Quick thought of the day:
Had a lengthy chat with a professor of health and medicine at Imperial College today. We talked about a lot of stuff, including discrepancies between scientists and designers, and the changing nature of science research, but one thing sparked a new idea in me.
I was telling her about the implications of the Glowing Plant project on Kickstarter, the consequent ethical backlash, and yet successful funding of a second bioluminescent project about a month after the first despite the criticism. She was seemed disturbed that a project that would allow the sale of genetically manipulated organism without extensive research into its effects on the ecosystem would achieve so much success, considering the rigorous security protocols that are applied to even the most benign experiments that are done in her lab. It says a lot for the double edged sword that is the Internet, crowd funding and increased public lobbying power.
It made me think about how easily products and services that come across as commercially desirable but may not necessarily be a good idea can become popular very quickly online and even become a material reality. DIY Biohackers could easily foray into the same path, unwittingly wreaking havoc on the environment or population.
Perhaps there's an intervention project in there. Perhaps I could collaborate with someone to create a genetically manipulated product (or a series of products) that would be commercially appealing but imply darker consequences, and see how they fare on platforms like Kickstarter. Obviously I wouldn't actually want to sell these products, but it could be an interesting form of social analysis on the naivety of consumers that just want shiny things, and the ease (or difficulty) with which I could get the money to start producing something potentially harmful. In the wake of the recent online scandals like Silk Road and the 3D printed gun, I think it could be quite relevant.
Had a lengthy chat with a professor of health and medicine at Imperial College today. We talked about a lot of stuff, including discrepancies between scientists and designers, and the changing nature of science research, but one thing sparked a new idea in me.
I was telling her about the implications of the Glowing Plant project on Kickstarter, the consequent ethical backlash, and yet successful funding of a second bioluminescent project about a month after the first despite the criticism. She was seemed disturbed that a project that would allow the sale of genetically manipulated organism without extensive research into its effects on the ecosystem would achieve so much success, considering the rigorous security protocols that are applied to even the most benign experiments that are done in her lab. It says a lot for the double edged sword that is the Internet, crowd funding and increased public lobbying power.
It made me think about how easily products and services that come across as commercially desirable but may not necessarily be a good idea can become popular very quickly online and even become a material reality. DIY Biohackers could easily foray into the same path, unwittingly wreaking havoc on the environment or population.
Perhaps there's an intervention project in there. Perhaps I could collaborate with someone to create a genetically manipulated product (or a series of products) that would be commercially appealing but imply darker consequences, and see how they fare on platforms like Kickstarter. Obviously I wouldn't actually want to sell these products, but it could be an interesting form of social analysis on the naivety of consumers that just want shiny things, and the ease (or difficulty) with which I could get the money to start producing something potentially harmful. In the wake of the recent online scandals like Silk Road and the 3D printed gun, I think it could be quite relevant.
