What Does an Infamous Biohacker’s Death Mean for the Future of DIY Science?(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
What Does an Infamous Biohacker’s Death Mean for the Future of DIY Science?
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/aaron-traywick-death-ascendance-biomedical/559745/?single_page=true
43 comments
I hate these sort of articles. As if we should all go cower back in our holes now that someone flamed out. A cautionary tale maybe, but crossroads? Hardly. People often pushing the boundaries push too far. If were ever going to improve things and get off this planet, were going to have to start stomaching some inevitable loss's.
I'm reminded of Clarke's second law[1]
> The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
> The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
I agree with you, primarily because this was a decision made by the individual himself. Unlike a monkey shot off into space 40 years ago, this guy presumably understood the risk to the endeavor.
And it's "losses" :)
And it's "losses" :)
For me it's really off putting that a "life extension activist" experimented on himself recklessly until he died before hitting 30.
It doesn't put an ounce of confidence in his company.
Medicine isn't easy - he wasn't a pioneer, he was a wannabe and he died chasing the dream of eternal life.
I am all for the development of these incredible new treatments and therapies, but the biohacker community needed a wake-up call badly. If Aaron's death encourages others in the field to slow down and be more deliberate, and to avoid high-risk testing for publicity's sake, then hopefully it won't be in vain.
It doesn't put an ounce of confidence in his company.
Medicine isn't easy - he wasn't a pioneer, he was a wannabe and he died chasing the dream of eternal life.
I am all for the development of these incredible new treatments and therapies, but the biohacker community needed a wake-up call badly. If Aaron's death encourages others in the field to slow down and be more deliberate, and to avoid high-risk testing for publicity's sake, then hopefully it won't be in vain.
Without reading the article we can safely say absolutely nothing in regard to the future of DIY science as we still don't have an autopsy report. So until then, let's stop speculating.
I too look forward to seeing the autopsy report, but I am not too hopeful that this was just a coincidence.
Having an otherwise healthy person perform high-risk experiments on his own body and then drop dead before hitting 30 doesn't leave a whole lot to the imagination.
Obviously, the autopsy will tell us everything we need to know, but let's not pretend that his biohacking didn't play a role in his demise, because it seems highly likely that it did.
Having an otherwise healthy person perform high-risk experiments on his own body and then drop dead before hitting 30 doesn't leave a whole lot to the imagination.
Obviously, the autopsy will tell us everything we need to know, but let's not pretend that his biohacking didn't play a role in his demise, because it seems highly likely that it did.
> Having an otherwise healthy person perform high-risk experiments on his own body and then drop dead before hitting 30 doesn't leave a whole lot to the imagination.
It leaves a lot actually. There are plenty of stories of otherwise healthy young people dying from an array of ailments. It could have been an undiagnosed condition. It could have been drugs. Perhaps a freak accident in the tank. Or a combination. But until the autopsy results, stop speculating.
It leaves a lot actually. There are plenty of stories of otherwise healthy young people dying from an array of ailments. It could have been an undiagnosed condition. It could have been drugs. Perhaps a freak accident in the tank. Or a combination. But until the autopsy results, stop speculating.
> Obviously, the autopsy will tell us everything we need to know
That's not obvious at all. The autopsy could come back "inconclusive". They do, quite frequently. Not every cause of death leaves a marker behind.
That's not obvious at all. The autopsy could come back "inconclusive". They do, quite frequently. Not every cause of death leaves a marker behind.
And I think almost any result people will still attribute in some way to biohacking, unless they find a bullet in him. Even if he drowned people could still say he could have became unconscious because of something he injected himself with, and they wouldn't be wrong.
> but let's not pretend that his biohacking didn't play a role in his demise, because it seems highly likely that it did.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but you should cut it out with the ridiculous and baseless speculation. He was found dead in an immersion tank. What sounds more likely: death from biohacking, death from drowning after blacking out?
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but you should cut it out with the ridiculous and baseless speculation. He was found dead in an immersion tank. What sounds more likely: death from biohacking, death from drowning after blacking out?
It is like asking if a person with a history of heart attacks died because they crashed their car, or if the car crashed because they had a heart attack behind the wheel.
I'd wait for the autopsy.
I'd wait for the autopsy.
No, it really isn't at all. It's like asking if a person with a history of peanut allergies died because they got shot in the face or because the bullet was dipped in peanut butter.
We may be speaking with asymmetric knowledge. Do you know his medical history? In particular, the experiments he's carried out on himself?
I am operating under the assumption that while he liked attention, it is entirely possible he did something significant/relevant without public disclosure (possibly around the same time as his death).
I am operating under the assumption that while he liked attention, it is entirely possible he did something significant/relevant without public disclosure (possibly around the same time as his death).
> Having an otherwise healthy person perform high-risk experiments on his own body and then drop dead before hitting 30 doesn't leave a whole lot to the imagination.
I'm not so sure about that.
A quick glance at the SSA's actuarial table[0] shows that a male at age 20 has a ~1.3% chance on not seeing his 30th birthday.
While intuitively it does seem likely that his experimentation contributed to this, it strikes me as likely that he had other compounding factors as well. For example - he died in a sensory deprivation tank. That's certainly not an activity that I would expect the general public to engage in, and I'm not familiar with its associated health risks.
0: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
I'm not so sure about that.
A quick glance at the SSA's actuarial table[0] shows that a male at age 20 has a ~1.3% chance on not seeing his 30th birthday.
While intuitively it does seem likely that his experimentation contributed to this, it strikes me as likely that he had other compounding factors as well. For example - he died in a sensory deprivation tank. That's certainly not an activity that I would expect the general public to engage in, and I'm not familiar with its associated health risks.
0: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
I don't think it means anything really. Judging from that article, the scope of his biohacking was nothing more than getting treatments injected into people before they went through the many years of tediously long testing and approval. He didn't accomplish much, much of his fame was from hype and reckless stunts. He established a company, touted a bunch of unfounded achievements and breakthroughs, and ultimately came up empty. It even says at the end that he was shunned from the biohacking scene after his herpes stunt, so it's not like the biohacking scene took off in popularity. For as long of an article as that was, it said very little. I think his view of getting people treated without the lengthy process of following regulations, laws, and approval was noble in a sense, but too few people feel the same as him for any meaningful progress to be made. If you have a company that is offering experimental treatments to human test subjects who agree to be tested on, more power to them. I wouldn't call that biohacking, just using experimental treatment.
I was surprised at first to learn that biohacking in this sense was about medical treatments, I've always looked at it as becoming one with technoloy, such as putting chips in your hands that serve specific functions(unlocking doors, logging in, etc).
I was surprised at first to learn that biohacking in this sense was about medical treatments, I've always looked at it as becoming one with technoloy, such as putting chips in your hands that serve specific functions(unlocking doors, logging in, etc).
When I think of biohacking, I also think first of the people who implant magnets into their fingertips and RFID tags into their thumbs. I think about the folks that make their own prosthetic limbs with additive volume printers. I think about the blind folks with artificial retinas, and the deaf folks with artificial cochleas. I think about people who have had cataract surgery that walk around all day with near-black filters, to see what the world looks like in UV, or infrared. I think about the people that wore vibrating compass belts, and the people who wore prism goggles. I think about Newton sticking knitting needles in his eye sockets.
A bit later, I think about people who synth their own custom peptide chains, and the people who try to CRISPR/CAS9 their own DNA. Maybe also the people who make designer drugs in the quest for the ultimate legal high or the ultimate undetectable sport doping.
Taking medications developed by someone else, that have not gone through FDA approval, doesn't even register on the radar.
A bit later, I think about people who synth their own custom peptide chains, and the people who try to CRISPR/CAS9 their own DNA. Maybe also the people who make designer drugs in the quest for the ultimate legal high or the ultimate undetectable sport doping.
Taking medications developed by someone else, that have not gone through FDA approval, doesn't even register on the radar.
I think you've hit on the mark with this comment. When I first saw the headline I thought it related to the death of someone like Lepht Anonym who is the first person I ever read about in the biohacking scene. Implanted RFID chips and magnets in their hands, etc. Really neat stuff even if the thought of self-surgery makes my skin crawl.
In my opinion, simply ignoring industry regulations aka "pulling an Uber" is not hacking by any sense of the word.
In my opinion, simply ignoring industry regulations aka "pulling an Uber" is not hacking by any sense of the word.
Yeah, this struck me as the kind of article that suffers from the rush to press. Then again if they had waited a few months -- for autopsy results to come in, for effects of his death on the community to be clear, etc -- then maybe there wouldn't have been enough meat for an article at all.
They want to have their cake and eat it too. In a few months, if there's any interest in that subculture whatsoever, someone will probably write a column on the impact this death had (or had not).
Autopsy report already says ketamine overdose.
edit: source is the-scientist.com
edit: source is the-scientist.com
That was my first assumption, given the circumstances involving the sensory-deprivation tank as the site of death.
Do people often take dissassociatives in sensory deprivation tanks?
Source?
My impression of the term "biohacking" was that it referred to basically anyone with a wet lab outside a formal research setting - the biotech equivalent of an inventor with a 3D printer or a CNC mill in his garage turning out prototypes in relative isolation.
If Icarus tought us one thing- then its to never set foot into a boeing 747 or an airbus.
Look at the ISS, just look at them, tar and feathers everywhere, because they flew to close to the sun. They are still falling. Every day.
He who challenges the gods soon develops a liver problem. He who develops a vacaccine against the liver problem, challenges the writers of moral outrage pieces.
Author of said piece, would still welcome a working liver cure. Cheers!
PS: Projecting the hatred of ones own cowardice onto the late explorers is not considered enlightment.
Look at the ISS, just look at them, tar and feathers everywhere, because they flew to close to the sun. They are still falling. Every day.
He who challenges the gods soon develops a liver problem. He who develops a vacaccine against the liver problem, challenges the writers of moral outrage pieces.
Author of said piece, would still welcome a working liver cure. Cheers!
PS: Projecting the hatred of ones own cowardice onto the late explorers is not considered enlightment.
There was this site which asked you to classify sentences as profound or bullshit and I feel I got back there...
Profoundly bullshit.
"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans." Douglas Adams https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/639593-far-out-in-the-uncha...
"all progress depends on the unreasonable man"
I don't have any particular knowledge or opinion on this person's work, how liable it was to lead to breakthroughs and whether it could have been accomplished as quickly with less risk. But medical science has a long and, frankly, glorious history of self experimentation featuring both Nobel Prizes[1] and deaths[2]. I'm sure most of the people who do this are overconfident just based on the selection process but still medical science, and hence all of us, have benefited from their attempts and I'm not going to look down on someone who is willing to risk their own life in pursuing the frontiers of medicine, even if they might be after fame or notoriety.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Forssmann
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_William_Lazear
I don't have any particular knowledge or opinion on this person's work, how liable it was to lead to breakthroughs and whether it could have been accomplished as quickly with less risk. But medical science has a long and, frankly, glorious history of self experimentation featuring both Nobel Prizes[1] and deaths[2]. I'm sure most of the people who do this are overconfident just based on the selection process but still medical science, and hence all of us, have benefited from their attempts and I'm not going to look down on someone who is willing to risk their own life in pursuing the frontiers of medicine, even if they might be after fame or notoriety.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Forssmann
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_William_Lazear
It always meant and still means "don't try this at home". It's unreasonable and very dangerous if you do biohacking without actually knowing what you're doing! Seriously, the world won't miss another idiot killing himself, because he thought he was smarter than everyone else. That's not science. It's recklessness.
> It's unreasonable and very dangerous if you do biohacking without actually knowing what you're doing
The question is whether you can really know what you are doing with this kind of process. There is a reason why biotech companies are spending billions on rigorous scientific research and well constructed, multi-stage studies. But even then a lot of that research fails to produce anything useful. Or something like the infamous Contergan slips through and causes massive harm despite all of this effort. How much can we really expect from a bunch of outsiders doing (at best) very flimsy science when even the best and brightest experts in the field regularly waste years pursuing ideas that do not work out?
The question is whether you can really know what you are doing with this kind of process. There is a reason why biotech companies are spending billions on rigorous scientific research and well constructed, multi-stage studies. But even then a lot of that research fails to produce anything useful. Or something like the infamous Contergan slips through and causes massive harm despite all of this effort. How much can we really expect from a bunch of outsiders doing (at best) very flimsy science when even the best and brightest experts in the field regularly waste years pursuing ideas that do not work out?
> How much can we really expect from a bunch of outsiders doing (at best) very flimsy science when even the best and brightest experts in the field regularly waste years pursuing ideas that do not work out?
I'd guess "a lot".
Certainly this is higher risk. It's also much faster and less constrained - there's nothing stopping someone who believes a certain process will have a certain effect from trying it, regardless of what others believe. That will result in data that can be potentially useful for subsequent research regardless of the outcome.
At the end of the day, I believe that people own themselves. If they want to risk their life and health to be their own test subject, more power to them.
Consider that someone, somewhere, once saw the round white thing that came out of a chicken's butt and though "Hmm... I wonder how that tastes..." If not for that intrepid soul we might never have discovered omelets :)
I'd guess "a lot".
Certainly this is higher risk. It's also much faster and less constrained - there's nothing stopping someone who believes a certain process will have a certain effect from trying it, regardless of what others believe. That will result in data that can be potentially useful for subsequent research regardless of the outcome.
At the end of the day, I believe that people own themselves. If they want to risk their life and health to be their own test subject, more power to them.
Consider that someone, somewhere, once saw the round white thing that came out of a chicken's butt and though "Hmm... I wonder how that tastes..." If not for that intrepid soul we might never have discovered omelets :)
Since you mention it, let's have a moment of silence for all our ancestors who died trying out random things they found in the forest, so that future generations could know exactly what is and what isn't edible.
Learning from experience is pretty cool. Learning from other people's experiences is better.
One fruitcake died, therefore the entire future of non-institutional science is in question?
What does this useless article mean for the future of journalism?
Not much. It's just another data point on a curve clearly showing that reading news stories is not just a waste of time, but actively poisonous to the mind.
What does a reckless drivers' death mean for the future of automobiles?
What does the death of a someone barreling down a hill in a prototype horseless carriage mean for the future of automobiles? Perhaps the need for regulations, safety features, caution, etc.
This is not such a case. More like "Let adults bare consequences of their decisions please".
Speaking only for myself, I think it means journalism really is dead.
Love it when they wait until like five paragraphs into the article to include the sentence that tells you the whole article is a waste of time.