Have a personal or library account? Click to login
An Ethics Framework for Evaluating Ownership Practices in Biomedical Citizen Science Cover

An Ethics Framework for Evaluating Ownership Practices in Biomedical Citizen Science

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
Volume 7 (2022): Issue 1
By: Christi J. Guerrini and  Amy L. McGuire  
Open Access
|Dec 2022

References

  1. 1AUTM. 2007. In the Public Interest: Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology. Washington, DC.
    Back to article
  2. 2Borda, A, Gray, K and Fu, Y. 2019. Research data management in health and biomedical citizen science: Practices and prospects. JAMIA Open, 3(1): 113–125. DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooz052
    Back to article
  3. 3Bowser, A, Cooper, C, de Sherbinin, A, Wiggins, A, Brenton, P, Chuang, T-R, Faustman, E, Haklay, M and Meloche, M. 2020. Still in need of norms: The state of the data in citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 5(1): 18. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.303
    Back to article
  4. 4Chesser, S, Porter, MM and Tuckett, AG. 2020. Cultivating citizen science for all: Ethical considerations for research projects involving diverse and marginalized populations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(5): 497–508. DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2019.1704355
    Back to article
  5. 5Cooper, CB, Rasmussen, LM and Jones, ED. 2021. The power (dynamics) of open data in citizen science. Frontiers in Climate, 3: 637037. DOI: 10.3389/fclim.2021.637037
    Back to article
  6. 6Cooper, S, Khatib, F, Treuille, A, Barbero, J, Lee, J, Beenen, M, Leaver-Fay, A, Baker, D, Popovic, Z and Foldit players. 2010. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature, 466: 756–760. DOI: 10.1038/nature09304
    Back to article
  7. 7Curtis, V. 2015. Motivation to participate in an online citizen science game: A study of Foldit. Science Communication, 37(6): 723–746. DOI: 10.1177/1075547015609322
    Back to article
  8. 8Damiani, R, Krieger, JL, Treise, D, Walsh-Childers, K, Fisher, CL, Bloodworth, S, Brishke, J and Shenkman, E. 2021. Learning the language of science: A pilot study exploring citizen scientists’ identity and communication with researchers. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5: e208. DOI: 10.1017/cts.2021.847
    Back to article
  9. 9Del Savio, L, Prainsack, B and Buyx, A. 2017. Motivations of participants in the citizen science of microbiomics: Data from the British Gut Project. Genetics in Medicine, 19(8): 959–961. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.208
    Back to article
  10. 10Dratwa, J. (ed.) 2015. Opinion No. 29 of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission: The Ethical Implications of New Health Technologies and Citizen Participation. Brussels, BE.
    Back to article
  11. 11Eterna. n.d.a. How it works. Available at https://eternagame.org/about. (Last accessed 22 May 2022).
    Back to article
  12. 12Eterna. n.d.b. Publications. Available at https://eternagame.org/publications. (Last accessed 22 May 2022).
    Back to article
  13. 13European Citizen Science Association (ECSA). 2015. Ten principles of citizen science. Available at https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/documents/. (Last accessed 19 May 2022).
    Back to article
  14. 14European Citizen Science Association (ECSA). 2020. ECSA’s characteristics of citizen science: Explanation notes. Available at https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ecsa_characteristics_of_citizen_science_explanation_notes_-_v1_final.pdf. (Last accessed 19 May 2022).
    Back to article
  15. 15Evans, BJ. 2020. The perils of parity: Should citizen science and traditional research follow the same ethical and privacy principles? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 48(S1): 74–81. DOI: 10.1177/1073110520917031
    Back to article
  16. 16Fiske, A, Del Savio, L, Prainsack, B and Buyx, A. 2019. Conceptual and ethical considerations for citizen science in biomedicine. In: Heyen, NB, Dickel, S, and Bruninghaus, A (eds.), Personal Health Science, 195–217. Wiesbaden: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-16428-7_10
    Back to article
  17. 17Fiske, A, Prainsack, B and Buyx, A. 2019. Meeting the needs of underserved populations: Setting the agenda for more inclusive citizen science of medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45: 617–622. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105253
    Back to article
  18. 18Gallegos, JE, Boyer, C, Pauwels, E, Kaplan, WA and Peccoud, J. 2018. The Open Insulin Project: A case study for ‘biohacked’ medicines. Trends in Biotechnology, 36(12): 1211–1218. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.07.009
    Back to article
  19. 19Genes in Space. n.d.a. FAQ: Where can I find information about previous finalists? Available at https://www.genesinspace.org/us-contest/. (Last accessed 23 May 2022).
    Back to article
  20. 20Genes in Space. n.d.b. Alumni. Available at https://www.genesinspace.org/meet-us/. (Last accessed 23 May 2022).
    Back to article
  21. 21Grant, AD, Wolf, GI and Nebeker, C. 2019. Approaches to governance of participant-led research: A qualitative case study. BMJ Open, 9: e025633. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025633
    Back to article
  22. 22Greely, HT. 2020. The future of DTC genomics and the law. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 48: 151–160. DOI: 10.1177/1073110520917003
    Back to article
  23. 23Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute. 2003. Southern District of Florida. 264 F. Supp. 2nd 1064.
    Back to article
  24. 24Greshake, B, Bayer, PE, Rausch, H and Reda, J. 2014. openSNP–A crowdsourced web resource for personal genomics. PLoS One, 9(3): e89204. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089204
    Back to article
  25. 25Groot, B and Abma, T. 2022. Ethics framework for citizen science and public and patient participation in research. BMC Medical Ethics, 23: 23. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-022-00761-4
    Back to article
  26. 26Guerrini, CJ and Contreras, JL. 2020. Credit for and control of research outputs in genomic citizen science. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 21: 465–489. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021812
    Back to article
  27. 27Guerrini, CJ, Contreras, JL, Bash Brooks, W, Canfield, I, Trejo, M and McGuire, AL. 2022. “Idealists and capitalists”: Ownership attitudes and preferences in genomic citizen science. New Genetics and Society, 41(2): 74–95. DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2022.2063827
    Back to article
  28. 28Guerrini, CJ, Lewellyn, M, Majumder, MA, Trejo, M, Canfield, I and McGuire, AL. 2019. Donors, authors, and owners: How is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs? BMC Medical Ethics, 20: 84. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-019-0419-1
    Back to article
  29. 29Guerrini, CJ, Majumder, MA, Lewellyn, MJ and McGuire, AL. 2018. Citizen science, public policy. Science, 361(6398): 134–136. DOI: 10.1126/science.aar8379
    Back to article
  30. 30Harvard Personal Genome Project (PGP). 2022. Consent form. Rev. 2017.04.21.
    Back to article
  31. 31Just One Giant Lab (JOGL). 2022. How it works. Available at https://jogl.io/. (Last accessed 10 September 2022).
    Back to article
  32. 32Kasperowski, D, Hagen, N and Rohden, F. 2021. Ethical boundary work in citizen science: Themes of insufficiency. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 9(2): 13–24. DOI: 10.5324/njsts.v10i1.4318
    Back to article
  33. 33Land-Zandstra, AM, van Beusekom, MM, Koppeschaar, CE and van den Broek, JM. 2016. Motivation and learning impact of Dutch flu-trackers. Journal of Science Communication, 15(01): A04. DOI: 10.22323/2.15010204
    Back to article
  34. 34Lee, J, Kladwang, W, Lee, M, Cantu, D, Azizyan, M, Kim, H, Limpaecher, A, Gaikwad, S, Yoon, S, Treuille, A, Das, R and EteRNA participants. 2014. RNA design rules from a massive open laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(6): 2122–2127. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1313039111
    Back to article
  35. 35Meyer, MN. 2020. There oughta be a law: When does(n’t) the U.S. Common Rule apply? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 48(S1): 60–73. DOI: 10.1177/1073110520917030
    Back to article
  36. 36Millum, J. 2012. Sharing the benefits of research fairly: Two approaches. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38: 219–223. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100118
    Back to article
  37. 37National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (National Commission). 1979. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC.
    Back to article
  38. 38O’Donnell, S, Lewis, D, Marchante Fernández, M, Wäldchen, M, Cleal, B, Skinner, T, Raile, K, Tappe, A, Ubben, T, Willaing, I, Hauck, B, Wolf, S and Braune, K. 2019. Evidence on user-led innovation in diabetes technology (The OPEN Project): Protocol for a mixed methods study. JMIR Research Protocols, 8(11): e15368. DOI: 10.2196/15368
    Back to article
  39. 39Pearlman, A. 2019. Biohackers are pirating a cheap version of a million-dollar gene therapy. MIT Technology Review. Available at https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/30/133193/biohackers-are-pirating-a-cheap-version-of-a-million-dollar-gene-therapy/. (Last accessed 10 September 2022).
    Back to article
  40. 40Rasmussen, LM. 2019. Beyond Belmont—and beyond regulations. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(8): 19–21. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1619879
    Back to article
  41. 41Rasmussen, LM. 2021. Research ethics in citizen science. In: Iltis, AS and MacKay, D (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Research Ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190947750.013.36
    Back to article
  42. 42Resnik, DB. 2019. Institutional review board oversight of citizen science research involving human subjects. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(8): 21–23. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1619864
    Back to article
  43. 43Resnik, DB, Elliott, KC and Miller, AK. 2015. A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science. Environmental Science & Policy, 54: 475–481. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.008
    Back to article
  44. 44Rid, A and Wendler, D. 2011. A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 21(2): 141–179. DOI: 10.1353/ken.2011.0007
    Back to article
  45. 45Riesch, H and Potter, C. 2014. Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1): 107–120. DOI: 10.1177/0963662513497324
    Back to article
  46. 46Roberts, JL. 2017. Negotiating commercial interests in biospecimens. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 45: 138–141. DOI: 10.1177/1073110517703107
    Back to article
  47. 47Roberts, JL, Pereira, S and McGuire, AL. 2017. Should you profit from your genome? Nature Biotechnology, 35(1): 18–20. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3757
    Back to article
  48. 48Ross-Hellauer, T, Tennant, JP, Banelytė, V, Gorogh, E, Luzi, D, Kraker, P, Pisacane, L, Ruggieri, R, Sifacaki, E and Vignoli, M. 2020. Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research. PLoS Computational Biology, 16(4): e1007704. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007704
    Back to article
  49. 49Scassa, T and Chung, H. 2015a. Managing Intellectual Property Rights in Citizen Science: A Guide for Researchers and Citizen Scientists. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC.
    Back to article
  50. 50Scassa, T and Chung, H. 2015b. Typology of Citizen Science Projects from an Intellectual Property Perspective: Invention and Authorship Between Researchers and Participants. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC.
    Back to article
  51. 51Smith, E, Bélisle-Pipon, J-C and Resnik, D. 2019. Patients as research partners; How to value their perceptions, contribution and labor? Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1): 15. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.184
    Back to article
  52. 52Spector-Bagdady, K, De Vries, RG, Gornick, MG, Shuman, AG, Kardia, S and Platt, J. 2018. Encouraging participation and transparency in biobank research. Health Affairs, 37(8): 1313–1320. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0159
    Back to article
  53. 53Thorogood, A, Bobe, J, Prainsack, B, Middleton, A, Scott, E, Nelson, S, Corpas, M, Bonhomme, N, Rodriguez, LL, Murtagh, M and Kleiderman, E. 2018. APPLaUD: Access for patients and participants to individual level uninterpreted genomic data. Human Genomics, 12: 7. DOI: 10.1186/s40246-018-0139-5
    Back to article
  54. 54Torkamani, A, Wineinger, NE and Topol, EJ. 2018. The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19: 581–590. DOI: 10.1038/s41576-018-0018-x
    Back to article
  55. 55Trejo, M, Canfield, I, Robinson, JO and Guerrini, CJ. 2021. How biomedical citizen scientists define what they do: It’s all in the name. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 12(1); 63–70. DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1825139
    Back to article
  56. 56U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (n.d.) Informed consent FAQs: When does compensating subjects undermine informed consent or parental permission? Available at https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/informed-consent/index.html. (Last accessed 14 September 2022).
    Back to article
  57. 57U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2017. Final rule. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Federal Register, 82(12): 7149–7274.
    Back to article
  58. 58U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2019a. Draft guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. Clinical decision support software. Available at https://www.fda.gov/media/109618/download. (Last accessed 1 May 2022).
    Back to article
  59. 59U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2019b. Guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. General wellness: Policy for low-risk devices. Available at https://www.fda.gov/media/90652/download. (Last accessed 18 May 2022).
    Back to article
  60. 60Vayena, E and Tasioulas, J. 2013. Adapting standards: Ethical oversight of participant-led health research. PLoS Medicine, 10(3): e1001402. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001402
    Back to article
  61. 61Vayena, E and Tasioulas, J. 2015. “We the scientists”: A human right to science. Philosophy and Technology, 28: 479–485. DOI: 10.1007/s13347-015-0204-0
    Back to article
  62. 62Wertheimer, A. 2013. Is payment a benefit? Bioethics, 27(2): 105–116. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01892.x
    Back to article
  63. 63White, L. 2019. A neglected ethical issue in citizen science and DIY biology. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(8): 46–48. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1619876
    Back to article
  64. 64Wicks, P, Vaughan, TE, Massagli, MP and Heywood, J. 2011. Accelerated clinical discovery using self-reported patient data collected online and a patient-matching algorithm. Nature Biotechnology, 29(5): 411–414. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.1837
    Back to article
  65. 65Wiggins, A and Wilbanks, J. 2019. The rise of citizen science in health and biomedical research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(8): 3–14. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1619859
    Back to article
  66. 66Wolf, SM. 2020. Return of results in participant-driven research: Learning from transformative research models. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 48(S1): 159–166. DOI: 10.1177/1073110520917042
    Back to article
  67. 67Woolley, JP, McGowan, ML, Teare, HJA, Coathup, V, Fishman, JR, Settersten Jr., RA, Sterckx, S, Kaye, J and Juengst, ET. 2016. Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives. BMC Medical Ethics, 17: 33. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0117-1
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.537 | Journal eISSN: 2057-4991
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Jun 28, 2022
Accepted on: Sep 20, 2022
Published on: Dec 15, 2022
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Ownership,
IRB,
ethics,
Common Rule,
biomedical,
health

© 2022 Christi J. Guerrini, Amy L. McGuire, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 7 (2022): Issue 1Next article