Introduction
“Revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new technologies— it happens when society adopts new behaviors”
This thesis explores the emerging Do-it-Yourself biology (DIYbio) movement, characterized by a diverse international community of professionals and enthusiasts focused on studying and engineering biological systems outside traditional scientific institutions The DIYbio movement aims to democratize access to biotechnology, potentially driving global innovation and enhancing scientific literacy in critical fields such as health care, agriculture, and environmental management While often recognized as a movement, the DIYbio phenomenon has yet to be thoroughly examined through the lens of social movement theory, which highlights the role of movements as catalysts for societal change Social movements foster creativity and new ideas, influencing individual and collective behaviors and cultural perceptions The DIYbio movement aligns with similar initiatives like open science and citizen science, which advocate for participatory practices Analyzing DIYbio as a social movement can provide valuable insights into its dynamics and its capacity to effect social change.
To analyze DIYbio as a social movement, it is essential to define what constitutes a social movement According to scholar Mario Diani (1992), social movements are distinct social processes characterized by mechanisms that facilitate collective action He identifies three key mechanisms: informal networks for resource exchange aimed at common goals, engagement in political or cultural conflicts to drive social change, and a shared collective identity that coordinates action Informal networks serve as cultural laboratories where individuals can explore new cultural models and alternative perceptions of the world Additionally, social movements often arise from a conflictual dynamic, stemming from dissatisfaction with existing political, cultural, and economic models, prompting actors to seek new frameworks through collective action.
A Google search for "DIYbio" and "movement" reveals numerous definitions from reputable sources such as Wikipedia, Nature, The Scientist, and The New York Times This research aims to explore DIYbio as a social movement by examining how individuals form a collective identity, fostering a sense of "we" that drives shared beliefs and collective action By understanding these mechanisms, we can gain insights into how the DIYbio movement mobilizes efforts to achieve social change.
In my research, I utilize the concept of collective identity as a key analytical tool, as it shapes and often defines the mechanisms inherent in social movements Collective identity emerges when individuals recognize themselves and others as part of a movement, united by shared grievances and common goals for social change Additionally, this identity is reinforced within informal networks, fostering solidarity among members Consequently, my research questions focus on these dynamics.
(0) How is the collective identity of the DIYbio movement defined?
(1) How do members perceive conflicts and enact goals in accordance with its collective identity?
(2) How is the collective identity reproduced through its informal networks?
My next reason to focus on the collective identity of the DIYbio movement has to do with the book
In "Biohackers" (2013), Alessandro Delfanti explores the DIYbio movement, highlighting its significance within the broader context of open science He argues that this movement represents a fusion of conventional academic standards and hacker ethics, showcasing how DIYbio exemplifies this innovative blend Delfanti's work sheds light on the political dimensions of open science and its implications for the future of biological research.
DIYbio exemplifies the integration of free software and hacking practices into biological sciences, reflecting a significant shift towards more open and collaborative scientific methods This transformation is facilitated by web-based tools that promote a proactive approach to information production Consequently, the biohacker emerges as a collective identity representing the DIYbio movement.
To understand Delfanti's perspective on the DIYbio movement, it's essential to explore the three key connections he highlights: the hacker ethos, the influence of the Internet, and the principles of open science.
To grasp how biohacking aligns with the hacker ethos, it is essential to explore the hacker identity and identify the elements that biohackers adopt from it.
The term "hacker" is often misunderstood, conflated with cybercriminals known as "crackers," as highlighted by Raymond (2001), who states, "hackers build things, crackers break them." Within hacker culture, there is a strong emphasis on freedom and mutual assistance This article explores the history and key narratives of hacker culture, focusing on the evolution of personal computers and free and open-source software, as well as the hacker ethic that has influenced these developments It also examines how this ethic has transitioned from cyberspace to urban environments through hackerspaces, fostering a new mode of production, governance, and distribution that transcends software The analysis continues with an exploration of economic and cultural shifts facilitated by the Internet's participatory architecture, leading to a collaborative culture known as Commons-Based Peer-Production Additionally, it addresses the transformation in scientific practices from closed, hierarchical systems to open, distributed models Finally, it delves into the DIYbio movement and the biohacker community, shedding light on their collective identity, beliefs, and activities.
This study investigates the collective identity of the DIYbio movement by examining how shared cultural materials shape a sense of "we" among its members Public symbols play a crucial role in conveying meanings that participants identify with, allowing for a focused analysis of their practices and discourses To understand the movement's definition, a combination of qualitative methods was employed, including participant observation in online forums and biohackerspaces, documentary analysis of media articles for external perspectives, and in-depth interviews with movement members to capture insider views Analyzing the discourse reveals how biohackers construct their reality, providing insights into their motivations for collective action and the social change they seek.
Background
A Hacker Origin
In his book "Hackers," Steven Levy (1984) chronicles the origins of hacker culture, beginning in the late 1950s at MIT with the Train Railroad Model Club (TRMC), where the term "hack" was first used to describe enjoyable and innovative projects The TRMC members, fascinated by computing, sought access to the restricted TX-0 computer, which allowed them to experiment freely after hours Unlike the sanctioned users focused on complex computations, these early hackers aimed to push the machine's boundaries, creating programming tools, music programs, and simple games They shared their creations openly, fostering a collaborative environment that celebrated innovation and technical skill.
In the decades that followed, computers evolved to become smaller and more affordable, particularly with the advent of microcomputers Despite this progress, they remained largely confined to professional environments, as their utility in other areas was questioned However, by the 1970s, hackers and entrepreneurs began to explore commercial applications for computers, notably in the burgeoning arcade and video game industry, with iconic titles like Pong (1972) and Space Invaders paving the way for future innovations.
In 1978, Atari's launch of Invaders marked a pivotal moment that propelled the computer and video game industry into the mainstream market During this era, computer enthusiasts started to develop their own personal computing devices, leading to the emergence of hacker and hobbyist communities These individuals gathered in hobby computer clubs, such as the inaugural meeting of the Homebrew Computer Club, to exchange parts, circuits, and innovative designs for their creations.
1975 in Silicon Valley that inspired Steve Wozniak to design a personal microcomputer kit (Wozniak,
In 1979, Steve Wozniak, who was working at HP and collaborating with Steve Jobs at Atari, introduced his design for the Apple I computer With financial backing from Wozniak's car sale, they established the Apple Computer Company in Jobs' garage to produce and market the Apple I Initially, personal computers were seen as a niche hobby, but as they evolved into competitive consumer products, the landscape changed Despite facing skepticism from universities and corporations due to their modest beginnings, the success of the Apple II and Macintosh rapidly transformed these startups into major players in the tech industry, marking a swift convergence of capital and innovation.
Computers rely on hardware components, but it is software that enhances their utility In the early days, when computers were large mainframe machines, they were too costly for purchase and were typically leased with included software and services (Ceruzzi, 2003) Users received source code, allowing them to customize and develop new programs However, in 1969, a lawsuit against IBM for monopolistic practices led to the unbundling of software from hardware sales, and the company stopped sharing source code (Burton, 2002) This marked the transformation of software into a commodity, subject to legal protections under Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), making it patentable.
In the UK, copyright for software was established in 1962, followed by US copyright in 1974, leading to the rise of software leasing companies that enforced strict usage restrictions through contract law This shift towards proprietary software licensing became a lucrative industry, significantly contributing to the wealth of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates As proprietary software, characterized by closed executable binary code, gained dominance, hacker Richard M Stallman viewed it as a threat to the hacker community's values In response, he initiated the GNU project in 1983, aiming to create a free operating system that would allow users to freely use, copy, and modify software.
Box 2.1: Crash-Course in Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are exclusive legal rights granted to creators for their original works, encompassing trademarks, trade secrets, patents, and copyrights Trademarks™ identify and differentiate products or services, while trade secrets protect confidential information and formulas Patents incentivize inventors to publicly disclose their inventions by granting exclusive rights for 20 years, preventing unauthorized commercial use However, the patent system faces criticism for fostering misuse, creating dense patent thickets that hinder innovation, and enabling patent trolls—entities that profit solely from licensing patents Additionally, patent ambushes occur when holders wait to assert essential patents after technology has developed Copyright© limits usage and distribution to the holder for a duration typically extending 70 years beyond the author's life in the US.
Under the Berne Convention of 1886, copyright is automatically granted in most countries without the need for application, allowing authors to receive financial compensation for their creations However, the rise of digital media has led to rampant copyright infringement, as content can be easily copied and shared at no cost In response, Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies have been developed to control the use of digital content Critics of copyright argue that it limits the free flow of knowledge and culture, thereby hindering creative reproduction For an in-depth exploration of intellectual property rights, refer to Richard Stim's book.
Box in a Box: End-User License Agreements
Licensing, often misunderstood as a form of intellectual property rights (IPR), actually involves maintaining exclusive control through contract law via End-User License Agreements (EULAs), which users encounter before agreeing to terms Restrictive EULAs serve as a type of digital rights management (DRM) Interestingly, licensing software or digital content requires users to possess a copy, which can be seen as copyright infringement since the licensee does not own the copy In 1980, the US government amended the Copyright Act to clarify users' rights to utilize a copy without infringing on copyright For further insights into IPR in the digital landscape, refer to Peter Yu's work from 2007.
Intellectual Property and Information Wealth.
Richard Stallman, referred to as the last hacker by Levy, became increasingly frustrated with the hacker community's shift towards proprietary software, which he considered "antisocial and unethical" (Stallman, Lessig, & Free Software Foundation, 2010) In response, he established the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in 1985 to promote the development of free software, emphasizing that "free" refers to freedom of speech rather than free of charge (Stallman, 2010, pg 3) The GNU project flourished as the FSF hired developers and attracted both volunteer and paid programmers from the industry to contribute to its growth.
In 1991, Linus Torvalds, a computer science graduate student from Helsinki, developed the Linux kernel as part of his master's thesis, which became the foundation of the GNU/Linux operating system This powerful software now commands an impressive 81% market share in smartphones through Android devices and operates 97% of the world's top 500 supercomputers Linux is integral to critical systems such as air traffic control, the New York Stock Exchange, and CERN, and it supports major web and cloud services for tech giants like Google, Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook.
Free software thrives due to its unique licensing framework, notably established by Richard Stallman in 1989 with the GNU General Public License (GPL) This legal structure emphasizes user rights, granting them the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, modify, and enhance the software as they see fit The GPL also enforces a copyleft provision, ensuring that all derivative works maintain the same licensing, thus preserving the source code as a shared resource In 1997, Eric Raymond's influential book, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, analyzed the success of the Linux system, attributing it to a decentralized, collaborative model where users act as co-developers Raymond's concept of ‘Linus Law’ suggests that with enough contributors, software quality improves, as collective intelligence helps identify and resolve bugs Inspired by this model, Netscape released its browser's source code in 1998, leading to the creation of Mozilla Firefox and prompting a movement to rebrand Free Software to enhance its appeal.
In 1998, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) was established, promoting the term Open-Source Software (OSS) to adopt a more pragmatic approach compared to the ideological stance of Stallman's Free Software (FS) Stallman argues that while OSS views non-free software as a suboptimal solution, FS regards it as a social problem, positioning free software as the remedy He distinguishes OSS as a development methodology and FS as a social movement The term Free/(Libre) Open-Source Software (F(L)OSS) is often used to combine both concepts, highlighting their differing philosophical roots—moral versus pragmatic While all free software qualifies as open-source, the reverse is not always true; both philosophies contribute to the creation of copyleft software and frequently employ a bazaar-like development model.
The hacker mentality played a crucial role in shaping the hardware and software industries, as hackers embody more than just passionate tech enthusiasts; they adhere to a collective set of implicit pragmatic and aesthetic principles This ethos, known as the hacker ethic, was articulated in 1984 in Steven Levy's book "Hackers."
• Access to computers—and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works— should be unlimited and total Always yield to the hands-on imperative!
• All information should be free.
• Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race or position 4
• You can create art and beauty on a computer
• Computers can change your life for the better.
Levy emphasized that hackers have a deep disdain for restrictions and bureaucratic limitations, believing that unrestricted access to information is essential for innovation He argued that hacking should be celebrated for its visionary qualities, unique styles, and creative techniques, highlighting the admiration hackers deserve for their groundbreaking achievements.
The Internet Primer
As we transition into the Information Age, our society is shaped by the pervasive use of microelectronics and digital communication networks, fundamentally altering our daily lives Sociologists Manuel Castells and Jan van Dijk describe this new social infrastructure as the Network Society, where information and communication technologies (ICTs) form the backbone of our economies, societies, and cultures Joi Ito contrasts this with the Before-Internet (BI) era, labeling our current reality as the After-Internet (AI) world, where connectivity costs have plummeted and participation has been democratized, fostering unprecedented levels of innovation and diversity The advent of web 2.0 technologies has further enhanced this participatory architecture, encouraging user-generated content and the contributions of amateurs across various fields, such as engineering, music, and fashion.
The 8 OHL, similar to TAPR OHL and CERN OHL, embraces the FLOSS philosophy, but treats hardware as 'useful' work, which is protected by patents rather than copyright Consequently, the hardware is effectively released into the public domain, allowing anyone to manufacture it without needing permission, while only the design and documentation files are safeguarded by copyleft licenses.
As of 2012, approximately one-third of the global population was online, as reported by Internet World Stats The issue of the Digital Divide remains a significant concern, impacting both economic and social inclusion; however, this paper does not address it in detail For further insights, refer to "The Digital Divide" by Pippa Norris (2001).
The term "Web 2.0," coined by Dougherty, signifies a user-centric evolution of the internet where individuals create content through platforms like wikis, blogs, and social networking sites, driven by enjoyment rather than financial gain As digital media tools become more accessible, amateurs are producing high-quality content that rivals professional organizations, exemplified by the blogosphere's competition with traditional publishing This phenomenon, termed "mass amateurization" by Clay Shirky and "professional amateurization" by Leadbeater and Miller, highlights the shift in media dynamics Shirky emphasizes that the Internet's unique capacity for two-way communication fosters collaboration and collective action, disrupting the traditional producer-consumer relationship As users increasingly engage in content creation, Axel Bruns introduces the concept of "produser" to describe this active participation in a collaborative environment, as seen in platforms like Wikipedia.
Box 2.2: Wikipedia, Wikipedia and Wikipedia
Wikipedia exemplifies the shift towards a free, open, decentralized, and collaborative production model As the world's most popular encyclopedia, it offers a level of reliability that rivals traditional encyclopedias.
The contrast between the success of Wikipedia and the failure of its predecessor, Nupedia, is notable Nupedia, created in 2000 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, aimed to be the first free online encyclopedia written by expert volunteers, but only produced 21 articles in its first year Recognizing the limitations of Nupedia, Sanger proposed integrating wiki technology to foster discussions and generate new content, leading to the launch of Wikipedia in 2001 Within its first year, Wikipedia had already amassed 18,000 articles, and it has since grown to over 30 million articles in 287 languages, boasting more than 21 million user accounts.
Before the advent of Wikipedia, Linux exemplified the principles of Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), which Eric Raymond (1999) described through the bazaar model as a permissionless and distributed development approach Yochai Benkler (2002) elaborated on the socio-economic production model of FLOSS as Commons-Based Peer Production (CBPP), where a decentralized community of users and developers collaboratively creates and maintains content driven by intrinsic motivations rather than hierarchical organizations or financial incentives Michel Bauwens (2005) termed this Peer-to-Peer (P2P) production, highlighting its focus on use-value over exchange-value, peer-to-peer governance structures, and shared ownership of resources Bauwens identified five essential infrastructures for successful P2P production: Technological Infrastructure for distributed access to capital, Information and Communications Infrastructure for content creation and collaboration, Software Infrastructure for collaborative tools, Legal Infrastructure for protecting creative works, and Cultural Infrastructure to foster cooperative individualism essential for sustaining P2P initiatives.
(2010) thus argues hackerspaces can be seen as the result of applying the CBPP model to both immaterial and material goods.
A central theme in CBPP is the perception of information, knowledge, and culture as a shared commons, emphasizing collaborative authorship over individual ownership Lawrence Lessig (2004) in "Free Culture" critiques the traditional producer-control model, termed 'permission culture,' which restricts derivative works through intellectual property rights (IPR), stifling innovation He advocates for a default free culture that encourages the sharing, modification, and remixing of content, akin to the principles of free software This shift prioritizes the freedom of 'produsers' and has been explored by new media theorists like Henry Jenkins (2009), who highlights participatory culture characterized by low barriers to creative expression, civic engagement, and a supportive environment for knowledge sharing and mentorship.
The evolution of social production began with Linux and gained momentum during the web 2.0 era, achieving prominence through platforms like Wikipedia and being reshaped by DIY community spaces The influence of artificial intelligence has permeated all aspects of social production, notably impacting the creation and dissemination of scientific knowledge Unlike popular culture, where authority lies with the community, science operates as a formal institution governed by established norms that define its essence.
11 Or as Stallman humorously calls them Imposed Monopoly Privileges (IMPs) (Stallman, 2004)
The Strand of Science
Science is both a structured body of knowledge and the social processes involved in acquiring that knowledge, having evolved from the Paleolithic Era to the Post-Modern Era, with contributions from artisans, philosophers, and scientists over millennia The modern concept of science emerged in the 17th century through the establishment of early scientific societies, which shaped the authority and control over scientific practices Today, science is seen as a cumulative endeavor that generates public knowledge and fosters innovation within capitalistic economies Following World War II, a new model of scientific knowledge production arose, distinguishing between academic science focused on pure knowledge and industrial science aimed at practical applications for profit.
Academic science operates as a social contract within a gift economy, where professional scientists receive financial support from society, primarily through state patronage, to conduct research In exchange for this funding, scientists are expected to share their knowledge and discoveries openly, contributing to higher education institutions The recognition and esteem gained from their contributions serve as the primary reward, as highlighted by Robert Merton, who argued that acknowledgment is more valuable than monetary compensation Merton's CUDOS framework outlines the social norms of science: Communalism emphasizes scientific knowledge as a public resource, Universalism promotes equal contribution and critical evaluation, Disinterestedness encourages a focus on objective science over personal gain, and Organized skepticism fosters a rigorous review process within the scientific community.
Skepticism 13 signifies how science should be openly reviewed and scrutinized
An economy encompasses the production and exchange of goods, while gifts symbolize the social interactions within this framework Unlike market transactions, which are driven by cost-benefit analysis and pricing, gifts are founded on principles of reciprocity and altruism.
In 2002, Ziman introduced the concept of "Originality" within the CUDOS framework, highlighting how science prioritizes innovative approaches to tackle emerging challenges This perspective serves as a counterpoint to the "Expert" norm found in the PLACE framework.
Industrial scientists operate within a market-driven economy, focusing on profit maximization through the development of proprietary knowledge safeguarded by intellectual property rights (IPR) This approach contrasts with the traditional CUDOS norms of scientific inquiry, as outlined by John Ziman in 2002, and is characterized by the PLACE norms: Proprietary, indicating the privatization of knowledge; Local, emphasizing the resolution of specific technical issues rather than broader understanding; Authoritarian, reflecting the hierarchical control under which scientists work; and Commissioned, highlighting the practical objectives of their research.
Expert refers to how scientists are hired as problem solvers and not for their curiosity.
The demarcation between academic and industrial science has not always been clearly defined, as
“new knowledge produces new practices and vice versa”, hence basic research and technological development (except for cosmology) “in the long run become indistinguishable” (Ziman, 2002, pp 171–
In the last century, academic science has shifted from the idealistic CUDOS norms to the PLACE norms, as described by Ziman This transition marks the emergence of post-academic science, where research is increasingly influenced by market principles Consequently, academics now conduct science based on the interests of funding agents, such as private firms and government departments, leading to a scenario where scientific inquiry is often commissioned to meet the demands of sponsors rather than pursued as a free exploration.
Academic research is primarily evaluated through contributions to peer-reviewed publications, which serve as a key indicator of a scientist's success, encapsulated in the adage "Publish or Perish." Consequently, publishing has shifted from being a means of advancing scientific inquiry to becoming an end in itself The control of scholarly literature lies with publishers who enforce copyright, leading to a model where digital copies are licensed rather than owned Publicly funded research increasingly seeks to monetize intellectual capital through patents, fostering partnerships with private entities that prioritize secrecy over open knowledge exchange This competitive landscape measures scientific progress by publication output and market potential, treating knowledge as a commodity rather than a shared resource Additionally, proprietary regimes create artificial scarcity, hindering the free flow of information and potentially stifling the advancement of Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI).
1998) This artificial scarcity however, is hard to justify and maintain in the AI world where information and knowledge can be shared at a near zero marginal cost.
ICTs have transformed the production and distribution of science, enabling easier storage and sharing of knowledge in digital formats The advent of web 2.0 technologies has enhanced scientific dialogue by fostering improved communication and collaboration among researchers This evolution, known as science 2.0 or networked science, necessitates a cultural shift in the scientific community from competition to collaboration, promoting the open sharing of scientific content The open science movement, influenced by the FLOSS development model, is driving this transition towards a more inclusive and cooperative scientific environment.
The open science movement seeks to enhance accessibility to scientific knowledge by removing legal, technical, and social barriers, promoting open access to scholarly literature, including journals, dissertations, and books (Open Knowledge Foundation, 2014) Successful initiatives like the Public Library of Science (PLOS), which launched in 2000, exemplify this growth, with PLOS ONE becoming the largest journal globally (Van Noorden, 2013) Open science encompasses not only textual publications but also non-textual elements, often referred to as open science data, and encourages innovative research methods such as digital open notebook science, which shares ongoing research and raw data It advocates for the sharing of all research data, including negative results typically considered 'unpublishable.' Additionally, open science fosters citizen science, allowing amateur scientists to contribute to research, as seen in projects like Folding@Home and EteRNA, or through grassroots initiatives like the Do-it-Yourself Biology (DIYbio) community, which promotes self-organized scientific exploration.
A Translation into DIYbio
Amateur biology hit the DIY scene when Make magazine published its special section in Backyard
In the 2006 volume of Biology, readers explored innovative tutorials, including methods for freezing and reviving garden snails, extracting and characterizing DNA, building thermal cyclers, and employing grafting techniques on plants The issue prominently featured Drew Endy in the article "Garage Biotech: For a Safer World," where he advocated for the democratization of biotechnology, suggesting that viewing biology as hackable could enhance safety and innovation Endy envisions a future where biology is treated like any other technology, with affordable gene synthesis enabling amateurs to undertake significant projects, ultimately transforming our understanding of living organisms, as he provocatively questions, “Why can't I just hack this stuff?” (Parks, 2006).
Endy is a pioneer in synthetic biology (synbio), a field that views biological systems as controllable entities engineered with standardized parts, unlike traditional genetic engineering This innovative approach allows for a deeper understanding of living organisms, likening cells to biological hardware and DNA to software In 2003, Endy and MIT computer scientist Tom Knight developed the BioBricks DNA assembly standard, likened to Lego building blocks, which are interchangeable DNA sequences used to create synthetic biological circuits within living cells The concept of standardized parts promotes shared specifications among 'manufacturers' to enhance automation and part reuse To support this initiative, Endy and Knight co-founded the Registry of Standard Biological Parts, an open-access repository for BioBricks, and established a class in 2003 for hands-on learning in design and engineering within synbio.
The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a thermo-chemical process conducted in a thermo-cycler that utilizes heat to separate the two strands of a DNA molecule Once heated, the temperature is lowered to the optimal range for the polymerase enzyme, which then replicates the DNA strands, effectively doubling the amount of DNA (1 DNA → 2 DNAs) This cyclical process continues until a sufficient quantity of DNA is produced for various analyses PCR technology is widely employed in molecular biology applications such as DNA sequencing, cloning, genetic diagnostics, and gene analysis.
Synthetic biology has gained significant traction through initiatives like MIT's Independent Activities Period (IAP), which began in 2004 to engage undergraduates in innovative projects This initiative evolved into the international Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition, attracting teams from various institutions, including international participants from Toronto and Zurich The competition promotes creativity with unique awards, such as 'Coolest Part' and 'Best “Quantitative” Answer,' while fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and addressing social issues like biosafety and corporate control Since its inception, iGEM has expanded to include high school students, entrepreneurs, and community labs, with a remarkable participation of 246 teams from around the globe, highlighting the growing interest and importance of synthetic biology research.
2014 with projects that focus on the environment, health and medicine, food and nutrition, energy, and new tracks that focus on art and design, policy and practices, software, etc.
Endy's vision for accessible biology began to materialize in 2006 as students started constructing complex machines, though affordable options were still unavailable The launch of the first Next-Generation DNA Sequencing (NGS) technology, the 454 Life Sciences Genome Sequencer, in 2005 marked a pivotal moment, priced at $500K (Perkel, 2006) By 2008, this sequencer facilitated the sequencing of James Watson's entire genome in just 2-4 months, costing between $1-2M (Davies, 2008) NGS represented a significant advancement over previous sequencing efforts, such as Craig Venter's project, which took years and incurred substantial costs for just 16 full genomes.
$100M, or the international consortium for the Human Genome Project (HGP) which took 13 years and
In 2005, George M Church, a pioneer in genomics and synthetic biology, established the Personal Genome Project (PGP) following the completion of the Human Genome Project (HGP) in 2003 The PGP aims to sequence and publicly share the complete genomes and medical records of 100,000 volunteers, highlighting the need for accessible genomic data despite concerns over the associated costs.
Craig Venter is a pivotal figure in genomics and synthetic biology, known for his controversial approach to competing with the Human Genome Project (HGP) through his private company, Celera, which aimed to monetize genomic data Despite Celera's efforts, the public consortium published the human genome first, a rivalry detailed in James Shreeve's book, "The Genome War" (2007) Venter is also recognized for co-inventing the first self-replicating bacterial cell and striving to make personal genomics feasible with the ambitious goal of achieving a $1,000 genome Concurrently, a team led by George Church at Harvard developed a novel next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology utilizing polony bead amplification and a digital microscope to read fluorescent signals This technology culminated in the launch of the Polonator G.007 in 2008, priced at $150,000—one-third the cost of the 454 sequencer The Polonator featured off-the-shelf components and an open-source platform, making the sequencing process more accessible and customizable, as noted by Jason Bobe, Director of Community at the Personal Genome Project (PGP).
In 2007, the concept of DIYbio emerged, inspired by a low-cost open-source sequencer that aimed to make biotechnology accessible to everyone This initiative sought to encourage individuals to engage in biological experimentation in their own garages To support this movement, the domain DIYbio.org was registered, promoting the idea of affordable and accessible biotechnology for all (Tochetti, 2013).
The emergence of amateur biologists, often referred to as Pro-Ams in biotechnology, is fueled by the increasing accessibility and affordability of essential technologies, skills, and knowledge Biohackers leverage web 2.0 technologies to facilitate decentralized communication, coordination, and collaboration The availability of open access scientific literature, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), and informal resources like wikis has significantly enhanced self-learning opportunities DIYbio resources extend beyond cyberspace to include physical materials such as glassware, chemicals, and hardware, sourced from both DIY and institutional environments Low-cost tools are often created from off-the-shelf components or repurposed equipment, with many individuals sharing their designs and instructions online Additionally, second-hand equipment is frequently acquired from universities and companies, contributing to a culture of resourcefulness and innovation in the biohacking community.
‘leftovers’ of bankrupt biolabs or from the rapid turnover of equipment in established biolabs
(Wolinsky, 2009) This turnover results from the rapid advancements in molecular biology techniques which have not only dropped costs, they have plummeted at an even faster rate than
17 Meatspace is the world outside of cyberspace; the world of flesh and blood The term originated from cyberpunk novels.
Illustration 2.1: Cost of Raw Megabase pair DNA sequencing Data obtained from NIH.
Time (Year) log $ per Megabase
Jason Bobe would meet with Mackenzie Cowell in 2008 at a co-working space in Boston (Tochetti,
In 2013, Cowell left his position at iGEM due to a lack of new learning opportunities and, after selling his car for seed money, co-founded DIYbio.org with Bobe, aiming to create "An Institution for the Do-it-Yourself Biologist." They established a DIYbio mailing list on Google Groups, which has grown to over 3,700 members and 4,700 discussed topics The inaugural DIYbio meeting attracted around 25 biotech enthusiasts at an Irish Pub in Cambridge, where they explored the potential of amateur biology, questioning if DIYbio.org could become the "Homebrew Computer Club of biology." This initiative represents a biological counterpart to computer hacking, known as biohacking.
DIYbio originated from biotech enthusiasts experimenting in their homes and has evolved into dedicated community labs that align with the hackerspace model, establishing biolabs in existing spaces or creating new biohackerspaces One of the pioneers, Genspace, opened its doors to the public in 2010 in Brooklyn, New York, co-founded by molecular biologist Ellen Jorgensen These biohackerspaces sustain themselves through various funding methods, including government and university sponsorships, crowdfunding, and membership fees DIYbio.org serves as a central hub for a global network, representing numerous DIYbio groups across North America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and Latin America The diverse community in biohackerspaces includes scientists, designers, software developers, and hobbyists, collaborating on projects ranging from citizen science to artistic endeavors and educational workshops Participants utilize shared resources in DIYbio labs to pursue their interests without specific expectations for market viability, focusing instead on safety and personal motivation.
The growing accessibility of synthetic biology has raised significant biosafety and biosecurity concerns, prompting the FBI to sponsor multiple outreach workshops for the DIYbio community since 2009.
18 In a survey conducted by the Wilson Center, they determined that about 90% of DIYbio'ers work in group spaces rather than alone in their homes (Frushkin, Kuiken, & Millet, 2013).
A visit to Genspace featured in Make magazine highlights the vibrant atmosphere of a biohackerspace while fostering important discussions on biosecurity and biosafety (Jefferson, 2013) Cowell emphasizes the necessity of establishing a relationship with the FBI, stating, "If we're going to walk the walk, we have to be able to talk to the FBI" (Lempinen).
In 2011, the DIYbio community demonstrated a commitment to ethical practices by establishing two regional networks in Europe and North America, each creating a code of ethics These codes emphasize the importance of open access, transparency, safety, education, and a sense of responsibility towards living beings and the environment, while advocating for peaceful purposes (Eggleson, 2014).
In 1988, Michael Schrage envisioned the Homebrew ‘Biotechnology’ Club in his article “Playing God in Your Basement” published in The Washington Post He drew parallels between homebrew hobbyists and the artistic hacker subculture that sparked the personal computer revolution, proposing that a similar technology subculture could emerge around DNA Schrage introduced the term "bio-hacker," which has since been widely embraced by DIYbio and various biohacking communities, including cyborg hackers (grinders) and those focused on sleep and diet optimization (Quantified Self).