These are the folks who work on projects that are not being researched in labs, and by today’s standards too, there’s a lot more to gain if you know what you are doing. In the 70’s we didn’t have the extensive knowledge that exists today on the internet.
There is absolutely almost no way of the government even thinking about being able to keep any kind of tabs on this type of activity, although I’m sure someone may have expressed that interest. Most hobbyists, as the article states are working on projects that labs either have no interest in pursuing or perhaps it is not lucrative enough money wise to fund. This sounds just like how software developers came in to being too when you think about it with items that were not developed by the the bug guys, but items that ended up in demand. BD
"Biology is becoming less of a science and more of a technology," he told the New Scientist. He compares the biohackers of today with some of the early computer tinkerers in the 1970s. Perhaps this new breed of enthusiasts will create new interest and ideas for a field that has traditionally been the province of folks working in large, well-funded labs, he noted.
The hobbyists’ aims are as diverse as their day jobs: from a software engineer building a cheap test for toxic ingredients to a college student hoping to kill off harmful bacteria in the body, the story says.
Patterson works out of her kitchen, and dozens of others are cooking up new critters in rented warehouses, basements and closets.
Who is making sure that the DNA jockeys are behaving themselves? Mostly, no one. But someone supposedly poking around on behalf of an unnamed U.S. government agency called a biohacker featured in the WSJ story with questions about her work.
Biohackers: Brewing new life-forms in a basement near you: Scientific American Blog
0 comments :
Post a Comment