The Wrong Questions

When we watched the Cambridge City Council meeting from 1976 on recombinant DNA, I found it difficult to side with anyone.  Mayor Vellucci's questions were frustrating.  They did not appear to be founded in a large amount of knowledge about recombinant DNA, asked for certainty that science cannot guarantee simply because of the nature of science, and appeared to be either fear driven or fear driving (or maybe some combination of the two).  I do not know how I would have handled those questions as a scientist, but I assume that I would have felt trapped.
Yet I do not think that the questions were wrong.  Sure, I might have some minimal understanding of recombinant DNA that makes me view the meeting from a "come on this is ridiculous. You are almost stopping so much research with questions that can never be answered" perspective.  The passage of time and all of the new knowledge we now have further helps us view the council's actions critically. However, there are plenty of things I know nothing about.  I know very little about nuclear anything, and scientists could probably tell me that they wanted to do an experiment with it and I would not have any idea what they were saying and would probably accept "because science" as an answer.  That is when I want to the Velluccis.  There are plenty of scientific endeavors that I do not know enough about to judge whether or not they are dangerous.  As ridiculous as the questions might seem and as annoyed as the scientists might be at having to answer them, I want those questions posed.
That is what I need to remember. As I go forward with my education and research, I need to remember not to be so caught up in whatever I am doing that I begin to cast off questions from the public as ill-informed and a nuisance.  At the meeting, I thought the scientists for recombinant DNA were doing pretty well in the beginning, but then they grew frustrated and appeared more arrogant.  I agreed with their arguments more than the politicians, but not necessarily with their actions and mannerisms.
We need a middle-ground.  Politicians who are more aware of the scientific method and scientists who are more sympathetic to public concerns would create more effective debates and public policy. This is not some revolutionary thought, but it is one that I will try to keep with me as I begin to learn what it means to work in science.