Re: [DIYbio] 3D printing medical devices

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Nathan McCorkle <nmz787@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> according to:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29
> "
> Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an
> established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the
> relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party
> publications.
> "
>
> I'd say 3d printing falls under the wikipedia guidelines for being in
> an examples section, along with a lot of the other's we've listed in
> this thread.

I wasn't asking about 3d printing in general. I was asking about 3d
printing of components for medical implants, specifically. And I fail
to see how the specific case of 3D printing of sugars constitutes DIY.
That was big-budget university research, was it not? (Very much so:
see below.)

You keep stripping out parts of the context. The only pattern I see so
far: you do it when stripping it out would be convenient for your
highly inclusive "definition".

> jmil (Jordan Miller) has published his sugar printing stuff in 3rd
> party *expert* peer-reviewed journals, has been around the DIYbio
> community for a while, and has given DIYbio updates on his project a
> few times.

CECR doesn't (yet) have an obvious listing of the dollar value of
research grants,

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~cecr/research.html

nor does Jordan Miller's supervisor, Christopher Chen, put the budget
in any obvious place

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~chenlab/

but in this case, with about a dozen co-authors on the paper you refer
to, and a full professor supervising the research at an Ivy League
university, it's safe to say that the project's budget was on the high
side of $200,000.

Please tell me: how does a team of a dozen people with a six-figure
research budget qualify as "DIY"?

> He shows up in my email repo of DIYbio (which isn't as old
> as the google group) starting on 7/8/11

You still haven't given me a citation. It has to be open enough to
refer to, on Wikipedia, in a way that others can find. And it has to
have Jordan Miller unambiguously categorizing that research as DIYbio.
(With him provisionally accepted as "an established expert" even
though he's a post-doc researcher -- ideally it comes from Prof.
Chen.)

Otherwise, where's the limit? Is it any topic people post about here
automatically "DIYbio"? People are posting daily here about very cheap
but powerful embedded-systems boards that run Linux. Does that ipso
facto make such boards "DIYbio"? I don't think so. What if Moore's Law
had stopped in 1985, and people had to make do with PC/ATs or the
original Macintosh, while the relevant biotech had (somehow) proceeded
at the pace seen since then? People would still be doing DIYbio. It
would be a little more expensive, that's all.

And why rely on a mailing list when there's already a peer-reviewed
publication to cite, if necessary?

Remember: the specific case was *metallic* joints that were
3-D-printed. As in the discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DIYbio

If somebody wants to put *DIYmed* on the map, I'm happy to support the
inclusion of such material. In a Wikipedia article entitled "DIYmed."
As soon as anyone is actually *doing* DIYmed -- which I doubt. (Unless
going to a bar to get a drink and calm down after a bad day
constitutes practicing medicine on oneself.)

Regards,
Michael Turner
Project Persephone
1-25-33 Takadanobaba
Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 169-0075
(+81) 90-5203-8682
turner@projectpersephone.org
http://www.projectpersephone.org/

"Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward
together in the same direction." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.