Rethinking Science through Citizen Science
Brief overview of Citizen Science history and definition
Citizen science (CS), according to the current wikipedia definition, is the term most widely used to describe scientific research, when this is conducted, in whole or in part, by amateur (or nonprofessional) scientists. Other -identical or partially overlapping- terms that have been used include crowd science, crowd-sourced science, civic science and others.
Recently, though, different types of more -or less- deliberate contribution in scientific research and hands-on experimentation from non-professional scientists, popularization of scientific techniques, accessibility in Do-It-Yourself (DIY) laboratory settings, or even raised awareness on different aspects of scientific research have all come to nourish different aspects of what we globally define as Citizen Science.
Having a glance in the past, the concept of “citizen science” has been unnecessary for the most of the history of science, as almost all science is done by amateurs. However, over the course of the 19th century and with the emergence of Big Science we observe the first emerging distinctions between amateur and professional scientists. As higher level of specialization appears in the field, it becomes impossible for amateur scientists to make meaningful contributions to science and harder for them to conduct well-informed public discussions of science and its social effect.
In the aftermath of the new situation, the philosopher Paul Feyerabend highlights the need for a “democratization of science”.
Citizen Science and the different levels of involvement
With the rise of the 21st century, a majority of societal stakeholders (from policy makers and academic institutions to independent researchers and local societies) seem to draw back their attention on the issue. New technologies and media bring the issue of citizen science and its various dimensions once more on the table, asking for the redefinition of the place of scientific research in education and today’s society and eventually redefining aspects of the scientific research itself.
A recent study of 2016 indicates that the largest impact of citizen science is in research on biology, conservation and ecology. However, new actors from the fields of synthetic biology, medicine and drug development increase importantly their involvement. As such, this article is mostly focus around citizen science activities that range from online gaming to environmental monitoring in the field, and from at home DIY Bio (i.e. Do-It-Yourself Biology) experiments to community labs pursuing open source research. The following table may serve for the better understanding of the different levels of involvement that a “nonprofessional” scientist can have within citizen science activities.
The following lines summarize 4 basic levels of participation in citizen science, retrieved from DITOs Consortium, 2016. Doing It Together science: Outreach Plan for Biodesign, UCL, London.
Level 1 “Crowdsourcing”: citizens as sensors or contributing computer resources
Level 2 “Distributed Intelligence”: Citizens as basic interpreters
Level 3 “Participatorry Science”: Participation in Problem Definition and data collection
Level 4 “DIY Science”: Collaborative science- problem definition, experiment design and/or execution, data analysis
Taking action on a European Level
The preceding very brief review on the history of citizen science reveals that it is not a new phenomenon, but rather a continuously changing and evolving movement, which transforms according to the actual reality of its times. And regardless the fact that citizen science has been for a long time one of the most important trends in the history of recent science, still, it has been less noticed until recently, when the crucial question of who is defined as a citizen scientist remains and the diversity of terms used indicates a symptom of the dynamics in progress and the abundance of approaches.
As such, the evident need for institutional mobilisation from research operators (organisations and universities), financing agencies, and regional and public authorities starts becoming more and more evident. On a macro-, meso- and micro- level, from policy makers and science funders, to citizen science mediators and facilitators, research groups, communities and CSOs, nobody seems to be left unaffected, and therefore the emerging challenges emerge.
The example of the European Citizen Science Forum -ECSF
If we agree that dialogue is among the principal actions that need to take place in such multi-level issues, it is worth considering the frequency and ease at which all these different stakeholders meet and fruitfully exchange with each other. The common basis for all the interested parties to co-create the Citizen Science that we want for our world today, considering the current challenges as emerging from disruptive technologies and geopolitical situations, is yet to be found. As such, I would like to dedicate the next few lines on the European Citizen Science Forum that took place in Paris in March 2017 and that served as a remarkably fertile ground for such exchanges to take place.
This Forum run under the title “Citizen Science and DIY Bio: bridging the gap between citizens and institutions” and was organized by the Doing It Together Science -DITOs European Citizen Science project, an equally biodiverse program, consisted of different partners alongside Europe (from universities and research institutions to science galleries, museums and art institutions). The aim of this Forum was to gather different stakeholder representatives, set the topics of interest (ranging from Ethics and Responsible Research and Innovation to Data, Infrastructure and Support, Learning through Research and Infrastructure and Support) and give space to well-moderated roundtable discussions between all participants. The stakeholders participating in the Forum included representatives from DIY community, funding and media, academia researchers, policy makers , university students and high school science teachers.
The exchanges that took place during the ECSF resulted in highlighting arising problematics, new insights, points of conflict and/or agreement, potential solutions, proposals and policies on the topics of Citizen Science and DIY-Biology. As an example, we can cite the visual prototype on CS in Education, produced by a working team during the Forum, which was later on cited by F. Houllier (also participant of the ECSF) during the International Conference on the Future of R&D in Education.
Moreover, ECSF-derived points and conclusions will also be included in the upcoming policy brief on DIY-Bio, redacted by DITOs and addressed to the European Commission, aiming to be considered in the framing of CS and DIY-Bio policies. Furthermore, the Head of Sector ‘Mainstreaming Responsible Research and Innovation in Horizon 2020 at the European Commission, Dr. Philippe Galiay (also participant of the ECSF) used the example of the ECSF and DITOs during the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 event in Brussels.
The general overview of this Forum highlighted one very important aspect of Citizen Science transformation today; definitions, ethics and policies that were once considered fixed and standardized, are now questioning themselves under the scope of citizen science re-emergence. Therefore, the shift towards bottom-up approaches and actions seems to naturally emerge as a natural consequence of science itself, as it tries to re-gain its place among the society as a whole.
Citizen Science rises as second wave of need for science democratization (as once cited by the Philosopher Paul Feyerabend) and re-definition. Contrary to the parties trying to diversify official scientific research from DIY and citizen science initiatives, personally I do not see the both being separated from one another, but rather perceive Citizen Science as a natural stage in the evolutionary process of science itself. It could therefore be the opportunity for science to find its rightful place in our societies today, serving its needs and contributing towards their sustainable and coequal evolution.
Twitter: @togethersci @criparis @ImaneBAIZ @e_moraitopoulou @alicia_msanchez #DITscience #ECSF17
Website: cri-paris.org || togetherscience.eu
Note: DITOs is a 3-year program, initiated in June 2016, and aiming to communicate, coordinate and support citizen science activities during and after its 3 years of existence. The ECSF took place as one among the project’s numerous actions to engage citizens in citizen science and contribute in policy framing. The DITOs project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 709443.
This article has been written with the invaluable contribution and remarks of Matthieu CISEL, Amodsen CHOTIA, Imane BAÏZ & Alicia Mansilla.
The realization of the ECSF would have never been possible without the invaluable contribution -official and not- of all the unique people, investing their time, skills and energy before and during the day of the event.
