The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Biohacking
New Scientist 210 [2807] 50
Putting the DIY in DNA
06 April 2011 by Jonathon Keats
Biopunk: DIY scientists hack the software of life by Marcus Wohlsen
Published by: Current
Price: £18.99/$25.95
Part field guide and part critique, Marcus Wohlsen's Biopunk navigates the contentious new terrain of biohacking
WHEN her dad was diagnosed with the hereditary disease haemochromatosis, 23-year-old Kay Aull did the natural thing, at least for an MIT graduate in
bioengineering. She went online and bought a used thermal cycler for $100. She also ordered several custom-made DNA sequences, designing each to bind
to a different mutation of the gene responsible for the disease. Then, using other second-hand equipment she had acquired, she set up a simple lab
test in her closet and determined the likelihood that she would inherit the condition.
Aull's wasn't the sort of achievement that earns grants or tenure. Doctors already have an effective haemochromatosis test, and most of her lab
techniques were way behind the times. Aull's test was remarkable because she did it herself, getting accurate results for a fraction of professional
lab costs. As Marcus Wohlsen writes in Biopunk, "Aull's test does not represent new science but a new way of doing science."
That new way is typically called biohacking, in acknowledgment of its computing forerunner. Biohackers share with computer hackers a distaste for
authority and mistrust of institutions, as well as an admiration for ready knowledge and quick-and-dirty techniques that put powerful tools into the
hands of everybody. Yet while this philosophy dates back to the early 1960s, the trickster sensibility has infiltrated biotech only in the past few
years.
As Wohlsen points out, biohacking is more controversial even than its digital equivalent. The viruses unleashed by black-hat computer hackers
merely destroy data. A novel strain of smallpox or swine flu cooked up by a rogue biocracker could kill people. A carelessly designed bug let loose in
nature could unleash ecological disaster. But "could" is the operative word, and Wohlsen does an admirable job of countering newspaper sensationalism
with a realistic assessment of how primitive synthetic biology still is - and how much more easily a terrorist could cultivate a biotoxin such as
ricin from castor beans.
The greater threat biohacking portends is to mainstream thinking. Wohlsen gives dozens of examples of biohackers who are working to circumvent or
subvert academia and big biotech. There's Tito Jankowski, who is providing free blueprints to his easy-to-build DNA copier. Andrew Hessel has formed a
"drug development co-op" to crowdsource a cure for cancer. And Meredith Patterson is attempting to reconfigure the bacteria used to culture yogurt as
a cheap at-home test to check if milk has been tainted with melamine.
Like the vast majority of biohacking projects, Hessel's is as yet more concept than co-op, and Patterson's melamine test remains in development.
Because Wohlsen is careful not to exaggerate their accomplishments, Biopunk is dogged by biohackers' lack of world-changing progress - the imbalance
between promise and achievement. In this respect the book feels somewhat premature, and makes the nascent movement seem less than serious.
In another respect, that may be an asset. The signature trait of biohacking is playfulness, which biohackers deem an antidote to the narrow-minded
professionalism of most scientists and the unquestioning deference they command. The prospects for success of Patterson's melamine test are secondary
to what it represents: the audacity to take on the multibillion-dollar biotech industry in her kitchen. Aull puts it best when she says that "doing it
in the sink demystifies the process".
Part field guide and part critique, Wohlsen's book provides a reliable point of departure for navigating this contentious new terrain, and ultimately
presents biohacking as a playful approach to science that renders science a playful approach to life.
Jonathon Keats is a writer and artist based in San Francisco. His latest book, Virtual Words: Language on the edge of science and technology, was
recently published by Oxford University Press.
djh
----
What I worry about is some
precocious 15-year old is going
to gene splice the right/wrong
thing and the last 3-inches of
my WA-HAA-HO is going to
fall off.
[Edited on 27-4-2011 by The WiZard is In]
[Edited on 27-4-2011 by The WiZard is In]
|
|
|
bahamuth
Hazard to Others
Posts: 384
Registered: 3-11-2009
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
Mood: Under stimulated
|
|
PCR based diagnostic tools are indeed powerful, easy and cheap.
Sadly enough, healthcare services, at least in Norway, do not utilize it fully. As seen with the so called bird flu "epidemic". They could have had a
complete picture of the spread, sound diagnosis and correct medication(or non at all) for the bird flu, yet they did not use this cheap and fast
method for diagnosis.
Other examples are sure to be out there..
The truth could very well be that the medical technology currently in use is around 30 years old, as a PCR and a agarose gel system should be at every
doctors office, giving a very fast and accurate diagnosis.
I work with molecular biology, and would not hesitate to sequence myself (and intend to) to gather health information about myself.
E.g. if one wanted to know if one had Toxoplasma gondii, or any other blood parasite or a number of other virulent stuff with DNA/RNA one
could go talk to the doctors, and they would order the primers (or have the most usual primers at hand) and sample some blood and , poof; one would
have the results in three days time, instead of two-three weeks as now where I live.
Also think everyone born should be sequenced, with the genome proprietary to the owner. This way we could eliminate the horrible diseases one might be
born with by screening would be parents. How this would be in practise I do not know...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
|
|
|
Thebrain
Harmless
Posts: 14
Registered: 26-5-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: indignant
|
|
cool biohacking article in BBC
Interesting article about the future of homebrewed biohacking.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130124-biohacking-fear-and...
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1376
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
Bahamuth, there are currently still several problems with sequencing everyone at birth:
1. It is still impossible to say from sequence information alone whether an unusual feature in someones DNA is actually pathogenic or simply uncommon
but benign. Every individual carries many de novo mutations (ie mutations that you have but your parents do not), but the vast majority of these are
harmless.
2. With only a few exceptions, genetic disorders are generally not treatable at present.
3. Good quality sequencing is still too expensive to employ on such a vast scale.
With healthcare already being as expensive as it is, I think it can not be justified to spend such vast amounts of money on catching generally rare
disorders in an early stage that you then can't treat anyway. With the current rate of progress, this may ofcourse change in a relatively short
timespan (perhaps as little 10 years).
[Edited on 23-2-2013 by phlogiston]
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
