ArticlePloS one2025
Make your own laboratory: A comparative perspective on the logistics and dynamics of DIY biology spaces and communities.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Do-It-Yourself (DIY) biology, also known as biohacking or community biology, is a grassroots movement where people conduct biological experiments outside formal institutions. DIY biologists set up their laboratories in garages and community spaces and often acquire their equipment and materials from online marketplaces. While their needs for material resources are comparable to those of academic and industrial laboratories, DIY biologists face greater challenges in acquiring such resources, reflecting the structural disparities between institutional and extra-institutional science. This paper examines how DIY biology spaces are materialized and explores the challenges encountered during this process. Materializing refers to the efforts of DIY biologists to transform their visions of grassroots science into material and immaterial results. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 23 DIY biologists across Great Britain, Germany, and Canada, alongside observations from online and in-person events, this study highlights how these practitioners position themselves within their respective countries' life science landscapes. The findings indicate that DIY biologists actively negotiate boundaries between institutional and extra-institutional science, engaging in debates over funding sources, including partnerships with industry, and seeking alternative models of community sustainability. Country-specific innovation and economic ecosystems shape these negotiations. For instance, Canadian DIY biologists embrace entrepreneurial narratives akin to 'garage start-ups,' aligning with a neoliberal ethos of innovation. In contrast, their German counterparts gravitate toward the principles of Mittelstand entrepreneurship emphasizing stability, regional embeddedness, and responsibility. Despite their diverse approaches, DIY biologists in all three contexts face systemic challenges tied to neoliberal funding structures, particularly a scarcity of financial resources. These insights contribute to understanding how grassroots science adapts to, and resists, broader socio-economic forces, illuminating the dynamics through which science is materialized outside traditional institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.