Grinder biohacking: Do-it-yourself biohackers are experimenting on themselves

• Author:
• Author name

  Quantumrun Foresight
• September 29, 2022

Insight summary

Grinder biohacking, emerging from transhumanism, involves people enhancing their bodies with technology, often through risky self-experiments. This practice, while sparking debates over ethics and safety, also leads to fascinating advancements like implantable devices for improved bodily functions. Its rising popularity and controversial nature are prompting government regulation, new business models, and split opinions in the scientific community.

Grinder biohacking context

Grinder biohacking is the result of the evolution of transhumanism, a philosophical movement that pushes for merging humans with machines via technology. The main goal of transhumanists is to improve the human body technologically—think hearing aids, prosthetic legs, and pacemakers. However, the method in which grinders achieve this has become increasingly dangerous. 

Michael Schrage first used the term "biohacking" in a 1988 Washington Post op-ed called "Playing God in your Basement." Schrage predicted that amateur genetic engineers would use the growing techniques of molecular biology and genetic engineering to manipulate life forms. Schrage likened biohackers to the computer hackers of his time, characterizing them as rogue operators who take control of and transform the mechanisms of life itself, bypassing the rules of biology. Despite its ethical concerns, biohacking is well-known for its liberating and democratizing potential.

Grinders are biohackers who endeavor to become cyborg-like by implanting gadgets and machines under their skin. People who biohack their bodies have been experimenting with various devices, including RFID (radio-frequency identification) tags, near-field communication (NFC) chips, data storage, and biosensors. Other grinders employ oxygen deprivation, microdosing, or injections to enhance and restore bodily functions. Some scientists are increasingly concerned about what DIY biohacking encourages and represents: life-threatening, unsupervised self-experimentation.

Disruptive impact

Ironically, some of the more popular grinder biohackers are scientists themselves. An example is Dr. Josiah Zayner, an ex-NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) scientist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry. Zayner built an international audience through his YouTube channel, which recorded his experiments. His biohacking projects have permanently scarred his forearm, resulting from an attempt to inject DNA from a jellyfish into his cells.

By doing this, he was hoping to change his genome using the CRISPR gene-editing technology to make his muscles stronger. Zayner's YouTube channel was eventually deleted for breaching terms of service. Still, he continues to connect with his audience via the-Odin.com, where he sells DIY CRISPR kits for $169 USD and tissue engineering kits for $500 USD.

While there have been extreme projects from individual grinders, there is some biohacking research that researchers and companies supervise. For example, in 2017, US tech firm Three Square Market offered employees the option to receive implants of microchips that would unlock doors, log them into their computers, and buy snacks from vending machines. The chips are passive devices that utilize different radio frequencies to function without a battery or power source. They will not operate until they engage with another apparatus, which may read the data stored inside. This type of RFID technology could assist people with disabilities; an example of this is people with reduced dexterity might find an RFID implant that can unlock doors and connect with devices extremely helpful.

Implications of grinder biohacking

Wider implications of grinder biohacking may include: 

• More grinder celebrities with a cult following, comprising people who are interested in becoming grinders themselves.


• Governments regulating the biohacking space; e.g., requiring DIY CRISPR kits to have national health department warnings and disclaimers.


• Grinders and reputable research institutions collaborating to experiment on devices that can help restore sight, mobility, and hearing.


• The scientific community split between those who think biohacking is an amateur and dangerous movement and those who believe this practice democratizes scientific research. There might be increased pressure to create a global biohacking ethics standard.


• More biotech companies working with grinders to test device implants.


• Enhanced access to advanced biohacking tools leading to increased self-experimentation among individuals, raising concerns about safety and ethical implications.


• Insurance companies adjusting policies to cover or exclude biohacking procedures.


• Public fascination with biohacking influencing mainstream media and entertainment, possibly altering public perception and acceptance of human augmentation technologies.

Questions to consider

• How might grinder biohacking further democratize society?


• What are the other potential dangers of grinder self-experimentation?