INTERVIEW: Seven days in July

Next year, 2003 marks the 50th anniversary of an epochal moment in human history: Watson and Crick's solving of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule.

It's also the year that will bring many of the biggest names in world genetics to Melbourne for the 19th International Genetics Congress, among them at least three Nobel laureates, including James Watson, co-discoverer of the immortal coil, and an immortal of modern science in his own lifetime.

The other Laureates will be H Gobind Khorana, who won the prize for the discovery of the genetic code, Sir Sydney Brenner and Robert Horvitz -- who won this year for their studies on cell death, and Eric Wieschaus who won the Prize in 1995 for his work on the genetics of development.

Melbourne University geneticist Dr Phil Batterham has devoted the past seven years of his life to organising the XIXth International Genetics Congress.

The congress will bring some 3000 scientists to Australia to hear 10 plenary addresses and attend 54 different symposia, with over 280 invited speakers -- more than 220 from outside Australia.

The Congress, titled 'Genomes -- the Link to Life', will review developments in basic research into mutation, development, evolution, as well as the application of modern genetics to agriculture and medicine.

Batterham says it will not just be just another scientific congress, but an opportunity to bridge the gulf between the science of genetics, and the public perception of genetics, a science that has been a lightning rod for controversy and community concern throughout the past century.

"'Genomes -- the Linkage to Life' is an excellent umbrella theme," he says. "The International Genetics Congress takes place every five years, and it involves looking backwards at how far we've come, and looking forward to see where we're going.

"Scientists are notoriously bad at the latter -- our history of predictions is terrible. We're in the first phase of the genomics revolution. The genomes of many different organisms -- humans, other animals, plants and microbes -- are being sequenced.

"For the first 100 years of modern genetics, people basically worked on model organisms like, mice maize and fruit flies, and were limited to making inferences from phenotypes, the end-point of the genetic pathway. They looked at the effects of random mutations, with no idea about what was happening at the level of the gene, or to understand the cascade of events between genotype and phenotype.

"With molecular genetics and genomics, we're no longer looking just at model organisms, but the species that are of direct interest to us. And we're no longer looking at mutants and other phenotypes -- we're looking directly at genes, and beginning to understand what they do, and how they interact."

A passionate advocate for genetics, Batterham argues that geneticists' reluctance to involve themselves in the debate is responsible for much of the public and political ferment that swirls around the science.

"Scientists have run for cover on some of the tough issues," he said. "We need to be talking to people about what the science is -- poor communication has created a high level of public confusion.

"People tend to conflate a basket of technologies in their minds -- for example, they don't grasp of the distinction between recombinant DNA technology and reproductive technologies like cloning and IVF."

For this reason, he has threaded public participation components throughout the program for the Congress, to provide maximum opportunity for direct exchange between geneticists and the community -- particularly students.

"If I thought it was just going to be another scientific meeting, all over in seven days and rapidly forgotten, I wouldn't have taken on the job of organising it.

"I want the Congress to leave a better community understanding of genetics in its wake. So many of the issues transcend science -- they go to the heart of our being, of our culture.

"There will be no acceptance of our science, or progress, unless we have the public on-board. The public funds a significant amount of the science, and if we want to grow, genetics and biotechnology must not only be acceptable, they must be worth committing one's life to.

"I want the community to understand that genetics is a vital, problem-solving science -- I define it has a science that uses inherited variation to solve biological problems.

"It can be used to satisfy basic curiosity -- how does a human being develop from a single fertilised egg cell? Or it can be applied to solving problems in medicine, agriculture and the environment."

Amid the controversy over genetically modified crops, animals, and microbes, consumers do not realize that traditional breeding and selection has created crops and livestock that bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors.

"Everything we eat has been genetically modified -- whether through classic methods, advanced breeding techniques, or gene technology," he says. "The debate is all about risk, when it should be focused on potential benefits. We're having a debate about the risks of GMOs in agriculture and the food supply, when the debate should be about how we feed the world this century.

"Real risks and concerns go unexamined, while the debate focuses on risks that are largely non-existent."

Batterham says that nor does the community yet understand the enormous potential of molecular genetics to improve human health -- the Congress program will include symposia on biopharmaceuticals and rational drug design.

"Until recently, doctors have tended to look at the human body as a black box, and relied heavily on their diagnostic skills and intuition. Then advances in physics produced electronic imaging devices, and now molecular biology is taking even more of the guesswork out of the treatment and diagnosis of disease.

"I call it genetics with the eyes open".