“Science isn’t science until it is communicated!” For anyone in the Integrated Science program, it’s a quote that we’ve heard many times. The importance of communicating science cannot be understated; however, it can sometimes be difficult to engage the public in a way that will interest them. Now, imagine if there was a way to not only engage the public in science, but have them help with the entire process.
The solution to this is citizen science: the collection and analysis of data by the general public (Ellwood, 2017). Logistically, the benefit of citizen science is that it allows very large amounts of data to be collected, over both spatial and temporal time scales (Aceves‐Bueno et al., 2017). On top of this, the public is directly involved in the scientific process, which increases their awareness and consideration for the project being performed.
Now, you may be asking the question: “Is data collected by the general public reliable?” Different studies have estimated the reliability of citizen collected data differently. One quantitative review found that of papers stating the difference in P values between citizens and professionals, 62% showed no significant difference, and of papers declaring a percent agreement between data, 55% reported at least an 80% agreement between data collected by citizens and researchers (Figure 1) (Aceves-Buenos et al., 2017). Another study on data collected for conservation analysis noticed that in general, citizens recorded less information than professionals, although that most species were identified reliably. That being said, when outliers were removed from both data sets, they were still fairly similar (Kallimanis, Panitsa and Dimopoulos, 2017).
One downfall to both of these studies is that they focused on shorter term outcomes, when many studies using citizen science are long term (Aceves‐Bueno et al., 2017).Many of these long term studies are inherently larger, and thus, have a more established method of verifying data. One example of this is eBird, which is the world’s largest biodiversity related citizen science project (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2018). It was launched by Cornell University if 2004 as a site for hobbyist birders to record their sightings so that the data could be used by scientists (Figure 2) (Semeniuk, 2018). All data that is inputted into eBird is reviewed by an expert to ensure that it appears to be accurate. For any unusual sightings, more data is asked for by the observer to help verify the sighting. If there is any doubt, the data is not used (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2018). On top of this, a list of the total number of birds seen per species per area is recorded, and if this number is unusual, it is again revisited to ensure accuracy (Aceves‐Bueno et al., 2017).
Citizen science provides an exciting technique for data collection, both because of its ability for large scale studies, as well as its ability to really engage the public in science. Like any scientific tool, there are limitations to what it can accomplish, but when these limitations are kept in mind, there are many ways to accurately mitigate them.
Works Cited:
Aceves‐Bueno, E., Adeleye, A.S., Feraud, M., Huang, Y., Tao, M., Yang, Y. and Anderson, S.E., 2017. The Accuracy of Citizen Science Data: A Quantitative Review. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 98(4), pp.278–290.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2018. About eBird. [online] eBird. Available at: <https://ebird.org/ebird/about> [Accessed 10 Nov. 2018].
Ellwood, E., 2017. How citizen science is helping solve conservation problems. [online] Elsevier. Available at: <https://www.journals.elsevier.com/biological-conservation/article-collections/how-citizen-science-is-helping-solve-conservation-problems> [Accessed 10 Nov. 2018].
Kallimanis, A.S., Panitsa, M. and Dimopoulos, P., 2017. Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas. Scientific Reports, 7(1), p.8873.
Semeniuk, I., 2018. The butterfly effect: How Canadians and their smartphones are helping scientists map species diversity. The Globe and Mail. [online] 7 Oct. Available at: <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/technology/science/article-the-butterfly-effect-how-canadians-and-their-smartphones-are-helping/> [Accessed 10 Nov. 2018].
Comments
12 Responses to “Science for the People”
Hey all!
I came across a large article in the paper a few weeks ago about citizen science, which got me thinking a lot and inspired me to write my blog post about it! I found it to be really applicable to what we talk about in iSci,, given the desire to connect with the public and communicate the science that we perform. It was also relevant to what we were talking about in PAIx about statistics, as there is such a difference between who is collecting all of the data, and the locations of the data being collected can be very clumped around urban centres. If you’re interested in reading more, the original newspaper article that I read is really accessible, and I highly recommend it – it’s called ‘The Butterfly Effect’, published in The Globe and Mail. On top of this, I’d appreciate it if you’d let me know if you have any suggestions on how to improve my post.
Mary Anne
Hi MaryAnne,
I loved your blog post! I enjoyed how you related science to the general public and how the general public can help influence scientific discoveries. Science is commonly seen as a very elite field, so I highly appreciate your effort to try and mend that bridge. I just had a couple of comments:
– I appreciate the use of a quote to introduce your post but it may seem a bit unprofessional, maybe try introducing it as follows: A commonly heard, yet frustrating statement that has been heard many times by all iSci students is, “Science isn’t science until it is communicated.”
– I would replace the question mark at the end of the first paragraph with a period.
– In the first sentence of the second paragraph, I believe a colon is more grammatically correct than a semicolon.
– The second paragraph is concise and well written!
– I think the quote in the first sentence of the third paragraph should be preceded by a colon.
– In the second sentence of the third paragraph, I would remove the citation and replace it as follows: In 2017, a quantitative review was performed that found… And then add the normal citation at the end.
– Add a space directly after the first sentence, before the second.
– In the third paragraph, I would stay consistent between hyphenating and not hyphenating the words long-term and short-term.
– The concluding paragraph seems to be the only paragraph that is indented. I would remove the indentation for consistency’s sake.
– In the last sentence of the concluding paragraph, add a space between “it” and “can”.
-Great conclusion! It ties the piece together very well.
Overall, this blog post was very unique and well written. I highly enjoyed the topic.
Hope my edits help and I wish you the best with your future blog posts,
Karen Arevalo
Thanks so much for all of the suggestions Karen! I appreciate all of the times you caught the grammar that I slipped up on. I agree with what you said about a quote not sounding quite as professional; however, I felt as thought it was a better hook to the start of the post, so I decided to leave this part in.
Mary Anne
Hey Mary Anne,
Nice blog post! I just have a couple of grammatical suggestions:
– Make sure to include “Figure 1” in your figure caption
– In the 4th sentence of your 4th paragraph, I believe you mean “in” and not “if”
– Double check the spacing in your last paragraph
Other than that, this was a very interesting read! Can’t wait to see the final product!
Regards,
Sonya
Thanks for the suggestions Sonya! I appreciate that you noticed the grammar errors that I made
Mary Anne
Hey MaryAnne! I loved reading through this and thought it was a very different kind of blog post which I appreciated! I do however have a few technical suggestions.
1. The first sentence in the fourth paragraph, you will want to put a space after the period at the end.
2. The citation in your last figure should have a period at the end.
3. I would recommend making the “Works Cited” appear more as a title by increasing the font size and/or bolding it.
Overall this was very well written and conveyed your message quite well! Thanks for the read and happy editing!
Lelia
Hi Lelia!
Thanks for your suggestions. I think that they help to add to the clarity of my post.
Mary Anne
Hi Mary Anne,
I really enjoyed reading your post! It was well laid out, clear, and flowed very well.
I just noticed two small errors in your last paragraph: you are missing a space between “it” and “can” and between “many” and “ways”.
This was a very informative post and a fun read!
Kate J
Hi Kate!
Thanks for noticing the spacing issues – I was having some trouble with the editor, so I’m glad that you caught them.
Mary Anne
Hi Mary Anne,
I really enjoyed reading your post! The topic is very relevant to many lessons taught in iSci. I found the idea of engaging the general public in data processing to be extremely interesting! I have just two suggestions to help to edit your post:
First, in your introduction sentence I think it would be beneficial to say Integrated Sciences (iSci) rather than beginning with the short form. However, this is just a small formatting thing.
Secondly, the second sentence of the third paragraph is missing a space prior to the beginning of the sentence.
Hopefully these two small things help in finalizing your post. Overall, an excellent choice of topic with a great use of figures! It was great read.
All the best,
Jessica
Thanks for the suggestions Jessica! I was having some trouble with the new Gutenberg editor, so I’m glad that you caught the spacing issue.
Mary Anne
Thanks for the suggestions Sonya! I appreciate that you noticed the grammatical errors that I made.
Mary Anne