Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs?

Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer

Open science ensures that research is transparently reported and freely accessible for all to assess and collaboratively build on. Psychiatric genetics has led among the health sciences in implementing some open science practices in common study designs, such as replication as part of genome-wide association studies. However, thorough open science implementation guidelines are limited and largely not specific to data, privacy, and research conduct challenges in psychiatric genetics. Here, we present a primer of open science practices, including selection of a research topic with patients/nonacademic collaborators, equitable authorship and citation practices, design of replicable, reproducible studies, preregistrations, open data, and privacy issues. We provide tips for informative figures and inclusive, precise reporting. We discuss considerations in working with nonacademic collaborators and distributing research through preprints, blogs, social media, and accessible lecture materials. Finally, we provide extra resources to support every step of the research process.

An Ethics Framework for Evaluating Ownership Practices in Biomedical Citizen Science

The collaborative nature of citizen science raises important questions about managing ownership of its research outputs. Potential citizen science research outputs include data sets, findings, publications, and discoveries of new ideas, methods, products, and technologies. Unlike citizen science projects conducted in other disciplines, biomedical citizen science projects often include features, such as contribution of personal health data, that might heighten citizen scientists' expectations that they will be able to access, control, or share in the benefits of project outputs. Here, we refer to moral claims of access, control, and benefit as ownership claims, and a project's management of ownership claims as its ownership practices. Ethical management of ownership is widely recognized as an important consideration for citizen science projects, and practitioners and scholars have described helpful recommendations for preempting issues and engaging stakeholders on practices. Building on this literature, we propose a framework to help biomedical citizen science projects systematically evaluate the ethical soundness of their ownership practices based on four considerations: reciprocal treatment, relative treatment, risk-benefit assessment, and reasonable expectations.

Pirate Talk: Navigating Practical, Ethical, and Legal Issues Associated with Biomedical Citizen Science Interview Studies

In citizen science, in-depth interviews have advanced the understanding of project leaders' and citizen scientists' objectives, motivations, attitudes, and concerns. The issues encountered by researchers conducting in-depth interviews in citizen science are likely not unique to this field. However, these issues can surface and play out in distinct ways that depend on the scientific and sociopolitical circumstances of citizen science communities and projects. Researchers' experiences conducting in-depth interviews are the subject of a growing literature that describes considerations for conducting research with discrete populations. We aim to contribute to this literature by describing salient practical, ethical, and legal issues to consider when interviewing biomedical citizen scientists, with a focus on bottom-up biomedical citizen scientists who have loose or no affiliations with traditional scientific institutions. These issues concern how to define the interview population; earn trust and demonstrate trustworthiness given past treatment of bottom-up biomedical citizen scientists by traditional researchers and institutions; adapt research practices to the strong culture of openness that characterizes bottom-up biomedical citizen science; and manage potential safety concerns. This essay draws on our own experiences and those of other qualitative researchers and makes suggestions for addressing these issues in ways intended to protect study integrity and demonstrate respect for participants. We also identify questions that would benefit from broad input and continued study. Our objectives in sharing these lessons learned are to support future research and to improve understanding of this exciting participatory space.

"Idealists and capitalists": ownership attitudes and preferences in genomic citizen science

The perspectives of genomic citizen scientists on ownership of research outputs are not well understood, yet they are useful for identifying alignment of participant expectations and project practices and can help guide efforts to develop innovative tools and strategies for managing ownership claims. Here, we report findings from 52 interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 to understand genomic citizen science stakeholders' conceptualizations of, experiences with, and preferences for ownership of research outputs. Interviewees identified four approaches for recognizing genomic citizen scientists' ownership and related credit interests in research outputs: shared governance via commons models; fractional ownership of benefits; full and creative attribution; and offensive and defensive patenting. Interviewees also agreed that the model selected by any project should at least maximize access to research outputs and, as appropriate and to the extent possible, broadly distribute rights of control and entitlements to research benefits.

How Biomedical Citizen Scientists Define What They Do: It's All in the Name

BACKGROUND

As citizen science continues to grow in popularity, there remains disagreement about what terms should be used to describe citizen science activities and participants. The question of how to self-identify has important ethical, political, and practical implications to the extent that shared language reflects a common ethos and goals and shapes behavior. Biomedical citizen science in particular has come to be associated with terms that reflect its unique activities, concerns, and priorities. To date, however, there is scant evidence regarding how biomedical citizen scientists prefer to describe themselves, their work, and the values that they attach to these terms.

METHODS

In 2018, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 biomedical citizen scientists in connection with a larger study to understand ownership preferences. Interview data were analyzed to identify the terms that interviewees used and avoided to describe themselves and their work, as well as the reasons for their preferences.

RESULTS

Biomedical citizen scientists self-identified using three main terms: citizen scientist, biohacker, and community scientist. However, there was a lack of consensus among interviewees on the appropriateness of each term, two of which prompted conflicting responses. Self-identification preferences were based on personal judgments about whether specific terms convey respect, are provocative, or are broad and inclusive, as well as the desirability of each of these messages.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of consensus about self-identification preferences in biomedical citizen science reflects the diversity of experiences and goals of individuals participating in this field, as well as different perceptions of the values signaled by and implications of using each term. Heterogeneity of preferences also may signal the parallel development of multiple communities in biomedical citizen science.

Credit for and Control of Research Outputs in Genomic Citizen Science

Citizen science encompasses activities with scientific objectives in which members of the public participate as more than passive research subjects from whom personal data or biospecimens are collected and analyzed by others. Citizen science is increasingly common in the biomedical sciences, including the fields of genetics and human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives are diverse and involve citizen scientists in collecting genetic data, solving genetic puzzles, and conducting experiments in community laboratories. At the same time that genomic citizen science is presenting new opportunities for individuals to participate in scientific discovery, it is also challenging norms regarding the manner in which scientific research outputs are managed. In this review, we present a typology of genomic citizen science initiatives, describe ethical and legal foundations for recognizing genomic citizen scientists' claims of credit for and control of research outputs, and detail how such claims are or might be addressed in practice across a variety of initiatives.

Including Digital Sequence Data in the Nagoya Protocol Can Promote Data Sharing

The Nagoya Protocol (NP), a legal framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), formalises fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from biological diversity. It encompasses biological samples and associated indigenous knowledge, with equitable return of benefits to those providing samples. Recent proposals that the use of digital sequence information (DSI) derived from samples should also require benefit-sharing under the NP have raised concerns that this might hamper research progress. Here, we propose that formalised benefit-sharing for biological data use can increase willingness to participate in research and share data, by ensuring equitable collaboration between sample providers and researchers, and preventing exploitative practices. Three case studies demonstrate how equitable benefit-sharing agreements might build long-term collaborations, furthering research for global benefits.

Who Are the People in Your Neighborhood? Personas Populating Unregulated mHealth Research

A key feature of unregulated mHealth research is the diversity of participants in this space. Applying an approach drawn from user experience design, we describe a set of archetypal unregulated mHealth researcher "personas," which range from individuals who seek empowerment or have philanthropic objectives to those who are primarily motivated by financial gain or have misanthropic objectives. These descriptions are useful for evaluating policies applicable to mHealth to understand how they will impact various stakeholders.