Q&A with Dr. Hub Zwart, Scientific Director of the Centre for Society & Genomics, Radboud University of Nijmegen, Netherlands
He’s a philosopher immersed in genomics research projects, a philosophy professor embedded within a science faculty, and last but not least, a researcher who studies the methodology of embedded research: Dr. Hub Zwart occupies a unique vantage point in the world of integrated social science and humanities research.
The focus of Dr. Zwart’s research is on epistemological and ethical issues in the life sciences; while past subject areas have included biomedicine, research with animals and environmental research, his focus is now mainly on genomics. In Europe, this field of social sciences and humanities research is more commonly referred to as “ELSA genomics” – embedded research exploring the ethical, legal and social aspects of genomics.
But Dr. Zwart not only works on integrated scientific projects – he’s also ‘embedded’ within the Faculty of Science at the Radboud University of Nijmegen, where he is full professor in the Department of Philosophy and Science Studies, and Scientific Director of the Centre for Society & Genomics. The Centre is funded by the Netherlands Genomics Initiative and established within the Faculty of Science itself.
“In the faculty, they view me as their ‘in-house’ philosopher,” says Zwart. “As a rule, life scientists themselves have concerns about their work and the possible societal implications of it. We share a mutual concern: to address and articulate the issues emerging in new life sciences fields.”
In his role at the Centre, he also studies the methodologies of integrated projects, what is referred to as “Elsification”, or “the integration of societal research in large-scale techno science programmes”.
In “What is ELSA genomics?”, an article co-written with Annemiek Nelis for the European Molecular Biology Organization’s Science & Society Series on Convergence Research, Dr. Zwart explores the benefits of ELSA integrated research, both to genomics and society, the challenges facing ELSA, and “options for strengthening the academic quality and societal robustness of ELSA”.
Impact reached Dr. Zwart at his home in Nijmegen.
You describe ELSA genomics as a “particular style” of research. Can you elaborate?
One of the unique features of ELSA genomics is what I call “proximity”. You’re integrated or embedded in a larger program of research, so you’re very close to the scientific research, but at the same time, you reflect critically on the social issues. When researchers are engaged in more traditional areas of ethics or philosophy of science, they typically work from a distance.
I should note that it’s really a continuum and not a dichotomy. It’s hard to draw a hard line between embedded and non-embedded research; they are really different strategies. Most projects fall somewhere between integration and stand-alone; there’s always some kind of integration, and some level of autonomy. And every project is different; some have to be really close, others profit from having a certain distance. However, as a rule, integration is important in genomics.
You’ve been asked to sit on numerous peer review panels by Genome Canada. How does ELSA genomics compare with Canada’s GE3LS program?
In Canada, you very explicitly distinguish between stand-alone and integrated research, although now more projects are integrated than not. Of course, both are legitimate and interesting ways of doing research.
Another difference is that in Europe, ELSA genomics has a clear focus on the health sector, although food is also important. In Canada, genomics is very broad and so the questions raised by GE3LS are also very broad. Areas such as environmental genomics, bioremediation, and biofuels are strong in Canada, whereas in Europe these fields are underrepresented. You’re also sequencing genome parasites and hosts in forestry and fisheries settings, for example. We haven’t explored these areas very much in Europe. So, again, this broader research agenda is raising broader societal questions.
What are some of the main challenges of doing embedded research?
For one, all research in life sciences is developing at a very fast pace, so being able to follow these developments is a huge challenge unto itself.
But there is also a risk of becoming too involved. You could risk your ability to develop a critical perspective. You could also be perceived to be too involved; outsiders might say you are biased.
Do the benefits outweigh these risks?
My opinion is that, while researchers could risk losing their critical perspective, they should take the risk. First of all, the proximity afforded by embedded research allows you to ask very pertinent questions – more pertinent than if you’re at a distance. By being closer to the scientific research, you can connect critical questions voiced by academics and society, with what is actually happening in the research. Because of your proximity, you can make these criticisms quite specific and relevant.
Secondly, you can also more easily discern new questions emerging in these new fields. In the 1990s, philosophers, ethicists and other social scientists were involved in debates about the impact of biotech, but their reflections were voiced rather late; the results of the research were already there. When you are truly integrated, you can anticipate what the future has in store. You can anticipate emerging societal issues when research is in the laboratory stage, and frame the agenda of the debate in an anticipatory manner, rather than responding to debates that are already there.
What are some measures researchers can take to avoid becoming too involved?
You have to keep your ability for critical discernment in good shape. Keeping in touch with your own literature, community and discourse is one way. Also, you can involve various societal stakeholders in your research right from the beginning. They’re likely to ask different questions and broaden your perspective.
In my experience, I don’t see much conflict between the roles of social science and humanities researchers who are embedded in a scientific project. Proximity allows you to become more critical than you can be if you have to ask questions from a distance. The more well informed you are, the more interactive you are and the more involved in dialogue. It may be a paradox, but it’s not a conflict.
What does the future hold for ELSA genomics?
Genomics is becoming embedded in life sciences, so it’s becoming more and more what I would call “normal science”. This has two implications. First, more established fields are migrating from the laboratory to practice. Corresponding questions are also becoming more concrete: the focus is moving to questions about forms of governance and policy implementation. At the same time, the emergence of newer fields – the new ‘omics’ such as proteomics, transcriptomics and metabolomics, along with developments in new areas such as systems biology, synthetic biology and biomaterials – are moving us into entirely new terrain.
As we move in these two different directions – practical application of established fields and new developments in emerging fields – proximity is still important. As research becomes increasingly applied, it’s important to remain involved to help shape the policy agenda. In the newer fields, we must be in a position to anticipate and formulate questions related to these new emerging technologies.
But one thing is certain: integration is here to stay.