Here's a fairly new term for the healthcare lexicon – biohacking. Wikipedia files their entry under the single category of human biology. The entry itself is very brief and, at least according to Wikipedia, there are two meanings:
- the art of managing one's own biology using a combination of medical, nutritional, electronic, and Quantified Self techniques
- The second is derived from the biopunk (open access to genetic information) movement in which people create synthetic biology using DIYbio. In this context, biohacking refers to mixing and matching genes and characteristics from different species.
This isn't for the faint of heart. The use of blood samples and other lab tools and materials is not only possible – but likely. For some, already tattooed and pierced, the ick-factor is no deterrent and biohacking could simply be the next logical step in that ever evolving fascination. The point is, there's no single discipline here and it's very much a whole new – and fragmented – frontier.
In some ways, it's relatively easy to see how biohacking evolved from and through the whole quantified self movement. That too is fairly new and was arguably started by Wired Magazine editors Gary Wolf and Kevin Kelly in 2007 as "a collaboration of users and tool makers who share an interest in self knowledge through self-tracking." They were among the first to recognize that people were becoming more interested and engaged with data streams that are a natural part of human biology – mostly their own. Tapping into and capturing that data has become easy, safe and relatively cheap. In 2010, Gary concluded his TED@Cannes talk with this understated and ambitious call to arms:
"If we want to act more effectively in the world - we ought to get to know ourselves better."
Devices like the Fitbit which easily track sleep and activity were among the first devices to scale fairly quickly. Since then, smartphones themselves, using cheap accelerometers and high-definition cameras – are quickly becoming the actual data capture device. The precision can be amazing – although not always sufficient for clinical use. FDA approval has been granted for some and pending for others. The line between what is and what isn't a medical device is still a bit blurry and really belongs in a separate discussion. EyeNetra is one I saw earlier this year that uses a smartphone and a $2 plastic lens attachment for delivering mobile eye exams. According to the bold and provocative statement on their website:
"As it turns out, phones could prove the ideal device for conducting eye tests."
So, how much do those machines cost that we gaze through at the optometrist? Another one is Sanofi's iBGStar blood glucose meter (now with full FDA approval). The iBGStar costs $99.95 from the Apple Store and is compatible with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation iPod Touch as well as the iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4 and 4S.
Apple also filed patents on capturing blood oxygen levels, temperature and heart rate through those ubiquitous (and mostly white) ear buds. On the app side, there are now thousands that you can download that run the gamut of both "health" and "wellness." A fairly recent example is Cardiograph by Macropinch - which measures heart rate. This one's not intended for clinical use (yet) but even without the clinical precision - the sheer ease of use and very low (or no) cost will help with the ongoing management of people with cardiac conditions. Simply put your finger completely over the camera lens, press start/stop - and you have a fairly basic - and mobile - ECG monitor.
All of which clearly falls under the domain of the quantified self. That's fairly easy to understand and embrace but that's not really biohacking. Like the garages of Hewlett-Packard and Jobs-Wozniak, this brave new frontier has begun by hacking hardware, firmware and software – often in a very similar garage floor space. These pioneers are building low-cost lab tools and genomics kits for a new generation of hackers. This time, instead of moving bits and data on a screen the goals are nothing less than genetic powered biology. Last month, Wired Magazine wrote an article – Genome at Home: Biohackers Build Their Own Labs. The article highlighted some of the early devices being built that often include low-cost Arduino boards (an open source, single-board microcontroller) and 3-D printed components. The devices – several under $100 – come with names like GeneLaser, SpikerBox and OpenPCR (PCR = polymerase chain reaction – the process of heating and cooling genetic material). The scientific pursuit here isn't just reading and writing bits - it's reading and writing DNA. The manipulations aren't computer code - their genetic code. Same hacking – different material. As Bill Gates said 2 years ago in another Wired article:
"Creating artificial life with DNA synthesis. That’s sort of the equivalent of machine-language programming. If you want to change the world in some big way, that’s where you should start — biological molecules."
The medical utility of all this is still in it's infancy – and clearly lacks the clinical discipline or study to apply any results more broadly. Mostly it's designed for individual use and self-improvement – but there's another group that's focused and committed to biohacking for very different reasons. In Part 2 we'll hear directly from a "biohacker" who's amazing personal story is both inspirational – and representative of the need for many different views of this bold new frontier. In this case, no needles were used - or required.
