1. Goals and Rationale
1. Biohackers are people who apply the hacker mentality to their own bodies and manipulate various functions through introduction of chemicals, cybernetic devices, and other implants or drugs. Biohacking is a practice that is neither regulated nor supported by the FDA. This means that if and when experiments go awry, biohackers are at risk for serious health deficits and may not seek and obtain necessary treatment. The high prevalence of experiments-gone-wrong is due to lack of proper training, facilities, and testing behind different experiments biohackers may attempt.
2. A few changes to the current system could help to address this situation. Either trained professionals, like surgeons and physicians, could become certified to provide Biohacking operations, or laypersons could undergo training programs and register themselves, but only have the capacity to provide surgeries and administer drugs to themselves and no other persons.
2. Design and Requirements
1. I propose a two-fold approach to address the issues that come with Biohacking. Firstly, the FDA could provide training and licensing programs for those interested in becoming biohackers. This would entail a summary of risks, discussion of laboratory safety, and risk-management and prevention techniques.
2. Secondly, the FDA would legalize Biohacking operations by certified surgeons and thereby ensure safe and sterile conditions for the operations. The FDA could also give the power to specialized physicians to “prescribe” safe and smart dosages of chemicals and drugs to the Biohackers. This way, the Biohackers could perform their experiments with some level of precaution and be advised regarding experimental limits.
3. For this solution to work, the FDA would need to recognize Biohacking as a legitimate practice. Certified physicians and surgeons would need to provide time and resources to helping ensure the safety, security, and prosperity of this community. And, biohackers would need to actually submit to oversight by governmental organizations.
3. Assumptions and Risks of “Success”
1. If these strategies were to work, the added safety and recognition of Biohacking could prompt the general public to place a greater trust in this practice over institutional and clinical research. This is problematic because although these safety measures are intended to increase security for current Biohackers, this is still a less reliable, replicable, and accountable practice than research done at universities. Results from experiments with a sample size of one, where the test subject is the researcher themselves cannot be considered as true proof that the experiment is valid. There are too many uncontrolled variables and it would be dangerous if the general public changed aspects of their own lifestyle or began to self-administer drugs or procedures based on results of one Biohacking experiment.