Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives Donna Dickenson, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Michael Morrison

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Woolley, J Patrick ^a   McGowan, Michelle L ^b   Teare, Harriet J A ^c   Coathup, Victoria ^c   Fishman, Jennifer R ^d   Settersten, Richard A ^e   Sterckx, Sigrid ^f   Kaye, Jane ^c   Juengst, Eric T ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^g UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Big data; Care.data; Citizen science; Citizenship; Crowdsourcing; National health research; Participant centric initiatives; Precision medicine; Public engagement; Recruitment

Indexed keywords

ASPIRATION; ATTENTION; CITIZENSHIP; CROWDSOURCING; DRAWING; ENGLAND; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; UNITED STATES; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; ETHICS; LANGUAGE; PATIENT SELECTION; PUBLIC OPINION; SCIENCE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; ENGLAND; GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; PATIENT SELECTION; PRECISION MEDICINE; PUBLIC OPINION; SCIENCE; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; SOCIAL VALUES; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84971624242     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0117-1     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. INVOLVE: What is public involvement in research?. http://www.invo.org.uk/find-out-more/what-is-public-involvement-in-research-2/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
2. NIHR: INVOLVE, Briefing notes for researchers: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Hayes H, Buckland S, Tarpey M. February 2012. http://www.invo.org.uk/posttypepublication/involve-briefing-notes-for-researchers/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
3. Riesch H, Potter C. Citizen science as seen by scientists: methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Underst Sci. 2013;23:107.
4. Gura T. Citizen science: amateur experts. Nature. 2013;496:259.
5. Khatib F, Cooper S, Tyka MD, Xu K, Makedon I, Popovic Z, Baker D, Players F. Algorithm discovery by protein folding game players. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108:18949.
6. Riesch H. Citizen Science. In: Wright JD, editor. International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Oxford: Elsevier; 2015. p. 631-6.
7. Irwin A. Science, Public Engagement. In: Wright JD, editor. International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Oxford: Elsevier; 2015. p. 255-60.
8. Wynne B. May the sheep safely graze? a reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. 1998.
9. Scott M. Uneasy alchemy: Citizens and experts in Louisiana's chemical corridor disputes. Environmental Practice 2005;7(02):126-7.
10. Ottinger G. Buckets of resistance: Standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2009;35:244.
11. McGowan M, Choudhury S, Juengst E, Lambrix M, Settersten R, and Fishman J, "'Let's pull these technologies out of the ivory tower': the politics, ethos, and ironies of participant-driven genomic research," BioSocieties (under review 10/15).
12. Prainsack B. Understanding participation: the 'citizen science' of genetics. In: Prainsack B, Schicktanz S, Werner-Felmayer G, editors. Genetics as social practice. Farnham: Ashgate; 2014. p. 147-64.
13. Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, Parrish JK. Next steps for citizen science. Science. 2014;343:1436.
14. Zooniverse. https://www.zooniverse.org/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
15. Einstein@Home: https://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
16. Cell slider. A Zooniverse project. http://www.cellslider.net/ #/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
17. Fraxinus ash dieback game. https://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?client-id = 155950717912763&redirect-uri = https%3A%2 F%2Fapps.facebook.com%2Ffraxinusgame%2 F%3 F&state = 8351ab35a5e73ad64be64441c4dc7cb6&canvas = 1&fbconnect = 0&scope = &cancel
18. Rallapalli G, Saunders DG, Yoshida K, Edwards A, Lugo CA, Collin S, Clavijo B, Manuel Corpas, Swarbreck D, Clark M, Downie JA, Kamoun S, MacLean D. Lessons from Fraxinus, a crowd-sourced citizen science game in genomics. eLife. 2015;4:e07460. https://elifesciences.org/content/4/e07460/article-info.
19. Foldit. UW Center for Game Science, UW Department of Computer Science and Engineering. https://fold.it/portal/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
20. Nov O, Arazy O, Anderson D. Scientists@Home: What drives the quantity and quality of online citizen science participation? PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e90375.
21. Parsons J, Lukyanenko R, Wiersma Y. Easier citizen science is better. Nature. 2011;471:37.
22. Editor. Citizen science. Nature Neuroscience. 2010;13:1151. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v13/n10/pdf/nn1010-1151.pdf.
23. Angrist M. Eyes wide open: the personal genome project, citizen science and veracity in informed consent. Pers Med. 2009;6:691.
24. Whitehouse: The open government partnership second open government national action plan for the United States of America. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/us-national-action-plan-6p.pdf. Dec 2013.
25. Whitehouse: Open science and innovation: of the people, by the people, for the people. J. Gustetic, K. Honey, L. Shanley. September 9, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/09/09/open-science-and-innovation-people-people-people. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
26. EPA: federal community of practice for crowdsourcing and citizen science. http://www.epa.gov/innovation/federal-community-practice-crowdsourcing-and-citizen-science. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
27. de Weger LA, Hiemstra PS, Buysch den EO, van Vliet AJH. Spatiotemporal monitoring of allergic rhinitis symptoms in the Netherlands using citizen science. Allergy. 2014;69:1085.
28. van Vliet AJH, Bron WA, Mulder S. The how and why of societal publications for citizen science projects and scientists. Int J Biometeorol. 2014;58:565.
29. Genetic Alliance. http://www.geneticalliance.org/Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
30. McGowan ML, Fishman JR, Lambrix MA. Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users. New Genetics Soc. 2010;29(3):261-90.
31. Sterckx S, Cockbain J, Howard H, Huys I, Borry P. "Trust is not something you can reclaim easily": patenting in the field of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genet Med. 2013;15(5):382-7.
32. Patientslikeme. https://www.patientslikeme.com/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
33. Genomera. http://genomera.com/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
34. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, Edwards K, Fullerton SM, Kanellopoulou N, Lund D, MacArthur DG, Mascalzoni D, Shepherd J, Taylor PL, Terry SF, Winter S. From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13:371.
35. Anderson N, Bragg C, Hartzler A, Edwards K. Participant-centric initiatives: tools to facilitate engagement in research. Appl Transl Genomics. 2012;1:25.
36. Ward PR, Thompson J, Barber R, Armitage CJ, Boote JD, Cooper CL, Jones GL. Critical perspectives on "consumer involvement" in health research: epistemological dissonance and the know-do gap. J Sociol. 2009;46:63.
37. Domecq J, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, Brito J, Boehmer K, Hasan R, Firwana B, Erwin P, Eton D, Sloan J, Montori V, Asi N, Dabrh AM, Murad M. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.
38. Grace J, Taylor MJ. Disclosure of confidential patient information and the duty to consult: the role of the Health and Social Care Information Centre. Med Law Rev. 2013;21:415.
39. NHS: http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/tsd/care-data/better-care/Accessed 1 June 2015.
40. British Medical Association: Care.data - Joint statement. http://bma.org.uk/search?query = Care.data%20-%20Joint%20statement. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
41. Carter P, Laurie G, Dixon-Woods M. The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble. J Med Ethics. 2015;41(5):404-9.
42. BMA, Confidentiality and health records: Care.data guidance for GPs, what is care.data?. http://bma.org.uk/support-at-work/ethics/confidentiality-and-health-records/care-data. Accessed 3 Dec 2015.
43. NHS: Care.data events. https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/tsd/care-data/events/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
44. NHS: News, Together we can get care.data absolutely right. Tim Kelsey. 2 May 2014. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2014/05/02/tim-kelsey-8/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
45. Whitehouse: So what is precision medicine? https://www.whitehouse.gov/precision-medicine. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
46. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary: FACT SHEET: President Obama's precision medicine initiative. January 30, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-precision-medicine-initiative. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
47. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:793.
48. Vector, Boston Children's Hospital's science and clinical innovation blog: power to the people: citizen science meets precision medicine for rare disease. Fliesler, Nancy. July 8, 2015. http://vector.childrenshospital.org/2015/07/power-to-the-people-citizen-science-meets-precision-medicine-for-rare-disease/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
49. Genetic Alliance: Precision Medicine Initiative. S Terry. 2015. http://geneticalliance.org/programs/biotrust/precisionmedicine. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
50. st Century Medicine. PMI Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director September. 17, 2015, https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research-training/initiatives/pmi/pmi-working-group-report-20150917-2.pdf
51. NIH, NIH Director: Building the Precision Medicine Initiative National Research Cohort - the time is now. F. Collins. September 17, 2015. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/building-precision-medicine-initiative-national-research-cohort-time-now. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
52. Choudhury S, Jennifer F, McGowan M, Juengst E. Big data, open science and the brain: lessons learned from genomics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2014;8:1-10. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00239.
53. NIH, News: Panel calls for data revolution. 4 March 2014. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2014/03/04/data-revolution/
54. NHS: Care.data, The care.data programme - collecting information for the health of the nation. https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/tsd/care-data/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
55. Harris J. Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:242.
56. Nicol D, Critchley C. Benefit sharing and biobanking in Australia. Public Underst Sci. 2011;21:534.
57. Critchley CR, Nicol D, Otlowski MFA, Stranger MJA. Predicting intention to biobank: a national survey. Eur J Pub Health. 2010;22:139.
58. Kettis-Lindblad A. Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? The. Eur J Pub Health. 2006;16:433.
59. US Department of Health and Human Services: NPRM for revisions to the Common Rule. 2015. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/regulations/nprmhome.html
60. Davies L, Bell JNB, Bone J, Head M, Hill L, Howard C, Hobbs SJ, Jones DT, Power SA & Rose N. Open Air Laboratories (OPAL): A community-driven research programme. Environ Pollut. 2011;159:2203.
61. Whitehouse: The Precision Medicine Initiative, data driven treatments as unique as your own body. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/01/30/precision-medicine-initiative-data-driven-treatments-unique-your-own-body. Holst L. Jan 2015.
62. Juengst E, McGowan M, Fishman J, and Settersten R. From "personalized" to "precision" medicine: the ethical and social implications of rhetorical reform in genomic medicine. Hastings Center Report (under review 11/15).
63. Van Assche K, Gutwirth S, Sterckx S. Protecting dignitary interests of biobank research participants: lessons from Havasupai Tribe v Arizona Board of Regents. Law Innovation Technol. 2015;5(1):55.
64. McEwen JE, Boyer JT, Sun KY. Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data. Trends Genet. 2013;29:375.
65. Meslin EM, Cho MK. Research ethics in the era of personalized medicine: updating science's contract with society. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13:378.
66. Vayena E, Brownsword R, Edwards SJ, Greshake B, Kahn JP, Ladher N, Montgomery J, O'Connor D, O'Neill O, Richards MP, Rid A, Sheehan M, Wicks P, Tasioulas J. Research led by participants: a new social contract for a new kind of research. J Med Ethics. 2016;42(4):216-9.
67. Wynia MK. The short history and tenuous future of medical professionalism: the erosion of medicine's social contract. Perspect Biol Med. 2008;51:565.
68. Fahnestock J. Renegotiating the social contract: healthcare as a natural right. University of Pittsburgh Law Review. 2011;72:549-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2011.165.
69. Veatch RM. Justice, the basic social contract and health care. In: Beauchamp T, Walters L, editors. Contemporary issues in bioethics. Belmont: Wadsworth; 1999. p. 368-74.
70. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;23:141.
71. Teare HJ, Morrison M, Whitley EA, Kaye J. Towards "Engagement 2.0": insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants. Digital Health. 2015;1-13. doi: 10.1177/2055207615605644.
72. Sterckx S, Rakic V, Cockbain J, Borry P. "You hoped we would sleep walk into accepting the collection of our data": controversies surrounding the UK care.data scheme and their wider relevance for biomedical research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2016;19(2):177-90. doi: 10.1007/s11019-015-9661-6.
73. http://www.healthwatchwalthamforest.co.uk/news/caredata-oct-2014 [last accessed 15 January 2015].
74. Gross A. The economy of social data: exploring research ethics as device. Sociol Rev. 2011;59(s2):113-29.
75. Rawls. The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxf J Leg Stud. 1987;7(1).
76. Manson, N.C. and O'Neill, O. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge University Press 2007. http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo-library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&ct=search&initialSearch=true&mode=Basic&tab=local&indx=1&dum=true&srt=rank&vid=OXVU1&frbg=&tb=t&vl%28freeText0%29=Rethinking+informed+consent+in+bioethics&scp.scp.
77. Van Assche K, Capitaine L, Pennings G, Sterckx S. Governing the postmortem procurement of human body material for research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2015;25:67.