1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
|
sugar daddy dating for diybio
My question is related to .. skepticism. How do you make this science? There
is thsi expectation that you get some data. If you are diong something in
garage, how does that become science? You can still follow the scientific
method in yuor garage, there is nothing that rqeuires fancy equipment and lots
of money to come up with a well defined problem, form a hypothesis, work out
how to test that hypothesis and then actually conduct the experiments. The
location really has nothing to dow ith it. More than a location issue, my real
question would be, is this about contributing to science in general, or is
this about enriching the lives of individuals? I want to say that, that's a
really interesting question, and I think that it's definitely contributing to
science to get people involved and maybe doing science in the future. If yuo
play around with science tools, is that science or just education or what? If
yyou'er following the scientific method and you have a PhD, but if you're not
doing peer-review, maybe you'er missing out that part? Maybe peerr rreview
depennds on that, annnd where does open peer review fits into open science? I
agree with what you'er saying, but it's not necessarily PhD science, and have
some form of informal group so that there can be some kidn of progression,
more than an individual doing that. And that's why I mentioned being able to
replicate each other's work, that's an essential component of peer review. I
like tot hink of it in terms of big questiosn and little questions. Does this
apply to other people, and how do I ask questions- what does this matter to
me, my neighbrohood, my little area, but kind of another thing, whether you
look at big or little questions, if you tell people what you're doing, and
tell them some structure or discipline and do it right, and statistics in
particular, almost every big policy questions in the 21st century looks like a
consumer report for global warming: do we want todothis or this, and we have a
huge matrix and it's hard to figure out- what do we fund and what do we put
our stuff behind? Getting exposed to that analysis and making difficult
decisions, it's a good way to expose the populace to just how the scientific
method works now, and looka t complicated policy issues.
Is it possible that the Scripps organization is already a protrotype for the
actual involvement science and that it isn't a huge federally funded
organization, takes donors and puts them together for scientists willing to
improvize. I guess that it is. Huge might not be.. it doesn't need to be huge.
Biocurious is trying to start with $30k which is not huge. So yeah, you can do
something that's not huge. Scripss has taken some steps on some genomic
experimetns where they havve oepned up their results to people who are
participating and more paternalistic, no that's not the way we want to do it,
so they took some interesting .. why is Scripps not a pattern and it's a
particular example? Okay.
What lesson have we learned from astronomy communities in terms of where
DIYbio can lead in a few years? Tools that givei nstatn feedback, it's a lot
easier for people to get interested and it's easier for people to follow-
through. Rapid feedback and tools. With a telescope, you can look and see, and
it's hard to see microbes, or microbial netwroks. Amateur astronomy is a
fabulous model, because they have done a lot in terms of genuine discoveries.
There have been quite a few discoveries of new astronomical bodies in the last
few years by just ordinary guys and girls with telescopes and they get to name
what they found.
My question is: .. PCR.. gels.. why is.. PCR machine and not ..
Do you know what that looks like that? I have a particular view on this. The
question was, we molecular biologists hate doing PCR and running gels, and
doing transformations and boring molecular biology that are not done by
robots, even when you do have a robot it's a lot of money. Why do DIYbio
innovators re-inventing these horrible techniques when you can be inventing
new ones? I think that it's a good question. We should be thinking about the
next generation of molecular biology and making it easier and fun. Soemone on
backchannel- I should be saying repurposing an existing design that ahs been
stress tested and written about, than it is to be on the cutting edge of
molecular biology tool design. Amateurs and innovators in their garage
figuring out the basics of these classic tools and figuring uot hwo to make
them a lot cheaper, it's not that bad actually, because the OpenPCR machine is
built off of that, it's a CPU heat pipe, a laser-cut box, and two peltier
junctions, and a milled aluminum block, and it cost $400, not $4000 and it's
open, so if you want to re-engineer it, and connect it to your robotics, you
don't have to talk to their vendor to get a special API license. It's all
there and all open. Because it's open, because it's cheap, it's easier to
build on top of it.
This may not be necessarily visible right now. But there's a lot of
development in the hacker/maker community, the broader hacker/maker community
that is starting to come together in parallel that will enable more fully
automated labs. I want to put together, I want to have a contraptor and
makerbot and an OpenPCR machine that can talk to my network so that I can
program the set of cycles that I want to, contraptor is $200 in bucks, it's a
2D cartesian robot that you can build out of quarter inch aluminum angle
bracket. Because the stuff is open and cheap,a nd the existence proofs are
there, and arduinos are an example of lots of people bloggin about how to
build on top of a platform, there's this snowballing effect, Meredith's
absolutely right, there's this convergence of open source hardware that is
going to turn into some guy with a lab, or some contraptor or fab-in-a-box
things, with liquid handeling, and other open source biology lab tools.
Speaking from my experience with the gel box and OpenPCR machine, one of the
things is really amazing is the type of people that got interested. Josh and I
did MaekrFaire, and an umber of people that came up with the molecular
biology, and poinnted out the arduino chip and they said they knew that, but
what's the rest of it? The big advances are coming, like putting a makerbot
next to a PCR machine and seeing what happens, that's going to happen. These
are all legos and the glue is getting easier and easier.
|
