DIY biology is experiencing exponential growth due to affordable DNA editing kits and the internet. While scientists fear biohacking could unleash another pandemic, others view it as an avenue towards faster treatment delivery and access.
Some biohackers place great emphasis on bodily autonomy – the right to experiment on oneself, or use gene editing for expressive purposes. But their efforts may be subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.
Do-It-Yourself CRISPR Kits
Young scientists in this age of genomics and social media are taking science out of the lab and into their homes through gene editing technology. Young scientists known as biohackers use these new tools of genetic engineering for many purposes ranging from altering plant DNA to altering human cells with the hope of treating diseases like HIV or herpes; all using gene editing.
DIY gene editing technology, specifically CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats), has made DIY experimentation possible thanks to recent advancements. CRISPR allows scientists to make precise cuts or “edits” in DNA. Furthermore, parts for gene editing kits like The Odin are now more affordable enabling non-professionals and amateur astronomers (who have discovered exoplanets!) alike to resolve problems that had stumped professionals as well as discover genetic discoveries.
But, with more DIY biohackers experimenting with genome editing technology at home, there are growing concerns over whether it will be used for medical treatments and applications that require approval by regulators, or misused for potentially illegal purposes such as weaponization or creating genetically modified organisms with undesirable traits. Furthermore, mistakes or misuse could increase significantly as more tinkerers try out genome editing – an increase that only compounds these risks.
California became the first US state to pass legislation targeting do-it-yourself genetic engineering in 2021, mandating that manufacturers of CRISPR gene editing kits include a warning against self-administration. But this step only marks an initial attempt at regulation outside traditional scientific environments where risks may be higher.
One solution could lie within patent law, with manufacturers being able to restrict how their products are used. The Broad Institute, the owner of most CRISPR patents, has already implemented such restrictions with Bayer in order to avoid uses that might present national security or environmental risks such as germline gene editing. Likewise, private legal actions against biohackers or component suppliers selling unsafe products would serve as powerful deterrents against future misuse that public regulators could fail to control.
Self-Experimentation with Gene Therapy
Genetic self-experimentation has, thus far, largely avoided serious regulatory scrutiny. This may be attributed to amateur biohackers using gene editing kits designed for animal cells rather than human ones; plus a lack of funding and technical knowledge means biohackers often can’t test out their experiments on themselves or each other to ensure they’re safe.
Recent reports of people engaging in DIY genome editing on themselves has only compounded this crisis. For instance, software engineer Tristan Roberts live-streamed himself being treated with gene therapy to combat his HIV infection and live streamed the entire procedure from his apartment. Over two years, Roberts has been developing N6 antibodies as part of his gene therapy effort, hoping they may bind directly to viral surfaces to effectively kill off virus infections.
Self-experimenters’ use of biotechnologies raises crucial questions about who should have the power to determine humans’ medical fates and ensure those responsible are qualified. Some argue it’s time for society to play an active role in scientific research by providing them with tools like self-experimentation. But others caution that an unregulated approach could lead to unethical or even dangerous conduct, especially as gene editing technologies advance.
As DIY biohacking gains in popularity, lawmakers, regulators, and participants must carefully assess whether a more hands-on regulatory approach is necessary. Some states have passed laws to restrict gene editing kits that could be used to treat diseases by editing DNA directly; FDA has authority to crack down on illegal activities as well, though without sufficient resources they may find it challenging to identify violations within small biohacking communities.
The rapid democratization of genetic biohacking poses serious public health risks, including interventions with poor safety and efficacy, lack of true informed consent, and introduction of unsafe and unproven gene therapies into commerce. A global solution will require aligning informal biohacking practices with clinical research standards while engaging non-governmental organizations that can oversee oversight and enforce regulations to be found here.
The Ethics of Biohacking
Many researchers and policy makers view biohacking as an ethical challenge. They note that hobbyists lack the training and resources needed for meaningful scientific research; that their self-experimentation may be dangerous; their kitchen experiments could produce unexpected side effects. They further worry that biohackers’ efforts might set an unregulated precedent which encourages other individuals with extra leisure time to create genetic labs in their garages or backyards.
Others disagree that these concerns are valid; some, like Josiah Zayner who recently live-streamed himself injecting gene editing treatment to his own arm to increase muscle growth, believe biohackers share similar goals as scientists when it comes to comprehending life and understanding its mysteries. Furthermore, they argue that current treatments are too slow and expensive; furthermore patients suffering from lifelong conditions deserve more say over their treatment decisions.
Some biohackers maintain that biohacking should not be criminalized due to its inherent risks and potentially misleading results. They contend this by analogy: similar to how people experimented with drugs at home for years (even when such experiments could prove fatal), genetic modification should also remain outside the reach of public regulation largely similarly to DIY science activities.
As it stands, existing public and private governance mechanisms already exist that can mitigate the risks associated with genetic biohacking while amplifying its innovative potential; these just need to be better utilized. Instead of trying to regulate genetic biohacking communities through laws which may or may not be enforced by regulators, regulators should engage them as they emerge to avoid risky norms of risk-taking and secrecy spreading among them.
Academic institutions should educate the public on gene editing while also offering space within their laboratories for amateur scientists and biohackers to conduct their experiments, providing oversight while still giving them experience. Furthermore, patent holders should impose licensing restrictions on CRISPR kits used by these communities that prevent commercial companies from misusing these CRISPR tools to harm human health.
The Future of Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering holds immense promise to transform healthcare, agriculture and industry – but also poses risks and ethical considerations that must be carefully considered before employing such an innovative technology. By adhering to scientific rigor and engaging in thoughtful dialogue about its use for humanity’s benefit.
Genetic engineering has revolutionized our world with groundbreaking discoveries and ethical debates alike. From gene drives to designer babies, these debates demonstrate the complexity of manipulating life itself. Humanity faces enormous challenges such as global health crises, food shortages and climate change – but genetic engineering may provide solutions tailored specifically to us based on our genetic makeup.
Scientists are turning to genome editing technology in an attempt to engineer plants, animals, and human cells with desirable traits. This can involve inserting new DNA sequences, deleting existing ones, or altering genes so as to produce desired traits; CRISPR allows scientists to edit an animal’s genome in this way to remove disease-causing mutations or enhance desirable qualities such as resistance against certain illnesses.
CRISPR-Cas9 marked a breakthrough in genetic engineering with its discovery, providing researchers with an easy and precise method of editing the genome. Scientists quickly turned this natural system used by bacteria to block viral attacks into an efficient molecular scalpel for gene editing; now scientists can precisely delete or insert specific sequences within any genetic sequence for research or biotechnology applications.
Though genetic engineering holds great promise for society, others raise serious reservations about its effects. Of particular concern is germline genetic modification – changing organism’s heritable DNA passed from generation to generation in order to alter heritable traits or even eliminate diseases altogether – which would allow individuals to eliminate hereditary diseases or enhance desirable traits; creating “designer humans”. Additionally, such modification may exacerbate social inequalities by giving those with access and resources an edge over those without them.
