EUSci_issue32_TheScientistNextDoor

SciencEd

www.eusci.org.uk | FREE

STERILE

FREE OF

detectable

DNase

FREE OF

detectable

human DNA

AUTOMATION

MADE EASY

THINCERT®

96 WELL HTS INSERT

For high-throughput transport

studies and co-cultures

The new ThinCert® 96 well HTS insert is the optimal tool for

scientists who want to generate tissue models (e.g.

endothelia and epithelia) for transport, uptake, or co-culture

studies in submersed as well as air-lift cultures with an

automation-friendly format.

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT OUR

WEBSITE OR CONTACT US:

www.gbo.com

info.uk@gbo.com

KEY FACTS

/

/

/

/

/

/

Optimal for transport and

permeability studies, air-lift

cultures, co-cultures, and

toxicity screening

96 well system for highthroughput

applications

Automation-friendly design

Transparent polycarbonate

membrane with 0.4 µm pore

size

Reduced wicking effect*

High membrane flatness for

reproducible cell culture

conditions

FREE OF

detectable

RNase

* Wicking: Undesired formation of a liquid bridge

between upper and lower compartment due to

capillary forces within the narrow space between

membrane and receiver plate.

noncytotoxic

nonpyrogenic

Check out our podcast series . . .

Greiner Bio-One Ltd Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, UK

PHONE 01453 825255 / E-MAIL info@uk.gbo.com

Greiner Bio-One is a global player.

Find the contact details of your local partner on our website.

www.gbo.com

Issue 32

SciencEd

Spring

2024

Cover illustration by

Ewa Ozga

Inside this issue

The scientific community is becoming increasingly more multicultural, diverse

and inclusive. Efforts are being made by large academic institutions, science

outreach organisations, and individual scientists to acknowledge the need for

diversification and equity in all areas of research and science communication.

Scientists are more present in everyday life, sharing their knowledge with the

world and can (and should) be important active participants in governmental and

societal decisions. In this issue we take a closer look at the challenges scientists

face today and the roles they have in society: How is scientific research

influenced by political, cultural, and social pressures? How far are we really in

creating an inclusive and unbiased environment in research and education? How

do we relate with the public to promote their curiosity and engagement with

scientific content, and how much consideration is given to their perspective?

A lot of questions to be asked! We believe we all have the power to continuously

make science more accessible to everyone and that this is important for how

much we understand ourselves and the world around us. We invite you to reflect

on these issues with us – maybe you will find answers to some of these questions

or get curious to ask even more. Enjoy!

Sara Teles (she/her) and Elena Hein (she/her) – co-editors-in-chief of EUSci

Euscireka!

04 A collection of short news articles

The Scientist Next Door

Diversity, equity, and the “human struggles” in scientific research

07 How inclusive is the University of Edinburgh? From the Edinburgh Seven to Decolonisation

10 Nurturing Inclusivity in Physics: A journey with The Blackett Lab Family

12 A Place for Everyone: How promoting science and language literacy can help reduce inequalities

14 Breaking Barriers: The Role of science festivals in fostering inclusivity

17 “Sexy” Science: Science by the default white male

19 Queer Data with Dr. Kevin Guyan

22 Bringing humanity and humour to science writing

24 I’m an Academic…Get me out of here?!

Science outside of the lab: exploring the intricate web of science, politics, and the role of the public in the “conversation”

27 To fund or not to fund – How much should the public hold the strings?

30 Exploring the interdependence between politics and science

33 The chill sets in

35 A scientist walks into a bar…

37 Embarking on Citizen Science: An introductory dive

39 Home Diagnostics and Health Monitoring: A rising trend in 2024

42 Biohacking: from fear to fascination

44

Puzzles and games

45

Meet EUSci

Prefer to listen? Check out audio versions

on the EUSci Readouts Podcast

euscireka!

euscireka!

Pulling tropical disease out of neglect into acknowledgement

The World Health organization (WHO), officially added Noma as its 21st disease into the list of neglected tropical

diseases (NTDs) in December 2023. Noma is a severe gangrenous disease caused primarily due to poor oral

hygiene by the bacteria living in our mouths. It primarily impacts children, and patients often face stigmatisation.

The committee responsible for this addition concurred that the decision to include Noma in the list of NTDs

enables the accessibility of better interventions in communities that require it. This sentiment is in line with the

Sustainable Development Goal 3.3 established by WHO, which explicitly aims to ‘end the epidemics’ of neglected

diseases which impacted 1.65 billion individuals in 2021. The overarching target for 2030 was set to a 90%

reduction in people requiring interventions for NTDs. Although the progress towards this ambitious target has

been positive, it has also been slow. For instance, in an official report published in January 2024, it was revealed

that 50 countries have eliminated at least one NTD and there has been 23% overall reduction in NTD-related

interventions required by people. The eradication of NTDs is further encumbered by climate change. The regions

of transmission for several vector-borne NTDs have expanded since the rising temperatures allow these vectors

to survive in temperate regions. According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control , in 2023

there were locally acquired cases of dengue fever in Europe: 82 cases in Italy, 43 cases in France and 3 cases in

Spain. The widening of transmission zones of vectors opens new populations to the risk of disease transmission.

Hence, while the roadmap was clearly written in ink, the actual route is long one to traverse.

Simar Mann

How humans struggle to define their own role on earth

Humans have had an immense impact on the planet since we started to settle down, grow large-scale agriculture

and turned to mass industrialisation and warfare. We have managed (or at least tried) to put a stamp of human

existence on almost every reachable corner of the planet (and beyond) – yet the ultimate label has just slipped

through our hands. Earlier this spring geologists voted against the proposal of recognising the Anthropocene as

an official geological epoch. This would have pushed us from the Holocene into a completely new era of

‘irreversible human impacts on the planet’. Undeniably - looking at recent human history and watching current

news of political tensions, deforestation and climate change - it feels like we are living in a world that is

irreversibly dominated by our actions and desire to expand our control over everything we can get our hands on.

But is this enough to leave such deep marks on earth’s rocks for these to define an entire new geological age?

The rejected proposal set the start of the Anthropocene in 1952, referring to the first traces from hydrogenbomb

tests being deposited in sediment. But critics are pointing to the thousands of years of agriculture and

elimination of native fauna and flora that have been happening since the start of human existence and would be

completely ignored by this time scale. And what about the vast amount of records on microplastic, pesticides,

fossil fuel production and other pollutants that we have been mindlessly dumping into our planet’s land- and

seascapes? For some, defining our human footprint down to a single point in time and place may seem too drastic

to describe the global change that we have brought upon earth’s history. For others it is crucial to accept it.

Nevertheless, acknowledging the cultural concept and impact of the Anthropocene can and should be a reminder

of the tight-knit relationship between all living things and nature on our planet. Rather than trying to put a

definition and label on everything we might be good to just accept that in the end it is still nature which holds the

strings to its own geological history – and we might do good to be a respectful partner in it.

Elena Hein

4 Spring 2024 | eusci.org.uk

euscireka!

euscireka!

Jellyfish in robotic hats to do deep sea research

It’s extremely difficult for research technologies to withstand the harsh conditions of the world’s deep oceans.

But the climate crisis is accelerating, and it is more crucial than ever to develop innovative tools that allow

scientists to study the seas. The answer: jellyfish.

Researchers at Caltech have recently developed small 3D-printed ‘forebodies’ that attach – like little hats – to

common Aurelia jellyfish. The hats contain an electronic pacemaker that controls the way that the jellyfish

swim. Researchers hope that this technology will soon allow them to gather scientific data from many areas of

the ocean that have not yet been explored. The researchers collaborated with bioethicists to ensure that this

work is ethically principled. Aurelia jellyfish have no brains, nor can they feel any pain, and no stress responses

have been recorded at any point during testing. The hats are designed to have negligible buoyancy in saltwater

so that they add no additional weight to the jellyfish. In fact, the hats make them more streamline and jellyfish

swim up to 4.5 times faster with the hats on. There is room in the hats where scientists can fit sensors that

measure ocean temperature, depth, light, motion, salinity, oxygen, and pH. Further work will be necessary to

make such sensors small enough to fit inside. These robotic jellyfish hats are an exciting cost-effective

innovation (at only $20 per hat) that will make Earth’s vast oceans more accessible for scientific study.

Clare McDonald

An equity lens for medical devices

Ever since the acceleration of AI and technological design in medicine, and especially since the Covid-19

pandemic, the use and availability of AI-powered medical devices has been increasingly popular. Such tools that

leave measurements and interpretation of results to an objective computer-driven machine should ultimately

be less biased in their output than a subjective human being – but are they really?

We already know that AI is not immune to human bias. A bias unavoidably stemming from the humans who

developed it and the samples they’ve been trained on. A recent independent UK review has now also confirmed

such biases in medical tools such as pulse oximeters, which were crucial in testing oxygen levels during the

Covid-19 pandemic, spirometers to measure lung function, and other AI-based devices such as cardiac monitors.

Relatively unsurprisingly, these tools are frequently based on datasets of people with European ancestry, from

well developed areas and/or male individuals. This makes them most often not applicable to people of other

ethnic ancestries, deprived backgrounds, or other genders. The first step to improve the access to appropriate

health care is to acknowledge the potential of biases inherent in these devices. Though, trying to fix these often

comes with biases itself.

Ultimately, researchers and doctors are calling for “an equity lens” on such medical tools and AI-powered

clinical devices, looking at their entire lifecycle - from development and initial testing to patient recruitment

and implementation in communities. In the end, an individual’s diagnoses and treatments should not be

determined by whoever developed the medical device and the biological parameters of whoever it has been

tested on but to be as objective as possible to ensure access to appropriate health care for everyone, regardless

of their ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

Elena Hein

5 Spring 2024| eusci.org.uk

The

IIlustration by Stevie Hope

Scientist

Next

Door



How inclusive is the University of

Edinburgh? From the Edinburgh

Seven to Decolonisation

Ellie Dempsey delves into the historical struggles and current

challenges of promoting equality in science at the University of

Edinburgh, highlighting the need for sustained initiatives and

commitment to foster diversity and inclusion.

A rendering of the Historic Scotland commemorative plaque to the Edinburgh Seven

and the Surgeons' Hall riot at the University of Edinburgh by Allison Quinlan

he University of Edinburgh has a long

history in the fight for equality in the

sciences. In 1869, Sophia Jex-Blake led seven

Twomen to enrol as medical students. In doing so,

they became the first-ever women to attend a

British university. Despite outshining many of the

male students intellectually, the Edinburgh seven

were forced to pay significantly higher fees, faced

mounting abuse from fellow students and staff, and

were never permitted to graduate. Their struggle,

however, drew national support and launched a

campaign culminating in the Medical Act of 1876,

allowing women to qualify as licensed medical

practitioners for the first time. Looking at the

picture today, where women make up 61% of

Edinburgh’s medicine admissions, it is difficult to

imagine the environment of 150 years ago.

However, there is still much progress to be made

promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion, with

many scientists still fighting against inequality.

Whilst the University of Edinburgh remains a centre for

excellent scientific research and progress, it falls behind

other institutions when looking at admissions of ethnic

minorities and people from lower-income backgrounds.

In 2022, only 14% of UK undergraduate entrants were

from minority ethnicities compared to 27% nationally.

Looking at black British students, this disparity widens

as they make up only 1.5% of entrants to Edinburgh

compared to 9% nationally. Edinburgh also has a longheld

reputation as a home for the economic elite. In

fact, the University ranks 4th in the UK for the number

of admissions from private schools. In addition, in spite

of Edinburgh being the capital of Scotland, Scottish

students make up only 26% of the student population at

the University of Edinburgh despite comprising 60% of

the national student population in Scotland. The idea of

the upper-class English, white, Edinburgh student has

almost become a running joke around the city. However,

it leaves many students outside of this group feeling

isolated and underrepresented.



“It is harder to truly see yourself as a

scientist when the majority of

professors and those in leadership

positions are so different to yourself.”

A full analysis of why these inequalities exist is too

complex to cover in a single article, with the problem

lying deeper than straightforward discrimination or

harassment. Today’s situation is also closely

intertwined with Edinburgh’s historical links to

colonialism and slavery, which groups across

Edinburgh and the University are working to address.

From a more individual perspective, a sense of

isolation, imposter syndrome, and the strain of living

in such an expensive city are a common thread in

many student experiences. It is harder to truly see

yourself as a scientist when the majority of professors

and those in leadership positions are so different to

yourself. The accompanying mental health impacts of

these issues are particularly heightened amongst

students who don’t see themselves represented or

supported. Furthermore, feedback from students

across the board frequently highlights a lack of mental

health and wellbeing support, with the University

scoring a relatively low 60 % for signposting of

support services in the latest national student survey.

Although improvement in this area is slow to take

shape, the University’s investment in a new Wellbeing

service is a significant step forwards.

A more direct response to educational inequalities has

come from many student-staff led networks and

societies who have emerged over the years. For

example, the student-led women in STEM society

(EUWiSTEM) founded a successful mentoring scheme

which enables students at different academic levels to

support each other. Another group who should be

acknowledged is the RACE.ED network – a collection

of academics from different disciplines - who share

research and teaching practice on racial equality and

decolonisation. When it comes to tackling social

inequality, the Edinburgh branch of 93% club has

held events on accent bias and is currently

campaigning to include class awareness in University

anti-bias training. Organisations such as these are

invaluable in promoting research, building

connections and spreading awareness of equality

issues, independent from the bureaucracy and

politics of University management.

Despite a desperate need for change, many positive

initiatives such as those on trans inclusion and

decolonisation have faced public backlash and

derision with efforts for progress becoming derailed

in culture wars. There is also a general perception

amongst students that the University does not

deliver on its promises and broad equality

statements are rarely backed up with real change.

Advances in higher University management are slow,

however, there are many people within schools who

devote time and effort to improving equality. I

discussed this with Dr Claire Hobday, Chair of the

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion committee in the

School of Chemistry. Although she agreed broader

change was slow, she was positive about the

commitment shown by school and college leadership

towards improvement.



Within the School of Chemistry, Claire highlighted

some of the recent progress made on improving

building accessibility, collecting data on PhD

applications, a trial of equity training for students,

and events which support a sense of community and

belonging. She also emphasised the importance of

staff and student involvement to drive initiatives

within their own school. Despite time limitations for

academics to commit to equality initiatives, it is

important that change is informed by real

understanding of the school environment Therefore,

the time and effort staff spend on equality, diversity

and inclusion should be properly valued by

institutions. One exciting project Claire is overseeing

is funded by the Royal Society of Chemistry’s

‘Missing Elements’ grant, worth £60,000, to address

racial inequality in Chemistry. This funding will

enable further equity training, a mentorship scheme

and a summer research internship for students from

ethnic minorities.

working in scientific research today without the

mentorship and widening participation programmes I

had access to growing up. It is therefore vital we

continue to invest in and expand opportunities to pave

the way for more diverse future generations of

scientists at the University of Edinburgh.

Building on the efforts within the School of

Chemistry, the University is also actively engaged in

various widening participation and access programs,

such as the LEAPs program and Door’s Open Days,

inviting the public to explore science buildings and

fostering community engagement. Many students I

know have given up their time to demonstrate fun

experiments to children at an open day or volunteer

on a trip to a school. The School of Chemistry even

offers a Public Engagement scholarship to which

funds a PhD student to commit time to outreach and

engagement projects alongside their research.

Despite these efforts, the number of admissions to

Edinburgh from state schools has shown a marginal

drop of around 5% over 6 years, indicating that much

more still needs to be done to combat elitism.

While it’s a joy to see the work happening in

Chemistry to extend opportunities to more people,

we must see this commitment continued and good

practice shared between schools in order to achieve

sustainable progress in equality. It is clear this can

only be achieved by strong university and college

leadership which supports and holds schools to

account to improve equality. It is also important we

continue to support the many campaigns and

initiatives around the University which aim to

improve equality. I myself don’t believe I would be

The subject of imposter syndrome also came up in

discussions with Claire and other women in STEM.

Whilst efforts targeted towards minority groups and

representation undoubtedly have a positive impact,

many of us have also experienced a paranoia that we

have only found our opportunities through filling

quotas or so-called ‘tokenism’. It is also common to

face this stigma from men or those who feel they’ve

missed out on positions due to not ticking the right

boxes. This perception fails to recognise the many

obstacles someone may have encountered to even

become close to that opportunity, and how far from

easy it still is. In addition, the idea that women have

not made their way into scientific education based on

merit is instantly disproved by looking at their

academic performance which, like the Edinburgh

seven, continues to be excellent.

Ellie Dempsey (she/her) is a third-year PhD student

in Materials Chemistry at the University of

Edinburgh and the current president of EUSci.



Nurturing Inclusivity in Physics:

A journey with The Blackett Lab

Family

Kaela Albert explores the efforts of organisations like the Blackett

Lab Family in fostering a sense of belonging for underrepresented

groups and in ensuring that science is accessible to everyone.

D

espite our best efforts for purity and facts,

science is not removable from society. It mirrors

society's beliefs, adapting and transforming

alongside our aspirations and biases. The input we

give artificial intelligence (AI), the training we provide

doctors, the funding we give to different research groups –

these all have massive impacts on the progression of

science.

This interdependence between science and society has led

to a compelling call for increased inclusivity and diversity in

STEM. The call serves to counteract deeply ingrained biases

in science – biases that have historically marginalised

certain groups based on race, class, disability, and more.

There are several reasons to argue for inclusivity and

diversity in science – inclusivity has improved team

productivity and led to innovative ideas. However, the most

fundamental reason to advance inclusivity is that science

should be accessible to everyone.

One group committed to increasing and

maintaining this inclusivity is The Blackett

Lab Family (BLF). BLF, founded in 2020 by Dr

Mark Richards, has a mission to represent,

connect, a

nd inspire Black physicists. This is an

admirable goal, considering data from the

Higher Education Statistics Agency shows

that roughly just 1% of UK-domiciled physics

undergraduates are Black. To put this into

perspective, Black people comprise 4% of the

UK's working-age population and 8% of its

science undergraduates. Furthermore, the

number of Black physicists decreases with

seniority, with no Black physics professors in

the UK. This is a remarkably low statistic but

probably one that would not surprise your

local Black physicist walking around campus.

“There are several reasons

to argue for inclusivity and

diversity in science –

inclusivity has improved

team productivity and led to

innovative ideas. However,

the most fundamental

reason to advance

inclusivity is that science

should be accessible to

everyone.”



To understand the impact of groups like BLF, I spoke to

Benyam Dejen, the Outreach Director for The Blackett

Lab Family. In Benyam's perspective, mentorship is a

cornerstone in an individual's scientific journey. BLF

creates a space for physicists at various stages of their

career to meet, network, and gives them a platform to

be seen and heard. These conversations foster a sense

of belonging, support, and collective growth. What

makes this mentorship particularly influential,

however, is its resonance with the mentee's

experiences. As Benyan said, "the visibility of Black

physicists...who are further ahead in their careers, has

given me a renowned sense of confidence that can

develop the tools to succeed...despite some of the

personal and academic challenges I've faced."

The effectiveness of BLF's mission lies in its focus on

intensive initiatives that leave a lasting impact on

specific groups of the Black community. Benyam

highlights the success of Representing Physics 2023,

an initiative designed to address challenges faced by

year 11 and year 12 students. By dispelling

misconceptions about university-level physics,

providing insights into potential careers, and creating

positive physics representations, this initiative helps

shift attitudes towards the field. Research from the

American Institute of Physics has shown that physics

identity – essentially how you see yourself in relation

to physics – is critical for minoritised students to

succeed. You need to be perceived as a physicist and

believe that you are capable of being one. Developing a

physics identity was listed as one of the five factors

that either makes or breaks your physics journey.

Competency without a sense of belonging is not

enough. Black students need to be given the

opportunity to see themselves as physicists, which is

exactly what Representing Physics 2023 gave. With

this in mind, the need for these initiatives extends

beyond students to include parents, early career

researchers, and the broader Black community. All of

these groups have unique challenges and require

focused and comprehensive support systems.

Reflecting on personal experiences, Benyam sheds

light on the challenges he faced with assimilation as

an undergraduate. From code-switching to hair

discrimination and elusive skiing holidays, the

struggle to assimilate for Black students in a

predominately white field is real. For Benyam, feeling

isolated and opening up about personal challenges

seemed daunting before connecting with Black

physics mentors Dr Mark Richards and Paul Brown at

Imperial College London. While Benyam was fortunate

to find support, he acknowledges that this might not

“Competency without

a sense of belonging

is not enough. Black

students need to be given

the opportunity to see

themselves as physicists,

which is exactly what

Representing Physics 2023

gave.”

be the story for many Black students nationwide. This

narrative underscores the importance of breaking

down barriers to effective mentorship.

In the relatively short time that Benyam has been

part of the scientific community, he reports a

noticeable amplification of discussions around

diversity and inclusivity. This heightened awareness

signifies a positive shift where individuals, initiatives,

and groups advocating for inclusivity are becoming

more visible. The Blackett Lab Family is a testament

to the power of collective endeavours in promoting

accessibility and fair representation in STEM. More

groups are constantly popping up that campaign for

marginalised groups and aim to foster open

conservations. Some for you to keep an eye out for

include:

Black in Cancer

Black British Academics

UK Black Tech

The Black Women in Science Network

Leading Routes

These organisations allow

Black scientists to see

themselves, and as Benyan

says, "a sense of belonging...

is a self-perpetuating power!"

Kaela Albert (she/her) is a

fifth-year MPhys

Theoretical Physics student

at the University of

Edinburgh.



A Place for Everyone: using science

communication to promote inclusivity

Sara Teles shares Native Scientists’ approach to promote children’s

science literacy and a more inclusive community

he path to become a scientist in academia

can feel like going through a never-ending

dark tunnel, with no certain end in sight and

Tnobody there to confirm if you are on the right track.

The past ten years as a junior researcher (notice the

resistance in calling myself a scientist) were marked

by a constant feeling of not belonging. Although this

is seemingly a universal experience in academia,

there are various factors that intensify those

feelings. As addressed in other articles of this

magazine, people’s social, cultural, and economic

background can make them more vulnerable to

experiencing “otherness” – if you grow up without

examples of a scientist that looks like you, it will be

harder to see yourself becoming one. Similarly, when

you encounter people that do not believe in you or

that make you feel inferior during your scientific

journey (and most likely you will), it can be incredibly

hard to counter those beliefs with sheer selfdetermination

when you neither had nor currently

have an example of someone like you “making it.” It is

important to make science more welcoming and

continuously more accessible to everyone,

cultivating a sense of belonging early on.

A collage made from a photo by Power Lai, Unplash

Organisations such as the Edinburgh Science

Foundation are committed to improving science

accessibility by inspiring students in Scotland to

engage with STEM subjects (Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics) in hands-on

activities and events where students are given an

insight into different scientific careers. With over

30% of its programme delivered free of charge and

the remaining schools being offered subsidised visits,

they make an effort to reduce the geographic and

economic disadvantage of many children in accessing

engaging science communication. But science

outreach should be broadened to address a wide

range of factors which intensify this lack of access,

such as having a disability or belonging to an ethnic

minority group.

Native Scientists was created in 2013 to “broaden the

horizons of underserved children, by connecting

them with scientists and promote science literacy

and higher education.” Joana Moscoso and Tatiana

Correia were two Portuguese researchers working in

London when they became aware that children from

migrant families performed worse at school. Indeed,

in Lambeth, one of the most diverse boroughs of

London, Portuguese pupils have had the lowest

academic achievement of all student groups in the

council, as published in their 2020 report. Factors

such as stereotyping, exclusion, lack of

awareness to Portuguese culture, and inadequacy

of the programme to reflect a multi-ethnic

society were identified as relevant in the

under-achievement of these children.



Studies published by UNESCO and the European Commission have

confirmed that migrant children are at an increased risk of developing

low self-esteem and underperforming in STEM subjects. This is one of

the issues that Native Scientists addresses with their “Same Migrant

Community” programme, by promoting the interaction between

scientists and children that share the same heritage language across

Europe. Scientists go to local schools with a 15-minute activity to

introduce their work and talk about their career path.

“It is important to make science more welcoming and

continuously more accessible to everyone,

cultivating a sense of belonging early on.”

Following a “Science Tapas” concept, children are divided into groups and

interact with several scientists in a single workshop. As pointed out in

their 2022 article published in the journal Trends in Cell Biology, this

strategy is built on EDI values (Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion). The

students and scientists establish a meaningful connection through a

shared cultural background that boosts the development of their

heritage language while offering a role model and inspiring scientific

curiosity. In the 2024 Science Education article, Julia Schiefer describes

this as a new Science and Heritage Language Integrated Learning

(SHLIL) approach. The authors show that this is effective in promoting

the children’s engagement with STEM subjects and their self-concept of

ability for the heritage language for at least four weeks after the

interaction. As the programme lead Afonso Bento shared with me, the

objective of these interactions is not necessarily to incentivise children

to become scientists but to promote curiosity and interest in science

while raising the value they associate with their multicultural identity.

Afonso mentioned that many students associate the use of their heritage

language with doing chores at home. The interaction with scientists who

speak the same language makes them see it for the first time as a useful

tool they can potentially use in the future.

Science communication is increasingly considered a key skill that all scientists should master for multiple

reasons, including captivating the next generation of researchers. But science literacy needs to be considered

important for the general development of every child without needing it to become all about job recruitment.

Interactions such as the ones created by Native Scientists foster curiosity and can be used to cultivate a

sense of belonging and understanding of oneself and of others. This approach can be a powerful educational

tool for the schools of the future with increasingly multi-ethnic and diverse student populations. Moreover,

this could have an important overall social impact – Afonso pointed out that Native Scientists is particularly

innovative in the way that they not only train effective science communicators but are also training

community organisers. In fact, Afonso was the first author in a 2023 article in Frontiers in Communications

that described how many of the scientists volunteering to coordinate the workshops had a societal

motivation, viewing the impact of these interactions in bridging society and science as one of the driving

forces behind their participation. Strategies such as the “Same Migrant Community” programme should be

considered by governments and institutions as not only an effective educational tool that improves the

attainment of multicultural student groups but also as a powerful societal initiative that contributes to more

inclusive and equal communities.

Sara Teles (she/her) is a biologist and cancer researcher, currently finishing a PhD in bile duct cancer

at the University of Edinburgh. She is a co-Editor-in-Chief of EUSci.



Breaking Barriers:

T h e r o l e o f s c i e n c e f e s t i v a l s

i n f o s t e r i n g i n c l u s i v i t y

Heather McEwan explores the

potential positive impacts of science

festivals, diving into the work done

by Edinburgh Science as an

example of how public engagement

projects can support inclusivity in

science.

Illustration by Muminah Koleoso

n the pursuit of knowledge

and progress, fostering

inclusivity within science is

paramount. However, this Irequires intentional efforts to

create welcoming environments

and opportunities for individuals

from diverse backgrounds. A great

example of this is through

community engagement, such as

science festivals. Public science

festivals present the opportunity

to make science more inclusive by

engaging diverse communities in a

celebration of knowledge and

discovery. These festivals provide

accessible platforms for scientists

to communicate their research

directly to the public, fostering a

two-way dialogue that demystifies

scientific concepts.

With a range of interactive

exhibits, engaging demonstrations,

and hands-on workshops, science

festivals can appeal to a broad

audience of all ages and

backgrounds, including individuals

who may not typically have

exposure to formal science

education. This inclusivity not only

promotes scientific literacy but

also encourages individuals from

underrepresented groups to

envision themselves as active

participants in the scientific

community, thus contributing to a

more diverse and equitable future

in the field.

In fact, a growing body of research

indicates that supporting

inclusivity in science has benefits

hfor us all. Research supports the

benefits of inclusivity in science, as

diverse teams offer varied

perspectives and innovative

problem-solving approaches.

Additionally, studies conducted on

individuals in the USA show that

diversity helps prevent

groupthink, a psychological

phenomenon where group

members prioritise harmony and

conformity over critical thinking,

leading to flawed decision-making.

More research may be needed to

see whether these results

generalise to other cultural

contexts outside of the USA. Other

studies have shown that for many

people, participating in science

festivals in particular leads to

increased knowledge, inspiration,



and a positive impact on their

attitudes towards science. Indeed,

these festivals play a crucial role in

enhancing public understanding of

science, fostering trust, and

contributing to a more scientifically

literate society. Science festivals

have great potential to reach

diverse audiences across large

geographical areas, offering science

exploration for everyone by

creating interactive, accessible, and

enjoyable experiences that

contribute to a more informed and

engaged public.

While research on science festivals

often highlights the positive

aspects of public engagement,

concerns about inclusivity have

been raised. For example, reaching

certain demographic groups, such

as those from economically

disadvantaged backgrounds, may be

a challenge. Some research

suggests that attendees of science

festivals may skew towards more

affluent and educated

demographics. Therefore, although

science festivals play a valuable role

in science communication, ongoing

efforts are needed to ensure that

they are accessible and appealing to

a broad spectrum of society,

addressing potential barriers

related to socio-economic status

and other factors.

Some science festivals are actively

breaching this gap in audience

diversity to ensure science is

accessible to all. For instance, the

Edinburgh Science Festival,

recognised as the first-ever public

event celebrating science and

technology on a festival scale and

still one of Europe's largest, adopts

various strategies to broaden its

reach. These include providing

complimentary tickets, specialised

events, and even transportation in

areas with high levels of

deprivation according to the

Scottish Index of Multiple

Deprivation (SIMD).

“Science

festivals have

great potential

to reach

diverse

audiences

across large

geographical

areas, offering

science

exploration for

everyone by

creating

interactive,

accessible,

and enjoyable

experiences

that contribute

to a more

informed and

engaged

public.”

SIMD is an area-based measure of

relative deprivation which takes

into account various factors such as

health, access to services, and

education levels within the

community. Furthermore, in 2022

the festival hosted over 600

children and young people across

the city and offered free workshops

to 451 pupils from high SIMD

schools at the City Art Centre. The

festival collaborates with

community groups like With Kids,

One Parent Families Scotland, and

SCORE Scotland to ensure tailored

support for attendees facing

accessibility challenges. With Kids

offer various therapeutic services

for children, carers, and

professionals working with children

in Edinburgh and Glasgow. One

Parent Families Scotland aims to

support single-parent families and

facilitate a better standard of living

by offering face-to-face support

services and online information,

while SCORE Scotland is a charity

which addresses the causes and

effects of racism and promotes

racial equality. The

accommodations Edinburgh

Science offered after consultation

with these groups ranged from free

festival tickets and public transport

to on-site assistance and a

specialised event timetable. In

addition, an accessibility guide is

available for download prior to the

festival each year. This outlines

useful accessibility information

including the locations of accessible

toilets, relaxed sensory-friendly

events, and public transport

recommendations.

Beyond their science festival,

Edinburgh Science is involved in the

community year round. This

includes working with local centres

and organisations to break down

barriers and create more

opportunities for everyone to

engage with science. For example,

in 2019 they developed a health,

wellbeing, and nutrition workshop



called The Great Plate. Other efforts include

Generation Science, an inspiring and interactive

science workshop which has been touring schools all

over Scotland for 30 years. During the Covid-19

pandemic (and despite its challenges), this was

moved online where they posted resources such as

pre-recorded workshops designed to engage pupils.

Additionally, Edinburgh Science offer an online

careers event called Careers Hive. This immersive

career education event is designed to inspire high

school students and increase awareness of the many

potential career paths within STEM. A deconstructed

version of this career event, Beyond the Hive, has

garnered positive feedback from young people, for

example: “I liked learning about the different jobs,

and that they are for everyone, not just certain ones

for boys and others for girls,” and “That was the best

day!” This event is aimed at 15–19 year olds not in

education or employment, and it is broadening the

horizons of young people in science.

Another project of theirs is the Sensory Seashore

Scrapbook, a self-led trail exploring life on our coasts

for all ages. This resource is available for anyone to

access on their website in four different languages

including Ukrainian, Romanian, and Arabic. Clearly,

the work Edinburgh Science do to engage pupils and

inspire the public is extensive and crucial. This

ongoing work is essential to promote inclusivity in

science and to highlight that science is for everyone.

In conclusion, fostering inclusivity within scientific

communities is paramount for enriching

perspectives, fostering innovation, and ensuring

equitable sharing of scientific progress. While

significant strides have been made, ongoing efforts

are crucial. Recognising and addressing barriers,

promoting diversity at all levels, and fostering a

culture of inclusivity are essential steps. By embra-

cing individuals from diverse backgrounds,

including those historically

underrepresented, scientific communities

promote fairness, equal opportunity, and

break down barriers. Furthermore,

inclusive scientific communities are better

equipped to tackle global challenges, as

they bring together individuals with varied

backgrounds, fostering collaborative

problem-solving. Ultimately, inclusivity not

only serves as a moral imperative but also

strengthens the scientific enterprise,

making it more robust and capable of

addressing the complexities of our

interconnected world. The journey towards

greater inclusivity in science is an ongoing

commitment that holds the promise of a

more robust and responsive scientific

landscape in the future.

Heather McEwan is a Biomedical Optics

PhD student at the University of

Edinburgh. Her research is focused on

using Raman spectroscopy to help

transplant surgeons better assess liver

health in the future.


“Sexy” Science:

Science by the default


white male

Anshika Gupta uncovers

the shadows cast by

[white] male driven

research, detailing how

convenient biases in

research may perpetuate

layers of gaps in scientific

data and knowledge.

Long afterward, Oedipus, old and blinded, walked the Roads.

He smelled a familiar smell.

It was the Sphinx.

Oedipus said, “I want to ask one question.

Why didn’t I recognize my mother?”

“You gave the wrong answer,” said the Sphinx.

“But that was what made everything possible,” said Oedipus.

“No,” she said. “When I asked, What walks on four legs in the morning,

two at noon, and three in the evening, you answered,

Man.

You didn’t say anything about woman.”

“When you say Man,” said Oedipus,

“you include women too.

Everyone knows that.”

She said, “That’s what you think.”

- Muriel Rukeyser

Illustration by Apple Chew

elieve it or not, science runs

on trends, being policed by

funders posing as the bully

of the school. If your

research does not follow

Bwhatever the science journals are

raving about or the fads that are

making the circles on social media, you

are likely to not get funding for it. That

research topic which just got rejected

is, to crudely say, just not “sexy”

enough to make heads turn. Trends

may come and go but one thing about

science that has stayed constant is

men.

Science since its birth has revolved

around one thing: men and specifically

men of a certain race. They make up

the largest fraction of science

participants and apparent – and

sometimes only – stakeholders.

Biological females make up

approximately 50% of the world’s

population but have been ignored

when it comes to accounting for their

needs and concerns. This maleunless-otherwise-indicated

research

strategy has inconvenienced more

than half the world’s population and

sometimes these differences are not

apparent to us at all.



In the early 2010s Dr Tami made a

shocking discovery that the time of

day you have a heart attack affects

your chances of survival. So, if you

had a heart attack in the day you

had a greater chance of survival

than at night. This study was

replicated several times and the

same results were obtained till

another publication of the same

study in 2016. This new study by a

new group of researchers detailed

that daytime heart attacks

triggered a greater neutrophil

response, but this time it was

correlated with a worse chance of

survival. There was just one

difference between Dr Martino’s

study and the new study, and it was

that the latter used female mice

while Dr Martino’s study and its

subsequent replication used male

ones. Different sex led to

completely different results. There

have been several attempts to

address the sex issue when it

comes to research, but the issue

still remains and continues to skew

results.

It has been frequently mentioned

that the female body is considered

too complex, and there are a lot

more factors to consider when

researching it. Factors such as

hormones, menstrual cycle,

reproductive plans, and so on. So,

often researchers just stick to

using male samples, and in the

animal world procuring males is

cheaper. But sex is just the basic

layer of the various scientific

blindspots that we have become

accustomed to living with. Several

layers like race, living conditions,

and lifestyle choices add to the

complexity of the situation.

One might argue that these blind

spots are unintentional, and

perhaps in most cases they are.

One way to combat them is to see

more representation in those who

conduct the studies in the first

place. But it is not as easy as it

sounds.

In an interview with an established

and well-renowned university

professor who would like to remain

anonymous, it was highlighted that

women-driven research (where

women carry out the research

and/or are a subject of the said

research) was less likely to get

funding than its male-driven

counterpart. “There is less of an

appetite to fund research

surrounding the female body.”

Same goes for promotions and

positions of power. Since there are

already less women to begin with in

most science-related subjects, the

hostile work environment that

comes with being in the minority

leads to a very narrow bottleneck

which is hard to overcome.

“Trends may

come and go

but one thing

about science

that has

stayed

constant is

men.”

Let's keep sex aside for a minute.

Different races and cultures due to

years of geographical and

availability differences have

evolved to have different traits at

the genetic level, so most

medicines and research made by

people of a certain race and only

trialled on the people of a certain

race can have different – even

detrimental – effects on people of

different races. In a study titled

“Systematic review and metaanalysis

of ethnic differences in

risks of adverse reactions to drugs

used in cardiovascular medicine,”

the author Sarah E. McDowell,

along with her colleagues, found

that, amongst other things, there

was a three-times higher risk of

angioedema (a condition referring

to the sudden swelling in any part

of the body accompanied with

hives) as a reaction to

cardiovascular drugs in black

patients when compared to other

races.

Years of studies have expressed

differences at genetic levels

between different races and

ethnicities, but little focus has

been put on the discrepancies that

exist within the pharmacological

sector. Why do some races show a

higher percentage of gluten

allergy, or why are people of

African or Mediterranean descent

more susceptible to sickle-cell

anaemia? It all boils down to

genetic differences and lifestyle

choices. If something as basic as

gluten can cause differences, who

is to say that contraceptives,

reproductive aids, or even cough

syrups will not have different

effects in different races? Whether

these differences are big or small

will only come to light when

detailed research is conducted, and

quality research will only come out

when this hostile environment that

we have created for the “others”

becomes more relaxed and

accepting. It is clear that certain

races are better studied than

others and that this is another gap

that needs to be covered.

This [white] male default is the

cause and the consequence of a

sex- and race-driven data gap. But

closing this data gap is not going to

fix all of our problems. That would

require a lot of work but we have to

start somewhere.

Anshika Gupta is a second-year

Neuroscience student

and a huge sci-fi nerd.



Queer Data

with Dr kEvin guyan

The following text is a shortened and edited version of our chat with Kevin on season 6 episode 2 of

“Not Another Science Podcast” – to listen to the full unedited version, please use the QR code!

Dr Kevin Guyan is a researcher at the University of Glasgow and author of

the 2022 book Queer Data: Using Gender, Sex and Sexuality Data for Action,

which explores the collection, analysis, and use of data around LGBTQ+

communities in the UK. Katie and Kelsey from EUSci’s podcast team met

with Kevin to discuss his book and get his insight into the intersection

between data and identity.

EUSci: You were involved in helping design the new questions on sexuality and trans status in the most

recent Scottish census. What was the engagement process like and how were you involved in the design?

Kevin: I was working outside of a university, for an equality and diversity organisation based in London, and

then in Edinburgh, and so for me, it was a geekish interest in the design process. The Scottish census in

particular was scrutinised at a very detailed level by a particular committee within the Scottish Parliament

which took a real keen interest in the work of the national statistics agency in Scotland and in the design of

questions around sex, sexual orientation, and trans status. I think the National Records organisation also had

stakeholder engagement sessions where they invited feedback and engagement from researchers,

academics, and policymakers. In the context of Scotland, there's a fair amount of opportunities for

engagement and participation. Alongside these discussions there was also something called “sex and gender

data working group”, established by the Scottish government to look at how public bodies in Scotland collect

data about gender. This was another source of opportunities for stakeholder engagement and input and

ultimately created a briefing for public bodies on data collection about gender and sex.

EUSci: I feel like a lot of LGBTQ+ identities are very fluid, can change over time and take on different

meanings, but this is at odds with data being quantitative and often requiring very strict binaries. How

difficult is it to incorporate these concepts when you’re collecting identity data?

Kevin: LGBTQ+ identities are interesting in that some aspects are definitely fluid or mutable, but some

aspects aren't. There are many LGBTQ+ people who have some fixed unchanging characteristics, and what's

been interesting to see is how these splits within the larger LGBTQ+ umbrella have been demonstrated

through some of our recent data collection exercises. For example, there is a sense that the census does

count people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, straight, or cisgender, but where it struggles is people who

don't fit those neat categories and people who maybe are gender fluid, nonbinary, or don't have a clear sense

on how they wish to identify. In my writing, I look at how certain methods are sold to us as being inclusive but

can sometimes only count parts of larger communities. I think that looking at questions of sexuality, gender,

and sex through the prism of particularly quantitative data opens up bigger conversations – is it possible to

ever design a method, survey, or scientific approach that captures everyone? Or, even with our best

intentions and design methods, are there always going to be some people who don't fit into this pre-designed

system? I guess it's an ethical political decision to say when a method is good enough – are we saying that

when 90, 95, or 99% of people are included, a method is good? Are we always going to settle for methods

which are always going to exclude some people in their design?

Disclosure: to fit a snippet of the podcast interview in the magazine, the interview was significantly edited, while hopefully

keeping the original intent/meaning of the author’s words. Please refer to the original audio to listen to the full unedited

version of our conversation with Kevin.


.


✷ You can download a free copy of Queer Data through the university library ✷

EUSci: Would you say that more qualitative

approaches such as stories and interviews can be

more helpful in capturing information that can’t be

categorised as easily?

Kevin: Yeah, definitely. I think often when we speak

about qualitative methods, we're more comfortable

thinking about questions of emotion and bringing

your own biases and baggage to the types of methods

you're using. What I want to do with my research and

my writing is to argue that these same issues should

be given consideration when using quantitative

methods. Just because you're designing a survey or

aggregating different categories in a data set, this also

comes with decisions about who counts and who

doesn't count. We're definitely more comfortable

seeing qualitative methods through that lens and

we're a little bit more reluctant to challenge the

objectivity of quantitative methods. There's a long

history there around numbers and these types of

scientific approaches being seen as “harder sciences”

or more objective compared to stuff which is maybe

seen as more emotive or more human-oriented. What

I hope people get from reading my book and my work

is just that we should think critically about all of these

methods whether or not they're quantitative or

qualitative.

categorising, counting, managing different

populations, as you mentioned in your question. The

good of the people being counted was rarely at the

heart of the intentions of the scientists or figures

behind these campaigns. I think particularly the

history of race science, categorising race and its use

for eugenics projects, should definitely play a key role

in how we think about LGBTQ+ data in the present day.

I am also interested in what data historically exists

about communities who we migh now describe as

LGBTQ+. If we go into an archive and look for

quantitative data around gay men, for example, what

type of data can we find? And as you might imagine,

the data that exists historically about these

communities is very one-sided and extremely

negative. It was collected for particular purposes

around monitoring crime deviant psychological

maladjustment. A lot of the data that existed was not

to highlight the positives (or the roundedness) of

these communities' lives and experiences. This is a

really important point when we think about current

day developments around data science and machine

learning algorithms – these gigantic datasets that

make use of a huge amount of historical information

about these communities which can then very quickly

result in biases in their design.

“Certain methods are sold

to us as being inclusive but

can sometimes only count

parts of larger

communities.”

EUSci: You mentioned there's this difference between

how data science is seen in terms of “hard sciences”

or more qualitative work. Do you think that modern

day data science has been affected heavily by

historically more sinister figures who have been very

much categorising people by focusing on eugenics or

trying to fit people into very narrow boxes?

Kevin: That's a great question, and definitely, 100%. In

the book I trace how we got where we are around

LGBTQ+ data in the UK, and I think it's impossible to

write that history without thinking about histories of

race, eugenics, and these historical approaches to

EUSci: So in terms of changing approaches, your

work talks about the concept of “queering data” – can

you explain what you mean by that?

Kevin: My book is called Queer Data, and I do hope

that it provides an accessible introduction to work in

this field. There's been around maybe five to ten years

of work around LGBTQ+ data in the UK and US by

academics, social justice activists, and practitioners

working across a range of different fields. In the book I

bring together these ideas to argue that queer data

can be understood in two ways. On one hand, we've got

the type of data about LGBTQ+ communities that is

maybe what comes to mind first when you think of

queer data: data on education, healthcare, and

employment, whether it's quantitative or qualitative.

The second strand of Queer Data, which I think is

probably a little bit more interesting, is about thinking

of how to queer data in the verb sense. How do we

queer different research methods? This applies to

people doing any type of research, people that may or

may not be engaging in topics around identity. It could

be stuff around fishing or farming – I'm trying to think

of just examples not related explicitly with LGBTQ+

lives. It engages ideas from queer theory and queer



studies which date back to the late 80s/early 90s. It

explores questions around how we construct

knowledge, how power shapes our ideas around who

counts and who doesn't count, and how we then apply

that in the design of different methods we use in our

work. I hope to bring those two strands together in

the book and provide ideas that I hope are accessible

for people wherever they are on this journey.

EUSci: For the censuses that have come out recently

for England and Wales you can zoom in on a

particular area and see how many people of a certain

identity live in that area, which is terrifying if you're

one of those people. So how do you balance making

sure people are counted for but also ensuring that

this doesn't affect their safety or ability to just live

their lives as they normally would?

Kevin: Oh, another fantastic question. Just around

the politics of visibility, this is a fascinating topic

particularly when we think about it through the lens

of data collection. Irregardless of what number is

published on the size of particularly the trans

population in the UK, for people opposed to trans

inclusion the number was always going to be both too

high and too low. I think we need to be speaking about

whether the benefits of being accounted for in

something like the national census outweighs the

risks and the energy and resources that I know many

LGBTQ+ people and groups and community

organisations have had to put into addressing that

increased visibility. The argument in my work is that

when we're captioning data on minoritised

communities – for example, LGBTQ+ people – it’s

always going to have an inbuilt undercount because,

for a variety of legitimate and valid reasons, many

people will not wish to share that information in a

census. We need to think about the fallout of this, the

toll on people's lives, and I think we also need to ask

whether it matters – can we actually direct resources

that improve people's lives without exactly knowing

the percentage of trans people who live in

Manchester or Liverpool or Brighton? I don't know if

we need to have all of that information to actually

address the problems that people face in their dayto-day

life and whether this to some degree might

just be a misuse of resources.

EUSci: I guess we always have to weigh the benefits of

data collection versus the trust that you have in the

institution to protect that data.

Kevin: Yeah, I think it is that kind of weighing-up game.

I don't want to be too doom and gloom, because there

are also positives. I remember speaking at events

around Scotland at the time of the census, and I was

really excited about the opportunity to mark in the

census that I am a gay man living in Edinburgh on that

date. There's no right or wrong answer for these topics

we’re speaking about – there's no one way to queer

methods. There's no one way to apply a queer

approach to work, I think it's all just thinking through

these nuances and complexities and particularly in

scientific methods that are often seen as objective,

above politics or history. It's about having space to

have these conversations, that actually things are

messy and complicated and have good and bad points.

EUSci: What do you think is going to be happening in

the queer data field going forward – anything you’re

looking forward to or concerned about?

Kevin: Oh, in my kind of “crystal ball” thinking of what

might happen next? My work is continuing in this

space but zooming out a bit. I’m working on a second

book that looks more broadly on how to classify and

categorise LGBTQ+ communities. Whereas Queer

Data focuses on data and how we collect, analyse, and

use it, with the next book I am more interested in how

we use systems that we might not usually associate

with data to make sense of LGBTQ+ people – looking

into things like hate crime reporting, dating apps, rules

about asylum and borders, and film funding. In terms

of the broader queer data space I think what's exciting

is just seeing the appetite for these ideas – not only for

people working in fields around gender, sex, and

sexuality but for those working in other data spaces

such as privacy and data protection and how this

queering of methods might be applied in their work.

Also what I would love to see as much as possible is

these conversations happening outside of academic

circles and outside of universities. Doing this work

around data and LGBTQ+ lives, my hope is that it's

engaging people across many different workplaces,

organisations, and activist groups – whatever your job,

role, or context, there can be something in it for you –

and I hope that's what the book adds to these

conversations.

Guest: Kevin Guyan is a writer and researcher whose work explores the intersection of data and identity. He is

the author of Queer Data: Using Gender, Sex and Sexuality Data for Action (Bloomsbury Academic).

Podcast hosts: Katie Pickup is a final-year PhD student in Genetics and Molecular Medicine, working on

embryonic stem cells and developmental biology. Kelsey Tetley-Campbell is a final-year PhD student in Genetics

and Molecular Medicine, working on the genetic causes of sex-biased diseases.



Bringing humanity and humour to

science writing

Kája Kubičková argues for a more

humorous and transparent approach to

scientific communication that celebrates

humanity in science.

cience weaves through the entirety of the social landscape,

so how is it that people can feel so disconnected from a

process that shapes so many facets of our lives? How can we

Swork towards clear communication and a comprehensive

understanding of complex scientific topics, given the bidirectional

nature of scientific research? It seems to be difficult to dislodge the

idea that communication within academia is aided by the strippingaway

of humour, personality, and opinion, and that scientific

writing which is passionate is not real science. This view makes it

seem that science is less of a process of understanding and more a

system by which we deliberately make our communication as

confusing and inflated as possible. I believe there should be further

encouragement of science writing that is clear and accurate, that

admits uncertainty, but that still retains enthusiasm and humour.

We should approach science writing as storytelling, meant to

inform and entertain. Scientific communication should not only be

widely available and accessible; it should recognise science as a

series of processes rather than as mere conclusions. Nobody wants

to read about the hero defeating the dragon without first reading

the adventure that led him there.

The anti-vaccine movement is a common example of the failings of

some current science communication (though it must be

mentioned that there are some brilliant science communicators

out there, such as Nancy Kanwisher at MIT, or the NASA-scientist

turned comic-strip-artist Randall Munroe). It’s often assumed that

the anti-vaccination sentiment stems from miscommunication and

public ignorance as to the function of vaccines. While it’s true that

lack of knowledge breeds fear, it's far too easy to blame the public

for their rejection of established scientific principles. We often fail

to recognise that there is also a problem with the way institutions

communicate the topic to the public. It’s not necessarily the case

that the public doesn’t have accessible information about vaccines.

Many concerns around vaccines come from individualistic

approaches to these issues, which cannot be alleviated by

sentiments focusing on the bigger picture of public health. That is,

parents might think, “I don’t want to risk the side-effects of

vaccines in my children,” rather than, “I’ll vaccinate my child to

protect the immunocompromised in our society.”

Though this

sentiment

is not one I am

endorsing, it should be

approached with empathy.

We must focus on more than remedying

a perceived lack of knowledge; we must

also prioritise rebuilding trust and

fostering dialogue between the scientific

community and the public. We need to

address the public’s concerns as valid –

people are much more amenable to

change when they don’t feel that their

fears are being dismissed.

Recognising and questioning errors,

faults, and uncertainty is a cornerstone

of good science, yet the media often

struggles with depicting this complexity.

There’s a tendency to show research as

definitive, and researchers themselves

might at times prefer to take this route

in their communication for fear of loss of

scientific authority. Yet contrary to this

expectation, one study has found that

expressing reservations in the

communication of research can increase

trust, as addressed by Mickey Steijaert

and colleagues.



Rather than undermining the research,

it paints the author as a more objective

source. Science shouldn’t be displayed

to the public as a monolithic authority

dictating the correct opinions to be held

– failures should be discussed, doubt

dissected, and changes in previously

upheld scientific dogmas celebrated.

Placing scientists on a pedestal of

unquestionability is harmful not only to

science itself but also to the public’s

perception of science. It is my opinion

that by positioning researchers as

incontestable authorities, sensationalist

science media publications actually give

rise to further mistrust in science.

Rather than being viewed as a process,

and a very human one at that, science is

portrayed as something unreachable to

the layperson, something beyond

comprehension and conducted only in

closed-off institutional laboratories.

Not only is this image a breeding ground

for conspiracy theories centred around

shadowy scientific institutions –

probably surrounded by ominously

bubbling test tubes and human organs

suspended in tanks – it makes scientific

knowledge seem inaccessible. While

much of the background behind

scientific processes requires significant

time and study, we should be focusing

on closing that very gap between

science and the public. The first step

towards gaining more public trust is to

move away from sweeping claims about

the conclusions gained from research

and to focus on the process and the

questions that remain. We should

discuss criticisms and possible errors in

research openly. Concerns will arise

within the public sphere either way – it’s

preferable for issues to be expressed by

individuals who are knowledgeable on

the specific subject and to open the door

to conversations that might facilitate

further understanding of research. We

must not only accept but celebrate

fallibility and humanity within science.

“Why do we need to present

science as something

inherently joyless in the

pursuit of professionalism?

Science is a serious and often

difficult undertaking, but that

doesn’t mean we need to

dehumanise it in the process.”

Another concern I have with science communication is the

stripping of emotion from science in order for it to be seen as

valid. While it’s understandable that textbooks and journals will

be suffused with jargon, I don’t find any benefit in removing

humour and humanity from science writing, whether that be in

science writing aimed towards the general public or other

researchers. Why do we need to present science as something

inherently joyless in the pursuit of professionalism? Science is a

serious and often difficult undertaking, but that doesn’t mean we

need to dehumanise it in the process. While data should be

presented accurately within a general code of conduct, a facade

of professionalism and an urge to present ourselves as

intellectual within the scientific sphere shouldn’t drive how we

write about science.

Researchers should not be forced to make their writing as bland

and joyless as possible in order to be perceived as competent

scientists. Science should be widely available and accessible to

the public, and that extends to comprehensibility. It can be

difficult to recognise the line between making science easy to

digest and sensationalising it, but I firmly believe that line exists

and is wider than we might think. Beyond the project of

humanising science to make research less alien, we might also

ask: why shouldn’t we find joy in our work? I think a lot of science

is pretty damn amazing – and not only do I think we should be able

to express that joy when writing about it, I don’t think it takes

away from anyone’s merit as a scientist. Conversely, I’d argue it

makes them a better science communicator and, perhaps

through that passion for science, a better scientist.

Kája Kubičková (she/her) is a third-year Neuroscience student.

She is a big fan of xkcd, weird brain facts, and cool research into

neural circuits.



I’m an Academic…

Get me out of here?!

Juda Milvidaite shares their journey as an academic, highlighting

the need to check in with ourselves more often.

was on my lunch break at the

Chancellor’s Building, where I

was working on my Neuro- Iscience Honours project, when I

overheard someone crying. It was

a PhD student venting to a friend

about their project and, mostly,

venting about their suffering. I

can’t remember the troubles

exactly, but I remember thinking

that I was witnessing the

canonical PhD experience. In that

moment, I vowed to myself that

this would never be me. I did not

want to end up crying in the

cafeteria. I did not want to

perpetuate the stereotypes of a

suffering PhD student. So, I would

never do a PhD. And yet... “Do you

want to stay in academia?” we

often asked each other. What was

academia beyond the unknown or

the suffering? I think for me it

was the learning. The unknown

becoming known. If only I could

stay at the university forever, I

thought. I was in love with the

pursuit of knowledge.

One out of five students will not

finish their PhD (UK Research and

Innovation, 2011). I dropped out of

my bioengineering PhD halfway

through my four-year

programme. To be frank, before I

began my project journey, I

mostly felt curious: what was this

infamous PhD journey all about?

Testing it in my hands, I was doing

a case study on whether the PhD

life was for me. But, I had also

given myself the permission to

withdraw from the case at any

point.


Why do people exit academia?

1. Mental health

It is completely normal to have a

non-linear journey. Time, healing

– both are non-linear. I had

already left academia once after

my undergrad. At the time, I was

feeling so burnt-out, I felt I would

never again be able to face

another scientific article. I had to

face my feelings instead. Later, I

came back because I had missed

science. Throughout my

undergrad – I later realised – I

used science, learning, the long

hours at the library, the organised

notes – all as a coping mechanism.

But life doesn’t stop happening

because you’re doing science. Life

has its ups; life has its downs. And

naturally, there might come a

point when you need to re-invent

your coping strategies.

PhD students are at least twice as

likely to show signs of severe

anxiety or experience depression

when compared to other working

professionals (published in the

Humanities and Social Sciences

Communications journal, 2021).

Moreover, around half consider

developing mental health

problems as a normal part of the

process. It is a marathon, not a

sprint. But also, it is a challenge in

perseverance.

But what do you do if you’re not

coping with the process? Does the

end justify the means? In the end,

what matters?

In my opinion, to be a real

academic, you must be married to

your research. Either way, to be

happy, you must feel connected.

You need community. Part of

what can make or break a PhD is

the isolation. In the wrong lab, the

dodgeball of everyday social

dynamics might be exhausting. If

you come from a different

country – away from family,

friends, and familiar resources,

having to self-fund or navigate

visa restrictions and funding

conditions – even in a supportive

group, pausing studies for mental

health or personal reasons may

simply be much, much harder to

arrange.

2. The group

The research

group, its own

work culture and

team dynamics can also make or

break a PhD. Whether there is

unspoken pressure to spend most

of the social and living hours by

the lab bench or whether a

student feels enabled to have a

work-life balance and flexible

hours – this all can be very groupdependent.

There are other

stressors outside of a student’s

control that become clear only

once inside. They can range from

the general pressure to publish, to

the group lacking funding and

having to scramble for resources,

or, of course, personality clashes,

egos, discrimination, harassment

and bullying within the group, or

even the ethical and scientific

dilemmas arising from pressure

to falsify data. Even in the absence

of such extreme problems, in

well-funded and successful labs, a

student might suffer feeling

forgotten.


A successful and busy principal investigator (PI)

might be too busy to learn about each student’s

work style – too absent to establish an effective,

supportive working relationship. Or the

supervisor might be too set in their ways to adapt

to students needing different direction styles. Not

every good scientist is a good supervisor; not

every supervisor is flexible.

At the same time, an advantage of a bustling lab is

the access to other potential mentors. I strongly

believe you win as a student once you are

“adopted” by a postdoctoral researcher. This way,

you not only have someone who can advise or

gently push you in terms of experimental design

and methodology but often also someone working

daily by your side, exploring questions related to

yours. In any case, it is crucial to find mentors –

other scientists within and outside the group –

and build your own emotional and research

support network. Though that, too, can be

stressful, working relationships are key to

surviving and staying tethered to academia.

ly pitch yourself with access to more resources and more

privilege. Science thrives on progress. But this has been

quite slow when it comes to reflecting the sociocultural

forces that different individuals face. The work of

organising together to dismantle foundational power

structures and to make research more inclusive and

accessible has just scratched the surface.

Outside an industrial lab, scientists are also needed in the

public health sector (NHS for the biomedical scientists

or Public Health Scotland for the epidemiologists). There

are also charities that aim to increase public and patient

involvement in science or reduce the use of animals in

research. There is policy and governmental work,

scientific consulting and writing, communication or

outreach. You could even marry your love for science

and performance art and become a science clown,

touring Scottish schools and teaching kids through play.

You can adapt your research skills elsewhere. There are

many ways to be a scientist and to do important, exciting

science.

3. Changing your mind: many different ways to

do exciting science

As a scientist, it is important to always keep an

open mind. Maybe you simply need to work on

something different. Nowadays, many Centres for

Doctoral Training (CDTs) recognise that not

every student will be interested or stay in

academia. The CDTs collaborate with industrial

partners to give the PhD candidates an

opportunity to experience non-academic

research.

In or out of academia, there might still be some

invisible, intersectional blocks to address.

Analysing the “Destinations of Leavers of Higher

Education Longitudinal” survey, which reported

PhD employment activity three-and-a-half years

after graduation in the UK, revealed that males

who have obtained their PhDs from Russell Group

institutions are significantly more likely to secure

research roles outside of academia. Why are the

rest not as likely? Perhaps it’s easier to confident-

“But what do you do if

you’re not coping with the

process? Does the end

justify the means?”

Photographs of Juda Milvidaite

by Kate Louise Powell



Research suggests that skipping the post-doc

entirely could be the wisest financial move, since

PhD holders who move to other sectors right after

PhD completion earn higher salaries for up to 15

years post-PhD, when compared to those who go on

to work post-doctoral positions. In the outside world,

your experience and skills are what matter most. So,

if you feel that academia is not for you, you might as

well begin moving elsewhere – gathering the

experience.

Conclusion?!

People exit academia for a multitude of complex

reasons: personal issues, shifting priorities, family

plans, structural barriers within and beyond the

scale of a research institute, rigid personality cults,

limits imposed by the lack of grants and resources,

general lack of job security, or the potential financial

sacrifice of sticking around.

4. The post-doctoral sieve

It has long been a tale in academia how only a very

small handful of people who become doctors will ever

become professors. I ultimately realised I did not

care about the academic climb to become a group

leader and a professor. Indeed, there are some

academic roles outside of becoming a PI. Research

laboratories benefit from highly trained support

staff – technicians, scientific officers, lab managers,

data analysts – although availability of these roles

depends on the available funding, so they may be

scarce, too. And yet, initially most PhD students will

want to do a postdoc – to stick around. Nevertheless,

as mentioned before, most PhD holders will have left

academia within three years post-PhD.

The post-doctoral sieve takes place because of the

“cost” of staying in academia. One often must follow

the research – and the right lab with the right

position at the right time could be anywhere around

the world. For people with family, uprooting the

whole family can be extremely challenging. Even for

single individuals, the isolating academic lifestyle and

he lack of post-doctoral job stability could, in the end,

prevent them from sticking it out. While postdoctoral

experience is necessary for securing a

higher academic post, outside of the university, this

experience is not valued the same.

Me? I took a leap of faith when I jumped into my PhD.

Two years into my project, I found myself in agony at

the bottom of the proverbial cliff. I reflect on the

numerous lists of pros and cons I wrote, the many

discussions I had with friends, the hours spent

reading others' experiences, unable to conclude:

Should I stay? Or should I go? I recall my walks

outside the Advanced Research Centre in Glasgow,

where I was based, going back and forth between

feeling that I needed to leave and that I did not want

to quit. I was still on track. I still believed in the

project. I was surrounded by great minds, ready to

advise and help. And yet, I remember looking at the

art surrounding the University, particularly, a mural

outside the Centre which read: “Do What Makes You

Happy.” Although research has brought me joy in the

past, I had to admit that it was no longer the case. I

was not happy. But if doing a PhD has taught me one

thing, it's that what you set out to do is not

necessarily where you end up. It is okay to try things

and make mistakes and, with what you learn, adjust

the course as you go. And so, by course correcting, I

took another leap of faith. Again, I walked into the

vast unknown land – now, outside of university.

So, dear academic reading this... What would make

you happy? Do keep an open mind and take your

time. The answer might surprise you.

Juda Milvidaite (they/them) - the Art Editor

for EUSci magazine - graduated from BSc

(Hons) Neuroscience in University Edinburgh

in 2019 and has since been using their brain

for both science and art.



To Fund or Not to Fund: How much

should the public hold the strings?

Faidra Batsaki explores the intersection between public

engagement and scientific progress in the digital era.

ith the technological advances of the 21st century

taking off, the progression in the digital era has

been inevitable and, with that, our progression into

Wnew norms. We now have access to a vast amount of

information available online, the ability to stay up to date with

world news, the right to create online platforms and share our

opinion across the anonymity of the web, the chance to access

the latest scientific advances released in any field with the

click of a button. Quoting one of the most iconic phrases, “with

great power comes great responsibility,” science lies in our

hands as undeniably as our ability to shape it. With opensource

journals and online libraries, freedom of speech of

media and online platforms, and a series of open-access talks

and seminars organised by the scientific community with the

main goal to communicate their research to a broader

audience, the average human nowadays holds a significantly

more central position in the scientific world than in the past

centuries. Does having a seat at the centre translate into

holding the strings? What influence does the public really have

on the research that takes place? And even if they can have a

seat, an influence, a say – do they really want to claim it?

Studies conducted by the UK research councils report public

participation and engagement as vital to the quality and

relevance of science. Engaging a wider audience with different

backgrounds on a research topic can open up fresh

perspectives, widen the applications, or even lead to different

questions and generate new proposals. This way, knowledge is

offered to all members of society, regardless of their

occupation or scientific background, and simultaneously, the

opportunity to partake in it. Particularly the occurrence of

open-access talks and public conferences is vastly increasing

because of the high participation and appeal among

individuals. Such opportunities of interactions between

scientists and people interested in science are indispensable

for the quality of research.

Discussions on the outcomes of current inventions or

discoveries can underline the level of urgency, use, and

interest around a topic and allow researchers to acquire a

more representative idea on how their research reflects on

society as well as present society with important insights into

the aims and reasons of the respective research.

Looking at data from Cancer Research UK

(CRUK), public involvement and research

funding are indisputably at their highest

when it comes to drug discovery. Affected

individuals are much more likely to want to

get involved with the ongoing research

around a disease they are familiar with or

may have suffered from, following the

progress of such drug formulations,

alongside potential side effects and success

rates of clinical trials. Non-governmental

funding bodies, such as CRUK, have long been

in place in order to satisfy those interests and

continue to operate at a massive scale

through ongoing research at universities and

clinical trials for new drugs, supported by

fundraising and donations from the public.

Individuals feel accredited and able to offer

towards a greater cause, higher funds are

available to go towards research, and

pharmaceuticals themselves get higher levels

of participation in clinical trials, a vital part of

the pharmaceutical process, adding to this

win-win trade.

As well as benefitting the quality of research

and the mindsets of the scientists behind it,

public participation aims to renew the

society’s trust in science and improve this

relationship that can be so easily threatened

by stereotypical approaches. Such

approaches insinuate that only people with

specific backgrounds can decipher scientific

documents and process technological

advances, with a large portion of the public

disregarding the attributions of science to

society and questioning novel advances with

unprecedented fear and mistrust. This

scepticism can then lead to endorsement of

harmful conspiracy theories and

pseudoscientific claims, skewing the true

nature of science and adopting a negative

stance towards it, as seen during the Covid-19



pandemic. Another harmful

stereotype segregates scientists as

individuals with no interest in realworld

problems, locked in their

“ivory tower,” fully invested in

topics that are not applicable to the

greater public good. By adopting

these mindsets, the public can lose

interest in scientific achievements,

and the chasm between the two

worlds will keep getting bigger.

Establishing a relationship of trust

and equality is vital in order for

higher public participation within

the domains of research. Any

additional disconnect in this already

fragile relationship may be risking

all of the latest attempts to

reconcile the public with science.

However, public engagement should

not only entail communicating

scientific conclusions but also

communicating scientific proposals.

Universities, industries, and

foundations undoubtedly invest

both time and facilities as well as

personnel in organising and holding

science outreach activities – but

how many of these efforts are

directed towards engaging their

audience with the primary question:

“What research should be funded?”

And what a question to be asked.

Posing this question to myself, I

have been going around in circles

from the science I personally

research (every scientist thinks

their research is the most

important in the world) to the

diseases and discomforts I usually

suffer from, to environmental

breakthroughs towards the climate

crisis, to crazy technological

advances I must have seen in the

sci-fi film last night. I suspect

anybody faced with this question

would take a similar approach and –

inevitably – make it personal. How

can a personal quiz be translated

into the needs and interests of the

whole world?

How could a non-expert mind

visualise where the new discoveries

lie? Many scientific breakthroughs

are an outcome of serendipity and

careful observation. It would be

naïve to dismiss the unpredictable

nature of research and disruptive to

try control it. Still, with outcomes

that cannot be foreseen, one could

argue that a public vote of

designating research funding ahead

of its time could be meaningless and

premature.

“Citizen Science

today offers a

two-way street:

volunteers

obtain valuable

educational

experiences,

while project

designers benefit

by having access

to larger data

sets.”

In reality, it doesn’t seem likely that

we will have a public vote on what

should be funded next, especially for

the less known non-clinical

research fields. Instead, these will

probably take guidance from the

years of public engagement

activities developed by different

clinical and biomedical

organisations, such as CRUK. To

protect and support future research

with the increasing public

involvement, the best way to move

forward is probably to use public

research councils, such as UK

Research and Innovation (UKRI).

These public research councils aim

to coordinate the science policies of

the nation and collaborate with

academia, communicating research

of the different departmental

councils, improving operational

performance, and establishing

better practices. The UKRI joins

seven different research councils

and ensures close collaboration

between them, with the vision to

connect discovery to prosperity and

public good. In other words,

independent legal bodies function

as a group of experts with the public

good as the common denominator,

representing the public voice as

accurately as the means allow.

These institutions collaborate

freely with members of the public

that would want to get directly

involved in funding decisions,

welcoming their involvement in

conferences, participation in

funding body committees, and

organising the funds towards new

research schemes, such as PhD

scholarships. In order to review the

efficacy of public research councils,

researchers at Northwestern

University conducted a study on

how well public funding is aligned

with public use, reporting

“consistent alignment between

public priorities for scientific

research and the research itself.” A

significant example from that study

was Covid-19 for which the

scientific community chose to

substantially pivot towards Covid

research, while this was also driven

by remarkable public demand and

increased availability of National

Institutes of Health (NIH) funding.

Science has, and always will, follow

public interest, because it simply

underlies a surge of scientific

attention.



to be involved in science. This stance may arise

from premonitions about science itself and the

feeling of impostor syndrome where people

believe that only experts within the area can fully

comprehend the topic and that any attempt of

non-expert deciphering would be meaningless and

not worthwhile. While such low trust on our own

devices is a commonly seen and very humane

notion, it is, however, untrue. No society or

individual has ever improved by dismissing ideas

and challenges. The same article encouragingly

showed that, however dismissive the personal

stance of the public was towards funding research,

the depth of such decisions was acknowledged, and

people turned to government organisations for

advice and guidance.

Illustration by Prerna Vohra

The best way to serve the public interest is still the

subject of continuous evaluation. Indeed, the Medical

Research Council recently funded research delivered

by VOCAL to assess different methodologies of public

involvement used by 21 organisations. Another study

published in 2019 by the UK Government Department

for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS)

sheds some light on how the attitude of the public

towards science has evolved over the last few years.

The positive take-away messages summarised that

people find science more accessible and feel better

informed (the unlimited sources of media are doing

something right), and there are increased levels of

trust in scientists and science regulation. Interestingly,

when asked about public involvement in what gets

funded, there was a disconnect between feeling that

the public should get involved and people’s own desire

Faidra Batsaki is a PhD student in medicinal chemistry

with a passion for reading literature and a prospect of

a career in writing.

As to the role that scientists have in aiding public

involvement, there is an increasing desire to

communicate research to a lay audience. This is

clear from the growing popularity of public events

such as Pint of Science and outreach initiatives at

every research institute. But what about the

audience? How many “non-experts” does it really

consist of? How big is the actual participation and

involvement in the scientific notions discussed

in these meetings? As a scientist myself, I

understand the primary focus of every academic

researcher are scientific publications and the

urgency towards it. Scientists race the eternal

race of science, competing against time with the

aim to be the first to publish their new creation in

an ever-so-public journal that will be immediately

accessed by not-so-ever-so-public researchers.

The disconnect between public involvement and

scientific interest can be first seen there. An ideal

take would offer hope for a completely united

front between public and science without mistrust

and abstention. An idyllic world where every

citizen cares, influences, and stays proactive,

building up to an eternal democracy. A more

realistic approach would suggest transparency

and a shared interest between the public and

research – the public good. And that goal is met.

Scientists above all – above recognition, above

perpetuity – care about producing something

worthwhile, making a contribution to society. We

all started our research journeys thinking we

would change the world, make something bigger of

ourselves, add to the unknown. Research always

starts there.



Exploring the interdependence

between politics and science

Nathalie Canteli Kuehnel examines the complex

relationship between science and politics and how their

influences on each other can be leveraged to create

positive societal impact.

S

cience is fundamentally an objective and

value-free discipline concerned with

finding the empirical truths that govern

our natural world. This idea has been marketed

to the public for decades, and it seems that

science has adapted to become its own

untouchable domain in our modern society – a

domain unconcerned with mundane social

problems. And yet, if we dig a little deeper, we

can identify considerable links between science

and other pillars of our modern society, which

not only influence each other but can determine

the mere existence of one another. From the

use of science in policy making to scientific

funding, this article aims to tackle the complex

interdependent relationship between science

and politics.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the use of

scientific data to justify policies became ever so

noticeable to the public. Interestingly, the way

that some governments utilised scientific

expertise in public health and epidemiology

proved to influence their crisis management

and outcomes. This is exemplified in a 2021

study by the political scientists Jostein Askim

and Tomas Bergström. Despite their similarities

in demographics and population, Sweden and

Norway had contrasting approaches to the

pandemic. In the spring of 2020, Sweden’s

Covid-19 decision-making was dominated by

their Agency of Public Health, spearheaded by

epidemiologist Dr Anders Tegnell. Political

figures took a step back in the initial course of

the pandemic and the public was urged to follow

the expert’s advice, contributing to public

health discourse of a scientific nature.

In Norway, the Directorate of Health was appointed

responsibility for the Covid-19 crisis in January of 2020.

In contrast to Sweden, Norway’s Directorate of Health is

more heavily influenced by political instruction,

establishing a discourse laden with legality and policy.

Therefore, Sweden and Norway exhibited differences in

where the central government’s executive responsibility

lay during the crisis, which affected their Covid-19

response and crisis management. Lockdown policies

were affected by the extent to which science informed

political decisions. For instance, unlike Norway and many

other European countries including the United Kingdom,

Sweden never implemented an official lockdown but

rather opted for more personal public health mitigation

responses that relied on individuals’ sensible decisionmaking.

Although there might be differing opinions as to

which strategy was best to manage the Covid-19

pandemic, this shows the varying degrees to which

governments may take scientific advice into

consideration and how this dynamic can substantially

affect the lives of the general public.

Photo by CDC from Unsplash



“The interplay between science and

politics can be seen at all levels of the

scientific enterprise: from the individual

beliefs of scientists to governmental

influence over research institutions.”

Realistically, scientific research does not occur in a vacuum, but rather

against the backdrop of society. The interplay between science and

politics can be seen at all levels of the scientific enterprise: from the

individual beliefs of scientists to governmental influence over research

institutions. Scientific research is heavily dependent on the resources

available: be it lab equipment or special training, the success of research

relies on the infrastructure available. So, who provides the money for

scientific research? Funding can be attained through private corporations

and organisations, such as pharmaceutical companies, or public

institutions where research is funded by the government through taxpayer

money. Financial support from these organisations inevitably

influences funded research to align with their interests, as seen in the

battle for gun control in the United States.

The second leading cause of mortality for people under 18 in the United

States is fire-arm injuries, with motor vehicle crashes being the primary

cause and cancer being the third leading cause. Yet in comparison to

cancer research, which receives $355 million annually, research into firearm

management and injury prevention received only 32 grants in total,

equating to approximately $12 million annually. With increasing public

demand for stricter gun control measures, there has been a call to

promote scientific funding into research for fire-arm injury prevention.

However, to understand why funding was so scarce in the first place, we

must look back to must look back to 1996 and the enactment of the Dickey

Amendment by the US Congress.

The Dickey Amendment resulted from increased efforts in the 1990s to

rethink gun violence as a public health issue. In 1992, the Centre for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established a centre focused on

research to reduce deaths and injuries from violence. Inevitably, this

sparked a conversation about gun control, with, for example, studies

determining gun ownership in a home to be a risk factor for homicide. As a

result, organisations such as the National Rifle Association began

lobbying against the CDC’s research, and their effort ultimately

culminated in the addition of the Dickey Amendment to the 1996 spending

bill stating: “[n]one of the funds made available in this title may be used, in

whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” Funding for gun

control research thus became essentially non-existent, and no scientists

were disposed to risk their careers to find out what the limits of this

amendment were. In subsequent years, efforts were made to remove the

amendment from the yearly spending bill. Only in 2020 did the CDC and

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) receive $25 million for the next

fiscal year to fund research related to gun control and violence.

Photo by Ryoji Iwata from Unsplash



Research institutions that serve as a link between the scientific and the political world can influence who has

the resources to conduct scientific research. These can include organisations like the NIH in the US or research

councils in the UK, which assess grant proposals and distribute funding. In 2023, a study conducted by the Yale

School of Medicine set out to investigate funding patterns of the NIH in hopes of uncovering the existence of

any gender and race disparities leading to unequal resource distribution. The researchers evaluated the

demographic parameters of principal investigators (PIs) who obtained three or more research grants between

1991–2020. In 2020, out of 34,000 researchers, they established that 4,000 (11.3%) held three or more grants,

representing $1.4 million per grantee. This “super-PI” (SPI) group tripled in number since 1991 when around 3.7%

of the investigators held multiple research grants. However, this was not due to an increase in overall funding.

Instead, already wealthy labs obtained more money, contributing to a concentration of funds to a specific

number of institutions.

“What effect does this have on scientific research?

Well, homogeneity, be it in the research force or in the

sample size, has never been beneficial for scientific

innovation.”

Furthermore, a substantial gender and race disparity was determined in the SPIs group.

Indeed, within the SPIs, white and Asian men were most likely to belong to this group –

out of the 4,000 researchers in the SPI group, 13.1% were white men and 14.4% were Asian

men. Overall, Black researchers made up 1.8% of the 34,000 investigators, and only 0.9%

held SPI status. Most surprisingly, out of the 4,000 researchers holding three or more

research grants, only 12 were Black women. With this information, it was concluded that

women and Black researchers were less likely than men and white researchers to be

SPIs, with Black women being 71% less likely to attain three or more grants in comparison

to white men. What effect does this have on scientific research? Homogeneity, be it in

the research force or in the sample size, has never been beneficial to scientific

innovation. This type of homogeneity is also observed in clinical trials, where predominantly

white men are represented. This not only affects the type of treatment

delivered to the patients but also the level of trust the general public has in

scientific research. Ultimately, diversifying grant committees and study

sections would ensure equal distribution of resources and funds to ascertain

that scientific innovation becomes inclusive too.

Undoubtedly, the examples discussed throughout

this article only represent a small scale of

connections between science and politics. The

relationship between these two areas is

unsurprisingly deeper and more intricate than

what has been briefly discussed here. It has

become clear that science has to rely on politics to

innovate and, at the end of the day, to survive.

Indeed, this is quite a bleak outlook and can make

the relationship seem strained and one-sided.

However, when politicians utilise and implement

scientific expertise in policy making, it can bring

about impactful change in our society. The

interdependence between science and politics is

by no means a negative one – both need each other

and should ultimately use one another to impact

the world positively.

Photo by National Cancer Institute from Unsplash

Nathalie Canteli Kuehnel (she/her) is a

fourth-year Pharmacology Honours

student.



The chill sets in

International collaboration has been a cause of triumph for scientists

for decades, but in science, as in politics, a new Iron Curtain is

slowly descending. Mika Kontiainen investigates.

cience knows no country, because knowledge belongs to

“S humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world.”

These words of Louis Pasteur, the

pioneer of microbiology, have long

been a rallying cry for science

unconstrained by artificial borders.

For decades, science has stood as a

beacon of global progress, its

practitioners setting aside their

political and ideological affiliations in

pursuit of a common goal – the

betterment of society. Yet until the

early 1990s, the global research

landscape was largely dominated by a

handful of rich Western countries,

notably the United States.

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, a

confluence of factors ranging from

the emergence of the internet to

increased global mobility, have led to

a diversification of research efforts

and a boom in cross-border

collaboration the world over. While

just under 2% of research papers

published in 1970 featured authors

from more than one country, in 2018

more than 22% of all articles indexed

in Elsevier’s Scopus database were

international collaborations. The rise

of open science in the form of

preprint servers and remote

collaboration tools, such as Zoom,

have all but erased national

boundaries for research.

Internationally co-authored papers

also carry a citation premium, with

scientifically peripheral countries

benefiting most from collaboration

with internationally recognised

centres.

The growth of international research

collaboration has charted a strikingly

similar path across different

disciplines. In a 2016 study of seven

distinct fields, Mario Coccia of Arizona

State University and Lili Wang of the

United Nations University found a

convergence of collaboration patterns

between basic and applied strands of

research since the 1970s. While fields

of basic research characterised by

large experimental collaborations,

such as astronomy and physics,

continue to top the charts, more

applied disciplines with potentially

commercial motivations, such as

engineering and biology, are following

closely behind.

Despite the long list of successes,

modern science is hardly indifferent to

geopolitical tensions. Starting with the

Russian annexation of Crimea and

subsequently accelerated by the

ongoing invasion of Ukraine, a new Iron

Curtain has begun to descend between

Russia and the NATO-affiliated

countries of the West. The Cold War

arms race established science as a

political tool. Accordingly, among the

first casualties of the latest cooling of

relations, arctic research collaboration

between the United States and Russia

was swiftly put on ice following the

“special military operation” in February

2022. Whereas during the Cold War the

dissemination of results itself was

curtailed, the new Iron Curtain may

manifest through the fragmentation of

funding regimes and collaboration

networks instead.

A collage of photographs obtained from Unsplash. From top down:

Hansjörg Keller (chairs), CHUTTERSNAP (crowd), National Cancer

Institute (scientists), Edoardo Ceriani (stop the war), Gayatri Malhotra

(black and white crowd), @lilysphotography (Berlin wall).



Relations with Russia are not the only ones impacted by the new Iron

Curtain. Although eschewing downright conflict, China’s coercive policies

abroad have led to its designation as a “systemic rival” by the European

Union. With the emergence of China as a scientific superpower, Western

universities have been urged to weigh the risks of international

cooperation. Following a 2019 NATO report identifying the Chinese

technology giant Huawei as a security risk, the company has been banned

from providing critical 5G infrastructure to much of the West. At the same

time, Huawei continues to fund basic research. Last year, a report by the

London-based think tank Civitas exposed the dependence of UK

universities on Chinese funding, with 46 universities having received

between £122–£156 million from Chinese sources, including Huawei,

between 2017 and 2022/23. Rather than a triumph of international

collaboration, these foreign investments risk contributing to the

development of dual-use technologies with both military and civilian

applications, such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing, under

the guise of basic research.

On its own turf, China has begun the repatriation of talent to serve national

needs and the agenda of the Chinese Communist Party. According to

research led by Zhenyue Zhao of Nanjing University, while the repatriation

into China doubles the returning researchers’ output rate, it also reduces

their chances of publishing in the four top journals: Nature, Science, Cell,

and PNAS. These publication patterns of individual researchers reflect a

more general trend. Despite China overtaking the United States in overall

research output in 2019, the US retains the top spot as the leading

scientific superpower due to higher impact factor research and established

collaboration networks. The rate of international collaboration in China

has also lagged far behind the West, with just 27% of all publications

between 2017 and 2020 being co-authored with international collaborators,

compared to 43% in the US and 66% in the UK.

“Under 2% of

research

papers

published in

1970

featured

authors

from more

than one

country.”

The cooling of relations is borne out by data. In contrast to a previous trend of 10% annual growth, the growth

in US-China collaboration stalled in 2019. According to research by Keisuke Okamura at the University of

Tokyo, not only has the growth stalled, however – it has gone into reverse. Using data of 15 natural science

disciplines from the OpenAlex bibliometrics platform, Okamura examined how the “affinity,” a measure of

collaboration between a pair of countries, has evolved over time. His findings suggest a “chilling effect” is

taking hold, with fields critical to national security, such as nuclear engineering, showing the sharpest fall.

This may be traced back to Trump-era guidelines, such as the China Initiative launched by the Department of

Justice to prevent “theft of US intellectual property by the Chinese government,” which was later scrapped by

the Biden administration.

Such growing rifts, whether due to protectionist policies or the increasing self-sufficiency of domestic

research networks, do not negate the progress made in international research collaboration over the past

decades. While geopolitics defines the scaffolding around which modern science is built, the necessity of a

coordinated response to global challenges – from climate change to pandemics – is becoming ever more

apparent. Many of the initial fears about the new Iron Curtain have also not materialised: Russia, for instance,

has committed to supporting research operations aboard the International Space Station through 2028,

despite threats of its immediate departure from the programme. Although both institutions and individual

scientists may be forced to exercise greater caution going forward, hope remains for Pasteur’s ideal – the

triumph of scientific collaboration over geopolitical divisions.

Mika Kontiainen (he/him) is a fifth-year MPhys Astrophysics

student and the head copy editor of the EUSci magazine.



A scientist

walks into

a bar…

Illustration by Colleen He

Katie Pickup shares

how Pint of Science not

only brings science to the

public but also serves as

a vital space for

scientists to cross

disciplines, spark

collaborations, and

explore new skills in a

relaxed and laughterfilled

setting.

jar of preserved sheep’s

ovaries and an interpretive

dance demonstrating how Asperm swim wouldn’t normally

accompany a cold, crisp pint of

Tennent’s. But I encountered both

of these one Tuesday night in an

Edinburgh pub last May, alongside

a rather unsettling analogy

comparing the structure of

testicles to spaghetti bolognese.

I was one of over 15,000 audience

members at pubs across 41 cities in

the UK alone, attending Pint of

Science, a festival bringing

scientists out of the lab to give fun,

informal talks in pubs, cafes, and

community centres worldwide. The

aim is to demystify science in a

non-pretentious environment

where researchers can have faceto-face

conversations with

members of the public.

The festival is now in its 11th year,

taking place in over 500 cities

across 25 countries. It is

predominantly run by volunteers,

usually made up of university

researchers, who are in charge of

booking venues, choosing themes,

and selecting speakers.

The idea grew from a patient

engagement initiative at Imperial

College London. Back in 2013, Pint

of Science co-founders Dr Praveen

Paul and Dr Michael Motskin were

researching neurodegeneration

and decided it was important to

meet the people affected by the

conditions they were working on.

They ended up inviting around 100

patients to their lab to meet

researchers, tour the building, and

get a flavour for how the scientific

process works. “It was really such

an eye opener for us as scientists

to make that connection with

people, and also [for them] to come

and visit us,” Praveen says, “it’s

really important to show that

scientists – we’re all just people at

the end of the day.”

This visit inspired a project that

grew and grew. “We thought okay,

people are actually interested in

coming to see us in our ‘native

environment’ of a lab, why don’t we

take this out to them?” From this,

Pint of Science was born. It took

off dramatically, hitting

international pubs in just its

second year – made all the more

impressive by the fact that

Praveen and her co-founders had

next to no public engagement

experience at first. The festival

runs annually during three days in

May, with each participating pub

hosting a particular area of science



“At Pint of Science, the stakes are low and often anything

that doesn’t quite work will just end in laughter from the

speaker and audience together – much less soul-destroying

than a failed laboratory experiment."

inspired by the genre-themed

stages at music festivals.

While engaging non-scientists and

humanising the role of the

researcher is a key goal of Pint of

Science, its value to scientists is

just as integral. Praveen does not

shy away from the fact that the

festival has a massive appeal to

researchers, both in their

professional development and

general interest. As soon as they

began organising Pint of Science, it

became immediately apparent to

Praveen and her team that

scientists can often be clueless

about other disciplines outside of

their own field. “We also didn’t

know what people in our

department were doing, or the rest

of the university… we couldn’t

really admit that we don’t actually

understand what anyone else is

talking about – there’s this

assumption that we’ve all got a

certain level of understanding, but

we don’t, it’s just so niche.” The

informal environment of Pint

provides a unique opportunity for

researchers, as well as the public,

to ask the questions that might feel

too silly in other contexts. As

Praveen points out, in most

professional settings scientists feel

they “can’t always turn around to

someone and say, ‘look, I don't

actually know what a gene is.’”

When researchers are bogged

down in the details of their day-to-

-day work, there aren’t often

opportunities to learn about the

science going on next door in other

departments.

This crosstalk is incredibly

beneficial, not only for scientists’

general interest, but for their

research. Praveen explains,

“because we are bringing people

from across the universities and

mixing disciplines, sometimes

we’ve had collaborations where a

physicist has collaborated with a

biologist through Pint of Science”.

Even other audience members

have managed to spark

partnerships by suggesting

techniques they’d seen in a talk the

previous night. Scientists have as

much to gain from the festival as

the public. This is part of the design

of Pint of Science and a key reason

for much of its success over the

last decade.

Praveen is well aware that the

festival couldn't run without its

volunteer scientist speakers and

event organisers, and emphasises

that another main goal is to help

researchers develop new skills.

“We really want to give ownership

to everyone that’s organising the

events to say ‘look, what I really

fancy is trying out this,

experimenting with this,’” she

explains, and stresses that the

informal pub or café environment

is the perfect place to feel

comfortable with this. At Pint of

Science, the stakes are low and

often anything that doesn’t quite

work will just end in laughter from

the speaker and audience together

– much less soul-destroying than a

failed laboratory experiment.

Praveen is a keen advocate for

trying something new, “I think

putting yourself outside of your

comfort zone is really good… Pint

of Science is a great platform to

work out what skills you like using”.

This philosophy has clearly paid off

for her: since setting up a science

festival with minimal prior

experience of public engagement,

Pint of Science has been a massive

global success and Praveen now

works as its full-time director.

There are clearly strong incentives

for scientists to participate in

events like these – both as

attendees and organisers. Often

science communication is, rightly,

focused on the impact made on

non-scientific audiences – of

course, making science more

transparent and accessible is

crucial for many reasons. But it’s

also okay to acknowledge that

sometimes there is as much in it

for scientists as there is for the

public – even if it’s simply the

chance to nerd out over the

reasons you were captivated by

science in the first place.

Pint of Science is running this year

from 13-15th May across

Edinburgh. There will be talks in

pubs across the city ranging from

environmental science to space,

chemistry, biomedicine, and

psychology. Find out more at

https://pintofscience.co.uk/. There

will be opportunities to be involved

in organising next year’s events for

students and researchers at the

University.

Katie Pickup (she/her) is a PhD student in Genetics and Molecular Medicine

and one of the hosts of EUSci’s “Not Another Science Podcast”.



Embarking on Citizen Science:

An introductory dive

Vanthanaa Sridhar explores the significance of citizen science in

bridging the gap between science and society, fostering

collaboration, and promoting scientific literacy among the public.

Illustration by Ewa Ozga

itizen science is a concept that opens the

doors of science for everybody in society. It

allows voluntary public participation in scien- Ctific research projects run by professional

scientists. In this context, "public" refers to nonscientists

and individuals who pursue scientific

activities outside of their professional career. Their

participation may include data collection, methods,

or analysis of a research activity that follows a

given protocol. They are not research subjects and

are aware of the effect of their contribution to the

experiment. Like any other scientist, they

contribute to the larger goal of enhancing existing

knowledge of certain research topics which are of

high relevance to society.

Examples of citizen science could be dated back to

the 17th century when Edmund Halley prompted

observers from all over England to record the total

solar eclipse through the prominent science journal

Philosophical Transactions. Charles Darwin in the

18th century used natural history magazines to

obtain creature surveys from over 2,000

correspondents to support his theories on

evolution. Across the oceans, ornithologist Wells W.

Cooke requested bird enthusiasts to collect

information on bird migration in 1880. This has now

developed into the government-run North

American Bird Phenology Program. Although

participation declined by 1970, the programme was

left with migration data spanning 90 years that aids

in understanding the effects of climate change on

bird migration and its ecology. The significance of citizen

science relies on the large quantity of data that can be

collected over extended periods of time. Large datasets

are preferred in science as it accounts for all sorts of

biological variability that may drive a particular result.

This provides more accurate average data points,

thereby increasing the quality of the research output.

Citizen science today offers a two-way street: volunteers

obtain valuable educational experiences, while project

designers benefit by having access to larger data sets. It

also ensures timely progress by utilising a bigger

workforce. As emphasised by sociologist Alan Irwin,

citizen science endeavours should align with the

concerns and needs of the public, fostering an integrative

society where citizens actively contribute to scientific

knowledge production.

Currently, numerous organisations in the UK employ

citizen science programmes to facilitate diverse data

collection efforts in scientific and environmental fields.

As technology has advanced, participating in citizen

science has become more accessible, thanks to

organisations developing apps that assist participants in

recording scientific data. The UK Centre for Ecology and

Hydrology conducts a broad range of projects that

comprise citizen scientist volunteers. For example, they

record toxic algal blooms (Bloomin’ Algae), pollution

levels in select predatory and fish-eating birds

(Predatory Bird Monitoring Scheme), and wild plant

species across the UK to understand their abundance


Illustration by Ewa Ozga


and diversity (National Plant Monitoring Scheme).

Nature Scot also engages in similar work via animal

and plant surveys to understand and preserve

biodiversity, such as BTO Garden BirdWatch, Plant

Alert, and Mammal Web. Additional organisations

engaged in citizen science programs focusing on

ecology in the UK include the British Ecological

Society and The Wildlife Trusts.

Citizen science projects were also launched for the

specific purpose of contributing to the progress of

disease research in the UK. Cancer Research UK

launched a few projects such as Cell Slider and

Trailblazer which involve public participants in

identifying cancer cells from a given cell or tissue

sample via an app after undertaking tutorials

required for correct analysis. These samples were

donated by cancer patients who had participated in

clinical trials to contribute to future research. The

projects received high participation with result

accuracy levels that matched 90% of the institute’s

scientists.

Citizen science projects can also extend beyond

ecology and healthcare. The GROW observatory, led

by the University of Dundee and the James Hutton

Institute, addresses issues of agricultural

significance and food security, as it aims to measure

soil moisture levels across wide geographical

landscapes. Another example is the river litter

dataset collection program run by Keep Scotland

Beautiful, which aims to get rid of marine litter by

first identifying its distribution across Scotland’s

scenic water bodies.

“Citizen Science today offers

a two-way street: volunteers

obtain valuable educational

experiences, while project

designers benefit by having

access to larger data sets.”

Moving forward, it is apparent that fostering

education and learning opportunities through citizen

science will be of growing significance. The UCL

Citizen Science Academy aims to pioneer a hands-on

teaching approach to educate individuals on research

methodologies, with a focus on its application in local

decision-making and policymaking. This strategy

effectively integrates scientific thinking into society.

Some projects may be specifically designed for citizen

science learning, adapted or repurposed for

educational purposes, or solely utilised for learning

without broader applications. The Natural History

Museum offers several programmes to educate

school students. Another illustration is the GLOBE

program conducted by NASA, which utilises citizen

science to enhance scientific education and

knowledge-sharing among students, citizens, and

teachers. Evidently, public participation in citizen

science projects continues to increase, indicating that

further analysis of its overall design and structure

might be required to ensure successful and reliable

data generation in the future. Its implications on

more pressing issues such as policy-making and

public awareness will also need to be pursued in a

pragmatic fashion.

E.O.

Vanthanaa Sridhar is a Synthetic Biology master’s student at the

University of Edinburgh who enjoys exploring farmers’ markets,

listening to music, and, of course, reading about synthetic biology.



Home Diagnostics and Health

Monitoring: A rising trend in 2024

Luna Wang explores the transformative era of home

diagnostics, unveiling the potential benefits and concerns

surrounding self-monitoring technologies.

round 35,000 patients wait for 12 hours on

hospital trolleys every month in England.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, significantly

Amore patients were diagnosed with bowel cancer in

the emergency setting than the year before (36% vs

28.6%). Meanwhile, junior doctors, underpaid and

stretched to their limit, continue take strike action

across the country. Following periods of restrictions,

lockdowns and strained healthcare resources during

the pandemic, individuals are increasingly taking

charge of their well-being through home diagnostics

and health monitoring. Advances in home diagnostic

technologies, in part driven by the demand for Covid-

19 home testing kits, have paved the way for the

development of user-friendly devices that enable

health assessments at home.

Consider the following scenario: Mona, a university

student in a new city, faces challenges in scheduling

regular appointments with her new GP due to her

busy schedule and limited availability. She has a few

minor health concern s that bother her slightly, but

they’re not severe enough for her to take time out of

her schedule to attend GP appointments. Opting for a

home test kit instead, she finds relief in its

convenience and prompt results. With the kit’s

arrival and straightforward instructions, Mona can

easily collect her samples and send them back for

analysis, receiving her results within days. This

accessibility, accelerated by the pandemic, benefits

both consumers and healthcare providers by

minimising clinic costs.

However, convenience and cost-effectiveness

certainly are not the only reasons why selfmonitoring

at home may be preferable. Recent

research from the University of Oxford highlights the

benefits of self-monitoring, particularly for

conditions like high blood pressure in new mothers.

Those who monitored their blood pressure via

smartphone apps experienced lower risks of heart

complications. This may be because participants

who self-monitored were able to receive more

timely remote guidance on medication dosing. As

one participant notes, “I submitted my readings in

the app and the researchers were able to adjust

my medication accordingly. Rather than me having

to call my GP surgery or make an appointment, I

could send a quick e-message asking them to make

the change which had already been added to my

medical records by the researchers.”

In addition to diagnostics and medication, selfmonitoring

strategies can also be used as

persuasive interventions for improving daily

health habits, including healthy eating and change

of risky alcohol consumption behaviours. Studies

into this domain have found that those who selfmonitor

display an increase in “awareness,

curiosity, and consciousness” and can “reveal

problematic behaviours which can tangibly be

changed and are very much in control of the

individual – inspiring accountability.”




While the increase in home diagnostics presents

numerous benefits, concerns arise regarding

individuals' ability to navigate health information

effectively. As a result, one might wonder how much

people can be trusted with the power of regulating

their own health and in making appropriate decisions.

These decisions will be affected by where they tend to

get their information from, and whether this

information is reliable.

A young student like Mona is likely to spend a lot of

time on social media – platforms that are rife with both

useful resources and potential sources of (health)

misinformation. There is plenty of evidence that social

media plays an important role in people’s risk

perceptions during infectious outbreaks and in

determining their subsequent behaviour. In general,

study results suggest that those with higher education

and income, and a higher degree of health literacy, tend

to make more accurate judgments about health

(mis)information they see online. These individuals are

also more likely to be more proactive about taking

preventative and protective measures when they

perceive risks.

Perhaps this suggests that self-monitoring and home

diagnostic regimes should remain optional (on top of

traditional healthcare services) rather than becoming

the default. This way, those who feel prepared to take a

more proactive role in regulating their own health can

opt for self-monitoring, while those who feel less

prepared or may be easily misinformed can access the

traditional services. However, this leads to two

concerns.

This second concern is also related to this

gradualist approach. Given the benefits that home

health monitoring may provide, it should not be

the case that only a particular group of highly

educated individuals have access to them. Efforts

should be made to make these technologies

available to wider populations, and they may even

help combat misinformation or motivate health

consciousness in the wider public – if done

cautiously.

With this in mind, one concern with the

widespread use of self-monitoring technologies is

its potential to exacerbate health-related anxiety.

For instance, persuasive technologies in healthy

eating could lead to the development of eating

disorders and depression, particularly where

calorie counting is involved. Similarly, diagnostic

tools that provide immediate results may lead to

anxiety and panic if results are undesirable. In

traditional healthcare services, professionals are

trained to deliver results to patients in a calm and

informing manner, providing – alongside the

results themselves – plenty of information about

what their results mean and what to do next. They

may indicate, for instance, that small fluctuations

in measurement are not a cause for worry, but

First, healthcare services and GPs are often already

understaffed and overworked, an issue which is

expected to continue into the next decade. If the idea

behind home diagnostics is to take off the pressure

from traditional healthcare services, then it may seem

like this proposal moves things in the wrong direction.

With that said, the suggestion may be framed as a

gradualist approach to resolving staff shortages. To

begin with, a portion of the (more proactive and

informed population can opt for self-monitoring, while

the less prepared stick to traditional services. Then,

self-monitoring systems become more commonplace,

more individuals can convert to self-monitoring with

the support of those around them. This allows the

pressures on traditional healthcare systems to be

gradually relieved in a safe, risk-minimising manner.

Photo by Julia Zyablova, Unsplash



such nuances are not available in the context of home

health monitoring. This is related to the problem of

misinformation: in general, when diagnosis and health

monitoring are moved to a home setting, it is also

removed from the wider set of services and the

information that usually accompanies it. To mitigate .

the consequences of this reality, part of the pressure

falls on the designers of home health monitoring

products. Design can be a powerful tool for

operationalising home health monitoring on larger

scales, and ensuring that the products are accessible

to a wide range of users.

“Instead, given the

potential

advantages of selfmonitoring,

it

might be more

beneficial to look

at how we can

design and

implement home

health

technologies so

that people can

indeed be trusted

– and empowered –

in regulating their

own health.”

This includes not just the physical design of the

technologies themselves but also the packaging and

information included in test kits, how results are

presented, the usability of accompanying software,

and the availability of online resources. For example,

after Mona submits her samples for the home test

kit, she might be directed to a website that tells her

what to expect when she receives her results. Then,

when she does receive her results, this might be

accompanied by online information tailored to her

circumstances, including suggestions on what to do

next and where to get professional advice if

necessary. For self-monitoring over longer periods

of time, this might look like well-designed apps that

provide relevant information (or even motivating

rewards!) as the person logs their results.

Designers should also have a wide range of audiences

in mind when thinking about the ease of user

interactions with self-monitoring systems. In

addition to tech-savvy younger generations like

Mona, who are used to navigating between different

interfaces and apps, a large portion of home

diagnostic users may consist of older generations

who are less familiar with technology. Thus,

designers might want to offer flexible solutions for

logging results (a paper notebook in place of an app,

for instance) or consider making their instructions

for using techhnologies extra clear and fool-proof

(by using video instructions or step-by-step guides).

Specific solutions might require additional user

testing, with a particular focus on the elderly whom

home health monitoring may benefit the most.

Perhaps the emphasis is that, in answering the

question of how much people can be trusted with

the power of regulating their own health, we

shouldn’t merely conclude that individuals are

insufficiently educated and therefore selfmonitoring

schemes shouldn’t be used. Instead,

given the potential advantages of self-monitoring, it

might be more beneficial to look at how we can

design and implement home health technologies so

that people can indeed be trusted – and empowered

– in regulating their own health. The era of home

diagnostics and health monitoring offers promising

opportunities for individuals to actively participate

in their healthcare journey. However, as we navigate

this transformative period, it is essential to

maintain a balance between empowering individuals

and ensuring they have access to accurate

information and support.

Luna Wang is an MSc student in Mind, Language

and Embodied Cognition and the head sub-editor of

EUSci.



Anna Motýľová explores societal attitudes towards biohacking, stressing

the importance of looking beyond the fear to recognise the potential

benefits that these new technologies might bring.

n 2017, Jo Zayner was the first person in history to

perform genetic modification (GM) on themselves.

She did so in front of a live audience at that year’s

ISynBioBeta conference. The injection she gave herself

contained instructions to disable the gene which limits

muscle growth. Such a stunt is made possible thanks to

the molecular tool CRISPR-Cas9, which simplified the

requirements for performing GM to basic lab

equipment, average motor skills, and a garage. Its

discoverers Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A.

Doudna won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2020.

Zayner’s self-experiment evokes images of ominous

liquids floating around her muscle cells, CRISPR-Cas9

making its way into the nuclei and rampaging through

her strings of DNA as a pair of rogue scissors. However,

the cutting enzyme Cas9 is rather a careful collageist,

carrying with it a guide RNA designed to tell it where

exactly to cut and which letters to replace. A new

version of this system called high-fidelity Cas9 makes

the correct snip 85% of the time.


“As with many fears in society, the one around biohacking

likely stems from a disconnect between people and science.”

Biohacking in its most

controversial sense is genetically

modifying living organisms outside

of institutional laboratories.

Biohackers’ backgrounds range

from professional scientists to

amateur enthusiasts. What unifies

them is a movement for science

accessibility and regular

conventions throughout the US

and Europe. CRISPR-Cas9 in

biohackers’ hands has so far

accelerated biotechnological

innovation more than any other

tool before. It holds the potential

to eradicate malaria for good, cure

genetic blindness or muscular


dystrophy, and even control

invasive mouse populations in

isolated ecosystems. This is

reflected in Zayner’s motivations

as well. “Though this experiment

was on me, I don't want it to be only

about me,” Zayner writes in her

blog. “I want it to be about how this

technology is inexpensive and easy

to use. I want it to be about helping

people use this technology to

better their lives.” She then

proceeds to supply a link where you

can order DIY engineering kits for

making plant leaves turn red or

genetically modify a sample of

human cells floating in liquid.

Still, society’s first reaction to

biohacking was fear. The Medical

Board of California put Zayner

under investigation and threatened

her with three years of jail and a

$10,000 fine for “unlicensed

practice of medicine,” although she

never claimed to sell treatment or

kits to be used on humans. I spoke

with Keira Tucker who manages

ASCUS Art & Science, Scotland’s

first open-access laboratory, which

runs interdisciplinary workshops

for the public in central Edinburgh

and allows people to experiment on

their own. In her opinion, “If you're


manipulating DNA, it doesn't mean that you're changing the species of an organism. It means that you're

tweaking it to hopefully make things better. I don't see a problem with informing people about the process

through simple GM kits that turn a plant red on its leaves.” Is there a degree of danger involved in biohacking?

Of course. Zayner admits in an interview with The Atlantic: “There’s no doubt in my mind that somebody is

going to end up hurt eventually. Everybody is trying to one-up each other more and more.” However, I am

convinced that fear and censorship is only going to make the technology more dangerous. Tucker agrees: “I

don't think banning is the solution. Given the way society tends to react to things, they would be like, ‘Well,

why are they banning it? It must be because they actually have an ulterior motive!’”

As with many fears in society, the one around biohacking likely stems from a disconnect between people and

science. Science is often taught as following a recipe, as if it’s only worth doing if you are trying to achieve a

specific outcome. ASCUS offers personalised training in the lab for non-scientists to experiment. Tucker

elaborates: “The way we try to do the training is by showing the ‘hard sciency rules,’ and then I say, you’re

more than welcome to break them within reason and see what happens. Most of [society’s] big discoveries

were by accident, which I feel now happens less because of

these rigid rules.”

Similarly, Zayner isn’t trying to sell a recipe for terror. She’s

selling toys that carry biotechnological educational value

for adults. Fears around biohacking may also stem from the

belief that GM should only be done in institutional labs, as

they are more regulated. Addressing this, Tucker notes:

“Institutions have a lot of red tape. If an amateur came into

their lab and then research got lost or there was an

accident, questions would be raised about why that person

was there. In interdisciplinary spaces like ASCUS, it is

expected that there are a range of levels of expertise and

knowledge, and as we do not have a dedicated research

interest, we are more open to diverse experimentation.”

So what would happen if we embrace biohacking with

curiosity and societal wellbeing in mind? The state of

health insurance in the United States means that one in

four type 1 diabetes patients try to save money by using

less insulin than they need, risking kidney failure,

blindness, and death. The insulin market in the US is

monopolised by only three pharmaceutical companies

that can therefore raise the price freely. A vial of insulin

in 1996 cost $21; in November 2020 it was $350.

Fortunately, non-profits like Open Insulin, formed by a

collaboration between diabetics and scientists and led by

protein biochemist Dr Yann Huon de Kermadec, make

insulin for $7 per vial using genetically modified bacteria

and yeast. However, Open Insulin is currently facing two

challenges: finding a way to sell its crowdsourced insulin

without infringing on institutional patents, and creating a

safe drug without access to the millions of dollars it takes

to run multi-phase clinical trials. Using data analysis to

compare “homebrew” and commercial insulin is an option

which has already yielded positive results. GM is not yet

at the stage where it can be blindly applied to everything.

Nevertheless, people shouldn’t be spreading fear around

it. At the very least, curiosity and conversation in society

can put pressure on large companies.

“So what would

happen if we

embrace biohacking

with curiosity and

societal wellbeing in

mind?”

This may have been the reason for President Joe

Biden’s successful appeal to cap insulin price at

$35 a vial last January. Tucker summarises my

thoughts perfectly: “Genetic modification, in my

opinion, was never to be used for ulterior bad

motives; it was always to make things better.

Drought-resistant and high-yield crops, or

genetically modified bacteria that can produce

tons of insulin, so that we don't have to use pigs

or cattle – that was the intent.” There already

exist plenty of success stories of biohacking

bringing more equality and innovation to the

world of science. This demonstrates its potential

to remain as a tool of positive change. We have

to refuse to be chained by fear and use

collaborative explorations to stay on track

towards a brighter future.

Anna Motylova is a 4th year Ecology

student and the Online Editor for EUSci.


Tangents

Crossword

DOWN

1. type of subatomic particle, one of which was

discovered in 2012 at CERN

2. enzyme which breaks down fats

3. physicist famous for their quantum thought

experiment

7. type of vaccine first approved for use in 2020

9. abbreviated unit of electrical current

10. chemical element with symbol Ag

12. disease affecting the pancreas

13. disease-causing microorganism

15. the product of current and resistance according

to Ohm’s law

17. animal involved in thought experiment of 3 down

across

4. the shape of DNA is a double ___

5. a cauliflower-like cloud

6. aurora ___, lights seen in the southern

hemisphere

8. ancient ancestors of modern birds

11. only British woman to receive a science

Nobel prize

13. giant ___, animal recently departed from

Edinburgh zoo

14. the variety and variability of life on earth

16. the opposite of an anion

18. planet named after the roman god of the sea

Sudoku (Easy)

Sudoku (Difficult)


Meet EUSci

President

Co-editors

in Chief

ELENA

&

SARA

Head

copy

editor

MIKA

Head sub editor

LUNA

Sub editor

RASHI

Art editor

Juda

Marketing officers

Colleen & Amy

elizabeth

Layout

editors

&

Angel

Online editors

KUBA

&

ANNA

Copy

editor

KAREN

Website

manager

MAUREEN

Aikaterini

Outreach director

&

Sonia

Co-treasurer

Co-treasurer

SKYLER

Podcast manager

TRACY

Anthea

Podcast co-hosts

KATIE

KELSEY

Secretary

TAMSIN

Social

secretary

&

SciencEd is written, edited and illustrated by volunteers. In this issue:

Writers: Simar Mann, Elena Hein, Clare McDonald, Ellie Dempsey, Sara Teles, Kaela Albert, Heather McEwan,

Juda Milvidaite, Kája Kubičková, Katie Pickup, Faidra Batsaki, Nathalie Canteli Kuehnel, Mika Kontiainen,

Anshika Gupta, Vanthanaa Sridhar, Luna Wang, Anna Motýľová.

Editors: Muminah Koleoso, Patricia Manarang, Kaja Kubickova, Jolina James, Clare McDonald, Ella Agnew, Katie

Fish, Vanesa Magar, Emma Walsh, Thomas Rhys Clarke, Kevin Boyle, Nishwal Gora, Elspeth Horrocks,

Sraddheya Gurung, Gabrielle Jawer, Beth McGregor, Isabella Yeo Frank..

Illustrators: Ewa Ozga, Stevie Hope, Allison Quinlan, Muminah Koleoso, Apple Chew, Kate Louise Powell,,

Colleen He, Prerna Vohra,

All articles were reviewed and edited by Elena Hein, Sara Teles, Mika Kontiainen, Karen Leung,

Luna Wang and Rashi Krishna.

Layout and art editing was done by Juda Milvidaite, Angel Loi and Elizabeth Carmichael.

Where photographs, illustrations or collages have been uncredited, they were crafted by Art editor Juda..


Listen to articles!

Join our mailing list to stay

up to date with the latest

opportunities!

Get Involved!

Our community is open to anyone – you don’t have to be a

science student (or even a student at all) to join us as a writer,

editor or illustrator.

Let us showcase and publish your art and your work.

Head to our website or social media channels to find out more.

eusci.org.uk

euscimedia

EUSci

EUSci


Join our hosts as they

talk to staff and students

about all of the

fascinating research and

projects happening

around Scotland!

the latest episodes:

Cover art by Elizabeth Carmichael


eusci.org.uk

euscimedia

EUSci

EUSci

EUSci_issue32_TheScientistNextDoor

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?