Insights & Perspectives xlaboratorio Ex

European do-it-yourself (DIY) biology: Beyond the hope, hype and horror

Gunter€ Seyfried1), Lei Pei2)3) and Markus Schmidt2)3)*

The encounter of amateur science with synthetic biology has led to the and/or methods being used. There are formation of several amateur/do-it-yourself biology (DIYBio) groups worldwide. probably over a 1,000 amateur biolo- Although media outlets covered DIYBio events, most seemed only to highlight gists worldwide with interests in DNA sequencing, microbial screening, envi- the hope, hype, and horror of what DIYBio would do in the future. Here, we ronmental monitoring, or applications analyze the European amateur biology movement to find out who they are, what for health care and energy [6]. The they aim for and how they differ from US groups. We found that all groups are leading group is DIYBio.org, a commu- driven by a core leadership of (semi-)professional people who struggle with nity with more than 2,000 registered finding lab space and equipment. Regulations on genetic modification limit members in more than 30 countries [7]. Currently, most of these DIYBio what groups can do. Differences between Europe and the US are found in the groups are focused on education, distinct regulatory environments and the European emphasis on bio-art. We teaching members basic knowledge conclude that DIYBio Europe has so far been a responsible and transparent via seminars, workshops, and hands- movement with a solid user base that will continue to grow on activities.3 Some DIYBio groups irrespective of media attention. have built “community labs” [8, 9]. The following features characterize Keywords: DIYBio: .amateur science; art and design; biosafety; democratization; DIYBio; ; synthetic biology (a) Interdisciplinarity. (b) Primarily a not-for-profit endeavor. (c) Design and use of cost effective tools and equipment (see Fig. 1). Synthetic biology and base well beyond academic institutions (d) Focusing on and open do-it-yourself (DIY) biology and industry. It will attract new players science innovation, thus position- (amateur biologists) into a field tradi- ing itself as an alternative to so Synthetic biology (SynBio) is the at- tionally reserved for highly trained called “Big Bio”. tempt to make biology easier to engi- professionals [2–4]. Amateur research (e) Democratization and self-empower- neer [1]. As the technology advances, societies have been founded in many ment as the biggest difference to SynBio is expected to become simpler scientific disciplines (e.g. electronics, conventional research activities. and easier to use than traditional information technology, astronomy, genetic engineering. Thus, the advent spaceflight, agriculture). These amateur Generally speaking, the majority of of SynBio will also broaden the user movements are important in encourag- the amateur biologists are often highly ing public engagement with science.1,2 creative, curious, and likely to “think DIY biologists (or “biohackers”) are outside the box” [5]. Despite the poten- DOI 10.1002/bies.201300149 “individuals who conduct biological tial achievements of amateur scientists, experiments as an avocation rather DIYBio raises concerns, mainly in the 1) Department for Art and Knowledge Transfer, than a vocation” [5]. They are most areas of research safety, the safety of University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Austria likely to be individuals who are highly potential products, risk to public health 2) Biofaction KG, Vienna, Austria 3) International Dialogue and Conflict curious about the scientific principles and environment, dual use research Management, Vienna, Austria issues (biosecurity) and the ethical 1 *Corresponding author: See http://www.openspaceuniversity. Markus Schmidt org/#!rocketchallenge/c22xk. E-mail: [email protected] 2 See http://www.budgetastronomer.ca/. 3 See http://diybio.org.

Bioessays 36: 0000–0000, ß 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc. This is www.bioessays-journal.com 1 an open access article under the terms of the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. G. Seyfried et al. Insights & Perspectives.....

and social implications of the projects [4, 10]. The DIYBio movement has been Box 1 reported in the mainstream media, mostly in an exaggerative manner, Comparison between European and North American highlighting its hope, hype, and horror. groups While the press seems to consistently overestimate the capabilities of bio- The DIYBio movements in the US challenges created by the local hackers and underestimate their ethics and Europe have a lot in common. economic, cultural, and political cir- [11, 12], synthetic biologists barely take Beliefs in the democratization of cumstances in sensitive areas such DIY biologists seriously, calling them science and the enabling of citizens as health care and food safety. unsophisticated and far from cutting to do biotechnology are shared by all Yet another difference relates edge [8, 9]. What seems to be missing is groups on both sides of the Atlantic. more to the different socio-political

Ex laboratorio a factual assessment of DIYBio beyond In general, they have more in com- environment that the groups are the hope, hype, and horror. mon than what sets them apart. embedded in. In the US, at least So far, no study has been carried out However, there also seems to be since the 9/11 incident, there is a to provide an up-to-date analysis of the aspects where the groups in the US strong focus on bioterror and bio- background, structure, motivations, and Europe differ from one another. security, whereas in Europe the and aims of the European DIYBio In contrast to the USA (minding focus is much more on biosafety, groups. Here, we investigate and reflect different state legislations), the as a direct consequence of the GM- on the European amateur biology groups in Europe need to obtain a food debate [18]. It comes as no movement to find out who they are, license in order to carry out genetic surprise that the DIYBio groups in the what they aim for and what similarities engineering experiments. So far, the US have had to address critical and differences can be found with European groups have not done biosecurity issues and are monitored respect to US groups (see Box 1). these types of experiments, but by the FBI, while the European some of them plan to go through groups have received only little the licensing procedure and obtain a (publicly visible) attention by the license. As an exception, the UK- European (national) law enforcement DIYBio Europe: A network Netherlands based C-LAB art collec- agencies. In recent years, however, in the making tive did obtain a license to exhibit a the remarkable division over safety bioart work with living genetically and security as the main concern is In less than five years, a lively DIYBio modified organisms in London, UK fading away (see the Code(s) of 4 network has been establised in Europe.5 (http://c-lab.co.uk/projects.html). The Ethics), with US groups highlighting Personal interest, passion, commit- work itself, however, was done in safety concerns and European policy ment, the scientific background of the collaboration with a university re- makers considering biosecurity founders, and leadership skills have search lab. governance measures of amateur played a highly significant role in In the US, some groups showed biology [19]. the shaping of the practices and devel- interest in DIY medicine as an A rather surprising finding, com- opment of DIYBio in Europe. Here are alternative to the established health pared to the US, is a stronger some examples: care practices. Such attempts are collaboration of amateur biologists One of the first European groups, La rare in Europe and rather focus with artists and designers in Europe. Paillasse,6 was established in Paris in on helping people in developing It remains to be seen whether this 2009. The approach and development of countries [17]. observation is only due to the small La Paillasse was largely rooted in the In general, the activities of DIYBio sample size of groups, or if the art- leadership of the founder; a PhD and the maker culture uncover the science interaction is a real Europe- student in SynBio and former iGEM societal gaps, niches, fissures, and an characteristic. participant, together with the help of his fellow teammates; members of hacker- groups like tmp/lab and Electrolab, and experienced scientists from institutions Paillasse lab. The lab is relatively well BiologiGaragen was founded by three like La Gaite Lyrique, and Genopole [9]. equipped and fully functional, capable students in Copenhagen in 2010, as a With the help of his experience in to host a number of diverse projects and part of Labitat (a successful, vibrant biology, and in-kind donations of lab to carry out genetically modified (GM) makerspace7). Labitat and BiologiGara- equipment, he was able to set up the La food testing and more. Currently, activ- gen share their space, equipment, and ities in the La Paillasse lab are limited knowledge, opening up a lot of

4 due to regulations regarding GM organ- See DIYbio Code of Ethics from North isms. La Paillasse has started the American and Europe: http://diybio.org/ 7 process to obtain a license that will A makerspace is a community workspace codes. where people gather, socialize, and collabo- 5 See http://www.diybio.eu/european-diy- allow them to make full use of the rate on computers, technology, and science bio-network/. technical, scientific, and creative poten- projects [13]. See e.g. http://dallasmaker- 6 See http://www.lapaillasse.org/. tial of their lab [8, 9]. space.org.

2 Bioessays 36: 0000–0000, ß 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc...... Insights & Perspectives G. Seyfried et al.

launched a very successful and prize- winning art project for the Designers & Artists 4 Genomics Award (DA4GA), xlaboratorio Ex and made an art-science project called “2.6 g 329 m/s” to produce bulletproof spider-silk enhanced skin [14]. Bringing European groups like these together was an important step to build up the DIYBio movement in Europe. In December 2012, La Paillasse organized a “kick-off” meeting to establish the European DIYBio community (www. diybio.eu), to provide a platform for joint collaborative projects. A second Figure 1. Kitchen-style equipment for amateur biology experiments. meeting took place in the Netherlands in June 2013, and further regular meet- ings are being planed. possibilities for future projects. The The Dutch DIYBio, despite its name, is combination of hardware hacking and not the only group in the Netherlands. It biohacking reflects the background and sprang up from three friends, in 2012, interests of the founders. Their degrees around a small “tinkering” project to Main challenges and cover IT, pharmaceutical sciences, bio- develop a prototype quantitative PCR outlook technology and bioengineering, and device for mobile malaria diagnosis; the they are interested in building afford- Amplino,10 which attracted broad inter- The primary challenge for DIYBio able equipment, making alternative est. The development of the Amplino Europe is the strict regulation of bio- science projects and providing open could also be regarded as an early technology by national authorities. access to knowledge. BiologiGaragen DIYBio entrepreneurship, although no Groups are well aware of the biosafety has also collaborated with the Medical far-reaching commercial plan was con- risks and several of them are starting the Museion, Copenhagen, for example, to sidered at the beginning. This example process to become a certified lab in make an exhibition, hold events, host has shaped an important field of activity order to be able to work with genetic an open biology laboratory, and orga- within DIYBio that re-configures well- engineering projects. Dutch DIYBio has nize workshops on biotechnology, Syn- established technology in order to been in the process of certification since Bio and DIYBio.8 develop simple, yet reliable, diagnostic early 2013, while La Paillasse and A Czech assistant professor at the devices. In remote and underdeveloped BiologiGaragen are planning to enter National University of Singapore, regions (e.g. rural Africa) where these the process of certification. BioArt through her research, makes a connec- devices are needed, commercially avail- Laboratories has an assigned biosafety tion between makerspaces in Europe able technologies are usually too ex- officer, and diybio Singapore gets ad- and Asia.9 She considers DIYBio labs as pensive, or simply impossible to operate vice from trained professionals. Until educational centres, converging differ- without sophisticated supporting now, only Irish biohacker, Cathal Gar- ent types of knowledge and skills. It is equipments. This example highlights vey, has successfully obtained a license believed that DIYBio groups and maker- that there are innovations that are to carry out genetic modification [15]. spaces in rural communities play im- overlooked by the established stake- Another major challenge is to get a portant educational roles, especially in holders in both the private and public sustainable financial support [16]. The developing countries, like Indonesia or sector. The success of Amplino proves groups have no significant funding and the Philippines. Together with a col- that amateurs can re-configure devices practically all of the activities are self- league from the Hackteria network, into simple, yet reliable, versions. funded. Passion and enthusiasm help to diybio Singapore organized a series of Since 2012, the BioArt Laboratories counterbalance the lack of financial workshops and lectures, with a wide in Eindhoven, Netherlands, has focused resources. Nonetheless all the groups range of content (from cooking to on using art to interact with and involve see external funding as important for biodiversity assessment), depending the public. This particular art-oriented steady and substantial development. To on the geographical and socio-cultural approach seems to be connected to the build a community and infrastructure, environment. The European-Asian con- background of one of their key mem- the first main step is to organize meet- nection is unique, reflecting a civil bers; a trained and experienced artist. ings and workshops. These eventually society movement beyond cultural The artist, along with her collaboration lead to collaborations with academic borders [13]. partners, looks at ethics, methods and institutions, museums and the local knowledge in biotechnology from an culture scene. La Gaite Lyrique, Geno- artistic perspective. They have already pole, the Waag Society, TU/e, CSG 8 See http://www.museion.ku.dk/events- list. Centre for Society and the Life Sciences, 9 See http://diybiosingapore.wordpress. Baltan Laboratories, or the Danish com/. 10 See: www.amplino.org. Center for Synthetic Biology, and

Bioessays 36: 0000–0000, ß 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc. 3 G. Seyfried et al. Insights & Perspectives.....

makerspaces like tmp/lab, Electrolab, or different focuses in research. The Glow- 2. Bennett G, Gilman N, Stavrianakis A, Labitat, provide(d) support (space, equip- ing Plants project at kickstarter.com Rabinow P. 2009. From synthetic biology to biohacking: are we prepared? Nat Bio- ments, funding) to start workshops, hold illustrates the different aspects of this technol 27: 1109–11. 11 exhibitions and help projects become fully potential. 3. Pedersen M, Phillips A. 2009. Towards operational. The more successful groups Research objectives that have been programming languages for genetic engi- in Europe have also managed to get left aside because of economic reasons, neering of living cells. J R Soc Interface 6: S437–50. support from established institutions or which were considered as trivial, 4. Schmidt M. 2008. Diffusion of synthetic (e.g. museums, research institutions) in pointless or even unethical, can gain in biology: a challenge to biosafety. Syst Synth terms of space and equipment. importance as the financial and sym- Biol 2: 1–6. 5. NSABB. 2011. Strategies to Educate Amateur DIYBio groups in Europe are pre- bolic support increases and reaches a Biologists and Scientists in Non-life Science dominantly the result of the push by a critical amount. Decisions on the mean- Disciplines About Dual Use Research in the Life few highly motivated individuals that ing and the importance of innovations Sciences. http://oba.od.nih.gov/biosecurity/

Ex laboratorio frequently work or study in the area of and liabilities are partly shifted to a non- pdf/FinalNSABBReport-AmateurBiologist- NonlifeScientists_June-2011.pdf bioscience or information technolo- expert public sphere. Not only could this 6. You EH. 2010. FBI Perspective: Addressing gy [16]. Lack of dedicated leadership process lead to cheap and accessible Synthetic Biology and Biosecurity. First can result in the shutdown or inactivity (medical) solutions, but when it comes to Meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues on Synthetic of a group [9]. financial support and public awareness, Biology. Observing the DIYBio groups in it also creates a levelling process where, 7. Scudellari M. 2013. Biology Hacklabs. Europe, one might ask if the movement for example, cancer research can find The Scientist. http://www.the-scientist.com/? articles.view/articleNo/34469/title/Biology- is a rather short-lived fashion, a reaction itself face to face with projects rooted Hacklabs/ to the Zeitgeist, or if the groups, the in pop culture. With this backdrop, a 8. Delgado A. 2013. DIYbio: making things structure of the community and variety of small and dynamic research and making futures. Futures 48: 65–73. the commitment of the key players are projects in collaboration with small 9. Landrain T, Meyer M, Perez AM, Sussan R. 2013. Do-it-yourself biology: challenges sustainable and long term [16]. Our communities, companies, or NGOs are and promises for an and assessment is that DIYBio in Europe is possible. This initiates new production technology movement. Syst Synth Biol 7: here to stay, with new groups emerging relations and methods, articulated by the 115–26. 10. Grushkin D, Kuiken T, Millet P. 2013. 7 across the continent and established exchange of and access to knowledge, Myths and Realities of Do-It-Yourself Biology. groups growing in participants, projects for example, through open source sys- http://www.synbioproject.org/process/ and sophistication. The hype generated tems, expertise exchange initiatives, assets/files/6673/_draft/7_myths_final.pdf in the media around “biohackers” in the patent pools, and open licensing. With 11. Miller HI. 2012. Will Overregulation in Europe Stymie Synthetic Biology. Forbes. http:// past years has brought a lot of attention the inclusion of the general public, www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/08/29/ to amateur biology. However, the designers, and artists, we might see will-overregulation-in-europe-stymie-synthetic- groups are based on the solid work the establishment of a participatory biology/ 12. Zimmer C. 2012. Amateur Biologists Are New done by a dedicated core of enthusiasts. innovation process beyond the current Fear in Making a Mutant Flu Virus New York There are few indicators to see producer-consumer distinction. Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/ DIYBio as a test-bed for biotechnology health/amateur-biologists-are-new-fear-in- making-a-mutant-flu-virus.html?pagewanted¼ start-ups since its main goal is to all&_r¼0 provide non-profit, open source and Acknowledgments 13. Kera D. 2014. Innovation regimes based on open access biotechnology. Few DIY All authors gratefully acknowledge collaborative and global tinkering: Synthetic groups in Europe attempt to commer- support from the Austrian Science Fund biology and nanotechnology in the hacker- spaces. Technol Soc 37: 28–37. cialize their products or skills, but prefer (FWF) project number I215-B17 and 14. Essaidi J, Ings S, Catts O, Zwart H,etal. to provide research tools and protocols I490-B12, and MS from the EC FP7 2012. Bulletproof skin, Exploring Boundaries for the public. The impact on the future projects SYN-ENERGENE (321488) and by Piercing Barriers Eindhoven, the Netherlands: Jalila Essaidi. bioeconomy, however, should not be ST-FLOW (289326). 15. Boeing P. 2012. Biohackers on the Rise. ignored. Not only does DIYBio level People & Science. http://www.britishscience- the playing field between experts and The authors have declared no conflict of association.org/people-science-magazine/ the public, it might also help to interest. december-2012/biohackers-rise 16. Editorial. 2013. The DIY dilemma. Nature 503: introduce a new culture of makers, 437–8. sparking a greater and more common 17. Akst J. 2013. Do-It-Yourself Medicine. interest in biotechnology. References The Scientist. http://www.the-scientist. com/?articles.view/articleNo/34433/title/Do- The combination of DIYBio and It-Yourself-Medicine/ crowdfunding may have far-reaching 1. Endy D. 2008. Synthetic biology: can we 18. Schmidt M. 2006. Public will fear biological consequences since future research make biology easy to engineer? Ind Biotech- accidents, not just attacks. Nature 441: nol 4: 340–51. 1048. projects can circumvent traditional 19. Jefferson C. 2013. Governing Amateur Biol- funding sources and their established ogy: Extending Responsible Research and power structures. Therefore, it chal- 11 See: http://www.kickstarter.com/proj- Innovation in Synthetic Biology to New lenges established power constellations ects/antonyevans/glowing-plants-natural- Actors. Building a Sustainable Capacity in lighting-with-no-electricit. Dual-Use Bioethics: Wellcome Trust Project. and perhaps will shape completely

4 Bioessays 36: 0000–0000, ß 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc.