We must revolutionize our communication of science to non-scientists
This commentary in the Genomics Law Report’s ongoing series What ELSI is New? is contributed by Chris Gunter, HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology.
So many issues are intertwined that it’s extremely difficult to pick just one, but I suggest we must revolutionize our communication of science to non-scientists. In my past job as an editor for Nature, a daily task was to translate the most cutting-edge life science discoveries into language for multiple purposes: marketing, press release, highlighting in other journals, and so on. Regularly I would be dismayed at the end results, and resolve to somehow explain things better next time. Common ground between scientific papers and non-scientists can be harder to find than the “missing heritability.”
Now I work at a nonprofit institute and spend much time giving public lectures. I am struck by the absolute hunger of the public to understand genomics and personalized medicine. Our institute’s outreach activities are generating much-needed support from politicians, local universities, regional clinical centers, and school groups of all ages. People I meet often want to donate their time, money, or samples – but first and foremost, they want to understand.
Thus I propose our field engage in our own form of personalization: using education and media in all forms to convert the energy of the public into an army for science. Studies report non-scientists are likely to hear about genomics from their doctors or the media. Let’s incentivize scientists to use all forms of media we have now (and then invent some new ones) to engage the public. Let’s require two-way communication between health professionals and scientists on what applications or materials would be most useful and feasible in clinical settings. Let’s convince publishing firms to find new ways of making research available and accessible, and enable journalists and educators to be creative and accurate in conveying research results. Without such a revolution, I submit there will be no “full realization” of personalized medicine.
Comments
4 Responses to “We must revolutionize our communication of science to non-scientists”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...-
[...] [...]
-
[...] Read the rest here: We must revolutionize our communication of science to non-scientists [...]
Hi Chris.
These points are certainly important and, beyond being considered here, need also to be raised in several other contexts: in the offices, conventions, and professional organizations of scientists, health professionals, publishing firms, and journalists (both independent and working within established media outlets).
The first step is challenging in itself: people passionate about communicating science and research are the ones who will get (and keep) this discussion going. It’s quite another thing to convince, to enable, and to require, as you propose.
I hope that representatives of the groups you mention see your post and chime in.
This issue has probably been raised before, and your post should attract some comments from people who have initiated some of these things.
You’re right to insist on using new methods to communicate. In fact, I was pointed to this page by a Twitter message from @matushiq, someone in Prague, someone I’ve never met. I’ll re-Tweet it and hope others will stop by and comment too.
Thanks for the ideas
Paul Baker
Madison, Wis.
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu
Thank you for this commentary, Chris – I couldn’t agree more. I also work in the area of talking with students, non-scientists, the general public about social issues in genetics. We are continually surprised and delighted to see how eager people are to engage with the science and as well as the ethical dimensions. I am often struck by polls that show non-scientists do struggle with some of the important scientific concepts related to genetics. However, if you ask people about their fears and hopes for genetic research, the answers are complex, nuanced, and right on target. Check out diybio.org, they have got a interesting approach underway, too. Thanks again Dana Waring, Personal Genetics Education Project.
See also the informative and thought provoking article ‘Science Communication Reconsidered’
“Our goal is to focus attention on key areas of expert agreement about two aspects of science communication: public engagement and science journalism. These two main themes are interrelated; the dissemination of knowledge is one part of a multifaceted approach toward increasing public involvement in science issues and decision-making. We conclude with specific recommendations for moving forward.”
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n6/full/nbt0609-514.html
(Nature Biotechnology, June 09)
I found your blog through Daniel MacArthur’s recommendation at Genetic Future.
Great points–as someone who has just started studying Genetic Counseling, I was surprised that the field wasn’t mentioned at all in the piece. Arguably, this need is reason for the birth (and rapid growth) of the field. Most genetic counselors do work specifically in prenatal or cancer clinics, but the broader concept of the field is communication (and counseling) related to genetics and testing, as there are more and more options and information to weed through.
For anyone on the legal or research side of genetics–are you aware of Genetic Counseling? Does it feel relevant, or too niche to have a place in all of this?