Steve Kurtz interview
Bryan Bishop
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/critical-art-ensemble-garage-biology-today/2010/11/12
(He actually sounds a little misinformed about multiple topics.)
"""
Steve Kurtz interviewed by Alessandro Delfanti:
The Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) is a collective of artists and activists based in the USA that work on the boundaries between science, technology and radical politics. In 2004 Steve Kurtz, one of the members of CAE, was arrested by the FBI under the charge of bioterrorism after the police found the home lab and the bacteria cultures that were used for CAE projects on the politics of biotechnology. Their book Molecular Invasion theorized the use of do-it-yourself biology as a tool to challenge the structures of power within the biotech industry and the role of biotechnology in today’s capitalist societies. In this interview, Kurtz explores the differences between CAE and the emergent movement of garage biology – such as the DIYbio network – its political role and its future.
What are the main differences between CAE and the new wave of garage biotechnology?
CAE has a politics. We are not interested in science for its own sake, but in how its materials, processes, and discourses can be marshaled in the struggle against authoritarian practices.
How and why garage biologists might be persecuted by the authorities?
From the point of view of the authorities, the three sins of garage biotech are:
1. Referencing the politics of biotech (as opposed to presenting it as value neutral).
2. Suggesting that policy regarding research initiatives should have public input,
rather than being the sole domain of corporate, military, and scientific experts.
3. Combining biotech research or usage with political activism.
Doing any or all of these will get a reaction from authorities in the U.S. Happily, in the post-Bush era the intensity of legal violence has been reduced a little. The Justice Department appears to be depoliticizing to some extent.
Can you see any real sinner around nowadays?
One of the greats right now is Adam Zaretsky. He covers his radicalism with an excentricity that makes his provocations less scary to authority. We think he is perceived as a lone crazy without much of political agenda. But what he suggests really pushes the limits, as with his germ line interventions or his liberation of recombinant ornamental creatures.
Do you think that DIYbio and today’s garage biologists have a critical approach to science?
It’s premature to say at this point. Public labs and supply shops are hardly common yet. It’s not like with information and communication technologies (ICT), where everyone owns a computer and there are distribution outlets in every mall. What little we know of this emerging subculture is that there are a number of curious enthusiasts, and those coming out of the green movement have a more critical approach. But at this point, everything is so far off the mainstream cultural radar that we really have no way to know what the tendencies are now or what they will be in the future.
But isn’t it already political to claim that anybody should be free to pursue biological research in one’s garage, outside institutional settings? That’s what DIYbio does…
Yes, it is. One can be disciplined just for making that statement. It also implies a defense of amateurism. To say that there is a need for biological literacy (especially during a revolution in biotechnology) is also political. However, stating and even enacting these imperatives is not enough. There needs to be more than a modest, latent progressive politics if we are to change the current situation.
Do you think that DIYbio will be able to avoid the contradictions and controversies surrounding garage biotech? Will they suffer backlashes?
If any group can avoid the backlash, it’s them. Their ties to universities and their commitment to keeping politics on the back burner should keep them in the realm of legitimacy, but one never knows. If bio-paranoia ramps up again, even they could become a target.
They are directly engaging in a discussion with the FBI, for example, and with the US Presidential Commission on Bioethics.
Speaking with the PCB, OK; but speaking with the FBI endangers everyone. To the FBI we are the enemy (although many agents feel that way about all science and the university in general, which they mistakenly believe are bastions of the liberal to radical left; many agents are radical right Christians and Mormons and hence have a real dislike for science). The FBI itself is a really schizophrenic institution—a kind of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. On the one hand, they have put away dangerous criminals, white-collar criminals, corrupt politicians, and organized crime figures in a manner befitting an upright law enforcement agency. However, there is another FBI that from its inception has mercilessly and often illegally attacked the left. This is the FBI that is coming to visit garage hackers. And believe us, the Mr. Hyde version of the FBI does not care about justice or rights—it’s about ideological enforcement.
So what is garage biology? A new site where scientific research takes place?
No. Science is much too capital-intensive to be done in a garage. However, technological invention is another story. While we may not see anything groundbreakingly new come out of a garage, we could very well see existing technology mutated in ways that offer new possibilities.
An attempt at opening up science’s institutional boundaries? Is it about participation and democracy?
It could be that, but to quote William Gibson, it’s the street finding its own uses for things.
An individual right?
If one thinks free speech is a right, then yes.
A new type of innovation regime attuned to the needs of capitalism?
It could be that. Capital seems to be arguing with itself over the function of garage hackers and basement tinkerers. Unlike in ICT where open source seems to be emerging as the better business plan, biotech seems to be going to the privatizers. It appears these industries want everything to be proprietary. And if the ultimate goal of patenting all life forms is to be accomplished, indulging property scofflaws seems unlikely, but not out of the question. If profitable applications are discovered in garages, this situation could change; however, CAE would not bet on it.
Open source is emerging as a new mode of knowledge production and diffusion even within corporate genomics. I think DIYbio and other actors are not only pushing towards more open models. They are mostly concerned with the creation of a new entrepreneurial environment. Their “enemies” are incumbents, more than patents. Their Microsoft and IBM are universities and big corporations, even though they rely on those institutions to get access to materials, tools, informations, skills… isn’t this similar to what happened with the rise of free software and open source software?
Free software might be a slightly different story, but the similarity between some of the new bio initiatives and open source is certainly there. Yes, many are working on models that will yield profit (unlike free software) by improving business environments, and yes, their enemies are those who want to continue with the traditional proprietary model of making profits.
But currently, garage biologists are not innovating or producing “good science” according to any standard. Yet they are receiving lots of attention from the media and the government. Is it just hype? I think that their symbolic power is huge and they manage it very carefully – depicting themselves as “hackers” of biology for example.
Capital’s quest for novelty has something to do with it, but CAE is not sure we agree that garage science is getting so much attention. An occasional mention in science journals or an even rarer mention in the popular press covers the print. There are a few art exhibitions. No popular movies have been made, nor books written. CAE doesn’t even see the level of passing fascination that ICT hackers got in the late eighties and early nineties. CAE had hoped that by this time we would have made reasonable inroads in popular consciousness and in activist communities, but no such luck yet.
I disagree. They recently made it to Nature. They’ve been covered by the general press, and I mean The Economist, BBC, etc., and they are pretty aware that the press is an important battlefield. They are way more visible than most important research projects… Ok, we don’t have popular novels or movies. But don’t you think DIYbio is more a communication project than a scientific one? Their powerful narrative is what they’ve got and they know that very well.
Pretty much all amateur initiatives are more about culture and/or politics, than about science. Hence DIYbio is a great human-interest story, but until there is a real culture of garage biologist visible in everyday life (like skate culture or vegans) that’s all it will be. Right now it’s just a novelty.
What can we do to give citizen science a critical direction again?
We don’t think citizen science ever had a critical direction, which was why it was tolerated in past decades. This is the big problem; no inspirational micro-histories exists yet, and we believe this is a key need for the emergence of a science-based activism that moves beyond progressive scientists and their organizations. It’s really up to the youth generation to start it.
Which issues would you like to see addressed by a critical citizen science movement?
We would start with issues contested by the right that have no
scientific basis for contestation, such as global warming or stem cell
research. The more scientific narratives become a part of everyday
life, the less likely is the possibility of making anti-science
campaigns (like the right’s “junk science” campaign, which was used to
explain away any scientific conclusion the right did
not like). Then would come the re-evaluation of topics like nuclear
power. It’s not the 70s anymore. The world has grown too complex in
terms of population and energy needs. The old narratives have to be
rethought, and new tactical solutions devised.
What is CAE doing right now?
Nothing with the life sciences. CAE is currently working on new, temporary forms of monumentality. We just finished a temporary monument to the appropriation of radiation myths by the state, in which we demonstrate how the U.S. government has used the myth of the “dirty bomb” as a propaganda mechanism to produce the fear that allows for the toleration of war. We are currently working on another temporary monument to economic inequality in the U.S. After 30 years of neoliberal policy, the US has the greatest separation by wealth in the nation’s history, between a tiny population of rich citizens and the mass population of poor and working people. We’ll be marking that victory for the rich—or desperation of the poor, depending on one’s perspective.
Interview by Alessandro Delfanti
"""
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Andrew Barney
Why do people have to be so paranoid. Maybe we should fund a
kickstarter fund, so someone in DIYbio can create a short documentary
about DIYbio. To show what it's really like to the people who are
either scared of diybio or are just curious.
> --
> 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.
>
Nathan McCorkle
> Critical Art Ensemble on the import of garage biology today
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/critical-art-ensemble-garage-biology-today/2010/11/12
>
> (He actually sounds a little misinformed about multiple topics.)
>
> """
> Steve Kurtz interviewed by Alessandro Delfanti:
> /Open source is emerging as a new mode of knowledge production and diffusion
> even within corporate genomics. I think DIYbio and other actors are not only
> pushing towards more open models. They are mostly concerned with the
> creation of a new entrepreneurial environment. Their “enemies” are
> incumbents, more than patents. Their Microsoft and IBM are universities and
> big corporations, even though they rely on those institutions to get access
> to materials, tools, informations, skills… isn’t this similar to what
> happened with the rise of free software and open source software?/
Hmm, can't say I agree with that, I know plenty of University folks
that would love to work with DIYbio folks... often they don't/can't
because they lack time, as many professionals lack time for their
hobbies and/or interests. I'm a University person... I'm trying to
organize things here with school-children, but my time is severely
limited by professional and scholastic activities.
I guess I have to put my pipettor on a chain and wear it around my
neck.. don my labcoat wherever I go, as well as some goggles... when I
got to the grocery store, I might need to be sure to bring a bucket
with some dry ice to insure my veggies don't degrade on the way home.
How else do I emulate skate/vegan/hipster-extrovert culture???
Honestly I'm not really that kind of person. I like looking formal, as
this biotech business is a big one, and the rest of the pro-crowd is
pretty business/professional oriented... I like wearing tailored suits
(getting some more next month), they look excellent under a lab-coat.
If skate-kids want to look like/dress like Tony Hawk, I guess I want
to look/dress like the normal-out-of-the-lab PhD, who only dresses up
when he needs to.
Superman didn't walk around in his crime-fighting gear all the time...
--
Nathan McCorkle
Rochester Institute of Technology
College of Science, Biotechnology/Bioinformatics
ByoWired
> Steve Kurtz:
> CAE has a politics. We are not interested in science for its own sake, but
> in how its materials, processes, and discourses can be marshaled in the
For centuries it's been known that "politics is the last refuge of a
scoundrel."
Apparently it's also the last refuge for untalented "artists" like
this Captain Kurtz character.
Instead of presenting symptoms of a pompous poseur, why doesn't he
marshal his no-talent ass in the struggle against disease, poverty,
and frustrated egomania?
Cathal Garvey
To be fair, you'd be pretty bitter too if you'd been roughed up and mistreated by the people charged with protecting you. It doesn't take a genius to see why he's antiestablishmentarian: his house was burgled and he was falsely accused and imprisoned for terrorism.
His views are skewed in keeping with that: he's not weighing the needs and wants of DIYbio itself appropriately against what he'd like to see us doing: sticking it to 'the man'.
Who cares, it's just good to see he's still busy making noise and arty art, as artists ought.
Sent from my Android.
On 12 Nov 2010 19:59, "ByoWired" <byow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Kurtz:
>
> CAE has a politics. We are not interested in science for its own sake, but
> in how its material...
> struggle against authoritarian practices.**
For centuries it's been known that "politics is the last refuge of a
scoundrel."
Apparently it's also the last refuge for untalented "artists" like
this Captain Kurtz character.
Instead of presenting symptoms of a pompous poseur, why doesn't he
marshal his no-talent ass in the struggle against disease, poverty,
and frustrated egomania?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To po...
rp...@andrew.cmu.edu
I'm a little surprised, seemed like a seriously uncontroversial
interview to me.
There's a big difference between criticism and personal attack.
I saw two main points in the interview:
1) Biotechnology exists in a heavily politicized arena.
- CAE focuses attention on these politics, DIYers on the whole tend to
less so.
If the respondents are any indication, this point holds true.
2) If DIYbio is to have longevity and public impact, it will
eventually need to have a
presence that is at least recognizable to people.
- DYIers are clearly trying to have a public presence, whether or not
this will stick before
Hollywood makes the "War Games" of DIYbio culture remains to be seen.
The responses to the interview are odd to me in light of the fact that
he's been doing and writing about amateur
bio-tech for 12 years now and continued publicly doing so for 4 years
while the FBI
was prosecuting him for these very activities, until the judge threw
the case out. These
are not abstract consequences that he's describing and he well
acknowledges that there is
a change in posture within the executive branch of today versus 2004.
So where's the paranoia?
I had been operating under the assumption that had the DIYbio movement
formed
earlier it would have had a voice in Steve's case. I had assumed that
people would
rally in opposition if the FBI were to do something like that again. I
now get the
impression that people on this list are just as offended by Steve's
politics as the
FBI was. This is worrisome to me. Hopefully this is not a
representative opinion.
Had I been through what he went through for having a simple lab in his
house,
I don't think I would be able to string words together.
all the best,
r
PS. I think Andrew's idea of a short DIYbio documentary is a great
idea that is overdue.
Anyone here regularly documenting?
On Nov 12, 11:59 am, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Critical Art Ensemble on the import of garage biology todayhttp://blog.p2pfoundation.net/critical-art-ensemble-garage-biology-to...
> (He actually sounds a little misinformed about multiple topics.)
>
> Steve Kurtz interviewed by Alessandro Delfanti:*
>
> The Critical Art Ensemble <http://www.critical-art.net/> (CAE) is a
> boundaries between science, technology and radical politics. In 2004 Steve
> found the home lab and the bacteria cultures that were used for CAE projects
> on the politics of biotechnology. Their book Molecular
> structures of power within the biotech industry and the role of
> biotechnology in today’s capitalist societies. In this interview, Kurtz
> explores the differences between CAE and the emergent movement of garage
> role and its future.
>
> *What are the main differences between CAE and the new wave of garage
> biotechnology?*
> CAE has a politics. We are not interested in science for its own sake, but
> in how its materials, processes, and discourses can be marshaled in the
>
> *How and why garage biologists might be persecuted by the authorities?*
> From the point of view of the authorities, the three sins of garage biotech
> are:
>
> 1. Referencing the politics of biotech (as opposed to presenting it as value
> neutral).
>
> 2. Suggesting that policy regarding research initiatives should have public
> input,
> rather than being the sole domain of corporate, military, and scientific
> experts.
>
> 3. Combining biotech research or usage with political activism.
>
> Doing any or all of these will get a reaction from authorities in the U.S.
> Happily, in the post-Bush era the intensity of legal violence has been
> reduced a little. The Justice Department appears to be depoliticizing to
> some extent.
>
> One of the greats right now is Adam Zaretsky. He covers his radicalism with
> an excentricity that makes his provocations less scary to authority. We
> think he is perceived as a lone crazy without much of political agenda. But
> what he suggests really pushes the limits, as with his germ line
> interventions or his liberation of recombinant ornamental creatures.
>
> approach to science?*
> It’s premature to say at this point. Public labs and supply shops are hardly
> common yet. It’s not like with information and communication technologies
> (ICT), where everyone owns a computer and there are distribution outlets in
> every mall. What little we know of this emerging subculture is that there
> are a number of curious enthusiasts, and those coming out of the green
> movement have a more critical approach. But at this point, everything is so
> far off the mainstream cultural radar that we really have no way to know
> what the tendencies are now or what they will be in the future.
>
> Yes, it is. One can be disciplined just for making that statement. It also
> implies a defense of amateurism. To say that there is a need for biological
> literacy (especially during a revolution in biotechnology) is also
> political. However, stating and even enacting these imperatives is not
> enough. There needs to be more than a modest, latent progressive politics if
> we are to change the current situation.
>
> controversies surrounding garage biotech? Will they suffer backlashes?*
> If any group can avoid the backlash, it’s them. Their ties to universities
> and their commitment to keeping politics on the back burner should keep them
> in the realm of legitimacy, but one never knows. If bio-paranoia ramps up
> again, even they could become a target.
>
> with the US Presidential Commission on Bioethics.*
> Speaking with the PCB, OK; but speaking with the FBI endangers everyone. To
> the FBI we are the enemy (although many agents feel that way about all
> science and the university in general, which they mistakenly believe are
> bastions of the liberal to radical left; many agents are radical right
> Christians and Mormons and hence have a real dislike for science). The FBI
> itself is a really schizophrenic institution—a kind of Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
> Hyde. On the one hand, they have put away dangerous criminals, white-collar
> criminals, corrupt politicians, and organized crime figures in a manner
> befitting an upright law enforcement agency. However, there is another FBI
> that from its inception has mercilessly and often illegally attacked the
> left. This is the FBI that is coming to visit garage hackers. And believe
> us, the Mr. Hyde version of the FBI does not care about justice or
> rights—it’s about ideological enforcement.
>
> place?*
> No. Science is much too capital-intensive to be done in a garage. However,
> technological invention is another story. While we may not see anything
> groundbreakingly new come out of a garage, we could very well see existing
> technology mutated in ways that offer new possibilities.
>
> participation and democracy?*
> It could be that, but to quote William Gibson, it’s the street finding its
> own uses for things.
>
> If one thinks free speech is a right, then yes.
>
> It could be that. Capital seems to be arguing with itself over the function
> of garage hackers and basement tinkerers. Unlike in ICT where open source
> seems to be emerging as the better business plan, biotech seems to be going
> to the privatizers. It appears these industries want everything to be
> proprietary. And if the ultimate goal of patenting all life forms is to be
> accomplished, indulging property scofflaws seems unlikely, but not out of
> the question. If profitable applications are discovered in garages, this
> situation could change; however, CAE would not bet on it.
>
> pushing towards more open models. They are mostly concerned with the
> creation of a new entrepreneurial environment. Their “enemies” are
> incumbents, more than patents. Their Microsoft and IBM are universities and
> big corporations, even though they rely on those institutions to get access
> to materials, tools, informations, skills… isn’t this similar to what
> Free software might be a slightly different story, but the similarity
> between some of the new bio initiatives and open source is certainly there.
> Yes, many are working on models that will yield profit (unlike free
> software) by improving business environments, and yes, their enemies are
> those who want to continue with the traditional proprietary model of making
> profits.
>
> from the media and the government. Is it just hype? I think that their
> symbolic power is huge and they manage it very carefully – depicting
> Capital’s quest for novelty has something to do with it, but CAE is not sure
> we agree that garage science is getting so much attention. An occasional
> mention in science journals or an even rarer mention in the popular press
> covers the print. There are a few art exhibitions. No popular movies have
> been made, nor books written. CAE doesn’t even see the level of passing
> fascination that ICT hackers got in the late eighties and early nineties.
> CAE had hoped that by this time we would have made reasonable inroads in
> popular consciousness and in activist communities, but no such luck yet.
>
> aware that the press is an important battlefield. They are way more visible
> than most important research projects… Ok, we don’t have popular novels or
> movies. But don’t you think DIYbio is more a communication project than a
> scientific one? Their powerful narrative is what they’ve got and they know
> Pretty much all amateur initiatives are more about culture and/or politics,
> than about science. Hence DIYbio is a great human-interest story, but until
> there is a real culture of garage biologist visible in everyday life (like
> skate culture or vegans) that’s all it will be. Right now it’s just a
> novelty.
>
> We don’t think citizen science ever had a critical direction, which was why
> it was tolerated in past decades. This is the big problem; no inspirational
> micro-histories exists yet, and we believe this is a key need for the
> emergence of a science-based activism that moves beyond progressive
> scientists and their organizations. It’s really up to the youth generation
> to start it.
>
> movement?*
> We would start with issues contested by the right that have no scientific
>
> read more »
Cathal Garvey
--
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.
Andrew Barney
makes a few good points, but to me, most of it came off as kind of
rambling.
I guess i took most offence when he said "No. Science is much too
capital-intensive to be done in a garage." I mean come-on, to me
that's where science started and has been practiced successfully in
past centuries. Maybe not a "garage" per se, but a "back room", a
small lab, a benchtop, etc...
I feel for the guy in regards to the FBI raid, and the accusations
that took place. No one deserves that kind of invasion of privacy or
harassment. And i can see why he's bitter about it.
Returning back to the discussion about an internally derived
documentary... I really hope there are enough people involved already
who can contribute enough skills. I myself only can contribute funds,
and maybe some graphic design for a DVD cover, if it ever makes it
that far. I don't know what we would want to put into a doc though.
Maybe we should include a child-like curiosity to it, and make the
point that DIYbio really is just a way of applying creativity to
curiosity.
Tristan Eversole
On Nov 12, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Nathan McCorkle wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Critical Art Ensemble on the import of garage biology today
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/critical-art-ensemble-garage-biology-today/2010/11/12
>>
>> (He actually sounds a little misinformed about multiple topics.)
>>
>> """
>> Steve Kurtz interviewed by Alessandro Delfanti:
>
>> /Open source is emerging as a new mode of knowledge production and diffusion
>> even within corporate genomics. I think DIYbio and other actors are not only
>> pushing towards more open models. They are mostly concerned with the
>> creation of a new entrepreneurial environment. Their “enemies” are
>> incumbents, more than patents. Their Microsoft and IBM are universities and
>> big corporations, even though they rely on those institutions to get access
>> to materials, tools, informations, skills… isn’t this similar to what
>> happened with the rise of free software and open source software?/
>
> Hmm, can't say I agree with that, I know plenty of University folks
> that would love to work with DIYbio folks... often they don't/can't
> because they lack time, as many professionals lack time for their
> hobbies and/or interests. I'm a University person... I'm trying to
> organize things here with school-children, but my time is severely
> limited by professional and scholastic activities.
Yes-- why do people characterize academia as being opposed to DIYbio, or citizen science generally? I've talked about things like the OpenPCR project with professors before, and have never received anything approaching a negative response. From whence arises this conception of universities as incumbents in need of dethroning?
Nib
contrary.
I personally had really positive response on my approaches in DIYbio,
got gifts from uni officials,
nice advises and so on. These people are mostly driven by the same
faszination and inspiration of nature as we are and in probably most
cases DIYbio guys ARE academia people.
Where there could arise a controverse field is with the pharma and
agro companies: Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Monsanto.
These are the IBMs and Microsofts of our branch and time.
Ideally I imagine DIYbio as a almost no cost technology, like linux
is, that is available to everybody who has the need for it.
One of my visions is to explore eco-diversity in the amazone, having
an open source lab in my poket.
I travelled there just a year ago and met scientists there, heard
weired storys about Bayer, Novarties and that sort, sending out scouts
to ripp off indians. They give them a school building or a hospital
for a million dollar, get their secret knowledge from centuries,
patent it and gain billions for a new anti cancer drug. The indians
felt cheated by the treacherous white man (one more time in history).
That sucks and does not have to be so. I thought of talking with
locals on an equal basis to share ideas and technology to reveal
treasures of nature to everyone, and not to enrich pharma company
bosses.
Knowledge from the people to the people, thats it. Free information
flow, advantages for everyone,
no matter what culture, wealth status or nationality. (Maybe
affiliation with the Pirates-Party could be useful, to get a political
standing)
And by the way - we dont even need to travel to the amazone (altough
its really great there). This valuable information is all around us,
but a little hidden to most, but you guys were not here if you didnt
know that.
So this is what I think we could show the public. This sort of Hackers
ethic, a Robin Hood for the knowledge of nature.
Craig Venter is someone we could oppose, too. I personally admire his
skill in bringing things forward, but his egomania and neo-
capitalistic approach is critical. I dont want genes DISCOVERED in
nature to be patented. Nobody invented them, they belong to nobody and
everybody in the same time, but not to individuals.
And, not to forget, it's a cool topic, too. Look at iGEM and the
reaction of the press on it. In Germany its overwhelmingly positive.
Very much in contrast to Gentech boom in the end of 90ies that led to
a paranoid reflex of public here, demonizing Genes as the pure evil
(heard of people ordering meat without genes at the butcher...)
Almost every month there is a big newspaper telling the stories and
ideas of our local iGEM teams. Soon there will be the first movie
about it in ARD, the No.1 information channel here. I know the
director, so if you have good suggestions for him let me know). And
indeed it is really cool, just take a look at what cambridge built
this year...e.glowy. Realy fancy.
It does not matter if you wear a suit or baggy-pants when creating
this, its the idea that makes it impressive. Or do you have any idea
how THE standard computer hacker looks like? (Please dont think of
these notorious WoW players...:)
We must be very careful with the media not to be considered as crazy
dangerous subject just trying to build frankensteins or terror viruses
as in the movie 12 monkeys. Better to appear smart, innovative and
guided by a noble vision - Biocurious did a good job in that sense.
Then we hopefully will not be victims of Anti-DIYbio campaigns and get
some respect from authorities, too. Displaying connections to academia
could even be helpful for legitimation reasons.
I advise to seek close contact to public, to keep control about the
discussions direction. The topic is hyped, but its to our advantage,
if we use it in the right way. Thats at least my point of view.
On 13 Nov., 03:18, Tristan Eversole <customerserv...@trioptimum.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Critical Art Ensemble on the import of garage biology today
Phil
> However, technological invention is another story.
Publishable 95%-confidence-interval science is expensive.
DIYbio needs a venue in which to communicate discoveries made with 80%
confidence that don't test and eliminate all alternative hypotheses.
(The 99% confidence interval is inherently silly, since IMHO at least
10% of all papers have crippling methodological flaws or false
assumptions that make their statistical tests useless.)
Bryan Bishop
To be fair, you'd be pretty bitter too if you'd been roughed up and mistreated by the people charged with protecting you.