How Open Is the Maker Movement?:Integrative Literature Review of the Openness Practices in the Global Maker Movement

This article explores the multiple meanings of the concept of openness in the global maker movement. Openness is viewed as one of the key principles of the maker movement. As the global maker movement is a bricolage of diverse and situated practices and traditions, there are also many different interpretations and ways of practicing openness. We have explored this diversity with an integrative literature review, relying on the Web of Science™ database. We identified three interrelated but also, in part, mutually contested approaches to openness. Firstly, openness often refers to applying open hardware. Secondly, it is in many cases related to the inclusion and empowerment of various groups in making. Thirdly, openness appears to be seen as a means to pursue economic growth through increasing innovation activity and entrepreneurship. Our results also highlight the substantial barriers encountered by makers while aiming to open up their practices. These barriers include: value conflicts in which openness is overridden by other important values; exclusion of lower income groups from making due to a lack of resources; and difficulties in maintaining long-term activities. The different meanings of openness together with the barriers create tensions within the maker movement while implementing openness. We propose that engaging in a reflexive futures dialogue on the consequences of these tensions can enhance the maker movement to become more open, inclusive and resilient

How Open Is the Maker Movement?:Integrative Literature Review of the Openness Practices in the Global Maker Movement

This article explores the multiple meanings of the concept of openness in the global maker movement. Openness is viewed as one of the key principles of the maker movement. As the global maker movement is a bricolage of diverse and situated practices and traditions, there are also many different interpretations and ways of practicing openness. We have explored this diversity with an integrative literature review, relying on the Web of Science™ database. We identified three interrelated but also, in part, mutually contested approaches to openness. Firstly, openness often refers to applying open hardware. Secondly, it is in many cases related to the inclusion and empowerment of various groups in making. Thirdly, openness appears to be seen as a means to pursue economic growth through increasing innovation activity and entrepreneurship. Our results also highlight the substantial barriers encountered by makers while aiming to open up their practices. These barriers include: value conflicts in which openness is overridden by other important values; exclusion of lower income groups from making due to a lack of resources; and difficulties in maintaining long-term activities. The different meanings of openness together with the barriers create tensions within the maker movement while implementing openness. We propose that engaging in a reflexive futures dialogue on the consequences of these tensions can enhance the maker movement to become more open, inclusive and resilient.EC/H2020/101006285/EU/Critical Making: Studying RRI Principles in the Maker Community/Critical Makin

Introducing the Critical Making Responsibility framework for analyzing responsible innovation processes in grassroots practices

This paper introduces the Critical Making Responsibility Framework. The framework has been developed by the Critical Making consortium in order to analyze responsible innovation processes in grassroots innovation, specifically in the practice of making. The paper builds on a literature review to highlight the shortcomings of current Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) frameworks’ relevance towards grassroots innovation practices, and conversely, the lack of scientific understanding on ethics and responsibility in making. To fill the gap, this paper proposes a combination of the dimensions of the Grassroots Innovation Movements (GIM) analytical framework and the RRI capacity dimensions. Finally, the outlook reflects upon how the framework will be utilized in hands-on ways to support the work of academic and non-academic co-researchers of reflexive maker practices.</p

Critical Making Responsibility Framework. Extending an Academic Proposal to Support Reflexivity in Maker Communities

Bottom-up initiatives from maker networks across the globe, such as the first aid response during the outbreak of the Coronavirus, are currently showing how responsible innovation is happening outside the constraints of profitdriven large industries. We are witnessing the development of alternatives to DIY and making as a hobby. In this process, critical, socially responsible making and a professionalization of the maker-driven open hardware movement resembles how open source software became a widespread alternative to proprietary software. However, the positive societal, economic, and environmental impacts of the maker movement are still researched. The Critical Making project aims to gain scientific insights into the potentials of the maker movement for critical, socially responsible making in a participatory way. With both an academic and a practice-oriented audience in mind the project develops the Critical Making Responsibility Framework and a corresponding practical toolset to help reflect on core principles of critical making, such as social responsibility, sustainability, openness, inclusiveness. In this paper we present the emergence of the Critical Making Responsibility Framework and its current state. Also, we reflect on the experiences of makers having contributed to the development of the reflective toolset and discuss some of the challenges encountered along the way

Survival of HT29 cancer cells is influenced by hepatocyte growth factor receptor inhibition through modulation of self-DNA-triggered TLR9-dependent autophagy response.

HGFR activation drives the malignant progression of colorectal cancer, and its inhibition displays anti-autophagic activity. The interrelated role of HGFR inhibition and TLR9/autophagy signaling in HT29 cancer cells subjected to modified self-DNA treatments has not been clarified. We analyzed this complex interplay with cell metabolism and proliferation measurements, TLR9, HGFR and autophagy inhibitory assays and WES Simple Western blot-based autophagy flux measurements, gene expression analyses, immunocytochemistry, and transmission electron microscopy. The overexpression of MyD88 and caspase-3 was associated with enhanced HT29 cell proliferation, suggesting that incubation with self-DNAs could suppress the apoptosis-induced compensatory cell proliferation. HGFR inhibition blocked the proliferation-reducing effect of genomic and hypermethylated, but not that of fragmented DNA. Lowest cell proliferation was achieved with the concomitant use of genomic DNA, HGFR inhibitor, and chloroquine, when the proliferation stimulating effect of STAT3 overexpression could be outweighed by the inhibitory effect of LC3B, indicating the putative involvement of HGFR-mTOR-ULK1 molecular cascade in HGFR inhibitor-mediated autophagy. The most intense cell proliferation was caused by the co-administration of hypermethylated DNA, TLR9 and HGFR inhibitors, when decreased expression of both canonical and non-canonical HGFR signaling pathways and autophagy-related genes was present. The observed ultrastructural changes also support the context-dependent role of HGFR inhibition and autophagy on cell survival and proliferation. Further investigation of the influence of the studied signaling pathways and cellular processes can provide a basis for novel, individualized anti-cancer therapies

Characterisation of 3D Bioprinted Human Breast Cancer Model for In Vitro Drug and Metabolic Targeting

Monolayer cultures, the less standard three-dimensional (3D) culturing systems, and xenografts are the main tools used in current basic and drug development studies of cancer research. The aim of biofabrication is to design and construct a more representative in vivo 3D environment, replacing two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures. Here, we aim to provide a complex comparative analysis of 2D and 3D spheroid culturing, and 3D bioprinted and xenografted breast cancer models. We established a protocol to produce alginate-based hydrogel bioink for 3D bioprinting and the long-term culturing of tumour cells in vitro. Cell proliferation and tumourigenicity were assessed with various tests. Additionally, the results of rapamycin, doxycycline and doxorubicin monotreatments and combinations were also compared. The sensitivity and protein expression profile of 3D bioprinted tissue-mimetic scaffolds showed the highest similarity to the less drug-sensitive xenograft models. Several metabolic protein expressions were examined, and the in situ tissue heterogeneity representing the characteristics of human breast cancers was also verified in 3D bioprinted and cultured tissue-mimetic structures. Our results provide additional steps in the direction of representing in vivo 3D situations in in vitro studies. Future use of these models could help to reduce the number of animal experiments and increase the success rate of clinical phase trials