In 2006, a small group of UK academic scientists made headlines when they proposed the creation of interspecies embryos – mixing human and animal genetic material. A public campaign was fought to mobilize support for the research. Drawing on interviews with the key scientists involved, this paper argues that engaging the public through communicating their ideas via the media can result in tensions between the necessity of, and inherent dangers in, scientists campaigning on controversial issues. Some scientists believed that communicating science had damaged their professional standing in the eyes of their peers, who, in turn, policed the boundaries around what they believed constituted a “good” scientist. Tensions between promoting “science” versus promotion of the “scientist”; engaging the public versus publishing peer-reviewed articles and winning grants; and building expectations versus overhyping the science reveal the difficult choices scientists in the modern world have to make over the potential gains and risks of communicating science. We conclude that although scientists' participation in public debates is often encouraged, the rewards of such engagement remain. Moreover, this participation can detrimentally affect scientists' careers.

中文翻译：

---

成为（现代）科学家：英国种间胚胎辩论中公众参与的风险

2006 年，一小群英国学术科学家提出创造种间胚胎——混合人类和动物遗传物质，成为头条新闻。发起了一场公共运动，以动员对这项研究的支持。本文通过对相关关键科学家的采访，认为通过媒体交流他们的想法来吸引公众可能会导致科学家在有争议的问题上进行竞选活动的必要性和固有危险之间的紧张关系。一些科学家认为，传播科学损害了他们在同行眼中的专业地位，而他们反过来又控制了他们认为构成“好”科学家的界限。促进“科学”与促进“科学家”之间的紧张关系；吸引公众与发表同行评议的文章和赢得资助；建立期望与过度炒作科学揭示了现代世界的科学家必须对传播科学的潜在收益和风险做出艰难的选择。我们得出的结论是，虽然经常鼓励科学家参与公共辩论，但这种参与的回报仍然存在。此外，这种参与会对科学家的职业生涯产生不利影响。