Team:Freiburg/Public Engagement
Overview
As a scientist, one doesn’t necessarily think about public opinions while developing new biological tools or solutions that help our modern-day world. We asked ourselves how is synthetic biology seen by the public? What do people associate with this term? Have they ever heard of it? In order to shape a common future for everyone, the dialogue between science and public is crucial. We reflected on new ways to communicate and discuss science aiming to arouse interest of anyone regardless of their age and social or educational background. We engaged in discussions with ethicists, scientists, teachers and most importantly the general public.
Taking their advice, we identified important factors for a successful cooperation between public and science. We implemented those factors by evolving a cyclic process that aims to strengthen the collaboration between science and public
Ethics
Scientists in the field of synthetic biology are constantly creating DNA-Systems that could have the potential to change our modern-day world. For this reason, an ethical evaluation of new methodologies is of most importance. To get insights in current issues of moral perspectives on scientific research we talked to PD Dr. Joachim Boldt, an ethicist who focuses on ethical aspects of synthetic biology.
There are two kinds of ethical debates on scientific progress regarding synthetic biology. On the one hand, Boldt explained, there is the philosophy of synthetic biology which does not focus on the current state of research - but more on the final goal to redesign nature. Actually,research today in synthetic biology does not focus on human enhancement or other utopian modifications but more on elimination and treatment of current diseases and environmental problems. He further explained that an ethical debate is important for both aspects but should rather focus on what is currently happening in science. He emphasized that the debate about consideration of benefits and harms is more reasonable than the ideological debate.
He argued that the field of application for synthetic biology is not really defined to one sector but rather a wide spectrum that goes from drug development in medicine to crop enhancement in plant biology. Regarding medical research there are already ethical guidelines as well as laws that define research. But taking a look at green genetic engineering - for example modifications to crops - this is much less framed in a juridical, but also in an ethical aspect.
Further, one should integrate more debates concerning biosecurity or socioeconomic aspects, which cannot be regulated by the same rules but rather have to be evaluated depending on their field of application. Development of new technologies in some countries could make goods imported from emerging nations redundant. Thus, thinking about compensation mechanisms to prevent a collapse of these economies has priority.
There are a lot of factors and arguments that must be integrated into the evaluation of the progressing relevance of synthetic biology.What are reasonable methods of risk assessment? Are point mutations with CRISPR/CAS even genetic engineering? Or should that be treated the same laws as breeding? These are questions that must be evaluated by a collective of ethicists, scientists as well as politicians or representatives of the public opinion. It is important that such debate goes beyond borders and integrates as many countries as possible.
Around the globe people continue to worry that unnatural organisms containing recombinant DNA will become environmental headaches, if not pathogenic blights. For them, the news that scientists could soon genetically tinker more easily and more extensively is anything but good - Editorial in Scientific American, May 2006.
Synthetic biology is an unknown term for the majority of people. One the one hand this could be due to the fact that this research field is quite novel, on the other hand it could be because there is not enough done by the researchers to engage the public in understanding synthetic biology. How does media change the perception of the common public? Could polarizing headlines help this topic to get more attention, or might this obtain a contrary reaction?
Together with PD Dr. Joachim Boldt we discussed these questions in order to get a more versed view on how to engage people from a non-scientific background in discussions about synthetic biology. In general, Boldt pointed out that polarization through media is always ethically questionable. For instance, the public opinion about GMOs does interact with how laws are defined in that sector. Public opinion represents people eligible to vote, so the government has an interest in complying the common opinion. If the majority has a negative opinion on GMOs because of overdramatizing or subjective articles negatively influencing their attitude towards this topic, it is likely that there will be political initiatives to restrict research in this field. This could evoke restrictions for scientific research without valid arguments. Bold further stated out that the worst-case scenario would be juristical limitations that make scientific progress impossible. This does only imply progress with good reasoning. He evaluates arguments for research promotion linked to scientific races as not viable.
So how is public engagement relying on solid scientific facts achieved? A lot of people still tend to buy eye-catching, overdramatizing newspapers rather than scientifically correct and neutral options. It is important that media keeps balance between catching attention and neutral reporting. Apart from that, awakening a general awareness in general public starting from a young age in school would be important. For this, Boldt named two approaches: One approach is the integration of synthetic biology not only in science related subjects but also in social sciences. The aim of this should be to discuss not only the scientific aspects but also ethical and economic consequences of progress in synthetic biology. Another approach, which should be initiated by scientists themselves, is to make labs accessible for pupils. This could happen within an open lab day or other events that aim to evoke more interest in young people.
This would not only be a great opportunity to catch the attention of young pupils, it could also be done for people of all ages and educational levels. Discussing scientific topics in a casual setting raises the willingness for an exchange of opinions. It is important to not fall into stereotypes which goes for both sides: Not everyone with a critical view on synthetic biology is against genetic engineering without cause. Mostly there are valuable reasons considering ecological or economical aspects. To understand different point of views, a discussion outside of Facebook is of great importance. Often the issue underlying the fear towards synthetic biology is found deeper than three lines into the comment section. Moreover, Boldt argues that there is no alternative to discuss synthetic biology or scientific progress with everyone included.
Education
The communication between public and the scientific community is not easy and can lead to misunderstandings and misperceptions. However, just as science is vital for everyone's health, daily life and the environment as a whole, it is also important to talk about its impact, innovations and limitations. Thus we went and listened to Mary Williams, a features editor of “The Plant Cell”, who came to Freiburg to give a talk on “why and how to engage the public about Science”.
One of Mary Williams’ lessons about communication between science and public was that people are overwhelmed by the amount of information, which can often be contradictory: One article tells you coffee is healthy, while the other one states that coffee is harmful. Many people have the feeling that a wide range of ingredients of standard everyday products cause cancer. In most cases, this information is not set into the right context by media often not stating in which amounts these substances are mutagenic. That is also illustrated by her next point: People without scientific background do not have the same experience in data analysis as scientists, which leads them to interpret data differently. Non-scientists lack in experience and the right tools to recognize wrongly conducted studies or misleading headlines.
Furthermore, in times of “fake news”, a small but significant fraction of society is doubting well-proven facts, the public trust in media outlets decreased. However, people trust people. Therefore, it is utterly important to fight cliches about scientists face-to-face. Knowing a scientist helps people to trust other scientists. Moreover, Mary Williams explained the principle of “Fermi-Lab”, a company that offers guided tours through laboratories for children. The children were asked to paint their vision of scientists before and after such a tour. Beforehand, many painted a stereotypical image of scientists as old bald guys in a white coat. However, after the tour and being told more about the work of a scientist, they usually painted them in a different way showing that their perception has changed and that they realized that scientists are just like common people.
When it comes to talking with the non-scientific society it is important to not use scientific language and to keep explanations simple and straight. Additionally, scientists should try to find a common sense by pointing out the same values. Another thing she pointed out was the importance to be interesting and visible to evoke the curiosity of people to learn about one’s research subject.
All in all we heard many important insights from Mary Williams’ talk on how to improve communication between scientists and individuals or the public without a scientific background.
Research
With D-amino acids, we try to tackle the problems of antimicrobial resistance. However, spreading of harmful bacteria can also be limited if the general public knows and follows general hygiene rules. To gather information on this topic and to get an insight on problems physicians are facing every day, we consulted another expert.
Dr. Georg Häcker, clinical director of the Department for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at the University Hospital Freiburg and president of the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology explained the challenges in handling multi-resistant bacteria.
Prof. Häcker explained that challenges with resistant bacteria differ with respect to geography: “The situation is very diverse in different parts of the world. We are extremely lucky to work and live here in Germany. The health care system in wealthier countries is better equipped to deal with bacterial infections than in many other countries. Therefore, we have been able to prevent the spread to a large degree”.
However, even within Europe and other industrial nations the challenges vary depending on the country. The UK had huge problems with MRSA at one stage but have made very substantial progress there. Here in Germany less than 10 % of people who die of infections die of multi-resistant bacteria. MRSA-infections in the community have a high incidence in the US.
No matter how easy it is to describe diseases and infections in statistics, the individual situation for the patients should also be considered. Prof. Häcker highlights these terrible situations with his own experiences: “I have seen cases where we literally did not have a single antibiotic left that showed an effect. In those cases we just hoped that the patient's immune system is efficient enough to fight the infection.”Furthermore, the situation is worse in other countries outside of Europe and North America, which Häcker stresses with the following example: “Let’s say a german traveler, who fell of his bike in another country is treated at a local hospital: we are almost certain that he will carry antibiotic-resistant bacteria upon his discharge”.
Worsening the situation, many companies retreat from developing antibiotics, for example Novartis or Johnson&Johnson [1], because it’s not profitable to invest in antibiotics anymore. It is also not clear how many antibiotic compounds are left to be discovered. Here, Prof. Häcker brings the example that for gram-negative bacteria nearly every single pathway has been targeted. Thus, pharmaceutical companies changed their strategy, not only in the field of antibiotics, but in many other medical fields too: They invest in innovations coming from the academic field or wait for small companies, which are founded on the basis of novel antibiotics. Therefore, it is hard to talk about the further potential of antibiotics and what could be done. “Things are happening, but there is not a major break through on the way” Prof Häcker comments.
While multiresistant bacteria are not a major problem in the daily life, they are huge problems in hospitals, where many antibiotics are applied: “You give antibiotics and only the bacteria that are resistant can grow, and therefore, in a hospital, where a lot of antibiotics by necessity are given to the patients, you have many more resistant bacteria.” Since the doctors do not know, if a new patient already carries multi-resistant bacteria, “it is most important for the individual patient that we get our hands on the cause of the infection as quickly as possible. Then we have to diagnose in-vitro which antibiotic we can use and adjust the treatment accordingly.”
However, the spread of infections and multi-resistant germs can be decreased majorly by following the right hygiene protocols. Unfortunately, these protocols are not always known by the public, hence public education is very important. But the issue is also very complex. Prof. Häcker underlines this by saying “I think it is scientifically so complex that it really is difficult to reach the public. My guess is that even you, in the highly educated part of the society, and even some medicine students will find it difficult to understand mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance. I think it would be good to have more education and training but I’m not so sure how much we can educate the public further. However, we are trying, for example by handing out newsletters to our employees, or by writing guest articles for newspapers”.
Putting words into practice
Implementation of Synthetic Biology in schools
We invited a class of 16-18 year old pupils who are currently doing a seminar course on science ethics. We introduced them to the field of synthetic biology, the potential of the CRISPR-Cas9 tool and the iGEM competition itself in a short presentation. We set our focus on the ethical aspect of synthetic biology and discussed the possibilities and the responsibilities that come along with synthetic biology. Relating to the current medial interest in the case of the human twins, that had their genomes changed, we discussed, if it should ever be allowed to manipulate the genome before and after birth. We also wanted to teach the pupils about the importance, especially in the field of synthetic biology, to form an own opinion on facts and not to let yourself be influenced by sensational headlines. We were surprised by the eager and differentiated discussion which developed, also between the pupils themselves.
We took from this day that the interdisciplinary discussions regarding latest advances research between students and scientists do not rely on same levels of biological knowledge. Instead they integrated aspects, for instance the importance of socioeconomic evaluation regarding new scientific methodologies, that one as a scientist doesn’t necessarily think about.
Discussing scientific progress with the general public
How do polarizing headlines effect the opinion of people on a certain topic? We went on the streets of Freiburg to talk with people about the novel field of synthetic biology. For most an unknown term, we gave them two statements - a positive and negative one - that could be associated with the term synthetic biology. We tried to catch their reactions on a video to show what effects polarization of a certain topic can have. Moreover we wanted to show that synthetic biology is not only black and white but integrates much more debates than only the extreme examples of genetic engineering. We discussed with them the chances and risks of synthetic biology and learned valuable lessons on how they judge the future of synthetic biology.
Providing an easily accessible platform for education on science
With the input we got from experts, students and the general public we developed a tool that makes science accessible for everyone. In the lab we try to fight the problems of antimicrobial resistance but we also wanted to provide people a platform where anyone can learn on what they can do to minimize the spreading of multi resistant germs. We therefore developed a hygiene score tool that connects education with reflection of the own behaviour in a playful way.
Quiz
Question:
Score:
