In taking on any new endeavor, one never really knows how their expectations will overlap with what really happens. Going into the Outlaw Biology Symposium, I did not realize what my expectations were until meeting with Professor Kelty to prepare for the Outlaws. As a control freak, I was caught off guard when he discussed the spirit of the symposium and the workshops. The event was to embody the essence of public participation in biology; as planners of the event, we were going to get everything set up and prepared, but then let the participants take it in the direction that it was meant to go in. Uh oh. That was the last thing that an obsessive planner and organizer was anticipating. It was at this point that I realized that my interpretation of my academic experience at UCLA was one of a carefully controlled and planned outcome. I had the same expectations for my work as a research apprentice on the symposium. This idea of relinquishing power to others on a project was a novel idea.
The Outlaw Biology experience inspired me to rethink my expectations and what it meant to be a participant in the event. If the participants were given control over the direction of the symposium, what might they do with it? Would they expand upon the ideas presented in the symposium? How would they add their own experiences? What exactly was my role as an organizer? What did it mean to be involved in the planning of the event? Was I to be a participant as well? Would my role be merely to teach people how to do DNA strawberry extractions and inspire them to take the lesson in a new direction? Or would they do nothing with the information? Would I suffer an existential crisis from all these questions?
In my experience at the symposium, I began to understand the importance of participation and meaningful discussion in science. So much so that I have begun working on an essay and research project involving some of the issues for the capstone seminar for the Society and Genetics minor. It is still a work in progress, but these questions began to stem out of the aforementioned ones discussed above. After a discussion with my classmates and professors, we narrowed in on an interesting question: What kind of ‘knowledge subject’ is being constructed in this Age of Bio? In other words, what kinds of knowledge become accessible/inaccessible to people, and how are the presentations of such knowledge made to the public? Do people walk away with the same understanding that researchers, project leaders, etc. intended, especially when it comes to informed consent?
Some of my initial thoughts on this (especially as an undergraduate researcher that teaches genetic concepts and the social implications of biotechnology to high schoolers in Watts — shout out to all my King Drew students!) are that biology, especially genetics is not an easy subject. It’s quite complicated, and researchers still don’t even have the full picture of it. Yet public participation in regards to science is necessary in order to understand it more and hash it out. But this can be tricky when informed consent issues become involved, and thus you come to an interesting Catch-22. As a participant, you should probably be informed, but how can this be when you need more participants to get more knowledge (at least when it comes to research subjects.) While admittedly, participation in science can be embodied in many ways, such as getting a science education, going to a symposium, donating tissue samples to participate in a research study, etc., it nonetheless remains … participation in science, with all the typical bells and whistles. Or does it?
And that wraps up Part Deux. Until next time, adieu.
Jill
PS. Please share any comments or thoughts. After all, the topic IS participation! 
Recent Comments