Answer

Science Communication

1. How do you think the media (news, entertainment, or both) has portrayed bio-hacking? Do you think this is accurate?

            Bio-hacking refers to a rising movement of amateur scientists who carry out scientific investigations outside the traditional setting of a laboratory (Hauser, 2018). Bio-hackers are also referred to as citizen scientists or Do-It-Yourself scientists. The proponents of bio-hacking argue that bio-hacking has been necessitated by the lack of sufficient cure for diseases and the high cost of treatment for diseases that do have cures. The bio-hacking movement has been in existence for over a decade but it is yet to obtain favor from the media. The media, both news and entertainment, has portrayed bio-hacking as a threat to science and indeed the public. The internet is full of warnings about the dangers of bio-hacking both to individuals and science as a whole. My opinion is that this portrayal of bio-hacking is accurate because no notable scientific has come of the movement.

            First, the bio-hacking movement hampers the quality of scientific research. Bio-hackers do not follow the recommended procedure in testing drugs, either because they lack the resources do so or they are not professionally qualified to do so. There have been concerns about the drugs and whether or not the bio-hackers actually test the toxicity of drugs before giving them to patients. Bio-hacking spaces are typically unequipped to conduct thorough pre-clinical testing which is required to pre-determine the possible interaction of the drugs with the body.

            Another danger of bio-hacking is that it interferes with our very complex genetic make-up. Bio-hackers sometimes introduce new genetic material in their DNA in an attempt to modify their bodies (Ikemoto, 2017).  This is very dangerous because one runs the risk of editing the wrong part of one’s genetic makeup. The consequences of a botched genetic editing can be dire for the patient, including induced tumors. According to some media, people are increasingly injecting their bodies with such gene therapies despite the fact that they are not approved by the relevant bodies. Genetic manipulation through bio-hacking is dangerous because the experiments are not based on proven scientific research.

            Bio-hackers are convinced that what they are doing is for the good of humanity. They are of the conviction that bio-hacking is a sustainable solution for most of humanity’s problems. However, thanks to the media, the public is generally skeptical about bio-hacking. Bio-hackers are determined to increase the number of laypeople willing to conduct research in their garages and kitchens. Some even go as far as suing technology to perform genetic modification on their bodies (Yetisen, 2018). These Do-It-Yourself experiments are very troubling because most people do not have the scientific knowledge or expertise to remedy the situation in case something goes wrong.

            It may be true that bio-hacking is useful in encouraging the public to be more active in science but bio-hacking cannot be looked at purely as a solution. The media has been successful in articulating the risks of bio-hacking not only to science but to humanity as well. Claims that the media is misinforming the public are not entirely true because bio-hacking is indeed dangerous and unproven. The fact that it is backed by a few zealous activists and not evidence-proven scientific research is definitely a concern that must be addressed by the media.

2. How involved should scientists be in politics and policymaking? Why do some people believe that advocacy can be harmful to science? Do you agree?

Science and scientific knowledge is undoubtedly affected by politics and policy making. Politics refers to the public and government activities and actors relating to the ideal structure and duties of the government. Scientific knowledge refers to conclusions arrived at by scientists after systematic empirical study. Politics and policy has long-term effects on how scientific knowledge is produced, communicated and received. Since science is so influenced by politics and policy making, scientists have a duty to participate in politics and policy making (Brown, 2015). Some people believe that such advocacy can be harmful to science. This paper discusses the involvement of scientists in politics and policy making; and explains why advocacy is NOT harmful to science.

Through involvement in politics and public policy, scientists have the power to reinforce or weaken values. Science involves a lot of research into problematic phenomena. Such research often attempts to establish values or interests that are being threatened by the problem. Since the resources available to scientists are scarce, scientists (and their sponsors) have to consider certain problems over others. This means that scientists and their investigations have certain influence on values.

In the United States, the federal government and has formally recognized the influence of science on policymaking. Since the 20^th century, the US government has become largely reliant on scientific advice so much so that science advising became a “fifth branch of the government”. This relationship has pushed the federal government of USA to foster scientific study for the good of the public. The relationship the USA government has with science further amplifies the significance of scientific knowledge in politics and policy making (Douglas, 2015). Scientists, through their individual beliefs relating to the most important societal goals, thus play a huge role in shaping public policy (Suhay and Druckman, 2015). Individuals may also use politics to drive scientific research so that a solution is found to a specific problem.

Contrary to some beliefs, public advocacy is not harmful to science. If anything, public advocacy promotes science. Scientists help to set agenda through interest group lobbying. A group of scientists interested in a common subject can influence the amount of funds that that subject receives. If a group can convince the government and other sponsors that their subject is worth investigating, they will definitely receive a higher chunk of the budget or investment. It has been established that government support and financing is very crucial to any scientific crusade because scientists have limited resources with which to do their research.

Since public advocacy makes it easier for scientists to acquire funding, it is definitely not harmful to science. This is because government funding sometimes determines the areas of scientific study in which most discoveries are made. NIH is a classic case of how increased government funding can fuel exposure and consequent discoveries in particular subjects. In addition, public advocacy has significant ripple effects to science. For instance, government funding is also used to train graduate students. The investments in particular investigations also provide researcher with the opportunity to broaden their skill-set through hands-on experience.

In conclusion, scientists must consider being involved in politics and policy making albeit moderately. Their role in public advocacy is to direct government and sponsor investments towards the most important problems in society. Scientists also have an obligation to influence policy on scientific research so that future scientists may have more support and also to increase scientific knowledge.