Eleanor: Hi, everyone. Welcome to Eleanor and Leah's Scientific Soirees. My name is Eleanor Hsu.

 

Leah: And my name is Leah Saini. Today's podcast name is CRISPR Chats and Legal Labyrinths and we will be discussing the topics of communication of science within the legal system and communication of CRISPR technology in the public.

 

Eleanor: Let's first discuss what the problem with communication in the legal system is. Leah, you go into depth about miscommunication within the courts in your report.

 

[Gavel Bang Sound Effect]

 

What would you say are the broader societal implications of these findings, especially concerning public trust in the legal system?

 

Leah: Yeah, the impact of miscommunications in the courts extend far beyond individual cases. When science is not effectively communicated or understood, it can result in serious miscarriages of justice. Innocent individuals being wrongly convicted, while dangerous criminals could evade justice. Such outcomes can erode public trust in the legal system, leaving communities feeling vulnerable and insecure. If people lose faith in the ability of science and law to deliver just outcomes, it can have profound implications on societal cohesion. Also, the reliance on the objective criteria to determine right and wrong within science and law can lead to marginalized groups being unfairly targeted and overlooked. The disconnect between the objective truth stopped by the law and the application of science principles can further increase these issues. If science and the legal systems fail to work together effectively, it can undermine the credibility of both institutions, leading to a breakdown in trust and a sense of injustice within the society.

 

Eleanor: Oh, so obviously there are really heavy consequences if we were to let this miscommunication keep going.

 

Leah: Yeah.

 

Eleanor:Do you have like a case study example where this communication have had these significant consequences?

 

Leah: Yeah, of course. There's been a lot. Dr. Morgan did an analysis of 732 exonerated cases that revealed faulty forensic evidence, such as errors in bite mark analysis, forensic debris analysis, blood spatter analysis, and more, contributing to wrongful convictions.
 

[Gavel Bang Sound Effect]

 

Among these cases, 44 involved bite mark analysis at an alarming error rate of 70 percent. One case I'm gonna like focus on is this Lewis Reynolds case, who was convicted of her seven year-old daughter, murdering her seven-year-old daughter based on the faulty forensic evidence presented. Dr. Charles Smith, a forensic pathologist, incorrectly identified 80 lacerations on the daughter's body as stab wounds from scissors, leading to Louise's conviction. However, it was later discovered that these lacerations were actually dog bites from the neighbor's dog. This case highlights serious consequences of miscommunication and misinterpretation of science evidence within the legal system, resulting in wrongful convictions and profound injustices. This just highlights the importance of ensuring that forensic evidence is rigorously examined and accurate and interpreted to present more of these mis-justices.

 

Eleanor: Yeah, that's definitely not the best situation.

 

Leah: No, honestly.

 

Eleanor: Imagine your daughter literally just died and then they're like, oh, you killed her. And you're like, what?

 

Leah: No, no.

 

Eleanor: I already have enough to deal with.

 

Leah: I know, I have to grieve my daughter and now I'm being accused.

 

Eleanor: Yeah, that's crazy. So then, how do these case studies illustrate the potential dangers of misuse of scientific evidence within, like, legal decisions?

 

Leah: They just, like, they highlight, like, serious dangers of misusing science, scientific evidence in the legal proceedings, expert witnesses and expert witnesses being entrusted with interpreting and presenting scientific information to the court and they wield significant power. However, this power may be abused or misapplied as seen in Louise Reynold’s case which can lead to tragic miscarriages of justice. In Louise’s case, incorrect interpretation of forensic evidence by Dr. Charles Smith not only resulted in an innocent person being convicted, but also took away her right to grieve her daughter properly. This misuse of scientific evidence not only harms the individuals like Lewis, but also destroys public trust in the legal system and the reliability of science evidence presented in court.

 

Eleanor: Yeah, and you mentioned this is only one of the cases. There’s so many more.

 

Leah: This is only one of them. There’s so many and there's just some that we haven't even examined yet.

 

Eleanor: Right, right, yeah. So just if you think about it, it's like how many people have we wrongfully convicted or like let them back out even thought they were the ones who were guilty?

 

Leah: Exactly.

 

Eleanor: So then from your understanding, what do you think are the main causes of this issue?

 

Leah: The main causes, I believe, are the communication gap between science and law. One of the key factors of science misconception is how it operates within the legal system. One of the factors that influences this is the media coverage on this. There's one study that focuses on the CSI effect, which can lead to unrealistic expectations and capabilities of science within the court. Another contributing factor and fundamental difference is the nature of application of science and law. Science tends to be more generalized principles and probabilities while law is specific, focused, and has very absolute conclusions. This makes challenges between what like how this can be applied, how science can be applied to law. And also the evidence presented by the expert witness plays a crucial role as experts must carefully balance, simplifying the concepts so they can be understood and interpreted correctly, but not distorted and oversimplified within court.

 

Eleanor: Right, yeah. It's also similar to my discussion of CRISPR, because CRISPR technology is so complex, so you have to have that delicate balance as well. How would you say the legal system can contribute to a better public understanding of the role of science in the judiciary processes?

 

Leah: The legal system can contribute to the better public through many key steps. One essential role is of the judge, who can act like a gatekeeper of forensic evidence. The judge must assess admissibility, reliability, and relevance of each piece of evidence brought into the court so he/she can ensure that credible and relevant and not unreliable, skewed, not communicated well information is considered, right?

 

Eleanor: Not skewed, yeah.

 

Leah: Additionally, the expert witnesses communicating this significance and the weight of this evidence is very crucial for the less miscommunications or misinterpretations of the significance and the actual reality, the truth behind the science within the court. So, the science and law need to work together to achieve the same goal, and I feel like bridging the gap, being more transparent, is very crucial.  Okay, we've talked enough about this, so let's move on to a more wider picture because miscommunications are not only on the courthouse steps,

 

[Gavel Bang Sound Effect]

 

 but they are also in this groundbreaking technology CRISPR,

 

[Futuristic Sound Effect]

 

 which is very complex but may be very oversimplified by the public. Misinterpretations and oversimplifications can cloud understanding, shaping perceptions in ways that might not fully capture the science. Eleanor, that's what you looked into, right?

 

Eleanor: Yes, this actually is. So CRISPR has made many significant breakthroughs and has the potential to solve so many of our global issues, but there's also a lot of significant ethical dilemmas when it comes to discussing this technology. That's why it's so important for there to be accurate communication about what CRISPR is and what it can be used for to the general public.

 

Leah: Oh, totally. What exactly is CRISPR?

 

Eleanor: So CRISPR is, if we think of it, like they're a highly precise pair of molecular scissors, which allows scientists to target specific sections of DNA in an organism's genome and make precise cuts. So they basically cut out parts that may cause disease or even insert beneficial genes. So how it works is it harnesses a natural defense mechanism found in bacteria, which is used in a similar system to fend off viral invaders by slicing their DNA. So basically, it’s guided by a piece of rNA, a molecule that works like a sort of GPS, and then once that specific DNA sequence that needs to be edited is found, the scissor part of the CRISPR called Cas-9 makes a clean cut. Then the cell's natural repair mechanism works to fix this break by either gluing the ends back together, which can knock out a gene, or by using a piece of donor DNA provided by the scientist to insert a new gene at the cut site. So this technology has a lot of potential, and it's being used for a lot of applications, like treating genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia to enhancing crop resilience, but we also have to take into account the ethical and safety considerations because we don't really know the effects that it can have on future generations.

 

Leah: That is some cool science stuff right there. What exactly are the ethical implications of using CRISPR technology, especially regarding germline editing, and humans?
 

Eleanor: So one significant ethical issue with CRISPR is relating to the idea of consent because future generations can't really consent to having them genetically modified. And we also don't really know what the effects it can have on human evolution and health are in the future because like we haven't been in the future yet. So there's also a worry about CRISPR deepening existing social and genetic inequalities because this technology might be only accessible to certain groups who can afford it. You also have the concept of quote-unquote designer babies, where basically you're like picking and choosing what genetic traits they might have. So then certain traits are seen as more normal or desirable, which can reduce diversity and marginalize those who don't fit the criteria.

 

Leah: And how can these ethical concerns be addressed responsibly?

 

Eleanor: So we can establish international guidelines for the ethical use of CRISPR. That's like a big part of it, which involves the collaboration among scientists, ethicists, policy makers, and others from different backgrounds to achieve wide agreement. It's also important to have public engagement, so we facilitate discussions about CRISPR's ethical dimensions, including its benefits, risks, and social implications. And then researchers also have to be educated to uphold ethical principles such as autonomy, non harm, and justice so that we can ensure responsible conduct of CRISPR applications.
 

Leah: Perfect. And what would you say is the biggest challenges in effectively communicating the implications of CRISPR technology to the general public?
 

Eleanor: There are like multiple layers that contribute to like not effective communication. So the first one is the complexity of CRISPR. So even as I mentioned before like I provided a brief description of CRISPR but that's not even the full extent of CRISPR because CRISPR has so many like deep biological processes and scientific concepts that it includes so this complexity can be a barrier to understanding what CRISPR is for those without a scientific background. Also there's a lot of misinformation spread around especially through social media and internet platforms, which complicates the public's perception of CRISPR and this misinformation, similar to your court, can lead to a mistrust in scientific advancements and skepticism. It's also kind of hard to engage the public on CRISPR because it's not something that you see in your daily life. So it's like, if I don't see it, it's not affecting me, right, so why should I care about it? So we need to be able to find relatable angles and applications that resonate with the public's daily experiences and concerns. And also, there's a lot of global perspectives when it comes to CRISPR. So we have to account for that, as well as the rate that CRISPR technology is advancing. So we need to be able to move the conversation along as the technology is developing, which is kind of difficult.

 

Leah: This is a very difficult task. Oh my lord. How can we work to enhance public understanding of CRISPR, addressing both its promises and ethical considerations?

 

Eleanor: To effectively communicate CRISPR to the public, we should have educational campaigns to clarify the science, potential uses, and ethical concerns. This can be done through social media, interactive websites, and public forums that can share this information on a wide scale level. We can also collaborate with schools to integrate CRISPR education into like science classes so that people are understanding it from a younger age. We also need to create spaces for public dialogue, not only with experts in the field, but also with community members so that we have like a diverse amount of perspectives. And then earlier as I mentioned, misinformation is a problem, right? So we have to engage with journalists and media outlets to ensure, like, accurate reporting of CRISPR. And then to promote public engagement, we can have science museums and public events that serve as engaging venues for hands-on learning about CRISPR with interactive exhibits, demonstrations and opportunities to directly interact with the researchers.

 

Leah: I feel like some of these factors can also aid in my topic of the public understanding, the limitations of science. So like the educational campaigns and the discussions, I feel like this could really help my field as well. So I think we should implement this as well.

 

Eleanor: Yeah, definitely. I think education, because we obviously don’t want bad information to be spread around right?

 

Leah: Exactly.
 

Eleanor: Misinformation is rooted from —

 

Leah: — lack of understanding.

 

Eleanor: Right, right. So if we promote education, we can kind of resolve all of these issues altogether, which is kind of interesting.

 

Leah: You mentioned using platforms like social media to communicate this groundbreaking technology. How does media shape public opinion and understanding of CRISPR?

 

Eleanor: So a lot of what we think about a lot of things is derived from the media. So the media holds an immense amount of power in forming our views and understanding of different technologies like CRISPR. So like the angle it takes, the headlines, and the voices amplified within these narratives all paint a picture of CRISPR for the public. So like if we're highlighting CRISPR's potential to tackle genetic diseases, optimism is on high. But if the narrative is shifting to the ethical problems or the futuristic dystopian fears, we are kind of doubtful towards this technology. Also, the amount of coverage spotlighted can also adjust how the public is interested in this. If it's only focused on human health applications, then the public doesn't know how it can be used for like agriculture or environmental conservation. And then experts can also share their thoughts on these platforms as well and it allows for the public to have a space to understand this technology.

 

Leah: And what role does media play in spreading accurate information and combating this misinformation?

 

Eleanor: So as I just said, obviously we see the media and it has a huge role. But with this great power also comes great responsibility. So the media has to be really careful to get their facts straight which is hard because you want there to be eye-catching headlines, right? But this can have like obviously consequences so they need to be able to double-check their info, talk to real experts, and make sure they're not just repeating rumors, as well as also bringing in different viewpoints to get the feet so that the public can get the full picture.

 

Leah: So obviously this clear communication of CRISPR is crucial. Can you explain a case where like CRISPR has been communicated ineffectively and like the implications of this?

 

Eleanor: So in 2018 there was a YouTube announcement from a Chinese scientist He Jiankui who claimed the birth of the first CRISPR-edited babies and their names are Lulu and Nana.

 

[Ba-Dum-Tss Sound Effect]

 

And like obviously for such a big scientific achievement or not achievement because there's a lot of like ethical dilemmas within that. It’s not exactly the best way to announce it through YouTube. Like I don't know, I go on YouTube to watch food videos.

 

Leah: No, honestly.

 

Eleanor: Also, within like by announcing it on YouTube it bypassed like because you know there’s  pillars of scientific communication like peer reviewed journals and ethical oversight. So then the global community was kind of like shocked because it's like okay, like what? we didn't know anything that was going on and suddenly this is just being announced. So then it this controversy kind of highlights the need for the scientific community to like promote open dialogues and also educate the public on what CRISPR can and cannot do while also navigating its ethical landscape.
 

Leah: Yeah they just kind of surprised them. Boo! New babies!

 

Eleanor: Jump scare!

 

Leah: Yay! On the other hand, can you share like a success story where like effective communication has bridged the gap between scientific understanding and public awareness?

 

Eleanor: So the Broad Institute, it's a collaboration of I believe it's MIT and Harvard. They have been playing a major role in trying to communicate CRISPR technology to the public. So basically what they do is they offer a bunch of educational materials that are easily accessible including comprehensive FAQs and also having like explainer videos that break down what CRISPR is and showing what it can be used for. So and then it's also led public lectures and events which are led by CRISPR researchers who not only share their insights but also directly engage with the attendees through Q &A sessions. And then also because they know the impact of social media on public perception, they've also worked with journalists and media outlets to ensure that the information about CRISPR that's being spread is not only accurate, but also presents a balanced view of its benefits and ethical considerations. And then lastly, within the educational realm, it's reached out to community and school programs to target the next generation of scientists.

 

Leah: I'm just gonna touch on a cool little successful story for my side of things. And I feel like a successful story would just be any rightful convictions or just correctly used forensic science within the court.

 

Gavel Bang Sound Effect]

 

So there has been so many, and there's one that I would like to point out, which has gotten a lot of recognition from true crime watchers, me being included, and it's the conviction of the Golden State Killer. So DNA evidence was used and presented in court that led to the conviction of 13 murders, 51 sexual assaults, and 120 burglaries. So this showcases how law and science are able to work together for a common goal and earn the trust of society regarding science and law because if DNA was not used, I don't know if they'd get their convictions because he was out and about for a while.

 

Eleanor: Yeah, yeah. I think like, because DNA evidence has like recently become such a big thing because we're now able to have that technology and I think within convictions and stuff it’s played such a significant role and I think that's, that's really, that's really good. Applause.

 

Leah: Let’s go!

 

Eleanor: Yay! On that note, how would you say, because obviously there's like growing technology, how would you say that technology can facilitate communication and understanding between the scientific community and public?

 

Leah: Yeah. I think it may be difficult, just due to the CSI effect. For those of you who do not know, I found the CSI effect showing that watching true crime shows like Forensic Files, Law & Order,

 

[Gavel Bang Sound Effect]

 

all my favorite shows, can create unreal and distorted perceptions of science communication within the courts. So, within these shows, the full case happens within one episode. Finding out the murder has happened, collecting evidence, processing it within a day, and presenting it perfectly, and it leads straight to the killer. So, I feel like this has shown that science is oversimplified with way more absolutes than what is in reality, which is much more complex and has many more different variables and takes a significantly longer time to actually use in court. A court case is like super long and not like a 45 minute episode.

 

Eleanor: If only.

 

Leah: If only. So I feel like we need to kind of step back from it. As much as I hate to say, maybe creating more realistic crime shows, I know this may turn down viewers, but we need to create true expectations for science within the courts. We need to know the limitations and the true intentions behind what the scientific evidence is trying to say within these courts. And I feel like using the media to actually spread awareness on limitations and trying not to like dramatize these court cases, like, oh my god, I found a hair we found the killer kind of like one piece of the puzzle has been found, maybe like, just like, maybe something doesn’t get applied perfectly but can be used to help explain a case.

 

Eleanor: Mmm, yeah definitely. I will say I definitely am victim to the CSI effect. I love binging Law & Order and Criminal Minds.

 

Leah: It's too good. I cannot stop.

 

Eleanor: I know! Yeah, I guess CRISPR… It's not like CRISPR is like making an active appearance in media but like, you know, there's like the dystopian movies and so like you kind of have that fear. Like I don't know, for me, like my mom was like you have all these AI movies and my mom was like, “AI is going to take over the world. We’re doomed.”

 

Leah: Oh my god. We watched one in bio, I forgot the name of the movie but everyone was DNA modified except one guy and he wanted to go to the moon so he had to switch with someone who was like, perfectly modified, who was in like, a wheelchair because he had an accident. It was like some whole big thing, and I don't know. It was such a weird movie, I was sitting there in bio, like what? Please, let’s not have this happen. This is nuts.

 

Eleanor: Right, right. So yea I think obviously like tailoring the media like TV shows and movies and stuff like that to make it more accurate. Yes, it will take away from the excitement, but you know science is exciting too! And then also, recently, we have VR and AR right? Like we have the, I don't know what those are called the Apple you know you can work from your you have like a VR headset—

 

Leah: Oh my lord I see people like videos of them like on the train with the VR headset on —

Eleanor: Yes!

 

Leah: —doing things with their hands like what?

 

Eleanor: I know! Like they look so silly but also I think that it can used to our advantage because it’s like your educating the public more on CRISPR and you can show them how CRISPR is used and how it works, you know?

 

[Futuristic Sound Effect]

 

And then also like just providing more sources online that are accessible to the public because if you search up CRISPR, there’s a lot of scientific articles. Honestly, it kind of hurts my brain.

Leah: It's not really a page-turner, but…

 

Eleanor: Yeah!

 

Leah: I guess it's the issue, trying to make things engaging while keeping things accurate.

Eleanor: Right, right.

 

Leah: I think that's the same with the courts. Like, I don't know how much I'd watch like a three month long video on like a court case where I'm like, okay.

 

Eleanor: Yeah, definitely.
 

Leah: So on my end, there's regulatory authorities play a major role in managing the application of scientific evidence. How does this play in CRISPR communication? Are there instances where you’ve seen it done poorly or really good?

 

Eleanor: Regulators are honestly played like such a major role in ensuring everything goes smoothly with CRISPR because like we don't want another case with the CRISPR edited babies… like jumpscare. So a big win in the field was when the US National Academies laid down like solid rules for using CRISPR and these guidelines focus on doing things ethically and transparency. And when it comes to gene therapy groups like the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agencies have been key players and they’ve been super careful about approving CRISPR treatments so that they’re safe.  That's played a major role in like promoting gene therapy for sickle cell anemia. But obviously, like I mentioned before, it's not all rainbows and sunshine, you know? There was a lot of controversy surrounding the CRISPR-edited babies, and it showed that there were big gaps in the rules, and also sparked a worldwide debate on how to handle gene editing properly. And then we also have to account for every country is different, right? So they all have their own set of CRISPR rules which can make things messy. So if we were to put it into action, we need to make sure that the rules are flexible enough to keep up with the rate that the technology if progressing in. Also, you know working together between countries to agree on the basic do's and don'ts and then have everyone talking about it. So have the public engaged so that we can use their opinion to shape the guidelines

 

Leah: I think like public's opinion plays like a huge role as well. I don't know if I'd like a rule being like, you have to modify yourself. No thanks.

 

Eleanor: Right?

 

Leah: Come on.

 

Eleanor: Yeah.

 

Leah: So I feel like the public does play a huge role and like how much they engage with the information that’s out there and how they actually perceive the information.

 

Eleanor: Right, right, right.

 

Leah: Do you have any examples where regulatory oversight has prevented the misuse or misinterpretation of science data?
 

Eleanor: There's not really a lot of like publicized examples because you know It's kind of like not that interesting… like you'd rather learn about the breakthroughs rather than the regulations, which is kind of part of the problem as well. But like I just mentioned, the U.S. National Academies, the FDA, the European Medicines Agencies have played a major role in preventing the misuse of this data. And also, there are also IRBs, or Institutional Review Boards, which have been created to guide researchers to make sure that CRISPR is not only like, their findings aren't only like phenomenal and like groundbreaking, but they're also accurate, right? And then also after the He Jiankui incident, there was an international summit on human gene editing that was hosted and it gathered experts from around the world to discuss the ethicality of gene editing and it basically set the stage for a more cautious and unified approach to editing our genetic makeup, especially when it concerns the traits that can be passed down to future generations.

 

Leah: For mine, I also think I agree with you. It's very hard to pinpoint an example of the regulations as like it's fully like for my it's fully integrated in the like entire proceeding… like they should be regulating before the trial, during the trial, and within the deliberation process. However, there has been laws in place to prevent misuse of science within the courts. For example, there has been the Mohan case in the Supreme Court of Canada, which kind of puts regulations on expert witness testimony, like the relevance, the necessity, and this exclusionary rule within the court. So if something's like, I found a glass over there who had a fingerprint, but it's not relevant to the case, I don't feel like they wouldn't feel the need to bring it up in court, because it doesn't have anything to do with the case, and it may just put blame on other people that shouldn’t even be involved in the case and are not part of it. And it was qualified as like the cost and benefits principle, like what's the cost of using this, bringing in this complex piece of information to be talked about within court, maybe get misinterpreted. But if it has a big benefit and like a small amount of cost and the cost is like minimized, I think they say, yeah, let's bring this in. And another thing, just like a random regulations, I think there was, we're talking about another serial killer… I am totally CSI effect, but it's fine, it's fine. I'm the problem. There has been many rightful convictions within science and I'm bringing in Ted Bundy because he is, I wanna say popular, because that kind of puts him like…

 

Eleanor: —well-known.

 

Leah: Yeah. Well-known.

 

Eleanor: Infamous.

 

Leah: And this was a controversial little take here with a forensic orthodontist coming in, Dr. Richard Souverian. I'm sorry if I pronounced it wrong. But he took in bite marks, like the denture like imprint, and compared it to the bite marks on the victims and was able to link that together. So as though although this may be a controversial like opinion like, whether this should be used,whether it should be not, it ultimately led to the conviction and helped aid the case. So…

 

Eleanor: Yeah, maybe I don't think we'd want Ted Bundy running around for longer.

 

Leah: No, yeah. Especially he's been to campuses. I don't want him coming here. Stay away.

 

Eleanor: Yeah, no literally. Also, I'm pretty sure he was into necrophilia, which is mildly disturbing.

 

Leah: Mildly?

 

Eleanor: Very disturbing.

 

Leah: Very disturbing. So even if it was controversial, I'm glad we used it.

 

Eleanor: Yeah. So we both agree that experts play a pivotal role in the expression of scientific knowledge. So like what criteria do you think is like necessary for someone to be considered an expert within this context?

 

Leah: Yeah within my report I created like a model that could be used to just like facilitate proper communication and most of it has to do with the expert witness. Here are the qualifications. So we have the expert witness needs to undergo like qualifications and assessment so they are properly like experienced in this field, have worked this subject before, can talk on it and understands it completely that they can explain it to other people because there's sometimes where like I'm like I think I know something and I try to explain it to someone else and it does not make sense. So they need to know how to know it enough to like explain it. And speaking on that, they need to have training speaking within the court because speaking like in a conversation about the subject and speaking to a court can be much different because, like, this is a very serious topic right here. And they must indicate the weight. This is very important. They need to indicate the weight, the significance of the scientific evidence used within the case. And they must speak objectively, trying to speak without bias. I know everybody has bias, but I think trying to speak as impartially as possible, not giving their opinion of what should happen in the case, just speaking on what has been researched, what you can speak expertly on. There should be a full disclosure of all scientific evidence of what should be used, what should not be used, the limits upon this evidence, And the judges, of course, need to act like a gatekeeper to, like, allow this in and out. And they should just, like, I feel like all parties, jury included, the trier of fact need to know that there should be, there could be potential problems when communicating science within the court. And they should know this and keep that in mind, but also not be like, okay, no science then. Let's not trust this. Right So, yeah.

 

Eleanor: Yeah, I think that, like, you know, because they always say, like, you don't really know something unless you're, like, fully able to explain to someone who literally does not know what's going on right. So I think yeah, that’s a major part of it. I guess, like, what I'd say are the qualifications for others is also very similar to what you just proposed. I think, additionally, like, obviously they need a solid science base because like CRISPR is such a complicated technology you need to know what you're talking about. And then because like the ethicality of CRISPR is so like messy I think we also have to be able to have experts who are able to navigate through this ethical dilemma and like you said, they’re able to speak in front of a crowd, they have good training in communication, and they’re also fully transparent about how they work because if you’re omitting information from the public about your work you’re like lying, kinda. And then I think, yeah, being knowledgeable with policy, being able to connect with the public, and they're able to envision the wider impacts and the future impacts, not just like what's going on here and now. So I think those are some other qualifications. They're a little more specific to CRISPR because CRISPR is obviously different from science in the legal courts, but yeah. And you mentioned, you did mention this, like bias, so how do we prevent this expert bias from significantly impacting how the public receives the information?

 

Leah: Yeah, of course everyone is going to have bias, but I feel like being aware of the bias and kind of trying to navigate it and minimize it in their expert opinion, I think, is very crucial. So, only commenting on what the facts and the reliable, backed by science claims and not being like, and not like creating like your own story that will help explain it. But using the science that you've researched, you have experience with, to explain the topic, the evidence, the science evidence within the court and I think it’s very important for the expert witnesses to be very transparent of the limitations as I said probably a million times already, the limitations because, and the weight, weight is very important as I could say this is, I could present something and you might think “Oh this is a huge factor that, of course this may this links this person” however, this may be a very small portion or have a very big possibility that it does not fit right, so I feel like the weight and only commenting on what you, what your expertise is and just being open to your own bias and kind of communicating that to the jury.

 

Eleanor: Yeah, like in psych we talked about like if you're aware you're more inclined to like be able to prevent it because it's like, if you don’t know it then you’re like you’re never gonna change it. So yeah, I think that being aware is such an important part like adding on to that I think also we can have a mix of different experts from different fields or different like perspectives because if you have so many ideas in one area, then it's like the amount of bias is gonna be minimized because you have to account for other people’s thoughts too. And it's also, yeah, like you mentioned transparency, like a lot of experts openly share their affiliations and funding sources during talks or publications, which is really important because this allows the audience to understand the context behind the information and also like they're more inclined to trust them right because it's like “Oh they’re being so open with us, they’re probably telling the truth.” And then, making sure that your claims are backed by science, also like peer review, which is such an important part of science communication because it means that your findings are found to be true by other people as well so it's not just you it's like a multitude of people. You know that adds another layer of credibility, which is really really important in minimizing bias. So clearly there are a lot of issues with communication of science within both the realm of CRISPR and the legal system So we've been talking a lot about the problem. So how can we work towards improving them in the future?

 

Leah: Given the lack of knowledge surrounding CRISPR because it’s so complex, like I don’t really know that much other than what you have explained today. But how would you recommend society be informed and who should inform them?

 

Eleanor: So there I mentioned this in my report there I think they're the biggest problem is making sure that we're that we're starting a conversation, so being in order to start that conversation we can use different like obviously the internet is such a big a resource that we can take advantage of. So interactive webtools that allow you to see what happens when you’re gene editing and then that hands-on experience makes you more understanding of something. And then also different animations and colorful infographics, that can also play a huge role because it’s easier to say it.

 

Leah: It’s more engaging.

 

Eleanor: Yea.. because you can hear it but I can just like enter one here and leave the other but if you're seeing it you're like oh so this is how everything works together and then as I've mentioned before classrooms setting as curricula surrounding what CRISPR is and how it can be used that can also play a major part in informing society, and also public lectures and workshops to like so like experts can answer different questions that the public may have about about this technology. And one thing that I think might be for the general public is using science and art together. So having public art installations. I know there was, I think it was a bioluminescence one in the square near Eaton Center. So I think that can provide another avenue of engaging the public within this.

 

Leah: Yeah, I think the exhibits would be super cool because I know a bunch of people who love going to museums, me included of course, so I think that would be super engaging and fun to learn too. Adding on to that, how do you ensure that this method of informing the public is not misinterpreted and done in a reliable manner?

 

Eleanor: So I think using different forms of communication channels from digital media to educational institutions and public audiences we can make sure that we're reaching a diverse audience and then we also have to make sure that we’re accounting for different learning styles and preferences too because if you’re used to learning a certain way, you’re more likely to take in the knowledge rather than skewing it. Also because it is such a complex technology, as I've mentioned, making sure to use a jargon-free language. Obviously, you don't want to include all these scientific terminology, because then people are just like, what are you even talking about? So involving scientists, ethicists, and educators within this process can also play a huge role. And answering questions, because a lot of misinformation is rooted from misunderstanding and not knowing enough, so providing that channel to answer these questions in connection with to the experts can be also play a critical role in making sure that the public is not misinformed. So on your end, how do you envision the future of courtroom science communication evolving in response to the challenges and solutions that you've mentioned.

 

Leah: Yeah, there's several ways you can address these challenges. One key is the increase of technology. I know I said it may be difficult earlier on because of the CSI effect, but the technology is advancing so much that I think we could use like maybe an interesting concept would be like virtual reality simulations, interactive exhibits, as you said, and multimedia tools to help judges and jurors better understand complex scientific concepts like you have said before. Another point is the emphasis on future court cases, transparency and openness of what's being used in court, and just better understanding from the trier of fact, which is the judges and juries and legal professionals. So learning about what's used. If they use CRISPR within a court case, they should be briefed on what CRISPR is before they went into court and they're talking about the implications on it

 

Eleanor: Yeah, technology is evolving, we can definitely use it to our advantage.

 

Leah: Moving on from this, do you see future directions of research and education evolving in regards to CRISPR? Do you see any ways we can continue to improve public understanding and engagement with this revolutionary technology?

 

Eleanor: I think obviously there's still a long way to go within the research realm for CRISPR because you know it's something it's a newer technology. So it's important that we refine what we currently have so that we minimize the impact that it has with regards to ethical considerations and also expanding it to use it for therapeutic purposes, especially in treating genetic disorders. So I think also using CRISPR to help, because obviously it's not just human germline editing, it can also be used in agriculture. Adding on to this, it can also be used to conserve endangered species and protect ecosystems. So there are so many different possibilities that CRISPR could be used for in the future. So, regarding education and grading, CRISPR integrated into the curriculum, promoting public engagement initiatives, interdisciplinary education, and ensuring global collaboration can be really important to making sure that we don't violate any ethical considerations along the way of conducting this further research.

 

Leah: I did not know that you could use CRISPR for so many things. I thought it was just we're editing babies.

 

Eleanor: Right, right, because that's what so much of the media focuses on, right? Because that's what I was like, CRISPR, editing babies, not like helping with global warming.

 

Leah: That's actually really cool to like learn.

Eleanor: So I think we should wrap this up of CRISPR chats and legal labyrinths. It's clear that the journey of scientific discovery and its integration into legal systems and public consensus is both complex and super super crucial.

 

Leah: Definitely. Eleanor, it's been a fascinating dive into the world of CRISPR, even though we have just hit the top of it, exploring this immense potential in ethical quandaries it presents.

 

Eleanor: Leah, I definitely, yeah, I think today's conversation has been so enlightening. And your insights into the legal system's relationship with science has shown that the immediate need for accuracy, transparency, and understanding, especially in legal proceedings. And it kind of serves as a reminder that justice relies on the integrity of scientific evidence and the experts who interpret it. So the biggest thing is just to bridge the communication gap between the public and the experts. So to our listeners, thank you for joining us at Eleanor and Lea's Scientific Soiree. We hope today's discussion has sparked curiosity, inspired dialogue, and perhaps a new perspective on the intricate dance between science, ethics, and the law.

 

Leah and Eleanor: Until next time, keep questioning, keep learning, and stay curious.