만월회에서 실리콘밸리까지: 혁신과 연구자들의 문화

혁신과 연구자들의 문화

Woo Jae Kim, UCSF

만월회에서 실리콘밸리까지Small Groups and their Innovations via creating ‘Idiocultures’ in History

베이커스(BAKAS) 강연, 2014.04.04

보이지 않는 대학 (17C)

영국


영국

버밍엄의 만월회 (18C)

영국


영국


영국

메타피지컬 클럽 (19C)

미국


영국


영국


미국

코펜하겐 그룹 (early 20C)

덴마크


영국


영국


미국


덴마크

비엔나 써클 (early 20C)

오스트리아


영국


영국


미국


덴마크


오스트리아

보이는 대학 (middle 20C)

영국, 프랑스, 미국


영국


영국


미국


덴마크


오스트리아



실리콘 밸리의 탄생 (late 20C)

미국


영국


영국


미국


덴마크


오스트리아




미국

생명공학의 소그룹 (21C)

미국

한국?


영국


영국


미국


덴마크


오스트리아




미국

생명공학의 소그룹 (21C)

미국

버밍엄의 만월회Lunar Society of Birmingham

(1765-1813)

•이래즈머즈 다윈 (1731~1802) •찰스 다윈의 할아버지

•이래즈머즈 다윈 (1731~1802) •찰스 다윈의 할아버지

•리처드 러벌 에지워스 (1744~1817) •공학자겸 교육자

•매슈 볼턴 (1728~1809) •제조 공장의 창립자

•제임스 와트 (1736~1819) •발명가

•조지프 프리스틀리 (1733~1804) •만인교 목사 겸 화학자

•윌리엄 스몰 (1734~75) •의사 겸 박물학자

•토머스 데이 (1748~89) •시인 겸 아동 문학 작가

스코틀랜드 계몽운동

스코틀랜드 계몽운동 문명의 주변부


데이비드 흄 아담 스미스



에든버러 명사회-사변협회




20~30명의 소그룹



브리태니커 백과사전







“이 세계의 어느 곳도 에든버러와 경쟁할 수 없다” 토머스 제퍼슨




에든버러 vs. 옥스-브리지












문인협회 vs. 엔지니어 그룹








문인협회 vs. 엔지니어 그룹

경제발전과 문화융성-한류?

논 문

스코틀랜드 계몽운동과 담론의 공간, 1764~99*

-에든버러 사변협회를 중심으로-

이 영 석**

I. 머리말

그동안 유럽의 역사서술에서 계몽사상은 단일한 전개과정을 거친 지적 운동으

로 여겨졌다. 모든 상식적인 것들을 의심하는 회의주의와 이성중심주의, 그리고 이

를 통한 사회비판의 움직임을 같은 계보로 이해하려는 경향이 강했다. 이에 따라

프랑스와 독일의 계몽사상가들이 이 운동의 가장 중요한 서사를 형성해왔다. 그러

나 계몽운동의 흐름에서 이에 못지않게 중요한 역할을 한 것은 스코틀랜드 지식인

들이다. 18세기 후반부터 19세기 초에 걸쳐 프랑스와 독일의 지적 전통과 관련되면

서도 독자적인 특징을 갖는 지식인운동이 스코틀랜드에서 나타났던 것이다. ‘스코

틀랜드 계몽운동(Scottish Enlightenment)’이라는 말은 물론 19세기 중엽에 만들

어진 것이지만, 어쨌든 이 흐름은 에든버러에 런던, 파리, 비엔나 못지않은 학문적

* 이 논문은 2011년 광주대학교 학술연구진흥 연구비 지원을 받아 작성되었음. 초고는 2010

년 12일 11일 전남대에서 열린 한국사연구회/호남사학회 연합학술대회 발표문임을 밝혀둔

다. 학술대회에서 토론을 맡아주신 강성호 교수(순천대)에게 감사드린다.

** 광주대 영문과 교수

Ⅰ. 머리말

Ⅱ. 지식인모임의 전통: 명사회에서 사

변협회까지

Ⅲ. 18세기 후반 사변협회의 활동

Ⅳ. 토론문화와 문필공화국

Ⅴ. 담론 공간의 쇠퇴

메타피지컬 클럽Metaphysical Club

(1872-1873)

프래그머티즘

프래그머티즘

올리버 웬들 홈스-법률가

윌리엄 제임스-미국 심리학

찰스 샌더스 퍼스-논리학자/과학자

존 듀이-철학자/교육학자

코펜하겐 그룹Copenhagen group or school

(1921-1962)

닐스 보어

닐스 보어

닐스 보어

오후-세미나 저녁-맥주 밤-각.공.

닐스 보어

베르너 하이젠버그 행렬역학

하이젠버그&조단 변형이론

볼프강 파울리 배타원리

닐스 보어 상보성 원리


닐스 보어

베르너 하이젠버그 행렬역학

하이젠버그&조단 변형이론

볼프강 파울리 배타원리

닐스 보어 상보성 원리


양자역학의 코펜하겐 해석

비엔나 써클Vienna Circle

Ernst Mach Society (1928-1969)

에른스트 마흐

에른스트 마흐

과학과 철학에 관심을 가진 ‘잡종’들의 격주 세미나

에른스트 마흐


모리츠 쉴릭, 한스 한, 필립 프랭크, 루돌프 카르납-과학철학자

오토 노이라트-사회학자 폰 미제스-경제학자

비트겐슈타인, 칼 포퍼, 실용주의

에른스트 마흐





통합학문으로서의 자연과학

에른스트 마흐





통합학문으로서의 자연과학

논리실증주의

보이지 않는 대학Invisible College

(1624-Royal Society)

로버트 보일

로버트 보일

반드시 같은 대학이나 조직에 속해 있지는 않더라도 유사한 문제들을 연구하는 과학자들 사이에 형성된

비공 식적 연결망

로버트 보일

반드시 같은 대학이나 조직에 속해 있지는 않더라도 유사한 문제들을 연구하는 과학자들 사이에 형성된

비공 식적 연결망

영국왕립학회의 기원

보이는 대학Visible College

(1930s in England)

실리콘 밸리의 해커들Silicon Valley Hackers

(1960s~70s @Silicon Valley)

MIT, Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC) 1950s~60s


[hack; 햌]


작업과정에서 그 자체에서 느껴지는 순수한 즐거움 이외에는 어떠한 건설적인 목표도 갖지 않는 프로젝트나 그에 따른 결과물

혹은

기술의 혁신적인 사용

[hack; 햌]

해커 윤리

해커 윤리1. 컴퓨터 에 무제한으로 그리고 총체적으로 접근한다.


2. 항상 실전을 통해 배워야 한다.



3. 모든 정보는 자유로워야 한다.




4. 권력기관을 믿지 말라 - 분권화를 장려하라.





5. 해커 는 학위, 연령, 인종 혹은 지위 같은 가짜 기준이 아니라 해킹 능력으로 평가받아야 한다.






6. 컴퓨터 위에 예술과 아름다움을 창조할 수 있다.






6. 컴퓨터 위에 예술과 아름다움을 창조할 수 있다.

7. 컴퓨터가 당신의 삶을 향상시킬 수 있다.

Robert Merton

CUDOS

Robert Merton

CUDOS

COMMUNISM

Robert Merton

CUDOS

COMMUNISM UNIVERSALISM

Robert Merton

CUDOS


DISINTERSTEDNESS

Robert Merton

CUDOS


DISINTERSTEDNESS

ORGANIZED SKEPTICISMRobert Merton

History of Hackers Movement

리처드 스톨만 (1953- )

메모리 공동체 (Community Memory)


홈브루 클럽 (Homebrew Club)

민중컴퓨터사 (People’s Computer Company)

리처드 스톨만 (1953- )





반전운동과 히피문화를 배경으로 한 정치적 해커공동체의 출현

리처드 스톨만 (1953- )





반전운동과 히피문화를 배경으로 한 정치적 해커공동체의 출현

자유소프트웨어 운동

카피레프트운동

리처드 스톨만 (1953- )

2세대 해커들: 캘리포니아를 중심으로 활동한 하드웨어 해커들 - 애플II, 최초의 퍼스널 컴퓨터의 탄생

스티브…? 잡스 or 워즈니악?


“삶을 사랑하는 정신을 컴퓨터 안에 집어 넣었다.”


“삶을 사랑하는 정신을 컴퓨터 안에 집어 넣었다.”개방성과 나눔, 그리고 집중배제의 철학이 현재의 컴퓨터 산업의 모태

역사 속의 혁신적 소그룹들

19세기 말, 파리의 인상파 화가들

역사 속의 혁신적 소그룹들

싸이버네틱스 그룹로스 알라모스 실험실

제록스 팀인터넷을 건설한 ARPA 엔지니어들

블룸즈버리 그룹 (Bloomsbury Group)

아인슈타인의 올림피아드 그룹 (Olympiad group)

벤자민 프랭클린 클럽잔토

간디 시커스 클럽 (A Seeker’s Club)

왜 소그룹인가Why Small Groups?

4명 가장 작은 조직단위: 대화를 유지할 수 있는 최소 단위


12명친밀한 연관을 맺을 수 있는 단위: 그 사람의 죽음이 내게 심각한 충격으로 다가오는 친척, 친구의 수: 정규적으로 대화를 나누는 가까운 사람의 수



150명

각각의 사람들에 대해 자세히 알고 이해할 수 있는 단위: 초기의 동인도의 정착민 마을의 규모 군대의 전투단위: 도움을 줄 수 있는 친구의 단위 던바 넘버



150명


1500-2000명이름을 기억할 수 있는 사람들의 단위 큰 학교나 회사의 규모: 회사의 오너가 종업원과 개인적으로 관계를 가질 수 있는 최대 단위



150명


1500-2000명이름을 기억할 수 있는 사람들의 단위 큰 학교나 회사의 규모: 회사의 오너가 종업원과 개인적으로 관계를 가질 수 있는 최대 단위

8000-1,0000명 학교나 도서관을 공유할 수 있는 이웃의 규모

12 Twelve 열둘

친밀한 연결을 맺을 수 있는 최대 단위

12 Twelve 열둘

소그룹의 특징Characters of Small Group

•10~15명 안팎의 느슨한 네트웍

•10~15명 안팎의 느슨한 네트웍•지식생산의 기본단위

•10~15명 안팎의 느슨한 네트웍•지식생산의 기본단위•소그룹: 비공식적 기반-임무 중심적, 문제해결 기반 •(task-oriented, problem-solving) •과업 달성시 해체 혹은 학파로 발전

•10~15명 안팎의 느슨한 네트웍•지식생산의 기본단위•소그룹: 비공식적 기반-임무 중심적, 문제해결 기반 •(task-oriented, problem-solving) •과업 달성시 해체 혹은 학파로 발전•학파(school): 대학이나 연구기관등의 공식적 기반

무엇이 필요한가?Tasks to do

•공유하는 철학

•공유하는 철학•열린 듯 닫힌 공동체

•공유하는 철학•열린 듯 닫힌 공동체 •학문적 공명 + 인간적 신뢰

•공유하는 철학•열린 듯 닫힌 공동체 •학문적 공명 + 인간적 신뢰•무권위주의

•공유하는 철학•열린 듯 닫힌 공동체 •학문적 공명 + 인간적 신뢰•무권위주의•저항정신

•공유하는 철학•열린 듯 닫힌 공동체 •학문적 공명 + 인간적 신뢰•무권위주의•저항정신•자유로운 토론

•공유하는 철학•열린 듯 닫힌 공동체 •학문적 공명 + 인간적 신뢰•무권위주의•저항정신•자유로운 토론•자발적 윤리

•공유하는 철학•열린 듯 닫힌 공동체 •학문적 공명 + 인간적 신뢰•무권위주의•저항정신•자유로운 토론•자발적 윤리•특유 문화 (Idiocultures)

특유 문화는 무엇으로 만들어지는가?



공유 지식


공유 지식공유 가치


공유 지식공유 가치공유 행위


공유 지식공유 가치공유 행위공유 관습

•리더의 역할

•리더의 역할•코펜하겐 그룹: 닐스 보어•비엔나 써클: 쉴릭•로스 알라모스: 오펜하이머•디즈니: 월터 디즈니•제록스: 로버트 테일러•보이지 않는 대학: 보일•보이는 대학: J.D. 버날•해커스: 워즈니악, 스톨만, 잡스, 빌 게이츠


•성공적인 소그룹 리더의 특징


•성공적인 소그룹 리더의 특징•권위적이지 않음•구성원들과 수평적 관계•“작은 네트웍에 위계가 존재한다면 창조성은 물건너간 얘기” -홍성욱•강인한 심성과 분명한 비전의 제시•일을 강요하지 않으면서도 동기를 부여할 수 있는 능력

•호기심을 즐기고,

•호기심을 즐기고,•기존의 경계를 무시하고 이를 뛰어넘으려는 심성을 공유

•호기심을 즐기고,•기존의 경계를 무시하고 이를 뛰어넘으려는 심성을 공유•미래에 대한 비전과 이루기 힘든 꿈을 동시에 유지

•호기심을 즐기고,•기존의 경계를 무시하고 이를 뛰어넘으려는 심성을 공유•미래에 대한 비전과 이루기 힘든 꿈을 동시에 유지•실수에서 배우는 것을 중요하게 생각



•가장 중요한 것은,


•가장 중요한 것은, •독립적인 개개인이 집단적 목표에 집중할 때 가장 창조적일 수 있음을 느낄 수 있는 환경을 만드는 것

제약회사의 혁신Innovation in Pharmaceutical companies

Nature Reviews | Drug Discovery

Large companies Small companies

Shar

e of

NM

Es a

ppro

ved

(%)

100

80

60

40

20

0

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

aActual

Actual

Expected

Expected

Mea

n an

nual

NM

E ou

tput

of s

mal

l com

pani

es 0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.00

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

b

Orphan drug A drug that is specifically developed for a disease that affects a patient population of fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. The Orphan Drug Act provides financial incentives to develop such drugs, including marketing exclusivity for that indication for 7 years after approval.

has increased from ~0.04 to ~0.12 since 1995, owing to the emergence of new, more productive companies (FIG. 4b). Conversely, the decline in the output of large companies has been driven by the dwindling number of large phar-maceutical companies, which has decreased by 50% over the past 20 years.

It is too early to tell whether the trends of the past 10 years are artefacts or evidence of a more fundamen-tal transformation of the drug innovation dynamics that have prevailed since 1950. Hypotheses to explain these trends, which could be tested in the future, include: first, that the NME output of small companies has increased as they have become more enmeshed in innovation net-works; second, that large companies are making more detailed investigations into fundamental science, which stretch research and regulatory timelines; and third, that the heightened safety concerns of regulators affect large and small companies differently, perhaps because a substantial number of small firms are developing orphan drugs and/or drugs that are likely to gain priority review from the FDA owing to unmet medical needs.

According to a recent report2, the 4,300 biotechnol-ogy companies spend ~$28 billion annually on R&D,

compared with $50 billion for large pharmaceutical companies1. By virtue of their number, small firms col-lectively can explore far more directions, and investigate areas that their larger, more conservative competitors avoid. However, only a small fraction of these small companies will be rewarded with an FDA approval. Individually, they are a much less reliable source of NMEs than large companies, but collectively, they pro-duce more, for less. In this strange equation lies perhaps one potential avenue for renewing the pharmaceutical R&D model. The innovation crisis of the pharmaceutical industry is occurring in the midst of a new golden age of scientific discovery. If large companies could organize innovation networks to harness the scientific diversity of biotechnology companies and academic institutions, and combine it with their own development expertise, they might be able to reverse the forces that are undermining their research model; that is, they might be able to lower their costs and increase their output.

Is consolidation good for innovation?M&A activity is often seen as a strategy to tackle a thin-ning pipeline. Using the data collected for this study, this strategy can be tested by measuring the ‘before and after’ Poisson parameters of companies that have engaged in these transactions (as the expected NME output of a group of companies is equal to the sum of their Poisson parameters). The population in this study has 24 acquisi-tions and 6 mergers with a minimum of 10 years of data before and after each transaction. FIGURE 5a summarizes the collective expected annual NME output of the com-panies involved. Only small companies show a slight, but significant, increase in NME output at the 95% con-fidence level. For large companies, M&A do not seem to create or destroy value. In fact, one can summarize the impact of M&A in the pharmaceutical industry on R&D as ‘1+1=1’. This is consistent with a recent analysis19.

A more detailed analysis adds interesting nuances. FIGURE 5b looks separately at M&A involving large and small companies. For large companies, half of the six mergers analysed increased NME output (by 44%), whereas the other half reduced NME output (by 36%). For small companies, nearly 80% of acquisitions increased NME output (by 118%), whereas the rest reduced NME output (by 33%). For large companies, the proportions were reversed: 70% of acquisitions reduced NME output (by 20%), whereas 30% of acquisitions increased NME output (by 41%). Caution should be taken in interpreting these numbers because of the small sample size. In addi-tion, many companies involved in M&A since 2000 were not included in the analysis because they did not meet the inclusion criteria of 20 years of data. This analysis will need to be repeated as more data become available. For now, the evidence suggests that M&A can help small companies, but are not an effective means to boost NME output among larger companies.

What next?Scaling patent cliffs. Not only is the discovery of NMEs elusive, but their sales prospects are highly skewed towards zero, further reducing the likelihood of obtaining

Figure 4 | Is bigger better? a | Actual versus expected shares of new molecular entities (NMEs) for large and small pharmaceutical companies. b | Mean annual NME output for small companies. See BOX 1 for definitions.

ANALYSIS

NATURE REVIEWS | DRUG DISCOVERY VOLUME 8 | DECEMBER 2009 | 965

Nature Reviews | Drug Discovery

Large companies Small companies

Shar

e of

NM

Es a

ppro

ved

(%)

100

80

60

40

20

0

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

aActual

Actual

Expected

Expected

Mea

n an

nual

NM

E ou

tput

of s

mal

l com

pani

es 0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.00

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

b

Orphan drug A drug that is specifically developed for a disease that affects a patient population of fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. The Orphan Drug Act provides financial incentives to develop such drugs, including marketing exclusivity for that indication for 7 years after approval.

has increased from ~0.04 to ~0.12 since 1995, owing to the emergence of new, more productive companies (FIG. 4b). Conversely, the decline in the output of large companies has been driven by the dwindling number of large phar-maceutical companies, which has decreased by 50% over the past 20 years.

It is too early to tell whether the trends of the past 10 years are artefacts or evidence of a more fundamen-tal transformation of the drug innovation dynamics that have prevailed since 1950. Hypotheses to explain these trends, which could be tested in the future, include: first, that the NME output of small companies has increased as they have become more enmeshed in innovation net-works; second, that large companies are making more detailed investigations into fundamental science, which stretch research and regulatory timelines; and third, that the heightened safety concerns of regulators affect large and small companies differently, perhaps because a substantial number of small firms are developing orphan drugs and/or drugs that are likely to gain priority review from the FDA owing to unmet medical needs.

According to a recent report2, the 4,300 biotechnol-ogy companies spend ~$28 billion annually on R&D,

compared with $50 billion for large pharmaceutical companies1. By virtue of their number, small firms col-lectively can explore far more directions, and investigate areas that their larger, more conservative competitors avoid. However, only a small fraction of these small companies will be rewarded with an FDA approval. Individually, they are a much less reliable source of NMEs than large companies, but collectively, they pro-duce more, for less. In this strange equation lies perhaps one potential avenue for renewing the pharmaceutical R&D model. The innovation crisis of the pharmaceutical industry is occurring in the midst of a new golden age of scientific discovery. If large companies could organize innovation networks to harness the scientific diversity of biotechnology companies and academic institutions, and combine it with their own development expertise, they might be able to reverse the forces that are undermining their research model; that is, they might be able to lower their costs and increase their output.

Is consolidation good for innovation?M&A activity is often seen as a strategy to tackle a thin-ning pipeline. Using the data collected for this study, this strategy can be tested by measuring the ‘before and after’ Poisson parameters of companies that have engaged in these transactions (as the expected NME output of a group of companies is equal to the sum of their Poisson parameters). The population in this study has 24 acquisi-tions and 6 mergers with a minimum of 10 years of data before and after each transaction. FIGURE 5a summarizes the collective expected annual NME output of the com-panies involved. Only small companies show a slight, but significant, increase in NME output at the 95% con-fidence level. For large companies, M&A do not seem to create or destroy value. In fact, one can summarize the impact of M&A in the pharmaceutical industry on R&D as ‘1+1=1’. This is consistent with a recent analysis19.

A more detailed analysis adds interesting nuances. FIGURE 5b looks separately at M&A involving large and small companies. For large companies, half of the six mergers analysed increased NME output (by 44%), whereas the other half reduced NME output (by 36%). For small companies, nearly 80% of acquisitions increased NME output (by 118%), whereas the rest reduced NME output (by 33%). For large companies, the proportions were reversed: 70% of acquisitions reduced NME output (by 20%), whereas 30% of acquisitions increased NME output (by 41%). Caution should be taken in interpreting these numbers because of the small sample size. In addi-tion, many companies involved in M&A since 2000 were not included in the analysis because they did not meet the inclusion criteria of 20 years of data. This analysis will need to be repeated as more data become available. For now, the evidence suggests that M&A can help small companies, but are not an effective means to boost NME output among larger companies.

What next?Scaling patent cliffs. Not only is the discovery of NMEs elusive, but their sales prospects are highly skewed towards zero, further reducing the likelihood of obtaining

Figure 4 | Is bigger better? a | Actual versus expected shares of new molecular entities (NMEs) for large and small pharmaceutical companies. b | Mean annual NME output for small companies. See BOX 1 for definitions.

ANALYSIS

NATURE REVIEWS | DRUG DISCOVERY VOLUME 8 | DECEMBER 2009 | 965

Munos, Bernard. "Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 8.12 (2009): 959-968.

바이오 해커스Biohackers or DIYbio

2 SEPTEMBER 2011 VOL 333 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 1240

CR

ED

IT: D

AN

GR

US

HK

IN

NEW YORK—It’s 4 p.m. on a summery

Wednesday afternoon, and four members of

GenSpace—two former biotech scientists, an

undergrad on hiatus from school, and a per-

son who runs next-generation DNA sequenc-

ers at a local medical school—are sitting

around on mismatched chairs on the seventh

fl oor of this former Flatbush bank, sipping

Magic Hat beer and refl ecting on the odd-

ity of becoming minor scientifi c celebrities.

GQ France did a photo spread recently on the

writers, artists, and biologists who practice

biology at GenSpace, and the Guggenheim

Museum approached them about collabo-

rating on an exhibit to teach synthetic biol-

ogy. Low-brow TV producers even pitched

the idea of a reality show based at this “com-

munity lab,” a place where professionals and

amateurs alike tinker with life forms and

engineer DNA. GenSpace turned the produc-

ers down, and things soured with the Guggen-

heim, but amid any disappointment, mem-

bers marvel at the continued, and sometimes

lurid, fascination they’ve dredged up. “I’ve

been really surprised at all the attention,” says

president Ellen Jorgensen.

Eventually, talk turns back to biology,

and other GenSpace members start drift-

ing in. Indeed, says GenSpace vice president

Daniel Grushkin, a science writer,

“GenSpace is like a gym membership” in that

people come and go 24 hours a day. Grushkin

spends the afternoon sketching out plans to

use a bacterium to genetically transform the

worm Caenorhabditis elegans and make it

fl uoresce. “It’s a few steps above a pet rock,”

he suggests. And amid these discussions of

organisms and experiments, all the other dis-

tractions fall away. That’s why this crew had

founded GenSpace, after all—to do their own

biology, on their own agenda.

With the lab’s debut in December 2010,

GenSpace opened a new chapter for the

do-it-yourself (DIY) biology movement,

which some say parallels the garage com-

puter culture in the 1970s that helped usher

in the personal computing revolution. (Some

DIY biologists even call themselves “bio-

hackers.”) But although the New York crew

was the fi rst to commit to a formal lab space

for community biology, they’re not alone.

BioCurious, a DIY biology team near San

Francisco, California, founded in 2009, has

recently signed a lease for a 220-square-

meter office in the Bay Area that will be

turned into lab space.

Whether many more GenSpaces will arise

is tough to predict. It’s hard to quantify the

number of active DIY synthetic biologists.

Thousands of people trade tips (and jabs) in

online forums, and the Web site DIYbio.org

has seen its membership grow by orders of

magnitude since starting in April 2008. But

the number of people doing “wetwork” is sig-

nifi cantly smaller, acknowledges Jason Bobe,

who co-founded DIYbio.org.

Although not a biologist herself, Bio-

Curious co-founder Eri Gentry says she

hunted down lab space to rent because biol-

ogy students she knew through BioCurious

had grown weary of pursuing narrow Ph.D.

research topics and wanted to tackle side proj-

ects they were passionate about. The setup in

most science labs today “doesn’t breed cre-

ativity,” she argues.

That’s a common sentiment in DIY bio,

and it motivates much of the passion. Scien-

tists are born tinkerers, says Jorgensen, also

an assistant professor of pathology at New

York Medical College. “This place is made

for spare-time tinkering.”

Indeed, as James Collins, a synthetic biol-

ogy pioneer at Boston University, points out,

“when we started synthetic biology, most

of us were amateurs. We came from engi-

neering, physics, computer science, and

other fi elds.” Still, “amateurs” like Collins,

although biology neophytes, worked at uni-

versities and had access to expensive research

equipment. Almost by defi nition, DIY biolo-

gists lack that access, and Collins argues that

they will thus have a tough time making sig-

nifi cant contributions.

Building communities

GenSpace started in 2009 after several like-

minded New Yorkers met online through

the Google group DIYbio. For months

they puttered around with experiments in

Grushkin’s living room, but late last year

they graduated to their new space: two

boxcar-sized labs, each about 10 square

meters, and a lounge on the top fl oor of a

building that is primarily an artists’ col-

lective. The move to a permanent place

was important for doing better science,

Jorgensen says: “We kept hitting obstacles

easily solved with the creation of a commu-

nity lab. Suppliers of reagents often won’t

A Lab of Their OwnDo-it-yourself biologists in New York follow their dreams, setting up a community lab that

combines synthetic biology with art, fun, and perhaps profi t

A squeeze. A dozen GenSpace members, including

(left to right) Sung won Lim, Russell Durrett, and

Ellen Jorgensen, share two tiny labs.

N E W S

Published by AAAS

on

Sept

embe

r 1, 2

011

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fro

m

2 SEPTEMBER 2011 VOL 333 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 1240

CR

ED

IT: D

AN

GR

US

HK

IN

NEW YORK—It’s 4 p.m. on a summery

Wednesday afternoon, and four members of

GenSpace—two former biotech scientists, an

undergrad on hiatus from school, and a per-

son who runs next-generation DNA sequenc-

ers at a local medical school—are sitting

around on mismatched chairs on the seventh

fl oor of this former Flatbush bank, sipping

Magic Hat beer and refl ecting on the odd-

ity of becoming minor scientifi c celebrities.

GQ France did a photo spread recently on the

writers, artists, and biologists who practice

biology at GenSpace, and the Guggenheim

Museum approached them about collabo-

rating on an exhibit to teach synthetic biol-

ogy. Low-brow TV producers even pitched

the idea of a reality show based at this “com-

munity lab,” a place where professionals and

amateurs alike tinker with life forms and

engineer DNA. GenSpace turned the produc-

ers down, and things soured with the Guggen-

heim, but amid any disappointment, mem-

bers marvel at the continued, and sometimes

lurid, fascination they’ve dredged up. “I’ve

been really surprised at all the attention,” says

president Ellen Jorgensen.

Eventually, talk turns back to biology,

and other GenSpace members start drift-

ing in. Indeed, says GenSpace vice president

Daniel Grushkin, a science writer,

“GenSpace is like a gym membership” in that

people come and go 24 hours a day. Grushkin

spends the afternoon sketching out plans to

use a bacterium to genetically transform the

worm Caenorhabditis elegans and make it

fl uoresce. “It’s a few steps above a pet rock,”

he suggests. And amid these discussions of

organisms and experiments, all the other dis-

tractions fall away. That’s why this crew had

founded GenSpace, after all—to do their own

biology, on their own agenda.

With the lab’s debut in December 2010,

GenSpace opened a new chapter for the

do-it-yourself (DIY) biology movement,

which some say parallels the garage com-

puter culture in the 1970s that helped usher

in the personal computing revolution. (Some

DIY biologists even call themselves “bio-

hackers.”) But although the New York crew

was the fi rst to commit to a formal lab space

for community biology, they’re not alone.

BioCurious, a DIY biology team near San

Francisco, California, founded in 2009, has

recently signed a lease for a 220-square-

meter office in the Bay Area that will be

turned into lab space.

Whether many more GenSpaces will arise

is tough to predict. It’s hard to quantify the

number of active DIY synthetic biologists.

Thousands of people trade tips (and jabs) in

online forums, and the Web site DIYbio.org

has seen its membership grow by orders of

magnitude since starting in April 2008. But

the number of people doing “wetwork” is sig-

nifi cantly smaller, acknowledges Jason Bobe,

who co-founded DIYbio.org.

Although not a biologist herself, Bio-

Curious co-founder Eri Gentry says she

hunted down lab space to rent because biol-

ogy students she knew through BioCurious

had grown weary of pursuing narrow Ph.D.

research topics and wanted to tackle side proj-

ects they were passionate about. The setup in

most science labs today “doesn’t breed cre-

ativity,” she argues.

That’s a common sentiment in DIY bio,

and it motivates much of the passion. Scien-

tists are born tinkerers, says Jorgensen, also

an assistant professor of pathology at New

York Medical College. “This place is made

for spare-time tinkering.”

Indeed, as James Collins, a synthetic biol-

ogy pioneer at Boston University, points out,

“when we started synthetic biology, most

of us were amateurs. We came from engi-

neering, physics, computer science, and

other fi elds.” Still, “amateurs” like Collins,

although biology neophytes, worked at uni-

versities and had access to expensive research

equipment. Almost by defi nition, DIY biolo-

gists lack that access, and Collins argues that

they will thus have a tough time making sig-

nifi cant contributions.

Building communities

GenSpace started in 2009 after several like-

minded New Yorkers met online through

the Google group DIYbio. For months

they puttered around with experiments in

Grushkin’s living room, but late last year

they graduated to their new space: two

boxcar-sized labs, each about 10 square

meters, and a lounge on the top fl oor of a

building that is primarily an artists’ col-

lective. The move to a permanent place

was important for doing better science,

Jorgensen says: “We kept hitting obstacles

easily solved with the creation of a commu-

nity lab. Suppliers of reagents often won’t

A Lab of Their OwnDo-it-yourself biologists in New York follow their dreams, setting up a community lab that

combines synthetic biology with art, fun, and perhaps profi t

A squeeze. A dozen GenSpace members, including

(left to right) Sung won Lim, Russell Durrett, and

Ellen Jorgensen, share two tiny labs.

N E W S

Published by AAAS

on

Sept

embe

r 1, 2

011

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fro

m

Science (2011)

Special Thanks to…

홍성욱 서울대 자연과학부 교수

감사합니다