по
Journal Menu
> Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > About the journal > Requirements for publication > Editorial collegium > List of peer reviewers > Review procedure > Policy of publication. Aims & Scope. > Article retraction > Ethics > Legal information > Editorial board
Journals in science databases
About the Journal

Публикация за 72 часа - теперь это реальность!
При необходимости издательство предоставляет авторам услугу сверхсрочной полноценной публикации. Уже через 72 часа статья появляется в числе опубликованных на сайте издательства с DOI и номерами страниц.
По первому требованию предоставляем все подтверждающие публикацию документы!
MAIN PAGE > Back to contents
The ethos of extra-institutional forms of the production of knowledge in the area of biotechnologies
Grebenshchikova Elena Georgievna

Doctor of Philosophy

Head of the Center of Scientific Information and Research on Science, Education and Technologies, Institute for Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Science

117997, Russia, g. Moscow, Nakhimovskii prospekt, 51/21

Aika45@yandex.ru
Другие публикации этого автора
 

 

Abstract.

 
The DIY-bio movement (do-it-yourself biology) unites the amateurs, enthusiasts, students and scholars that attempt to introduce such principles of hacker ethics as openness, decentralization, free access to technologies into the sphere of bioscience, and reorganize the biotechnological research towards achieving the equality and social justice. The ethical-axiological landmarks of the movement can be conceptualizes in view of the two models – American and European – the relationships with society, commercial organizations and government structures. At the same time, the activity of “garage biologists” is  considered not only as a new type of network and socially distributed methods of the production of knowledge, but also as a possible response to the criticism of modern academic science and industrial sector. The “garage biology” contributes into the establishment of new communication channels between the science and society, which are not limited by the initiatives “from the top to bottom”, but rather focus on cooperation patterns and social interests.
 

Keywords: community laboratories, crowdfunding, open science, public engagement, ethos of science, garage biology, Do-It-Yourself Biology, citizen science, bioscience, technoscientific innovation

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8728.2018.6.25199

Article was received:

19-01-2018


Review date:

15-01-2018


Publish date:

18-06-2018


This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

References
1.
Biocurious [Elektronnyi resurs, rezhim dostupa: URL: http://biocurious.org/]
2.
Cybulski J. S., Clements J., Prakash M. Foldscope: origami-based paper microscope //PloS one. 2014. Vol. 9. №. 6. e98781.
3.
Diybio [Elektronnyi resurs, rezhim dostupa: URL: https://diybio.org/codes/]
4.
Grushkin D., Kuiken T., Millet P. Seven myths and realities about do-it-yourself biology //Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC, 2013.
5.
Göbel C. et al. European Stakeholder round table on citizen and diy science and responsible research and innovation. Doing-it-Together science report. URL: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1563626
6.
Ioannidis J. P. A. Defending biomedical science in an era of threatened funding //JAMA. 2017. June 27. Vol. 317. №. 24. P. 2483–2484.
7.
Kera D. Hackerspaces and DIYbio in Asia: connecting science and community with open data, kits and protocols //Journal of Peer Production. 2012. №. 2. №. P. 1-8.
8.
Keulartz J., van den Belt H. DIY-Bio–economic, epistemological and ethical implications and ambivalences //Life sciences, society and policy. 2016. Vol. 12. №. 1. P. 1-19.
9.
Landrain T. et al. Do-it-yourself biology: challenges and promises for an open science and technology movement //Systems and synthetic biology. 2013. Vol. 7. №. 3. P. 115-126.
10.
Lorenzo V., Schmidt M. The do-it-yourself movement as a source of innovation in biotechnology–and much more //Microbial biotechnology. 2017. Vol. 10. №. 3. P. 1-3.
11.
Lounsbury M. et al. Toward open source nano: Arsenic removal and alternative models of technology transfer //Measuring the social value of innovation: A Link in the university technology transfer and entrepreneurship equation. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2009. P.52-55.
12.
Lupton D. Self-tracking cultures: towards a sociology of personal informatics //Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-human interaction conference on designing futures: The future of design. ACM, 2014. P. 77-86.
13.
Scheifele L. Z., Burkett T. The First Three Years of a Community Lab: Lessons Learned and Ways Forward //Journal of microbiology & biology education. 2016. Vol. 17. №. 1. P. 81-85.
Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.


Other our sites:
Official Website of NOTA BENE / Aurora Group s.r.o.
"History Illustrated" Website