Ethical Implications of Biohacking as Activism: Democratized Health Care, Danger, or What?

Biohacking refers to optimizing one’s body through modifying biology. In the 20th century, do-it-yourself (DIY) biology emerged as a type of biohacking involving biotechnology. Current high- healthcare costs promote DIY -biology insulin and EpiPens as ways to challenge norms in healthcare, thus serving as forms of activism. Biohacked insulin is part of the #WeAreNotWaiting movement to support improved treatment of Type 1 diabetes, whereas biohacked EpiPens allow people to make lifesaving autoinjectors at low costs. Social media acts as a catalyst and aids in the spread of insulin and EpiPen biohacking as activism. In 1979, Principles of Biomedical Ethics by Beauchamp and Childress proposed four principles that continue to guide decision-making in clinical medicine: beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice. This paper applies these principles to explore whether the benefits of performing DIY biology outweigh the potential health risks. Examining biohacking with a biomedical ethics frame, as outlined by Beauchamp and Childress, reveals that biohacking acts as a response to current issues but cannot serve as a solution in its current form. However, biohacking can grant patients more power in their relationship with the healthcare system, therefore lessening the dominance of formal institutions. Out of the four principles, autonomy applies most differently when regarding biohacking than traditional medicine. Accordingly, a model of ethics for biohacking, such as of Beauchamp and Childress’ with the autonomy altered to acknowledge the additional implications of biohacking, should be developed in the future.

Valuating Practices, Principles and Products in DIY Biology

In this article, we study do-it-yourself (DIY) biology, by looking in particular at the different forms of valuation within the DIY biology movement. Building upon recent work in economic sociology and the study of valuation, we take as case studies different projects developed by DIY biologists. Our approach is attentive to the moments when these projects are valued, i.e. during competitions, investment pitches, and crowdfunding campaigns. The projects analyzed involve both market valuations (with investments, products and potential markets) and non-market valuations (be they social, ethical or cultural). Our key argument is that value is produced through distributed and heterogeneous processes: products, practices, principles and places are valued at the same time. We show that there is not only a valuation of technical and production aspects (well highlighted in the key literature on valuation), but also a valuation of social links and of specific forms of organization. Both are inseparable - it is neither the object nor the context in themselves that are valued, but the “good-within-the-context-of-its-making”: the production of vegan cheese or biological ink and the places and communities of DIY biology or future markets are valued. The valuation practices we examine aim at producing an interest in a threefold sense: a general interest (a public good), an interest for the public (its curiosity), and a monetary interest (by making people financially participate).

If you want something doing, do it yourself

The Biochemical Society's panel discussion event, DIY Biology, explored the possibilities for citizen science and collaborative research projects.