- Email: [email protected]
Insider: Biotechnology under the spotlight
Science, work and business
The insiderBiotechnology
Facing the court of public opinion Matthew Killeya talks to scientists in controversial areas of biotechnology to find out what it’s like to work when the media are scrutinising your every move
CHRIS LEAVER has spent years talking about his work. He speaks to MPs and the media, visits schools, and attends debates, putting into practice his avowed belief that scientists who work in controversial areas must engage with other sections of society. “You need to bring the public along with you,” he says. “The next generation of scientists has to accept this challenge.” Leaver recently retired as professor of plant sciences at the University of Oxford and is convinced that in GM we have the tools to deal with several of the challenges that face humanity. “To meet food demand for the world’s projected population in 2050, in terms of land and water, we would need about three planets,” he says. The standard of debate over GM has improved since the late 90s, when Leaver was heckled by 900 Greenpeace activists and labelled an “idiot savant” by a columnist in The Guardian. Over time he has learned how to communicate with the public. “When you talk to people in smaller groups, they tend to be fascinated by the subject.” Julian Ma at St George’s Hospital Medical School in London is working in a particularly sensitive area of GM. He produces “pharmacrops” – plants that are engineered to produce drugs and vaccines. He is motivated by what he terms the “unbeatable argument” that they could improve global health. To be successful you have to understand and overcome the objections of green groups, says Ma. “Security of the food chain is an absolute must – you don’t want drugs in your cornflakes.” 52 | NewScientist | 3 May 2008
Crops are already planted for non-food purposes, Ma points out, citing rapeseed, which is grown for use in oil, plastics and paints. “Farmers have various controls: they plant different crops at specified distances and at different times. I would like to do the same thing for pharma-crops.” Ma has spent a lot of time engaging with the public in debates, and like Leaver emphasises the need to tell the public about your work. “I have learned the importance of engagement. If I were working in a less controversial area, I would still do the same things.” One of the pluses of working in GM research is a bumper crop of transferable skills. “A sound training in genetics, genomics and molecular biology is important for a range of careers. Opportunities are not necessarily dependent on the use of GM approaches to solve problems,” says Howard Davies, director of science co-ordination at the Scottish Crop Research Institute. “Communication and media training, intellectual property and regulatory affairs – students learn about all these areas,” Ma adds. “It wasn’t like this 10 years ago. In that way the controversy has done us a favour.”
Stem cell research “I WASN’T prepared for the media onslaught,” says Stephen Minger, director of stem cell biology at King’s College London. Minger has applications pending for a licence to create animal-human hybrid embryos, and has been speaking to MPs, the media and even Roman Catholic priests, fielding questions on the government’s embryology bill.
TED SOQUI/CORBIS
Genetic modification
www.newscientistjobs.com
Visit www.newscientistjobs.com for the latest careers news and trends
It’s not always easy to make your case in the face of the headline-friendly language of opponents, says Minger, who in a recent TV debate found himself accused of being a “technological cannibal, consuming the leftovers of IVF”. As a researcher in a morally loaded area, you are forced to think about these issues, Minger observes. It is also essential to consider your motivations. “I’m not doing it because I hope to get rich,” he says. “I hope the work will have some benefit to society.” Diversification is key to maintaining a research team in an environment where support and funding are scarce, Minger says. “We’ve tried not to let our stem cell research dominate. It’s not a main thrust of the group, but we hope it will be one day.” He has at times had to fight for this research. “The government said they would ban it when they renewed the embryology act, so we had to put a war cabinet together: the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust, the Medical
“Security is a must. You don’t want drugs in your cornflakes” Research Council and other bodies.” The result was a government U-turn and a licence for the work. These organisations – along with European Union bodies – are also a valuable source of funding for researchers, often covering areas where research councils have scaled back. Funding may be easier to come by outside of the UK. However, Sébastien Duprat, training and outreach manager at ESTOOLS, a Europe-wide consortium of embryonic stem cell researchers, advises scientists to be careful where they choose to do their research. Some countries can be “problematic”, he warns. In Italy, pressures from the Vatican have threatened excommunication for those involved in stem cell research. In Germany, post-war debate concerning the “right to live” makes the subject a particularly sensitive one. For UK researchers, the outlook is less fraught. “There’s a more balanced debate in the UK,” says Duprat. “There is a lot of public engagement and opinions are respected.” Scientists need to learn how to communicate with a range of audiences and cope with diverse opinions www.newscientistjobs.com
Cloning “WHEN I started as a molecular biologist in the late 80s, people would ask me about the moral significance of cloning. I used to say this was a question for 100 years from now,” says Josh Brickman at the Institute for Stem Cell Research in Edinburgh. Then science took an unexpected path: “I remember being in a bar with a colleague,” says Brickman. “We had just reviewed the Dolly paper [detailing the cloning of Dolly the sheep] and were in shock. We had quickly made the transition from ‘no way in a million years’ to ‘we can do this on a practical level’.” Do sudden breakthroughs persuade researchers to stretch their moral limits? Brickman says no, but advises scientists to choose research groups with a strong ethical framework. Cloning has huge potential to help treat diabetes, as well as genetic diseases such as muscular dystrophy and Parkinson’s, says Brickman, and he sees the UK as a good place to do this work. “It’s a fantastic community to work in. It’s refreshing to be in a country where religion doesn’t dictate policy.” Brickman is originally from the US, where he says the Bush administration has had a paralysing influence on cloning and stem cell research. “It has been too morally explosive an issue to regulate. So you end up with academia, which is regulated but has no public funding, and the private sector which has money but is not subject to public scrutiny.” In the UK the public and private sectors move forward at the same time, he says. Media attention has benefited Brickman by providing many good candidates for PhDs and postdocs, but it poses difficulties too. “We are interested in scientists with a real interest in biology and stem cell research, not those who have just been swayed by the hype.” Alongside the issues surrounding human embryonic cloning sits the debate over cloning animals for food. The recent ruling by the US Food and Drug Administration declaring meat and milk from cloned animals fit to eat has reignited controversy on the issue, while in the UK a cloned cow has been sold at auction for breeding for the first time. It’s this type of headline-forming news which is likely to put biotechnology researchers in the spotlight for some time to come. This shouldn’t put anyone off making a career in this area, Brickman says. “We need good scientists to grapple with the moral issues, as it is they who are most likely to make the most profound impact.” G 3 May 2008 | NewScientist | 53
The insiderBiotechnology
Facing the court of public opinion Matthew Killeya talks to scientists in controversial areas of biotechnology to find out what it’s like to work when the media are scrutinising your every move
CHRIS LEAVER has spent years talking about his work. He speaks to MPs and the media, visits schools, and attends debates, putting into practice his avowed belief that scientists who work in controversial areas must engage with other sections of society. “You need to bring the public along with you,” he says. “The next generation of scientists has to accept this challenge.” Leaver recently retired as professor of plant sciences at the University of Oxford and is convinced that in GM we have the tools to deal with several of the challenges that face humanity. “To meet food demand for the world’s projected population in 2050, in terms of land and water, we would need about three planets,” he says. The standard of debate over GM has improved since the late 90s, when Leaver was heckled by 900 Greenpeace activists and labelled an “idiot savant” by a columnist in The Guardian. Over time he has learned how to communicate with the public. “When you talk to people in smaller groups, they tend to be fascinated by the subject.” Julian Ma at St George’s Hospital Medical School in London is working in a particularly sensitive area of GM. He produces “pharmacrops” – plants that are engineered to produce drugs and vaccines. He is motivated by what he terms the “unbeatable argument” that they could improve global health. To be successful you have to understand and overcome the objections of green groups, says Ma. “Security of the food chain is an absolute must – you don’t want drugs in your cornflakes.” 52 | NewScientist | 3 May 2008
Crops are already planted for non-food purposes, Ma points out, citing rapeseed, which is grown for use in oil, plastics and paints. “Farmers have various controls: they plant different crops at specified distances and at different times. I would like to do the same thing for pharma-crops.” Ma has spent a lot of time engaging with the public in debates, and like Leaver emphasises the need to tell the public about your work. “I have learned the importance of engagement. If I were working in a less controversial area, I would still do the same things.” One of the pluses of working in GM research is a bumper crop of transferable skills. “A sound training in genetics, genomics and molecular biology is important for a range of careers. Opportunities are not necessarily dependent on the use of GM approaches to solve problems,” says Howard Davies, director of science co-ordination at the Scottish Crop Research Institute. “Communication and media training, intellectual property and regulatory affairs – students learn about all these areas,” Ma adds. “It wasn’t like this 10 years ago. In that way the controversy has done us a favour.”
Stem cell research “I WASN’T prepared for the media onslaught,” says Stephen Minger, director of stem cell biology at King’s College London. Minger has applications pending for a licence to create animal-human hybrid embryos, and has been speaking to MPs, the media and even Roman Catholic priests, fielding questions on the government’s embryology bill.
TED SOQUI/CORBIS
Genetic modification
www.newscientistjobs.com
Visit www.newscientistjobs.com for the latest careers news and trends
It’s not always easy to make your case in the face of the headline-friendly language of opponents, says Minger, who in a recent TV debate found himself accused of being a “technological cannibal, consuming the leftovers of IVF”. As a researcher in a morally loaded area, you are forced to think about these issues, Minger observes. It is also essential to consider your motivations. “I’m not doing it because I hope to get rich,” he says. “I hope the work will have some benefit to society.” Diversification is key to maintaining a research team in an environment where support and funding are scarce, Minger says. “We’ve tried not to let our stem cell research dominate. It’s not a main thrust of the group, but we hope it will be one day.” He has at times had to fight for this research. “The government said they would ban it when they renewed the embryology act, so we had to put a war cabinet together: the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust, the Medical
“Security is a must. You don’t want drugs in your cornflakes” Research Council and other bodies.” The result was a government U-turn and a licence for the work. These organisations – along with European Union bodies – are also a valuable source of funding for researchers, often covering areas where research councils have scaled back. Funding may be easier to come by outside of the UK. However, Sébastien Duprat, training and outreach manager at ESTOOLS, a Europe-wide consortium of embryonic stem cell researchers, advises scientists to be careful where they choose to do their research. Some countries can be “problematic”, he warns. In Italy, pressures from the Vatican have threatened excommunication for those involved in stem cell research. In Germany, post-war debate concerning the “right to live” makes the subject a particularly sensitive one. For UK researchers, the outlook is less fraught. “There’s a more balanced debate in the UK,” says Duprat. “There is a lot of public engagement and opinions are respected.” Scientists need to learn how to communicate with a range of audiences and cope with diverse opinions www.newscientistjobs.com
Cloning “WHEN I started as a molecular biologist in the late 80s, people would ask me about the moral significance of cloning. I used to say this was a question for 100 years from now,” says Josh Brickman at the Institute for Stem Cell Research in Edinburgh. Then science took an unexpected path: “I remember being in a bar with a colleague,” says Brickman. “We had just reviewed the Dolly paper [detailing the cloning of Dolly the sheep] and were in shock. We had quickly made the transition from ‘no way in a million years’ to ‘we can do this on a practical level’.” Do sudden breakthroughs persuade researchers to stretch their moral limits? Brickman says no, but advises scientists to choose research groups with a strong ethical framework. Cloning has huge potential to help treat diabetes, as well as genetic diseases such as muscular dystrophy and Parkinson’s, says Brickman, and he sees the UK as a good place to do this work. “It’s a fantastic community to work in. It’s refreshing to be in a country where religion doesn’t dictate policy.” Brickman is originally from the US, where he says the Bush administration has had a paralysing influence on cloning and stem cell research. “It has been too morally explosive an issue to regulate. So you end up with academia, which is regulated but has no public funding, and the private sector which has money but is not subject to public scrutiny.” In the UK the public and private sectors move forward at the same time, he says. Media attention has benefited Brickman by providing many good candidates for PhDs and postdocs, but it poses difficulties too. “We are interested in scientists with a real interest in biology and stem cell research, not those who have just been swayed by the hype.” Alongside the issues surrounding human embryonic cloning sits the debate over cloning animals for food. The recent ruling by the US Food and Drug Administration declaring meat and milk from cloned animals fit to eat has reignited controversy on the issue, while in the UK a cloned cow has been sold at auction for breeding for the first time. It’s this type of headline-forming news which is likely to put biotechnology researchers in the spotlight for some time to come. This shouldn’t put anyone off making a career in this area, Brickman says. “We need good scientists to grapple with the moral issues, as it is they who are most likely to make the most profound impact.” G 3 May 2008 | NewScientist | 53