37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The language of “participant-driven research,” “crowdsourcing” and “citizen science” is increasingly being used to encourage the public to become involved in research ventures as both subjects and scientists. Originally, these labels were invoked by volunteer research efforts propelled by amateurs outside of traditional research institutions and aimed at appealing to those looking for more “democratic,” “patient-centric,” or “lay” alternatives to the professional science establishment. As mainstream translational biomedical research requires increasingly larger participant pools, however, corporate, academic and governmental research programs are embracing this populist rhetoric to encourage wider public participation.

          Discussion

          We examine the ethical and social implications of this recruitment strategy. We begin by surveying examples of “citizen science” outside of biomedicine, as paradigmatic of the aspirations this democratizing rhetoric was originally meant to embody. Next, we discuss the ways these aspirations become articulated in the biomedical context, with a view to drawing out the multiple and potentially conflicting meanings of “public engagement” when citizens are also the subjects of the science. We then illustrate two uses of public engagement rhetoric to gain public support for national biomedical research efforts: its post-hoc use in the “care.data” project of the National Health Service in England, and its proactive uses in the “Precision Medicine Initiative” of the United States White House. These examples will serve as the basis for a normative analysis, discussing the potential ethical and social ramifications of this rhetoric.

          Summary

          We pay particular attention to the implications of government strategies that cultivate the idea that members of the public have a civic duty to participate in government-sponsored research initiatives. We argue that such initiatives should draw from policy frameworks that support normative analysis of the role of citizenry. And, we conclude it is imperative to make visible and clear the full spectrum of meanings of “citizen science,” the contexts in which it is used, and its demands with respect to participation, engagement, and governance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Citizen science. Next steps for citizen science.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research.

              Advances in computing technology and bioinformatics mean that medical research is increasingly characterized by large international consortia of researchers that are reliant on large data sets and biobanks. These trends raise a number of challenges for obtaining consent, protecting participant privacy concerns and maintaining public trust. Participant-centred initiatives (PCIs) use social media technologies to address these immediate concerns, but they also provide the basis for long-term interactive partnerships. Here, we give an overview of this rapidly moving field by providing an analysis of the different PCI approaches, as well as the benefits and challenges of implementing PCIs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jane.kaye@law.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Med Ethics
                BMC Med Ethics
                BMC Medical Ethics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6939
                4 June 2016
                4 June 2016
                2016
                : 17
                : 33
                Affiliations
                [ ]University of Oxford, Harris Manchester College, Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TD UK
                [ ]The Pennsylvania State University, 128B Willard Building, University Park, PA 16802 USA
                [ ]Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Ewert House, Ewert Place, Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 7DD UK
                [ ]McGill University, Social Studies of Medicine, 3647 Peel, Room 207, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1X1 Canada
                [ ]School of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 123 Women’s Building, Corvallis, OR 97331-8577 USA
                [ ]Department of Philosophy & Moral Sciences Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Gent, Belgium
                [ ]333 MacNider Hall, Campus Box 7240, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 333S. Columbia Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7240 USA
                Article
                117
                10.1186/s12910-016-0117-1
                4893207
                27260081
                0d6304b2-e5eb-4279-908a-f844f09550d2
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 18 December 2015
                : 23 May 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 12345678
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Debate
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Medicine
                care.data,citizenship,citizen science,crowdsourcing,big data,national health research,participant centric initiatives,precision medicine,public engagement,recruitment

                Comments

                Comment on this article