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

[JOSHUA JOB]

> http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n12/full/nbt1209-1109.html
> ...
> 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...
I didn't get the impression of DIYbio-ers as Big Bio at all. In my  
reading, synthetic biology and DIYbio are intertwined currents within  
biology as a whole with similar goals (if different methods).
> 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.).
This seems correct, although I think that certain things (synthetic  
biology for example) can only be done, currently, with Big Bio's  
resources. This may not be the case in 5-10 years, but so far as I  
know, it would be impossible to do what Venter and others in the field  
are doing in your garage for a few tens of thousands of dollars. At  
least not on any sort of competitive timescale.

 From the article:
> Synthetic biology, activists say, is just like giant agribusiness.  
> It's really all about ownership of nature, destruction of  
> biodiversity and devastation of marginalized farming communities.  
> Or, maybe it's Frankenstein that should worry us. Garage biologists  
> will create designer organisms, fashioned to the maker's will. The  
> implications are familiar: violated nature will reap its own revenge.
While I disagree with the seemingly parodied view of DIYbio and  
synthetic biology enthusiasts (it has risks), the above quote  
describing the activists view is even more ridiculous. Ownership of  
nature is a good thing, and destruction of biodiversity or the pushing  
out of small farms from the market are morally neutral (good, if they  
support human life in the long run).

I am willing to admit there are risks associated with DIYbio,  
certainly. But they are not anything our present system can't handle.  
You can't kill other people, or intentionally infect them with a  
disease, or pollute their property, etc. The law has, in place,  
systems to deal with such events, and so DIYbio is at best a change of  
the degree of risk that the government must be ready to respond to.  
Careful monitoring of disease patterns and the like would be enough to  
keep track of the possible consequences of DIYbio.

And here is something that the critics of it do not address: DIYbio  
dramatically increases the flexibility and resources of those fighting  
the "bad guys." Right now you might have a dozen labs working on  
curing some new disease. With DIYbio, you may have thousands working  
to cure a new disease, manufactured by someone else. This will allow  
for quicker and more effective responses to the increased risk. This,  
coupled with government monitoring of diseases and environmental  
changes (to plants, animals, etc.), will likely counterbalance the  
risks created by DIYbio. And, you get the benefits of it as well.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091215/899c9fd2/attachment.html>