5 ms·

In a paper published in Nature Biotechnology in 2007, a group of scientists and FBI officials called for better oversight of so-called synthetic DNA... Some bi

In a paper published in Nature Biotechnology in 2007, a group of scientists and FBI officials called for better oversight of so-called synthetic DNA... Some biologists argue that anyone wishing to custom-make new organisms, even if it's just glow-in-the-dark bacteria (a popular trick among biohackers), should have to get a license first... A senior official in the FBI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate says the bureau is working with academia and industry to raise awareness about biosecurity... George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, says anyone using synthetic DNA should have to have a license, including garage biologists... In summary: Oooh Frankenstein - scary! Frankenstein is THE allegory for the dangers of science and it's pretty old. If you don't like what's going on with biohacking, put your money where you mouth is and give up everything science gave you since Mary Shelley died.

khafra 17y ago
Although I agree with your viewpoint, I have an inexplicable feeling that your biases lie with the biohackers. To play devil's advocate: licensing makes sense for the type of dna recombination they do at, say, USAMRIID; and in an emerging field like this it's always hard to figure out where exactly to draw lines.
- biohacker42 17y ago
  Imagine if Woz had to get a license to do what he did? The key thing to keep in mind is that a lot, and I mean A LOT of innovation is the result of a brute force search, the more people are searching the faster we find things. And while regulation may have some benefits the costs are often devastating. I also happen to know that big pharma has a huge backlog of promising potential drugs. But the years and hundreds of millions of dollars necessary for even early stage testing are a suffocating bottleneck. The end result is that there is absolutely no point in trying to find new cures, there's already a glut of them on the shelf. Suffice it to say, I think the risks are worth it and regulation is a blunt weapon which eliminates most of the bad AND the good.
  - kirse 17y ago
    Imagine if Woz had to get a license to do what he did? I'm not really an expert on biohacking but it seems like you know a bit more... Let's say some nutjob bio-hacker synthesizes a nasty little immuno-resistant organism... is it pretty easy to just "reformat" a human being and get them back on track should they get infected? Are there readily available anti-viral vaccines that we can just simply inject to prevent some sort of man-made viral outbreak? I've got no problem with bio-hacking so long as these biohackers have an easy way to "reformat" my system and quickly get me back to healthy living again.
    - biohacker42 17y ago
      What you say is true, but like all imagine a super virus/bacterium/foot fungus scenarios it omits crucial information. The crucial information I am referring to is that the world you live in right now is chock full with nasty things doing their best to kill you. Every step you take, ever breath you take, you're living in an ocean of things which have been perfecting ways to harm you since before there were dinosaurs. They are not only trying to eat you alive, they are also viciously competing with each other, it's jungle out there. And that's why I'm not worried about home grown super Ebola. It's not that it isn't possible it's just that it's like one more bullet in a machine gun fight. Yes, that could be THE bullet that kills you, but it's not like you're living in a germ free world.
      - randallsquared 17y ago
        And that's why I'm not worried about home grown super Ebola. It's not that it isn't possible it's just that it's like one more bullet in a machine gun fight. I, for one, hadn't thought about it in quite that way, before.
      - jibiki 17y ago
        > the world you live in right now is chock full with nasty things doing their best to kill you. Really? For some reason, internet people are always talking about coevolution and not killing the host and all that. I'd assume you know better since you're an actual biologist, but it is still surprising...
- imgabe 17y ago
  The problem with licensing is that the people who want to do something bad are not going to be stopped by the fact that they don't have a license. If you're driving the getaway car in a bank robbery, does it matter if you don't have your driver's license?
  - scott_s 17y ago
    I think the more likely dangers in this case are not people with malicious intent, but people who do something without carefully thinking through the ramifications. Remember, the first internet worm was an accident. (Made by a contemporary of pg.)
    - noahlt 17y ago
      And licenses probably won't help prevent well-meaning people's accidents, either.
      - evgen 17y ago
        What licensing can do is provide an incentive for general practitioners of a particular craft to follow a certain set of standards and guidelines for basic safety. If licensing is required for access to certain materials and maintaining your license requires either passing some sort of "don't be an idiot" safety course (or having your "lab" available for inspection) then this low bar can keep some of the idiots out of the way and can be used as a stick with which to beat upon well-meaning people who engage in gross incompetence regarding safety.
        billswift 17y ago
        What licensing can do is block competition to the established powers. Do you think it was from the goodness of their hearts that Microsoft was pushing the attempt to license "software engineers" and programmers a decade ago.
menloparkbum 17y ago
George Church supports licensing because he's on a dozen patents in this area, has significant investments in synthetic biology, and would be first in line to be involved with granting the licenses. There are valid safety considerations which need to be taken seriously but it's important to consider his motivations when making public statements like this. Tangentially, I took George Church's class at HMS and it was one of the worst courses I've ever taken. If a synthetic biology licensing committee ever comes into play I hope someone less scatterbrained and arbitrary is chosen to head it.

khafra 17y ago

Although I agree with your viewpoint, I have an inexplicable feeling that your biases lie with the biohackers. To play devil's advocate: licensing makes sense for the type of dna recombination they do at, say, USAMRIID; and in an emerging field like this it's always hard to figure out where exactly to draw lines.

biohacker42 17y ago
Imagine if Woz had to get a license to do what he did? The key thing to keep in mind is that a lot, and I mean A LOT of innovation is the result of a brute force search, the more people are searching the faster we find things. And while regulation may have some benefits the costs are often devastating. I also happen to know that big pharma has a huge backlog of promising potential drugs. But the years and hundreds of millions of dollars necessary for even early stage testing are a suffocating bottleneck. The end result is that there is absolutely no point in trying to find new cures, there's already a glut of them on the shelf. Suffice it to say, I think the risks are worth it and regulation is a blunt weapon which eliminates most of the bad AND the good.
- kirse 17y ago
  Imagine if Woz had to get a license to do what he did? I'm not really an expert on biohacking but it seems like you know a bit more... Let's say some nutjob bio-hacker synthesizes a nasty little immuno-resistant organism... is it pretty easy to just "reformat" a human being and get them back on track should they get infected? Are there readily available anti-viral vaccines that we can just simply inject to prevent some sort of man-made viral outbreak? I've got no problem with bio-hacking so long as these biohackers have an easy way to "reformat" my system and quickly get me back to healthy living again.
  - biohacker42 17y ago
    What you say is true, but like all imagine a super virus/bacterium/foot fungus scenarios it omits crucial information. The crucial information I am referring to is that the world you live in right now is chock full with nasty things doing their best to kill you. Every step you take, ever breath you take, you're living in an ocean of things which have been perfecting ways to harm you since before there were dinosaurs. They are not only trying to eat you alive, they are also viciously competing with each other, it's jungle out there. And that's why I'm not worried about home grown super Ebola. It's not that it isn't possible it's just that it's like one more bullet in a machine gun fight. Yes, that could be THE bullet that kills you, but it's not like you're living in a germ free world.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      And that's why I'm not worried about home grown super Ebola. It's not that it isn't possible it's just that it's like one more bullet in a machine gun fight. I, for one, hadn't thought about it in quite that way, before.
    - jibiki 17y ago
      > the world you live in right now is chock full with nasty things doing their best to kill you. Really? For some reason, internet people are always talking about coevolution and not killing the host and all that. I'd assume you know better since you're an actual biologist, but it is still surprising...
imgabe 17y ago
The problem with licensing is that the people who want to do something bad are not going to be stopped by the fact that they don't have a license. If you're driving the getaway car in a bank robbery, does it matter if you don't have your driver's license?
- scott_s 17y ago
  I think the more likely dangers in this case are not people with malicious intent, but people who do something without carefully thinking through the ramifications. Remember, the first internet worm was an accident. (Made by a contemporary of pg.)
  - noahlt 17y ago
    And licenses probably won't help prevent well-meaning people's accidents, either.
    - evgen 17y ago
      What licensing can do is provide an incentive for general practitioners of a particular craft to follow a certain set of standards and guidelines for basic safety. If licensing is required for access to certain materials and maintaining your license requires either passing some sort of "don't be an idiot" safety course (or having your "lab" available for inspection) then this low bar can keep some of the idiots out of the way and can be used as a stick with which to beat upon well-meaning people who engage in gross incompetence regarding safety.
      - billswift 17y ago
        What licensing can do is block competition to the established powers. Do you think it was from the goodness of their hearts that Microsoft was pushing the attempt to license "software engineers" and programmers a decade ago.

menloparkbum 17y ago

George Church supports licensing because he's on a dozen patents in this area, has significant investments in synthetic biology, and would be first in line to be involved with granting the licenses. There are valid safety considerations which need to be taken seriously but it's important to consider his motivations when making public statements like this. Tangentially, I took George Church's class at HMS and it was one of the worst courses I've ever taken. If a synthetic biology licensing committee ever comes into play I hope someone less scatterbrained and arbitrary is chosen to head it.