Predatory Citizen Science?

Philosophy & Technology, 2015

The flourishing of citizen science is an exciting phenomenon with the potential to contribute significantly to scientific progress. However, we lack a framework for addressing in a principled and effective manner the pressing ethical questions it raises. We argue that at the core of any such framework must be the human right to science. Moreover, we stress an almost entirely neglected dimension of this right-the entitlement it confers on all human beings to participate in the scientific process in all of its aspects. We then explore three of its key implications for the ethical regulation of citizen science: (a) the positive obligations imposed by the right on the state and other agents to recognize and promote citizen science, (b) the convective nature of the participation in science facilitated by the right and (c) the potential to mobilize the right in rolling back the unprecedented expansion of intellectual property regimes. From Thales of Miletus' geometrical theorems to Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod, the history of science is studded with the contributions of individuals who were not professional scientists in the contemporary sense. These intrepid amateurs made observations, conducted experiments or devised methods of investigation that prompted major advances. By contrast, the professionalization and institutionalization of science did not get into full swing until well into the nineteenth century, and when it did so, it had the effect of crowding non-professionals out of the scientific enterprise. In recent decades, however, there has been a tremendous flowering of non-professional involvement in scientific research. This phenomenon has been dubbed citizen science (Bowser and Shanley 2013). Although the term lacks a precise and widely accepted definition, we take it to mean any form of active non-professional participation in science that goes beyond human subject research conducted by professional researchers. In both scope and format, citizen science traverses the full extent of scientific activity. Projects

Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society

In this article, we focus on some empirical Brazilian cases, calling attention to ways of participation and collaboration among scientists involved in these ways of knowing as well as to the challenges resulting from digital mediation in the investigative process. More specifically, the chapter discusses how certain experiences of citizen science are challenged to place scientific practice closer to the borders of political and informational activism. Indirectly, we intend to interrogate the possibilities and the limits for the production of knowledge in the field of human sciences through digital technology: how can we delineate the tenuous border between digital humanities, social engineering, cognitive capitalism and the shaping of a society of control?

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice

So, you suspect that someone in a citizen science project committed research misconduct. What do you do now? As citizen science methods become increasingly popular, it seems inevitable that at some point, someone identifying themselves as a citizen scientist will be accused of committing research misconduct. Yet the growth of the field also takes research increasingly outside of traditional regulatory mechanisms of identifying, investigating, and delivering consequences for research misconduct. How could we prevent or handle an allegation of scientific misconduct in citizen science that falls outside of our familiar regulatory remedies? And more broadly, what does this imply for ensuring scientific integrity in citizen science? I argue that the increasing use of new research methods in citizen science poses a challenge to traditional approaches to research misconduct, and that we should consider how to confront issues of research misconduct in citizen science. I briefly describe existing approaches to research misconduct and some aspects of citizen science giving rise to the problem, then consider alternative mechanisms, ranging from tort law to professional responsibility to a proposed "research integrity insurance," that might be deployed to address and prevent such cases.

Science & Technology Studies, 2018

Citizen science is currently heralded by proponents for science and policy in many ways. From a science policy perspective, citizen science is often brought forward as a remedy to 'alternative facts' and to general issues of trust in science and politics. In many cases citizen science has been promoted in sociotechnical imaginaries of creating the 'open society' by democratizing science, facilitating scientific literacy, often via digital technologies and networking (Holocher-Ertl and ZSI, 2013; Nascimento et al., 2014). Here, an imaginary from science policy has emerged, one wherein citizen science is meant to "enable citizens and citizen groups to participate in evidence-based policy and decision-making" (Lamy, 2017:19). However, in contrast to such general accounts, this special issue seeks to unpack citizen science, and instead approach it not as one, but as several different modes of social epistemologies. These diverse modes also instantiate a wide range of imagined epistemic agents; 'the citizen' , 'the volunteer' , 'the participant' , 'the crowd' , 'the activist' , 'the community' et cetera-agents that in one way or another perform scientific research without being a professional scientist. The reasons are as manifold as the identities. Sometimes citizens react to environmental injustice by creating their own instruments and data. Sometimes volunteers join already defined basic science projects and

Tapuya: Latinoamerican Science, Technology and Society, 2022

The aim of this study is to investigate the different types of access to scientific literature used by Argentinean researchers. This paper focuses particularly on the extent to which the illegal route is resorted to, the motivations for resorting to it, representations of legality and moral acceptability, and the relationship between productivity and different access routes. In order to tackle these topics, a survey was carried out among CONICET researchers. The main findings are as follows. The use of the illegal route is massive and widespread; it does not replace but rather coexists with the use of legal routes; there is a striking disconnection between the representations of legality and morality, and the motivations for using the illegal route are both practical and axiological.

Environmental Science & Policy, 2015

The collaboration between laypeople and professional scientists known as ''citizen science'' is an important trend in research and data gathering. Citizen science offers important benefits to science and society. For example, citizens can help scientists with data collection and provide advice on research design and implementation. Citizens can also gain a better understanding of scientific concepts and methods. Additionally, citizens can help scientists better understand and address issues of concern to their families and communities. However, citizen science also raises ethical issues that should be addressed when projects begin and throughout the course of scientific investigation. To promote ethical research, scientists should develop guidelines for involvement of citizens in research, communicate effectively with participants and local communities at the outset of their involvement in research projects, carefully oversee their work, develop appropriate publication practices, and provide lay-volunteers with education and training on the responsible conduct of research. Researchers also need to be cognizant of clarifying these roles and responsibilities as well as promoting appropriate and safe citizen participation and transparency of the study methods, data analysis, and communication of results.

Journal of Information Ethics, 2017

IntroductionActive public participation in science changed markedly during the twentieth century and has evolved rapidly since the beginning of the present century. The flow of information has been an important factor in these developments: styles of non-professional activity have been influenced significantly by new channels of communication.The terms "citizen science" and "crowd-sourced science" highlight the newly recognized societal dimensions of such activities. While used imprecisely, both labels hint at technology-mediated possibilities opened to professionals and non-professionals alike, and to the unprecedented scale of involvement by lay participants. Both "citizen" and "crowd" are loaded terms, however, that beg for careful analysis. The way in which information is channeled and controlled is a distinguishing feature having ethical implications. These new variants of established practices offer novel configurations of power relation...

Journal of Peer Production, 2017

This paper explores the relationship between paid labour and users within the Zooniverse, a crowdsourced citizen science platform. The user activities involve the collective categorisation of large datasets, mainly relating to images that cannot currently be analysed algorithmically. However, unlike other examples of micro-tasking, there is also the possibility for individual users to make serendipitous discoveries. It was initially established by a small group of academics for a single astronomy project, but has now grown into a multi-project platform that has engaged over 1.3 million users so far. The growth has introduced different dynamics to the platform as it has incorporated a greater number of scientists, developers, links with organisations, and funding arrangements. The different organisations and funding requirements each bring additional pressures and complications. The scientists come from a research-led university context, while the developers are drawn from more of a start-up culture with an emphasis on open-source ideals. The relationships between paid/professional and unpaid/citizen labour have become increasingly complicated with the rapid expansion of the Zooniverse. The paper draws on empirical data from an ongoing research project that has access to both users and paid professionals on the platform. This combination of ethnography, in-depth interviews, and quantitative data combines to provide new insights into the organisation and processes of this large citizen science platform. The Zooniverse case study provides an important starting point for understanding the dynamics of paid and unpaid work in the context of peer production. There is the potential through growing peer-to-peer capacity that the boundaries between professional and citizen scientists can become significantly blurred. Crowdsourcing can allow the complex tasks involved in data analysis to be collectively achieved, yet there remain limits to the contribution that individuals in the crowd can make. The findings of the paper therefore address important questions about the production of value, ownerships, and the politics of open source acts. These are considered specifically from the viewpoint of the users and therefore forms a new contribution to the theoretical understanding of crowdsourcing in practice.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019

Public participation in scientific projects is flourishing globally as part of projects labeled "citizen science" (CS). Already, a number of professional networks for CS stakeholders have been founded, for example, the US-based Citizen Science Association, the European Citizen Science Association, and the Australian Citizen Science Association. But what exactly qualifies as CS? It is interpreted in various ways (1) and takes different forms with different degrees of participation (2). In fact, the label CS is currently assigned to research activities either by project principal investigators (PIs) themselves or by research funding agencies. Against this backdrop, critical observers of CS, such as Guerrini et al. (3), have drawn attention to important legal and ethical issues including intellectual property and scientific integrity. Similarly, Vayena and Tasioulas (4) note the importance of protecting the interests of research participants in As citizen science (CS) continues to grow, researchers and participants should move toward a shared understanding of what the practice is, what it is not, and what criteria CS projects must fulfill to ensure high-quality participatory research. Image credit: David Cutler (artist).