickr) 2. Bone Graft (Lubkin Fund)
02
3. Embryo (MIT Press)
03
4. Lamallae (Science Photo Library)
04
5. Stem Cell (Lennart Nilsson)
07
6. Illustration by Mike Thompson
09
7.
Bone Marrow Tissue (Science Photo Library)
11
8.Neural Stem Cells (Flickr)
13
9.
Doll Factory (Flickr)
16
10. Boris Karloff’s Frankenstein (Flickr)
19
11. Bodyworlds Exhibit (Flickr)
21
12. Oscar Pistorius (Flickr)
23
13. Life & Death (Flickr)
24
14. Locket of Hair (Flickr)
26
15. Pregnant Woman (Flickr)
28
33
Endnotes
1
L’Homme Machine (The Human Machine):
By Julien Offray de La Mettrie,
Taken from www.britannica.com, 27th February 2009
2
p.12
Engineering Flesh:
Towards Professional Responsibility for ´Lived Bodies´ in Tissue Engineering
By Mechteld-Hanna Derksen
Publ. Mechteld-Hanna Gertrud Derksen, 2008
3
Egypt pressured to end underground organ trade
By Jason Keyser
Publ. Associated Press, 17th March 2009
4
The real cost of posh locks
By Tamara Kaminsky
Publ. The Daily Mail, 31st July 2006
5
Smart Matters
By John Thackara
Posted on Doors of Perception, 12th February 2002
6
Artistic life forms that would never survive
Darwinian Evolution:
By Ionat Zurr & Oron Catts
Publ. Art Association of Australia and New Zealand, 2003
7
p.187
In The Bubble: Designing In A Complex World
By John Thackara
Publ. The MIT Press, 2005
8
p.188
In The Bubble: Designing In A Complex World
By John Thackara
Publ. The MIT Press, 2005
34
9
p.196
In The Bubble: Designing In A Complex World
By John Thackara
Publ. The MIT Press, 2005
10
p.38
Engineering Flesh:
Towards Professional Responsibility for ‘Lived Bodies’ in Tissue Engineering
By Mechteld-Hanna Derksen
Publ. Mechteld-Hanna Gertrud Derksen, 2008
11
The Stem Cell Divide
Written by Rick Weiss
Publ. National Geographic Magazine, July 2005
12
p.77
A Clone Of Your Own?: The Science and Ethics of Cloning
By Arlene Judith Klotzko
Publ. Oxford University Press, 2004
13How to Build a Body Part
By Josh Fischman
Publ. Time Magazine, 1st March 1999
14
Drugs unlock the body’s own stem cell cabinet
By Andy Coghlan
Publ. New Scientist, 8th January 2009
15
Interview with Dr. Rene Van Donkelaar
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Technical University, Eindhoven
Wednesday 11th March 2009
16
p.1
A Clone Of Your Own?: The Science and Ethics of Cloning
By Arlene Judith Klotzko
Publ. Oxford University Press, 2004
35
17
George E. Brown, Jr.
Taken from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/
georgeebr194456.html,
25th February 2009
18
p.122
A Clone Of Your Own?: The Science and Ethics of Cloning
By Arlene Judith Klotzko
Publ. Oxford University Press, 2004
19
p.11
The Stem Cell Controversy: Debating The Issues
Second Edition
Edited by Michael Ruse and Christopher A. Pynes
Publ. Prometheus Books, 2006
20
Interview with Dr. Roel Kuijer
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Faculty of Medical Sciences
University of Groningen
Thursday 29th January 2009
21
p.17 Engineering Flesh:
Towards Professional Responsibility for ‘Lived Bodies’ in Tissue Engineering
By Mechteld-Hanna Derksen
Publ. Mechteld-Hanna Gertrud Derksen, 2008
22
p.xvii
A Clone Of Your Own?: The Science and Ethics of Cloning
By Arlene Judith Klotzko
Publ. Oxford University Press, 2004
23
Towards a New Class of Being: The Extended Body
By Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr
Publ. Intelligent Agent, June 2002
36
24
Interview with Prof. Dr. Gerrit Glas
Specialisation Coordinator
Master of Arts in Philosophy of Medical Science
Department of Philosophy
University of Leiden
Thursday 12th February 2009
25
Interview with Prof. Dr. Gerrit Glas
Specialisation Coordinator
Master of Arts in Philosophy of Medical Science
Department of Philosophy
University of Leiden
Thursday 12th February 2009
26
Interview with Dr. Carlijn Bouten
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Technical University, Eindhoven
Friday 20th February 2009.
27
p.275
The Stem Cell Controversy: Debating The Issues
Second Edition
Edited by Michael Ruse and Christopher A. Pynes
Publ. Prometheus Books, 2006
28
Dr Death v’s Lord Life
By Gunther Von Hagens & Robert Winston
Publ. The Times, June 4th 2005
29
The Plastination Professor
Posted on BBC News World Edition,
Wednesday 20th November, 2002
30
Stelarc Tissue Culture And Art:
Clemenger Contemporary Art Award
By Stelarc
Posted RMIT University, 2006
http://www.sial.rmit.edu.au/Projects/Stelarc_Tissue_Culture_
and_Art.php
37
31
Extended-Body: Interview with Stelarc
By Paolo Atzori and Kirk Woolford
Academy of Media Arts, Cologne, Germany
Posted www.stanford.edu, 6th September 1995
32
pp.165-169
The Phenomenology of Perception
By Maurice Merleau-Ponty
Publ. Routledge, 2002.
33
p.136
Engineering Flesh:
Towards Professional Responsibility for ‘Lived Bodies’ in Tissue Engineering
By Mechteld-Hanna Derksen
Publ. Mechteld-Hanna Gertrud Derksen, 2008
34
50 ways to leave your body
By John Naish
Publ. The Times, November 10th 2007
35
Interview with Dr. Rene Van Donkelaar
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Technical University, Eindhoven
Wednesday 11th March 2009
38