Advertisement
BIOPUNK REVOLUTION
by annalee newitz
CYBERPUNK IS PASSÉ. The Internet boom was a joke. Steve Jobs is a dink, Bill Gates is a fascist, and Carly Fiorina has lost the Midas touch. The days of Mondo 2000 are long over. What new techno-arts revolution will come next? Which new batch of writers and mad scientists will inspire us in the 2000s?
The answer has already arrived: it's the biopunk revolution.
Biopunks are the visionaries and biotech wizards whose imaginations were set on fire by the knowledge that scientists had finally sequenced the human genome last year. Biopunks get off on creative genetic engineering, RNA research, cloning, and protein synthesis. Biopunks hack genomic data, lining up human genomes next to mouse genomes to find out what the two species have in common and what they don't (surprise: they have way more in common than you could possibly ever imagine).
Unlike the biotech corporate drones at places like the Maryland-based firm Celera, biopunks believe in the liberation of genetic data. Celera, you'll recall, owns a sequence of the entire human genome. If you want to use their data for research, you have to pay for it out the yin-yang. The Human Genome Project public consortium, on the other hand, makes all of its data available to anyone who wants it. The public human genome sequence exists in rough draft form, and many scientists believe that this HGP public information may be far more accurate than Celera's –partly because of the number of people working on it and partly because of the sequencing technique that the public consortium is using. As you might have guessed, HGP public data is for biopunks –you too can browse your genome for free at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/human.
Selling genomic data for commercial use is for reactionaries. And yet the gene- and protein-patenting biz has gone through the roof. Discovering a gene or a protein means you can patent it, which means you can own it. Biopunks urge us to think about just how creepy that is. What if a company could own other parts of our bodies the way they can own our genes? Say McDonald's patented the arm, and whenever you used your own arm, you had to pay 10 ¢to the boys who brought you the Happy Meal. That would suck, wouldn't it?
Gene patents lead to scenarios like my arm example, only writ small. In the not-so-distant future you'll have to pay cash to some company in order to get information on how one of your genes will interact with a specific kind of medicine. Even better, if a doctor discovers that one of your genes synthesizes a unique and nifty protein, she can patent your own personal protein and sell it. How fucked is that?
The biopunk movement has spawned its own passionate philosophers, lawyers, and intellectuals who want to rip holes in the ridiculous patent laws that allow McBioCorp to own the gene for making eyes, growing tumors, or whatever. People like UC Santa Cruz's Donna Haraway and MIT's Evelyn Fox Keller write beautifully about the ways that ideology can affect the progress of pure science. I will adore Keller forever for her cogent analysis of the sexist assumptions underlying the cloning controversy in The Century of the Gene (Harvard). And then there are the bratty geniuses of the biopunk world, like Dorothy Nelkin, coauthor of Body Bazaar (Crown), a critique of how commerce influences biotech. When I asked Nelkin her opinion about the ethics of patenting genes, she pulled a brainiac's tantrum. "I can't answer such a general question!" she raged. "Why don't you just go out and read the dozens of articles on this issue in scientific journals?" Ah, the wrath of a biopunk. Is there anything more awesome?
Although some might disagree with me, I think the biopunk movement is pro-clone. Anything to change the way humans breed is a Good Thing. It gets us out of the mommy-daddy-baby continuum.
Biopunk fiction writers like Octavia Butler (check out her amazing Xenogenesis Trilogy) play with the idea of genetic engineering as a revolutionary practice. Biopunk even has an artistic branch, inspired by Chicago artist Eduardo Kac (see www.ekac.org), whose "transgenic bunny" inspired massive global controversy last year. When Alba, the bunny in question, was just a little zygote, French geneticists injected her with the gene responsible for creating fluorescence in jellyfish. Now she's a normal floppy bunny who glows bright green if you expose her to fluorescent light. Weird science almost always inspires weird art. That's the lesson of the artistic biopunks.
Ironically, protesters who think Kac's project is disturbing have lobbied to keep Alba in the French lab where she was engineered. Kac is currently organizing an effort to help Alba live a normal bunny's life in his Chicago home with his family. "Free Alba!" is his rallying cry (sprocket.telab.artic.edu/ekac/bunnyadd.html).
"Free our genetic data!" is the rallying cry of the biopunk. Let us do what we want with our own biology.
Annalee Newitz (biopunk@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who is pro-clone. Her column also appears in Metro, Silicon Valley's weekly newspaper.
www.sfbg.com/SFLife/tech/71.html
While Newitz correctly pinpoints a growing subculture of individuals, who like the 1980/90s cyberpunks saw their role as adversarial to corporate powers turning profits rather than human benefits, she too quickly dismisses biopunk as different from cyberpunk:
"Biopunk also differs from cyberpunk in that it is associated with the life sciences and medicine, two areas of inquiry that have a long history of ethical debate over the relationship between research and the public good. Biopunks can therefore call on a venerable tradition of philosophical thought when they raise objections to how scientists are gathering and using genomic data. Moreover, biopunks often protest misuses of the human body and its reproductive functions, which makes biopunk a considerably more feminist and queer movement than straight-guy cyberpunk ever was.
www.salon.com/tech/featur...k/index.html
www.scifi.com/sfw/issue14...terview.html
So what about cyberpunk? Is cyber still punk?
Gibson: No. Cyber can't be punk these days, because when cyberpunk was labeled that way, the statement "I'm a criminally intentioned Bohemian with a computer" would cause people to get goosebumps, right? But today that same statement has the same effect as "I'm a criminally intentioned Bohemian with a washing machine."
It's just not a scary concept any more; it's been co-opted?
Gibson: It's not that it's been co-opted, it's that computation has become so much more ubiquitous, that the "...with a computer" part doesn't do anything for anybody. Cyberpunk worked when the Internet was in its hand-wound crystal radio phase, when you had to be a sort of hobbyist to do e-mail, and it all had a very steep learning curve. Those days are over. I don't know what the equivalent would be, "biopunk," or something. You know, kids in the Haight doing their own genetic manipulation. [Laughs.] That kind of thing is closer. What cyberpunk has become, I think, is just kind of a tag for a particular flavor of popular culture. You can describe a video or a pair of trousers as "cyberpunk." It's not really happening. It's not really happening anymore.
www.thoughtstudio.com/CHP%20C...punk.htm
by annalee newitz
CYBERPUNK IS PASSÉ. The Internet boom was a joke. Steve Jobs is a dink, Bill Gates is a fascist, and Carly Fiorina has lost the Midas touch. The days of Mondo 2000 are long over. What new techno-arts revolution will come next? Which new batch of writers and mad scientists will inspire us in the 2000s?
The answer has already arrived: it's the biopunk revolution.
Biopunks are the visionaries and biotech wizards whose imaginations were set on fire by the knowledge that scientists had finally sequenced the human genome last year. Biopunks get off on creative genetic engineering, RNA research, cloning, and protein synthesis. Biopunks hack genomic data, lining up human genomes next to mouse genomes to find out what the two species have in common and what they don't (surprise: they have way more in common than you could possibly ever imagine).
Unlike the biotech corporate drones at places like the Maryland-based firm Celera, biopunks believe in the liberation of genetic data. Celera, you'll recall, owns a sequence of the entire human genome. If you want to use their data for research, you have to pay for it out the yin-yang. The Human Genome Project public consortium, on the other hand, makes all of its data available to anyone who wants it. The public human genome sequence exists in rough draft form, and many scientists believe that this HGP public information may be far more accurate than Celera's –partly because of the number of people working on it and partly because of the sequencing technique that the public consortium is using. As you might have guessed, HGP public data is for biopunks –you too can browse your genome for free at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/human.
Selling genomic data for commercial use is for reactionaries. And yet the gene- and protein-patenting biz has gone through the roof. Discovering a gene or a protein means you can patent it, which means you can own it. Biopunks urge us to think about just how creepy that is. What if a company could own other parts of our bodies the way they can own our genes? Say McDonald's patented the arm, and whenever you used your own arm, you had to pay 10 ¢to the boys who brought you the Happy Meal. That would suck, wouldn't it?
Gene patents lead to scenarios like my arm example, only writ small. In the not-so-distant future you'll have to pay cash to some company in order to get information on how one of your genes will interact with a specific kind of medicine. Even better, if a doctor discovers that one of your genes synthesizes a unique and nifty protein, she can patent your own personal protein and sell it. How fucked is that?
The biopunk movement has spawned its own passionate philosophers, lawyers, and intellectuals who want to rip holes in the ridiculous patent laws that allow McBioCorp to own the gene for making eyes, growing tumors, or whatever. People like UC Santa Cruz's Donna Haraway and MIT's Evelyn Fox Keller write beautifully about the ways that ideology can affect the progress of pure science. I will adore Keller forever for her cogent analysis of the sexist assumptions underlying the cloning controversy in The Century of the Gene (Harvard). And then there are the bratty geniuses of the biopunk world, like Dorothy Nelkin, coauthor of Body Bazaar (Crown), a critique of how commerce influences biotech. When I asked Nelkin her opinion about the ethics of patenting genes, she pulled a brainiac's tantrum. "I can't answer such a general question!" she raged. "Why don't you just go out and read the dozens of articles on this issue in scientific journals?" Ah, the wrath of a biopunk. Is there anything more awesome?
Although some might disagree with me, I think the biopunk movement is pro-clone. Anything to change the way humans breed is a Good Thing. It gets us out of the mommy-daddy-baby continuum.
Biopunk fiction writers like Octavia Butler (check out her amazing Xenogenesis Trilogy) play with the idea of genetic engineering as a revolutionary practice. Biopunk even has an artistic branch, inspired by Chicago artist Eduardo Kac (see www.ekac.org), whose "transgenic bunny" inspired massive global controversy last year. When Alba, the bunny in question, was just a little zygote, French geneticists injected her with the gene responsible for creating fluorescence in jellyfish. Now she's a normal floppy bunny who glows bright green if you expose her to fluorescent light. Weird science almost always inspires weird art. That's the lesson of the artistic biopunks.
Ironically, protesters who think Kac's project is disturbing have lobbied to keep Alba in the French lab where she was engineered. Kac is currently organizing an effort to help Alba live a normal bunny's life in his Chicago home with his family. "Free Alba!" is his rallying cry (sprocket.telab.artic.edu/ekac/bunnyadd.html).
"Free our genetic data!" is the rallying cry of the biopunk. Let us do what we want with our own biology.
Annalee Newitz (biopunk@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who is pro-clone. Her column also appears in Metro, Silicon Valley's weekly newspaper.
www.sfbg.com/SFLife/tech/71.html
While Newitz correctly pinpoints a growing subculture of individuals, who like the 1980/90s cyberpunks saw their role as adversarial to corporate powers turning profits rather than human benefits, she too quickly dismisses biopunk as different from cyberpunk:
"Biopunk also differs from cyberpunk in that it is associated with the life sciences and medicine, two areas of inquiry that have a long history of ethical debate over the relationship between research and the public good. Biopunks can therefore call on a venerable tradition of philosophical thought when they raise objections to how scientists are gathering and using genomic data. Moreover, biopunks often protest misuses of the human body and its reproductive functions, which makes biopunk a considerably more feminist and queer movement than straight-guy cyberpunk ever was.
www.salon.com/tech/featur...k/index.html
www.scifi.com/sfw/issue14...terview.html
So what about cyberpunk? Is cyber still punk?
Gibson: No. Cyber can't be punk these days, because when cyberpunk was labeled that way, the statement "I'm a criminally intentioned Bohemian with a computer" would cause people to get goosebumps, right? But today that same statement has the same effect as "I'm a criminally intentioned Bohemian with a washing machine."
It's just not a scary concept any more; it's been co-opted?
Gibson: It's not that it's been co-opted, it's that computation has become so much more ubiquitous, that the "...with a computer" part doesn't do anything for anybody. Cyberpunk worked when the Internet was in its hand-wound crystal radio phase, when you had to be a sort of hobbyist to do e-mail, and it all had a very steep learning curve. Those days are over. I don't know what the equivalent would be, "biopunk," or something. You know, kids in the Haight doing their own genetic manipulation. [Laughs.] That kind of thing is closer. What cyberpunk has become, I think, is just kind of a tag for a particular flavor of popular culture. You can describe a video or a pair of trousers as "cyberpunk." It's not really happening. It's not really happening anymore.
www.thoughtstudio.com/CHP%20C...punk.htm
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Wed, July 21, 2004 - 6:18 AMChrist! Willy is a bloody useless yuppy that hasnt worked a real day in his life. Not only can I read that he hasnt, but you can tell that through his writing. I actually had to put down Pattern Recognition because the bloke was shitting me to tears!
My apologies to the topic's Author that I didnt read the post, I just saw "Gibson", then the reply button just below....
but bloody oath, if I saw that twat walking down the street I'd ram an hexagonally shaped object so far up his arse, he'd be shitting stars for months.
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Wed, July 21, 2004 - 9:49 AMMost biology students I know are untrustable, cheatin' wankers who think escaping in large terms based on latin is a sign of knowledge. Nah, I'd rather re-read ambient by Womak and listen to some Miles Davis sippin' an ice tea at a coffee*HOUSE* than have to deal with another round of DNA Base pair-nomenclature-based descriptions of technology.
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Wed, July 21, 2004 - 11:23 AMOn a more objective note, the biopunk stuff has been done before; and repeated ad infinitum in the works of Gibson, and to some extent trad. sci fi writers like Frank Herbert.
What I haven't seen is a media-hacker book, or a social engineering book, or a political hacking book. Any sufficiently mumbo-jumbo'ed field can have the cyberpunk story-formula adapted to it; so why not? -
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Wed, July 21, 2004 - 7:59 PMHow about A Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin? He's a bit of a fascist, but the book is good, and kind of meets your description as much as it meets any description.
Zodiac is very media-political oriented, although there's some bio and chem elements to it, too.
And there are votepunk *movies*...Wag the Dog is my favorite, and I haven't seen Bulworth but I heard a few good things about it. -
-
Beyond Biopunks
Thu, July 22, 2004 - 6:46 AMThe Rise of Homo Superior
Contents
The Early Days
The Biopunks
The post-biopunk generation - the Tweaks
The Geneteks
Despite the popularity of eugenist and selective-breeding ideologies of the industrial period Old Earth, based on obsolete theories of race and intelligence and culminating in short-sighted memeticities such as the Aryan Morningstar League and the early 22nd century c.e. Lunar Eugenist Institute, it was actually the transhumanist and libertarian biohackers that gave rise to Homo superior. But this was only because because of the enormous biotech revolution taking place at that time
The Early Days
The first decades of the 21st century c.e. saw developments in genomics equal to the computer and information revolution of the last decades of the 20th century. The original application, in the 2010s c.e. , was in identifiying and removing those genes responsible for congential disease. But beginning in the years 2015-2020 c.e. developments in genomics and genetic engineering allowed parents to actively select specific genes for their unborn children, in the hope of improving their physical attractiveness, athletic, intellectual, and/or creative abilities, longevity, and resistance to diseases, stiring up a hornet's nest of moral and legal issues. While most genes were considered "public domain", and only a fee for the the splicing was charged, already genomic megacorporations like Celeron began selling the rights to specialty genes.
By the 2030s c.e. genetic modification of humans were becoming increasingly accepted, although there was a vocal minority opposed to such acts of "playing God". Germline modifications continued, although their legality has been uncertain. A generation of superbabies were growing up into child entrepreneurs are forcing big changes to business and employment law and practices, as well as rules relating to legal maturity and asset ownership.
By the 2040s c.e. a vast "genomic gap" had developed between the haves and the have-nots - greater even than the digital divide of the early 21st century, and equivalent to the class distinctions of the early industrial age. Those fortunate wealthy individuals, or those from wealthy families, have the benefit of germline modification, and are tending to be consistently more intelligent, more athletic, more healthy, and more physically attractive. Yet at the same time true genuis and creativity remain elusive, being the result of combinations of genetic and environmental factors that are difficult to quantify.
toptop
The Biopunks
The development of do-it-yourself genomic engineering in the 2050s and 2060s c.e. gave rise to the biopunks, a generation of mostly young, white superbaby males under 25, whose dress ranged from baggies and T-shirts through goth black and multiple piecings to conventional suits, and whose lifestyle's varried accordingly, but all of whome were distinguished by self-inflicted gene hacks, feathers or scales instead of hair, bands of chromatophores, mobile tatoos, and general somatic enhancement. Abhoring business patenting and secrecy, they were pathological braggarts, with a culture based on open source ("genomes want to be free") and pirate geneprints were placed on servers in datahavens from the North Sea ex-oilrig microstates to the pirate havens of states like Azerbejan and Mogadishu.
The biopunk movement accelerated the cultural acceptance of germline engineering, which was developing in more and other ways than merely cosmetic, athletic, intellectual, or for clone farming. Various groups and states were also modifying newborns for various experimental extremes such as lifespans much longer than is generally attempted in mainstream efforts so far, weightlessness (for prolonged deep space habitation), and there were even for some years private and military programs that attempted to increase extrasensory perception and 'hard-wired' versions of mind-over-body techniques only accessible through years of discipline and learning in pre-scientific cultures - e.g. Tibetian monks, etc.).
The post-biopunk generation - the "Tweaks"
The post-biopunk generation were less interested in biofashion and simple experimentation, and more interested in furthering their own - and by implication, human - evolution. They began referring to themselves as Homo superior, although they did not represent a single genomic pattern, nor were they so different from baseline humans to make fertile offspring through interbreeding impossible (the conventional definition of the biological species). More commonly, they were called the Tweaks, an early biopunk term, for their enthusiasm of "tweaking" their genome and achieving the optimal geneprint. While some tweaks became wealthy through working for, and eventually running, megacorporations, and aggressively protected their patented geneprints, others, like the biopunks before them, were strongly anti-business and anti-patent, adopting the biopunk slogan "genomes want to be free" and exchanging DNA source-codes and phenotypal simulations, often via DNI.
The development of the orbital colonies in the 22nd century c.e. excited great interest among some superiors, especially the SMI²LEs (named after an equation by the late industrial age pharmocratic prophet Timohy Leary - Space Migration Intelligence squared Life Extension) who saw it as the new frontier and breaking free of the larval terrestrial existence. Other superiors saw the space frontier as a false hope, and worked instead to undermine government, religious, and mercentile interests and make the Earth into bio-technical utopia.
By the later 22nd century c.e. the orbital tweaks had already claded from the terran tweaks. Second and third generation orbital superiors like Jean Beloit Sampson, Mariko Sakawa, Roland Kozyrev, and Michelle Chan established the status of the orbital Homo sapiens superior as formidable corporate raiders who worked in conjunction with in-house expert systems and AIs to build huge corporate empires
The Geneteks
The rise in power of the Orbital states during the 22nd and 23rd century c.e. was also the rise in power of the orbital superiors, who began aquiring more and more power and influence. At the same time resentment began building among the Terran, Lunar, and Martian superiors. The huge Terran tweak-run corporation GeneTEK aligned itself with some of the small independent and diseffected orbitals and lunar states in order to establish a presence in space not dependent on the Orbital Alliance and their near-monopoly on Interplanetary travel.
Even before the spread of the pirate "Gloriously Bright" germline cell patch, GeneTEK had already acquired a favourable reputation among genehacks and neobiopunks for its distribution of opensource genomes. By the late 23rd century c.e. GeneTEK, the Orbital Alliance, the Terran and Lunar States, Mars, the Belt colonies, and the mining megacorporations were competing in the development of the outer solar system. Not only was there a rivalry of interests, but also of clades, as different subspecies competed. While the Terran and Terran-aligned orbitals employed neumans and microgravity-adapted space people (Homo sapiens cosmoi), and the Orbital League used their own tweaks (Homo sapiens superior) in large SIOS vessels, the Lunarians and Martians used unmodified colonistst in Luna-standard and Mars-standard gravity medium-sized vessels, the GeneTEK faction had geneered their own deep-space subspecies, the Homo sapiens geneticus.
For all the expense, the GeneTEK gamble payed off, although this was perhaps more due to bad luck on the part of their rivals than to superiority over the Orbitals. The microgravity-adapted space people, resentful of on-going prejudice and baseline hysteria, seceeded from Earth and established their own colonies beyond Pluto, becoming the first of the true haloist clades. The Lunarians and Martians established a few colonies, but for the most part their efforts failed less due to psychological effects of prolonged isolation and more because their ships were not large enough to contain viable biospheres. The Orbital League became embroiled in a trade war with the Luna states, and with resources more limited were unable to maintain the necessary industrial output for the manufacture of the giant SIOS vessels. By the time they had subverted the big Lunar Cities and formed the Cis-Lunar League, the GeneTEK effort had already become a distinct political entity, the Gengineer Republic, essentially a GeneTEK-run corporate state, and working on Machiavellian efforts to take control of the Jovian League.
The 24th century c.e. saw increasing cladisation and hence increasing ideological differences, especially between the "big three" - the Orbital dominated Cis-Lunar League, the Mars Federation, and the Gengineer Republic dominated Jovian league. But by the end of the century the term "tweak" had become for some a rather impolite term (although not as bad as "gooks", "googels" or "freaks") that non-superiors use to refer to those humanoids who have been genetically engineered to superhuman status. Some su clades insisted on using the Linnean term Homo superior, despite the fact this name was declared nomen vanum for completely valid reasons by The Interplanetary Society of Zoological Nomenclature.
Apart from matters of zoological convention, there is another reason why Homo superior is not a valid term. Quite simply, by this time there was not one single species of superior, but dozens. Each su and tweak colony and guild and association had its own opinion as to what was the optimal course that human evolution should take. Moreover, different outpost and biospheres had different environmental conditions which required different biological and genetic modification.
www.orionsarm.com/historica...erior.html
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Thu, July 22, 2004 - 9:20 AMLets see stuff I've been reading:
Ambient: Womak
Camp Concentration: Disch
Watching:
Wild Palms
Metropolis -
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Thu, July 22, 2004 - 1:23 PMIsn't this what Mondo 2k called 'Ribofunk?' Or was that the Happy Mutant Handbook?
-
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Thu, July 22, 2004 - 3:45 PMRibofunk is a collection of stories by Paul Di Filippo. And it's great!
Check it out when you can. -
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Sat, July 24, 2004 - 3:47 AMI second the reccomend for Ribofunk. One of my favorite books. I just re-read it for about the umpteenth time. I admire Di Fillipo for not really going back to that well again (unless you count that tropical totipotent bachannalia novel) but I actually wish there was more of that. it was just so freaking well done.
Jonathan Lethem did a tongue in cheek biopunk novel with "gun, with occasional music". that's a hell of a lot of fun. but check out ribofunk first. -
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Sat, July 24, 2004 - 7:32 AM -
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Mon, July 26, 2004 - 3:30 AMThanks for the reminder about that. I have Strange Trades, and that is one of his more Cyber/ribo punk books. if the timelines weren't all screwed up, you can call it a transitionairy collection between the sci-fi and the weirder, literary stuff, like Lost pages and little doors.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The Biopunk Revolution: Cyberpunk is passe?
Sun, July 25, 2004 - 1:11 PMsequencing the genome doesn't mean much. It's like being able to see the source code for a language but not have a working interpreter for it. It makes for a pretty wall map I suppose, and maybe some wonderful new atrocities in the US Patent Office.