[DIYbio] Re: Public Perception

interesting.  Usually I am in sympathy with folks like Thomas... but
that's just fear-mongering that ignores the more immediate dangers.
What's interesting about synbio is that, since we actually don't
understand biology all that well, we can learn some things by trying
to engineer it.  It's a fabulously pragmatic approach to biological
research.

It would be folly of the greatest order to think that because we can
grow cheese in a vat, or bread in a vat, we should dump the entire
assembled cultural knowledge (much of which is not well understood in
scientific terms) of bread or cheesemaking, to say nothing of growing
crops.  Where the danger lurks, (pace Jefferson), is that Monsanto or
Archer Daniels Midland, in a desperate bid to become the "Synthetic
Biology" company, will replace worldwide stocks of soy and rice seed,
which they have already engineered to be infertile, with a half-baked,
ecologically untested synbio recipe to install vats throughout the
developing world.  This would be bad for synbio and bad for farmers.
But that has nothing to do with synbio per se, and everything to do
with the global structure of a poorly regulated, bloated and badly
structured agribusiness industry bent on nothing more than
self-preservation.   Most DIY Bio hackers probably don't want to think
about that problem directly, but I think they should...

ck


On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Tito Jankowski
<titojankowski@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chris,
> That's what I like about DIYbio, we're changing who gets involved in
> biotech. It's not just hardcore academics and venture capitalists
> anymore!
>
> The statement about farmers came from Jim, who said that synthetic
> biology means anything which is grown on a field can now be brewed in
> a vat - insulin, gasoline, and even food. That's a drastic shift that
> would redefine what we call a 'farmer'.
>
> Tito
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 6:29 PM, Christopher Kelty wrote:
>
>>
>> i haven't watched the conversation, but I don't think the issue is
>> farmers being undercut by technology.  Farmers want technology too,
>> they just aren't being treated as innovators, but as either recipients
>> of or blockages to the adoption of technology.  Slowing down
>> development makes no sense (who would be able to do that?), but
>> changing who gets to be involved in development could be done, if
>> there were political will, good ideas, and willing participants.  '
>>
>> ck
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Scott Kerr <uwskerr@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I watched the talk and thought both sides had a lot of interesting
>>> things to
>>> say.  I am intrigued by the bio-safety aspects that Jim Thomas
>>> brought up, I
>>> think it will be important for synthetic biology and DIY biology to
>>> put a
>>> lot of effort into building safe organisms and convincing the
>>> general public
>>> that they are safe.  However, I did find the argument about slowing
>>> down
>>> development because Amyris will be putting farmers out of business
>>> to be a
>>> bit of a stretch.  The very nature of making a better/cheaper/
>>> faster product
>>> is going upset the people making the worse/more expensive/slower
>>> version.  I
>>> don't think you need to have a converstion with those farmers; I am
>>> fairly
>>> certain they dislike the idea of being undercut by new technology.
>>>
>>> Skerr
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Tito Jankowski <titojankowski@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A great talk by both sides. Any history buffs here? I would love
>>>> to open
>>>> up a book and read a more detailed look at the history which Jim
>>>> Thomas was
>>>> quoting from - I'll write Jim and see if he has any book
>>>> recommendations.
>>>>
>>>> http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/
>>>> Tito
>>>> On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Mike Barnkob wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the links.
>>>>
>>>> There's an interesting discussion between Drew Endy and Jim Thomas
>>>> about synthetic biology and implications for society over on The
>>>> Long
>>>> Now homepage (http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-
>>>> synthetic-biology-debate/).
>>>>
>>>> The entire discussion can be downloaded here:
>>>>
>>>> http://fora.tv/media/rss/Long_Now_Podcasts/podcast-2008-11-17-synth-bio-debate.mp3
>>>>
>>>> For me it was eyeopening (or ear-opening maybe?) to hear about Jim
>>>> Thomas's fears - I wouldn't have thought people could couple war,
>>>> hunger and synthetic biology together. But at least for me, it says
>>>> something about the concerns other people are having about diy
>>>> biology
>>>> and especially about synthetic biology. I think Tito is very right,
>>>> when he writes that its important to try and explain other
>>>> viewpoints.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 6, 6:21 pm, Tito Jankowski <titojankow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chris - I loved this article by Jefferson - thanks for the link I
>>>> will
>>>>
>>>> be reading more about cambia soon.
>>>>
>>>> Tito
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 3, 2008, at 8:48 AM, "Christopher Kelty" <cke...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just curious if people on this list read or pay attention to BiOS/
>>>>
>>>> Cambia:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/home.html
>>>>
>>>> I recommend Richard Jefferson's paper "Science as Social Enterprise"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/3123/version/default/part/Attachme
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> If people are serious about the public perception of DIY Bio, it
>>>> needs
>>>>
>>>> to be pro-active, not re-active.  Focusing DIYBio projects on real
>>>>
>>>> capabilities for existing problems, but starting at a small scale,
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>> probably the best way to prove that this is about building something
>>>>
>>>> we need, and not just allowing curious developed-world geeks to
>>>> tinker
>>>>
>>>> with tools...  I'm all for retaining the right to tinker, but that
>>>>
>>>> right is not very meaningful unless there are platforms on which to
>>>>
>>>> tinker, and those platforms (Agrobacterium and the tools of gene
>>>>
>>>> transfer are a good example) need to have good reasons to exist
>>>> and be
>>>>
>>>> public.  Jefferson's work provides some of these arguments for why.
>>>>
>>>> ck
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Tito Jankowski
>>>> <titojankow...@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "The United States should be less concerned that terrorists will
>>>>
>>>> become biologists and far more concerned that biologists will become
>>>>
>>>> terrorists," the report states.
>>>>
>>>> A story courtesy of our friends at the Associated Press:
>>>>
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_go_ot/wmd_study_11
>>>>
>>>> This story serves as more evidence of why discussing DIYbio with the
>>>>
>>>> public is such a critical issue. We're doing good so far - we've
>>>>
>>>> explained DIYbio to eachother, even though many of us are computer
>>>>
>>>> scientists, engineers, and beer brewers.
>>>>
>>>> As interest in DIYbio grows, our work with friends, students,
>>>>
>>>> parents,
>>>>
>>>> and government officials becomes increasingly important. Through
>>>> open
>>>>
>>>> discussion with the public community, we will discover greater
>>>>
>>>> applications and uses for our work, and the public will enjoy a
>>>>
>>>> greater understanding of the language of life.
>>>>
>>>> I challenge us all today to make an attempt at explaining DIYbio,
>>>>
>>>> or a
>>>>
>>>> DIYbio project, to someone with no biology background. I spoke with
>>>>
>>>> my
>>>>
>>>> friend Rob, a glass sculptor, about bioWeatherMaps on Sunday - and
>>>>
>>>> got
>>>>
>>>> some great ideas considering he has little experience in biology.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Tito
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> >
>
>
> >
>