This is a read only archive of pad.okfn.org. See the shutdown announcement for details.

DIY-citizenscience This pad is for collaborative thinking around the European Stakeholder Round Table on Citizen and DIY Science & beyond. 
Link to roundtable: http://ecsa.citizen-science.net/events/ecsa-events/european-stakeholder-round-table-citizen-and-diy-science-and-rri
http://ecsa.citizen-science.net/
---
    
Contributors to this pad:

Useful links:

Compiled thoughts & ideas:
    
    Christian de Lutz (Art Laboratory Berlin) 
    Agree with much of Rüdiger's notes. 
    
    I have offered to help write and edit the paper to E commision on DIYBio (led by Lucas Evers) I don't expecttohave the draft for a few weeks or so, but when I do I have said I would share it with individual stakeholders (meaning YOU!) for suggestions and criticism. As I am only one member of the working group I don't have authority to post ithe work in progress publicly, but have the OK to share it with individuals. so contact me (cdelutz@artlaboratory Berlin  just send with subject line DIYBIO -include this email). 
    
    Also, I will push within the group to have late or final drafts made available for public input! 

Tomas (Technarium):
I think this [citizen science] is naturally linked to the ideas of hackerspaces, including Technarium.

It would be great to strenghten the science aspect at Technarium; even though my own input is mostly technical, my friends & colleagues  often complain how it is for them at universities
Recently we had an idea to to set up some things with a private Baltic Institute of Advance technology, in order to make the biolab more active. At least start exploring this dirction, setting up small citizen science projects etc., as long as members need it? We could include a "citizen science lab" or even a whole "institute" idea into our strategic thinking.
We could try to set up some links with the city council, because these activities would also be a selling point in finding funding & writing projects.

Perhaps we should also add Technarium to ECSA, if there is value in that

opit (Technarium):
-- naturally emerging, engaging outreach possibilities: communities at
hackerspaces/makerspaces are already curious and enthusiastic about
science. (we have many examples to illustrate this at Technarium, including ones in Egle's Master thesis)

-- All the output and most tools are open, as oposed to paywalled
results of many branches of mainstream science. Citizen scientists like
to share and collaborate instead of rushing to patent their ideas and
scoop the other scientists.

-- There are many people trained in science who are now outside academia
for various reasons. Public technical spaces provide an opportunity for
them to engage with science at their own pace and preference without
pressure to publish/do administrative work/teach and avoiding precarious
and frustrating efforts of getting funding  -- so it's often more fun.

-- easy manufacturing of missing parts/tools/equipment, rapid, easy
prototyping of applied science ideas: scientists do not have to go
through long bureaucratic processes to obtain things they need. Most
science institutions no longer have in-house workshops, so even
scientists affiliated with established institutions come to Technarium
to make/obtain stuff 

-- ^related to interdisciplinary nature and ease of collaboration at
such spaces: a biochemist can come to ceramics studio and make
themselves a missing part
(http://blog.technariumas.lt/post/142784477066/technical-ceramics), ask
someone at the electronics lab to reverse-engineer a spectrometer
protocol, make a 3D model
(http://blog.technariumas.lt/post/140147190011/3d-printed-cap-lock-for-an-eppendorf-tube)
and CNC-cut or 3D print something they need, go to the metal workshop
and make a heatsink for a laser
(http://blog.technariumas.lt/post/142341724461/more-lasers), etc. People
interested in growing stuff in the greenhouse ask the biolab for help
with measuring the spectra of growlights, while another biochemist plans
to use the same greenhouse for bug ecosystems research and people
skilled in hardware have already started automating the greenhouse.

Dalius (Technarium):
I think hackerspaces are ideal spaces to connect scientists, who know about science, can demystify it [make it understood that it is more accesible than sometimes seems], but create opportunities for scientists to get technical support, since the scientists often mystify the technical aspect (especial in biosciences).

[regarding scientists taking advantage of the hackerspace folks] I don't think that's a big issue. They will be abused only as much as they let themselves be so. There must be a two-way discussion always, so it doesn't end up that one side is doing the work, and one side is getting the money. Simply - both sides can both learn a lot from each other, how to do the things you need to do yourself, easier. And rom my personal perspective, my thoughts and ideas are totally free for everyone to use :) 
 
Darlene (of SciStarter):
it would be great to help inform the new Tools database which will help us make citsci tools available via a Build, Borrow, and/or Buy option we are building out.
We hope this becomes a place where DIYers can make their developments more discoverable to citizen scientists and project owners.
It's possible we could fast-track the database developments so it can accept new records in time for the ECSA-DIY event. This would be an alpha version but enough to start the conversation.
I'd love to hear their thoughts on what low-cost tools would be most useful to most people (we'd aim to build the kits around these tools).


Lucy (Berlin Science Hacking community)
The Berlin Science Hacking Community (http://www.meetup.com/Berlin-Science-Hacking/), formed around Science Hack Day Berlin (http://berlin.sciencehackday.org/): a mix of scientists, designers, developers, artists and enthusiasts who hack together in their spare time on interdisciplinary projects that take DIY approaches to scientific ideas, data, or methodologies, repurposing/subverting/celibrating/questioning them for cultural/societal/scientific applications. As a volunteer organisation we are very limited in scope, but our approach, accumulated expertise, and community would offer great potential for knowledge transfer and citizen science. 
In terms of policy support, our community would request (initial ideas):

_ a way to connect our community to academic science in a more substantial way (i.e. not just PhD students in their limited spare time). I would advocate for funding to support hackspaces, DIY bio labs, or science shops inside universities or (scientific/cultural) institutions that encourage serious collaboration between university/institution researchers at all career levels together with groups/communities from OUTSIDE of those universities/institutions. Good examples are the Imperial College Advanced Hackspace in London (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/advanced-hackspace/) and the Manchester Metropolitan Digital Innovation Space (http://diginnmmu.com/). Both provide support to mixed internal/external communities. Taking full advantage of the potential of these kind of collaborations would make everyone feel like their time was well spent.

_ funded positions for community managers (this work is time-consuming and usually very undervalued), either through grants or as staff positions, perhaps at the kind of hackerspaces mentioned above.

_ instead of only funding new initiatives, offer sustainability funding for pre-existing successful volunteer-run projects that might otherwise die out - rather like funding basic infrastructure for DIY science communities (funding space, personnel, some basic overheads) - this gives such communities the chance to professionalise and start applying for further funding. For example, it is only through this kind of funding that publiclab has become so successful. 

_ maker communities bridge the line between citizen science and knowledge transfer - perhaps it makes sense for the two strands to sometimes join forces in terms of policy-making and funding.

_ similarly, DIY science/maker communities have a lot more to offer science than just the development of DIY data collection tools for volunteer data collection. But IMO it's still an open question - is citizen science ONLY about novel empirical research, or does it also include scientific knowledge transfer...?

_ to ensure that DIY science (typically volunteer-run projects/communities, without the resources or capacity to afford conference registration fees or to attend weekday meetings) can expect the same level of representation and support as any other stakeholder in the citizen science movement, if it is claimed that they are part of that movement.


Egle (Technarium perspective):
-          What does “responsible research” mean for your project?
-          How is “open science” relevant to your project?
-          Where do you see common ground between Citizen Science and DIYScience? 

Pen (Pen-Yuan Hsing) (of Durham University/MammalWeb project http://www.MammalWeb.org/)

I just like to add that the word "open" has been brought up several times in this pad. Openness is commonly used to describe things (e.g. open source), but if you ask ten people you might get 10 definitions of it. Therefore I think it is important to establish a specific understanding of the term "open", and the hacker/maker culture is a good starting point. As said by Egle, all work is free (referring to freedom, not price) for others to study, build upon, and re-share (the Free Software Foundation Europe has a great explanation of this for software: https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/4freedoms.en.html). This approach and its underlying freedom (which is sadly lacking in today's academia) is extremely productive and ethical, and is a model that "professional" scientists should learn from. This is an important part of the two-way discussion as mentioned by Dalius.



Rüdiger:Hey Synenergeners,
    yesterday I participated at the Do It Together (DITO) Science EU    Program stakeholder roundtable.
    This is what the website states about the project:
    
    "Doing It Together Science (DITOs) will implement many innovative    participatory event formats across Europe focusing on the active    involvement of citizens in two critical areas: the cutting edge    topic of biodesign and the pressing area of environmental    monitoring. The project will advance the EU Responsible Research      and Innovation agenda by moving beyond more traditional approaches      into direct engagement that builds upon DIY, grassroots, and      frugal innovation initiatives so that in the short and medium term      we sustain localised capacity building and in the long term the      effects of these grassroots efforts channel into policy action at      different levels.
    The consortium includes a pan-European network (European Citizen    Science Association ECSA - linking practitioners, scientists, and    supporting policy makers), SMEs (Tekiu; Eutema), universities (UCL;    Université Paris Descartes - CRI; Université de Geneve), science    galleries, museums and arts organisations (Kapelica Gallery /    Kersnikova; Medialab-Prado; RBINS) and NGOs (Meritum Association;    Waag Society). These organisations cross multiple countries and    languages, enabling coverage of much of Europe in its native    languages.
    Dr Katrin Vohland (Naturkundemuseum Berlin), vice-chair of the    European Citizen Science Association added: "DITOs provides a      great opportunity not only to experiment with different pathways      for different persons and communities to engage at different      intensities but to enhance mutual learning for lasting effects at      the interface of science and society.""
    
    It sounds like smooth language, but in reality, when you meet the    people on the spot, it becomes obvious that the only organisations    that have any ties and reputation in grassroots citizen science    projects are the Waag society and the art people from Kapelica    Gallery. The rest of them were classical institutes that understand    citizen science in a top down fashion in the style of:
    Let the illiterate citizen do the laborous work for the      scientists, they will be happy and grateful to make a      contribution.
    It made the impression as if DITO and ECSA use a lot of not or    poorly understood buzzwords like
    biomimicry, biodesign, do it together science, mutual learning,    Responsible Research and Innovation, Open Science 
    
    During the event it got obvious that there is a schizm between    grassroots and top down citizen science.
    Martin Brocklehurst, Policy, Strategy, Governance and Partnerships    for DITO for instance wants citizen science 
    in a strict top down fashion, citizens as mere data providers to    research institutes. unpaid, of course, doing the laborous work in    the field.
    Somtimes Naturkundemuseum boss Vogel hovers over the scene like a    zeppelin, far away and bloated beyond proportion, not involved in    the discussion on citizen science and most likely not even noticing    the contradictions in the DITO program. At one time a strange    Journalist from the TAZ (communist newspaper in germany) grabbed me    and questioned me on the relationship between islamic state    terrorists and biohackers, which i never heard of to this point. He    bought my book and may feature it in TAZ. (not a nice thought to be    put in such a context, but at least it would boot the sales :)
    Luckily, Waag society leader Lucas Evers a biohack-promoter and    beneficiary was speaking up against attempts to criminalize    biohacking.
       
    In contrast to this top down attitude, Egle, a biohacker and science    communicator from Technarium Hackerspace, Lithuania, came unpaid    participant to the event. She told me her perspective:
    _What does “responsible research” mean for your project?
    including everyone in the research process who wants to be included    - by doing citizen science, by helping to build lab tools, by    organizing the activities; allowing all "citizens" to play a part,    if they want to be a part of it
    communicate the research process & the results to a wide    audience, as clearly as possible, without jargon (blog)
    educate everyone involved (as well as just hearing about the    project) about what we're actually doing; all citizens have the    right to understand, and to ask as many questions as they like 
    _How is “open science” relevant to your project?
    "open" is at the core of what we do at Technarium. We believe      the process of science (not just results) needs to be shared with      each other, and with the public
    open science allows other people to build upon our ideas & our    work. What comes out of Technarium is totally free to grab
    -          Where do you see common ground between Citizen Science    and DIYScience? 
    both "communities" believe science can and should be done beyond      the walls of academia 
    some DIY scientists are already citizen scientists - we are      doing the same thing; except we are completely grass roots,    but that is included in the definition of citizen science
    we have the same goals: contribute to knowledge gaining, solve      major problems like fossil fuels, disease etc., improve the      scientific understanding of the public, push the boundaries of      science
    
    Another external visitor in the stakeholder meeting, Eugenio    Battaglia, Hackeria member and a frequent participant of my    workshops and events in Synenergene and co-creator of the Biocommons    concept
    complained to me about this unpaid work citizens are asked to do    when taking part in RRI processes:
    
    "Yea, I did not "work", like I didn't have a contract whatsoever : ^    ) like many of these consortia is not clear the type of      engagement, but even if it were only correcting your text    writing application trying to connect some value between the two    thing, or neurotically translate the paper to in a night of august    to put it online, that's for me working. There's no money      nor contract involved, and I know! But I value also    other types of currencies, like respect. Ah, yea, besides, traveling    (not always reimbursed), organizing at my expense the event in    Italy, and pretty much a lot of my time and attention connecting    with people, and helping you. Yea, "I didn't worked", in fact I      don't claimed to have had a contract. I don't blame it to you, of      course. but the type of engagement and crowdsourcing of people's      brain in such kind of consortia is not always clear. That's why I      got nausea of this public stuff."
    This struck me personally, as i was the one doing the RRI in the    grassroots community for years, asking my friends, colleagues and    citizens to participate in the events for synenergen, making the    promise we
    can actually influence EU comission politics on Citizen Science. I    noted this down and read it during the stakeholder workshop to Ron      Dekker, Open Science Policy Platform, European Commission, DG      Research and Innovation He seemed to understand it and    replied something like that we have to build a parallel structure    for citizen science, as it is not going to work with this old people    
    from the institutes (yes, it has something to do with a generational    shift in academia!)
    
    
    In a response to the ECSA show-off in Naturkundemuseum hackteria    posted this comment on their facebook page:
    "The new schicki-micki scene of citizen science.
    As often these days #culturalamnesia Someone yesterday told me: "You      pay taxes, and you do citizen science for twenty years or      something, then somebody win a grant to understand citizen      science, stealing a lot of your concepts, idea and work,      apparently ignoring your existence or the existence of what you      represent, without respect. But then they know you and they    offer you to participate (for free of course!), but only in events    organised in the Tuesday morning(!)... because yeah, every citizen    science activist is usually free during the week. He/she doesn't    have a job. You know? They just go around and do everything for    free, that's why we love them, they might think up there". It's a    war between poor people, because at the end you cannot even blame    any random researcher probably more prekariat than you who ends up    doing part of his exploitational PhD or post doc cause the PI happen    to be in such kind of consortia #sick #diwym
        https://www.facebook.com/hackteria/?ref=nf
    
    
    Lucy Patterson, a unemployed grassroots citizen science    practitioner (PhD. in moleular Biology and former Science    Communicator). She is well known as has a long track record in    Citizen Science in Berlin. She founded and leads the Berlin      Science Hacking Community (http://www.meetup.com/Berlin-Science-Hacking/),    which formed around Science Hack Day Berlin    (http://berlin.sciencehackday.org/): a mix of scientists, designers,    developers, artists and enthusiasts who hack together in their spare    time on interdisciplinary projects that take DIY approaches to    scientific ideas, data, or methodologies,    repurposing/subverting/celibrating/questioning them for    cultural/societal/scientific applications. As a volunteer    organisation she says, they are very limited in scope, but their    approach, accumulated expertise, and community would offer great    potential for knowledge transfer and citizen science. In terms of    policy support, their community would request:
    
    _ a way to connect our community to academic science in a more    substantial way (i.e. not just PhD students in their limited spare    time). I would advocate for funding to support hackspaces, DIY      bio labs, or science shops inside universities or      (scientific/cultural) institutions that encourage serious    collaboration between university/institution researchers at all    career levels together with groups/communities from OUTSIDE of those    universities/institutions. Good examples are the Imperial College    Advanced Hackspace in London    (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/advanced-hackspace/) and the Manchester    Metropolitan Digital Innovation Space (http://diginnmmu.com/). Both    provide support to mixed internal/external communities. Taking full    advantage of the potential of these kind of collaborations would    make everyone feel like their time was well spent.
    
    _ funded positions for community managers (this work is      time-consuming and usually very undervalued), either through    grants or as staff positions, perhaps at the kind of hackerspaces    mentioned above.
    
    _ instead of only funding new initiatives, offer sustainability      funding for pre-existing successful volunteer-run projects    that might otherwise die out - rather like funding basic    infrastructure for DIY science communities (funding space,    personnel, some basic overheads) - this gives such communities the    chance to professionalise and start applying for further funding.    For example, it is only through this kind of funding that publiclab    has become so successful. 
    
    _ maker communities bridge the line between citizen science and    knowledge transfer - perhaps it makes sense for the two strands to    sometimes join forces in terms of policy-making and funding.
    
    _ similarly, DIY science/maker communities have a lot more to offer    science than just the development of DIY data collection tools for    volunteer data collection. But IMO it's still an open question - is    citizen science ONLY about novel empirical research, or does it also    include scientific knowledge transfer...?
    
    _ to ensure that DIY science (typically volunteer-run    projects/communities, without the resources or capacity to afford    conference registration fees or to attend weekday meetings) can    expect the same level of representation and support as any other    stakeholder in the citizen science movement, if it is claimed that    they are part of that movement. (added by Rüdiger: the last event by    ECSA cost 380€ entrance fee and there were bodyguards shielding off    the public from the venue)
    
    Another person from EU comission level, Dr. Philippe Galiay,    European Commission, DG Research and Innovation 
    told us during the workshop that the EU comission allocated 480.000.000 Euro to Citizen Science.
    http://opendays2015.lodzkie.pl/dr-philippe-galiay/
            
    Taken together, Naturkundemuseum Berlin, DITO and ECSA are    showing off as biohackers and DIYbio people, althought they have no    clue what they are talking about (with few exceptions).   
    Most obviously, the claims of Biodesign is ill guided and most    likely unsuccessfull attempt to override the 
    emancipatory and anti-authoritatian narrative inherent in biohacking    culture, while maintaining the fancy aspects of the topic.
    The appearance of DITO and ECSA was unprofessional, showed a lack of    knowledge of their very topic citizen science and acted disrespectul    and 
    exclusive to grassroots organisations and individuals. DITO seem      to me to be a kind of "potemkin village" for EU commission to cash      in using fashionable buzzwords. 
    
    In general, the concept and outcomes of RRI need to be critically    reviwed. If there is no real world impact, RRI means stealing    valuable time of volunteering citizens for nothing.
    
    Lessons learned for Synenergene: We need to make sure to    feed our insights and experience to the EU comission level so that    our work was not in vain. 
    The citizen science policy must not be implemented in a top down    fashion and the needs and potential of grassroots communities 
    need to be taken into account and adressed adequatly. This means    grassroots Citizens Scientists need to be able to influence 
    where these 480M Euro will be spent. If not, people will understand    quickly that they were tricked and then RRI will a dead concept very    soon.
    Further, a knowledge transfer between Synenergene RRI practices and    DITO to prevent or maybe even reverse the ongoing degradation of the    RRI idea is an important move. 
    Mr. Schomburg and the other policy makers we were working for all    these years, the ball is in your field now, show us that RRI and    citizen involvment in EU politics is a two way road.
    
    Thanks for reading to the end.
    Best,
    Rüdiger Trojok