Two - way communication between genomics and society

The relationship between science and society has always been determined by the nature of scientific research, in particular its position on a gradient from basic to applied science. This has become even more prevalent in recent years, to the extent that the regard for and appreciation of scientific achievements places unprecedented emphasis on the tangible value of science to society—that is, the impact of research is increasingly associated with its potential to benefit the economy, health, welfare or standards of living. Many funding programmes now require that grant applications explicitly present the expected economic and societal payoff of the proposed research, and, in many cases, especially in policydriven research programmes, the economic or societal potential of the project is among the most important evaluation criteria. This current emphasis on applied research has evolved slowly. For centuries, science was primarily a curiosity-driven enterprise, although many of the fruits of research were eventually applied and generated enormous economic and societal value. Over time, however, the balance has shifted towards a more intimate relationship between science and society in which scientists are accountable for the public money that they spend—a development that is driven and characterized by three main components. First, there is increasing public awareness that scientific advances might eventually have an impact on day-to-day life. This development has been stimulated both by the increasing reliance of modern societies on advanced technol ogies and by a significant increase in the education of the average citizen. Second, there is a growing feeling that publicly funded research should deliver value for money; consequently, science should inform and benefit society continuously. Third, there is a heightened awareness among scientists that they are a part of society, and that they have a responsibility to help to address economic, environmental and political problems. The archetypal nineteenth century scientist— concealed in a laboratory, conducting research in isolation from society—has been replaced by the twenty-first century scientist, who is placed firmly at the centre of social progress and responsibility.