One day, we knew, biotech would become so easy and so cheap that two guys in a garage could hack life in the way kids hack code. That day is now here. Exhibit A is this biohacking lab in a garage in Silicon Valley. Assembled from used equipment the kit includes two clean cell-culture hoods, an incubator, two robot sequencers, and lots of software packed into a suburban garage. The guys are screening antic-cancer compounds.

Not that everyone thought a do-it-yourself biotech lab was inevitable. Many folks in the biotech industry have repeatedly explained why biotech is different, how it is far more complex than digital stuff, requiring far more education to master, how the subject is far more delicate requiring far more precision in experiments, and the equipment thus far more expensive than anything computers use, meaning overall that garage biotech hackers were very unlikely. "You need a PhD and a clean room" they would say.

Maybe you do, but Rob Carlson, who has been tracking biotech for decades, recently photographed the above pictures of the DIY biotech. He also pointed to the example of maker-types constructing DIY clean rooms, such as this one made from industrial shelving and off-the-shelf filters.

As Carlson explains:

I continue to get push back from people who assert that "it is really too hard" to hack biology in a garage, or too expensive, or that garage labs just can't be up to snuff. This sort of dissent usually comes out of National Labs, Ivy League professors, or denizens of the beltway. All I can say to this is -- Doodz, you need to get out more.

The people who built the lab pictured above are pursuing a project that is technically well beyond anything discussed on the DIYBio list, and while they may be watching the DIYBio conversation they don't advertise what they are up to. It would be better for all of us if we could rest assured that conversations about this sort of work could proceed in the open without guys showing up in biohazard suits with weapons drawn -- Youtube, at the 00:00:48 mark.

There continues to be a prominent thread of conversation in Washington DC that "biohacking" is somehow aberrant and strange. But apparently DIYBio, you'll be happy to hear, is a group composed of the Good Guys. Everyone should feel happy and safe, I guess. Or maybe not so much, but not for the reasons you might think.

The creation of a false dichotomy between "DIY Biotech" (good guys) and "Biohacking" (bad guys) lends unfortunate credence to the notion that there is an easily identifiable group of well-meaning souls who embrace openness and who are eager to work with the government. On the contrary, in my experience there are a number of people who are actively hacking biology in their garages who intentionally keep a low profile (I am not certain how many and know of no existing measure, but see discussion above). This tally included me until a little over a year ago, though now my garage houses a boat under restoration. These people often consider themselves "hackers", in the same vein as people who hack computers, boats (!), cars, and their own houses. Yes, it is all hacking, or Making, or whatever you want to call it, and not only is it generally

There's a lot more in Carlson's post which is worth reading. Indeed he has a new book out about the coming impact of cheap biotechnology, entitled: Biology is Technology

.

As he says in Chapter One:

The influence of exponentially improving biological technologies is only just now starting to be felt. Today writing a gene from scratch within a few weeks costs a few thousand dollars. In five to ten years that amount should pay for much larger constructs, perhaps a brand-new viral or microbial genome. Gene and genome-synthesis projects of this larger scale have already been demonstrated as academic projects. When such activity becomes commercially viable, a synthetic genome could be used to build an organism that produces fuel, or a new plastic, or a vaccine to combat the outbreak of a new infectious disease.

As I will discuss in Chapter 6, the costs of reading and writing new genes and genomes are falling by a factor of two every eighteen to twenty-four months, and productivity in reading and writing is independently doubling at a similar rate. We are just now emerging from the "slow" part of the curves, by which I mean that the cost and productivity of these technologies are now enabling enormous discovery and innovation. Consequently, access to technology is also accelerating. "Garage biology" is here already; in Chapter 12 I share a bit of my own experience sorting out how much innovation is possible in this context.

This clip of vocal cords singing a harmony will certainly make the rounds on the tubes. To film it required a fiber optic camera that goes up the nose and then down the throat. It is not too uncomfortable. It's a lovely view of your own body you won't ordinarily get. Amazing how we make such precise sounds with that meat. Enjoy!

Newest fad on the web is Chatroulette, which instantly matches you up webcam to webcam with strangers anywhere in the world. No registration, no authentication, no delay, no filters. It feels very Web 1.0. It's thrilling for about 20 minutes.

What interests me most about Chatroulette is its introduction of new slang. Facebook introduced the verb to "friend." Chatroulette has introduced "nexted." When two strangers meet randomly face to face either one can "next" the other, immediately, or at any time in the conversation. The NEXT button terminates the meeting and brings on the next stranger. If you are not female, or over 30, you'll most likely be nexted without remorse. In fact on old guy like me will treat any encounter that is not nexted as a victory.

The above is an excellent quick movie about the phenomenon, perhaps the most succinct introduction I've seen yet. Another very good early article about the service ran in New York magazine as The Human Shuffle (image at top from the article too). Wired.com also ran a decent summary of its appeal.

Anonymous communities are not new. (There's an informative thread on AskMetafilter about previous anonymous-meeting sites.) But as Danah Boyd, points out, the anonymity on Chatroulette is of a different type -- its a strange kind of visible anonymity. In her thoughtful piece she says:

What I like most about the site is the fact that there's only so much you can hide. This isn't a place where police officers can pretend to be teen girls. This isn't a place where you feel forced to stick around; you can move on and no one will know the difference. If someone doesn't strike your fancy, move on. And on. And on.

Most of her essay is about why she likes the site even on though she keeps getting nexted -- mostly because she is too old. Boyd is the researcher most in tune with teen's use of the web, and she heralds teenagers' inclinations to make their own teenage "places" where adults are unwelcomed. Chatroulette was written by a 17-year old teenager in Russia, and so far seems to favor young kids, particularly young females. The old are simply nexted. Facebook started out for college kids only but quickly outgrew that demographic, and is no longer a haven for kids.

In the wake of the absolute untracebility of successful connections it's not surprising that a utility like Missed Connections has popped up from folks nexted on Chatroulette. Sample plea:

you had 6 inches of wine left your name is patrick. we were the two cute girls who made you spit up your wine. you showed us your space camp souvenirs and we talked about how amazing canadian healthcare is. don't forget about us!

Most connections on Chatroulette are failures. Few end as the one above. Every new media births its own disease. Email birthed spam. Here the spam are perverts. This is an experiment changing by the day, and it remains to be seen whether the angels prevail or whether perversion overwhelms, and the whole site is nexted. But something interesting is stirring.