Science Is for Sharing

Chao-ting Wu runs a lab at Harvard that investigates how different parts of the genome communicate, and how that activity affects genetic expression, inheritance, and diseases, including cancer and neurodegenerative disorders. But a big part of her work happens outside the lab. As director of the Personal Genetics Education Project, or pgEd, Wu and her team go to schools, libraries, museums, conferences, workplaces, Hollywood writers' rooms, and Congressional briefings to share information about genetic technology and engage in conversations about the myriad social, ethical, and medical questions that surround it. The project, which grew out of a shared concern with her husband, fellow Harvard geneticist George Church, is at the forefront of a movement to make sure that the benefits of genetic research are accessible to all—and that geneticists are attuned to the public's concerns.

Whether genetic science evokes excitement, skepticism, or puzzlement, Chao-ting Wu wants to talk about it. Photo by Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard University Press

How did you become interested in communicating about genetics?

George and I had been talking about the need for something like this since we were graduate students in the '80s, because as soon as we realized that human genomes could be sequenced in their entirety, all the ethical questions were there in embryonic form. When George announced the Personal Genome Project in 2005, volunteers from all over wanted to donate their genomes for research. I remember saying, "How much do these people understand about what they're volunteering for? Are they truly cognizant of all the ethical issues?" That's when pgEd formally began.

Why is it so important for everyone to understand genetics?

There are so many reasons. Part of it is knowing to ask your physician for certain options. For instance, there are so many levels of genetic testing. You can do what we call SNP analysis, which looks at genome variants that are linked to certain traits but that aren't exactly in the gene involving those traits, or you can do whole genome sequencing. Not knowing the difference may lead you to take one test that's less appropriate over another. You don't need to know the intricacies of molecular biology to make sound decisions.

Why is it important for geneticists to listen to the public?

I think nonscientists have wonderful insights into what scientists are doing—and what they should be doing.

Like what?

Like explaining how genetics is relevant to their lives. If you go into a school and say, "Imagine discovering that you have a variant such as Huntington's—do you tell your girlfriend?"—that immediately gets a conversation going with great questions: Are you certain? Should she know? What will happen if I tell her? If we have children, what are their rights? It's those feelings, decisions, and judgments that are important for scientists to hear. That's what people worry about.

What's a common misunderstanding about genetics?

We're identifying genetic areas that give you a higher predisposition to certain traits, but people don't always understand that if you have a variant, it's not a determined thing. Take violence. Variants have been identified that are connected to violent behavior, but some occur in up to 40 percent of people. So clearly something else plays a role in whether one decides to be violent or not. Greater awareness of this would protect not only individuals but society, because we would be smarter about how much or little a genetic variant really determines.

What sort of questions are posed to you by film and tv writers?

Oh, a lot about death. How can I kill someone with a genetic disease? Then there are questions like, how is sequencing actually done? What does genetic information look like? It's wonderful work because anytime anything like that gets out, you know that millions of people see it. For example, the writers of Grey's Anatomy decided to have a genetic sequencing center at the hospital and they asked me, "How much money would it take?" I told them tens of millions of dollars, depending on how big you want to make it, and raising that much money can take years. But they just wrote it into their script.

How well do you think Hollywood is doing in its portrayal of Genetic science?

I think we're seeing more accuracy. I totally understand that if you make a film too science-y and nerdy, you're going to lose your audience. If scientists put aside their egos and ideals about what exact words have to be said and in what certain way, you can actually convey the essence.

Recently you've been reaching out to churches. Why?

There are a lot of tricky questions that genetic technologies raise in regard to faith. Is this a sin? Is this obedient to God? Is it an alteration of the body? Even within one congregation, there's often great diversity in how people feel. But one uniform response I've found from communities of faith is a willingness to work with us. They really care about people and have an innate ability to establish trust. And to be sure, we don't promote genetic technologies. We promote awareness and dialogue.

You began your career when the landscape for women scientists was quite different. How has it changed in 30 years?

When I was a graduate student, there were posters of naked women all over the lab and figurines having sex. You would sit at a dinner with a professor groping your leg, or have one say, "I can't give you a grade until you sit on my lap and give me a kiss," and it wouldn't even occur to you to call your chair and say that happened. That and far worse than that was just normal. Now—oh my God. Someone would get fired for that behavior. Things really are better.

Where do you see the popular perception of genetic technology heading?

I hear fewer and fewer people saying we should stop this, and more and more saying that it's inevitable, so how do we prepare for it? It's a bit like the projections people had when we landed on the moon. It was exciting, but were we meant to be there? Were we contaminating space? I just hope that 200 years from now, when we look back on how genetic technologies were incorporated into society, we can feel proud of how we handled it.