n this lecture, we saw how the core principles of science communication could be applied to two situations regarding the biology of genome editing. The first was when scientists or those speaking on their behalf, such as social scientists or humanists, communicate with policymaker audiences. The second was when scientists communicate with non-scientistic audiences. In this exercise, you will get to put the knowledge you have learned in this course to use in practicing your science communication skills, focusing on framing, language, and evaluation.
For this assignment, consider what you read in Perusall activity by Gaieck et al. (2020) and Sternberg et al. (2015). As we heard about in lecture, the first is an article authored by early-career scientists who wished to provide tools for their scientific colleagues when communicating with policymakers. The second is a recent, short review article on the biology of CRISPR and its applications. Note: When reading Sternberg et al. (2015), do not get bogged down in the scientific details. Feel free to nerd out on the science as much as you wish, of course. But, don’t freak out if you don’t understand all of the details, and instead focus on the “big picture” biology the authors provide and the potential applications for this work they describe. The resources in Modules 0 and 1 on CRISPR may also be helpful for you here.
Now, imagine that you are a CRISPR biologist interested in advocating for your work in the US Congress. Specifically, the Congress is preparing a new budget for the country, and you want to make sure that the NHGRI’s budget for genome editing research is increased. So, you decide to make an appointment with your Congresswoman at her local office in your district (after all, it’s closer than traveling to Washington, D.C.!).
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/35/20977.full.pdf
