“Let’s pull these technologies out of the ivory tower”: The politics, ethos, and ironies of participant-driven genomic research

Navigating biosafety concerns within COVID-19 do-it-yourself (DIY) science: an ethnographic and interview study

Non-establishment or do-it-yourself (DIY) science involves individuals who may not have formal training conducting experiments outside of institutional settings. While prior scholarship has examined the motivations and values of those involved in the subset of DIY science known as "DIY biology," little research has addressed how these individuals navigate ethical issues in practice. The present study therefore aimed to understand how DIY biologists identify, approach, and resolve one particular ethical issue-biosafety-in their work. We conducted a digital ethnography of Just One Giant Lab (JOGL), the primary hub for DIY biology during the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequently conducted interviews with individuals involved with JOGL. We found that JOGL was the first global DIY biology initiative to create a Biosafety Advisory Board and develop formal biosafety guidelines that applied to different groups in multiple locations. There was disagreement, however, regarding whether the Board should have an advisory role or provide mandatory oversight. We found that JOGL practiced ethical gatekeeping of projects that fell outside the limits defined by the Board. Our findings show that the DIY biology community recognized biosafety issues and tried to build infrastructure to facilitate the safe conduct of research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2.

Pirate Talk: Navigating Practical, Ethical, and Legal Issues Associated with Biomedical Citizen Science Interview Studies

In citizen science, in-depth interviews have advanced the understanding of project leaders' and citizen scientists' objectives, motivations, attitudes, and concerns. The issues encountered by researchers conducting in-depth interviews in citizen science are likely not unique to this field. However, these issues can surface and play out in distinct ways that depend on the scientific and sociopolitical circumstances of citizen science communities and projects. Researchers' experiences conducting in-depth interviews are the subject of a growing literature that describes considerations for conducting research with discrete populations. We aim to contribute to this literature by describing salient practical, ethical, and legal issues to consider when interviewing biomedical citizen scientists, with a focus on bottom-up biomedical citizen scientists who have loose or no affiliations with traditional scientific institutions. These issues concern how to define the interview population; earn trust and demonstrate trustworthiness given past treatment of bottom-up biomedical citizen scientists by traditional researchers and institutions; adapt research practices to the strong culture of openness that characterizes bottom-up biomedical citizen science; and manage potential safety concerns. This essay draws on our own experiences and those of other qualitative researchers and makes suggestions for addressing these issues in ways intended to protect study integrity and demonstrate respect for participants. We also identify questions that would benefit from broad input and continued study. Our objectives in sharing these lessons learned are to support future research and to improve understanding of this exciting participatory space.

Responsibility in Medical Sociology: A Second, Reflexive Look

Personal responsibility has emerged as an important element in many countries' public health planning, and has attracted substantial debate in public health discourse. Contemporary medical sociology typically resists such "responsibilization" as victim-blaming, by privileged elites, that obscures important structural factors and inequities. This paper, based primarily on a broad review of how contemporary Anglophone medical sociology literatures treat responsibility and blame, points out advantages of taking responsibility seriously, particularly from the individual's perspective. These advantages include: empowerment; responsibility-as-coping-mechanism; moral dignity; and the pragmatic logic of doing for oneself, rather than passively awaiting societal reforms. We also offer possible reasons why sociologists and their subjects view these issues so differently, and suggest some areas for future research.

The Promissory Visions of DIYbio: Reimaging Science from the Fringe

Recent years have seen a proliferation of do-it-yourself biology (DIYbio) initiatives, consisting of people undertaking a range of bioscience activities outside traditional research environments. DIYbio initiatives, while diverse, exist at the fringes of institutionalised science, which enables them to advance different promissory visions about what science, especially bioscience, could or should become in the future, including how it should be governed. These visions reconfigure conventional delineations of science in politically and normatively loaded ways that can simultaneously reaffirm, contest, and shift the traditional epistemic foundations of science. They put forth alternative science futures in ways that highlight the performative force of promissory visions in shaping not only mainstream but also fringe science activity. DIYbio offers a fruitful lens for understanding how science is currently being reconfigured by unconventional actors to encompass new meanings and domains. It offers a different angle on the wider sociology of expectations engagement with the future as an analytical object, by showing how the future of science is constructed and managed from the fringe. Yet, DIYbio initiatives' promissory visions are also embedded within neoliberal ideals of productive and entrepreneurial citizens, highlighting how the wider socio-economic context constrains the alternative futures manufactured by these initiatives.

Citation needed? Wikipedia bibliometrics during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

With the COVID-19 pandemic’s outbreak, millions flocked to Wikipedia for updated information. Amid growing concerns regarding an “infodemic,” ensuring the quality of information is a crucial vector of public health. Investigating whether and how Wikipedia remained up to date and in line with science is key to formulating strategies to counter misinformation. Using citation analyses, we asked which sources informed Wikipedia’s COVID-19–related articles before and during the pandemic’s first wave (January–May 2020).

Results

We found that coronavirus-related articles referenced trusted media outlets and high-quality academic sources. Regarding academic sources, Wikipedia was found to be highly selective in terms of what science was cited. Moreover, despite a surge in COVID-19 preprints, Wikipedia had a clear preference for open-access studies published in respected journals and made little use of preprints. Building a timeline of English-language COVID-19 articles from 2001–2020 revealed a nuanced trade-off between quality and timeliness. It further showed how pre-existing articles on key topics related to the virus created a framework for integrating new knowledge. Supported by a rigid sourcing policy, this “scientific infrastructure” facilitated contextualization and regulated the influx of new information. Last, we constructed a network of DOI-Wikipedia articles, which showed the landscape of pandemic-related knowledge on Wikipedia and how academic citations create a web of shared knowledge supporting topics like COVID-19 drug development.

Conclusions

Understanding how scientific research interacts with the digital knowledge-sphere during the pandemic provides insight into how Wikipedia can facilitate access to science. It also reveals how, aided by what we term its “citizen encyclopedists,” it successfully fended off COVID-19 disinformation and how this unique model may be deployed in other contexts.

"Idealists and capitalists": ownership attitudes and preferences in genomic citizen science

The perspectives of genomic citizen scientists on ownership of research outputs are not well understood, yet they are useful for identifying alignment of participant expectations and project practices and can help guide efforts to develop innovative tools and strategies for managing ownership claims. Here, we report findings from 52 interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 to understand genomic citizen science stakeholders' conceptualizations of, experiences with, and preferences for ownership of research outputs. Interviewees identified four approaches for recognizing genomic citizen scientists' ownership and related credit interests in research outputs: shared governance via commons models; fractional ownership of benefits; full and creative attribution; and offensive and defensive patenting. Interviewees also agreed that the model selected by any project should at least maximize access to research outputs and, as appropriate and to the extent possible, broadly distribute rights of control and entitlements to research benefits.

Entrepreneurial treatment activism for undone science: mannitol and Parkinson's disease

This paper describes CliniCrowd, a patient-designed, entrepreneurial, crowd-sourced citizen-science approach to evaluating mannitol-essentially, an orphan drug-as a Parkinson's disease treatment. As such, CliniCrowd addresses 'undone science', and our paper contributes to the sociological literature thereon. Based on 38 qualitative interviews, fieldwork, and content analyses (2017-2020), we trace CliniCrowd's background and rationale. We: discuss undone science and its wider contexts; present earlier iterations of citizen-science and treatment activism; examine CliniCrowd's application of crowd-sourced citizen-science to address undone science around 'orphan drug' treatment for Parkinson's disease; explore how CliniCrowd has evolved, and re-framed its work, since its founding; ponder its future; and consider whether their approach can guide future citizen-science treatment research. Our paper contributes to the existing literature in four ways. First, we focus on medical treatment issues, an under-studied area of undone science. Second, we highlight orphan drugs as both major source of, and fruitful area for research on, undone science. Third, we describe CliniCrowd's pragmatic, entrepreneurial-rather than the more common activist-citizen-science approach to addressing undone treatment science. Finally, from our data on CliniCrowd we distil a preliminary model for future treatment activism around undone science.

"A cohort of pirate ships": biomedical citizen scientists' attitudes toward ethical oversight

As biomedical citizen science initiatives become more prevalent, the unique ethical issues that they raise are attracting policy attention. The ethical oversight of bottom-up biomedical citizen science projects that are designed and executed primarily or solely by members of the public is a significant concern because the federal rules that require ethical oversight of research by institutional review boards generally do not apply to such projects, creating what has been called an ethics gap. Working to close this gap, practitioners and scholars have considered new mechanisms of ethical oversight for biomedical citizen science. To date, however, participants' attitudes about ethics and oversight preferences have not been systematically examined. This information is useful to efforts to develop ethical oversight mechanisms because it provides a basis for evaluating the likely effectiveness of specific features of such mechanisms and their acceptability from the perspective of biomedical citizen scientists. Here, we report data from qualitative interviews with 35 stakeholders in bottom-up biomedical citizen science about their general ethics attitudes and preferences regarding ethical oversight. Interviewees described ten ethical priorities and endorsed oversight mechanisms that are voluntary, community-driven, and offer guidance. Conversely, interviewees rejected mechanisms that are mandatory, hierarchical, and inflexible. Applying these findings, we conclude that expert consultation and community review models appear to align well with ethical priorities and oversight preferences of many biomedical citizen scientists, although local conditions should guide the development and use of mechanisms in specific communities.

How Biomedical Citizen Scientists Define What They Do: It's All in the Name

BACKGROUND

As citizen science continues to grow in popularity, there remains disagreement about what terms should be used to describe citizen science activities and participants. The question of how to self-identify has important ethical, political, and practical implications to the extent that shared language reflects a common ethos and goals and shapes behavior. Biomedical citizen science in particular has come to be associated with terms that reflect its unique activities, concerns, and priorities. To date, however, there is scant evidence regarding how biomedical citizen scientists prefer to describe themselves, their work, and the values that they attach to these terms.

METHODS

In 2018, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 biomedical citizen scientists in connection with a larger study to understand ownership preferences. Interview data were analyzed to identify the terms that interviewees used and avoided to describe themselves and their work, as well as the reasons for their preferences.

RESULTS

Biomedical citizen scientists self-identified using three main terms: citizen scientist, biohacker, and community scientist. However, there was a lack of consensus among interviewees on the appropriateness of each term, two of which prompted conflicting responses. Self-identification preferences were based on personal judgments about whether specific terms convey respect, are provocative, or are broad and inclusive, as well as the desirability of each of these messages.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of consensus about self-identification preferences in biomedical citizen science reflects the diversity of experiences and goals of individuals participating in this field, as well as different perceptions of the values signaled by and implications of using each term. Heterogeneity of preferences also may signal the parallel development of multiple communities in biomedical citizen science.

Credit for and Control of Research Outputs in Genomic Citizen Science

Citizen science encompasses activities with scientific objectives in which members of the public participate as more than passive research subjects from whom personal data or biospecimens are collected and analyzed by others. Citizen science is increasingly common in the biomedical sciences, including the fields of genetics and human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives are diverse and involve citizen scientists in collecting genetic data, solving genetic puzzles, and conducting experiments in community laboratories. At the same time that genomic citizen science is presenting new opportunities for individuals to participate in scientific discovery, it is also challenging norms regarding the manner in which scientific research outputs are managed. In this review, we present a typology of genomic citizen science initiatives, describe ethical and legal foundations for recognizing genomic citizen scientists' claims of credit for and control of research outputs, and detail how such claims are or might be addressed in practice across a variety of initiatives.

Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs?

BACKGROUND

Citizen science is increasingly prevalent in the biomedical sciences, including the field of human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives present new opportunities to engage individuals in scientific discovery, but they also are provoking new questions regarding who owns the outputs of the research, including intangible ideas and discoveries and tangible writings, tools, technologies, and products. The legal and ethical claims of participants to research outputs become stronger-and also more likely to conflict with those of institution-based researchers and other stakeholders-as participants become more involved, quantitatively and qualitatively, in the research process. It is not yet known, however, how genomic citizen science initiatives are managing the interests of their participants in accessing and controlling research outputs in practice. To help fill this gap, we conducted an in-depth review of relevant policies and practices of U.S.-based genomic citizen science initiatives.

METHODS

We queried the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature to identify 22 genomic citizen science initiatives that satisfied six inclusion criteria. A data collection form was used to capture initiative features, policies, and practices relevant to participants' access to and control over research outputs.

RESULTS

This analysis revealed that the genomic citizen science landscape is diverse and includes many initiatives that do not have institutional affiliations. Two trends that are in apparent tension were identified: commercialization and operationalization of a philosophy of openness. While most initiatives supported participants' access to research outputs, including datasets and published findings, none supported participants' control over results via intellectual property, licensing, or commercialization rights. However, several initiatives disclaimed their own rights to profit from outputs.

CONCLUSIONS

There are opportunities for citizen science initiatives to incorporate more features that support participants' access to and control over research outputs, consistent with their specific objectives, operations, and technical capabilities.

Meeting the needs of underserved populations: setting the agenda for more inclusive citizen science of medicine

In its expansion to genomic, epidemiological and biomedical research, citizen science has been promoted as contributing to the democratisation of medical research and healthcare. At the same time, it has been criticised for reinforcing patterns of exclusion in health and biomedicine, and sometimes even creating new ones. Although citizen science has the potential to make biomedical research more inclusive, the benefits of current citizen science initiatives are not equally accessible for all people-in particular those who are resource-poor, located outside of traditional networks of healthcare services, or members of minorities and marginalised groups. In view of growing public investments in participatory research endeavours, we argue that it should be considered more explicitly if, and how, citizen science could help make research more inclusive, contribute to the public good, and possibly even lead to better and more equitable healthcare. Reflecting on emerging ethical concerns for scientific conduct and best medical practice, we propose a set of relevant considerations for researchers, practitioners, bioethicists, funders and participants who seek to advance ethical practices of citizen-led health initiatives, and address profound differences in position, privilege and power in research.

Open Humans: A platform for participant-centered research and personal data exploration

BACKGROUND

Many aspects of our lives are now digitized and connected to the internet. As a result, individuals are now creating and collecting more personal data than ever before. This offers an unprecedented chance for human-participant research ranging from the social sciences to precision medicine. With this potential wealth of data comes practical problems (e.g., how to merge data streams from various sources), as well as ethical problems (e.g., how best to balance risks and benefits when enabling personal data sharing by individuals).

RESULTS

To begin to address these problems in real time, we present Open Humans, a community-based platform that enables personal data collections across data streams, giving individuals more personal data access and control of sharing authorizations, and enabling academic research as well as patient-led projects. We showcase data streams that Open Humans combines (e.g., personal genetic data, wearable activity monitors, GPS location records, and continuous glucose monitor data), along with use cases of how the data facilitate various projects.

CONCLUSIONS

Open Humans highlights how a community-centric ecosystem can be used to aggregate personal data from various sources, as well as how these data can be used by academic and citizen scientists through practical, iterative approaches to sharing that strive to balance considerations with participant autonomy, inclusion, and privacy.

User Perspectives of a Web-Based Data-Sharing Platform (Open Humans) on Ethical Oversight in Participant-Led Research: Protocol for a Quantitative Study

BACKGROUND

Advances in medicine rely to a great extent on people's willingness to share their data with researchers. With increasingly widespread use of digital technologies, several Web-based communities have emerged aiming to enable their users to share large amounts of data, some of which can possibly be employed for research purposes by scientists, or to conduct participant-led research (PLR). Scholarship has recently addressed the necessity of interrogating how existing ethical standards can and should be applied and adapted in view of the specificities of such Web-based activities. So far, no study has explored participants' beliefs about and attitudes toward ethical oversight when it comes to platforms that involve medical data sharing.

OBJECTIVE

This paper presents the protocol for a survey study aimed at understanding users' beliefs about Web-based data-sharing platforms regarding how research ethics principles should be applied in such a setting. Furthermore, the study aims at quantitatively assessing the relationship between participants' perspectives on ethical oversight and other variables such as previous participation in research, beliefs about data sharing, and attitudes toward self-experimentation.

METHODS

We are conducting a Web-based survey with users of a popular Web-based data-sharing platform, Open Humans. The survey has been sent to approximately 4640 users registered for the Open Humans newsletter. To fill out the survey, participants need to have an account on Open Humans. We expect a 5%-10% response rate (between 200 and 400 completed surveys out of approximately 4000 survey invitations sent). Independent variables include past data-sharing behavior and intention, beliefs about data sharing, past participation in research, attitudes toward self-experimentation, perceived knowledge of the platform's guidelines and terms, perceived importance of having transparent guidelines, and governance-related beliefs. The main dependent variable is participants' expectations regarding who should ensure that ethical requirements are met within research projects conducted on open data-sharing platforms, based on Emanuel et al's ethical framework. We will use chi-square tests to assess the relationship between participants' expectations regarding ethical oversight and their past behavior, future intentions, beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge.

RESULTS

Data collection started on June 13, 2018. A reminder to fill out the survey was sent to participants in mid-July. We expect to gain insights on users' perspectives on the ethical oversight of Web-based data-sharing platforms and on the associated experiences, beliefs, and sociodemographic characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

When digital tools allow people to engage in PLR including medical data, understanding how people interpret and envision the ethical oversight of their data-sharing practices is crucial. This will be the first study to explore users' perspectives on ethical oversight of Web-based data-sharing platforms. The results will help inform the development of a framework that can be employed for platforms hosting various kinds of research projects to accommodate participants' ethical oversight needs.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/10939.

Genuine participation in participant-centred research initiatives: the rhetoric and the potential reality

The introduction of Web 2.0 technology, along with a population increasingly proficient in Information and Communications Technology (ICT), coupled with the rapid advancements in genetic testing methods, has seen an increase in the presence of participant-centred research initiatives. Such initiatives, aided by the centrality of ICT interconnections, and the ethos they propound seem to further embody the ideal of increasing the participatory nature of research, beyond what might be possible in non-ICT contexts alone. However, the majority of such research seems to actualise a much narrower definition of 'participation'-where it is merely the case that such research initiatives have increased contact with participants through ICT but are otherwise non-participatory in any important normative sense. Furthermore, the rhetoric of participant-centred initiatives tends to inflate this minimalist form of participation into something that it is not, i.e. something genuinely participatory, with greater connections with both the ICT-facilitated political contexts and the largely non-ICT participatory initiatives that have expanded in contemporary health and research contexts. In this paper, we highlight that genuine (ICT-based) 'participation' should enable a reasonable minimum threshold of participatory engagement through, at least, three central participatory elements: educative, sense of being involved and degree of control. While we agree with criticisms that, at present, genuine participation seems more rhetoric than reality, we believe that there is clear potential for a greater ICT-facilitated participatory engagement on all three participatory elements. We outline some practical steps such initiatives could take to further develop these elements and thereby their level of ICT-facilitated participatory engagement.

The Datafication of Health

Over the past decade, data-intensive logics and practices have come to affect domains of contemporary life ranging from marketing and policy making to entertainment and education; at every turn, there is evidence of “datafication” or the conversion of qualitative aspects of life into quantified data. The datafication of health unfolds on a number of different scales and registers, including data-driven medical research and public health infrastructures, clinical health care, and self-care practices. For the purposes of this review, we focus mainly on the latter two domains, examining how scholars in anthropology, sociology, science and technology studies, and media and communication studies have begun to explore the datafication of clinical and self-care practices. We identify the dominant themes and questions, methodological approaches, and analytical resources of this emerging literature, parsing these under three headings: datafied power, living with data, and data–human mediations. We conclude by urging scholars to pay closer attention to how datafication is unfolding on the “other side” of various digital divides (e.g., financial, technological, geographic), to experiment with applied forms of research and data activism, and to probe links to areas of datafication that are not explicitly related to health.