Gene editing could be one of the most interesting and relevant scientific stories of our generation. This new technology could affect everything from food to healthcare to our attempts to tackle climate change.

When big scientific breakthroughs like this happen, we, as journalists, tend to report on the big discoveries and the scientists who make them. With this multimedia project, we wanted to experiment with a new model for how to do journalism on science. Is it possible to report on science, but without the scientists?

It’s not every day that you get to spend an afternoon in Cumbria with a group of local farmers chatting about gene editing. But on a cold and sunny February morning last year, that’s exactly what a team from the Guardian did. It’s fair to say that we assumed our Cumbria contingent would have their minds blown when we told them about the potential of this exciting new technology. But instead, they shrugged their shoulders and nodded. They were way ahead of us.

We spent that morning hearing about all the agricultural techniques and technologies they use every day and, over lunch, they reminded us that selective breeding has been happening on farms for centuries. Turns out the father of modern genetics – an amateur botanist – founded the field after experimenting with pea plants.

The Cumbria group was one of five that we visited over the course of the year. All of the people we met had personal stories and experiences to share that challenged the assumptions the media often make about science and society. And challenging the way we do our journalism was the purpose of the Gene Gap project. For a complex topic like gene editing, which has the potential to reshape our society, shouldn’t we try to democratise the dialogue?

What is gene editing? Scientists, who love analogies, liken it to a word processor which allows you to correct misspellings in documents written on a computer. Instead of dealing with words, gene editing rewrites DNA, the “language” of living organisms. There are many ways to edit genes, but the breakthrough behind the greatest achievements in recent years is a molecular tool called Crispr-Cas9.

Scientists already have enormous expectations for it: Crispr-Cas9 could one day treat or prevent human diseases that are currently beyond the reach of medical science. There are thousands of genetic disorders that can be passed on from one generation to the next; many are serious and debilitating. They are not rare: one in 25 children are born with a genetic disease. It could transform food and agriculture and even tackle climate change; it will supercharge our understanding of (and ability to manipulate) the most basic functions of life.

But there are ethical concerns too. The Chinese scientist He Jiankui sparked global controversy last year when he claimed to have created the first “gene-edited” children. He was later sentenced to three years in prison for violating medical regulations. But many now worry that the genie is out of the bottle, and that the next step is “designer babies” – and growing inequality between those who can and those who cannot afford this new potential treatment.

Thinking about the power of technology to take control of evolution, the film-maker Marc Silver started to investigate ideas for a documentary, speaking to scientists and biohackers who were experimenting with the technology in labs. Silver’s line of inquiry began by following the usual model of science reporting – that is, we hear first from the scientists who make the big scientific discoveries, rather than the people who will be most affected by them. So, we wondered, what if we investigated this scientific story purely through the lives of the public?

Our team set out to meet groups of people around the country who we wouldn’t usually hear from in science or journalism – and we recorded all of it. The agricultural group in Cumbria surprised us, and that was just the start. We also met young people in Manchester, mothers of children with additional needs in Hertfordshire, young science students in London, and people of African and Caribbean origin in Birmingham. Their stories and insights opened up fascinating discussions about science and society, and ideas we had never considered.

We recorded more than 15 hours of these conversations. We transcribed everything and listened. Our team, which included audio producers, filmmakers, writers and academics, found that shared themes began to emerge.

Trust, power and identity were common concepts. There were fundamental questions about how democracy functions; should everyone – even those who know nothing about the science of gene editing – be involved in decision-making? People also questioned whether science and industry were correctly set up to be able to monitor and assess these complicated moral and ethical issues. Some considered how identity and DNA interacted, and whether gene editing might lead to changes in how we value certain members of society.

With all of these perspectives, we produced a series of three powerful podcasts that weave together conversations that are taking place in a range of communities.

Meanwhile, Silver was inspired to further explore some of these big questions through a more artistic approach. Are we well informed? Who holds the power to inform us? Who has the authority to speak for our species, to make decisions about our species? Will industry determine evolution?

His creative response to these conversations was a short film. Using fictional characters set in the near future, it is an imagining of where this technology might lead us. Silver was particularly interested in both the responsibility the scientists hold and the personal pressure they feel about discovering something so profound– as well as the choices humanity will have to take as future consumers of these brave new technologies.

A year in the making, the Gene Gap project was always meant as an experiment. And, while it has revealed more questions than answers (it turns out there are no easy answers when it comes to gene editing), it has taught us a lot about the role of journalism.

We, the media, have a key role to play in bridging the gap between science and the public, and in fostering a public dialogue. This project has reminded us that it’s not just about informing the public, but rather actively empowering the public to inform us about their perspectives, hopes and fears.

By turning to the public first, what we heard was a range of issues that create the immediate context into which these new technologies are emerging: farmers worrying about their disconnection with the public; people of African and Caribbean origin detailing historical accounts of how their people were abused or forgotten by society; mothers looking for support for the most vulnerable among us.

We began the project with gene editing front and centre, but by the end of the project, the technology took something of a back seat. As one mother in Hertfordshire said: “I think we also need to think about whether or not we should be changing the person for the world, or whether we should be changing the world for the person.”

Lindsay Poulton is head of Guardian documentaries and Max Sanderson is the Guardian’s lead producer in audio

Listen to the podcasts, watch the film, and join the debate here.
The Gene Gap was supported by the Wellcome Trust.