The ethics of biohacking is a contentious issue, and different people may have different opinions on the matter. Some people argue that biohacking is a natural extension of human ingenuity and the pursuit of self-improvement, and that it can have many potential benefits for individuals and society as a whole. Others argue that biohacking raises important ethical concerns, such as the potential for unequal access to these technologies, the possibility of unforeseen risks or side effects, and the potential for misuse or abuse.
Ultimately, the ethics of biohacking will depend on the specific techniques being used and the motivations behind them. It is important for individuals to carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of any biohacking techniques they may be considering, and to consult with a healthcare professional before attempting any form of biohacking on their own.
As discussed above, it is too risky and therefore unethical for biohackers to carry out projects on their own outside the scope of regulation or limitations that apply to the professional scientific community. As biohacking has become more frequent and public, academics, ethicists and regulators have expressed concern that government oversight may be absent or inadequate to address the risks posed by these activities. In fact, biohackers sometimes work in private, while traditional research is carried out in teams supervised by institutions. Biohackers generally don't get an ethical review of their work, unlike traditional biological research.
In addition, biohackers tend to finance themselves and therefore are not usually accountable to private or agency funders, unlike their traditional professional counterparts. These collaborations could also promote transparency between biohackers affiliated with community laboratories and those outside the niche of community laboratories. Even with limited resources to enforce the law, agencies such as the FDA have an opportunity to promote public health by working with biohacking communities as their practices and regulations develop and before potentially problematic rules of risk, secrecy and nonconformity become widespread. Biohackers indicate a paradigm shift from centralized power to decentralization with a strong focus on the democratization of science.
Similarly, public regulators, such as the FDA, would benefit from collaborating with stakeholders to better understand genetic biohacking activities, the perspectives of their participants, and the potential for self-government of biohacking communities, just as they already do with the pharmaceutical industry. It can even be argued that bioethical principles, which are often discussed in research ethics, can be aligned with the objectives of biohackers. Both bioethicists and biohackers argue that equitable access and justice should be pursued, however, the means by which this is achieved are very different. One thing that is striking about this movement is that it makes a lot of sense that the United States was the place where biohacking first took off.
In general, biohackers do not have formally approved protocols, and this lack of clarity is even more evident when biohackers exercise their right to autonomy and self-informed consent by “registering as research participants in their own experiments, without ignoring the role of IRBs”. Regulatory landscape because the United States is a popular site for genetic biohacking and is home to the first community laboratories. However, part of what biohackers do is experimental and risky, and the FDA disapproves it because it is not studied in clinical trials with regular regulatory oversight. An attempt to participate rather than pass responsibility on to the FBI would lead to collaboration to develop an ethical framework and give biohackers clear guidance.
The agency could also draft guidelines for typical genetic biohacking experiments and identify staff as points of contact for those engaged in genetic biohacking and want to communicate with the agency. A balanced approach would hold biohackers accountable to ethical standards and, at the same time, would address their concerns about scientific freedom and market-based accessibility to new discoveries.