“the tinkering networks we see in the software industry will be mirrored in synbio. Further, the skill sets associated with synthetic biology will be as widely dispersed as software programming is today and the tools will be just as inexpensive/ubiquitous.”

– John Robb

How realistically can we expect open source biology?

Consider the following recent quotes from the Washington Post, which show that clearly something is afoot:

“If biology is to morph into an engineering discipline, it is going to need similarly standardized parts, Knight said. So he and colleagues have started a collection of hundreds of interchangeable genetic components they call BioBricks, which students and others are already popping into cells like Lego pieces.”

“At the core of synthetic biology’s new ascendance are high-speed DNA synthesizers that can produce very long strands of genetic material from basic chemical building blocks: sugars, nitrogen-based compounds and phosphates. Today a scientist can write a long genetic program on a computer just as a maestro might compose a musical score, then use a synthesizer to convert that digital code into actual DNA.”

The above shows the distinct possibility of a hacker like approach to DNA. But how far could this kind of practice, which must rely on ‘open and free raw material’, be extended to the whole field of biological and pharmaceutical research?

This is the topic of Janet Hope’s new book:

Biobazaar. The Open Source Revolution and Biotechnology. By Janet Hope. Harvard University Press, 2008.

In the introduction, she describes the aims and direction of her research:

“I want to explore whether and how key open source principles might be translated into a new context: that of biotechnology and its close industrial relations, pharmaceuticals and agriculture. Open source biotechnology would be a manifestation of the bazaar in a bioscience setting: hence, a “biobazaar.”

The fundamental reason for undertaking this project is the existence of what seems an irresistible analogy between software and molecular biotechnology. Both technologies have enormous potential to help solve some of humanity’s most pressing problems and enrich all of our lives. But their potential will not be realized without further innovation along lines that current industry participants may not yet even be able to imagine. Both industries are highly concentrated: the software industry is characterized by a near monopoly, while the pharmaceutical and agricultural industries, currently the main users of biotechnological innovations, are dominated by oligopolies. Disruptive innovation—the kind that leads to new product types, new industries, and substantial gains in social welfare— threatens the market position of these powerful corporations.

From the perspective of society as a whole, it is therefore a Bad Idea to let industry leaders gain too much control over the innovative process. Yet in both software and biotechnology over the past decade, more and stronger proprietary rights have contributed to a decrease in real competition, allowing large corporations—the beneficiaries of the status quo—to gain a stranglehold on the pace and direction of technological progress.”

She adds:

“A key premise of this book is that open source principles of technology development, licensing, and commercial exploitation offer at least a partial solution to the innovation lock-down caused by extensive private control over scientific and technological information within a highly concentrated industry structure. Open source development shows how groups of volunteers can “collaborate on a complex economic project, sustain that collaboration over time, and build something that they give away freely”—technology that can “beat some of the largest and richest business enterprises in the world at their own game.”

Because open source licensing makes use of existing intellectual property laws, open source strategies need not rely on domestic or international law reform. Open source is also highly resistant to the kinds of countermeasures traditionally adopted by monopolists and oligopolists when technological innovation threatens their market dominance. As Steven Weber points out, open source software is no marginal phenomenon, but a “major part of the mainstream information technology economy” that increasingly dominates those aspects that are becoming the leading edge in both market and technological terms.55 It seems natural, then, to ask: Could open source do for biotechnology what it is already doing for software?”

Her book has been well received by the scholars in the field, here’s the appreciation of Steve Webber:

“Life Sciences are set to become the driver of 21st century economic and national competitiveness, much as Information technology was at the end of the 20th century. Janet Hope’s Biobazaar: The Open Source Revolution and Biotechnology takes on a fundamental question that will determine where innovation happens in biotechnology: Who owns what pieces of intellectual property in this system, and what can they do with what they own? Her thoughtful and non-ideological assessment of the problem leads to a powerful analogy with software and the open source model for producing complex knowledge goods. Can an open source style economy in life sciences change the landscape of innovation, and for the better? Hope provides a much-needed, reasoned guide to thinking through that critical question.”