Abstract
The advent of CRISPR was heralded as signifying a new era for genetic modification (cheap! easy! DIY gene editing is here!). As issues of CRISPR’s ownership and usage rights played out in the courts (Sanders, 2017), another kind of activity has emerged on the scientific fringes. Self-experimenters with post-human aspirations have begun using CRISPR and related technologies to anti-aging ends. Some have livestreamed their efforts, in a technological confluence that would have been hard to imagine even ten years ago. Others have pursued a route closer to traditional scientific progress, seeking strategic endorsements and selectively eschewing conventions of “legitimate” experimental science. This chapter analyzes popular accounts of genetic self-experimentation, and argues that ideas about personhood, and the person-society relationship, are key. For example, some accounts suggest a hyper-individuality that assumes that what is done to one person’s body is safely contained from others’. However, the rhetoric around self-experimentation is also often deliberately contra to the scientific community’s norms, with overtly “disruptive” intentions. How should the legal community respond to these “CRISPR cowboys”? I historicize self-experimentation practices and how they may have changed with recent technological developments and consider what implications those changes have for ideas about, and governance of, personhood.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
Achenbach, J 2015, ‘A Harvard professor says he can cure ageing, but is that a good idea?’ The Washington Post—Achenblog, web blog post, viewed 18 May 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/achenblog/wp/2015/12/02/professor-george-church-says-he-can-reverse-the-aging-process/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.89b3b31a211a.
Annas, G 2009, ‘The legacy of the Nuremberg doctors’ trial to American bioethics and human rights’, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 19–40.
Barbrook, R & Cameron, A 1996, ‘The California ideology’, Science as Culture, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 44–72.
Becker, G & Nachtigall, RD 1992, ‘Eager for medicalisation: the social production of infertility as a disease’, Sociology of Health & Illness, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 456–471.
Bowen, KV 2018, ‘What does an infamous biohacker’s death mean for the future of DIY science?’, The Atlantic, viewed 10 May 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/aaron-traywick-death-ascendance-biomedical/559745/.
Brown, K 2018, ‘This rogue company wants people to inject themselves with untested drugs’, Gizmodo Australia, https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/02/this-rogue-company-wants-people-to-inject-themselves-with-untested-drugs/.
Churchill, R, Collins, L, King, NMP, Pemberton, SG & Wailoo, KA 1998, ‘Genetic research as therapy: implications of “gene therapy” for informed consent’, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, vol. 26, pp. 38–47.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) 2015, The ethics of self-experimentation (Case Number 15-03), Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/case/ethics-self-experimentation.
Conrad, P 1992, ‘Medicalization and social control’, Annual Reviews of Sociology, vol. 18, pp. 209–232.
Das, V 1999, ‘Public good, ethics, and everyday life: beyond the boundaries of bioethics’, Daedalus, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 99–133.
Delfanti, A 2013, Biohackers: the politics of open science, Pluto Press, London, UK.
FDA 2017, ‘Information about self-administration of gene therapy’, U.S. Food and Drug Administration website, viewed 20 May 2018, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/CellularGeneTherapyProducts/ucm586343.htm.
Fischer, F 2017, ‘Biohacker self-administers attempt at gene-therapy HIV cure’, News2Share, Facebook update, https://www.facebook.com/N2Sreports/videos/biohacker-self-administers-attempt-at-gene-therapy-hiv-cure/1557343577706859/.
Funk, M 2018, ‘Liz Parrish wants to live forever’, Outside Online, https://www.outsideonline.com/2325556/liz-parrish-live-forever.
Gardner, J, Warren, N, Addison, C & Samuel, G (2019), ‘Persuasive bodies: testimonies of deep brain stimulation and Parkinson’s on YouTube’, Social Science and Medicine, vol. 222, pp. 44–51.
Gieryn, T 1983, ‘Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in the professional ideologies of scientists’, American Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 781–795.
Haraway, D 1994, ‘A game of cat’s cradle: science studies, feminist theory, cultural studies’, Configurations, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 59–71.
Ireland, T 2017, ‘I want to help humans genetically modify themselves’, The Guardian, viewed 10 May 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/24/josiah-zayner-diy-gene-editing-therapy-crispr-interview.
Jasanoff, S 2007, Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Kasprzack, M 2016, ‘From innovator to maintainer: the anti-heroic turn’, EASST Review, vol. 35, no. 4.
Kerridge, I 2003, ‘Altruism or reckless curiosity? a brief history of self-experimentation in medicine’, Internal Medicine Journal, vol. 33, pp. 203–207.
Landhuis, E 2016, ‘Do it yourself? when the researcher becomes the subject’, Science News, viewed 5 December 2016, https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/12/do-it-yourself-when-researcher-becomes-subject.
Moriera, T 2015, ‘Unsettling standards: the biological age controversy’, The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 18–39.
National Research Service Award Act 1974. ‘Public Law 93–348’, Retrieved from https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL93-348.pdf.
Nelkin, D & Lindee, M 1995, The DNA mystique: the gene as a cultural icon, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Oriola, T 2009, ‘Ethical and legal analyses of policy prohibiting tobacco smoking in enclosed public spaces’, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 828.
Parrish, E 2015, ‘[AMA] my name is Liz Parrish, CEO of BioViva, the first patient to be treated with gene therapy to reverse aging, ask me anything’, Reddit, 11 October 2015, https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/3ocsbi/ama_my_name_is_liz_parrish_ceo_of_bioviva_the/.
Parrish, E 2017a, ‘Liz Parrish: ageing is a disease: gene therapy could be the cure’ (video), Wired Events, viewed 10 May 2018, https://www.wired.co.uk/video/ageing-disease-gene-therapy-cure.
Parrish, E 2017b, ‘One year anniversary of Bioviva’s gene therapy against human aging’, viewed 12 May 2018, https://bioviva-science.com/blog/2017/3/2/one-year-anniversary-of-biovivas-gene-therapy-against-human-aging.
Petersen, A 2018, ‘Capitalising on ageing anxieties: promissory discourse and the creation of an “anti-ageing treatment” market’, Journal of Sociology, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 191–202.
Regalado, A 2017, ‘One man’s quest to hack his own genes’, MIT Technology Review, viewed 10 May 2018, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603217/one-mans-quest-to-hack-his-own-genes/.
Terrall, M 1998, ‘Heroic narratives of quest and discovery’, Configurations, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 223–242.
Weisse, A 2012, ‘Self-experimentation and its role in medical research’, Texas Heart Institute Journal, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 51–54.
Wexler, A 2017, ‘The social context of “do-it-yourself” brain stimulation: neurohackers, biohackers, and lifehackers’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 11, pp. 224.
Wilson, D 2014, The making of British bioethics, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
World Health Organisation. (2018). International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). Retrieved from https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en.
Zhang, S 2018, ‘A Biohacker regrets publicly injecting himself with CRISPR’, The Atlantic, viewed 10 May 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/biohacking-stunts-crispr/553511/.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Addison, C. (2020). CRISPR Cowboys? Genetic Self-Experimentation and the Limits of the Person. In: de Leeuw, M., van Wichelen, S. (eds) Personhood in the Age of Biolegality. Biolegalities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27848-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27848-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27847-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27848-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)