DIY biohacking

[Cain]

God I love living inside a Warren Ellis comic:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081225/ap_on_sc/do_it_yourself_dna

Many of these amateurs may have studied biology in college but have no advanced degrees and are not earning a living in the biotechnology field. Some proudly call themselves "biohackers" — innovators who push technological boundaries and put the spread of knowledge before profits.

In Cambridge, Mass., a group called DIYbio is setting up a community lab where the public could use chemicals and lab equipment, including a used freezer, scored for free off Craigslist, that drops to 80 degrees below zero, the temperature needed to keep many kinds of bacteria alive.

Co-founder Mackenzie Cowell, a 24-year-old who majored in biology in college, said amateurs will probably pursue serious work such as new vaccines and super-efficient biofuels, but they might also try, for example, to use squid genes to create tattoos that glow.

Also, http://diybio.org/

[Bu🤠ns]

 

[Reginald Ret]

i wanna be a biohaxxor!

[Kai]

FUCK YEAH

[Kai]

After reading a bit more.....okay, I'm an entomologist. A lot of work in entomology is systematics based. The DNA barcoding projects are coming on hard and fast, but they are not the be all and end all of entomology. Nor is chemical analysis. A large portion of entomology is physical and not chemical based. Collecting specimens, conducting surveys, basic diagnostic analysis and the writing of keys is important work. My research has some chemical aspect but its largely morphological, and I don't think people should all jump on the bandwagon and discount all the good things they can figure out with physical methods alone. It kinda pisses me off. Basic entomology is GOOD SCIENCE, and useful, and interesting. Feels like these people shoot it down, like, who would ever do that old fashioned stuff when  I can look all awesome with test tubes? Amateur work is an important part of all scientific disciplines, and the opening up of a new aspect is good, but you shouldn't discount the rest in the process. I really doubt they will make any significant discoveries very soon however, because it requires years of steady observation to become good at any science.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Kai, don't forget that a handful of these "amateurs" devote their entire lives to this, but because of a lack of formal training they have no credibility. They're unpublishable. Those people are often ones who really do advance their science, and projects like this help give them access to equipment and a voice.

[Kai]

Kai, don't forget that a handful of these "amateurs" devote their entire lives to this, but because of a lack of formal training they have no credibility. They're unpublishable. Those people are often ones who really do advance their science, and projects like this help give them access to equipment and a voice.

You can get published without formal training. Sure, you have to format your results et al in a way that is publishable, but otherwise they don't put "Dr." in front of the names in journal articles. Everybody is equal. If the research is good and the format is right they'll take it from anyone. Its HARDER because they may have not learned scientific writing, but otherwise it is not impossible or improbable.

What I'm saying is that non-acedemics and non Phd's do good science all the time, and they have the possibility of publishing in the same manner, I just don't think its going to be soon for any big amateur discoveries in biochemistry because these biohackers are more or less just starting out with these, and it takes years of practice to get good at it, and years of observation to be observant enough of their subject matter to notice things that no one has noticed before. Yes, it is possible, it will happen, no it will not happen right away.

[Cain]

I predict that within 15 years, biohackers will be to society as Neo in the Matrix was to real hackers.

By then we'll be nanohacking, anyway.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

15 years is the blink of an eye.