Synthetic biology [1], an emerging field that illustrate how design and construction of something is socially spread and organized due the complexity (and convenience) for it to be done.
In these days that the so called SOPA is being “discussed”, we face the future trend:
Is there going to be a control over code, coding, coders, software, hardware of even distributed computing to use, sell, buy or pirate biobricks? [2]
Is the current market predators already (and all ready) to change the subject from freedom, privacy, “intellectual property” rights to synthetic biological ones?
Will there be a different approach on who or how “has the right” to control something that obvoiusly is the product of human gather, a.k.a. the culture complex?
Where is the acceptance of dominion from one bunch of “advanced” primates over some other as the reason for “Legitimate” Acts Of Stupidity? (trying to control the impossible, or is it?)
What kind of interest define the sourse of open initiatives turned into closed ones?
Take a quick shot at this documentary, specially if you’re interested in coding, open source, breakthrough thinking and open source minded:
iGEM and the explanation of synthetic biology
BBC Horizon 2012 “Playing God”
Complete (expect censorship, due “copyright”)
Parts from the BBC Youtube channel (official “owner” of rights)
On the other hand, one can wonder with this allegations about the social role of designer, despite their field, and the need for the specialist to take over a series of tasks to contribute on a much wider and complex activity…that is to say, the designer, is coded within the field development.
DIYbio and biohacking [3] [4] [5]
