1170 4 SEPTEMBER 2020 • VOL 369 ISSUE 6508 sciencemag.org SCIENCEPHOTO: NETFLIXT
he first season of the Netflix series
Biohackers, consisting of six episodes
released on the streaming platform
on 20 August, tells a fictional tale
centered around the sociotechno-
logical movement known as do-it-
yourself (DIY) biology, in which amateurs,
professionals, anarchists, and civic-minded
citizens push the boundaries of mainstream
biology. The show’s main characters include
a wealthy biopharmaceutical executive, a
group of medical students, a number of ste-
reotypical biohackers making animals glow
and plants play music, and a community of
transhumanists intent on modifying their
bodies for seemingly impractical endeavors.
Whereas biological experimentation was
once the sole domain of trained profes-
sionals in well-stocked and well-funded
institutional labs, the field has been de-
mocratized by the emergence of the open-
source movement, plummeting sequencing
costs, greater access to reagents and de-
vices, the proliferation of online resources,
and the emergence of tools and methodol-ogies that enable nonexperts to genetically
engineer organisms without years of pro-
fessional training. [Valid concerns regard-
ing some of the activities associated with
the DIY bio community have been voiced
by the Presidential Commission for the
Study of Bioethical Issues ( 1 ).]
The show follows Mia Akerlund (played
by Luna Wedler), a first-year medical stu-
dent vying for a position at a prestigious
biopharmaceutical firm headed by cel-
ebrated professor Tanja Lorenz (Jessica
Schwarz). Akerlund and Lorenz
clearly have some shared history, as
well as their own secrets, although
viewers are not privy to the details
of either at the start of the series.
For much of the first episodes, the
relationship between these two enigmatic
characters is revealed slowly through both
flash-forwards and flashbacks. But we
know that a big reveal is coming; the pro-
gram’s official description teases a “secret
so big it could change the fate of humanity.”
Throughout the season’s six fast-paced
episodes, the viewer is exposed to technolo-
gies and techniques that would be familiar
to many professional scientists. And while
the time frames of the various experiments
conducted are often compressed for dra-
matic effect, Christian Ditter—the show’s
creator, writer, director, and showrunner—goes out of his way to present complex
science as accurately as possible. In one
montage, for example, we watch various
biohackers, some with better aseptic tech-
nique than others, add reagents to micro-
centrifuge tubes, load polymerase chain
reaction machines, and examine gels to as-
sess whether they have accurately created
a desired genomic sequence. In another
scene, a student suffering from a degenera-
tive disease seeks to develop his own cure
in a secret lab, where he can work with-
out burdensome oversight. The student in-
jects himself with an unknown liquid, his
purported cure. Here, the show’s dialogue
surrounding the cure and its antidote (to
be administered if things go wrong) offers
insight into how RNA interference thera-
pies work.
But the show also serves as a pedagogi-
cal vehicle to raise many timely and in-
teresting ethical, legal, and social
concerns. From bioluminescent
mammals to the collection of genetic
material for clinical trials, the series’
storyline highlights how cavalierly
we sometimes approach genomic
data and genetic engineering. Later epi-
sodes depict even more egregious exam-
ples of biohacking, including organisms
modified to transmit viruses as efficiently
as possible. At one point, a character sug-
gests that the ends of her research justify
the experimental means, even when her
methods demonstrate a gross disregard for
test subjects who may suffer as a result.
The show also offers insight into some
of the motivations that drive DIY biology
efforts. For example, in one scene, a con-
fidant of Akerlund expresses dismay that
Lorenz is willing to sell a cheaply acquired
drug to desperate patients for inflated
prices. Such frustrations are what drive
many citizens operating outside tradi-
tional institutions to develop their own
pharmaceutical solutions.
It is ironic that Biohackers is set in Ger-
many, one of the few places where genetic
engineering experimentation outside of li-
censed facilities is illegal and can result in
a fine or even imprisonment ( 2 ). Yet, given
all that transpires in the show, one is left
with the sense that such measures may
be justified. jREFERENCES AND NOTES- Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical
Issues, “New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology
and emerging technologies” (2010); https://
bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/synthetic-
biology-report.html. - Sections 8 and 39 of the German Genetic Engineering Act
[Gentechnikgesetz (GenTG)]; http://www.gesetze-im-internet.
de/gentg/index.html.
10.1126/science.abe1950GENETIC ENGINEERINGBy Dov GreenbaumBiology’s brave new world
The promise and perils of synthetic biology take center
stage in a fast-paced new series
Medical student Mia Akerlund (right) meets biohackers pushing the boundaries of mainstream biology.INSIGHTS | BOOKSThe reviewer is at Zvi Meitar Institute for Legal Implications
of Emerging Technologies, Herzliya, Israel, and the Department
of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University,
New Haven, CT, USA. Email: [email protected]Biohackers
Christian Ditter
Netf ix, 2020.
6 episodes.Published by AAAS