What do you think?
Rate this book
Biopunk: Solving Biotech's Biggest Problems in Kitchens and Garages
Bill Gates recently told Wired that if he were a teenager today, he would be hacking biology. "If you want to change the world in some big way," he says, "that's where you should start-biological molecules."
The most disruptive force on the planet resides in DNA. Biotech companies and academic researchers are just beginning to unlock the potential of piecing together life from scratch. Champions of synthetic biology believe that turning genetic code into Lego-like blocks to build never-before-seen organisms could solve the thorniest challenges in medicine, energy, and environmental protection. But as the hackers who cracked open the potential of the personal computer and the Internet proved, the most revolutionary discoveries often emerge from out-of-the-way places, forged by brilliant outsiders with few resources besides boundless energy and great ideas.
In Biopunk, Marcus Wohlsen chronicles a growing community of DIY scientists working outside the walls of corporations and universities who are committed to democratizing DNA the way the Internet did information. The "biohacking" movement, now in its early, heady days, aims to unleash an outbreak of genetically modified innovation by making the tools and techniques of biotechnology accessible to everyone. Borrowing their idealism from the worlds of open-source software, artisinal food, Internet startups, and the Peace Corps, biopunks are devoted advocates for open-sourcing the basic code of life. They believe in the power of individuals with access to DNA to solve the world's biggest problems.
You'll meet a new breed of hackers who aren't afraid to get their hands wet, from entrepreneurs who aim to bring DNA-based medical tools to the poorest of the poor to a curious tinkerer who believes a tub of yogurt and a jellyfish gene could protect the world's food supply. These biohackers include:
-A duo who started a cancer drug company in their kitchen
-A team who built an open-source DNA copy machine
-A woman who developed a genetic test in her apartment for a deadly disease that had stricken her family
Along with the potential of citizen science to bring about disruptive change, Wohlsen explores the risks of DIY bioterrorism, the possibility of genetic engineering experiments gone awry, and whether the ability to design life from scratch on a laptop might come sooner than we think.
The most disruptive force on the planet resides in DNA. Biotech companies and academic researchers are just beginning to unlock the potential of piecing together life from scratch. Champions of synthetic biology believe that turning genetic code into Lego-like blocks to build never-before-seen organisms could solve the thorniest challenges in medicine, energy, and environmental protection. But as the hackers who cracked open the potential of the personal computer and the Internet proved, the most revolutionary discoveries often emerge from out-of-the-way places, forged by brilliant outsiders with few resources besides boundless energy and great ideas.
In Biopunk, Marcus Wohlsen chronicles a growing community of DIY scientists working outside the walls of corporations and universities who are committed to democratizing DNA the way the Internet did information. The "biohacking" movement, now in its early, heady days, aims to unleash an outbreak of genetically modified innovation by making the tools and techniques of biotechnology accessible to everyone. Borrowing their idealism from the worlds of open-source software, artisinal food, Internet startups, and the Peace Corps, biopunks are devoted advocates for open-sourcing the basic code of life. They believe in the power of individuals with access to DNA to solve the world's biggest problems.
You'll meet a new breed of hackers who aren't afraid to get their hands wet, from entrepreneurs who aim to bring DNA-based medical tools to the poorest of the poor to a curious tinkerer who believes a tub of yogurt and a jellyfish gene could protect the world's food supply. These biohackers include:
-A duo who started a cancer drug company in their kitchen
-A team who built an open-source DNA copy machine
-A woman who developed a genetic test in her apartment for a deadly disease that had stricken her family
Along with the potential of citizen science to bring about disruptive change, Wohlsen explores the risks of DIY bioterrorism, the possibility of genetic engineering experiments gone awry, and whether the ability to design life from scratch on a laptop might come sooner than we think.
272 pages, Paperback
First published April 14, 2011
57 people are currently reading
1064 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
April 3, 2016
I first heard about this book on Wisconsin Public Radio's "To the Best of our Knowledge". The idea of an underground movement of geeks and brains working on gene splicing in their kitchens and garages intrigued me and the subject matter dovetailed nicely with my in-progress science fiction novel. In true DIY fashion, I borrowed the book from the library and gave it a read.
The subject of the book is romantic and intriguing: imagine self-trained scientists mimicking and refining larger-scale, more expensive endeavors usually undertaken by well-funded research institutions and corporations. Now imagine that these experiments are done not only on the cheap, but that the greatest desire of these scientists is not to make a profit (though some do) but to share the knowledge they've gained for the betterment of the world. It's like a hippie-biologist utopia.
By and large I enjoyed the book. I did note, however, one chapter that strayed a little too far into the corporate and out of the homegrown science that Wohlsen seems to admire so much. This really tested my patience - just when I thought we would get further down into the specifics of some experiments, the author took what I felt was a side-turn into an example that was largely corporate, rather than DIY.
Other than that one flaw, I greatly enjoyed the book. I'm not a scientist, but would have enjoyed going a bit more in-depth about the specifics of *what* these DIY scientists were doing, rather than dwelling so much on the how or the why, but I was able to learn what I needed to for my own research and with a little poking around on the internet, learned enough to tackle the problems of my own novel. Worth a read, and good for what it is, but to give it five stars it would probably have to be significantly longer, with more examples of what the biopunk movement is *doing* and how their results may or may not affect the larger world. Maybe this is good, since it forces me to extrapolate my own ideas of what might be possible in a world of my own creating.
Addendum: A very interesting article on programming cells' DNA as if it were a circuit. The next frontier in Biopunk?
The subject of the book is romantic and intriguing: imagine self-trained scientists mimicking and refining larger-scale, more expensive endeavors usually undertaken by well-funded research institutions and corporations. Now imagine that these experiments are done not only on the cheap, but that the greatest desire of these scientists is not to make a profit (though some do) but to share the knowledge they've gained for the betterment of the world. It's like a hippie-biologist utopia.
By and large I enjoyed the book. I did note, however, one chapter that strayed a little too far into the corporate and out of the homegrown science that Wohlsen seems to admire so much. This really tested my patience - just when I thought we would get further down into the specifics of some experiments, the author took what I felt was a side-turn into an example that was largely corporate, rather than DIY.
Other than that one flaw, I greatly enjoyed the book. I'm not a scientist, but would have enjoyed going a bit more in-depth about the specifics of *what* these DIY scientists were doing, rather than dwelling so much on the how or the why, but I was able to learn what I needed to for my own research and with a little poking around on the internet, learned enough to tackle the problems of my own novel. Worth a read, and good for what it is, but to give it five stars it would probably have to be significantly longer, with more examples of what the biopunk movement is *doing* and how their results may or may not affect the larger world. Maybe this is good, since it forces me to extrapolate my own ideas of what might be possible in a world of my own creating.
Addendum: A very interesting article on programming cells' DNA as if it were a circuit. The next frontier in Biopunk?
February 27, 2015
This is a wonderfully engaging book about amateur scientists and technologists who are developing innovations in biotechnology. The gadgets you have in your kitchen give you better tools than those that were available in a serious laboratory of a hundred years ago. Technologies are developing so fast, and become so much cheaper, that we may be well on our way to the technological "singularity".
You can now buy a device the size of a USB drive, that gets plugged into a USB port on your computer. Put a biological sample in it, and the device can sequence a limited segment of DNA!
On the other hand, you can send in a coded genetic DNA sequence (A,T,C,G) to a company, and they will produce that DNA sequence for the price of 39 centers per letter!
Most amateur scientists don't have the financial backing of an organization, so they figure out how to do things cheaply. They innovate, and sometimes develop tools that do the same job as a store-bought apparatus, for a tenth of the price.
What are they trying to do? They are developing new marker tests for syndromes and diseases. They are searching for cures for cancer and other diseases. They are developing new varieties of vegetables that grow more efficiently, more resistant to pests and drought. They are developing new DNA tests that allow consumers to cheaply send in a fish sample, to verify that it is what a supermarket says it is.
The culture of many of these amateur scientists is very similar to the "open source" culture of some software developers. They contribute selflessly to a common cause. Collectively they achieve things that individuals just cannot achieve alone.
I highly recommend this book to all those interested in biology and the hacking culture.
You can now buy a device the size of a USB drive, that gets plugged into a USB port on your computer. Put a biological sample in it, and the device can sequence a limited segment of DNA!
On the other hand, you can send in a coded genetic DNA sequence (A,T,C,G) to a company, and they will produce that DNA sequence for the price of 39 centers per letter!
Most amateur scientists don't have the financial backing of an organization, so they figure out how to do things cheaply. They innovate, and sometimes develop tools that do the same job as a store-bought apparatus, for a tenth of the price.
What are they trying to do? They are developing new marker tests for syndromes and diseases. They are searching for cures for cancer and other diseases. They are developing new varieties of vegetables that grow more efficiently, more resistant to pests and drought. They are developing new DNA tests that allow consumers to cheaply send in a fish sample, to verify that it is what a supermarket says it is.
The culture of many of these amateur scientists is very similar to the "open source" culture of some software developers. They contribute selflessly to a common cause. Collectively they achieve things that individuals just cannot achieve alone.
I highly recommend this book to all those interested in biology and the hacking culture.
February 28, 2011
I received this book from Goodreads First Reads for free.
I think it's absolutely hilarious that I won this book, because it's about people deciding to do bio-hacking in their own space and time, rejecting the idea that good science has to come from institutionalized academia or biotech companies; I've worked in both.
I initially thought the book would just be a bunch of case studies of people doing wacky experiments in their kitchens in their spare time and I was pleasantly surprised to find that this book is so much more than that. There are several do it yourselfers in the book, and Wohlsen does a great job of describing what they're doing, the science behind it and /why/ they're doing it. Even better, he goes into some of the politics and rigidity presented by academic institutions and biotech corporations and how and why these individuals are working beyond those restrictions. It also deals with the potential consequences and challenges that come with this type of citizen science.
I think he did a great job of describing the motivations behind a lot of the bio-punk/hack/do it yourself movement. Some of it is self-motivated (trying to discover whether or not you have the potential for a deadly disease in your genes without spending the thousands of dollars for a test the insurance companies don't want to pay for) or altruistic (teaching the community about science, or trying to find an inexpensive way to help poor, rural areas detect/differentiate diseases). The ethics and thought processes behind this DIY crowd is quite similar to the rest of the growing DIY movement, but there are more serious ramifications when tinkering with biological systems (especially with fears of bioterrorism abounding) and I think he does do a good job describing them.
The bio-punk/hack movement is intrinsically anti-establishment, and I appreciate that Wohlsen presents the bio-hack vs institutional argument fairly balanced. At first I worried that the book would be very biased against traditional research, but it wasn't and I also feel he could not go into the positives of research in bigger/better funded institutions without removing the focus of the book from biopunks.
What I really enjoyed about the book (and why this book earned an extra star) is that the science in it is fairly solid. As a biologist, I get very tired of uneducated hack-writers making biology (or any science, really) incredibly wrong, either skipping explanations at all or making arguments/explanations wildly inaccurate. The science in this book was not 100% perfect, but it was pretty damn close, and for the lay person, it's probably more than good enough.
I liked this book, it's easy to read, immensely interesting and gratifying if you are a biologist interested in a different side of science. It covers the whole gamut from how someone can build something in their kitchen, how they can fund it, and the dangers and/or inherent risks of doing DIY science. It also debunks hysterical fears and gives a realistic view of what people can really accomplish and how natural curiosity and a drive to do better can turn anyone into a scientist.
I think it's absolutely hilarious that I won this book, because it's about people deciding to do bio-hacking in their own space and time, rejecting the idea that good science has to come from institutionalized academia or biotech companies; I've worked in both.
I initially thought the book would just be a bunch of case studies of people doing wacky experiments in their kitchens in their spare time and I was pleasantly surprised to find that this book is so much more than that. There are several do it yourselfers in the book, and Wohlsen does a great job of describing what they're doing, the science behind it and /why/ they're doing it. Even better, he goes into some of the politics and rigidity presented by academic institutions and biotech corporations and how and why these individuals are working beyond those restrictions. It also deals with the potential consequences and challenges that come with this type of citizen science.
I think he did a great job of describing the motivations behind a lot of the bio-punk/hack/do it yourself movement. Some of it is self-motivated (trying to discover whether or not you have the potential for a deadly disease in your genes without spending the thousands of dollars for a test the insurance companies don't want to pay for) or altruistic (teaching the community about science, or trying to find an inexpensive way to help poor, rural areas detect/differentiate diseases). The ethics and thought processes behind this DIY crowd is quite similar to the rest of the growing DIY movement, but there are more serious ramifications when tinkering with biological systems (especially with fears of bioterrorism abounding) and I think he does do a good job describing them.
The bio-punk/hack movement is intrinsically anti-establishment, and I appreciate that Wohlsen presents the bio-hack vs institutional argument fairly balanced. At first I worried that the book would be very biased against traditional research, but it wasn't and I also feel he could not go into the positives of research in bigger/better funded institutions without removing the focus of the book from biopunks.
What I really enjoyed about the book (and why this book earned an extra star) is that the science in it is fairly solid. As a biologist, I get very tired of uneducated hack-writers making biology (or any science, really) incredibly wrong, either skipping explanations at all or making arguments/explanations wildly inaccurate. The science in this book was not 100% perfect, but it was pretty damn close, and for the lay person, it's probably more than good enough.
I liked this book, it's easy to read, immensely interesting and gratifying if you are a biologist interested in a different side of science. It covers the whole gamut from how someone can build something in their kitchen, how they can fund it, and the dangers and/or inherent risks of doing DIY science. It also debunks hysterical fears and gives a realistic view of what people can really accomplish and how natural curiosity and a drive to do better can turn anyone into a scientist.
August 24, 2013
Despite the two stars (2.5 really), I would recommend this book to anyone looking for a quick introduction to the topic of DIY biology. There's a lot of interesting stuff here about synthetic biology and genetic engineering, and given in a fairly easy to understand format. The book highlights several people and small businesses that are working in the life sciences outside of large corporations or large universities. There are the entrepreneurs working to make small, cheap DNA readers so that doctors can diagnose diseases in rural areas. There's a chapter about how farmers in India hacked GMO seed stock the old fashioned way, by saving the seeds, trading them and crossing them with their own native seeds to create a better plant (and skip paying the licensing fees to boot).
My main issue with this book is that it seemed poorly organized, with more than a little repetition. I felt like I was reading a series of essays that had been published as stand-alones elsewhere, and had now been gathered and repurposed into one volume. I wish there had been a little less repetition and a little more depth. While it's too much to ask that the author go deep on all of the issues he brings up, I could have read more about the controversy surrounding GMO crops in general, or about the privacy issues that will arise when genome mapping becomes cheap enough that it is available to everyone.
My main issue with this book is that it seemed poorly organized, with more than a little repetition. I felt like I was reading a series of essays that had been published as stand-alones elsewhere, and had now been gathered and repurposed into one volume. I wish there had been a little less repetition and a little more depth. While it's too much to ask that the author go deep on all of the issues he brings up, I could have read more about the controversy surrounding GMO crops in general, or about the privacy issues that will arise when genome mapping becomes cheap enough that it is available to everyone.
June 5, 2017
Would rated higher if more stories were researched, but this is not the only one book that tries to make biotech popular, without probably much success, when in reality it's the most important thing to give regulatory freedom on. Problems? Same, like always, religious superstitions and fears. Probably people just love dying and believing it's their "fate".
April 20, 2025
The way the stories are presented is very interesting to read. But I didn‘t really get how the stories of the biohackers correlate with the chapters the author is using. There is no really progression in the book, tis just story after the story, which are also pretty similar to each other. I would also have loved more scrutinization of the biohackers‘ voices. The author accepts everything the biohackers say as fact. Even if they say the wildest things, it is never questioned or critiqued.
July 7, 2011
This book definitely has an interesting premise in its theme of do-it-yourself biohackers championing open-sourcing of intellectual property in an effort to pool research regarding DNA. Don’t let the science scare you; author Marcus Wohlsen makes biology and the blueprint of life very accessible. In essence, this work deals with young, bright individuals who set up biology wet labs in their garages and kitchens and attempt to do for DNA what Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did for computers. They are driven by the belief that free access to one another’s findings, as opposed to the strict confidentiality of the major biotech companies, will lead to major discoveries and medical cures. A pooling of intellectual resources, so to speak.
My first thought was concern that while this group is earnestly seeking cures and diagnostic avenues, there is bound to be another group bent on using the same technology with the opposite in mind. While the ethical argument is raised, Wohlsen does not spend any ink on how real and present that threat is-information which I would have appreciated in this age of global terrorism.
A number of interesting people are introduced who are involved in various forms of research and who have a variety of world views. While some have smaller, more attainable goals in mind, such as finding a less expensive early detection test for which insurance companies might be more willing to pay. Others see the end goal as being able to engineer life itself.
Within the narrow scope of those choosing to use their kitchen sink research for what most would view as positive goals, Wohlsen’s research is impressive. As I said, the flip side-those who are intent on evil-is not covered at all. However, the book could use a good editor to help with organization (mine was a pre-editing galley, so that issue might well be ironed out) and the ending was rambling with odd, inconsequential references to punk music.
Ranking: I would give this book four stars for the excellent job it does presenting the good side of bio hacking, but I really felt that the opposite side needed to be told as well to lend balance to the ethical questions. So...
✰✰✰✰ I will round to four stars in those venues which do not allow for 1/2 star rankings, but my true rating is ✰✰✰1/2 stars for lack of balance. I am assuming the organizational issues and ending were worked out in the editing phase.
My first thought was concern that while this group is earnestly seeking cures and diagnostic avenues, there is bound to be another group bent on using the same technology with the opposite in mind. While the ethical argument is raised, Wohlsen does not spend any ink on how real and present that threat is-information which I would have appreciated in this age of global terrorism.
A number of interesting people are introduced who are involved in various forms of research and who have a variety of world views. While some have smaller, more attainable goals in mind, such as finding a less expensive early detection test for which insurance companies might be more willing to pay. Others see the end goal as being able to engineer life itself.
Within the narrow scope of those choosing to use their kitchen sink research for what most would view as positive goals, Wohlsen’s research is impressive. As I said, the flip side-those who are intent on evil-is not covered at all. However, the book could use a good editor to help with organization (mine was a pre-editing galley, so that issue might well be ironed out) and the ending was rambling with odd, inconsequential references to punk music.
Ranking: I would give this book four stars for the excellent job it does presenting the good side of bio hacking, but I really felt that the opposite side needed to be told as well to lend balance to the ethical questions. So...
✰✰✰✰ I will round to four stars in those venues which do not allow for 1/2 star rankings, but my true rating is ✰✰✰1/2 stars for lack of balance. I am assuming the organizational issues and ending were worked out in the editing phase.
May 25, 2015
One of my favorite books so far this year has been Steven Levy's Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Levy has a talent for humanizing these hackers and forging a narrative from the random hacks that led to the computing revolution, the founding of artificial intelligence, and the information age. By the end of the book, I found myself wishing that I'd been around for a piece of the action. Want to get into hacking today?, the afterword solicited. Try biohacking.
Biopunk was Hackers without the decades of time between action and publication. The biohackers profiled here supply intriguing provocations, but so far they have not become major players in the synthetic bio movement. A theme running throughout the book is the idea that life is less open to the open source movement, that somehow bacteria and brainwaves are sacrosanct where electrical engineering is not. The Steven Kurtz case, where the FBI came after a SUNY Buffalo professor for his biohacking art projects, emphasize not only the ethical but the legal ramifications of DIY Bio. If you want to be a hacker in this space, you gotta have some guts.
According to Wohlsen, the hacker ethic is alive and well in the bio community. I'm inclined to believe him. But will this hacker movement lead to the same revolution and riches as the personal computer? Will personal bio lead to life extension, global pandemics, or will it end with strawberry DNA extractions? The answer probably won't be clear any time soon. But that's part of the appeal.
Biopunk was Hackers without the decades of time between action and publication. The biohackers profiled here supply intriguing provocations, but so far they have not become major players in the synthetic bio movement. A theme running throughout the book is the idea that life is less open to the open source movement, that somehow bacteria and brainwaves are sacrosanct where electrical engineering is not. The Steven Kurtz case, where the FBI came after a SUNY Buffalo professor for his biohacking art projects, emphasize not only the ethical but the legal ramifications of DIY Bio. If you want to be a hacker in this space, you gotta have some guts.
According to Wohlsen, the hacker ethic is alive and well in the bio community. I'm inclined to believe him. But will this hacker movement lead to the same revolution and riches as the personal computer? Will personal bio lead to life extension, global pandemics, or will it end with strawberry DNA extractions? The answer probably won't be clear any time soon. But that's part of the appeal.
Read
January 11, 2025This book is full of interesting and well-researched vignettes about scientific mavericks doing high-tech biology in low-tech environments like their kitchens and garages and third-world countries. I worked in biotechnology and it was still a shock to me to find out the level of basement research that is possible (did you know that strands of DNA can be mail-ordered?), especially given the current regulatory environment. But the experimentation is not unprecedented, as the book also profiles important developments by biopunks in history (Mendel, for example). Their excitement for biology is palpable and the book paints a picture of a biopunk’s whole-hearted belief that everyone should have open access to biological and technological advances and current information and affordable materials to understand and tinker with our own biology and test our curiosities. The feasibility of this is not really addressed in the book, outside the context of fears of bioterrorism and Outbreak, but it would be an interesting debate, which makes it a worthwhile read.
What made this book 3 stars rather than 4 for me is that it lacked cohesion. The first third of the book contains the vignettes about particular bio-hackers and their research; the second third of the book ranged from transhumanism to nanotechnology; and the final third of the book skims the risks of DIY biotechnology and the counter-arguments, but not in context with the earlier vignettes.
What made this book 3 stars rather than 4 for me is that it lacked cohesion. The first third of the book contains the vignettes about particular bio-hackers and their research; the second third of the book ranged from transhumanism to nanotechnology; and the final third of the book skims the risks of DIY biotechnology and the counter-arguments, but not in context with the earlier vignettes.
November 12, 2018
Very enjoyably written set of articles on home-brew biology as it exists in the early 2010s. Reading through this book felt like reading a long pop science magazine focused on this topic. There are lots of anecdotes about the people doing this. It actually starts off quite tame, describing people building diagnostic medical tests to test their own families and building inexpensive equipment or finding expensive equipment for sale second hand. Only as you go on in the book do you see DNA manipulation and the like. The book ends with a discussion of the risks involved.
I just attended a TEDx conference that included a speaker running a local biohacking lab. The talk focused on what they could do, how they share information with other researchers, and how they were using equipment that was home built for cheap or purchased for a fraction of what the functionality cost just a few years ago. Many of the advances talked about came about after this book was written (its copyright date is 2012). The cause of the strength of this area of “non-corporate” research, according to the speaker, is the continued lack of regulations. This continues to be a fast moving area, and on that will get more interest from the general public as time goes by and as “things happen”, good or bad, based on this research. “Biopunk” remains a good introduction.
I just attended a TEDx conference that included a speaker running a local biohacking lab. The talk focused on what they could do, how they share information with other researchers, and how they were using equipment that was home built for cheap or purchased for a fraction of what the functionality cost just a few years ago. Many of the advances talked about came about after this book was written (its copyright date is 2012). The cause of the strength of this area of “non-corporate” research, according to the speaker, is the continued lack of regulations. This continues to be a fast moving area, and on that will get more interest from the general public as time goes by and as “things happen”, good or bad, based on this research. “Biopunk” remains a good introduction.
July 5, 2019
nel mondo delle biotecnologie, un libro del 2012 è terribilmente vecchio ma, nonostante ciò, biopunk resta comunque una lettura molto interessante, sia dal punto di vista delle nozioni spiegate, sia come rappresentazione storica di un movimento, che come descrizione di una filosofia, spiegazione di cos'è la Do It Yourself Biology.
Unica pecca: forse un po' diosrganico.
Unica pecca: forse un po' diosrganico.
March 19, 2019
Good book, but already outdated.
November 3, 2020
There's a part of me that wants to run out and buy a home CRISPR kit and start bioengineering new organisms to save the world. OK, OK, I'm a responsible guy, so before I did that, autodidact that I am, I'd teach myself organic chemistry and take a couple of biochemistry courses from MIT OpenCourseWare. Then I'd be all set. It sounds like great fun, but I know better than to think that this would be a good idea. Maybe I could do some harmless computer modeling and then post my results so that somebody who really knows what they are doing could make something of them, but even then it seems that the person most likely to pay attention would be another junior Dr. Frankenstein whose additional knowledge would be only enough to make him truly dangerous. I have no problem with the idea of making genetically modified organisms and using them to make products that could massively improve our lives. I have no problem with the idea of genetically modifying humans. If you want wings or a tail and can figure out how to grow them, be my guest. But this needs to be done responsibly so that it doesn't have some unforeseen adverse impact on the rest of us.
When I was in college, gene splicing was just starting to become possible and there was much talk about the need for responsible protocols to keep bioengineered organisms from escaping the laboratory. Some of the early fears were overblown and so far companies and universities have acted reasonably responsibly, but as science advances and the ability to do scary things trickles down to people who know only a little more than me, the risks of some sort of nasty black swan disaster increase.
It's inevitable as part of this process that breathless books like this would come along to extol the hacker mentality. I acknowledge that people striking out on their own to find low cost hacked bioengineering solutions to world problems could provide some outstanding good results, but all of the good could be wiped out overnight by one disaster, and if the risks of such a disaster are increased from one in a billion to one in a million and then we have a million people trying to do this stuff at home, it seems to me like a bad idea. This is an area that cries out for regulation. We really have to be careful about it.
When I was in college, gene splicing was just starting to become possible and there was much talk about the need for responsible protocols to keep bioengineered organisms from escaping the laboratory. Some of the early fears were overblown and so far companies and universities have acted reasonably responsibly, but as science advances and the ability to do scary things trickles down to people who know only a little more than me, the risks of some sort of nasty black swan disaster increase.
It's inevitable as part of this process that breathless books like this would come along to extol the hacker mentality. I acknowledge that people striking out on their own to find low cost hacked bioengineering solutions to world problems could provide some outstanding good results, but all of the good could be wiped out overnight by one disaster, and if the risks of such a disaster are increased from one in a billion to one in a million and then we have a million people trying to do this stuff at home, it seems to me like a bad idea. This is an area that cries out for regulation. We really have to be careful about it.
November 6, 2017
O livro é bem diferente do que eu esperava. A discussão é muito mais filosófica do que prática.
A primeira parte do livro chega a ser um pouco tediosa pra quem já tá mais do que acostumado com a história da ciência (microscopia, evolução, genética, bioengenharia...).
A segunda parte é focada em exemplos de biohack e suas implicações econômicas, políticas e científicas. O autor trata do problema de se concentrar o poder da ciência na mão de poucos (como corporações e governos, famosos por sempre fazerem a coisa certa e ajudarem todo mundo a ter uma vida melhor, né) e mostra como a democratização desse poder é importante para uma sociedade menos desigual e distópica.
O fim do livro é destinado à parte mais atraente ao público geral: os riscos do biohack. Aqui o autor argumenta que não é necessário editar o genoma de seres vivos para criar armas biológicas, e traz vários exemplos de armas biológicas que podem ser feitas com muito menos esforço (como anthrax e ricina). Também mostra que os riscos reais do biohack ainda estão distantes, já que atualmente o esforço se concentra mais em manter as criaturas vivas do que realmente criando coisas novas. Esse argumento me parece meio fraco, porque ele basicamente adia a discussão. Nesse ponto eu senti que o biohack poderia evoluir pra algo semelhante ao que acontece com informática hoje: white hats vs. black hats, mas nesse caso os impactos dos black hats seriam astronomicamente maiores do que dinheiro perdido e computadores estragados.
A conclusão final é de que, como em praticamente todas as tecnologias, existem riscos, mas os pontos positivos superam muito os possíveis pontos negativos.
Ele conseguiu me vender esse argumento tranquilamente. Talvez porque eu também acredite que o poder deve ser distribuído e que a ciência deva ser democratizada. As críticas ao monopólio da ciência e os exemplos de como governos e corporações são ignorantes e opressivos ao biohack só me fizeram gostar mais.
A primeira parte do livro chega a ser um pouco tediosa pra quem já tá mais do que acostumado com a história da ciência (microscopia, evolução, genética, bioengenharia...).
A segunda parte é focada em exemplos de biohack e suas implicações econômicas, políticas e científicas. O autor trata do problema de se concentrar o poder da ciência na mão de poucos (como corporações e governos, famosos por sempre fazerem a coisa certa e ajudarem todo mundo a ter uma vida melhor, né) e mostra como a democratização desse poder é importante para uma sociedade menos desigual e distópica.
O fim do livro é destinado à parte mais atraente ao público geral: os riscos do biohack. Aqui o autor argumenta que não é necessário editar o genoma de seres vivos para criar armas biológicas, e traz vários exemplos de armas biológicas que podem ser feitas com muito menos esforço (como anthrax e ricina). Também mostra que os riscos reais do biohack ainda estão distantes, já que atualmente o esforço se concentra mais em manter as criaturas vivas do que realmente criando coisas novas. Esse argumento me parece meio fraco, porque ele basicamente adia a discussão. Nesse ponto eu senti que o biohack poderia evoluir pra algo semelhante ao que acontece com informática hoje: white hats vs. black hats, mas nesse caso os impactos dos black hats seriam astronomicamente maiores do que dinheiro perdido e computadores estragados.
A conclusão final é de que, como em praticamente todas as tecnologias, existem riscos, mas os pontos positivos superam muito os possíveis pontos negativos.
Ele conseguiu me vender esse argumento tranquilamente. Talvez porque eu também acredite que o poder deve ser distribuído e que a ciência deva ser democratizada. As críticas ao monopólio da ciência e os exemplos de como governos e corporações são ignorantes e opressivos ao biohack só me fizeram gostar mais.
March 9, 2019
Biopunk provides an engaging look at what a variety of scientists are doing in their garages or kitchens without backing from universities or wealthy corporations. Of course, some of the contents of the book (published 2011) will be outdated by now, but it still makes for interesting reading. Wohlsen examines how and why these DIY scientists are doing what they are doing - this usually involves working beyond the restrictings involved in the extremely expensive specialized equioment, as well as the politics and rigid environment of universities and biotech corporations. This book also breifly deals with the potential consequences and challenges that are part and parcel of this type of citizen science. The organisation is a bit erratic and the topics covered lacked depth. Each chapter of the book comes across as a separate essay or article about a specific DIY hacker, along with the obligatory interview. The book is written by a journalist, which means you get more human interest stories than a detailed look at exactly what is going on in the kitchen/garage.
I did find the chapter on Indian farmers "hacking" Monsantos GMO seed stock the old fashioned way rather interesting and amusing. The farmers saved the seeds produced by the GMO plants, crossed them with seeds native to India, saved and then traded the resulting native seeds which in the end produced plants that could cope better in the local conditions than the expensive GMO seeds. And they did all this without paying a licensing fee. Of course, Monsanto wasn't happy about this, but due to lack of regulation and motivation by the Indian government to do anything about this "theft" and hacking of GMO seeds, Monsanto couldn't do anything about it.
If you are looking for inspirational stories of citizen scienctists experimenting with DNA in the garage, this book may interest you. In terms of in-depth science this book is rather lacking.
I did find the chapter on Indian farmers "hacking" Monsantos GMO seed stock the old fashioned way rather interesting and amusing. The farmers saved the seeds produced by the GMO plants, crossed them with seeds native to India, saved and then traded the resulting native seeds which in the end produced plants that could cope better in the local conditions than the expensive GMO seeds. And they did all this without paying a licensing fee. Of course, Monsanto wasn't happy about this, but due to lack of regulation and motivation by the Indian government to do anything about this "theft" and hacking of GMO seeds, Monsanto couldn't do anything about it.
If you are looking for inspirational stories of citizen scienctists experimenting with DNA in the garage, this book may interest you. In terms of in-depth science this book is rather lacking.
May 20, 2018
This book reads like a long fan letter and is far from the "part field guide and part critique" promised by a New Scientist quote on its cover. It is an unbalanced and outdated look at biohacking that often diverges into mundane irrelevant details about people showcased in the book. The author is apparently not familiar with the "Show, Don't Tell" writing technique and is constantly inserting himself unnecessarily into the scene. I could not stand to read more than a few sentences of this poorly written book at a time, so I basically scanned the whole thing in less than an hour. Save your money and time and read articles online instead. You probably have a better chance of finding a less biased perspective on the subject that way.
January 12, 2021
I had never being curious about Bioengineering or related fields. This book has changed the way I see biology. As an engineer myself, l understand some of the annoyance of not being able to create and experiment on our own without costly hardware. In my case this has changed a lot due to microprocessors being so cheap, I hope that for all of you biohackers it gets to the same point in the future. I will keep my eyes open to see news about this branch because it is very interesting indeed. Thanks for this fun approach to the mysticism involving biohacking.
Listened to the audio version.
Listened to the audio version.
October 2, 2017
Just a neat read for a nerd like me. It was a tad eye-opening to realize that I already possess the technical skills necessary to "bio-hack," and that it was possible to conduct experiments I used to do in a lab in my own home. The title of this book is a tad misleading--these biopunks are tackling some of biotech's biggest problems, but the book doesn't reveal any major breakthroughs discovered by them. A quick read for my science-y peeps.
September 3, 2017
I was really unsure how to rate this book. I definitely enjoyed the topic and the writing. The overall progression of the narrative was pretty good but lacked some cohesion.
The topics were discussed with an interesting amount of background that set a solid context for the ideas but were a little unnecessary at times.
That being said I took a lot of notes and learned a lot!
The topics were discussed with an interesting amount of background that set a solid context for the ideas but were a little unnecessary at times.
That being said I took a lot of notes and learned a lot!
August 21, 2018
AN overview of home brew style, open source, bio-engineering at the time this book was written (2007). It's a good overview, but highly dated, as the field has moved on significantly in the past 11 years. Crispr didn't even exist when this book was written. Still, I'd recommend it as an introduction to the field.
April 27, 2019
Appropriately for its subject matter, a thoroughly amateur writing style reminiscent of a high-school magazine.
The content though is kinda cool. However, always there's the assumption that fucking with the biota is just A OK, and the silly dishonesty that genetic pollution == normal breeding is, like in any high-school magazine, trotted out.
Some amazing stuff here, oh yes.
The content though is kinda cool. However, always there's the assumption that fucking with the biota is just A OK, and the silly dishonesty that genetic pollution == normal breeding is, like in any high-school magazine, trotted out.
Some amazing stuff here, oh yes.
December 11, 2020
A well-written book that reads like a series of profiles of prominent biohackers and biopunks who operate outside of the mainstream scientific establishment. Also covers topics like bioterrorism, transhumanism, bioart, and others.
What I took away most was a renewed feeling of fascination and creativity about biological research.
What I took away most was a renewed feeling of fascination and creativity about biological research.
June 19, 2017
i read this at least 5 or more years ago and was interested in what young people were doing hacking dna.
at the time the book was interesting, and served as a good look into the future (now) and most of the book was spot on.
at the time the book was interesting, and served as a good look into the future (now) and most of the book was spot on.
June 29, 2023
Fascinating subject but the book felt incredibly padded, unfocused, and lacked insight. Seems like a magazine article where the author kept adding fluff until it was book-length, though not really book content. Probably not the best book on this subject.
September 4, 2017
I don't agree to all he said in the book
July 6, 2018
Writing wasn't great or captivating but it did the job. Like the 2 star rating says - it was okay.
Read
June 20, 2025DNF’d. This is too out of date to offer useful insight
November 30, 2017
Amazing
January 7, 2016
BIOPUNK was a very interesting read to say the least. I would say it was intended for anyone interested in the field of biology and in which direction biology is taking. It was not an easy read, especially for someone who inst a biology major, but i believe that was the intent. The book would slowly introduce the reader to new words and concepts which, following the theme of the book, would encourage independent research on these machines and technologies. I found it very interesting how people are taking labs to their homes, and garages. The whole premises, of the book is that labs, and machines have moved away from being institutionalized. People are doing DIYBio, where people are making makeshift labs and making their own research projects. As stated in the book by a scientist named Patterson "-If we have to wait for university labs to do this, we're going to be waiting forever". In this case Patterson was working on making a test to show if their was melamine in milk, or baby formula. Melamine is a chemical used to make plastics and cement and can falsify tests when added to milk or formula, showing their is a higher protein content then in actuality. Overall it introduces the idea of Biology being something not only everyone can do, but should do, and hopefully it will be something people will do.
"We might not discover the biological equivalent to the big bang, but perhaps some intrepid explorer will take biological equivalent of the first trip to the moon." Marcus Wohlsen. I found this quote by the author to be interesting. Few people really see the potential in biology, which is more than the eye can see, which is why we have microscopes. The point is, the author conveys a very accurate point that the last century was the era of nuclear power, and this one will be molecular power. As the future becomes present more jobs are being replaced by machines. Few jobs will be available in the not so distant future at our current passe. One innovative job that will be around for much longer is no doubt biologists. The future of humanity lies in biology. What if Einstein lived to 300? What if every one could have an IQ three times the average? All the answers to humanities problems lie within. Biology is the job of answering those problems, and the further we expand, the more amazing the results will be.
"We might not discover the biological equivalent to the big bang, but perhaps some intrepid explorer will take biological equivalent of the first trip to the moon." Marcus Wohlsen. I found this quote by the author to be interesting. Few people really see the potential in biology, which is more than the eye can see, which is why we have microscopes. The point is, the author conveys a very accurate point that the last century was the era of nuclear power, and this one will be molecular power. As the future becomes present more jobs are being replaced by machines. Few jobs will be available in the not so distant future at our current passe. One innovative job that will be around for much longer is no doubt biologists. The future of humanity lies in biology. What if Einstein lived to 300? What if every one could have an IQ three times the average? All the answers to humanities problems lie within. Biology is the job of answering those problems, and the further we expand, the more amazing the results will be.
March 16, 2011
I received this book free in a Goodreads First Reads giveaway
This quick, accessible, non-fiction book on the non-traditional bioengineering movement and its efforts to increase accessibility to the knowledge, technology, and implications of genetics research never gets beyond the depth of a Discover magazine article but it does an excellent job of introducing the movement to a larger audience without taking a strong stance on the practice.
Marcus Wohlsen is a science journalist and that the book adheres to that writing style. He begins by laying out profiles of leading figures within the Do-It-Yourself Bio movement and uses them to expand discussion on both their scientific pursuits and the potential implications. Wisely, given the likely intended audience, Wohlsen addresses even hyperbolic fears by noting, repeatedly, that no one in this field is anywhere near developing the next superwhatever and, perhaps unwisely, reminds us that there are many easier ways to spread bioterror than the methods these people are exploring.
By and large, he succeeds. Most of the people profiled are attempting small projects, or at least realistic projects for their resources, though I think some questions remain unaddressed. As Wohlsen does note, many of these DIYers have to engage in some small crimes to obtain some of their basic working materials. Are these restrictions legitimate? Clearly the DIYers, mostly libertarian bent, don't think so, but Wohlsen doesn't really come at whether the security regulations are valid.
Still well worth reading as an introductory text to the field, if not necessarily for the raw science as much as the potential.
This quick, accessible, non-fiction book on the non-traditional bioengineering movement and its efforts to increase accessibility to the knowledge, technology, and implications of genetics research never gets beyond the depth of a Discover magazine article but it does an excellent job of introducing the movement to a larger audience without taking a strong stance on the practice.
Marcus Wohlsen is a science journalist and that the book adheres to that writing style. He begins by laying out profiles of leading figures within the Do-It-Yourself Bio movement and uses them to expand discussion on both their scientific pursuits and the potential implications. Wisely, given the likely intended audience, Wohlsen addresses even hyperbolic fears by noting, repeatedly, that no one in this field is anywhere near developing the next superwhatever and, perhaps unwisely, reminds us that there are many easier ways to spread bioterror than the methods these people are exploring.
By and large, he succeeds. Most of the people profiled are attempting small projects, or at least realistic projects for their resources, though I think some questions remain unaddressed. As Wohlsen does note, many of these DIYers have to engage in some small crimes to obtain some of their basic working materials. Are these restrictions legitimate? Clearly the DIYers, mostly libertarian bent, don't think so, but Wohlsen doesn't really come at whether the security regulations are valid.
Still well worth reading as an introductory text to the field, if not necessarily for the raw science as much as the potential.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews