Biotechnology's promises has been widely recognized as a major enterprise accelerating the commodification of the biological. After the 9/11 events and the subsequent anthrax letters, biotechnologies have additionally been described as contributing to the construction of biosecurity risks. This paper proposes to investigate the collaboration between the FBI and the DIYbio (Do-It-Yourself biology) network as a case study illustrating the productive entanglement of biological risks and promises. To do so, the paper explores the social construction of risks and promises associated with the vision of distributed biotechnologies as enacted in this collaboration. We argue that the FBI needs to police the DIYbio network in order to disseminate a specific notion of bioterrorist risk, while, in a counter-intuitive manner, the DIYbio network benefits from being policed by the FBI as it helps them disseminate their socio-technological vision. If the entanglement of technoscientific risks and promises is a well established finding of the STS literature, our case study suggests that such entanglement now additionally comprises the sphere of biosecurity and the promises of a distributed biotechnology available to everyone.
Angeli AguitonSara. 2010. Un vivant ‘sexy’ et à peu près faisable. Anthropologie d’un concours d’ingénierie génétique. Master. École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France.
2.
AronsonJay. 2010. “On Trial! Governing Forensic DNA Technologies in the United States.” In DNA Profiling and Databasing: Governing the Challenges of New Technologies, edited by HindmarshRichardPrainsackBarbara, 240–61. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
BalmerBrian. 2012. Secrecy and Science: A Historical Sociology of Biological and Chemical Warfare. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
5.
BeckUlrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London, UK: Sage.
6.
BennettGaymonGilmanNilsStavrianakisAnthonyRabinowPaul. 2009. “From Synthetic Biology to Biohacking: Are We Prepared?” Nature Biotechnology27 (12): 1109–11.
BorupMadsBrownNickKonradKorneliaLenteHarro Van. 2006. “Sociology of Expectation in Science and Technology.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management18 (3/4): 285–98.
9.
CameronEwenBashorCalebCollinsJames. 2014. “A Brief History of Synthetic Biology.” Nature Reviews Microbiology12 (5): 381–90.
10.
CarlsonRobert. 2003. “The Pace of Proliferation of Biological Technologies.” Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice and Science1 (3): 203–14.
11.
CarlsonRobert. 2007. “Laying the Foundations for a Bio-economy.” System and Synthetic Biology1 (2): 109–17.
12.
CarlsonRobert. 2012. Causes and Consequences of Bioeconomic Proliferation. Report for the Biodefense Net Assessment, Department of Homeland Security. Seattle: Biodesic.
ColemanGabriella. 2010. “Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media.” Annual Review of Anthropology39 (1): 497–505.
16.
CollierStephanLakoffAndrewRabinowPaul. 2004. “Biosecurity: Towards an Anthropology of the Contemporary.” Anthropology Today20 (5): 3–7.
17.
Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology, National Research Council. 2004. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press [Fink Committee 2004].
18.
CooperMelinda. 2008. Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
19.
CunninghamDavidNoakesJohn. 2008. “‘What If She’s from the FBI?’ The Effects of Covert Forms of Social Control on Social Movements.” In Surveillance and Governance: Crime Control and Beyond, edited by DeflemMathieuUlmerJeffrey, 175–97. Bradford, UK: Emerald Group.
20.
DelfantiAlessandro. 2013. Biohackers. The Politics of Open Science. London, UK: Pluto Press.
EllisJ. 2003. “The Best Defense: Counterproliferation and US National Security.” The Washington Quarterly26 (2):115.
23.
GuilleminJeanne. 2005. Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
24.
“Hacking Goes Squishy.”2009. The Economist, September 3, 2009.
JolyPierre-Benoît. 2010. “On the Economics of Techno-scientific Promises.” In Débordements. Mélanges offerts à Michel Callon, edited by AkrichMadeleineBartheYannickMuniesaFabianMustarPhilippe, 203–22. Paris, France: Presse des Mines.
MarxGary. 1974. “Thoughts on a Neglected Category of Social Movement Participant: The Agent Provocateur and the Informant.” American Journal of Sociology80 (2): 402–42.
32.
McLeishCaitrionaNightingalePaul. 2007. “Biosecurity, Bioterrorism and the Governance of Science: The Increasing Convergence of Science and Security Policy.” Research Policy36 (10): 1635–54.
33.
MeyerMorgan. 2012. “Bricoler, domestiquer et contourner la science: L’essor de la biologie de garage.” Réseaux4 (3): 173–74.
34.
PaxsonHeather. 2012. The Life of Cheese: Crafting Food and Value in America. Berkeley: California University Press.
RajanSunder. 2006. Biocapital: The Constitution of Post Genomic Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
37.
RappertBrianBalmerBrianStoneJohn. 2008. “Science, Technology, and the Military: Priorities, Preoccupations, and Possibilities.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by HackettEdwardAmsterdamskaOlgaLynchMichaelWajcmanJudy, 719–39. Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press.
38.
ReevesJoshua. 2012. “If You See Something, Say Something: Lateral Surveillance and the Uses of Responsibility.” Surveillance & Society10 (3/4): 235–48.
39.
ReppyJudith. 2003. “Regulating Biotechnology in the Age of Homeland Security.” Science Studies16 (2): 38–51.
40.
RoosthSophia. 2010. “Crafting Life: A Sensory Ethnography of Fabricated Biologies.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
41.
SchmidtMarkus. 2008. “Diffusion of Synthetic Biology: A Challenge to Biosafety.” System and Synthetic Biology2 (1–2): 1–6.
42.
SholetteGregrory. 2005. “Disciplining the Avant-garde: The United States versus the Critical Art Ensemble.” Circa112:50–59.
43.
StarSusanGriesemerJames. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science19 (3): 387–420.
TocchettiSara. 2012. “DIYbiologists as ‘Makers’ of Personal Biologies: How MAKE Magazine and Maker Faires Contribute in Constituting Biology as a Personal Technology.” Journal of Peer Production, Issue 2.
47.
TocchettiSara. 2014. “How DNA Became Hackable and Biology Personal? Tracing the Self-fashioning of the DIYbio Network.” PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Sciences, London, UK.
48.
TraweekSharon. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
TurnerFred. 2008. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
VogelKathleen. 2013. “Expert Knowledge in Intelligence Assessments: Bird Flu and Bioterrorism.” International Security38 (3): 39–71.
51.
WeinerTim. 2012. Enemies. A History of the FBI. New York: Random House.
52.
WhalenJane. 2009. “In Attics and Closets, ‘Biohackers’ Discover Their Inner Frankenstein Using Mail-order DNA and Iguana Heaters, Hobbyists Brew New Life Forms; Is It Risky?” The Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2009. Accessed May 7, 2014. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124207326903607931
53.
WoodhouseEdwardHessDavidBreymanSteveMartinBrian. 2002. “Science Studies and Activism: Possibilities and Problems for Reconstructivist Agendas.” Social Studies of Science32 (2): 297–319.
WrightSusan. 2006. “Terrorists and Biological Weapons. Forging the Linkage in the Clinton Administration.” Politics and the Life Sciences25 (1-2): 57–115.
