The Berkeley Science Review: Articles

Reaching Out
Building relationships between science and society (view PDF)
by Melanie Prasol

A 2008 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that although 77% of respondents believed in climate change, only 47% acknowledged that it is the result of human activity. People who don't believe humans are the source of global warming are unlikely to change their behavior or support policies and politicians that aim to counteract this threat. Regarding this and many other issues, a lack of understanding in science could potentially hinder progress. So how do we promote understanding and bridge the gap between science and society? There are a number of people and organizations in the UC Berkeley community that seek to address this problem.

One approach is to better educate scientists in the policy process and to teach them to communicate effectively with non-scientists. The Science, Technology, and Engineering Policy Group (STEP) is a student-run organization that brings together students from various backgrounds to discuss a wide range of science and technology issues. Unlike more traditional disciplines such as molecular biology or law, there is no firmly established path to a career in science policy. STEP president Jaime Yassif explains, "Berkeley is a world-class science research institution and has very strong departments in law, business and public policy, but we need to work harder to build connections across department lines. STEP is working to do this while helping students educate themselves in the process."

Members participate in a journal club where articles written by scientists and policy experts are presented and discussed. Experts are also invited to give talks, which allows students to simultaneously learn about science policy and make connections in the field. The flagship program is the annual white paper competition, in which students identify a technology or science policy issue, analyze that problem, and propose a solution. Participants develop communication skills not commonly practiced in academic science and learn how to approach a technical problem from a different vantage point. Topics in 2008 included privacy issues in personal genomics, constraints on pharmaceutical research, and utilization of alternate energy sources. For students who plan to pursue a career in science, these skills will hopefully prove useful in communicating effectively with the public and in considering broader issues when conducting research. "I think STEP is important because we need people with an interdisciplinary skill set," explains Yassif, "individuals who are trained in science and engineering but who also understand the policy-making process. We need people who can use their technical skills to analyze policy challenges and help develop solutions."

Government officials decide most policy issues, but sometimes the public becomes directly involved. In 2004, California voted by 61% to approve ballot initiative Proposition 71. This allocated $3 billion to stem cell research, primarily on human embryonic stem cells. Yet there are wide misconceptions about stem cell research. A pilot survey by the UC Berkeley Stem Cell Initiative found that about 20% of surveyed people incorrectly thought umbilical cord blood was a source of embryonic stem cells. This belief has been used as a justification that cord blood, not human embryos, should be used as a source of stem cells. Cord blood, however, is a source of a more mature cell type that does not afford the same therapeutic potential as embryonic stem cells. Equally concerning is a misapprehension that stem cells will help cure a variety of diseases overnight. The first, and only current, clinical trial of a human embryonic stem cell therapy was just approved on January 23, 2009, and many more years will likely pass before any such therapies become available to the public. To ensure continued support for bills like Proposition 71, it is critical to communicate the pace of science and to instill realistic expectations that can be met by researchers.

The recent deliberations over the stem cell bill in California illustrate an important question at the intersection of science and society: should the general public have a good understanding of stem cell research when they are being asked to make decisions about stem cell policy? Laurel Barchas, a former undergraduate and current laboratory technician at UC Berkeley, believes that public understanding is critical. Together with Professors Charis Thompson and Irina Conboy from the gender and women's studies and bioengineering departments, respectively, Barchas received a $25,000 grant from the Edmond D. Rothschild Foundation to establish the Stem Cell Science and Values Education Initiative. This includes an outreach program for middle and high school students, the Stem Cell Education Outreach Program, which has conducted presentations to over 1000 students in the Bay Area. The goal is to educate people who will soon be voters and help them understand the science and policy of stem cell research, as well as possibly spark an interest in science. An important component of the program is to acknowledge the ethical debate concerning human embryonic research. As Laurel explains, "The point of these presentations is to give the students information on this very interesting and complex topic and let them choose for themselves. We try for an unbiased approach and to tell the whole spectrum." She is currently trying to expand the program statewide.

Another important aspect of the interface between science and society is how well the scientific community understands the public's interests. Kelly Rafferty is a doctoral candidate in performance studies and also a predoctoral fellow with the Berkeley Stem Cell Center. In her studies, she draws on information from multiple fields, such as performance art, political discourse, and scientific research, as well as the ideas of other scholars to develop theories on how society and science influence each other. Rafferty describes her work as examining "what it means to have a body." Modern technology allows people to dramatically alter their bodies in a variety of ways, from organ transplantation and prosthetic limbs to cosmetic surgery. Part of Rafferty's work is examining how these medical technologies change the way we define the human body and how society responds, particularly through art. She is also interested in how society drives scientific work. She asks, "how do our fears of difference or our deep adherence to certain cultural ideals determine which things get researched or which Ôconditions' get treated?" For example, deaf children can receive cochlear implants to restore hearing, but this procedure is extremely controversial within the Deaf community. As Rafferty explains, "Some deaf people would argue that deafness is not a disability, but its own valuable culture and should not be eliminated."

Politicians, scientists, and the public are inextricably intertwined. The public votes for government officials and those officials act based on the ideals of their constituents. From debates about global warming and privacy concerns in personal genomics to discussions about stem cells, many modern issues have strong scientific and technological components. How much government officials and the public know about the underlying science, as well as the effectiveness of the scientific community's communication with both groups can have large ramifications on legislation and policy. Programs like STEP and the Stem Cell Education Outreach Program, as well as the individual efforts of scholars like Kelly Rafferty, are facilitating that much-needed discourse.

Melanie Prasol is a graduate student in molecular and cell biology.

Comments on this article? Drop us a line at with 'letter to the editor' in the subject!