Biomodifying technologies’ and the radical diffusion of the ‘experimental space’: the case of CRISPR and DIYbio

Event details

‘Biomodifying technologies’, including gene editing, are those that “modify living biological tissue in novel and increasingly patient-orientated and customised ways.” We argue that these technologies “are reshaping the landscape of innovation in the 21st century”, with their potential for standardisation opening up the possibility for a widely distributed ‘experimental space’.

This diffusion is already taking place in the case of CRISPR/Cas system of gene editing. Caplan et al. (2015) argue that CRISPR is not a ‘breakthrough technology’, but rather that, in comparison with existing systems for gene editing, it is cheap, easy to use, and does not require sophisticated equipment or expert knowhow. This has widened access to gene editing not just within institutional science, but also to the pre-existing ‘garage laboratories’ and ‘hackspaces’ of DIYbio. For example, the Open Discovery Institute (ODIN) sells DIY Bacterial Gene Engineering CRISPR kits for just $159, promising that buyers will be conducting “experiments that Ph.D. students would be doing in less than 6 months.” 

While some have welcomed this ‘democratization’, with Kuiken (2016) for example praising DIYbio cultures of responsibility, transparency, and collaboration, others have stressed the dangers. The bio-security risks of DIYbio have been taken seriously by security agencies for some time, and the availability of DIY CRISPR kits have prompted academic associations and regulatory agencies to warn DIYbiologists of the safety and legal risks involved in genetic engineering. This paper examines this diffusion of the ‘experimental space’ and the rhetorics of ‘good’ science at play in debates over DIY gene editing. 

References

Caplan, A.L., Parent, B., Shen, M., & Plunkett, C. (2015). No time to waste – the ethical challenges created by CRISPR. EMBO reports 16(11):1421-1426.

Kuiken, T. (2016). Learn from DIY biologists: the citizen-science community has a responsible, proactive attitude that is well suited to gene-editing. Nature 531(7593):167-169.