Björn Brembs

Writing in the latest issue of Lab Times, [Alex
Reis](https://alexreis-sciencewriter.com/) [portraits](https://www.labtimes-archiv.de/epaper/LT_15_02/#22)
two sections of 'do-it-yourself' in the biosciences. One is the group of
'citizen scientists', some of which are organized in
[DIYbio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIYbio). The other group covered
is that of cash-strapped biologists who create "low-cost customized
devices" "out of necessity", instead of "heading for the nearest
catalogue to find the best equipment to buy".

I'm not so much concerned with the attitude that the catalogues
apparently hold the "best" equipment -- as opposed to that equipment
which will make grants more expensive and hence pull in more overhead
for the university and more prestige for the PI. I'm more concerned with
the impression this article gives that only the scholarly poor need to
resort to DIY, whereas the first-world, well-funded, top-ranked
laboratories of course always buy the best equipment from the catalogues
for their cutting edge, world-class science.

Instead of denigrating laboratories who try to refrain from wasting tax
funds on overpriced equipment, shouldn't one instead ask what kind of
research this is, where the equipment is already being sold by
for-profit companies? To look for the one thing that hasn't been put
under a microscope, yet? To sequence the one gene or genome that hasn't
been sequenced, yet? To amplify the one sequence that hasn't seen a PCR
machine, yet? To obtain a band from the one protein that hasn't been
sent through a gel, yet? To spin the one liquid that hasn't seen the
inside of a salad spinner, yet? I'm exaggerating and oversimplifying, of
course, but to make a point.

Quite logically, if you look at things nobody has looked at before,
there cannot exist a company that provides you with a handy machine, so
you just have to build the equipment or reagent yourself. Thus, in fact,
every cutting-edge science by definition has to be DIY.
The [super-resolution
microscopes](https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2014/)
for which this year's Nobel was awarded couldn't be bought in a store:
Betzig, Hell, Moerner and colleagues had to build them themselves. If
you can buy it in a store, also by definition, someone must have looked
at something like this before and you're just following in their
footsteps.

One may argue, that perhaps most, if not all breakthrough science must
be DIY, simply because you cannot sell equipment that doesn't exist.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

**P.S.:** Obviously, this post is not meant to denigrate all my many
colleagues who buy all of their equipment or reagents. This research is
of course very valuable and also in our lab we mostly use equipment that
was designed by others than ourselves, even if it cannot be bought, and
only rarely design it ourselves. I object to silly rankings and trivial
comparisons in general and I only want to point out that it is very easy
to argue in exactly the opposite way to counter the impression that this
article is giving.


Writing in the latest issue of Lab Times, Alex Reis portraits two sections of ‘do-it-yourself’ in the biosciences. One is the group of ‘citizen scientists’, some of which are organized in DIYbio.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Is DIY really just for the scholarly poor?