Once again, what appears to us in the mystical guise of pure scienceand objective knowledge about nature turns out, underneath, to bepolitical, economic, and social ideology.

—R. C. Lewontin

Introduction

Contestational Biology

Over the past five years Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) hastraveled extensively doing participatory performances thatcritique the representations, products, and policies relatedto emerging biotechnologies. When we do projects con-cerning transgenics, one of the most common questionsparticipants ask is whether CAE is for or against geneti-cally modified organisms (GMOs). The reply from groupmembers is always the same: We have no general position.Each product or process has to be taken on a case-by-casebasis. 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 riskassessment that are accessible to those not trained inbiology so people can tell the difference between a productthat amounts to little more than pollutants for profit and

4 The Molecular Invasion

those which have a practical and desirable function, whileat the same time have no environmental impact. Makingsuch decisions is further complicated by a general lack ofunderstanding of safety testing procedures. For those with-out scientific training, the question of what constitutesscientific rigor seems to be a mystery, and reading a studyon the safety of transgenic products appears to be a moun-tain that is too high to climb. The concerned public can befurther bamboozled by specialized vocabularies. The resultis that individuals are left with the implied obligation thatthey should just have faith in scientific, government, andcorporate authorities that allegedly always act with onlythe public interest in mind.

The perception that science is too difficult for anyoneother than a specialist to understand is socially ingrainedin those separated from the discipline on an everyday lifebasis. The walls of the division of technical labor seemunbreachable. The common English expression “it’s notrocket science,” usually made as a sarcastic remark whensomeone has inordinate trouble with an easy task, is butone example of a manifestation of public reverence for theintellectual intensity of science and its separation fromcommon daily activities.

However, while such perceptions have a serious degree oftruth to them, they are also overexaggerated. Within avery brief period of time, anyone who is modestly literatecan learn the fundamentals of scientific study and ethics.To give an example of how scientific matters are ofteneasily understood, consider the following. Studies shouldbe replicated numerous times not just by a single lab, butin conjunction with other labs to see if the same or very

Introduction 5

similar results are consistently obtained. If each lab showsthe same findings, then the hypothesis or theory guidingthe tests is said to be reliable. Reliability is a key indicatorof test validity. Until reliability studies are done, a givenresult is suspect. Obviously, one does not need to be ascientist to understand that if a study has not been repeatedby independent sources, the data are questionable. If theonly replications were done by the lab (usually the lab iscorporate, but academic labs are suspect too) that willfinancially benefit, one does not need a Ph.D. in ethics toknow that this violates scientific codes of conduct due toa conflict of interest that could radically skew data inter-pretation (if not the data itself). Currently, biotechcorporations are the primary if not sole suppliers of data tothe Environmental Protection Agency and the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture for commercial licens-ing permits for genetically modified organisms. Amateurdiscourse clearly has a place in the transgenic debates sincesome levels of study can be reviewed by nonexperts. Thestakes are too high for product safety testing to be left solelyin the domain of corporate and scientific experts.

Representations of the transgenic face a deep contradiction,albeit one that emerges from imperial and/or corporateculture. The spectacle of transgenics, as usual, tends toconsistently support profit initiatives, and promote theidea that the “free” market always works in the publicinterest by saving us from environmental, health, andpopulation problems. Unfortunately for corporate culture,the historical representation of the rules of social purityand pollution clash with the utopian representations oftransgenic products. While the former insists on maintain-ing natural purities and claims that it is unwise, if not

6 The Molecular Invasion

catastrophic, to intervene in the engines of creation, thelatter presents a world of molecular exchange that willbenefit everyone. This second position is not doing verywell at convincing the consuming public that geneticengineering is a good idea. After all, dislodging ideologicalimperatives that have settled deeply into every classist andracist separation for the past three millennia is not anenviable task. This ideological contradiction is all themore difficult to reconcile because capital does not want todisrupt effects beneficial to colonial and endocolonialinitiatives that the current ideology of separation pro-vides, thus the construction of a doublethink is required inwhich mixing the categories of nature is sometimes goodand sometimes not. While the manner in which suchimperatives are structured and selected actually dependson what is most profitable, it cannot be represented thatway. Somehow this contradiction must be mythicallyrepresented and thereby normalized through the filteringcode of the natural. Biotech companies have failed to solvethis problem, and while they still try a variety of publicrelations campaigns, the fundamental strategy has been tojust produce and deploy whatever transgenic products arepredicted to be profitable, and not emphasize the quan-dary, hoping that as the consuming public builds habitualassociations 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-mindedcultural producers. Not that this trend is atypical: When-ever new vision technologies appear, and less endowedareas of specialization (like art production) finally gainaccess to them, there are those who will immediately seize

Introduction 7

the opportunity to exploit new aesthetic possibilities. Itseems reasonable to assume that at this very moment, someartists are exchanging their web cams for electron micro-scopes. And already, the “art world” has begun to see workderived from molecular biology drifting out of the labora-tories and into various cultural spaces. With two decadesof the vision-tech explosion behind us, what is ahead isrelatively predictable—monumental molecular landscapesemphasizing the paradox of scale and the colorful beauty ofthe micro-world, and the next step in living sculpture,consisting of expressions of frankensteinian desire in theform 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 formalnovelty will be more depressing this time around, becauseso much of the highly visible is and will be as apolitical (orhiding its politics) as possible and designed to further feedthe cultural commodity’s market for novelty. In terms ofpolitical economy in general, such work does help educatethe public, but also functions on behalf of corporate cultureto calm public skepticism by ripping bio-imaging out of therealm of political debate and fortifying it within thespectacularized and specialized bunker of aestheticization.Corporate and state culture could not ask for better publicrelations work, and hence the willingness of corporations tofund high-profile cultural manifestations such as ArsElectronica in Europe, or the museum extravaganzas at theWhitney Museum of American Art and San FranciscoMuseum of Modern Art in the US.

Finally, the problem of policy comes ready-made. Developmentsin transgenics will follow the path of all goods and servicesunder capital—that is, they will rarely be in the public

8 The Molecular Invasion

interest. Pancapitalist policy only fuels, strengthens, andexpands the profit machine. Molecular invasion andcontrol is rapidly being transformed into new types ofcolonial and endocolonial control. The focus seems to beon consolidating the food chain from molecular structureto product packaging. With the ability to better controlspecies expression, corporations have a better chance thanever to intensify developing nations’ dependency on west-ern corporate economy. Food must either be purchasedfrom corporate food suppliers, or the necessary organic andchemical materials must be purchased. Either way, re-source management is controlled by western capital.Farmers can be leveraged either to grow cash crops likecotton or any combination that is most advantageous tothe colonizer. This plan has existed since the inceptionof industrial farming, so food resource hegemonies havesimply been given another powerful tool that fits per-fectly into the current structure of domination.

In addition, any form of molecular capital can now beappropriated—it is an open frontier. As with all namedand controlled objects, now, genomes, enzymes, bio-chemical processes, etc., will all be privatized. What wasonce communal and controlled by traditional authorityand common understanding is now usurped by separatingits molecular or chemical value from its holistic pheno-typic value. For example, a plant used in traditionalmedicine that had general (economic, political, spiri-tual) value can be transformed into something of solelyeconomic value as a chemical compound. This com-pound can be patented, and while the plant could still beused, the active ingredient cannot, thus functionallyremoving the plant from the common resources. In a

Introduction 9

moment of eco-piracy disguised as Lockean propertyrights, the labor of separating the various micro-proper-ties of the plant overrides any holistic function andcollective ownership.

The standard argument for eliminating any trace of thecommons is to say that common property is an inefficientway to manage resources. If efficiency is increased, moregoods are available, so everyone gets more for less. How-ever, we know after two centuries of capital that the onlypeople who get more are the owners, while the poor anddisenfranchised completely lose the little resources theyonce had access to. The assumption that efficiency is atotalizing good is nothing more than a disgraceful ex-ample of the particular values of the powerful beingrepresented and internalized as universal.

Efficiency stings in other territories as well. Environmen-tal neglect, pollution, and exploitation in regard totransgenics are all occurring in the name of efficiency.Capital in the US is obsessed with speed in general, butin this case its interests are in closing the gap between thetime when a product is developed and its arrival on themarket. Efficiency, in this case, means profitability. Oncea product is shown to function, it is ready for distribution.Transgenic products are being made available as soon aspossible in order to establish a firm market niche. Atpresent, no one knows how transgenic products willaffect the environment. While the prognosis is generallyoptimistic for the short term, the long term is anothermatter. No long-term studies have been done on newtypes of crops and creatures, and could not be, becausethe technology is too new. One would hope that the

10 The Molecular Invasion

producers of such products would want to err on the side ofcaution and wait a few decades before releasing geneticallymodified organisms so that proper long-term testing couldbe done, but for the most part it is too late now. The engineof progress (i.e., profit) moved forward, leaving the generalpublic unaware that it had left the station. Should there beany future difficulties, those who released the GMOs willnot 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 assingular as the pancapitalist machine itself—disturb theprofit flows. Certainly, the use of traditional and elec-tronic methods of contestation will be useful, but how canthe new molecular/biochemical front be directly engagedas a means to disrupt profits? This is an area that iscompletely undertheorized, and is the subject matter ofcontestational biology. Two immediate hurdles that mustbe cleared are the connection of bioresistance to violenceand the tendency of resistance to be urban-based. Giventhat living organisms are of concern, it is quite likely thatintroducing inertia into the profit system will damagegenetically modified life. Industrial culture has had theenvironment under fire for decades (and in some areas foras long as two centuries), so CAE is only proposingreturning fire.* Further, the rules of engagement are prettywell established. If one assumes that bioresistance shoulduse violent methods only as a last resort, and only to theextent necessary to be effective, a number of possibilitiesthat will not lead to jail time present themselves. Corpo-rate culture has long maintained that violence throughsecondary consequences is not the fault of an individualagent 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 otherenvironmental elements, nor are they responsible for anytype of clean-up. If the resistance can locate itself in thesame fuzzy field, legal counter fire is possible that would bedisturbing and effective.

The second problem is deciding how to redeploy resistantforces. Currently, the majority tends to focus its activitiesin urban areas. Only the green movement has developedmethods for rural and wild areas. The means by which ruralcapital can be used for resistant purposes is only modestlytheorized. Bioresistance is still waiting for the day when ademonstration of 20,000 people will be launched at aMonsanto test site in Alabama, or when farms dedicated tothe development of resistant species will appear. Thislogistical 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 ofpropaganda by deed—a very gratifying experience, but one that leads tolittle in the way of profit disturbance or policy shift, and that justifiesescalation of violence by the authorities against all resistant manifesta-tions. Propaganda by deed was a late 19th century, early 20th centurytactic in which a revolutionary makes a bold, violent gesture to getmedia attention and fan the flames of the fire burning in the hearts ofrevolutionaries worldwide. A good example of this type of heroism wasAlexander Berkman’s attempt on the life of the Carnegie Corporation’sChairman of the Board Henry Frick in reaction to the Homesteadlockout. The attempt failed, although it still had international implica-tions for the morale of revolutionary parties, but did not affect steelmanufacture or labor management policy. This idea had some merit atthe time, but seems less significant in an era when commercial media ismonopolized by capital.

12 The Molecular Invasion

activities in territories where social and political friction isminimal.

In the following chapters, CAE examines how to use roguerepresentational capital for purposes of consciousness rais-ing, and attempts to model the possibility of contestationalbiology. Hopefully, this book will be a helpful contributionto the development of increasingly complex ways andmeans of slowing, diverting, subverting, and disturbing themolecular invasion through radical appropriation of knowl-edge systems and appropriation of the products and processesdeveloped by imperial powers.

Introduction 13