Biohackers - The new terrorist threat or life giving altruists?

[Loppan Torkel]

Biopunk is a synonym for biohacker, a term used to describe a hobbyist who experiments with DNA and other aspects of genetics.[1][2] A biohacker is similar to a computer hacker who creates and modifies computer software or computer hardware as a hobby (i.e. "wetware hacker"), but should not be confused with a bioterrorist whose sole intent is the deliberate release of viruses, bacteria, or other germs used to cause illness or death in people, animals, or plants (in the same way a computer hacker should not be confused with the more popular yet erroneous use of the term, describing someone who spreads computer viruses or breaks into computers systems for malicious purposes).[6] Using a laptop computer, published gene sequence information, and mail-order synthetic DNA, some promoters and critics of biohacking argue that just about anyone has the potential to construct genes or entire genomes from scratch, although this is not known to have occurred as of January 2007.[7]

Biopunk

So, will the world become a better or worse place to be in with this "new" technology which seems to be getting more accessible?

What potential benefits do you see coming from increased use of genetic engineering? Cures? New vaccines? Less Disease? More food? Better food? More people? Smarter people? More equality? More happiness?

 

[Yeekim]

The new terrorist threat or life giving altruists?

Both, most probably?

 

[GoodGame]

Sounds like an internet geek groveling for attention.

Biotechnology is already maturing, so I see no need for a portmaneau word, unless there actually are rogue individuals similar to computer hackers.

I'd find it highly amusing if biotechnology were more readily embraced because it became elite kewl due to the use of the term "biopunk". There's quite a bit of public resistance to the use of biotechnology, despite good intentions of the engineers.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Sounds like an internet geek groveling for attention.

Biotechnology is already maturing, so I see no need for a portmaneau word, unless there actually are rogue individuals similar to computer hackers.

I'd find it highly amusing if biotechnology were more readily embraced because it became elite kewl due to the use of the term "biopunk". There's quite a bit of public resistance to the use of biotechnology, despite good intentions of the engineers.

It might not exist in the society today but if this technology will become as accessible as it seems and people with interest and talent for it will be able to mix genetic material in "kitchen laboratories", I think biohacker is a perfectly good word for what it's supposed to describe.

What's up with your desire to jump on the labels instead of trying to see the implications of the technology?

 

[GoodGame]

What's up with your desire to jump on the labels instead of trying to see the implications of the technology?

Actually I study biotechnology in school, so I kind of have to see the biopunk term as completely ridiculous hype. Especially since the social issues, especially anti-biotechnology hysteria is hard to avoid in classes, as in CFC-OT, of which there is a great deal of negative public opinion to biotechnology. Though in fact, the biotech revolution is already here e.g. transgenic corn and soybeans dominate unmodified forms.

But kudos for being interested in biotechnology. As to answer your intent, nearly anything can be done by biotechnology, with regards to organisms, if the underlying biology is understood. I can only suggest going to school and choosing that as a major.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Actually I study biotechnology in school, so I kind of have to see the biopunk term as completely ridiculous hype.

Ok, first time I heard about it and I don't really care about the term more than as a description of a potential phenomena.

But kudos for being interested in biotechnology. As to answer your intent, nearly anything can be done by biotechnology, with regards to organisms, if the underlying biology is understood. I can only suggest going to school and choosing that as a major.

too late for that, but good luck on your studies!

Though, since you study it, why not give some examples for how mankind can benefit from this, and some potential hazards?!

Also, is there a risk for a biohacking culture? Will the technology be as accessible as having the knowledge, talent and some basic equipment?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Biopunk

So, will the world become a better or worse place to be in with this "new" technology which seems to be getting more accessible?

What potential benefits do you see coming from increased use of genetic engineering? Cures? New vaccines? Less Disease? More food? Better food? More people? Smarter people? More equality? More happiness?

You're citing science-fiction as a cause for concern of potential criminal activity?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

You're citing science-fiction as a cause for concern of potential criminal activity?

I cited an excerpt from wikipedia since the article I read was in Swedish. It was of similar subject and I thought it was pretty interesting. There has been some controversy and reporting from media regarding bio engineering, but I hadn't given it much thought that it could become accessible for the public in this way.

Do you consider the reasoning in the quote an impossibility for the near future?

Also, why are you focusing on the negative aspects of this? I think it was pretty neutral in the OP...

 

[Loppan Torkel]

ieet

Spoiler :

The idea is to turn bacteria into microscopic machines, carrying out designated tasks in massively-parallel operations. Given the extreme range of things that bacteria can do in nature, the extent to which bacterial machines might be used is pretty staggering, particularly concerning environmental response. This would be a perfect platform for methanotrophic remediation of melting permafrost, for example; the Venter folks are already talking about building synthetic bacteria to do carbon capture. Biofuels are also high on the agenda.

The big concern about synthetic biology is the potential for the creation of hazardous materials—aggressive, infectious bacteria, for example. We should also consider, at the same time, its biomedical potential. Are there ways of delivering drugs via synthetic bacteria?

One advantage of the big splash this relatively modest development has made is that it opens up the possibility of laying out the parameters of what ethical, responsible management of this technology would look like before have to confront its fully-developed form.

Should we require a “shut-off” gene in any novogenic organism, one that kills the cell if certain conditions are (or aren’t) met? A reproduction-limiting set of genes that only permits replication in the presence of a rare chemical? Public registration of all novogenic genomes?

One suggestion that we know is possible, because a variation appeared in the Venter announcement: all synthetic genomes should be signed. According to Wired:

“They rebuilt a natural sequence and they put in some poetry,” said University of California at San Francisco synthetic biologist Chris Voigt. “They recreated some quotes in the genome sequence as watermarks.”

What Voigt refers to as a “watermark” should instead be thought of as a “DNA signature.” We should require that all synthetic genomes include something like this, unique sequences following a designated pattern, identifying the organization behind the genome, the lab responsible, the date, and any other useful bits of information. Multiple copies should appear throughout the synthetic genome, so it doesn’t get mutated away.

That way, if something unexpected happens, we know whom to talk to.

Nothing new, but this is pretty close to programming. Isn't it likely that people with talent will indulge in it just like they did with computers some decades ago?

 

[Hakim]

Heard about it on Radio P1? They had a report on 'biohacking' today. Apparently a lot of the stuff can be ordered on the Internet. Seems risky.

 

[Greizer85]

Maybe this is the reason we haven't met other intelligent species, and not nukes... Curiosity will be the doom of our race one day, I tell you!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Yes, I listened to it at P1, and read a blurb on SR vetenskapsnyheter. It's interesting to hear something about it. So far it has mostly been about food products...

 

[GoodGame]

Also, is there a risk for a biohacking culture? Will the technology be as accessible as having the knowledge, talent and some basic equipment?

There's a considerable amount of infrastructure, expertise, and knowledge-base needed.

While Cuba, which is pretty underfunded, can achieve some ends in research since they're dedicated and have teaching universitities., it's still unlikely that sole individuals can do anything without national, or sizeable corporate-backing. And there's the notorious meth labs in the basements of country farms, etc.. But the amount of info needed to actively and regularly research biotechnology, without access to journals, would be pretty unlikely.

The anthrax mailings, which turned out to be the work of a "rogue" scientist at a Federal institute, at least according to the Fed, would be an example of "biohacking". Basically the individual diverted supplies from the government, though. I'd seriously doubt that say a "crazed PHD" could do something like that without access to lots of money, and a large infrastructure.

There's a trend to automating a lot of biotechnology processes, but the automation is still very expensive, and not at all portable. So I'd be really skeptical of anybody being able to "biopunk" with minimal education, and off-the-shelf technology, in less than 100-200 years.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I cited an excerpt from wikipedia since the article I read was in Swedish. It was of similar subject and I thought it was pretty interesting. There has been some controversy and reporting from media regarding bio engineering, but I hadn't given it much thought that it could become accessible for the public in this way.

Do you consider the reasoning in the quote an impossibility for the near future?

Also, why are you focusing on the negative aspects of this? I think it was pretty neutral in the OP...

Because these considerations belong to the realm of fantasy. Bioengineering today exists only as research. There is no way that something so tenuously understood and so expensive could be available in a widespread manner as to allow a criminal element. No criminal would invest time, money, and effort for something that yields a payoff that may never come.

 

[GoodGame]

Just to contradict Nancyborgasm a bit: the 2000-2010 decade has seen a tremendous amount of commercialization of biotechnology, well beyond basic research. There have been several fielded products of a biotech nature.

E.g. herbicide-resistance and insect resistance crops, as well as a category of medical products known as "biologics".