DIYbiology

[MorgromTheOrc]

What do you guys think of DIYbio movements? If you don't know what it is, it's people with biology degrees doing genetic research at home on there own and in community groups instead of official settings. Are these a good thing? Would it be worth joining one?

[NichG]

I like the fact that this is a thing, but I don't think I'd partake. There's a bit of a gap here compared to other DIY hobbies. If you're building furniture, you can make use of it. If you're making robots, you can have them move around, etc. If you're doing rocketry, you can attach a camera and take aerial photos.

For DIYbiology, I'm not sure what the payoff is for the participants. Its still pretty hard to make something you can actually use in some way. I guess maybe for people who are doing their own sourdough or brewing it'd be interesting to sequence the yeast in their starter and see how the various strains evolve over time or with different feeding supplies? Similarly for botanists I could see that kind of thing as being an interesting project.

[Grinner]

For DIYbiology, I'm not sure what the payoff is for the participants. Its still pretty hard to make something you can actually use in some way.

I kinda feel the same way about chemistry as a hobby in that I can't see any practical uses for it that won't result in an FBI raid. There are several forums on the Internet for chemistry hobbyists, and the issue of legality seems to crop up fairly regularly on them.

On the other hand, you could make an argument for "DIY science" on other grounds. I kinda dislike how divorced science is from the general public. Frequently being so cloistered from the masses financially, intellectually, and probably socially, scientists seem to form a sort of priesthood, to the point of having supplanted some of the medieval functions of priests. This does not strike me as being the hallmark of an enlightened society of any stripe.

There is the issue of the expense of scientific equipment, of course, but maybe therein lies opportunity for commerce?

[LamaFrancis]

Hi MogromTheOrc,

Your post got me curious, so I looked up some DIY Biology projects. My first comment is that the hobby looks like it is in its infancy. The DIY Bio group in Boston is actually working on a couple of projects, but the other groups that I looked up were still organizing and had no current projects.
Secondly, before you jump into a group be certain that you are at least mildly interested in the project or else you'll quickly bore of it. Personally, my training is in the Molecular Biology of RNA viruses and my greatest skill set is programming robotic liquid handling systems. I didn't see any active projects that could make use of either of those skill sets. I thought there were some interesting projects, but none for me.

[NichG]

I kinda feel the same way about chemistry as a hobby in that I can't see any practical uses for it that won't result in an FBI raid. There are several forums on the Internet for chemistry hobbyists, and the issue of legality seems to crop up fairly regularly on them.

Chemistry at least you can make a lot of visually stunning demos (just look at all the stuff people get up to on YouTube with chemistry demos).



On the other hand, you could make an argument for "DIY science" on other grounds. I kinda dislike how divorced science is from the general public. Frequently being so cloistered from the masses financially, intellectually, and probably socially, scientists seem to form a sort of priesthood, to the point of having supplanted some of the medieval functions of priests. This does not strike me as being the hallmark of an enlightened society of any stripe.

There is the issue of the expense of scientific equipment, of course, but maybe therein lies opportunity for commerce?

Well as I said, I think its great that this DIYbiology thing exists at all. In general, I think that kind of curiosity and urge to explore and to self-educate is really important. But at the same time, it has to also be fulfilling in its own right in order to really take off. For a scientist, there's a network of peers who provides that fulfillment in terms of discussing experimental results at conferences, doing their own follow-up research, etc not to mention the central role of publications in practical matters like getting grants or tenure. For a hobbyist, it's going to be hard to break into that network, but especially I think in terms of something like biology in which people are going to go over experimental protocols with a fine toothed comb. Its very field dependent - astronomy has a very strong amateur culture, for example, and so its easy (relatively speaking) for hobbyists to 'break in'.

I don't think it'd be impossible for a hobbyist to, e.g., do something like Lenski's experiments with tracking the evolution of E. coli (which is probably most impressive for the focus to stick to a single methodical experiment for 27 years). So its not that they can't contribute to research. Its that conferences cost thousands of dollars to go to, papers can cost thousands of dollars to publish without the support of an academic institution that is willing to foot the bill for the reputation, referees on articles are likely to be very dismissive once they notice that this is hobbyist science, etc. So if recognition in the eyes of the scientific community is your main driver to do DIYbiology, its going to be a rough road.

[Radar]

(...) Its that conferences cost thousands of dollars to go to, papers can cost thousands of dollars to publish without the support of an academic institution that is willing to foot the bill for the reputation, referees on articles are likely to be very dismissive once they notice that this is hobbyist science, etc. So if recognition in the eyes of the scientific community is your main driver to do DIYbiology, its going to be a rough road.
Either it is really field-dependent, or you are exagerating a bit. For starters, you can publish your results in most professional journals for free - it's just that reading those costs money and writing a paper is time-consuming. Breaking into a professional journal might be the hard part though - especially due to the strict methodology standards. There is also arxiv.org, which allows you to publish drafts for free and they are also available for everyone to read for free as well. Conferences can cost thousands of dollars, but a lot of them are way cheaper then that and most of the costs is not the conference fee - it's the lodging and travel expenses, which you can try to minimise and/or plan your conferences and regular excursions together.

Granted, I'm a physicist and not a biologist, but at least in my field it wouldn't be a problem for an outsider to attend a conference (without any prerequisites) and give a talk as long as the substance is sound - I have yet to find someone, who cared about affiliation or degrees. I have yet to find an amateur on any conference as well though, but that might be because my field is rather obscure: first rule of integrable systems is nobody knows about integrable systems. :smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

What do you guys think of DIYbio movements? If you don't know what it is, it's people with biology degrees doing genetic research at home on there own and in community groups instead of official settings. Are these a good thing? Would it be worth joining one?

Well, if you wanna invest nine months to create life, and a further eighteen years of experimentation, I suppose knock yourself out.

[NichG]

Either it is really field-dependent, or you are exagerating a bit. For starters, you can publish your results in most professional journals for free - it's just that reading those costs money and writing a paper is time-consuming. Breaking into a professional journal might be the hard part though - especially due to the strict methodology standards. There is also arxiv.org, which allows you to publish drafts for free and they are also available for everyone to read for free as well. Conferences can cost thousands of dollars, but a lot of them are way cheaper then that and most of the costs is not the conference fee - it's the lodging and travel expenses, which you can try to minimise and/or plan your conferences and regular excursions together.

I think it's extremely field dependent. I'm also a physicist, but I do modelling stuff that crosses over the edge to biology so occasionally I'm trying to collaborate with biologists or publish in a biology journal or interdisciplinary journal, and I've gotten sticker shock at the $1400 or $2000 to publish a single article, especially coming from the world of Physical Review * where unless you have color figures, its free to publish. Arxiv is a good option though - you'll at least get the physicists to read your stuff.

For conferences it can get pretty rough if you want to go to specific ones rather than just grab whatever is in your area. Between travel and lodgings, the one I've been to this year knocked off $2600, and would have been more except that my institute wanted people to go to this one and so they covered the conference registration fee. Granted that involved a trans-Pacific flight for me, so other people's mileage will definitely vary. The good thing is that there are some meetings that aggressively seek to include younger researchers or people who can't support their own attendance, and so they sometimes have support funds that can pay to bring people in.



Granted, I'm a physicist and not a biologist, but at least in my field it wouldn't be a problem for an outsider to attend a conference (without any prerequisites) and give a talk as long as the substance is sound - I have yet to find someone, who cared about affiliation or degrees. I have yet to find an amateur on any conference as well though, but that might be because my field is rather obscure: first rule of integrable systems is nobody knows about integrable systems. :smalltongue:

Yeah, I don't think someone who provided all the means would be turned away from the door (well, maybe at a Gordon conference? You have to provide proof you're an active member of that field to attend those). The issue is more, without some kind of research funding, paying, say, $1000 to give a 10 minute talk or a poster is a rough deal.

Now, if a DIY field picks up enough, I suspect you'd start getting conferences or sessions specifically dedicated to those aspects, and then I think the thing can nucleate a community. Then it doesn't really matter if you don't go to the equivalent of March Meeting or whatever, because you've got people to talk to who are working on the same kinds of challenges you are and that can be enough to keep things going.

[MorgromTheOrc]

I'll definitely take a look into it then if I ever move into an area that has it after I finish classes. The weirdest part of it to me is that for some reason I never thought independent scientific research like that was legal?

[NichG]

I'll definitely take a look into it then if I ever move into an area that has it after I finish classes. The weirdest part of it to me is that for some reason I never thought independent scientific research like that was legal?

There's nothing intrinsic to science that requires someone to give permission to do it. Specific organisms, compounds, equipment, etc may have regulatory requirements as far as procurement, storage, transport, and disposal though. You can generally (in terms of science as a whole; I'm not so sure about the biology case in particular) do a lot without needing to use such things, and in some cases you can apply to get special permission (for example, in amateur rocketry, engines above a certain size require this sort of application).

[Dodom]

If it was just for material issues, I could see a group of amateur researchers pooling their resources and setting up collective labs, but what I've seen from artist collectives and volunteering is that the human factor will be hell to manage. When people do something for free and even pour their own money into it, they tend to expect being allowed to do it their way, and it leads to infighting and chaos and poor efficiency. I wouldn't go as far as calling the attitude narcissic, but there definitely is an element of pride, of self-expression, in this sort of commitment. People are willing to put a superhuman amount of work into the collective project, but they'll raise hell if they end up being invisible while they do it.

I'd love to see science get more democratic, but I can't begin to imagine what a headache it would be to manage dilletantes working on each their own personal project, that are all emotionally and financially invested in their own thing and that can easily be tempted to do it at the others' expense if they come to compete for the same resources, and that are always at risk of making a habit of thinking the next guys will take care of everyday cleaning and maintenance. In my volunteering days, I learned that unless a project is REALLY small, some management is always both needed (for inventory, for licences, insurance, finances, training, etc.) and reviled by volunteers who don't get that resources won't always be alloted following their individual priorities.

Maybe it can be done, but I know for sure I don't want to be the one doing it!

[Eldan]

One problem I see is verifiability. I don't think most sciences would respect "amateur" results even remotely as much as those done by a professional lab.

[georgie_leech]

One problem I see is verifiability. I don't think most sciences would respect "amateur" results even remotely as much as those done by a professional lab.

In theory (heh) at least, the idea of science is that anyone repeating the experiment under the same conditions should be getting the same results. One would that the scientific community would be more open to actually reviewing/testing the results instead of dismissing them offhand.

[Eldan]

Oh, sure. but that's exactly what I mean. The results have to be repeated by a "real" scientist first.

[NichG]

Repeating experiments is actually pretty expensive and has a very low payoff unless the experiment is really earth-shattering. So even if the amateur experiment could be repeated, it has to garner enough interest that someone is willing to spend their time and research funds repeating it. And there's also the issue that repeating an already-published amateur experiment is not going to get that student a PhD, so it'd actually be pretty bad mentorship for the professor to assign that kind of work to a student - meaning that there's a much smaller set of people whose time would have to go towards that. I could see that kind of thing as being a reasonable undergraduate project though, where the main point is to build experience in the research tools and methodology rather than to generate solid novel results.

That said, I guess there are fields where confirmation would be easier. In astronomy in particular, there's a good deal of work which is just searching very narrow sections of the sky for things that people didn't notice before, so when an amateur reports something its a pretty good lead to go and point your telescope there to verify rather than go looking in some random section of sky yourself.

[MorgromTheOrc]

If it was just for material issues, I could see a group of amateur researchers pooling their resources and setting up collective labs, but what I've seen from artist collectives and volunteering is that the human factor will be hell to manage. When people do something for free and even pour their own money into it, they tend to expect being allowed to do it their way, and it leads to infighting and chaos and poor efficiency. I wouldn't go as far as calling the attitude narcissic, but there definitely is an element of pride, of self-expression, in this sort of commitment. People are willing to put a superhuman amount of work into the collective project, but they'll raise hell if they end up being invisible while they do it.

I'd love to see science get more democratic, but I can't begin to imagine what a headache it would be to manage dilletantes working on each their own personal project, that are all emotionally and financially invested in their own thing and that can easily be tempted to do it at the others' expense if they come to compete for the same resources, and that are always at risk of making a habit of thinking the next guys will take care of everyday cleaning and maintenance. In my volunteering days, I learned that unless a project is REALLY small, some management is always both needed (for inventory, for licences, insurance, finances, training, etc.) and reviled by volunteers who don't get that resources won't always be alloted following their individual priorities.

Maybe it can be done, but I know for sure I don't want to be the one doing it!

From what I've read it seems to be an anyone is allowed to use the equipment for anything sort of thing. So I don't know if that would be a problem but then again human selfishness is almost as infinite as human stupidity. I've always thought of poor sealand when I thought of individual scientific research, you didn't get officially recognized so you're not a REAL country, we'll let you have your fun but if you start saying you're a real country you're out of here!

[Grinner]

From what I've read it seems to be an anyone is allowed to use the equipment for anything sort of thing. So I don't know if that would be a problem but then again human selfishness is almost as infinite as human stupidity.

A simple example is glassware. It needs to be cleaned, right?

Ever had a roommate who doesn't clean their dishes?

[Brother Oni]

To support Grinner's point, contamination can invalidate your entire experiment or worse, give you misleading results.

I once worked with a cleaning method that had a specification of no more than 0.5 micrograms of API per 49 cm2 of equipment. For reference, 1 grain of sugar averages at 625 micrograms.

I believe biologics can have more stringent limits than that.

[BWR]

My immediate concern with DIY research is any sort of proper oversight. Considering the problems I've heard about with lack of proper scientific procedure and even outright falsification of data, doing it on your own (especially stuff like the aforementioned 27 year experiment) might easily lead to bad data without anyone ever knowing it. Hopefully, if done in a proper institution you will have somewhat better oversight. Not to mention the cost issue; my only real knowledge of this subject comes from my sister who does genetic stuff (I'm a bit vague on the details) and according to her some of the fluids they use would cost the GDP of a small nation if they came in cans of a few liters.