Subscription Center
May 12, 2009 02:49 PM | 3
For not much more than the cost of an old-fashioned chemistry set, amateur genetic engineers are assembling homemade labs to create new organisms, the Wall Street Journal reports today.
The hobbyists’ aims are as diverse as their day jobs: from a software engineer building a cheap test for toxic ingredients to a college student hoping to kill off harmful bacteria in the body, the story says.
"The barrier for entry is pretty low," Meredith Patterson told the New Scientist. With a $40 ultrasonic jewelry cleaner and some genes for a green-glowing protein, she was able to make yogurt bacteria light up.
She hopes to produce bacteria that glow in the presence of melamine, the toxic chemical that made its way into some infant formula. "No lab was working on this," she told the magazine, "so I said let's do it ourselves."
Patterson works out of her kitchen, and dozens of others are cooking up new critters in rented warehouses, basements and closets.
Who is making sure that the DNA jockeys are behaving themselves? Mostly, no one. But someone supposedly poking around on behalf of an unnamed U.S. government agency called a biohacker featured in the WSJ story with questions about her work.
Critics point to concerns over novel viruses, such as the one recently cooked up by Mother Nature, H1N1, or bioterrorism, as real possibilities if the hobbyists aren't monitored or regulated in some way.
Licensing is one option. Some practitioners are looking to create their own set of safety standards, notes the New Scientist. Many biohackers have come together to share tips and their own experiments on the blog DIYbio, founded by Mackenzie Cowell.
"Biology is becoming less of a science and more of a technology," he told the New Scientist. He compares the biohackers of today with some of the early computer tinkerers in the 1970s. Perhaps this new breed of enthusiasts will create new interest and ideas for a field that has traditionally been the province of folks working in large, well-funded labs, he noted.
Image © iStockphoto/red_moon_rise
Tags:
DNA
More News Blog:
Next: Space shuttle checked for damage as rescue craft stands by
Previous: Spirit rover falls victim to Martian sand trap
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ Scientists And Musicians Collaborate To Explore The Underwater World Of Biomusic http://t.co/XDiG1VwzTK BoraZ RT @DaisyYuhas: Listening to nature's fragile soundscapes, http://t.co/9SAjVoJPDI @audubonmagazine
DrJudyStone "‘How could you forgive your mother for the way you were raised?’ It’s really not forgiveness IMO. It’s acceptance." http://t.co/xmDXRe3jYL
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
3 Comments
Add CommentSounds like this sort of thing could be hard to control. I hate to think what amateurs could do to our gut bacteria...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisControl? Well structured licensing may regulate/coordinate development of the field in general, but what about the secretive asymmetrical attackers? Biotech is going nano, so how will our species manage the upstarts (eg Al Qaeda)? With freedom, persuasion, self-image therapy and love? That won't get the job done....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it will be near impossible to license/regulate something that is easy to start. Especially with the fact that if there is a will, there is a way being true here.-quoting the article, " $40 ultrasonic jewelry cleaner and some genes for a green-glowing protein, she was able to make yogurt bacteria light up. " If all it takes is a creative mind to spark invention, I say let the games begin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this