Navigating biosafety concerns within COVID-19 do-it-yourself (DIY) science: an ethnographic and interview study.

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL Biosocieties Pub Date : 2023-03-28 DOI:10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2

Anna Wexler, Rebekah Choi, Alex Pearlman, Lisa M Rasmussen

{"title":"Navigating biosafety concerns within COVID-19 do-it-yourself (DIY) science: an ethnographic and interview study.","authors":"Anna Wexler, Rebekah Choi, Alex Pearlman, Lisa M Rasmussen","doi":"10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Non-establishment or do-it-yourself (DIY) science involves individuals who may not have formal training conducting experiments outside of institutional settings. While prior scholarship has examined the motivations and values of those involved in the subset of DIY science known as \"DIY biology,\" little research has addressed how these individuals navigate ethical issues in practice. The present study therefore aimed to understand how DIY biologists identify, approach, and resolve one particular ethical issue-biosafety-in their work. We conducted a digital ethnography of Just One Giant Lab (JOGL), the primary hub for DIY biology during the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequently conducted interviews with individuals involved with JOGL. We found that JOGL was the first global DIY biology initiative to create a Biosafety Advisory Board and develop formal biosafety guidelines that applied to different groups in multiple locations. There was disagreement, however, regarding whether the Board should have an advisory role or provide mandatory oversight. We found that JOGL practiced ethical gatekeeping of projects that fell outside the limits defined by the Board. Our findings show that the DIY biology community recognized biosafety issues and tried to build infrastructure to facilitate the safe conduct of research.Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2.","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10042665/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Non-establishment or do-it-yourself (DIY) science involves individuals who may not have formal training conducting experiments outside of institutional settings. While prior scholarship has examined the motivations and values of those involved in the subset of DIY science known as "DIY biology," little research has addressed how these individuals navigate ethical issues in practice. The present study therefore aimed to understand how DIY biologists identify, approach, and resolve one particular ethical issue-biosafety-in their work. We conducted a digital ethnography of Just One Giant Lab (JOGL), the primary hub for DIY biology during the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequently conducted interviews with individuals involved with JOGL. We found that JOGL was the first global DIY biology initiative to create a Biosafety Advisory Board and develop formal biosafety guidelines that applied to different groups in multiple locations. There was disagreement, however, regarding whether the Board should have an advisory role or provide mandatory oversight. We found that JOGL practiced ethical gatekeeping of projects that fell outside the limits defined by the Board. Our findings show that the DIY biology community recognized biosafety issues and tried to build infrastructure to facilitate the safe conduct of research.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

在新冠肺炎自助科学中解决生物安全问题：人种学和访谈研究。

非机构或自己动手（DIY）科学涉及可能没有受过正式培训的个人在机构环境之外进行实验。虽然之前的学术研究考察了那些参与被称为“DIY生物学”的DIY科学子集的人的动机和价值观，但很少有研究涉及这些人在实践中如何应对道德问题。因此，本研究旨在了解DIY生物学家如何在他们的工作中识别、处理和解决一个特定的伦理问题——生物安全。我们对新冠肺炎大流行期间自己动手做生物学的主要中心“只有一个巨人实验室”（JOGL）进行了数字民族志研究，随后对参与JOGL的个人进行了采访。我们发现，JOGL是第一个创建生物安全咨询委员会并制定适用于多个地点不同群体的正式生物安全指南的全球DIY生物学倡议。然而，对于委员会是否应该发挥咨询作用或提供强制性监督，存在分歧。我们发现，JOGL对超出董事会规定范围的项目实行道德把关。我们的研究结果表明，DIY生物学界认识到了生物安全问题，并试图建立基础设施来促进研究的安全进行。补充信息：在线版本包含补充材料，可访问10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Biosocieties SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL-

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

6.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society. BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances. As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe. BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.