Spamzy networks

Imagine you’re exploring a new hobby that’s a bit esoteric, and Federal agents call to ask you some questions, but won’t tell you whom they represent–only that they think you might be a terrorist.

If it were me, that sort of Big Brother tactic would freak me out and I might even worry they’d come and whisk me away from my home and hold me captive next, without actually bothering to find out that the experiments are harmless.

This has indeed happened to at least one “biohacker”–an amateur scientist using synthetic DNA and organisms in experiments performed in home labs, built out of equipment bought on Ebay or other consumer sites.

Most of these experiments are totally harmless, yet government agents appear concerned anyway.

Carl Zimmer, a well-known biologist and science writer, points out that at least one amateur biologist was arrested and charged for his lab experiments, held under arrest even without cause. Even though artist Steven Kurtz’ experiments were allegedly harmless experiments in soil bacteria, the people who put him on trial did not have enough knowledge of basic biology to realize this.

This is the real danger in an age where an amateur biologist can work on lab experiments from home, that uninformed security administrators are so afraid of knowledge and experiments that they assume that any type of basic science can be dangerous.

It’s the same sort of mystery that appears to hang around the computer technology sphere– as if there’s a force-field of awe around certain types of technology, whether it’s computers or biology, that makes people assume it’s all-powerful and incomprehensible, and therefore something to fear.

Authorities can waste so much time interrogating well-meaning scientists, they’ll fail to really do their research and find out what’s actually dangerous and what’s not– and then they could miss a real threat.

The WSJ article paints a picture of how confusing the current regulation and atmosphere is around this issue:

Currently, regulation of labs like these is murky. It’s unclear what agency, if any, is responsible.

So far, most garage biologists playing around with synthetic DNA are simply adding a gene or two to an existing organism, a fairly standard scientific practice involving some test-tube mixing, and not something biosecurity experts are very worried about. But technology promises to allow the creation of entire organisms from scratch — something academics are aiming to do in university labs — and that has some experts worried.

Their final comment in that paragraph bothers me — I can’t say for certain, not being an expert myself, but it seems to me that academics working in university labs generally have access to much greater resources, financial support, and equipment than the average home do-it-yourselfer. Creating an entire organism from scratch (well, you’d need existing DNA, etc.) may be possible, but still requires a lot more knowledge and equipment than merely mixing a few things together in a test tube with some soil. It’s not comparable to the experiments that amateur biohackers do in their garages with an old centrifuge off ebay.

The idea that creating new life is possible seems to come attached, for many people, with a very emotional and irrational reaction–it’s scary, it’s wrong, it’s dangerous. Maybe it’s this emotional reaction that causes people to jump to conclusions, and take aggressive action, before analyzing the actual probability of how likely it is for a home DIY scientist to accomplish that feat. It’s that irrational response that causes people to investigate experiments that are clearly harmless, and make uninformed allegations.

To be fair, there is a danger that a scientist with the wealth, expertise and resources could pull a frankenstein maneuver–or more likely, create a bacterial warfare threat. I’m not saying that the government should ignore the possibility. But clearly it’s not being handled all that well, and the public has to start questioning what the qualifications of these “experts” really are–biology, or interrogation tactics?

I also find it pretty humorous that the article, although being a little alarmist, also has a sidebar that lists experiments people are doing at home for fun. Extracting strawberry DNA, anyone? Sounds tasty.

View original here:
Federal Agents Interrogate Amateur Biologists About Harmless Experiments