Week 3: CRISPR-GPT, Biohacking & Other Things You Probably Shouldn’t Do in Your Basement

Madison D -

Welcome back! 

Last week we focused a bit on CRISPR and its applications. Now, I want to look towards what CRISPR looks like in reality. Who can actually use it? What are they using it for? How are they using it? Answering these questions will help me to figure out how (or if) it can be regulated. 

Let’s start with the first question: Who? The answer to that one is…everyone? I’ve read a lot of sources that describe CRISPR as “easy to use” and “affordable,” but I figured those were exaggerations given the cost of trials and the complexity of the system. Turns out I was right and wrong. Scientists gain access to CRISPR through routes like patents, and the costs of trials and approval for research are what push the price of CRISPR products up to millions of dollars per dose. In the meantime, everyday people, or self-proclaimed “biohackers,” can complete CRISPR experiments in their basements for a few hundred dollars of supplies ordered online. CRISPR itself is kind of just the guide RNA and the Cas enzyme, so with some DNA to edit, a syringe, and various other lab tools, people like Josie Zayner (biohacker and CEO of biohacking company ‘The ODIN’) and Tristan Roberts (biohacker and HIV patient) can inject themselves with CRISPR semi-impulsively in front of live audiences (you can look that up, it actually happened. And, no, it didn’t work for either of them).

The legality of such things is something I intend on looking into next week, but generally the FDA and various other associations have deemed this type of experimentation illegal as it has no federal approval. As long as biohackers restrict themselves to self-experimenting, though, they have the argument of bodily autonomy to protect them. 

Now onto the next question: What? Well, that depends on the person. Scientists intuitively are trying to use CRISPR to cure genetic diseases. Biohackers have used CRISPR for anything from trying to get bigger muscles to making some bacteria glow for fun. The whole point of biohacking according to its top personas is democratization: to allow everyone equal access to gene editing technology, and to do with it whatever they please. Tristan Roberts for example, after losing faith in his HIV treatments, worked in tandem with a biohacking company to inject plasmids into his body that would trigger production of a natural antibody to HIV called N6. He did so on a Facebook livestream. That experiment unfortunately ended up failing. (1) 

For the final question, How?, I actually just want to share a bit about CRISPR-GPT, since I was really interested to find out it existed. CRISPR-GPT is a specialized LLM (large language model) made to help researchers design CRISPR experiments, helping them create guide RNAs for example, using AI. CRISPR-GPT would ideally help train new researchers who aren’t as familiar with the system and answer questions regarding experiments. (2) As for how biohackers use CRISPR, well, to be honest, it’s a lot of trial and error. If you want to learn more about biohacking, I would suggest you watch the Netflix documentary ‘Unnatural Selection.’ It came out in 2019 (six whole years ago), but it covers everything from ethical debates to CRISPR to gene drives. 

Thank you all for reading this total information dump and see you all next week! 

 

(1) Jessica Lussenhop, “Why I Injected Myself with an Untested Gene Therapy,” BBC News, November 21, 2017, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41990981.

(2) SynBioBeta. “Towards an AI-Driven CRISPR Future.” SynBioBeta, accessed February 17, 2025. https://www.synbiobeta.com/read/towards-an-ai-driven-crispr-future.

More Posts

Comments:

All viewpoints are welcome but profane, threatening, disrespectful, or harassing comments will not be tolerated and are subject to moderation up to, and including, full deletion.

    ella_h
    Hi Madison! You mentioned that the FDA has generally deemed biohacking illegal (unless you're doing it on yourself) but does that extend to animals (such as your dogs) or bacteria? Or does that not fall under the FDA's jurisdiction? I was also wondering how the bodily autonomy argument works and what kinds of things other than biohacking it applies to. Is it something encoded in law?
    February 27, 2025 at 10:44 am - Reply
    Anonymous
    Hello! You mentioned that the individuals that injected themselves with CRISPR failed in what they were attempting to do. I was just wondering about the consequences of something like that. Were they just unsuccessful in accomplishing their goals or were there more harmful effects?
    February 27, 2025 at 11:58 am - Reply
    theodore_t
    Is it possible that due to how CRISPR-mediated epigenetic modifications could provide a reversible alternative to permanent gene editing, the legal restrictions on CRISPR are more lax than otherwise expected for the purpose of letting people experiment, hoping someone can, by chance, create the next breakthrough?
    February 28, 2025 at 12:03 pm - Reply
    Anushka R.
    Does the CRISPR-GPT model work? Also, is there anyone who has succeeded in using CRISPR on themselves?
    March 1, 2025 at 6:43 pm - Reply
    madison_d
    Hi Ella! The FDA generally does not have a say in experiments you do on your dogs or on bacteria unless those experiments pose a threat to public health. Bodily autonomy is an argument generally prescribed to the 14th amendment and the idea of due process, which has allowed courts historically to protect people’s rights to their own bodies. This is an argument used most recently by pro-choice abortion initiatives; however, it also supports the right to refuse medical treatment and, of course, the right to experiment on oneself. As we’ve seen with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the right to bodily autonomy is more so encoded in precedent than in law. In some cases, we've also seen that bodily autonomy can we waived for a "common good," such as with mandatory vaccinations.
    March 2, 2025 at 7:38 am - Reply
    madison_d
    Hi! From what I know, neither Roberts nor Zayner experienced particularly harsh side effects, or, at least, they didn’t make those public. Roberts did report that the “nightmare scenario” would be that the plasmid he had injected was replicating out of control in his body. He experienced a feverish feeling, loss of appetitive and issues with his gastrointestinal tract for a few days. Zayner more so did her CRISPR experiment to make a point about its availability, knowing the amount she injected wasn’t significant enough to make much of a change. The general dangers associated with injecting an unknown substance into your body tend to apply though (think: your body rejecting the substance and attacking it, or even attacking its own cells).
    March 2, 2025 at 7:44 am - Reply
    madison_d
    Hi Ted! Interesting point! If we’re talking about private companies, I think that’s possible. Biotechnology does tend to shift over to private hands, especially in the US, when it comes to clinical development. I wouldn’t say the point is necessarily to “let people experiment,” but to allow researchers the opportunity to develop biotechnologies that can help broad ranges of diseases and disorders. If we’re talking about biohackers, I would have to disagree. We know a genetically modified organism is likely to escape from somewhere, just probability wise, whether that be a highly regulated lab or someone’s basement, and I think the majority of the scientific community would prefer the former. I would say we put our faith more in private companies and government funded organizations than in biohackers when it comes to the “next breakthrough.” Regulations on biohacking tend to be lax, again, especially in the US, more so because we tend to refrain from regulating what people do in private.
    March 2, 2025 at 7:57 am - Reply
    madison_d
    Hi Anushka! The CRISPR-GPT model does work! To my knowledge, though, it is not yet widespread in research settings as it still requires further development. As for your second question, as far as we know, no. Biohacking is difficult to track and results are semi-impossible to confirm, so we can’t say for sure, but in all likelihood self-experimentation has yet to yield any groundbreaking results. Biohackers have been successful in modifying frogs and axolotls though!
    March 2, 2025 at 8:06 am - Reply
    FFM
    This is very interesting. How do you envision the at home use of CRISPR?
    March 2, 2025 at 10:40 am - Reply
    madison_d
    Hi FFM! Interesting question. I’d recommend Unnatural Selection if you’re curious since they show quite simply how CRISPR is being used in at-home settings. I personally don’t know how likely it is that CRISPR will become something we use at home casually since it’s necessarily difficult to produce in large enough quantities with a low enough risk, but, if we’re going with hypotheticals, it could maybe be used for things like gene therapy, modification of appearance or modifications made to plants and animals like pets.
    March 3, 2025 at 4:08 pm - Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *