Issue 32: The Scientist Next Door

SciencEd

www.eusci.org.uk | FREE

STERILE

FREE OF detectable DNase FREE OF detectable human DNA FREE OF detectable RNase

AUTOMATION MADE EASY THINCERT® 96 WELL HTS INSERT For high-throughput transport studies and co-cultures The new ThinCert® 96 well HTS insert is the optimal tool for scientists who want to generate tissue models (e.g. endothelia and epithelia) for transport, uptake, or co-culture studies in submersed as well as air-lift cultures with an automation-friendly format.

noncytotoxic

nonpyrogenic

KEY FACTS /

Optimal for transport and permeability studies, air-lift cultures, co-cultures, and toxicity screening

/

96 well system for highthroughput applications Automation-friendly design

/ /

/ /

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE OR CONTACT US:

www.gbo.com

info.uk@gbo.com

Transparent polycarbonate membrane with 0.4 µm pore size Reduced wicking effect* High membrane flatness for reproducible cell culture conditions * Wicking: Undesired formation of a liquid bridge between upper and lower compartment due to capillary forces within the narrow space between membrane and receiver plate.

Check out our podcast series . . .

Greiner Bio-One Ltd Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, UK PHONE 01453 825255 / E-MAIL info@uk.gbo.com Greiner Bio-One is a global player.

Find the contact details of your local partner on our website.

www.gbo.com

Issue 32

Spring

SciencEd

2024

Inside this issue The scientific community is becoming increasingly more multicultural, diverse and inclusive. Efforts are being made by large academic institutions, science outreach organisations, and individual scientists to acknowledge the need for diversification and equity in all areas of research and science communication.

Scientists are more present in everyday life, sharing their knowledge with the world and can (and should) be important active participants in governmental and societal decisions. In this issue we take a closer look at the challenges scientists face today and the roles they have in society: How is scientific research influenced by political, cultural, and social pressures? How far are we really in creating an inclusive and unbiased environment in research and education? How do we relate with the public to promote their curiosity and engagement with scientific content, and how much consideration is given to their perspective?

Cover illustration by Ewa Ozga

A lot of questions to be asked! We believe we all have the power to continuously make science more accessible to everyone and that this is important for how much we understand ourselves and the world around us. We invite you to reflect on these issues with us – maybe you will find answers to some of these questions or get curious to ask even more. Enjoy!

Sara Teles (she/her) and Elena Hein (she/her) – co-editors-in-chief of EUSci

Euscireka!

04 A collection of short news articles

The Scientist Next Door Diversity, equity, and the “human struggles” in scientific research 07 How inclusive is the University of Edinburgh? From the Edinburgh Seven to Decolonisation 10 Nurturing Inclusivity in Physics: A journey with The Blackett Lab Family 12 A Place for Everyone: How promoting science and language literacy can help reduce inequalities 14 Breaking Barriers: The Role of science festivals in fostering inclusivity 17 “Sexy” Science: Science by the default white male 19 Queer Data with Dr. Kevin Guyan 22 Bringing humanity and humour to science writing 24 I’m an Academic…Get me out of here?!

Science outside of the lab: exploring the intricate web of science, politics, and the role of the public in the “conversation” 27 To fund or not to fund – How much should the public hold the strings?

30 Exploring the interdependence between politics and science 33 The chill sets in 35 A scientist walks into a bar…

37 Embarking on Citizen Science: An introductory dive 39 Home Diagnostics and Health Monitoring: A rising trend in 2024 42 Biohacking: from fear to fascination 44

Puzzles and games

45

Meet EUSci

Prefer to listen? Check out audio versions on the EUSci Readouts Podcast

euscireka!

euscireka!

Pulling tropical disease out of neglect into acknowledgement The World Health organization (WHO), officially added Noma as its 21st disease into the list of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) in December 2023. Noma is a severe gangrenous disease caused primarily due to poor oral hygiene by the bacteria living in our mouths. It primarily impacts children, and patients often face stigmatisation.

The committee responsible for this addition concurred that the decision to include Noma in the list of NTDs enables the accessibility of better interventions in communities that require it. This sentiment is in line with the Sustainable Development Goal 3.3 established by WHO, which explicitly aims to ‘end the epidemics’ of neglected diseases which impacted 1.65 billion individuals in 2021. The overarching target for 2030 was set to a 90% reduction in people requiring interventions for NTDs. Although the progress towards this ambitious target has been positive, it has also been slow. For instance, in an official report published in January 2024, it was revealed that 50 countries have eliminated at least one NTD and there has been 23% overall reduction in NTD-related interventions required by people. The eradication of NTDs is further encumbered by climate change. The regions of transmission for several vector-borne NTDs have expanded since the rising temperatures allow these vectors to survive in temperate regions. According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control , in 2023 there were locally acquired cases of dengue fever in Europe: 82 cases in Italy, 43 cases in France and 3 cases in Spain. The widening of transmission zones of vectors opens new populations to the risk of disease transmission.

Hence, while the roadmap was clearly written in ink, the actual route is long one to traverse.

Simar Mann

How humans struggle to define their own role on earth Humans have had an immense impact on the planet since we started to settle down, grow large-scale agriculture and turned to mass industrialisation and warfare. We have managed (or at least tried) to put a stamp of human existence on almost every reachable corner of the planet (and beyond) – yet the ultimate label has just slipped through our hands. Earlier this spring geologists voted against the proposal of recognising the Anthropocene as an official geological epoch. This would have pushed us from the Holocene into a completely new era of ‘irreversible human impacts on the planet’. Undeniably - looking at recent human history and watching current news of political tensions, deforestation and climate change - it feels like we are living in a world that is irreversibly dominated by our actions and desire to expand our control over everything we can get our hands on.

But is this enough to leave such deep marks on earth’s rocks for these to define an entire new geological age?

The rejected proposal set the start of the Anthropocene in 1952, referring to the first traces from hydrogenbomb tests being deposited in sediment. But critics are pointing to the thousands of years of agriculture and elimination of native fauna and flora that have been happening since the start of human existence and would be completely ignored by this time scale. And what about the vast amount of records on microplastic, pesticides, fossil fuel production and other pollutants that we have been mindlessly dumping into our planet’s land- and seascapes? For some, defining our human footprint down to a single point in time and place may seem too drastic to describe the global change that we have brought upon earth’s history. For others it is crucial to accept it.

Nevertheless, acknowledging the cultural concept and impact of the Anthropocene can and should be a reminder of the tight-knit relationship between all living things and nature on our planet. Rather than trying to put a definition and label on everything we might be good to just accept that in the end it is still nature which holds the strings to its own geological history – and we might do good to be a respectful partner in it.

Elena Hein

4 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

euscireka!

euscireka!

Jellyfish in robotic hats to do deep sea research It’s extremely difficult for research technologies to withstand the harsh conditions of the world’s deep oceans.

But the climate crisis is accelerating, and it is more crucial than ever to develop innovative tools that allow scientists to study the seas. The answer: jellyfish.

Researchers at Caltech have recently developed small 3D-printed ‘forebodies’ that attach – like little hats – to common Aurelia jellyfish. The hats contain an electronic pacemaker that controls the way that the jellyfish swim. Researchers hope that this technology will soon allow them to gather scientific data from many areas of the ocean that have not yet been explored. The researchers collaborated with bioethicists to ensure that this work is ethically principled. Aurelia jellyfish have no brains, nor can they feel any pain, and no stress responses have been recorded at any point during testing. The hats are designed to have negligible buoyancy in saltwater so that they add no additional weight to the jellyfish. In fact, the hats make them more streamline and jellyfish swim up to 4.5 times faster with the hats on. There is room in the hats where scientists can fit sensors that measure ocean temperature, depth, light, motion, salinity, oxygen, and pH. Further work will be necessary to make such sensors small enough to fit inside. These robotic jellyfish hats are an exciting cost-effective innovation (at only $20 per hat) that will make Earth’s vast oceans more accessible for scientific study.

Clare McDonald

An equity lens for medical devices Ever since the acceleration of AI and technological design in medicine, and especially since the Covid-19 pandemic, the use and availability of AI-powered medical devices has been increasingly popular. Such tools that leave measurements and interpretation of results to an objective computer-driven machine should ultimately be less biased in their output than a subjective human being – but are they really?

We already know that AI is not immune to human bias. A bias unavoidably stemming from the humans who developed it and the samples they’ve been trained on. A recent independent UK review has now also confirmed such biases in medical tools such as pulse oximeters, which were crucial in testing oxygen levels during the Covid-19 pandemic, spirometers to measure lung function, and other AI-based devices such as cardiac monitors.

Relatively unsurprisingly, these tools are frequently based on datasets of people with European ancestry, from well developed areas and/or male individuals. This makes them most often not applicable to people of other ethnic ancestries, deprived backgrounds, or other genders. The first step to improve the access to appropriate health care is to acknowledge the potential of biases inherent in these devices. Though, trying to fix these often comes with biases itself.

Ultimately, researchers and doctors are calling for “an equity lens” on such medical tools and AI-powered clinical devices, looking at their entire lifecycle - from development and initial testing to patient recruitment and implementation in communities. In the end, an individual’s diagnoses and treatments should not be determined by whoever developed the medical device and the biological parameters of whoever it has been tested on but to be as objective as possible to ensure access to appropriate health care for everyone, regardless of their ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

Elena Hein

5 Spring 2024| eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

6 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

IIlustration by Stevie Hope

The Scientist Next Door

How inclusive is the University of Edinburgh? From the Edinburgh Seven to Decolonisation Ellie Dempsey delves into the historical struggles and current challenges of promoting equality in science at the University of Edinburgh, highlighting the need for sustained initiatives and commitment to foster diversity and inclusion.

A rendering of the Historic Scotland commemorative plaque to the Edinburgh Seven and the Surgeons' Hall riot at the University of Edinburgh by Allison Quinlan

T

he University of Edinburgh has a long history in the fight for equality in the sciences. In 1869, Sophia Jex-Blake led seven women to enrol as medical students. In doing so, they became the first-ever women to attend a British university. Despite outshining many of the male students intellectually, the Edinburgh seven were forced to pay significantly higher fees, faced mounting abuse from fellow students and staff, and were never permitted to graduate. Their struggle, however, drew national support and launched a campaign culminating in the Medical Act of 1876, allowing women to qualify as licensed medical practitioners for the first time. Looking at the picture today, where women make up 61% of Edinburgh’s medicine admissions, it is difficult to imagine the environment of 150 years ago.

However, there is still much progress to be made promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion, with many scientists still fighting against inequality.

Whilst the University of Edinburgh remains a centre for excellent scientific research and progress, it falls behind other institutions when looking at admissions of ethnic minorities and people from lower-income backgrounds.

In 2022, only 14% of UK undergraduate entrants were from minority ethnicities compared to 27% nationally.

Looking at black British students, this disparity widens as they make up only 1.5% of entrants to Edinburgh compared to 9% nationally. Edinburgh also has a longheld reputation as a home for the economic elite. In fact, the University ranks 4th in the UK for the number of admissions from private schools. In addition, in spite of Edinburgh being the capital of Scotland, Scottish students make up only 26% of the student population at the University of Edinburgh despite comprising 60% of the national student population in Scotland. The idea of the upper-class English, white, Edinburgh student has almost become a running joke around the city. However, it leaves many students outside of this group feeling isolated and underrepresented.

7 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

“It is harder to truly see yourself as a scientist when the majority of professors and those in leadership positions are so different to yourself.”

A full analysis of why these inequalities exist is too complex to cover in a single article, with the problem lying deeper than straightforward discrimination or harassment. Today’s situation is also closely intertwined with Edinburgh’s historical links to colonialism and slavery, which groups across Edinburgh and the University are working to address.

From a more individual perspective, a sense of isolation, imposter syndrome, and the strain of living in such an expensive city are a common thread in many student experiences. It is harder to truly see yourself as a scientist when the majority of professors and those in leadership positions are so different to yourself. The accompanying mental health impacts of these issues are particularly heightened amongst students who don’t see themselves represented or supported. Furthermore, feedback from students across the board frequently highlights a lack of mental health and wellbeing support, with the University scoring a relatively low 60 % for signposting of support services in the latest national student survey.

Although improvement in this area is slow to take shape, the University’s investment in a new Wellbeing service is a significant step forwards.

A more direct response to educational inequalities has come from many student-staff led networks and societies who have emerged over the years. For example, the student-led women in STEM society (EUWiSTEM) founded a successful mentoring scheme which enables students at different academic levels to

8 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

support each other. Another group who should be acknowledged is the RACE.ED network – a collection of academics from different disciplines - who share research and teaching practice on racial equality and decolonisation. When it comes to tackling social inequality, the Edinburgh branch of 93% club has held events on accent bias and is currently campaigning to include class awareness in University anti-bias training. Organisations such as these are invaluable in promoting research, building connections and spreading awareness of equality issues, independent from the bureaucracy and politics of University management.

Despite a desperate need for change, many positive initiatives such as those on trans inclusion and decolonisation have faced public backlash and derision with efforts for progress becoming derailed in culture wars. There is also a general perception amongst students that the University does not deliver on its promises and broad equality statements are rarely backed up with real change.

Advances in higher University management are slow, however, there are many people within schools who devote time and effort to improving equality. I discussed this with Dr Claire Hobday, Chair of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion committee in the School of Chemistry. Although she agreed broader change was slow, she was positive about the commitment shown by school and college leadership towards improvement.

The Scientist Next Door Within the School of Chemistry, Claire highlighted some of the recent progress made on improving building accessibility, collecting data on PhD applications, a trial of equity training for students, and events which support a sense of community and belonging. She also emphasised the importance of staff and student involvement to drive initiatives within their own school. Despite time limitations for academics to commit to equality initiatives, it is important that change is informed by real understanding of the school environment Therefore, the time and effort staff spend on equality, diversity and inclusion should be properly valued by institutions. One exciting project Claire is overseeing is funded by the Royal Society of Chemistry’s ‘Missing Elements’ grant, worth £60,000, to address racial inequality in Chemistry. This funding will enable further equity training, a mentorship scheme and a summer research internship for students from ethnic minorities.

Building on the efforts within the School of Chemistry, the University is also actively engaged in various widening participation and access programs, such as the LEAPs program and Door’s Open Days, inviting the public to explore science buildings and fostering community engagement. Many students I know have given up their time to demonstrate fun experiments to children at an open day or volunteer on a trip to a school. The School of Chemistry even offers a Public Engagement scholarship to which funds a PhD student to commit time to outreach and engagement projects alongside their research.

Despite these efforts, the number of admissions to Edinburgh from state schools has shown a marginal drop of around 5% over 6 years, indicating that much more still needs to be done to combat elitism.

While it’s a joy to see the work happening in Chemistry to extend opportunities to more people, we must see this commitment continued and good practice shared between schools in order to achieve sustainable progress in equality. It is clear this can only be achieved by strong university and college leadership which supports and holds schools to account to improve equality. It is also important we continue to support the many campaigns and initiatives around the University which aim to improve equality. I myself don’t believe I would be

working in scientific research today without the mentorship and widening participation programmes I had access to growing up. It is therefore vital we continue to invest in and expand opportunities to pave the way for more diverse future generations of scientists at the University of Edinburgh.

The subject of imposter syndrome also came up in discussions with Claire and other women in STEM. Whilst efforts targeted towards minority groups and representation undoubtedly have a positive impact, many of us have also experienced a paranoia that we have only found our opportunities through filling quotas or so-called ‘tokenism’. It is also common to face this stigma from men or those who feel they’ve missed out on positions due to not ticking the right boxes. This perception fails to recognise the many obstacles someone may have encountered to even become close to that opportunity, and how far from easy it still is. In addition, the idea that women have not made their way into scientific education based on merit is instantly disproved by looking at their academic performance which, like the Edinburgh seven, continues to be excellent.

Ellie Dempsey (she/her) is a third-year PhD student in Materials Chemistry at the University of Edinburgh and the current president of EUSci.

9 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

Nurturing Inclusivity in Physics: A journey with The Blackett Lab Family Kaela Albert explores the efforts of organisations like the Blackett Lab Family in fostering a sense of belonging for underrepresented groups and in ensuring that science is accessible to everyone.

D

espite our best efforts for purity and facts, science is not removable from society. It mirrors society's beliefs, adapting and transforming alongside our aspirations and biases. The input we give artificial intelligence (AI), the training we provide doctors, the funding we give to different research groups – these all have massive impacts on the progression of science.

This interdependence between science and society has led to a compelling call for increased inclusivity and diversity in STEM. The call serves to counteract deeply ingrained biases in science – biases that have historically marginalised certain groups based on race, class, disability, and more.

There are several reasons to argue for inclusivity and diversity in science – inclusivity has improved team productivity and led to innovative ideas. However, the most fundamental reason to advance inclusivity is that science should be accessible to everyone.

One group committed to increasing and maintaining this inclusivity is The Blackett Lab Family (BLF). BLF, founded in 2020 by Dr Mark Richards, has a mission to represent, connect, a nd inspire Black physicists. This is an admirable goal, considering data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency shows that roughly just 1% of UK-domiciled physics undergraduates are Black. To put this into perspective, Black people comprise 4% of the UK's working-age population and 8% of its science undergraduates. Furthermore, the number of Black physicists decreases with seniority, with no Black physics professors in the UK. This is a remarkably low statistic but probably one that would not surprise your local Black physicist walking around campus.

“There are several reasons to argue for inclusivity and diversity in science – inclusivity has improved team productivity and led to innovative ideas. However, the most fundamental reason to advance inclusivity is that science should be accessible to everyone.”

10 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door To understand the impact of groups like BLF, I spoke to Benyam Dejen, the Outreach Director for The Blackett Lab Family. In Benyam's perspective, mentorship is a cornerstone in an individual's scientific journey. BLF creates a space for physicists at various stages of their career to meet, network, and gives them a platform to be seen and heard. These conversations foster a sense of belonging, support, and collective growth. What makes this mentorship particularly influential, however, is its resonance with the mentee's experiences. As Benyan said, "the visibility of Black physicists...who are further ahead in their careers, has given me a renowned sense of confidence that can develop the tools to succeed...despite some of the personal and academic challenges I've faced."

The effectiveness of BLF's mission lies in its focus on intensive initiatives that leave a lasting impact on specific groups of the Black community. Benyam highlights the success of Representing Physics 2023, an initiative designed to address challenges faced by year 11 and year 12 students. By dispelling misconceptions about university-level physics, providing insights into potential careers, and creating positive physics representations, this initiative helps shift attitudes towards the field. Research from the American Institute of Physics has shown that physics identity – essentially how you see yourself in relation to physics – is critical for minoritised students to succeed. You need to be perceived as a physicist and believe that you are capable of being one. Developing a physics identity was listed as one of the five factors that either makes or breaks your physics journey.

Competency without a sense of belonging is not enough. Black students need to be given the opportunity to see themselves as physicists, which is exactly what Representing Physics 2023 gave. With this in mind, the need for these initiatives extends beyond students to include parents, early career researchers, and the broader Black community. All of these groups have unique challenges and require focused and comprehensive support systems.

Reflecting on personal experiences, Benyam sheds light on the challenges he faced with assimilation as an undergraduate. From code-switching to hair discrimination and elusive skiing holidays, the struggle to assimilate for Black students in a predominately white field is real. For Benyam, feeling isolated and opening up about personal challenges seemed daunting before connecting with Black physics mentors Dr Mark Richards and Paul Brown at Imperial College London. While Benyam was fortunate to find support, he acknowledges that this might not

“Competency without a sense of belonging is not enough. Black students need to be given the opportunity to see themselves as physicists, which is exactly what Representing Physics 2023 gave.” be the story for many Black students nationwide. This narrative underscores the importance of breaking down barriers to effective mentorship.

In the relatively short time that Benyam has been part of the scientific community, he reports a noticeable amplification of discussions around diversity and inclusivity. This heightened awareness signifies a positive shift where individuals, initiatives, and groups advocating for inclusivity are becoming more visible. The Blackett Lab Family is a testament to the power of collective endeavours in promoting accessibility and fair representation in STEM. More groups are constantly popping up that campaign for marginalised groups and aim to foster open conservations. Some for you to keep an eye out for include: Black in Cancer Black British Academics UK Black Tech The Black Women in Science Network Leading Routes

These organisations allow Black scientists to see themselves, and as Benyan says, "a sense of belonging... is a self-perpetuating power!"

Kaela Albert (she/her) is a fifth-year MPhys Theoretical Physics student at the University of Edinburgh.

11 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

A Place for Everyone: using science communication to promote inclusivity Sara Teles shares Native Scientists’ approach to promote children’s science literacy and a more inclusive community

T

he path to become a scientist in academia can feel like going through a never-ending dark tunnel, with no certain end in sight and

nobody there to confirm if you are on the right track.

The past ten years as a junior researcher (notice the resistance in calling myself a scientist) were marked by a constant feeling of not belonging. Although this is seemingly a universal experience in academia, there are various factors that intensify those feelings. As addressed in other articles of this magazine, people’s social, cultural, and economic background can make them more vulnerable to experiencing “otherness” – if you grow up without examples of a scientist that looks like you, it will be harder to see yourself becoming one. Similarly, when you encounter people that do not believe in you or that make you feel inferior during your scientific journey (and most likely you will), it can be incredibly hard to counter those beliefs with sheer selfdetermination when you neither had nor currently have an example of someone like you “making it.” It is important to make science more welcoming and continuously more accessible to everyone, cultivating a sense of belonging early on.

A collage made from a photo by Power Lai, Unplash

12 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Organisations such as the Edinburgh Science Foundation are committed to improving science accessibility by inspiring students in Scotland to engage with STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) in hands-on activities and events where students are given an insight into different scientific careers. With over 30% of its programme delivered free of charge and the remaining schools being offered subsidised visits, they make an effort to reduce the geographic and economic disadvantage of many children in accessing engaging science communication. But science outreach should be broadened to address a wide range of factors which intensify this lack of access, such as having a disability or belonging to an ethnic minority group.

Native Scientists was created in 2013 to “broaden the horizons of underserved children, by connecting them with scientists and promote science literacy and higher education.” Joana Moscoso and Tatiana Correia were two Portuguese researchers working in London when they became aware that children from migrant families performed worse at school. Indeed, in Lambeth, one of the most diverse boroughs of London, Portuguese pupils have had the lowest academic achievement of all student groups in the council, as published in their 2020 report. Factors such as stereotyping, exclusion, lack of awareness to Portuguese culture, and inadequacy of the programme to reflect a multi-ethnic society were identified as relevant in the under-achievement of these children.

The Scientist Next Door Studies published by UNESCO and the European Commission have confirmed that migrant children are at an increased risk of developing low self-esteem and underperforming in STEM subjects. This is one of the issues that Native Scientists addresses with their “Same Migrant Community” programme, by promoting the interaction between scientists and children that share the same heritage language across Europe. Scientists go to local schools with a 15-minute activity to introduce their work and talk about their career path.

“It is important to make science more welcoming and continuously more accessible to everyone, cultivating a sense of belonging early on.”

Following a “Science Tapas” concept, children are divided into groups and interact with several scientists in a single workshop. As pointed out in their 2022 article published in the journal Trends in Cell Biology, this strategy is built on EDI values (Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion). The students and scientists establish a meaningful connection through a shared cultural background that boosts the development of their heritage language while offering a role model and inspiring scientific curiosity. In the 2024 Science Education article, Julia Schiefer describes this as a new Science and Heritage Language Integrated Learning (SHLIL) approach. The authors show that this is effective in promoting the children’s engagement with STEM subjects and their self-concept of ability for the heritage language for at least four weeks after the interaction. As the programme lead Afonso Bento shared with me, the objective of these interactions is not necessarily to incentivise children to become scientists but to promote curiosity and interest in science while raising the value they associate with their multicultural identity.

Afonso mentioned that many students associate the use of their heritage language with doing chores at home. The interaction with scientists who speak the same language makes them see it for the first time as a useful tool they can potentially use in the future.

Science communication is increasingly considered a key skill that all scientists should master for multiple reasons, including captivating the next generation of researchers. But science literacy needs to be considered important for the general development of every child without needing it to become all about job recruitment.

Interactions such as the ones created by Native Scientists foster curiosity and can be used to cultivate a sense of belonging and understanding of oneself and of others. This approach can be a powerful educational tool for the schools of the future with increasingly multi-ethnic and diverse student populations. Moreover, this could have an important overall social impact – Afonso pointed out that Native Scientists is particularly innovative in the way that they not only train effective science communicators but are also training community organisers. In fact, Afonso was the first author in a 2023 article in Frontiers in Communications that described how many of the scientists volunteering to coordinate the workshops had a societal motivation, viewing the impact of these interactions in bridging society and science as one of the driving forces behind their participation. Strategies such as the “Same Migrant Community” programme should be considered by governments and institutions as not only an effective educational tool that improves the attainment of multicultural student groups but also as a powerful societal initiative that contributes to more inclusive and equal communities.

Sara Teles (she/her) is a biologist and cancer researcher, currently finishing a PhD in bile duct cancer at the University of Edinburgh. She is a co-Editor-in-Chief of EUSci. 13 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

Breaking Barriers:

The role of science festivals in fostering inclusivity Heather McEwan explores the potential positive impacts of science festivals, diving into the work done

by Edinburgh Science as an example of how public engagement projects can support inclusivity in science.

I

n the pursuit of knowledge and progress, fostering inclusivity within science is paramount. However, this requires intentional efforts to create welcoming environments and opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds. A great example of this is through community engagement, such as science festivals. Public science festivals present the opportunity to make science more inclusive by engaging diverse communities in a celebration of knowledge and discovery. These festivals provide accessible platforms for scientists to communicate their research directly to the public, fostering a two-way dialogue that demystifies scientific concepts.

14 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Illustration by Muminah Koleoso With a range of interactive exhibits, engaging demonstrations, and hands-on workshops, science festivals can appeal to a broad audience of all ages and backgrounds, including individuals who may not typically have exposure to formal science education. This inclusivity not only promotes scientific literacy but also encourages individuals from underrepresented groups to envision themselves as active participants in the scientific community, thus contributing to a more diverse and equitable future in the field.

In fact, a growing body of research indicates that supporting inclusivity in science has benefits

hfor us all. Research supports the benefits of inclusivity in science, as diverse teams offer varied perspectives and innovative problem-solving approaches.

Additionally, studies conducted on individuals in the USA show that diversity helps prevent groupthink, a psychological phenomenon where group members prioritise harmony and conformity over critical thinking, leading to flawed decision-making.

More research may be needed to see whether these results generalise to other cultural contexts outside of the USA. Other studies have shown that for many people, participating in science festivals in particular leads to increased knowledge, inspiration,

The Scientist Next Door and a positive impact on their attitudes towards science. Indeed, these festivals play a crucial role in enhancing public understanding of science, fostering trust, and contributing to a more scientifically literate society. Science festivals have great potential to reach diverse audiences across large geographical areas, offering science exploration for everyone by creating interactive, accessible, and enjoyable experiences that contribute to a more informed and engaged public.

While research on science festivals often highlights the positive aspects of public engagement, concerns about inclusivity have been raised. For example, reaching certain demographic groups, such as those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, may be a challenge.

Some research suggests that attendees of science festivals may skew towards more affluent and educated demographics. Therefore, although science festivals play a valuable role in science communication, ongoing efforts are needed to ensure that they are accessible and appealing to a broad spectrum of society, addressing potential barriers related to socio-economic status and other factors.

Some science festivals are actively breaching this gap in audience diversity to ensure science is accessible to all. For instance, the Edinburgh Science Festival, recognised as the first-ever public event celebrating science and technology on a festival scale and still one of Europe's largest, adopts various strategies to broaden its reach. These include providing complimentary tickets, specialised events, and even transportation in areas with high levels of deprivation according to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD).

“Science festivals have great potential to reach diverse audiences across large geographical areas, offering science exploration for everyone by creating interactive, accessible, and enjoyable experiences that contribute to a more informed and engaged public.”

SIMD is an area-based measure of relative deprivation which takes into account various factors such as health, access to services, and education levels within the community. Furthermore, in 2022 the festival hosted over 600 children and young people across the city and offered free workshops to 451 pupils from high SIMD schools at the City Art Centre. The festival collaborates with community groups like With Kids, One Parent Families Scotland, and SCORE Scotland to ensure tailored support for attendees facing accessibility challenges. With Kids offer various therapeutic services for children, carers, and professionals working with children in Edinburgh and Glasgow. One Parent Families Scotland aims to support single-parent families and facilitate a better standard of living by offering face-to-face support services and online information, while SCORE Scotland is a charity which addresses the causes and effects of racism and promotes racial equality.

The accommodations Edinburgh Science offered after consultation with these groups ranged from free festival tickets and public transport to on-site assistance and a specialised event timetable. In addition, an accessibility guide is available for download prior to the festival each year. This outlines useful accessibility information including the locations of accessible toilets, relaxed sensory-friendly events, and public transport recommendations.

Beyond their science festival, Edinburgh Science is involved in the community year round. This includes working with local centres and organisations to break down barriers and create more opportunities for everyone to engage with science. For example, in 2019 they developed a health, wellbeing, and nutrition workshop 15 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door called The Great Plate. Other efforts include Generation Science, an inspiring and interactive science workshop which has been touring schools all over Scotland for 30 years. During the Covid-19 pandemic (and despite its challenges), this was moved online where they posted resources such as pre-recorded workshops designed to engage pupils.

Additionally, Edinburgh Science offer an online careers event called Careers Hive. This immersive career education event is designed to inspire high school students and increase awareness of the many potential career paths within STEM. A deconstructed version of this career event, Beyond the Hive, has garnered positive feedback from young people, for example: “I liked learning about the different jobs, and that they are for everyone, not just certain ones for boys and others for girls,” and “That was the best day!” This event is aimed at 15–19 year olds not in education or employment, and it is broadening the horizons of young people in science.

Another project of theirs is the Sensory Seashore Scrapbook, a self-led trail exploring life on our coasts for all ages. This resource is available for anyone to access on their website in four different languages including Ukrainian, Romanian, and Arabic. Clearly, the work Edinburgh Science do to engage pupils and inspire the public is extensive and crucial. This ongoing work is essential to promote inclusivity in science and to highlight that science is for everyone.

In conclusion, fostering inclusivity within scientific communities is paramount for enriching perspectives, fostering innovation, and ensuring equitable sharing of scientific progress. While significant strides have been made, ongoing efforts are crucial. Recognising and addressing barriers, promoting diversity at all levels, and fostering a culture of inclusivity are essential steps. By embracing individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those historically underrepresented, scientific communities promote fairness, equal opportunity, and break down barriers.

Furthermore, inclusive scientific communities are better equipped to tackle global challenges, as they bring together individuals with varied backgrounds, fostering collaborative problem-solving. Ultimately, inclusivity not only serves as a moral imperative but also strengthens the scientific enterprise, making it more robust and capable of addressing the complexities of our interconnected world. The journey towards greater inclusivity in science is an ongoing commitment that holds the promise of a more robust and responsive scientific landscape in the future.

Heather McEwan is a Biomedical Optics PhD student at the University of Edinburgh. Her research is focused on using Raman spectroscopy to help transplant surgeons better assess liver health in the future.

16 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

“Sexy” Science: Science by the default

white male Anshika Gupta uncovers the shadows cast by [white] male driven research, detailing how convenient biases in research may perpetuate layers of gaps in scientific data and knowledge.

B Long afterward, Oedipus, old and blinded, walked the Roads.

He smelled a familiar smell.

It was the Sphinx.

Oedipus said, “I want to ask one question.

Why didn’t I recognize my mother?”

“You gave the wrong answer,” said the Sphinx.

“But that was what made everything possible,” said Oedipus.

“No,” she said. “When I asked, What walks on four legs in the morning, two at noon, and three in the evening, you answered, Man. You didn’t say anything about woman.”

“When you say Man,” said Oedipus, “you include women too.

Everyone knows that.”

She said, “That’s what you think.”

- Muriel Rukeyser

Illustration by Apple Chew

elieve it or not, science runs on trends, being policed by funders posing as the bully of the school. If your research does not follow whatever the science journals are raving about or the fads that are making the circles on social media, you are likely to not get funding for it. That research topic which just got rejected is, to crudely say, just not “sexy” enough to make heads turn. Trends may come and go but one thing about science that has stayed constant is men.

Science since its birth has revolved around one thing: men and specifically men of a certain race. They make up the largest fraction of science participants and apparent – and sometimes only – stakeholders.

Biological females make up approximately 50% of the world’s population but have been ignored when it comes to accounting for their needs and concerns. This maleunless-otherwise-indicated research strategy has inconvenienced more than half the world’s population and sometimes these differences are not apparent to us at all.

17 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door In the early 2010s Dr Tami made a shocking discovery that the time of day you have a heart attack affects your chances of survival. So, if you had a heart attack in the day you had a greater chance of survival than at night. This study was replicated several times and the same results were obtained till another publication of the same study in 2016. This new study by a new group of researchers detailed that daytime heart attacks triggered a greater neutrophil response, but this time it was correlated with a worse chance of survival. There was just one difference between Dr Martino’s study and the new study, and it was that the latter used female mice while Dr Martino’s study and its subsequent replication used male ones. Different sex led to completely different results. There have been several attempts to address the sex issue when it comes to research, but the issue still remains and continues to skew results.

It has been frequently mentioned that the female body is considered too complex, and there are a lot more factors to consider when researching it. Factors such as hormones, menstrual cycle, reproductive plans, and so on. So, often researchers just stick to using male samples, and in the animal world procuring males is cheaper. But sex is just the basic layer of the various scientific blindspots that we have become accustomed to living with. Several layers like race, living conditions, and lifestyle choices add to the complexity of the situation.

One might argue that these blind spots are unintentional, and perhaps in most cases they are.

One way to combat them is to see more representation in those who conduct the studies in the first place. But it is not as easy as it sounds.

18 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

In an interview with an established and well-renowned university professor who would like to remain anonymous, it was highlighted that women-driven research (where women carry out the research and/or are a subject of the said research) was less likely to get funding than its male-driven counterpart. “There is less of an appetite to fund research surrounding the female body.”

Same goes for promotions and positions of power. Since there are already less women to begin with in most science-related subjects, the hostile work environment that comes with being in the minority leads to a very narrow bottleneck which is hard to overcome.

the author Sarah E. McDowell, along with her colleagues, found that, amongst other things, there was a three-times higher risk of angioedema (a condition referring to the sudden swelling in any part of the body accompanied with hives) as a reaction to cardiovascular drugs in black patients when compared to other races.

Years of studies have expressed differences at genetic levels between different races and ethnicities, but little focus has been put on the discrepancies that exist within the pharmacological sector. Why do some races show a higher percentage of gluten allergy, or why are people of African or Mediterranean descent more susceptible to sickle-cell anaemia? It all boils down to genetic differences and lifestyle choices. If something as basic as gluten can cause differences, who is to say that contraceptives, reproductive aids, or even cough syrups will not have different effects in different races? Whether these differences are big or small will only come to light when detailed research is conducted, and quality research will only come out when this hostile environment that we have created for the “others” becomes more relaxed and accepting. It is clear that certain Let's keep sex aside for a minute. races are better studied than Different races and cultures due to others and that this is another gap years of geographical and that needs to be covered. availability differences have evolved to have different traits at This [white] male default is the the genetic level, so most cause and the consequence of a medicines and research made by sex- and race-driven data gap. But people of a certain race and only closing this data gap is not going to trialled on the people of a certain fix all of our problems. That would race can have different – even require a lot of work but we have to detrimental – effects on people of start somewhere. different races. In a study titled “Systematic review and metaAnshika Gupta is a second-year analysis of ethnic differences in Neuroscience student risks of adverse reactions to drugs and a huge sci-fi nerd. used in cardiovascular medicine,”

“Trends may come and go but one thing about science that has stayed constant is men.”

The Scientist Next Door

Queer Data with Dr kEvin guyan

The following text is a shortened and edited version of our chat with Kevin on season 6 episode 2 of “Not Another Science Podcast” – to listen to the full unedited version, please use the QR code!

Dr Kevin Guyan is a researcher at the University of Glasgow and author of the 2022 book Queer Data: Using Gender, Sex and Sexuality Data for Action, which explores the collection, analysis, and use of data around LGBTQ+ communities in the UK. Katie and Kelsey from EUSci’s podcast team met with Kevin to discuss his book and get his insight into the intersection between data and identity.

EUSci: You were involved in helping design the new questions on sexuality and trans status in the most recent Scottish census. What was the engagement process like and how were you involved in the design?

Kevin: I was working outside of a university, for an equality and diversity organisation based in London, and then in Edinburgh, and so for me, it was a geekish interest in the design process. The Scottish census in particular was scrutinised at a very detailed level by a particular committee within the Scottish Parliament which took a real keen interest in the work of the national statistics agency in Scotland and in the design of questions around sex, sexual orientation, and trans status. I think the National Records organisation also had stakeholder engagement sessions where they invited feedback and engagement from researchers, academics, and policymakers. In the context of Scotland, there's a fair amount of opportunities for engagement and participation. Alongside these discussions there was also something called “sex and gender data working group”, established by the Scottish government to look at how public bodies in Scotland collect data about gender. This was another source of opportunities for stakeholder engagement and input and ultimately created a briefing for public bodies on data collection about gender and sex.

EUSci: I feel like a lot of LGBTQ+ identities are very fluid, can change over time and take on different meanings, but this is at odds with data being quantitative and often requiring very strict binaries. How difficult is it to incorporate these concepts when you’re collecting identity data?

Kevin: LGBTQ+ identities are interesting in that some aspects are definitely fluid or mutable, but some aspects aren't. There are many LGBTQ+ people who have some fixed unchanging characteristics, and what's been interesting to see is how these splits within the larger LGBTQ+ umbrella have been demonstrated through some of our recent data collection exercises. For example, there is a sense that the census does count people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, straight, or cisgender, but where it struggles is people who don't fit those neat categories and people who maybe are gender fluid, nonbinary, or don't have a clear sense on how they wish to identify. In my writing, I look at how certain methods are sold to us as being inclusive but can sometimes only count parts of larger communities. I think that looking at questions of sexuality, gender, and sex through the prism of particularly quantitative data opens up bigger conversations – is it possible to ever design a method, survey, or scientific approach that captures everyone? Or, even with our best intentions and design methods, are there always going to be some people who don't fit into this pre-designed system? I guess it's an ethical political decision to say when a method is good enough – are we saying that when 90, 95, or 99% of people are included, a method is good? Are we always going to settle for methods which are always going to exclude some people in their design?

Disclosure: to fit a snippet of the podcast interview in the magazine, the interview was significantly edited, while hopefully keeping the original intent/meaning of the author’s words. Please refer to the original audio to listen to the full unedited version of our conversation with Kevin.

19 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk .

The Scientist Next Door

✷ You can download a free copy of Queer Data through the university library ✷

EUSci: Would you say that more qualitative approaches such as stories and interviews can be more helpful in capturing information that can’t be categorised as easily?

Kevin: Yeah, definitely. I think often when we speak about qualitative methods, we're more comfortable thinking about questions of emotion and bringing your own biases and baggage to the types of methods you're using. What I want to do with my research and my writing is to argue that these same issues should be given consideration when using quantitative methods. Just because you're designing a survey or aggregating different categories in a data set, this also comes with decisions about who counts and who doesn't count. We're definitely more comfortable seeing qualitative methods through that lens and we're a little bit more reluctant to challenge the objectivity of quantitative methods. There's a long history there around numbers and these types of scientific approaches being seen as “harder sciences” or more objective compared to stuff which is maybe seen as more emotive or more human-oriented. What I hope people get from reading my book and my work is just that we should think critically about all of these methods whether or not they're quantitative or qualitative.

“Certain methods are sold to us as being inclusive but can sometimes only count parts of larger communities.”

EUSci: You mentioned there's this difference between how data science is seen in terms of “hard sciences” or more qualitative work. Do you think that modern day data science has been affected heavily by historically more sinister figures who have been very much categorising people by focusing on eugenics or trying to fit people into very narrow boxes?

Kevin: That's a great question, and definitely, 100%. In the book I trace how we got where we are around LGBTQ+ data in the UK, and I think it's impossible to write that history without thinking about histories of race, eugenics, and these historical approaches to

20 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

categorising, counting, managing different populations, as you mentioned in your question. The good of the people being counted was rarely at the heart of the intentions of the scientists or figures behind these campaigns. I think particularly the history of race science, categorising race and its use for eugenics projects, should definitely play a key role in how we think about LGBTQ+ data in the present day.

I am also interested in what data historically exists about communities who we migh now describe as LGBTQ+. If we go into an archive and look for quantitative data around gay men, for example, what type of data can we find? And as you might imagine, the data that exists historically about these communities is very one-sided and extremely negative. It was collected for particular purposes around monitoring crime deviant psychological maladjustment. A lot of the data that existed was not to highlight the positives (or the roundedness) of these communities' lives and experiences. This is a really important point when we think about current day developments around data science and machine learning algorithms – these gigantic datasets that make use of a huge amount of historical information about these communities which can then very quickly result in biases in their design.

EUSci: So in terms of changing approaches, your work talks about the concept of “queering data” – can you explain what you mean by that?

Kevin: My book is called Queer Data, and I do hope that it provides an accessible introduction to work in this field. There's been around maybe five to ten years of work around LGBTQ+ data in the UK and US by academics, social justice activists, and practitioners working across a range of different fields. In the book I bring together these ideas to argue that queer data can be understood in two ways. On one hand, we've got the type of data about LGBTQ+ communities that is maybe what comes to mind first when you think of queer data: data on education, healthcare, and employment, whether it's quantitative or qualitative.

The second strand of Queer Data, which I think is probably a little bit more interesting, is about thinking of how to queer data in the verb sense. How do we queer different research methods? This applies to people doing any type of research, people that may or may not be engaging in topics around identity. It could be stuff around fishing or farming – I'm trying to think of just examples not related explicitly with LGBTQ+ lives. It engages ideas from queer theory and queer

The Scientist Next Door studies which date back to the late 80s/early 90s. It explores questions around how we construct knowledge, how power shapes our ideas around who counts and who doesn't count, and how we then apply that in the design of different methods we use in our work. I hope to bring those two strands together in the book and provide ideas that I hope are accessible for people wherever they are on this journey.

EUSci: For the censuses that have come out recently for England and Wales you can zoom in on a particular area and see how many people of a certain identity live in that area, which is terrifying if you're one of those people. So how do you balance making sure people are counted for but also ensuring that this doesn't affect their safety or ability to just live their lives as they normally would?

Kevin: Oh, another fantastic question. Just around the politics of visibility, this is a fascinating topic particularly when we think about it through the lens of data collection. Irregardless of what number is published on the size of particularly the trans population in the UK, for people opposed to trans inclusion the number was always going to be both too high and too low. I think we need to be speaking about whether the benefits of being accounted for in something like the national census outweighs the risks and the energy and resources that I know many LGBTQ+ people and groups and community organisations have had to put into addressing that increased visibility. The argument in my work is that when we're captioning data on minoritised communities – for example, LGBTQ+ people – it’s always going to have an inbuilt undercount because, for a variety of legitimate and valid reasons, many people will not wish to share that information in a census. We need to think about the fallout of this, the toll on people's lives, and I think we also need to ask whether it matters – can we actually direct resources that improve people's lives without exactly knowing the percentage of trans people who live in Manchester or Liverpool or Brighton? I don't know if we need to have all of that information to actually address the problems that people face in their dayto-day life and whether this to some degree might just be a misuse of resources.

EUSci: I guess we always have to weigh the benefits of data collection versus the trust that you have in the institution to protect that data.

Kevin: Yeah, I think it is that kind of weighing-up game.

I don't want to be too doom and gloom, because there are also positives. I remember speaking at events around Scotland at the time of the census, and I was really excited about the opportunity to mark in the census that I am a gay man living in Edinburgh on that date. There's no right or wrong answer for these topics we’re speaking about – there's no one way to queer methods. There's no one way to apply a queer approach to work, I think it's all just thinking through these nuances and complexities and particularly in scientific methods that are often seen as objective, above politics or history. It's about having space to have these conversations, that actually things are messy and complicated and have good and bad points.

EUSci: What do you think is going to be happening in the queer data field going forward – anything you’re looking forward to or concerned about?

Kevin: Oh, in my kind of “crystal ball” thinking of what might happen next? My work is continuing in this space but zooming out a bit. I’m working on a second book that looks more broadly on how to classify and categorise LGBTQ+ communities. Whereas Queer Data focuses on data and how we collect, analyse, and use it, with the next book I am more interested in how we use systems that we might not usually associate with data to make sense of LGBTQ+ people – looking into things like hate crime reporting, dating apps, rules about asylum and borders, and film funding. In terms of the broader queer data space I think what's exciting is just seeing the appetite for these ideas – not only for people working in fields around gender, sex, and sexuality but for those working in other data spaces such as privacy and data protection and how this queering of methods might be applied in their work.

Also what I would love to see as much as possible is these conversations happening outside of academic circles and outside of universities. Doing this work around data and LGBTQ+ lives, my hope is that it's engaging people across many different workplaces, organisations, and activist groups – whatever your job, role, or context, there can be something in it for you – and I hope that's what the book adds to these conversations.

Guest: Kevin Guyan is a writer and researcher whose work explores the intersection of data and identity. He is the author of Queer Data: Using Gender, Sex and Sexuality Data for Action (Bloomsbury Academic).

Podcast hosts: Katie Pickup is a final-year PhD student in Genetics and Molecular Medicine, working on embryonic stem cells and developmental biology. Kelsey Tetley-Campbell is a final-year PhD student in Genetics and Molecular Medicine, working on the genetic causes of sex-biased diseases.

21 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

Bringing humanity and humour to science writing Kája Kubičková argues for a more humorous and transparent approach to scientific communication that celebrates humanity in science.

S

cience weaves through the entirety of the social landscape, so how is it that people can feel so disconnected from a process that shapes so many facets of our lives? How can we

work towards clear communication and a comprehensive understanding of complex scientific topics, given the bidirectional nature of scientific research? It seems to be difficult to dislodge the idea that communication within academia is aided by the strippingaway of humour, personality, and opinion, and that scientific writing which is passionate is not real science. This view makes it seem that science is less of a process of understanding and more a system by which we deliberately make our communication as confusing and inflated as possible. I believe there should be further encouragement of science writing that is clear and accurate, that admits uncertainty, but that still retains enthusiasm and humour.

We should approach science writing as storytelling, meant to inform and entertain. Scientific communication should not only be widely available and accessible; it should recognise science as a series of processes rather than as mere conclusions. Nobody wants to read about the hero defeating the dragon without first reading the adventure that led him there.

The anti-vaccine movement is a common example of the failings of some current science communication (though it must be mentioned that there are some brilliant science communicators out there, such as Nancy Kanwisher at MIT, or the NASA-scientist turned comic-strip-artist Randall Munroe). It’s often assumed that the anti-vaccination sentiment stems from miscommunication and public ignorance as to the function of vaccines. While it’s true that lack of knowledge breeds fear, it's far too easy to blame the public for their rejection of established scientific principles. We often fail to recognise that there is also a problem with the way institutions communicate the topic to the public. It’s not necessarily the case that the public doesn’t have accessible information about vaccines.

Many concerns around vaccines come from individualistic approaches to these issues, which cannot be alleviated by sentiments focusing on the bigger picture of public health. That is, parents might think, “I don’t want to risk the side-effects of vaccines in my children,” rather than, “I’ll vaccinate my child to protect the immunocompromised in our society.”

22 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Though this sentiment is not one I am endorsing, it should be approached with empathy.

We must focus on more than remedying a perceived lack of knowledge; we must also prioritise rebuilding trust and fostering dialogue between the scientific community and the public. We need to address the public’s concerns as valid – people are much more amenable to change when they don’t feel that their fears are being dismissed.

Recognising and questioning errors, faults, and uncertainty is a cornerstone of good science, yet the media often struggles with depicting this complexity.

There’s a tendency to show research as definitive, and researchers themselves might at times prefer to take this route in their communication for fear of loss of scientific authority. Yet contrary to this expectation, one study has found that expressing reservations in the communication of research can increase trust, as addressed by Mickey Steijaert and colleagues.

The Scientist Next Door

Rather than undermining the research, it paints the author as a more objective source. Science shouldn’t be displayed to the public as a monolithic authority dictating the correct opinions to be held – failures should be discussed, doubt dissected, and changes in previously upheld scientific dogmas celebrated.

Placing scientists on a pedestal of unquestionability is harmful not only to science itself but also to the public’s perception of science. It is my opinion that by positioning researchers as incontestable authorities, sensationalist science media publications actually give rise to further mistrust in science.

Rather than being viewed as a process, and a very human one at that, science is portrayed as something unreachable to the layperson, something beyond comprehension and conducted only in closed-off institutional laboratories.

Not only is this image a breeding ground for conspiracy theories centred around shadowy scientific institutions – probably surrounded by ominously bubbling test tubes and human organs suspended in tanks – it makes scientific knowledge seem inaccessible. While much of the background behind scientific processes requires significant time and study, we should be focusing on closing that very gap between science and the public. The first step towards gaining more public trust is to move away from sweeping claims about the conclusions gained from research and to focus on the process and the questions that remain. We should discuss criticisms and possible errors in research openly. Concerns will arise within the public sphere either way – it’s preferable for issues to be expressed by individuals who are knowledgeable on the specific subject and to open the door to conversations that might facilitate further understanding of research. We must not only accept but celebrate fallibility and humanity within science.

“Why do we need to present science as something inherently joyless in the pursuit of professionalism?

Science is a serious and often difficult undertaking, but that doesn’t mean we need to dehumanise it in the process.”

Another concern I have with science communication is the stripping of emotion from science in order for it to be seen as valid. While it’s understandable that textbooks and journals will be suffused with jargon, I don’t find any benefit in removing humour and humanity from science writing, whether that be in science writing aimed towards the general public or other researchers. Why do we need to present science as something inherently joyless in the pursuit of professionalism? Science is a serious and often difficult undertaking, but that doesn’t mean we need to dehumanise it in the process. While data should be presented accurately within a general code of conduct, a facade of professionalism and an urge to present ourselves as intellectual within the scientific sphere shouldn’t drive how we write about science.

Researchers should not be forced to make their writing as bland and joyless as possible in order to be perceived as competent scientists. Science should be widely available and accessible to the public, and that extends to comprehensibility. It can be difficult to recognise the line between making science easy to digest and sensationalising it, but I firmly believe that line exists and is wider than we might think. Beyond the project of humanising science to make research less alien, we might also ask: why shouldn’t we find joy in our work? I think a lot of science is pretty damn amazing – and not only do I think we should be able to express that joy when writing about it, I don’t think it takes away from anyone’s merit as a scientist. Conversely, I’d argue it makes them a better science communicator and, perhaps through that passion for science, a better scientist.

Kája Kubičková (she/her) is a third-year Neuroscience student.

She is a big fan of xkcd, weird brain facts, and cool research into neural circuits.

23 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

I’m an Academic…

Get me out of here?!

Juda Milvidaite shares their journey as an academic, highlighting the need to check in with ourselves more often.

I

was on my lunch break at the Chancellor’s Building, where I was working on my Neuro-

science Honours project, when I overheard someone crying. It was a PhD student venting to a friend about their project and, mostly, venting about their suffering. I can’t remember the troubles exactly, but I remember thinking that I was witnessing the canonical PhD experience. In that moment, I vowed to myself that this would never be me. I did not want to end up crying in the cafeteria. I did not want to perpetuate the stereotypes of a suffering PhD student. So, I would never do a PhD. And yet... “Do you want to stay in academia?” we often asked each other. What was academia beyond the unknown or the suffering? I think for me it was the learning. The unknown becoming known. If only I could stay at the university forever, I thought. I was in love with the pursuit of knowledge.

One out of five students will not finish their PhD (UK Research and Innovation, 2011). I dropped out of my bioengineering PhD halfway through my four-year programme. To be frank, before I began my project journey, I mostly felt curious: what was this infamous PhD journey all about?

Testing it in my hands, I was doing a case study on whether the PhD life was for me. But, I had also given myself the permission to withdraw from the case at any point.

24 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Why do people exit academia?

1. Mental health It is completely normal to have a non-linear journey. Time, healing – both are non-linear. I had already left academia once after my undergrad. At the time, I was feeling so burnt-out, I felt I would never again be able to face another scientific article. I had to face my feelings instead. Later, I came back because I had missed science.

Throughout my undergrad – I later realised – I used science, learning, the long hours at the library, the organised notes – all as a coping mechanism.

But life doesn’t stop happening because you’re doing science. Life has its ups; life has its downs. And naturally, there might come a point when you need to re-invent your coping strategies.

PhD students are at least twice as likely to show signs of severe anxiety or experience depression when compared to other working professionals (published in the Humanities and Social Sciences Communications journal, 2021).

Moreover, around half consider developing mental health problems as a normal part of the process. It is a marathon, not a sprint. But also, it is a challenge in perseverance.

But what do you do if you’re not coping with the process? Does the end justify the means? In the end, what matters?

In my opinion, to be a real academic, you must be married to your research. Either way, to be happy, you must feel connected.

You need community. Part of what can make or break a PhD is the isolation. In the wrong lab, the dodgeball of everyday social dynamics might be exhausting. If you come from a different country – away from family, friends, and familiar resources, having to self-fund or navigate visa restrictions and funding conditions – even in a supportive group, pausing studies for mental health or personal reasons may simply be much, much harder to arrange.

2. The group The research group, its own work culture and team dynamics can also make or break a PhD. Whether there is unspoken pressure to spend most of the social and living hours by the lab bench or whether a student feels enabled to have a work-life balance and flexible hours – this all can be very groupdependent. There are other stressors outside of a student’s control that become clear only once inside. They can range from the general pressure to publish, to the group lacking funding and having to scramble for resources, or, of course, personality clashes, egos, discrimination, harassment and bullying within the group, or even the ethical and scientific dilemmas arising from pressure to falsify data. Even in the absence of such extreme problems, in well-funded and successful labs, a student might suffer feeling forgotten.

The Scientist Next Door A successful and busy principal investigator (PI) might be too busy to learn about each student’s work style – too absent to establish an effective, supportive working relationship. Or the supervisor might be too set in their ways to adapt to students needing different direction styles. Not every good scientist is a good supervisor; not every supervisor is flexible.

At the same time, an advantage of a bustling lab is the access to other potential mentors. I strongly believe you win as a student once you are “adopted” by a postdoctoral researcher. This way, you not only have someone who can advise or gently push you in terms of experimental design and methodology but often also someone working daily by your side, exploring questions related to yours. In any case, it is crucial to find mentors – other scientists within and outside the group – and build your own emotional and research support network. Though that, too, can be stressful, working relationships are key to surviving and staying tethered to academia.

ly pitch yourself with access to more resources and more privilege. Science thrives on progress. But this has been quite slow when it comes to reflecting the sociocultural forces that different individuals face. The work of organising together to dismantle foundational power structures and to make research more inclusive and accessible has just scratched the surface.

Outside an industrial lab, scientists are also needed in the public health sector (NHS for the biomedical scientists or Public Health Scotland for the epidemiologists). There are also charities that aim to increase public and patient involvement in science or reduce the use of animals in research. There is policy and governmental work, scientific consulting and writing, communication or outreach. You could even marry your love for science and performance art and become a science clown, touring Scottish schools and teaching kids through play.

You can adapt your research skills elsewhere. There are many ways to be a scientist and to do important, exciting science.

3. Changing your mind: many different ways to do exciting science As a scientist, it is important to always keep an open mind. Maybe you simply need to work on something different. Nowadays, many Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) recognise that not every student will be interested or stay in academia. The CDTs collaborate with industrial partners to give the PhD candidates an opportunity to experience non-academic research.

In or out of academia, there might still be some invisible, intersectional blocks to address.

Analysing the “Destinations of Leavers of Higher Education Longitudinal” survey, which reported PhD employment activity three-and-a-half years after graduation in the UK, revealed that males who have obtained their PhDs from Russell Group institutions are significantly more likely to secure research roles outside of academia. Why are the rest not as likely? Perhaps it’s easier to confident-

“But what do you do if you’re not coping with the process? Does the end justify the means?”

Photographs of Juda Milvidaite

by Kate Louise Powell 25 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door Research suggests that skipping the post-doc entirely could be the wisest financial move, since PhD holders who move to other sectors right after PhD completion earn higher salaries for up to 15 years post-PhD, when compared to those who go on to work post-doctoral positions. In the outside world, your experience and skills are what matter most. So, if you feel that academia is not for you, you might as well begin moving elsewhere – gathering the experience.

Conclusion?!

People exit academia for a multitude of complex reasons: personal issues, shifting priorities, family plans, structural barriers within and beyond the scale of a research institute, rigid personality cults, limits imposed by the lack of grants and resources, general lack of job security, or the potential financial sacrifice of sticking around.

4. The post-doctoral sieve It has long been a tale in academia how only a very small handful of people who become doctors will ever become professors. I ultimately realised I did not care about the academic climb to become a group leader and a professor. Indeed, there are some academic roles outside of becoming a PI. Research laboratories benefit from highly trained support staff – technicians, scientific officers, lab managers, data analysts – although availability of these roles depends on the available funding, so they may be scarce, too. And yet, initially most PhD students will want to do a postdoc – to stick around. Nevertheless, as mentioned before, most PhD holders will have left academia within three years post-PhD. The post-doctoral sieve takes place because of the “cost” of staying in academia. One often must follow the research – and the right lab with the right position at the right time could be anywhere around the world. For people with family, uprooting the whole family can be extremely challenging. Even for single individuals, the isolating academic lifestyle and he lack of post-doctoral job stability could, in the end, prevent them from sticking it out. While postdoctoral experience is necessary for securing a higher academic post, outside of the university, this experience is not valued the same.

26 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Me? I took a leap of faith when I jumped into my PhD. Two years into my project, I found myself in agony at the bottom of the proverbial cliff. I reflect on the numerous lists of pros and cons I wrote, the many discussions I had with friends, the hours spent reading others' experiences, unable to conclude: Should I stay? Or should I go? I recall my walks outside the Advanced Research Centre in Glasgow, where I was based, going back and forth between feeling that I needed to leave and that I did not want to quit. I was still on track. I still believed in the project. I was surrounded by great minds, ready to advise and help. And yet, I remember looking at the art surrounding the University, particularly, a mural outside the Centre which read: “Do What Makes You Happy.” Although research has brought me joy in the past, I had to admit that it was no longer the case. I was not happy. But if doing a PhD has taught me one thing, it's that what you set out to do is not necessarily where you end up. It is okay to try things and make mistakes and, with what you learn, adjust the course as you go. And so, by course correcting, I took another leap of faith. Again, I walked into the vast unknown land – now, outside of university.

So, dear academic reading this... What would make you happy? Do keep an open mind and take your time. The answer might surprise you.

Juda Milvidaite (they/them) - the Art Editor for EUSci magazine - graduated from BSc (Hons) Neuroscience in University Edinburgh in 2019 and has since been using their brain for both science and art.

The Scientist Next Door

To Fund or Not to Fund: How much should the public hold the strings?

Faidra Batsaki explores the intersection between public engagement and scientific progress in the digital era.

W

ith the technological advances of the 21st century taking off, the progression in the digital era has been inevitable and, with that, our progression into new norms. We now have access to a vast amount of information available online, the ability to stay up to date with world news, the right to create online platforms and share our opinion across the anonymity of the web, the chance to access the latest scientific advances released in any field with the click of a button. Quoting one of the most iconic phrases, “with great power comes great responsibility,” science lies in our hands as undeniably as our ability to shape it. With opensource journals and online libraries, freedom of speech of media and online platforms, and a series of open-access talks and seminars organised by the scientific community with the main goal to communicate their research to a broader audience, the average human nowadays holds a significantly more central position in the scientific world than in the past centuries. Does having a seat at the centre translate into holding the strings? What influence does the public really have on the research that takes place? And even if they can have a seat, an influence, a say – do they really want to claim it?

Studies conducted by the UK research councils report public participation and engagement as vital to the quality and relevance of science. Engaging a wider audience with different backgrounds on a research topic can open up fresh perspectives, widen the applications, or even lead to different questions and generate new proposals. This way, knowledge is offered to all members of society, regardless of their occupation or scientific background, and simultaneously, the opportunity to partake in it. Particularly the occurrence of open-access talks and public conferences is vastly increasing because of the high participation and appeal among individuals. Such opportunities of interactions between scientists and people interested in science are indispensable for the quality of research.

Discussions on the outcomes of current inventions or discoveries can underline the level of urgency, use, and interest around a topic and allow researchers to acquire a more representative idea on how their research reflects on society as well as present society with important insights into the aims and reasons of the respective research.

Looking at data from Cancer Research UK (CRUK), public involvement and research funding are indisputably at their highest when it comes to drug discovery. Affected individuals are much more likely to want to get involved with the ongoing research around a disease they are familiar with or may have suffered from, following the progress of such drug formulations, alongside potential side effects and success rates of clinical trials. Non-governmental funding bodies, such as CRUK, have long been in place in order to satisfy those interests and continue to operate at a massive scale through ongoing research at universities and clinical trials for new drugs, supported by fundraising and donations from the public.

Individuals feel accredited and able to offer towards a greater cause, higher funds are available to go towards research, and pharmaceuticals themselves get higher levels of participation in clinical trials, a vital part of the pharmaceutical process, adding to this win-win trade.

As well as benefitting the quality of research and the mindsets of the scientists behind it, public participation aims to renew the society’s trust in science and improve this relationship that can be so easily threatened by stereotypical approaches.

Such approaches insinuate that only people with specific backgrounds can decipher scientific documents and process technological advances, with a large portion of the public disregarding the attributions of science to society and questioning novel advances with unprecedented fear and mistrust. This scepticism can then lead to endorsement of harmful conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific claims, skewing the true nature of science and adopting a negative stance towards it, as seen during the Covid-19 27 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door pandemic.

Another harmful stereotype segregates scientists as individuals with no interest in realworld problems, locked in their “ivory tower,” fully invested in topics that are not applicable to the greater public good. By adopting these mindsets, the public can lose interest in scientific achievements, and the chasm between the two worlds will keep getting bigger.

Establishing a relationship of trust and equality is vital in order for higher public participation within the domains of research. Any additional disconnect in this already fragile relationship may be risking all of the latest attempts to reconcile the public with science.

However, public engagement should not only entail communicating scientific conclusions but also communicating scientific proposals.

Universities, industries, and foundations undoubtedly invest both time and facilities as well as personnel in organising and holding science outreach activities – but how many of these efforts are directed towards engaging their audience with the primary question: “What research should be funded?”

And what a question to be asked.

Posing this question to myself, I have been going around in circles from the science I personally research (every scientist thinks their research is the most important in the world) to the diseases and discomforts I usually suffer from, to environmental breakthroughs towards the climate crisis, to crazy technological advances I must have seen in the sci-fi film last night. I suspect anybody faced with this question would take a similar approach and – inevitably – make it personal. How can a personal quiz be translated into the needs and interests of the whole world?

28 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

How could a non-expert mind visualise where the new discoveries lie? Many scientific breakthroughs are an outcome of serendipity and careful observation. It would be naïve to dismiss the unpredictable nature of research and disruptive to try control it. Still, with outcomes that cannot be foreseen, one could argue that a public vote of designating research funding ahead of its time could be meaningless and premature.

“Citizen Science today offers a two-way street: volunteers obtain valuable educational experiences, while project designers benefit by having access to larger data sets.”

In reality, it doesn’t seem likely that we will have a public vote on what should be funded next, especially for the less known non-clinical research fields. Instead, these will probably take guidance from the years of public engagement activities developed by different clinical and biomedical organisations, such as CRUK. To protect and support future research with the increasing public

involvement, the best way to move forward is probably to use public research councils, such as UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).

These public research councils aim to coordinate the science policies of the nation and collaborate with academia, communicating research of the different departmental councils, improving operational performance, and establishing better practices. The UKRI joins seven different research councils and ensures close collaboration between them, with the vision to connect discovery to prosperity and public good. In other words, independent legal bodies function as a group of experts with the public good as the common denominator, representing the public voice as accurately as the means allow.

These institutions collaborate freely with members of the public that would want to get directly involved in funding decisions, welcoming their involvement in conferences, participation in funding body committees, and organising the funds towards new research schemes, such as PhD scholarships. In order to review the efficacy of public research councils, researchers at Northwestern University conducted a study on how well public funding is aligned with public use, reporting “consistent alignment between public priorities for scientific research and the research itself.” A significant example from that study was Covid-19 for which the scientific community chose to substantially pivot towards Covid research, while this was also driven by remarkable public demand and increased availability of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding.

Science has, and always will, follow public interest, because it simply underlies a surge of scientific attention.

The Scientist Next Door to be involved in science. This stance may arise from premonitions about science itself and the feeling of impostor syndrome where people believe that only experts within the area can fully comprehend the topic and that any attempt of non-expert deciphering would be meaningless and not worthwhile. While such low trust on our own devices is a commonly seen and very humane notion, it is, however, untrue. No society or individual has ever improved by dismissing ideas and challenges. The same article encouragingly showed that, however dismissive the personal stance of the public was towards funding research, the depth of such decisions was acknowledged, and people turned to government organisations for advice and guidance.

Illustration by Prerna Vohra The best way to serve the public interest is still the subject of continuous evaluation. Indeed, the Medical Research Council recently funded research delivered

by VOCAL to assess different methodologies of public involvement used by 21 organisations. Another study published in 2019 by the UK Government Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) sheds some light on how the attitude of the public towards science has evolved over the last few years.

The positive take-away messages summarised that people find science more accessible and feel better informed (the unlimited sources of media are doing something right), and there are increased levels of trust in scientists and science regulation. Interestingly, when asked about public involvement in what gets funded, there was a disconnect between feeling that the public should get involved and people’s own desire

Faidra Batsaki is a PhD student in medicinal chemistry with a passion for reading literature and a prospect of a career in writing.

As to the role that scientists have in aiding public involvement, there is an increasing desire to communicate research to a lay audience. This is clear from the growing popularity of public events such as Pint of Science and outreach initiatives at every research institute. But what about the audience? How many “non-experts” does it really consist of? How big is the actual participation and involvement in the scientific notions discussed in these meetings? As a scientist myself, I understand the primary focus of every academic researcher are scientific publications and the urgency towards it. Scientists race the eternal race of science, competing against time with the aim to be the first to publish their new creation in an ever-so-public journal that will be immediately accessed by not-so-ever-so-public researchers.

The disconnect between public involvement and scientific interest can be first seen there. An ideal take would offer hope for a completely united front between public and science without mistrust and abstention. An idyllic world where every citizen cares, influences, and stays proactive, building up to an eternal democracy. A more realistic approach would suggest transparency and a shared interest between the public and research – the public good. And that goal is met.

Scientists above all – above recognition, above perpetuity – care about producing something worthwhile, making a contribution to society. We all started our research journeys thinking we would change the world, make something bigger of ourselves, add to the unknown. Research always starts there.

29 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

Exploring the interdependence between politics and science Nathalie Canteli Kuehnel examines the complex relationship between science and politics and how their influences on each other can be leveraged to create positive societal impact.

S

cience is fundamentally an objective and value-free discipline concerned with finding the empirical truths that govern our natural world. This idea has been marketed to the public for decades, and it seems that science has adapted to become its own untouchable domain in our modern society – a domain unconcerned with mundane social problems. And yet, if we dig a little deeper, we can identify considerable links between science and other pillars of our modern society, which not only influence each other but can determine the mere existence of one another. From the use of science in policy making to scientific funding, this article aims to tackle the complex interdependent relationship between science and politics.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the use of scientific data to justify policies became ever so noticeable to the public. Interestingly, the way that some governments utilised scientific expertise in public health and epidemiology proved to influence their crisis management and outcomes. This is exemplified in a 2021 study by the political scientists Jostein Askim and Tomas Bergström. Despite their similarities in demographics and population, Sweden and Norway had contrasting approaches to the pandemic. In the spring of 2020, Sweden’s Covid-19 decision-making was dominated by their Agency of Public Health, spearheaded by epidemiologist Dr Anders Tegnell. Political figures took a step back in the initial course of the pandemic and the public was urged to follow the expert’s advice, contributing to public health discourse of a scientific nature.

In Norway, the Directorate of Health was appointed responsibility for the Covid-19 crisis in January of 2020.

In contrast to Sweden, Norway’s Directorate of Health is more heavily influenced by political instruction, establishing a discourse laden with legality and policy.

Therefore, Sweden and Norway exhibited differences in where the central government’s executive responsibility lay during the crisis, which affected their Covid-19 response and crisis management. Lockdown policies were affected by the extent to which science informed political decisions. For instance, unlike Norway and many other European countries including the United Kingdom, Sweden never implemented an official lockdown but rather opted for more personal public health mitigation responses that relied on individuals’ sensible decisionmaking. Although there might be differing opinions as to which strategy was best to manage the Covid-19 pandemic, this shows the varying degrees to which governments may take scientific advice into consideration and how this dynamic can substantially affect the lives of the general public.

Photo by CDC from Unsplash

30 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

“The interplay between science and politics can be seen at all levels of the scientific enterprise: from the individual beliefs of scientists to governmental influence over research institutions.”

Realistically, scientific research does not occur in a vacuum, but rather against the backdrop of society. The interplay between science and politics can be seen at all levels of the scientific enterprise: from the individual beliefs of scientists to governmental influence over research institutions. Scientific research is heavily dependent on the resources available: be it lab equipment or special training, the success of research relies on the infrastructure available. So, who provides the money for scientific research? Funding can be attained through private corporations and organisations, such as pharmaceutical companies, or public institutions where research is funded by the government through taxpayer money. Financial support from these organisations inevitably influences funded research to align with their interests, as seen in the battle for gun control in the United States.

The second leading cause of mortality for people under 18 in the United States is fire-arm injuries, with motor vehicle crashes being the primary cause and cancer being the third leading cause. Yet in comparison to cancer research, which receives $355 million annually, research into firearm management and injury prevention received only 32 grants in total, equating to approximately $12 million annually. With increasing public demand for stricter gun control measures, there has been a call to promote scientific funding into research for fire-arm injury prevention.

However, to understand why funding was so scarce in the first place, we must look back to must look back to 1996 and the enactment of the Dickey Amendment by the US Congress.

The Dickey Amendment resulted from increased efforts in the 1990s to rethink gun violence as a public health issue. In 1992, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established a centre focused on research to reduce deaths and injuries from violence. Inevitably, this sparked a conversation about gun control, with, for example, studies determining gun ownership in a home to be a risk factor for homicide. As a result, organisations such as the National Rifle Association began lobbying against the CDC’s research, and their effort ultimately culminated in the addition of the Dickey Amendment to the 1996 spending bill stating: “[n]one of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” Funding for gun control research thus became essentially non-existent, and no scientists were disposed to risk their careers to find out what the limits of this amendment were. In subsequent years, efforts were made to remove the amendment from the yearly spending bill. Only in 2020 did the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) receive $25 million for the next fiscal year to fund research related to gun control and violence.

Photo by Ryoji Iwata from Unsplash

31 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door Research institutions that serve as a link between the scientific and the political world can influence who has the resources to conduct scientific research. These can include organisations like the NIH in the US or research councils in the UK, which assess grant proposals and distribute funding. In 2023, a study conducted by the Yale School of Medicine set out to investigate funding patterns of the NIH in hopes of uncovering the existence of any gender and race disparities leading to unequal resource distribution. The researchers evaluated the demographic parameters of principal investigators (PIs) who obtained three or more research grants between 1991–2020. In 2020, out of 34,000 researchers, they established that 4,000 (11.3%) held three or more grants, representing $1.4 million per grantee. This “super-PI” (SPI) group tripled in number since 1991 when around 3.7% of the investigators held multiple research grants. However, this was not due to an increase in overall funding.

Instead, already wealthy labs obtained more money, contributing to a concentration of funds to a specific number of institutions.

“What effect does this have on scientific research?

Well, homogeneity, be it in the research force or in the sample size, has never been beneficial for scientific innovation.”

Furthermore, a substantial gender and race disparity was determined in the SPIs group.

Indeed, within the SPIs, white and Asian men were most likely to belong to this group – out of the 4,000 researchers in the SPI group, 13.1% were white men and 14.4% were Asian men. Overall, Black researchers made up 1.8% of the 34,000 investigators, and only 0.9% held SPI status. Most surprisingly, out of the 4,000 researchers holding three or more research grants, only 12 were Black women. With this information, it was concluded that women and Black researchers were less likely than men and white researchers to be SPIs, with Black women being 71% less likely to attain three or more grants in comparison to white men. What effect does this have on scientific research? Homogeneity, be it in the research force or in the sample size, has never been beneficial to scientific innovation. This type of homogeneity is also observed in clinical trials, where predominantly white men are represented. This not only affects the type of treatment delivered to the patients but also the level of trust the general public has in scientific research. Ultimately, diversifying grant committees and study sections would ensure equal distribution of resources and funds to ascertain that scientific innovation becomes inclusive too.

Undoubtedly, the examples discussed throughout this article only represent a small scale of connections between science and politics. The relationship between these two areas is unsurprisingly deeper and more intricate than what has been briefly discussed here. It has become clear that science has to rely on politics to innovate and, at the end of the day, to survive.

Indeed, this is quite a bleak outlook and can make the relationship seem strained and one-sided.

However, when politicians utilise and implement scientific expertise in policy making, it can bring about impactful change in our society. The interdependence between science and politics is by no means a negative one – both need each other and should ultimately use one another to impact the world positively.

Photo by National Cancer Institute from Unsplash 32 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Nathalie Canteli Kuehnel (she/her) is a fourth-year Pharmacology Honours student.

The Scientist Next Door

The chill sets in International collaboration has been a cause of triumph for scientists for decades, but in science, as in politics, a new Iron Curtain is slowly descending. Mika Kontiainen investigates.

“S

cience knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world.”

These words of Louis Pasteur, the pioneer of microbiology, have long been a rallying cry for science unconstrained by artificial borders.

For decades, science has stood as a beacon of global progress, its practitioners setting aside their political and ideological affiliations in pursuit of a common goal – the betterment of society. Yet until the early 1990s, the global research landscape was largely dominated by a handful of rich Western countries, notably the United States.

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, a confluence of factors ranging from the emergence of the internet to increased global mobility, have led to a diversification of research efforts and a boom in cross-border collaboration the world over. While just under 2% of research papers published in 1970 featured authors from more than one country, in 2018 more than 22% of all articles indexed in Elsevier’s Scopus database were international collaborations. The rise of open science in the form of preprint servers and remote collaboration tools, such as Zoom, have all but erased national boundaries for research.

Internationally co-authored papers also carry a citation premium, with scientifically peripheral countries benefiting most from collaboration with internationally recognised centres.

The growth of international research collaboration has charted a strikingly similar path across different disciplines. In a 2016 study of seven distinct fields, Mario Coccia of Arizona State University and Lili Wang of the United Nations University found a convergence of collaboration patterns between basic and applied strands of research since the 1970s. While fields of basic research characterised by large experimental collaborations, such as astronomy and physics, continue to top the charts, more applied disciplines with potentially commercial motivations, such as engineering and biology, are following closely behind.

Despite the long list of successes, modern science is hardly indifferent to geopolitical tensions. Starting with the Russian annexation of Crimea and subsequently accelerated by the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, a new Iron Curtain has begun to descend between Russia and the NATO-affiliated countries of the West. The Cold War arms race established science as a political tool. Accordingly, among the first casualties of the latest cooling of relations, arctic research collaboration between the United States and Russia was swiftly put on ice following the “special military operation” in February 2022. Whereas during the Cold War the dissemination of results itself was curtailed, the new Iron Curtain may manifest through the fragmentation of funding regimes and collaboration networks instead.

A collage of photographs obtained from Unsplash. From top down: Hansjörg Keller (chairs), CHUTTERSNAP (crowd), National Cancer Institute (scientists), Edoardo Ceriani (stop the war), Gayatri Malhotra (black and white crowd), @lilysphotography (Berlin wall).

33 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door Relations with Russia are not the only ones impacted by the new Iron Curtain. Although eschewing downright conflict, China’s coercive policies abroad have led to its designation as a “systemic rival” by the European Union. With the emergence of China as a scientific superpower, Western universities have been urged to weigh the risks of international cooperation. Following a 2019 NATO report identifying the Chinese technology giant Huawei as a security risk, the company has been banned from providing critical 5G infrastructure to much of the West. At the same time, Huawei continues to fund basic research. Last year, a report by the London-based think tank Civitas exposed the dependence of UK universities on Chinese funding, with 46 universities having received between £122–£156 million from Chinese sources, including Huawei, between 2017 and 2022/23. Rather than a triumph of international collaboration, these foreign investments risk contributing to the development of dual-use technologies with both military and civilian applications, such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing, under the guise of basic research.

On its own turf, China has begun the repatriation of talent to serve national needs and the agenda of the Chinese Communist Party. According to research led by Zhenyue Zhao of Nanjing University, while the repatriation into China doubles the returning researchers’ output rate, it also reduces their chances of publishing in the four top journals: Nature, Science, Cell, and PNAS. These publication patterns of individual researchers reflect a more general trend. Despite China overtaking the United States in overall research output in 2019, the US retains the top spot as the leading scientific superpower due to higher impact factor research and established collaboration networks. The rate of international collaboration in China has also lagged far behind the West, with just 27% of all publications between 2017 and 2020 being co-authored with international collaborators, compared to 43% in the US and 66% in the UK.

“Under 2% of research papers published in 1970 featured authors from more than one country.”

The cooling of relations is borne out by data. In contrast to a previous trend of 10% annual growth, the growth in US-China collaboration stalled in 2019. According to research by Keisuke Okamura at the University of Tokyo, not only has the growth stalled, however – it has gone into reverse. Using data of 15 natural science disciplines from the OpenAlex bibliometrics platform, Okamura examined how the “affinity,” a measure of collaboration between a pair of countries, has evolved over time. His findings suggest a “chilling effect” is taking hold, with fields critical to national security, such as nuclear engineering, showing the sharpest fall.

This may be traced back to Trump-era guidelines, such as the China Initiative launched by the Department of Justice to prevent “theft of US intellectual property by the Chinese government,” which was later scrapped by the Biden administration.

Such growing rifts, whether due to protectionist policies or the increasing self-sufficiency of domestic research networks, do not negate the progress made in international research collaboration over the past decades. While geopolitics defines the scaffolding around which modern science is built, the necessity of a coordinated response to global challenges – from climate change to pandemics – is becoming ever more apparent. Many of the initial fears about the new Iron Curtain have also not materialised: Russia, for instance, has committed to supporting research operations aboard the International Space Station through 2028, despite threats of its immediate departure from the programme. Although both institutions and individual scientists may be forced to exercise greater caution going forward, hope remains for Pasteur’s ideal – the triumph of scientific collaboration over geopolitical divisions.

Mika Kontiainen (he/him) is a fifth-year MPhys Astrophysics student and the head copy editor of the EUSci magazine.

34 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

A scientist walks into a bar…

Illustration by Colleen He

A

jar of preserved sheep’s ovaries and an interpretive dance demonstrating how sperm swim wouldn’t normally accompany a cold, crisp pint of Tennent’s. But I encountered both of these one Tuesday night in an Edinburgh pub last May, alongside a rather unsettling analogy comparing the structure of testicles to spaghetti bolognese.

I was one of over 15,000 audience members at pubs across 41 cities in the UK alone, attending Pint of Science, a festival bringing scientists out of the lab to give fun, informal talks in pubs, cafes, and community centres worldwide. The aim is to demystify science in a non-pretentious environment where researchers can have faceto-face conversations with members of the public.

Katie Pickup shares how Pint of Science not only brings science to the public but also serves as a vital space for scientists to cross disciplines, spark collaborations, and explore new skills in a relaxed and laughterfilled setting.

The festival is now in its 11th year, taking place in over 500 cities across 25 countries.

It is predominantly run by volunteers, usually made up of university researchers, who are in charge of booking venues, choosing themes, and selecting speakers.

The idea grew from a patient engagement initiative at Imperial College London. Back in 2013, Pint of Science co-founders Dr Praveen Paul and Dr Michael Motskin were researching neurodegeneration and decided it was important to meet the people affected by the conditions they were working on.

They ended up inviting around 100 patients to their lab to meet researchers, tour the building, and get a flavour for how the scientific process works. “It was really such an eye opener for us as scientists

to make that connection with people, and also [for them] to come and visit us,” Praveen says, “it’s really important to show that scientists – we’re all just people at the end of the day.”

This visit inspired a project that grew and grew. “We thought okay, people are actually interested in coming to see us in our ‘native environment’ of a lab, why don’t we take this out to them?” From this, Pint of Science was born. It took off dramatically, hitting international pubs in just its second year – made all the more impressive by the fact that Praveen and her co-founders had next to no public engagement experience at first. The festival runs annually during three days in May, with each participating pub hosting a particular area of science 35 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

,

The Scientist Next Door

“At Pint of Science, the stakes are low and often anything that doesn’t quite work will just end in laughter from the speaker and audience together – much less soul-destroying than a failed laboratory experiment." inspired by the genre-themed stages at music festivals.

While engaging non-scientists and humanising the role of the researcher is a key goal of Pint of Science, its value to scientists is just as integral. Praveen does not shy away from the fact that the festival has a massive appeal to researchers, both in their professional development and general interest. As soon as they began organising Pint of Science, it became immediately apparent to Praveen and her team that scientists can often be clueless about other disciplines outside of their own field. “We also didn’t know what people in our department were doing, or the rest of the university… we couldn’t really admit that we don’t actually understand what anyone else is talking about – there’s this assumption that we’ve all got a certain level of understanding, but we don’t, it’s just so niche.” The informal environment of Pint provides a unique opportunity for researchers, as well as the public, to ask the questions that might feel too silly in other contexts. As Praveen points out, in most professional settings scientists feel they “can’t always turn around to someone and say, ‘look, I don't actually know what a gene is.’”

When researchers are bogged down in the details of their day-to-day work, there aren’t often opportunities to learn about the science going on next door in other departments.

This crosstalk is incredibly beneficial, not only for scientists’ general interest, but for their research.

Praveen explains, “because we are bringing people from across the universities and mixing disciplines, sometimes we’ve had collaborations where a physicist has collaborated with a biologist through Pint of Science”.

Even other audience members have managed to spark partnerships by suggesting techniques they’d seen in a talk the previous night. Scientists have as much to gain from the festival as the public. This is part of the design of Pint of Science and a key reason for much of its success over the last decade.

Praveen is well aware that the festival couldn't run without its volunteer scientist speakers and event organisers, and emphasises that another main goal is to help researchers develop new skills.

“We really want to give ownership to everyone that’s organising the events to say ‘look, what I really fancy is trying out this, experimenting with this,’” she explains, and stresses that the informal pub or café environment is the perfect place to feel comfortable with this. At Pint of Science, the stakes are low and often anything that doesn’t quite work will just end in laughter from the speaker and audience together – much less soul-destroying than a failed laboratory experiment.

Praveen is a keen advocate for trying something new, “I think putting yourself outside of your comfort zone is really good… Pint of Science is a great platform to work out what skills you like using”.

This philosophy has clearly paid off for her: since setting up a science festival with minimal prior experience of public engagement, Pint of Science has been a massive global success and Praveen now works as its full-time director.

There are clearly strong incentives for scientists to participate in events like these – both as attendees and organisers. Often science communication is, rightly, focused on the impact made on non-scientific audiences – of course, making science more transparent and accessible is crucial for many reasons. But it’s also okay to acknowledge that sometimes there is as much in it for scientists as there is for the public – even if it’s simply the chance to nerd out over the reasons you were captivated by science in the first place.

Pint of Science is running this year from 13-15th May across Edinburgh. There will be talks in pubs across the city ranging from environmental science to space, chemistry, biomedicine, and psychology. Find out more at https://pintofscience.co.uk/. There will be opportunities to be involved in organising next year’s events for students and researchers at the University.

Katie Pickup (she/her) is a PhD student in Genetics and Molecular Medicine and one of the hosts of EUSci’s “Not Another Science Podcast”.

36 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

Embarking on Citizen Science: An introductory dive

C

itizen science is a concept that opens the doors of science for everybody in society. It allows voluntary public participation in scientific research projects run by professional scientists. In this context, "public" refers to nonscientists and individuals who pursue scientific activities outside of their professional career. Their participation may include data collection, methods, or analysis of a research activity that follows a given protocol. They are not research subjects and are aware of the effect of their contribution to the experiment. Like any other scientist, they contribute to the larger goal of enhancing existing knowledge of certain research topics which are of high relevance to society.

bird migration and its ecology. The significance of citizen science relies on the large quantity of data that can be collected over extended periods of time. Large datasets are preferred in science as it accounts for all sorts of biological variability that may drive a particular result.

This provides more accurate average data points, thereby increasing the quality of the research output.

Citizen science today offers a two-way street: volunteers obtain valuable educational experiences, while project designers benefit by having access to larger data sets. It also ensures timely progress by utilising a bigger workforce. As emphasised by sociologist Alan Irwin, citizen science endeavours should align with the concerns and needs of the public, fostering an integrative society where citizens actively contribute to scientific Examples of citizen science could be dated back to knowledge production. the 17th century when Edmund Halley prompted observers from all over England to record the total Currently, numerous organisations in the UK employ solar eclipse through the prominent science journal citizen science programmes to facilitate diverse data Philosophical Transactions. Charles Darwin in the collection efforts in scientific and environmental fields.

18th century used natural history magazines to As technology has advanced, participating in citizen obtain creature surveys from over 2,000 science has become more accessible, thanks to correspondents to support his theories on organisations developing apps that assist participants in evolution. Across the oceans, ornithologist Wells W. recording scientific data. The UK Centre for Ecology and Cooke requested bird enthusiasts to collect Hydrology conducts a broad range of projects that information on bird migration in 1880. This has now comprise citizen scientist volunteers. For example, they developed into the government-run North record toxic algal blooms (Bloomin’ Algae), pollution American Bird Phenology Program. Although levels in select predatory and fish-eating birds participation declined by 1970, the programme was (Predatory Bird Monitoring Scheme), and wild plant left with migration data spanning 90 years that aids species across the UK to understand their abundance in understanding the effects of climate change on 37 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Illustration by Ewa Ozga

Vanthanaa Sridhar explores the significance of citizen science in bridging the gap between science and society, fostering collaboration, and promoting scientific literacy among the public.

The Scientist Next Door

Illustration by Ewa Ozga

“Citizen Science today offers a two-way street: volunteers obtain valuable educational experiences, while project designers benefit by having access to larger data sets.”

and diversity (National Plant Monitoring Scheme).

Nature Scot also engages in similar work via animal and plant surveys to understand and preserve biodiversity, such as BTO Garden BirdWatch, Plant Alert, and Mammal Web. Additional organisations engaged in citizen science programs focusing on ecology in the UK include the British Ecological Society and The Wildlife Trusts.

Citizen science projects were also launched for the specific purpose of contributing to the progress of disease research in the UK. Cancer Research UK launched a few projects such as Cell Slider and Trailblazer which involve public participants in identifying cancer cells from a given cell or tissue sample via an app after undertaking tutorials required for correct analysis. These samples were donated by cancer patients who had participated in clinical trials to contribute to future research. The projects received high participation with result accuracy levels that matched 90% of the institute’s scientists.

E.O.

Citizen science projects can also extend beyond ecology and healthcare. The GROW observatory, led by the University of Dundee and the James Hutton Institute, addresses issues of agricultural significance and food security, as it aims to measure soil moisture levels across wide geographical landscapes. Another example is the river litter dataset collection program run by Keep Scotland Beautiful, which aims to get rid of marine litter by first identifying its distribution across Scotland’s scenic water bodies.

Moving forward, it is apparent that fostering education and learning opportunities through citizen science will be of growing significance. The UCL Citizen Science Academy aims to pioneer a hands-on teaching approach to educate individuals on research methodologies, with a focus on its application in local decision-making and policymaking. This strategy effectively integrates scientific thinking into society.

Some projects may be specifically designed for citizen science learning, adapted or repurposed for educational purposes, or solely utilised for learning without broader applications. The Natural History Museum offers several programmes to educate school students. Another illustration is the GLOBE program conducted by NASA, which utilises citizen science to enhance scientific education and knowledge-sharing among students, citizens, and teachers. Evidently, public participation in citizen science projects continues to increase, indicating that further analysis of its overall design and structure might be required to ensure successful and reliable data generation in the future. Its implications on more pressing issues such as policy-making and public awareness will also need to be pursued in a pragmatic fashion.

Vanthanaa Sridhar is a Synthetic Biology master’s student at the University of Edinburgh who enjoys exploring farmers’ markets, listening to music, and, of course, reading about synthetic biology.

38 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

Home Diagnostics and Health Monitoring: A rising trend in 2024 Luna Wang explores the transformative era of home diagnostics, unveiling the potential benefits and concerns surrounding self-monitoring technologies.

more patients were diagnosed with bowel cancer in the emergency setting than the year before (36% vs 28.6%). Meanwhile, junior doctors, underpaid and stretched to their limit, continue take strike action across the country. Following periods of restrictions, lockdowns and strained healthcare resources during the pandemic, individuals are increasingly taking charge of their well-being through home diagnostics and health monitoring. Advances in home diagnostic technologies, in part driven by the demand for Covid19 home testing kits, have paved the way for the development of user-friendly devices that enable health assessments at home.

Consider the following scenario: Mona, a university student in a new city, faces challenges in scheduling regular appointments with her new GP due to her busy schedule and limited availability. She has a few minor health concerns that bother her slightly, but they’re not severe enough for her to take time out of her schedule to attend GP appointments. Opting for a home test kit instead, she finds relief in its convenience and prompt results. With the kit’s arrival and straightforward instructions, Mona can easily collect her samples and send them back for analysis, receiving her results within days. This accessibility, accelerated by the pandemic, benefits both consumers and healthcare providers by minimising clinic costs.

However, convenience and cost-effectiveness certainly are not the only reasons why selfmonitoring at home may be preferable. Recent research from the University of Oxford highlights the benefits of self-monitoring, particularly for conditions like high blood pressure in new mothers.

Illustration by Apple Chew

A

round 35,000 patients wait for 12 hours on hospital trolleys every month in England.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, significantly

Those who monitored their blood pressure via smartphone apps experienced lower risks of heart complications. This may be because participants who self-monitored were able to receive more timely remote guidance on medication dosing. As one participant notes, “I submitted my readings in the app and the researchers were able to adjust my medication accordingly. Rather than me having to call my GP surgery or make an appointment, I could send a quick e-message asking them to make the change which had already been added to my medical records by the researchers.”

In addition to diagnostics and medication, selfmonitoring strategies can also be used as persuasive interventions for improving daily health habits, including healthy eating and change of risky alcohol consumption behaviours. Studies into this domain have found that those who selfmonitor display an increase in “awareness, curiosity, and consciousness” and can “reveal problematic behaviours which can tangibly be changed and are very much in control of the individual – inspiring accountability.”

39 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door While the increase in home diagnostics presents numerous benefits, concerns arise regarding individuals' ability to navigate health information effectively. As a result, one might wonder how much people can be trusted with the power of regulating their own health and in making appropriate decisions.

These decisions will be affected by where they tend to get their information from, and whether this information is reliable.

A young student like Mona is likely to spend a lot of time on social media – platforms that are rife with both useful resources and potential sources of (health) misinformation. There is plenty of evidence that social media plays an important role in people’s risk perceptions during infectious outbreaks and in determining their subsequent behaviour. In general, study results suggest that those with higher education and income, and a higher degree of health literacy, tend to make more accurate judgments about health (mis)information they see online. These individuals are also more likely to be more proactive about taking preventative and protective measures when they perceive risks.

Perhaps this suggests that self-monitoring and home diagnostic regimes should remain optional (on top of traditional healthcare services) rather than becoming the default. This way, those who feel prepared to take a more proactive role in regulating their own health can opt for self-monitoring, while those who feel less prepared or may be easily misinformed can access the traditional services. However, this leads to two concerns.

This second concern is also related to this gradualist approach. Given the benefits that home health monitoring may provide, it should not be the case that only a particular group of highly educated individuals have access to them. Efforts should be made to make these technologies available to wider populations, and they may even help combat misinformation or motivate health consciousness in the wider public – if done cautiously.

With this in mind, one concern with the widespread use of self-monitoring technologies is its potential to exacerbate health-related anxiety.

For instance, persuasive technologies in healthy eating could lead to the development of eating disorders and depression, particularly where calorie counting is involved. Similarly, diagnostic tools that provide immediate results may lead to anxiety and panic if results are undesirable. In traditional healthcare services, professionals are trained to deliver results to patients in a calm and informing manner, providing – alongside the results themselves – plenty of information about what their results mean and what to do next. They may indicate, for instance, that small fluctuations in measurement are not a cause for worry, but

First, healthcare services and GPs are often already understaffed and overworked, an issue which is expected to continue into the next decade. If the idea behind home diagnostics is to take off the pressure from traditional healthcare services, then it may seem like this proposal moves things in the wrong direction.

With that said, the suggestion may be framed as a gradualist approach to resolving staff shortages. To begin with, a portion of the (more proactive and informed population can opt for self-monitoring, while the less prepared stick to traditional services. Then, self-monitoring systems become more commonplace, more individuals can convert to self-monitoring with the support of those around them. This allows the pressures on traditional healthcare systems to be gradually relieved in a safe, risk-minimising manner.

Photo by Julia Zyablova, Unsplash

40 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door such nuances are not available in the context of home health monitoring. This is related to the problem of misinformation: in general, when diagnosis and health monitoring are moved to a home setting, it is also removed from the wider set of services and the information that usually accompanies it. To mitigate . the consequences of this reality, part of the pressure falls on the designers of home health monitoring products. Design can be a powerful tool for operationalising home health monitoring on larger scales, and ensuring that the products are accessible to a wide range of users.

“Instead, given the potential advantages of selfmonitoring, it might be more beneficial to look at how we can design and implement home health technologies so that people can indeed be trusted – and empowered – in regulating their own health.”

This includes not just the physical design of the technologies themselves but also the packaging and information included in test kits, how results are presented, the usability of accompanying software, and the availability of online resources. For example, after Mona submits her samples for the home test kit, she might be directed to a website that tells her what to expect when she receives her results. Then, when she does receive her results, this might be accompanied by online information tailored to her circumstances, including suggestions on what to do next and where to get professional advice if necessary. For self-monitoring over longer periods of time, this might look like well-designed apps that provide relevant information (or even motivating rewards!) as the person logs their results.

Designers should also have a wide range of audiences in mind when thinking about the ease of user interactions with self-monitoring systems. In addition to tech-savvy younger generations like Mona, who are used to navigating between different interfaces and apps, a large portion of home diagnostic users may consist of older generations who are less familiar with technology. Thus, designers might want to offer flexible solutions for logging results (a paper notebook in place of an app, for instance) or consider making their instructions for using techhnologies extra clear and fool-proof (by using video instructions or step-by-step guides).

Specific solutions might require additional user testing, with a particular focus on the elderly whom home health monitoring may benefit the most.

Perhaps the emphasis is that, in answering the question of how much people can be trusted with the power of regulating their own health, we shouldn’t merely conclude that individuals are insufficiently educated and therefore selfmonitoring schemes shouldn’t be used. Instead, given the potential advantages of self-monitoring, it might be more beneficial to look at how we can design and implement home health technologies so that people can indeed be trusted – and empowered – in regulating their own health. The era of home diagnostics and health monitoring offers promising opportunities for individuals to actively participate in their healthcare journey. However, as we navigate this transformative period, it is essential to maintain a balance between empowering individuals and ensuring they have access to accurate information and support.

Luna Wang is an MSc student in Mind, Language and Embodied Cognition and the head sub-editor of EUSci. 41 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

The Scientist Next Door

Anna Motýľová explores societal attitudes towards biohacking, stressing the importance of looking beyond the fear to recognise the potential benefits that these new technologies might bring.

SynBioBeta conference. The injection she gave herself contained instructions to disable the gene which limits muscle growth. Such a stunt is made possible thanks to the molecular tool CRISPR-Cas9, which simplified the requirements for performing GM to basic lab equipment, average motor skills, and a garage. Its discoverers Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2020.

Zayner’s self-experiment evokes images of ominous liquids floating around her muscle cells, CRISPR-Cas9 making its way into the nuclei and rampaging through her strings of DNA as a pair of rogue scissors. However, the cutting enzyme Cas9 is rather a careful collageist, carrying with it a guide RNA designed to tell it where exactly to cut and which letters to replace. A new version of this system called high-fidelity Cas9 makes the correct snip 85% of the time.

Illustration by Apple Chew

I

n 2017, Jo Zayner was the first person in history to perform genetic modification (GM) on themselves.

She did so in front of a live audience at that year’s

“As with many fears in society, the one around biohacking likely stems from a disconnect between people and science.”

Biohacking in its most controversial sense is genetically modifying living organisms outside of institutional laboratories.

Biohackers’ backgrounds range from professional scientists to amateur enthusiasts. What unifies them is a movement for science accessibility and regular conventions throughout the US and Europe. CRISPR-Cas9 in biohackers’ hands has so far accelerated biotechnological innovation more than any other tool before. It holds the potential to eradicate malaria for good, cure genetic blindness or muscular

42 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

dystrophy, and even control invasive mouse populations in isolated ecosystems.

This is reflected in Zayner’s motivations as well. “Though this experiment was on me, I don't want it to be only about me,” Zayner writes in her blog. “I want it to be about how this technology is inexpensive and easy to use. I want it to be about helping people use this technology to better their lives.” She then proceeds to supply a link where you can order DIY engineering kits for making plant leaves turn red or genetically modify a sample of human cells floating in liquid.

Still, society’s first reaction to biohacking was fear. The Medical Board of California put Zayner under investigation and threatened her with three years of jail and a $10,000 fine for “unlicensed practice of medicine,” although she never claimed to sell treatment or kits to be used on humans. I spoke with Keira Tucker who manages ASCUS Art & Science, Scotland’s first open-access laboratory, which runs interdisciplinary workshops for the public in central Edinburgh and allows people to experiment on their own. In her opinion, “If you're

The Scientist Next Door manipulating DNA, it doesn't mean that you're changing the species of an organism. It means that you're tweaking it to hopefully make things better. I don't see a problem with informing people about the process through simple GM kits that turn a plant red on its leaves.” Is there a degree of danger involved in biohacking?

Of course. Zayner admits in an interview with The Atlantic: “There’s no doubt in my mind that somebody is going to end up hurt eventually. Everybody is trying to one-up each other more and more.” However, I am convinced that fear and censorship is only going to make the technology more dangerous. Tucker agrees: “I don't think banning is the solution. Given the way society tends to react to things, they would be like, ‘Well, why are they banning it? It must be because they actually have an ulterior motive!’”

As with many fears in society, the one around biohacking likely stems from a disconnect between people and science. Science is often taught as following a recipe, as if it’s only worth doing if you are trying to achieve a specific outcome. ASCUS offers personalised training in the lab for non-scientists to experiment. Tucker elaborates: “The way we try to do the training is by showing the ‘hard sciency rules,’ and then I say, you’re more than welcome to break them within reason and see what happens. Most of [society’s] big discoveries were by accident, which I feel now happens less because of these rigid rules.”

Similarly, Zayner isn’t trying to sell a recipe for terror. She’s selling toys that carry biotechnological educational value for adults. Fears around biohacking may also stem from the belief that GM should only be done in institutional labs, as they are more regulated. Addressing this, Tucker notes: “Institutions have a lot of red tape. If an amateur came into their lab and then research got lost or there was an accident, questions would be raised about why that person was there. In interdisciplinary spaces like ASCUS, it is expected that there are a range of levels of expertise and knowledge, and as we do not have a dedicated research interest, we are more open to diverse experimentation.”

So what would happen if we embrace biohacking with curiosity and societal wellbeing in mind? The state of health insurance in the United States means that one in four type 1 diabetes patients try to save money by using less insulin than they need, risking kidney failure, blindness, and death. The insulin market in the US is monopolised by only three pharmaceutical companies that can therefore raise the price freely. A vial of insulin in 1996 cost $21; in November 2020 it was $350.

Fortunately, non-profits like Open Insulin, formed by a collaboration between diabetics and scientists and led by protein biochemist Dr Yann Huon de Kermadec, make insulin for $7 per vial using genetically modified bacteria and yeast. However, Open Insulin is currently facing two challenges: finding a way to sell its crowdsourced insulin without infringing on institutional patents, and creating a safe drug without access to the millions of dollars it takes to run multi-phase clinical trials. Using data analysis to compare “homebrew” and commercial insulin is an option which has already yielded positive results. GM is not yet at the stage where it can be blindly applied to everything.

Nevertheless, people shouldn’t be spreading fear around it. At the very least, curiosity and conversation in society can put pressure on large companies.

“So what would happen if we embrace biohacking with curiosity and societal wellbeing in mind?”

This may have been the reason for President Joe Biden’s successful appeal to cap insulin price at $35 a vial last January. Tucker summarises my thoughts perfectly: “Genetic modification, in my opinion, was never to be used for ulterior bad motives; it was always to make things better.

Drought-resistant and high-yield crops, or genetically modified bacteria that can produce tons of insulin, so that we don't have to use pigs or cattle – that was the intent.” There already exist plenty of success stories of biohacking bringing more equality and innovation to the world of science. This demonstrates its potential to remain as a tool of positive change. We have to refuse to be chained by fear and use collaborative explorations to stay on track towards a brighter future.

Anna Motylova is a 4th year Ecology student and the Online Editor for EUSci.

43 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Tangents

Crossword DOWN 1. type of subatomic particle, one of which was discovered in 2012 at CERN 2. enzyme which breaks down fats 3. physicist famous for their quantum thought experiment 7. type of vaccine first approved for use in 2020 9. abbreviated unit of electrical current 10. chemical element with symbol Ag 12. disease affecting the pancreas 13. disease-causing microorganism 15. the product of current and resistance according to Ohm’s law 17. animal involved in thought experiment of 3 down

across 4. the shape of DNA is a double ___ 5. a cauliflower-like cloud 6. aurora ___, lights seen in the southern hemisphere 8. ancient ancestors of modern birds 11. only British woman to receive a science Nobel prize 13. giant ___, animal recently departed from Edinburgh zoo 14. the variety and variability of life on earth 16. the opposite of an anion 18. planet named after the roman god of the sea

Sudoku (Easy)

44 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Sudoku (Difficult)

Meet EUSci President

Co-editors in Chief

Head copy editor

ELENA & SARA

MIKA

Marketing officers

Copy editor

Colleen & Amy

KAREN

Art editor

Juda Head sub editor

LUNA Online editors

elizabeth

KUBA

Layout editors Sub editor

Website manager

& ANNA

MAUREEN

& Angel

RASHI

Podcast manager

TRACY

Aikaterini

Outreach director

KELSEY & KATIE Secretary

Co-treasurer

TAMSIN

& SKYLER

Sonia

Co-treasurer

Podcast co-hosts

Anthea

Social secretary

SciencEd is written, edited and illustrated by volunteers. In this issue: Writers: Simar Mann, Elena Hein, Clare McDonald, Ellie Dempsey, Sara Teles, Kaela Albert, Heather McEwan, Juda Milvidaite, Kája Kubičková, Katie Pickup, Faidra Batsaki, Nathalie Canteli Kuehnel, Mika Kontiainen, Anshika Gupta, Vanthanaa Sridhar, Luna Wang, Anna Motýľová.

Editors: Muminah Koleoso, Patricia Manarang, Kaja Kubickova, Jolina James, Clare McDonald, Ella Agnew, Katie Fish, Vanesa Magar, Emma Walsh, Thomas Rhys Clarke, Kevin Boyle, Nishwal Gora, Elspeth Horrocks, Sraddheya Gurung, Gabrielle Jawer, Beth McGregor, Isabella Yeo Frank..

Illustrators: Ewa Ozga, Stevie Hope, Allison Quinlan, Muminah Koleoso, Apple Chew, Kate Louise Powell,, Colleen He, Prerna Vohra, All articles were reviewed and edited by Elena Hein, Sara Teles, Mika Kontiainen, Karen Leung, Luna Wang and Rashi Krishna.

Layout and art editing was done by Juda Milvidaite, Angel Loi and Elizabeth Carmichael.

Where photographs, illustrations or collages have been uncredited, they were crafted by Art editor Juda..

45 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Listen to articles!

Join our mailing list to stay up to date with the latest opportunities!

Get Involved!

Our community is open to anyone – you don’t have to be a science student (or even a student at all) to join us as a writer, editor or illustrator.

Let us showcase and publish your art and your work.

Head to our website or social media channels to find out more.

eusci.org.uk

EUSci

euscimedia

EUSci

46 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

Join our hosts as they talk to staff and students about all of the fascinating research and projects happening around Scotland!

the latest episodes: Cover art by Elizabeth Carmichael 47 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

eusci.org.uk

euscimedia EUSci EUSci