Project Categories to Guide Institutional Oversight of Responsible Conduct of Scientists Leading Citizen Science in the United States

A growing number of individuals who are not professional scientists are working with professional scientists to contribute to scientific research through a broad spectrum of volunteer activities and roles. To guide the regulatory oversight of scientists carrying out citizen science projects, we draw distinctions among five categories of projects in which volunteer activities and roles vary based on the combination of setting (institutional or not), subject matter (human or not), and the norms and expectations of handling volunteers’ personally identifiable information. Each category has potentially different ethical considerations and forms of institutional (or regulatory) oversight. We identify and assign numeric labels to these categories rather than names to avoid confusion and value-laden connotations regarding terminology. We hope the absence of terminology will initiate conversations and encourage rapid evolution of necessary vocabulary in this area. We focus on Type 4 research, projects led in academia and in which volunteers are not the subject of the research, but provide personally identifiable information with expectations of non-confidentiality. Our preliminary data show that current Type 4 projects generally lack informed consent, and most do not provide details about their handling of personally identifiable data. We identify areas where federal guidelines, as well as existing institutional ethics review protocols for protection of human subjects in research, might be applied to some forms of citizen science in ways that could either support, or inadvertently undermine, the Common Rule (the US regulation regarding protection of human subjects). We illustrate these areas with examples of projects from Cooper’s lab. By highlighting the complex and distinct challenges of responsible conduct with each project type, we urge professional scientists, citizen scientists, regulators, and other stakeholders to jointly determine the type of institutional oversight that will best mitigate risks without stymying innovation and benefits. We hope that this essay will spark a lively discussion and refinement of concepts, research, and improved practices

Digital volunteer networks and humanitarian crisis reporting

Digital technologies and big data are rapidly transforming humanitarian crisis response and changing the traditional roles and powers of its actors. This article looks at a particular aspect of this transformation – the appearance of digital volunteer networks – and explores their potential to act as a new source for media coverage, in addition to their already established role as emergency response supporters. I argue that digital humanitarians can offer a unique combination of speed and safe access, while escaping some of the traditional constraints of the aid-media relationship and exceeding the conventional conceptualizations of citizen journalism. Journalists can find both challenges and opportunities in the environment where multiple crisis actors are assuming some of the media roles. The article draws on interviews with humanitarian organizations, journalists, and digital volunteer networks about their understanding of digital humanitarian communication and its significance for media coverage of crises

The problem with delineating narrow criteria for citizen science

No abstract available.http://www.pnas.org2020-01-30hj2019Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI

Citizen science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

Traditional data sources are not sufficient for measuring the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. New and non-traditional sources of data are required. Citizen science is an emerging example of a non-traditional data source that is already making a contribution. In this Perspective, we present a roadmap that outlines how citizen science can be integrated into the formal Sustainable Development Goals reporting mechanisms. Success will require leadership from the United Nations, innovation from National Statistical Offices and focus from the citizen-science community to identify the indicators for which citizen science can make a real contribution

Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection

Citizen science has advanced science for hundreds of years, contributed to many peer-reviewed articles, and informed land management decisions and policies across the United States. Over the last 10 years, citizen science has grown immensely in the United States and many other countries. Here, we show how citizen science is a powerful tool for tackling many of the challenges faced in the field of conservation biology. We describe the two interwoven paths bywhich citizen science can improve conservation efforts, natural resource management, and environmental protection. The first path includes building scientific knowledge, while the other path involves informing policy and encouraging public action. We explore how citizen science is currently used and describe the investments needed to create a citizen science program. We find that: 1. Citizen science already contributes substantially to many domains of science, including conservation, natural resource, and environmental science. Citizen science informs natural resource management, environmental protection, and policymaking and fosters public input and engagement. 2. Many types of projects can benefit fromcitizen science, but one must be careful tomatch the needs for science and public involvement with the right type of citizen science project and the right method of public participation. 3. Citizen science is a rigorous process of scientific discovery, indistinguishable from conventional science apart from the participation of volunteers.When properly designed, carried out, and evaluated, citizen science can provide sound science, efficiently generate high-quality data, and help solve problems

The G67E mutation in hMLH1 is associated with an unusual presentation of Lynch syndrome

Germline mutations in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes are associated with Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. Here, we characterise a variant of hMLH1 that confers a loss-of-function MMR phenotype. The mutation changes the highly conserved Gly67 residue to a glutamate (G67E) and is reminiscent of the hMLH1-p.Gly67Arg mutation, which is present in several Lynch syndrome cohorts. hMLH1-Gly67Arg has previously been shown to confer loss-of-function (Shimodaira et al, 1998), and two functional assays suggest that the hMLH1-Gly67Glu protein fails to sustain normal MMR functions. In the first assay, hMLH1-Gly67Glu abolishes the protein's ability to interfere with MMR in yeast. In the second assay, mutation of the analogous residue in yMLH1 (yMLH1-Gly64Glu) causes a loss-of-function mutator phenotype similar to yMLH1-Gly64Arg. Despite these molecular similarities, an unusual spectrum of tumours is associated with hMLH1-Gly67Glu, which is not typical of those associated with Lynch syndrome and differs from those found in families carrying the hMLH1-Gly67Arg allele. This suggests that hMLH1 may have different functions in certain tissues and/or that additional factors may modify the influence of hMLH1 mutations in causing Lynch syndrome

Contours of citizen science: a vignette study

Citizen science has expanded rapidly over the past decades. Yet, defining citizen science and its boundaries remained a challenge, and this is reflected in the literature-for example in the proliferation of typologies and definitions. There is a need for identifying areas of agreement and disagreement within the citizen science practitioners community on what should be considered as citizen science activity. This paper describes the development and results of a survey that examined this issue, through the use of vignettes-short case descriptions that describe an activity, while asking the respondents to rate the activity on a scale from 'not citizen science' (0%) to 'citizen science' (100%). The survey included 50 vignettes, of which five were developed as clear cases of not-citizen science activities, five as widely accepted citizen science activities and the others addressing 10 factors and 61 sub-factors that can lead to controversy about an activity. The survey has attracted 333 respondents, who provided over 5100 ratings. The analysis demonstrates the plurality of understanding of what citizen science is and calls for an open understanding of what activities are included in the field

Data Democracy - increased supply of geospatial information and expanded participatory processes in the production of data

The global landscape in the supply, co-creation, and use of geospatial data is changing very rapidly with new satellites, sensors, and mobile devices reconfiguring the traditional lines of demand and supply, and the number of actors involved. In this paper we chart some of these technology-led developments and then focus on the opportunities they have created for the increased participation of the public in generating and contributing information for a wide range of uses, scientific, and non. Not all of this information is open or geospatial, but sufficiently large portions of it are to make it one of the most significant phenomena of the last decade. In fact we argue that whilst satellite and sensors have exponentially increased the volumes of geospatial information available, the participation of the public is transformative because it expands the range participants and stakeholders in society using and producing geospatial information, with opportunities for more direct participation in science, politics, and social action. The paper explores these opportunities but also the many issues that arise in using data generated by the public: can the “wisdom of the crowd” improve the quantity and quality of data available? Can it be relied upon? What are the risks? Is it sustainable? What are the quality aspects to consider? The paper is organised in six sections, reviewing the changing data landscape, the different categories of citizen-generated content, addressing quality issues, outlining key open issues, and concluding with some implications for data democracy and some points for discussion, respectively.JRC.H.6-Digital Earth and Reference Dat