A crowd-sourced Indiegogo funding campaign that raised over $45,000 for do-it-yourself gene editing kits in December, asks: “If you had access to modern synthetic biology tools, what would you create?” This campaign, which aims to democratize science “so everyone has access,” was launched by Josiah Zayner, who earned a PhD in Molecular Biophysics from the University of Chicago. For $130 Zayner offers a DIY CRISPR kit that “includes everything you need to make precision genome edits in bacteria at home including Cas9, gRNA and a Donor DNA template.” This Indiegogo campaign has a special Note to BioHackers: “Each kit comes with all sequence and cloning detail so you can perform your own custom genome engineering.”
Genetically modified organisms, created with CRISPR or other technologies, have the potential to run wild and cause harm to human health and ecological communities. Zayner’s Indiegogo campaign attracted supporters from around the world, including many nations where there are no clear laws about containment for organisms that have been “biohacked.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation has targeted hacking communities with the Bioterrorism Protection Team to ferret out possible malicious uses of emergent technologies. Biohacking can pose significant risks, according to Charis Thompson, Professor of Sociology at University College London and at UC Berkeley. But security concerns should not blind us to the creative potentials of tools like CRISPR, she says. During Thompson’s recent address to the Human Gene Editing Summit in Washington she asked: “Are the biosecurity risks exaggerated for citizen use of these technologies? What are the creative and democratic potentials of these techniques?”
Biological artists, or bioartists, have been exploring the creative potential of molecular tools for over fifteen years. Early examples of bioart illustrate how artists and hackers might use emergent gene editing tools like CRISPR in the near future. When Eduardo Kac partnered with French biologists in February 2000 to produce GFP Bunny, a living transgenic animal with the green fluorescing protein, some critics dismissed it as a frivolous use of biotechnology. For others, this artwork presented an opportunity to address ethical issues about life forms that have been created by science and are now dependent on human care for their survival.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.