From Curiosity To Controversy: The Ethics of Biohacking in The United States

What if anyone with a few hundred dollars and internet access could attempt genetic engineering from their own home? Biohacking refers to the practice of individuals, often amateurs, conducting bodily experimentation or developing “homemade” biological devices such as automatic insulin pumps, outside traditional institutional, academic, or clinical settings. While supporters argue that biohacking promotes innovation and medical autonomy, critics warn that it creates serious risks involving misinformation, limited oversight, and overall threats to public health. This paper will examine the ethical implications of biohacking in the United States and the risks it poses to public health beyond the individual.

Table of Contents

• Abstract

• Introduction

• Background

  • History and Growth of Biohacking

  • Social Media and Public Influence

  • Regulation

• Ethical Analysis

  • Responsibility

  • Autonomy

  • Safety

  • Fairness

• Conclusion

Featured image by Xavier Coadic, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_biohacking_rennes-2020

Introduction

Trnava University https://unsplash.com/photos/gold-and-blue-trophy-on-white-table-SwCMZwrhQm8

A growing number of individuals are not waiting for medical institutions to approve or develop treatments; they are attempting to create their own. Our society has entered an era in which gene-editing experiments are no longer limited to highly trained scientists who work in well-funded laboratories but are increasingly accessible to ordinary individuals. If you have a few hundred dollars to spare and want to pursue a new hobby, you can now try basic genetic experimentation. All you have to do is purchase a few tools from easily accessible websites such as eBay, and type in a quick search on YouTube to find tutorials on do-it-yourself (DIY) genetic experiments (Jackson). From self-experimenters such as Josiah Zayner, who publicly attempted CRISPR-based genetic editing on himself, to online communities exploring DIY insulin production for diabetes management, this growing movement in the United States, known as biohacking, reflects a growing shift toward unregulated biological experimentation.

This paper will examine the ethical implications of biohacking in the United States and the risks it poses to public health beyond the individual. The term “biohacking” refers to the practice of individuals, often amateurs, conducting bodily experimentation or developing “homemade” biological devices such as automatic insulin pumps, outside traditional institutional, academic, or clinical settings. Once the definition of biohacking is established, it raises the question of how we define “amateurs” when providing context on those engaging in biohacking. They are characterized by a passion for exploring biology and technology, often without formal training in the life sciences,  and by the use of accessible, low-cost, or community-shared equipment. These individuals are typically motivated by goals such as personal health improvement, scientific curiosity, or technological innovation. However, this practice raises ethical concerns due to varying levels of scientific training, limited oversight, and a lack of formal regulatory control (Sundaram). For this paper, I will focus only on biohackers seeking to improve human health, either through personal enhancement, the development of potential treatments for diseases, or financial incentives tied to promoting their work, excluding criminal intent as a motivation.

According to Yahoo Finance and Precedence Research, the global biohacking market was valued at USD 38.05 billion in 2025 (“Biohacking Market Size”) and is projected to reach about $202.58 billion by 2035 ("Biohacking Market to Reach"). This rapid growth reflects not only increased public interest in the industry but also the commercialization of biohacking through gene-editing products, supplements, online platforms, and influencers who profit from sharing experimental treatments. While experimentation outside traditional lab settings has long existed, the rising popularity of biohacking has increased the prevalence of such practices (Gruber). This shift, characterized not only by individuals experimenting without oversight but also by the widespread sharing of their findings and innovations, introduces substantial risks. The effects of these experiments remain highly uncertain and could extend beyond the individual, thereby posing broader public health concerns. For example, when a biohacker livestreams a gene therapy that has not undergone an FDA-supervised clinical development process and posts it on social media, the potential risks of attempting this experiment now extend beyond that individual (Lussenhop). These risks include exposing others to unforeseen safety hazards, which would undermine established safety standards and create a ripple effect that normalizes dangerous practices. This raises the ethical question: can an American citizen's claim to autonomy justify the risks of biohacking and the public sharing of results when those actions may threaten the greater safety of public health? 

Background

Growth and History of Biohacking

Historically, patient autonomy has been a central principle in U.S. medical ethics and health law. For example, in the case Lane v. Candura, the court affirmed that a competent patient “has the right under the law to refuse to submit either to medical treatment or a surgical operation,” even if that person’s decision is medically unwise and opposed by physicians (Varahala). This is not grounded in autonomy alone but in the principle of bodily integrity, which involves the concept that individuals cannot be subjected to any form of physical care without their consent. While such cases address the refusal of treatment, this same combination of bodily integrity and autonomy also supports a broader claim: that individuals may choose to undertake self-directed experiments, such as biohacking, even when those choices involve personal risk. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the United States’ continued emphasis on individual autonomy in healthcare decision-making. Debates surrounding COVID-19 vaccination requirements centered on the balance between broader public health concerns and personal choice, with many policies ultimately allowing individuals to make their own vaccination decisions (Jones-Nosacek). Importantly, these debates involved not just questions of personal autonomy, but also a broader commitment to bodily integrity. The United States strongly emphasizes individual control in medical decision-making compared to other countries (Varahala), such as Japan, which helps explain why biohacking remains ethically contested: the same values that support the freedom to experiment also generate concern about public health, grounded in the values of safety and responsibility. There have also been multiple studies worldwide on this topic, including one comparing Japan and the United States, in which surveys showed that U.S. physicians and patients placed a greater emphasis on patient autonomy than Japanese respondents (Ruhnke, G W et al.). Nevertheless, the U.S. autonomy-based approach in healthcare also has its flaws. For example, abortion law in the United States has repeatedly demonstrated how government regulation can shape and, in some cases, restrict individual decision-making over one's own body. At the same time, given that the United States has historically emphasized autonomy as a core value in medical ethics, this paper proceeds under the assumption that autonomy remains a fundamental principle in U.S. healthcare policy.

 AbsolutVision https://unsplash.com/photos/photo-of-bulb-artwork-82TpEld0_e4

I will start by providing a brief history of biohacking. As this practice continues to advance, it is essential to examine its ethical implications and ensure that these innovations align with established ethical principles. The roots of biohacking date back to the early 2000s, when enthusiasts began exploring ways to optimize their health and performance through self-experimentation, including testing homemade supplements and experimenting with unregulated gene-editing tools. ("Timeline of Biohacking"). In January 2003, the first Genetically Engineered Machine Competition (iGEM) marked a significant step in the evolution of the biohacking community as it is viewed today. This competition began as a one-month course at MIT, but by 2011, 165 teams had joined, and what started as a course officially became a summer competition (Blazeski). Teams are allowed to experiment and develop products ranging from developing bacteria to detect or treat Lyme disease to making probiotics designed to help metabolic diseases (Scotti).

Today, certain lab tools and biological kits, such as CRISPR gene editing kits, are much more affordable and readily available. Additionally, the ability to purchase these tools on second-hand websites such as eBay has made biohacking more accessible and more popular (Sundaram). This decentralization of biotechnology has created opportunities for innovation, but it also raises concerns about safety and misuse. Traditional medical research is performed by those with specialized training and is regulated through ethical review boards, safety testing, and government oversight. These systems exist to prevent harm not only to research participants but also to the public (Anand). When biohacking occurs outside these systems, public health officials are concerned about unintended consequences and potentially major safety compromises. For example, individuals may attempt do-it-yourself gene editing at home or handle materials usually reserved for trained professionals, which increases the risk of harmful outcomes (Eireiner). Overall, the increasing accessibility of biological tools highlights a growing tension between scientific innovation and public safety, as easier access enables experimentation but also raises the risks of unregulated and potentially unsafe practices. Beyond the growing accessibility of these tools, biohacking is also being shaped by the rapid spread of information through online and social media platforms.

Social Media and Public Influence

Pikisuperstar magnific.com

The rise of social media and its widespread popularity have significantly contributed to the spread of biohacking practices. Social media platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, and other online forums have made information more accessible than ever before. In today’s world, anyone curious about genetics, biology, and DIY science can quickly find tutorials, discussions, and communities focused on biohacking. These videos can be very personal and very detailed. While this can help spread scientific interest and education, it also raises concerns about misinformation, safety, and ethical responsibility. 

An example of a biohacking community that grew from social media is the “We Are Not Waiting” movement ("Biohacking Response"​​). This is a patient-led, global diabetes movement created around 2013 that focuses on DIY solutions for diabetes management. Members of this movement have created automated insulin delivery systems, also known as artificial pancreas systems. These systems are built with open-source software and algorithms that automate insulin delivery through compatible pumps. At its core, open source software is code that is publicly available for anyone to modify or share ("Open Source"). In the biohacking diabetes care movement, the idea to create open-source insulin management systems was driven by individuals who wanted timely access to continuous glucose monitoring data to improve safety and quality of life. While these tools can improve quality of life for patients under favorable circumstances, they may also introduce adverse long-term effects, such as technical failures or insufficient safety testing, which could lead to widespread damage and significant health risks, not just to individuals but also politically on a very large scale. Overall, social media has further enabled biohacking communities to grow, allowing members to share experiences, discuss experiments, and exchange ideas about new DIY developments without any formal oversight ("Biohacking Response"​​).

One major concern that arises from the influence of social media on biohacking is the spread of misinformation. Many biohackers have little to no scientific background or significant formal scientific training, and they may also be completely unaware of the broader ethical issues their experiments may raise ("Biohacking Response"​​). Complex scientific topics can be oversimplified or misunderstood when turned into short videos or viral posts that are shared. People may see content that makes advanced technologies seem easy or risk-free, even when such procedures are normally carried out under professional training and strict safety standards in clinical or laboratory environments. This can lead to people holding unrealistic expectations about the results of the experiment or curiosity that could turn dangerous when considering attempting complex experiments on themselves or others without proper knowledge, training, or supervision. 

Another concern is the way social media algorithms often promote content that is shocking, unusual, or controversial. Content that appears exciting or rebellious may spread faster than content focused on safety and responsibility. This can sometimes create online environments where risky or unproven ideas receive more attention than those involving careful scientific evidence ("Biohacking Response"​​). Social media can also create extreme social pressure and trends. When people see others claiming to be experimenting with biology or technology, it can create a sense that these activities are common or normal. Influencers with large platforms and significant appeal to younger audiences also act as powerful agents in shaping behaviors, often pressuring vulnerable demographics to replicate trends without fully understanding the associated risks or ethical implications.

In addition, Netflix recently released a show titled Unnatural Selection. This show was filmed between 2016 and 2018 and explores the struggles of scientists, doctors, and biohackers as they navigate the profound ethical dilemmas posed by technological advances. The opening scene features David Ishee, a full-time oil plant operator, part-time dog breeder/biohacker, showing the bioluminescent green bacteria he created bathing in a petri dish (Molteni). In his introduction on the show, he says, “I had assumed that getting DNA and making changes cost millions of dollars, and that you needed a huge lab and a research team and all that stuff, but you’d be surprised what you can find on YouTube.” His goal regarding experimentation: to use genetic engineering, specifically adding a marker gene from jellyfish, to develop techniques to cure hereditary genetic diseases in dogs (Jackson).

However, as he discusses the green bacteria he produced, he stated, “This is bioluminescence. They produce their own light chemically.” Yet, sources have confirmed that Ishee’s explanation of his DIY bacteria is false. The cells were not producing their own light, which would be considered bioluminescence; instead, they were fluorescing (Molteni).

The fact that the dog breeder was able to do his work without fully understanding the basic scientific principles behind what he is working on raises major ethical concerns (Carter et al.). Notably, David Ishee never graduated from high school, although he later obtained a General Educational Development (GED). He also did not attend college due to financial and time constraints, which leads people to be skeptical of his experiments (Jackson). This misunderstanding is significant because it suggests a gap between perceived and actual scientific outcomes, where individuals may incorrectly understand experiment results without the expertise needed to verify them. Naturally, it is impossible to eliminate errors when experimenting, even in highly regulated environments with trained professionals. A 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine estimated that as many as 98,000 people die each year due to medical errors. While it is not a direct or entirely fair comparison to the biohacking industry, it highlights that even trained professionals are susceptible to making mistakes. Allowing untrained individuals to conduct complex experiments significantly increases the level of risk, even in a single attempt (Kohn). As a result, experiments conducted without a full understanding of the science or skills necessary may produce false conclusions, the normalization of incorrect scientific claims, and an increased risk of harmful outcomes (Carter et al.). 

Biohacking in the United States sits within a legal “gray area” because the law mainly regulates products, medical claims, and commercial activity, not self-experimentation. This lack of clarity has allowed biohacking to evolve into a growing industry where individuals can profit from experimental technologies while potentially exposing others to risks without oversight. In addition, the significant degree of personal freedoms in the United States further complicates regulatory efforts by making it more difficult to strictly regulate high-risk biological experimentation (Regalado).

Regulation

Regulation of biohacking varies widely across jurisdictions, reflecting ongoing uncertainty about how governments should balance innovation and individual autonomy with the need to protect public health and maintain scientific safety standards. Although the U.S may place a strong emphasis on autonomy in medical and scientific contexts, there are still many systems put in place to ensure that overall public health and safety are maintained. In conventional medical research, experiments involving human subjects require federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight and adherence to ethical and safety guidelines, and are subject to significant oversight by the FDA when they involve the use of potential new drugs or medical devices. Biohacking, by contrast, often occurs within informal settings such as personal laboratories or even in the biohacker’s home (Baumgaertner). Because these experiments are unregulated, there is a heightened risk of mistakes, contamination, and dangerous unintended side effects (Ajaykumar).

Tingey Injury Law Firm unsplash.com

At the state level, governments have begun targeting regulation around biohacking. In June 2019, California passed the first law in the United States specifically targeting biohacking. The law, known as Senate Bill 180, was designed to address growing concerns about the safety of amateur genetic experimentation, especially as technologies like CRISPR have become cheaper and more widely available. Since January 2020, it has been illegal in California to sell gene therapy kits unless sellers clearly warn consumers that the products are not safe for self-administration and are not intended for use on humans outside of regulated medical environments. The law requires warnings both on product packaging and on websites before purchase, reflecting fears that untrained individuals could harm themselves or others by attempting genetic modification without proper oversight. Violating this rule can result in fines ranging from $5,000 to $100,000 (Regalado). This legislation demonstrates that lawmakers are beginning to recognize the potential public health implications of unregulated biohacking and the need to provide consumers with accurate risk information. While this law is a first step, it only scratches the surface of what might be required to ensure safety, regulate distribution, and protect uninformed patients from dangerous experimentation (Regalado).

Furthermore, the current healthcare landscape in the United States highlights the tension between public safety and the constitutional protection of autonomy. Rather than adopting a singular, coordinated national approach, the federal response has been marked by a lack of comprehensive legislation. This absence of federal action suggests that biohacking exposes a broader uncertainty among lawmakers regarding how to regulate such practices without infringing upon personal autonomy (Bajrektarevic and Bogdanova). Such uncertainty surrounding oversight becomes more apparent when examining the experiments of well-known biohackers.

Keoni Gandall’s early involvement in biohacking began in seventh grade, when his biology teacher allowed him to order a bacterial transformation kit for independent experimentation at home (Baumgaertner). These kits enable users to insert foreign DNA into bacteria, allowing the organisms to express new traits such as producing proteins or glowing under certain conditions. In Gandall’s case, these experiments were conducted on microorganisms, not on himself or other complex living organisms. Still, the book that he read introduced him to genetic engineering at a young age. Even though Gandall was only working with simple microorganisms, changing their DNA can be risky. When you insert new genes into bacteria, the organisms might start producing something unexpected, like a protein that could be harmful to humans, animals, or other microbes. Without proper training, safety equipment, and containment procedures, even small biohacking experiments like these could create problems that go far beyond the classroom (Baumgaertner).

As he progressed into high school, Gandall began conducting increasingly advanced genetic experiments using do-it-yourself laboratory equipment in his home. After graduating, he began to pursue a career in bioengineering at Stanford University; however, he still participated in experiments outside of these regulated facilities. Although the exact details of his projects are not fully documented, reports indicate that his work involved complex genetic manipulation techniques typically performed in professional laboratory settings. These techniques could include inserting or removing specific genes in microorganisms, attempting to change how cells function, or combining genetic material from different organisms. His experiment was ultimately deemed unsafe for a school environment, leading to his removal from a science fair due to concerns about inadequate supervision, lack of proper facilities, and insufficient training (Baumgaertner).

Gandall’s perspective on biohacking also highlights broader concerns about the effectiveness of existing oversight in the biohacking industry. In an interview with the New York Times, he stated that “the level of DNA synthesis regulation, it simply isn’t good enough,” and argued that “these regulations aren’t going to work when everything is decentralized” (Baumgaertner). Here, Ganadall is referring to current regulatory efforts designed to control access to potentially dangerous genetic materials and technologies, using regulatory frameworks such as California’s restrictions on gene-editing kits. He is also stressing the importance of updating current policies as a key way to ensure the safety of the public as technology continues to advance and become more easily accessible. Gandall’s critique was significant because it comes from someone who has firsthand experience as a biohacker. Having conducted genetic experiments outside of professional laboratories, he understands both the potential and the risks of DIY experiments. By acknowledging these potential risks, Gandall demonstrates that even some individuals who biohack are aware of the possible dangers, demonstrating that safety concerns are not merely speculative but concrete.

Prominent biohacker and former NASA researcher Josiah Zayner edited his own DNA by injecting CRISPR technology into himself. He conducted this experiment on a social media livestream and also participated in interviews about it (Zaron). He shared how he aims to combine science and social activism through biohacking to achieve two goals: (1) show people the accessibility of scientific knowledge and tools, and (2) advance the development of helpful medical technologies past the frustratingly slow rate of progress via traditional “academic and medical science” (Regalado). By uploading his video to a public platform, he is turning biohacking into a public health issue by potentially involving or inducing other people on a massive scale. Zayner himself has recently admitted to feeling worried that extreme biohackers may feel inspired to pursue even more dangerous experiments, such as injecting an untested HIV treatment on a livestream (Regalado). In regulated biomedical research, gene editing technologies like CRISPR are tightly controlled and even illegal because their effects can be unpredictable. Therefore, the risk extends beyond the individual harm to include the potential normalization of unsafe experimental replication and a diminished perception of risk resulting from the public visibility of gene-editing practices.

These cases illustrate both the potential and the risks of biohacking. Keoni Gandall’s early experiments highlight how curiosity and access to even simple biotechnology kits can lead to ambitious, but unsafe, attempts when proper training and laboratory oversight are lacking. In contrast, Josiah Zayner demonstrates how biohacking can intersect with activism and public engagement, showcasing scientific techniques to a broad audience while also exposing participants and viewers to significant health risks. Together, these examples underscore the tension between autonomy to experiment and the ethical considerations that must be addressed, which could lead to calls for restricting experimentation. These cases also show how the ethics of biohacking as a whole become more complicated due to the widespread use of technology and social media in society. As biohacking becomes more visible online, the line between personal experimentation and public influence blurs, raising critical questions about how society should balance innovation, accessibility, and safety (Blazeski).

Germany offers a starkly different regulatory model from the U.S regarding biohacking. In fact, the country is recognized as having some of the world's strictest biohacking and genetic engineering laws. In Germany, the Genetic Engineering Act (GenTG) strictly prohibits any genetic engineering activity—including amateur biohacking—from taking place outside of specialized, licensed laboratory facilities that are monitored by the state. While the U.S laws rely on protecting consumers with risk information through warning labels, as seen in California Senate Bill 180, the German approach is rooted in the "precautionary principle," which prioritizes the prevention of potential public harm over individual curiosity (Kolodziejczyk).

Germany's regulatory model demonstrates how differently governments can approach the risks of biohacking. Whereas the United States tends to prioritize personal autonomy and consumer choice, Germany emphasizes precaution and strict oversight to minimize potential public harm. These contrasting approaches reveal that the debate surrounding biohacking is not merely a legal issue, but deeply ethical. Questions about autonomy, responsibility, fairness, and public safety ultimately shape how societies decide whether biohacking should be restricted or permitted. Therefore, after examining the history, development, and current regulation of biohacking practices, it becomes necessary to evaluate the ethical values underlying this debate.

Ethical Analysis

Responsibility

The first value I’d like to use to examine the ethics around biohacking practices is responsibility. It is one of the most significant values to consider because it encompasses multiple layers of obligation: towards oneself, towards others, and towards society at large. Examining the responsibility of biohackers requires a multi-layered approach that moves beyond a purely individualistic perspective. Responsibility is typically attributed to individuals, but this becomes more complex when considering whether biohackers fully understand the risks and consequences of their actions. If individuals lack a full understanding, it becomes difficult to hold them fully responsible for the outcomes of their experiments. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that the actions of biohackers are often a direct response to systemic issues, such as high healthcare costs, lack of access to medical innovation or care, and stringent regulatory environments ("Biohacking Response").

Firstly, governments play a central role in protecting public health. Although biohacking began largely as a form of personal experimentation, advances in technology and the advent of social media have expanded its impact beyond the individual. Unregulated experiments, especially those involving gene editing, live virus, or self-administered medical treatments, when publicized or broadcast, can expose others to risk. Deontological ethics, which focuses on duties and moral rules rather than outcomes, would support strict regulations on biohacking. A key part of this framework is acting in accordance with the established rules, regardless of the outcome.  This would lead to a deontologist arguing that certain moral boundaries should not be crossed, even if breaking them might lead to potential scientific discoveries like a new treatment. Moral boundaries refer to the ethical limits that guide what actions are considered acceptable, such as respecting human and animal life, protecting privacy, avoiding harm to others, and not exploiting vulnerable populations. Here, the duty to prevent harm and protect citizens outweighs any potential benefits from innovation. Governments, therefore, have both a moral and practical obligation to establish clear rules and protocols, monitor compliance, and ensure that public safety remains the top priority (Castelyn). While autonomy is also important in deontological ethics, it cannot override the fundamental duty to avoid harming others. As a result, a deontological approach to ethics would include supporting increased regulation, since permitting unrestricted autonomy in this context would lead to ethical violations, regardless of any potential benefits. In other words, the ends would not justify the means.

At the same time, holding the government entirely responsible for regulating biohacking is an impractical approach. This reflects a broader challenge in enforcing any law, as it is extremely difficult to monitor activities that occur in the privacy of their own homes.

Furthermore, attempting to impose legislation that outright prohibits biohacking may drive the practice more underground rather than eliminate it. Instead, governments can better fulfill their duty to protect public health by enacting targeted legislation that limits the commercial distribution of potentially harmful biohacking materials or practices by individuals without appropriate scientific training. At the same time, the government must balance this responsibility with respect for individual autonomy. However, the weight given to autonomy depends on the scope of risks involving biohacking. There is a significant ethical difference between self-experimentation that affects only the individual, practices that are shared and may encourage imitation by others, and experiments that could produce harmful results for others. As the potential for external harm increases, the justification for regulatory intervention becomes stronger. Many biohackers argue that restrictive laws on biohacking infringe upon their right to “self-experiment,” so policymakers must carefully weigh public safety against autonomy when considering regulation. Recognizing that this balance depends on the level of risk involved, where biohacking is confined to self-experimentation, autonomy should carry a greater weight, whereas practices that create risks for others justify strong regulatory intervention.

Examining virtue ethics shifts the focus of the biohacking debate away from external regulation and toward individual moral responsibility. Virtue ethics is a framework that determines the responsibility to act safely, while biohacking lies with the individual. This framework emphasizes an individual's duty to behave in ethical ways, characterized by virtues like honesty, integrity, and responsibility. When virtue ethics is applied to the ethical dilemma of biohacking, it results in biohackers acting responsibly, with self-discipline and sound judgment. This is important because it shows that ethical questions around biohacking are not only about what should be regulated or supervised, but also what kinds of moral duties individuals are expected to exercise. Therefore, individuals who ignore ethical considerations while still pursuing biohacking may gain short-term advantages such as financial gain or faster results, but doing so can compromise trust, harm others, or undermine the broader community. Recognizing the framework of virtue ethics encourages biohackers to cultivate responsibility as integral parts of their experiments, reaffirming the responsibility that they hold to protect themselves and society. In short, virtue ethics underscores the importance of individuals making informed and ethical decisions and taking responsibility for their actions in ways that safeguard others, rather than depending solely on external oversight.

Ultimately, after examining the value of responsibility in the context of biohacking, it is clear that this obligation is multi-layered; it is not merely about a biohacker's personal intent, but about the ripples their actions create within society. In today’s decentralized landscape, biohacking requires participants to understand that their experiments can carry profound public consequences. However, the moment the state attempts to enforce this responsibility through intervention, it triggers another ethical issue: the tension between collective safety and the highly prioritized American right to autonomy. This shift moves the dilemma from a question of what a biohacker should do to what a citizen has the right to do, leading directly into the core conflict of autonomy.

Autonomy

The question of whether autonomy should be prioritized when discussing biohacking, particularly in the United States, where personal freedom is often treated as a core national value, makes this issue especially contentious. While many Americans would claim they have a strong right to control what experiments are done on their bodies, this right is not absolute. In the U.S, personal liberties are frequently balanced against the government's compelling interest in protecting public health and safety, creating a complex ethical boundary where personal choice meets collective risk (Sundaram). Governments face the challenge of determining when restricting personal choice is justified to protect public health, such as in cases like these, where unregulated treatments could cause harm. When thinking about adapting Germany's more restrictive regulatory approach, it becomes clear that while a framework can protect society by ensuring safety and oversight, it limits personal choice and may undermine individuals’ ability to make decisions that align with their needs (Castelyn). This makes the ethical issue different from more common legal restrictions, such as laws prohibiting homicide, because those laws prevent intentional acts of harm where both the action and the consequence are fully understood.  In contrast, biohacking regulation is aimed at situations where individuals may not fully understand the risks of their actions. In these cases, the concern is not simply restricting personal freedom in general, but preventing individuals from unknowingly exposing themselves and potentially others to unintended harm.

Biohackers often view the right to modify their bodies as an extension of personal liberty, similar to tattoos or piercings. They argue that because they are both the researchers and the subjects, they have the right to assume risks in their pursuit of self-enhancement or treatment without traditional oversight (Castelyn). There is also a growing idea that describes biohacking as a form of activism, providing individuals more power over their own health care, especially when they cannot afford or lack access to traditional treatments (Castelyn). This right to exercise individual autonomy can be paired with utilitarian reasoning. Utilitarianism is the ethical framework that requires the maximization of utility. A utilitarian holds the belief that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest overall happiness or well-being for people (Kohn). When applied to biohacking, utilitarianism can support innovation even if it entails risk, suggesting that allowing individuals to experiment on themselves can be ethical if it leads to the greatest overall benefit for society (Regalado). From this perspective, if a DIY experiment even has a small chance of producing life-saving discoveries, restricting it would both violate personal autonomy and potentially prevent broader societal gains.

A real-world case further illustrates this argument, showing how individuals may justify risky self-experimentation based on its potential to produce broader medical benefits. It describes a 63-year-old molecular biologist diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ( ALS) who, after learning there were no promising treatments for her specific genetic mutation, designed and self-administered a gene therapy outside of regulatory oversight.

Motivated by the loss of control caused by ALS and her limited life expectancy, she prioritized potential benefit over formal safety testing. After partial improvement, where some ability returned in 3 fingers, her night leg spasms stopped, and her shortness of breath episodes decreased, she pursued experimentation to synthesize a second, higher dose, even sourcing immunosuppressants independently when clinicians couldn't legally assist (Cox et al.). While the researcher's intervention was tailored to her specific genetic mutation, a utilitarian framework still supports her actions because the success of her DIY gene therapy offers a model for others with rare or fatal diseases ignored by traditional medicine or for which traditional medicine currently provides no hope of treatment or cure. Furthermore, by extending her own life, the expertise preserved the life of a trained biologist, potentially enabling her to continue broader research into ALS treatments that could benefit a much larger population.

This case is one of many that lead supporters to argue that respecting autonomy allows individuals to take calculated risks, while utilitarianism justifies these risks by pointing to potential benefits to humanity. In this way, autonomy and utilitarianism reinforce each other: individuals are free to make choices about their own bodies, and those choices may also contribute to the greatest amount of overall “utility.” However, arguments against prioritizing autonomy in biohacking center on the need to protect public health, ensure safety, and manage the risks of unregulated experimentation. 

While autonomy is a foundational principle, critics argue it should not be treated as an absolute right that overrides the potential for serious harm in the context of do-it-yourself science. So, this ethical question requires balancing the two: granting as much autonomy as possible while intervening when the potential risks to others or society are significant (Castelyn). Overall, the key takeaway from analyzing autonomy paired with a utilitarian framework is that the freedom to experiment can lead to innovations that may catalyze medical breakthroughs that benefit the collective good. Ultimately, while autonomy can encourage innovation, it cannot override the government’s responsibility to prevent preventable harm in public-facing biological experimentation (Castelyn).

Safety

The value of safety becomes the central ethical measure for deciding when the government’s responsibility to protect public health should come before autonomy-based rights. The first safety concern that comes to mind is the safety of individuals who are inspired to engage in biohacking by hearing about it from others. While many biohackers experiment on themselves, their decisions are often influenced by online forums, social media groups, or community leaders who promote unproven practices as safe and even revolutionary (Castelyn). In these unregulated spaces, potential risks may be omitted, oversimplified, or not fully understood. This could result in individuals who believe they are making fully informed choices, when in reality they are relying on incomplete or biased information. This raises concerns about whether an individual's decision to participate in biohacking is shaped by verified facts.

There is no way to fully mitigate the errors that come with performing experiments or procedures, even in a regulated environment. These mistakes are considered “user error,” and it is important to consider that it will always be a possibility, regardless of safety precautions or informed consent. However, when independent biohackers work with scientific tools in their own environments, there is a higher risk of user error and exposure to safety hazards. The fact that they often lack the training required to use these tools overall increases the risk of user error, which is a serious concern (Anand). This concern is heightened when individuals use biotechnology tools obtained secondhand, such as on eBay, meaning their work is not consistently guided by qualified supervision to ensure safe and ethical practice ("About the Lab").

One example of biohackers attempting to ensure safety is Genspace, an organized biohacking community in Brooklyn, New York. Accessed through a steel door on a graffiti-lined street, Genospace features an interior described by The New York Times as  resembling “a college dorm room.” This informal setting serves as a stark visual reminder of the casual environment in which complex experimentation is now occurring. The co-founder of this community, Daniel Grushkin, is known to be a trailblazer in the biohacking community due to his prioritization of safety. His community provides its members, who range from retirees and musicians to engineers, with “safety training and access to scientific equipment and expertise” based on a paid subscription service ("Biohacking Market to Reach"). Genspace also follows CDC Biosafety Level 1 guidelines and reviews proposed individual projects before approving access to its facilities ("About the Lab"). Even so, these facility safety measures do not ensure that Genspace’s members consistently follow safety practices. Furthermore, even if biohackers say they will follow a code of ethics, individuals who perform research at home use biotechnology tools obtained secondhand, such as on eBay, so their practice is not dependent on a supervisor monitoring them for ethical violations ("About the Lab").

Ultimately, safety serves as a critical boundary for evaluating the ethical limits of biohacking, particularly when experimentation occurs outside regulated environments. The increased risk of user error, misinformation, and lack of oversight makes unregulated biohacking significantly more dangerous than traditional medical research. Overall, this demonstrates that safeguarding public health must take priority over unrestricted experimentation, since the consequences of unsafe biohacking extend beyond the individual and into society at large.

Fairness

Fairness reveals how unequal access to healthcare pushes some individuals toward risky self-experimentation. Limited access to education, medical resources, and professionally supervised research creates a disparity between those who can pursue safe, regulated medical interventions and those who may turn to DIY alternatives. This raises important questions: Is it fair that life-saving or health-optimizing interventions are most often accessible to those with financial means, specialized knowledge, or geographic access to more standardized levels of care? Looking at biohacking through the lens of individuals who are unable to afford the available treatments adds a new dimension to the consideration of safety and fairness, where individuals are now driven towards biohacking by the current system (Anand). In this context, biohacking becomes less about curiosity and more about survival. When life-saving medications are too expensive or unavailable, some individuals may feel that attempting do-it-yourself experiments is their only realistic option.

The Open Insulin Project was founded in 2015 as a community-led initiative. It is meant to challenge the traditional pharmaceutical system, in which large companies set high drug prices. They achieve this by using publicly available medical tools to democratize biotech knowledge and reduce reliance on corporate drug manufacturing ("Open Insulin"). Their largest goal is to develop a “home-brewed” recipe for insulin that diabetics could rely on (Marks). Experts and the public worry about contamination, dosing errors, and health risks that could arise from this project. Supporters see this movement as a way to empower communities while ensuring individuals don't have to rely solely on pharmaceutical companies for necessary medication. From this perspective, the risks of biohacking must be weighed against the risks of not having treatment at all. Rationing medication or going without medication can be just as dangerous, which raises the question of whether biohacking is a form of medical self-determination rather than reckless self-experimentation (Burningham). This leads to the conclusion that biohacking could be considered permissible when pharmaceutical companies fail to provide life-sustaining medication. However, this justification is fragile, and I believe the moment biohacking moves away from survival and towards elective enhancement, it loses its “ethical standing” and becomes a form of reckless experimentation. Ultimately, while supporters view this as a vital act of medical autonomy, the project remains a controversial boundary where the urgency of receiving DIY medical treatments collides with the dangerous lack of oversight.

Ultimately, fairness highlights the systemic inequalities that drive individuals toward biohacking, particularly when access to affordable healthcare and treatment is limited. However, we must be careful not to mistake a “last resort” for a “safe alternative.” While biohacking may offer a sense of empowerment or a last resort for some individuals, it also exposes them to risks that more affluent communities may avoid. Therefore, biohacking does not solve the problem of healthcare inequality; it instead forces vulnerable individuals to accept the greater dangers of unregulated experimentation. It is imperative to address healthcare inequalities, as reducing these disparities would lessen the need for individuals to turn to unregulated and potentially dangerous forms of self-experimentation.

Conclusion

The ethical dilemma surrounding biohacking in the United States is fundamentally rooted in the tension between autonomy and the responsibility of the government to protect public health. Throughout this paper, I explained how this tension appears across multiple dimensions of biohacking, including the risks associated with unregulated experimentation, the influence of social media in spreading misinformation and normalizing unsafe practices, the lack of regulatory oversight over biohacking, and the healthcare inequalities that drive this practice in the first place. Although biohacking has the potential to accelerate scientific discovery and provide solutions for individuals with limited medical options, these benefits must be carefully weighed against the potential dangers that extend beyond the individual to society as a whole. 

Utilitarian reasoning emphasizes the potential benefits of biohacking for humanity, including accelerated research and the potential development of life-saving innovations. At the same time, deontological ethics underscores the importance of moral duties, safety standards, proper oversight, and professional integrity. Additionally, the value of fairness reveals that inequities in access to healthcare and scientific resources may drive some individuals toward DIY experiments out of necessity rather than curiosity. In such contexts, biohacking becomes not merely a personal choice but a form of medical self-determination, raising further ethical considerations about society's responsibility to ensure equitable access to life-saving treatments. However, using fairness to justify biohacking is problematic because, although it recognizes the struggles of underserved communities, it fails to provide the actual resources they deserve. 

Although it is difficult to take a definitive stance on the most ethical decision, I have concluded that an American citizen’s autonomy does not entitle them to conduct risky experiments outside regulated settings. While autonomy is seen as a core American value, it is not an absolute right when exercised in ways that may spread harm beyond the individual or undermine established safety standards. In the context of biohacking, the risks associated with unregulated experimentation demonstrate that granting autonomy without limits causes more harm than good. This is especially evident in cases where independent biohacking, once shared publicly through social media, can influence others to replicate unsafe practices.

My ethical stance is grounded in the values of responsibility and safety, and is most strongly supported by a deontological framework. From a deontological perspective, ethical decision-making is based on duties, rather than outcomes, meaning that certain actions are inherently unjustifiable if they violate obligations such as protecting human life, maintaining scientific integrity, and ensuring public safety. Even if biohacking has the potential to produce beneficial innovations or life-saving discoveries, these possible outcomes do not override the duty to avoid exposing individuals or society to preventable risks. This suggests that ethical boundaries in science are necessary not to limit innovation, but to ensure it remains accountable and safe.

Additionally, while it is important to acknowledge that many individuals turn to biohacking due to systemic issues such as limited access to healthcare, high medical costs, or slow institutional research, these concerns highlight the need for reform within the healthcare system rather than justification for unregulated experimentation. Addressing these healthcare inequities is a matter of fairness; however, true fairness is found in universal access to medical treatments rather than the right to perform experiments in one's garage (Baumgaertner). Expanding access to safe medical innovations, improving the affordability of treatments, and strengthening legitimate research pathways would address the root causes driving individuals toward self-experimentation. In contrast, allowing unrestricted biohacking risks creating a system of unverified and potentially dangerous medical practices that operate without accountability. Therefore, the practice of biohacking should not be viewed as an expression of autonomy, but as a practice that must be regulated due to the collective responsibility to protect public safety. Ultimately, I have concluded that the pursuit of scientific progress must be anchored in government oversight, reinforcing the idea that although the value of autonomy is a cherished American right, it cannot be exercised at the expense of public health.

Works Cited

"About the Lab." Genspace, https://www.genspace.org/the-lab/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Ajaykumar, Shravishtha. "Biohacking and Regulations: The Evolving Landscape of Human Enhancement." Observer Research Foundation (ORF), 18 Sept. 2023, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/biohacking-and-regulations-the-evolving-landscape-of-human-enhancement. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Anand, Rohan. "The Dangers of Biohacking ‘Experiments’—and How It Could Harm Your Health." The Conversation, 26 Sept. 2018, https://theconversation.com/the-dangers-of-biohacking-experiments-and-how-it-could-harm-your-health-100542. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Bajrektarevic, Anis H., and Kamila Bogdanova. "Biohacking: Key Legal, Moral and Commercial Considerations." Eurasia Review, 24 Jan. 2025, https://www.eurasiareview.com/24012025-biohacking-key-legal-moral-and-commercial-considerations-analysis/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Baumgaertner, Emily. "As D.I.Y. Gene Editing Gains Popularity, ‘Someone Is Going to Get Hurt.’" The New York Times, 14 May 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/science/biohackers-gene-editing-virus.html. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

"Biohacking Is a Response to Societal Problems, but Is Not the Answer." Pharmaceutical Technology, 23 Feb. 2023, https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/analyst-comment/biohacking-response-flawed/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

"Biohacking Market to Reach US$ 216.68 Billion by 2035 Driven by Metabolic Monitoring, Wearable Diagnostics, and Personalized Health Optimization." Yahoo Finance, 9 Feb. 2026, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biohacking-market-reach-us-216-093000518.html. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Precedence Research. Biohacking Market Size, Share, Growth Report, 2024–2034. Precedence Research, https://www.precedenceresearch.com/biohacking-market. Accessed 17 May 2026.

Blazeski, George. "The Need for Government Oversight Over Do-It-Yourself Biohacking, the Wild West of Synthetic Biology." Seton Hall University, 1 May 2014, https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/student_scholarship/article/1411/&path_info=sZbkX037.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Burnett Zaron. "The NASA Genius Biohacker Trying to Bring Gene Editing to Your Living Room." MEL Magazine, 27 Feb. 2019, https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-nasa-genius-biohacker-trying-to-bring-gene-editing-to-your-living-room. Accessed 15 May 2026.

Carter, Robert, and Scott Gillis. "Unnatural Selection." Creation Ministries International, 25 Oct. 2019, https://creation.com/en/articles/unnatural-selection. Accessed 17 Apr. 2026.

Castelyn, C. "Oversight of Biohacking When the Stakes Are High: Ethics Police or FBI?." Voices in Bioethics, vol. 6, Mar. 2020, doi:10.7916/vib.v6i.5898.

Eireiner, A. V. "Extra-Institutional Science: DIY Biologists’ Democratization of Scientific Practices and Spaces." Biosocieties, vol. 20, no. 3, 2025, pp. 419–448. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-024-00347-w.

Gallegos, Jenna E., et al. "The Open Insulin Project: A Case Study for ‘Biohacked’ Medicines." Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 36, no. 12, 2018, pp. 1211–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.07.009. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Giwa, A. O., et al. "Ethics Between Individual Rights and Social Responsibilities." The Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 65, no. 1, 2023, pp. 28–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.03.066.

Gruber, Karl. "Biohackers: A Growing Number of Amateurs Join the Do-It-Yourself Molecular Biology Movement Outside Academic Laboratories." EMBO Reports, vol. 20, no. 6, 2019, e48397. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201948397.

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Edited by Linda T. Kohn, Janet M. Corrigan, and Molla S. Donaldson, National Academies Press, 2000.

Jackson, Wilton. "Mississippi Man Attempts to Create Glow-in-the-Dark Dogs. Netflix Spotlights Work." Clarion Ledger, 11 Nov. 2019, https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/

local/2019/11/11/david-ishee-netflix-unnatural-selection-gene-editing-dogs-mississippi-breeder/2495230001/. Accessed 17 Apr. 2026.

Jones-Nosacek, Cynthia. "Vaccine Mandates: Weighing the Common Good vs Personal Conscience and Autonomy." The Linacre Quarterly, vol. 91, no. 2, 2024, pp. 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639231213515. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Kolodziejczyk, Bartlomiej. "Do-It-Yourself Synthetic Biology Punishable in Germany." Transnational Technology Law Forum News, 1 Apr. 2017, https://ttlfnews.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/do-it-yourself-synthetic-biology-punishable-in-germany/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Lussenhop, Jessica. "Why I Injected Myself with an Untested Gene Therapy." BBC News, Nov. 2017, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41990981. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Marks, Lindsey. "Biohacking: The Ethical Implications of Democratizing Biotechnology." Viterbi Conversations in Ethics, 26 Oct. 2021, https://vce.usc.edu/volume-5-issue-2/biohacking-the-ethical-implications-of-democratizing-biotechnology/. Accessed 3 May 2026.

Marseille, Elliot, and James Kahn. "Utilitarianism and the Ethical Foundations of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Resource Allocation for Global Health." PubMed, National Library of Medicine, 3 Apr. 2019, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6446322/. Accessed 3 May 2026.

Meyer, Morgan, and Frédéric Verngnaud. "The Rise of Biohacking: Tracing the Emergence and Evolution of DIY Biology Through Online Discussions." Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1 Nov. 2020, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/

S0040162520310325. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Molteni, Megan. "A Netflix Series Explores the Brave New World of CRISPR." Wired, 18 Oct. 2019, https://www.wired.com/story/a-netflix-series-explores-the-brave-new-world-of-crispr/. Accessed 17 Apr. 2026.

"Open Insulin." Open Insulin Foundation, https://openinsulin.org/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

"Open Source." OpenSource.com, Red Hat, https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Oxford University Press. "Biohacking." Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1 Jan. 2010, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/biohacking_n?tab=meaning_and_use#138375005. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Regalado, Antonio. "Don’t Change Your DNA at Home, Says America’s First CRISPR Law." MIT Technology Review, 9 Aug. 2019, https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/09/65433/

dont-change-your-dna-at-home-says-americas-first-crispr-law/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Ruhnke, G. W., et al. "Ethical Decision Making and Patient Autonomy: A Comparison of Physicians and Patients in Japan and the United States." Chest, vol. 118, no. 4, 2000, pp. 1172–1182. doi:10.1378/chest.118.4.1172.

Scotti, Matilde. "The 2025 BioHackathon: Your First Step Into the World of BioEntrepreneurship." iGEM Foundation, 17 Apr. 2025, https://blog.igem.org/blog/

2025/4/16/the-2025-biohackathon-your-first-step-into-the-world-of-bioentrepreneurship. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Sundaram, Lalitha S. "Biosafety in DIY-bio Laboratories: From Hype to Policy: Discussions About Regulating DIY Biology Tend to Ignore the Extent of Self-Regulation and Oversight of DIY Laboratories." EMBO Reports, vol. 22, no. 4, 2021, e52506.  https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202152506.

Varahala, S. "Autonomy on Trial: Trust, Capacity, and the Doctor-Patient Divide in US Bioethics and Law." Voices in Bioethics, vol. 11, 2025, https://doi.org/10.52214/vib.v11i.13957. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.

Cox, Vivienne, Thomas Cochrane, and Ammar Al-Chalabi. "The Ethics of Self-Experimentation: What Is the Right Thing to Do? Self-Designed Gene Therapy." Brain, vol. 148, no. 11, Nov. 2025, pp. 3798–3800. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaf258. Accessed 12 Apr. 2026.