Jessica Mozersky now understands why scientists can feel misunderstood

I am a sociologist who has spent part of the last year working in genetic research laboratories to experience being a scientist.
The work has shown me why communication can be so difficult between scientists and researchers from other disciplines. 

Broadening perspectives

The genetics and society PhD programme is part of the Institute of Human Genetics and Health at University College London. The programme has the ambitious aim of cross-training natural and social scientists so they can work together on inter-disciplinary projects.  The goal is to broaden both science and social science students’ perspectives about issues outside their respective disciplines.

Within sociology, my background is in health and medicine.  I have already spent five years working on two genetics research studies – one for women with eating disorders and the other for women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer.  While many benefits arise from medical genetics, my professional experience has given me insight into the complex and difficult implications genetic information can have for individuals. 

During the past year, I have taken basic science courses and had a great deal of interaction with scientists. Most importantly, I have undertaken projects in two human genetics research laboratories.

Knowledge

It feels very different to be a laboratory scientist.  Knowledge can have vastly different meanings depending on where we are situated.

Science is a paradigm used to solve problems, and I learned to appreciate that it can be a satisfying and challenging viewpoint.

Inside the laboratory, it is easy to get caught up in complicated experiments.  Potential social issues, whatever they may be, can seem unrelated to the work in the lab.  I have felt the excitement of finding a mutation in the high risk breast cancer gene, BRCA1, in a series of samples that I had spent four weeks sequencing.  How odd, given that in my other professional experience related to BRCA, this news is not received with joy but rather signals a set of difficult decisions ahead.

Some of the knowledge which may arise from genetics has unavoidable social consequences which make us question its potential harm.  It is important to remember that for an individual scientist, the work can have a very different meaning.

I was also struck by the amount of knowledge scientists have to accept, its origins long forgotten.  There is a great deal of tacit knowledge and techniques which can only be learned by following the example of a more experienced scientist.

In the laboratory, there is uncertainty in interpreting data, replicating results, and pragmatic decisions about which direction research should take.  When my attempt to replicate a previously published experiment failed, I was told that scientific publications often miss a crucial piece of data or modification required for replication. Scientists spend a lot of time tinkering with their experiments to get the results they want. Yet this instability, with which scientists are very comfortable, can be lost as the science translates outwards into the public domain.  As a result, we may draw starkly different conclusions about the certainty of genetic information and its potential when we are not privy to the inner instability of the science itself.

Misunderstandings

Scientists can feel misunderstood by the public, whoever they may be.  The issues non-scientists raise about the implications of genetics may seem misguided, unrelated and burdensome to the daily work of scientists.  Scientists can feel resentful or defensive because they feel they are being hindered by those ‘outside’ science.

My fellow students and I have had many discussions about our differing views on the meaning of genetics, its value and our apparent inabilities to understand each others’ viewpoints.  Participating in scientific work allowed me to see that there are real differences between how scientists and ‘outsiders’ experience the work.

Science, it seems to me, is built on acceptance and implicit trust in what has gone before.  Social science is built on critical inquiry and deconstruction.  These differences are mirrored in the larger relationship between science and society, which can be tenuous and fraught.  Communication is difficult as we are starting from two very different perspectives, and it is easy to lose sight of that.

Entering this PhD programme has allowed me to engage with science and scientists in a way I have never done before and has been very enlightening.  Although challenging and at times frustrating, it is crucial to initiate a dialogue between scientists and society in a fruitful and constructive way; a dialogue where both parties feel valued and understood.  The UCL programme may be one starting point for this rather large feat.

Jessica Mozersky is a PhD student at UCL