Carlo Quintanilla, today a science policy analyst at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, enjoyed communicating the real-world applications of science to people, but noticed that as he continued in research, he had fewer opportunities to do so. After completing his PhD, a colleague invited him to a science-fiction convention as a speaker. The experience helped Quintanilla find his place as a science communicator.
What was your first experience as a convention panelist like?
I was nervous because even though I understood the science on the topics I was speaking on, I wasn’t familiar with many science-fiction examples to connect my explanations to. Since I worked with CRISPR in graduate school, I joined a panel on genetic engineering, a common theme in science fiction. It was so exciting. The audience had a lot of different views on genetic engineering, from overall enthusiasm about its potential to questions about access and restrictions. We ran out of time, so I kept talking with people about it afterward. It’s a topic that I’ve approached on many panels since.
Carlo Quintanilla, far right, speaks on panels at science-fiction conventions to talk about genetic engineering and other science topics found in these stories.
Carlo Quintanilla
How can participating in these talks help both scientists and audiences?
Science-fiction enthusiasts get introduced to some of these concepts, but they don’t get the full explanation of what something like genetic engineering or perception in neuroscience is or how it works. These mediums are a great way to spark people’s interest in science, and at these events, there’s a chance to discuss it in more detail.
For scientists, it’s fun to step away from one’s niche research topic and think about other scientific questions. Engaging with general audiences encourages scientists to think about a scientific concept’s context in history and future implications. Relatedly, it forces scientists to think about ethical aspects of their work that a researcher focused on discovery may not be considering. Since findings don’t exist in a vacuum, that can be important to think about in advance. This can also help researchers think about the narrative of a project.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
This post was originally published on here
