Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Biohacking Movement and Open Source Insulin

Posted by timothy on from the raw-milk-and-handcrafted-biologicals dept.

szczys writes: Since early last century, insulin has been produced from the pancreas of animals. In the late 1970s we figured out how to synthesize insulin using bacteria or yeast. As the biohacking movement has grown, insulin production has been a common target, but for some reason we're not there yet. Dan Maloney looked into the backstory (including the amazing story of the Saxl family who produced life-saving insulin during WWII) and a new startup that is trying to get Biohackers working on the problem. Update: 07/30 21:56 GMT by T : That's WWII above, not WWI; mea culpa.

66 comments

  1. Open source insulin? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

    Interesting idea...

    How about open-source beer? Now there's a really great.. Oh wait! It's been done!

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:Open source insulin? by Paco103 · · Score: 1

      Well great, now when someone says "Free as in Beer" I'll still wonder what kind of free they mean.. . .

  2. Biohacking? by everett · · Score: 1

    Is that what we're calling "genetic engineering" these days to keep the tin-hatters away?

    --
    Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    1. Re:Biohacking? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      You don't use tin hats in biology. You need to keep in tune with Gai's resonances. Tin foil hats are strictly for computer types.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Biohacking? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Engineering implies a corporate budget, hacking implies doing it in your garage.

    3. Re:Biohacking? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Same thing that differentiates "engineer" with "maker".

      Engineer: gets paid to work on projects with huge tools worth multiple thousands of dollars.
      Maker: works on projects for fun with desktop tools worth a few hundreds of dollars.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    4. Re:Biohacking? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Basically. The food religion says GMO is bad until one of them happens to need insulin and also happens to be allergic to "natural" cow insulin, then GMO produced humulin (secreted by a genetically modified e. coli bacterium to be chemically similar to human insulin) is a miracle.

      Which by the way, this particular GMO has been in use for 32 years now.

    5. Re:Biohacking? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Basically. The food religion says GMO is bad until one of them happens to need insulin and also happens to be allergic to "natural" cow insulin, then GMO produced humulin (secreted by a genetically modified e. coli bacterium to be chemically similar to human insulin) is a miracle.

      We recently locally went through a very acrimonious ballot measure campaign where the food police wanted a complete ban on GMO production or products in our county. They couldn't understand that this would impact diabetics in a serious way, or that it would stop the local university from doing ANY research on GMO foods, or research using GMO products (like lab mice with special genes, etc.) As a major employer, the loss of grant money being spent for this research wouldn't cost any jobs, the people would just do something else. At least that was what the proponents claimed.

      Fortunately it failed by a very large margin, but the nuts are still roasting and have promised we'll see it again. After all, the farms that are growing GMO crops are "our farms" and it is "our food", even though they don't own the farms and won't buy the food they produce because it is GMO. And there is no other impact to the local economy or lives that a complete ban would create, no sir.

    6. Re:Biohacking? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      From the /. way (way) back machine...are you familiar with the AFDB?

    7. Re:Biohacking? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The food religion says GMO is bad until one of them happens to need insulin and also happens to be allergic to "natural" cow insulin, then GMO produced humulin (secreted by a genetically modified e. coli bacterium to be chemically similar to human insulin) is a miracle.

      And because tomatoes are delicious, we should all go eat a whole bunch of Atropa belladonna.

      The GMO religion believes that every GMO is a good GMO. That no genetically modified organism can ever possibly hurt you, so you must not be allowed to know which foods are from GMOs. They've never heard about NewLeaf Potatoes or LibertyLink Rice.

      You know the difference between GMO produced humulin and GMO produced food? GMO produced medicines are labeled. You know what else is different about them? The drug manufacturers who use GMOs have done a good job of marketing their products and the makers of Agent Orange have done a lousy job of marketing their products. Maybe if they used some of the money they spend lobbying congress to pass industry-friendly laws to market GMO foods to consumers, they might be able to sell people that genetically modified foods have worthwhile benefits.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Biohacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And the line is getting blurred as the "few hundreds of dollars" tools approach the functionality of "multiple thousands of dollars" tools. This is what interests (concerns?) me.

      Twenty years ago, I was part of a small team with a tens of millions of dollars budget making a widget that can now be duplicated in a few days, an ebay account and $100. Who is going to keep buying $50k widgets when they can be made for $50? That's a lot of money velocity leaving the economy

    9. Re:Biohacking? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      The market for the 50K$ widgets isn't the same as the market for the 50$ widget.

      The first one is industrial, commercial, etc. They require technical support, guaranteed specifications, etc.

      The second one is personal use, where price usually comes first. And so few people can afford the 50K$ widgets that you'll never see any significant difference in sales.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    10. Re:Biohacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also don't forget the "Gee, Moe" religion which wants to know if you're some kind of a wise guy.

    11. Re:Biohacking? by sjames · · Score: 1

      One is modifying bacteria in a lab to produce a vital medication. The other is modifying plants growing out in the open to make them produce pesticides that they swear won't hurt us when we eat them.

    12. Re:Biohacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Biohacking basically refers to anything done to the body by smaller companies/individuals.

      It includes things like putting a small magnet in your finger to detect magnetic fields, implanting RFID chips, and now simple genetic engineering that can be done in the comfort of your own home, in large part do to companies selling precursor and building block DNA and RNA through the mail.

    13. Re:Biohacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GMO religion believes that every GMO is a good GMO. That no genetically modified organism can ever possibly hurt you, so you must not be allowed to know which foods are from GMOs.

      That's kind of a pointless distinction though because if it's in a package at the grocery store it's a GMO (and therefore can be labeled) . They only question is wether the modification as done over thousands/millions of years in the process of domestication and selective breeding/grafting or more quickly using more efficient modern methods.

    14. Re:Biohacking? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      The GMO religion believes that every GMO is a good GMO. That no genetically modified organism can ever possibly hurt you, so you must not be allowed to know which foods are from GMOs. They've never heard about NewLeaf Potatoes or LibertyLink Rice.

      I've never said it can never possibly hurt you. Heck, I think there's probably a likelihood that there will be some kind of problem some day. But what actual scientifically proven health problems from GMOs have ever happened?

      Labelling them is arguably a "warning". Why warn people of something that has had no actual health related problems?

      I admittedly only googled, but:
      *) NewLeaf Potatoes failed seemingly because of people like you who are afraid of them for no good reason.
      *) LibertyLink rice is tolerant to herbicides

      I didn't even see any nut job pages in the google results.

    15. Re:Biohacking? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Labelling them is arguably a "warning".

      And arguably, it's truth in advertising.

      There are labels of all sorts on food. There's a little "K" in a circle that means kosher and there's a symbol for Halal and there's labels that say "Grown in California" and "fresh" and "delicious". Those are not warnings.

      There is nutritional information, there's a list of ingredients. If consumers want it, why not a simple little symbol that shows the food was grown from GM organisms?

      Remember, it's the consumers that are paying for all the GMO research, for all the products, for all the salaries of all the scientists, for all the marketing and for the lobbyists trying to get the federal government to pass industry-friendly laws.

      When an industry tries to get laws passed which are meant to make sure customers DON'T get what they want, it raises red flags.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:Biohacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The argument is likely if everyone is eating non-gmo food then as a whole society would be healthier, which ultimately means they should require less medical services, which are not getting any cheaper.

      I shop based on number of ingredients in a given item and what those ingredients are. Price comes in next. If the organic is almost the same price, I'll go for it, but it doesn't really matter much. It is more important for me to buy spaghetti sauce, for example, that only has 5 ingredients as opposed to buy the majority of the brands that have upward of 15 ingredients in the sauce.

      Half of those ingredients are preservatives that I really do not need to be eating anyway.

    17. Re:Biohacking? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Nutritional information and list of ingredients are *government mandated*.

      If the customers "don't" get what they want, then buy the (likely overpriced) stuff labelled "GMO free" and live in your (current) placebo world that you're eating healthier stuff.

    18. Re:Biohacking? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If the customers "don't" get what they want, then buy the (likely overpriced) stuff labelled "GMO free"

      I bet you didn't know that the GMO industry sued to prevent people from labeling their food "GMO free".

      Face it, they just don't want you to know what you're buying.

      Nutritional information and list of ingredients are *government mandated*.

      But the kosher and halal designations are not. Nor is the word "delicious" in big letters or any of the other words on the label. When I walk into the grocery, why doesn't the sign above the corn say, "Roundup Corn 3 for $1"? If the wondrous, miraculous benefits of GMO foods really exist, why doesn't the GMO industry advertise that fact to the consumers?

      And if you say "They can't, because there's so much FUD", then you should know that the only proper commercial response to FUD is exercising your freedom of speech to market your products in a positive manner. The answer to bad speech is more good speech, not doing everything you can to obfuscate what is a truthful statement: "This food is made from genetically modified organisms". I would also request that the patent be clearly marked on the label. I want to know if the basic foodstuffs I buy are patented. Or is that also information I should not be allowed to have?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:Biohacking? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I bet you didn't know that the GMO industry sued to prevent people from labeling their food "GMO free".

      But they didn't win, did they? If they didn't win, it's irrelevant.

      I still don't see you providing any shred of evidence that there are proven human health concerns for GMOs.

    20. Re:Biohacking? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But they didn't win, did they? If they didn't win, it's irrelevant.

      So, you think it's "irrelevant" that this sacred GMO industry that you worship sued to block other companies from labeling their food as "GMO free"? You are truly a zealot. It wasn't about them trying to "prevent FUD". It was about them trying to block the free speech of people who don't use their products. And this is the industry to which you're willing to hand over the keys to our food supply?

      I still don't see you providing any shred of evidence that there are proven human health concerns for GMOs.

      For me, this is not about health concerns. If I was concerned about the food I eat, I wouldn't have had that burrito from the food cart lady with the prison tattoos this afternoon.

      This is entirely political. It's a pro-consumer issue for me. The consumers are paying the bill for GMOs, so if they want, they should get to know what they're paying for. I'm not asking for a law to be passed, I'm asking for food companies to start labeling their products truthfully. And to stop with using lobbyists to influence the government to pass laws to keep consumers from knowing what they're buying. And consumers should continue to run from GMO products until the industry is willing to label their products with this one truthful fact.

      And I want transparency in the patenting of basic foodstuffs, because that matters to me, and I'm the one paying the bill.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:Biohacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what they say about assumptions right?

    22. Re:Biohacking? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The argument is likely if everyone is eating non-gmo food then as a whole society would be healthier,

      I'm so glad you can tell me what the real argument they were making is, because they said nothing like that at any time. They bandied about phrases like "food justice" and other fictional rights. They said nothing about what people could EAT, only what they could grow or use in their work.

      Half of those ingredients are preservatives that I really do not need to be eating anyway.

      Hmmm. Let's see. Here's a solution to your problem: pass a law that says that nobody can grow or use any GMO product, and that every farmer who is doing so will have 90 days to rip his GMO crops out of the ground without any compensation from anyone for the loss. Who cares if your law forces diabetics to drive to the next county over to get the insulin they need to survive, more people driving more cars on the road is a good thing, right? Who cares if such a law would have nothing to do with how many ingredients your spaghetti sauce has?

      Or you could just buy the food you want to eat and let others do the same. Hmmm. Which is a better, more rational way to proceed?

    23. Re:Biohacking? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I bet you didn't know that the GMO industry sued to prevent people from labeling their food "GMO free".

      And they apparently lost since I see such labels on products currently for sale.

      When I walk into the grocery, why doesn't the sign above the corn say, "Roundup Corn 3 for $1"?

      Ask the grocery. It's their sign. Maybe they don't want to needlessly scare ignorant people?

      I want to know if the basic foodstuffs I buy are patented.

      Because, of course, it makes one single bit of difference in the safety or taste of the product if it is covered by a patent or not. Sure.

      Or is that also information I should not be allowed to have?

      What other useless information should be mandated for food labels just because you want to know it? Isn't it good enough that any company that wants to create a market advantage for itself can do so by displaying the patent information? Maybe that's a clue that it isn't really that important to anyone else.

  3. Symbiosis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how soon can I get insulin-producing bacteria that can live in my body? Seems a perfect solution, they eat the excess blood sugar and secrete insulin.

    Even better, no more needle sticks for the glucometer readings -- the higher my blood glucose, the more bacteria, so my temperature will go up. ]

    (no, I'm not serious, I know more biology than that.)

    1. Re:Symbiosis. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I wondered that myself. There would be great value if the bacteria could be engineered to maintain a limited population so the host would get a baseline supply of insulin. They would probably still require injections to keep well regulated, but it would be less and with reduced consequences if they were unable to do that for a time.

      Perhaps it could even be enough to let a type I diabetic manage their blood sugar more like a type II sufferer.

    2. Re:Symbiosis. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Or you could use stem cells to rebuild the cells you used to have that did that exact job.

    3. Re:Symbiosis. by sjames · · Score: 1

      If that can be made to work, it would be a 100% cure. Of course, you'd have to convince the immune system not to attack the replacement beta cells.

    4. Re:Symbiosis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insulin-producing yogurt.

  4. Sounds Great by kwiecmmm · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a type 1 diabetic I am all for this. Currently a vial (500 units) of insulin costs between $250 and $400 (before insurance). Since this was done originally in 1978, there shouldn't be a patent to worry about. And since diabetics need this to live, I really don't care too much about the profits of the drug manufacturer, when it probably costs them less than $5 to make a vial.

    1. Re:Sounds Great by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, no, a 1000 unit vial (10 mL of U-100) costs $25 for regular and NPH insulins. (If you're paying more than this, blame the pharmacy. This is one of the few cases where I root for Walmart - they've managed to get Novo onboard with selling Novolin R and N for $25/vial)

      Unless you're purchasing Lantus or Novolog/Humalog (which most diabetics including myself are), which are MUCH newer than 1978 and still have active patents. (Some of Lantus' are about to expire or recently expired, but Novartis played some legal games to manage to block generic Lantus from the market until late 2016...) Even after "generics" of the "designer" insulins launch, the FDA's rules on "biosimilars" are going to slow down this market. (IIRC, generic Lantus IS available in India at significantly reduced prices.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From what I have heard, about $5 a vial for production cost is about right. As a fellow T1, I would be all on board for trying this out. It is absurdly stupid that animal insulin is no longer available in the US just because they can't charge as much for it. I would love to see CEOs of drug companies brought before court and tried for overcharging and exploiting diabetics.

    3. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only $25 for Walmart branded Novolin. If you don't live anywhere that you have a Walmart, you won't can't buy it for that price. And if Walmart ever drops their branding, then diabetics will be screwed if they don't have insurance, or crappy insurance.

    4. Re: Sounds Great by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If anybody wants to spend 45 minutes reviewing the data on whether the FDA's current regulatory regime helps or hinders, this talk is quite good.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Sounds Great by bws111 · · Score: 1

      So, start a company that makes animal insulin. The patents are long gone, there's nothing stopping you.

    6. Re:Sounds Great by kwiecmmm · · Score: 1

      Sorry I was in a hurry to type this, but I get two vials a month of Humalog. And that is what costs me that much money. And Humalog was first approved in 1996, so it should either have already ended its patent or be about to end its patent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_lispro

      I am pretty sure the drug company's have more than made their initial investment back from the creation of these types of insulin.

      I just want the ability that I lost, the ability to make my own insulin... so why not

    7. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're in the US and near the Canadian border, I would suggest buying insulin in Canada. About $100 per vial, no paperwork needed, no limits (usually), available at any pharmacy. My T1 friends have been doing this for years.

    8. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the FDA and probably the USDA.

    9. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, that's what it costs in the US for over the counter types R and N now. The thing is the patents have expired on those types of insulin, and the production costs are not any higher than they were back in the 70's, and the pre-2000 price per 10ml vial was actually below $20. There's no legitimate market reason for the price to be as high as it is.

    10. Re:Sounds Great by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, in a worldwide collapse due to war or an asteroid, Type 2s find themselves losing weight and the need for insulin. Their arteries clear, their blood pressure drops, their life expectancy skyrockets...to 60.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re:Sounds Great by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Walmart also has the cheapest glucose strips around, about $9 for 50 of the ReLion Prime. This whomps the ass of the OneTouch generic shared among pharmacy chains, at $37/50, when I switched several years ago.

      When the biggest complaint TV shows like Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park can make is they are saving people too much money, well...

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    12. Re:Sounds Great by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Those can only stop you from selling, not for personal use. AFAIK, the FDA isn't stopping me from mixing bleach and ammonia and drinking it for fun (or whatever).

    13. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where is this magical source of free money that anybody can use to start whichever business they think might be successful? I assume you're aware that "other people won't give me money" is definitely something stopping people from starting businesses.

    14. Re:Sounds Great by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Why would the FDA prevent it? It has aleady been approved and used in the past. And if the USDA is preventing it, that isn't really a drug company, is it?

    15. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA was from a guy who wanted to make insulin for his daughter.

    16. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Walmart is a godsend to low-income diabetics. But if you're low income and don't live anywhere near a Walmart, and you use R and N, then you are spending a lot more for types of insulin which should be under $17 a vial. They were in the 1990's.

    17. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insulin is a biosimilar product, meaning it is literally a thousand times the size of a drug and is produced by a unique custom line of bacteria, etc. Patent is unnecessary because it isn't possible to duplicate that production mechanism without duplicating the huge investment in research and industrial production facilities.

    18. Re:Sounds Great by AJWM · · Score: 1

      There's a significant difference between the $25/vial Novolin R and N insulin and the $200+/vial stuff like Levemir (insulin detemir) or Lantus.

      The former are short-to-mid term acting insulins, they act quickly but wear off quickly, whereas the latter are longer lasting (but a bit slower to act). You're paying for the convenience of not having to check your glucose multiple times a day, and having to stick yourself maybe once a day instead of at every meal. (Well, okay, you're paying for the patents, but that convenience is one reason people are willing to pay it.)

      Of course were it me, I might be willing to put up with a certain amount of inconvenience for another couple of thousand dollars a year in spending money. (Not just inconvenience, there's probably a higher risk of under- or over-dosing with the shorter-acting stuff than the extended release stuff. So maybe not.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    19. Re:Sounds Great by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, in a worldwide collapse due to war or an asteroid, Type 2s find themselves losing weight and the need for insulin. Their arteries clear, their blood pressure drops, their life expectancy skyrockets...to 60.

      Once Type 2 kicks in, losing weight isn't going to magically reverse it, alas. It may well help with the other things, but I know some skinny (formerly obese, but not morbidly so) T2 diabetics. Lots of additional exercise might help, although if you're pushing 60 it gets harder to add muscle mass

      --
      -- Alastair
    20. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you know how to diabetic

  5. not there yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    As the biohacking movement has grown, insulin production has been a common target, but for some reason we're not there yet

    I'd guess it because of patents and greedy pharmaceutical companies. Plus, manufacturing your own drugs and giving them to other people probably runs afoul of a few laws.

    Here's a kicker. I was diagnosed as a Type 1 in 1997. Back then, a 10ml vial (U-100) of Eli Lilly's Humulin R or NPH costs--I'm not making this up-- $17.00. Today, without insurance, the same vial goes for $99. And this is for insulin made from recombinant DNA tech that has been around since the '70's like the article mentions. It's a fucking crime that pharmaceuticals have jacked up the price of the only types of insulin that can be bought over-the-counter.

    1. Re:not there yet by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I'd guess it because of patents and greedy pharmaceutical companies. Plus, manufacturing your own drugs and giving them to other people probably runs afoul of a few laws.

      I'm going to guess that it has a lot to do with liability. If some hacker makes a bad batch of insulin and the people he sells it to die or go into comas, there's going to be a lot of lawsuits. What hacker is going to have the money to pay off, or the money to buy malpractice-style insurance to cover the awards? This is where the costs of the pharma companies come in, besides recouping development and research. Every time someone sues a pharma company for something like Celebrex side-effects, someone has to pay the award.

      It's a fucking crime that pharmaceuticals have jacked up the price of the only types of insulin that can be bought over-the-counter.

      You're kidding, right? You can buy and give yourself insulin without a prescription or any doctor's supervision? Wow. I need to find a supplier! I can keep my A1C down below 6% and not be on record as taking any meds that can cause hypoglycemic reactions and the FAA will never know. Cool.

      But that explains the price increase. DIY medication that can kill you if you take too much is a prime candidate for a lawsuit when someone does that. You're paying for all the other people who screwed up their dosages and sued the pharma company.

    2. Re:not there yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right? You can buy and give yourself insulin without a prescription or any doctor's supervision? Wow. I need to find a supplier! I can keep my A1C down below 6% and not be on record as taking any meds that can cause hypoglycemic reactions and the FAA will never know. Cool.

      Yeah, just go to any pharmacy in the US and ask for a vial of R, N, or a 70/30mix of insulin. The FAA will never know! Jeezus.

    3. Re:not there yet by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I was diagnosed as a Type 1 in 1997. Back then, a 10ml vial (U-100) of Eli Lilly's Humulin R or NPH costs--I'm not making this up-- $17.00. Today, without insurance, the same vial goes for $99. And this is for insulin made from recombinant DNA tech that has been around since the '70's like the article mentions.

      The wonders of modern science. Pharmaceutical companies use recombinant DNA tech to make a drug cheaper to make but more expensive for sick people to buy.

      Ain't it grand?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:not there yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was diagnosed within a year of your diagnosis, and am now on insulin analog (fast acting insulin) that is used in an insulin pump and the cost is definitely due to quality control to reduce liability

      The first few insulin analogs were pulled from the market because they turned out to be carcinogenic. (how scary is that?)

  6. No different than any other home brew by glucoseboy · · Score: 1

    Homebrew insulin is no different than homebrew beer/wine from a technical point of view and exist in similar space. There should be no problems in this open-source insulin movement, that is distribute information on how to manufacture it, selling the equipment and raw materials to make it. However, regulators will jump all over it the minute someone tries to sell their finished product or transport it across state lines.

    1. Re:No different than any other home brew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, and personally I wouldn't take it until it's undergone extensive testing. But this can be the start of something great, many of the breakthroughs in tech and meds didn't come from billion dollar budgets, they come from garages and basements.

      Also, thanks goes out to Banting for first isolating insulin and providing it for their patients and teaching everyone how to make it (for free)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Banting

    2. Re:No different than any other home brew by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say that this is quite like homebrew. Wild yeast in your beer might just make it taste a little different. Wild yeast in your insulin bioreactor will either kill off your modified strain and ruin the batch, or at a minimum introduce unexpected byproducts that will mess up separation. Oh, about separating: you can drink beer and wine straight. To get an injectable product you need some precise chemistry to separate the insulin from the dead yeast, leftover growth medium, and alcohol. Moonshiners have very favorable boiling points on their side, and still sometimes screw up and make a batch of poison.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    3. Re:No different than any other home brew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homebrew insulin is no different than homebrew beer/wine from a technical point of view and exist in similar space. There should be no problems in this open-source insulin movement, that is distribute information on how to manufacture it, selling the equipment and raw materials to make it. However, regulators will jump all over it the minute someone tries to sell their finished product or transport it across state lines.

      What??!! No more Schraderbrau? Damnit!!!

  7. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would a "biohacker" bother with insulin. A fairly uninteresting hormone. You can't actually use it to treat diabetes unless you want to be both sued for everything you have and locked up for years if killing someone was to die (a real possibility if the insulin didn't work).

    Insulin doesn't do anything outside of a body.

    Now there is a market for pharmaceuticals for biohackers. But it is for illegal substances. Obvious candidates are something that has the biochemical pathway to produce for various drugs like opiates, thc, growth hormones, or produce epoetin. See https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27546-home-brew-heroin-soon-anyone-will-be-able-to-make-illegal-drugs/ .

  8. It's been happening a lot longer than that by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Since early last century, insulin has been produced from the pancreas of animals.

    I didn't release the pancreas was such a recent evolutionary development.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. I want my graphine replacement vein conduits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To take care of esophageal varices - 'nuf said. Throw in a replacement liver and pass the gin and tonic like on Mad Men.