Discussion Guide and Transcript Episode One
Research Ethics Reimagined Podcast Discussion Guide Episode 1: “Making Science More Accessible with Amanda M. Dettmer, PhD and Robert Nobles, DrPH, MPH, CIP”
- In this episode of “Research Ethics Reimagined,” we explore building and maintaining trust in research and science in the 21st century by creating a connection with the public and simplifying the language scientists use. Our guests are Robert Nobles, DrPH, MPH, CIP, Vice President for Research Administration at Emory University and Amanda M. Dettmer, PhD a research scientist at the Yale Child Study Center. Listen on Spotify | Listen on Apple| Listen on Amazon Discussion Questions
- 1. Understanding Research Value
- Robert and Amanda discuss the importance of sharing their work with non-scientists. How do you think a scientist could best explain their research in a brief, engaging way?
- Robert shares an analogy about beach water safety to illustrate a complex scientific concept. What other examples or comparisons have helped the public better understand complicated research ideas?
2.) Institutional Support for Science Communication
- Robert proposes organizations like PRIM&R could provide communication “playbooks” for scientists. How might having clear, consistent messaging from research institutions help create a better understanding of the public value of their work?
- Amanda mentions the importance of institutions proactively promoting and defending their scientists’ work. What types of outreach or resources from research organizations would make you feel more informed and engaged with their efforts?
3.) Building Trust in Science
- Amanda discusses the challenges of addressing misconceptions while maintaining accuracy, particularly regarding research with nonhuman animals. When you encounter conflicting information about a controversial scientific topic, what strategies do you use to determine which sources are reliable?
- Robert and Amanda emphasize the need for institutions to support scientists and highlight the societal value of research. What could research organizations do to help you feel more confident in the credibility and importance of their work, especially on sensitive or complex issues?
Key Terms and Acronyms
PRIM&R: Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research, the organization that produced this podcast. PRIM&R is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, founded in 1974, that works to ensure the highest ethical standards in research.
IRB: Institutional Review Board, a committee that reviews research involving human subjects
Additional Resources
Pew Research Center, “Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Positive Views of Science Continue to Decline” (Nov. 14, 2023)
Research Ethics History and Principles
PRIM&R’s Research Ethics Timeline, mentioned by Ivy as a resource for exploring the history of ethical frameworks in human and animal research.
The Belmont Report, a landmark document outlining ethical principles for human subjects research, discussed in the context of evolving understanding of participant vulnerabilities. Three basic principles, among those generally accepted in our cultural tradition, are particularly relevant to the ethics of research involving human subjects: the principles of respect of persons, beneficence and justice. (Source: The Belmont Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)
National Research Act (1974) – This law, which was spearheaded by Senator Ted Kennedy and represented one of his earliest achievements, created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Commission spent five years developing the Belmont Report and ultimately mandated IRB review of all federally funded research.
Transcript
Ep.1, “Research Ethics Reimagined” “Making Science More Accessible"
Host: Ivy R. Tillman, EdD, CCRC, CIP, Executive Director of PRIM&R
Guests: Amanda M. Dettmer, PhD and Robert Nobles, DrPH, MPH, CIP
A transcript generator was used to help create written show transcript. Written transcript of podcast is approximate and not meant for attribution.
Tillman: Welcome to Research Ethics Reimagined, a podcast created by Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research. Here we talk with scientists, researchers, bioethicists, and some of the leading minds exploring the new frontiers of science. Join us to examine research ethics in the 21st century and learn why it matters to you.
I'm your host, Ivy Tillman. Let's dive in.
I want to take a minute to introduce myself and welcome you to my first episode of research ethics reimagined. My name is Ivy Tilman, I'm the executive director for Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research and I'll be the host of our podcast. Before we begin our first episode, I wanted to share a little bit about myself and why I'm deeply connected to our mission here at PRIM&R. I am a mother of four amazing boys, a research ethics professional, wife to an incredible engineer and active community member and advocate for women and girls, a teacher, a daughter and aspiring beekeeper. That's a story for another day, and especially a lifelong learner. Early in my career as a high school biology teacher, I wouldn't say education empowers and opens doors of opportunity for my students, I saw that science was not solely about memorizing facts and taking tests. It's about curiosity, discovery and making connections. I love these connections from teaching to navigate the complexities of research ethics as an IRB director, my career has been shaped by a commitment to bridge gaps fostering understanding and helping others make connections whether advocating for other represented populations or engaged communities in discussions about research.
My aim is always to elevate voices and create spaces for growth in learning. My passion for understanding has led me here today to encourage you to discover and connect with our guests as we ask questions about what science means to us every day. We are impacted by science and research without even realizing it. I am pleased to welcome you to PRIM&R’s podcast, “Research Ethics Reimagined.” I really hope the conversation is an opportunity to enlighten, inspire and connect. I'm excited to host today we have with us Dr. Robert Nobles, who's an epidemiologist and a Vice President for Research Administration at Emory university and Dr. Amanda Dettmer, who was a research scientist at the Yale Child Study Center and the Yale School of Medicine. At Emory, Robert promotes research growth through oversight and execution of the strategic direction of expansive research portfolio across the university. Amanda leads the human and animal integrated research lab at the Yale Child Study Center. She is a comparative psychologist and behavioral neuroscientist with over 20 years of experience setting non-human primate models of child health development. I'm pleased to be able to have this conversation today with Robert and to share it with you, our listeners. Today, our conversation will focus on building and maintaining trust and research in science. Since this is our first episode, we'd like to encourage our listeners to visit PRIM&R's research ethics timeline, which serves as a guide for undertaking the pathway of these ethical frameworks that govern animal and research. For today's conversation, we'll discuss some of those ethical principles and how they find regulations that we know of today. But we'll also touch on ethical research looks like in the 21st century, as we work to rebuild trust and research in science. So, we'll get started. Thank you. My first question is, is there a disconnect between individuals who implement ethical framework for conducting research and the community that receives benefits from such research?
Nobles: That's a really good question. I think the answer goes both ways. There is a disconnect between individuals that provide oversight activities, but they happen to be part of the communities that benefit from the novel and innovative activities, which I mean, we've run out of respect to these but I think what happens with many of us is that we live in a world where we're part of local communities. And oftentimes we don't we don't really make the connection as being a committee member benefits and also the repertory bodies, or compliance bodies that that force ethics and the values of carrying out research responsibly. So I think there's something to the question that we collectively need to embrace our holistic selves in the review and the dissemination and sharing of research related activities in that vein, and Amanda and I and opportunity to talk about briefly primate related research. I wonder from her, how much does she share with individuals about the value of non-human primate work in to strangers on the street? Or is it something that we keep our science to ourselves?
Dettmer: Yeah, great question. And I think to answer your question first, I mean, so if you back off what Robert said, I think of animal research relevant, there's a little different, right? The people who oversee research ethics, there are obviously very, very different from animals who participate in the research. However, I do think that it often is the case that the people who oversee the animal research ethics are the ones who do eventually and ultimately benefit from the knowledge that is gained from animal-based research. But what a lot of the public doesn't realize is the animals themselves often can also gain for example, there may be medical developments that are trialed in animal models before moving on to humans or that are just tried an animal to improve animal only health. And all of that research requires ethical research oversights. So you know, I have a pet dog right when I go take her to the vet every year for her rabies vaccine. I do want to say that thank you to the animal researchers who have developed a vaccine continue to improve medications for her and to improve her health. I think the community differs in a little bit different way than human based research but invaluable nonetheless. And then, thanks, your question matter? How much do I kind of just talk to people on the street, you know, I'll say more than I used to it increases, it's increased over the last seven years. And the reason for that is largely the personal professional trades ahead where the researcher has evolved and retargeted by anti-animal research activists, and it really drove home, the need to just be very open and upfront and welcome questions in conversation. And I've actually found that when I leave with that now, you know, with elevator conversation, what you do, most people in general are like, Oh, wow, tell me more and open to the conversation.
Tillman: I think you brought up a really good point. I mean, there's almost providing this community of really dedicated ethics professionals, the elevator pitch, because oftentimes, we don't know as a leader first don't vilify the committee, we don't know where to start. And so if you were to ask or to design elevator pitch, Robert, I'm gonna limit that down like, I don't think I'm about to suddenly got really into research ethics, where we do are both in the sense of, you know, going back to the original question of the disconnect. So we recognize that a disconnect exists, how do we begin to build that connection? And so it can be done through just what you were saying, This is what you would, you know, this is what would spark someone's interest because you said that when you begin to have conversation they want to know more.
Dettmer: Yeah, so coming as a computer psychologist and analytics researchers and not at all probably similar to anything that makes a millimeter right or at the park or whatever. But my question is what you do I generally get to something along the lines of behavioral scientists and I study non human learning models of childhood development. And it either it goes one of two ways people are interested in developing like, oh my gosh, tell me about a thing that you just did the other day or the here the document and the whole kind of, I need something like, what do you say to them? And then I then feed for the questions that they asked me to, to happen to me over competition?
Nobles: It's a great question, you're gonna reflect on that I am very, very proud of what I do. But I'm very discreet to individuals that don't know me not to overshare which is, which is very interesting. Most times people ask me what I do, and they want me to be honest, right? And they think I'm gonna do with ever done is. People say, Well, what is that? And then I would explain, I used to track diseases. It's easy, and I was more than 10 years old. And if they want to continue to engage, then I do but it's very interesting, because it leads into what do you do now? Are you a professor? And I used to be, but now people have research. And they get to want to know your title. This is not the normal way of me trying to intimidate them exciting is trying to explain what you know, we're explaining your title, but you got institutions trying to get in. So it's I find myself holding back until other things happen, where people are sneezing or because it's like diseases, and so I already have spots on them or anything, I'm gonna probably get that checked out. Because I do find myself not overly disclosing it very interesting. One of the conversations happened during COVID. I mean, I was wondering what your definition is ascension ocean, there's this point for my wife to have these conversations. And these were these conversations. I was a finalist, they asked me a question. Then my wife would say, he knows the answer. He just joined us because we have to ask him, because I don't want to watch my conversations with him. But it's very interesting that I try not to over hear. But in thinking of the purpose of this podcast, we probably should share one because I think that's integrating into our communities and making the connections where people understand what we do, what we stand for, how we carry it out, and how secret research is something that we probably should do more of as, as individuals within our community. Instead of trying to win the fight, I think I've learned a lot and I overshare, the doctor is educated blah, blah, blah, right?
Tillman: I think it's fascinating to consider how we are citizens or community members, as well as you know, for you as a scientist and as a professional, but really beginning to integrate these conversations into our communities. Because you know, trust is built with these conversations, right, and transparency. Moving on to our next set of questions. We're living at a time where we face a declining level of trust in our institutions across the board, right? We've seen that science and research are not immune from that pandemic, of course, the rest science and politics in an unprecedented way. But we recognize that there is a lack of trust in scientists and research as a whole. What do you think is driving that decline in trust in science? Or I can ask is this the way to think about it? Was there ever a high trust in science and research in our country? I've asked myself that question.
Nobles: It is important. And I think we addressed this, what I think is, and this is a disconnect that I had even growing up in with some scientists, we learn a lot, and we become experts in certain fields. And we find ourselves not being able to communicate with individuals enough about the science of the things that you know. And it would definitely lead us to have to make a connection. And so some of our scientists, or at least the scientists who are good on TV or sharing, some of them don't connect with the audience, they're seeking a different audience that can actually receive information from them. And in the end, when we're not talking, we the risk that the science is above everyone, everyone, and you have to be on this platform to get it, which then allows everyone else to draw the conclusions of what they believe in, and the watered down versions of information that we receive and some of the yellows. And so I think we did trust science at a point of time when we need science to move forward. And I think we're at that time now the challenge is, is that it becomes polarized political, scientific messaging, and then and then we lose our audiences. Right. And so I think that we could do a better job at simplifying scientific messages, even though that simplification makes the message imperfect.
Dettmer: That's such a great segue to what I thought of the responses. Question, Robert, which is, I think there's a few systemic components that play here. And one is this seeming, it seems to be like a gaseous, omnipresent desire, even need for the sound bite. And this is the society we're in now. I don't think we were always that way. Right? We think we're how we consume the media, probably back around the time where I feel like we trusted science as a society, we read newspapers, that was the only way to get our news, we had to sit and read and digest. Now everything's at our fingertips. And we if it's not in one or two sentences, you're not going to hook the reader or the consumer or whatever. And it's a disservice in a lot of ways, I think, because that's science is hardly ever that simplistic. So the challenge then becomes, how can we apply it, and it takes a lot of work, it takes training that we don't get, this is another part of system, scientists don't get this type of training, we're trying to conduct the research, we don't get communications degrees, or social media classes, these are all things we have to do on our own time extra that largely are not incentivized by the institutions that work. Right, where things are incentivized our research publications and grants, largely teaching and sort of sphere institution. So there's actually something issue I heard of the phrase, all research is research, remember, like researchers will tend to tackle problems that have personal relevance. And so the statement is a little bit of research where we're really we're not a parent of two school aged kids are those who are elementary school in Washington for your science classes. So they had a mother who was a scientist, do they like your side class, not really want to hear about the things they're doing? underside classes are really not terribly different, but I remember doing it the same ages. And so then the system of teacher preparation, right, and, and it's like, I feel like the emphasis for the most part in advocating for STEM education comes later, maybe starting high school where you really get like, a hard question a cold is going to be, I think there's so much we can do over that release. Because I do think improving my children have learned about from kindergarten through now, scientists that I never would have never even knew about when I was 12, and different types of size. So it's slow. But those are just some of the things I think are play into this year.
Nobles: Let me give you one, because I mean, absolutely committed. Because like every one science class every once in awhile, like, why don't you come do this teacher science thing? And because of our research, like I've done it a couple times, and they're there they are, but I will say I will say that it's not just that we're not trained. It's actually a bit taboo for us to simplify messages. Because my early research was I mean, I find I find weeds that will get sick. And people. I find I find risk as an epidemiologist and some of my early work was important monitoring into our caucus committees of what would make beachgoers get sick. Right. And, and we're in the process of researching that and being part of the sales office and doing public education is I needed to make it very, very simple. And so we came up with Flex System, I came up with Flex System where if the battery levels are high, and it's red, it's yellow, and they still use the Flex System. Yeah. Throughout the country, in the 90s, right. When, I got called from a media outlet, because I found we ran the septic system affordably directly to the water people got sick, like was it a direct correlation? I was explaining all this. It's hard copies of the material and all this stuff. Like, I mean, they got they said, it is really good. It sounds real scientific, how would you explain it? If I was a fifth grader? Oh, you would want to swim in your toilet? But would you throw a cartoon thing where a political seat was sitting in the water to all people are walking by and they're like, I don't want to swim in the boat. And I had to try to tell the people I had to tell the people I worked with and the supervisor was like, I think I just messed up, right? Like I got fooled into oversimplifying, but it actually worked because it did allow for Florida, in the island of us a $5 million corporation to build a wastewater management system. So septic systems leaking into water, many people say it's Oh, wow, I think I think we have to figure out a way to and really, really change the dynamics of how we how we operate in our academic and scientific communities. That's okay for us to simplify languages.
Tillman: Great conversation, great examples, and they're looking at the same time at the beach, swimming
Nobles: Within six hours of steady raining, because even wastewater treatment plants, they bypass the filtration component, and it just flows directly into it. So great.
Tillman: Yes, yes, yes. Along the same line, my next question deals with real understanding of the current degradation of public trust can be attributed to a series of campaigns that aren't fact based. And we know that and they ultimately are not the best interest of society. Many of them are ideology based movements with vested interest to undermine science. So how can we work to combat disinformation and rebuild trust in science, including considering these campaigns, and if we're specific against like the nonhuman animal research?
Dettmer: So how do we do that? Such an abhorrent question, because there certainly are more than one group, anti researchers with very absolutist agendas, they want to think about to get rid of all human disease or period stop, you know, full stop, I think a huge part of the solution is we cannot rely on individual scientists alone to do this very important work of fighting back, essentially, I think the best defense is a great office, and, you know, institutions, universities, colleges, federal agencies, etc. They hire scientists with full knowledge that they engage in research for the betterment of society, both animal and society. And I think it's a comment on these institutions to provide a strong offense on behalf of individual scientists think about this is a completely off the cuff analogy. So it may fall apart, we'll see. But if you think like a scientific enterprise, and either as a team, all scientists teamwork, right, an individual player on a team in a team sport like this, it's not gonna be able to by themselves, turn it turn this war around, right? It's gonna require a concerted effort and everyone working together like team, not just teamwork, but like a wiki, you know, they'll have they're playing by the same playbook, everyone has a role, but the institutions have to not only be on board with defending a scientist when they come under attack, but go above and beyond that be proactive, and the public indication of importance of effective research that the scientists do about providing engaging factual evidence as to importance of this type of research, and not hiding behind their walls and not putting the scientists out on their own to do their own defense.
Nobles: Corporate stuff, but let me let me say, let me say, and then I'll put PRIM&R in contention of what they can do, as well, what I've seen, at the 4000 academic institutions, across our country, everybody's trying to figure out messaging priorities and what to do with it. But we don't have a collective and this would have made it was in a collective way what should be shared about animal research or be sort of gentle. And when we think about institutions like PRIM&R, NABR and others that are bigger, like we just think about institutions, and organizations that are promoting positive science, what those institutions don't do is give the playbook or the message institutions to distribute, instead of needing to create their own. Right? And so one of the things that I thought was very positive in the 80s, was public service announcements don't really hit right. But if it made sense, or if it didn't, Nancy Reagan always said, it's just I don't see the frying pan, and it would come on the shows, right? And what we need to do is develop those sound bites, because we had already done that people have such small litigious fans, we need to give a sentence or two of why we do research. Why do we do research with animals? What's the value? What did we create what was produced? Why does research make our lives better? It probably did that, it gave it to the member organizations and in the community, we start to socialize this understanding of why we should take all the drugs and why we should say yes to research, right? And we were just missing the people who already laid out for us a long time ago, not everybody's on Twitter, and Snapchat and Tiktok. And this and that, and I don't even notice it right, all that but people will still hear messages and authoritative voices and a beacon of truth of why we do what we do.
Tillman: Wow. Yeah, I know, we're coming up on time. I do have one more question I do want to get in. So I'm gonna kind of shift it real quick. We had some leading questions. But if we consider if you were talking about the Belmont Report, and the principles, the principles that undergird regulations, we begin to think about vulnerability, and how that's a concept and engaging particular populations who do have some concerns around research and interesting research. So do you think the existing frameworks have fully captured the paradigms of vulnerability that exists today? In an automated fashion?
Nobles: The answer is no. I think at that time, when the Belmont Report was created, and we had a court of law regulations, they identified groups that have been targeted and not fully engaged appropriately to protect right and so I mean, it'll be the other things we ever do with me. When I look at our communities, there's more deliberative socioeconomic status, there's abilities related to regions, there's abilities I relate to hierarchy access, we have not fully captured the old paradigm to talk about how to make a connection or these communities to be able to engage with them appropriately about the value of research or being involved in being included in being a participant and shame on us for not doing that. Because we're missing. We're missing the ability to find risks of individuals and the nuance of risk. While we try to pull people into studying these risks, it's a challenge. But I'll be able to share with them and to answer as well, because I think there's room with the same level of mobility with our animals.
Dettmer: Yeah, and I know that with Bill Maher, for specific to human participants research and I think it's a great example of the value of research because of research that we are continually evolving our understanding of vulnerabilities when it comes to any number of outcomes, right? Well, you make some great examples, socioeconomic status, as it turns out as a vulnerability, accessibility, which to services lack of accessibility, which can also just be called privilege, right? Or non credit. These are all vulnerabilities and because of research, we routinely monitor understanding of what makes people vulnerable to illness to poor health outcomes to not responding to treatment. And I think the onus absolutely it was on us as researchers as a society to as a whole to make sure that our regular updates to documents report to ensure that we are protecting the most vulnerable people who are very likely to be the ones who will benefit the most from the research that we do.
Nobles: Yeah, I mean, when people are desperate for an answer, yes, they're much more willing to do anything.
Tillman: Well, thank you, I think you are right. We could talk for another hour. Yes, we need to have more conversations like this. Absolutely.
Announcer: Thank you for listening to research ethics reimagined, a podcast created by PRIM&R and produced by Syntax +Motion. Please subscribe and share with friends and colleagues we're having on the record, please. Be sure to join us next month as we continue our conversation with scientists, researchers, bioethicists, and explore new frontiers of science.
Host: Ivy R. Tillman, EdD, CCRC, CIP, Executive Director of PRIM&R
Guests: Amanda M. Dettmer, PhD and Robert Nobles, DrPH, MPH, CIP
A transcript generator was used to help create written show transcript. Written transcript of podcast is approximate and not meant for attribution.
Tillman: Welcome to Research Ethics Reimagined, a podcast created by Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research. Here we talk with scientists, researchers, bioethicists, and some of the leading minds exploring the new frontiers of science. Join us to examine research ethics in the 21st century and learn why it matters to you.
I'm your host, Ivy Tillman. Let's dive in.
I want to take a minute to introduce myself and welcome you to my first episode of research ethics reimagined. My name is Ivy Tilman, I'm the executive director for Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research and I'll be the host of our podcast. Before we begin our first episode, I wanted to share a little bit about myself and why I'm deeply connected to our mission here at PRIM&R. I am a mother of four amazing boys, a research ethics professional, wife to an incredible engineer and active community member and advocate for women and girls, a teacher, a daughter and aspiring beekeeper. That's a story for another day, and especially a lifelong learner. Early in my career as a high school biology teacher, I wouldn't say education empowers and opens doors of opportunity for my students, I saw that science was not solely about memorizing facts and taking tests. It's about curiosity, discovery and making connections. I love these connections from teaching to navigate the complexities of research ethics as an IRB director, my career has been shaped by a commitment to bridge gaps fostering understanding and helping others make connections whether advocating for other represented populations or engaged communities in discussions about research.
My aim is always to elevate voices and create spaces for growth in learning. My passion for understanding has led me here today to encourage you to discover and connect with our guests as we ask questions about what science means to us every day. We are impacted by science and research without even realizing it. I am pleased to welcome you to PRIM&R’s podcast, “Research Ethics Reimagined.” I really hope the conversation is an opportunity to enlighten, inspire and connect. I'm excited to host today we have with us Dr. Robert Nobles, who's an epidemiologist and a Vice President for Research Administration at Emory university and Dr. Amanda Dettmer, who was a research scientist at the Yale Child Study Center and the Yale School of Medicine. At Emory, Robert promotes research growth through oversight and execution of the strategic direction of expansive research portfolio across the university. Amanda leads the human and animal integrated research lab at the Yale Child Study Center. She is a comparative psychologist and behavioral neuroscientist with over 20 years of experience setting non-human primate models of child health development. I'm pleased to be able to have this conversation today with Robert and to share it with you, our listeners. Today, our conversation will focus on building and maintaining trust and research in science. Since this is our first episode, we'd like to encourage our listeners to visit PRIM&R's research ethics timeline, which serves as a guide for undertaking the pathway of these ethical frameworks that govern animal and research. For today's conversation, we'll discuss some of those ethical principles and how they find regulations that we know of today. But we'll also touch on ethical research looks like in the 21st century, as we work to rebuild trust and research in science. So, we'll get started. Thank you. My first question is, is there a disconnect between individuals who implement ethical framework for conducting research and the community that receives benefits from such research?
Nobles: That's a really good question. I think the answer goes both ways. There is a disconnect between individuals that provide oversight activities, but they happen to be part of the communities that benefit from the novel and innovative activities, which I mean, we've run out of respect to these but I think what happens with many of us is that we live in a world where we're part of local communities. And oftentimes we don't we don't really make the connection as being a committee member benefits and also the repertory bodies, or compliance bodies that that force ethics and the values of carrying out research responsibly. So I think there's something to the question that we collectively need to embrace our holistic selves in the review and the dissemination and sharing of research related activities in that vein, and Amanda and I and opportunity to talk about briefly primate related research. I wonder from her, how much does she share with individuals about the value of non-human primate work in to strangers on the street? Or is it something that we keep our science to ourselves?
Dettmer: Yeah, great question. And I think to answer your question first, I mean, so if you back off what Robert said, I think of animal research relevant, there's a little different, right? The people who oversee research ethics, there are obviously very, very different from animals who participate in the research. However, I do think that it often is the case that the people who oversee the animal research ethics are the ones who do eventually and ultimately benefit from the knowledge that is gained from animal-based research. But what a lot of the public doesn't realize is the animals themselves often can also gain for example, there may be medical developments that are trialed in animal models before moving on to humans or that are just tried an animal to improve animal only health. And all of that research requires ethical research oversights. So you know, I have a pet dog right when I go take her to the vet every year for her rabies vaccine. I do want to say that thank you to the animal researchers who have developed a vaccine continue to improve medications for her and to improve her health. I think the community differs in a little bit different way than human based research but invaluable nonetheless. And then, thanks, your question matter? How much do I kind of just talk to people on the street, you know, I'll say more than I used to it increases, it's increased over the last seven years. And the reason for that is largely the personal professional trades ahead where the researcher has evolved and retargeted by anti-animal research activists, and it really drove home, the need to just be very open and upfront and welcome questions in conversation. And I've actually found that when I leave with that now, you know, with elevator conversation, what you do, most people in general are like, Oh, wow, tell me more and open to the conversation.
Tillman: I think you brought up a really good point. I mean, there's almost providing this community of really dedicated ethics professionals, the elevator pitch, because oftentimes, we don't know as a leader first don't vilify the committee, we don't know where to start. And so if you were to ask or to design elevator pitch, Robert, I'm gonna limit that down like, I don't think I'm about to suddenly got really into research ethics, where we do are both in the sense of, you know, going back to the original question of the disconnect. So we recognize that a disconnect exists, how do we begin to build that connection? And so it can be done through just what you were saying, This is what you would, you know, this is what would spark someone's interest because you said that when you begin to have conversation they want to know more.
Dettmer: Yeah, so coming as a computer psychologist and analytics researchers and not at all probably similar to anything that makes a millimeter right or at the park or whatever. But my question is what you do I generally get to something along the lines of behavioral scientists and I study non human learning models of childhood development. And it either it goes one of two ways people are interested in developing like, oh my gosh, tell me about a thing that you just did the other day or the here the document and the whole kind of, I need something like, what do you say to them? And then I then feed for the questions that they asked me to, to happen to me over competition?
Nobles: It's a great question, you're gonna reflect on that I am very, very proud of what I do. But I'm very discreet to individuals that don't know me not to overshare which is, which is very interesting. Most times people ask me what I do, and they want me to be honest, right? And they think I'm gonna do with ever done is. People say, Well, what is that? And then I would explain, I used to track diseases. It's easy, and I was more than 10 years old. And if they want to continue to engage, then I do but it's very interesting, because it leads into what do you do now? Are you a professor? And I used to be, but now people have research. And they get to want to know your title. This is not the normal way of me trying to intimidate them exciting is trying to explain what you know, we're explaining your title, but you got institutions trying to get in. So it's I find myself holding back until other things happen, where people are sneezing or because it's like diseases, and so I already have spots on them or anything, I'm gonna probably get that checked out. Because I do find myself not overly disclosing it very interesting. One of the conversations happened during COVID. I mean, I was wondering what your definition is ascension ocean, there's this point for my wife to have these conversations. And these were these conversations. I was a finalist, they asked me a question. Then my wife would say, he knows the answer. He just joined us because we have to ask him, because I don't want to watch my conversations with him. But it's very interesting that I try not to over hear. But in thinking of the purpose of this podcast, we probably should share one because I think that's integrating into our communities and making the connections where people understand what we do, what we stand for, how we carry it out, and how secret research is something that we probably should do more of as, as individuals within our community. Instead of trying to win the fight, I think I've learned a lot and I overshare, the doctor is educated blah, blah, blah, right?
Tillman: I think it's fascinating to consider how we are citizens or community members, as well as you know, for you as a scientist and as a professional, but really beginning to integrate these conversations into our communities. Because you know, trust is built with these conversations, right, and transparency. Moving on to our next set of questions. We're living at a time where we face a declining level of trust in our institutions across the board, right? We've seen that science and research are not immune from that pandemic, of course, the rest science and politics in an unprecedented way. But we recognize that there is a lack of trust in scientists and research as a whole. What do you think is driving that decline in trust in science? Or I can ask is this the way to think about it? Was there ever a high trust in science and research in our country? I've asked myself that question.
Nobles: It is important. And I think we addressed this, what I think is, and this is a disconnect that I had even growing up in with some scientists, we learn a lot, and we become experts in certain fields. And we find ourselves not being able to communicate with individuals enough about the science of the things that you know. And it would definitely lead us to have to make a connection. And so some of our scientists, or at least the scientists who are good on TV or sharing, some of them don't connect with the audience, they're seeking a different audience that can actually receive information from them. And in the end, when we're not talking, we the risk that the science is above everyone, everyone, and you have to be on this platform to get it, which then allows everyone else to draw the conclusions of what they believe in, and the watered down versions of information that we receive and some of the yellows. And so I think we did trust science at a point of time when we need science to move forward. And I think we're at that time now the challenge is, is that it becomes polarized political, scientific messaging, and then and then we lose our audiences. Right. And so I think that we could do a better job at simplifying scientific messages, even though that simplification makes the message imperfect.
Dettmer: That's such a great segue to what I thought of the responses. Question, Robert, which is, I think there's a few systemic components that play here. And one is this seeming, it seems to be like a gaseous, omnipresent desire, even need for the sound bite. And this is the society we're in now. I don't think we were always that way. Right? We think we're how we consume the media, probably back around the time where I feel like we trusted science as a society, we read newspapers, that was the only way to get our news, we had to sit and read and digest. Now everything's at our fingertips. And we if it's not in one or two sentences, you're not going to hook the reader or the consumer or whatever. And it's a disservice in a lot of ways, I think, because that's science is hardly ever that simplistic. So the challenge then becomes, how can we apply it, and it takes a lot of work, it takes training that we don't get, this is another part of system, scientists don't get this type of training, we're trying to conduct the research, we don't get communications degrees, or social media classes, these are all things we have to do on our own time extra that largely are not incentivized by the institutions that work. Right, where things are incentivized our research publications and grants, largely teaching and sort of sphere institution. So there's actually something issue I heard of the phrase, all research is research, remember, like researchers will tend to tackle problems that have personal relevance. And so the statement is a little bit of research where we're really we're not a parent of two school aged kids are those who are elementary school in Washington for your science classes. So they had a mother who was a scientist, do they like your side class, not really want to hear about the things they're doing? underside classes are really not terribly different, but I remember doing it the same ages. And so then the system of teacher preparation, right, and, and it's like, I feel like the emphasis for the most part in advocating for STEM education comes later, maybe starting high school where you really get like, a hard question a cold is going to be, I think there's so much we can do over that release. Because I do think improving my children have learned about from kindergarten through now, scientists that I never would have never even knew about when I was 12, and different types of size. So it's slow. But those are just some of the things I think are play into this year.
Nobles: Let me give you one, because I mean, absolutely committed. Because like every one science class every once in awhile, like, why don't you come do this teacher science thing? And because of our research, like I've done it a couple times, and they're there they are, but I will say I will say that it's not just that we're not trained. It's actually a bit taboo for us to simplify messages. Because my early research was I mean, I find I find weeds that will get sick. And people. I find I find risk as an epidemiologist and some of my early work was important monitoring into our caucus committees of what would make beachgoers get sick. Right. And, and we're in the process of researching that and being part of the sales office and doing public education is I needed to make it very, very simple. And so we came up with Flex System, I came up with Flex System where if the battery levels are high, and it's red, it's yellow, and they still use the Flex System. Yeah. Throughout the country, in the 90s, right. When, I got called from a media outlet, because I found we ran the septic system affordably directly to the water people got sick, like was it a direct correlation? I was explaining all this. It's hard copies of the material and all this stuff. Like, I mean, they got they said, it is really good. It sounds real scientific, how would you explain it? If I was a fifth grader? Oh, you would want to swim in your toilet? But would you throw a cartoon thing where a political seat was sitting in the water to all people are walking by and they're like, I don't want to swim in the boat. And I had to try to tell the people I had to tell the people I worked with and the supervisor was like, I think I just messed up, right? Like I got fooled into oversimplifying, but it actually worked because it did allow for Florida, in the island of us a $5 million corporation to build a wastewater management system. So septic systems leaking into water, many people say it's Oh, wow, I think I think we have to figure out a way to and really, really change the dynamics of how we how we operate in our academic and scientific communities. That's okay for us to simplify languages.
Tillman: Great conversation, great examples, and they're looking at the same time at the beach, swimming
Nobles: Within six hours of steady raining, because even wastewater treatment plants, they bypass the filtration component, and it just flows directly into it. So great.
Tillman: Yes, yes, yes. Along the same line, my next question deals with real understanding of the current degradation of public trust can be attributed to a series of campaigns that aren't fact based. And we know that and they ultimately are not the best interest of society. Many of them are ideology based movements with vested interest to undermine science. So how can we work to combat disinformation and rebuild trust in science, including considering these campaigns, and if we're specific against like the nonhuman animal research?
Dettmer: So how do we do that? Such an abhorrent question, because there certainly are more than one group, anti researchers with very absolutist agendas, they want to think about to get rid of all human disease or period stop, you know, full stop, I think a huge part of the solution is we cannot rely on individual scientists alone to do this very important work of fighting back, essentially, I think the best defense is a great office, and, you know, institutions, universities, colleges, federal agencies, etc. They hire scientists with full knowledge that they engage in research for the betterment of society, both animal and society. And I think it's a comment on these institutions to provide a strong offense on behalf of individual scientists think about this is a completely off the cuff analogy. So it may fall apart, we'll see. But if you think like a scientific enterprise, and either as a team, all scientists teamwork, right, an individual player on a team in a team sport like this, it's not gonna be able to by themselves, turn it turn this war around, right? It's gonna require a concerted effort and everyone working together like team, not just teamwork, but like a wiki, you know, they'll have they're playing by the same playbook, everyone has a role, but the institutions have to not only be on board with defending a scientist when they come under attack, but go above and beyond that be proactive, and the public indication of importance of effective research that the scientists do about providing engaging factual evidence as to importance of this type of research, and not hiding behind their walls and not putting the scientists out on their own to do their own defense.
Nobles: Corporate stuff, but let me let me say, let me say, and then I'll put PRIM&R in contention of what they can do, as well, what I've seen, at the 4000 academic institutions, across our country, everybody's trying to figure out messaging priorities and what to do with it. But we don't have a collective and this would have made it was in a collective way what should be shared about animal research or be sort of gentle. And when we think about institutions like PRIM&R, NABR and others that are bigger, like we just think about institutions, and organizations that are promoting positive science, what those institutions don't do is give the playbook or the message institutions to distribute, instead of needing to create their own. Right? And so one of the things that I thought was very positive in the 80s, was public service announcements don't really hit right. But if it made sense, or if it didn't, Nancy Reagan always said, it's just I don't see the frying pan, and it would come on the shows, right? And what we need to do is develop those sound bites, because we had already done that people have such small litigious fans, we need to give a sentence or two of why we do research. Why do we do research with animals? What's the value? What did we create what was produced? Why does research make our lives better? It probably did that, it gave it to the member organizations and in the community, we start to socialize this understanding of why we should take all the drugs and why we should say yes to research, right? And we were just missing the people who already laid out for us a long time ago, not everybody's on Twitter, and Snapchat and Tiktok. And this and that, and I don't even notice it right, all that but people will still hear messages and authoritative voices and a beacon of truth of why we do what we do.
Tillman: Wow. Yeah, I know, we're coming up on time. I do have one more question I do want to get in. So I'm gonna kind of shift it real quick. We had some leading questions. But if we consider if you were talking about the Belmont Report, and the principles, the principles that undergird regulations, we begin to think about vulnerability, and how that's a concept and engaging particular populations who do have some concerns around research and interesting research. So do you think the existing frameworks have fully captured the paradigms of vulnerability that exists today? In an automated fashion?
Nobles: The answer is no. I think at that time, when the Belmont Report was created, and we had a court of law regulations, they identified groups that have been targeted and not fully engaged appropriately to protect right and so I mean, it'll be the other things we ever do with me. When I look at our communities, there's more deliberative socioeconomic status, there's abilities related to regions, there's abilities I relate to hierarchy access, we have not fully captured the old paradigm to talk about how to make a connection or these communities to be able to engage with them appropriately about the value of research or being involved in being included in being a participant and shame on us for not doing that. Because we're missing. We're missing the ability to find risks of individuals and the nuance of risk. While we try to pull people into studying these risks, it's a challenge. But I'll be able to share with them and to answer as well, because I think there's room with the same level of mobility with our animals.
Dettmer: Yeah, and I know that with Bill Maher, for specific to human participants research and I think it's a great example of the value of research because of research that we are continually evolving our understanding of vulnerabilities when it comes to any number of outcomes, right? Well, you make some great examples, socioeconomic status, as it turns out as a vulnerability, accessibility, which to services lack of accessibility, which can also just be called privilege, right? Or non credit. These are all vulnerabilities and because of research, we routinely monitor understanding of what makes people vulnerable to illness to poor health outcomes to not responding to treatment. And I think the onus absolutely it was on us as researchers as a society to as a whole to make sure that our regular updates to documents report to ensure that we are protecting the most vulnerable people who are very likely to be the ones who will benefit the most from the research that we do.
Nobles: Yeah, I mean, when people are desperate for an answer, yes, they're much more willing to do anything.
Tillman: Well, thank you, I think you are right. We could talk for another hour. Yes, we need to have more conversations like this. Absolutely.
Announcer: Thank you for listening to research ethics reimagined, a podcast created by PRIM&R and produced by Syntax +Motion. Please subscribe and share with friends and colleagues we're having on the record, please. Be sure to join us next month as we continue our conversation with scientists, researchers, bioethicists, and explore new frontiers of science.