View source for Biofact (philosophy)

In [[philosophy]] and [[sociology]], a '''biofact''' is a being that is both an artifact and [[Organism|living being]], or both [[Nature|natural]] and [[Artificiality|artificial]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Tensions and Convergences: Technological And Aesthetic Transformations of Society|last=Heil|first=Reinhard|last2=Kaminski|first2=Andreas|last3=Stippak|first3=Marcus|last4=Unger|first4=Alexander|publisher=Transaction Publishers|year=2007|isbn=9783899425185|location=New Brunswick|pages=145}}</ref> This being has been created by purposive human action but exists by processes of growth.<ref name=":0" /> The word is a [[neologism]] coined from the [[Portmanteau|combination of]] the words ''bios'' and [[Cultural artifact|artifact]].

There are sources who cite some creations of [[genetic engineering]] as examples of biofacts.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Conflicting Philosophies and International Trade Law: Worldviews and the WTO|last=Burkard|first=Michael|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|year=2018|isbn=9783319610665|location=Cham, Switzerland|pages=126}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Responsible Nanobiotechnology: Philosophy and Ethics|last=Grunwald|first=Armin|publisher=CRC Press|year=2012|isbn=9789814364331|location=Boca Raton, FL|pages=241}}</ref>

== History ==

''Biofact'' was introduced as early as 2001 by the German philosopher [[Nicole C. Karafyllis]]<ref>Nicole C. Karafyllis: ''Biologisch, natürlich, nachhaltig. Philosophische Aspekte des Naturzugangs im 21. Jahrhundert.'' Tuebingen: A. Francke Publisher; chap. 6</ref> although her book ''Biofakte'' published in 2003 is commonly used as reference for the introduction of the term.<ref>Nicole C. Karafyllis (Hg.), ''Biofakte. Versuch über den Menschen zwischen Artefakt und Lebewesen'', Mentis: Paderborn 2003.</ref> According to Karafyllis, the word '''biofact''' first appeared in a German article (entitled 'Biofakt und Artefakt') in 1943, written by the Austrian protozoologist Bruno M. Klein.<ref>Bruno Maria Klein: Artefakt und Biofakt, in: Mikrokosmos 1943/44</ref> Addressing both microscopy and philosophy, Klein named a [[Biofact (biology)|biofact]] something that is a visible dead product emerging from a living being while this being is still alive (e.g. a shell). However, Klein's distinction operated with the difference biotic/abiotic and dead/alive, not with nature/technology and growth/man-made. For her part, Karafyllis described biofact as a [[Hermeneutics|hermeneutic concept]] that allows the comparison between nature and [[technology]] in the domain of the living.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Handbook of Genetics & Society: Mapping the New Genomic Era|last=Atkinson|first=Paul|last2=Glasner|first2=Peter|last3=Lock|first3=Margaret|publisher=Routledge|year=2009|isbn=978-0203927380|location=Oxon|pages=230}}</ref>

== Philosophy ==

With the term ''biofact'', Karafyllis wants to emphasize that living entities can be highly artificial due to methods deriving from agriculture, gardening (e.g. breeding) or [[biotechnology]] (e.g. [[genetic engineering]], [[cloning]]).  Biofacts show signatures of [[culture]] and technique.
Primarily, the concept aims to argue against the common philosophical tradition to summarize all kinds of living beings under the category [[nature]]. The concept ''biofact'' questions if the phenomenon of growth is and was a secure candidate for differentiating between nature and technology.

For the [[philosophy of technology]] the questions arise if a) biotechnology and [[agriculture]] should not be an integral part of ''reflexion'', thereby adding new insights to the common focus on the [[machine]] and the artifact, and if b) established concepts of technique and technology which stress artificiality should not be modified. Karafyllis regards the inclusion of biofacts into a theory of techniques as a chance, to reformulate classic concepts of [[design]] and [[construction]] for defining the making of artifacts. In her view, biofacts depend on the method of provocation.<ref>Karafyllis, N. C.: Provokation als Methode der biotechnischen Evolution, in: Volker Gerhardt, Klaus Lucas and Günter Stock (Eds.): ''Evolution. Theorie, Formen und Konsequenzen eines Paradigmas in Natur, Technik und Kultur''. Berlin: Akademie Verlag 2011</ref>

For the [[philosophy of nature]], biofacts highlight a need to clarify if nature is self-explanatory in every case. [[Biophilosophy]] is challenged to newly reflect upon the categories organism and [[living being]].<ref>Marianne Schark: ''Lebewesen versus Dinge'', De Gruyter 2005.</ref>
In the [[philosophy of science]], approaches are challenged which only focus on the category thing (or epistemic thing) without historizing the technicality, mediality and materiality of its emerging as a living object. For the [[sociology of science]] the biofact concept is fruitful to discuss the exclusiveness of scientific knowledge (the role of the [[expert]]) while making scientific objects which are released into the [[lifeworld]] or public sphere.  Particularly because the biofact concept deals with the [[phenomenon]] of growth and the establishing of a [[self]], it is also influential in the philosophical disciplines phenomenology, [[anthropology]] and [[ontology]]. It was [[Jürgen Habermas]] who recently stressed the anthropological consequences if mankind gives up the differentiation of "coming into being" and "making".<ref>Jürgen Habermas: ''Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur'', Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 2001.</ref>

Artifacts are artificial, i.e. man-made objects. Contrary to biofacts, they cannot be found in nature. Therefore, biofacts demarcate an ontological intersection. They are partially man-made, but growing. Like artifacts, they have been made for a certain [[utility]]. Biofacts can be seen as biotic artifacts which show their character as hybrids in multifold perspectives.

The term is also enabling philosophers to criticize some concepts in [[technoscience]], where the union of scientific knowledge about nature and the technical creation of technonature is seen as progress in the political sense.<ref>Cf. Bruno Latour: ''Politics of Natur. How to bring the Sciences into Democracy'', Harvard University Press 2004.</ref> The term has also been adopted in the new [[BioArt]], not rarely without using its critical impacts.

As Karafyllis complemented the growth and reproduction of organisms with technical entities, she established a typology of different kinds of organisms according to their uses and these are:

* Natural life form
* Unaltered biofacts
* Reshaped biofacts
* Genetically reproduced biofacts
* Genetically modified biofacts.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Synthetic Biology: Metaphors, Worldviews, Ethics, and Law|last=Boldt|first=Joachim|publisher=Springer|year=2015|isbn=9783658109875|location=Wiesbaden|pages=114}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Literature==
* Nicole C. Karafyllis (ed.): ''Biofakte - Versuch über den Menschen zwischen Artefakt und Lebewesen''. Paderborn, Mentis 2003 (in German).
* Nicole C. Karafyllis: ''Biofakte - Grundlagen, Probleme, Perspektiven''. Discussion Unit in the journal ''Deliberation Knowledge Ethics'' / ''Erwaegen Wissen Ethik'', Vol. 17, Nr. 4 (2006). (in German with English abstracts)
* Nicole C. Karafyllis: ''Growth of Biofacts: the real thing or metaphor?''. In: R. Heil, A. Kaminski, M. Stippack, A. Unger and M. Ziegler (Ed.): Tensions and Convergences. Technological and Aesthetic (Trans)Formations of Society. Bielefeld (2007). 141–152. (in English)
* Nicole C. Karafyllis: ''Endogenous Design of Biofacts. Tissues and Networks in Bio Art and Life Science''. In: sk-interfaces. Exploding borders - creating membranes in art, technology and society. Ed. by Jens Hauser. Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press (European Ed.) (2008), 42–58. (in English)
* Nicole C. Karafyllis: ''Ethical and epistemological problems of hybridizing living beings: Biofacts and Body Shopping''. In: Wenchao Li and Hans Poser (Ed.): ''Ethical Considerations on Today's Science and Technology. A German-Chinese Approach''. Münster: LIT 2007, 185–198. (in English)
* Karafyllis, N.C.: ''Artefakt – Lebewesen – Biofakt. Philosophische Aspekte lebendiger Bauten''. In: G. de Bruyn et al. (Eds.): ''Lebende Bauten – Trainierbare Tragwerke''. Schriftenreihe Kultur und Technik, Vol. 16. Münster, New York. 2009: LIT, 97–111. (in German)
* Karafyllis, N.C. ''Biofakte als neue Kategorie der Informatik?'' In: Raimund Jakob, Lothar Phillips, Erich Schweighofer, Czaba Varga (Eds.): ''Auf dem Weg zur Idee der Gerechtigkeit. Gedenkschrift für Ilmar Tammelo''. Münster u.a.: LIT. 249–262. (in German)
* Karafyllis, N. C.: ''Provokation als Methode der biotechnischen Evolution'', in: Volker Gerhardt, Klaus Lucas and Günter Stock (Eds.): ''Evolution. Theorie, Formen und Konsequenzen eines Paradigmas in Natur, Technik und Kultur''. Berlin: Akademie Verlag 2011

== Secondary literature (in English) ==

*[[Suzanne Anker]], "Technogenesis", in: B. Andrew Lustig, Baruch A. Brody, Gerald P. McKenny (Eds.): ''Altering nature: concepts of nature and the natural in biotechnology debates'', Springer 2008, pp.&nbsp;275–322.
*Torsten Meyer and Uta Hassler: "[https://web.archive.org/web/20120320004640/http://www.bma.arch.unige.it/PDF/CONSTRUCTION_HISTORY_2009/VOL2/Meyer-Torsten_Hassler-Uta_layouted.pdf Construction History and the History of Science] ", ''Proceedings of the Third International Concress of Concstruction History'', Cottbus May 2009
* [[Orlan]]: A Hybrid Body of Artworks, ed. by S. Shepherd and Orlan, Taylor&Francis 2010.
*[[Ingeborg Reichle]]: ''Art in the Age of Technoscience. Genetic Engineering, Robotics, and Artificial Life in Contemporary Art''. Vienna, New York: Springer 2010.

→ See the German Wikipedia entry for further literature in German.

==External links==
* [http://www.biofakt.com Biofakt.com]

[[Category:Concepts in the philosophy of mind]]
[[Category:Natural philosophy]]
[[Category:Philosophy of technology]]
[[Category:Concepts in the philosophy of science]]
[[Category:Biotechnology]]