Institute For The Future

Science Cheerleader and citizen scientists

I'm interviewed on Darlene Cavalier's Science Cheerleader blog.

One of the dangers of doing history of science or science studies (both of which I studied when I was in grad school, and taught before becoming a futurist) is that you end up spending time talking to your subjects. Generally, when you're an anthropologist, the people you write about don't closely read what you write about them: monographs on highland tribal manhood rituals or the semiotics of grain exchanges are hard to get through, even if you practice those things. Scientists, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of tracking down your work, and in my experience aren't shy about telling you what they think is wrong with your work.

This isn't entirely a bad thing, by any means: I think it can serve to keep you honest, and of course if you're interested in contemporary science or scientific practice, the scientists you write about can be valuable both as informants and as collaborators.

Darlene is an example of one a trend that I've been interested in for a while: the growing role that amateur scientists (or citizen scientists, as they're also called) are playing in scientific research and public policy. This reverses a broad trend that's played out over the last century of marginalizing non-professional scientists: with the exception of a couple specialties (asteroid-hunting and birding, for example), most science has become increasingly professionalized, costly, and demanding. Public involvement in science devolved: where interested amateurs could participate in scientific research in the late 1800s, a century later public "involvement" was reduced to reading science magazines and paying taxes to support Big Science.

Now, we're seeing the beginnings of new forms of public involvement in science. In the U.K., science policy people are talking less about "public understanding of science," and more about "public engagement with science," in recognition of public demands for a greater voice in policy decisions. Darlene is a writer and producer (and yes, a former cheerleader) who's interested in environmental science and science policy.

Could this really go somewhere? We've got a group on X2 on amateur science, and it's one of the more active groups in the project. Certainly, just as in the past, there are some areas where amateurs are not likely to make much of a contribution (those backyard particle accelerators aren't on anyone's horizon, and not everyone can do tensor calculus), and others in which the divisions of labor and authority between amateurs and professionals will be the subject of tense negotiation. But cheaper instruments (environmental sensors, for example), are starting to lower the economic barriers to doing high-quality data-gathering. The Internet makes it easier for amateurs to find each other, share data, access and analyze large data sets, and keep up with fields they're interested in. In a few areas, professional scientists have recognized that amateurs or local peoples have a lot of knowledge about flora, fauna, and climate that would be useful to them (see the Cybertracker project). Finally, the bad job market for academic science has yielded a generation of highly-trained scientists who don't hold conventional research jobs, but can't be dismissed as mere dilettantes.

I'll leave the last word on the subject to Duke neuroscientist Miguel Nicolesis. The Brazilian-born Nicolesis is doing some pretty amazing work involving direct brain control of artificial limbs, but he's also very involved in improving science education in Brazil. As Scientific American put it:

 

In Nicolelis’s view, reaching children well before college age is crucial. He believes that science education strengthens critical thinking skills in general, and he plans to use improvements in the children’s regular school performance as a benchmark for the effectiveness of the supplementary classes at institute science schools. If some of the kids become interested in pursuing science and technology careers, they will find plenty of opportunities in the knowledge economy. “Ninety-nine percent of scientific work doesn’t require a Ph.D.,” he insists.