Do-It-Youself Biology

BMW Guggenheim Community Lab

 

 

 

 

Kay Aull created and constructed a genetic test for haemochromatosis, a disease one can develop from the build-up of iron in the body (3). Raymond McCauley worked on his own genome sequence to test whether he could prevent macular degeneration through diet (3). Both of these people accomplished great feats in biology, yet they are not professional scientists nor researchers and they did not produce their work in a lab (3). Aull graduated from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and works as a lab technician. She made her test in her apartment in Boston, using old equipment (3). McCauley is a bioinformatician who tested his theory in his home lab and even carried out his own clinical trial (3). The scientific community refers to these innovators, who have an interest in science and independently perform biological engineering research and experiments, as do-it-yourself biologists, biohackers, or biopunks (1). This independent biology movement is growing at a rapid pace and interest in DIYbio community labs is on the rise (4). Currently, only the elite in the biological community have the right to conduct their research. DIY biologists hope to reach the goal of increasing equality in the biological community and decreasing restrictions placed on biohackers. In order to legitimize these citizen scientists in the eyes of society and support democratization in the biology community, the government needs to regulate where the biohackers’ research is allowed to be conducted, who is permitted to oversee this research, and what types of studies the DIY biologists can undertake.

Do-it-yourself biologists wish to help the community and have made several new innovations, including an inexpensive device for diagnosing malaria and a cheap alternative to commercial machines for the polymerase chain reaction (5). Biopunks gained more notoriety throughout the scientific community by creating innovations that are not helpful to society but are very interesting, such as a glowing plant (5). Society demands new scientific innovations to keep up with modern technology and medicine, but frowns upon any new invention that may be harmful. Society also demands that the innovations be safe and come from professional scientists, making it difficult for do-it-yourself biologists to maintain legitimacy, despite their many important scientific discoveries. While a DIY biologist makes just as many discoveries as a professional scientist, the science community still considers him or her an amateur who threatens the safety of society. If the government funds community lab spaces for biohackers, more innovations will be created to benefit society (5). Society would take the do-it-yourself biology movement more seriously if the government regulated the biohackers’ citizen science spaces and biopunks conducted more relevant research.

In 2010, a small group of biology enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area asked for donations to start a community-operated laboratory (4). They raised thirty-five thousand dollars from their online fundraising campaign. Eric Gentry, a cofounder of the hacklab, used this money to rent twenty-four thousand square feet of space in Sunnyvale, California (4). Gentry received equipment from donors and filled the lab, which he named “Biocurious.” Biocurious opened in October 2011 as one of the dozen citizen science hackerspaces in the United States (4). Computer programmers, artists, and engineers have used community lab spaces for a long time, but the concept of wet lab workspaces for biologists is new and popularity is increasing (4). The government could further regulate the growth of do-it-yourself biology by only permitting biopunks to work in established community lab spaces that are pre approved by the government.

Once the government has approved these public citizen science lab spaces, they will be able to control the biopunks’ research by mandating safety guidelines in the labs. Even without government regulation, DIY biologists have already been proactive in addressing safety concerns (2). Genspace was the first community lab developed in the United States for do-it-yourself biologists (2). In December 2011, they recruited a safety advisory board made up of government, industry, and academic professionals to answer any safety questions from the members of the community lab (2). Scientists addressed the board about projects that required a Biosafety Level 1 environment (2).

For the broader citizen science community, DIYbio.org and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars launched the “Ask a Biosafety Expert” web portal, which allows biohackers to ask questions about safety and security in the citizen science spaces (Kuiken). In Spring 2011, DIYbio.org and the Wilson Center made a draft of the first do-it-yourself biology code of conduct (2). The government could produce its own code of conduct, possibly based on this draft, to regulate safety guidelines for the biohackers to follow. If their studies uphold these guidelines, the biologists should be permitted to experiment in whichever field they choose. Community laboratory spaces have also served as a place for biohackers to discuss any biosafety concerns they may have while conducting their research (2). Citizen science lab spaces approved by the government would have to go over the safety code of conduct once a week, with all biohacker members of the lab present.

Most do-it-yourself biologists are young, educated, nonviolent, nonthreatening, and simply interested in biotechnology. A survey found that thirty-six percent of the biopunks are under thirty-five years old and seventy-eight percent are less than forty-five years of age (5). The survey also found that only six percent of the biologists said their experiments would require safety precautions against human disease (5). Nineteen percent of those surveyed have retained a doctorate-level degree and twenty-eight percent conduct at least some of their work in corporate, academic, or government labs (5). This survey shows that many of these biopunks are highly educated, so a biology exam should not be required to work in the community lab space, as long as the biohacker has a science background. If the DIY biologist has no background in science, he or she should have to pass an exam to be able to work in the lab, to prove that he or she is legitimately interested in biology. The government should also conduct background checks on anyone who wishes to work in a community lab space. If these potential members of the DIYbio community pass the background test, they should be allowed to work in the community lab spaces, as long as they follow the safety guidelines and attend the regular meetings. If a scientist refuses to work in the lab space and only wishes to work from home, his or her research would be disregarded by the government.

These changes should be implemented as soon and as smoothly as possible in order for biopunks to be legitimized as professionals. The new requirement of working in community wet lab spaces, rather than from a home, will affect few biohackers. A survey found that ninety-two percent of do-it-yourself biologists work at least some of the time in public spaces rather than their own personal space (5). With the mandate that biohackers must only work in community labs, the government can release the requirement of a biology exam and background check to the DIYbio community. Once the biohackers make it through these tests and enter their community lab, their supervisor will share the new safety guidelines. If these precautions are upheld, do-it-yourself biologists will be taken seriously by other scientists, society will feel safe, and beneficial research will be produced in community laboratories.






1. DIY Bio. P2P Foundation. P2P Foundation, 1 Oct. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. http://p2pfoundation.net/DIY_Bio

2. Kuiken, Todd. DIYbio: Low Risk, High Potential. The Scientist. LabX Media Group, 1 March 2013. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34443/title/DIYbio--Low-Risk--High-Potential/

3. Penders, Bart. DIY Biology. Academia. Nature, 14 April 2011. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. http://www.academia.edu/537068/DIY_Biology

4. Scudellari, Megan. Biology Hacklabs. The Scientist. The Scientist Magazine, 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34469/title/Biology-Hacklabs/

5. The DIY Dilemma. Nature: 503, 437-438. Nature Publishing Group, 26 Nov. 2013. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. http://www.nature.com/news/the-diy-dilemma-1.14240