SHOULD we trust geneticists? Visiting Edinburgh in late March, I go along to
the City Chambers to find out. On offer is an 鈥渙pen debate鈥� on 鈥渢he public image
of the new human genetics鈥濃�攑art of the city鈥檚 annual International Science
Festival.
Goodness me, I certainly hope we can trust geneticists, I think to myself as
I arrive, not least because this place is seething with them. Scores of the top
names in molecular biology and clinical genetics are packed into the elegant
meeting room.
So I am not entirely surprised, once the question is posed by the chair, to
hear a big round of applause for Alistair Kent, director of the Genetics
Interest Group鈥攁n umbrella body for organisations that support people with
genetic conditions 鈥攕ay 鈥測es, why shouldn鈥檛 we?鈥� Well, so much for that
debate, I think.
Advertisement
But things really get going as Anne Kerr, a sociologist at the University of
Edinburgh, injects a note of complexity when she cautions: 鈥淭rust to do what?
Which geneticists? People quite legitimately do not unconditionally trust any
professional group.鈥� Above all, she argues, 鈥渢he public shouldn鈥檛 trust
geneticists just because geneticists tell them to鈥�.
Sounds reasonable to me, but geneticists, in my experience, are sensitive
souls. Will the professional crowd agree? I feel a bit edgy, as I glance around
at the great and the good. But I relax a little as Peter Harper, professor of
clinical genetics at Cardiff University of Wales, calmly backs Kerr鈥檚 comment
with a 鈥測ou shouldn鈥檛 trust geneticists when they go completely outside their
field of expertise鈥�. Even Nobel prizewinners can talk utter rubbish, he says:
straying from their home patch, they are as 鈥渓ikely to be as stupid as anyone
别濒蝉别鈥�.
Good point, I think. But then I begin to wonder, what exactly is a
geneticist鈥檚 field of expertise? Everybody knows that in these enlightened times
most scientists and clinicians, particularly genetically minded ones, are big on
ethics and big on communication. They write best sellers, appear on prime-time
television, even hobnob with journalists and politicians, and nobody in their
right mind wants them to stop.
We 鈥渟easoned鈥� science journalists can remember the bad old days before
Nature issued press releases. Nowadays, every science editor relies on
publicity from every leading journal of research. Not so long ago in 1995, the
editor of Nature Genetics even promised its scientific contributors
that its polished press releases would ensure that 鈥渟ensational advances in
genetics keep the presses rolling鈥�.
A good thing, too. Geneticists know a lot about genetics, and we
nongeneticists of the world demonstrably do not. 鈥淲hen I have what I call my
taxi-driver discussions, it staggers me what very strange notions of genetics
people have,鈥� comments one kindly geneticist. Well, quite. Mea culpa.
But might these new caring, sharing geneticists sometimes be in danger of
straying beyond their remit? I can鈥檛 help wondering why so many famous
geneticists have come along to Edinburgh tonight. Could it be that they want to
influence the way Citizen Bloggs thinks about their research? And what about all
that time geneticists spend talking to editors and advising civil
servants鈥攊t certainly helps to raise the public profile of the new
genetics, doesn鈥檛 it?
By taking such a commendable interest in the social and ethical implications
of their work, professionals also seem to be maintaining their authority over
the development and application of new genetics. 快猫短视频s often stress that
their research simply discovers new knowledge which society must use as it sees
fit. But then, they also seem quite keen to have a big say in future
developments. Can geneticists really have it both ways?
Like a Trojan horse, they wheel in their technical expertise and then, just
when our defences are down, they pop out with a social or ethical judgment. They
have moved way beyond their legitimate authority, but we do not always notice.
Even if we do, who wants to listen to a bunch of lay Cassandras?
Of course, the professionals are not deliberately deceiving or
bullying鈥擨 take back the Trojan horse analogy. But I cannot help noticing
that the geneticists are rather hogging the floor, and that almost everyone else
starts by apologising for not being one.
Can anything be done to democratise the debate? Geneticists could try to be a
jot more 鈥渞eflexive鈥�, perhaps, more aware of their own powerful positions. It is
not an intellectual stance typically favoured by those in authority, but you
never know.
And there are hopeful signs, from the work of Kerr and her colleagues. Their
new study shows that scientists are concerned and journalists are (mostly)
sensible, while 鈥渢he public鈥� is quite capable of holding an intelligent
conversation. Perhaps the question I began was the wrong one, anyway. Maybe the
real problem, as sociologist Hilary Rose comments towards the end of my evening
in Edinburgh, is that 鈥渟cientists don鈥檛 trust the public enough鈥�.
The debate at the International Science Festival highlighted new research
by Anne Kerr, Sarah Cunningham-Burley and Amanda Amos of the Department of
Public Health Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. Their project on 鈥淭he
social and cultural impact of the new genetics鈥� was funded by the Economic and
Social Research Council. See the Sociological Review, May 1997 for their latest
paper.