Representing Biology as Process

The question - whether we should think of the world as consisting of entities statically defined by essential properties (i.e. in philosophical jargon, "substances"), or as processes, that undergo and persist precisely because of change - is a fundamental metaphysical dichotomy, debated since the pre-Socratics. Since the rise of atomism in the seventeenth century the substance view has dominated scientifically grounded philosophy. John Dupré's ERC-funded project, A Process Ontology for Contemporary Biology, develops the thesis that for biology, at least, this has been a profound mistake (Dupré 2012: Nicholson and Dupré, in press). Dupré argues that living systems are always dynamic at multiple spatial and temporal scales and their persistence, far from being merely the continued possession of essential properties, is the result of the finely articulated interplay of multiple processes.

Visual representation is essential both to the practice and the communication of science. However, whereas drawing in the past played a central role in fields such as morphology and embryology, the rise of photographic and digital technologies and the growing emphasis on molecules as opposed to whole organisms have increasingly marginalized drawing practices. A serious problem faced in the development of a fully processual biology is that most visual representation strongly suggests a realm of static things. For example, the presentation of an organism will be of a particular developmental 'stage', typically the mature adult, which confounds the fact that this is a momentary temporal stage of the developmental process. Even where representation of something as plainly dynamic as metabolism, for example, will include arrows representing time, the natural reading will be of transitions between a fixed array of things (instances of chemical kinds). Moreover, while visual images or 'visual explanations' (Tufte 1997) in science depend on a variety of graphic devices ranging from the use of video, and photography to the use of computational graphic software, simulation and hand-drawing, these means of making images largely depend on mechanistic models (for, or of, their objects) which are already intertwined with their methods of production.

The decline of drawing in scientific practice is epitomised by Wakefield's research field, cell division and mitosis. Whereas 20 years ago, as a PhD student, his learning was centred around direct participation, through microscope-based observation and drawing of cells, his own PhD students are now further removed, watching 2D representations of cells on computer screens and printing out screen-shots. For the last 5 years, his interest in this distinction has grown, leading to an exploratory collaboration with the PI and, through this application, the Co-I. Anderson's work over a number of years has highlighted the epistemic costs of the decline of graphic skills in the Life Sciences. She has researched the ways in which scientists have used drawing as a way of developing deep insights into their subject matters, and in her own practice, under the rubric of 'Isomorphology', she has developed classificatory methods that highlight formal parallels cutting across the traditional boundaries of animal, mineral and vegetable. This work has been carried out in collaboration with a variety of scientists and museum curators and has resulted in residencies, exhibitions, talks and workshops.Building on the Isomorphology project, her more recent work, guided in part by extensive discussions with Dupré, has begun to explore ways of representing biological process, under the new rubric of Isomorphogenesis.

In line with the growing interest in process-centred understandings of biology, the present project will address the need for novel image-making practices to provide more intuitively dynamic representations of living systems through an innovative collaboration between art, biology and philosophy.

This project will generate impact under the following 4 strands:
(i) to increase the appreciation of the value of drawing - as a way of knowing (rather than illustrating) - for a diverse range of people beyond the scientific community
(ii) to raise awareness about the shift from an object/static view of biology to a processual view of biology through an arts-based approach
(iii) to break down barriers between scientific and artistic communities
(iv) to offer both practitioners and institutions a new model of practice for interdisciplinary collaboration and engagement.
Through a collaborative approach and interactive impact activities, the project will instigate a multi-directional engagement between biology, philosophy and art, whilst promoting a wider understanding of the role of drawing in science within 'mainstream' society. To this end we will engage individuals from diverse backgrounds and institutions through organising interactive workshops, exhibitions, website forums and blog posts.

Target audiences:
1.BA and MA level Art students at Falmouth University, the Royal College of Art and University College London:
As current Art Education does not integrate scientific language or practice into BA and MA courses, Art students do not have the opportunity to engage with contemporary science or the confidence to explore potential art/science collaborations. By running drawing workshops in arts colleges with collaborating biologists Wakefield (Exeter) and Olson (NHM), we will encourage artists to explore new possibilities for engaging with science. The workshops will introduce artists to scientific knowledge and methods that can be developed further in individual artistic work, in an interdisciplinary approach. By bringing philosophy of science and life sciences to the attention of artists we aim to foster an appreciation of science as a source for artistic inspiration. Finally, this interaction with scientists will stimulate new art/science dialogues, and suggest ways in which artists can reach out to scientists (and vice-versa), and therefore potentially broaden their career paths.
2. Institutions:
Both cultural and scientific research institutions - including museums - pursue a public engagement agenda, which capitalizes on the innovative nature of art/science collaborations and their potential to convey both scientific and artistic ideas to a wider audience. With interdisciplinary collaboration at its core, and supported by original artwork co-created with scientists, this project will pave the way for, and promote, new forms of engagement and opportunities for inter-institutional encounters. An important aim is to foster new interdisciplinary links between visual arts, philosophy, and biology. By breaking down barriers between scientific and artistic communities the project will contribute to the 'science in culture' AHRC theme.
3. General Public:
Our impact activities aim to attract the general public to the sciences through the visual arts. In particular the art work generated aims to draw attention to an understanding of 'process biology'. Deeper reflection on the dynamic nature of life should provide better understandings of such crucial human experiences as ageing or cancer and also provide richer experiences of nature, seen as a temporary and evolving whole.
All exhibitions will be open to the public, and cultivate an appreciation of the value of drawing for conveying insights and understanding in both scientific and artistic research. Collaborating scientists will contribute captions (in accessible language) about exhibited images. Four drawing workshops open to the public at the Natural History Museum (in partnership with 'The Big Draw' festival), The Eden Project, University College London and Falmouth University will ensure this project reaches a wide and diverse public audience. Ultimately we aim to challenge prevalent preconceptions about the division between art and science.