Share
5. Dec. 2024
How to bring cutting-edge scientific research to the public without slipping into exaggeration or distortion? What makes it easier for people to understand the basic principles, and what is already at risk of oversimplification that can lead to misconceptions? In this interview with Virginijus Šikšnys, a Lithuanian biochemist and a professor at Vilnius University, who was awarded the Kavli Prize in 2018 for his invention of CRISPR-Cas9, we focus on challenges scientists face when trying to explain their discoveries in a way that is understandable – and yet truthful.
CRISPR-Cas9 is often referred to as a 'genetic scissors'. Do you think such simplified metaphors help the public understand the significance of your research, or do they risk oversimplifying the science and creating misconceptions?
There are two sides of this coin. Of course, when you talk to people without scientific background you probably need to use a language that common people understand. And using these metaphoric scissors will help you explain how this technology works which will be much easier for them to understand than talking about the “DNA repair” that’s going on in a cell. And yes, it's always a bit risky if you simplify too much, especially for a researcher. Sometimes, when I talk to the public and use this kind of metaphor, I always think: what my students in the lab will be saying? Will they be laughing at me?
Maybe it’s just about finding balance – what means an oversimplification for you researchers it’s not enough understandable for the general public.
I agree, but it might be the same problem even when you're talking to the right audience. My today’s lecture (Mendel Lectures at Masaryk University Brno) will include both the professors and students and I need to find an appropriate language because the students won’t have the proper background yet.
When CRISPR-Cas9 breakthrough was first made public, it gained significant media attention. How did you and your team deal with the sudden interest from the public and media? Did you learn lessons about how to effectively communicate scientific advances?
You won’t get the attention of the general public when you say that you are studying “antiviral defence systems in bacteria”. But after we had shown that components of the CRISPR-Cas9 antiviral defense systems could be adapted for example for treatment of inherited genetic diseases then it became a different thing and sparked interest. Some people called it “CRISPR craze” (laughs). It definitely takes time to get used to this kind of attention and as we discussed before, you have to think about the language and how you will communicate this discovery.
And there is another important thing – with every new discovery you raise peoples’ expectations that you can’t deliver right now. When a new technology is discovered and people hear that it’s a tool that may help in the clinics correct some genetic mutations and treat genetic diseases, they think that it’s as simple as google an instant solution. But that’s not how science works. We have a long way to go. It is actually amazing that this technology moved to the clinics 10 years after its discovery. But it’s really important not to overhype things.
Given the risk of overhyping, how concerning is it when researchers speculate about potential outcomes in basic research to draw media attention to the topic?
What fascinates me about science is that it is unpredictable by its definition. You never know what will happen next day and that makes science interesting – because it is not boring. Speculations can be a bit dangerous and I am on the side of those who don’t want to predict by looking into a crystal ball.
But marketing people sometimes use speculations to attract the attention to today’s research which might not be entirely a bad thing...
If you start to talk in marketing terms, it’s probably important not to “oversell” things because if you overstate them and you are not delivering, so then you can lose public trust and also lose reputation. And in general, you can lose trust of the public in the science. Maybe, you can remember the fights that we had during covid. One camp believed that the scientists are giving a good advice but other people didn’t take it.
What makes a researcher a good communicator? What helps you personally to find a way to the general public when you are supposed to explain what you do?
It is very important to bring our science closer to the people. They should know what we are working on because scientists are paid with public money and the public should know how ordinary people can benefit from research. I don’t have any special receipt but I think being passionate about science is very important.
You mean, that your passion guides you on how to speak to the general public in simple terms?
Yes, because then you are able to explain your research to a seven-year-old.
A few months ago, we had Randy Schekman, a Nobel laureate, at CEITEC. He mentioned that the best way to learn how to communicate science is by talking to undergraduates. Every researcher should teach.
Teaching is important because it keeps you connected with students. This generation of students is different – during your discussions and lectures, you see how they communicate, and this, to some extent, shapes your interaction with them. You have to adapt to the situations and find the best way to convey the message.
Author
