Content uploaded by Nicholas R Record
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicholas R Record on May 31, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
may 2017
© 2017 Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography
viewpoint
A PeoPle’s science
Nicholas R. Record
Times can change quickly. It’s easy to wake up
one morning suddenly asking, Whatever hap-
pened to wobbly antennas on cell phones? Or,
Where’s “Ask Jeeves”? Or even, Why is the US
federal government now hostile to the founda-
tions of scientific research?
That last question in particular has caught
many of us off guard. Scientists have recently
written about concerns such as funding cuts
(Gewin 2017), gag orders (American Association
for the Advancement of Science 2017) and the
proliferation of false information (Williamson
2016). Earth Science is especially vulnerable
to politics because of links to climate change
and environmental regulations. The threat to
point NASA satellites away from Earth stands
out among many proposals to undermine Earth
Science and science in general.
The scientific community has responded
quickly. The courage to stand up for science, to
engage policy makers, and to protest is essen-
tial to preserving the freedom of inquiry and
the objectivity that underpin great science.
Along those lines, the strategies that many
have described (e.g., Goldman et al. 2017; Voss
and Sponberg 2017, and others in this issue)
are important contributions. Overcoming the
threats to our current Earth Science model is an
objective we should all be working toward. The
purpose of this column is not to question that
premise, but to ask another question: What if it
doesn’t work?
Every once in a while, politicians do just
what they’ve promised. In this case, whether it’s
building a border wall, repealing healthcare, or
humiliating celebrities, it looks like the admin-
istration will try its hardest to follow through
on its proposals. There is a very real possibil-
ity that, despite deploying the best strategies
for engaging with policy makers, Earth Science
research could be severely eroded. Even if Cali-
fornia launches its own satellite, the gutting
of federally supported Earth Science research
would leave a gaping hole.
IS THERE A BACKUP PLAN?
Today, the strongest traditions of science are
underpinned by strong national government
support. And yet—and maybe this is because
I’m American—there is a tiny libertarian elf
inside me that sometimes pipes out, “If science
is so great, does it really need the government’s
help?” This is more than a theoretical question.
Efforts by groups like DataRefuge to backup
satellite data on private and international serv-
ers are a stark reminder of the reality. It might
come to pass that we are faced with very prag-
matic questions, such as: In the absence of fed-
eral support, what science can we do?
When I think about this question in terms of
Earth Science, it boils down to this: How can we
monitor climate change, pollution, and environ-
mental changes in the absence of government
funding? I focus on monitoring because of the
scale of the challenge, and because it underpins
our understanding of Earth systems. It’s hard
to imagine replacing, for example, satellite
monitoring of surface temperatures, but that
difficulty is part of what makes it interesting.
Answering questions like these truly requires
innovation, ingenuity, and scientific creativity.
Some pieces already exist. Those engaged in
citizen science have seen how putting technol-
ogy in the hands of citizens can produce synop-
tic measurements over large spatial scales. This
approach is even being used to monitor Arctic
sea ice (Smart 2017). Civic science takes this idea
one step further, deliberately bringing citizens
together around a problem to foster discourse.
Civic science could be one part of the equa-
tion; another is the networking of information.
Drivers using the Waze app have become mobile-
networked measurement devices, transforming
road maps into living changing things, and mak-
ing helicopter traffic reports all but obsolete.
Weather Underground, though it currently relies
on the National Weather Service, has networked
100,000 personal weather stations.
Many technologies could be leveraged to
these ends, from phones to drones to still-
unknowns. The point of these examples is not
to say the problem has been solved—far from
it. There are still drawbacks to civic science,
such as bias and data quality concerns (Con-
rad and Hilchey 2011). None of these examples
gives the coverage of satellites, drifters, or
other monitoring platforms. But the examples
do suggest a possible way forward—namely,
putting science in the hands of The People.
TOWARD A PEOPLE’S SCIENCE
Climate change, environmental degradation,
pollution—these disproportionately affect vul-
nerable populations and pose health and safety
risks. The ability for people to gather, share,
and tap into information on sea level rise and
flooding, pathogens in food or drinking water,
and other potential risks could make for a
backup system to a weakening of government
agency monitoring and regulation. In other
words, with the right tools and networks, peo-
ple who cannot rely on government agencies to
monitor risks can be empowered to take moni-
toring into their own hands.
There is another important benefit to put-
ting science in the hands of The People. It
exposes a wider audience to the importance of
and thought process behind science, and gives
them a stake in an arena that is often restricted
to scientific experts and policy makers. This
engagement can help to counter mistrust of
science and mistrust of science-based policy
where other more combative tactics have fallen
short (Cohen 2016). Civic science helps to
ensure that citizens are informed actors in sci-
ence-policy conversations (Bäckstrand 2003). A
science-friendly public should eventually result
in a science-friendly government.
It is often said that in struggle there is
opportunity. The opportunities here include
the development of new technologies and sci-
entific approaches to monitoring, and to bet-
ter engage and empower the populace. It’s a
chance to build a stronger and more flexible
system of Earth monitoring. Below are a few
steps that start us down that path.
Find ways to put your science into the hands
of The People. Empower citizens to monitor
their environment, tap into data sources, and
contribute to scientific knowledge. Design tools
that everyone can use, such as the foldable
paper microscope (Cybulski et al. 2014), or the
Biomeme two3, which will soon enable people
to make PCR measurements with their smart-
phones.
Build on motivation. It is important to
understand the needs and interests of peo-
ple rather than simply asking them to make
measurements (Smart 2017). There are certain
groups of people who are particularly motivated
to monitor some aspect of their environment—
whether it’s toxins in drinking water, harmful
algal blooms, sea level, sea ice, etc. Use these
groups as starting points toward larger visions.
Build networks. To maintain engagement,
information flow should not be unidirectional.
There is a range of models, from social digital
platforms like iNaturalist or Vital Signs, to the
face-to-face networking of people—such as the
Nippon Foundation-POGO Centres of Excellence,
which are building networks for ocean moni-
toring in developing countries. The keys are
(1) that there is a maintained multidirectional
2may 2017
exchange of information between people mak-
ing the measurements, and (2) that people have
access to the results of the research.
Develop algorithms. Some of the weaknesses
of citizen-provided data include those of data
quality and experimental design (Conrad and
Hilchey 2011). A promising area of ongoing
research is the development of statistical meth-
ods and algorithms for dealing with limited,
sporadic, or biased data.
Teach how to teach. It is a significant chal-
lenge to build a sustaining long-term monitor-
ing system, particularly during uncertain times.
One possible solution is to design a system that
can proliferate on its own. Equip people with
the ability both to do the science and to teach
the science.
Building a People’s Science will have far
reaching benefits for our democracy regardless
of the current political landscape. We hope
that the most dire predictions do not come
to pass. We hope that, like in the past, fed-
eral efforts to suppress science are success-
fully countered (Shulman 2004). But times can
change quickly.
When satellites first started sending back
images of the Earth’s surface, so much was
revealed that it was like turning on a great light
in a dark room. If that light is turned off again—
for any reason—we need to have a crowd of
hands ready to hold up lighters in the dark.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This manuscript was inspired by conversations
at the congress of the People’s Institute for Sci-
ence of the Future.
References
American Association for the Advancement
of Science. 2017. News at a glance:
Trump’s first week. Science 355: 436-438.
doi:10.1126/science.355.6324.436.
Bäckstrand, K. 2003. Civic science for sustain-
ability: Reframing the role of experts,
policy-makers and citizens in environmental
governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 3: 24–41
doi:10.1162/152638003322757916.
Cohen, J. 2016. Why fighting anti-vaxxers and
climate change doubters often backfires.
Science. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf4060
Conrad, C. C., and K. G. Hilchey. 2011. A review
of citizen science and community-based
environmental monitoring: Issues and op-
portunities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 176:
273–291. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5
Cybulski, J. S., J. Clements, and M. Prakash.
2014. Foldscope: Origami-based
paper microscope. PloS One 9: e98781.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098781
Gewin, V. 2017. Turning point: Advocacy
ambassador. Nature 541: 427. doi:10.1038/
nj7637-427a
Goldman, G. T., E. Berman, M. Halpern,
C. Johnson, Y. Kothari, G. Reed, and
A. A. Rosenberg 2017. Ensuring scientific
integrity in the Age of Trump. Science
355: 696–698. doi:10.1126/science.
aam5733
Shulman, S. 2004. Scientific integrity in poli-
cymaking: An investigation into the Bush
Administration’s Misuse of Science. Union
of Concerned Scientists. Report.
Smart, A. G. 2017. Citizen observers chart
Arctic change. Phys. Today 70: 29.
Voss, B., and A. Sponberg. 2017. All hands
on deck: Engaging in science policy in
the new political climate. Limnol.
Oceanogr. Bull. 26: 17–19. doi:10.1002/
lob.10167
Williamson, P. 2016. Take the time and effort
to correct misinformation. Nature 540: 171.
doi:10.1038/540171a
Nicholas R. Record, nrecord@bigelow.org
