Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40893785›Full record

ArticleBioSocieties2025

Extra-institutional science: DIY biologists' democratization of scientific practices and spaces.

Anna Verena Eireiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioSocieties, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Political philosophy of experimentation.European journal for philosophy of science · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Anna Verena EireinerDepartment of Sociology, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge, CB2 3RF UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8971-1287

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DIY biology, or Do-It-Yourself biology, refers to a movement where individuals and communities establish laboratories outside traditional academic and industrial settings-such as in garages, kitchens, or community spaces. DIY biologists experiment with gene-editing technologies like CRISPR, cultivate glow-in-the-dark plants, and engineering colorful fungi. This practice challenges established norms in research, advocating for decentralized and community-driven approaches to scientific inquiry and innovation. DIY biologists are often trained scientists who choose to conduct their research in community or home laboratories. The DIY biology movement highlights that science's boundaries are flexible and sometimes ambiguous (Gieryn in Am Sociol Rev 48:781-795, 1983). By operating outside traditional research institutions, DIY biologists challenge established authority, hierarchies, funding structures, and proprietary regimes. They create a distinct identity beyond the increasingly neoliberalized institutional spheres of modern knowledge production, showcasing alternative ways to pursue science. I theorize DIY biology as 'extra-institutional science' due to its emergence outside conventional laboratories of industry and academia. This research draws on empirical data from interviews with DIY biologists and the 2021 DIY Biology Community Survey.

Indexed as

Alternative epistemic spacesAlternative scientific practiceCommunity laboratoriesDIY biologyDo-it-yourself biologyExtra-institutional science

Identifiers

PMID40893785
PMCPMC12398421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.