UABDivulga - Barcelona recerca i innovació

Mikel Asteinza is currently a predoctoral researcher (FPU) at the Universidad del País Vasco (EHU), under the supervision of Jon Umerez (EHU) and Ivar Hannikainen (UGR). He is a member of the IAS Research Group on Philosophy of Science and collaborates with the FiloLab Unit of Excellence at the University of Granada (UGR). His research focuses on the impact of scientific communication and outreach on the perceptions and attitudes of the general public, a study he approaches from the standpoint of the epistemology of misinformation and experimental philosophy.

— What is de-extinction?

— De-extinction is the recreation of approximations of extinct species. The result is not the original extinct species; rather, by using techniques of biotechnology and genetic engineering, such as CRISPR-Cas9 and back breeding, scientists can achieve an approximate individual of the extinct species: a hybrid. For example, in the case of the mammoth, some of its genes were introduced into a close relative, like the Asian elephant. The result was named by some critics as mammophant. These techniques aim to recreate certain phenotypical characteristics, either to reproduce similar external characteristics or to fulfil an ecological function of the extinct species. Contrary to what some promotional metaphors suggest, it is not a way to recover extinct species. That is not possible at the moment.

— Who is promising de-extinction?

— This promise of de-extinction is being spread by the company Colossal Biosciences, and it is addressed to conservation and ecology. This company is dedicated exclusively to de-extinction and is launching most of its public outreach articles with misleading promotional metaphors. One of the promises they promote is the idea of undoing the harm caused —that is, recovering ecosystems and species or helping in the conservation through de-extinction techniques.  However, in 2016, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) determined that the current de-extinction techniques cannot be applied with ecological or environmental criteria.

— Why do they use these metaphors?

— In general, for self-promotion. The company is aware of the unviability and misleading character of this promise.  In an interview, Corey Bradshaw said: “At best, they exaggerate. At worst, they lie shamelessly”. But they use this to generate techno-optimism—the idea that scientific and technological progress can enhance human life and address global problems. This is how the company can attract investors and promote its research.  

— Part of your research is focused on the study of the Human Genome Project and its promotional metaphors. What was this project, and how were metaphors used?

— The Human Genome Project consisted of obtaining the complete sequence of the human genome. It is a well-studied case of promotional metaphors that has helped me in the theorisation of my project. Their metaphors also aimed to inject techno-optimism. With the slogan “The Book of Life”, they suggested that with the transcription of this book of life, we could manipulate it at will. Therefore, we could have in our hands an unknown, unlimited power to influence and control life. All in all, it was highly misinformative, as they spread ideas of genetic determinism that are currently rejected by biology.

— Could you give us some examples of misleading headlines or metaphors?

— There is a concrete one in National Geographic: “Bringing Them Back to Life”. Here, they are playing with the resurrection metaphor, which has a heavy symbolic weight in the Christian culture. It is extremely misleading. The public sees extinct animals coming back to life, but they do not imagine they are, in fact, hybrid animals. There is another recent one in Time: “The Return of the Dire Wolf”. Again, no one expects a simple common wolf with certain dire wolf genes. These promotional metaphors work very well with the clickbait culture: it is a big promise in a few words.

— If they succeed in creating a mammoth hybrid, what will they do with it?

— This is one of the big problems of de-extinction: the challenge of reintroducing the species. Colossal Biosciences argues that these mammoths could be reintroduced in Siberia, with positive implications for ecology and climate. The reality is very different. First, they are hybrids bred by humans, which means they lack animal culture, so we don’t know how they will behave; we have no references. Second, this species no longer has an ecological niche, or its ecosystem disappeared a long time ago. Probably, there is no way to reintroduce them into nature without harming it. They would only be useful if kept in zoos.

— In your research presentation, you mention the Global Risks Perception Survey and, specifically, the risk of social polarisation. To what extent do you think science communication can affect this?

— The misinformation caused by promotional metaphors is always a social problem that can induce polarisation. When techno-optimism is fuelled, people develop high expectations about this technology. In our study, we have proved that the use of promotional metaphors increases the approval of de-extinction. In contrast, the use of counter metaphors, such as “the biological Frankenstein”, has the opposite effect.  One expert in manipulating public opinion is Frank Luntz, a strategist in the Republican Party of the United States. He detected that when “climate change” was used instead of “global warming”, fear decreased.  The first term led people to think that the causes were natural, not anthropological. This results in polarised and misinformative communication campaigns that can turn them into climate change denialists.

— Does this misleading publicity affect only the non-expert public or also researchers themselves?

— This question is really interesting, even though I don’t yet have an answer. My thesis proposes that promotional metaphors affect especially the non-expert public. The promotional metaphors always have a pedagogical character, explaining an unknown reality in familiar terms: “cells are like factories”. In the case of de-extinction, we may not comprehend how genetic engineering works, but we are perfectly aware of what resurrection is. If complex questions are explained in terms of reviving or bringing back to life, then we begin to understand this technology through the metaphor. It will be extremely interesting to study how these metaphors work inside science. We aim to design future studies to evaluate it with experts.

— Nowadays, there is a huge part of discourses, from both public and private projects, focused on sustainability and energetic transition. Do you think they can play a similar role to the promise of de-extinction?

— Without a doubt. We study the case from the university and the philosophy of science, but there are people doing the same job in private companies with greenwashing projects. All this terminology, like green energy, is very well designed. Actually, promotional metaphors of de-extinction follow a similar path, as they present it as an ecological action for repairing and undoing damage. An imminent disaster is approaching, but de-extinction is the scientific miracle that will save us from biodiversity loss. Another term that fascinates me for its misleading potential is natural gas: it sounds fantastic, but it is, in fact, a fossil fuel contributing to the greenhouse effect.

— Your methodology is based on experimental philosophy. What does it consist of, and how do you apply it?

— Experimental philosophy, as I use it, consists in applying methods from experimental psychology to empirically test some of our theses. I could philosophically suppose or argue that promotional metaphors are a problem, that they misinform the public, generate techno-optimism, etc. Experimental philosophy creates experiments to obtain data, which provides us with empirical evidence of how promotional metaphors affect the minds of people. And once we have the results, we structure philosophical theses. It is a beautiful way to join science and philosophy. From my point of view, philosophy should never turn its back on science. In our case, there are not many studies about the cognitive and misinformative effects of promotional metaphors, and experimental psychology gives us the methods to find out more.

— To finish, why did you specialise in philosophy of science and this research field?

— I have always liked science. I began studying biology, but later I fell in love with philosophy. So, I switched to study philosophy, always staying close to the philosophy of science. I always felt interested in the effects of propaganda and its power to influence mass ideas through communicative techniques. De-extinction opened for me a path to this fascinating research field, approached from the philosophy of science. My Master’s Final Thesis introduced me to exploring the scientific propaganda of de-extinction, and the University of the Basque Country gave me the opportunity to begin this thesis with the IAS Research group of philosophy of science.