The Biohacking Movement and Open Source Insulin

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.

Comments

Open source insulin?

[MagickalMyst]

Interesting idea...

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

Re:Open source insulin?

[Paco103]

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

Biohacking?

[everett]

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

Re:Biohacking?

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[Sowelu]

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

Re:Biohacking?

[ArcadeMan]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[thinkwaitfast]

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

Re:Biohacking?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[ArcadeMan]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[sjames]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[mattack2]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[mattack2]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[PopeRatzo]

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?

Re:Biohacking?

[mattack2]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Biohacking?

[Obfuscant]

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?

Re:Biohacking?

[Obfuscant]

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.

Sounds Great

[kwiecmmm]

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.

Re:Sounds Great

[Andy Dodd]

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.)

Re:Sounds Great

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Sounds Great

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:Sounds Great

[bws111]

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

Re:Sounds Great

[kwiecmmm]

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

Re:Sounds Great

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

Re:Sounds Great

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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...

Re:Sounds Great

[thinkwaitfast]

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).

Re:Sounds Great

[bws111]

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?

Re:Sounds Great

[AJWM]

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.)

Re:Sounds Great

[AJWM]

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

not there yet

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:not there yet

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:not there yet

[PopeRatzo]

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?

No different than any other home brew

[glucoseboy]

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.

Re:No different than any other home brew

[TheGavster]

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.

Re:Symbiosis.

[sjames]

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.

It's been happening a lot longer than that

[wonkey_monkey]

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.

Re:Symbiosis.

[currently_awake]

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

Re:Symbiosis.

[sjames]

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.