Post Natural: Biopolitical Control and Architecture in the Age of Synthetic Biology

posnatural

Biopolitical Control and Architecture in the age

of Synthetic Biology

by Jason HitchcockM. Arch., Track 1

A diploma studio with jennifer akerman

spring 2012

University of TennesseeCollege of Architecture and Design

Contents

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1..............Research Phase ONE: Genetic Engineering

Chapter 2..............Research Phase TWO: Synthetic Biology

Chapter 3..............Design Project

Appendix A.............Studio Literature/Video Reviews

Appendix B.............Reflective Essay

Bibliography

Acknowledgements

Returning to studio after a three year hiatus has not been a simple task. This semester would not have been possible with out the support and encouragement from my classmates and Professor Jennifer Akerman, as well as the unconditional support I receive from my Family and Friends. Thank you all.

a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c

c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a








c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a g t t a c a g t g c a g t a a g t c c g t a a g

t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g

t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a g t t a c a g t g c

a g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a


c g t a g t t a c a g t g c a g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g


t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a g t t a c a g t g c a g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c


a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a g t t a c a g t g c a g

t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g


t a g t t a c a g t g c a g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c


a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a g t t a c a g t g c a g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g


t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a g t t a c a g t g c a g t a



g t t a c a g t g c a g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g


t c c g t a a g t c c g t a g t t a c a g t g c a g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a


c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a g t t a c a g t g c a g t a a g


t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a g t

t a c a g t g c a g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a


c g t a a g t c c g t a g t t a c a g t g c a g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g


t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a a g t c c g t a g t t a c a g t g c a g t a a g t c

GENETIC ENGINEERINGBEYOND GOOD AND EVIL IN THE AGE OF BIOTECH AGRICULTURE

Chapter 1 - Research Phase ONE

3rd generation crops are reproduced using the successful 2nd generation crop. This is typically done through cloning or sterilized pure breeding.

2nd generation crops are grown to determine if the transgenic qualites are expressed

The engineered DNA is transferred to crop cells through one of two ways:

1) via gold particles and DNA gun2) via bacterium plasmid Resulting cells are then screened to determine

if the desired genetic trait was inherited

1st generation crops are manipulated at the genetic level. The desired

genetic trait which can come from

ANY ORGANISMis extracted and added to the genetic

code of the crop being engineered.

HybridizationHeirloom

or

A variety of plant which is distinct from the more common varieties associated with commercial agriculture and has been cultivated using the

same traditional methods for a long time

Genetic Engineering

+-

+ +1stgeneration

2ndgeneration

3rdgeneration

the formation of hybrids; cross-breeding between

parents of different species.

The alteration of the genome of an organism by labratory techniques, esp. by the insertion, alteration, or

removal of a gene

Process | World Statistics | Benefits | H

arms | Biodiversity | R

esearch

USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Arica, Uruguay, Bolivia, Australia, Philippines, Myanmar, Burkina Fiso, Spain, Mexico, Columbia, Chile, Hondurus, Portugal, Czech Republic, Poland, Egypt, Slovakia, Costa Rica, Romania, Sweden, Germany29 Countries grow one or more biotech crops

10%of wor ld crops aregenetically engineered

75%of food in supermarkets

contain a GE crop

53%of US crop

production is GE

5% Canola

14% Cotton

31% Maize

50% Soybean

China(3.5)

United States(66.8)

Brazil(25.4)

Argentina(22.9)

Canada(8.8)

India(9.4)

South Africa(2.2)

Paraguay(2.6)

Pakistan(2.4)

less moreVar ie ty o f Crops

World Growth by Area (in millions of Hectacres) and Variety

Mandatory Labeling Voluntary Labeling No Labeling Policy

Currently there are no international policies governing the labeling of Genetically Engineered. Some countries have taken the initiative to mandate the labeling of any products containing GE crops. However, other countries, including the United States, do not mandate the labeling of products or simply do not have any policies regulating the labeling of GE crops.



esearch

Medicine

DroughtTolerant

Hunger

CO2Reduced

CO2 Emissions

FloodResistant

PesticideResistant

Herbicide Tolerant

IncreasedBiodiversity

A 2010 report by the ISAAA claimed that the amount of carbon dioxiede removed

from the atmosphere by GE crops was equivalent to the

emissions in a year of EIGHT MILLION CARS.

With genetic engineering, it may be possible one day to

create plants that produce pharmaceutical drugs,

designed specifically for the individual

The biggest claim that the agriculture biotech industry

makes is that it has the ability to solve world hunger by increasing production of

crops. Since the introduction of the first GE crop, world

hunger rates have NOT decreased.

To date, the only commer-cially available GE crop that

has been modified to respond to a climactic condition is for

drought.

By far the most desired trait is for herbicide tolerance, modifying 61 PERCENT of GE crops.

Scientist are currently devel-oping GE crops that can thrive even in flooding, which the industry claims will help in the fight against world hunger.

The second most desirable single trait used to modify crops is pesticide resistance, taking up 17 PERCENT of GE crops (although 22 PERCENT of the crops contain both herbicide and pesticide traits.

Genetic Engineering has the ability to manipulate the genetic code of living organism, which, theoretically can produce an endless amount of genetic permutations.



esearch

GE Corn

SOne possible cause for the recent development of Colony Collaps disorder is due to the pollen of GE crops containat-ing the hive.

It is believed that GE food can cause children to develop life threatening allergies. There are also hidden and unknown affects that GE food can potentially have on human health. In a 2009 study the affects of Bt maize on mammals, researchers found signcant damage in the liver and kidneys as a result of a GE

Anti-GE advocates free the introduction of unwanted genetics polluting the worlds agriculture crops and animal gene pool.



esearch

Superweeds

DestroysDemocracy

Colony CollapseDisorder

GeneticPollution

Terminator Gene

HealthImplications

Superbugs

DecreaseBiodiveristy

In a democratic society, participants have the right to choose what crops they grow in their country. Vandana Shiva argues that GE crops are destroying the democratic right to choose. Farmers and Anti-GMO

advocates state that GE crops enable the mutation of superweeds that require more herbicides to kill.

Similarly, the potential for superbugs to evolve in response to extreme pesticide use has the ability to destroy agriculture and possibly moreWhile monocropping has a

signicant affect on crop biodiversity, people believe that the us of GE crops will decrease the diversity of crops grown world wide to a the select few distributed only by seed corporations.

In an attempt to prevent seed saving, scientist engineered what some call the terminator gene. This gene will prevent the plant from being able to reproduce, requiring farmers to only be able to get seeds from the corporations

non-GE Corn



esearch

(185) (771)

(168) (29)

(107) (520)

(434) (177)

(3) (274)

(544) (81)

(408) (1536)

(341) (456)

(178) (11)

(463) (138)

(126) (647)

Garden Beans

Rutabaga

Lettuce

Field Corn

Garlic

Cabbage

Tomatoes

Squash

Sugar Beets

Raddish

Peppers

1903 20041903

2004

1983

1903 Varieties (7262)

597

430 Total Varieties(7100)

According to an updated study conducted in 2004, only 6 percent of crop seed varieties that existed in 1903 survived in 2004. However, there has only been a 2 percent loss of total crop diversity since 1903. Some crops have displayed diminished varieties since 1903, while others have flourished. $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $52 percent of scientific articles on GMO did NOT declare their funding sources, while 8 percent of the articles claimed GMO industry funding

44 percent of articles had at least one author that was affiliated with the GMO industry

UnknownFunding

DeclaredFunding

GMO InudustryFunding









































Synthetic BiologyThe science and implications of designing Genetic Code

Chapter 2 - Research Phase TWO

Charles Darwin Publishes The origin of Species establishing the theory of national selection that members of a population who are better adapted to the environement survive and pass on their traits

1859

Friedrich Miescher was the first to isolate the

nucleus of white blood cells 1869

Nettie Stevens and Edmund Wilson independently described the bahvior of sex chromosomes. XX de-termines female; XY determines male.

1905

Herman J. Muller used X-rays to cause artificial

gene mutations in fruit fly. 1927

Timeline of Genetics

Gregor Mendel Published the results of his investigations of the inheritance of fac-tors in pea plants1866

Hugo de Vries, Erich von Tschermak, and carl correns independently discover an verify Mendels principles marking the begin-ning of modern genetics

1900

Thomas Hunt Morgan proposed a theory of sex-linked inheritance for the first mutation discov-ered in the fruit fly, followed by the gene theory,

including the principle of linkage.1910

Erwin Chargaff discovered a one-to-one ratio of adenine to thymine and guanine to cytosine in DNA samples from various organisms

1950

Robert W. holley, H. Gobind Khorana, and Mar-shal W. Nirenberg break the genetic code and understanding its role in protein synthesis.

1968

Francis Crick and James Watson solved the mys-tery of the three-dimesional sturcture of DNA. 1953

Rosalind Franklin successfully captured x-ray diffraction photographs of Dna1951

Frederick Sanger developed the chain termina-tion (dideoxy) method for sequencing DNA.

Herbert Boyer was the first to synthesize insu-lin using genetically Modified bacteria.1978

1977

Kary B. Mullis discovers the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) enabling the easy amplification

of DNA and a key step in genetic engineering.1983

The Human Genome Project began with the goal of determining the entire sequence of DNA composing human chromosomes. 1988

The Flavr Savr tomato was the first commercially

grown genetically engineered food to approved by the FDA for human consumption.

1994

The j. Craig Venter Institute announces the creation of the first synthetic organism, nicknamed Synthia. 2010

The first International Genetically engineered machine

competition is held at MIT and continues annually. 2004

Dolly the sheep becomes the first cloned mammal

by Ian Wilmut and Colleagues at the Roslin Insti-tute in Scotland.

1997

1) Recombinant DNA2) Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)3) Automated Sequencing4) Automated Construction of DNA5) Standards6) Abstraction

+ =

+ =A TG C

Process

BioFuelsConverting Carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons is the primary goal for sci-entist looking to replace fossil fuels with a clean form of energy.Clean WaterMillions of people do not have access to safe drinking water, a situation that will only get worse with a growing population. Syunthetic lifeforms are seen as one possible solution to a problem exacerbated by water contamination.New Drugs/VaccinesScientists hope to be able to design life forms that can quickly make vaccines on huge production scales to reduce the time it takes between a new disease emerging and an effective treatment.Pollution Clean-upMicrobes that can eat; waste oil or remove poisonous chemicals and heavy metal pollutants from landfill sites would revolutionize our ability

to deal with toxic spills and waste dumpsNew FoodsWith the global population set to rise from 7 billion to 9 billion, sci-entist are experimenting with synthetic biology to create better food in larger quantities.New MaterialsSynthetic Biology has the potential to create new living ma-terials that are able to signal environmental conditions and actively respond to those conditions.

ApplicationS

GENETIC ENGINEERING

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY

Ethical Issues

1)Pubilc Beneficence - maximize public benefits, minimize harm to the public.

2)Responsible stewardship - shared obligation among members of domestic and global

communities to act in ways that demonstrate concern for those who are not in a position

to represent themselves and for the environment in which future generations will flourish

or suffer.

3)Intellectual Freedom and responsibility - Democracies depend on intellectual freedom

coupled with the responsibility of individuals and institutions to use their creative poten-

tial in morally accountable ways.

4)Democratic deliberation - an approach to collaborative decision making that embraces

respectful debate of opposing views and activeparticipation by citizens.

5)Justice and Fairness - the distribution of benefits andburdens across society.

International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition

Genome SizeMycoplasma

Gram Positive Bacteria

Gram Negative Bacteria

Fungus/Mould

ALGAE

WORMS

CRUSTACEANS

INSECTS

BIRDS

Mollusks

Bony Fish

Cartilaginous Fish

Reptiles

Mammals

Amphibians

Flowering Plants10 6 10 7 10 8 10 9 10 10 10 11

(In Base Pairs)

iGEM BioBricks

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2010

2009

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition

The International Genetically Engi-neered Machine Competition or iGEM is a worldwide competition held annually, which began in 2004. Every year stu-dents from high schools, colleges and entrepeneurs synthetically develop parts or in some cases whole organisms to compete against their peers. Bio-Bricks are fundamental components that can be used to build whole organisms with various functions. Since the com-petitions inception, over seven thousand biobricks have been created and added to an open source bank. Each year some schools build upon the work of previous years to exponentionally grow. Some argue that the advancements of syn-thetic biology will soon out pace that of electronic technology, which currently doubles every two years. A significant

amount of brilliant ideas have come out of this competiton, but what is more sig-nificant are the additional requirements

beyond the biology. Each team now is required to develop a wiki page to docu-ment progress and saftey protocols, as well as develop a public presentation that helps deteroriate the wall between the lab and the public realm. As the com-petition grows to include more and more schools, the ability to develop solutions to real world problems and actually have them implemented is coming fast.

1.The University of Victory in Canada developed a biobrick that could be a color coded output sensor2. Duke Universitys iGEM team devised a solution to plastic waste by creating a biodegradable plastic and engineering an enzyme to biodegrade polyethylene.

3. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology engineered a yeast that detects, attracts, and eliminates agriculture pests, replacing chemical pesticides.4.Cambridge University engineered e.coli to produce different pigments in response to different con-centrations of an inducer.5. The IPOC-2 Colombia team constructed a device that is able to mineralize and biodegrade recalci-trant pesticides.6. Team BCCS-Bristol developed and characterised a cheap, versatile soil fertility sensor based on an E.coli chassis. It expresses fluorescent signals upon nutrient detection, producing a high-resolu-tion nutrient distribution map of arable land.7. Taking genes from fireflies and Vibrio fischeri, the Cambridge team have constructed BioBricks

which allow light output at a wide range of wavelengths.8. Team Groningen engineered a bacteria that would produce a rigid biofilm with embedded hydropho-bic proteins, leaving a coated surface which is extremely hydrophobic9. Harvard explored plant engineering through the creation of a genetic fence designed to prevent the spread of introduced genetic material. Additionally they created bioBricks for flavor and petal

modification and reduced allergens.

10. Hong Kongs 2010 teams goal was to introduce a bio-safety net that will be applicable to virtu-ally all genetically engineered bacteria as a vital termination step after their tasks have finished.

11. The Nevada team wanted to provide the iGEM registry with stress-inducible promoters to be used in plants. These promoters can be valuable tools in monitoring the environment for salt, heavy met-als, temperature, and more.12. The Newcastle team created BacillaFilla, an engineered Bacillus subtilis, aimed to repair micro-cracks in concrete. BacillaFilla would be applied to structures by spraying onto their surface, moving deep into microcracks and repair it.13. Gaston Day School developed a red fluorescent nitrate dector to indicate elevated levels of ni-trate in soil and water.14. In an attempt to affect malnutrition around the world, the John Hopkins University team engi-neered yeast to create increased Vitamin A in breads made with the yeast.15. For the 2011 Cambridge team, they explored the idea of structured color to attempt and engineer e.coli with the ability to create responsive optics such like the kind found in cethalopods.16. Nevadas 2011 team attempted to engineer a cooperative relationship between cyanobacteria and e.coli to produce an efficient Biofuel.

17. The Queens team from Canada engineered the nematode worm C. elegans into a toolkit for bioremi-diation of contaminated soil.18. Zhejiang University created Rainbofilm. Rainbowfilm is a stratified expression system in biofilm, a

self-organized module extensible for various needs. They used oxygen sensitive promoters to artifi-cially induce differentiated functions through the spatial distribution of cells. Thus, the multi-step reaction can be processed within the different layers of the biofilm.

19. Team Alberta produced a fungus that would take cellulosic waste and convert it into Biodesiel20. Team ETH-Zurich produced SmoColi, a bacterio-quantifier of acetaldehyde concentration that can

be used as a passive smoke detector.

Examples of Past IGEM Projects

2010

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

2009

3.

4.

5.

2008

1.

2.

2011

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18. 19.

20.

19.

Examples of Past IGEM Projects

Humans have been shaping nature for thousands of years, not only to suit their needs, but also their most irratio-nal desiress. David Benque conceptualizes a synthetic

signing plant, which would be a part of the garden chorus. This idea was produced with the assistance of the Haseloff lab, Cambridge.

Natural History of the Enigma is a plantimal created by artist Eduardo Kac called Edunia. It is a flowering

plant that expresses Kocs DNA in the red viens of the flowers petal. A transgenic plant was sequenced using a

Petunia and the blood of the artist.

The Cross(x)Species adventure club enlists people to taste a biodiverse and delicious future, and further-

more, to engage in enticing experiments, invest in food innovation, and participate in re-designing our collec-

tive relationship to natural systems. Food can not only be redesigned to reduce the environmental costs, but to promote, augment and remediate ecosystems greatly am-

plifying a positive androgenic effect.

The Art and Architecture

Ginger Dosier has envisioned a new material to build transmission towers in the UAE desert, and it is based on the rapid growth of a soil bacteria that creates a biocement. The process would grow bacteria, which is then fed into a 3D printer, creating whatever casts the designer would want.

A theoretical project to eliminate carbon monoxide from the air, Daisy Ginsberg speculated a synthitic organism that would crystalize the carbon-mioxide. In highliting

one of the flaws of this idea, she represented a smok-ers lung who would essentially be killed by the organ-ism due to the solidification of carbon monoxide present

in a smokers lungs.

Stemming from an iGEM project on biological color syn-thecized in e.coli, Daisy Ginsberg and her team speculat-ed on using this as a means to recognizes human health

through their fecal matter. Human solid waste would be colored signaliing the health of the person.

The Art and Architecture of Synthetic Biology

Utilizing protocell technology, Rachel Armstrong

conceived of a way to prevent the city of Venice from falling into the water. Protocells react to water and

remove carbon in the environment to create a rock-coral like structure.

Philip Beasley and Rachel Armstrong worked on the Can-dadian exhibition at the Venice Biennial in 2010. The proj-ect, Hylozoic Ground/Soil, is a reactive environment that

blurs the line between living and non-living. As quests walk through the space, the living robotic structure responds to the movement of people causing a protocell reaction to take place within contained flasks.

The Center for Postnatural History (CPNH) is dedicated to the research and exhibition of lifeforms that have been intentionally altered by humans, from the dawn of domes-tication to contemporary genetic engineering. Established by an Assistant Professor in art at Carnegie Mellon University, it now has a perminant location in downtown Pittsburgh.

Led by Alberto T. Estvez, the Genetic Barcelona Project

worked toward the creation of plants with natural light emitting abilities for urban and domestic use. The first

phase introduced GFP (Green Fluorescent Protein) from the jellyfish Aequorea victoria into the DNA of seven

lemon trees.

Another Project by Mitchell Joachim and his practice was an architectural proposal for the fabrication of 3D printed extruded pig cells to form real organic dwell-ings. It is intended to be a victimless shelter, because no sentient being was harmed in the laboratory growth of the skin.

Mitchel Joachim concieved of a project called the Fab Tree Hab Village, which is a 100% living habitat prefabri-cated with computer Numeric Controlled (cnc) Reusable scaffolds to graft trees into shape .

Daisy ginsberg speculated on the applications of synthet-ic biology to production of consumer goods. Here she conceptualized am prganic pesticde sprayer. All parts

would be grown from plants, including the nozzle, the

pesticide, the sprayer, and all the other parts.

Allison Kudla used a computer controlled four-axis po-sitioning table to print intricate bio-architectural con-structions out of moss and seeds. This project is working to make concrete the idea of dynamic and fluid computer

space altering the expression and formation of a living and growing biological material, via its collaboration with an engineering mechanism.

a living natural system takes on the form of a manufac-tured pattern. Tobacco leaves are die-cut into a bilater-ally symmetrical pattern and suspended in tiling square petri dishes that contain the nutrients necessary to pro-mote new leaf growth.

In the future, even animal rights activist will be able to wear leather. The Tissue culture and art project devel-oped a project that grew leather in a bioreactor without the need of killing an animal. The project

Designer Tuur Van Balen created a theoretical project called Pigeon dOr, golden pigeon. The basis of the project was to manipulate New York City Pigeons metabo-lisms with the use of synthetic bilogy. Pigeons would be fed a micro-organism that cause would transform the birds waste into a soap, helping to clean the city.

The Semi-Living Worry Dolls are tissue-engineered sculp-tures cultured live under micro-gravitational conditions

in an artificial womb. Created by the tissue culture and

Art project, The genderless figures represent the cur-rent stage of cultural limbo: a stage characterized by

childlike innocence and a mixture of wonder and fear of technology.









































BioPolitical ControlArchitecture in the age of Synthetic Biology

Chapter 3: Design Project

The extensive research into genetic engineering and synthetic biology conducted prior to the design phase of the studio led to many conclusions, since there are many ethical, political, technological implications to these new fields of science. Ultimately the design of the project

became about control. More specifically it explored the nature of biopolitical control, as was

initially described Michel Foucault in his lectures and essay on Biopower. Biopower and biopoli-tics are the use of force to control life. Foucualt defined initially as strictly pertaining to re-production. However, with the rise of resource and environmental management rising in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the concept of biopolitics has been extended to the environment. Fundamentally, the critique of biopolitics is a critique of neo-liberalism, since this is the socio-economic political system that enables the valuation and devaluation of living life. The ability to place an arbitrarily conceived valuation on life, no matter how simple, allows for its devalu-ation to nothing and the zero-point of mass extermination in the form of genocide. The physical

manifestation of biopolitics in space is architecture. Much like power, which can be used in both good and bad ways, architecture can either propagate a biopoilitical ideology or it can help dismantle it. My project sought to expose the illusion of control as it is applied to synthetic biology. The inevitable move from laboratory to synthetic environment is coming very soon, and the ability for the public to perceive that it is controlled is simultaneously crucial, yet illusory. The location of the project is in downtown Knoxville, Tennessee at the intersection of Jackson Avenue and Gay Street. The site was chosen due to its high visibility within the city, since Gay street is a central artery of the city. The primary means for representing control in the ar-chitectural manifestation of my project was a fifteen meter high wall and one meter thick. Its

height is contextually defined by the neighboring buildings. There is a two and half meter gap

between the wall and the sidewalk to emphasize the massiveness of the wall. At times the wall

has precise opening to expose the activities within the site, while other times the dematerializa-tion of the wall results in a sense of uncontrol. The program of the project on the public levels are educational classrooms, art/science gallery, indoor and outdoor laboratories, a restaurant, and different types of public gardens. The gardens include community plots, which break past the wall and engage the sidewalk from which they can be accessed. Below the commu-nity plots are pools of water that serve as sources of remediation for the water and one which remediates aging on human skin. The central green space is a sculpture park/garden which con-nects to the outdoor classrooms and laboratories. The outdoor laboratories move through a progression of control going from indoors to out, from controlled test tube to in situ.

Another significant aspect of the project was the large monolith located at the north east corner

of the site. It sits atop the control wall. Its dimensions are based on the monolith in the science fiction novel by Arthur C. Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Using the ratio 1:4:9, the monoliths

program includes research laboratories, two types of living quarter (dorm and apartment), as well as community amenities for the residences. In the novel, the monolith appears as an external influ-ence that evolves the species. The monolith in my project argues for an inversion of that concep-tion. With synthetic biology, human evolution is now internalized through the intelligent design

of genetic sequences; we are the ones that drive evolution forward in the age of synthetic biology.

Design Abstract

UP

UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

DN

DN

DN

--

-

-

Program Gallery - Classroom - Restaurant/cafe - Forum - Laboratory - Garden/Park/outdoor -

DN

DN

DN

--

-

-

Circulation: Path - Vertical -

animaliaplantaeprotozoabacteriafungihomosapiens

bacteria plantaefungi animalia homosapiensMonolith Program: social living - individual living - Communial Spaces -

DN

DN

DN

--

-

-

art Science

Parti

DN

Vegetation

DN

ControlMore Less

Appendix A: Studio Literature/Video Reviews

Reading Review: Sustainable Systems Inventory: Scottsdale, Ari-zona. By Ken McCown

Sustainable Systems Inventory by Ken McCown and Arizona State Univeristy is a document

that should be produced for every city in the world. The report, which focuses on Scotts-dale, collects the information necessary for a city to establish a framework that will move the city towards self-sustainability. The report focuses on several areas--water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and waste and pollution--that affect the citys dependence and independence on resources required by the citys needs. The section on agriculture is conveniently divided into supply and demand, which allows for the issues to be addressed from not only the production of agriculture, but also the consumption. Ad-ditional appendixes provide resources to further assist the city in achieving a more sustain-able future. By including daily nutritional values and the local and state availability of sources to achieve these values, even the individual can begin to utilize the report to create

change through growing and buying local sources.

Although the report is for the city of Scottsdale, its ability to oscillate between city, coun-ty, state, regional, and national levels allows for different amounts of the information to be applicable to other cities in the United States depending on the location. However, the most significant application of the report to the studio is the methodology for an inventory

of sustainable systems. The methodology establishes a means for collecting the relevant information. Furthermore, by developing categories to focus the research, the report pro-vides a solid foundation, from which the city and state can create sustainable policies and initiatives. Additionally, this methodology will make it easy for cities to locate the critical areas that need improvement, and start with the ones that need it most. Sustainable sys-tems inventory reports should be created for all cities, and the content, methodology, and graphics of the Scottsdale report serves as a good example.

Relevance to Research:

Although the Scottsdale Report does not mention anything about the manipulation and en-gineering of genetics, many of the issues that are discussed can be solved, in theory, by ge-netic engineering. For example the issue of water scarcity, food distribution and pollution can all be addressed by the potentials inherent in synthetic biology. The framework and methodology that guided the scottsdale report are not as directly applicable to research that looks to address a technology; however, the straightforward and direct nature of the graphics deployed can be used in my research to express the issues of genetic engineering and its effects on American food systems.

Reading Review: Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, 2002. by William Mcdonough and Michael Braungart.William McDonoughs well known book Cradle to Cradle focuses on societys need to change its means of production from a unidirectional system to a closed loop system of production. By this McDonough means that all production should find ways to eliminate the concept of

waste in the system. At the core of the cradle to cradle concept is management of inputs and outputs of a product, from production to after the lifetime of its use. Standard means of production typically operate on a cradle to grave concept, which results in a significant

amount of waste, and does not take into account the long-term use and post-use of the product. Cradle to cradle is an attempt to shift the logic behind industry that accounts for not only the sustainability of a products input, but also the waste in production, and what happens to the product after its lifetime is ends. An example that McDonough uses to demonstrate the logic behind cradle to cradle is a carpet company, for which he was a consultant. With the help of William McDonough, the new carpet the company produced was able to re-use and recylce the waste produced in the manufacturing of the carpet, as well as make the carpet bio-degradable and give back to the earth after its lifetime was up. The carpet provided a real world example of how Cradle to Cradle can be implemented by simply re-thinking the way in which a product exists.

Cradle to Cradle gets to the heart of the problem of production and manufacturing in the world. The one-sided and narrow view of a product results in larger landfills, more pollu-tion, and an overall negative impact to society. However, what McDonough is proposing is not simply a new way of producing, its a change in mindset that has far reaching implications beyond the manufacturing process. The ability to change the ideology and logic of industry is even more difficult than changing how people vote. What it will take is framing the argu-ment in terms of the one thing that industry listens to: Money. While McDonough begins to frame his arguments in a monetary context, his ultimate belief is one for environmental. I believe that the real change needs to occur, not in the way we understand the logic of pro-duction in society, but rather in the way we conceive of value outside the concept of money. Its the only way that we can have long lasting change that implements a cradle to cradle logic. By initiating a certification program for cradle to cradle, we move closer to the goal

of maximizing material resources and eliminating waste, making the product healthy, safe

and efficient.

Relevance to Research:

As I researched genetic engineering, I came across an article by William McDonough called Between Biology, Technology and Culture: Building a Cradle-to-Cradle Framework for the Biotech Debate. This article is great and terrible at the same time. To begin with, Mc-

Donough understands what is at stake and the necessity of developing a framework for genetically modified organisms. Although, he perhaps understates the severity of the impli-cations genetic manipulation has on the whole earth, McDonoughs article does cite this as a reason for developing a framework. Since genetically engineered products are both bio-logic and technologic material, their role in the Cradle to Cradle philosophy is mixed. On one hand it has the potential to design living closed loop systems; however, the unknown factor to GE organisms, makes them susceptible to fundamentally destroying all existing naturally occuring closed loop systems.

The primary issue I raise with McDonough is the lack of certainty in his arguments. Some-times architects and designers need to stick with what they know best, and that is, right now, not the science and technology of genetic engineering. Therefore, his arguments come off as half understood and underdevloped. While I do understand that this is a natural result from such a new technology that is still trying to be understood in terms of its ef-fects on ecosystems, the discourse deployed is simply a regurgitation of Cradle-to-Cradle with find and replace used for issues on genetic engineering. Ultimately, I do appreciate the

fact that he acknowledges the need for designers to engage the topic of genetic engineer-ing; however, a little more research goes a long way.

Reading Review: The Omnivores Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, 2006. by Michael PollenUnderstanding how food systems operate in society is vital to ensuring their sustainabil-ity, which at a mass scale they are not. Communicating the current state of agriculture in America is not an easy task, since most authors are having to fight against the corporate

propaganda machines. However, Michael Pollen has done the best job to not only explain the present condition of these systems, but also try and understand the past and how it came to be the way that it is now. The Omnivores Dilemma is one of the more enlightening books I have had the opportunity of reading, which has helped to change my own views of agriculture in America. Michael Pollen is in almost every documentary on food since the publication of Omnivores Dilemma in 2006. Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of

the book that people take from it is the visit to Joel Salatins Polyface Farm. For Pollen, Salatins farm represents the ideal ethical practice of agriculture. The book concludes with Pollen creating a meal that was created using only ingredients found or grown by him-self. The book as a whole is a successful tool for re-igniting a debate on food, which has been for too long dominated by multinational corporations.

While many have praised the Michael Pollens book, I do think that there are some legiti-mate criticisms to be raised with his methodology and analysis. One could even go as far

as to characterize Pollen as the Michael Moore of food. Much like Moores documentary

approach, Pollen is also one sided in his discussion. He lacks a legitimate defense of indus-trial organic farms, which are some of the largest farms in America for the food production intended for consumption by humans. Additionally there are economic arguments that can be made about the sustainability of Pollens arguments. He completely glosses over the socio-economic side of who can afford these kinds of ideal food systems. Like many works that critique the status quo, he lacks a vision for transitioning to these ideal food systems. What Pollen is successful at is his ability to communicate a need for awareness of where our food comes from. After all, the first time I read this book, several years ago, helped

me to re-evaluate the food I eat, where it comes from, and how it is produced.

Relevance to Design Project:Michael Pollen is strategic in the way he shapes his discourse on GMOs. At times he de-scribes the need for careful observation, while other times discussing the dangerous impli-cations of manipulating living matter. On his website, however, he reveals his true feelings about GMOs by equating them to biological pollution. I feel this type of attitude is what makes most of Michael Pollens work come off as one-sided. The attitudes represented by Michael Pollen and his colleagues continued to remind me how much misinformation exists on true nature of genetically modified organisms in society. The romanticized world that

many locavores live in complete diminishes and forgets the accomplishments of scientific

discovery. Inevitably, Pollen perpetuates fear based rhetoric preventing an authentic dia-logue on the role of genetic engineering in our food systems. While I agree that the science rhetoric is equally lopsided, the solution is not to respond with similar discourse.

Video Review: Food, Inc.Film and visual media have a unique ability to represent ideas in a way that can be widely consumed by the masses, as is the case for Food Inc. Food Inc. is a documentary film that

attempts to expose industrial food production in the United States. The goal of the film

is create transparency between the factory farms and the individual consumer. By break-ing the film into sub-parts geared towards different aspects of the food industry, it gives

the viewer the ability to relate to different subjects that affect them on a personal level. Food Inc. tries to understand the role corporate America plays in the production of agri-culture, from the seed companies (Monsanto) to the packaging plants (Smithfield). The mix

of personal stories with social issues is an effective means to grab an audiences atten-tion and expose some of the truths behind the industrial agriculture.

While I think the film does a good job of addressing and explaining the view points it wants

to promote, it does a poor job of addressing the arguments presented by the corporations

it attacks. I know that there is debate between the level of involvement between each par-ties, it is obvious that Food Inc. is promoting its own agenda. What I find troublesome is

the lack of criticism to the greening of capitalism practiced by people like Wal-mart in the film. The film only address the symptoms of the problem, not the causes. Educating the

public on where their food comes from does not address the logic behind capitalism when it is applied to food systems and agriculture. In a state where socio-economic concerns drive the economic conditions, it is inevitable to have disparities between those who can and those who cannot. Ultimately the problem is the commodification of a basic need such as

food, which fails to recognize the artistic dimension of its creation. Food Inc., much like

other work involving Michael Pollen, exposes the other side of the debate, which has been severely lacking until the past decade.

Relevance to Research:Food Inc. did engage the genetic engineering debate, albeit through the opposition of Mon-santo. It is unfortunate that Monsanto exists because, I believe it is the number one source for skewing the genetically engineered organism debate. As the documentary reveals, the ability to patent life has a tremendous impact on neo-liberal economic systems to wreak havoc on agriculture systems. It is an inevitable outcome of a system which places monetary value on life, further seeking to control its existence. This has negatively impacted farm-ers who wish to grow non-GMO crops, as well as those who save seeds from year to year.

What is significantly lacking in Food, Inc. are the benefits that can come from responsible,

sustainable use of biotechnology in agriculture. Furthermore, the little they do mention about its benefits are quickly dismissed due to the lack of its materialization. For one, the

film as well as society has yet to understand that we are just now beginning to see second

generation biotech crops that benefit humankind rather than corporations bank accounts.

As the public gets more involved with the genetic engineering debate and biotech crops they can begin to shape and shift how the technology is developed.

Video Review: Fresh: New Thinking about What Were EatingFresh is a film that follows various people involved with alternative means of growing food,

who differ from industrial and mass produced farms. The re-occurrence of a familiar cast is not unexpected, so again we are introduced to Joel Salatin and Michael Pollen and other familiar advocates of local, organic farming. One new character that Fresh introduces us to is Will Allen, who is an urban farmer and activist from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His urban farm, works to create closed loop aquaponic systems, soil remediation, and maximizing grow-ing space both vertically and horizontally. What I appreciate about Allen is his ability to

communicate the knowledge to others. He knows how simple and easy it is to grow food in the smallest spaces. He actively seeks to change the way his community consumes, produces

and understands food. His attitude differs as well from others such a Joel Salatin, who come off as almost an elitist foodie, rather than an open minded activist of change. Do not get me wrong, Joel Salatin is a brilliant and intense man who is doing a lot of good in regards to changing food production in America, but his personality comes off a bit more intensely than Will Allen.

The documentary film is very successful at showing various alternatives to current food

systems and ways in which everyone can get involved. The variety of people helps to rein-force the argument to rethink what we are eating. Provoking and sustaining a shift in con-sumer mindset will only come about by enabling the means to achieve lasting change. While Fresh falls into a similar rhetorical trap as other one sided documentaries, its ability to persuade its audiences is more successful when the judgemental nature of their rhetoric is removed.

Relevance to Research:Similar to other such films like Food, Inc. Fresh does not portray genetic engineering in

a favorable light; however, the down to earth and simple approach that Fresh takes with its storytelling comes off far less judgemental than Food Inc. It is hard to watch people talk about ideas such as soil remediation and closed loop systems, while denying the abil-ity for genetic engineering to assist and enhance these systems. Unfortunately the debate that continues in America attempts to polarize farmers, consumers, and producers with fear

based rhetoric on both sides. Much of the issue continues to return to the fact that many people are misinformed on the effects of genetic engineering outside of a neo-liberal eco-nomic context.

Video Review: Whats Wrong with What We Eat.Mark Bittmans TED talk, Whats Wrong with What We Eat starts with an apocalyptic im-age: our current food systems from what we grow/raise to what we eat is destroying humans and the earth. This image is somewhat accurate, although I would argue against his image as being a part of the fear rhetoric. Bittmans talk begins to get to the heart of the issue, which is centralization of food systems is unsustainable. A little more than one hundred

years ago everyone was a locavore. The idea of shipping food across the nation seemed ludacris. However, the rise of a capitalist economic system--which is now being replaced with neo-liberalism--inevitably spread over agriculture. There are many more issues than just food at play, which bittman begins to recognize. It is a complex issue, but to what extent

can we begin to fundamentally change the cultural practices of America and the world? It requires an ethical obligation to the food we eat and the way we live. We can not let others persuade and alter traditional means of creating food.

Bittmans lecture reminds me of my grandmother. At one point in her life she use to eat home cooked meals with her family, then in the fifties, she had kids of her own. She took

what was being advertised to her and it became the new norm for her ways of providing food for her family. Even to this day, she prefers boxed mashed potatoes over the real thing. Although part of me believe this is due simply to convenience, but the other part knows that she simply enjoys it and is stuck in her ways. It baffles me, but it is the signs of changing

generations. More people I know are eating local, growing their own foods and changing the way the view food. It is kind of the argument about racism. We are not going to change the racist grandmothers of the world, they are stuck in their ways. No matter how hard we try, older generations will continue being racist. Therefore our focus should be the new generations, educating them on sustainable and healthy food choices.

Relevance to Research:Bittman makes almost no reference to genetically engineered foods. His argument is more about the ingredients used and the differences between industrial food production versus local home cooked food. Yet what he does recognize is the necessity that the problem is

much deeper than simply food and that it is about an economic system that perpetuates poor food choices. Overall, however, his work, while fascinating and important, does not really engage the topics that I have chosen to explore.

Video Review: The Beauty of Data VisualizationThe ability to successfully reduce the information overload, which will only increase in this century, is necessary to ensure the correct data and information can be received by the viewer. David McCandless Solution is to use our eyes more. McCandless talk on graphic display of information is a good example of how research can be visually appealing. His-torically, the two means of communication, verbal and visual, have been separated. Even today, we see architecture students whose visual presentations are astounding, but verbal presentations lack the same guster. Being an undergrad who soley argued through words and language rather than images, it is a difficult skill to learn and even more difficult to

master that of visual communication. Unfortunately, visual communication is dominated by advertising and propaganda, and the relay of information tends to be lost in the product promotion. However, David McCandless attempts to reunite both visual and verbal commu-nication, through appealing graphics.

Designing information is a critical skill in the 21st century. Another example that David Mc-Candless talks about is the contextualization of information, as is the case with the billion-

dollar-gram. It shows a patterns and connections across the data. Information is mean-

ingless without a means of comparison to understand its significance. Bringing the skills

that McCandless discusses into every life and communication can do wonders for educating children and the public in general.

Relevance to Research:The most important lesson that can be taken from The Beauty of Data Visualization talk

is to understand information in some sort of context. This context can be anything, but a successful design of the context will reinforce the arguments being presented in the date, or rather it will alter the argument based on the context given. Therefore, when present-ing information on Genetically modified foods, it is not enough to simply spew out numbers

that describe the amount and locations of these modified foods, but rather, to set a con-text from which people can be understand the relationships GMO foods have with non-GMO foods versus even organic foods. In addition, visualizing the data as it relates to GMO

foods will help to better convey the message and arguments that I try to present in my re-search.

Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, its just not that

good. Its trying to be good, it has potential, but its not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesnt have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will

close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone Ive ever met. Its gonna take

awhile. Its normal to take awhile. Youve just gotta fight your way through.

Ira Glass

Appendix B: Reflective Essay

This Semester has been a very long and difficult road, most of which was self inflicted.

Upon beginning this class, I was extremely excited to be working with a subject matter that is very personal to me. Since taking my leave of absence from school, I took up gardening as a hobby of mine, which really began even further back when I lived in Burlington, Ver-mont. Coming from such a progressive area as Burlington as well as engaging with critical thinkers on a daily basis, it was inevitable that I would begin to live a lifestyle similar to the environment I was living. This included eating locally, attending farmers markets, and literally never stepping food into a fast food or industrial scale food supplier the entire time I lived there. Within the first month of moving to Knoxville, I ate at a McDonalds with

my class during a drawing exercise. It was probably the last thing I would have ever expect to be doing after leaving Vermont. However, I soon came to realize the infiltration of fast

and industrial food supply on the Knoxville community, along with a general lack of un-derstanding or care for where our food is produced. As my health declined, which is most likely directly related to the decline of my care for food, I was forced to take time off from school. During this time I was able to re-ignite my passion for food both as a means of sur-vival and as an art form. I began gardening everyday and understanding how plants existed on a more holistic level. So naturally given the opportunity to partake in a research design studio concerned with food and agriculture systems I was thoroughly excited. One thing I was unprepared for was the difficulty I had in getting back into a design mode. I continued

to research and research, because that is what I am good at, but my three year absence from a complete studio was much harder than I had expected.

Perhaps it was a result of taking not only the current semesters design issues too per-sonal, but also my re-introduction to architect too personal as well, but I let myself get lost in my head without ever focusing enough to produce something that I was thoroughly happy with. My choice to focus on the genetics of food was a misguided attempt to take on issues that I felt were more important than what I had already studied. I mean taking on the history and future of evolution in 7 to 8 weeks in an architecture studio, is probably not the wisest idea. That coupled with my inability to be decisive about the direction my project took really prevented me from creating what I had initially set out to produce.

I began this section with a quote by Ira Glass that is referred to as Closing the Gap. The space that exists between the work I currently produce vs the work I expect from myself seems like an untraversable gap. What I see in my head and what actually gets presented to others is so far off that it is embarassing for me to even present my work at times. I have come very close to giving up and quiting, but this quote has helped me maintain my focus. Specifically it does two things for me. First off, it reassures me that ever great person in a

creative field has gone through a similar period in their career. Second, this quote encour-

ages me not to diminish or compromise my taste in architecture. My ability to think about architecture along different lines than my peers is not something that makes me any less capable of being an architect in the future. Rather it is the extremely large expectations that make this gap seem impossible to traverse. I believe continuing to produce anything gets me a step closer to closing my own gap, seeing each project as an opportunity rather than a disappointment.

Although the gap that exists for me is much larger for others, simply producing for the sake of producing architectural work will not narrow the gap by itself. My biggest problem throughout my architecture educational career has been an inability to focus on a specific

area of research. I always feel that I must include everything for the work to be complete. This is much of the philosophers approach to architecture, in that I only see the big picture and have not been able to narrow the scope of my work out of fear of excluding a critical element. If this semester has taught me anything, it is that architecture can only exist when it approached from the think globally act locally mentality. It is necessary to conceive of projects at the holistic scale, but when it needs to be materialized it still has to be a build-ing that can only embody so much. We even began the semester talking about the idea of synecdoche as an approach for the studio, but really that is the approach one should take for all architectural projects. How can each project represent a sort of simultaneous understanding between the part and the whole of the concept?

As I continue to develop my architectural studies, I must keep in mind two things. One, the ideal work is in the process and body of work, not in a single finished project. Another way

of saying that is that it is about the journey not the destination. The creative act is what makes architecture a passion rather than a means to pay the mortgage. Second, to never lose my critical mind and its application to architecture. Whenever, I finally graduate and

I get a job, I am almost hoping to find the most banal, CAD/REVIT monkey job that is out

there. Doing the complete opposite will allow my mind to learn the practical nature of ar-chitecture, and how to just get things done. Meanwhile, I can continue to develop my criti-cal thinking skills and crafting them more specifically to architectural thought through

competitions and individual exercises. My goals as a potential architect are to not only make myself proud, but also all the professors that have lent a hand in helping me find my

architectural voice.

Bibliography

Chapter 1 - Research Phase ONE: Genetic EngineeringBrand, Stewart. Whole Earth Discpline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. London: Penguin Group, 2009.

Braungart Michael and William McDonough. Between Biology, Technology, and Culture: Building a Cradle-to-Cradle Framework for the Biotech Debate. William McDounough. (2003).

Bren, Linda. Genetic Engineering: The Future of Foods FDA Consumer Magazine. Vol 37, 6 (Nov/Dec 2003).

Cellier, Dominique. et al. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mam-malian Health. International Journal of Biological Sciences. Vol 5, 7: 706-726 (2009).

Clive, JamesGlobal Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010. International Ser-vice for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (2011). .

Cunha, Mario, et al. Association of Financial or Professional Conflict of Interest to Re-search Outcomes on Health Risks or Nutritional Assessment Studies of Genetically Modified Products. Food Policy. Vol. 36, 2 (2011): 197-203.

Chapman, Susan and Paul Heald. Crop Diversity Report Card for the Twentieth Century: Di-versity Bust of Diversity Boom. (2009) < http://ssrn.com/abstract=1462917>.

Frontier. Engineering Crops for the 21st Century UC Davis. YouTube, Aug 6, 2008.

Genetically Modified Crops Only a Fraction of Primary Global Crop Production. World-watch Institute: Vision for a Sustainable World. .

Greenpeace. Genetic Engineering: The Worlds Greatest Scam? YouTube, Sept 11, 2009.

Gressel, Jonathan. Genetic Glass Ceilings: Transgenics for Crop Biodiveristy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.

Pew Initiatives on Food and Biotechnology. Genetically Modified Crops in the United States. (August 2004)

Rosenthal, Elisabeth. Food For Thought: Crop Diversity is Dying. New York Times: (Aug 2005). .

The International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture. Manifesto on the Fu-ture of Seeds (2006).

Thomson, Jennifer A. Seeds for the Future: The Impact of Genetically Modified Crops on the Environment. Ithaca: CSIRO Publishing, 2006. Chapter 2 - Research Phase TWO: Synthetic BiologyArmstrong, Rachel and Neil Spiller. ProtoCell Architecture. Architectural Design: Vol 81, No 2. March/April 2011.

Bedau, Mark A., and Emily C. Parke, eds. The Ethics of Protocells: Moral and Social Implica-tions of Creating Life in the Laboratory. Cambridge: MIT, 2009.

Da Costa, Beatriz and Kativa Philip. Tactical Biopolitics: Art, Activism, and Technoscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2008. Print.

DeLanda, Manuel. Philosophy and Simulation: The Emergence of Synthetic Reason. London: Continuum, 2011.

Estevez, Alberto T., ed. Genetic Architectures III. Santa Fe: SITES, 2009.

Foucault, Michel, Michel Senellart, Franois Ewald, and Alessandro Fontana. Security, Ter-ritory, Population: Lectures at the Collge De France, 1977-78. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac-millan, 2007.

Johansen, John MacLane. Nanoarchitecture: A New Species of Architecture. New York: Princ-eton Architectural, 2002.

Krauel, Jacobo. Contemoporary Digital Architecture Design & Techniques. Barcelona: Links, 2010.

Lim, Joseph. Bio-structural Analogues in Architecture. Amsterdam: BIS, 2008.

Luke, Timothy W. Generating Green Governmentality: A Cultural Critique of Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation. American Political Science Association (1996).

-------The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature: Environmentalism as Globalized Consumerism? Interna-tional Studies Association (1997).

Rosa, Joseph. Next Generation Architecture: Folds, Blobs and Boxes. New York: Rizzoli, 2003.

Appendix A - Studio Literature/Video ReviewsBittman, Mark. Whats Wrong with What We Eat. EGtalk (partner of TED). 2007. 20m

Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2009. DVD.

Fresh: New Thinking about What Were Eating. Dir. Ana Sofia Joannes. IForce Nutrition, 2010. DVD.

McCandless, David, The Beauty of Data Visualization. TED Talk. July, 2010. 20m

McCown, Ken. Sustainable Systems Inventory: Scottsdale, Arizona: Preparing for a sustain-able future, Scholarly report, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Arizona State University.

McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point, 2002.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivores Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Pen-guin, 2006.

Post Natural: Biopolitical Control and Architecture in the Age of Synthetic Biology

Documents

Transcript of Post Natural: Biopolitical Control and Architecture in the Age of Synthetic Biology