Art and Bioethics: Shift/Fusion of Understanding Genres

  • Hanna Hubenko NGO «Bioethics»
Keywords: bioethics, art, science art, bioart, medicine/bioethics in art


A fusion of «bioethics» and «art» changes the means and ways of broadcasting art in the field of new biotechnological achievements and recalls responsibility in science. Bioethics socializes art. Art popularizes bioethics and complements its «experience of comprehension» with aesthetic experiences. The article analyzes the connections that unite bioart with science and bioethics. Examples of creative bioart projects at the World Congresses on Bioethics, which draw attention to the installation and performative forms, expressing the artistic experience of bioethical values and meanings that museums and other public fields represent, are given. The processes of forming links between laboratory research (often hidden from public attention) and art-works through practical experiment, dialogue, observation, or play are analyzed. The tandem of art and bioethics provides a link between scientists and the public, reveals new possibilities for ethical reflection, and represents a living manifesto of overcoming the disunity of scientific and everyday practices. Art and bioethics are sources of inspiration for each other. Not only does art expand its boundaries, transforming a scientific experiment into an artistic process, but also bioethics is entering a new level of research and discussion, reinforcing its creative potential through art. Despite the fact that they differ in genre, they create a common space of rational discourse as well as a common ground for familiarizing with the artistic experience in the process of their cooperation and communication, with the purpose of understanding the emerging problems, attracting to them not only professionals, but also broad circle of people interested in bioethical issues.

Author Biography

Hanna Hubenko, NGO «Bioethics»

Ph.D., Docent, Head of NGO «Bioethics»


Beauchamp, T. L & Childress, J. F. (1989). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (3. Aufl.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beck M. (2009) Mensch-Tier-Wesen. Zur ethischen Problematik von Hybriden, Chimaren, Parthenoten. Paderbom: Ferdinand Schetiing.

Benjamin W. (1966) The work of art in the era of its technical reproducibility. In: Selected essays. M.: Medium [in Russian].

Blakemore E. (2017) Medical breakthrough: Pig embryo hosts human cells. National Geographic magazine. URL:

Clutterbuck G. (2007) Stayin' Alive. An exhibition by Gus Clutterbuck. URL:

Duprat S. (2009) Art and human embryonic stem cells: From the bench to the high street.

Stem Cell Research, 2(2), 97-100.

Feinberg E. (2004) Two Cultures. Intuition and logic in art and science. Fryazino: Vek 2 [in Russian].

Foucault М. (1999) Supervise and punish. Birth of the prison. M.: “Ad Marginem” [in Russian].

Freeman J. (2010) The Lake. URL:

Fukuyama F. (2008) Our posthuman future: the consequences of the biotechnological revolution. M.: ACT [in Russian].

Galkin (2007) Techno-artistic hybrids or a work of art in the era of his computer production. Gumanitarnaya informatika, 3, 41 [in Russian].

Habermas J. (2011) Between naturalism and religion. M: Ves' mir [in Russian].

High K. (2004) Embracing Animal. URL:

Knaup M (2017) Vertauschte Köpfe? Bioethische Reflexionen zur Frage der Kopftransplantation im Rahmen der Veranstaltung "Forum philosophicum", FernUniversität in Hagen. URL:

Kolomiets G. (2013) Science and art in the light of convergence of scientific and artistic forms of cognition. In: University complex as a regional center for education, science and culture: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Methodological Conference (with international participation). Orenburg State University. University of Orenburg: OOO IPK «Universitet», 1671-1677 [in Russian].

Kolomiets G. (2012) On the tendency of the convergence of the scientific and artistic methods of cognition. In: Scientific art: Materials of the First International Scientific and Practical Conference. M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University. M: MIEE, 60-64 [in Russian].

Konstantinov G. (2005) Universities, knowledge society and paradoxes of education. Teoreticheskie i prikladnyie issledovaniya, 4, 106-126 [in Russian].

Kulunčić A. (2010) stats and valuation. URL:;

Ledford H. (2017, August) CRISPR fixes disease gene in viable human embryos. Nature 548, 13-14.

Macintyre А. (2000) After virtue: Studies in the theory of morality. M.: Akademicheskiy Proekt; Ekaterinburg: Delovaya kniga [in Russian].

Molteni M. (2017) Scientists grow replacement skin for boy suffering devastating genetic disorder. Science. URL:

Popova O. (2015a) «To be a body» or «to have a body», «to be a project» or «to have a project». Filosofiya i kultura, 3, 438-445 [in Russian].

Popova O. (2015b) Corporeality in the modes of pain, suffering, death. Filosofskaya antropologiya, V. 1. (2), 146-164 [in Russian].

Scheper-Hughes ( 2016, January) How the market for human organs is destroying lives. UC Berkeley, 5. URL:

Silver L. (2002) Raj poprawiony. Nowy wspanialy swiat? Warszawa: Prószyíiski i S-ka.

Wilmut I. (1996) Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line. Nature 380 (6569): 64–6.

Xiaoping R., Canavero S. (2017) HEAVEN in the making: between the rock (the academe) and a hard case (a head transplant). AJOB Neuroscience, 8, 200-205.

How to Cite
Hubenko, H. (2018). Art and Bioethics: Shift/Fusion of Understanding Genres. Filosofiya Osvity. Philosophy of Education, 23(2), 245-258.