Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Research Area
Browse By Session Type
Search Tips
Meeting Home Page
Personal Schedule
Sign In
This project is based on ethnography in laboratories and projects situated within an emerging field often interchangeably referred to as “do-it-yourself biology” (DIY-bio), “biohacking,” or “community biology.” The interchangeable use of these terms, however, obscures differences between their collectives. As many practitioners attempt to establish themselves as a “movement,” they have seemed to favor inclusivity over clarity. A productive ambiguity or “cooperation without consensus” (Clarke 2003; c.f. Mol 2002) helps the movement to grow and gain recognition at the expense of clear values and convictions. Instead, attempts like the one at the Global Community Bio Summit to clarify values produce vague results. The embrace of broad signifiers—-inclusivity, democratization, creativity, accessibility, and openness—-can occlude a great variety of motives, interests, aims, and practices, giving this ‘movement’ a sense of cohesion even as it lacks overarching direction and intent. In my analysis, one result is foregrounding the technical and administrative elements of community biology. Another is tokenism as participation and presence of a diverse group of individuals may be conflated with meaningful representation. Finally, there is the significant risk of co-optation by academic and corporate institutions (Delfanti 2014; Ikemoto 2017). Many of these espoused values are also typical of twenty-first century industrial bioscience, and the lines between them are already blurrier than members seem willing to admit. This ultimately raises the question of whether meaningful resistance to or interruption of the increasingly corporatized and capital-driven direction of biotechnology is possible in spaces and cultures so characterized by cross-pollination and convergence.