Viewpoint pubs.acs.org/acsmedchemlett
Communicating Our Science to Our Customers: The Vital Role of Passionate Public Advocacy Allan M. Jordan*,† and Richard P. Grant‡ †
Drug Discovery Unit, Cancer Research UK Manchester Institute, University of Manchester, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, U.K. ‡ Remedica, 5-6 Underhill Street, London NW1 7HS, U.K. ABSTRACT: As scientists, we are comfortable communicating our work to our peers. However, communicating with equal passion to those outside our field is something we as a community often shy away from. This reticence has often been exploited by those wishing to present their own view of the science we practice. Herein, we urge the scientific community to actively reengage with the general public, openly and creatively sharing our endeavors beyond these pages, in order to reconnect with the real consumers of the work we produce.
I
excitement seem to falter? Engage passionately and gregariously, openly and honestly, on the open stage, with the wider community? The “general public”, no less? Surely not! This reticence presents us all with a growing problem. Because if we, as a community, are not willing to engage, to communicate, to explain the work we undertake−and in ways that people who have not spent a lifetime studying the minutiae of SN2 reactions will understand−then others will fill that basic human desire for knowledge, for learning. And their messages are not always ones we find ourselves entirely comfortable with. While the public may not have the depth of technical knowledge that we have worked hard to gain, this in no way decreases the general thirst for knowledge, the desire on the part of ordinary folk to understand the world. It certainly does not negate or lessen the need to have their concerns listened to and acknowledged. Such a need is perhaps nowhere more evident than the ongoing debates around climate change and, of more relevance to this particular audience, the development of new medicines. Concerns around cost, safety, and efficacy abound. Confusion around how drugs are actually discovered and developed leads to embedded misconceptions and mistrust. Hearsay and rumor become taken as fact. In addition, the overenthusiastic and unchallenged reporting of scientific progress by the media−not always helped, it has to be admitted, by scientists themselves−leads to a growing sense of disappointment as, time and time again, we fail to deliver upon much-vaunted miracle cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, and the rest. And in the absence of vocal, credible, and compassionate contributors from the expert community− scientists prepared to clarify, explain, and describe the reality of their work, again and again, to an eager but confused and uncertain audience−the door is left wide open for the promotion of the rather dubious and misleading claims we all deride. We do not believe that the general public is antiscience per se, but nobody wants to be preached at, or to feel belittled by
n addition to his pre-eminent roles of physicist and mathematician, Sir Isaac Newton was a prolific writer and communicator across a number of disciplines: from optics and mechanics to theology and matters of the UK Treasury. He also communicated at length through letters to his friends, peers, and rivals. Perhaps his most quoted letter is the one written in 1676 to Robert Hooke, his collaborator, rival, and occasional antagonist. In this letter he set his and Hooke’s work in context. He famously wrote of his own achievements “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the sholders [sic] of Giants”. This statement fundamentally captures the essence of scientific method and progress−the discovery and dispersal of scientific endeavor and knowledge, its open discussion, debate, and challenge, to facilitate progress and further discovery and understanding. This indeed is the raison d’être of the journal− along with many others−you are now reading. Scientific journals are dedicated to the pursuit of these ideals−the tenet that open sharing of discovery, through hypothesis, experimentation, and discovery, is vital for the progression of our art. However, in our experiences, medicinal chemists tend to be rather introverted when it comes to the matter of communication. While chemists are comfortable in our own environment, we hesitate to stray into the limelight to describe and explain our endeavors to those outside our own environs. This is not to say we do not enjoy disseminating the fruits of our labors−of course we are excited and delighted to speak at conferences, explaining the subtle nuances of our latest research. Submitting our latest manuscript for review brings a sense of satisfaction. We are more than happy to contemplate and debate at length the exact mechanism of a particularly interesting or unexpected chemical transformation. We are always willing to argue the value of the latest and greatest efficiency metric, or whether that particular intramolecular interaction outweighs this specific desolvation penalty, etc. Discussion with peers is our lifeblood, as it integrates us ever further with our community of like-minded individuals. But beyond that? What about outside the protective walls of the laboratory or the conference hall? Beyond the poster session or teaching room? Does not our confidence and © XXXX American Chemical Society
A
DOI: 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.6b00401 ACS Med. Chem. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters
Viewpoint
Those, in fact, who have the most to gain from what we disclose in these pages. Those who, ultimately, are the hungriest and most desperate to learn of the advances we report. We stand on the shoulders of giants. We urge the readership to use those shoulders as a platform to educate, inform, and entertain those for whom our work is considerably more than a purely academic or scientific endeavor. Surely, more than anyone else, they deserve to be part of our adventure.
experts who struggle to engage with a less technical audience on an accessible level. It is often too easy for us as a community to hide behind the complexity of the science we do as a reason to not adequately describe the constraints and challenges we face in bringing medicines to market, and the implications and consequences these factors have on cost, clinical attrition, and the wider availability of groundbreaking new medicines. Experience with the wider patient community clearly shows a strong personal desire to learn, to understand, and to engage with those striving every day to enhance their quality of life. They want to intimately understand why we take so long to deliver medicines, why the resultant drugs are so expensive and why, with the advent of personalized medicine and targeted therapeutics, they are seemingly being denied access to efficacious and life-saving treatments. In the absence of credible and accessible answers around topics such as pharmaceutical regulation and stem cell research, it becomes all too easy for those perhaps more skeptical or cynical about the motives of our industry to fill that gap in a convincing and seemingly logical manner. Moreover, once entrenched, it becomes increasingly difficult to challenge such opinions and present a more honest and balanced argument. However, all is not lost. Within the community we are fortunate to have strong advocates of open, credible, and accessible scientific communication, who will challenge these cynical and mis-represented “facts” with an honesty we ourselves might find brutal and uncomfortable. Such passionate advocacy is necessary to redress the balance and provide clear counterpoint to the opinions that we equally passionately berate and deride from the fume hoods and lab benches− opinions such as those that promote the pseudoscience of “chemical free” products, of statistically meaningless or insignificant “facts”, of misleading representations of data. Many readers know of the excellent “In the Pipeline” blog by Derek Lowe, which robustly challenges misinformation across the industry in a forthright, logical and (importantly) credible, informed and honest manner. Critically, Lowe takes time to explain the vast tract of things we just do not know, challenging the common assertion that we’ve got everything nicely worked out already. Lowe, and those like him, challenge and inform opinion, but importantly, they also engage and entertain their audience, presenting scientific opinion in a way the wider public can access and believe. While this often feels uncomfortable to us on the inside, even contradicting how we were taught to represent our science, it allows us to reconnect with our customers. To reach out, to listen and understand their worries and misconceptions, and to explain what we do on their terms, and on their territory. To step outside the world of the lab and reach out to people where they feel comfortable. Addressing their fears and offering informed opinion, not belittling their misunderstandings, nor bludgeoning them with facts and our “expert view”. We urge and encourage the audience to follow this lead and to engage more widely with the general population. To exploit the opportunities provided by learned societies such as the American Chemical Society, to develop and hone skills in delivering engaging, accurate and personable research communication. To move beyond the safe, comfortable pages of this (or any other) journal and to meet “real” people. Not the editors and reviewers, not our peers, but the real “end-users” of our work−those who stand to benefit from the fantastic, incredible, challenging endeavors we undertake on a daily basis.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A.M.J. is funded by Cancer Research UK (Grant numbers C480/A11411 and C5759/A17098). The opinions expressed in this viewpoint are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Manchester, Cancer Research UK or Remedica Medical Education and Publishing.
B
DOI: 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.6b00401 ACS Med. Chem. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
