Kickstarter projects

[fhapgood]

I am struck that there seem to be no science projects on Kickstarter.
It seems like such a natural.
Lots of people I know -- not just practicing professional scientists
-- can reel off interesting
experiments or field investigations that they are not pursuing because
they don't think the odds
of getting funded are high enough. I can easily imagine supporting
such work at $50 a throw. I have
written to Kickstarter suggesting they get into science but their
responses, while polite,
are unenthusiastic. Is it possible that another site somewhere is
filling this need???
Or am I missing something, something that makes the whole idea not
practical??

[Thomas Stowe]

The thing with Kickstarter is, if you don't fit in with their hipster idea of what's "creative", you get told essentially to fuck off. Really, their staff that reviews the projects is rather rude. I'd love to sit down with the founders and have a talk to them about their staff that handles dealing with the public.

Thomas C. Stowe

Email stowe....@gmail.com 

Texas Computer Services http://www.txpcservices.com

Portfolio/VCard/Resume/Blog http://www.thomasstowe.info

Phone +1-210-704-7289

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

[Cathal Garvey]

Well the first issue that comes to mind is that Kickstarter don't support projects that don't have a US bank account, which is pretty lame. A great global alternative is ulule.com, but it doesn't have the same following sadly.

Really though, there are good ideas that would really fit Kickstarter in the DIYbio sphere. I think the big barrier to biotech projects is the inherent uncertainty in biotech; you can't be sure your idea will *ever* work in biotech, whereas teething issues with an electronics project will certainly be possible to work through. The cost of prototyping in biology is simply still too high.

That said, I'm considering trying a crowdfunder someday for a fun or valuable project; something in the open-source DNA field, like the DIY Insulin/Thyroxine idea I was kicking around the other month. With a good enough draw for supporters (disaster-proof medicine supplies) and a process that you can guarantee *will* work with enough effort (virtually all modern insuin is derived from GM-bacteria/yeast), you should be able to get a good thing going pretty quickly.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

--
letters.cunningprojects.com
twitter.com/onetruecathal
http://www.indiebiotech.com

[Thomas Stowe]

I'd support the DIY insulin project and help you promote it if you can show more than just promise for the project. With all of our MFG capability tied up in China, I'd like to see the important things available to be moved at home. Personally, I've gathered up all the data I've been able to so far on plants with medicinal properties. Beyond just astringent, there are some that have real antibacterial properties both used topically, internally and even orally-internally. 

What would help quite a bit more would be a DIY set of antibiotics. The fact that I'm actually going to have to go to Mexico (the nearest place for me) to buy a decent amount of antibiotics for emergency situations really does put me off. Anyone know what the legalities of producing home-based insulin and antibiotics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antibiotics

Poignantly as an example, there was a guy recently, in his 20s and a father who recently died because he had a tooth infection and couldn't afford to a) get it pulled or b) get antibiotics. The infection spread to his brain and he died. That happens more often than people want to think about.

There are situations in which it would save a ton of lives and some people out in the world, including myself are preparing as best we can for any situation. I urge you all to think about preparation for events in your life.

Definitely download the PDFs of the book below and read over these two books if you all have time, or at least store them on optical media or flash drive for the future (ensuring of course that bitrot doesn't get to them). 

Where There Is No Doctor

http://hesperian.org/10411911.php

Where There Is No Dentist

http://hesperian.org/10408695.php

These are definitely not just 3rd world problems and if you value your life and that of others around you, I strongly urge you to take at least responsibility for preparation with information like this, especially if you live in an area that's been affected by natural disasters in the past (earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc).

Thomas C. Stowe

Email stowe....@gmail.com 

Texas Computer Services http://www.txpcservices.com

Portfolio/VCard/Resume/Blog http://www.thomasstowe.info

Phone +1-210-704-7289

[Nathan McCorkle]

My friends and I got approved on kickstarter to get our open source photospectrometer project funded. We haven't posted the project yet due to lack of time with school, but we've just got to remake our video and were basically ready to post it.

Good to know there are folks here that will support us!

We're building a prototype next week (electronics and maybe rudimentary optics) that I'll be bringing to Open Science Summit!

When the project is public on kickstarter, I'll definitely let this list know.

[Nathan McCorkle]

DIYbio is hip though!!!

The open source spectrometer is fundamentally hardware though, but a lot of the projects on there are art, and bio techniques are often said to be an art, since its not always aa straightforward as pure chemistry.

They liked our project, amd Tito and Josh's too!

On Oct 6, 2011 11:44 AM, "Thomas Stowe" <stowe....@gmail.com> wrote:
> The thing with Kickstarter is, if you don't fit in with their hipster idea
> of what's "creative", you get told essentially to fuck off. Really, their
> staff that reviews the projects is rather rude. I'd love to sit down with
> the founders and have a talk to them about their staff that handles dealing
> with the public.
>
>
> Thomas C. Stowe
> Email stowe....@gmail.com

> <stowe....@gmail.com?subject=Thomas!-[NOT-SPAM]!>

[Patrik]

FundScience was essentially to do something like that: a crowdsource
funding platform for research projects:

http://fundscience.org/blog/

They haven't been around for very long, and they probably still have
some kinks to work out, but looks promising so far.

[kingjacob]

CSQ got funded through kickstarter :D and there are also alternative sites with different fee and payment structures like rockethub, indiegogo or ulule).

Also there is currently a challenge going on over at http://scifund.wordpress.com where 240 scientists are trying to crowdfund their research.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

--

Cheers,
Jacob Shiach

[Choons]

you do see the inherent irony in discussing organized project funding/
grants/proposals in a group called "DIY Bio" ? ;) I kid, but it does
broach an interesting area. At what point does this "outlaw" science
and that of the current science establishment become so blurred that
it's difficult to make a distinction between them? I suppose as long
as funding can be crowd-sourced from an interested public then the
distinction is intact. It will be quite interesting though when a DIY
Bio group first attains enough credibility by merit that it attracts
big investment capital. Will they be able to retain their autonomy and
"creative control" ?

[Thomas Stowe]

...But the investment capital probably won't appear other than by individuals and proponents of philanthropy. DIYBio and other maker-type groups aren't really for-profit  or sale. I hate put it this way, but it's not a chemistry-set or for those with the mentality that they'll just open an instructional manual and dive right in. Open source hardware is just that and from what I know of many people,  they do profit a bit, but only to reimburse them for their time. 

Drawing the line between for-profit and not in this is very important. In my opinion, doing something of this nature for profit as a way of working is first and foremost the basis for a very terrible business plan. Secondly, the sourced funding done by individuals is exactly what the solutions DIYBio does and will provide are after. 

These are ideas to grow, transfer and prosper and are definitely not mass produce and line-generate products. Tell me if I'm wrong or out of line, but I believe we all feel that way and put our passion and interest in making things available to ourselves and others ahead of interest in making people pay for things that will help. That's why this group and others have started working on projects. 

This isn't a "fringe" or "outlaw" group as you described it. There is no distinction between what this group is doing and work being done at many schools and corporate labs. Often enough, people at workplaces are becoming able to telecommute or work at home and this is true for many fields, including sciences. Investment capital won't come because what these things need and seek is charitable donations of time, money and equipment. Sites like Kickstarter themselves may get some investors, however they are working on a for-profit model. Some funding has been secured by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and for local groups, by it's membership and interested parties.

Thomas C. Stowe

Email stowe....@gmail.com 

Texas Computer Services http://www.txpcservices.com

Portfolio/VCard/Resume/Blog http://www.thomasstowe.info

Phone +1-210-704-7289

[John Griessen]

On 10/07/2011 02:11 AM, Thomas Stowe wrote:
> I believe we all feel that way and put our passion and interest in making
things available to ourselves and others ahead of
> interest in making people pay for things that will help. That's why this
group and others have started working on projects.

I have seen some returns on open hardware, and like to be designing machines as an end in itself.
So I will ask for enough money to properly do that, by also promoting and selling for non-giveaway prices.
It will work as a business plan as much as you have new ideas to execute and ways to do them
that are not all at cross directions. That's why I ask about who would want what on this list,
so I can plan things that align and reuse parts in several machines that
each will have a product lifetime that is short. The Adafruit people are offering to help
with business review and they are publishing methods of how they operate all the time...
Sparkfun is a similar product range to model business after.

JG

[John Griessen]

On 10/07/2011 02:11 AM, Thomas Stowe wrote:

> These are ideas to grow, transfer and prosper and are definitely not mass produce
and line-generate products. Tell me if I'm wrong

Prosper means mass produce today. No one affords one of a kind items except
the ultra wealthy.

Everything mentioned by me and Nate M. is about robot cut this, and 3D printed that.
It's not doomed, it's scalable. It's what makes sense as tech evolves.
There is so much tech available you can assemble a modular collection
of chips first with Sparkfun break out boards and arduinos, then lay out
your own board after it tests working well so it can make money. The customers
gladly pay vs. having to kludge stuff together themselves -- especially biologists,
since they like new tech mostly so they can do some wetware new tech, not
develop lab equipment to lower costs. Open hardware is not charity hardware,
it is what is being demanded by some researchers because their gear is in such
a small niche that ordinary instrumentation suppliers don't serve them and
some of their systems are obsolete and unsupportable since the company died
and all docs went with it.

I like developing equipment. After getting some low level building blocks
of lab gear launched, I'll have a reputation and it will be easy to get on a research project
to combine gear in new ways for fancy experiments. There's all kinds of directions
this kind of activity can go business-wise, and it doesn't always mean going for
a IPO startup by VC, it can mean wanting to be active doing what you like at a
merely comfortable level, not a vow of poverty, and still offer plenty of bang per buck.
Much of the bang comes from shared work possibilities, if not in collaborative
developing, then at the early adopter user stage and redevelopment opportunity.

John Griessen

[Cathal Garvey]

Agreed on this score. The important thing in life is to be fulfilled and happy. While money is necessary for living and basic comforts, beyond that threshold it can only ever function as an abstraction for happiness. If there's nothing you need to be happy that can be bought, then any additional money (beyond that needed to guarantee future financial stability) is surplus to requirement.

Rather than imagining careers that make one fabulously wealthy, the wiser route is to imagine careers that are fulfilling and meaningful, whether personally or globally.

Of course, it would still be nice if I had earned more out of my DIYbio career so far ;) Early adoption is hard!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

[CoryG]

> Drawing the line between for-profit and not in this is very important. In my
> opinion, doing something of this nature for profit as a way of working is
> first and foremost the basis for a very terrible business plan. Secondly,
> the sourced funding done by individuals is exactly what the solutions DIYBio
> does and will provide are after.
>
> These are ideas to grow, transfer and prosper and are definitely not mass
> produce and line-generate products. Tell me if I'm wrong or out of line, but
> I believe we all feel that way and put our passion and interest in making
> things available to ourselves and others ahead of interest in making people
> pay for things that will help. That's why this group and others have started
> working on projects.

I wouldn't agree with this entirely. I believe if you are working on
a DIY project with any real potential the goal should be profit - not
strictly to further research via better equipment, supplies and free
time - but also because if you don't seek profit with it someone else
will, and once the rent-seekers get their hands on an idea it not only
devalues the idea but the researchers working on it. If you are able
to work on something that becomes successful and continually reinvest
profits into research there is a good chance you will be prolific and
able to find more than a single thing that is beneficial to everyone -
if on the other hand you work on a line of research and give up on it
before seeing it to production you will always have the same
limitations you started with and be pretty unlikely to be a prolific a
creator without selling out completely and doing it for an existing
company - at which point you also end up losing a good deal of control
over what you research. In my opinion - if you hit on something that
has potential, it's not only beneficial to yourself, but a duty to the
spirit of creation that you see it to profit and continue reinvesting
in areas of research that you deem appropriate, because some hack who
is good at controlling people will never really know, or be agile
enough to predict, where research should be steered.

[Thomas Stowe]

I don't know about that. We've discussed realities of IP before and if something is open source or "DIY", in that spirit you shouldn't be looking toward developing your own technologies to sell to the DIY group for profit (or others). That smacks of a bit of selfishness and if you're using the resources of a group or as an educational aid solely taking away and not contributing I don't see that you really respect the others whose goal is to build a framework to share, educate and work together. 

I'm not so much pressing that it's wrong to profit, but that's pretty much what this group (again, tell me if you think I'm wrong, because that's how I read it and how I see it) is trying to move away from. More so, if your aim is to create a product that's much cheaper than it's commercial counterpart and open source it to share with the world as well as selling, that's great. If not, it's just a dick move and you're wasting other peoples' time.

Continuing on a thread that someone else had stated before, I'm not stating that your time and money aren't important or don't mitigate against your ambitions, but if you're relying on this to develop your idea and become successful by starting a company to sell products, you might want to try to re-conceive your ambitions so that they match the reality of what your aims are objectively and as well what the group is working toward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIYbio

http://diybio.org/

Regardless of what you or I say, our opinions don't really mean much in the scheme of things, but I'm trying to rely how things are as I understand them. But really, profiting from something in the sense that your self-sufficient and can put profits back into projects is noble. I won't say it won't happen, but it's a pipe dream for most people, at best. More than a few DIYBio local groups have shut down for lack of funds and others do it at a loss because they want to see the world change and the biohacking fields grow. What this group accomplishes and has accomplished doesn't need to exist in a "Makerbot, LLC" capacity to have changed the world and change it further, it's already left it's mark and the information and concepts we all share and preserve will make a bigger difference still. If you want to try that, more power to you but if you're working with the group on it and in the spirit of it, it'll be open sourced. 

If you're using the group as a network for finding partners for commercial enterprises or fishing for information to serve you personally some might take offense.

BTW, in regards to: 

"but a duty to the spirit of creation  that you see it to profit and continue reinvesting in areas of research that you deem appropriate, because some hack who is good at controlling people will never really know, or be agile

enough to predict, where research should be steered." 

Could you please be a bit less metaphorical and use clear English to explain what you're talking about?

Kind Regards,

Thomas C. Stowe

Email stowe....@gmail.com 

Texas Computer Services http://www.txpcservices.com

Portfolio/VCard/Resume/Blog http://www.thomasstowe.info

Phone +1-210-704-7289

[CoryG]

> I don't know about that. We've discussed realities of IP before and if
> something is open source or "DIY", in that spirit you shouldn't be looking
> toward developing your own technologies to sell to the DIY group for profit
> (or others). That smacks of a bit of selfishness and if you're using the
> resources of a group or as an educational aid solely taking away and not
> contributing I don't see that you really respect the others whose goal is to
> build a framework to share, educate and work together.

Open source and DIY aren't necessarily the same thing, they they do
often go together. There are many kinds of openness that result in
DIY projects ranging from simply conveying a general idea to full
schematics and step-by-step how to's. I contribute quite a bit
though, as an educational aid just as I receive information from this
group - and yes, it is selfish and selfishness is the most honorable
thing there is, when it is fair. Recently I've shared how to build a
high speed ball mill, per your own request, and before that detailed
how I made better super capacitors, I am still learning about biotech
though when I have something more fitting of the field I will share
that to. There is however a difference between sharing how something
works and sharing tangible assets that produce profits - for example,
I am still working on the production method to mass produce the super
capacitors I've designed, I fully intend to turn a profit on them, and
to reinvest that money into further research - I've probably been more
open about their design than I should have before having a production
line running, but the concept leading to their creation is distinct
from their creation as it is with anything.

> I'm not so much pressing that it's wrong to profit, but that's pretty much
> what this group (again, tell me if you think I'm wrong, because that's how I
> read it and how I see it) is trying to move away from. More so, if your aim
> is to create a product that's much cheaper than it's commercial counterpart
> and open source it to share with the world as well as selling, that's great.
> If not, it's just a dick move and you're wasting other peoples' time.

Money is the standard we have by which to gauge our value to society,
there are corrupt methods to accruing it (rent-seekers are a big one
obviously) but if you create something you should be the one to profit
from it if anyone does, and if it is a worthwhile idea, if you don't
profit from it someone less deserving will - that is how the world
works and ideology will not change that.

> Continuing on a thread that someone else had stated before, I'm not stating
> that your time and money aren't important or don't mitigate against your
> ambitions, but if you're relying on this to develop your idea and become
> successful by starting a company to sell products, you might want to try to
> re-conceive your ambitions so that they match the reality of what your aims
> are objectively and as well what the group is working toward.

I would certainly never sell another person's idea or product, and
would despise anyone doing so whether the victim of the theft were
myself or another person - I can't really place how the above
paragraph fits in response to anything I wrote.

> Regardless of what you or I say, our opinions don't really mean much in the
> scheme of things, but I'm trying to rely how things are as I understand
> them. But really, profiting from something in the sense that your
> self-sufficient and can put profits back into projects is noble. I won't say
> it won't happen, but it's a pipe dream for most people, at best. More than a
> few DIYBio local groups have shut down for lack of funds and others do it at
> a loss because they want to see the world change and the biohacking fields
> grow. What this group accomplishes and has accomplished doesn't need to
> exist in a "Makerbot, LLC" capacity to have changed the world and change it
> further, it's already left it's mark and the information and concepts we all
> share and preserve will make a bigger difference still. If you want to try
> that, more power to you but if you're working with the group on it and in
> the spirit of it, it'll be open sourced.

The solution to this, in my mind anyway, is to focus on self-
sustaining profit a bit more. Research for research sake's alone is
the pipe dream unless you come from a good deal of wealth - if there
is no profit it is simply unsustainable.

> If you're using the group as a network for finding partners for commercial
> enterprises or fishing for information to serve you personally some might
> take offense.

I've had direct contact with a couple of active members in the DIYbio
group in regards to collaborating more closely on specific projects, 1
I contacted and 1 contacted me, but the long distance aspect made it a
pretty unmanageable prospect. I'd still happily discuss and assist
with ideas wherever possible, but in terms of tangible assets, trading
components back and fourth that aren't very difficult to find, custom
made or at significant savings for the sake of collaborative design is
illogical.

> BTW, in regards to:
>
> "but a duty to the spirit of creation  that you see it to profit and
> continue reinvesting in areas of research that you deem appropriate, because
> some hack who is good at controlling people will never really know, or be
> agile
> enough to predict, where research should be steered."
>
> Could you please be a bit less metaphorical and use clear English to explain
> what you're talking about?

To clarify the original meaning here without any metaphorical
references:
If you value the ability to create new things, the only logical course
of action when it is possible is to profit from those things and
reinvest the profits, because if something is profitable someone will
turn a profit on it, even if it is someone who simply saw the idea and
replicated it - further, a person who would profit on it is themselves
unable to produce such new things from their own capabilities - if you
value progression, then not valuing the profit that enables it and
ensuring the proper allocation thereof is a self-defeating ambition.

[Thomas Stowe]

Yeah, I get what you're saying but did you sort out what DIYBio is about? I don't mean by intuiting from the name, which is why I linked the wikipedia entry and the site, as well as innmerable resources you can find. DIYBio is definitely open source, that's not really up for debate, regardless of any opinions on the matter. My reply was directed mostly at the post before it, so please don't assume I'm getting snippy. DIY, in this instance doesn't refer to solely as "how-to" as in how-to guide. 

Because of the lack of resources available, DIYBio was created to work on open source projects to provide to the community. I hope that you don't assume that I'm reading into things, but from what you've said that's not your aim. /shrug, I didn't really expect a reply to everything I've said and it's not my place to really say anything about what you believe in regards to your personal business.

Money being a standard of success is precisely what this group and others are trying to relieve scientists of, to promote learning, not the success of individuals over that of the success of others. That's all I really have to say on the matter.

I'm not talking about what you or anyone else does with your and their own time, that's your business. I'm talking about what people do with the group as projects and sharing.

I'm sorry that you feel that charitable help and research because of interest are things that shouldn't be pursued. You definitely wouldn't fit in with many enthusiasts who don't do it for the money. I really have a hard time wrapping my mind around what you feel worth is, though. Worth isn't solely wealth and the value gained from promoting the sharing and proliferation of information not for profit is important. In other words, emulating corporate aims is not a good thing for the world, only for you as the person behind it. Sure, it's a wonderful goal but not one to be pursued in this context. I sure as hell don't plan on trying to "become one with nature" and live in a hut the rest of my life. Money's a good thing, yes and that's a good goal for you, but this isn't the place for it.

If you really feel that way about money and that you should profit off of any use of your work (IE, patenting it) why are you subscribed to this group talking about it?

I'm sorry, but there's a time and a place or objectivism and selfishness. Chatting back and forth on a mailing list or contributing to a group with the aims that this one does is not the place for a tit for tat or selfish attitude. That kind of thing creates drama and usually brings any community that is intended in goals opposite those, down to a level where arguments take place and nothing gets accomplished.

As far as what you've shared, I really don't care who contributes what or who talks about what. You may have noticed that people who contribute to the list are even willing to talk about a DIY solution to solve some guy's periodontosis. My reply was more to illuminate the facts rather than argue or debate anything with you. 

Thomas C. Stowe

Email stowe....@gmail.com 

Texas Computer Services http://www.txpcservices.com

Portfolio/VCard/Resume/Blog http://www.thomasstowe.info

Phone +1-210-704-7289

[CoryG]

> Money being a standard of success is precisely what this group and others
> are trying to relieve scientists of, to promote learning, not the success of
> individuals over that of the success of others. That's all I really have to
> say on the matter.

If you relieve money as a standard of success you relieve scientists
of learning new things (ie: those yet undiscovered) - not just the
burden of obtaining it. For instance, I'm working on a high power
phased array for materials synthesis experiments - yes my super
capacitor research came about as a need to power the thing cheaply and
would probably not have occurred otherwise - but I still lack the
funding the complete the machine needed for the bulk of the research I
aim to undertake. If you just want to learn what other's know then
that's great, but if you want to create rather than build things you
have to have the means to do so.

> I'm sorry that you feel that charitable help and research because of
> interest are things that shouldn't be pursued. You definitely wouldn't fit
> in with many enthusiasts who don't do it for the money. I really have a hard
> time wrapping my mind around what you feel worth is, though. Worth isn't
> solely wealth and the value gained from promoting the sharing and
> proliferation of information not for profit is important. In other words,
> emulating corporate aims is not a good thing for the world, only for you as
> the person behind it. Sure, it's a wonderful goal but not one to be pursued
> in this context. I sure as hell don't plan on trying to "become one with
> nature" and live in a hut the rest of my life. Money's a good thing, yes and
> that's a good goal for you, but this isn't the place for it.

I believe research of interest should be pursued - in fact that is the
underpinning of my stance that people need to get the compensation
they earn from their research - to fuel more research in the area
deemed appropriate by the researcher.

> If you really feel that way about money and that you should profit off of
> any use of your work (IE, patenting it) why are you subscribed to this group
> talking about it?

I don't believe in patents - the system is horribly corrupt and for
tangible things (software patents are a bit of a fluke) you only have
to change a detail of the design and it is a new patent - they are
very easy things to get around unless you have a horde of lawyers to
defend it, and you're better off lying low and showing prior art + a
well kept engineering notebook in court if there is a dispute to be
made. I believe in sharing information, and the things I've shared
about the research I've done on this group might have implications to
others that can be used in different ways - I take the approach that
if it inspires someone to do something different with it then great,
if it's stolen I'll see the thief in court.

> I'm sorry, but there's a time and a place or objectivism and selfishness.
> Chatting back and forth on a mailing list or contributing to a group with
> the aims that this one does is not the place for a tit for tat or selfish
> attitude. That kind of thing creates drama and usually brings any community
> that is intended in goals opposite those, down to a level where arguments
> take place and nothing gets accomplished.
>
> As far as what you've shared, I really don't care who contributes what or
> who talks about what. You may have noticed that people who contribute to the
> list are even willing to talk about a DIY solution to solve some guy's
> periodontosis. My reply was more to illuminate the facts rather than argue
> or debate anything with you.

On the selfishness point I'd agree to the extent you initially used it
- you shouldn't be aiming to use information shared from others in a
DIY spirit for profit - and I'm not. There are however many original
ideas in this group that the creator should have every right to pursue
as they see fit Cathal's dremelfuge is the first example that comes to
mind.

In terms of objectivism - I don't see how it could not have a place in
a group seeking to share scientific information - feelings aren't a
factor, only fact is - objectivism is the core requirement of everyone
here who has a chance in hell at doing anything worthwhile research-
wise. Where objectivism translates to money management might be a bit
of debate, by my only hope in stating the things I have on this thread
is that it will help DIYbio to grow - because no matter what political
stance you hold, it doesn't change reality - money is the core of
anything that can be done with a dependence upon society, be it
related to time or resources.

[Thomas Stowe]

Sorry, I assumed you were coming from a standpoint of Randian (Ayn Rand) objectivism. I apologize. It's a bit like the core tenets of Satanism, but nicer. :) (Me, first, me only.)

Thomas C. Stowe

Email stowe....@gmail.com 

Texas Computer Services http://www.txpcservices.com

Portfolio/VCard/Resume/Blog http://www.thomasstowe.info

Phone +1-210-704-7289

[CoryG]

I believe in the Ann Rand version from a philosophical standpoint, but
was speaking to the scientific version.

On Oct 8, 5:53 am, Thomas Stowe <stowe.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I assumed you were coming from a standpoint of Randian (Ayn Rand)
> objectivism. I apologize. It's a bit like the core tenets of Satanism, but
> nicer. :) (Me, first, me only.)
>
> Thomas C. Stowe

> Email stowe.tho...@gmail.com
> <stowe.tho...@gmail.com?subject=Thomas!-[NOT-SPAM]!>
> Texas Computer Serviceshttp://www.txpcservices.com
> Portfolio/VCard/Resume/Bloghttp://www.thomasstowe.info

[Thomas Stowe]

It shows.

Thomas C. Stowe

Email stowe....@gmail.com 

Texas Computer Services http://www.txpcservices.com

Portfolio/VCard/Resume/Blog http://www.thomasstowe.info

Phone +1-210-704-7289

[CoryG]

Thank you.

On Oct 8, 6:39 am, Thomas Stowe <stowe.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It shows.
>
> Thomas C. Stowe

[John Griessen]

On 10/08/2011 12:03 AM, CoryG wrote:
> some hack who
> is good at controlling people will never really know, or be agile
> enough to predict, where research should be steered.

+1 Seems plenty clear in ordinary levels of metaphor to me. Hack in this
context means bad golfer -- unskilled...not a designer of things.

On 10/08/2011 01:57 AM, CoryG wrote:
> I'd still happily discuss and assist
> with ideas wherever possible, but in terms of tangible assets, trading

> components back and forth that aren't very difficult to find, custom

> made or at significant savings for the sake of collaborative design is
> illogical.

This is not clear to me, probably means:
trading
> components back and forth for the sake of collaborative design that are
(easy to find) or (not custom made) or (not at significant savings) is
> illogical.

On 10/08/2011 03:09 AM, Thomas Stowe wrote:
> Money being a standard of success is precisely what this group and others are trying
to relieve scientists of, to promote
> learning, not the success of individuals

I would use the words "lack of innovated infrastructure" to describe the state of
lab gear today. The words "Money being a standard of success" is usually in the context
of personal results in life and thus freedom to act in larger ways by spending it. The above
sentence triggers all kinds of belief based misunderstandings instead of defining the thrust of DIYbio.

Cory seems to have plenty of desire to make a positive difference in the world so far
as I've talked with him about collaboration. You two may be closer in values than you think..
or not depending on the Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged stuff...

John
itching to make money providing high bang per buck open lab gear...
without "making money off of" anyone, so I can reinvest it and do more...
selfishly wanting to collaborate because it's fun...

[kingjacob]

Open Source and DIYbio does not mean non-profit. If someone wants to create things to sell to the DIY group this should be encouraged. If it's useful and affordable, people will buy it. If it's closed source and a lemon, they'll be quickly dismissed. If you make an affordable open source nanodrop, am I not going to buy it because you like money? No, I'll probably buy 2. 

In fact, it's a natural progression for anyone interested in spending more time doing DIYbio to try and figure out how they can make a living off of it so they can do it full time.

Also kind of a side note but for determining what DIYbio is you might want to check out our code of ethics. Might prove more useful than the wikipedia article.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

--

Cheers,
Jacob Shiach

editor-in-chief: Citizen Science Quarterly

twitter: @jacobshiach

[Nathan McCorkle]

There's been a lot of conversation since I last contributed, so this
isn't a direct reply to anyone.

DIYbio (even the wikipedia page that Thomas linked to) doesn't say
anything about money, anywhere.

"DIYbio.org is an organization dedicated to making biology an
accessible pursuit for citizen scientists, amateur biologists and
biological engineers who value openness and safety. This will require
mechanisms for amateurs to increase their knowledge and skills, access
to a community of experts, the development of a code of ethics,
responsible oversight, and leadership on issues that are unique to
doing biology outside of traditional professional settings."

Making biology accessible, in a free and safe manner. (enable biology
to happen, be transparent, don't make harmful decisions)

Mechanism to increase knowledge: this online list

Mechanism to increase skill: this online list, community lab space
centers like genspace and biocurious

Access to experts: see last line, news articles and other events
announced through previously mentioned channels

ethics: I feel like this was done at Asilomar, but DIYbio folks have
come up with more down-to-earth, easier to read version too.

oversight: other than online community watchdogs and managers of lab
spaces, rule that govern professional biologists apply to amateurs (it
is then DIYbio's duty to provide easy access to these information,
there should be links on the homepage

leadership: I think this is sort of self-segregating, people with more
skill generally comment more in discussions... unskilled people that
are resourceful
and quick learners may also be highly active in discussions

SO - my aim
*******************

Making biology accessible: I participate here and in professional circles

Mechanism to increase knowledge/skill: I wanted to biohack, so I am
getting a degree in Biotechnology (and school is a very difficult
environment for me, not having much time for hobby projects). I'm on
this online list

Access to experts: professors, attending lectures, conferences,
workshops, faires, jobs

ethics: I try to look at and question everything objectively,
sometimes its hard, I'm here to discuss that kind of stuff too

oversight: This summer I got some time to learn more about this field,
and have been going about with aims of starting a biotech company.
Amateurs don't have any more rules, and the biggest one is property
zoning, not
scientific regulations (if they aren't selling something, then they
don't even have to abide by patent law, as it would be research akin
to what universities follow). for a while, so when I figure that out,
I can disseminate

Leadership: I think I have a pretty intelligent outlook on life, and I
often find people looking to me for help with technical problems

To touch again upon the accessibility and skill sections, I want to
build equipment and sell my Engineering time at a cheaper rate than
competitors (I need to eat, I need to turn /some/ profit), while
giving away my engineering outcomes for a given project (open-source).
Most open-source guys haven't quit their day jobs yet, but it is
possible. UV/Vis/Raman Spectrometers are not my goal, but they are
components of it and will generate the funds to provide a means of
investment for those goals. Those goals aim to make biotech easier and
faster, and they'll be open-source too. I might need to pick up a PhD
along the way, and thats OK because I generally enjoy all of this, its
tinkering to me.

--
Nathan McCorkle
Rochester Institute of Technology
College of Science, Biotechnology/Bioinformatics