Modern genetic researchers say there is no biological basis for the concept of race, that the average genetic differences between geographic groups such as Japanese, Europeans, and East Africans are too small to be significant. But if race is not a scientific concept, is it still a culturally valid one?

Joanne Rizzi, an exhibit and program developer and visiting Osher Fellow to the Exploratorium, explored the misunderstandings and realities of race with an exhibition she helped develop with the American Anthropological Association and the Science Museum of Minnesota. RACE: Are We So Different? covers the myth and meaning of race. There are obvious differences in the way we look, in skin color and hair for instance, but is race really only skin deep? What about the human experience of race and culture—is it possible to reconcile or at least acknowledge the two concepts?

Joanne told a group of us at the Exploratorium that she was initially reluctant to work on the exhibition because she didn’t think a purely scientific exploration of race would be broad enough to embrace the cultural reality and history of race and racism in America. But the Science Museum of Minnesota kept asking her until she finally agreed to come onboard. While on the exhibit team she initiated a community advisory panel that would become part of the development process and co-developed a series of programs. It was tough going, many people of color were suspicious that the exhibition wouldn’t tell the truth about racism and power. One advisor quit over the prominence of a map, based on genetic evidence, that all humans on earth originally came out of Africa. A Native American, his religious and cultural beleifs conflicted with the scientific views so he left the project.

But eventually what they created allowed many voices and viewpoints into the exhibition. One especially powerful public program were the “talking circles” which brought together groups of people to share ideas about the exhibition with a process that allows everyone to speak. Now the exhibition is on tour, currently in Detroit and spreading out across the U.S.

I haven’t been posting much because technically I’m on vacation. Last week I attended the Santa Fe Science Writers Workshop in, you guessed it, Santa Fe, New Mexico. I’ve been wanting to go to this gathering for years, as much to hang out with other science writers as to tune up my writing skills from the cabal of New York Times editors and science writers who run the workshop. One of the other attendees posted this wonderful blog entry, complete with drawings of a visit to Bandelier National Monument, an archaeological site of ancient cliff dwellings. The weather was gorgeous and we got to visit the Santa Fe Institute and hear from two very different scientists there. The first was Bette Korber, who talked to us about her work on an HIV vaccine, which involved creating an artificial version of HIV based on the theoretical ancestor of this highly mutating virus. But what she was most passionate about was what she describes as the growing public distrust of vaccines in general and the ways in which conspiracy theories involving pharmaceutical companies, coupled with what she judges as media misconceptions, can undo the work of research scientists and public health doctors. The second speaker, Eric Smith, described his work on the origin of life, which he hypothesizes started with energy-producing, or metabolic, chemistry rather than the self-replicating, protein-making molecules of RNA. Like Bette, he also seemed aggrieved but directed his displeasure at other scientists, the so-called “RNA-first” contingent, who are centered at UC-San Diego (he called them the San Diego mafia, that’s how personal these scientific disagreements can sometimes get.). If you want to read more about “metabolism first” theories, here’s an article in Public Library of Science, an online science journal.

I’ve also been negligent in keeping up with my friends in the blogging world. This is old news to many of you, but American University Communications Professor and Exploratorium Osher Fellow Matt Nisbet and his partner in science persuasion, Seed Magazine writer Chris Mooney, have started their speaking tour about the importance of framing science topics in ways that are meaningful to the public. It started as an article in Science Magazine and has expanded from there with appearances in Kansas and New York. Their talk is posted on YouTube and it’s been the subject of lots of blogerly discussions already. I think their arguments make a lot of sense but as a first step, I’m happy to encourage more scientists to simply try communicating directly with the public about their research. If they can make their own work accessible to a lay audience, then they can hone their talks to focus on broader issues involving policy, controversy, and public welfare. From its founding in 1969 by physicist Frank Oppenheimer, the Exploratorium has worked with working research scientists to create exhibits and programs that bring the world of science to a larger audience. Science museums in general are great places for scientists to get their communication sea legs with a receptive public before branching out to tougher, less interested, audiences. We’ll be talking strategies for broader science communication with Matt when he continues his fellowship at the Exploratorium this July and August.