This article about citizen science mostly focused on how there is a whole other level of scientific researchers that most people do now know about. They are called “citizen scientists”, which is a more polite and professional way of simply saying amateur volunteers. The term “citizen scientist” was coined in the 1990’s but the idea of having nonpaid help to document when plants grow, observe when birds and other animals migrate and etc. These scientists do everything that they possibly can with their set of skills. The article honestly admits the reason that they use these volunteers is because of money. “We can’t afford them,” states Donald Owen, when talking about the graduate students and real scientists.
While it is understandable that using volunteers to collect data that would otherwise would require tedious and not really “scientific” work, I feel as if it is condescending because the citizen scientists are only being payed attention to because they are doing free work simply because the various research programs can not afford to higher high-end researchers to do their jobs. There is no arguing that the volunteers are helpful however, because over 60,000 sign up to participate in an annual Christmas bird count. It is also a great way for people who are interested in informal science to spark their interests and explore the realm of science learning, which relates to one of the six strands discussed in chapter 2 of our textbook.
While it is arguable that acquiring volunteers to do most of the tedious data keeping work for free sounds a bit patronizing, if it is possible for any of these volunteers to become interested in becoming a scientist professionally, then it is worth it in the end and helps shape the future scientific community for the better.

One of the greatest barriers to understanding science as a culture is its perceived “exclusive participation”.  To some people, participating in the community of science requires a degree, or a great deal of specific, formal knowledge concerning the area of study. But the Citizen Science article showed that people not formally involved in the greater scientific community can still be called upon to contribute. The volunteers who participated in Citizen Science projects had at least a casual interest in science and some understanding of the scientific method. This shows two things – that members of the public may have more involvement in science than they give themselves credit for and that utilizing members of the public for scientific endeavors may involve them in the scientific community as a whole.

For many, science is defined as whatever subjects were labeled as “science” in school. This fairly rigid definition persists past formal education. Even if they’re in a job that’s heavily involved in science, like architecture or medicine, or a hobby like bird watching or hiking, there’s this mental divide between science and what they do. Projects like Citizen Science help break down this mental restriction and help people realize that science isn’t just what’s around them, but it’s something they’re already doing.

For researchers, projects like Citizen Science are effective as an ambassadorial initiative and as a tool. The aforementioned mental divide also puts science in the role of “the other”, as something not to be intuitively trusted, and makes advances in science harder to embrace. By encouraging people to involve themselves in science and immerse themselves in the community, we can encourage the view that science is something that you can trust intuitively, once you understand the inherent safeguards that go with the scientific method.

Jeffrey Cohn’s article, “Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?,” demonstrates the growing importance of citizen scientists in scientific projects and studies and also provides us with examples of its success in several projects such as Karen Oberhauser’s project that utilized citizen scientists to collect data on butterflies and the MEGA-Transect Project that allowed citizen scientists to collect data on plants, animals, pH levels of water systems and air and water pollution. Citizen scientists, as defined in the article, are “volunteers who participate as field assistants in scientific studies” (193) and are not necessarily scientists. Many are actually amateurs who are concerned about the world around them and want to participate in something that could potentially have an impact on the world around them. I think it is great that regular people have taken advantage of opportunities to deepen their learning of science and participate in activities that could make great contributions to science.

The article states how collaborating with citizen scientists has grown and has made a great impact. Using citizen scientists saves research groups the money of paying consultants and experts. These “scientists” are able to gather and collect data that could not be obtained any other way.  Moreover, information collected from volunteers can come from a broader range, geographically speaking, and can be collected over a longer period of time than traditional research could. The data that they collect help scientists to have a wealth of data from which to examine and analyze. For example, in the MEGA-Transect Project, researchers were able to use the data collected by citizen scientists to develop a computer model that predicts where Bicknell’s thrush breeds, thereby letting planners know where to allow development or how the change in climate affects these birds.  I think this is one of the amazing things about citizen science, the ability of a group of people that may not normally be involved in the science field coming together to collect data that scientists can use in  their studies, which can eventually make a difference for the livelihood of plants and animals in our natural world.

I think it was interesting to learn about some minor drawbacks of citizen science, especially since we tend to focus on all the positive aspects of this type of learning and engagement. Scientists who use citizen scientists in their projects have to think about their research projects slightly differently. They must design and make research projects that take into account the people who are participating in them. They have to specific protocols that take citizen scientists into account and they must measure the reliability of the information collected by them. These protocols may limit what the citizen scientists can do or identify and document easily recognizable plants or animals. On one NPS project with birds, scientists admit to spending more time on planning and making protocols and training citizen scientists than they would normally use with paid consultants.  Sometimes citizen science projects require special training in using sophisticated technology or equipment and require scientists to teach about particular techniques and methods that will help in collecting data.

I liked the article addressed a concern I had about citizen science: the accuracy and reliability of the information collect and gathered by citizen scientists. It actually is possible for people to collect accurate data as long as they are told what to do and how to do it. Scientists have the responsibility to teach citizen scientists the proper method to collect data to ensure that it is not too vague and also  the responsibility to go out and measure the reliability of the data that is collected for them. In many cases, citizen scientists are paired with trained staff to ensure that data collected will be as accurate and reliable as possible. I thought it was great to read that in general the data collected by citizen scientists are good. For example, in David Delaney’s comparison of identifications of crabs between himself and volunteers, he found that the volunteers almost always identified them right, and that even seventh graders got it right 95% of the time and third graders got it right 80% of the time. I thought that it was great that these facts, at least in this particular study, showed that the data collected by volunteers is accurate. I would hope that the data used in other studies is just as accurate and reliable so that scientists will be able to make the right conclusions.

I think that it is great that people are getting involved in science in anyway they can. I think one of the pluses with citizen science projects is that the people involved in them can choose which project to become involved in. I like how they can make their hobbies, such as bird watching, into something that will be helpful for scientists in their projects and research. I also like that participating in citizen science projects provides a two way street to learning. Not only are people contributing to a specific area of science, but they also have an opportunity to learn more about the particular area of science involved in the activity, whether it be birds, butterflies, frogs and so forth. Scientists also have the ability to teach citizens procedures and methods that will be helpful to citizen scientists collecting data and from that data, scientists, in turn, learn about a particular plant, animal or environment.

Citizen science is still a growing area and scientists are making projects and studies that include citizen scientists as time goes on. Hopefully, there will be more opportunities made available for all different people with all different interests. With that, hopefully many of us will take advantage of them and be able to deepen our understanding of science.

Malka Niknamfard

Pretty much everyone who comes across a scientific breakthrough or achievement (including myself) automatically assumes that the theory or idea has been experimented on or tested by a group of trained scientists who are proficient and qualified to do the job- whether it be testing the effects of a new medicine or discovering something new in nature. In this sense, most people trust that the research conducted, whatever it may be, is valid and certified by a trained professional. However, the article Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research? by Jeffrey P. Cohn gives insight into something that has never really been considered by most people- the idea that ordinary volunteers contribute to the collection of scientific data.

When I first read this article, I could not help but ask myself how it is possible that amateurs who are not trained in a certain scientific field are capable of producing reliable results of data when it comes to scientific experimentation. After all, are we really expected to trust someone who has no knowledge in the science field to accurately relay data?

However, after further reading the article and learning that scientists prepare certain protocols specifically for citizen scientists and even often accompany these volunteers during their research, I came to appreciate the importance and the practicality of engaging ordinary people in experiments that can potentially spark interests in science. David Ucko, deputy director of the NSF’s division for research in learning even said that “Our objective is to increase public awareness of and participation in science… we are more interested in the educational values than the research results.” By being involved in the scientific world through hands-on exploration and research projects, more people get out into the world and learn to appreciate science and nature. Moreover, people who volunteer take pride in the work they are doing and feel as though they too are capable of contributing to the scientific community.

The idea of promoting ‘Citizen Scientists’ is truly a great way to get volunteers involved in what is going on in the scientific world, and it does a great job of engaging people and garnering people’s interests in things that they would otherwise solely be exposed to via an academic lecture or humdrum textbook.

I really enjoyed reading about the Citizen Science project because I fully support sparking a public interest in the sciences. What was interesting to me was that the article mentioned most volunteers were interested in science casually- whether they enjoyed hiking or bird watching or studying plants. It seemed almost silly that the Citizen Science project attracted those who were already interested in science, rather than the public as a whole. Whether the project merely happened to create circumstances that attracted those already knowledgeable in the fields or it was intentionally made to attract those who already had a casual background in the topics, it would be nice to see what can be done to appeal to the general public. Can science ever be truly universal? That’s something that I would like to read more about and discuss. Because science can be so multifaceted, perhaps there could be more done to include the general public. Informal science institutions do a great job of drawing the general public into the sciences and exposing them briefly, but I’d like to see more people from all walks of life participate in Citizen Science projects.

Another aspect of the article I found so interesting was the data collection. Data collection seems to be something that is extremely important in science and for scientists to rely on regular people for their information is so interesting. Because the data scientists use needs to be accurate for scientists to make reliable findings, I feel as though the Citizen Science projects do a good job of checking up on the volunteers and ensure reliability in the data they collect. While I know that utilizing volunteers can be cost effective for projects, I still think that it’s so amazing for people from all walks of life to be able to collect accurate and usable data. It really takes away from the exclusive feeling of the sciences and promotes science for all.

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.