Drawing on the case study of Real Vegan Cheese (RVC), a synthetic biology project housed in a community lab or “biohackerspace,” I argue that biohacking performs an “artistic critique” of the bioeconomy. Following Boltanski and Chiapello’s use of the term, the “artistic critique” pits values of autonomy and creativity against a view of capitalist production as standardized and alienating, represented (in the case of biotechnology) by Monsanto’s monoculture GMOs. In this way, biohacking is depicted as liberating biotechnology from the constraints of corporate and academic institutions. Through the use of design fiction and a playful aesthetic, projects such as RVC demonstrate a more legitimate––with respect to the values of the artistic critique––mode of production for a new generation of biotechnology products, one that is portrayed as driven primarily by ethical and aesthetic values rather than the profit motive. This analysis highlights the role that aesthetic and affective strategies play in advancing particular sociotechnical visions, and the way that biohacking projects operate in symbiosis with incumbent institutions even as they define themselves in opposition to them. Finally, it suggests that biohacking has certain limitations when considered as a form of public engagement with science.

In this article, we study do-it-yourself (DIY) biology, by looking in particular at the different forms of valuation within the DIY biology movement. Building upon recent work in economic sociology and the study of valuation, we take as case studies different projects developed by DIY biologists. Our approach is attentive to the moments when these projects are valued, i.e. during competitions, investment pitches, and crowdfunding campaigns. The projects analyzed involve both market valuations (with investments, products and potential markets) and non-market valuations (be they social, ethical or cultural). Our key argument is that value is produced through distributed and heterogeneous processes: products, practices, principles and places are valued at the same time. We show that there is not only a valuation of technical and production aspects (well highlighted in the key literature on valuation), but also a valuation of social links and of specific forms of organization. Both are inseparable - it is neither the object nor the context in themselves that are valued, but the “good-within-the-context-of-its-making”: the production of vegan cheese or biological ink and the places and communities of DIY biology or future markets are valued. The valuation practices we examine aim at producing an interest in a threefold sense: a general interest (a public good), an interest for the public (its curiosity), and a monetary interest (by making people financially participate).

In response to calls for public engagement on human genome editing (HGE), which intensified after the 2018 He Jiankui scandal that resulted in the implantation of genetically modified embryos, we detail an anticipatory approach to the governance of HGE. By soliciting multidisciplinary experts’ input on the drivers and uncertainties of HGE development, we developed a set of plausible future scenarios to ascertain publics values—specifically, their hopes and concerns regarding the novel technology and its applications. In turn, we gathered a subset of multidisciplinary experts to propose governance recommendations for HGE that incorporate identified publics’ values. These recommendations include: (1) continued participatory public engagement; (2) international harmonization and transparency of multiple governance levers such as professional and scientific societies, funders, and regulators; and (3) development of a formal whistleblower framework.

No abstract

No abstract