3 ms·

> I really dislike pandering, dismissive statements like this. And I (as a scientist) really dislike having to frame everything I do as being relevant to human

• nickelcitymario 8y ago
  I can appreciate that. My only counterpoint is that I and many other "laymen" (as apparently we're referred to?) can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it. It's not like genetics is the only field that struggles with this. I'm primarily a web developer and still remember the 10+ years of trying to explain to people why "The Web" was an important technology that would radically impact all of our lives. I still remember the bubble. I still remember being told this was a dead field. Where are those people now? I remember how dismissive people were about mobile apps, too. The same challenge applies to AI, blockchain, virtual/augmented reality, etc. As a non-scientist, I struggle to explain to people why it's important that we increase our funding and support for all of the sciences. It's hard to appreciate how seemingly "useless" discoveries combine with other "useless" discoveries to give us the amazing advances in technology and medicine that we have today. BUT, we have to try. And when some "layman" dares to ask about the meaning of such-and-such a discovery, maybe take a deep breath, recognize we don't all have you incredible knowledge about this topic, and appreciate that someone is expressing interest in what you do, in the only terms they have available to them. All of which was a long-winded way of saying: All I know about CRISPR is what I read in relatively mainstream publications. Help me out. Or don't. Your call, really.
  • fifnir 8y ago
    I re-read the thread and you're right, you were a bit unfairly "attacked" for asking a reasonable question. I focused on what you said without taking context into proper consideration, sorry for that. I was not responding to your original question, but more so to ... something in my head I guess. Of course, absolutely, explaining what we do is hugely important. Actually I think that bringing new knowledge to the rest of humanity is the second most important thing after actually generating said knowledge. > can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it. The frustration is that people only seem capable of appreciating science when it has direct and tangible benefits for humans. (and that's why i posted the previous post, not cause you dared ask a reasonable question) "Why do you do this?" "What can we use this for in humans?"
    • jamesrcole 8y ago
      In addition to what you've said about the frustration, there's the following. Basic research is vitally important, and has contributed so much to society. Yet by its very nature you can't predict if how any specific piece of basic research will provide benefit. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of basic research and scientific and technological development to expect to be able to know, and thus say, what the benefits might be. Rather than expecting to be able to predict the benefits, we have to have a more 'statistical' set of expectations. That, on aggregate, and over time, basic research will provide substantial benefits. And it's not just the general public who don't appreciate this. I find that many people working in applied research don't appreciate it either.
    • nickelcitymario 8y ago
      Completely agree :-) (And no apology needed... I shouldn't take things so personally.)