In the comfort of your living room...

When we think of scientific researchers, we normally picture some scientist clad in a white coat, goggles, and latex gloves, handling sterilized eppendorf tubes and $300 mechanical pipettes. Certainly and arguably that is the norm, researchers working under reputable institutions in regulated environments. But think back to your middle school years when you grew moldy bread in your refrigerator for science class! Potentially not a biohazard then, but a surprising trend towards "home-research" is growing in the United States.

Take 31-year-old Meredith Patterson, who lives in an apartment in San Francisco. On a relatively cheap budget of $500, she hopes to synthesize genetically modified organism for the sake of identifying melemine, which killed a number of infants in China last year, in yogurt. She hasn't had success so far, but cites being able to eat the yogurt afterwards as a plus. "She uses a plastic salad spinner as a centrifuge and Ziploc plastic bags as airtight containers for her samples."

Some are worried that these upstarts may be a danger to themselves or others, because of their fiddling with the unknown. It's feasible that newly created bacteria would have unintended properties or consequences, and these scientists don't exactly have the best resources to keep things quarantined.

The benefits of such home-grown research are tangible. Such opportunities foster innovative and creative thinking that isn't just restricted to the PhDs, which is what America is all about, right? More people in the field creating helpful remedies and therapies is realistically a boon to society, and some may appreciate it as a side hobby.

So where do we draw the ethical line? By and large these stay-at-home scientists aren't regulated or supervised; they buy most of the materials and equipment (that they didn't find in their pantry) from legal parties, but then set out on their own. I think this kind of research should be encouraged and not limited; any question of unfairness for "true" researchers should be put down, as discoveries made in the kitchen will never have the same clout as those made in a lab, and will never have the "breakthrough" capabilities. Those with malicious intent wouldn't really be stopped by red tape, and through legal means you would never be able to experiment on anything particularly dangerous. Given that there won't be any mad scientists running around, the potential benefits are such that this soft of practice would do well to become mainstream.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/19/biohacking-genetics-research