[ExI] Fwd: Nature Biotechnology gives a downbeat review of DIYbio

Bryan Bishop kanzure at gmail.com
Tue Dec 15 18:27:28 UTC 2009


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christopher Kelty <ckelty at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Nature Biotechnology gives a downbeat review of DIYbio
To: diybio at googlegroups.com


On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Mackenzie Cowell <mac at diybio.org> wrote:
> Yeah, long live the dozen!  Insert Margaret Mead quote here; small,
> thoughtful, committed groups change the world, etc etc.  And despite the
> negative tone of the coverage, I have to say I am glad Nature Biotech
> de-hyped the diybio a bit.  Maybe it will help us manage public perception
> and expectations.

I don't know about Margaret Mead, but this article

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n12/full/nbt1209-1109.html

is by some anthropologists (whom I know well) from UC Berkeley, who I
am sure lurk on this list but never say anything (hi guys!)

Their article is worth reading.  It argues that there is no simple
technical fix for any potential safety or security issues that might
arise, an that the polarization of the (non)-debate causes more harm
than good.  The relentless attempts to figure synthetic biology and
DIY Biology as either a threat to the existence of humanity, or
humanity's last hope for true innovation does a disservice to both the
possible advantages and dangers that it possesses.

What's more the article essentially lumps DIY Bio in with synthetic
biology, bioengineering and big bio generally.   It paints DIYBio-ers
as essentially the Lackeys of Institutional Biology and its
cutting-edge lapdog, synthetic biology; and they accuse the movement
(and bioengineering generally) of "moral arrogance."

What the article does not say is that DIYBio could be read *instead*
as a critique of big bio (e.g. why are people using such expensive
equipment when they could hack together a good-enough solution far
cheaper; why not teach people who don't go to MIT to do
bioengineering, etc.). I find it is curious that DIYBio-as-critique is
not a story people tell. Indeed, many on this list seem terrified of
being identified as critics ("Just leave us alone and let us tinker"
is pure disingenuousness).  Perhaps its because it would be necessary
to critique synthetic biology and IGEM as well... On the other hand,
Bio Art is usually understood *only* as critique (viz. Steve Kurtz),
and not as design or engineering (The artscience team from bangalore
at IGEM notwithstanding).  If there was ever anything to the
comparison with Free Software (and I mean Free Software in this
instance, not Open Source), then it was the role of a critical
reconfiguration of engineering practice outside of mainstream biology.

ck

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio at googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
diybio+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.





-- 
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list