For most of history, biology has been an observational and taxonomical discipline - it was mainly focused around observing and documenting all the various forms of life, their behaviour, patterns of movement, and the intricacies of their interactions within the variety of biomes and ecosystems they live in.
With the technological breakthroughs of the 20th century, and the innovative methods of observation and analysis that they brought about, our view of biology has drastically changed. Recently, these advancements have taken giant strides in the realm of molecular biology, particularly in our ability to document the most foundational and simplest component of life: DNA.
As researchers continue to delve into the intricacies of DNA, we are recognising that sequencing is merely the starting point of a much larger journey - One which represents the intersection of biology with technology, and consequently a variety of other disciplines.
Projects such as the Human Genome Project, International Barcode of Life Project and Human Cell Atlas, along with the subsequent proliferation of diverse bioinformatic databases, all required international collaboration of a scale only made possible through the internet. This collaborative spirit has not only accelerated scientific discovery but also democratised access to cutting-edge research, opening doors for curious scientists from a wide array of backgrounds, including those from under-resourced environments, to participate at the forefront of biological research.
With this, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the challenges and opportunities ahead demand a shift from traditional, hierarchical structures of knowledge production and dissemination towards more open, collaborative models.
The following sections will delve into the current problems facing biological sciences, the transformative promise of synthetic biology, the historical evolution and potential of the internet, and the emerging paradigm of Decentralised Science (DeSci). Together, these elements paint a picture of a future where biology is not only informed by technology but also embodies the principles of accessibility, collaboration, and decentralisation that are essential for navigating the complexities of life at its most fundamental levels.
The Current Problem in Biological Sciences
As the biosciences reach a point of becoming more accessible and data-intensive, they are simultaneously encountering a pressing need for a greater number of skilled scientists to navigate the emerging challenges in this research domain. The abundance of data and the democratisation of access are drawing in students from varied academic backgrounds, particularly those with proficiencies in computational disciplines and data analytics.
However, this surge in accessibility and the resultant demand for expertise is facing an academic culture stuck in a survivalist mindset. Laboratories, often caught in a cycle of producing results primarily to meet university quotas and get work published, risk both becoming insular as well as producing wasteful, unoriginal research [1]. This situation is further exacerbated by limited funding resources, often driving competition rather than collaboration among researchers. This is particularly problematic given the substantial financial outlay necessary for molecular and cellular studies, where cutting corners is not an option.
On the other hand, conducting scientific research in these fields requires a meticulous approach, with thorough research, planning and execution necessary to achieve valid results. The precision needed to account for the myriad of variables in biological processes means that researchers must balance the demand for rapid progress with the costly but crucial investment in detail-oriented studies to ensure accurate and valuable scientific contributions.
This situation highlights a broader issue within the scientific community, where the pursuit of meaningful and groundbreaking research sometimes takes a backseat to the immediate needs of survival within the academic ecosystem.
The influx of students energised by the dynamic interplay of biology and technology should be a catalyst for change. Yet, if academia does not adapt to the collaborative spirit necessitated by the complex nature of modern biosciences, it risks not only stagnation but also alienating the next generations of scientists. Individuals whose interests and skills align with the interdisciplinary and collaborative ethos required for future breakthroughs may find their enthusiasm waning in the face of an academic structure that does not adequately embrace these shifts [2, 3, 4].
Well then, is there anything that does?
Synthetic Biology - the exciting promise of molecular biology
Synthetic biology, a field often associated with genetic engineering, extends far beyond manipulation of genetic sequences. It is an interdisciplinary field that combines research from biology with the principles of engineering and computer science.
The field’s approach to viewing biological systems as modular assemblies mirrors the principles of engineering, where complex projects are broken down into manageable, interchangeable parts. Similarly, the application of computer science principles, such as programming and systems analysis, to biological systems allows for the modelling, simulation, and optimization of biological functions in ways that were once beyond our reach. This computational lens enables synthetic biologists to 'debug' and 'reprogram' biological systems, facilitating the development of living cells engineered to perform custom tasks, such as manufacturing pharmaceuticals or detoxifying polluted environments.
The international Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition is widely considered one of the largest and most influential events in synthetic biology; attracting participants from hundreds of universities and institutions worldwide - making it a major hub for new ideas, networking, and showcasing cutting-edge developments in synthetic biology. By hosting annual competitions, iGEM challenges university students to venture into the realm of genetic and cellular engineering to address a myriad of global issues, while delving into the intricacies of the biological resources available online.
While driving innovation, the iGEM competition has also facilitated a standardised approach to engineering biological systems, by ensuring that all research teams adhere to the same methods of combining genetic parts. This effort has generated a database of freely accessible parts used and continuously updated by new generations of teams inside, but also a number of impactful research pieces outside the competition.
Since its inception two decades ago, the competition has been a catalyst for the burgeoning field of synthetic biology, as well as all the domains of research that intersect with it.
There is a growing fascination with synthetic biology, partly fuelled by iGEM's initiatives, which has thus far led to the creation of over 200 startups.
Startups and established companies emerging from iGEM showcase the diverse possibilities of synthetic biology: From environmental solutions [Fredsense, Synbiote, Maverick Biometals] to medical breakthroughs [Poseida, Antheia, Sherlock] and established companies that advance all biosciences forward [Ginkgo Bioworks, Opentrons], the range of applications is vast and continually expanding.
Apart from iGEM, organisations like BIOMOD, iDEC, and the open-access competition Gogec, are making strides in connecting biosciences with entrepreneurship, while hubs like SynBioBeta are serving to connect and catalyse the translation of these projects into recognised solutions.
As we witness the transformative impact of synthetic biology, it's clear that the field's progress is not just about the science itself but also about how we approach the science. The collaborative spirit, open sharing, and the global community fostered by initiatives in synthetic biology echo a broader principle: the power of decentralisation.
Decentralisation and the Internet
By examining how the internet has revolutionised communication and information sharing, we can draw valuable insights for fostering a similar transformation in the biological sciences, moving towards a more open, collaborative, and efficient research ecosystem.
The premise of the internet was, indeed, information sharing - particularly to facilitate communication and data exchange among researchers and academics.
The origins of the internet can be traced back to the 1960s with the development of ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. ARPANET's primary goal was to create a network that could connect various research institutions, allowing them to share information and computing resources. This was particularly motivated by the need for efficient use of computers and for military communication that could withstand potential disruptions.
The design of ARPANET was based on the innovative concept of packet switching, which is still a fundamental technology underpinning today's internet. The idea was to allow multiple computers to communicate on a single network, sharing information in small packets that could find their way independently from sender to receiver.
As the network burgeoned beyond military and academic confines, it laid the groundwork for the protocols that standardise today's internet communications. Its decentralised architecture ensures no single entity controls data flow, enhancing resilience against disruptions, censorship, and fostering user privacy and control.
Despite its decentralised foundations, the internet's ethos is increasingly challenged by the rise of centralised entities, namely the tech giants in social media, search engines, e-commerce platforms and cloud service providers. Wielding significant control over data and user interaction, these companies have subtly shifted the landscape, veering away from the internet's original intent as a domain of free, open exploration. This centralisation not only contrasts with the foundational principles of the internet but also limits the full spectrum of opportunities it was meant to offer for curiosity-driven exploration and innovation.
Originally conceived as a tool for seamless research and communication, the internet has undergone a remarkable evolution. It transformed into a vast global network that not only continues to facilitate academic collaboration but also dominates commerce, entertainment, and social engagement. While bringing unprecedented connectivity and access to information, this transformation also underscores the importance of re-evaluating and reinforcing the internet's core values of decentralisation and openness.
The emergence of Web 3.0 heralds a transformation, building on the internet's decentralised roots to emphasise user sovereignty, data ownership, and interoperability. By leveraging blockchain technology and decentralised applications (dApps), Web 3.0 promises a more user-centric web. These innovations offer not only more personalised and efficient online experiences but also pave the way for Decentralised Science (DeSci) — a paradigm where the open, collaborative essence of the internet revitalises scientific research.
DeSci - The promise for biology?
Biology needs something that decentralises the funding away from just institutions. Something that prioritises accessibility to accommodate the influx of people and students. Someplace that allows interdisciplinarity to thrive, encouraging people across different areas and with different skills to coordinate and collaborate toward a central goal.
That solution might very well lie with DeSci.
By applying the principles of decentralisation to the scientific process, DeSci leverages blockchain technology to finally bring together that accessibility, funding and reliability in scientific research.
DeSci can facilitate greater collaboration and data sharing, breaking down the barriers often created by traditional publication methods. The open and transparent nature of blockchain allows for a more accessible dissemination of biological data and findings, which is crucial for advancing research, especially in rapidly evolving fields like genomics, biotechnology, and epidemiology.
DeSci also introduces innovative funding models, decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs), which could provide more democratic and diverse support for biological research projects. This can be particularly important for funding high-risk, high-reward research that might not be supported through conventional, academic channels.
DeSci's emphasis on collaboration, transparency, and efficiency aligns closely with the inherently complex and interconnected nature of biological sciences and synthetic biology. By leveraging the decentralised structure of blockchain technology, DeSci can catalyse a more open and accessible scientific community, where data sharing and collective efforts in research are not only encouraged but facilitated, and funding is made more available.
The journey towards fully realising the benefits of DeSci in biology is not without its challenges. Integration with existing scientific frameworks and the establishment of effective governance models are crucial steps that need to be navigated thoughtfully. The future of biology, therefore, hinges not just on the advancements in decentralisation technologies but also on our ability to harmonise these innovations with the established norms of scientific research.
For those intrigued by the potential of DeSci and eager to contribute to its evolution, joining a DAO such as ValleyDAO offers a glimpse into the innovative workings of decentralised science, and also invites you to become an active participant in shaping the future of synthetic biology.
I'm excited to see this focus on decentralization in synbio. It's clear to see how much open source and decentralized approaches have pushed development forward. I'm excited to see what alternative funding models can be used to keep research findings public, such as the philanthropic funding and research shared by organizations such as the Good Food Institute and the Homeworld Collective.
Still on the note of decentralization, but less on development and more on production, I am excited to see where bio-manufacturing can be decentralized to facilitate production much more co-localized with supply chain and demand.
Does publication need to be blockchain-based, or could we move to more open and accessible repositories for human knowledge? For example, web-based tools like pubpub.org, among others?