Skip to main content


This paper made me think about who is served directly by current modes of synthetic biology research, we could be unlocking the potential for home brewers to make a variety of valuable builk/fine chemicals but we're not

Stumbled upon @drewendy making me remember this gem of a #preprint It provoked me to think about how dual-use research of concern can be used oppressively. And challenges me to think about #synbio research that is also #frugalInnovation

doi.org/10.1101/024299

Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Danny (he/they)
@Klausenhauser I believe that the strain they used was not optimized for the conditions they chose. I agree there are major technical challenges to scaling up and likely to scaling down too. Not to mention accounting for the diverse feedstocks and looser tolerances of home brewing. The big thought in my mind is: who's incentivizing or doing the work of making novel organisms for the home/small scale?
in reply to Danny (he/they)

This paper made me think about who is served directly by current modes of synthetic biology research, we could be unlocking the potential for home brewers to make a variety of valuable builk/fine chemicals but we're not
modes of production is all well and good - but I suspect ppl w academic background takes culture of sharing, education and communicating knowledge for granted. Without emphasizing those, well, we get unfortunate disappointments like early day diybio.
in reply to naturepoker

This paper made me think about who is served directly by current modes of synthetic biology research, we could be unlocking the potential for home brewers to make a variety of valuable builk/fine chemicals but we're not
concrete example: almost complete lack of state/city/community college grads among early diybio figures wasn't an accident, by admission of people like Mackenzie. Ppl not from upper-middle income and ed background were deemed 'lacking in leadership quality'
in reply to naturepoker

@naturepoker I heard some stories about that sort of exclusion too. If they come to fedi we may elicit a trip down memory lane. Personally I think it would be a great sort of workshop panel discussion or something about the history of it all.
in reply to naturepoker

@naturepoker

In any case, Mac doesn't seem active anymore last I corresponded with him was here:

github.com/DIYbiosphere/sphere…

I didn't push to continue migrating control of the site. sjamesparsonsjr and I can merge pulls into sphere and he has access to the gsuite. AFAIK there isn't (and maybe there never was) an explicit policy around what belongs on the site, and attention on it has dwindled

in reply to Danny (he/they)

unfortunately there's nothing of worth in diybio to preserve. It's a marketing gimmick forced on top of people who were genuinely curious about studying and practicing biology in different ways to claim ownership/leadership. I'm saying this as one of the founders of diybio nyc and genspace. Good god, we had randos from Texas giving interviews on 'behalf of genspace' during its heyday.
in reply to naturepoker

@naturepoker When I asked for the ability to merge pulls it was because there were folks that wanted an updated directory of projects and things. But after much discussion I think there wasn't anybody who could lead/do the work to update it as an directory.

But I agree with you it's a marketing tool. I think that's why it was interesting to folks as a way to collaborate on marketing. I think it's become even more explicit because James was imagining a sort of newsletter being generated from it

in reply to naturepoker

IMHO I think you're severely underestimating the sheer degree of naked derision and disgust these people exhibited toward anyone not from a higher ranking USA Today college list... Which leads me to - if you felt I'm being a little reluctant/distant, well, there you go. Feeling slightly guilty about that since you're not responsible for anything that's happened, har har.
in reply to naturepoker

@naturepoker Yes I was not active in biology outside academic institutions/industry then.

Oh I did partially misunderstand what you were saying though. You're saying that folks were excluding academic people from "low-ranking" institutions. One story I listened to was of exclusion because they were from a "high-ranking" institution, a sorta you're not outsider enough sentiment. In any case, that exclusionary behaviour is no good. Enough problems trying to do science/maintain organizations.

in reply to Danny (he/they)

Hmm. I think there's a bit of a serious cultural difference at work here, between you and me that is.

The division in DIYBio was people with, say, B.S. from UC system (leadership of DIYBio) complaining that warehouse laborers and people with degrees from 2 year colleges are involved, acting like 'welfare queens' who 'coast on other people's work' and are generally too stupid and incompetent to know what they're doing - not paraphrasing. Real phrases thrown around in person.

in reply to naturepoker

so - this wasn't even inter-lab drama one would expect between a state school PhD and an Ivy PhD. The division there was more... Classist? The landscape there was more of fresh 4 year college graduates with disposable income complaining that poor people are hanging around, to put it bluntly. While portraying themselves as rebels against one or the other sort of social injustices. Not everyone was like this, of course! But it was enough to be noticeable.
in reply to naturepoker

@naturepoker

Sounds horrible. And I am absolutely so interested and thankful right now that you're taking the time to share. I want to boost your last comment, but I want to get your consent first. No worries if you are not comfortable. If you're not comfortable then I'm also happy to switch to followers only as well (if you want mentioned only then let's just try and meetup in meatspace?) to continue the discussion. (1/3?)

in reply to Danny (he/they)

@naturepoker

I'm almost not surprised that there were class issues at play in during the DIYbio.org era, mainly because of how much white tech culture underpins DIYbio (and still does underpin many elements of the community now). My understanding of the split between EJ and Genspace fuels a narrative where certain elements of radical social work (offering lab access for a low cost) clash with the values shared by a board with little accountability to it's membership. (2/3)

in reply to Danny (he/they)

And those values are tied to board members' position as holders of wealth/power and a refusal to recognize different forms of labour (thus overly relying on unpaid labour). I definitely run the risk of over interpreting the weight that the mantle of history exerts on the hands of those that steer the ship (and I'm also currently thinking about how culture on fedi has and is changing), but your comments are making some things click for me and my analysis of the current situation /3
This entry was edited (2 years ago)
in reply to Danny (he/they)

nah, I think it'd be best to not boost - it's not that there's anything to hide (anyone can read our exchange if they want to), I think what's being referred to as diybio today is completely different in terms of personalities and ideas than what it was when I was around (for the better I hope!). Me ranting about what happened 10 years ago won't help anyone. Now if someone's espousing some alternative history stuff, that's a different case.
in reply to naturepoker

@naturepoker OK. from what I understand the absence of the story from those days is felt in a subset of organizers. I don't think there is any alternative history stuff going on. But I think something surfacing here between your story and the one I have heard is that there was more derision of early amateur practitioners as well as those with credentials (who maybe didn't fit some exclusionary perception of a hacker) than is openly admitted. and unfortunately that shouldn't be a surprise...

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.