Anyone who can follow a recipe and has enough money to buy a pipette can modify their DNA at home nowadays, the question is should they, and what risks do these garage-scientists and their unchecked DIY biology experiments pose to wider society?
February 14, 2023
In 2005, the Australian physician, Professor Barry Marshall, won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering that rather than stress, stomach ulcers were in fact most commonly caused by infection with the bacterium, Helicobacter pylori.
How did he prove these microorganisms to be the true cause of the condition? He isolated the bacteria from one of his patient’s guts, cultured it in broth, and drank it, observing the symptoms of his own infection in due course.
By experimenting on himself off-the-books in this way, Marshall was able to make one of the most important discoveries in modern medicine.
Whether this maverick act of discovery has inspired wannabe scientists across the world directly, is impossible to say, but many are certainly now following in his footsteps and taking science into their own hands through biological self-experimentation.
The difference is however, that the majority of these individuals do not have medical or surgical degrees like Marshall does, instead they are emboldened average members of society, trying their hand at DIY self-improvement in their garages, most of the time gleaning scientific know-how straight from the internet or YouTube.
Most of us would call amateur experimentation of this kind risky, if not straight-up crazy.
They call it “biohacking.”
The world is not just the way it is…your life is not limited. Everything in life was created by someone no smarter than you. You can change and mould life to make it better…embrace it, improve it and make a mark pic.twitter.com/U8JBCkTlO0
— Paul Dabrowa (@PaulDabrowa) February 4, 2023
What is Biohacking?
Biohacking, also known as “human augmentation,” is a kind of do-it-yourself biologywhereby individuals attempt to “hack” their own bodies and enhance themselves through self-experimentation at home.
For example, in a kitchen in Melbourne, 41-year-old biohacker, Paul Dabrowa, regularly conducts his own faecal transplants in an attempt to modify his microbiome for weight loss.
Similarly, there’s another middle-aged guy in California called Bryan Jonhson who spends upwards of $2 million a year on his own “anti-ageing” cocktail of rigorous exercise, dozens of pills, and an array of medical procedures which he claims have bestowed him with the body of an 18-year old.
Just in case you haven’t heard enough, also in California, in his living room-come-laboratory, ex-Nasa bioscientist, Josiah Zayner, has become infamous for designing his own Covid-19 vaccine and injecting himself with synthetic DNA to gain larger muscles using the breakthrough gene-editing technology, CRISPR.
The best part, is that Zayner has even gone as far as to found a biotechnology company called “The Odin” so that he can sell his own genetic engineering kits and tutorials online to the masses, teaching others how to modify their own DNA at home.
For example, “Bioengineering 101 Beginner’s Kit” is available for purchase from “The Odin” for just $199.00, complete with the comforting label “No Experience Needed.”
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
It’s a health craze, but it’s also a health hazard
In truth, biohacking is somewhat of a spectrum.
Along with those at the radical end of the scale, there are also those that are simply just interested in relatively harmless wellness practices like taking supplements, drinking ginger shots and tracking their circadian rhythms.
And realistically, what’s the issue with that, shouldn’t everyone have the authority to optimise their own bodies in moderation?
In theory, with professional guidance, yes; taking an interest in one’s health by making small tweaks to micronutrient intake and daily routines can bring a range of health and wellbeing benefits.
But like with anything in life, when taken to the extreme, or in the hands of the misguided, such unchecked experiments pose a real problem, because what about when the results of radical self-enhancement risk being used as a biological weapon?
![Sony PlayStation Store 110 - Sony, [Digital]](https://i0.wp.com/i5.walmartimages.com/asr/5d3e8d52-3525-4e75-b862-10394c67a31c.c3f21de9f6a2f65537248191772f43b3.png?w=1380&ssl=1)
Even if you disregard the potentially catastrophic downstream consequences, the biohacking vanguard’s desire to push the boundaries of human biology and inch ever closer to “superhuman” status is troubling.
Many claim biohacking to be nothing more than a hobby. Others, a movement to democratise science. In reality, at best biohacking is a quirky sub-culture that perhaps exposes a worrying mentality of insecurity, obsession and perfectionism.
But if we look deeper, at the worst-case scenario, a more concerning layer of the biohacking onion is exposed.
One where unqualified, non-state actors are promoting trial-and-error experimentation with complex technologies as a cheap and accessible way to find cures, fix flaws, rewire undesirable human biology, and substitute bona fide medications or therapies with homegrown treatments.
Empowering the average individual in this way, to meddle with their own humanity and biology, stands to undermine human health, evolution and possibly even existence entirely.
It is understandable that the frustration felt by those with life-threatening conditions may push them to take their health, and therefore their future, into their own hands, but encouraging the masses to try life-altering techniques unsupervised at home, is more likely to cause severe harm than help.
Some are also delving into plant gene-editing as well, raising concerns about the risks this could pose to the environment.
What’s more, in the inevitable scenario that such experiments go wrong – or even just simply go into the wrong hands – they could even pose a significant biosecurity threat to society.
Where’s the line between home-brew biology and biowarfare?
It may require a certain level of expertise and acumen to develop scientific methodology that actually works, but once a protocol is developed, realistically anyone with the ability to follow a recipe and enough money to buy a pipette can carry them out somewhat effectively.
It’s pretty much just moving liquids between tubes at the end of the day!
As a result of this fact, as well as research materials becoming much more affordable and accessible online these days, the past few years have seen an explosion in self-taught biohackers carrying out unchecked self-experimentation in homemade laboratories.
There is even a Netflix documentary on the cultural phenomenon called “Unnatural Selection.”
But if you think about it, even if biohacking procedures can be likened to simply following the instructions in a cookbook, how often do you accidentally mess that up? We’re all guilty of over-salting in the kitchen.
However, adding a little bit too much salt to the pan is not the same as adding excess DNA into an assay; the consequences of the latter could be catastrophic for both the individual and society.
There’s a reason these techniques are reserved for experts with years of experience, and even then things go wrong.
As a result, many government executives and organisations, defence secretaries, biowarfare experts and officials at the UN have understandably expressed concerns. In the wrong hands, by either deliberate intention or mistake, they warn that biohacking experiments could quickly spiral out of control and pose a significant biosecurity risk.
Bill Gates has even weighed in, warning that millions of lives and livelihoods could be at risk from biohacking-related bioterrorism if this wave is left to surge unregulated.
The worry is that with the resources readily available, anyone (whether a mere hobbyist or in fact hostile) has access to the means and know-how required to produce genetically-modified, potentially lethal or highly infectious home-brew organisms.
“If bioterrorists wanted to do it undetected, they could buy a second-hand DNA synthesiser for $2,000. The whole process would cost $10,000 and could be done in a kitchen,” Paul Dabrowa, the 41-year-old kitchen microbiome biohacker from Melbourne, admitted to the Financial Times.
Although the gene-editing capabilities of CRISPR have undoubtedly bestowed the research community with an unparalleled power to cure, treat and change the world for the better, the darker side of the technology has also opened up a pandora’s box of problems.
Modifying pathogens to make them more aggressive, transmissible or fatal, providing antibiotic or antiviral resistance, or even turning a harmless micro-organism into something lethal, are just a few of the possibilities a hostile actor has the power to do through CRISPR.
A bit like the premise of the zombie horror movie, “28 Days Later,” and its sequel “28 Weeks Later” where the genetically modified “Rage Virus” is released from a medical laboratory and begins infecting humans.
Aside from biowarfare, messing around with genetic modifications also poses wider risks to people and the planet in relation to cancer, eugenics, food and agriculture, not to mention the whole host of associated ethical, political, and environmental issues involved.
To make matters worse, there’s also a culture of bio-scamming emerging within the biohacking sphere, whereby brands are promoting bogus biohacks that claim to extend life, treat health issues and optimise wellbeing, but in reality just pose risks to both health and bank balances.
And although the worst of these biohacking activities certainly seem as though they ought to be illegal, at present there is still a concerted lack of legal framework to police them, and many biohackers ultimately go completely unchallenged and under the radar.
A symptom of a larger global issue
Many scientists – even some techies in Silicon Valley – now hold the opinion that the bureaucratic red tape, funding issues and politics that govern professional scientific research, may in reality be curbing innovation and preventing breakthroughs.
“Whether biology or fusion, the most interesting work happens off-grid,” says Ajay Royan, co-founder (alongside Peter Thiel) of the venture capital fund, Mithril, “It has been thus forever.”
One scientist in particular that is often referenced within biohacker pop culture as a muse who embodies scientific freedom is Edward Jenner; the late 18th-century microbiologist who famously infected a milkmaid with smallpox to test his hypothesis of acquired immunity and struck gold in creating the world’s first vaccine.
And where would the current pandemic-stricken world be without that medical breakthrough?
What should be kept in mind, is that this idea of progress being contingent on both empowering the individual with scientific agency and democratising research for the masses, seems to be coinciding with a present-day global climate of uncertainty.
In our world currently plagued by war, pandemic and political instability, fertile ground is readily being laid for far-right ideals, conspiracy theories and distrust to blossom.
A larger portion of society than ever before is now sceptical of political, social and economic infrastructure, and it’s no surprise that this culture of doubt has begun spilling over into public opinion on medical institutions and pharmaceutical companies – the latter’s reputation was never great to begin with.
It may therefore not be too much of a stretch to suggest that this latest biohacking craze – the gene-editing mania side of things, rather than that of vogue-esque green juices – is possibly one of the many radical symptoms of a larger global issue.
As such, perhaps finding the right balance between fueling scientific progress without bureaucratic constraint, whilst also making sure to dually mitigate the risk of unchecked scientific longtermism – a philosophy which has also surely played a part in sparking the biohacking movement – might help provide safe passage for innovation to thrive without risking the creation of a modern-day Frankenstein’s monster.
Subscribe to our newsletter.
This article was originally published on IMPAKTER. Read the original article.