黑料吃瓜资源

Andrea: Many of those scientists are in the fields of molecular biology and genetics鈥攄o you think there are any reasons that scientists in those fields in particular should care about the public鈥檚 understanding of their research?

Alan: Well, I think there鈥檚 something special about that research because people have only recently begun to get a glimmer of what DNA itself is鈥擨鈥檓 talking about the general public. We鈥檝e gone out in the street and made videos asking people, 鈥渨hat is DNA?鈥� and 鈥渨here is DNA?鈥� And we鈥檝e gotten some really鈥攗h, unusual answers.

Andrea: Do any of them come to mind?

Alan: When one person answered the question, 鈥渨here is DNA?鈥� she said, 鈥渋t鈥檚 in your hair.鈥� Which, well, it is in your hair, but it鈥檚 all over, too! But she鈥檚 getting her training, getting her understanding of what DNA is, from crime shows鈥攚hich is ok, but it鈥檚 a limited exposure to what she needs to know if she鈥檚 ever going to be in the position of making a decision on public funding of research. The public elects people who fund science, and if the public doesn鈥檛 understand it or is scared of it, that鈥檚 not going to be good for the funding. It鈥檚 also not good for the people as they become consumers of the science in medical settings.

Andrea: That鈥檚 an important point you brought up鈥攖hat one of the issues that we want to avoid through good communication is people becoming scared of the research that scientists are doing.

Alan: You know, we already have a negative reaction that鈥檚 not warranted鈥攁t least, plenty of which is not warranted鈥攊n objecting to genetically modified food. Because people don鈥檛 realize that all the food that they eat has been genetically modified over thousands of years on farms and are worried that what they consume will have stuff in it that鈥檚 going to harm them. There are concerns that ought to be raised, and cautions that are already raised by many scientists, about all kinds of genetic work. The public, I think, needs to be informed about it enough to raise valuable concerns, not concerns based on fear, misunderstanding, and lack of knowledge.

Andrea: Right, the point is not that scientists are infallible and that people shouldn鈥檛 be questioning what they do, it鈥檚 that they should be able to ask informed questions.

Alan: Yeah, there鈥檚 almost nothing that we do that doesn鈥檛 have unintended consequences, and smart people are aware of that and are looking out for it and trying to avoid those unintended consequences. And there鈥檚 no reason that the public shouldn鈥檛 suggest thing鈥檚 they鈥檙e concerned about. But it doesn鈥檛 help the public and it doesn鈥檛 help forward motion of knowledge to work out of uninformed fear.

Andrea:聽 How might scientists do better at telling science stories that deal with sensitive subjects like using gene 鈥渆diting鈥� to improve food crops?

Alan: Well, I think there are so many ways to tell a story. You can tell a story where the leading character is somebody who has benefitted from research, like the wonderful video that was shown the other night at the award dinner. It was about a child with, basically, childhood Lou Gehrig鈥檚 disease.

Andrea: Yeah, similar鈥攕he has a neurodegenerative disease called spinal muscular atrophy.

Alan: Yeah, the whole family was impacted by this, both negatively when the child became ill, and really positively when progress was made. And there wasn鈥檛 anyone in the room who wasn鈥檛 moved by that. And because they were moved, they鈥檒l remember it. There was hardly any talk about the details of how it was accomplished, but the communication that this work is helping people be healthy is an important message.

Other ways to tell stories are to make the gene a character and see how the gene behaves. Or, to tell the story of the work itself. There鈥檚 no experiment, there鈥檚 no life in science, that isn鈥檛 a wonderful, dramatic story. People are trying to achieve something, things go wrong, they have to work against obstacles that are thrown in their path, studies go wrong, experiments on the bench go wrong. If they lose their funding, they lose their colleagues. There are all kinds of storytelling elements that are usually ignored when science is communicated because the main message is thought to be 鈥渨e came up with this, and it鈥檚 really interesting.鈥� And how you came up with it is the story in many cases! We want to hear that story.

Andrea: Genetic sequencing and related technologies are percolating into all of these different corners of our lives. Do you think that effective communication about the topics of molecular biology and genetics is going to become even more important than it is now?

Alan: Yeah, I do. Because the more we know, the more deeply we know about things, and that鈥檚 progressing at a very rapid pace鈥攖his deeper and deeper understanding of nature鈥攊t involves understanding very complex systems, very complex interactions of various processes, not just one process. It鈥檚 getting more and more complex, what we understand, and therefore it鈥檚 understood by specialists in a special language. And for us to understand it, it鈥檚 not going to work to just tell us all of the details a scientist knows about his or her work. The focus has to be on what we鈥檙e understanding. What you say really does matter, but how it鈥檚 received, in a way, matters more. Because if you say the exact right thing, but I don鈥檛 understand it, it didn鈥檛 really matter that you said the exact right thing.

Andrea: As science and technology advance and some of these things become more of an everyday experience, people might just absorb knowledge through exposure. But if people aren鈥檛 prepared鈥�

Alan: Right, and in addition to that, we have to remember that there鈥檚 wonderful, beautiful work being done, for instance, at Cold Spring Harbor.聽 For people in the general public not to have an appreciation of that, not to have the chance to be amazed and energized by it, would really be a shame. We need to understand that because, as I said the other night, just imagine if someone said there鈥檚 going to be no music anymore, no music of any kind. We鈥檇 feel that loss really deeply because music sustains us. We鈥檙e already in that spot if we don鈥檛 understand the brilliant science that鈥檚 being done. If it鈥檚 not explained by the scientists themselves, someone else is going to explain it, like 鈥淐SI鈥� on television. And people will think that DNA is in your hair, and that鈥檚 all they鈥檒l know about it.