Robert Bolton and Richard Thomas
Biohackers
The Science, Politics, and Economics
of Synthetic Biology
It has been said that if you ask five scientists for a definition of synthetic biology
(often referred to as synbio), you’ll get six different answers.1 While it may frus-
trate policymakers, this semantics problem signifies synthetic biology’s position as
one of the most dynamic and misunderstood sectors of the life sciences today.
For the purposes of this paper, we define synthetic biology as the deliberate
design and construction of a biological system to produce effects that would not
ordinarily occur in nature. It is the process of combining raw DNA components
into “synthesized” DNA strands that, when introduced into a living cell, create an
organism that behaves according to the designer’s intent. That could mean repro-
gramming the genome of a bacterium so that it manufactures a vaccine, engineer-
ing algae to create biofuels, altering a plant’s DNA to make its flowers glow in the
dark, or constructing a more powerful influenza virus from scratch (for research
purposes or otherwise).
Synthetic biology has the potential to solve, and to create, social problems. It
represents a tremendous economic opportunity and a considerable threat to pub-
lic health and security. Now entering a decisive development phase, synbio tech-
nologies are beginning to be both commercialized and democratized. As more
products created via synthetic biology are going to market, the tools and materials
used to apply the technology are also becoming cheap and accessible enough for
startups and hobbyists to get involved. The general public has little understanding
of the technology and its implications; it therefore arouses attitudes of both enthu-
siasm and alarm.2 Given that synthetic biology involves creating new forms of life,
these attitudes are neither unjustified nor surprising. It is critical that measures be
taken to facilitate discussion and accelerate understanding of synthetic biology so
that a code of ethics and policies for its use can be developed. The best way to
understand the issues and determine policies to regulate the synbio field is to cau-
tiously embrace a culture of open, transparent, and participatory science that pro-
motes discussion of opportunities and consequences at every turn.
Robert Bolton is a Senior Creative Strategist at Idea Couture.
Richard Thomas is the Head of Insight and Foresight at Kinetic Café.
© 2014 Robert Bolton and Richard Thomas
innovazioni / volume 9, number 1/2
213
Scaricato da http://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/9/1-2/213/705329/inov_a_00210.pdf by guest on 08 settembre 2023
Robert Bolton and Richard Thomas
COMMERCIALIZATION (IN YOUR NEIGHBOR’S GARAGE)
While the pharmaceutical industry has used synbio to manufacture products—
including synthetic human insulin—for over 30 years, materials produced
through synthetic biology are beginning to appear in household products with
increasing frequency. Ecover, a Belgian cleaning-product company, currently
markets a liquid laundry detergent that contains oil produced by genetically engi-
neered algae.3 Swiss-based Evolva has constructed a synthetic vanilla that is
expected to be the first synbio-produced food additive to hit the market.4
The science is also entering a stage of commercialization in which companies
are marketing “do-it-yourself” synbio products. A growing movement of “garage
biologists” or “biohackers” (referred to as “DIY synbio” in this paper) are using
digital tools to design DNA sequences, then assembling them using biological
materials that can be purchased online. The increased access to these activities by
entrepreneurs and citizen scientists outside of universities, big corporations, E
government agencies (“big bio”) is the result of dramatically lowered barriers to
entry in terms of formal education, bureaucracy, and cost.5 The DIY synbio move-
ment fundamentally challenges the way scientific knowledge is structured and
controlled, as it essentially enables anyone to access and contribute to biomedical
research. Whether DIY synbio ultimately disrupts or complements the work of the
existing big bio regimes, including academic institutions, corporations, and gov-
ernment agencies, will depend on whether big bio chooses to embrace it, ignore it,
or fight it.
Genomikon, a startup whose tagline is “Genetic Engineering for Everyone,"
markets a consumer “wetware” kit that can be purchased online for about $500.6 A wetware kit is a consumer product that provides all the biological materials, instructions, and troubleshooting tips to enable experimentation in the lab or in the home. Synthetic biology is frequently compared to computer programming. A wetware kit is much like a software development kit that enables users to create applications for a particular software platform—the significant difference being that, rather than programming software, the user is programming living matter and manipulating the functions of cells by altering the genetic code. If programming cells becomes as accessible as programming software, DIY synbio could become a new medium that people use to express themselves, much like computers and the Internet. Inoltre, if this synbio “democratization” con- tinues to scale, we could see the creation of entirely new industries. The mix of scientists, amateur tinkerers, artists, and entrepreneurs who com- prise the DIY synbio community embodies an idealist countercultural ethic that is reminiscent of the early computer hackers. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Homebrew Computer Club met regularly to exchange ideas about the future of personal com- puting. That group included the likes of Apple founder Steve Wozniak. In terms of drive and capability, the DIY synbio community looks very similar, which raises an obvious question: could DIY synbio drive the same kind of economic growth and social change as personal computing? Are we perhaps seeing the dawn of con- 214 innovazioni / The Dynamics of Development Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/9/1-2/213/705329/inov_a_00210.pdf by guest on 08 settembre 2023 Biohackers sumer biology? The growing sense of curiosity about synbio among non-scientists speaks volumes about the market potential of democratized life science. Bill Gates once envisioned putting a computer on every desk. Why not a biolab in every home? For all the similarities between IT and synbio, there is of course one glaring difference. Computer scientists work in silicon and code. Synthetic biologists are playing with living organisms; thus the risks are far more extreme. Although information technologies can be weaponized and difficult to control, biomaterials pose a far greater threat. While potential upsides of synthetic biology are great, altering DNA can produce new species for which humanity needs to be responsi- ble. Because of the complexity of the field and the velocity of progress, policymak- ers must engage immediately and continuously with the DIY synbio community. The tools biohackers already use promote sustained openness and transparen- cy; accountability is implied. The DIY synbio community’s current activities are self-regulating: they facilitate continuous risk assessment by virtue of the fact that they rely on the open sharing of information. Processes and results are crowd- reviewed rather than peer-reviewed. Così, they can be tested and verified, and their ethical soundness and safety can be assessed, by a larger group of peers and at a faster rate than traditional closed-lab experiments. Properly assessing and addressing the issues surrounding DIY synbio requires a view of what it looks like at the ground level. Seeing the movement in action pro- motes understanding of the economic and educational opportunity the field could provide. It also makes it clear that, although the risks involved in DIY synbio are real and cannot be ignored, they also are manageable and should be carefully addressed rather than fearfully suppressed. The most effective way for regulators to keep tabs on DIY synbio is to become involved. Go to the source and take part in the discussions and activities guiding the future of the discipline. The following section presents a firsthand account of the still unfolding #Sciencehack project and provides a ground-level view of DIY synthetic biology in action. DIY SYNBIO IN ACTION One Friday in 2014, a yellow school bus full of biohackers headed from Toronto to Haliburton, Ontario. Armed with DNA segments, pipettors, petri dishes, dis- posable gloves, and a $199 incubator, the group checked into the Pinestone Resort
for the weekend. There, and in a lunchroom at Fleming College’s Haliburton
School of the Arts, they would design and construct new life forms.
The group of biohackers, which included some “real scientists” as well as
designers, artists, writers, and computer programmers, was specifically trying to
create synthetic violacein, a compound that has shown promise as an antibiotic to
fight parasites, as well as anti-tumorigenic properties that warrant further research
into its potential as a cancer treatment. In nature, violacein is produced by soil-
dwelling tropical bacteria as a defense against amoebic predators. A gram of vio-
lacein costs around $300,000.7 The loose consortium of doctors and dabblers in innovations / volume 9, number 1/2 215 Scaricato da http://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/9/1-2/213/705329/inov_a_00210.pdf by guest on 08 settembre 2023 Robert Bolton and Richard Thomas the Haliburton group hoped to reduce the cost dramatically by designing new metabolic pathways that would boost the amount of violacein production in E. coli. The weekend-long hackathon in Haliburton, called #Sciencehack, was organ- ized by Synbiota, a Toronto-based startup that took home the top prize in the Innovative World Technologies category at the SXSW Interactive Accelerator held earlier this year. Synbiota’s web-based open-science platform is effectively a lab on a browser that does for scientific research what tools like Google Docs have done for collaborative writing or what mass open online courses, or MOOCs, are doing for education. All experiment results are shared and open for public view. Infatti, #Sciencehack was also live-streamed in the name of transparency, thus opening a window to those interested in peering into the DIY synbio realm. While Synbiota provides the software for virtual science, Edmonton-based Genomikon provides the wetware for material science. Genomikon’s “Violacein Factory” kit is equipped with all the necessary biological materials and instruc- tions to create the plasmid violacein. The collaboration between Synbiota and Genomikon opens and democratizes genetic engineering in a way that fundamen- tally upends how scientific research has been done. They believe that Mass Open Online Science (MOOS, as it was coined at SXSW) O, as Synbiota prefers to call it, Open Distributed Genetic Engineering could greatly increase the rate at which new scientific breakthroughs are made. The #Sciencehack event in Haliburton was the first of its kind and it marked the beginning of a research sprint led by Synbiota and Genomikon to discover new biodesigns for creating violacein. Since then, researchers around the world have worked with the Factory kit and shared their findings in an attempt to engineer a safe strain of E. coli that produces violacein on demand. To date, 79 researchers have designed 54 DNA sequences over the course of six #Sciencehack events, and isolated hundreds of violacein colonies. The most recent #Sciencehack event took place in the home kitchen of MIT media lab director Joi Ito in Cambridge, Mamma. Ito was so excited by his first biohacking experience that he subsequently invested in Synbiota and donated to iGEM (a synthetic biology competition for students).8 One #Sciencehack participant, Alejandro Saettone, produced approximately $20,000 worth of violacein with his genetic design. He has since applied for a grant
to develop protocols for extracting and purifying the enzyme in order to test its
toxicity in cancer cells. Saettone thinks that “any organized company could pro-
duce and sell violacein on a ‘for research use only’ basis9.” Violacein, of course,
could not be legally sold for treatment purposes because the product has not yet
been through clinical trials. When you think about what Saettone accomplished,
it’s only a small leap to imagine a garage scientist creating a more efficient pathway
to a blockbuster biopharmaceutical. An enterprising biohacker might even take
the next step and organize a company and sell his version of the biologic—or he
might simply bootleg it.
Synbiota’s CEO Connor Dickie is a 36-year-old entrepreneur who studied at
Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis’s Singularity University. Dickie considers
216
innovazioni / The Dynamics of Development
Scaricato da http://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/9/1-2/213/705329/inov_a_00210.pdf by guest on 08 settembre 2023
Biohackers
#Sciencehack a way of building “a huge corpus of information, an online reposi-
tory of data that is available to anyone.” Dickie knows it goes against convention,
to which he says, “This is different from a traditional lab [Quello] would do the same
type of work that we did, but not necessarily share that work with other labs in
parallel.” For Dickie, Tuttavia, the most exciting part of #Sciencehack has been
“finding out that a bunch of people, non-scientists, who are just generally interest-
ed, have the balls to travel to the middle of nowhere on a school bus to do sci-
ence.”10 What binds the participants in #Sciencehack is not necessarily any shared
discipline or vocation, nor even a particular interest in biology: what the partici-
pants have in common is a genuine curiosity and the fervor that comes from being
a part of something new, uncharted, and not yet legislated.
Pantea Razzaghi, Synbiota’s chief cultural officer, says, “We all have different
backgrounds. I am very much focused on bringing these tools and resources to
communities outside of the expected biowalls, pushing the future of biology into
new areas.”11 The fact that a biotech startup has a chief cultural officer is telling in
terms of the company’s larger mission. Synbiota is not just democratizing synthet-
ic biology by making it more accessible, it is socializing it and making it more
acceptable to many, including regulators, whose fears could hamper the discipline.
ACCELERATING UNDERSTANDING BEFORE POLICY
The roads being laid by synbio entrepreneurs like Genomikon and Synbiota cer-
tainly signal the growing importance of garage biology as a source of innovation
across sectors. Put simply, the more people participating in synbio, the faster it
may produce breakthroughs that generate wealth, benefit human health, E
reduce strain on the environment. But DIY synbio also makes more accessible the
tools, materiali, and knowledge needed to create and manipulate WMDs, ad esempio
avian influenza or Bacillus anthracis spores—commonly known as anthrax.12
More troubling is the spectrum of possible activities that are not so black and
white, to say nothing of applications that we cannot at all yet imagine. Gioietta
Kuo, a senior fellow at the American Center for International Policy Studies,
points to the present moment as a key juncture for bioethics: “Our technical ability
has reached a point where we can alter the world for the better or worse. But which
is which?”13 One can easily imagine utopian and dystopian scenarios for a future
highly influenced by biotech; the conditions of that world will depend greatly on
decisions made today.
A progressive policy determination model is required. The participatory activ-
ities already being practiced by the DIY synbio community provide an optimal
venue for dialogue. By its very nature, the DIY synbio community invites stake-
holders from various sectors—education, industry, policy, and security, for exam-
ple—to take part. It is up to these and other communities to participate and com-
municate directly with those active in the DIY synbio movement, where the dis-
cussions are already taking place and bioethics decisions are being made in real
time as the technology advances.
innovazioni / volume 9, number 1/2
217
Scaricato da http://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/9/1-2/213/705329/inov_a_00210.pdf by guest on 08 settembre 2023
Robert Bolton and Richard Thomas
A code of ethics has been drafted by the global community, DIYBIO, and post-
ed at DIYbio.org. It emphasizes transparency, knowledge sharing, modesty,
accountability, peaceful purposes, and safe practices.14 Within this framework, fur-
ther regulations can be established that will promote safety and security without
stifling research and innovation.
POLICYMAKERS FEAR WHAT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND
As with most technologies from cars to computers, there will always be risks of
misuse and dual use, or simply unintended mistakes and unforeseeable outcomes.
Synthetic biology is no different in this respect. No matter how many oaths, dec-
larations, safety inspections, tripwires, laws, and policies are developed and
enforced, none will dissolve the inherent risk in interactions between nature, tech-
nology, and humans. Even in an environment where there is common agreement
of intent, there are and will be many uncertainties associated with developing syn-
thetic life. It is indeed possible that an individual or group could take advantage of
the DIY synbio community’s accessible tools and open-source information and
use them for malicious purposes in secret. But this is also why it is so important to
maintain open and inclusive dialogue, so that the DIY synbio community, Quale
has thus far proven to be of a high moral and ethical standard, can continue to
report openly, serving as watchdogs over their own unconventional labs.
Hindering such conditions are instances where the security community has
acted unjustly and hostilely to the synbio community. In 2004, the FBI detained
bioartist Steve Kurtz under suspicion of bioterrorism, even though his projects
were legal. Such acts by authorities have resulted in fear-based secrecy by some
“garage biologists” in a community that otherwise champions transparency. Rob
Carlson, a leading expert on synthetic biology, says “a direct result of the DOJ/FBI
attitude is that people with labs at home have stopped talking about those labs,
which has had the effect of making more DIY scientists want to practice secretly
rather than talk about it and engage openly.”15 It is only via constant communica-
tion and close collaboration among stakeholders that safe policy and security solu-
tions will be determined and upheld. Fear-based suppression by authorities will
only result in fear-based secrecy by the DIY synbio community; such a cycle has
the effect of increasing uncertainty and potential threats.
HACKING BIO AND POLICY
The culture of biohackers—their tools, spazi, and techniques—is becoming pol-
icy itself. The makeup of the community and its technological and ethical limits
are inseparable from a system of rules. Embedded within the tools of open science
is the importance of monitoring processes and results. Just as author-activist Jane
Jacobs proposed a theory of “eyes on the street” to create the conditions for safe
urban living, saying that “a well-used city street is apt to be a safe street,”16 we see
the bio community building affordances—that is, properties of a thing that deter-
218
innovazioni / The Dynamics of Development
Scaricato da http://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/9/1-2/213/705329/inov_a_00210.pdf by guest on 08 settembre 2023
Biohackers
mine how it could be used—and support for “eyes on the strand,” where DIY syn-
bio culture, its social protocols, and its tools become a viable methodology for risk
assessment. One might say that a trait for self-regulation is encoded into the com-
munity’s figurative DNA.
The whole idea of citizen science is centered around crowdsourced data and
on building on the breakthroughs of others as they happen: transparency and
accountability are inherent. An effective regulatory framework for DIY synbio
should be able to absorb any new elements that enter the field in real time.
Tuttavia, sustaining such a responsive model will require constant conversation,
collaboration, and cross-pollination among stakeholders in all sectors, which will
enable the roadmap to adapt as new elements are introduced onto the landscape.
1. Paul Voosen. “Synthetic Biology Comes Down to Earth,” The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Marzo 4, 2013. Available at http://chronicle.com/article/Synthetic-Biology-Comes-
Down/137587/.
2. From the talk, “Will Society Allow Synthetic Bio?” Gil Meyer, WorldFuture 2014, Luglio 2014.
3. Stephanie Strom. Companies Quietly Apply Biofuel Tools to Household Products. The New York
Times. May 30, 2014. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/31/business/biofuel-tools-
applied-to-household-soaps.html?hpw&rref=health&_r=3.
4. Erika Check Hayden. Synthetic-Biology Firms Shift Focus: Nature. Gennaio 29, 2014. Available at
http://www.nature.com/news/synthetic-biology-firms-shift-focus-1.14602.
5. Alessandro Delfanti. Biohackers: The Politics of Open Science. London: Pluto Press, 2013.
6. Genomikon. Store. http://www.genomikon.ca/store/c1/Featured_Products.html August 23,
2014.
7. Sigma Aldrich. Products. Available at
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search?interface=All&term=violacein&N=0&mode=matc
h%20partialmax&focus=product&lang=en®ion=CA.
8. Joi Ito, “Kitchen Counter Biohacking” H+ magazine. Available at
9. Alejandro Saettone, interview by Robert Bolton and Richard Thomas, Luglio 12, 2014.
10. Connor Dickie, interview by Robert Bolton and Richard Thomas, Marzo 30, 2014.
11. Pantea Razzaghi, interview by Robert Bolton and Richard Thomas, Marzo 30, 2014.
12. On Guard Against WMD: Inside the Biological Countermeasures Unit. Part 1: The Federal
Bureau of Investigation, FBI.gov, Febbraio 21, 2012. Available at http://www.fbi.gov/news/sto-
ries/2012/february/wmd_022112.
13. Gioietta Kuo and Lane Jennings. “What If? Genetically Modified Organisms and Synthetic Life:
Future Questions.” World Future Review VI, NO. 2 (Giugno 2014): 130-142.
14. Draft DIYbio Code of Ethics from European Congress: DIYbio. Available at
http://diybio.org/codes/draft-diybio-code-of-ethics-from-european-congress/ (avuto accesso
agosto 23, 2014).
15. Robert Carlson, interview by Robert Bolton and Richard Thomas, Luglio 10, 2014.
16. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.
innovazioni / volume 9, number 1/2
219
Scaricato da http://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/9/1-2/213/705329/inov_a_00210.pdf by guest on 08 settembre 2023
Scarica il pdf