In my March 23rd article on the perils of the citizen scientist in the realm of biological science, I pointed out that biohacking was a particular troubling practice for the amateur scientist. I was lambasted by some critics for taking an ivory tower approach to the citizen scientist. What was lost in my article was my particular focus on biohacking. It seems that editors from The Economist and The New Scientist must have read my blog, because two articles, here and here, appeared in August and September and focused on biohacking.
Both articles take a favorable view of biohacking, and suggest that to limit biohacking is to limit scientific progress. The authors of both articles discuss the group DIY Bio and use that organization as a model for how biohacking can educate interested citizens about science. I do not disagree with this premise on the surface-this is the DIY Bio mission statement:
“DIYbio is an organization that aims to help make biology a worthwhile pursuit for citizen scientists, amateur biologists, and DIY biological engineers who value openness and safety. This will require mechanisms for amateurs to increase their knowledge and skills, access to a community of experts, the development of a code of ethics, responsible oversight, and leadership on issues that are unique to doing biology outside of traditional professional settings.”
I do not doubt that DIY Bio values “openness and safety”, but both The Economist and The New Scientist overlook the law of unintended consequences in their zeal for promoting their narrow definition of scientific progress.
What is lacking in these articles, and I believe in the scientific community in general, when evaluating the usefulness of biohacking is the concept of pensée en creux, or “implicit thought”.
In their chapter of “The Handbook Of Psycholinguistics”, Glenberg et al. (1994) suggest that implicit thought is the act of comprehending the absence of immediate consequence, as if observing not the figure, but the ground. Implicit thought is what American liberal arts education strives to instill in students during college. Lack of implicit thought leads to adopting methods and behaviors that on the surface seem positive, but may have largely negative unintended consequences.
Biological systems are complex and highly variable, and thus we have a limited understanding of the variables needed to predict the outcome of manipulating such systems. This lack of knowledge necessitates that there will be unforeseen consequences to the integration of biohacking into the mainstream, however positive the intentions of the biohackers.
Let me give an example, borrowed from Professor Butler Schaffer (2003), “A deadly accident is implicit in a drunken man driving his car on a highway. This does not mean that his actions will result in such a mishap: indeed, knowing that one is so incapacitated has doubtless led many to be extra cautious in their driving and to arrive home without incident. It does mean, however, that one ought to recognize the enhanced likelihood of such harm that inheres in such a state.” (my italics).
Thus, by promoting biohacking without any regulation, the scientific community will undermine its own credibility as a forward-thinking, socially responsible institution. This will further erode the influence of science in the long-term, although biohacking provides excitement about science in the short term. Biohacking does not guarantee a negative outcome-but because there is a at least a 50% probability that a negative outcome can occur, the scientific community should take a progressive stance and put tighter regulations on where and when and how this activity should be done.
Regulating biohacking will not stop organizations like DIY Bio from doing the type of scientific outreach that I presume they think is beneficial, nor will it stifle innovation. For instance, my work using biological agents at the NIH is tightly regulated, yet I am able to do the work I need within that framework to advance science with no hindrance. Thus, arguments against regulation in this realm, I believe, are not applicable. (That is not to say that in other areas of science regulation is always a good thing).
In fact, here are three lines from the AAAS mission statement “…Provide a voice for science on societal issues; Promote the responsible use of science in public policy; Increase public engagement with science and technology…”
These excerpts from the AAAS mission statement clearly show that AAAS should put together a commission to observe, report and regulate the biohacking community. I believe that by doing this, AAAS can fulfill these points in its mission. Furthermore, by placing some guidelines on the biohacking community, AAAS could foster a very vibrant, innovative, and healthy community of citizen biologists and biohackers that act in tandem with the scientific community rather than work in its shadows.
As a scientific community, if we get out ahead of this problem now, we won’t have to react to a crisis later, relying on the bureaucrats in Washington. Again, the financial crisis of the past two years teaches science a valuable lesson.
______________________
Refs:
Glenberg, A. M., Kruley, P., & Langston, W. E. (1994). Analogical processes in comprehension: Simulation of a mental model. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Shaffer B (2003) The unintended consequences of good intentions., Lewrockwell.com
