Talk:Biopunk

Archive

Archives of previous discussions can be found at:

• /Archive 1

Contributing to the Science fiction genre section

Please do not add further examples of biopunk science fiction unless they are noted as being biopunk by a reliable source (author stated, review, article - no blogs). They will just be removed, wikipedia cannot designate something as biopunk if reliable sources haven't already done so. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will reiterate what I wrote several years back: "biopunk" is not a common term in the general SF community. (See my comments in the archived talk page.) I can't think of a single example of it in a review or critical article or even promo material (of which I see a lot), and its treatment in this article strikes me as a lot of OR and advocacy for a failed neologism. It is interesting that one of the writers cited as an example, Paul Di Filippo, did not use the label for his own work. There is indeed a body of SF that deals with various kinds of biological maniupuation, and some of them have echoes of cyberpunk attitude, but I can't find any notable commentators who use "biopunk" to describe it. Wishing don't make it so. RLetson (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is and isn't Biopunk?

1. Do stories that contain within them a form of genetics or gene alteration count as biopunk?
2. Or do they all have to be set in the future tense?
3. TMNT has genetic alteration. Though it is more mainstream. Would it not be considered because it is mainstream or not in the future?
4. Or does the Biopunk genre require an in depth analysis of some kind of genetic code?
5. Could you have a list on the page of stories that have elements of biopunk? (That way novelists could maybe further elaborate on the genre to refine it.)
6. I am sure that the first biopunk novel wasn't completely biopunk or was it?

I think a move like this would be a good way to help "round up" all that is biopunk. Kuzjrinx 11:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. Here are my answers:

1. Not necessarily. The stories must focus on biotech *and* subversives or "low-life".
2. No. A biopunk story can be set in the present but near-future is usually the norm.
3. No. Whether or not a work of biopunk fiction is mainstream is irrevelant. The issue is whether or not the work "explores the struggles of individuals or groups, often the product of human experimentation, against a backdrop of totalitarian governments or megacorporations which misuse biotechnologies as means of social control or profiteering."
4. Yes but the details of the "in-depth analysis of some kind of genetic code" can be taken for granted.
5. Possibly but we would have to determine whether not they these elements are truly biopunk or simply focus on biotech without focusing on subversives.
6. There are many elements of biopunk in many works that are not entirely biopunk. However, for a work to be called the "first biopunk novel" it would logically have to be completely biopunk.

--Loremaster (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so this has some elements of biopunk, but not necessarily classified as such. If perhaps they focused more on the lowlifes, and if they had a character who was say abducting the homeless and mutating them in some way, controlling them some sort of bio-processor. And he used some process that he stumbled across, or hacked from some sort of crooked pharmaceutical company, that he insists was no trouble at all. The government recruits his help to mutate all of the homeless in the country on a large scale as a form of a secret weapon. Meanwhile there are a few private investors who are benefitting greatly from this venture. All the while, similar little startups are popping up everwhere (ease of use of technology) and people are downloading mutating programs from pirate based servers. Aw shoot maybe I should start writing a book.... but do you think it would get the "Bio-punk stamp of approval"? --kuzjrinx (talk) 9:09, 13 April 2008

Yes. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought on two - it should be possible to have a biopunk story set in the past although it'd need to be fantastical or alternate history. Someone could in theory push eugenics (20th Century) or vivisection (19th Century) or something else (magic? alchemy? for early stories). The Island of Doctor Moreau/Frankenstein could be updated, spun, etc., possibly with elements of body horror thrown in. I say this partly because I have written the script for a period biopunk comic (and done some world building and plotted out the larger story arc) and it works - even if I say so myself ;) . I suppose we shouldn't really worry too much about a "biopunk stamp of approval" ;) after all, Anubis Gates might be one of the early books to be called Steampunk but it isn't that steamy and the worry would be later writers try and make their books fit rather than just having fun telling a great story without carrying which genre they fall in (like the Bas-Lag books for example). (Emperor (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

I agree. :) --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, wait a sec, what Emperor's talking about sounds nothing like your description of biopunk, which in my mind is flawed already. You're taking a literal interpretation of the word bio-punk, which totally excludes his example - lowlifes and alchemy don't mix. Well, I suppose you could make it work, but presumably not. Anyway, my point is that the whole "punk" designation actually doesn't really apply to biopunk. Same with steampunk. Look at Steamboy, or the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - no one in their right mind would argue these aren't examples of steampunk, but they have no lowlifes in them. So. Chill out and let me put the Genewars, Geneforge, and System Shock games back in. --Fredgoat (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

not unless you find sources (which i looked for before deleting them). Whether the definition used here is wrong doesn't matter, if a reliable source calls it biopunk, it can be included.Yobmod (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Yodmod. --Loremaster (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pththt fine, I was kindof just going off on that last sentence. I know you had to take off that stuff for the aforementioned citation reason, and I don't actually blame you. But my criticism of your definition still stands (although I grant that the definition itself is immaterial next to independent recognition as biopunk). Does it make me a sloth that I enjoy the debate anyway? Maybe there's a better way to put it, like that the stories have to involve biotech used in a haphazard way, rather than specifically a subversive way, so we can add poor bioinventors and mad organic alchemists to the anti-establishment biohackers. After all, while cyberpunk is pretty firmly rooted in the idea of the lone subversive taking on corrupt institutions, steam- and bio-"punk" are quite often much rosier genres than their names suggest. As examples, look at some of those listed, e.g. The Fly, Jurassic Park, (did that really get the biopunk designation from an independent source?) Bioshock, Resident Evil - more action than subversion. Just food for thought. --Fredgoat (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree about definition problem. But that isn't a wikipedia problem, more a problem with the genre itself. The name is used a sas marketing buzzword more than anything else. Any real definition could be used to include thousands of books that predate cyberpunk - hence we simply depend uncritically on sources opinions. Jurassic Park is clearly not Biopiunk in my opinion, nor is the Fly, but a source said they are (probably reviewed by someone who had never read a SF book, and just used the word to mean film with biology). But until someone writes an authorative analysis, there is no basis for us to disagree. Personally i think the genre will never be especially established, nor the term used for long. Finding dources even for modern works was a chore - people simply don't use it. It will go the way of "Body Horror".Yobmod (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

^sniff^ But I like body horror. Brain Damage was awesome! Okay, fine, time will judge them all. -Fredgoat (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Robert Heinlein's book "Friday"? It's a tad bit early for the '90s, but the hero's a genetically engineered spy in a world where a single monolithic corporation is taking interdepartmental rivalry to the point of destabilizing society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.154.160 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yo, this particular article isn't that well put together. It never really explains JUST WHAT biopunk is or isn't. Whether we're talking about mutants, genetic engineering and cloning. In fact, both from other Cyberpunk genres (the overall view) which are better explained, and from the Cyberpunk derivatives articles, the picture I got was none of those. The moment I finished reading that article, the picture I got was of the "game consoles" in eXistenz, or the ship Lexx, or species 1042whatever in Star Trek Voyager. Or does the genre simply encompass ALL of these ideas? I think one where the technology is organic fits in better with the other genres, but for now, that's just my opinion. Dessydes (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Newitz 2002" :
  • Newitz 2002
  • {{cite paper| author = Newitz, Annalee| title = Genome Liberation| date = 2002 | url = http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/02/26/biopunk/print.html| accessdate=2007-01-26}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Creator of Biopunk

Steven Archer from Ego Likeness considers himself to be the inventor of this Genre (from Interview with Ego Likeness, Issue Number 2 of Steam Punk Magazine steampunkmagazine.com )

Hmmm. I'll verify the source. --Loremaster (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems unlikely, as he's never written any and is not a scientist (not that i disbelieve he said it). Maybe he used the same word to mean something else? A type of music?Yobmod (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical too. Can you verify the source? --Loremaster (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the magazine full text - the interview is on page 26 http://www.steampunkmagazine.com/pdfs/spm4-letter.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.98.180 (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oki. I've nothing against it being mentioned here - it will at least indicate notability. But from the tone, it sounds almost like a joke? Maybe "Steven Archer from Ego Likeness jokingly claimed to have invented Biopunk in an interview discussing cybperpunk inspired genres" ?Yobmod (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Source of the Term Ribofunk

Paul Di Fillipo has said in multiple interviews that the "ribo" part of ribopunk comes from "ribosome", not "ribonucleic acid". That's true in the existing citation to the 1996 Wired interview with Di Fillipo, and also in a recent interview in The Fix: http://www.thefix-online.com/interviews/paul-di-filippo/

It seems to me that the words of the person that coined the term should be taken as more reliable than a dictionary entry (http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-bio3.htm), so I've changed it. --PeggyK (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Split

It has been suggested by Piotrus that the Biopunk article be split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page. I am opposed to this suggestion until the article is expanded to such a point that it will become necessary to split it. --Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed: The article is nowhere near long enough to consider splitting. If anything it is in need of expansion. magnius (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The section on the "movement" is somewhat more lengthy now (2012). Additionally, there's an article on DIYbio that covers much of the same topics. There isn't a strong link between biopunk the science fiction genre and biohackers/biopunkerjunkies, except in the sense that many biohackers read science fiction (however, the fact that they read copious amounts of science fiction hasn't been reported or verified much). -- kanzure (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Opposed. As per above, there is nowhere near enough content here to require or justify a split. I cannot even imagine where such an idea would come from. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Check out the DIYbio and biohacking article. I think in tandem with the content in the biopunk subsection, there's enough going on here. -- kanzure (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. What would the resultant article be called? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There would be three resultant articles: 1) Biohacker; 2) Biopunk movement; and 3) Biopunk science-fiction. --Loremaster (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no difference between #1 (biohacking) and #2 (biopunk movement). It's impossible to distinguish the difference because they're the same group of people. The DIYbio article tries to state that there is a difference, but it's not verified and I posit unverifiable as someone who has been involved in that community for years. -- kanzure (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral on the split, but i think many people focussed too much on the length of the article. The split suggestion is not to make sub-articles due to excessive length, but because the article covers 3 separate topics that are only somewhat related. I only edited the fiction section, as i really don't consider it to hav very much to do with the movement at all. That said, i boubt a separate fiction article would ever grow beyond a stub, so it doesn't really matter to readers where it is (as section links find it either way).YobMod 12:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• The issue isn't only lenght. One of the reasons why these three topics should stay together is because they are interelated. --Loremaster (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really two topics, though. I wouldn't say that biopunk science fiction influenced do-it-yourself biologists. What exactly is the purpose of keeping the biohacking stuff together with the science fiction genre? It's possible that I am overlooking something. -- kanzure (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The page Biopunk movement, which appears to have been split from this page (it has essentially the same content as the section 'Movement'), has been proposed for deletion. I will redirect the page back here to prevent deletion. I am neutral toward the split, and am redirecting only to preserve the namespace pending outcome of this discussion. Cnilep (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Biopunk movement presently redirects to biopunk. -- kanzure (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I PRODded Biopunk movement as part of a routine patrol of the backlog of unpatrolled articles and was not aware of this discussion. Sorry if I've caused User:Cnilep extra trouble. I'm fine with whatever you decide, but I recommend that some kind of hatnote or disambiguation be added to make the situation more clear (so that someone doesn't repeat what I did). Accounting4Taste:talk 17:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed: the article is too short for being splitted (Idot (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

There appears to be no consensus to split the article at this time. There does seem to be support for splitting this article once more content has been added. I'm removing the split tag for now. Gobonobo ^{T C} 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a merge tag now, to merge the "movement" stuff into biohacking. Most of the content on biopunk related to the movement would probably be kept in the merge, since the biohacking article lacks as much content. But then this raises the issue of what to do with the DIYbio article, which has a bunch of content overlap as well. Hopefully someone can help clarify possible ways to improve the situation with these three articles. I am of the opinion that biopunk is the wrong place to put the content because we're hijacking a science fiction genre article. Additionally, the majority of the references that I can find (NYT, WSJ, etc.) seem to refer to the movement as biohacking, do-it-yourself biology, amateur biology, biopunk, and citizen science -- biopunk is not as frequently used. You can see a list of these citations here and here in wikitext formatting already (about 180+ references). In the interest of being thorough, there is also a book by Marcus Wohlsen called "Biopunk" which chronicles individuals in the biohacking scene (including myself, so uh, bias alert). But whether that should inform the decision on which article to put related content under is not my decision. -- kanzure (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take the merge tag down. Yakushima (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I highly endorse a split into 1) Biopunk (movement) (includes "biohacker") and 2) Biopunk (science fiction subgenre) ("science fiction subgenre" could also be replaced with a more fitting word).

The reason is that these two things are related but still highly different in every way. The biopunk movement rather focuses on the utopic side of this new technology and seeks to bring it to the masses and use its potential etc. while the biopunk subgenre is a dystopic derivative of cyberpunk that absorbed the new biotech (instead of just the infotech as in original cyberpunk). Not separating those two will result in confusion, unclarity, misunderstandings and other problems. [Should there be a new entry in here for this as the above post is relatively old or can we decide upon this like it is?].

See also: Biopunk 101.

Quote from the article's conclusion: biopunk has become an independent cultural formation of the new millennium. As such, it has its historical origins and generic development in 1980s cyberpunk, but has since grown into an independent array of cultural tropes; it has evolved and been shaped into something quite distinct from being simply the biological version of “cyberpunk proper” - my point here is that Biopunk split off into two branches which both have their origins in cyberpunk, with the science-fiction branch continuing straightforward on cyberpunk's spirit and the DIY-science-movement one which is the aspiring practical, jedermann/normalperson's adoption of this new tech in a optimistic, idealistic manner and that those two branches are (have grown to be) highly different and should have to be properly recognized as separate/distinct entities/branches/.. on Wikipedia. The latter also influences and informs the dystopic branch (for instance evoking dystopic visions of everybody being able to create and distribute highly dangerous bioweapons; related) but is still highly different. Both are reactions (cultural absorption) to the introduction of new technology - two distinct ones.(note: eventually there'll also be a Cyberprep equivalent of dystopic biopunk - it would be harder to allocate that to either of the two branches, eventually it's a continuation of biopunk as science fiction genre under the strong influence of the DIY-movement) --Fixuture (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Biopunk films

We need to have a discussion about the films with which this cat. has been populated, as I believe many of them are not appropriate. Experienced editors are encouraged to take a look and contribute to this discussion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. So, regardless of our personal opinions about whether or not a film is a good example of biopunk science fiction, the only thing that matters is whether or not we have a reliable source which explicitly states that the film in question is biopunk. That being said, we should be having this debate on the Category talk:Biopunk films page rather than here. --Loremaster (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the movement related to the genre?

I thought the biopunk movement stem from open-source science, while the biopunk SF genre stem from cyberpunk. The two just happened to bear the same name.Yel D'ohan (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there does seem to be some confusion about how to separate these topics. There's a mix of do-it-yourself biology, biohacking, amateur science, citizen science, biopunking and other topics that are getting mixed up. Most of the news articles refer to the movement as biohacking or do-it-yourself biology, and "biopunk" is an indistinguishable term for the same people but less often used. At the same time, "biopunk" has been used to refer to the science fiction genre for many years. As a biohacker/biopunk/amsci/whatchamacallit, I have definitely read a bunch of biohacking-biopunk-whatever science fiction, which further muddles the waters.. -- kanzure (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

One reason for this confusion both in here (as evident by Yel D'ohan's post) and by the media is this very article. It needs to be separated into 2 different ones -> see the section Split above. [@Kanzure:&@Yel D'ohan:] --Fixuture (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I support reorganizing these articles; Biopunk, Biohacking, and Do-it-yourself biology all have conflicting descriptions about the relationship between these terms. Perhaps the "Biopunk" article should cover the genre of fiction, with a note that it's sometimes used in relation to the real life movement. I think that the movement part of this article could possibly be merged into at least one of the other two. To what extent do biohacking and do-it-yourself biology refer to different things? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

From the comments above, it seems that there's clear consensus (at least since 2012) that this article should be refocused on the fictional genre, so I'm going to go ahead and move the non-fictional content elsewhere. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Black clinics should be a separate article..

It is an old name but Yandex and others still censor results related to it. You can find high tech clinics in Russia, China and maybe elsewhere. Cutesolar (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Oddity in the "See Also" section

In the "See Also" section, "Cyberpunk" is listed under "Cyberpunk derivatives." Is this intentional? Some sort of comment on cyberpunk? Or should this be fixed? Mr Underhill (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I just have fixed this issue, for you. Just to make less confusing for you and probably other for this site. Chad The Goatman (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)