No abstract

Citizen science (CS) can foster transformative impact for science, citizen empowerment and socio-political processes. To unleash this impact, a clearer understanding of its current status and challenges for its development is needed. Using quantitative indicators developed in a collaborative stakeholder process, our study provides a comprehensive overview of the current status of CS in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Our online survey with 340 responses focused on CS impact through (1) scientific practices, (2) participant learning and empowerment, and (3) socio-political processes. With regard to scientific impact, we found that data quality control is an established component of CS practice, while publication of CS data and results has not yet been achieved by all project coordinators (55%). Key benefits for citizen scientists were the experience of collective impact (“making a difference together with others”) as well as gaining new knowledge. For the citizen scientists’ learning outcomes, different forms of social learning, such as systematic feedback or personal mentoring, were essential. While the majority of respondents attributed an important value to CS for decision-making, only few were confident that CS data were indeed utilized as evidence by decision-makers. Based on these results, we recommend (1) that project coordinators and researchers strengthen scientific impact by fostering data management and publications, (2) that project coordinators and citizen scientists enhance participant impact by promoting social learning opportunities and (3) that project initiators and CS networks foster socio-political impact through early engagement with decision-makers and alignment with ongoing policy processes. In this way, CS can evolve its transformative impact.

No abstract

This is the first version of the White Paper Citizen Science Strategy 2030 for Germany. This version is out for consultation from 8/8/21-30/9/2021 and will then be revised with received comments and reviews accordingly. Consultation website: www.citizen-science-weissbuch.de

The participation of citizens in scientific research has a long tradition, and in some disciplines, especially medical research, it is even common practice. In Technology Assessment (TA), Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), and Sustainable Development (SD), the participation of citizens can be of considerable value. In this paper, we explore this value for three concepts, based on the researcher’s insights from three participatory research projects. The first project is the citizen science project TeQfor1, which was conducted with, for, and on the type 1 diabetes community, who do not feel adequately supported by the conventional health care system. In the second project, citizens with vision impairments participated in the technological development of an audio-tactile navigation tool in the TERRAIN project. The third project (Nachtlichter) dealt with light pollution. Based on the three projects presented, we show that citizen participation makes specific contributions to TA, RRI, and SD. We also investigate the specificity of citizen engagement and motivation by differentiating between existing and emerging involvement. In conclusion, we discuss the benefits that may be added by participatory approaches for the three concepts of TA, RRI, and SD.

In den Bürgerwissenschaften, auch bekannt unter dem englischen Begriff Citizen Science, existiert eine Vielzahl an Forschungsansätzen und Methoden. Während diese in vielen wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen gut etabliert sind, finden sich augenscheinlich relativ wenige davon in der medizinischen und Gesundheitsforschung. Allerdings zeigt ein Blick in die Praxis, dass bürgerwissenschaftliche Ansätze in der Medizin und Gesundheitsforschung durchaus praktiziert werden, jedoch häufig unter anderen Namen. Der Artikel bietet aus interdisziplinärer Perspektive einen (selektiven) Überblick über Begriffe, reflektiert diese und die dahinterstehenden Methoden und diskutiert sie vergleichend. Im Fokus steht dabei der Grad der Beteiligung der Bürger*innen bzw. Patient*innen an wissenschaftlicher Forschung.

Innovators of in vitro meat (IVM) are convinced that this approach is the solution for problems related to current meat production and consumption, especially regarding animal welfare and environmental issues. However, the production conditions have yet to be fully clarified and there is still a lack of ethical discourses and critical debates on IVM. In consequence, discussion about the ethical justifiability and desirability of IVM remains hypothetical and we have to question those promises. This paper addresses the complex ethical aspects associated with IVM and the questions of whether, and under what conditions, the production of IVM represents an ethically justifiable solution for existing problems, especially in view of animal welfare, the environment, and society. There are particular hopes regarding the benefits that IVM could bring to animal welfare and the environment, but there are also strong doubts about their ethical benefits.

No abstract