Stories

Civic Science Fellow Alicia Johnson Bridges Science, Policy, and Society

When the FDA needs to regulate potential synthetic biology medical technologies, they face a fundamental challenge: they don’t even have a published definition for synthetic biology.

This gap, pointed out by Civic Science Fellow Alicia Johnson at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, shows why we need people who can build bridges between science, policy, and societies.

“Innovation is never in short supply,” Johnson says, “but as our world rapidly evolves, having people who can translate that innovation to solve societal problems is going to be necessary.”

The Path to Civic Science

Growing up, Johnson dreamed of being everything from a science teacher to a coffee shop owner to an environmental lawyer. Such a range of interests prepared her well for a career spanning multiple worlds.

“I’ve always been somebody who has had interest in science, law, education, everything,” she says. But it was the desire to find solutions, not just diagnose problems, that ultimately led her to interdisciplinary work.

As a graduate student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Johnson put this philosophy into practice. Working on a project using a novel blood sampling device to study metabolic changes in epilepsy patients, she got out of the lab and among the people affected, making regular trips to the University of Nebraska Medical Center to work directly with patients. She would collect blood plasma samples at the medical center, then bring them back to the lab in Lincoln for analysis.

Translating Science into Policy

At the Baker Institute, Johnson works at the intersection of science and scientists, regulators and policymakers, and peoples and communities. Her work on the current landscape of synthetic biology regulation shows the crucial role of civic scientists in advancing innovation responsibly. (A common definition of synthetic biology is using genetic engineering techniques to give organisms new functions or enhance their existing functions.)

After analyzing more than 200 scientific articles and 100 public-facing sources, she and the Baker team found significant gaps in how synthetic biology is defined and regulated. Not to mention that the regulatory framework—a collection of statutes across three different agencies (EPA, FDA, and USDA)—was established in the 1970s, before scientists had even sequenced the E. coli genome.

Johnson focused her analysis of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—the statute most likely to regulate environmental synthetic biology products. The analysis revealed critical ambiguities that could hinder innovation (two papers pending). And a lack of understanding among the scientists whose work would someday need to fit into these frameworks.

“Regulatory documents are super hard to read,” Johnson says. At Baker, her role involves “distilling these things down and communicating them in a way that is accessible for scientists.” Sometimes this means suggesting alternative approaches: “Maybe you don’t want to design it this way. What if we try designing it this way?”

This translation work has immediate practical impact.

“Scientists will say ‘Oh, I didn’t even think about that. I didn’t even know that policy was actually written that way,’” Johnson says. “And while I can’t give legal advice, I can help scientists identify where their work might fill an evidentiary gap in policy, or maybe take a different approach to the problem.”

The need for this translation is particularly acute now. Recent developments, like the overturning of the Chevron deference, have amplified regulatory uncertainties. Without people who can bridge these gaps, innovations might stall in regulatory limbo or be developed in ways that make them difficult to approve.

“Working with a team of scientists who are really interested in these ethical, legal and social questions… it’s been one of the most fulfilling parts of this fellowship experience,” Johnson says. “Sometimes there’s this implicit pressure to just focus on the science—do your experiments, go home. But there are systems that allow science to happen, like the fact that we apply for federal funding to do this work. Understanding these systems matters.”

From Covid Testing to Community Trust

At Baker, Johnson joined a team that was developing microbes that could detect viruses in wastewater and signal their presence using an electric signal. The timing was significant—during the COVID-19 pandemic, wastewater testing had proven crucial for tracking infection rates without individual testing. Their work shows both the promise and challenges of deploying new technologies in communities.

“It brings up a lot of different questions,” Johnson says. “What is the efficacy of the process? How does it work? Is this testing something people are comfortable with?” Her work investigated the ethical, legal, and social implications of such technologies, from regulatory requirements to data privacy concerns.

Building Tools for Better Engagement

This experience led the Baker team to tackle a broader challenge: how can scientists better engage with communities when developing new technologies? Johnson and her colleagues are now creating a tool kit for scientists, starting with cataloging successful community engagement approaches across synthetic biology projects.

“Community engagement is a spectrum,” Johnson says. “You can do public outreach or go all the way to community-based participatory research. Those are two extremes, but there’s a lot of gray in the middle.”

To illustrate the importance of this work, Johnson points to potential future applications like pollution-sensing microbes.

“These pollution sites are disproportionately located near historically marginalized communities,” she says. “So we have to ask: How do we make sure no harm is done? Who’s going to see the benefits? These are questions that require community stewardship from the start.”

The tool kit will help scientists move beyond simply informing communities about their work. “Community engagement is not just presenting stuff,” Johnson says. “It’s about explaining and scaffolding [building knowledge on previous knowledge]. It’s about approaching communities from a place of humility.”

Another crucial challenge is helping to rebuild trust between scientific institutions and marginalized communities.

“Historically, these communities have been subjugated at the hands of science,” she says. “[As a result], you can’t treat all forms of critique of the scientific enterprise the same way.”

The Power of Connection

The impact of this approach is evident in small but significant moments. After Johnson defended her biochemistry Ph.D. thesis, she received an unexpected text from her older brother, who doesn’t have a technical science background.

“I’m surprised I was able to follow along with a lot of that stuff as good as I did,” he wrote.

“It’s moments like that, these little tiny moments, that really matter a lot,” Johnson says. “That one-on-one joy of seeing someone say, ‘Oh man, okay, I understand that.’”

She sees similar sparks when talking with high school science teachers about about how she bridges different areas of expertise. “They not only followed along but asked even bigger questions,” she says. “Finding that common ground—realizing we share the same concerns and hopes for science—it’s so important.”

Through her work on regulatory frameworks and community engagement, Johnson has noticed a broader pattern. “One of the things that I’ve realized throughout my fellowship is how many people are kind of working on different areas of the same problem,” she says. “And it’s like, okay, there’s a thread here and how do we connect this thread?”

This is what makes Civic Science Fellows uniquely valuable: they can see and connect threads that might otherwise remain separate.

Seeding the Future of Science and Society

Johnson speaks glowingly of all her mentors, including Neal Lane, Ph.D., the originator of the term “civic scientist.” His daily example shows what it looks like for a scientist to be truly civically engaged, offering what Johnson calls “a masterclass in getting stuff done.”

Lane, now senior fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute, has long championed the idea that scientists should actively engage with society to address its most pressing issues. Drawing from his experiences as science advisor to President Bill Clinton and director of the National Science Foundation, Lane’s approach emphasizes the importance of communication and collaboration between scientists and the public.

His vision for civic science is about more than just conducting great research—it’s about making science accessible and relevant to everyday life. This is just what Civic Science Fellows like Johnson are striving to achieve, building on Lane’s approach by not only advancing scientific innovation but also ensuring that these advances are understood and embraced by the people and communities who need them most.

Looking ahead, Johnson is optimistic that more young scientists will follow unconventional paths like hers—or rather, that such paths will become more conventional. She argues passionately for more support for Civic Science Fellowships and similar programs.

The two-year fellowship model, while brief, provides crucial opportunities for scientists to develop new skill sets in policy analysis, community engagement, and interdisciplinary collaboration. It’s an investment in building a new generation of civic scientists who can help ensure that scientific advancement truly serves society’s needs.

Alicia Johnson’s Civic Science Fellowship at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University is supported by the Rita Allen Foundation.