Seven Myths Realities

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Seven Myths Realities O 5 I B SEVEN MYTHS & REALITIES YN about Do-It-Yourself Biology SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY PROJECT / S SYNBIO 5 1 Table of Contents IOLOGY B ELF Introduction . 4 S R U A Short History of the DIYbio Movement . 5 Survey of Community. 6 O-IT-YO D T Many DIYers Work in Multiple Spaces . 7 U O B A What is Known About the Movement . 8 S MYTH 1: . 9 DIYers work anonymously and solitarily EALITIE R MYTH 2: DIYers are capable of unleashing a deadly epidemic . 10 AND S MYTH 3: DIYers are incapable of contributing to biotechnology . 11 MYTH 4: DIYers are averse to government oversight . 13 SEVEN MYTH MYTH 5: DIYers lack the comprehension to do biotech ethically . 15 MYTH 6: DIYers risk accidents and environmental release of genetically modifed organisms . 17 MYTH 7: Group labs may become unsuspecting havens for bioterrorists . 19 Recommendations . 20 Conclusion . 24 SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY PROJECT / Methods . 24 Appendices . 25 2 SEVEN MYTHS & REALITIES about Do-It-Yourself Biology Written by Daniel Grushkin Scholar, Science and Technology Innovation Program Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Todd Kuiken, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Piers Millet, Ph.D. Deputy Head, Biological Weapons Convention Imple- mentation Support Unit, United Nations SYNBIO 5/November 2013 The views expressed are the authors own and do not necessarily represent those of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Biological Weapons Convention, the States Parties or Implementation Support Unit, the United Nations, or the Offce for Disarmament Affairs. 3 Introduction Do-It-Yourself Biology, or DIYbio, is a rise to new security risks. They fear that global movement spreading the use of bioterrorists could exploit the newly available biotechnology beyond traditional academic technology to design, build and spread and industrial institutions and into the lay disease. A 2008 congressional commission, IOLOGY B public. Practitioners include a broad mix of for example, predicted that the United amateurs, enthusiasts, students, and trained States would suffer a bioterrorist attack by ELF S scientists, some of whom focus their efforts 2013.1 More recently, The Atlantic magazine R U on using the technology to create art, to predicted that in as little as three years explore genetics, or simply to tinker. Others anonymous biohackers might engineer a believe DIYbio can inspire a generation of virus that targets the U.S. president.2 O-IT-YO D bioengineers to discover new medicines, T U customize crops to feed the world’s At the crux of these fears is a O B miscomprehension about the community’s A exploding population, harness microbes to S sequester carbon, solve the energy crisis, or ability to wield DNA and manipulate life. even grow our next building materials. The reality, as it stands, is that DIYbio is far EALITIE R Many Do-It-Yourself participants—or DIYers— more innocuous than either vision. These believe that wider access to the tools of viewpoints are grounded in speculation about AND what could happen rather than data about S biotechnology, particularly those related to the reading and writing of DNA, has the potential what is happening in the DIYbio movement. to spur global innovation and promote biology This is chiefy because almost no work has education and literacy. been done to survey the DIYbio community, its membership, organization, capabilities, SEVEN MYTH On the other hand, many policymakers and and goals. Most information cited in reports journalists fear that greater access may give and in the media is anecdotal or speculative, citing what lay people may do based on the dramatically falling costs of equipment and reagents. The Synthetic Biology Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has surveyed the community for the frst time, fnding both expected and unexpected results (For full results see Appendix 1). SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY PROJECT / This report assembles seven of the media and policy community’s most pervasive myths and expectations about the DIYbio movement, then outlines the realities based on the data generated from the community- wide survey. Finally, it presents six policy recommendations. 4 A Short History of the DIYbio Movement The concept for a popular movement of high school and college undergraduates.6 amateur biotechnologists—what eventually As synthetic biologists made bioengineering became DIYbio—began to take shape technology easier and more accessible, Bobe around 2000, after a working draft of the and Cowell promoted wider adoption among human genome was completed by the Human the public. Genome Project. Articles in the media predicted that amateur genomicists would soon explore Following the 2008 recession, Bobe and DNA, in the same way amateur astronomers Cowell’s efforts in biology tapped a wider had been exploring the cosmos.3,4 pool of disenfranchised graduates and highly skilled professionals who had seen the DIY Five years later, Rob Carlson, a senior researcher at Washington University, ethic in other felds—craft culture in urban demonstrated the ease of building a home lab areas, Silicon Valley startups, and electronics in the pages of Wired magazine.5 He built a lab hackerspaces.* Simultaneously, shrinking in his garage from equipment bought online to biotech companies began selling used develop a protein-tagging system he’d hoped equipment on Ebay at prices affordable to lay to spin into a company. Carlson, like the frst people, while the cost of reading and writing DIYers, was far from amateur. He had worked of DNA sequences became inexpensive closely with the frst synthetic biologists, a enough for hobbyists. burgeoning group of scientists who sought to simplify molecular biology by treating it as an Within two years, DIYbio had evolved. People engineering discipline. who were originally doing kitchen or garage experiments began organizing and setting While Carlson published his article in print, in up dedicated labs in commercial spaces. Cambridge, Massachusetts Jason Bobe and They pooled resources to buy, or take Mackenzie Cowell launched the DIYbio.org message board online. The site was used to donations of, equipment, and began what announce events at local bars where small have become known as “community labs.” groups gathered to perform simple biology These labs sustain themselves on volunteers, experiments, such as extracting DNA from membership donations, and paid classes. strawberries. The frst opened in Brooklyn, NY, followed by another in Sunnyvale, CA. Courses include Like Carlson, they too were deeply lessons in synthetic biology, neuroscience, connected to the burgeoning feld of bioart, genetics, and basic biotechnology. synthetic biology. Bobe worked for Harvard bioengineer George Church, one of the founders of the discipline, while Cowell * A hackerspace (also called a makerspace) is a com- worked as an employee of the International munity workspace where people gather, socialize, and Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) collaborate on computers, technology, and science competition, a synthetic biology contest for projects. 5 Survey of Community A total of 359 respondents replied to the are from North America, with 82 percent online survey, which was conducted from from the United States and 4 percent from January to March 2013. For details on how Canada. Some 10 percent are from Europe, 1 the survey was conducted, see Methods, percent is from Asia, and 2 percent are from IOLOGY B page 24. On average, the DIY community is other geographic areas (i.e., South America, more educated than the general population: Australia). ELF S 19 percent have obtained a doctorate level R U degree (i.e. MD, PhD, JD), 27 percent have Of the 305 resondents, 46 percent work obtained a master’s degree, and 37 percent at a community lab, 35 percent work at have completed college. They are also hackerspaces, 28 percent work at an O-IT-YO D younger than the general population: 15 academic, corporate, or government lab T U percent are under 25 years old, 21 percent are (ACG), 26 percent work at home, and 8 O B What is your backgroundpercent of inrespondents biology? work at home A between 25 and 35 years old, 42 percent are S between 35 and 45 years old, and 23 percent exclusively (see page 7). are 45 years and older. The vast majority of the DIYers that responded to the survey EALITIE R WHAT IS YOUR BACKGROUND IN BIOLOGY? AND S 40 35 cent r 30 25 20 SEVEN MYTH 15 10 Response Pe 5 0 Studied it Studied it Studied it Other Studied it None Studied it in College in High at a at a at a MD School Doctorate Master's level Level Level WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME INVOLVED IN DIYBIO? 35 SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY PROJECT / 30 cent 25 r 20 15 10 Response Pe 5 0 In the In the In the In the In the In the In the last last 6 last last 2 last 3 last 4 last 5 6 or more months year years years years years years 6 Many DIYers Work in Multiple Spaces To further examine the question of where DIYers conduct their experiments, respondents (267 total) were given the opportunity to provide multiple locations. Of those that only reported one location (150 respondents), one works in an academic, corporate, or government lab (ACG), 37 work in a hackerspace, 58 work in a community lab, and 23 work at home. Respondents replying that they work in two locations (93 respondents), we fnd that fve work in an ACG lab and a hackerspace, 13 work in an ACG lab and at home, 18 work in an ACG lab and a community lab, 15 work in a hackerspace and at home, 32 work in a community lab and a hackerspace, and 10 work in a community lab and at home.
Recommended publications
  • Diybio Things: Open Source Biology Tools As Platforms for Hybrid Knowledge Production and Scientific Participation
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title DIYbio things: Open source biology tools as platforms for hybrid knowledge production and scientific participation Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/90h1s0hf ISBN 9781450331456 Authors Kuznetsov, S Doonan, C Wilson, N et al. Publication Date 2015-04-18 DOI 10.1145/2702123.2702235 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Social Media & Citizen Science CHI 2015, Crossings, Seoul, Korea DIYbio Things: Open Source Biology Tools as Platforms for Hybrid Knowledge Production and Scientific Participation Stacey Kuznetsov1, Carrie Doonan2, Nathan Wilson2, Swarna Mohan2, Scott E. Hudson1, Eric Paulos3 Human-Computer Interaction Institute1 Department of Biological Sciences Electrical Engineering and Carnegie Mellon University Carnegie Mellon University2 Computer Sciences3 Pittsburgh, PA, USA Pittsburgh, PA, USA University of California {stace, hudson}@cmu.edu {cbd, njwilson, Berkeley, CA, USA swm}@andrew.cmu.edu [email protected] ABSTRACT members of the general public in various practices that DIYbio (Do It Yourself Biology) is a growing movement of interpret, critique, and construct scientific knowledge. scientists, hobbyists, artists, and tinkerers who practice biology outside of professional settings. In this paper, we One way of orienting this space for HCI is in terms of present our work with several open source DIYbio tools, publics—groups of people who come together around including OpenPCR and Pearl Blue Transilluminator, issues and work towards resolving shared concerns [5]. which can be used to test DNA samples for specific Within this larger framing, we focus on DIYbio (Do It sequences.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Do It Yourself Biotechnology' (Diybio) for Open, Inclusive
    Do-it-Yourself Healthcare Clinic. Credit: Waag Society ‘Do It Yourself Biotechnology’ (DIYBio) for open, inclusive, responsible Biotechnology This policy brief assesses the potential and challenges of 1) Potential for Inclusivity and Openness in Science “Do-It-Yourself Biotechnology” (DIYBio) for the progression Practitioners of DIYBio, also known as biohackers or DIYBi- of Open Science and Responsible Research and Innovation ologists, aim to ultimately make biotechnology accessible (RRI). It makes recommendations to the European Commis- to anyone. This rapidly growing culture of inclusivity, which sion as to how it can integrate DIYBio into existing science emerged in the United States in the early 2000s, challeng- funding mechanisms and regulatory directives, thereby max- es more conventional academic and industry structures, by imising benefits for European stakeholders. promoting complete access to scientific resources such as in- struments, laboratories and publications. DIYBio activities are conducted in various private and public laboratories outside of traditional academic or corporate in- The aim for a more inclusive and transparent science is also stitutions and are therefore outside the scope of current poli- a key component of the Responsible Research and Innova- cy. The full spectrum of DIYBio activities is also much broader tion10 and Open Science11 policy agendas promoted by the than what is currently understood as Citizen Science. European Commission. As a community built around these values from its inception, the DIYBio movement can be a val- The re-evaluation of funding mechanisms and regulations for uable model for academia as it undergoes a transition to a DIYBio should: more open practice. Case Study 1 (below) describes how the DIYBio space “BioTehna” operationalised openness and inclu- • promote inclusiveness and openness in science, siveness.
    [Show full text]
  • Hackerspaces and Diybio in Asia: Connecting Science and Community with Open Data, Kits and Protocols
    Journal of Peer Production New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change http://peerproduction.net Hackerspaces and DIYbio in Asia: connecting science and community with open data, kits and protocols Denisa Kera Abstract: Different hacker, maker and DIY activities in recent years form a global culture with alternative networks of knowledge production and sharing, offering a more resilient and pragmatic response to various challenges. This growth of grassroots science and tinkering based on open data, protocols and DIY kits is often understood as part of a geek culture, which has little if any impact on the larger society. The aim here is to discuss hackerspaces as intermediaries and transnational sites offering unique opportunities for translation between scientific knowledge produced in the labs (official academic and research institutions) and the everyday interests, practices and problems of ordinary people in diverse local contexts around the globe. To demonstrate how hackerspaces function as sites of complex negotiations between various forms of knowledge and practice, and to understand how these global flows of kits and DIY protocols work in the local context, we will compare several examples from Asia (Indonesia, Singapore, and Japan). These emergent, alternative R&D centers revive a link between knowledge creation and community building, and problematize the common, “East - West”, “Modern (Industrial) - Post-industrial - Pre-modern (indigenous)” distinctions, often used when knowledge transfer is discussed. By integrating community building with prototype testing, hackerspaces embody a community based innovation that provides a more resilient policy model for societies facing emerging technologies and numerous deep and far reaching environmental and social challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Build Your Own Lab: Do-It-Yourself Biology and the Rise of Citizen Biotech-Economies Morgan Meyer
    Build your own lab: Do-it-yourself biology and the rise of citizen biotech-economies Morgan Meyer To cite this version: Morgan Meyer. Build your own lab: Do-it-yourself biology and the rise of citizen biotech-economies. Journal of Peer Production, 2012, 2 (online), 4 p. hal-00710829 HAL Id: hal-00710829 https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00710829 Submitted on 28 Jun 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Build your own lab » Journal of Peer Production http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-2/invited-comments/build-... ABOUT ISSUES PEER REVIEW NEWS CONTACT NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF PEER PRODUCTION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE BUILD YOUR OWN LAB Where you are: Home · Issues · Issue #2: Bio/Hardware Hacking · Invited Comments · Build your own lab BUILD YOUR OWN LAB: DO-IT-YOURSELF BIOLOGY AND THE RISE OF CITIZEN BIOTECH-ECONOMIES MORGAN MEYER 1. INTRODUCTION Most articles on garage biology and do-it-yourself (DIY) biology – whether academic papers or media reports – highlight its somewhat “immaterial” cultures or ideologies. The issues usually raised include: the ways in which do-it-yourself biology potentially democratizes science and fosters a citizen science (Wolinsky, 2009), that its practitioners are a “creative proof of the hacker principle” (Ledford, 2010: 650), that the field is an illustration of the open source movement, that concerns about control, security and safety need to be addressed (Sawyer, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Hardware (OSHW) for Open Science in the Global South: Geek Diplomacy?
    7 Open source hardware (OSHW) for open science in the global south: geek diplomacy? Denisa Kera INTRODUCTION The Do-It-Youself biology (DIYbio) movement originated in the U.S. in approximately 2009 around student iGEM synthetic biology competitions (durrett; field 2011; kuznetsov et al. 2012) as well as parallel open biology efforts in Europe and Asia with their connections to bioart and critical science practices in the late 1990s (bureaud; malina; whiteley, 2014). This movement merged in recent years with other movements coming from professional scientists advocating eScience, Open Science, Open Access and Open Data (neylon; wu, 2009; molloy, 2011; uhlir; schröder, 2007). The calls for changing the publishing model and opening the datasets while supporting online collaboration and crowdsourcing are starting to merge with attempts to reduce the cost of experimental research and increase reproducibility by building low cost customizable laboratory equipment (pearce, 2014; landrain et al. 2013). This convergence of hackerspace and makerspace OSHW interests with open science goals (open data, open access, online collaboration) created some unique opportunities to involve 134 Denisa Kera citizen scientists, but also scientists from the developing countries in alternative global research networks (kera, 2012A; kera, 2013). In this paper we want to reflect upon the critical role of open hardware in forming these unique South to South and South to North networks and research cooperation. We will analyse the issue as a form of “geek diplomacy” over open science. Geek diplomacy is a citizen, grassroots involvement in science which bridges various knowledge and infrastructural divides to create a more inclusive R&D response to challenging international political, social and scientific issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Biotechnology
    Distributed Biotechnology Alessandro Delfanti University of Toronto Forthcoming in Tyfield, D., Lave, R., Randalls, S., Thorpe, C. (eds.), 2017. The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science, New York: Routledge In the last two decades, an array of do-it-yourself biology groups, biotech start-ups and community labs have emerged in Europe, America, and Asia. These groups and spaces share the vision of a ªdistributed biotechnologyº and are part of broader transformations of the relation between technological and scientific change and society. Distributed biotechnology includes amateurs as well as an emergent set of companies that provide laboratory equipment and digital platforms designed to foster citizen contribution to biotechnology research. It differs from traditional forms of citizen science, as it draws on elements from hacker cultures and adopts molecular biology as its main scientific framework. The term ªdistributedº means that actors envision a biotechnology free from centralized control. They imagine biotechnology as personal, and the aggregation of individual efforts as technically and socially meaningful. Thresholds to access are relatively low, as distributed biotechnology's spaces are open to amateurs and its techniques sometimes rudimentary. Finally, connections between different actors are created and maintained through the circulation of people, materials, and information. Regardless of the hype that surrounds it, the output of distributed biotech tends to be relatively far from any ªrevolutionaryº scientific breakthrough. What makes it worthy of analysis is the way it imagines and implements practices that construct biotechnology as open, personal, and oppositional towards biomedical research incumbents. Distributed biotech is characterized by a perceived, and in some cases sought-after independency from, if not opposition to, incumbent institutional actors, such as corporate and university labs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diybio Network: What Kind of Work We Are Doing Now and What Kind of Work We Want to Do
    The DIYBio network: What kind of work we are doing now and what kind of work we want to do Sara Tocchetti, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology, London School of Economics and Political Sciences What kind of work we are doing now: a brief review of the literature on the DIYbio network1 The formation of the DIYbio network2 was first analysed as a biosafety and a biosecurity concern (Schmidt, 2008a; Schmidt et al., 2008b; Bennett et al., 2009). These authors considered DIYbiologists and biohackers as yet another uncertainty attached to the emerging field of synthetic biology. An uncertainty that they propose to address by simply calling more attention to it, including by using alarmists claims based on the analogy between computer viruses and “'bio-spam, biospyware and bio- adware' and other bio-nuisances” (Schmidt, 2008a, n.d); or by using the 'ethical tool-kit' known under the name of 'human practices' (Bennett et al., 2010). This first analytical framework, although skewed towards biosafety rather than biosecurity, still marks more recent works, as for instance the one of Catherine Jefferson, who proposes to extend the framework Responsible Research and Innovation in Synthetic Biology to DIYbio members (Jefferson, 2013).3 A first departure from these works focusing on biosafety and biosecurity from a policy-oriented perspective, is produced by the arrival on the field of the science and technology scholars. Their first 1 This review focuses on academic publications and does not cover how the DIYbio network has been described in governmental and think tanks report, nor on the role of STS scholars in the writing of these reports.
    [Show full text]
  • ORION OPEN SCIENCE FACTSHEETS Brief, Informative, and Easy-To-Understand One-Page Factsheets on Open Science Topics
    ORION OPEN SCIENCE FACTSHEETS Brief, informative, and easy-to-understand one-page factsheets on Open Science topics Created by the Max-Delbrück-Centre for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association Design by Vetenskap & Allmänhet This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 741527 and runs from May 2017 to April 2021. CONTENTS 1. Biohacking and DIYBio Research .......................................................................................... 3 2. Career Benefits of Open Science ......................................................................................... 4 3. Citizen Science ....................................................................................................................... 5 4. Commercialisation of Research ............................................................................................ 6 5. Communicating Animal Research ......................................................................................... 7 6. Crowd Science ....................................................................................................................... 8 7. Research Data Management ................................................................................................. 9 8. Open Access ......................................................................................................................... 10 9. Open Research Data ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biohacking Morgan Meyer
    Biohacking Morgan Meyer To cite this version: Morgan Meyer. Biohacking. The Handbook of Peer Production, Wiley, pp.211-224, 2021, 978-1-119- 53709-0. hal-03147166 HAL Id: hal-03147166 https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03147166 Submitted on 19 Feb 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. This is the author’s version of a chapter accepted for publication in the Handbook of Peer Production. Changes resulting from the publishing process such as copy-editing, typesetting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. This author manuscript version is available for personal, non-commercial and no derivative uses only. Citation: Meyer, M. (2020). Biohacking. In: M. O’Neil, C. Pentzold & S. Toupin (Eds.), The Handbook of Peer Production (pp. 211-224). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781119537106 Available at: https://www.wiley.com/en-au/The+Handbook+of+Peer+Production-p-9781119537090 The Handbook of Peer Production Chapter 16 – Biohacking Morgan Meyer, Centre for the Sociology of Innovation (Mines ParisTech, PSL), France Chapter 16 – Biohacking 2 1. Introduction Over the past few years, a plethora of terms have emerged to describe scientific activities in the life sciences that happen outside traditional institutions: biohacking, garage biology, DIY biology, DIY genetics, DIY medicine, DIY science, and so on and so forth.
    [Show full text]
  • European Doityourself (DIY) Biology
    Insights & Perspectives Ex laboratorio 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- citizen science movement with a solid user base that will continue to grow on activities.3 Some DIYBio groups irrespective of media attention.
    [Show full text]
  • Free and Open Source Software
    ! Bits,&Atoms,&and&Informa0on&Sharing:& New&Opportuni0es&for&Par0cipa0on ! ! Sofia%Catarina%Mósca%Ferreira%Mota ! Tese de Doutoramento em Ciências da Comunicação Outubro, 2014 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tese apresentada para cumprimento dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do grau de Doutor em Ciências da Comunicação, realizada sob a orientação científica do Professor Doutor António Câmara ! Apoio financeiro da FCT e do FSE no âmbito do III Quadro Comunitário de Apoio. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! To Marcin AGRADECIMENTOS / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ! In no particular order, I am deeply grateful to: Professor António Câmara, my academic advisor, for his support and openness, for allowing and encouraging me to explore research questions across academic disciplines, and for his always prompt support in all matters related to this work. The Interactive Telecommunications Program at the New York University (ITP-NYU), where the large majority of this research was conducted, for accepting me as a visiting scholar and providing the open and collaborative environment ideal for exploring questions pertaining to openness and sharing. I am particularly thankful to this program’s chairs—Professors Red Burns and Dan O’Sullivan—for creating such a welcoming space in which collaborative exploration is not only allowed, but positively encouraged. Professor Tom Igoe, my ITP-NYU visiting scholar advisor, for the wisdom and patience with which he guided me in the exploration of complex questions, for the countless hours spent discussing approaches and possibilities, for his always enlightened and open perspectives, and for his kindness and support throughout the years. Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia for granting me a scholarship without which I would not have been able to conduct this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Tesis Doctoral (10.57Mb)
    Arancio, Julieta Cecilia Fabricaciones desde el diálogo : hardware científico abierto y democratización de la producción de conocimiento en la 'periferia' Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Argentina. Atribución - 2.5 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/ Documento descargado de RIDAA-UNQ Repositorio Institucional Digital de Acceso Abierto de la Universidad Nacional de Quilmes de la Universidad Nacional de Quilmes Cita recomendada: Arancio, J. C. (2021). Fabricaciones desde el diálogo: hardware científico abierto y democratización de la þÿproducción de conocimiento en la periferia . (Tesis de posgrado). Bernal, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Disponible en RIDAA-UNQ Repositorio Institucional Digital de Acceso Abierto de la Universidad Nacional de Quilmes http://ridaa.unq.edu.ar/handle/20.500.11807/3109 Puede encontrar éste y otros documentos en: https://ridaa.unq.edu.ar Julieta Cecilia Arancio, Repositorio Institucional Digital de Acceso Abierto, Marzo de 2021, pp. 352, http://ridaa.unq.edu.ar, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Secretaría de Posgrado, Doctorado en Ciencia y Tecnología Fabricaciones desde el diálogo: Hardware científico abierto y democratización de la producción de conocimiento en la ‘periferia’ TESIS DOCTORAL Julieta Cecilia Arancio [email protected] Resumen ¿Qué sucedería si el modelo de producción de pares se aplicara a la fabricación de las herramientas de la ciencia? Siguiendo las promesas de la producción distribuida en otros campos, ¿se puede pensar en una democratización
    [Show full text]