Meredith made AP :-)

[Bryan Bishop]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081225/ap_on_sc/do_it_yourself_dna

SAN FRANCISCO – The Apple computer was invented in a garage. Same with
the Google search engine. Now, tinkerers are working at home with the
basic building blocks of life itself.

Using homemade lab equipment and the wealth of scientific knowledge
available online, these hobbyists are trying to create new life forms
through genetic engineering — a field long dominated by Ph.D.s toiling
in university and corporate laboratories.

In her San Francisco dining room lab, for example, 31-year-old
computer programmer Meredith L. Patterson is trying to develop
genetically altered yogurt bacteria that will glow green to signal the
presence of melamine, the chemical that turned Chinese-made baby
formula and pet food deadly.

"People can really work on projects for the good of humanity while
learning about something they want to learn about in the process," she
said.

So far, no major gene-splicing discoveries have come out anybody's
kitchen or garage.

But critics of the movement worry that these amateurs could one day
unleash an environmental or medical disaster. Defenders say the future
Bill Gates of biotech could be developing a cure for cancer in the
garage.

Many of these amateurs may have studied biology in college but have no
advanced degrees and are not earning a living in the biotechnology
field. Some proudly call themselves "biohackers" — innovators who push
technological boundaries and put the spread of knowledge before
profits.

In Cambridge, Mass., a group called DIYbio is setting up a community
lab where the public could use chemicals and lab equipment, including
a used freezer, scored for free off Craigslist, that drops to 80
degrees below zero, the temperature needed to keep many kinds of
bacteria alive.

Co-founder Mackenzie Cowell, a 24-year-old who majored in biology in
college, said amateurs will probably pursue serious work such as new
vaccines and super-efficient biofuels, but they might also try, for
example, to use squid genes to create tattoos that glow.

Cowell said such unfettered creativity could produce important discoveries.

"We should try to make science more sexy and more fun and more like a
game," he said.

Patterson, the computer programmer, wants to insert the gene for
fluorescence into yogurt bacteria, applying techniques developed in
the 1970s.

She learned about genetic engineering by reading scientific papers and
getting tips from online forums. She ordered jellyfish DNA for a green
fluorescent protein from a biological supply company for less than
$100. And she built her own lab equipment, including a gel
electrophoresis chamber, or DNA analyzer, which she constructed for
less than $25, versus more than $200 for a low-end off-the-shelf
model.

Jim Thomas of ETC Group, a biotechnology watchdog organization, warned
that synthetic organisms in the hands of amateurs could escape and
cause outbreaks of incurable diseases or unpredictable environmental
damage.

"Once you move to people working in their garage or other informal
location, there's no safety process in place," he said.

Some also fear that terrorists might attempt do-it-yourself genetic
engineering. But Patterson said: "A terrorist doesn't need to go to
the DIYbio community. They can just enroll in their local community
college."

[Citizen Jimserac]

I've waited over 25 years for this to happen.

The wonderful liberating power of the Internet
and the personal computer led not only to the destruction
of the information monopoly in fields
such as medicine, genetics, health but also to
the empowerment of individual devlelopers, tinkerers,
inventors - able to share results outside the largely
industry and/or politically dominated academic communities
and do advance their knowledge by the logic
of their own impetus.

That is happening here. Good.

You must not allow them to use fear or anything
else to proscribe your freedom to innovate.

Citizen Jimserac (aka James Pannozzi)
Software Developer 32 Years, Retired
Current - Student Acupuncture/Chinese Herbology

[Tito Jankowski]

Yay Meredith! Good article, easy to understand.
Tito

[Bryan Bishop]

Before I write a reply, I figure I should forward.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul D. Fernhout <pdfer...@kurtz-fernhout.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Subject: [Open Manufacturing] Safety of DIY-bio (was Re: Fwd: Meredith made AP)
To: openmanu...@googlegroups.com

Sorry, I find that photo and the caption horrifying. :-(
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/25/do-it-yourself-dna-amateu_n_153489.html
"Meredith L. Patterson, a computer programmer by day, conducts an experiment
in the dining room of her San Francisco apartment on Thursday, Dec. 18,
2008.Patterson is among a new breed of techno rebels who want to put genetic
engineering tools in the hands of anyone with a smart idea. "

To begin with, where are her gloves?
Where is her chemical hood with a negative air pressure system?
Where is the fire suppression system?
Where are the material inventory and related material safety data sheets?
Where is the radiation and gas monitoring equipment?
What are the health and safety implications for other tenants in her
apartment building?
Etc.

And she has managed to get herself labeled as a "rebel" which does not bode
well for others trying to safely do open amateur research. So, she is
harming the larger cause IMHO.

Sorry, to me, this photo shows a reckless disregard both for her own
personal safety, that of any of her possible children-to-be-born, the safety
of those around her, and the continued progress of the professional amateur
movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_amateurs

This one photo may be enough to destroy what millions of other people have
worked towards; I hope not.

Still, as my previous comment on the unavailability of jobs or lab space for
most people with biotech training, I can understand the social despair that
drives her to this (no jobs, no funding, no access, because of US priorities
of the war racket and an overproduction of PhDs and other degrees
exponentially relative to funding).

Also, I have no complaint about her stated *ends* of "trying to develop

genetically altered yogurt bacteria that will glow green to signal the
presence of melamine, the chemical that turned Chinese-made baby formula and

pet food deadly". This is just a comment on the *means* she is pursuing that
end with.

Now, perhaps I do not understand the materials she is working with. I can
only hope so. Maybe I am overreacting. To my knowledge, the materials that
would be involved in such explorations are highly mutagenic and carcinogenic
-- precisely because their purpose is to alter DNA. And she is not even
using gloves (or at least, not that I can see, perhaps it is a staged
picture or they are very thin and transparent) which seems to indicate
either ignorance or contempt or recklessness. Sorry, concentrated
DNA-altering chemicals are not the kind of stuff you want people in
neighboring apartments messing with if you value your health (even just
wafting through a shared forced air heating system). I don't think this will
end well. She'll be lucky to just be evicted, sorry.

See one of the slashdot comments for people to at least trying to do this right:
"thoughts from someone in the community (Score:5, Insightful)"
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1073317&cid=26231567
"Normally I have to preface my posts with "I am not a XXXX, but". However,
in this case, I actually am a molecular biologist deeply involved in the
synthetic biology community. Here are a few thoughts: ... There is a raging
debate among academics regarding how to introduce these types of technology
to the wider public. We all believe that tinkering in the garage is a good
thing, but how to do is such that we don't end up sued because we
inadvertently provided some kook the sequence for botox, without making
things so controlled that no one wants to take up these basic projects. If
you would like to learn more about the efforts, I would start with, an NSF
sponsored research center (SynBERC) http://www.synberc.org/ of which I am part."

I'm not to worried about the "terrorist" implications because terrorists
would just use something else (cars, gasoline, planes, whatever).
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/1d.htm
"The efficiency of motor vehicles as terrorist instruments would have
written a tragic record long ago if people were inclined to terrorism. But
almost all auto mishaps are accidents, and while there are seemingly a lot
of those, the actual fraction of mishaps, when held up against the
stupendous number of possibilities for mishap, is quite small. I know it's
difficult to accept this because the spectre of global terrorism is a
favorite cover story of governments, but the truth is substantially
different from the tale the public is sold."

What I am worried about is the health and safety implications of such
biotech work day-to-day, even ignoring major accidents or organism releases.
And for knowing that, I can thank people like a post-doc at a major research
university who told me about some of these issues (decrying some aspects of
his own lab whose shared air I was indirectly breathing).

At least they have people wearing gloves and better eye protection at SynBERC:
http://www.synberc.org/education/HSBiotech.htm

--Paul Fernhout

marc fawzi wrote:
> with photo
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/25/do-it-yourself-dna-amateu_n_153489.html

[Bryan Bishop]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul D. Fernhout <pdfer...@kurtz-fernhout.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Subject: [Open Manufacturing] Re: Safety of DIY-bio (was Re: Fwd:
Meredith made AP)
To: openmanu...@googlegroups.com

More on this lab safety issue (though this book seems out of print, but
there should be similar ones, perhaps more recent):
"Safety in the Chemistry and Biochemistry Laboratory" by Andre Picot
http://www.amazon.ca/Safety-Chemistry-Biochemistry-Laboratory-Andre/dp/product-description/0471199435
http://books.google.com/books?id=n9cfh62dWrEC
"Safety in the Chemistry and Biochemistry Laboratory André Picot and
Philippe Grenouillet Foreword by Nobel laureate, Sir Derek Barton Chemical
and biomedical laboratories are full of potentially dangerous chemicals and
equipment. Proper dissemination of information concerning chemical
substances, as well as the identification of risks involved in handling
them, allows increased awareness of danger and permits medical and safety
personnel to act more efficiently. Safety in the Chemistry and Biochemistry
Laboratory provides knowledge that will aid in the analysis, detection, and
minimization of safety risks. The authors discuss the task of creating a
professional environment and of formulating individual and collective rules
to avoid fires, explosions, toxic fumes, skin burns, poisoning, and other
hazards. Particular problems presented by some substances are dealt with
through illustrations of general techniques and many specific examples.
Since mismanagement of stocks and wastes is often a cause of accidents,
special attention is given to the treatment of wastes and aged chemicals.
The book provides information not found elsewhere on the risks associated
with laboratory apparatus, including pressurized systems, and extensive
discussion on the toxic properties of chemicals. Safety in the Chemistry and
Biochemistry Laboratory is not intended as an emergency handbook, but the
authors give general rules of conduct in case of mishap, while describing
the dangers associated with certain chemical families. This book is for
chemists, biochemists, analytical chemists, environmental chemists, and
laboratory technicians in chemistry and the chemical industry."

Now, granted the antagonist in the James Bond film "Moonraker" had an evil
end of creating a gas to wipe out all human life on Earth which any decent
human being would frown on,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=usa+bioweapons
but you have to applaud Drax's attention to safety in the meanwhile: :-)
"Drax's Venice Laboratory"
http://www.jamesbondwiki.com/page/Drax%27s+Venice+Laboratory
"Purpose: to secretly create and test Drax's nerve gas that he is using to
kill all humans on Earth"

I was unable to find online the related video clip (which includes two
scientists dying horribly), but look at the basic aspects of safety even in
that still image on the James Bond wiki:
* There is a highly visible workspace so outsiders can monitor what is going
on and go for help;
* there is a musical lock to keep out people like James Bond who don't know
what they are doing (he causes the death of the scientists there by accident);
* there lots of gleaming glass and steel (not wood) which is easier to clean
in case of accident;
* there is a gas detection system which seals the system off in case of
accident;
* the place is well lit and negatively pressured with scrubbers; and so on.

Of course, when you're an evil supervillian like Drax able to afford a fleet
of space shuttles and a lair in space (bank bailout funds?), it is easier to
consider paying for stainless steel instead of wood for easy clean up after
an accident, but my point is, that's the kind of facilities advanced biotech
R&D towards any ends (good or bad) should really have. :-)

Which gets me back to the proposal of the ORE-STEM labs previously mentioned
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=78926&sectionid=3510302
for giving the general public access to safer facilities (and if needed,
safety training). Or, failing that, for amateurs without access to good safe
lab space with functional hoods etc. to do this work as only computer
simulation.

And now that I think of that, maybe the point of that Iranian article is to
create a sense of unease among US military planners, that maybe soon
everyone will be doing this? Sadly, the way things go, instead of the best
of both worlds where people working to good ends like Meredith L. Patterson
get easy access to Drax-like facilities in "ORE Incubator" style facilities,
we'll probably get the worst of both worlds with Draxian-evil-geniuses doing
deadly work in Patterson-like uncontained facilities. :-( At least we have
James Bond to protect us. Oops, well he caused that accident by mistake,
didn't he? :-(

--Paul Fernhout

[Bryan Bishop]

Again, before I write a reply, I'm forwarding. I don't really agree
with Paul, but I'll have to explain that in another email.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul D. Fernhout <pdfer...@kurtz-fernhout.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:56 AM
Subject: [Open Manufacturing] Amateurs Are Trying Genetic Engineering
At Home (was Fwd: Meredith made AP)
To: openmanu...@googlegroups.com

Bryan-

That news made slashdot too (and your submission, too):
"Amateurs Are Trying Genetic Engineering At Home"
http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/12/25/1833211.shtml

the_kanzure points out ths AP story on amateur genetic engineering,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081225/ap_on_sc/do_it_yourself_dna
excerpting: "The Apple computer was invented in a garage. Same with the

Google search engine. Now, tinkerers are working at home with the basic
building blocks of life itself. Using homemade lab equipment and the wealth
of scientific knowledge available online, these hobbyists are trying to
create new life forms through genetic engineering a field long dominated by

Ph.D.s toiling in university and corporate laboratories." Reader resistant
has a few ideas about how to use this sort of lab: "Personally, I'd like to
whip up a reasonably long-lasting and durable paint made with dye based on
squid genes that glows brightly enough to allow 'guide lines' to be daubed
along hallway baseboards, powered by a very low trickle of electricity.
Plus, a harmless glowing yogurt would make for a cool prank."

Here is the obvious difference from working on "Clanking Replicators" or
other mechanical-electronic technology like sustainability stuff in your
garage and working on gene-splicing biotech in your garage -- the first
probably won't give you cancer, and the second one probably will. :-(

I'm not saying industrial chemicals used in mechanical manufacturing aren't
dangerous (even just breathing outgassing of paint fumes), or that working
with the stuff in circuit boards and ICs can't give you cancer -- it's just
that there is orders of magnitude in difference or risk for the average
Do-it-yourselfer at home compared to biotech.

Most of the chemicals to do gene slicing, PCR, and so on are nasty stuff for
meat-based organisms like people precisely because they do nasty stuff to
meat-based materials (rearrange DNA, splice in glowing markers into DNA, use
radioactive tracers to mark DNA, etc.).

For that reason, and the obvious one on accidental release of
invisible-to-the-unaided-eye self-replicating organisms, I don't see it
being smart to do biotech stuff outside a university lab (and those labs are
also dangerous places, but at least we know where they are).

Three things I previously wrote to you on this:
"Re: On college and space habitats"
http://groups.google.com/group/openvirgle/msg/79a25f5e9a31086d?hl=en
"Reading this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Wizard_of_Earthsea
is the best advice I can give you (ever).
"At the school, Sparrowhawk masters his craft with amazing ease, but his
pride and arrogance grow even faster than his skill and, in his hubris, he
attempts to conjure a dead spirit - a dangerous spell which goes awry. He
inadvertently summons a spirit of darkness which attacks and scars him. The
being is driven off by the Archmage, who exhausts himself in the process and
dies shortly thereafter.""

Also from there (indicating a safer way to approach DIY-biotech):
"""
A lot of research is done on the computer these days by simulation.
http://biosim.fysik.dtu.dk:8080/biosim/
"BioSim is a Network of Excellence established by the European Commission
under its 6th Framework Programme. BioSim was initiated on December 1, 2004.
The main objective of the Network is to demonstrate how the use of modern
simulation technique through a deeper and more qualitative understanding of
the underlying biological, pathological and pharmacological processes can
lead to a more rational drug development process, improved treatment
procedures, and a reduction in the needs for animal experiments. With its 26
academic, 10 industrial and 4 regulatory partners, the BioSim Network
commands a wide range of biomedical expertise. At the same time, the network
involves leading experts in pharmacokinetics, computer simulation, and
complex systems theory. The purpose of the network is to develop in silico
simulation models of cellular, physiological and pharmacological processes
to provide a deeper understanding of the biological processes and help the
pharmaceutical industry maintain its competitive power."
"""

Also from an item in that thread, on my own experiences around biotech:
http://groups.google.com/group/openvirgle/msg/9b1a9c5baaab41dd?hl=en
"I've spent too many years around highly regulated universities and known of
accidents or poor practices leading to contamination of areas I passed
through or used regularly with stuff like radioactive phosphorus and PCR
chemicals to be excited at the thought of neighbors doing that next door,
sorry. :-( I'd rather seen that done in isolated space habitat modules."

Anyway, sorry, I think DIYBiotech right now in garages is just not a good idea.

That said, I read this a couple days ago:
"Time to Reboot America" By Thomas L. Friedman
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/opinion/24friedman.html

And some of this:
"Readers' comments on Time to Reboot America"
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/12/24/opinion/24friedman.html

One comment references this:

"What Shortage of Scientists and Engineers?"
By John Tierney
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/what-shortage-of-scientists-and-engineers/

Lots of comments there on the failure of the USA to foster collaborative
science and technology, and its eroding edge in all that (instead promoting
finance and competition and offshoring). Pages and pages. And I only read
some. And already I saw many first hand perspectives about how the PhD
system is failing and how science and engineering is disrespected in the USA
compared to other fields like finance, law, and medicine.

Some of that is just what I've been on about in Post-Scarcity Princeton. :-)
http://www.pdfernhout.net/reading-between-the-lines.html

And the general explanation these people at the NYTimes are missing:
"The Big Crunch" by David Goodstein (Vice Provost of Caltech)
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html

The vice *provost* of *Caltech* (one of the most respected universities in
the USA) has been writing and testifying to Congress on this issue for a
decade or two, and hardly anyone seems to be listening.

Why doesn't some university have a conference about the overproduction of
PhDs relative to economic demand and the general failure of the USA as a
society promoting scientific literacy or careers making real things?

Maybe the short answer is, the university system does not want to know?

But at the point where there are ten pages of NYTimes reader comments
*agreeing* both that the USA has too many scientists and engineers for the
current economy and also that the USA is going down the tubes, then it seems
time to end the Ostrich act of a head in the sand.

Just one example of stuff mentioned in those comments by the author -- a
tenured scientist:
"Don't Become a Scientist!"
http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
"As examples, consider two of the leading candidates for a recent Assistant
Professorship in my department. One was 37, ten years out of graduate school
(he didn't get the job). The leading candidate, whom everyone thinks is
brilliant, was 35, seven years out of graduate school. Only then was he
offered his first permanent job (that's not tenure, just the possibility of
it six years later, and a step off the treadmill of looking for a new job
every two years). The latest example is a 39 year old candidate for another
Assistant Professorship; he has published 35 papers. In contrast, a doctor
typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at
31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27
(computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial
demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.). Anyone with the intelligence,
ambition and willingness to work hard to succeed in science can also succeed
in any of these other professions. "

And I'd previously linked on OpenVirgle to Freeman Dyson saying essentially
the same thing on the PhD system.
http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?DysonWinCom05
"You students are proud possessors of the PhD, or some similar token of
academic respectability. You have endured many years of poverty and hard
labor. Now you are ready to go to your just rewards, to a place on the
tenure track of the university, or on the board of directors of a company.
And here am I, a person who never had a PhD myself and fought all my life
against the PhD system and everything it stands for. Of course I fought in
vain. The grip of the PhD system on academic life is tighter today than it
has ever been. But I will continue to fight against it for as long as I
live. In short I am proud to be heretic."

Dyson also mentions DIY-biotech, by the way:
Summary:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/03/freeman-dyson-on-phd-global-warming.html
"Biotechnology will become as domesticated as computer games and children
and housewives will create their new animal and plant species at home. Most
people don't realize that this will happen much like John von Neumann didn't
appreciate computer games as a major source of the 21st century entertainment"

However, one reason I disagree is that the *ethical* dimensions are
different, at least for intelligent creatures that can feel pain (which for
me starts at maybe the insects on up, and maybe even plants).

So, there we have three scientists all saying the same thing about the
social failure of our current systems of education and research, each with a
different situation in academia (Vice Provost of Important University, Big
Research Institute star, and Professor) all in this case in Physics (which
is *not* even as glutted as biotech).

Anyway, that's all part of the problem of DIY-biotech.

From ten years ago (and the biotech scientific career situation has gotten
worse since):
"The Short Career Half-life of Scientists" by Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bioforum/1997-December/025426.html
"This essay is devoted to the question of how long the typical
biomedical science career lasts. In the middle of the essay,
I studied faculty job turnover at two medical schools and at
the end reviewed career half-life for physicians in a clinical
setting and lawyers."

Also related to Sowers' work:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=107362&sectioncode=26
"Ayala Ochert examines disturbing evidence that shows that only a minority
of scientists can look forward to a lifelong career in their chosen field.
What does a scientist's career have in common with a radioactive element
like tritium? They both have a half-life that is measured in years, not
decades. In the case of tritium, it has a half-life of just over 12 years,
but the "career half-life" of the typical biomedical scientist may be only
half as long. The half-life of tritium is how long it takes before 50 per
cent of the atoms have decomposed, but in the case of a group of scientists,
their career half-life is how long it takes before half of them have left
the profession, which may be as little as six years. Lawyers and doctors, on
the other hand, can generally look forward to a career that lasts until
retirement. Young people embarking on a career in science are generally
well aware that they will be paid much less than similarly qualified people
in the so-called professions. It is something that many accept, albeit
reluctantly, in return for that "warm feeling inside" that comes from doing
what they love best. But far fewer realise how much worse their career
prospects are. "Most are overconfident and totally unaware that they will
face a rude awakening when they go out and look for work, and most will find
low pay, low job security, and limited potential for the future. Doctors and
lawyers will be much better off," says Art Sowers, who compiled the figures
on career half-lives. ... "

So, this may explain why there are so many people with biotech knowledge
(even just at the undergraduate level) who cannot practice their trade
inside the university and industrial research system and are thinking about
doing what they love in their garage -- even though IMHO that is a very,
very unsafe thing to do. As unsafely run as many university biotech labs
are, as least you know where they are and they can loosely check on each
other. For example, I heard that radioactive phosphorus contamination
problem was discovered when the first-year graduate student involved set off
detectors in another lab when she walked by the door of the other lab two
weeks later.

Anyway, I just think DIY-bio is heading for a world of hurt, sorry. As I
said earlier, I think it is mostly the kind of stuff best done in space
habitations in fifty years from now. :-) But, failing that, I feel it is
best done in facilities designed for that.

Still, because of the exponential growth of the few PhDs given money:
"Fellowships in Sustainability Science"
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/sustsci/grants/fellows/07_fellows_RFP.htm
we can't solve the social dynamics problem right now by just throwing money
at it.

I don't know if this is a scam or not, but I still like the scale of this
vision (and it is interesting to me to see an Iranian newspaper's view on
the issue, for some diversity):
"The way forward: Fighting global poverty (Part 3)"
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=78926&sectionid=3510302
"""
ORE Incubators are a simple mechanism, but where they unleash the creative
thinking of humankind. They are huge research centers where inventors,
leading-edge indigenous/endogenous scientist/engineers/technologists create
and make new things with eminent world leading scientist's et al. They are
manned and managed by the best scientists that a nation can offer, but not
in a totally scholastic term, but in creative thinking and inventive terms -
the knowledge-based hands-on mentality.

Overall, therefore to give you a perspective of the size and purpose of a
typical ORE Incubator, they are circular in construction which allows major
inventions and technologies to be developed logistically, wheeled in and out
and where the overall floor area is approximately 11,000m2.

Therefore, they are large research, development and technology producing
buildings, larger than most research buildings in the world today but where
certainly together, they form the world's largest network of research
complexes by a very high margin. That is the size of the strength we need
though to solve global issues.

The Incubators allow access of independent inventors and innovators (the
ideas people) throughout the world and within nations, and where presently
the vast majority are excluded as I have said before from advanced corporate
and institutional research centers.

ORE Incubators are considered to be the best in the world and where ideas
collide and are supported by the most innovative minds from throughout the
world and from all advanced disciplines and professions.

Indeed, many new fundamental discoveries and technologies will be initiated
and created within the walls of the ORE Incubators and these would be
world-beaters that would address basically human sustainability and global
peace.

It was calculated in the 1990s that an ORE Incubator was required to service
every 6 million humans. Therefore, the world requires around 1,150
incubators today.
"""

I feel Dr. Hill quoted there is too pessimistic about world problems,
personally, BTW. And here is someone who doesn't like his organization:
"Who is David Hill and why is he saying all these terrible things about
Wikipedia?"
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/splat/index.php/news/comments/who_is_david_hill_and_why_is_he_saying_all_these_terrible_things_about_wiki/

I'm not taking sides on that spat. :-( And after Bernie Madoff, everything
is going to get closer scrutiny. But the problem is that many successes
start as someone hyping something as a self-fulfilling prophecy. And what he
proposes is not that different from what I wanted to do in the 1990s:
http://groups.google.com/group/virgle/msg/081919dbba30d1f7
Except, from casual glances, I haven't yet seen him get the self-replicating
idea for those research centers? :-) Anyway, I can cut Dr. Hill some slack
even for hyping if he is (just like I cut Bryan some slack :-).

And I too can see there are issues with funneling all the world's knowledge
through one small organization like Wikipedia at his point, since while
technical information may be fairly sound, anything about politics and
personality is subject to edit wars, and in that way, a distributed version
of something more like Google Knol with articles owned by individuals or
groups presented together might be better (and then we could have articles
reconciling the controversies, etc.) (And that's the "Social Semantic
Desktop" vision, isn't it? :-)

Anyway, scam or next-great-thing, I do think the picture of such a research
center on David Hill's site is cool:
http://www.thewif.org.uk/home.php?xy=640&pl=default
As is the problem statement: "Think back. At some point in our lives most of
us will have come up with a new and potentially marketable idea. Given the
necessary development, that idea could now be improving the lives of others.
It is common sense that experiencing the world gives people the inspiration
to improve it and the facts and figures back this up - far more ideas
originate in the minds of the general public than in closed Research and
Development facilities. Unfortunately, there are few open forums and
research facilities available for the general public to develop their ideas."

I'm mainly just saying I find that idea of these large physical centers
which are in some sense open to the public to be intriguing (even if all
"open to the public" might mean is, you need some sort of academic degree or
certification to get bench space of a certain type). The internet seems to
have changed the dynamic of collaboration making it more possible for people
to collaborate at home on software and using simulation (what I recommend
for DIY-biotech right now). But, I can still see the value of research
centers for hands-on work, and if universities are failing at that role,
perhaps we need something else that looks more like the Institute for
Advanced Study (a motel for scholars with office space and lab space).

So, if people do want to play with DIY-biotech, those are the sorts of
centers maybe we should build, where it is easier to do safely, and failing
that, I'd suggest keeping to computer simulations for now.

--Paul Fernhout

Bryan Bishop wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

[Meredith L. Patterson]

FWIW, the MSDSs are in a notebook not visible in the picture, the fire
extinguisher is in the kitchen behind me, there's no fume hood because
I'm not working with anything that outgasses, who the hell thinks I'm
working with anything radioactive?, and I'm not wearing gloves because
in that picture I'm pipetting 50mM saline solution. :P

My neighbours are in far greater danger from bread that's gone moldy
on their counters than from anything I'm working with. It's yogurt
bacteria. You *eat* it.

In Berlin right now for a conference, will reply at length later.

--mlp

[Jim H]

Bryan,

Why don't you just point him at our endless discussions about public
perception and make him realize this has always been at the forefront
of conversation and consideration?

If he really thinks that "this one photo may be enough to destroy what
millions of other people have worked towards", I hope he's serious
about what he says and he realizes this publicity photo is just that
and not any wide spread problem in the DIYbio movement

>   "Readers' comments on Time to Reboot America"http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/12/24/opinion/24fr...

>
> One comment references this:
>
> "What Shortage of Scientists and Engineers?"

> By John Tierneyhttp://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/what-shortage-of-scien...

> Summary:http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/03/freeman-dyson-on-phd-global-warming...

> "Biotechnology will become as domesticated as computer games and children
> and housewives will create their new animal and plant species at home. Most
> people don't realize that this will happen much like John von Neumann didn't
> appreciate computer games as a major source of the 21st century entertainment"
>
> However, one reason I disagree is that the *ethical* dimensions are
> different, at least for intelligent creatures that can feel pain (which for
> me starts at maybe the insects on up, and maybe even plants).
>
> So, there we have three scientists
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jim H]

Meredith, FWIW, I think that reply is perfect!!

On Dec 26, 1:19 pm, "Meredith L. Patterson" <clonea...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> FWIW, the MSDSs are in a notebook not visible in the picture, the fire
> extinguisher is in the kitchen behind me, there's no fume hood because
> I'm not working with anything that outgasses, who the hell thinks I'm
> working with anything radioactive?, and I'm not wearing gloves because
> in that picture I'm pipetting 50mM saline solution. :P
>
> My neighbours are in far greater danger from bread that's gone moldy
> on their counters than from anything I'm working with. It's yogurt
> bacteria. You *eat* it.
>
> In Berlin right now for a conference, will reply at length later.
>
> --mlp
>

> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Before I write a reply, I figure I should forward.
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Paul D. Fernhout <pdfernh...@kurtz-fernhout.com>
> > Date: Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:28 AM
> > Subject: [Open Manufacturing] Safety of DIY-bio (was Re: Fwd: Meredith made AP)
> > To: openmanu...@googlegroups.com
>
> > Sorry, I find that photo and the caption horrifying. :-(

> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/25/do-it-yourself-dna-amateu_n_...

> > sponsored research center (SynBERC)http://www.synberc.org/of which I am part."

>
> > I'm not to worried about the "terrorist" implications because terrorists
> > would just use something else (cars, gasoline, planes, whatever).
> >  http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/1d.htm
> > "The efficiency of motor vehicles as terrorist instruments would have
> > written a tragic record long ago if people were inclined to terrorism. But
> > almost all auto mishaps are accidents, and while there are seemingly a lot
> > of those, the actual fraction of mishaps, when held up against the
> > stupendous number of possibilities for mishap, is quite small. I know it's
> > difficult to accept this because the spectre of global terrorism is a
> > favorite cover story of governments, but the truth is substantially
> > different from the tale the public is sold."
>
> > What I am worried about is the health and safety implications of such
> > biotech work day-to-day, even ignoring major accidents or organism releases.
> > And for knowing that, I can thank people like a post-doc at a major research
> > university who told me about some of these issues (decrying some aspects of
> > his own lab whose shared air I was indirectly breathing).
>
> > At least they have people wearing gloves and better eye protection at SynBERC:
> >  http://www.synberc.org/education/HSBiotech.htm
>
> > --Paul Fernhout
>
> > marc fawzi wrote:
> >> with photo
>

> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/25/do-it-yourself-dna-amateu_n_...

[Meredith L. Patterson]

Thanks, Jim.

Actually, in the interest of fairness and full disclosure, there is
one tremendously dangerous reagent I'm working with: ampicillin. I'm
violently allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics, so I strictly follow
the safety precaution of *not drinking the ampicillin*. I also boil it
before disposing of it, as I prefer not to put antibiotics into the
environment. Fortunately, ampicillin denatures at 60C, so that's an
easy problem to solve.

[Guido D. Núñez-Mujica]

That e mail from Mr. Fernhout is exactly what I had in mind when
talking about a "burned people" approach to cooking. The part about
mutagenic radioactive reagents really cracked me up, that sounds more
like Spiderman than like actual molecular biology.

[Joseph Jackson]

I have been talking to Paul on this on the other mailing list, while
suggesting perhaps he hold off posting on here so as to not provoke a
full fledged flame fest. What I find interesting is that Paul is a
pretty sophisticated technologist and yet seems to be having this
visceral reaction in this context. We've seen this also with Bill
Joy. We need to take this seriously because he's not just a typical
member of the public spooked by the idea of biohackers. I don't know
why he's so hung up on the chemicals--as I told him I just did a 5 day
course last July introducing me to basic molecular biology techniques
and I managed to learn to handle the stuff without poisoning myself or
anyone else. But, really we should not make light of these concerns
because if Paul is reacting this way to the article, there will be
others.

On Dec 26, 2:57 pm, "Guido D. Núñez-Mujica"

<noalaignoran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That e mail from Mr. Fernhout is exactly what I had in mind when
> talking about a "burned people" approach to cooking.  The part about
> mutagenic radioactive reagents really cracked me up, that sounds more
> like Spiderman than like actual molecular biology.
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Meredith L. Patterson
>

> >>> > sponsored research center (SynBERC)http://www.synberc.org/ofwhich I am part."

[Len Sassaman]

You should at least pass on Meredith's response that she made to this
list, explaining that the safety equipment (including also the sharps
container, that Meredith didn't mention) was out of frame, and that she
was pipetting 50mM saline solution and didn't need gloves for that
operation; the follow-up about the antibiotics is maybe worth forwarding
as well, and you could point him at her recent blog post where she
addresses the toilet paper comment from elsewhere:

http://maradydd.livejournal.com/412973.html

He's making a very crass assumption that it's "social despair" that drives
Meredith and I to do biohacking in our home, and I think he's likely
fundamentally not going to understand the notion of biohacking as a hobby.
Academics can debate ragingly about how to introduce these concepts to the
wider public (i.e., smart, intelligent polymaths working in their garages,
as the case may be), but it's unnecessary, since we already have been
introduced to such work due to the open publication nature of academia.

Being labeled as a rebel is, in my opinion, no problem whatsoever, but I
have been through one major "war" of freedom to research science, as a
cypherpunk during the years that the USA classified the types of
cryptography that we were working on as "munitions" and sought to restrict
their research, ban the export of information regarding such tools from
the US, and generally discourage members of the public from working on the
topic. In the end, it was the "tinkers" working on this that brought
cryptography out of the closed rooms in governmental intelligence
facilities, and onto the computers of every person who uses a web
browser. I'm tempted to start a biopunks group for people who believe in
free and open research without draconian restrictions such as
certification or licensing programs being required as a barrier to entry,
since I'm somewhat disappointed by the apparent majority embracing that
concept as either necessary or desirable. I am inclined to believe that
the more we focus on spreading basic knowledge, including knowledge of
safety precautions and basic lab technique, the better this emerging
community will become, and that catering to fear-mongers who can be pushed
to hysterics because a photo was framed not to include a fire
extinguisher or to people who believe that a mandatory certification
course will have any real bearing on public opinion or the inevitable
regulatory actions that may or may not be taken on this will simply
divert precious time and resources from our core mission:

Biohacking.


Best,

Len

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

[Bryan Bishop]

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Len Sassaman wrote:
> browser. I'm tempted to start a biopunks group for people who believe in
> free and open research without draconian restrictions such as
> certification or licensing programs being required as a barrier to entry,
> since I'm somewhat disappointed by the apparent majority embracing that
> concept as either necessary or desirable. I am inclined to believe that

Somebody beat you to it :-)
http://biopunk.org/

Also, I've now officially met enough cyperphunks members that we could
go bootstrap the mailing list anew again (10 guys?). But whatever. :-)

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[JonathanCline]

On Dec 27, 3:27 am, Len Sassaman <Len.Sassa...@esat.kuleuven.be>
wrote:

> free and open research without draconian restrictions such as
> certification or licensing programs being required as a barrier to entry,
> since I'm somewhat disappointed by the apparent majority embracing that
> concept as either necessary or desirable.

You believe certification or licensing programs create a barrier to
entry and draconian restrictions.

> I am inclined to believe that
> the more we focus on spreading basic knowledge, including knowledge of
> safety precautions and basic lab technique, the better this emerging
> community will become

The primary purpose of most certification programs is to disseminate
best-in-field safety precautions and basic, correct lab technique.

The secondary purpose is to deliberately create a barrier to entry.
The height of the barrier is deliberately set by the certifying agent
(and measured over time to make sure the results match the
expectations). Keep the uneducated (or dumb) from labeling
themselves as part of the group until they become educated. The
height of the barrier can be 1 cm (easy) or 10 meters (ridiculously
hard).

> people who believe that a mandatory certification
> course will have any real bearing on public opinion or the inevitable
> regulatory actions that may or may not be taken on this will simply
> divert precious time and resources from our core mission:

I don't see how you create this conclusion from the above two
excerpts.

Do you have other experiences which point to a simple educational-
based certification program as a bad thing? In my mind,
certification means: watch a couple hours of educational video, take
a safety quiz, and receive a certificate in the mail. Which part of
certification is the draconian part?

A very easy certification is getting a drivers license (forget the
inefficiencies of government departments of a minute). Nearly anyone
in good physical condition can obtain a certification to drive after
taking a 15-question quiz and a 30 minute operational exam. This
deliberate barrier to entry keeps out what the certifying agent
considers to be "unacceptable users". People will always disobey law
and drive, though at least they can not legitimately claim to be "part
of the licensed driving community" and taint the reputation of
legitimate drivers, and this does have a beneficial effect on the
public perception of legitimate driving. As well as successfully
training for minimum safety ("red means stop, green means go").



## Jonathan Cline
## jcl...@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################

[Kay Aull]

I'd like to go after the idea that molecular biology requires a
supervillain's arsenal of chemicals. It doesn't. Most of the basic
techniques are both safe and newbie-proof. I learned them as a high
schooler, I've taught them to high schoolers, and the worst that
happened was the ethanol dip catching fire.

You can run an entry-level home lab, capable of building an iGEM
project or the equivalent, on nothing more sinister than antibiotics
and bleach. Seriously. The bleach is easily the worst thing in mine.

That said, not everything is newbie-proof. Like any DIY hobby, there
are projects that require extra knowledge and equipment to do safely,
and people who fail to respect their limits can get hurt. This
community has been very responsible about the issue. Every so often,
someone here will float an idea that wouldn't be suited for kitchen
table labwork, and people reliably flag it as such. Having somewhere
for people to ask questions, and be questioned in return, is key for
maintaining safety and openness. We're making that happen, I think.