ICOM-CC

17th Triennial Conference

Field research on the ethics
and practice regarding
2014 Melbourne

LEGAL ISSUES IN CONSERVATION

the operation of institutions
hosting BioArt collections

EKATERINI MALEA* INTRODUCTION

Technological Educational Institute of Athens
Department of Conservation of Antiquities & Works of Art
Aegaleo, Greece Biological materials have constituted ‘objects’ of value for collection and
kmalea@teiath.gr research in medicine, archaeology and anthropology for a very long time;
LEONIDAS KARAMPINIS
Technological Educational Institute of Athens nowadays, they are a significant part of relevant museum collections. At
Department of Conservation of Antiquities & Works of Art the same time, biological materials have been used as artistic media for
Aegaleo, Greece
leokar@teiath.gr centuries (Gessert 2010).
EFFROSYNI KARANTONI
Technological Educational Institute of Athens It is commonly accepted that in this age of constant change and uncertainty,
Department of Conservation of Antiquities & Works of Art
Aegaleo, Greece art and artists are influenced by the rapid changes occurring in science and
ekarantoni@yahoo.gr
technology and turn to other forms of expression (Nelkin and Anker 2002,
SOFIA-OLGA PAPAIOANNOU
Technological Educational Institute of Athens Wilson 2002). One of these new forms of expression is BioArt (Kallergi
Department of Conservation of Antiquities & Works of Art
Aegaleo, Greece 2008). The speed of development within the biosciences has led artists,
sofiaolga@yahoo.com cultural theorists, historians of science and activists to respond accordingly
ZOI TSOURTI
Athens University of Economics and Business (Wilson 2002). The need felt for a cultural and artistic response to the
Department of Statistics development of these emerging cognitive areas suggests that they have
Athens, Greece
ztsourti@gmail.com had an impact on the development of social, moral, philosophical and
NENI PANOURGIA cultural positions. Therefore, the study of these developments ought to be
Columbia University
Department of Anthropology part of the study of culture (Pandilovski 2008). As Clement (2012) notes,
New York NY, USA
np255@columbia.edu BioArt has received many critics since its first appearance in the
THRASSOS AVARITSIOTIS
Technological Educational Institute of Athens end of the 20th century ... One of the main concerns about bioArt is
Department of Conservation of Antiquities & Works of Art
Aegaleo, Greece
that people view it as an unnecessary use of living organisms. While
thrassos@teiath.gr the use of living (in vivo) organisms is often tolerated because they
GEORGIOS PANAGIARIS
Technological Educational Institute of Athens
are used for research and thus improving the quality of peoples’
Department of Conservation of Antiquities & Works of Art lives, bioArt is often criticized as an uncalled-for practice because
Aegaleo, Greece
gpanag@teiath.gr of the role of aesthetics in the artworks. In addition, bioArt creates
* Author for correspondence uncertainties among the public because bioArt projects such as
eugenics are undertaken by artists and not researchers.
KEYWORDS: BioArt, ethics, collecting, display, con- Nevertheless, the public perception of BioArt exhibitions has not been
servation
fully investigated yet. Moreover, the most important field that has to
be investigated is related to the ethics and policies of collecting and
ABSTRACT displaying BioArt.
The research project BioART: Borders and Defini-
tions aims at the establishment of a commonly Although a fruitful dialogue has begun during the last two decades on ethical
accepted deontological framework for the collec- and deontological issues regarding the conservation and management of
tion, display and management of BioArt works. A human remains from archaeological, scientific and ecclesiastical collections
significant part of the project is being undertaken
(Panagiaris 2001, Malea et al. 2004, DCMS 2005, Mertzani et al. 2008,
through field research that utilises discriminate
Panagiaris 2009, Jenkins 2011), there still exists a gap when it comes

2 ICOM-CC
17th Triennial Conference
2014 Melbourne
LEGAL ISSUES IN CONSERVATION
FIELD RESEARCH ON THE ETHICS
AND PRACTICE REGARDING THE OPERATION
OF INSTITUTIONS HOSTING
BIOART COLLECTIONS
questionnaires addressed to the bioartist com-
munity and cultural institutions that systematically
host BioArt exhibitions. Preliminary results show
that the methodologies employed by bioartists and
the cultural institutions that exhibit BioArt are var-
ied. Reactions have often been recorded from both
the public and from museums and galleries. A com-
monly accepted deontological framework could
contribute to the formulation of best practices in
the process of production and management of Bio-
Art works. Of particular importance is the field of
preservation, where conservators are called upon
to determine their role towards this new media art.
to the use of biological materials (and much more so regarding those of
human origin) as a means of artistic expression, precisely because the
boundaries that circumscribe artistic creation, censorship, science ethics
and human rights are unclear and vague.
The project BioART: Borders and Definitions1 aims at the establishment
of best practices for the collection and display of BioArt, taking into
consideration the input of artists and scientists, as well as the current
museological debate on ethics and standards of display and preservation of
biological materials. A significant part of the project is being undertaken
during field research on the ethics and practice ruling the actions of collecting
and displaying BioArt. In this paper, the methodology and preliminary
results of this research project are presented.
METHODOLOGY
In order to pursue the objectives of the field research, a standardised
questionnaire was decided upon as the most appropriate means of collecting
the necessary data. It not only offers the highest degree of confidentiality
but also, when compared to other forms of data collection, appears to
minimise any potential statistical or methodological biases resulting from
the idiosyncrasies and skill variability of the interviewer (Taylor-Powell
1998). Moreover, the resulting data can be analysed using a variety of
statistical procedures (Nicholson and Pearce 2001).
Three sets of data were comprised: 1) data deriving from a self-completed
questionnaire addressed to bioartists; 2) data deriving from a questionnaire
addressed to museums and galleries hosting BioArt exhibitions; and 3)
data deriving from a self-completed questionnaire addressed to museum
and gallery visitors. In this paper, the preliminary results derived from
the elaboration of the two first sets of data are presented.
Questionnaires were distributed via e-mail to relevant bioartists and
museums/galleries active in the BioArt field. The questionnaires addressed
to the artists were anonymous, in contrast to those addressed to museums/
galleries. They contained questions that aimed to elicit responses that
could be helpful in both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Responses
were collected through the use of multiple-choice, closed-ended and
open-ended questions in order to arrive at a complete picture of artists’
opinions on the issues under investigation (Dillman 1978, Gammon
2001). In most cases, the multiple-choice questions were supplemented
with an open-ended section to gather as much information as possible
and thus to be able to examine the matter in greater depth (Mason 2002,
Bradley 2007).
The questionnaire addressed to bioartists consisted of 14 questions and sub-
questions and was divided into three sections (Table 1). The questionnaire
addressed to museums and galleries consisted of 15 questions and sub-
questions and was also divided into three sections (Table 2).
Questionnaires were sent to 96 bioartists and, by the time of publication,
13 esponses had been received (14 per cent of the sample). The sample size
to date is not large enough to allow the use of advanced statistical tests.
3 ICOM-CC
17th Triennial Conference
2014 Melbourne
LEGAL ISSUES IN CONSERVATION
FIELD RESEARCH ON THE ETHICS
AND PRACTICE REGARDING THE OPERATION
OF INSTITUTIONS HOSTING
BIOART COLLECTIONS
Table 1
Questionnaire addressed to bioartists
section A: Artist Profile
questions 1. Have you ever used biological materials in your work?
2. What types of biological materials have you used?
3. Where did your ownership of the biological materials come to be?
4. What was your incentive for using biological materials in your work?
5. Do you participate in artistic communities that utilize biological materials?
6. Have you engaged in collaboration with scientists for the production of Bioart?
section B: Ethics and Management
questions 7. Have there been restrictions placed in your use of biological materials?
8. Have you encountered reactions upon the exhibit of your work that includes biological
materials?
9. Has the reception of your work caused you to reconsider the usage of biological materials in
the future?
9a. If YES, will you make any future changes or modifications in your work?
10. Do you believe that the artists should control the trajectory of their artworks after they have
been finished and exhibited to the public?
10a. How would you like your Bioart works to be handled as time passes?
section C: Personal attributes
questions 10. Please indicate which age-group you belong to.
10. Please indicate your gender.
10. Please describe your educational background.
10. Please write any additional comments you may have.
Table 2
Questionnaire addressed to museums/galleries
section A: Museum Information
questions 1. Legal framework/ establishment date:
2. The Museum/Gallery is administered by:
3. Does the Museum/Gallery operate under specific “Collection & Exhibit Standards”?
section B: Bioart Collections
questions 4. Does your Museum/Gallery host/display Bioart works?
5. If YES, Indicate what biological materials do you host.
6. If NO, Reasons for not displayed Bioart:
7. Do your national laws require you to carry specific license to hold and exhibit Bioart works?
8. If you hold/own Bioart work(s) do they belong to a permanent or to a temporary exhibition?
9. Do you alert your public that your exhibition contains biological materials prior to the entrance
of the exhibition?
10. Do you have the necessary infrastructure to host living organisms?
section C: Management and Ethics
questions 11. Does the Museum/Gallery operate under specific policy?
11a. If yes, please indicate in which of the following sectors your museum/gallery operates under
specific policy in reference to biological materials:
12. Who do you think should have the right and bear the responsibility to determine what the fate
of the specific bio-art object will be after its pubic exhibit?
13. What do you think the trajectory of Bioart works should be?
14. Have your exhibits ever been met with disagreement and reactions from any social groups or
individuals?
15. Please write any additional comments you may have.
Due to the limited number of cultural institutions worldwide that sys-
tematically host BioArt exhibitions, the questionnaire was addressed to
a selected few. So far, five cultural institutions have responded to the
relevant questionnaire:
• Association for Culture and Education KIBLA, Slovenia (established
in 1996) (www.kibla.org )
• Cultivamos Cultura, Portugal (established in 2009)
(www.cultivamoscultura.org )
• Ectopia, Portugal (established in 2005) (http://ectopialab.org/ )

4 ICOM-CC
17th Triennial Conference
2014 Melbourne
LEGAL ISSUES IN CONSERVATION
FIELD RESEARCH ON THE ETHICS
AND PRACTICE REGARDING THE OPERATION
OF INSTITUTIONS HOSTING
BIOART COLLECTIONS
• Greene County Council on the Arts, New York (established in 1973)
(www.greenearts.org )
• GV Art gallery, London, England (established in 2005)
(www.gvart.co.uk ).
Although the number of responses is insufficient for statistical analysis,
the responses themselves are valuable, as they reflect the stature and great
experience of the aforementioned cultural institutions.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Elaboration of the initial results revealed that the majority of bioartists
(70 per cent) are women and that 77 per cent of them are between 35
and 54 years of age. They mostly hold advanced degrees and use all life
forms, such as biomolecules, cells, tissues and organisms (either alive or
not) as expressive media.
The majority of them (77 per cent) got involved with BioArt within the
framework of their research in the fine arts, while a lower percentage
(23 per cent) were inspired by their interest in the field of biosciences.
Ninety-two per cent of responders participate in artistic communities
that utilise biological materials. The same percentage has engaged in
collaboration with scientists for the production of BioArt.
With respect to the cultural institutions which host BioArt works and
responded to the questionnaire, all five are private organisations (four out
of five are non-profit) with varying management systems. Four of them
have been established during the last 15 years.
It is obvious that the bioartists, as well as the related cultural institutions,
are participating consciously and with passion in a new ‘science-inspired art
movement’ which merges art and the biosciences. Within this framework, a
much-promised dialogue on the relationship between ethics and aesthetics
has been developed (Zurr and Catts 2004, Kallergi 2008, Stracey 2009,
Macneill and Ferran 2011, Hodgetts and Zurr 2012). Of great and particular
interest are the results stemming from the answers provided by bioartists
regarding issues that concern the ethics and practices of collecting and
displaying BioArt.
The majority of bioartists (77 per cent) obtain the biological materials
used in their work from ‘regulated trade’ and/or are ‘self-sourced’. These
sources are exclusively used by two out of three bioartists. It is notable,
though, that one out of three bioartists also obtains biological materials
from non-regulated trade and/or voluntary bequest.
It is also remarkable that one out of four bioartists has not experienced any
restrictions in the use of biological materials. For the rest, the restrictions
are placed mainly by legislation in their home countries, by other countries’
regulations and/or by their own ethical/deontological position. Additionally,
one out of four referred to rules established at the national or international
institutional level.
The most impressive fact is that 85 per cent of the bioartists who responded
state that they have encountered reactions from visitors to their work

5 ICOM-CC
17th Triennial Conference
2014 Melbourne
LEGAL ISSUES IN CONSERVATION
FIELD RESEARCH ON THE ETHICS
AND PRACTICE REGARDING THE OPERATION
OF INSTITUTIONS HOSTING
BIOART COLLECTIONS
when it is exhibited by museums and galleries. Half of them have also
encountered reactions from the directors of cultural institutions and/or
from other social groups. As a result of these reactions, one out of four
bioartists intends to reconsider the use of biological material in the future.
The answers provided by cultural institutions on issues related to collecting
and displaying BioArt are also very interesting. According to these, all
the cultural institutions interviewed noted that they hosted living and non-
living organisms within the framework of their exhibitions. None of the
five cultural institutions operates under specific ‘collections and exhibit
standards’. The institutional framework varies greatly among countries.
Organisations that exhibit BioArt in the United States and in Portugal are
not required to obtain a specific licence to hold and exhibit BioArt works.
In Slovenia, in some cases, a relevant licence is required by the Ministry
of Agriculture and Environment. In Britain, cultural institutions that want
to exhibit works made of human cells are required to obtain a specific
licence for public display and storage from the Human Tissue Authority
(launched in 2004). GV Art Gallery is the only private gallery in the UK
that holds such a licence – sharing the certificate with the likes of the
Wellcome Trust, Hunterian Museum, Science Museum and the Natural
History Museum (Solon 2011).
Four out of five cultural institutions notify their visitors in the case that
biological materials are present in their exhibitions. Two of them use
advance notices posted in the entrance, while the other two use indirect
ways to inform their visitors, via general information leaflets about the
exhibition.
Four of the cultural institutions consider that they have the necessary
infrastructure to host living organisms, while one uses the infrastructure
provided by universities. Although it is obvious that their opinions on
what is ‘necessary infrastructure’ vary, all agree not to host pathogenic
organisms.
Four out of five cultural institutions do not operate under any specific
policy. One of them, the oldest, Greene County Council on the Arts, New
York (established in 1973), operates under a specific policy of display,
access and educational use.
Two out of five cultural institutions have encountered reactions from
the public towards certain exhibitions they have held. This finding is
also confirmed from the results of a recent visitors’ study (Kerbe and
Schmidt 2013), which notes that, ‘… for a majority of the visitors, the
use of bacteria and lower organisms does not pose an ethical problem,
whereas integration of higher animals or even humans into the artwork
is not readily accepted.’
All of the above-mentioned findings show that there is a lack of a commonly
accepted framework in which ethics and practices in collecting and displaying
BioArt are determined.
Finally, it is very interesting to look at the points of view presented by the
bioartists and at the cultural institutions hosting BioArt on issues related
to the temporal trajectory of these artworks. According to the answers

6 ICOM-CC
17th Triennial Conference
2014 Melbourne
LEGAL ISSUES IN CONSERVATION
FIELD RESEARCH ON THE ETHICS
AND PRACTICE REGARDING THE OPERATION
OF INSTITUTIONS HOSTING
BIOART COLLECTIONS
that have been received in this portion of the questionnaire, the majority
of bioartists (two out of three) believe that the artists should control the
trajectory of their artworks after they have been finished and exhibited in
public, while the rest (one out of three) either disagree with this opinion
or consider that they are not affected by this question. Furthermore, all
the representatives of the cultural institutions that systematically host
BioArt exhibitions agree that this is the artist’s right. In two responses,
an equivalent right is recognised for cultural institutions, too. Nobody,
however, believes that conservators and/or the public have any right to
decide on this matter.
On the contrary, in response to another question, bioartists indirectly
acknowledge the conservator’s role. When asked to describe ‘how they
would like their BioArt work to be handled as time passes’, one out of
four replied, ‘to be preserved keeping its main meaning’. Additionally,
one out of four stated that the conservation of an artwork depends on its
type. Therefore, 54 per cent of the bioartists recognised the conservator’s
role with regard to all or part of their work. A similar response on this
matter was received from the representatives of cultural institutions hosting
BioArt exhibitions.
Taking into account all of the above, it is clear that there are many issues
related to collecting and displaying BioArt works that raise ethical and
practical dilemmas. A multidisciplinary debate is urgently needed aimed
at the formulation of a framework of ethics and practices in which issues
such as acquisition, documentation, loans, deaccessioning, claims for
return, storage, conservation, display, accessibility, education and research
in relation to BioArt collections can be sorted out. In this framework, the
role and the competences of the conservators involved in the conservation
of art works have to be determined.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, BioArt has led to a new media art movement in which
artists, scientists, curators and cultural institutions enthusiastically take
part. Preliminary results from the field research on ethics and practices
in collecting and displaying BioArt make it apparent that there is great
variation in the methodologies followed by bioartists and the cultural
institutions which exhibit BioArt. Negative reactions to such collections
and exhibits have often been recorded, not only by the public, but also by
museums and galleries. It should be noted that there is a lack of a commonly
accepted deontological framework that could contribute to the formulation
of ethics and practices in the production and management of BioArt. A
significant part of these practices concerns the field of preservation, in
which conservators should determine their role towards this new media art.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project operates under the Archimedes III action of the cooperational
Education and Life Long Learning programme, which is cofunded by the
Greek Ministry of Education and the European Union. The authors wish
to express their gratitude to all the bioartists and cultural institutions that

7 ICOM-CC
17th Triennial Conference
2014 Melbourne
LEGAL ISSUES IN CONSERVATION
FIELD RESEARCH ON THE ETHICS
AND PRACTICE REGARDING THE OPERATION
OF INSTITUTIONS HOSTING
BIOART COLLECTIONS
responded to the field research, to Dr Assimina Kaniari, a lecturer in art
history at the Athens School of Fine Arts, for advising on contemporary
artists working in the field of BioArt, and to Museotechniki Ltd.
(museotechniki.com ) for providing technological assistance.
NOTES
1
BioART: Borders and Definitions. Research project for the development of a widely
accepted deontological framework of its production and management.
REFERENCES
CLÉMENT, A., J. OYEGBESAM, A. GHALIM, and U. JURGIEL.  18 April 2012. Bioart,
ethics and artworks. In Master of Media: New Media & Digital Culture MA, University
of Amsterdam. http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2012/04/18/bioart-ethics-and-artworks/
(accessed 7 November 2013).
DCMS (DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT).  2005. Guidance for the
care of human remains in museums. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
DILLMAN, D.A.  1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
GAMMON, B.  2001. Effective questionnaires for all. A step by step recipe for successful
questionnaire. London: Science Museum.
GESSERT, G.  2010. Green light. Toward an art of evolution. USA: MIT Press. http://
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/
GuidanceHumanRemains11Oct.pdf.
HODGETTS, S. and O. CATTS.  2013. The unnatural relations between artistic research
and ethics committees. In Proceedings of the 2012 ANZCCART Conference. Annual
Conference on Thinking Outside the Cage: A Different Point of View, 24–26 July 2012,
ed. G. Dandi, 26–30. Perth, Western Australia. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/
events/Conf2012Proceedings.pdf.
JENKINS, T.  2011. Contesting human remains in museum collections: The crisis of cultural
authority. New York: Routledge.
KALLERGI, A.  2008. Bioart on display – Challenges and opportunities of exhibiting
bioart. The Netherlands: Leiden University. http://www.kallergia.com/bioart/docs/
kallergi_bioartOnDisplay.pdf.
KERBE, W. and M. SCHMIDT.  2013. Splicing boundaries: The experiences of bioart
exhibition visitors. Leonardo (46). http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/
LEON_a_00701.
MACNEILL, P.U. and B. FERRAN.  2011. Art and bioethics: Shifts in understanding
across genres. Bioethical Inquiry 8: 71–85. http://bioethics-international.org/docs/papers/
MacnFerranJBI_ArtBioethics_2011.pdf (accessed 7 November 2013).
MALEA, K., M. MERTZANI, and G. PANAGIARIS.  2004. Dealing with sacred and
criminal human remains. In Canadian Association for Conservation of Cultural
Property. 30th Conference and Workshop, Quebec 26–30 May 2004, 18.
MASON, J.  2002. Qualitative research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
MERTZANI, M., E. MALEA, N. MANIATIS, and G. PANAGIARIS.  2008. Towards a
binding code of ethics for the conservation & display of human remains. In ICOM-
CC 15thTriennial Conference, New Delhi, 22–26 September 2008, ed. J. Bridgland,
volume 1, 364–370. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
NELKIN, D. and S. ANKER.  2002. The influence of genetics on contemporary art. Science
& Society (3): 967–971. http://www.suzanneanker.com/wp-content/uploads/2002-Anker-
Suzanne-Nelkin-Dorothy-The-influence-of-Genetics-in-Contemporary-Art.pdf.
NICHOLSON, R.E. AND D.G. PEARCE.  2001. Why do people attend events: A
comparative analysis of visitor motivations at four south island events. Journal of
Travel Research 39: 449–460.
PANAGIARIS, G.  2001. The influence of conservation treatments on physical anthropology
research. BAR International Series 934: 95–99.
8 ICOM-CC
17th Triennial Conference
PANAGIARIS, G.  2009. Methodological and ethical issues concerning the conservation
and enhancement of human remains. ANASKAMMA Journal 3: 135–148 (in Greek).
2014 Melbourne
http://anaskamma.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/panagiaris.pdf
LEGAL ISSUES IN CONSERVATION PANDILOVSKI, M.  2008. Art in the biotech era. Adelaide: Experimental Art Foundation.
FIELD RESEARCH ON THE ETHICS http://residualsoup.org/writingimages/journeys_to_the_other_side.pdf (accessed 7 November
AND PRACTICE REGARDING THE OPERATION
OF INSTITUTIONS HOSTING 2013).
BIOART COLLECTIONS
SOLON, O.  2011. Bioart: The ethics and aesthetics of using living tissue as a medium.
Wired: Art, Design and Fashion, 28 July 2011. http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/07/
bioart (accessed 7 November 2013).
STRACEY, F.  2009. Bio-art: The ethics behind the aesthetics. Science & Society 10: 496–500.
TAYLOR-POWELL, W.  1998. Questionnaire design: Asking questions with a purpose.
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin.
WILSON, S.  2002. Information arts. Intersections of art, science, and technology.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press.
ZURR, I. AND O. CATTS.  2003–2004. The ethical claims of Bioart: Killing the other or
self-cannibalism. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art: Art & Ethics 4(2)
and 5(1): 167–188. http://www.tca.uwa.edu.au/publication/TheEthicalClaimsofBioart.pdf.

How to cite this article:

Malea, E., L. Karampinis, E. Karantoni, S.-O.
Papaioannou, Z. Tsourti, N. Panourgia, T.
Avaritsiotis, and G. Panagiaris. 2014. Field research
on the ethics and practice regarding the operation of
institutions hosting BioArt collections. In ICOM-CC
17th Triennial Conference Preprints, Melbourne,
15–19 September 2014, ed. J. Bridgland, art. 0801,
8 pp. Paris: International Council of Museums.
(ISBN 978-92-9012-410-8)