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. have built “community labs” [8, 9]. The following features characterize Keywords: DIYBio: .amateur science; art and design; biosafety; democratization; DIYBio; open access; 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 open source 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 Creative Commons 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.