Editorial in Human Computation Journal – Creativity and Learning in Citizen Cyberscience

As part of a special issue of the open access Human Computation Journal, I am the co-author of the editorial Creativity and Learning in Citizen Cyberscience – Lessons from the Citizen Cyberlab Summit. Following the summit (see blog post here), Egle Ramanauskaite took the blog posts and edited them with her notes, which led to a summary and analysis of the summit. cyberlab

Here is the abstract:

“This article summarizes the Citizen Cyberlab (CCL) Summit, which took place at University of Geneva on 17-18th September 2015, and introduces the special issue on “Learning and Creativity in Citizen Science”. As the final event of a 3-year EU FP7 CCL project, the Summit sought to disseminate project results and reflect on the issue of citizen science (CS) as a participatory environment where opportunities for self-development and various types of creativity can arise. A
number of interesting themes emerged at the intersection of the work presented by project collaborators and external partners, including the different types of creativity that are evident in CS, the role of the community as the main medium for innovation and participant learning to occur, and the common challenges concerning the design, initiation and management of CS projects.
The current issue presents work done during the CCL project, as well as external project contributions, for which the main focus is on learning and creativity in CS. The set of articles addresses diverse aspects of the topic, ranging from empirical research on the phenomena themselves, to tools, platforms and frameworks developed specifically for citizen cyberscience (CCS) with creativity and learning in mind, and distinct CS cases where these phenomena manifest in previously undescribed and unexpected ways. We hope that the issue will be useful to researchers and practitioners who aim to study, evaluate
or design for learning and creativity in a range of CCS projects”

You can find the paper here.

 

New paper: Usability and interaction dimensions of participatory noise and ecological monitoring

The EveryAware book provided an opportunity to communicate the results of a research that Dr Charlene Jennett led, together with two Masters students: Joanne (Jo) Summerfield and Eleonora (Nora) Cognetti, with me as an additional advisor. The research was linked to the EveryAware, since Nora explored the user experience of WideNoise, the citizen science noise monitoring app that was used in the project. There is also a link to the Citizen Cyberlab project, since Jo was looking at the field experience in ecological observation, and in particular during a BioBlitz. The chapter provides a Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) perspective to the way technology is used in citizen science projects. You can download the paper here and the proper citation for the chapter is:

Jennett, C., Cognetti, E., Summerfield, J. and Haklay, M. 2017. Usability and interaction dimensions of participatory noise and ecological monitoring. In Loreto, V., Haklay, M., Hotho, A., Servedio, V.C.P, Stumme, G., Theunis, J., Tria, F. (eds.) Participatory Sensing, Opinions and Collective Awareness. Springer. pp.201-212.

The official version of the paper is on Springer site here.

Esri Education User Conference talk: Citizen Science & Geographical Technologies: creativity, learning, and engagement

The slides below are from my keynote talk at the Esri Education User Conference 2016. The conference focused on creativity and its relevant to education and the utilisation of GIS (especially Esri software) at different levels of education.

My talk explored the area of citizen science and extreme citizen science and the way geographical technologies contribute to creativity and learning. As I continue to assume that many of the audience don’t know about citizen science, I start with a review of the field as a way to contextualise what we, as a group, try to do.

[The talk is similar, in parts, to other talks that are captured here on my blog (workshop on theory, practice and policy, standards and recommendation for citizen science, or the current developments in ExCiteS). I’m updating the slides with lessons on what seem to work or not in previous talks. Social media is helpful for that – I can see which points people found most useful/meaningful!]

The talk starts with an historical perspective of citizen science, continue with the societal and technical trends that are at the basis of the current growth in citizen science. Having done that, I’m using a typology that looks at domain (academic discipline), technology, and engagement as a way to introduce examples of citizen science activities. I’m using the trailer for the TV series ‘the Crowd & the Cloud’ to recap the discussions on citizen science activities. I also mention the growth of practitioners community through the Citizen Science Associations.

Next, on this basis, I’m covering the concepts and practices of Extreme Citizen Science – what we do and how. I’m using examples from the work on noise, community resource management and earthquake and fire preparedness to demonstrate the concept.

The last part of the talk focuses specifically on creativity and learning from the Citizen Cyberlab project, and I explain the next steps that we will carry out in the Doing It Together Science project. I complete the talk by giving examples for activities that the audience can do by themselves.

Throughout the talk, I’m showing how Esri technologies are being used in citizen science. It wasn’t difficult to find examples – Esri’s GIS is used in BioBlitzes, Globe at Night, links to OpenStreetMap, and support the work that the ExCiteS group is doing. Survey123 and similar tools can be used to create novel projects and experiment with them. ArcGIS Online will be linked to GeoKey, to allow analysis of community mapping efforts. In short, there is plenty of scope for GIS as an integral part of citizen science projects.

Citizen Cyberlab – notes from final review (26-27 January, Geneva)

Citizen Cyberlab LogoEvery project ends, eventually. The Citizen Cyberlab project was funded through the seventh framework programme of the European Union (or EU FP7 in short), and run from September 2012 to November 2015. Today marks the final review of the project in with all the project’s partners presenting the work that they’ve done during the project.

wp-1453931121093.jpgThe project had a technical elements throughout its work, with platforms (technologies that provide foundation to citizen science projects), tools (technologies that support projects directly by being part of what volunteers use), and pilots – projects that use the technologies from citizen cyberlab as well as from other sources, to carry out citizen science projects. In addition to the platforms, tools or pilots – the project used all these elements as the background for a detailed understanding of creativity and learning in citizen cyberscience, which rely on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). So the evaluation of the pilots and technologies was aimed to illuminate this question.

This post summarises some of the major points from the project. The project produced a system to develop and share research ideas (ideaweave.io), a framework for scientific games (RedWire.io) which is accompanied with tools to measure and observe the actions of gamers (RedMetrics.io), systems for sharing computation resources through virtual machines (through CitizenGrid platform), and a framework to track user actions across systems (CCLTracker), a platform for community mapping (GeoKey), mobile data collection tools (EpiCollect+).

Some of the systems that used these platforms and tools include Mapping for Change Community Maps, CERN Virtual Atom Smasher, and UNITAR Geotag-X.

The RedWire platform supports the development of games and the mixing of code between project (borrowing concepts from synthetic biology to computing!), and as the system encourages open science, even data from the different games can be mixed to create new ones. The integration with player behaviour tracking ability is significant in the use of games for research (so that’s done with RedMatrics). The analytics data is open, so there is a need to take care of privacy issues. An example of the gaming platform is Hero.Coli – a game about synthetic biology.

The GeoKey platform that was developed at UCL ExCiteS is now integrated with Community Maps, ArcGIS Online and can receive data trough Sapelli, EpiCollect or other HTML5 apps (as the air quality app on Google Play shows). The system is progressing and includes an installation package that make it easier to deploy. Within a year, there are about 650 users on the system, and further anonymous contributions, and over 60 mini-sites, many of them ported from the old system. The system is already translated to Polish and Spanish.

The Citizen Grid is a platform that improve volunteer computing, and allow the access to resources in a simplified manner, with launching of virtual machines through a single link. It can use shared resources from volunteers, or cloud computing.

The IdeaWeave system, which is a social network to support the development of ideas and projects, and share information about these projects. The final system supports challenges, badges and awards. They also add project blogging and ability for voting on proposals.

EpiCollect+ is a new implementation of EpiCollect which was supposed to be device independent through HTML5. There are issues with many APIs, and this lead to finding out limitations in different mobile platforms. There are many applications

wp-1453880231866.jpgThe Virtual Atom Smasher application in CERN was redesign with the use of learning analytics, which shown that many people who start engaging with it don’t go through the learning elements and then find the interface confusing, so the restructuring was geared towards this early learning process. The process help people to understand theoretical and experimental physics principles. The system, which test4theory.cern.ch . After participants log in, they go through a questionnaire to understand what the participant know, and then go through video and interactive elements that help them to understand the terminology that is needed to use the interface effectively, and the rest of the process supports asking questions in forums, finding further information through links and more. Some of the side projects that were developed from Virtual Atom Smasher include to TooTR framework that supports creating tutorials that are web-based and include videos and interactive parts. During the project, they have attracted 790 registered participants, 43 spent more than 12 hours with the game. Now the game is gaining attention from more scientists who are now seeing that it is worth while to engage with citizen science. The project is fusing volunteer computing and volunteer thinking.

wp-1453882325415.jpgGeoTag-X provides a demonstrator for volunteer thinking, and was developed by UNITAR. It allow the capturing of relevant imagery and pictures from disaster or conflict situations. It support UNITAR humanitarian operations. They wanted to assess if the system is useful. They have 549 registered volunteers, with 362 completing at least one task. GeoTag-X engaged with the humanitarian Geo community – for example with GISCorps, UN Volunteers Online, and Humanity Road.

The Synthetic Biology pilot included the development of MOOC that explains the principles of the area, the game Hero.coli, developed a new spectrometer that will be produced at very large scale in India.

wp-1453889426937.jpgOur own extreme citizen science pilots focused on projects that use cyberlab technology, so focusing on air quality monitoring in which we used GeoKey and EpiCollect to record the location of diffusion tubes and the street context in which it was installed. In addition, we included the use of public lab technology for studying the environment, and playshops to explore the exposure to science.

The research into learning and creativity, shown that there is plenty of learning of the ‘on topic’ and the mechanics of the citizen science, with small minority showing deep engagement with active learning. There is variety of learning – personal development – from self-confidence to identity and cultural change; generic knowledge and skills; and finally project specific aspects. The project provides a whole set of methods for exploring citizen science: checklists that can be used to help designing for citizen science learning, surveys, interviews, analysing blogs, user analytics, and lab studies. Some of the interesting finding include: in GeoTag-X, even a complex interface was learnt quite quickly, and connecting emotionally to the issue of humanitarian issue and participation can predict learning. The Virtual Atom Smasher demonstrated that participants learned about the work of scientists and science (e.g. the plenty use of statistics). wp-1453894997879.jpgIn SynBio4All, there was plenty of organisational skills, lab work, scientific communication and deeper contact with science – all through need to involved in a more significant way. The ExCiteS pilots show involvement and emotional learning, and evidence for community ‘hands on’ situated learning with high engagement of participants. There are examples for personal development, scientific literacy and community organisation, hosting workshop and other skills. One of the major achievement of this study is a general survey, which had 925 complete responses and 2500 partial ones – from volunteers across citizen science (80 projects) –  clusters show 25% learn about technology and science skills, 21% learn about the topic and scientific skills, about 20% learn about science skills, but some collaboration and communication, 13% pure on-topic learning. In citizen science, high percentage learn from project documentation, next about 20% learns through the project and some from documentation, about 17% learn from the project and external documentation, next there was a group learning through discussion. Most feel that they learn (86%). learning is not initial motivation, but become an important factors, and also learning about new area of science. Highly engaged volunteers take on specific and various roles – translators, community managers, event organisers etc.

wp-1453931104656.jpgOn the creativity side, interviews provided the richest source of information on creativity and how it is integrated into citizen science. Interviews with 96 volunteers provided one of the biggest qualitative survey in citizen science. Motivations – curiosity, interest in science and desire to contribute to research. They sustained participation due to continued interest, ability, time. The reasons for different audience composition are task time, geography and subject matter. In a lab study, it was shown that citizen cyberscience results are related to immersion in the game. There is also evidence that people are multi-tasking – they have plenty of distractions to the engagement in any given online project. The key finding about creativity include examples in the analysis of the images and geotagging in GeoTag-X. in the Virtual Atom Smasher, adjusting parameters seen as creative, while in SynBio4all the creation of games, or the creation of the MOOC were examples of creativity. In ExCiteS there are photos, drawing, sculptures , blog posts With air quality we’ve seen examples of newsletter, t-shirts, or creating maps. There are routes through the Motivations, learning and creativity. Might need to look at models for people who lead projects. To support creativity face-to-face collaboration is important, allow entry level of volunteers, and provide multiple methods for volunteers to provide feedback.

wp-1453931086530.jpgIn terms of engagement – we carried out ThinkCamp events, linking to existing online communities, working through engagement and participation. Interestingly, analysis of twitter shown following from fellow researchers and practitioners in citizen science.

The citizen cyberlab will now continue as an activity of the university of Geneva – so watch this space!

wp-1453931077287.jpg

 

 

 

Citizen Cyberlab Summit (day 2)

DSCN1165The second day of the Citizen Cyberlab Summit followed the same pattern of the first day: Two half day sessions, in each one short presentations from guest speakers from outside the project consortium, followed by two demonstrations of specific platform, tool, pilot or learning, and ending with discussion in groups, which were then shared back.

The first session started with History of Citizen Sciences – Bruno Strasser (Uni Geneva) – looking at both practical citizen science and the way it is integrated into the history of science. The Bioscope is a place in Geneva that allowing different public facing activities in the medical and life science: biodiversity, genetic research etc. They are developing new ways of doing microscopy – a microscope which is sharing the imagery with the whole room so it is seen on devices and on turning the microscope from solitary experience to shared one. They are involved in biodiversity research that is aimed to bar-coding DNA of different insects and animals. People collect data, extract DNA and sequence it, and then share it in a national database. Another device that they are using is a simple add-on that turns a smartphone can be turned into powerful macro camera, so children can share images on instagram with bioscope hashtag. They also do ‘Sushi night’ where they tell people what fish you ate if at all…
This link to a European Research Council (ERC) project  – the rise of citizen sciences – on the history of the movement. Is there something like ‘citizen sciences’? From history of science perspective, in the early 20c the amateur scientist is passing and professionals are replacing it. He use a definition of citizen science as amateurs producing scientific knowledge – he is not interested in doing science without the production of knowledge. He noted that there are a lot of names that are used in citizen science research. In particular, the project focus is on experimental sciences – and that because of the laboratory revolution of the 1930s which dominated the 20th century. The lab science created the divide between the sciences and the public (Frankenstein as a pivotal imagery is relevant here). Science popularisation was trying to bridge the gap to the public, but the rise in experimental sciences was coupled with decline of public participation. His classification looks at DIYbio to volunteer computing – identifying observers, analysers etc. and how they become authors of scientific papers. Citizen science is taken by the shift in science policy to science with and for society. Interest in the promises that are attached to it: scientific, educational (learning more about science) and political (more democratic). It’s interesting because it’s an answer to ‘big data’, to the contract of science and society, expertise, participation and democratisation. The difference is demonstrated in the French response following Chernobyl in 1986, with presentation by a leading scientists in France that the particle will stop at the border of France, compared that to Deep Horizon in 2010 with participatory mapping through public lab activities that ‘tell a different story’. In the project, there are 4 core research question: how citizen science transform the relationship between science and society? who are the participants in the ‘citizen sciences’ – we have some demographic data, but no big picture – collective biography of people who are involved in it. Next, what is the ‘moral economies’ that sustain the citizen sciences? such as the give and take that people get out of project and what they want. Motivations and rewards. Finally, how do citizen sciences impact the production of knowledge? What is possible and what is not. He plan to use approaches from digital humanities process. He will build up the database about the area of citizen science, and look at Europe, US and Asia. He is considering how to run it as participatory project. Issues of moral economies are demonstrated in the BOINC use in commercial project. 

Lifelong learning & DIY AFM – En-Te Hwu (Edwin) from Academia Sinica, Taiwan). There are different ways of doing microscopy at different scales – in the past 100 years, we have the concept of seeing is believing, but what about things that we can’t see because of the focused light of the microscope – e.g. under 1 micron. This is possible with scanning electron microscope which costs 500K to 2M USD, and can use only conductive samples, which require manipulation of the sample. The Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) is more affordable 50K to 500K USD but still out of reach to many. This can be used to examine nanofeatures – e.g. carbon nanotubes – we are starting to have higher time and spatial resolution with the more advanced systems. Since 2013, the LEGO2NANO project started – using the DVD head to monitor the prob and other parts to make the AFM affordable. They put an instructable prototype that was mentioned by the press and they called it DIY AFM. They created an augmented reality tool to guide people how to put the device together, and it can be assembled by early high school students – moving from the clean room to the class room.  The tool is being used to look at leafs, CDs – area of 8×8 microns and more. The AFM data can be used with 3D printing – they run a summer school in 2015 and now they have a link to LEGO foundation. They are going through a process of reinventing the DIY AFM, because of patenting and intellectual property rights (IPR) – there is a need to rethink how to do it. They started to rethink the scanner, the control and other parts. They share the development process (using building process platform of MIT media lab). There is a specific application of using the AFM for measuring air pollution at PM2.5. using a DVD – exposing the DVD by removing the protection layer, exposing it for a period of time and then bringing it and measuring the results. They combined the measurements to crowdcrafting for analysis. The concept behind the AFM is done by using LEGO parts, and scanning the Lego points as a demonstration, so students can understand the process. 

wpid-wp-1442566370890.jpgThe morning session included two demonstrations. First, Creativity in Citizen Cyberscience – Charlene Jennett  (UCLIC, UCL) – Charlene is interested in psychological aspects of HCI. Creativity is a challenge in the field of psychology. Different ideas of what is creativity – one view is that it’s about eureka moment as demonstrated in Foldit breakthrough. However, an alternative is to notice everyday creativity of doing thing that are different, or not thought off original. In cyberlab, we are looking at different projects that use technologies and different context. In the first year, the team run interviews with BOINC, Eyewire, transcribe Bentham, Bat Detective, Zooniverse and Mapping for Change – a wide range of citizen science projects. They found many examples  – volunteers drawing pictures of the ships that they were transcribing in Old Weather, or identifying the Green Peas in Galaxy zoo which was a new type of galaxy. There are also creation of chatbots about their work -e.g. in EyeWire to answer questions, visualisation of information, creating dictionaries and further information. The finding showed that the link was about motivation leading to creativity to help the community or the project. They created the model of linking motivation, learning through participation, and volunteer identity that lead to creativity. The tips for projects include: feedback on project progress at individual and project level, having regular communication – forum and social media, community events – e.g. competitions in BOINC, and role management – if you can see someone is doing well, then encourage them to take more responsibility. The looked at the different pilots of Cyberlab – GeoTag-X, Virtual Atom Smasher, Synthetic Biology through iGEM and Extreme Citizen Science. They interview 100 volunteers. Preliminary results – in GeoTag-X, the design of the app is seen as the creative part, while for the analysts there are some of the harder tasks – e.g. the georeferencing of images and sharing techniques which lead to creative solutions. In the iGEM case they’ve seen people develop games and video. in the ExCiteS cases, there is DIY and writing of blog posts and participants being expressive about their own work. There are examples of people creating t-Shirt, or creating maps that are appropriate for their needs.They are asking questions about other projects and how to design for creativity. It is interesting to compare the results of the project to the definition of creativity in the original call for the project. The cyberlab project is opening up questions about creativity more than answering them. 

wpid-wp-1442679548581.jpgPreliminary Results from creativity and learning survey – Laure Kloetzer (university of Geneva). One of the aims of Citizen Cyberlab was to look at different aspects of creativity. The project provided a lot of information from a questionnaire about learning and creativity in citizen science. The general design of the questionnaire was to learn the learning outcomes. Need to remember that out of the whole population, small group participate in citizen science – and within each project, there is a tiny group of people that do most of the work (down to 16 in Transcribed Bentham) and the question of how people turn from the majority, who do very little work to highly active participants is unknown, yet. In Citizen Cyberlab we carried out interviews with participants in citizen science projects, which led to a typology of learning outcomes – which are lot wider than those that are usually expected or discussed in the literature – but they didn’t understand what people actually learn. The hypothesis is that people who engage with the community can learn more than those that doesn’t – the final questionnaire of the project try to quantify learning outcomes (informal learning in citizen science – ILICS survey). The questionnaire was tested in partial pilot. Sent to people in volunteer computing, volunteer thinking and others types. They had about 700 responses, and the analysis only started. Results – age group of participants is diverse from 20-70, but need to analyse it further according to projects. Gender – 2/3 male, third female, and 20% of people just have high school level of education, with 40% with master degree or more – large minority of people have university degree. They got people from 64 countries – US, UK, Germany and France are the main ones (the survey was translated to French). Science is important to most, and a passion for half, and integrated in their profession (25% of participants). Time per week – third of people spend less than 1 hour, and 70% spend 1-5 hours – so the questionnaire captured mostly active people. Results on learning – explore feeling, what people learn, how they learn and confidence (based on the typology from previous stages of the project). The results show that – people who say that they learn something to a lot, and most people accept that they learn on-topic knowledge (about the domain itself – 88%), scientific skills (80%), technological skills (61%), technical skills (58%), with political, collaboration skills and communication skills in about 50% of the cases. The how question – people learn most from project documentation (75%) but also by external resources (70%). Regarding social engagement, about 11% take part in the community, and for 61% it’s the first time in their life that they took such a role. There are different roles – translation, moderating forums with other things in the community that were not recognised in the questionnaire. 25% said that they met people online to share scientific interests – opportunity to share and meet new people. Learning dimensions and types of learners – some people feel that they learn quite a lot about various things, while others focus on specific types of learning. wpid-wp-1442679528037.jpgPrincipal Component Analysis show that learner types correlate with different forms of engagement – more time spent correlate to specific type of learner. There are different dimensions of learning that are not necessarily correlate. The cluster analysis show about 10 groups – people who learn a lot on-topic and about science with increase self-confidence. Second group learn on topic but not much confidence. Group 3, like 2 but less perception of learning. Group 4 don’t seem to learn much but prefer looking at resources. 5 learn somewhat esp about computers. 6 learn through other means. 7 learn by writing and communicating, collaborating and some science. 8 learn only about tools, but have general feeling of learning. 9 learn on topic but not transferable and 10 learn a lot on collaboration and communication – need to work more on this, but these are showing the results and the raw data will be shared in December. 

DSCN1160Following the presentation, the group discussion first explored examples of creativity from a range of projects. In crowdcrafting, when people are not active for a month, they get email with telling them that they will be deleted – one participant created activities that link to the project – e.g. tweeting from a transcriptions from WW I exactly 100 years after it happen. In Cornell Lab of Ornithology, volunteers suggest new protocols and tasks about the project – new ways of modifying things. In the games of ScienceatHome are targeted specifically to explore when problem solving become creative – using the tools and explaining to the researchers how they solve issues. In WCG one volunteered that create graphics from the API that other volunteers use and expect now to see it as part of the project. There is a challenge to project coordinators what to do with such volunteers – should they be part of the core project?
Next, there are questions about roles – giving the end users enough possibilities is one option, while another way is to construct modularising choices, to allow people to combine them in different ways. In ScienceatHome they have decided to put people into specific modes so consciously changing activities. There is wide variety of participants – some want to be fairly passive and low involvement, while other might want to do much more. Also creativity can express itself in different forms, which are not always seem linked to the project. The learning from Citizen Cyberlab is that there isn’t simple way of linking creativity and capture it in computer software, but that you need organisational structure and most importantly, awareness to look out for it and foster it to help it develop. Having complementarity – e.g. bringing game people and science people to interact together is important to creativity. Another point is to consider is to what degree people progress across citizen science projects and type of activities – the example of Rechenkraft.net that without the hackspace it was not possible to make things happen. So it’s volunteers + infrastructure and support that allow for creativity to happen. There are also risks – creating something that you didn’t know before – ignorance – in music there isn’t much risk, but in medical or synthetic biology there can be risks and need to ask if people are stopping their creativity when they see perceived risks.

wpid-wp-1442679513070.jpgThe final session of the summit was dedicated to Evaluation and Sustainability. Starting with The DEVISE project – Tina Philips (Cornell Lab of Ornithology). Tina is involved in the public engagement part of Cornell Lab of Ornithology . Starting from the work on the 2009 of the Public Participation in Scientific Research (PPSR) report – the finding from the CAISE project that scarcity of evaluations, higher engagement suggested deeper learning, and need for a more sensitive measures and lack of overall finding that relate to many projects. The DEVISE project (Developing, Validating, and Implementing Situated Evaluation Instruments) focused on evaluation in citizen science overall – identifying goals and outcomes, building professional opportunities for people in the field of informal learning, and creating a community of practice around this area. Evaluation is about improving the overall effectiveness of programmes and projects. Evaluation is different from research as it is trying to understand strengths and weaknesses of the specific case and is less about universal rules – it’s the localised learning that matter. In DEVISE, they particularly focused on individual learning outcomes. The project used literature review, interviews  with participants, project leaders and practitioners to understand their experience. They looked at a set of different theories of learning. This led to a framework for evaluating PPSR learning outcomes. The framework includes aspects such as interest in science & the environment, self efficacy, motivation, knowledge of the nature of science, skills of science inquiry, and behaviour & stewardship. They also develop scales – short surveys that allow to examine specific tools – e.g. survey about interest in science and nature or survey about self-efficacy for science. There is a user guide for project evaluators that allow to have plan, implement and share guidance. There is a logic model for evaluation that includes Inputs, activities, outputs, short-term and long-term impacts. It is important to note that out of these, usually short and long terms outcomes are not being evaluated. Tina’s research looked at citizen science engagement, and understand how they construct science identity. Together with Heidi Ballard, they looked at contributory, collaborative and co-created projects – including Nestwatch, CoCoRaHS, and Global Community Monitor. They had 83 interviews from low , medium and high contributors and information from project leaders. The data analysis is using qualitative analysis methods and tools (e.g. Nvivo). The interview asked about engagement and what keep participants involved and asking about memorable aspects of their research involvement. There are all sort of extra activities that people bring into interviews – in GCM people say ‘it completely changes the way that they respond to us and actually how much time they even give us because previously without that data, without something tangible’ – powerful experiences through science. The interviews that were coded show that data collection, communicating with others and learning protocols are very common learning outcomes. About two-third of interviewees are also involved in exploring the data, but smaller group analyse and interpret it. Majority of people came with high interest in science, apart of the people who are focused on local environmental issues of water or air quality. Lower engagers tend to feel less connected to the project – and some crave more social outlets. The participants have a strong understanding of citizen science and their role in it. Data transparency is both a barrier and facilitator – participants want to know what is done with their data. QA/QC is important personally and organisationally important. Participants are engaged in wide range of activities beyond the project itself. Group projects may have more impact than individual projects.
Following the presentation, the discussion explore the issue of data – people are concerned about how the data is used, and what is done with it even if they won’t analyse it themselves. In eBird, you can get your raw data, and checking the people that used the data there is the issue of the level in which those who download the data understand how to use it in an appropriate way. 

wpid-wp-1442679499689.jpgThe final guest presentation was Agroecology as citizen science – Peter Hanappe (Sony Computer Science Lab, Paris).  Peter is interested in sustainability, and in previous projects he was involved in working on accessibility issues for people who use wheelchair, the development of NoiseTube, or porting ClimatePrediction BOINC framework to PlayStation, and reducing energy consumption in volunteer computing. In his current work he looks at sustainability in food systems. Agroecology is the science of sustainable agriculture, through reducing reliance on external inputs – trying to design productive ecosystems that produce food. Core issues include soil health and biodiversity, with different ways of implementing systems that will keep them productive. The standard methods of agriculture don’t apply, and need to understand local conditions and the practice of agroecology is very knowledge intensive. Best practices are not always studied scientifically – with many farms in the world that are small (below 2 hectares, 475 millions farms across the world). There are more than 100M households around the world that grow food.  This provide the opportunity for citizen science – each season can be seen as an experiment, with engaging more people and asking them to share information so the knowledge slowly develops to provide all the needed details. Part of his aim is to develop new, free tools and instruments to facilitate the study of agroecology. This can be a basic set with information about temperature and humidity or more complex. The idea to have local community and remote community that share information on a wiki to learn how to improve. Together with a group of enthusiasts that he recruited in Paris, they run CitizenSeeds where they tried different seeds in a systematic way – for example, with a fixed calendar of planting and capturing information People took images and shared information online. The information included how much sunlight plants get and how much humidity the soil have. on p2pfoodlab.net they can see information in a calendar form. They had 80 participants this year. Opportunity for citizen science – challenges include community building, figuring out how much of it is documentation of what worked, compared to experimentation – what are the right way to carry out simple, relevant, reproducible experiments. Also if there is focus on soil health, we need multi-year experiments.  


I opened the last two Demonstrations of the session with a description of the 
Extreme Citizen Science pilots – starting similarly to the first presentation of the day, it is useful to notice the three major period in science (with regard to public participation). First, the early period of science when you needed to be wealthy to participate – although there are examples like Mary Anning, who. for gender, religion and class reasons was not accepted within the emerging scientific establishment as an equal, and it is justified to describe her as citizen scientists, although in full time capacity. However, she’s the exception that point to the rule. More generally, not only science was understood by few, but also the general population had very limited literacy, so it was difficult to engage with them in joint projects. During the period of professional science, there are a whole host of examples for volunteer data collection – from phenology to meteorology and more. As science became more professional, the role of volunteered diminished, and scientists looked for automatic sensors as more reliable mean to collect information. At the same time, until the late 20th century, most of the population had limited education – up to high school mostly, so the tasks that they were asked to perform were limited to data collection. In the last ten years, there are many more people with higher education – especially in industrialised societies, and that is part of the opening of citizen science that we see now. They can participate much more deeply in projects.
Yet, with all these advances, citizen science is still mostly about data collection and basic analysis, and also targeted at the higher levels of education within the population. Therefore, Extreme Citizen Science is about the extremities of citizen science practice – engage people in the whole scientific process, allow them to shape data collection protocols, collect and analyse the data, and use it in ways that suit their goals. It is also important to engage people from all levels of literacy, and to extend it geographically across the world.
The Extreme Citizen Science (ExCiteS) group is developing methodologies that are aimed at facilitating this vision. Tool like GeoKey, which is part of the Cyberlab project, facilitate community control over the data and decision what information is shared and with whom. Community Maps, which are based on GeoKey are way to allow community data collection and visualisation, although there is also a link to EpiCollect, so mobile data collection is possible and then GeoKey managed the information.
These tools can be used for community air quality monitoring, using affordable and accessible methods (diffusion tubes and borrowed black carbon monitors), but also the potential of creating a system that will be suitable for people with low level of literacy. Another pilot project that was carried out in Cyberlab included playshops and exploration of scientific concepts through engagement and play. This also include techniques from Public Lab such as kite and balloon mapping, with potential of linking the outputs to community maps through GeoKey. 

 Finally, CCL Tracker was presented by Jose Luis Fernandez-Marquez (CERN) – the motivations to create the CCL tracker is the need to understand more about participants in citizen cyberscience projects and what they learn. Usual web analytics  provide information about who is visiting the site, how they are visiting and what they are doing. Tools like Google analytics – are not measuring what people do on websites. We want to understand how the 20% of the users doing 80% of the work in citizen cyberscience projects and that require much more information. Using an example of Google Analytics from volunteer computing project, we can see about 16K sessions, 8000 users, from 108 countries and 400 sessions per day. Can see that most are males – we can tell which route they arrived to the website, etc. CCL tracker help to understand the actions performed in the site and measure participants contribution. Need to be able to make the analytics data public and create advanced data aggregation – clustering it so it is not disclosing unwanted details about participants. CCL tracker library work together with Google tag manager and Google analytics. There is also Google Super Proxy to share the information. 

Citizen Cyberlab Summit (day 1)

wpid-wp-1442503181050.jpgThe Citizen Cyberlab Summit is the final event of the Citizen Cyberlab project. The name might sound grand, but the event itself was fairly intimate and focused, with about 40 participants from across the world. The aim of the event was to share the learning from the project and compare them to similar activities around the world. It also provided an opportunity to consider, with experts from different areas, the directions that the project partners should progress beyond the specific ‘deliverables’ (outcomes and outputs) of the project. The meeting was held in the Confucius institute of the University of Geneva which has a mission to improve scientific diplomacy and international links between researchers, so it was a suitable venue for the such international scientific meeting.

 Introduction to Citizen Cyberlab was provided by Ariel Lindner (UPD) who is the main project leader. He noted that the starting point of citizen cyberlab is that we know that people learn better by doing, and that working with the public is also beneficial for scientists – both for becoming aware of public concerns as well as the moral obligation to share the results of research with those who fund it.  The citizen cyberlab project, which is in its final months, was based on 3 parts – platforms, pilots, and tools. Platforms that are aimed at lowering the barriers for participation for scientists and citizens (computation and participation platforms). The platforms are tested through pilot projects, which are then evaluated for creativity and learning – exploring learning behaviour, creativity and community engagement. We aim to share the successful experiences but also the challenges that emerged through the various activities. In the computation platforms, we developed CitizenGrid is aimed to allow running cloud-based projects; RedWire, a new way to consider game design – creating an open source game engine with open game analytics (the ability to measure what people do with the games). Example of this was in the development of science games; GeoKey is the final platform, and it allow people to share their concerns and control information. The project pilots included Virtual Atom Smasher which is about learning particle physics and helping scientists; GeoTag-X at UNITAR helping in disaster response; SynBio4All which open up synthetic biology to wider audience – with games such as Hero Coli and a MOOC on DIY synthetic biology (through iGEM) – with activities around ‘the smell of us’ about the odour that people emit and identifying the bacteria that influence it. L’Oréal is interested in developing this research further; There are several Extreme Citizen Science pilots, too. The tools that were developed in the project included creativity tools such as IdeaWeave.io to explore and develop ideas, monitoring learning (CCL-Tracker), and EpiCollect+ system to allow data collection for a wide range of projects.
Aspects of creativity and understanding what people learn are both complex tasks – understanding the learning had to be done on other communities in citizen science, finally there is specific effort on community engagement through social media and media outlets (YouTube and Audio).

The rest of the event was structured as follows: after two short presentations from guest speakers from outside the project consortium, two demonstrations of specific platform, tool, pilot or learning was followed, and the session ended with discussion in groups, which were then shared back. In all, the summit had 4 such sessions.

wpid-wp-1442502888908.jpgFollowing this introduction, two guests gave Short Talks, first about World Community Grid (WCG) – Juan Hindo (IBM). Juan provided details of WCG which is part of IBM corporate citizenship group. WCG is philanthropic programme that support participation in science through distributed computing to allow scientists to access large scale computing by using unused processing in computers and mobile devices. The projects can be ‘the biggest and most fundamentally important activities in labs’ according to researchers who participate in the programme. Examples of success include new solar materials from Harvard university researchers, with thousands of candidate materials. Other breakthroughs happened in childhood cancer research and computing for clean water that was led by Tshinghua University in China – exploring the use of nano-tubes for water filtration. WCG are promoting Open Science – ask researcher to make the data publicly available, focus on humanitarian research, real tangible science, with IBM support. Using the corporate ability, they get lots of attention in media. They try to engage volunteers as much as possible – they carried out an extensive volunteers study 2 years ago. Demographic – mostly man, technical background, 20-40, who usually volunteer for 5 years, and people join because they want to help science. Learning about the science is a reason to stay. People want to understand the impact of the computations that they perform – beyond just statics and asking information to be understandable. WCG are trying now to build a more diverse volunteer base, more approachable scientific content and articulating the value of contribution. They see opportunity to reach out to young people, women and they try to engage people through the story about the science, and ensuring people that the process is safe – evaluating experience and design to take a short time. They also want to leverage existing volunteers – they set up a recruitment competition for existing volunteers – that led to very few new people joined. They also do use of social media on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. There is growing engagement with social media, but not enough conversion to volunteering. They also deal with layering of information with researchers, ask for consistent and regular updating on the research and give volunteer control over communication that they receive. Articulating contribution value is to highlight research stories – not just computations and number of volunteers and celebrating and promote scientific success – they lean on networks in IBM to share the word out. The campaign helped in doubling the registration rate to the system. They want to reach more volunteers, and they follow conversion rate – they are missing stories from volunteers and have a volunteer voice, remove barriers to entry, recruitment drive didn’t create. They want to expand research portfolio and want other areas that it can support. 

In the discussion that followed the important of IP, treating volunteers as individuals came up as a topic that worth exploring with volunteer computing project.

wpid-wp-1442566393048.jpgThe next presentation was Science@home –  by Jacob Sherson (University of Aarhus, Denmark). Jacob noted that in citizen science there are different difficulty level and opportunity to user innovation. In Science@home they are trying to extend the range of citizen science involvement with students. They are talking about the creativity research – trying to evaluate creativity with a positivist empirical framework – controlling different variables and evaluating creativity of output according to it. They run scienceathome.org – with 3000 people participating in projects, with experiments ranging from cognitive science, to quantum physics, and business administration – and they have an interdisciplinary team from different areas of research to support the development of the system. An example for the type of project that they deal with is quantum computing – manipulations of electrons – they are sloshing around between states when moving them with laser beams. Using analogies to high school curriculum was useful way to engage participants and make it relevant to their studies. They have discovered that students can understand quantum physics in a phenomenological way through a game interface. They discover that gamers find areas of good region for solutions. The players localised area of the big parameters space – faster than computer simulation. They also studying the formation of strategies in people mind – Quantum Minds. With this programme, they are studying the process of learning the project and mastering it. They looked at the way to people who learn how to solve problems – to see if early performance help to predict the ability to learn the topic. Other games include trying to understand innovations in the Alien Game. They also have behavioural economics game about forming of groups. The educational part is about creativity – thinking of motivations for curriculum and fun with different resources. Game based education is assumed to improve the curriculum and can increase the motivation to learn. The general approach is to provide personalised online learning trajectories – identify types of students and learners and then correlate them and create personalised learning experience. Also want to train researchers to help them explore. 

The next part of the morning session were the 2 Demonstrations starting with EpiCollect – David Aanensen (Imperial College). EpiCollect was created to deal with infectious disease – who, what, where and when – getting the information about genetic make-up of diseases. They realised that there is a generic issue of metadata gathering and the tool evolved into generic forms collection and visualisation tool. The current use of EpiCollect includes a lot of projects in veterinary as GPS monitoring of animals is easier in terms of ethics. It was also used by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) to monitor the provision of food to communities in different parts of the world. Also used in education projects in Bath university in field courses (building on evolution megalab project to collect information about snails) with students building questionnaire based on the information sheets of the project. They are starting to build longitudinal data. There are projects that link EpiCollect to other systems – such as GeoKey and CartoDB for visualisation.  

Red Wire  was presented by Jesse Himmelstein (University Paris Descartes) -Red Wire is a platform that is aimed at reducing the barrier of creating games for citizen science through a mash-up approach – code and games are open access to encourage reuse. It use functional programming language approach – in a visual programming environment. They are taking metaphors from electronics. There are examples of games that student developed during recent summer schools and other activities. 

CitizenGrid was discussed by John Darlington (Imperial College, London). Citizen Grid is a platform that enables replicating projects on cloud computing, specifically for volunteer computing projects. It can allow unified support to volunteer computing – support for the scientists who are setting a project, but also to the volunteers who want to link to the project. The scientists can map their resources through creation of both client and server virtual machines and register the application. They demonstrated it with projects that also use games – allowing to install the application on local machines or cloud computing.   

wpid-wp-1442502824236.jpgIn the breakout groups, participants discussed the complexity of the platforms and what are the next steps to make them more accessible. For Epicollect, there are challenges of identifying who are the users – they the both the coordinators and the data collectors, and helping them in setting useful project is challenging, especially with the need for usability and user experience expertise. Dealing with usability and user experience is a challenge that is common to such projects. For RedWire, there is a need to help people who do not have any programming experience to develop games, so these are scientists and teachers. Maybe even gemify the game engine with credits to successful game designers who create components that can be remixed. For citizen grid, there is a need for examples of use cases, with currently Virtual Atom Smasher as the main demonstrator.

The afternoon session explored Pilot Projects. CERN@School – Becky Parker (Langton Star Centre) described how she developed, with her students and collaboration with scientists the ability to do science at school. The project is a demonstration how students and teachers can become part of the science community. The project started years ago with students contributing to astrophysics research. The school is involved in fundamental research, with a 17 years old student publishing scientific paper based on theoretical physics research problem that was presented to the students from professional scientists. Her students also put together to put an instrument to detect cosmic rays on the satellite TDS-1. They can see where is their experiment through visualisation over Google Maps that the students developed themselves. Students also created analysis tools for the data. Students can contribute to NASA research on the impact of cosmic rays on International Space Station staff. CERN@School also include experiment in collecting radiation reading which help to map background radiation in the UK (by students at 14-15). Through their work, they discovered that there aren’t many radiation reading in the ocean, and they will do that by mounting a radiation sensor to sea UAV. All this helps students to learn to be scientists. They created the monopole-quest project within the zooniverse projects. It is possible to get young people involved in large scale science projects. It also help to encourage science teachers and to ensure job satisfaction for teachers. The involvement of girls in the project also lead to more participation in science and engineering after school with the school having a disproportionate share of the number of young women who go to study such topics in the UK. 

Rechenkraft.net – From Volunteers to Scientists – Michael Weber (Uni Marburg). Michael describe how volunteers turned to scientists in the area of volunteer computing. Rechenkraft started in 2005 with a forum dedicated to all distributed computing projects around the world, and sharing the information about them among German speaking volunteers. Projects are now being translated to other languages, too. This led to the creation of an organisation, which is now involved in many projects, including climateprediction.net.  volunteers also created monitoring programmes that indicate the process and provide statistics about contributions. They also have yearly face to face gathering of volunteers from across Germany and beyond, with results of creating their own data processing racks and other initiative. Started in electronic sports league but then realised that there are opportunities to assist scientists in developing new projects, and that led to Yoyo@home that will allow the community to help scientists in developing BOINC projects. They regularly participate in conferences and exhibitions to promote the opportunity to other people interested in technology, and they became part of Quake-catcher network. They receive significant press coverage – eventually the city of Marburg (Germany) offered the organisation physical pace that became the Hackspace of the city. Once there is a steady place, they created more sophisticated cluster computers. They also set up the WLAN in the local refugee camp. Finally, they also develop their own scientific project- RNA world which is completely internal project. They encountered problems with very large output files from simulations so they are learning about running distributed computing projects as scientists who use the results and not only as volunteers. They also starting to run different projects about tree health with data recording such as location, photo and plant material.   Similarly, they map protected flowers – all this on volunteer basis. They participate in the effort of developing citizen science strategy 2020 for Germany, and they would like funding to be available to average person so they can participate in projects. There is risk that citizen science will be co-opted by scientists – need to leave space for grass-roots initiatives. There are also barriers for publications. The need for lab results in addition to the simulation encouraged the creation of the wet lab. 

The last short guest talk came from Bernard Revaz who suggested to create Massive Multiplayer Online Science – using game environments like WoW (World of Warcraft) to do science. His aim is inject science into projects such as Eve online – at a given time there are 40,000 users, median age 35, with 50% with degree in science. In Eve online they design an element from the human protein atlas that the gamers will help to classify. The stakeholders in their discussion include scientists,  the gaming company and players and all are very positive about the prospect. In Eve online there are many communities – they are creating a new community of scientists so people join it voluntarily. Working on matching the science tasks to the game narrative and to the game reward system.

After these two guest talks, there were two Demos. 

wpid-wp-1442502761020.jpgFirst, Virtual Atom Smasher (VAS) – Ioannis Charalampidis (CERN) – the VAS is about the way CERN develop the science cycle -observe the situation, lead to theory by theoretical physicists and then carry out experiments to test them. The process includes computer simulations that are explored against experimental data. They are trying to adjust the models until the model reflect the results.VAS evolved from a project by  15 years old student in 2010, who managed to create the best fitting results of a simulation. The VAS is about real cutting edge science, but it is also very challenging and created a game (but don’t use the word game – it’s a simulation). The VAS use CitizenGrid and RedWire for the game and CCL tracker to understand the way people use the platform. The analytics show the impact of training to the desired flow of the game. The VAS combines exploration with opportunities for learning. 

Geotag-X – Eleanor Rusack (UNITAR). This is a platform to crowdsource the analysis of images in humanitarian crises. They usually use satellite imagery to deal with crises, but there are limitations to some images – roofs, clouds etc., and there is a need to know what is going on the ground. The idea is to harvest photos coming from disaster , then analyse them and share the knowledge. A lot of information in photos can be very useful – it’s possible to extract structural information and other details in the image. They got a workflow, who set projects, they then develop the structure of the processing and tutorials, and tools for photo collection tools (from Flickr, Twitter, EpiCollect and Chrome extension). The photos are added to the analysis pool. They have created a project to allow people deal with Yemeni Cultural Heritage at risk as  a result of the way that is happening there. The syste is mostly based on self learning. Geotagging photo is a challenging tasks. It’s a specially an area that need more work. The experts are professionals or academics in specific domain who can help people to design the process, while participants are coming from different backgrounds. They are recruiting people through SciStarter, Mozilla science etc. The keep in touch with online volunteer groups – people who come from SciStarter tend to stay. Digital volunteers also help a lot and they encourage volunteering through presentation, but most important are data sprints. They use evaluation of agreement between analysts – agreement show easy to agree. There is a range of responses to agreement across standard deviation: they identify 3 groups – easy (high  agreement, low standard deviation), mid (high std div and median agreement) and complex (low agreement, low std div). Analysis of images against these agreement level help to improve designs. The want to move the questions up the curve and how to train large number of analysts when project leaders have limited time? 

The follow up discussion explored improvements to VAS – such as integrating arts or linking a BOINC project that will contribute computing resources to the VAS. For Geotag-X, the discussion explored the issue of training – with ideas about involving volunteers in getting the training right, run virtual focus groups or exploring design aspects and collaborations between volunteers.

NightScience 2015 – CRI Paris

NighStcience 2015 in CRI-Paris, 10-11 July –  Night Science is a mode of exploratory, innovative science, and as in previous years, it is an event that mixes talks with active hands-on experience. The event this year was marked by linking open innovation, social responsibility and entrepreneurship to science. The event was opened by as Francois Taddei highlighting the important of open ecology for sharing knowledge and solutions for problems that we face today. He also set the theme of the day by pointing to the need to link open science and social entrepreneurial ideas together.

The first session explored frugal research and responsible innovations

Melanie Marcel – SoScience – linking responsible research and innovation for social entrepreneurs. She provided an example of two social entrepreneurs from Burkina Faso who want to deal with malaria by developing a soap that include mosquito repellent to allow use without changing behaviour, but they had problems in making the ingredient in the soap stable, so through SoScience, they are linked to a laboratory who research how to make it happen. SoScience seeing themselves as part of responsible research and innovation, and have links with universities, and with companies (such as GE Healthcare). There is a chance to change the system in terms of relationship between society and science – who is it done for, and what problems are addressed. She also emphasised the examples of frugal innovations and science as part of the way to solve the challenges that she is dealing with it.

Marc Chooljian – Tekla Labs – volunteer organisation, run by PhD students in UCB UCSF. They are creating a network of building or using scientific equipment to allow more people to be involved in science. The access to the devices themselves is a major obstacles, and some scientific instruments can be made much cheaper than they are now. He noted that everybody should be a maker – building something help to understand the process, and how things work. But there are obstacles that they need to know – technical, safety, so there is a need for detailed information from other people who are familiar with the equipment. Tekla Labs trying to provide information that can be used within scientific processes. Unlike general DIY, there is a need to set standards of posting information to make scientific tools valid and suitable for producing results that will be accepted in publications. The process is to assess needs for some tools, then gather ideas (e.g. “build my lab” contest on Instructable), then test and edit, and provide designs to users. Design includes a lot of engineering experience, but once someone tried to build an equipment, they can share information back to those who are designing so they can change and update the design. A survey that was carried out in Argentina/Peru – there are many scientists who are willing to create their own equipment if the information is given. An example of contest included different pieces of equipment in instructable. Testing the devices and seeing how they are being used as to close the loop is currently a challenge. Need to happen by users who are not the developers.

David Ott – Red Labs: humanitarian Fab Labs by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). One of the oldest humanitarian organisations, focusing on victims of armed conflicts. The ICRC was inspired by the Fab Labs from MIT, taking the ability of maker/DIY culture in humanitarian action, seeing it as support operations and empower beneficiaries, allowing the ICRC work with the crowd to solve problems that they encounter. There are challenges in how to transport such a lab or use existing equipment in the place, securing the lab (ICRC suffered from looting of their stores in the past). Potential use is for prosthetics although making it work can be challenging in terms of specifications. There are stringent requirements on medical devices in terms of quality and certifications. Another issue is scaling up in terms of speed and quantity – what happen if you need thousands of objects?  He suggested an ‘ideal humanitarian thing’ with the following qualities: Do no harm, functional, parametric (you can change it easily in size and other properties easily to change design), editable, scalable, tool independent, material independent. They are looking for more use cases, and start with a ‘mini Red Lab Kit’ and then consider collaborations with national RCs.

The second session focused on the pursuit of Open Science

Michaël Bon covered the ‘Self Journal of Science‘. Scientists are forced to publish in ‘impact factor’ journals – there is a need to free ourselves from this tyranny. Science is defined as unambiguous, transparent, falsifiable, need to be based of well-defined statements that are then tested in experiment, but all this need to lead to a publication that is therefore central to the process. The idea of the Self-Journal of Science is to try and create a repository of scientific information that allow people to collaborate. People put their papers, and each user can vote on the paper and its significant. There is also potential to make comments on specific parts of the articles and have a debate and discussion about the different parts of the paper. The interface will change the nature of the article, the people who comment have the same authority/importance as the article itself. The aim is to create a new logic of scientific process of sharing information and knowledge.

Samir Brahmachari (CSIR-OSDD) described his experience in Open Source Drug Discovery – for 50 years TB drug discovery was neglected, and there is a very small effort through bodies like the Gates foundation to create new drugs. When you don’t have resources you are focusing on frugal innovations and that was what he focused on. OSDD is crowdsourcing with a difference – started in 2007, collaboratively aggregate the available information (biological and genetic) on TB with the aim to create a computer model that will allow drug discovery. An attempt to follow the model of aircraft design in which the model allows a lot of experimentations in the computer and then to go to production only with the most promising drugs. To make a community, they created training, open web 2.0 platform, and communication. The platform doesn’t allow people to know the position in society (teacher/students) so all ideas are taken seriously. They put effort into making functional self-organising groups (manual created by students). Thousands of papers were read by students and used to annotate genes. When the most active students received computers as a prize, the advertisement on the back of the laptop brought more volunteers when they went to college. Infosys supported a full open source stack. People that contributed more than 1% became authors (45). OSDD education value was that some continue to a PhD. Within the participants on 5% had PhD, and many people came from less endowed institutions.

Denisa Kera talks about “Subalterns” laboratories – she looks at DIYbio in Singapore – her interest is from philosophy and designer, from an STS perspective. Science can be done differently in places like Indonesia, potentially creating new forms of laboratories that are looking somewhere between kitchen, lab, party, gallery and workshops and were all sort of stuff happening. People hacking coconuts,  with participants that from Indonesia, Taiwan, ex-Yugoslavia, Nepal, Singapore, Switzerland, Japan and other places. Such labs are happening at the edge of the system – Georgia, Indonesia, Thailand etc. There is ‘epistemic violence’ in R&D – it is transferred & applied in the South, adopted by the public by forcing it to society. It heavily dependent of material donation or through Corporate Social Responsibility to make it happen. There are also issues with researchers from the North interpreting ‘Local Needs’ and finding solutions. Instead we can think of open science, open access and open hardware. Open can also mean ‘post-colonial’ science. She also look at how open hardware travel between North and South, how it is used after the first build, as objects have longer life.

Jason Bland covered the Citizen Cyberlab activity SynBio4All. It aims to open the world of synthetic biology to the public and allow people to learn, support and study. They aim to create a SynBio community, started by design a community platform that will support learning and engagement. SynBio takes an engineering approach to DNA manipulations. SynBio has many applications – drug production, food, material and fuel, and potential synthetic organisms. He used an example of the project ‘The Smell of Us‘ which was part of iGEM competition. This year there is also development of a MOOC, for high school students, about SynBio.

Joel Chevier – a lab in your pocket. He thinks of the smartphone as a lab tool, to play with children. Smartphone is a great pocket lab. If you look at the smartphone and what is does in daily life make it very accessible – you want real-time, interactive, fit everybody perception, networked and sharing information. Will play science with it, and the game is to see the world around you, and see what is happening around you and also other people. Game such as draw a large circle on the floor, and see the blue point on the screen – the person outside look at what people do and see how the point is moving in space. He created a website for these activities.  Possible to also consider more sensors – e.g. thermodynamics through pressure & temperature.

The third session looked at the combination – frugal and digital education 

Guy Etienne discuss the activities in Haiti, how it is used for community development and learners empowerment. He noted that the world is fast-moving, and is very complicated. We need to adapt our strategy to different places. Society too often penalize young brains in terms of disadvantaged groups in society by depriving them of opportunities. Everything that student learn need to think how they use it to change their community for the better. The goals: critical thinking, rational judgement, strength of character, empathy (very important between religious groups and other divisions in society), operational leadership and change-maker skills. There are big political and economic risks – so need to have support of parents, community, government and students. The government resist change, but because the school is funded through tuition fees from the students, it allow the school to become a social enterprise, and to aim to generate funds to modernised the space, and use non-traditional sources (soap / acid from batteries for chemistry) to deliver education. The school is using sensing as part of direct engagement with science – using weather stations, seismographic stations to educate the students about the measurements that are direct to them. Instead of final exam in science, they are running a science fair that is aimed at teaching science for change-makers citizens, which mean demonstrating how science is relevant for their community. The school now have a robotics laboratory – so every student in the school will have to learn what they are and how to create them. In science fairs, they have 4000-5000 visitors. They aim to change the teachers of the future – change the mentality of students, attitude and abilities.

Ange Ansour – see teachers as constant tinkerers. The programme of the CRI that emphasise learning through research.

Celine Nartineau and Vanessa Mignan explored e-Fabrik, focusing on digital problem-solving initiative for youngsters and disabled people (I’ve seen that in ECSITE 2015). Linking young people from disadvantaged communities with disabled people in a fab lab, to consider solutions together. The lessons: working outside the comfort zone is rewarding.

Barbara Schack – access to education and culture with mobile media centre. Setting a media centre in Haiti after the earthquake helps in strengthening communities. Refugees spend on average 17 years in refugee camps and there are 50 million people in such status, so we need a new staple for these people – as part of humanitarian support we need to think of reading. Learning and access to information, playing. They work with UNHCR – they create with Philippe Stark an idea box that unfold to everything that you need to learn, play and create (video below, and the website is ideas-box.org)  They would like to work more places, and a priority is to support refugees from Syria and Iraq in Jordan and Lebanon.

Yogesh Kulkarni, (Vigyan Ashram – a center of Indian Institute Of Education (IIE) Pune). – talks about energetic schoolchildren in India. Need to teach students to identify development need of the community. Example is lack of social space in a village, and through participatory design and building the garden was built. It was design with Google Sketchup plan and use a lot of recycled materials. The students learn through ‘Socrates method of questioning’ after every task and linking that to the curriculum area. Questions on food, energy, engineering. Fab Lab provide the space to mix traditional tools and skills (e.g. carpentry) with recent tools (3D printer, Google Sketchup)

The fourth session was Innovation, Agoras and Citizen Empowerment

Cindy Regalado (ExCiteS, Citizens Without Borders) – describing the development of Barney, a kite that was developed in the Public Lab Barn Raising. DIY for her is about ‘for whom, by whom and for what?’ DIY is about critical making – the possibility to intervene substantively in systems of authority and power, and reflecting on infrastructure, institutions, and communities. She emphasised the importance of communicative spaces – they are allowing people to create a social process and the meaning of something can be only understood when it is used. creating communicative spaces is challenging. We need to consider to what lead people to frugality and need – not to assume that it’s all positive. Also need to consider privilege, acknowledge the technology hype and consider the true potential. She used examples from Public Lab to demonstrate her concepts. The DIY itself will not solve problems, but only expose the systemic and structural issues with society?

James Carlson talks about the ‘Bucket-works’ in Milwaukee (the School Factory) – they now have 100s of members, 90 start-ups, and 2 weddings from their original organisation! He see 8 varieties of collaborative spaces – hackerspace, makerspace, co-working incubator, arts collab, project collab, open democracy areas, citizen science and open health space, and community kitchen and open food. These types have things in common – models of resources and business. They become active through community interaction. All these are having bias towards lots white men, they are not linked to communities nearby them, individual transformation focus, trends to wards engineering science skill-sets not social, emphatic skills. The door is the most important technology, and need to convince people to join in and to go through the door. Need to help people to go through transition, learning how to participate in the context of collaboration, practice experimentation and failure and learning how to self-direct learning – and even the social interaction. How do we map the learning process for participants? How to we help to bring it to small places. There is too much economic focus in terms of driving, and need to have a more emphatic approach that highlights society. James’ presentation is available here.

Amber Griffiths (Foam) – Connecting Society with Science. Everyone funds science through their taxes, and science is better when more people contribute, there is an overwhelming lack of scientific literacy (from minorities -> to the educated pale/male/stale politicians), and science matters to people’ life. Within this context, scientists have love-hate relationships with citizen science. Examples from exploring frog disease, or mapping magpies which follows just the patterns of population. Can we move beyond the unidirectional model of citizen science and encourage people to develop their own ideas? There are ways to help – physical space to do the work, nudge to start and support, and access to existing knowledge. The London Biohackspace is an example for a community space and there are also Foam lab in Cornwell where people can create open spaces. One problem with physical spaces is that they are intimidating – male, already established social relationship, but they can be more collaborative. Access to existing knowledge is increasing with open access, that you still need to know that it exists, where to find it, and how to judge it.

Eleanor Rusack describes UNITAR GeoTag-X. GeoTag-X allow to harvest media (photos/video/audio) about disaster and then analyse media collaboratively and then share it. The process is all with volunteers, and identifying experts volunteers. Photos that are collected are set into categories and are then classified. They also provide outputs that can be used by the Humanitarian Data Exchange.

Nicoals Huchet talked about ‘bionicoHand – a prosthetic arm created in a Fab Lab.  Started in 2002 when he lost his hand and started using prosthetic hand. The personal interest and exposure to fab labs he started developing a new type of prosthetic hand based on Arduino. He feel much more confidence with disability, and not about creating a business or making it cheep. In 2014 started sharing the information on websites and it started to be replicated. MHK – My Human Kit is based on technology and open source, social and educational involvement, social entrepreneurship,  linking disability and art and also contribute to humanitarian goals. He is working with INSA, fab labs and companies – working with geeks, disabled people and medical professionals.

Jaykumar Menon (McGill) closed with discussion on open innovation, humanitarian issues and human rights. He started with the Pasteur Quadrant set the basic research and applied research – according to human needs and interest. He had experience in the area of human rights and moved to the innovation world – and working to develop a network called Zakti, which is an innovation think-tank. He is interested to look at planetary scale issues and think of how to address them. The methods are suitable for open innovations: prizes, crowdsourcing, open innovation and complex collaboration. Used example of iron which is the biggest deficiency and impact 3 billion people – thinking about mixing it in salt as a way to double fortified salt (in addition to iodine). There are also issues with pharma, with a broken system in terms of R&D, development and production that OSDD demonstrate new ways of solving, so there are new ways of solving problems.

Final thoughts: As in the previous events, NightScience is a great event to hear about fascinating achievements and ideas from across the world that bring together science, society, innovations, education and technologies in a very helpful way. You leave such event with the spirit lifted.

Yet, a thought that was running in my head is that many of the issues are partially coming from desperation with the current systems in the world – inequalities, market fundamentalism, cutting public spending and expectations that individuals and groups in society will fend for themselves or else they are left without help. The solutions are mostly tinkering with the existing system and are very gentle in exposing its failures or trying to cause proper disruption that can change the state of things. My work included in this same critique.