Science, Society, and Culture: Brandon Ogbunu’s Case for a More Creative Scientific Enterprise
Brandon Ogbunu is a computational biologist whose research investigates complex problems in epidemiology, genetics, and evolution; an associate professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University; a professor at the Santa Fe Institute; and the founding director of the Yale Initiative for Science and Society.
His work utilizes a range of methods, from experimental evolution, to biochemistry, and applied mathematics, all toward achieving a refined understanding of complex systems and disease phenomena. In addition, he runs a parallel research program at the intersection of science, society, and culture. In this capacity, he has been a regular contributor to Undark, WIRED, Scientific American, and several other publications.
His most recent article in Undark magazine looks at why science communication is central to the practice of science, arguing that explaining and defending knowledge is as essential to the scientific enterprise as publishing research.
Brandon is a 2024 award winner of the National Academies’ Eric and Wendy Schmidt Awards for Excellence in Science Communications, which honor exceptional science communicators, journalists, and research scientists who have developed creative, original work to communicate issues and advances in science, engineering, or medicine for the general public.
We asked him about his recent works looking at the intersection of science, society, and culture, and how these inform his views on the state of the scientific enterprise.
In an Issues in Science and Technology event late last year, you and other panelists challenged the idea that science has a clear “social contract” with society. In your view, what does science’s social contract look like today, if it exists at all?
I think the “contract” was never a firm doctrine, but a soft notion that we scientists are using taxpayer money in the earnest pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. And this is especially true for subfields of science that address practical problems in the world — medicine, meteorology, conservation, etc. This notion might have existed at one point, but I have never heard this articulated by anyone, scientist or citizen-scientist.
What role does science communication play in your view of the social contract in the 21st century or the evolution of the social contract?
An example that I used in a recent essay of mine explored the difference between football on college campuses and science on college campuses. I said that if they banned college football tomorrow, Americans would protest immediately. But when science was attacked, few non-scientists seemed alarmed. I bring this up because this is an example of how we’ve failed to build an effective bridge between the technical science that comes out of our laboratories and the world of people whose taxes support our work.
I think the science communication movement can help to reestablish — or invent — a new social contract, one driven by accessibility, conversation, and rigor.
What strategies can science communicators use to improve public understanding not just of scientific findings, but of the scientific process, especially when the value of science itself is being debated?
I’m a big fan of alternative style products and relics. Many have spoken about putting failures on their CV, for example. I like those sorts of approaches. One thing that I do is give talks where I mention an idea that I was wrong about. I follow up by explaining why I was wrong, and what I learned. I feel like this is a much more engaging — and accurate — way to describe research.
You’ve argued that many of the ways science is organized today are products of history and power. How has that path-dependence reshaped the relationship between science and society?
One thing I always ask students [is]: Why do you have the college majors available? Why are universities built around departments of biology, history, anthropology, physics, etc. Are these universal and objective ways to organize the natural world? Or do we use them because someone happened to decide upon these at some point, often decades or centuries ago?
This is not to say that these administrative units are bad. No, but it is important to understand which elements of our job are truly natural versus those that are cultural constructions. When you understand this, then you can begin to be more creative about the manner that you do this job. There should be nothing unusual about creating science that is truly accessible to a wide range of people.
