Genetic Engineering As a Hobby...

[MKSheppard]

This Can't End Well

December 27, 2008
Biohackers attempt to unstitch the fabric of life
Chris Ayres in New York

At a loss for things to do this woozy post-Christmas weekend? Well, if you have access to a garage or basement — or even just some extra room on your dining table — you could always take up a hobby that is exploding in popularity across the Atlantic: genetic engineering. Or, to use the more fashionable term, “biohacking”.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that thousands of Americans now spend their free time consulting the internet, jerry-rigging laboratory equipment, and tinkering with the very foundations of life on Earth as we know it.

“People can really work on projects for the good of humanity while learning about something they want to learn about in the process,“ says Meredith Patterson, 31, a computer programmer by day turned biohacker by night.

In her San Francisco dining room Ms Patterson is currently attempting to rewire the DNA of yoghurt bacteria so that they will glow green to signal the presence of melamine, the chemical that infamously turned Chinese-made baby milk formula into poison.

Ms Patterson says that she picked up the basics of genetic engineering from scientific papers and Google.

All she needed for her project was a jar of yoghurt, some jellyfish DNA — purchased online for less than $100 (£65) from a biological supply company — and a few pieces of lab equipment (including a DNA analyser), which she constructed herself for less than $25. Eventually, say experts, such equipment could be sold in kits: a kind of My Little Genetically-Altered Lifeform playset for adults.

While acknowledging the potential risk of unleashing a genetically altered Frankenstein's monster on the public, biohackers argue that it was DIYers who brought about America's other great technological revolution: that of the personal computer.

Indeed, Apple and Google were created in hobbyists' garages, and have since gone on to change millions of lives for the better while contributing billions of dollars to the global economy.

Regardless, the growth in popularity of biohacking seems unstoppable. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, an organisation named DIYbio is busy setting up a community lab where people can use specialist equipment such as a freezer capable of storing bacteria at ninus 62C.

The group's co-founder, Mackenzie Cowell, 24, who studied biology at university, predicts that some biohackers are likely to make breakthroughs in everything from vaccines to super-efficient fuels. Others will simply fool around, he says: for example, using squid genes to make tattoos glow in the dark.

All of which he believes will ultimately benefit humanity. “We should try to make science more sexy and more fun and more like a game,” he says.

Alas, not everyone agrees. Jim Thomas, of ETC Group, a biotechnology watchdog group, says that synthetic organisms could ultimately escape and cause outbreaks of incurable diseases or unpredictable environmental damage. “Once you move to people working in their garage or other informal locations, there's no safety processes in place,” he says, adding that terrorists could be inspired by amateur genetic tinkering to launch a devastating bioattack on America.

Mrs Patterson shrugs at such arguments, however. “A terrorist doesn't need to go to the DIYbio community,” she says. “They can just enrol in their local college.”

-----------------------------------------

We're fucked, fucked, game over man!

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well she did have to buy the jellyfish DNA. I think its a tad harder to buy the smallpox genome.

[Fire Fly]

Hmm, the article is a little disturbing. I didn't even know there existed a do it yourself biotechnology subculture. I'm reminded of that one quote by Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park:

I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility... for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it.

[General Zod]

Hmm, the article is a little disturbing. I didn't even know there existed a do it yourself biotechnology subculture. I'm reminded of that one quote by Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park:

I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility... for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it.

That quote is mind numbingly lame, because all scientists have to rely on what others have done before in order to make any kind of real progress to some degree or another.

[Fire Fly]

That quote is mind numbingly lame, because all scientists have to rely on what others have done before in order to make any kind of real progress to some degree or another.

Not in the context of the article it isn't. The idea of someone who has never previously worked with molecular biology suddenly reading a cook book, intended to help professionals, to create their own homemade microorganisms smacks of disregard for standard science safety protocols. The onus has always been on the scientists to rigorously demonstrate that any new area of research that they are interested in is safe before more work can be conducted. What kinds of precautions are these amateurs taking? The fears about biotechnology are perfectly legitimate because lax understanding of the science and lax protocols can easily result in nanoliter quantities of genetically engineered DNA being picked up by other unintended microbes. What strains of E. coli are they using? Are they using any kinds of bacteria capable of producing an endospore?

[General Zod]

Not in the context of the article it isn't. The idea of someone who has never previously worked with molecular biology suddenly reading a cook book, intended to help professionals, to create their own homemade microorganisms smacks of disregard for standard science safety protocols. The onus has always been on the scientists to rigorously demonstrate that any new area of research that they are interested in is safe before more work can be conducted. What kinds of precautions are these amateurs taking? The fears about biotechnology are perfectly legitimate because lax understanding of the science and lax protocols can easily result in nanoliter quantities of genetically engineered DNA being picked up by other unintended microbes. What strains of E. coli are they using? Are they using any kinds of bacteria capable of producing an endospore?

I don't see how they can make anything more dangerous than with what laypeople can make with homemade chemistry setups and a few chemicals already. As long as the especially dangerous materials are kept away from people without proper training then I'm having a hard time seeing any real problems.

[Samuel]

I feel like I'm in Civilization:Test of Time. Maybe we can recruit these amatuers into the new genetic-industrial complex.

[Sarevok]

Is not this dangerous for people to do in their homes ?

To use an analogy if you are a computer virus writer the worst you can do is wreck your own PC. But people working with biological organisms risk infecting themselves with nasty diseases. There is a reason labs are expensive complexes built to contain such hazardous. But some 22 year old student is not going to have the proper resources. It would be like building bombs in the garage. Yeah the ingredients for explosive devices are available on the market but there is a good chance the do it yourselfer will lose a few fingers to an accidental explosion.

[General Zod]

Is not this dangerous for people to do in their homes ?

To use an analogy if you are a computer virus writer the worst you can do is wreck your own PC. But people working with biological organisms risk infecting themselves with nasty diseases. There is a reason labs are expensive complexes built to contain such hazardous. But some 22 year old student is not going to have the proper resources. It would be like building bombs in the garage. Yeah the ingredients for explosive devices are available on the market but there is a good chance the do it yourselfer will lose a few fingers to an accidental explosion.

I think people are worrying too much here. As long as the ultra dangerous stuff is kept tightly under control why would it be any more likely for a random amateur to invent the superflu in their basement more than it would be to make a city-leveling nuke? That's really about the scale of things we're comparing to on here.

[Shroom Man 777]

Is this even real news? No one's ever heard of this crap before. "Anecdotal evidence" and "thousands of basement bioscientists"? It sounds just like those Iraqi bioweapons manufacturing trailer parks.

But "biohackers" man, that's a totally new awesome buzzword! When some bioluminescent melamine-infested jellyfish tries to eat me, I'll totally scream "OMG haxors!"

[Maraxus]

This article seems rather alarmist to me. All this "Biohacking" nonsense seems no more aggressive or harmful than an when I played around with E.Coli and a bunch of plasmids for an AP Biology project. The fact that students can order plasmids, bacteria, and everything else needed for "biohacking" indicates to me that the article is overstating the danger of "biohacking" quite a bit.

[Sky Captain]

This is totally new to me, never thought someone without hundreds of thousands $ worth of lab equipment can mess around with DNA.

Worst case scenario: someone modifies some bacteria in a way it now can digest plastics and unleashes it upon the world ending our civilization. A real Mutant 59 the Plastic Eater.

[Sarevok]

Is not this dangerous for people to do in their homes ?

To use an analogy if you are a computer virus writer the worst you can do is wreck your own PC. But people working with biological organisms risk infecting themselves with nasty diseases. There is a reason labs are expensive complexes built to contain such hazardous. But some 22 year old student is not going to have the proper resources. It would be like building bombs in the garage. Yeah the ingredients for explosive devices are available on the market but there is a good chance the do it yourselfer will lose a few fingers to an accidental explosion.

I think people are worrying too much here. As long as the ultra dangerous stuff is kept tightly under control why would it be any more likely for a random amateur to invent the superflu in their basement more than it would be to make a city-leveling nuke? That's really about the scale of things we're comparing to on here.

I was not referring to danger to the public. Rather what some over enthusiastic kid might do to himself while following instructions he just googled.

[Melchior]

As far as I know (I've only rarely been in contact with this kind of gear, genetic engineering is not my main avenue of study), the required equipment to be able to do something dangerous is prohibitively expensive, fragile, needs equally expensive consumables and is heavily regulated (being in Italy, where research is chronically underfunded, most professors like to continually remember us the price tag of everything).
It's not like you can successfully insert the cDNA for the diphtheria toxin in random strains of airborne bacteria in your basement (a somewhat similar approach was used for expressing humanized antibodies linked with the toxin and meant to attack specifically certain kinds of neoplastic tissue).

[Starglider]

To use an analogy if you are a computer virus writer the worst you can do is wreck your own PC. But people working with biological organisms risk infecting themselves with nasty diseases. There is a reason labs are expensive complexes built to contain such hazardous. But some 22 year old student is not going to have the proper resources. It would be like building bombs in the garage. Yeah the ingredients for explosive devices are available on the market but there is a good chance the do it yourselfer will lose a few fingers to an accidental explosion.

It's unlikely that hobbyists will make a nasty infectious disease by accident. That's comparable to a computer hacker writing a virus by accident when trying to make a screensaver. The one thing I can think of that might is retroviral gene-therapy research, but hopefully that's still out of the scope of what you can do at home (you should not be trying anything like that out of a clinical environment). It's theoretically possible that they could cause environmental damage with organisms that secrete toxins, but frankly it's very rare for a lab-engineered species to actually be able to outcompete natural species (they're usually handicapped or even crippled the same way domesticated livestock are compared to wild species).

The real problem is that once the skillsets are widespread, the training is easy and the equipment is cheap enough, it becomes much more practical for sociopaths to commit deliberate harm. Trying to control distribution of the most dangerous materials is sensible, but ultimately the only solution is a robust biodefence response force. Hopefully the hobbyist base will provide a good recruiting pool for this.

[Ender]

Hmm, the article is a little disturbing. I didn't even know there existed a do it yourself biotechnology subculture. I'm reminded of that one quote by Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park:

I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility... for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it.

That quote is mind numbingly lame, because all scientists have to rely on what others have done before in order to make any kind of real progress to some degree or another.

They chopped out a large chunk of the speech from the book that gives it important context. He talks about the varying paths to power, comparing a gun to a karate master. Both gain their abilities to kill through the work of those who went before them, but since the karate master has to work for years to attain that power, they learn the discipline to not misuse it. Whereas for some quick cash you get a Saturday night special and can kill. He leads that into the fact that the corporate scientists are using technology and shortcuts to by pass the usual ethic review and peer review and years of research and testing. They are treating science like a commercial product and rushing it to "street" without first taking time to make sure the product is safe. In context, it make a lot more sense.


And while I know it is very far fetched, this whole concept is giving me nightmare visions of the equivalent of AOL script kiddies or Chan idiots releasing a pumped up common cold "for the lulz". It may not be plausible for a few years, but eventually the know how will spread enough you will get some misanthropes amping up a STD or streph or the cold to piss people off and laugh about it.

[Melchior]

The one thing I can think of that might is retroviral gene-therapy research, but hopefully that's still out of the scope of what you can do at home (you should not be trying anything like that out of a clinical environment).

I don't see how a hobbyist could get hold of a pure population of usable retroviruses; they are not sold on the open market, as far as I know (the closest thing that is are probably the reagents for PCR, but if you are capable of using them to infect humans you clearly know frighteningly well what you are doing) and obtaining a workable sample from a ill person should prove next to impossible without extensive instrumentation.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There are nations working on such bio-weapons who have a hard time producing bugs that can kill with the efficiency of a weaponised pox virus. I'm not worried about hobbyists, but it is a trend that needs to be clamped down on. If you're working with engineered organisms like E. coli O157:H7, then you need a Biosafety Level 2 lab at the very least and a good grasp of COSHH guidelines. You're a threat to yourself, if anything else, but should you actually bring about a virulent strain of bacterium that can rival MRSA or broad-spectrum resistant C. difficile, then you've got a major health concern on your hands.

There have been concerns in the past about the catalogue of various DNA/RNA sequences on sale in public, just as there has been about certain chemicals that, when mixed, can form noxious gases or powerful explosives. I believe the world governments are working on policing just what can be sold and whom to, given we have the technology to recreate some of the worst pandemic causing diseases of the last millennia from lab samples.

There are many retrovirus equivalents out in the open one could easily use for such a project, too. You could try and culture norovirus, currently rife in the UK, and engineer it to be more lethal. It's not a case of finding such a virus, it's getting it cultured and modified to be more virulent. If you think bacteria are hard, you've never done virology. At least with bacteria, you can produce them en masse and tinker to your heart's content with some fairly primitive lab equipment. In fact, that's one of the major problems we have today, given bacteria will happily adapt to become more tolerant of what we throw at them due to their simple evolutionary pressures and fast reproduction times.

If anything, it shows us how good our science is if someone can reproduce such experiments so readily, which is a core tenet of any experiment.