Is Citizen Science Dead?
Is Citizen Science Dead?
复制标题
公民科学死了吗？
DOI：
10.1021/acs.est.0c07873
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
11.4
通讯作者：
Stepenuck, Kristine F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lowry, Christopher S.;Stepenuck, Kristine F.
我们的世界因社会、经济、政治和环境事件而两极分化。讨论科学发现或建议不可能不引起负面反应和反对意见无论是在杂货店的非正式互动中还是在高影响力期刊的评审过程中。作为专业科学家，我们经常经历公众的不信任。这部分是由于我们未能有效地沟通我们的工作。也因为我们被驱使着去培育这个科学研究产业，这就要求我们保持对研究方向和权威的控制。因此，我们通常把科学发现推向公众，而不让他们参与新知识的产生。这就带来了一个问题，即公民科学如何融入科学统一体。从根本上说，公民科学允许专业科学家与非专业人员进行整合和接触，以产生科学成果。这是一个巨大的机会，可以弥合分歧，促进两国之间更大的合作，并在更广泛的科学领域建立信任。为了实现这一目标，我们必须评估那些加剧不平等并限制公民科学的实施和参与的包容性、偏见、剥削和实用性问题。如果没有这样的行动，这就引发了“公民科学死了吗？”公民科学内部缺乏包容性体现在命名法、招聘策略、开展科学的机制，甚至是正在解决的科学问题上。“公民科学”一词可能是两极分化的推手，1将那些感到被包容的人与那些感到被排斥的人区分开来。尽管这个领域被称为“公众参与科学研究”或其他不那么具有争议性的术语，但参与公民科学的人往往受过高等教育，富裕，缺乏全体人口的代表性。使用任何将专业科学家与非专业科学家区分开来的术语来描述科学努力或成果，都会立即在两者之间造成鸿沟，使业余科学家的权威受到质疑。公民科学的包容性还受到项目特定要求的影响，包括设备、获取途径、时间、能力和参与者分类。正在解决的科学问题也可能使某些人群无法受益，例如那些受污染影响不成比例的人群。尽管如此，协作和共同创造的公民科学模式，其中科学专业人员和非专业人员共同开发和实施研究，是成功的包容性方法的例子。以数以千计的大学推广办公室为例
Our world is polarized by social, economic, political, and environmental events. It is impossible to discuss scientific discoveries or recommendations without stirring negative reactions and opposing views whether during informal interactions at the grocery store or during the review process of high impact journals. As professional scientists, we often experience this in the form of distrust from the public. This is partially due to our failure to communicate our work effectively. It is also because we are driven to nurture this industry of scientific investigation, which requires us to maintain control over research directions and authority. As a result, we commonly push scientific discoveries outward toward the public without engaging them in the generation of new knowledge. This brings into question how citizen science fits into the scientific continuum. At its roots, citizen science allows professional scientists to integrate and engage with nonprofessionals to produce scientific results. It is a grand opportunity to bridge the divide, to foster greater collaboration and build trust between the two and in science more broadly. To accomplish this, we must evaluate issues of inclusion, bias, exploitation, and practicability that exacerbate inequities and limit implementation of, and participation in, citizen science. Without such action, this motivates the question “Is citizen science dead?” Lack of inclusivity within citizen science is manifest through nomenclature, recruitment strategies, the mechanisms by which the science is conducted, and even the scientific questions being addressed. The term “citizen science” can be a driver of polarization, 1 separating those who feel included from those who feel excluded. Those who participate in citizen science are often highly educated and affluent and lack representation of the whole population, 2 despite the field being described as “public participation in scientific research” 3 and by other less-divisive terms. 1 Using any term to describe scientific efforts or outcomes that separates professional scientists from nonprofessionals creates an instant chasm between the two, bringing into question the authority of the amateurs. Inclusivity of citizen science is also influenced by project-specific requirements including equipment, access, timing, ability, and participant classification. The scientific questions being addressed can also exclude certain populations from benefit, such as those disproportionately influenced by pollution. 4 Nonetheless, collaborative and cocreated citizen science models, in which scientific professionals and nonprofessionals work together to develop and implement research, serve as examples of successful inclusive approaches. 3 Take the case of thousands of University Extension offices