Team:Oxford/P&P communication

As an interdisciplinary team, we quickly realized that we needed to find effective ways to communicate complex concepts and ideas from each of our disciplines - biochemistry, engineering, biology, chemistry, and law - to other members of the team with no more than a lay background knowledge. Doing this enabled us to take advantage of our different knowledge and perspectives, bringing a new angle and fresh approach to the work in each of our fields, and allowed us to use our combined knowledge to tackle problems which we would not have been able to address individually.

This sharing of knowledge and ideas is essential not only within successful iGEM teams: our interdisciplinary group is, in this regard, a microcosm of society at large. Dialogue between scientists and non-scientists must be two-way, understanding and willingness to listen on both sides; the lack of this mutual communication has caused massive problems for areas of science, biotechnology foremost amongst them, in recent years.

The so-called 'knowledge deficit assumption', according to which public objections to science are based on lack of understanding and misinformation, is no longer an adequate explanation to brush off widespread concerns about synthetic biology. In the 21st Century, scientists have to take some responsibility for education and explaining science in an accessible way, avoiding psychobabble without dumbing down ideas. If this has been achieved, there is then a responsibility to take the views and concerns of the public seriously - as we found on a small scale within our team, in a society of individuals with a wide range of different expertise can offer different perspectives and may be able to spot flaws or potential problems in the bigger picture which a reasearcher, immersed in the minute detail of a project, has not considered. Opposition does not equal misconprehension; a well-informed public may legitimately conclude from the information they have absorbed that the risks of a certain project are unacceptable or outweigh the benefits. Equally, support does not equal understanding; it is important to ensure that where the public do back a development, they do so having made a full assessment of the benefits and risks, with realistic expectations and to the likely benefits and limitations of the science.

With this in mind, we thought about methods of communication our team had found useful during the course of our summer project, and how these could potentially be applied in the dialogue between scientists and the public to ensure that DCMation has the level of public enthusiasm necessary for widespread use in society.