Jump to content

Do-it-yourself biology: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
References were blogposts or satire so they were removed.
Line 4: Line 4:


Other terms are also associated with the do-it-yourself biology community. The terms '''biohacking''' and '''wetware hacking''' emphasize the connection to [[hacker culture]] and the [[hacker ethic]].<ref name="biohack12">{{Cite web
Other terms are also associated with the do-it-yourself biology community. The terms '''biohacking''' and '''wetware hacking''' emphasize the connection to [[hacker culture]] and the [[hacker ethic]].<ref name="biohack12">{{Cite web
|last = Greg Boustead|title = The Biohacking Hobbyist|work = Seed Magazine|accessdate = 2010-07-11|date = 2008-12-11|url = http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_biohacking_hobbyist/}}</ref> The term hacker is used in the original sense of finding new and clever ways to do things. However, some community members dislike the term due to its [[Hacker (term)|second, more widespread meaning]] referring to [[Hacker (computer security)|illicit activity]].<ref>{{Cite book|title = Biopunk: Solving Biotech's Biggest Problems in Kitchens and Garages|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bpptCOi3G_AC&pg=PT96|publisher = Penguin|date = 2011-04-14|isbn = 9781101476352|language = |first = Marcus|last = Wohlsen|page = 96}}</ref> The term biohacking is also used by the [[Grinder (biohacking community)|grinder]] body modification community, which is considered related but distinct from the do-it-yourself biology movement.<ref>{{Cite web|title = What is biohacking and why should we care?|url = http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/biohacking-care/|website = PBS NewsHour|publisher = |accessdate = 2015-10-30|language = |date = 2014-09-23|last = Michels|first = Spencer}}</ref> The term '''biopunk''' emphasizes the [[Techno-progressivism|techno-progressive]], political, and artistic elements of the movement. It is meant as an analogy to either the [[cyberpunk]] science fiction genre<ref name="Newitz 2001">{{cite journal|author = Newitz, Annalee|title = Biopunk|year = 2001|url = http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/tech/71.html|accessdate = 2007-01-26|archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20021220190353/http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/tech/71.html|archivedate = 2002-12-20|authorlink = Annalee Newitz}}</ref> or the [[cypherpunk]] citizen cryptography movement,<ref name="biohack10" /> and its connection to the [[Biopunk#Science fiction|biopunk science fiction genre]] is unclear.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Review of "Biopunk: DIY Scientists Hack the Software of Life"|url = http://larsschmeink.de/?p=2242|website = |accessdate = 2015-10-26|language = |first = Lars|last = Schmeink|date = 2013-04-27}}</ref>
|last = Greg Boustead|title = The Biohacking Hobbyist|work = Seed Magazine|accessdate = 2010-07-11|date = 2008-12-11|url = http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_biohacking_hobbyist/}}</ref> The term hacker is used in the original sense of finding new and clever ways to do things. However, some community members dislike the term due to its [[Hacker (term)|second, more widespread meaning]] referring to [[Hacker (computer security)|illicit activity]].<ref>{{Cite book|title = Biopunk: Solving Biotech's Biggest Problems in Kitchens and Garages|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bpptCOi3G_AC&pg=PT96|publisher = Penguin|date = 2011-04-14|isbn = 9781101476352|language = |first = Marcus|last = Wohlsen|page = 96}}</ref> The term biohacking is also used by the [[Grinder (biohacking community)|grinder]] body modification community, which is considered related but distinct from the do-it-yourself biology movement.<ref>{{Cite web|title = What is biohacking and why should we care?|url = http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/biohacking-care/|website = PBS NewsHour|publisher = |accessdate = 2015-10-30|language = |date = 2014-09-23|last = Michels|first = Spencer}}</ref> The term '''biopunk''' emphasizes the [[Techno-progressivism|techno-progressive]], political, and artistic elements of the movement.


==History==
==History==

Revision as of 19:26, 19 June 2016

"DIYbio" redirects here. For the organization, see DIYbio (organization).

Do-it-yourself biology (DIY biology, DIY bio) is a growing biotechnological social movement in which individuals, communities, and small organizations, study biology and life science using the same methods as traditional research institutions. DIY biology is primarily undertaken by individuals with extensive research training from academia or corporations, who then mentor and oversee other DIY biologists with no formal training. This may be done as a hobby, as a not-for-profit endeavor for community learning and open-science innovation, or for profit, to start a business.

Other terms are also associated with the do-it-yourself biology community. The terms biohacking and wetware hacking emphasize the connection to hacker culture and the hacker ethic.[1] The term hacker is used in the original sense of finding new and clever ways to do things. However, some community members dislike the term due to its second, more widespread meaning referring to illicit activity.[2] The term biohacking is also used by the grinder body modification community, which is considered related but distinct from the do-it-yourself biology movement.[3] The term biopunk emphasizes the techno-progressive, political, and artistic elements of the movement.

History

The term "biohacking" as well as the concept of do-it-yourself biology as been known as early as 1988.[4][5][6]

Biohacking entered the San Francisco programmer and maker communities as early as 2005, through simple demonstrations of basic experiments. One such example is the CodeCon presentation in 2005 in which Meredith L. Patterson (another early contributor to the DIYbio network) demonstrated the purification of DNA with common household items during a presentation on SciTools, a recombinant DNA design tool.[7][8] As DIYbio experiments became the focus of SuperHappyDevHouse hackers, the hobby gained additional momentum.

In 2005 Rob Carlson wrote in an article in Wired: "The era of garage biology is upon us. Want to participate? Take a moment to buy yourself a molecular biology lab on eBay."[9] He then set up a garage lab the same year, working on project he had previously worked at the Molecular Sciences Institute in Berkeley, California.[10]

In 2008, the DIYbio organization was founded by Jason Bobe and Mackenzie Cowell and its first meeting held.[11]

In 2010, Biocurious the first Biohackerspace was co-founded by 6 entrepreneurs: Eri Gentry, Kristina Hathaway, Josh Perfetto, Raymond McCauley, Joseph Jackson, and Tito Jankowski. With the help of Kickstarter and 239 backers they raised $35,319.[12][13] Many other labs and organizations opened after Biocurious, including but not limited to Genspace in Brooklyn, NY, Counter Culture Labs in Oakland, CA, Baltimore Underground Science Space in Baltimore, MD and Denver Biolabs in Denver, CO.

Aspects

The DIYbio movement seeks to revise the notion that one must be an academic with an advanced degree to make any significant contribution to the biology community. It allows large numbers of small organizations and individuals to participate in research and development, with spreading knowledge a higher priority than turning profits.[14]

The motivations for DIY biology include (but aren't limited to) lowered costs, entertainment, medicine, biohacking, life extension, and education. Recent work combining open-source hardware of microcontrollers like the Arduino and RepRap 3-D printers, very low-cost scientific instruments have been developed.[15]

Community laboratory space

Many organizations maintain a laboratory akin to a wet-lab makerspace, providing equipment and supplies for members. Many organizations also run classes and provide training. For a fee(usually between $50 and $100), members can join some spaces and do experiments on their own.[16][17][18]

Open source equipment

The DIY biology movement attempts to make available the tools and resources necessary for anyone, including non-professionals, to conduct biological engineering.[19] One of the first pieces of open source equipment developed was the Dremelfuge by Irish biohacker Cathal Garvey, which uses a 3D printed tube holder attached to a dremel tool to spin tubes at high speeds, replacing often expensive centrifuges.[20] Many other devices like PCR machines have been recreated extensively.[21][22][23] In recent times, more complex devices have been created such as the OpenDrop digital microfluidics platform [24] and the DIY NanoDrop [25] both developed by GaudiLabs.

Advocacy

Most advocacy in biohacking is about the safety, accessibility and future legality of experimentation. Todd Kuiken of the Woodrow Wilson center proposes that through safety and self-governance DIY Biologist won't be in need of regulation. [26] However, Josiah Zayner has proposed that safety is inherent in biohacking and that accessibility should be the foremost concern as there is large underrepresentation of social and ethnic minorities in biohacking. [27]

Research topics

Many biohacking projects revolve around the modification of life and molecular and genetic engineering. [28]

Bioinformatics

Bioinformatics is another popular target for do-it-yourself biology research. As in other fields, many programming languages can be used in DIY biology, but most of the languages that are used are those with large bioinformatics libraries. Examples include BioPerl or BioPython, which use the languages Perl and Python, respectively.

Genetic engineering

Genetic Engineers are a subculture of biohackers as one the most accessible forms of biohacking is through engineering microorganisms or plants. Experiments can range from using plasmids to fluorescent bacteria, controlling gene expression using light in bacteria,[29] even using CRISPR to engineer the genome of bacteria or yeast.[30]

Medicine

Restricted access to medical care and medicine has pushed biohackers to start experiment in medically related matters. The Open Insulin project aims to make the recombinant protein insulin more accessible by creating an open source protocol for expression and purification.[31] Other experiments that have involved medical treatments include a whole body microbiome transplant [32] and the creation of open source artificial pancreases[33] for diabetics.

Implants

Grinders are a subculture of biohackers that focus on implanting technology[34] or introducing chemicals[35] into the body to enhance or change their bodies functionality.

Art

Self-described "transgenic artist" Eduardo Kac uses biotechnology and genetics to create works that both utilise and critique scientific techniques. In one of his works, Alba, Kac collaborated with a French laboratory to procure a green-fluorescent rabbit: a rabbit implanted with a green fluorescent protein gene from a type of jellyfish in order for the rabbit to fluoresce green under ultraviolet light.[36] The members of the Critical Art Ensemble have written books and staged multimedia performance interventions around this issue, including The Flesh Machine (focusing on in vitro fertilisation, surveillance of the body, and liberal eugenics) and Cult of the New Eve(In order to analyze how in their words "Science is the institution of authority regarding the production of knowledge, and tends to replace this particular social function of conventional Christianity in the west[37])

Heather Dewey-Hagborg is an information artist and biohacker who uses genomic DNA left behind by people as a starting point for creating lifelike, computer-generated, 3-D portraits.[38][39]

Criticism and concerns

Biohacking experiences many of the same criticisms as synthetic biology and genetic engineering already receive, plus other concerns relating to the distributed and non-institutional nature of the work, involving potential hazards with lack of oversight by professionals or governments. Concerns about biohackers creating pathogens in unmonitored garage laboratories led the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to begin sending its representatives to DIYbio conferences in 2009.[10] The arrest and prosecution of some members for their work with harmless microbes, such as artivist Steve Kurtz, has been denounced as political repression by critics who argue the U.S. government has used post-9/11 anti-terrorism powers to intimidate artists and others who use their art to criticize society.[40]

As regulations are non-existent within this field, the possibility of pathological organisms being created and released unintentionally or intentionally by biohackers has become a matter of concern, for example, in the spirit of the re-creation of the 1917 flu virus by Armed Forces Institute of Pathology researchers in 2005.[41] In the US the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate has worked with the American Association for the Advancement of Science's National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity to convene a series of meetings to discuss biosecurity, which have included discussions of amateur biologists and ways to manage the risks to society it poses.[42][43]: 8.16  At the National Institutes of Health, National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity[44] leads efforts to educate the public on "dual use research of concern", for example with websites like "Science Safety Security".[45] In 2011, DIYbio organized conferences to attempt to create codes of ethics for biohackers.[46]

Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, is a critic of biohacking who argues that—using a laptop computer, published gene sequence information, and mail-order synthetic DNA—just about anyone has the potential to construct genes or entire genomes from scratch (including those of the lethal pathogens) in the near-future.[citation needed] A 2007 ETC Group report warns that the danger of this development is not just bio-terror, but "bio-error".[47]

While no DIYbio project to date has involved harmful agents,[citation needed] the fear remains in the minds of both regulators and laypersons. However, it is often pointed out that DIYbio is at too early a stage to consider such advanced projects feasible, as few successful transformative genetics projects have been undertaken yet. It is also worth noting that, while an individual could conceivably do harm with sufficient skill and intent, there exist biology labs throughout the world with greater access to the technology, skill and funding to accomplish a bioweapons project.

While detractors argue that do-it-yourself biologists need some sort of supervision, enthusiasts argue that uniform supervision is impossible and the best way to prevent accidents or malevolence is to encourage a culture of transparency, where, in essence, do-it-yourself biologists would be peer reviewed by other biohackers.[48] Enthusiasts argue that fear of potential hazards should be met with increased research and education rather than closing the door on the profound positive impacts that distributed biological technology will have on human health, the environment, and the standard of living around the world.[49] Due to the lack of precedent regarding such a business model, the DIYbio founders see this as an opportunity to be innovators in regulatory and safety policy.[11]

Notable persons

Groups and organizations

References

  1. ^ Greg Boustead (2008-12-11). "The Biohacking Hobbyist". Seed Magazine. Retrieved 2010-07-11.
  2. ^ Wohlsen, Marcus (2011-04-14). Biopunk: Solving Biotech's Biggest Problems in Kitchens and Garages. Penguin. p. 96. ISBN 9781101476352.
  3. ^ Michels, Spencer (2014-09-23). "What is biohacking and why should we care?". PBS NewsHour. Retrieved 2015-10-30.
  4. ^ "Forum: Roses are black, violets are green – The emergence of amateur genetic engineers". New Scientist. Retrieved 2015-10-25.
  5. ^ Katz, J. S. (1990). "That which is not forbidden is Mandatory". Biotechnology Education. 4 (1). Pergamon Press. ISSN 0955-6621.
  6. ^ Schrage, Michael (1988-01-31). "Playing God in your basement". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2015-10-25.
  7. ^ Purifying DNA with Common Household Items
  8. ^ CodeCon 2005 abstract
  9. ^ Rob Carlson. "Splice It Yourself: Who needs a geneticist? Build your own DNA lab". Wired.
  10. ^ a b Heidi Ledford (2010). "Garage biotech: Life hackers". Nature. 467 (7316): 650–2. doi:10.1038/467650a. PMID 20930820.
  11. ^ a b "PBS News Hour". 31 Dec 2008.
  12. ^ "About Biocurious". Biocurious. Biocurious. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  13. ^ "BioCurious: A Hackerspace for Biotech. The Community Lab for Citizen Science". Kickstarter. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  14. ^ "Rob Carlson on synthetic biology". The Economist.
  15. ^ Pearce, Joshua M. 2012. "Building Research Equipment with Free, Open-Source Hardware." Science 337 (6100): 1303–1304.open access
  16. ^ "BUGSS Membership". BUGSS. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  17. ^ "Biocurious Membership". Biocurious. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  18. ^ "Counter Culture Labs Membership". Counter Culture Labs. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference biohack19 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ "DremelFuge - A One-Piece Centrifuge for Rotary Tools". Thingiverse. 2016-12-23. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  21. ^ "DNA is now DIY". Make.
  22. ^ "Pocket PCR for pennies". LavaAmp.
  23. ^ "Coffee Cup - PCR Thermocycler costing under 350$". Instructables. 2009-06-13. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  24. ^ "OpenDrop". OpenDrop. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  25. ^ "DIY NanoDrop". DIY NanoDrop. Hackteria. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  26. ^ Todd Kuiken (2016-03-09). "Governance: Learn from DIY biologists". Nature Magazine. Retrieved 2016-06-19.
  27. ^ Steph Yin (2016-05-03). "Is DIY Kitchen CRISPR A Class Issue?". Popular Science. Retrieved 2016-06-19.
  28. ^ Jennifer Hicks (2014-03-15). "The Biohacking Hobbyist". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-06-19.
  29. ^ "Biocurious Meetup". Meetup. Meetup. 2016-06-25. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  30. ^ "Bay Area biologist's gene-editing kit lets do-it-yourselfers play God at the kitchen table". San Jose Mercury News. San Jose Mercury News. 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  31. ^ "These Biohackers Are Creating Open-Source Insulin". Popular Science. 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  32. ^ "A Bitter Pill". The Verge. 2016-05-04.
  33. ^ "Tech-savy Families use homebuilt diabetes device". Wall Street Journal. 2016-05-09.
  34. ^ "Biohackers are implanting LEDs under their skin". Motherboard. 2015-11-09.
  35. ^ "This Biohacker Used Eyedrops To Give Himself Temporary Night Vision". Gizmodo. 2016-03-27.
  36. ^ Cite error: The named reference Newitz 2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  37. ^ "Critical Art Ensemble". critical-art.net.
  38. ^ Jenkins, Mark (2013-09-18). "A 'Cyber' exhibit as timely as the news". Washington Post. p. E18.
  39. ^ Krulwich, Robert (2013-06-28). "Artist plays detective: Can I reconstruct a face from a piece of hair?". NPR. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
  40. ^ Scientist pleads guilty to mailing bacteria for 'bio-art'
  41. ^ "The 1918 flu virus is resurrected". Nature. 437 (7060): 794–5. October 2005. doi:10.1038/437794a. PMID 16208326.
  42. ^ Carl Zimmer for the New York Times. March 5, 2012 Amateurs Are New Fear in Creating Mutant Virus
  43. ^ Prepared by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in conjunction with the Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Bridging Science and Security for Biological Research: A Discussion about Dual Use Review and Oversight at Research Institutions Report of a Meeting September 13-14, 2012
  44. ^ NSABB Official Website
  45. ^ Science Safety Security official website
  46. ^ "The role of codes of conduct in the amateur biology community". Retrieved 4 February 2014.
  47. ^ ETC Group (January 2007). "Extreme Genetic Engineering: An Introduction to Synthetic Biology" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-09-28. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  48. ^ "The Biohacking Hobbyist". Seed Magazine.
  49. ^ "DIYbio/FAQ".
  50. ^ Biocurious
  51. ^ a b "Biohackers of the world, unite". The Economist. 6 September 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
  52. ^ Biofoundry
  53. ^ Terzis, Gillian (15 August 2015). "Biohackers at the DIY BioFoundry". The Saturday Paper. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
  54. ^ Bricobio
  55. ^ Jain, Vipal (18 March 2015). "SynBio is fast lane to entrepreneurial high tech opportunities". Genetic Literacy Project. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
  56. ^ https://counterculturelabs.org/ Counter Culture Labs
  57. ^ "Best DIY Science Group". East Bay Express. No. Best of the East Bay 2015. 22 July 2015. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
  58. ^ Wohlsen, Marcus (15 April 2015). "Cow Milk Without the Cow Is Coming to Change Food Forever". WIRED. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
  59. ^ Genspace
  60. ^ La Paillasse (page visited on 22 June 2014).
  61. ^ Biohackspace
  62. ^ Hahn, Jennifer (25 October 2015). "London Biohackspace: a link between science and the public – Eastlondonlines". EastLondonLines. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
  63. ^ SyntechBio (page visited on 27 November 2015).
  64. ^ BioCoder #7: Spring 2015. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.". 15 April 2015. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-4919-3157-8. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
  65. ^ Univercité (page visited on 22 June 2014).
  66. ^ Hackuarium (page visited on 3 August 2014).
  67. ^ Gasche, Delphine (9 August 2015). "Des biologistes alternatifs s'épanouissent à Renens". 24heures.ch (in French). Retrieved 21 April 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Do-it-yourself_biology&oldid=726061124"