MOVING TINY THINGS
Reflections on a CRISP-R editing workshop via Zoom
By Mari Keski-Korsu, Laura Beloff and Kas Houthuijs
Aalto University’s (Finland) biological arts laboratory Biofilia was participating in the Hybrid Lab Network-project workshop ‘Return to Dilmun’. The focus was the development of a workshop module for crispr-in-vitro.
Crispr-in-vitro.
Crispr-Cas9 genome editing is a method whose inventors’ Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020. In addition to the sciences that have adapted quickly to the Crispr method, there has been a lot of interest in the arts towards Crispr’s possibilities for more precise gene editing and its potential implications to society, humanity, culture and biology. However, making Crispr in vivo (using a living organism) requires a lab and ethical licensing on a level that often puts it beyond the possibilities of artists and art-based laboratories.
The workshop ‘Return to Dilmun’ was initiated by Waag Society (NL) and organized within the Hybrid lab Network Project focused on the potential to use synthetic DNA and make Crispr in vitro (in a petri-dish) and therefore avoid required ethical and other paperwork. The current plan in progress is to develop Crispr-in-vitro as an educational workshop, which opens up possibilities to use Crispr outside of a living organism, additionally to learning about the method and its implications. When looked at from the artistic perspective the exciting question remains – to use Crispr on what, how and why?
The starting point of the existing development by Gunter Seyfried’s and Roland van Dierendonck’s Return to Dilmun. They used an image as a starting point, which was transcribed to a DNA code and then synthesized in an external laboratory. This synthetic DNA was used for making Crispr-editing. In other words, in this project, the selected image was first transcribed to DNA and then synthesized DNA was edited by the Crispr-Cas9 technique. Finally, the designed edits were transcribed back from the newly edited DNA back to a visual image.
Few aspects became very clear and concrete during this workshop in Helsinki. The process and protocol of making Crispr editing in vitro are quite extensive and complex, as well as it requires specific lab chemistry and gains from having the proper equipment. Additionally, someone who has expertise in lab-working, such as a lab manager or a chemistry student, will be very helpful when the participants are less trained in lab work. In Biofilia we had both for the workshop; always pedant and up-to-date lab manager Marika Hellman and brilliant master student Ville Takio that came for help in the process.
For artists, being a new technology, the use of CRISPR in artistic processes has to do with the possible implications of the technology on society and life. It is interesting to see if in the future CRISPR will be used within the arts in a way that does not aim to inspect the technology itself or its implications but rather just use the technology as a tool for achieving other purposes. It is great to have this kind of workshop which teaches the skills for usage and therefore opens up a way of thinking about possible ways for using CRISPR. For scientists, CRISPR immediately after its invention became a tool to be used for a multiplicity of outcomes. It goes without saying that artistic use of CRISPR or any other technology for its philosophical evaluation plays an important role in the ethical reviewing of that particular technology. Even with the clearly different aims for using CRISPR for scientists and artists, what became evident in the workshop is that it can be developed as an educational model that will be of interest to art and science students equally.
Organising a workshop during the COVID-19 pandemic and the so-called new normal required some extra effort on forming & being a team, sharing the information and the work process. In Biofilia, we set up a video audio stream environment where the lectures and other labs’ processes were projected as a large image on the Biofilia lab wall via zoom. This turned out to be a good choice; it was easy to follow everything and also to show our results. It created an atmosphere of working together over distances. The only small disadvantage was that during discussions, it was sometimes a bit of an effort to talk to the others as you weren’t close by the screen yourself. The conference mic device and a good speaker are essential. They enable talking and listening over the table and right while working.
Without these pandemic restrictions, we would probably never have proposed to do an online live experiment in three different laboratories over three time zones. However, it did turn out to be a very fun and interesting experience. The differences between the lab equipment and materials sometimes posed a problem but generally gave subject to discussions about why certain results differed between labs which increased the understanding of the underlying mechanisms. It also encouraged us to work together via zoom and more experts could join than would be possible normally. And it did feel less like being in a zoom meeting all day and more like working in a lab with people close by who you could easily ask for help.