Mus spicilegus

Are scientists in part to blame for the lack of stricter regulations on some of these chemicals? Hmm, scientist as villain...what a novel plot. But I guess you could blame us. If we all agreed on exactly what effects these types of chemicals cause and at what doses, perhaps stricter regulations would be in place. Scientists all see the world a little differently and emphasize different things, don’t we? It’s part of our charm but it drives the media, the public, legislators and regulatory agencies crazy. They want simple answers like what’s safe and what isn’t. We feel the need to qualify everything and love to dispute the details (let’s face it, ‘I’ll show you’ gets us motivated and sends us back to our lab benches). But we can disagree on the details and still agree that a chemical with the properties of BPA isn’t good for our bodies. The manufacturers of BPA, however, have been very effective at using us against ourselves. The effect on the growing oocyte that we stumbled on was examined subsequently by several groups. All reported adverse effects, but there was variability among the findings, and one group concluded that BPA didn’t give rise to chromosomally abnormal eggs because the defects it induced caused the arrest and death of the cell. The manufacturers spun this into: ‘no one can repeat that Hunt study’. But really, does the difference in interpretation between studies matter? A dead oocyte or an abnormal egg — no healthy baby either way. As long as BPA manufacturers can continue to convince people that ‘it’s controversial’, many will think, ‘Why worry? I’ll wait until they know’. In the case of BPA, a few scientists have been willing to stand up and admit that, while we still have a lot to learn, what we know scares the daylights out of us, and that’s making a difference. Speaking like that is stepping away from how we were trained to talk about our work. But saying, ‘I’m a scientist and what I know worries me’, puts things in a context that the man on the street and the elected official can understand. What are the consequences if scientists fail to participate in a dialogue with the public? Scientific ignorance hurts science. I get so frustrated when I hear some misguided politician riffing on a fruit fly study, making it sound like a colossal waste of time and money. In part, it’s our fault. We don’t think about explaining to nonscientists what we do and why it’s important, even though taxpayers fund most of our work. It’s not that people are too stupid to understand; it’s that we don’t know how to make it comprehensible. But we can learn. After 10 years of talking to parent groups, legislators, and reporters, I can explain meiosis to anyone. And, when it comes to chemicals like BPA that have become so complexly interwoven into our daily lives (did you know that eating greasy french fries or applying hand lotion and then handling a paper receipt is a terrific way to get a good dose of BPA?), failure to voice our concerns, to explain our findings to the general public, and to work for change in the regulatory process may jeopardize human health.