Citizens in another profession can do science.

They can do real science.

It surprises me that these volunteers and hobbyists are adding to the professional science studies and other sources of information.  Maybe it was due to a stereotype about the exclusivity of science, but I did not expect science (or most professional fields, actually) to take unprofessional practitioners seriously, due to the risks for mistakes.

It is wonderful to see that not only does the scientific welcome outside input, it is trying to foster it.  For example, the bird watching program is a good example of a citizen science venture that educates the public and gathers data across a wide sample area for scientists.  Not only do such projects allow for informal science, they give scientists more with which they can work.  I personally found the activities limited, though, because they were all centered around biology/nature, which is not something I find interesting enough to write down statistics about birds I see pass  by.

Of course, there is a catch.  The catch that I should have realized was there.  One of the first things listed in the article: money.  Organizing citizen research events is cheaper than hiring interns.  Why it is great that people’s greed has become a reason for them to invest in the public’s education, it is also satisfied my cynical side.  I wonder how much effort would be put into citizen science outings if they weren’t cost efficient, as cost efficiency is sighted numerous times throughout the article.  For example, the American Bird Conservatory “…[saves] about $30,000 a year” (pg. 196).  While it is wonderful that these organizations are financing wisely as well as involving the community, how important would the citizen science events be if they were more expensive than hiring well-trained interns?  While the benefit of a wider study range probably cannot be matched by interns, the professionalism might be exceeded, despite the rather well done work of the citizens.