Mapping do-it-yourself science

Abstract

The emergence of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) science movements is becoming a topic widely discussed in academia and policy, as well as by the general public and the media. While DIY approaches enjoy increasing diffusion even in official research, different social actors frequently talk about them in different ways and circumstances. Interaction and negotiation processes amongst actors (e.g. policy makers and DIY communities) define the premises upon which different conceptualisations of DIY science are deployed.In this paper we offer a framework for analysing the discourse on DIY science.Our study consists of a field research of three spaces active in DIY science premises, two dedicated events of the DIY community, and an auto-ethnography in the field of DIY biology.By relying on the theory of social worlds/arenas (SW/A), we collected data on how notions of DIY science are constructed by different social actors and how conceptual borders are built or are likely to shift, resulting in multiple possible SW/A mappings. We conclude that each and every conceptualisation of DIY science cannot stand independently from the situatedness of its multiple contexts, therefore making its usage in policy making and governance particularly complex.

Unconventional settings and uses of human enhancement technologies: A non‐systematic review of public and experts' views on self‐enhancement and DIY biology/biohacking risks

“…They associate the DIYBM most frequently with other broader, current movements. The most common associated movements are the “quantified self” and “self‐experimentalists” (Yetisen, ), “open source” (Meyer, ), and “open science” (Aungst, Fishman, & McGowan, ), “action research” (Golinelli & Ruivenkamp, ), “synthetic biology” (Bennett, Gilman, Stavrianakis, & Rabinow, ), “maker” (Tocchetti, ), “hacker” (Meyer, ),“citizen science” (Keulartz & van den Belt, ) and “DIY science” (Ferretti, ). The movements are usually associated in terms of similarities in ethics, politics, economics, and practices.…”

“…According to Chen and Wu (), the DIY movement is closely linked to the physical activity of making which is the key trait of the maker movement. Ferretti (, p. 14) argues that everyone “that operates creative skills to design and make objects, as well as applies peer‐to‐peer based learning to solve problems” is a DIY maker. In this sense, the protagonists of the DIYBM are makers because they use their creative skills to design and make biological objects (Keulartz & van den Belt, ).…”

“…DIY science movement . For Ferretti (, p. 4) citizen science refers to a “collective scientific practice”, while DIY science refers to the scientific “process initiated by individuals and groups that tinker, hack, fix, and recreate objects and systems out of their own interest, curiosity or need, and openly share results and outcomes in their networks”. In this sense, the DIYBM is a sub movement of DIY science focused on biological objects and systems.…”

From self-tracking to self-expertise: The production of self-related knowledge by doing personal science

“…However, it is increasingly acknowledged that there are ‘many modes of citizen science’ (Kasperowski and Kullenberg, 2019), coming along under terms such as ‘grassroots’ science, ‘civic’ science or ‘community-based’ research, and some of them are grounded, at least originally, outside institutional science. Even more fuzzy and difficult to grasp is the emerging science-related practices by citizens and users that have become known as maker movement, bio-hacking, do-it-yourself (DIY) biology or DIY science (Delfanti, 2010; Delgado and Callén, 2017; Ferretti, 2019). Self-tracking research adds to these diverse and complex science-related practices that challenge the familiar ways of conceptualising the science-society relationship.…”

3D Printed Lab-on-a-Chip Platform for Chemical Stimulation and Parallel Analysis of Ion Channel Function

“…Although there are examples of cost-effective devices, for example, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)- or alginate-based microfluidic systems [14,15,16,17,18,19] which allow for automated liquid handling, as well as three-dimensional (3D) printed chambers for maintenance and microscopic observation of cultured cells [20,21], a platform for chemical stimulation and parallel analysis of ion channel function that is reproducible within a short time, scalable to higher throughput screening mode and at the same time an ultra-low-cost device, has not yet been reported. The increasing availability of rapid manufacturing technology, including 3D printing, also adopted by so-called fabrication labs and the “maker movement”, a culture of do-it-yourself (DIY) system design [22,23,24,25,26], allows virtually anyone to quickly and easily engineer devices of reduced cost and complexity.…”