Systems and Synthetic Biology

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 115–126 | Cite as

Do-it-yourself biology: challenges and promises for an open science and technology movement

  • Thomas LandrainEmail author
  • Morgan Meyer
  • Ariel Martin Perez
  • Remi Sussan
Research Article


The do-it-yourself biology (DIYbio) community is emerging as a movement that fosters open access to resources permitting modern molecular biology, and synthetic biology among others. It promises in particular to be a source of cheaper and simpler solutions for environmental monitoring, personal diagnostic and the use of biomaterials. The successful growth of a global community of DIYbio practitioners will depend largely on enabling safe access to state-of-the-art molecular biology tools and resources. In this paper we analyze the rise of DIYbio, its community, its material resources and its applications. We look at the current projects developed for the international genetically engineered machine competition in order to get a sense of what amateur biologists can potentially create in their community laboratories over the coming years. We also show why and how the DIYbio community, in the context of a global governance development, is putting in place a safety/ethical framework for guarantying the pursuit of its activity. And finally we argue that the global spread of DIY biology potentially reconfigures and opens up access to biological information and laboratory equipment and that, therefore, it can foster new practices and transversal collaborations between professional scientists and amateurs.


DIYbio Synthetic biology iGEM Health Innovation Biosecurity 



The authors would like to thank Jason Bobe and the members of La Paillasse for useful comments and criticism over the manuscript Thomas Landrain is supported by a Ph.D. fellowship from the AXA Research Fund.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11693_2013_9116_MOESM1_ESM.xls (63 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLS 63 kb)


  1. Alper J (2009) Biotech in the basement. Nat Biotechnol 27:1077–1078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson J, Sassaman L, You E (2010) The rise of distributed, decentralized, amateur/citizen science and do it yourself biology: safety and security concerns. Open Sci Summit, Berkeley USA, July 29–31Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2009) Garage Biology. Amateur scientists who experiment at home should be welcomed by the professionals. Nature 467(7316):634Google Scholar
  4. Carlson R (2010) Biology is technology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Carothers J (2013) Design-driven, multi-use research agendas to enable applied synthetic biology for global health. Syst Synth Biol. doi: 10.1007/s11693-013-9118-2
  6. Chung C, Niemela SL, Miller RH (1989) One-step preparation of competent Escherichia coli: transformation and storage of bacterial cells in the same solution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:2172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delfanti A (2010) Genome Hackers, rebel biology, open source and science ethic. University of Milan, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibson DG et al (2008) Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome. Science 319:1215–1220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gorman B (2011) Patent office as biosecurity gatekeeper: Fostering responsible science and building public trust in DIY science. Marshall Rev Intell Prop L 3(10):423–449Google Scholar
  10. Grimm E, Arbuthnot P (1995) Rapid purification of recombinant Taq DNA polymerase by freezing and high temperature thawing of bacterial expression cultures. Nucleic Acids Res 23:4518–4519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hajibabaei M (2012) The golden age of DNA metasystematics. Trends Genet 28(11):535–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hillson NJ (2011) DNA Assembly Method Standardization for Synthetic Biomolecular Circuits and Systems. Design and Analysis of Biomolecular Circuits 10:295–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hillson NJ, Rosengarten RD, Keasling JD (2012) J5 DNA Assembly Design Automation Software. ACS Synth. Biol 1(1):14–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. iGEM UCL (2012) A survey on biohackers and the use of BioBricks.
  15. Ingelfinger JR (2008) Melamine and the Global Implications of Food Contamination. New England Journal of Medecine 359(26):2745–2748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kera D (2012) Hackerspaces and DIYbio in Asia: connecting science and community with open data, kits and protocols. Journal of Peer Production, Issue 2Google Scholar
  17. Khalil AS, Collins JJ (2010) Synthetic biology: applications come of age. Nat Rev Genet 11:367–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuiken T, Pauwels E (2010) Beyond the laboratory and far away: immediate and future challenges in governing the bio-economy.
  19. Ledford H (2010) Life hackers. Nature 467:650–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer M (2012) Build your own lab: do-it-yourself biology and the rise of citizen biotech-economies. J Peer Prod, issue 2Google Scholar
  21. Rodrigo G, Landrain TE, Jaramillo A (2012) De novo automated design of small RNA circuits for engineering synthetic riboregulation in living cells. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 109(38):15271–15276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanborn MR, Wan SK, Bulard R (1982) Microwave sterilization of plastic tissue culture vessels for reuse. Appl Environ Microbiol 44:960–964PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sawyer E (2011) The promises, demands, and risks of garage biology. Nature 18 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  24. Schmidt M (2008) Diffusion of synthetic biology: a challenge to biosafety. Syst Synth Biol 2(1–2):1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shetty RP, Endy D, Knight TF (2008) Engineering BioBrick vectors from BioBrick parts. J Biol Eng 2:5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Siddappa N, Avinash A, Venkatramanan M, Ranga U (2007) Regeneration of commercial nucleic acid extraction columns without the risk of carryover contamination. Biotechniques 42:186–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soma Y et al (2012) Direct isopropanol production from cellobiose by engineered Escherichia coli using a synthetic pathway and a cell surface display system. J Biosci Bioeng. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2012.02.019 Google Scholar
  28. Tocchetti S (2012) DIYbiologists as ‘makers’ of personal biologies: how MAKE Magazine and Maker Faires contribute in constituting biology as a personal technology. Journal of Peer Production, Issue 2Google Scholar
  29. Tucker JB (2011) Could terrorists exploit synthetic biology? The New Atlantis.comGoogle Scholar
  30. Wohlsen M (2011) Biopunk: DIY scientists hack the software of life. Current (Ed)Google Scholar
  31. Wolinsky H (2009) Kitchen biology. EMBO Rep 10(7):683–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yehezkel TB et al (2011) Recursive construction and error correction of DNA molecules and libraries from synthetic and natural DNA. Meth Enzymol 498:207–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Landrain
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Morgan Meyer
    • 3
  • Ariel Martin Perez
    • 2
  • Remi Sussan
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Systems and Synthetic Biology, GenopoleUniversité d’Évry Val d’Essonne, CNRSÉvryFrance
  2. 2.Association La PaillasseParis Community Lab for BiotechParisFrance
  3. 3.Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation, Ecole des Mines de ParisMines ParisTechParisFrance

Personalised recommendations