JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

As many of you know, I am a Science Policy Fellow for Scientists and Engineers for America, a non-profit organization that promotes evidence-based science policy at all levels of government.  As a Fellow, I have the privilege of working with undergraduate and graduate student interns, most of whom are scientists-in-training, on policy projects.  One of our groups of interns is studying the very broad topic of “science communication.”  We have weekly assignments for the interns in which they write Op-Eds with the hopes of publishing them in local or national newspapers.  After we critique the articles, the interns submit them for publication.  We were very excited when one of the interns had two pieces published in two different national newspapers (here and here). 

Sometimes, though, it’s the pieces that aren’t yet ready for publication that offer the most interesting educational opportunities.  One of our interns, we’ll call her “Sylvia” (because I didn’t ask permission to write this post about her article), produced a piece that was quite critical of a group of scientists who recently carried out a controversial experiment. 

If you follow science news, you are surely aware of the Oxford-based research group that released genetically-modified mosquitoes into the wilds of the Cayman Islands.  The experiment was designed to test the efficacy of a mosquito that was engineered to produce offspring incapable of breeding.  All of this was done to fight the spread of dengue fever on the island. 

While I would consider myself to be a radical proponent of science and experimentation, I definitely recognize the perceived risks of this type of experiment and more important I am aware of the role communication must play in making this type of experiment a success beyond just the scientific data.  Poor communication could result in failed opportunities in the future.  In this case, there appears to be very little evidence that the details of the experiment were effectively communicated to the public.  Luke Alphey, chief scientific officer of Oxitec, says the trial was well-known within the island’s population of 50,000, “but just not picked up internationally.”  The Mosquito Research and Control Unit (MRCU) of the Cayman Islands sent information about the study to local newspapers, but there were no town hall meetings or public debates. MRCU also posted a promotional video on YouTube, but failed to mention that the mosquitoes are transgenic.  Despite these efforts or because of them, there is the perception that the public was not duly informed.  For this reason, “Sylvia” and I believe that the scientists have jeopardized future experiments by violating the public trust. 

While “Sylvia” was also aware of these concerns, I felt the tone in which she wrote her piece seemed to be inappropriate for submission to a national newspaper.  I felt that, rather than airing our dirty laundry in public, this was an internal debate that needed to be addressed in a venue that was designed to inform scientists.  As you are surely aware, we are living in a time when certain corporate entities have decided to attack all science that threatens their bottom line.  This makes me apprehensive about providing those entities with more ammunition (criticisms) to further attack science.  However, I am not so sure that I am correct in my position.  Another of our interns expressed support for having this debate in a public arena because it enhances the public’s perception of transparency in science, and thus enhances the public trust of scientists.  This brings up several issues. 

What is the appropriate venue for scientists to criticize science?  The traditional peer-review process (prior to the publication of scientific data) is obviously the most direct site for critiques, but this is not a transparent process and is limited to only select reviewers of the paper.  The peer-review process also fails to critique the experimental methods before they are implemented.   To deal with methods before they are performed, there is the grant review committee, which will approve the funding for the research.  The grant review committee usually requires that the proposed methods be consistent with existing animal handling protocols and other regulatory policies for research with animals, including mosquitoes.  So, this brings into question the source of funding for this research and who served on the grant review committee?  It turns out that this research was funded at least partly by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  At this point in my research of this topic, it remains unknown who served on the review committee.  Nor do I know the criteria that researchers must meet in order to receive funding from the Foundation.  Are the requirements more or less rigorous than those of NSF or NIH?  Shortly, we will know how the World Health Organization (WHO) feels about this issue when they release their guidelines for the release of transgenic mosquitoes.

Leaving scientific criticisms to committees of this nature suggest that these committees represent the concerns of the people.  In this case, it seems that the grant review committee failed to consider the need for effectively communicating the science.  So, in what venue should I recommend that “Sylvia” openly express her concerns?  Should she take it to the national newspapers?  Or should she write a letter directly to the Gates Foundation?  I am undecided, because I see the benefits of a public debate, but I also do not wish to feed the frenzy of anti-science crusaders.

Delving further into this issue, I wonder how often grant funding in general requires effective communication of the science to the public.  It seems obvious that if scientists are going to carry out projects with the perception or the actual risk of endangering the environment or the public, there must be a sufficient communication component integrated into the project.  And, in this respect, I have come to the conclusion that funding agencies must begin to consider including requirements for their grants that include communication of the research to the public.  In addition, the grants must stipulate that certain funds must be spent specifically on communication.  I am aware that NSF requests that scientists make an effort to communicate with the public, but it seems to me that these conditions are not sufficiently enforced and do not allocate specific funding for these communications efforts.

In “Unscientific America”, Mooney and Kirshenbaum suggest that funding should be provided for communications training for graduate students and young scientists, but there is no clear source for this funding.  I now feel that these funds should be specifically written into grants and verified communication efforts must be stipulated in order for grants to be approved.  Further, I am not sure that the responsibility of communicating the science should fall solely on the shoulders of those who are actually doing the research.  Instead, I believe grants should provide sufficient funding for scientists to bring on staff science communicators and for scientists to hire freelance or professional science communication outfits, like EarthSky, to carry out these communication programs.  I realize this is a radical recommendation that will put extra burden on the limited funding that currently exists, but if we were to enlist an army of science communicators to effectively deliver the value of science to the public, perhaps funding would not be quite so hard to come by. 

For anyone who doubts that there are sufficient numbers of effective science communicators to meet the needs of these recommended new grant requirements, I encourage you to take a look at my Twitter list of science communicators.