• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

As Synthetic Biology Becomes Affordable, Amateur Labs Thrive


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 elwalvador

  • Guest
  • 54 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 September 2008 - 01:25 AM


I've marked in bold the main points of the article so that you don't have to read the whole thing and still get the jist of what it's talking about.

As Synthetic Biology Becomes Affordable, Amateur Labs Thrive
By Carolyn Y. Johnson
THE BOSTON GLOBE
September 16, 2008
In a third-floor loft where programmers build Internet start-ups, Mackenzie Cowell is talking about the tools he and like-minded young colleagues are using to fuel what they hope will be the next big thing in biology. The list includes a cut-up Charlie Card, ingredients bought on eBay to make a kind of scientific Jell-O, and a refrigerator, just scored on Craigslist.com, that chills to 80 degrees below zero.

Cowell is part of an effort called DIYbio — short for do-it-yourself biology — that aims to move science into the hands of hobbyists. It is starting by holding sessions where amateurs extract DNA, and attempt genetic fingerprinting using common household items and the kitchen sink.

“It shows you how much science can be about duct tape and having a few screws in the right place,” Cowell said. “It shatters that clinical image.”

What Cowell and crew hope to achieve is a democratization of science that could propel the field of biology into the mainstream, much as computer hackers fueled computer development a generation ago. After all, Silicon Valley’s Homebrew Computer Club played a part in the personal computer industry and counts Apple Inc. founders among its attendees; Cowell would like DIYbio to be the Homebrew Club of Biology.

Cowell and his mostly 20-something friends are on a mission that seems inevitable to them, and is beginning to spark the attention, interest — and sometimes safety concern — of professional scientists. The recent shutdown of a lab in a retired chemist’s home in Marlborough focused attention on the question of safety and the regulation of citizen scientists.

The idea of doing useful science at home isn’t new. Backyard stargazers have long made contributions to astronomy. Bird-watchers participate in a wildlife census.

Now, enter the biohacker.

The movement is getting much of its steam from synthetic biology, a field of science that seeks to make working with cells and genes more like building circuits by creating standardized biological parts. The dream, already playing out in the annual International Genetically Engineered Machine competition at MIT, is that biology novices could browse a catalog of ready-made biological parts and use them to create customized organisms. Technological advances have made it quite simple to insert genes into bacteria to give them the ability to, for example, detect arsenic or produce vitamins.

“This follows in the heels of enormous American enthusiasm for invention that carries on in each generation,” said Scott Mohr, a Boston University chemist who is writing a primer on synthetic biology.

“This is part of the same cycle: You go out there, you’re an inventor, and you build mechanical stuff — my dad did that,” Mohr said. “You go into computer programming and write viruses and video games. Those are the parents and older brothers of people who are going to do something even more thrilling” — experiments with living things.

But the work also raises fears that people could create a deadly microbe on purpose, just as computer hackers have unleashed crippling viruses or broken into government websites.

There is little formal regulation specifically for home labs. The state Department of Environmental Protection requires permits for businesses that create hazardous waste. Cambridge was the first city in the nation to pass a law regulating DNA research more than three decades ago, but it was intended to regulate professional scientists at universities and businesses, not individuals.

Still, authorities have discretion to act if they suspect wrongdoing. In 2004, Buffalo art professor Steve Kurtz was arrested and investigated as a possible bioterrorist because petri dishes and laboratory equipment were found in his home in upstate New York, after his wife had died of a heart attack.

Tom Knight, a senior research scientist at MIT who is cofounding a synthetic biology company called Ginkgo BioWorks, sees the transformative value of biohacking — the phrase used to describe doing to living organisms what computer hackers have long done with electronics. But he has reservations about putting such power into the hands of amateurs.
“I think if the safety issues can be addressed, there is a big opportunity,” Knight said. “It’s a huge issue; how do you regulate so [people] don’t cause havoc.”

The promises and risks of biohackery were addressed in a paper this summer in the new journal Systems and Synthetic Biology. “A young crowd of enthusiastic biohackers … may spark a wave of innovation,” wrote the coordinator of a European task force examining the implications of synthetic biology. But he cautioned that amateurs who don’t adhere to a professional code of conduct and lack sufficient safety training raise the specter of biosafety and security risks.

The clash between the potential benefits and dangers of doing home science were highlighted by the case of Victor Deeb. The retired 71-year-old chemist in Marlborough saw his basement lab dismantled by authorities this summer after it was noticed by fire officials putting out a second-floor air conditioner fire.

The state DEP said officials intervened in Deeb’s workspace because it did not meet lab standards. Chemical companies shipping Deeb their materials were unaware that they were shipping to a residence, authorities said.

Deeb, who said he was trying to make safer surface coatings for food containers, insists that the chemicals he was using were less hazardous than common cleaners and household chemicals. He questions why his hobby was seen as more dangerous than, for example, a hunter with a gun collection, or a person using a propane grill.

“The more I tried to explain, the more they thought I was a lunatic,” Deeb said, questioning why he should need permits to tinker in his basement.

Not far from the loft where Cowell is trying to hatch his grass-roots scientific revolution, a group of synthetic biologists at MIT — whose business cards identify them as DNA hackers — are working with Knight to create a resource that could bring sophisticated biology techniques within reach of amateurs.

The company plans to provide standardized biological parts to biotech companies or clean fuel entrepreneurs, not casual garage scientists, but they see the excitement of what biohackers are trying to do. This summer, the company made a comic book-style protocol, with each frame showing how to do a bit of biological engineering, and brought it to a hacker expo, Foo Camp, where people made cells that smelled like banana or turned red.

“For us, it’s a continuum,” said Reshma Shetty, one of Ginkgo’s founders. “We can make it easier for newcomers and professors” to do biology, “and make it so people can start biotech companies in their basement, just like they can build a Web 2.0 company in their basement.” link


And here is another article talking about the same thing

The era of garage biology is upon us. Want to participate? Take a moment to buy yourself a molecular biology lab on eBay. A mere $1,000 will get you a set of precision pipettors for handling liquids and an electrophoresis rig for analyzing DNA. Side trips to sites like BestUse and LabX (two of my favorites) may be required to round out your purchases with graduated cylinders or a PCR thermocycler for amplifying DNA. If you can't afford a particular gizmo, just wait six months - the supply of used laboratory gear only gets better with time. Links to sought-after reagents and protocols can be found at DNAHack. And, of course, Google is no end of help.

Still, don't expect to cure cancer right away, surprise your loved ones with a stylish new feather goatee, or crank out a devilish frankenbug. (Instant bioterrorism is likely beyond your reach, too.) The goodies you buy online require practice to use properly. The necessary skills may be acquired through trial and error, studying online curricula, or taking a lab course at a community college. Although there are cookbook recipes for procedures to purify DNA or insert it into a bacterium, bench biology is not easy; the many molecular manipulations required to play with genes demand real skills.

Science, after all, involves doing things no one has done before, and it most often requires developing new art. But art can be learned, and, more important, this kind of art can be taught to robots. They excel at repetitive tasks requiring consistent precision, and an online search will uncover a wide variety of lab automation tools for sale. For a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, you can purchase boxy-looking robots with spindly arms that handle platefuls of samples, mix and distribute reagents - and make a fine martini. Some of the units are sophisticated enough that you can teach them all the new tricks published in fancy journals. Just make sure you have plenty of electrical outlets.

That said, actually manipulating a genome with your new tools requires learning something about software that helps design gene sequences. These bioinformatics programs are all over the Web, and in no time you'll be tweaking genome sequences on your computer late into the night. But while you may discover some interesting relationships between organisms, and with access to the right databases you may even find a connection between a mutation and a disease (no mean contribution, to be sure), the real work gets done at the lab bench.

If you want to get down and dirty bashing DNA, order genetic parts suitable for use in E. coli from the synthetic biology group at MIT (available soon). These genes constitute a library of defined components that can be assembled into control systems for biological computation, or used to program bacteria in order to produce interesting proteins and other compounds. There's even an online design tool for genetic circuits. If you're more into hacking plants - perhaps you want true plastic fruit growing on your tomato vine or apple tree - head to BioForge, where you can get expert info.

Concern that these resources can be used intentionally to create hazardous organisms is overblown. Relatively few labs possess all the necessary equipment for the task. Despite the recent demonstration of working viruses constructed from mail-order DNA, repeating those feats would be difficult.

Yet it is getting easier to synthesize whole genomes, particularly if your aims aren't sinister. Instead of trying to assemble a viral or bacterial genome yourself, you can order the whole sequence online from Blue Heron Biotechnology, where researchers will first check it for genes in known pathogens and toxins, and then, two to four weeks later, FedEx you the DNA. A few thousand dollars will buy a couple of genes, enough for a simple control circuit; soon it will buy most of a bacterial genome. And your Synthetic Biology@Home project will get easier when microfluidic DNA synthesizers hit the market. These have already been used to write sequences equivalent in size to small bacterial genomes, a capability currently limited to a few academic and industrial labs - but not for much longer.

The advent of garage biology is at hand. Skills and technology are proliferating, and the synthesis and manipulation of genomes are no longer confined to ivory towers. The technology has even reached the toy market: The Discovery DNA Explorer kit for kids 10 and older (see Wired, issue 11.12) is surprisingly functional at $80, and how long will it be before we see a Slashdot story about a Lego Mindstorms laboratory robot?

Sure, few high school students will be able to pay for this equipment with their earnings from Mickey D's, but anyone who spends a few thou on cars, boats, or computers can get to work hacking biology tomorrow.


Might it be possible that some day a cure for lung cancer might be found in the basement of an amaeur biology hobbyist? After all the first modern day personal computers were built in the garages of what later came to be known as Silicon Valley by people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. On ebay right now there are 2 scanning electron microscopes selling for a mere 100 thousand dollars. How many of you would like to start a lab in your basement or garage? I know I would. Imagine synthesing your own drugs instead of buying them at massively overpriced prices. This is how were going to cure aging, some guy in his basement!

#2 bixbyte

  • Guest
  • 559 posts
  • 45
  • Location:End of the Galaxy
  • NO

Posted 25 December 2008 - 04:46 PM

SAN FRANCISCO – The Apple computer was invented in a garage. Same with the Google search engine. Now, tinkerers are working at home with the basic building blocks of life itself.

Using homemade lab equipment and the wealth of scientific knowledge available online, these hobbyists are trying to create new life forms through genetic engineering — a field long dominated by Ph.D.s toiling in university and corporate laboratories.

In her San Francisco dining room lab, for example, 31-year-old computer programmer Meredith L. Patterson is trying to develop genetically altered yogurt bacteria that will glow green to signal the presence of melamine, the chemical that turned Chinese-made baby formula and pet food deadly.

"People can really work on projects for the good of humanity while learning about something they want to learn about in the process," she said.

So far, no major gene-splicing discoveries have come out anybody's kitchen or garage.

But critics of the movement worry that these amateurs could one day unleash an environmental or medical disaster. Defenders say the future Bill Gates of biotech could be developing a cure for cancer in the garage.

Many of these amateurs may have studied biology in college but have no advanced degrees and are not earning a living in the biotechnology field. Some proudly call themselves "biohackers" — innovators who push technological boundaries and put the spread of knowledge before profits.

In Cambridge, Mass., a group called DIYbio is setting up a community lab where the public could use chemicals and lab equipment, including a used freezer, scored for free off Craigslist, that drops to 80 degrees below zero, the temperature needed to keep many kinds of bacteria alive.

Co-founder Mackenzie Cowell, a 24-year-old who majored in biology in college, said amateurs will probably pursue serious work such as new vaccines and super-efficient biofuels, but they might also try, for example, to use squid genes to create tattoos that glow.

Cowell said such unfettered creativity could produce important discoveries.

"We should try to make science more sexy and more fun and more like a game," he said.

Patterson, the computer programmer, wants to insert the gene for fluorescence into yogurt bacteria, applying techniques developed in the 1970s.

She learned about genetic engineering by reading scientific papers and getting tips from online forums. She ordered jellyfish DNA for a green fluorescent protein from a biological supply company for less than $100. And she built her own lab equipment, including a gel electrophoresis chamber, or DNA analyzer, which she constructed for less than $25, versus more than $200 for a low-end off-the-shelf model.

Jim Thomas of ETC Group, a biotechnology watchdog organization, warned that synthetic organisms in the hands of amateurs could escape and cause outbreaks of incurable diseases or unpredictable environmental damage.

"Once you move to people working in their garage or other informal location, there's no safety process in place," he said.

Some also fear that terrorists might attempt do-it-yourself genetic engineering. But Patterson said: "A terrorist doesn't need to go to the DIYbio community. They can just enroll in their local community college."

http://news.yahoo.co...it_yourself_dna

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#3 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 26 December 2008 - 05:36 AM

I saw the article posted on Yahoo News and was just about to post it when I saw you had already. Interesting article. I went to the DIYbio website, but it didn't seem like they had many projects going yet. Definitely an interesting concept.

#4 Zenob

  • Guest, F@H
  • 328 posts
  • 1

Posted 26 December 2008 - 04:16 PM

I for one will welcome our new glow-in-the-dark jellyfish overlords...

:)

#5 manofsan

  • Guest
  • 1,223 posts
  • 56

Posted 26 December 2008 - 11:46 PM

Anyone here doing this?

http://www.google.co...CBWfUwD95A1Q8O0

Anyone got any good product ideas?

#6 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,114 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 27 December 2008 - 12:48 PM

I went to the DIYbio website, but it didn't seem like they had many projects going yet. Definitely an interesting concept.

Tell us when you see what to buy and how we could share some work at home, against aging.

Also, you may want to participate to Mprize @ home (having a few mice at home to share lifespan studies; mice are now found in every pet store): answer this poll: http://www.imminst.o...o...=21310&st=0

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 28 December 2008 - 02:40 AM

I for one will welcome our new glow-in-the-dark jellyfish overlords...

:-D



:) lol

#8 Sasuke

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 December 2008 - 02:39 AM

The most major obstacle is important equipment. Fundamental equipment, like spectroscopes and sequencers are far too expensive. It is one thing to have a -80C freezer as mentioned (which btw is incorrectly references as a temperature to keep bacteria alive, although stocks in glycerol are sometimes frozen in there most bacterial samples are ruined in even -20C). The touted "DNA analysis chamber" I expect is a UV lamp.

Some of the most accessible ideas mentioned are not really breakthrough material. It has become commonplace for people to attempt entrepreneurship with biology using things which glow in response to things. E.g., I sadly have distant associates wasting time trying to make frogs and plants which grow in response to gas leaks, soon hoping to rake in 100 million. These methods are uninnovative and therefore pretty uninteresting to modern biologists. Glowing reporter proteins won the last nobel prize, however they are now a ubiquitous tool that has been used by competent scientists make good use of this as a verification of molecular mechanisms, not a tacky glowing display. It has become so well known that it is boggling the article refers to it as unfettered creativity. It is tragically sad to think these uneducated community college biologists may have been duped into believing otherwise.

In the example of a yogurt with bacteria species which glows in response to melamine or some other chemical can be done following the protocols established by real scientists in the past. This cannot truly be called research. Since this methodology is well known, if an industry wishes to apply this they can do it with far superior efficiency and quality control than someone from their home, and if not, then the results of this research are fruitless.

I am not sure where the concept that people who took one biology class and have no research exposure have better tools of creativity than those who excelled in a highly competetive research career and constantly expose themselves to the latest in research creativity through their peers at levels which the DIY people cannot participate in. Especially when what the people in their garages have to show thus far is the likes of glowing yogurt. The most productive thing I would hope for as a result of this is a fish shop owner improving business by making glowing fish.

#9 jdgauchat

  • Guest
  • 211 posts
  • 30
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 29 December 2008 - 03:26 AM

Hi Sasuke

I think you don´t get it. The old IBM had more experience and more tools and more equipment and more professionals, and programmers and everything than Steve Jobs on his garage or Bill Gates on his room apparment. But who build the companies that we know today?

The biologist that have research exposure all the time have compromise too. They must do what their labs want them to do. They must do what their bosses want. Biology is their way of life, they can´t go in diferent directions, and mor important, most of them have social impositions, most or them are believers and don´t see the importance of fight against aging.

I think this will be the way to get our goals. We can´t expect solutions from companies who need make money to survive if they work for a society that doesn´t care about aging.

Edited by macrojd, 29 December 2008 - 03:27 AM.


#10 Sasuke

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 December 2008 - 03:44 AM

Hi Sasuke

I think you don´t get it. The old IBM had more experience and more tools and more equipment and more professionals, and programmers and everything than Steve Jobs on his garage or Bill Gates on his room apparment. But who build the companies that we know today?

The biologist that have research exposure all the time have compromise too. They must do what their labs want them to do. They must do what their bosses want. Biology is their way of life, they can´t go in diferent directions, and mor important, most of them have social impositions, most or them are believers and don´t see the importance of fight against aging.

I think this will be the way to get our goals. We can´t expect solutions from companies who need make money to survive if they work for a society that doesn´t care about aging.


I do not see modern biology as equatable to early PC development times. There already is a "Bill Gates" of biology (Craig Venter), and he got this status by speeding the sequencing of the human genome with huge corporate resources after a career in research. Software programming is

Academic biologists have far more freedom than people do independently. They have extensive resources and better abilities. When they have tenure they have complete freedom of choice in research. Prior to that they are restricted by their ability to get funding, which is largely dependent on the ability to demonstrate potential in an area of research to other academics. They are free to do whatever they want, they just need to be able to afford it.

I do not know why you believe that many of them do not fight aging. That is actually one of the more hot topics. Research in this area is of obvious benefit and a good area to get a grant in. In the corporate side there is a lot of interest too. Significant advancements in anti-aging for a company would mean profit (particularly in the US where the bulk of the money is in the hands of the older members of society).

#11 jdgauchat

  • Guest
  • 211 posts
  • 30
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 29 December 2008 - 04:28 AM

The programmers of IBM had freedom too and nobody do what Steve Jobs or Bill Gates did. The Xerox programmers invented the graphic interface but they didn't know what to do whit that. Steve Jobs knew. What you don´t get it is the process of creation, the process you need to find solutions. On this process you need different kind of way of thinking and different paths to follow. Im pretty sure that the anti-aging solution is not in the way of company labs right now, as the Apple personal computers wasn't on the mind of Xerox executives. The approach was completly different on those days and is different right now.

Somebody on his home can do more than an entire company because that "somebody" knows that this is the only chance he has to exist. The company and its scientist will be following a completely different path, focus on final products and solutions for a society who doesn't really care about the fight against aging and involuntary natural dead.

I forgot to say that this is the most important news I ever read in my life ;)

PD: you don't have to go far to Apple and Microsoft history, see YouTube history, MySpace or any new company these days. Why Google bought YouTube? Google is a multi-billon company, why they need to buy a garage company like YouTube?

Edited by macrojd, 29 December 2008 - 04:56 AM.


#12 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,114 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 05 January 2009 - 08:40 PM

I am sure that if research was better paid there would be a lot more researchers and a lot more science progress.

Similarly, I am convinced that there are many people in the world that aren't researchers and would do a great job in research even in their garage and with a simple internet connexion to discuss and read papers.

#13 treonsverdery

  • Guest
  • 1,312 posts
  • 161
  • Location:where I am at

Posted 04 March 2009 - 06:35 AM

Just a few hours ago I thought of a nifty thing that would make a nifty project

motile bacteria leave traces along their path Engineering these bacteria to make path traces of just the right width to diffract light plus also engineering them to make goo (kind of like biofilm) would create sparkly diffraction tracks possibly visible to the human eye whic can detect just one photon but presumably requires more to register at the brain

Anyway just one proteus bacteria could make itself visible if it left the right width goo trail but also had the behavior of going on a raster path
--->---->--->---->--->(@@@@@@@)
---<----<---<---<---<-
--->--->--->--->--->--^

at refractive width this would be all glittery like a CD

PLUS proteus move thus the glittery CD appearance would shift n change as you watched it like a bacterial trip visual

There is an additional socially beneficial use I think the raster path would change on exposure to various trace chemicals thus it is potentially a sensitive massively parallel visual chemodetector like um, to detect naughty things at airports

I thought of this as I was trying to think of a new type of bacterial talent The ability to actually attract a larger host or food even as just one bacteria nsects learn things thus I thought if the refractive bacteria were beneficial plus visible to nsects they would recognize then transport n host the bacteria One thought was that bacteria that make Octopamine which is the reward chemical of honeybee brains would be favored with bee visits rapidly spreading the refractive bacteria possibly from a single bacterium octopamine releasing cytokines might be even more effective at tiny doses

the colonies would look like little glittery liquid gems

but If it escapes then there is sparkly iridescent goop on a dumpster near you

#14 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 04 March 2009 - 07:23 AM

The important thing is that lay people are interested, motivated to learn and tinker. This is wonderful stuff - the more people get involved the merrier. Personally, I try to excite people about molecular biology whenever I can (except when they start to hide their yawns..)

Anyone with a computer and connection to the internet can run bioinformatic style experiments using free online resources as are found at the NIH web.

#15 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 04 March 2009 - 08:12 AM

The important thing is that lay people are interested, motivated to learn and tinker. This is wonderful stuff - the more people get involved the merrier. Personally, I try to excite people about molecular biology whenever I can (except when they start to hide their yawns..)

Anyone with a computer and connection to the internet can run bioinformatic style experiments using free online resources as are found at the NIH web.


*giggle* I definately view it as good news. Sure, there's a chance of accidentally creating superplauge, just like theres a chance of a random mutation turning me into the incredible Hulk.

Is there the likelihood of major advances coming from this? No. No more than the likelihood existed that the Wright Brothers would succeed were millions of others, including some very intelligent and well funded people, failed. Edison learned 2000 ways not to make a lightbulb, and provided decent records are kept, this will likely give us several million failed attempts which will narrow down the field of the possible.

Never underestimate the power of failure to produce results.

Will ten thousand useless, silly, and pointless things be researched? Undoubtedly. Does it matter? No.

Human progress has always been driven by individual talent. Today we progress so fast because we've harnessed individuals into structured environments and applied assembly line processes to speed things up. It's a good system, but there is still room for the individual, in their garage, creating genius, simply because no-one told them, "that's impossible/unprofitable/undesireable"

Yankee ingenuity. It's the American way. Glad to see it still exists.

#16 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,074 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 19 April 2009 - 03:22 PM

The Geneticist in the Garage

The trend continues. While these biohackers have the good of humanity in mind, I can empathize with the call to regulate in this instance. The Silicon Valley-type garage hackers (Jobs, Waz, Gates, etc...) similarly dealt with information technology, but at the time, it did not have as intimate a connection with human health as does its bio counterpart in the 21st century. Still, I would expect greater safety to be had through a wide and transparent dissemination of bio knowledge and tools, than through one-size-fits-all government regulation.

Meredith Patterson is not your typical genetic scientist. Her laboratory is based in the dining room of her San Francisco apartment. She uses a plastic salad spinner as a centrifuge and Ziploc plastic bags as airtight containers for her samples. But the genetically modified organism (GMO) she is attempting to create on a budget of less than $500 (£350) could provide a breakthrough in food safety.

The 31-year-old ex-computer programmer and now biohacker is working on modifying jellyfish genes and adding them to yoghurt to detect the toxic chemical melamine, which was found in baby milk in China last year after causing a number of deaths, and kidney damage to thousands of infants. Her idea is to engineer yoghurt so that in the presence of the toxin it turns fluorescent green, warning the producer that the food is contaminated. If her experiment is successful, she will release the design into the public domain.

"I haven't had a huge amount of success so far," says Patterson. "But science is often about failing until you get it right." She has decided to invest in an electro­porator she found on eBay for $150, which should speed things up. "It's actually not that hard. It's a bit like making yoghurt. And if there's material left over from the experiment, I can eat it," she says.


Related Imminst member effort.

#17 crayfish

  • Guest
  • 31 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 April 2009 - 10:07 PM

Interesting. I hope that things that can be achieved at an amateur level, but I am not optimistic about much being achieved on an ordinary person's budget. The parallel with software engineering is misleading, as all that is needed to create exciting programs is a halfway decent computer and imagination.

Scientific equipment is crazy expensive. I spent in the region of £35,000-£40,000 over the last two years on research supplies for my PhD project, and I've hardly been splashing out. That's just in consumables and standard supplies - no hardware. I would have thought that it would be more effective for a hobbyist with a good idea to approach an established laboratory.

Edited by crayfish, 19 April 2009 - 10:11 PM.


#18 orion602

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 57

Posted 20 April 2009 - 01:49 PM

i hope one day, I will be cloning mice in my garage and carrying out treatments that will make them live at least 200% longer and rejuvenate old ones :|o :~

#19 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,114 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 20 April 2009 - 09:55 PM

i hope one day, I will be cloning mice in my garage and carrying out treatments that will make them live at least 200% longer and rejuvenate old ones :) :)

- testing compounds on mice lifespan, at home, is feasible
- cell culture screening for life extension, at home, might be feasible

#20 kurt9

  • Guest
  • 256 posts
  • 26

Posted 02 May 2009 - 02:56 AM

I say good for DIY biology. In history, human organizations and societies have tended to be static. They resist change and resent anyone who thinks out of the box or who aspires to become or do anything more than what everyone else does. As a result, innovation and change has always come from outside the system, not from within. There is no reason why the present condition is any different. The system has failed and will continue to fail to create what we want. NASA has not developed low cost space access, the fusion program has failed to create commercial fusion power, and establishment biomedical research has failed to cure aging. This is because the establishment is not interested in making these things a reality. People from outside the system have to make them a reality. We cannot count on the system. DIY biology is the present-day manifestation of the original DIY spirit that came from Stuart Brand and the 60's culture. I believe this is the open source way to create the new biotech, much as the experimenters and hobbyists of the 70's created much of the computer industry that exists today.

Certain people who call themselves "techno-progressives" believe that the innovations we want can come from within the system. This is delusional. This has never been the case in human history. Why would anyone believe that the present day is any different?

#21 SiliconAnimation

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 02 May 2009 - 04:10 PM

This article should serve as a warning to many about the possibly unregulated use of genetic technology. If there are DNA "hackers" to be had in the near future at every or any household, Big Brother better keep a close eye.

#22 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,074 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 02 May 2009 - 08:15 PM

Big Brother better keep a close eye.


This is a fair point, but I think a better way is for DIY Hackers to develop their own open-source surveillance system. If Big Brother is going to be keeping an eye things then the surveillance better be open to the public. It will have to be transparent, otherwise there will be abuse and creativity and progress will be stifled.

#23 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,074 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:34 PM

A group of 111 organizations have called for a moratorium on synthetic biology. I think a moratorium is rather rash, but the nature of the oversight could be more open and transparent.

#24 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:21 AM

A group of 111 organizations have called for a moratorium on synthetic biology. I think a moratorium is rather rash, but the nature of the oversight could be more open and transparent.


Looks like the group is heavy on the crunchy granola; kind of a Luddite approach. OTOH, considering the recent flap about possible publication of the methodology to make lethal bird flu viri more transmissible, you can see where synthetic biology could ultimately head. I remember the ban on molecular biological experimentation in 1978 or so. That was voluntary, on the part of the researchers involved, who really wanted to think about the possible consequences of their work. It's my understanding that modern synthetic biologists are already pretty safety conscious, but this stuff needs at least some oversight. I don't want to see kids brewing a new plague in their bedrooms.

#25 manofsan

  • Guest
  • 1,223 posts
  • 56

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:12 AM

One of the key obstacles is obviously safety. You can tinker around with computer software or computer circuitboards to your heart's content. But you can't just experiment by trying out home-made medical cures on human beings all you want.

I recently read that scientists at Georgetown University have discovered a new and easy way to grow human tissue cultures outside of the body - something which was never previously possible. Well, maybe that's the key thing that's needed to enable DIY people to experiment on cures. Don't experiment on human beings - just experiment on tissue cultures. It's a serious matter to jeopardize a human life, but nobody cares if a tissue culture dies. The tissue culture could become the breadboard or PC of the future.

Edited by manofsan, 23 March 2012 - 02:14 AM.


To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#26 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:48 AM

This sounds exciting. I can't wait until I can do some biohacking on my own :D




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users