References
- 1de Lange, O., Dunn, K. and Peek, N. (2022) ‘Short on time and big on ideas’: Perspectives from lab members on DIYBio work in community biolabs. arXiv:2205.00079. DOI:
http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.00079 - 2Dzandu, M.D. and Pathak, B. (2021) DIY laboratories, their practices, and challenges—a systematic literature review. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 33(10), pp. 1242–1254. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2021.1968373
- 3Eireiner, A.V. (2023).
Extra-institutional science and the democratization of scientific practice: DIY biology in Canada, Great Britain, and Germany . Apollo – University of Cambridge Repository. DOI: 10.17863/CAM.109663 - 4Eireiner, A.V. (2025). Extra-institutional science: DIY biologists’ democratization of scientific practices and spaces. Biosocieties. DOI: 10.1057/s41292-024-00347-w
- 5Eveleigh, A., Jennett, C., Blandford, A., Brohan, P., and Cox, A.L. (2014). Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘14).
Association for Computing Machinery , New York, NY, USA, 2985–2994. DOI: 10.1145/2556288.2557262 - 6Ferretti, F. (2019) Mapping do-it-yourself science. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 15(1):
1 . DOI: 10.1186/s40504-018-0090-1 - 7Foti, N. (2022) A “Tyranny of Structurelessness”? The benefits and burdens of power sharing and governance models in citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 7(1). DOI: 10.5334/cstp.528
- 8Freeman, J. (1972) The tyranny of structurelessness. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 17: 151–164.
- 9Gallegos, J.E., Boyer, C., Pauwels, E., Kaplan, W.A., and Peccoud J. (2018) The Open Insulin Project: A Case Study for ‘Biohacked’ Medicines. Trends Biotechnol, 36(12): 1211–1218. Epub 2018 Sep 13. PMID: 30220578. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.07.009
- 10Graham, C.L.B., Landrain, T.E., Vjestica, A., Masselot, C., Lawton, E., Blondel, L., Haenal, L., et al. (2023) Community review: A robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities. F1000 Research Apr 18; 11:
1440 . DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.125886.2 - 11Heaton, L. (2022). Chains of Participation in Producing Biodiversity Infrastructures: Digital Reconfigurations of Scientific Work. Science as Culture, 33(3): 297–320. DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2025774
- 12Kokshagina, O. (2022) Open Covid-19: Organizing an extreme crowdsourcing campaign to tackle grand challenges. R&D Management 52(2): 206–219. DOI: 10.1111/radm.12470
- 13Landrain, T., Meyer, M., Perez, A.M., and Sussan, R. (2013) Do-it-yourself biology: challenges and promises for an open science and technology movement. Systems and Synthetic Biology 7, 115–126. DOI: 10.1007/s11693-013-9116-4
- 14Lewis, D. (2022) Barriers to citizen science and dissemination of knowledge in healthcare. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 7(1). DOI: 10.5334/cstp.511
- 15Monaco, C. and Ware, S. (2022) Structural challenges in deployment of an open-source diagnostic by independent researchers during a public health emergency. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 7(1). DOI: 10.5334/cstp.530
- 16Rasmussen, L.M., Guerrini, C.J., Kuiken, T., Nebeker, C., Pearlman, A., Ware, S.B., Wexler, A., et al. (2020). Realizing the present and future promise of DIY biology and medicine through a trust architecture, Hastings Center Reports 50(6), 10–14. DOI: 10.1002/hast.1194
- 17Scheifele, L.Z. and Burkett, T. (2016) The first three years of a community lab: Lessons learned and ways forward. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 17(1): 81–85. DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1013
- 18Trejo, M., Canfield, I., Brooks, W.B., Pearlman, A., and Guerrini, C. (2021) “A cohort of pirate ships”: Biomedical citizen scientists’ attitudes toward ethical oversight. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 6(1). DOI: 10.5334/cstp.360
- 19Tyson, A. (2019) NOLS and nutcrackers: The motivations, barriers, and benefits experienced by outdoor adventure educators in the context of a citizen science project. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1). DOI: 10.5334/cstp.127
- 20Vaage, N.S. Fringe biotechnology. BioSocieties 12, 109–131 (2017). DOI: 10.1057/s41292-016-0033-0
- 21Walker, J.T., Strawhacker, A., Angleton, C., Allan, J., Konwar, A., Obayomi, O, and Kong, D.S. (2020) 2021.06.28-biosummit4.0proceeding_v5_final_interactive.pdf. Available at:
https://drive.google.com/file/u/1/d/1ee87PjGAXT-O98-qovRwNmujKGh4THAB/view?usp=sharing&pli=1&usp=embed_facebook (accessed 3 April 2025). - 22Wexler, A., Choi, R., Pearlman, A., and Rasmussen, L.M. (2023). Navigating biosafety concerns within COVID-19 do-it-yourself (DIY) science: an ethnographic and interview study. Biosocieties 28 (March), 1–22. DOI: 10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2