Like many other high school students seeking to enter the science field, unique and enriching research opportunities were my number one priority as I explored different college options. I want to put the past 12 years of long lectures and tireless nights to use by discovering the undiscovered. I want to embrace my small passions and transform them into something bigger. And most importantly, I want the classroom to be more than just lectures and memorizing.
Introduced in 2005 by Dale Dougherty, the Maker Movement is a contemporary subculture that emphasizes an individual’s power to create and invent through hands-on learning that is made possible with the increasing availability of technology and other resources (Martinez). Unlike ever before, people in the 21st century of all different ages are able to challenge one another and put life into their imaginations that paved the way for innovations such as cupcake cars, bicycle-powered rock band, and soda & Mentospropelled fountains - something that made a frequent appearance in my elementary school’s cafeteria.
In my AP Psychology class, I learned about how our minds tend to retain information better when it is made meaningful, and attaching meaning to something is usually made possible through experiences - valuable experiences. Building off of this idea, the Maker Movement has sought to transform classrooms into “makerspaces” where kids would be able to take part in incredible learning opportunities to create meaningful projects (Martinez).
Just as children or college students (including prospective ones like me) want to brew up innovative ideas in a lab setting or their classrooms, others want to do the same within the premises of their homes or even garages. Sometimes, these projects are pursued with the intent to find a solution for serious medical conditions such as Diabetes. For example, the #WeAreNotWaiting Diabetes DIY Movement started at Stanford University in order to “make diabetes data more accessible, intuitive, and actionable [by increasing the] time in (glucose) range, and [achieving] fewer lows and better A1C” - something that digital health has not successfully done yet (“The #WeAreNotWaiting Diabetes DIY Movement”). Dana Lewis and her husband Scott Leibrand built #OpenAPS — an artificial pancreas, at their home, to help ease the glucose level streaming process for all Type 1 Diabetes patients (“The #WeAreNotWaiting Diabetes DIY Movement”). Just like their movement suggests, they no longer want to wait for others to save them, but instead take matters into their own hands, within their own homes.
The Open Artificial Pancreas System (OpenAps) project was most definitely a success, but should we loosen the laws prohibiting at-home experimenting? How can we guarantee that all “garage experiments” will become a success like the OpenAps project? And like The Medical Futurist puts it, “Where should the line be drawn between supporting innovation and refusing reckless experimentation?” Should people be limited to conducting experiments and trying new things within their classrooms and lab settings, or should we make our homes and garages choices, too?
The #WeAreNotWaiting Movement is a segment of the DIY biology (also referred to as Biohacking) movement, which is “a growing socio-technological movement in which citizens scientists, biohackers, and other individuals come together to study the life sciences by applying similar scientific methods used by professional scientists” (Kolodziejczyk). This movement was pioneered by Rob Carlson who was the first to start his own garage lab where he could get involved in genetic engineering on a low budget. To many, Carlson may be a role model that others hope to follow, but what are some of the safety concerns this movement poses, especially given that most of these DIY biologists have little to no experience in safety practices?
It was only in 2009 that CRISPR was introduced, but who knew that science enthusiasts would quickly come to look upon gene editing as a hobby. Josiah Zayner quit his job as a research scientist at NASA in order to become a biohacker because he thought that “traditional” science limited him from embracing the true excitement that science held in-store like “invisibility cloaks and lightsabers and spaceships” (Campbell). He wanted to embrace his freedom and craziness by taking risks, including injecting himself with CRISPR to enhance his muscles. He wanted to show people that there was no reason to spend $2.1 million on gene therapy in hospitals when he could just do it himself (Campbell). Zayner is a perfect example of someone exploring the true beauties of science while proving to the world that they do not need to be rich to be able to do simple procedures such as this. This is why he founded ODIN that sells DIY CRISPR kits that allow people to conduct experiments within their own homes and has the motto: “Making Science and Genetic Engineering Accessible and Affordable.” However, Zayner himself worries that biohacking can be a dangerous move and even claims, “There’s no doubt in my mind that somebody is going to end up hurt eventually” (Campbell).
Similar to Zayner’s fears, many countries worry that if the modified organisms that these garage biologists were to be released into the world, they would violate the United Nations Biological Weapons Convention by affecting the “native species in the neighboring country” (Kolodziejczyk). They are concerned that this is paving the way for terrorists to develop biological weapons in their homes right beneath our eyes. So should we encourage garage biohackers in the name of creativity and self-advocacy, or should we worry that doing so will only create more terrorism and other problems?
There are countries like Singapore that want to support DIY biologists by considering issuing licenses that will require them to pass ethics and safety tests before being able to practice genetic engineering on their own (Kolodziejczyk). Similarly, the United States’s Food and Drug Administration has drafted a set of regulations called “Regulation of Intentionally Altered Genomic DNA in Animals” that genetically-engineered organisms would have to go through for approval (“Q&A on FDA Regulation of Intentional Genomic Alterations in Animals”). Meanwhile, the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety of Germany has completely dismissed DIY synthetic biology and genetic engineering outside of “designated and specialized facilities and research institutions” (Kolodziejczyk).
However, it’s important to distinguish these garage biologists from the rest of the biohacking community, most of which have been striving to establish common codes of safety. On top of that, a majority of these biohackers aren’t even working in their garages, and rather “92% of DIY biologists work at least some of the time in communal spaces” (“DIY Bio: Separating Fact from Fiction”). This is important to take into account because, in community laboratories, risks can be minimized through the use of proper equipment and procedures (“DIY Bio: Separating Fact from Fiction”).
I myself am very excited about the research opportunities that are available at college, but the question is, would they be enough to satisfy my scientific curiosities? For Zayner, even his job wasn’t enough. So, does that mean we should be allowed to see where our creativity takes us within our own homes? There may be accidents, but as this DIY bio movement continues to grow, there may be a lot that this movement holds for the world’s betterment - as long as it’s done with caution and the necessary protocols.
Works Cited
DiabetesMine Team. “The #WeAreNotWaiting Diabetes DIY Movement.” Healthline, 6 May 2019,
www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/product-review-tandem-diabetes-control-iq#Will-I-buy-it?
“EXCLUSIVE – DIY Bio: Separating Fact from Fiction.” Homeland Security Today, 27 Feb. 2021,
www.hstoday.us/channels/global/exclusive-diy-bio-separating-fact-from-fiction/.
Kolodziejczyk, Bart. “Do-It-Yourself Biology Shows Safety Risks of an Open Innovation
Movement.” Brookings, Brookings, 6 Oct. 2017, www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2017/10/09/
do-it-yourself-biology-shows-safety-risks-of-an-open-innovation-movement/.
Martinez, Sylvia. “The Maker Movement: A Learning Revolution.” ISTE, 11 Feb. 2019,
www.iste.org/explore/In-the-classroom/The-maker-movement%3A-A-learning-revolution.
"Q&A On FDA Regulation of Intentional Genomic Alterations in Animals." 2017,
www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animals-intentional-genomic-alterations/qa-fda-regulation-
intentional-genomic-alterations-animals.
“Top 8 Issues in Bioethics in 2020.” The Medical Futurist, 26 Mar. 2019, medicalfuturist.com/the-
most-pressing-issues-in-bioethics/.
Zhang, Sarah. “A Biohacker Regrets Publicly Injecting Himself With CRISPR.” The Atlantic, Atlantic
Media Company, 21 Feb. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/biohacking-stunts-
crispr/553511/.