Tag Archives: crowdsourced science

2000 year old citizen science and 2024 participatory science (aka, citizen science) news

Leave a reply

One story features Aristotle and the other features some of the latest (as of October 2024) in citizen science (participatory science) news.

Ancient citizen science

The story about Aristotle’s scientific endeavours and 2,000 year old citizen science is told in an August 15, 2024 essay by Konstantine Panegyres (McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, researching Greco-Roman antiquity, The University of Melbourne) for The Conversation, Note: Links have been removed,

If we want to research a subject, how do we do it? We could read about it in books or do experiments in a lab. Or another way is to find people who know something about it and ask them.

Collecting information from members of the public has long been a method of scientific research. We call it citizen science. According to National Geographic, this is “the practice of public participation and collaboration in scientific research to increase scientific knowledge”.

…

Most of us know of Aristotle (384–322 BCE [Before the Common Era]) for his philosophical works, but he was also a great scientist.

Aristotle consulted the general public when undertaking his scientific research projects. He wrote a number of books about animals, the greatest of which was his History of Animals. He also wrote smaller works including Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals. Collectively, these are usually referred to as Aristotle’s biological writings.

The Roman scholar Pliny the Elder (approximately 24–79 CE) has told us about some of Aristotle’s research methods when writing these texts.

According to Pliny, Alexander the Great (356–323 BCE) – who was Aristotle’s student – supported Aristotle’s research on animals by ordering the public to collaborate:

orders were given to some thousands of persons throughout the whole of Asia and Greece, all those who made their living by hunting, fowling, and fishing and those who were in charge of warrens, herds, apiaries, fishponds and aviaries, to obey [Aristotle’s] instructions, so that he might not fail to be informed about any creature born anywhere.

Modern scholars aren’t certain Alexander actually gave this order. Nonetheless, Aristotle’s writings about animals often refer to information he received from others who worked directly with animals, such as hunters, beekeepers, fishermen and herdsmen.

…

As Panegyres notes in the August 15, 2024 essay, Aristotle applied some of his own thinking and research to citizen observations,

Aristotle was at times also critical of the eyewitness information he received. For instance, in Generation of Animals, he says some people told him fish don’t copulate, because they had not seen fish copulating. But he goes on to say these people are wrong – and that he himself knows fish do indeed copulate:

The fish copulate in the same way as dolphins do, by placing themselves alongside of each other […] The fishermen do not notice this […] and so they join the chorus and repeat the same old stupid tale that fish conceive by swallowing the semen.

Aristotle was right. While most fish don’t have sexual intercourse, some do. Clearly, Aristotle had either asked enough people and/or investigated the issue himself to find the truth.

Sometimes citizen scientists came in with fantastical tales according to Panegyres’s August 15, 2024 essay (h/t phys.org’s August 17, 2024 news item)..

If you are interested in the ancient world Panegyres has a number of articles on The Conversation. Here are a few of the titles,

Why is cancer called cancer? We need to go back to Greco-Roman times for the answer

Did people in Ancient Rome and Greece love the same way we do? Perhaps even more hopelessly

Nude athletes and fights to the death: what really happened at the ancient Olympics

Enjoy!

Citizen Science Association (CSA) is now the Association for Advancing Participatory Sciences (AAPS) + some news

Is the resemblance of the CSA’s new name to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) purely coincidental? That question is not asked nor answered in the group’s April 2, 2024 blog posting by J_Shirk, which announced the name change, Note: A link has been removed,

For more than ten years, this Association has engaged practitioners from many related traditions, including crowdsourced science, volunteer monitoring, amateur astronomy, community-based research, citizen science, and more. Our new name reflects that broad scope, and helps reveal and engage the rich landscape of practices across the many participatory sciences.

What are the Participatory Sciences?

Participatory sciences combine the strengths of scientific inquiry with the knowledge, insights, and observations of members of the public. Some efforts are scientist-driven, with researchers inviting volunteers to submit data, categorize images, or otherwise assist in answering research questions. Others are community-driven, where communities (of place or interest) leverage science processes to compile evidence and address problems. All efforts are borne from seeing common interests, and developing working relationships, between scientists and public groups to answer questions, accelerate discovery, monitor change, or inform decisions.

Participatory science projects and traditions can be found in almost every field of research. Natural history projects come to mind for many, but research collaborations of these kinds advance work in biomedicine, astronomy, environmental health, history, geography, archaeology, and more. In almost all disciplines, these projects depend on breaking down historic barriers between scientific institutions and members of the public. They also depend on building up new relationships, platforms, strategies, and skills to bring together people, information, and knowledge–difficult work made easier when we can learn from others who have done this before.

…

Here’s some of the latest news from the October 2024 AAPS newsletter (received via email),

This month we are highlighting ways the future of participatory sciences
is looking bright, including: early-career passion and enthusiasm for
this field, a prestigious award for pioneering platform, iNaturalist,
excitement for our upcoming convening in Portland, Oregon, and an
invitation to join us for inspiration and action-oriented discussions at
the AAPS Member Meeting later this month.

You’ll also find announcements about a new online course on project
design, details on an upcoming workshop on the convergence of
computational and citizen science research, and free workshop series on
science community and policy impact from adjacent organizations
supporting this work below.

Read on …

…

AAPS Member Meeting, October 28th, 2024

1pm ET | 10am PT 

>>Register Here

Join AAPS leaders for an hour of inspiration and action-oriented discussions about how the Associations’ efforts to advance participatory sciences can engage, serve, and support you in your work at the AAPS Member Meeting on October 28th [2024]. 

This event is open to active members and those interested in learning more about the work of the Association. AAPS is the leading organization and go-to resource center for both leaders and learners in this field. Together, we work to inspire new collaborations, address shared challenges, and raise awareness of the value of these projects to pave the way for future successes. Our new strategic plan outlines concrete steps to get us there. AAPS members have always been at the forefront of innovations in the participatory sciences. Let’s work together to build the future of this field.

…

[2025 Conference for Advancing Participatory Sciences]

Our 2025 conference will be hosted locally by Oregon State University in Portland, Oregon, a city known for its natural beauty and progressive spirit. Core sessions will be held at the Portland State University campus in downtown Portland with special events at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, World Forestry Center, and OSU Portland Center. Attendees can explore the projects and the unique ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest through field trips–look for pikas in Cascades with the Oregon Zoo, explore the coast with COASST, or embark on an urban adventure as part of your conference experience.

Many important details to help you budget and plan for your trip including a schedule overview, registration rates, and estimated attendee costs, are available on the conference event site.

Explore CAPS 2025

…

The call for individual presentations, including posters, will open later this fall. [2024]

…

NEW ONLINE COURSE, Citizen and Community Science: Designing Projects for Research & Engagement

The University of New Hampshire has launched a new 6-week, online course focused on designing citizen and community science projects from initial planning to project launch. This course offers hands-on learning, a step-by-step process, and guided coaching for your project design, offered through an asynchronous, 36-hour format for maximum flexibility. You’ll experience the material though videos, recorded presentations, selective readings, interactive discussion boards, hands-on assignments, and optional live Zooms and one-on-one coaching sessions.

Instructors include Malin Ely Clyde and Alyson Eberhardt, who have extensive experience as participatory science practitioners, researchers, and volunteer coordinators with UNH Cooperative Extension and NH Sea Grant. The course runs from Oct. 12 – Nov. 24, 2024. Cost: $999 with some discounts available. Successful completion of the course earns participants a digital badge and a certificate of completion.

>>Learn more and register here

Call for Participation: Grand Challenges for the Convergence of Computational and Citizen Science Research.

The workshop will cover several key focus areas including Human-Computer Teaming, Computational Citizen Science, Citizen Science Data Cyberinfrastructure, the development of affordable sensors for citizen science, and the ethical and social implications of integrating AI with citizen science. The outcomes from this workshop are expected to guide future research agendas and influence government and federal institutions.

The workshop will take place in Washington, DC, from April 8-9 2025 with opening dinner on April 7.

For more information on traveling and application requirements, visit the Open Calls for Participation page. Apply here for the in-person workshop and virtual discussions- deadline October 4, 2025. 

Find out more about this event in this interview with event organizers.

Science Communication & Policy Impact: A Four-Part Virtual Workshop Series

In collaboration with the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology; the College of Computing, Data Science, and Society; and the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Day One Project, the CITRIS Policy Lab is hosting a four-part Science Communication and Tech Policy Workshop Series that will equip you with the essential skills to effectively communicate your research to the general public, policymakers, and funders. 

 >>FULL DETAILS

Workshop 1: Communicating Scientific Research to the Public

Fri., Oct. 4 | 10 am – 11 am PT | REGISTER FOR WORKSHOP 1

Workshop 2: Leveraging Your Research for Policy Impact – Writing a Day One Policy Memo

Fri., Oct. 11 | 10 am – 11:30 am PT | REGISTER FOR WORKSHOP 2

Workshop 3: Pitching the President – Providing Effective Guidance to Policymakers & Writing Workshop

Fri., Nov. 8 | 10 – 12:00 pm PT | REGISTER FOR WORKSHOP 3

Workshop 4: Engaging with Legislative and Regulatory Processes

Fri., Nov. 15 | 10 – 11 am PT | REGISTER FOR WORKSHOP 4

Should you be interested in the AAPS monthly newsletters and its announcements, you can sign up here.

On the verge of controlling neurons by wireless?

Leave a reply

Scientists have controlled a mouse’s neurons with a wireless device (and unleashed some paranoid fantasies? well, mine if no one else’s) according to a July 16, 2015 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

A study showed that scientists can wirelessly determine the path a mouse walks with a press of a button. Researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, and University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, created a remote controlled, next-generation tissue implant that allows neuroscientists to inject drugs and shine lights on neurons deep inside the brains of mice. The revolutionary device is described online in the journal Cell (“Wireless Optofluidic Systems for Programmable In Vivo Pharmacology and Optogenetics”). Its development was partially funded by the [US] National Institutes of Health [NIH].

The researchers have made an image/illustration of the probe available,

Mind Bending Probe Scientists used soft materials to create a brain implant a tenth the width of a human hair that can wirelessly control neurons with lights and drugs. Courtesy of Jeong lab, University of Colorado Boulder.

A July 16, 2015 US NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke news release, which originated the news item, describes the study and notes that instructions for building the implant are included in the published study,

“It unplugs a world of possibilities for scientists to learn how brain circuits work in a more natural setting.” said Michael R. Bruchas, Ph.D., associate professor of anesthesiology and neurobiology at Washington University School of Medicine and a senior author of the study.

The Bruchas lab studies circuits that control a variety of disorders including stress, depression, addiction, and pain. Typically, scientists who study these circuits have to choose between injecting drugs through bulky metal tubes and delivering lights through fiber optic cables. Both options require surgery that can damage parts of the brain and introduce experimental conditions that hinder animals’ natural movements.

To address these issues, Jae-Woong Jeong, Ph.D., a bioengineer formerly at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, worked with Jordan G. McCall, Ph.D., a graduate student in the Bruchas lab, to construct a remote controlled, optofluidic implant. The device is made out of soft materials that are a tenth the diameter of a human hair and can simultaneously deliver drugs and lights.

“We used powerful nano-manufacturing strategies to fabricate an implant that lets us penetrate deep inside the brain with minimal damage,” said John A. Rogers, Ph.D., professor of materials science and engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a senior author. “Ultra-miniaturized devices like this have tremendous potential for science and medicine.”

With a thickness of 80 micrometers and a width of 500 micrometers, the optofluidic implant is thinner than the metal tubes, or cannulas, scientists typically use to inject drugs. When the scientists compared the implant with a typical cannula they found that the implant damaged and displaced much less brain tissue.

The scientists tested the device’s drug delivery potential by surgically placing it into the brains of mice. In some experiments, they showed that they could precisely map circuits by using the implant to inject viruses that label cells with genetic dyes. In other experiments, they made mice walk in circles by injecting a drug that mimics morphine into the ventral tegmental area (VTA), a region that controls motivation and addiction.

The researchers also tested the device’s combined light and drug delivery potential when they made mice that have light-sensitive VTA neurons stay on one side of a cage by commanding the implant to shine laser pulses on the cells. The mice lost the preference when the scientists directed the device to simultaneously inject a drug that blocks neuronal communication. In all of the experiments, the mice were about three feet away from the command antenna.

“This is the kind of revolutionary tool development that neuroscientists need to map out brain circuit activity,” said James Gnadt, Ph.D., program director at the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).  “It’s in line with the goals of the NIH’s BRAIN Initiative.”

The researchers fabricated the implant using semi-conductor computer chip manufacturing techniques. It has room for up to four drugs and has four microscale inorganic light-emitting diodes. They installed an expandable material at the bottom of the drug reservoirs to control delivery. When the temperature on an electric heater beneath the reservoir rose then the bottom rapidly expanded and pushed the drug out into the brain.

“We tried at least 30 different prototypes before one finally worked,” said Dr. McCall.

“This was truly an interdisciplinary effort,” said Dr. Jeong, who is now an assistant professor of electrical, computer, and energy engineering at University of Colorado Boulder. “We tried to engineer the implant to meet some of neurosciences greatest unmet needs.”

In the study, the scientists provide detailed instructions for manufacturing the implant.

“A tool is only good if it’s used,” said Dr. Bruchas. “We believe an open, crowdsourcing approach to neuroscience is a great way to understand normal and healthy brain circuitry.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Wireless Optofluidic Systems for Programmable In Vivo Pharmacology and Optogenetics by Jae-Woong Jeong, Jordan G. McCall, Gunchul Shin, Yihui Zhang, Ream Al-Hasani, Minku Kim, Shuo Li, Joo Yong Sim, Kyung-In Jang, Yan Shi, Daniel Y. Hong, Yuhao Liu, Gavin P. Schmitz, Li Xia, Zhubin He, Paul Gamble, Wilson Z. Ray, Yonggang Huang, Michael R. Bruchas, and John A. Rogers.  Cell, July 16, 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.06.058

This paper is behind a paywall.

I last wrote about wireless activation of neurons in a May 28, 2014 posting which featured research at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Citizen science = crowdsourced science?

Leave a reply

Deirdre Lockwood’s Nov. 12, 2012 article (Crowdsourcing Chemistry) for Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) offers a good overview of the various citizen science projects and organizations while using the terms citizen science and crowdsourcing science interchangeably. For me, it’s  a ‘poodles and dogs’ situation; all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.

Here are two examples from the article,

Although the public has participated in scientific research since at least the first Audubon Christmas Bird Count of 1900, so-called citizen science has gained momentum in the past decade through funding, enthusiasm, and technology. This trend is dominated by projects in biology, but chemists are getting on board, too. NSF’s funding of citizen-science projects has grown from a handful each year in the early 2000s to at least 25 per year today.

…

Online gaming project Foldit has attracted many participants to find the lowest-energy configuration of proteins. Foldit players recently solved the structure of a retroviral protease that had long stumped structural biologists (Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., DOI: 10.1038/nsmb.2119).

There’s a difference between going out and counting birds (citizen science) and 50,000 or more people solving a problem in biology (citizen science and crowdsourcing science). In the first instance, you’re gathering data for the scientist and in the second instance, you’re gathering, analyzing, and solving a science problem alongside the scientists. There is, of course, a great big grey zone but if you’re looking to participate in projects, the distinction may be useful to you. Do take a look at Lockwood’s article as she mentions some very exciting projects.

H/T to the Nov. 14, 2012 news item about Lockwood’s article on phys.org.

Democracy, participation, and science culture

1 Reply

Should citizens have any input into how science research is funded? Dan Hind in his Dec. 14, 2010 article, Time to democratise science, for New Scientist argues yes persuasively (from the article),

THE natural and social sciences exert a huge influence on the ways our societies develop. At present most of the funding for scientific research is controlled by the state and the private economy. Perhaps it is time to look at their track record and consider an alternative.

…

Science is not, and can never be, disinterested insofar as its objectives are concerned. Decisions to fund this research instead of that research can never be purely technical. Assessments of what is likely to produce interesting or useful knowledge are inevitably alloyed with the desires of those who control the money to develop particular forms of knowledge and with them new resources of power.

…

Given the mixed track record of the patrons of science it is surely time to consider an alternative. If we are serious about science as a public good, we should give the public control over the ways in which some – and I stress “some” – of its money is spent.

At the end of the article there is this note about the author,

Dan Hind is author of The Return of the Public (Verso), which argues for a new kind of participatory politics

There does seem to be seem sort of trend towards more participatory science as per citizen science or crowdsourced science projects such as Foldit (my Aug. 6, 2010 posting) and Phylo (my Dec. 3, 2010 posting).I’m not sure how much traction participatory science research funding is going to find. That said, there was a UK project run by EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research) where members of the public were allowed to ‘vote’ on particular projects. You can read more about the project in the May 25, 2009 news item on Nanowerk describing the grants that were chosen. From the news item,

Ten research grants to help solve some of the biggest health problems facing the UK have been awarded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)

The projects focus on developing new techniques for screening and treating major public health issues such as cancer, stroke, AIDS, influenza, MRSA and dementia.

The grants, worth £16.5m, have been given by the EPSRC, acting as the lead Research Council in a cross Research Council Programme called “Nanoscience through Engineering to Application.”

Segue: As for participatory politics (as per Dan Hind), I’ve noticed a local (Vancouver, Canada) backlash response to the notion of public consultations (city government officials want to increase population densities). Oddly enough, when people take the time to participate in a ‘consultation’ they expect that at least some of their comments will have an impact on the decisions that are being made. I gather some experts find this irksome and a challenge to their professional authority.

Back to the main topic: My impression is that the UK enjoys a science culture that is not to be found in Canada—not yet, anyway. There is discussion about public dialogue and engagement in science not just in the UK but elsewhere too that simply doesn’t exist in Canada. Yes, there are a few fragile attempts at creating a science culture here. I’m thinking of the Café Scientifique groups, Canada’s National Science and Technology Week, and the open houses put on by the universities but there really isn’t much.

The Year of Science (a science culture project) was declared in the province of British Columbia (BC) in the fall of 2010. From my Oct. 14, 2010 posting,

To inspire young minds across the province and foster a culture of research and innovation Premier Gordon Campbell today proclaimed the 2010-2011 school year as the Year of Science in B.C.

It’s good to see these kinds of initiatives, unfortunately this particular one is undercut by news such as this (from the Dec. 2, 2010 article, Teacher blasts cuts to Vancouver school science budgets; School science budgets slashed by 56 per cent compared to last year, by Naiobh O’Connor for the Vancouver Courier),

School science budgets were slashed by 56 per cent compared to last year and the district now allots only $4.61 per student each year to cover expenses—far below what Mike Hengeveld, Templeton secondary’s science department head and teacher, argues is adequate.

…

Limited budgets mean it’s difficult to replace equipment like broken beakers or to buy new equipment. Hengeveld even worries about buying a dozen eggs for a relatively cheap egg drop experiment or what’s needed to grow crystals for chemistry class.

“If I went and bought iodized salt or de-iodized salt and [students] make a solution by heating stuff in a beaker—which I hope doesn’t break—if I spend 15 bucks on salt at the store, I’ve blown three or four students’ worth of budget for them to learn how to grow crystals. It’s neat, but I can’t do that in a science class every day. I would just completely and totally run out of money and that’s just on cheap stuff,” he said.

I’m not trying to fault the Year of Science initiative just pointing out that the initiative is problematic when the science education budget for schools cannot support even simple research projects.

This is a larger issue that I can adequately cover in this posting but I did want to draw attention to some of the fragilities of the Canadian situation (and our own situation in BC) vis à vis creating a science culture and/or democratizing science.

Meanwhile, I read with some envy a report titled, International Comparison of Public Dialogue on Science and Technology,  from a UK organization, Sciencewise-ERC – the UK’s national centre for public dialogue in policy making involving science and technology issues. Canada is not mentioned and I imagine that’s due to the fact that we don’t have any public dialogue to speak of.

ETA Mar.3.11: I made some minor changes for clarity (added Segue: and Back to the main topic: and removed an extra space.