Professor Anne Ferguson-Smith

Image Courtesy of Anne Ferguson-Smith

"Click here to listen to the full podcast episode"

All of the new findings that Laurence and I were discussing came out of a large survey of over 2000 adults in the UK, asking questions about their attitudes and understanding of genetics, and science more broadly.

What’s unusual for this kind of research is that it was commissioned by The Genetics Society itself, which as listeners of this podcast will know, is one of the oldest learned societies dedicated to promoting research, training, teaching and public engagement in all areas of genetics. Professor Anne Ferguson-Smith is the current president of The Genetics Society, as well as being the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and the Arthur Balfour Professor of Genetics at the University of Cambridge.  She’s clearly a very busy person, but thankfully she had some time to chat with me about why it was important for the Genetics Society to conduct their own research on the public understanding of genetics, and what it means for the society going forward.

Sally: Why did the society choose to do this research? Because I don't know if it's a common thing. Do learned societies normally commission their own research?

Anne: No. So actually it was a new thing for us and we did it because we've become quite interested in how the public think about Genetics as a discipline and how we contribute to engaging with the public.

Anne: There's a lot of information out there now and our access to that information and its relevance in particular during the pandemic, really, I think, engaged people and was utilised by people as they tried to understand more about the pandemic. So we thought that it was actually timely to really reach out and see what was going on out there in the public, what they were thinking about, how much they knew, how much they didn't know, how much they thought they knew and did, and how much they thought they knew and didn't.

Sally: Why is it important for the society to do research like this? Should more learned societies be conducting research?

Anne: I mean, I think that's a really good question and I suspect that if you had asked our society 10 years ago about whether this was their role, the answer might have been different actually.

Anne: I think we are increasingly wanting to reach out and bring into science people who might not have thought that science was for them in the past. And we are natural enthusiasts, we're highly motivated, we think this stuff is great. And when we talk to people about it, scientists and non-scientists, they think it's great too actually.

Anne: So, we really should not underestimate how much the public is interested in this, and this is not, you know, trying to encourage the public to do high level research in this space. Genetics is something that touches all kinds of aspects of society today, and people with some understanding of Genetics can bring it to a wide range of disciplines and jobs and careers and their own personal lives.

Anne: Educating people on Genetics is not just for a careeer in Genetics, and I think that all people in all walks of life can understand and apply Genetics in a range of contexts.

Sally: I mean, there were so many findings from the survey that you did that I suppose the two that I would pick out is that one, actually, people are really interested in Genetics, especially now since the pandemic, but just generally a lot of people are interested in hearing about Genetics. But also there is this small minority of people who think they know about Genetics, have negative attitudes towards it, but it turns out that actually maybe they don't quite have the science factually correct.

Sally: How do you think going forward, members of the society, so people who are themselves geneticists, how do you think they should take on board these findings?

Anne: So first of all, Genetics is a compelling subject because actually it's very personal. You look to yourself and your family to learn more about yourself and your family, both in this generation and in subsequent generation, so it invokes a natural curiosity.

Anne: In terms of the small number of people who are very confident that they know things or they think they know things and they actually don't, that was very interesting for us. As you know, that was one of the key findings of the paper. And of course many of those people have strong views about what they know and communicate those on social media, and elsewhere, take anti-vaxxers for example.

Anne: So I think that really we have a responsibility as geneticists to help provide evidence-based information that is accessible to people so that they can really make informed choices, informed decisions, and have informed evidence-based perspectives. So that those who want to communicate loudly can do it with the facts in front of them.

Anne: What it did strike home to me was it reminded me how important it was to recognise that when we hear both sides of a conversation in a public forum debate, that those are not necessarily balanced in terms of the numbers of people that they represent.

Anne: I think that's really important. We assume that when media want to portray a balanced argument, they are balancing it because 50% of the population think this, and the other 50% think that. We never have the numbers in front of us that actually say, well, it's a tiny proportion with a really loud voice who feels strongly in this direction, balanced against a majority voice who actually have their feet firmly planted on the ground, know what they're talking about, and have a perspective that may be different.

Anne: It is important that we listen to those differences and we understand those differences of opinion, but we have to recognise that they're underpinned, often underpinned by different numbers.

Anne: I think that's important because we hear a lot of negative stuff. It's actually quite stressful and angst-ridden, and does create challenges in our, you know, day-to-day lives. I mean, we could sit and be really miserable the whole time. But actually often those perceptions are based on perhaps incorrect information. They're not always underpinned by facts, and it's a small number of misinformed people who are making those noises.