Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27260081›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2016

Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives.

J Patrick Woolley, Michelle L McGowan, Harriet J A Teare, Victoria Coathup, Jennifer R Fishman, Richard A Settersten, Sigrid Sterckx, Jane Kaye, Eric T Juengst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Hoping for optimality or designing for inclusion: Persistence, learning, and the social network of citizen science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Participatory autism research: Early career and established researchers' views and experiences.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

J Patrick WoolleyUniversity of Oxford, Harris Manchester College, Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TD, UK.
Michelle L McGowanThe Pennsylvania State University, 128B Willard Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Harriet J A TeareCentre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Ewert House, Ewert Place, Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 7DD, UK.
Victoria CoathupCentre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Ewert House, Ewert Place, Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 7DD, UK.
Jennifer R FishmanMcGill University, Social Studies of Medicine, 3647 Peel, Room 207, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1X1, Canada.
Richard A SetterstenSchool of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 123 Women's Building, Corvallis, OR, 97331-8577, USA.
Sigrid SterckxDepartment of Philosophy & Moral Sciences Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000, Gent, Belgium.
Jane KayeCentre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Ewert House, Ewert Place, Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 7DD, UK. jane.kaye@law.ox.ac.uk.
Eric T Juengst333 MacNider Hall, Campus Box 7240, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 333S. Columbia Road, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7240, USA.

Funding

Supplement to Anticipating Personalized Genomic Medicine: Impact and ImplicationsR01HG005277 · NHGRI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI FISHMAN, JENNIFER, JUENGST, ERIC T · 2010 to 2013
$2.3M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG005277
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe language of "participant-driven research," "crowdsourcing" and "citizen science" is increasingly being used to encourage the public to become involved in research ventures as both subjects and scientists. Originally, these labels were invoked by volunteer research efforts propelled by amateurs outside of traditional research institutions and aimed at appealing to those looking for more "democratic," "patient-centric," or "lay" alternatives to the professional science establishment. As mainstream translational biomedical research requires increasingly larger participant pools, however, corporate, academic and governmental research programs are embracing this populist rhetoric to encourage wider public participation. DISCUSSION: We examine the ethical and social implications of this recruitment strategy. We begin by surveying examples of "citizen science" outside of biomedicine, as paradigmatic of the aspirations this democratizing rhetoric was originally meant to embody. Next, we discuss the ways these aspirations become articulated in the biomedical context, with a view to drawing out the multiple and potentially conflicting meanings of "public engagement" when citizens are also the subjects of the science. We then illustrate two uses of public engagement rhetoric to gain public support for national biomedical research efforts: its post-hoc use in the "care.data" project of the National Health Service in England, and its proactive uses in the "Precision Medicine Initiative" of the United States White House. These examples will serve as the basis for a normative analysis, discussing the potential ethical and social ramifications of this rhetoric. We pay particular attention to the implications of government strategies that cultivate the idea that members of the public have a civic duty to participate in government-sponsored research initiatives. We argue that such initiatives should draw from policy frameworks that support normative analysis of the role of citizenry. And, we conclude it is imperative to make visible and clear the full spectrum of meanings of "citizen science," the contexts in which it is used, and its demands with respect to participation, engagement, and governance.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationLanguagePatient SelectionPrecision MedicinePublic OpinionSocial ResponsibilityTranslational Research, BiomedicalBiomedical ResearchEnglandGovernmentHumansScienceSocial ValuesUnited StatesBig dataCare.dataCitizen scienceCitizenshipCrowdsourcingNational health researchParticipant centric initiativesPrecision medicinePublic engagementRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID27260081
PMCPMC4893207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.