“That’s absolute rubbish!” The reaction to my short monologue is better than I had hoped for. I just argued that ‘The Dodo Game’ is an example of sensible, question-raising and objective science communication.
The movie has just had its premiere at the Genomics Researchers Event 2007, and the response of the man on the front row sets the tone for the rest of the debate.

Too negative

I look around the room, and recognise some people. On the front row is Jan Vink, the ‘Dodo director’. Many fellow Ph.D. students are present and raise their hands to indicate that they want to contribute. The man on the front row does not wait for the moderator to make a choice. From his arguments I can tell he represents industry. “Too negative,” was his first reaction to ‘The Dodo Game’, and many spectators agree. Question is what it does to high school students and public television audiences – the primary target groups. “The movie has not made me oppose the use of biotechnology, it has just made me think,” says the man who is probably the only layman in the room. Mission completed, is what Jan Vink must have thought.

Question jerker

The documentary – to be distributed with a complete package of additional information and websites – represents a new way of science communication. Of course, the format of a movie is somewhat old-fashioned, and yes, distribution channels may be dubious, but besides teaching people, it also makes them wonder. Take for example Igor Potrykus – the German discoverer of Golden Rice – who shares in front of the camera how his career got ruined by commercial interests. Is he a victim of the advances in DNA technology, or should he be held responsible too? ‘The Dodo Game’ does not take a stand; it simply raises the question.

Be human

Scientists have difficulties with discussions that go beyond scientific reasoning and involve emotions. However, the arguments of most citizens are largely based on emotion. Maybe it is time for us scientists to give up the teaching mode in public debates? And shouldn’t organisers of debates, science cafes and other public meetings think of a better format that enables such a transformation? “Scientific programs can be ignorance-driven,” said Ronald Plasterk in his opening speech at the GRE 2007. Therefore, scientists, show your ignorance in future public debates. Dare to be vulnerable, and start being human.

[Terry Vrijenhoek, Ph.D. student at Radboud UMC Nijmegen, chairman of GeNeYouS]