Molecularist

I'm going to be out at UMass Amherst visiting my PhD advisor, Craig Martin. He's been so kind to let me do a brown-bag discussion around DIYBio and Synth Bio:

Alas, there was zippo name-recognition for DIYbio and Synth Bio (so much for all those news articles). So, Craig asked me to make a summary of some sort.

What it means to me:
DIYBio is basically about increasing the tinkerability of
biology. While there are some who think there's science in DIYBio
("citizen science"), the current buzz is around making biology simpler
and more accessible outside of institutional settings – hacking,
basically. Folks are making $100 gel boxes, isolating bioluminescent
microbes from squid, building Dremel-based centrifuges, isolating DNA
from strawberries, or trying to figure out ways to make something
equivalent to Arduino for biology. It is a nascent "movement" drawing a
lot from the Open Source way of doing things and is still about hacking
and having fun and introducing people to the tools of biology. But, as in other areas, the expectation is that
interesting things will happen when tools became cheaper and more
approachable. How will that impact institutional science?

Synthetic Biology,
of the Biobricks flavor, seeks to create a standardized registry of
characterized biological parts to aid in the engineering of specified
micro-organisms. Much like standardized electronic parts paved the way
for the electronics industry, the expectation is that standardized
biological parts will lead to better engineering of micro-organism. Showcasing what can be done, there's an
annual jamboree for genetically engineered machines (iGEM) where
micro-organisms have been engineered to produce various pigments,
electrically stimulated light production, and detect explosives and
toxins. How will things change as it becomes easier to create defined
biological machines?

So what's the sales pitch? Why should anyone out at UMass care about these topics?
DIYBio
and Synthetic Biology are re-arranging the way non-scientists engage
with biology. It's not really about science, but about making biology
more tinkerable, more hackable, more approachable so that the messiness
goes away and creativity can shine. Designers, engineers, and other non-biologists
are making biological tools and experimenting in fun and practical
ways. From melamine detectors to mine detectors, from bioluminescent
bacteria in squid isolated in the kitchen to electrically induced light
production in a lab, biology is starting to be more than just about
biology and more about machines. What does this mean to academic scientists? How might this change the future of biological science?

Enthusiastic?
I guess I just want to get the word out. I feel that these two topics are changing the way folks view and use biology. And I think is some ways, making biology more accessible outside of the institutional setting will change what we can do with biology by opening access to whole new swaths of creative people.

What do you think of my descriptions here?

Image from daisybush

Developing thought on biological tinkering and biological machines: Sure, biology-as-products exists today, in the form of breeding, brewing, bio-pharmaceuticals. But for me, in those cases the biology is serving the biology (as in, the protein is the drug, or the organism is the end-product). These engineered machines are using biological tools for non-biological purposes (such as toxin detectors or pixel generators)