Podcast Review: Confident, Competent or Confused – What do you think you know about genetics?

How much did the daily Governmental briefings during the COVID pandemic teach the public about science? With such an unprecedented level of science engagement, a group of UK researchers were interested to know whether this reach of science into the public domain had any impact on people's receptivity to engaging with genetics.

The episode 'Confident, Competent or Confused: What do you think you know about genetics?' from Genetics Unzipped the Genetics Society podcast discusses how much the public knows about genetics.

The host, Dr Sally Le Page, sits down with Lawrence Hurst, professor of evolutionary genetics and director of the Milner Centre for Evolution, in the Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Bath.

Professor Hurst has recently published a paper in PLOS Biology with results from a survey conducted to determine people's attitudes towards evidence-based science.

This half-hour podcast will feel more like a ten-minute synopsis if you've ever experienced the frustration of communicating science to uninterested people, or will feel like a confidence boost if you think that nobody cares about genetics.

Given the down-to-earth touch that Dr Le Page so effortlessly brings, this podcast is recommended to all who like talking science, regardless of whether you're a graduate student, university professor or a member of the public. I believe that it's important to listen to anybody who takes science debate seriously, as learning about how to improve these conversations could be critical in the current war against anti-science.

In this episode, Professor Hurst talks about the public survey he and his colleagues conducted, where they questioned over 2000 members of the public on their opinions and knowledge of genetics and science. The team understood that the COVID-19 pandemic had created a great opportunity for a study of this nature because an unprecedented amount of people had been exposed to genetic terms which they might never have been exposed to under normal circumstances.

The pandemic brought PCR into the public consciousness as a means of genetically identifying viruses, mRNA as a new generation of vaccine technology, and importantly, the public debate and discussion of hot-off-the-press discoveries by medical professionals and politicians. How might this have changed how the public of the UK interacts with genetics?

The team surveyed the public with questions about PCR, GM crops, vaccine hesitancy and some science trivia that would reveal a baseline metric for the public's knowledge of basic science terms (rather than opinion).

The fascinating finding, which impressed Professor Hurst, Dr Le Page and admittedly myself was that public interest in science had increased in two-thirds of the population, accompanied by an increase in the trust in science, especially science coming from academic institutions. I have to say that given my personal experience during the COVID-19 pandemic in engaging with non-scientists, I was surprised and pleasantly impressed by this outcome. I'm particularly proud, that science from academic institutions is finding its way among the public, where it belongs, and where it provides the most robust evidence to inform public opinion.

Professor Hurst also explained that 30 percent might also actually be a natural limit. When asked about PCR – which everyone in the UK should be familiar with – 30 percent of people had never heard of the term. Either 30 percent of the public live under a rock, don't leave the house, have no social contact and only use lateral flow tests, or they are just the 30 percent of the country's population which doesn't care about science. Professor Hurst leans towards the latter.

Historically experts have believed in a 'Deficit Model'. This model, Professor Hurst explains, aims to explain why some people disagree with scientific consensus by saying that these people don't have the necessary knowledge to understand they are wrong. Some have even gone as far as to suggest the 'Dunning-Kruger' effect – 'they don't know enough to understand that they don't know enough'. Professor Hurst believes that this answer is far too simplistic.

The results of the survey showed that people with opinions which diverged from scientific consensus also interestingly displayed the highest confidence in their scientific knowledge. This confidence however did not correlate with their ability to answer factual scientific questions as well as others in the study. On the other hand, people with much milder opinions on genetics tended to feel humbler about their science knowledge.

This is very informative for the science communication community because it demonstrates how our strategy needs to change. I became very frustrated over the pandemic when I had to converse with some people in my community that displayed strong anti-science views, and were particularly vaccine-hesitant. I've experienced first-hand that non-scientists with surprisingly strong opinions don't make for a good debate.

Approaching them with fact-based lecturing often did more to intimidate them and fuel their distrust of scientists. Despite it being true that they did not have a secure scientific understanding of the things they were saying, they were not interested in being debunked. That's an emotional problem more than an educational problem. New conversations that communicate, not teach, the scientific consensus and build trust in science authorities are more likely to yield positive results.

Overall, there is much to be excited about. This episode, besides being fascinating to listen to, is a big motivational boost. Too often I have focused on 'battling' with those that have dissenting opinions and ironically, I might have been neglecting the majority of the interests. After listening to Professor Hurst, scientists have found a renewed purpose in their public engagement, to focus on building and maintaining the trust that we have gained over the pandemic. An ironic but fortunate outcome.