DIY biology anyone? Behold the new species known as the biohacking citizen "scientist"!

I read a rather provocative article today that questioned the very validity of the apparently secretive and exclusive world of big time science, with the clear implication not hidden between the lines that it is finally time to take science back from actual scientists and put it back out there where it belongs - in the hands of Joe Public. "DIY" used to be reserved for the home renovation genre, but not anymore! Seemingly we are entering (or have already entered?) the era of DIY biology, where essentially anyone who wants to can let out their inner scientist and get to work on saving the world. 

There are a lot of equally provocative buzzwords being bandied around in that article, and elsewhere, including "DIY biology", "synthetic biology","bio hacking", "hacking science", "distributed science", "kitchen counter science", "citizen science" and even the somewhat radical-sounding "democratization of science"! I find most of these terms humorous at best, and downright hilarious at worst, but then again, I might be biased, being a fully paid-up member of that elite club known as actual scientists! 

At the risk of sounding trite, I would point out that membership of that club does not come on a whim, but rather is a result of a lifelong passion, a decade of post-secondary school education, and many years of higher-level training and 24/7 living in wonderful laboratories in four different countries in the world. That is how one becomes eligible to be called a professional scientist, as opposed to someone who got trained in an entirely irrelevant subject but who may have an interest in science. Perhaps unironically, most of the proselytising about the future of science being in peril and needing Joe Public's engagement comes from either non-scientists or amateur would-be scientists. I do have a solution for that predicament, but more on that later. 

Don't get me wrong, the sacrifice and dedication aspect is not unique to science - lawyers, doctors, dentists, athletes, musicians and a whole slew of other career choices all involve a similar paying-of-dues period that often takes many years, more dollars than that, and even more sacrifice, to get there in the end. But we do it ultimately because we want to, and the journey of getting there is actually a lot of fun along the way a lot of the time, not least because there is a goal in mind and we are working towards it. To hear radical rallying-the-troops hyperbole with the message that the future of science, drug discovery and medicine should now be in the hands of amateurs comes across as disingenuous, if not potentially dangerous. 

The very concept that it's 2015, people, and science can now become something that the untrained and under-educated can be let loose on, is something I find quite ridiculous on a bad day. My primary question for the DIY biology "movement" is - why?! Is someone truly saying that a bunch of enthusiastic kids (even if they were mentored by one or two established scientists) can take on the world of professional science and beat it at its own game - all from the comfort of the kitchen sink? It's quite a ridiculous concept, and essentially an impossible one. You can access all the software, hardware and wetware you want but when you don't have an understanding of even the basics - it's called tinkering, not science. 

Believe it or not, it takes more than one senior scientist to make major breakthroughs, usually. That senior scientist needs an experienced and skilled team to expand on his/her vision, and in the best teams, that vision comes from more than one person as well. There are technicians, research assistants, grad students and postdocs all contributing to the mix but they all have some key things in common at their respective levels - education, training and experience. There is a reason why they are present in a given lab, and the same progress simply cannot be achieved with a bunch of scientific neophytes even if directed by a genius.

So in my opinion, the mere idea that one can put together a whole bunch of "amateur scientists" (a kinder way of putting it!) around a country or even the globe, with one real scientist at the helm, and expecting to get somewhere fast is dreaming in technicolour.  Anyone who ever has been involved in real, hardcore research usually learns the hard way that the really hard questions are often excruciatingly hard to answer. And that's after two decades of schooling in the theory and practice of science. Ditto any other challenging profession for that matter. No serious scientist would even have the time (or patience!) to take on a challenging project, and populate it with a selection of amateurs. 

I can understand that it might be somewhat disappointing to suddenly wake up at 25 or 30, after hating science in school and avoiding it like the plague, to realise that it actually does appeal and it is what one should have focused on. I get that completely, it's something that essentially happens to us all at some point or another. But in correlation with the DIY biology "movement", if I wake up tomorrow and want to be a musician or a lawyer, I have to realise that I am lacking in both credibility and training. I cannot just suddenly create a DIY law practice or anoint myself as the next big thing - the DIY rock star - without actually picking up an instrument and learning how it works and how to play it!

But, as long as I restrict myself to being classified as someone who like music as a hobby, or as an amateur lawyer type, there is no harm in it. The danger arrives if I manage to persuade others to believe that I have expertise in it, and to part with their hard-earned cash either as an investor or as a fee for my services. Using the music analogy, there is one massive divide between someone who plays in a band with friends in the local pub on a Friday night and someone who gets contracted (and paid handsomely) by a record company to record and tour their music around the globe. 

One is a professional musician and one is an amateur with a hobby. Ironically though, the disparity in skill set and raw talent might not be as massive as one would imagine between the two, in music, but it is that massive in the case of science. If R&D and drug discovery was an easy thing, then we would all own pharmaceutical companies, or pharmaceutical companies would save even more money by hiring a few hundred DIY biologists at a cheaper price than hiring all those stuffy, expensive PhDs. Right?!

Things have changed; communication tools and technological advances have opened up the world to us all, and some of the barriers and walls have come crashing down, which is a great thing. Change is good, and it should be embraced. But change in and of itself does not allow us to break all the rules and it does not mean that the future of science is DIY biology. DIY car manufacturing or DIY aeroplanes, anyone? I can hear someone screaming that you can now print a car (yes, I saw it!) but I doubt that Ford or Ferrari are trembling in their factories.

For now, the DIY biology "movement" is a nice little hobby for non-scientists with an interest in science, nothing more. For it to gain serious traction, and to stop real scientists from snickering over it, the challenge is clear - beat us at our own game, do something spectacular (preferably three times), and you never know, we might just look up from the lab bench long enough to take notice. Until then, most PhDs probably will remain insulted by the very idea that someone who went to art school should be allowed anywhere near or let loose in any real laboratory. 

I have zero problem with enthusiastic amateur scientists, as long as they realise that's what they are, they are kept away from real laboratories in the institutions they dislike, and don't self-promote their agenda with outrageous statements claiming that virtualising the complicated process of R&D is the new way to find blockbuster drugs. Disruptive technologies are one thing, but disruptive claims are another, and if those claims cannot be backed up by data and examples (something real science relies on!) then credibility becomes the issue and they become destructive. 

But you know, there is a real solution to this burgeoning predicament that has arisen at least in part due to the popularisation and vulgarisation of science. Young people everywhere who went in other directions earlier in life are apparently discovering their "inner scientist", and want to get in on the action. I don't blame them, because I have always known that science was the best game in town, and we all do have one thing in common - I have also practised kitchen laboratory science - when I was 9 and got my first chemistry set for Christmas! 

Sadly, there is no shortcut to real knowledge plus great training, combined with seasoned on-the-job experience. For those considering the DIY biology trend, I have a better solution - go back to school and get a science degree, or three - like most current scientists did. The DIY thingy is just that for now - a trend; and although it may be cold comfort to some, a PhD is never going to go out of fashion, and it will remain the de facto passport into the real world club of high-level science. As much as the world has changed, and is changing, trends will come and go, but a great education and solid work experience will never be replaced by mere trends or by enthusiastic amateurs. Science and scientific research indeed make the world go round, but the term "scientist" has to be earned, not simply adopted.