Creating positive environmental impact through citizen science

Interest in citizen science is growing, including from governments and research funders. This interest is often driven by a desire for positive environmental impact, and the expectation that citizen science can deliver it by engaging the public and simultaneously collecting environmental data. Yet, in practice, there is often a gap between expected and realised impact. To close this gap, we need to better understand pathways to impact and what it takes to realise them. We articulate six key pathways through which citizen science can create positive environmental change: (1) environmental management; (2) evidence for policy; (3) behaviour change; (4) social network championing; (5) political advocacy; and (6) community action. We explore the project attributes likely to create impact through each of these pathways and show that there is an interplay between these project attributes and the needs and motivations of target participant groups. Exploring this interplay, we create a framework that articulates four citizen science approaches that create environmental impact in different ways: place-based community action; interest group investigation; captive learning research; and mass participation census

From 'trading zones' to 'buffer zones': Art and metaphor in the communication of psychiatric genetics to publics

Psychiatric genetics has a difficult relationship with the public given its unshakeable connection to eugenics. Drawing from a five-year public engagement programme that emerged from an internationally renowned psychiatric genetics centre, we propose the concept of the Buffer Zone to consider how an exchange of viewpoints between groups of people – including psychiatric geneticists and lay publics - who are often uneasy in one another’s company can be facilitated through the use of art and metaphor. The artwork at the exhibitions provided the necessary socio-cultural context for scientific endeavours, whilst also enabled public groups to be part of, and remain in, the conversation. Crucial to stress is that this mitigation was not to protect the science; it was to protect the discussion