Public trust in science is under strain, even as biomedical research continues to deliver measurable gains. Against that backdrop, noted cancer researcher Robert Winn, MD, argued that the problem is not a lack of discovery, but a failure to connect discovery to the public.
Speaking before an audience of medical investigators, clinicians, and students as the keynote for the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Annual Research Showcase, Winn, director and Lipman Chair in Oncology at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Massey Comprehensive Cancer Center and professor of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine at the VCU School of Medicine, focused on a widening gap that has become increasingly visible since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; declining public confidence in science despite accelerating progress. Data alone, he argued, will not restore trust; rebuilding it will require communication, engagement, and relevance.
The annual event provides a forum for medical students, residents, Integrated Biomedical Sciences (IBS) PhD candidates, health sciences scholars, and Biomedical Engineering students to present work in basic science, clinical and translational research, public health, and medical education through abstract presentations, poster sessions, and selected oral presentations. Abstract submissions represented a broad range of research interests and disciplines, including basic and translational science, clinical research, health policy and public health research, and education-related research. Sixteen members of the Regional Medical Campus at Sinai class of 2028 and two from the class of 2027 also presented their work at the annual event.
Winn’s perspective reflects both national trends and his own efforts to connect laboratory science with community experience. During the pandemic, he launched Facts & Faith Fridays, a series that brought researchers, faith leaders, and community members together to address medical mistrust, particularly in African American communities. Framed as a dialogue rather than a lecture, the initiative reflects an approach he believes should guide science more broadly.
He challenged the notion of “scientific illiteracy,” suggesting instead that the public is simply “unaware,” and argued that science fulfills its purpose only when it connects to people.
“Science is also a language,” Winn said. “It’s a language in which we can … think about how we connect with communities.”
When that language becomes inaccessible or disconnected from lived experience, he argued, communities do not reject science; they disengage from it. That detachment carries consequences, from the spread of misinformation to persistent gaps in clinical trial participation.
For Winn, the ultimate goal of research is not simply discovery, but measurable benefit to human health. He introduced the concept of “ZNA” (zip code and neighborhood of association) alongside DNA, arguing that where a person lives can influence health as strongly as biology. He presented evidence that environmental stressors — including poverty, neighborhood violence, and pollution — can shape disease progression and even tumor biology. His research, for example, suggests that people living in high-stress environments may develop more treatment-resistant cancers, underscoring the biological effects of social inequities.
He called for a paradigm shift from a traditional “bench-to-bedside” model to a “people-to-pipette” approach, where community realities inform scientific questions from the outset. He highlighted innovative methods such as “community omics,” which integrate social and environmental data into biomedical research.
“As we get the community data … I'm able to better answer scientific questions that might matter,” explained Winn. “I'm able to refine even basic science questions.”
This approach, he argued, not only enhances scientific rigor but also ensures relevance and equity in health care delivery. In that context, he reframed the daily work of research in practical terms. Scientific progress depends not only on technical skill, but on sustained commitment to the people it is meant to serve.
“Moving pipettes isn’t just moving pipettes,” he said. “It’s an act of love; of measuring outcomes to get the impact.”
Awards for abstracts and poster presentations were judged by an independent panel of faculty reviewers. Outstanding submissions were selected from across the disciplines.
Visit the SMHS research website to see the full list of abstracts and poster award recipients.
