Nothing is ever easy…

After shadowing Jo-Maree and the students in the lab, I feel pretty confident in moving forward with some actual cell work. We are just waiting on the delivery of new cell culture media. There is a bit of a delay with some orders due to the COVID lockdowns in NSW and VIC.

I did receive my glass Petri dishes (90mm and 1500mm) to do some initial tests and had a go at laser engraving them. I usually work in Perspex, so getting the settings just right is unfortunately always a bit of trial and error.

We decided to start with the simple ‘target’ engraving which would enable us to test different engraving depths and see if the graphic should use raster for hatched areas (circles) and vector for lines.

Graphic for Laser Engraving

Graphic for laser engraving shown in Rhino 3D.

We need to leave room for the laser head to engrave so the graphic will be centred in the dish with a 25mm boundary. We also had to ensure that each element was on a separate layer with a colour indicating the particular settings for that graphic element.

We tested some basic settings:

Laser Engraving Settings

Black circle: Raster
Speed: 22
Power: 61
PPI: X
Red circle: Raster
Speed: 42
Power: 61
PP1: X
Green Lines: Vector
Speed: 4
Power: 85
PPI: X

We secured the sides with some metal rods to reduce the likelihood of movement when the air flow is turned on during the laser engraving process.

Laser Set Up
Set up in Laser  with metal bars to reduce movement. 

Laser Engraving ProcessLaser in process.

While the initial engraving seemed promising, the entire graphic was rastered including lines which were supposed to be rendered as vectors. The air flow also moved the dish. This resulted in an initial ‘glitch’ area and, following another shift, an overlaid section.

Engraving Glitch
Laser engraved dish with ‘glitch’ pattern. 

It is not too bad, but shows the importance of testing settings and set up never assuming that things will work first time around.

We used the same dish again to test different settings (with four metal bars to hold the dish in place. However,  we found that the  raster setting was the best approach after all  to ensure that the laser creates lines without punching through the glass. We still don’t quite have the settings down, but hopefully the next go will yield more promising results.

Lab meetings including Science in the Pub Preview by Ash Russell

I have been attending weekly Tuesday Lab meetings at the Medical Sciences Precinct (MSP). This is a great way for me to gain insight into the research of group members. It is also wonderful to be immersed in the science lab culture where meetings become a platform to share work in progress and receive critical input from fellow HDR candidates and supervisors. These presentations usually focus on the research projects of particular  members – much of focuses on stroke research and is  is still in development/unpublished and therefore not suitable for sharing beyond the immediate group setting.

Science Meme

Science Meme via ‘Meme Your Science’ Event by Science in the Pub Tasmania Facebook Event

This Tuesday, was a bit of an exception as we got to listen to a preview of a public presentation by Ash  Russell,for the Science in the Pub Series in Tasmania this Thursday [5th August].  The theme is ‘memes’ so speakers have to use memes to convey their ideas. Ash is currently completing their PhD in bioinformatics, so the presentation focused (quite disturbingly) on the issue of scientific validity with reference to factors such as random chance and publication bias. The presentation was really entertaining so I do recommend heading along (noting that the face-to-face event has sold out, but you can stream along via the Facebook page.

Ethics update

We’ve received our first comment from the HREC Chair regarding our ethics application. They raised an important consideration in relation to more clearly outlining some of the ethical implications and questions that the project raises.  Here is my current thinking:

Posthuman Genetic Legacies raises some ethical issues in relation to the ownership and governance of biological materials. The ethical implications of using human biomaterials for scientific and artistic research form part of the investigation and will enable the research team to identify and consider these issues from creative, legal, and scientific perspectives. This initial enquiry will also form the basis for subsequent exploration which will focus more specifically on bioethics with attention to legal and ethical frameworks for the management of use of biological materials.

Some of the key issues and questions include:

  • Ownership and use of biomaterials (cells and tissue) when removed from the body including tensions arising between individual donor, research team and university.
    • Who legally owns biomaterials (cells and tissue) when they are removed from the body?
    • What rights does the original donor (and researcher-participant) legally maintain when working in a team research environment at a university?
    • What current legal and governance frameworks are in place and which aspects may need reconsideration to better accommodate the interests of all stakeholders?
  • IP implications to produce biomaterials in a university environment
    • How is IP negotiated within a university environment when biomaterials are associated directly with an individual researcher as participant?

Once primary cells are successfully immortalised, the research team will  review current policies regarding the use of biomaterials for artistic use in  Australia. To date, most literature on biological art focuses on the conceptual, ethical and theoretical affordances of the practice and basic lab protocols with limited insight into legal and  governance frameworks, especially where commercial and research interests intersect.

While the creation of the Billy Apple® cell line was a success (Hilton 2014), claims regarding the uptake of the cell line as part of the ATCC are difficult to verify as the cell line is currently not listed in the online cell product listing. Creating another artist cell line for uptake into the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) or alternative distributor will enable researchers to gain insight into the current policies and practices that underpin biomaterials use, storage and distribution. These insights can then be used to compare policy documentation and experiences of research from art and science over the past 20 years. This will occur in the next stage of project development.

During this phase, the research team will also consider how ethical implications shift when moving from a university research setting to a more open/shared or commercial research environment such as the storage and distribution of biomaterials by companies such as the ATCC.  During this stage, questions will address implications for biomaterial distribution and interdisciplinary engagement:

Some of the key issues and questions include:

  • Ownership and use of biomaterials including tensions arising between individual donor, family, research team, universities, and external organisations such as biomaterial distribution companies.
    • Who legally owns biomaterials (cells and tissue) when they become part of a global biomaterials repository?
    • What ethical guidelines currently govern the use of biomaterials in a global setting? Can you and should you control or restrict the use of biomaterials in relation to personal or cultural values?
    • Should extended family members have input into the distribution of biomaterials (and associated personal information)?
  • IP implications to produce biomaterials across disciplinary terrains (who owns IP when research and commercial interests are involved)
    • How is IP negotiated within a university environment and commercial research setting when biomaterials are associated directly with an individual researcher as participant?
  • Privacy issues for disclosure of personal information (personal details and genetic information) in relation to biomaterials use and distribution.
    • What are the potential risks (short term and long term) involved in the disclosure of personal and genetic information in relation to biomaterials in a research setting (used ​and stored within universities) versus commercial research context (stored and distributed by an external company)?
    • What biomaterial information is useful for scientific versus artistic disciplines?
    • What processes should be put in place to protect the privacy of the donor but still provide useful information across disciplinary domains?
  • Communication including public understanding and transparency of regulatory and governance frameworks in biomaterials research across different domains?
    • What is the public perception and research value of establishing formal frameworks for the development of biobanks and biomaterials for use in artistic research?

This stage will involve further ethical clearance and require me to work with the research team to develop a cohesive research plan and identify ways of minimising risk in terms of privacy.

While I am somewhat familiar with the ethics clearance process, I am new to thinking through the implications as participant where personal medical and genetic information and biomaterial may become shared research materials. This is where collaboration with experts from the Centre for Law and Genetics is vitally important. I look forward to hearing from my collaborator Jane (and hope I was not completely off track).

Hilton, C., 2014. The immortalisation of Billy Apple®: an art-science collaboration. Leonardo47(2), pp.109-113.