International study: What should happen to your genomic information?
Would you want to know your likelihood of getting certain diseases? With genome tests, how much information does the public really want to know about themselves? How much informations should clinicians and researchers reveal to the patient or clients? These are relevant question even today, but will become more so as we start to dig deeper into the mysteries of the genome.
Wellcome Trust Blog: 1 February 2012 – The survey
Genomic researchers, used to working with anonymous samples, are facing increasing pressure to share their findings with the volunteers who provided their samples.
There is now an urgent need to understand what the public and professionals want in terms of feedback of genome data. With this in mind, the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute are asking people: what would you want to know?
They are conducting an international study to explore some of the ethical implications of whole genome evaluation, in what they hope will be the largest survey of its kind.
More also at Genomeethics
Breeding better grasses for food and fuel
The discovery of a family of plant genes could help us breed grasses with improved properties for diet and bioenergy.
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council: 17 January 2012
Epigenetics: A turning point in our understanding of heredity
Experiments that caused genetically-identical nematodes to have different lifespans have opened the door to new understanding of heredity.
Scientific American, 16 January 2012
Backyard Biotech and the rise of the Biohacker
By Jason Major
Technyou
There is a large, active and vibrant community of backyard biotechnologists out there and, until recently, I had no idea they existed. Known as ‘Biohackers’, this group of citizen scientists could be a creative resource, but do they also represent a risk, even if a negligible one at this stage?
Some of these guys tinker with biological parts such as genes to create novel biological systems, potentially novel life with the tools used for synthetic biology, though most are doing nothing more harmful than DNA extraction. But the ability to get into the risky stuff could become easier as equipment costs continue to plummet, our understanding of genetics increases and the plug and play genetic parts available already get a bit more sophisticated.
Escape
The risk is the potential for these novel organisms to escape from the lab (or garage, kitchen…), either accidentally or by those with more nefarious intentions. This raises the question of how and if we should monitor and regulate such activity? You want to avoid suppressing the potential creativity and freedom of this activity yet prevent the nutters out there from expressing their own version of freedom?
Come into my lab, and see what’s on the slab
My ignorance of the extent of biohacking is embarrassing, though it is hard to ascertain how many in these groups are actually doing science and how many are just joining in the conversation. Even so, I was astounded at the complexity of some of the research being done and equipment readily available and accessible to anyone with the inclination. I’m not talking simple chemical sets and kitchen chemistry such as DNA extractions; I mean proper gene sequencing, gene transformation and synthetic biology. They make everything from bioluminescent yogurt to arsenic biodetectors.
One self proclaimed biohacker, Meredith Patterson is conducting experiments in her kitchen on a budget of less than $200. She is attempting to transform yogurt bacteria to signal the presence of melamine, the toxic stuff found in dairy products in China a couple of years ago.
Pocket money
To give you an indication of the rapid changes, when I did my undergrad between 1987 and 1989 the cost of a standard gel electrophoresis kit was such that we were only allowed to watch the lecturer operate it in case we broke it, which we probably would have. Nowadays you can buy them from toy shops and many high schools have them. Even the cost of sequencing DNA is plummeting. The DNA synthesizing machine is what you will need to make your DNA strands, which could be genes or bits of RNA that control how your genes work. You can get a small or older model DNA synthesizer on e-Bay for less than $1000. PCR machines (your DNA photocopier) can be even cheaper. Or you can simply bypass this step. For a few cents per nucleotide, there are companies that will synthesize your genes or DNA sequences for you and ship them to you anywhere in the world. You can pick up a centrifuge for about $50 that hooks up to your drill. A lot of chemical supplies are easily bought online or local supplier and in Australia, at least, there are companies that sell small quantities for schools and people like me. Live in a shoebox? No problem, there are organisations that rent out lab space with all the machines that go bing that specifically target themselves to biohackers.
There is even an iPhone app to check the compatibility of chemicals so you don’t burn down or blow up your garage or worse, your Mum’s kitchen.
Given a kid with an after school job and some pocket money could quickly save enough to set up a basic operation, this sort of science is no longer just the domain of those with well-funded university or industry laboratories. Nor do you require a PhD or similar educational background. The how to bit is easily sourced from an extensive network of support groups all just a mouse click away.
Some chemicals and equipment, of course are hard to get and far from cheap, but like any hobby, it depends on how far you want to take it. Cycling, scuba diving, all these hobbies of mine could easily cost me 10s of thousands if I became like some of the gear freaks I have knocked around with. I am unsure, but I am also guessing that there would be certain chemicals and equipment that should you manage to purchase them or even attempt to, would raise flags with certain authorities.
Getting inspiration
One large support network that appears to be actively encouraging the biohacker network is the International Genetically Engineered Machine Foundation (iGEM) which is an open, community-based organisation dedicated to education in this scientific field. Each year they run a synthetic biology competition originally available only to undergraduate students through their universities, but last year they introduced a category for high school and this year there is an entrepreneurial category.
Teams are given a kit of biological parts from the Registry of Standard Biological Parts to use, plus whatever genetic parts they have designed themselves to build their own biological system and operate them in living cells. this is where you get those plug and play parts, I mentioned. This registry is where you get those plug-and-play genetic parts I mentioned above. These parts include genes, gene promoters, etc that have universal bits of DNA on the end to allow you to plug any part together like LEGO.
Regulation
Now that we can (sort of) create synthetic life in our lab – backyard version or otherwise – how do we make sure it stays there, or that it is used responsibly? Is this even possible? No technology, in fact nothing full stop is risk free. Synthetic biology, however, does result in living things that have the potential to breed, though bacteria divide rather than breed.
For now, our limited knowledge means that anything produced in a nice controlled lab environment will be unlikely to survive in the harsh and dog-eat-dog natural world. And access to dangerous viral agents or their genetic sequences is restricted. Technically, you could get the necessary genetic bits for a virus and stitch them together, but that really does requires a sophistication beyond the backyarders, even most well-funded research labs, largely because of the level of containment required to prevent infecting yourself. But how long can this low risk environment last? Knowledge in this field is proceeding at a rapid pace.
I doubt such a group could self regulate so I dare say big brother will have a hand in this somewhere. Likely there will also need to be some form of voluntary code of conduct and self-policing, which many groups are already advocating and developing alongside regulatory agencies, research labs and other organisations such as the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Synthetic Biology Project.
The crash of the ivory tower
If nothing else, this sort of DIY science strips out the elitism surrounding this area of science and makes it accessible to the public. It may help ignite interest, excitement and understanding about science that no text book or lecture can. Suppression of this via over-regulation should be avoided. One thing for the biohackers to consider is the term biohacker. Personally, it conjures up images of nefarious dudes in dim garages plotting to destroy the world. Does anyone have a better term?
Who are these biohackers?
There is no shortage of groups and expertise to tap into, all readily available via the myriad social media networks and Internet. This short list will get you links to most of the groups and individuals operating in this space
Biocurious: “… a nonprofit community lab, education facility, and “hackerspace” for biotechnology hobbyists and professionals.”
DIY Bio: “…dedicated to making biology an accessible pursuit for citizen scientists, amateur biologists and biological engineers who value openness and safety.”
Garage Bio: “…a podcast devoted to cheap and DIY approaches to biology. The goal is to make academic and industry advances understandable to an amateur audience and promote a spirit of scientific discovery and fun exploration.”
Update
I just found that Australia’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) has at least recognised that biohacking exists
More info
Nature Biotechnology Biotech in the basement December 2009 Vol 27 (12) pp 1077-1078
Silkworms spin spider webs
Silkworms have been genetically modified with spider genes to produce a composite silk that is stronger than spider silk.
PhysOrg 3 January 2012
PNAS Jan2012 Early Edition
Taking the random out of genome editing
Nature mag has hailed techniques that allow scientists to introduce precise, targeted and tailored changes into the genomes of any species their research method of the year for 2011.
Nature Methods: 28 December 2011
High-fat diet leaves its mark on sperm
Poor diets can cause tiny changes in mice sperm that can lead to metabolic disorders (eg diabetes) in their offspring.
New Scientist: 19 December 2011
Nanoparticle mimics virus, offers new route to gene therapy
US researchers synthesized a new family of polymers to make a safe and efficient nanoparticle that can deliver genes into cells to kill them or treat disease.
Yale University: 7 December 2011
Bioweapon threat from gene tech
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned that new gene assembly technology could also be used by terrorists to create biological weapons.
PhysOrg 7 December 2011
DNA sequencing caught in deluge of data
DNA sequencing is becoming so fast and cheap it is starting to outrun the ability of researchers to store, transmit and especially to analyze the data.
New York Times: 30 November 2011
Image: www.genome.gov