How does Mariia Harkusha-Omelchenko explain gene editing, evolution, cancer myths, and science communication in Ukraine?
Mariia Harkusha-Omelchenko is a Ukrainian molecular biologist and scientific staff member at YURiA-PHARM’s YP Biotech scientific center, where she works in bioengineering. Her interests began with gene editing, which she compares to text editing because small changes can transform larger systems. She previously conducted master’s research in Vienna on tumour immunology, oral carcinoma patients, and murine models before returning to Ukraine to work in biotechnology, molecular biology, and genetic engineering.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Mariia Harkusha-Omelchenko about molecular biology, gene editing, evolution, cancer myths, and science communication in Ukraine. Harkusha-Omelchenko describes how religious authority, Soviet intellectual legacies, family patterns, and poor public understanding shape non-scientific thinking. She emphasizes evidence, responsibility, curiosity, and the importance of explaining biological processes clearly to younger Ukrainians increasingly willing to question doctors, teachers, and inherited assumptions.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your name and title?
Mariia Harkusha-Omelchenko: My name is Maria Harkusha-Omelchenko. I am 25 years old, and I am a molecular biologist.
Jacobsen: What program are you in now?
Harkusha-Omelchenko: I am a scientific staff member at YURiA-PHARM, a Ukrainian pharmaceutical company, and at its scientific center, YP Biotech. I work in the field of bioengineering.
Jacobsen: What was your first interest in science and biotech?
Harkusha-Omelchenko: My first interest in science was gene editing. I like to connect it with text editing, because I write novels in my free time. I find gene editing fascinating because you can make a minor change and still alter the molecular scenario on a major scale. That was my primary interest.
Then I spent two years on a master’s project in Vienna, where I conducted research in tumor immunology. I worked with oral carcinoma patients and murine models of oral carcinoma. When I came back to Ukraine, I switched to biotechnology, where I work now. It involves genetic engineering, gene editing, and a great deal of molecular biology research.
Jacobsen: What is the biggest misunderstanding Ukrainians might have about genetics and evolution in public education or public discourse?
Harkusha-Omelchenko: Many people think evolution is a conspiracy. They think that if humans and monkeys share common ancestors, then monkeys should continue evolving into Homo sapiens. We often struggle to explain how evolution works because people misunderstand Charles Darwin and his concept of evolution. That is where science communication comes into play.
As a molecular biologist, I would say that life has a genetic and molecular basis. Genetics is one of the foundations of life.
It is also difficult to explain to people why diseases appear. They have biological and molecular causes; they are not caused by misfortune or by God deciding to punish someone. I had a very unusual experience when an older man asked me on the street about the origins of cancer. I explained that many factors can influence or trigger cancer in certain people. He said I was wrong and claimed it was caused by helminths—parasitic worms.
Jacobsen: Did he provide any other justification for his reasoning?
Harkusha-Omelchenko: No, he said, “I just know that.” I said, “No, I can prove you are wrong.” He said, “Let’s make a bet.”
So that was the conversation. It is very hard to convince people they are wrong because they already have their own version of the truth in their minds. They want to prove that you are wrong because you are a scientist—you are on the opposite side.
Jacobsen: Opposite side of what? The opposite side of understanding how the world works. Where do they get this non-scientific understanding of the world?
Harkusha-Omelchenko: I think it comes from the belief that we are not responsible for what happens in this world because there is God—God who decides everything for us. They believe in destiny. They think there are no alternative outcomes. Things happen because they are meant to happen, and we do not have the power to change anything.
And if we try to intervene, that means we are not obeying God’s rules. For me, that is strange, because I see it in terms of responsibility. As a biologist, I want to answer as many questions as possible. I think if there is a problem, there must be a solution. It is not something predetermined or fixed.
For many people, it is easier to believe that things just happen. For example, they may think war happens because of past sins or as a form of punishment. They believe we should simply endure it. But for me, it is about responsibility. I take responsibility to do research, to ask questions, and to understand the reasons behind problems. For a large group of people, it is easier to set things aside and leave them to God or other divine forces to resolve.
Jacobsen: Do they learn this at home, in church, or both?
Harkusha-Omelchenko: I think it runs in families, and it is definitely influenced by the church. At the same time, Ukraine still carries part of the legacy of the Soviet period. I do not mean that Ukrainians were naturally obedient or simply accepted authority willingly. Rather, under conditions of social pressure and political repression, many people were forced to conform to the vision imposed by the Soviet government. Over time, that survival strategy became a behavioural pattern.
When a leader says, “This is how we should live,” whether justified by religion or something else, it can feel easier to follow because there is a familiar structure and guidance. This mindset can be passed down in families, but it is also reinforced in schools—especially when teachers hold conservative views. They may not be open to alternative perspectives or new ideas, and that becomes part of the problem.
Jacobsen: I mean, is it important to convey that facts are facts in terms of empirical truth or the veracity of the natural world, while people can still hold different perspectives that may or may not be comforting as belief systems around it? For instance, if someone accepts evolution by natural selection—meaning that species change over time, explaining the diversity of life and common descent—but still holds religious sentiments, such as believing God is a guiding force, without denying evolution, is that at least workable in the Ukrainian context?
Harkusha-Omelchenko: I think most people in science—at least many of them, I am not saying all—hold a more evidence-based perspective. But I have encountered cases in my career. For example, Oksana mentioned yesterday that even in her institute, some professors believe that diseases can be treated with both pharmaceuticals and prayer.
Jacobsen: There have been hospital-wide studies on prayer, and they do not show a healing effect under controlled conditions. In some studies, patients were divided into groups: those who were prayed for and knew it, those who were prayed for but did not know it, and those who were not prayed for. The groups that were prayed for without knowing showed no measurable difference compared to those not prayed for. Interestingly, in some cases, those who knew they were being prayed for experienced slightly worse outcomes, possibly due to increased anxiety or pressure. Overall, controlled studies do not demonstrate that prayer improves recovery.
Harkusha-Omelchenko: Yes, but some people justify that by saying prayer does not work because it was not done properly.
Jacobsen: Yes, that brings us to ideas like sunk costs and rationalization. That is very true. Another point raised in discussions is that the issue may go deeper than religious fundamentalism. Dogma itself may be the underlying problem. That provides a broader framework for understanding both religious fundamentalism and political ideological dogma. For example, state atheism in the Soviet Union or under the Chinese Communist Party also involved rigid ideological systems.
Lamarckism was a form of pseudoscience. It was presented as an alternative to evolutionary theory but was not scientifically valid. It was similar to a kind of secular teleology. For example, the idea that a giraffe developed a longer neck because it needed one, and then passed that acquired trait to its offspring, rather than traits being shaped through natural selection.
Harkusha-Omelchenko: Yes, Lamarckism. It is an alternative way people tried to explain evolution—the idea that if an organism needs something, it can develop certain traits during its lifetime and pass them on. If you are asking for my opinion, I do not support this view.
I think in the Soviet Union it was convenient, because it aligned with certain ideological messages. For example, the idea that if you work harder, you can “evolve” into a higher position in society. If you take biological concepts like developing traits and apply them to social development, it can sound appealing. But scientifically, it does not work that way. Still, you are right—it was popular during the Soviet period.
Jacobsen: So, in addition, are you saying that many scientists in Ukraine are atheists, agnostics, or something similar? Or, if they are believers, they might hold a more distant, non-interventionist view of God—something closer to deism?
In that context, we can also see that just because a state promotes a certain ideology—like atheism in the Soviet Union or under the Chinese Communist Party—that does not make it scientifically true. However, individuals with strong training in science, especially in biology and evolution, are more likely to lean toward atheism or agnosticism. That is because they already have an explanatory framework that does not require divine intervention—what is sometimes called the “God of the gaps.”
Harkusha-Omelchenko: Yes, yes, that is correct. I think there are also people in the scientific community who believe in God, but I find it difficult to reconcile both positions—to accept, for example, that mutations occur in our genetic structure as human beings, and at the same time that everything was created by God. It is difficult to hold both views consistently.
Returning to the question about atheists in the scientific community, it is not that we are arrogant about our position or think our beliefs are superior because we are scientists. It is because we rely on evidence. We have evidence for natural processes—for example, the molecular basis of how life emerged on Earth. We understand molecular evolution: life began with simple molecules, and over time, increasingly complex and highly organized living organisms developed from them.
And yes, this is part of the challenge, because the scientific community is not the majority of the Ukrainian population. But I am glad that nowadays science communication is becoming more widespread in our society. People—especially younger people—are more open-minded. They ask questions. They go to doctors and ask questions instead of simply obeying. They are curious about the world they live in, and they often turn to science for answers.
That is encouraging. As scientists, we try to find the simplest explanations for complex phenomena. Yes, that is essentially it.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Mariia.
Photo by Scott Douglas Jacobsen.
