From laboratory to computer screen—
how to keep one step ahead of the news
Janet
Salisbury
Director of Biotext, a Canberra-based small business that researches,
writes and edits bioscience information. Here she writes about her business
and a career change that has taken her from the laboratory to the place where
science meets policy and practice.
'If you hear it on the TV, you will have heard it first at Biotext!' This is the rather presumptuous motto in the offices of my science information consultancy, Biotext, which is based in the backgarden of my home in Canberra. We think it is true because in the last year my team have been involved in projects about variant Cruetzfelt-Jakob disease (the human form of BSE, or mad cow disease), genetically modified food, drugs-in-sport testing, antibiotic resistance, foot-and-mouth disease, anthrax, passive smoking, environmental degradation and its effect on human health, xenotransplantation, drinking water quality... and the list goes on. Our suspicion that we really are one step ahead of the news was further confirmed last week when the ABC's Health Dimensions featured and an item on nuchal translucency testing (a form of ultrasound screening in pregnancy) only minutes after I had put down my pen from editing a highly technical report on the subject!
So what exactly is 'science information consultancy' and how did I get to be
doing it? It is, of course, quite a long story but, to be brief, I graduated
with a BSc (Hons) in zoology from at Durham University in the UK in 1973 and
then moved to Manchester where I did a PhD at the Paterson Institute (a cancer
research institute). I postdoc’ed from 1976 to 1989, first in London at St
George’s Hospital Medical School, then in Melbourne at the Department of
Medicine, Melbourne University and finally at the John Curtin School of
Medical Research in Canberra. My research took me from chemical carcinogenesis
and DNA polymerase, through cell membranes to haemopoietic stem cells but I
always had a bit of an eye on 'the big picture' which I suspected all along
was where I really wanted to be.
Like many young women struggling to juggle a research career with motherhood,
by1988, with a six year-old, a four year-old and one on the way, the going was
getting tougher and I decided that this was the time to make a change of
direction. Not away from science -- not at all -- but into a work environment
that was more flexible and family friendly and one that allowed me to explore
the bigger picture that so much attracted me. Almost immediately, I was able
to get some consulting work from the department of health, evaluating safety
assessment data submitted with marketing applications for agricultural and
veterinary chemicals. This was my first taste of what would become a
significant interest for me -- the way that science information is translated
into policies.
In 1991, my husband gallantly converted our garage into a large office and
moved his DIY activities to a much smaller shed down the back. I moved in and
have never looked back. Initially, I traded under my own name, advertising my
services as ‘data evaluation, writing and editing, specialising in the medical
and biological sciences’. The early consulting work was quickly followed by
writing and editing assignments -- numerous reports, manuals, conference
proceedings, summaries and technical papers on issues related to various
aspects of health and clinical practice, food and nutrition, biotechnology,
agriculture and environmental issues. Most of the work has been for Australian
government departments and agencies, including the departments of health,
environment and primary industries, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA),
the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research.
From quite early on I enlisted the help of subcontractors to help with the
editing, proofreading and formatting aspects of the work and in 1997, I
registered the business name ‘Biotext’, becoming incorporated as Biotext Pty
Ltd in 1999. At about this time I met Hilary Cadman at a WISENET dinner and
offered her a job. After ten years as a lecturer/senior lecturer in
biochemistry/immunology and biotechnology at the University of Zimbabwe,
Hilary had just completed a MSc in science communication at Imperial College,
London and was looking for work. Hilary’s arrival meant that the officers
needed to be expanded and the builder convinced us to knock down the existing
garage and rebuild. We now have a ‘suite’ of three offices, complete with
kitchenette, bathroom and a general purpose/meeting and store area. We also
have an office manager who comes three days per week to keep all the
administration tasks on track, our subcontractors team is steadily expanding
and we regularly collaborate with other scientists for particular projects.
So, what exactly is the bigger picture? Through projects on biotechnology,
toxicology, pharmacology, communicable diseases, environmental health, medical
technologies and clinical practice, I have developed a strong interest in the
interaction between scientists/scientific evidence and regulators/policy
makers, which I have nicknamed this the ‘science–policy interface’. Science is
moving forward all the time opening up new and exciting possibilities with
great potential to improve our lives. However, by its very nature, science
cannot deliver absolute answers or risk-free solutions to problems. To use new
technologies wisely, society must weigh up benefits, assess risks and make
decisions about what is acceptable and what is not. Such debates should
ideally involve the community at all levels thus avoiding the 'them and us'
scenario that has so afflicted debate on issues like genetically modified
food. There is a huge responsibility for scientists to enter into a dialogue
with the community, imparting clear information about their science and
responding to the concerns expressed, rather than adopting a 'we have
all the answers' approach.
However, time does not stand still and every day decisions have to be made —
will we allow this or that additive in food, will we allow a clinical trial on
xenotransplantation to go ahead, will we spend X million dollars on this or
that measure to reduce dryland salinity, will we fund this drug over that one
with a limited health budget, and so on, and so on? It is easy to stand
outside this process and cast the people that make these decisions as
‘baddies’, blaming them when something goes wrong down the track, but it’s a
pretty tough job. I think that the media should sometimes focus on what is
really involved rather than constantly whipping up more conflict!
In this connection, two areas have particularly attracted my attention and
interest. These are risk analysis and evidence-based medicine, which can both
be considered to be tools in the toolbox of science decision making. Risk
analysis is a three-pronged approach involving risk assessment (the process of
bringing together all the information relating to a particular risk activity
and assessing it to determine the actual risk in qualitative or quantitative
terms), risk communication (engaging stakeholders and the community in debate
about the acceptability of the risk) and risk management (putting in place
measures to minimise the risk).
'Evidence-based medicine' is the term given to an approach developed
over the
last 20 years to collate and assess evidence relating to clinical practice.
Under this approach, decisions about individual patient treatments, adoption
of new technologies and population-based approaches to health (such as
screening programs for cancer) and other preventive health measures are based
on careful assessment of the best available evidence rather than on a trial
and error, expert opinion approach, which was common in medicine until the
evidence-based approach started to catch on and is still prevalent in other
disciplines, such as environmental management.
To conclude, life is pretty interesting in the science information business.
Some may see us as 'Jacks (or Jills) of all trades', having lost any real
connection with the cut and thrust of the research world, but I am happy
exploring the bigger picture and I believe that working across disciplines
gives us rare insights that workers in their narrow projects do not have.