Slashdot Mirror


Citizen Science: Who Makes the Rules?

New submitter UnderCoverPenguin writes "At MakeZine, David Lang talks about the some of the legal issues around a planned, amateur science 'expedition,' as well as some other amateur science projects. In the not too distant past, most science was amateur. Over the past 20 or so years, society has been making it harder for amateurs to do real science, despite the technical costs falling. With the recent upswing of the 'maker movement,' amateur science has seen an increase as well, but is running into an assortment of legal issues. (An exception is astronomy, where amateurs continue to play important roles. Of course, astronomy doesn't involve chemicals or other (currently) 'scary stuff.') Can amateur science make a come-back? Or are the legal obstacles too entrenched?"

44 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Question and answer by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    Can amateur science make a come-back?.....amateur science has seen an increase

    Sounds like the answer is, "Yes."

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Question and answer by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      no it can't because amateurs can't do things rigorously enough to meet the 5 sigma thresholds.

      That is certainly a hypothesis....not supported by evidence. If you're too lazy to search for amateurs who have made important advances recently, is it too much to read the summary, where it mentions the important role amateurs play?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Question and answer by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      there's more to science than statistics.. you don't really need statistics to prove that putting a and b together makes them go boom.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Question and answer by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Based on the professional scientists I have worked with they can't do it either. Based on the level of fraud in scientific papers that have been found for new drugs it seems that very very few actually can do it to those thresholds. Sure they can lie at that level but they can't do science at that level.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    4. Re:Question and answer by golden+age+villain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no it can't because amateurs can't do things rigorously enough to meet the 5 sigma thresholds.

      Most professional scientists never meet the 5 sigma threshold either.

    5. Re:Question and answer by noh8rz10 · · Score: 3

      there's more to science than a + b = boom.

    6. Re:Question and answer by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      ok, I'm going to tell you right up, that you are wrong, and there are plenty of amateur scientists doing professional quality work. That's a fact, but apparently it is a place where your knowledge-base has a hole.

      That's fine, everyone has holes in their knowledge-base, but, if you want to fill in your knowledge-hole, you think it's a good idea to search for the thing that is opposite of what would give you knowledge? How did that even sound like a good idea to you?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Question and answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      no.

    8. Re:Question and answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real problem with "amateur" science isn't necessarily the 5 sigma threshold but the arrogance of the people involved.

      Most of the "makers" I've met think that programming a raspberry pi is 2 steps removed from curing brain cancer and that acadeeeeeemia is just a rat's nest of warring fiefdoms who should be done away with because they don't actually contribute anything.

    9. Re:Question and answer by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 2

      Amateur simply means "doesn't do it for a living", not "doesn't have as much skill". An amateur can be possessed of as much if not more skill than a professional. The reverse is also possible, of course.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    10. Re: Question and answer by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Funny

      in his defense, he's not a professional statistician or mathematician. :)

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    11. Re:Question and answer by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      Given that "legitimate" scientists have been caught repeatedly lying about research to get grants or fame... I don't really think the amateurs have that far to go.

      All you have to do is make a discovery, document it well enough that someone else will attempt to replicate it, and then have that replication verified.

      That's about it.

      If I discover something but document it terribly... and someone else uses what little I provided to show I was right... then I discovered it.

      Boom and done.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re:Question and answer by flyneye · · Score: 2

      In this age, people are finally catching up to the evolution of thought that; you are free to do what you want as long as you harm no one and DONT get caught.
      I predict a rise in home made EMP and HERF projects to combat the rise in drone projects. I think privacy and self defence projects are going to lead the way for a while.
      Actually, the only real difference between amateur and professional science is; amateurs have less funding and are immune to corruption of fact by payola from benefactors. It is far too important that amateurs have free axcess to raw materials, as these are where mans REAL discovery comes from in unadulterated form.
      Considering legalities, is ridiculous in terms of mankinds progress and should be ignored.
      This will separate the scientists from the chickenshits.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    13. Re:Question and answer by similar_name · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you look at any of the links returned by your search? The first one is about the return of amateur science. The second is your post. The 3rd is about a novel. The fourth is an explanation of how transistors work. The fifth is a blog about the importance of science. The sixth is actually a list of amateur scientist that changed the world (kind of the exact opposite you were going for). I did not see any links explaining why I should be wary of armchair scientists. Anyone can follow the scientific method.

      Posting search results is a bad idea for a source. For starters, Google tailors search results to a great number of things including IP address. In other words, Google won't necessarily return the same results for me as it does for you. Another reason it's a bad idea, is you're not really providing a source. You're simply claiming something and then telling us to look it up if we don't believe you.

      Mendel and Faraday were amateurs whose work we still use and teach today. From your results I learned a little factoid. One amateur scientist liked to collect sea shells and wound up discovering several dinosaurs. She became someone known for selling her sea shells which is the source of the tongue twister. She sells sea shells by the sea shore...

      Science is science. It makes little difference whether it comes from authority or not. If the science is good then it's good. If not, it's not. To argue that amateur scientist 'suck' is kind of an argument from authority and generally considered a logical fallacy.

    14. Re:Question and answer by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      (For anyone actually wondering, 95.45% is actually the percentage of data expected to fall within two standard deviations of the mean in a Gaussian distribution. Five standard deviations is much, much more stringent—and not really standard outside of particle physics. As we all know, most amateur scientists have the knowledge and ingenuity to discover novel quantum interactions and particles on a regular basis, and merely lack the necessary funding to access synchrotrons to test their theories.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  2. Amateur chemistry is all but impossible now by jonwil · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thanks to the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on fireworks, the war on common sense and various other wars, its becoming harder and harder for amateurs who want to do chemistry (either generic experiments or genuine research) in their own home/shed/backyard.

    Chemical suppliers wont sell to amateurs and hobbyists. Basic chemicals are restricted from sale because they happen to be used in drugs/fireworks/explosives as well as the 100 other uses those chemicals happen to be used for. Some US states require licenses or registration for even basic lab equipment. Hobby chemists who have done nothing illegal are being raided by the police and having their gear seized because it "could be used to make bombs/drugs/fireworks/etc"

    1. Re:Amateur chemistry is all but impossible now by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hobby chemists who have done nothing illegal are being raided by the police and having their gear seized because it "could be used to make bombs/drugs/fireworks/etc"

      Because scientists were once expected to make their own glassware, someone figured "why not let kids learn too?"
      So back in the heyday of science kits, you used to be able to buy a glassblowing kit for your kid.
      http://www.thestrong.org/online-collections/images/Z002/Z00244/Z0024483.jpg

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Amateur chemistry is all but impossible now by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wire, of any kind, watches, clocks, cell phones, and various things found under your kitchen sink all become bomb making supplies when the police want to hold you for any reason what so ever. Your kids backpack, your pressure cooker, your stash of nails and screws, gas for the lawn mower, the tank for the gas grill, all can get you held for 72 hours.

      Mere possession of these materials can get you charged. You are already guilty.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Amateur chemistry is all but impossible now by Pinkfud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not just hobby chemists either. I'm a geologist with a minor in analytic chemistry. I used to have an assay lab where I could run samples for qualitative analysis. That's in the crapper now. You have to jump through hoops to get things like con nitric acid, and just forget anything like potassium cyanide. And if you do manage to get supplies, they make you a target for a raid any time the local cops get a bug up their ass. So no more lab. :(

      --
      The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
    4. Re:Amateur chemistry is all but impossible now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hobby chemists who have done nothing illegal are being raided by the police and having their gear seized because it "could be used to make bombs/drugs/fireworks/etc"

      Because scientists were once expected to make their own glassware, someone figured "why not let kids learn too?"
      So back in the heyday of science kits, you used to be able to buy a glassblowing kit for your kid.
      http://www.thestrong.org/online-collections/images/Z002/Z00244/Z0024483.jpg

      You reminded me of The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments: http://chemistry.about.com/library/goldenchem.pdf
      They didn't go quite as in depth, but they did mention & show how to create some lab equipment similar to what you're talking about.

    5. Re:Amateur chemistry is all but impossible now by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      There had already been cases like a student being expelled from school and arrested because an experiment caused an small explosion (a bit of smoke and the top of the bottle to pop up). That is what is been teached in schools, where you are supposed to learn science, try it by yourself and you are risking to go to jail.

    6. Re:Amateur chemistry is all but impossible now by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      Heck, I'm fairly sure the chemistry kit I had when I was 10 would put someone on the FBI most wanted list today.

      And for all that "security" where is the drug-free and fluffy safe future we traded this for? I'll trade a few potassium cyanide poisonings for 10,000 SWAT raids.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    7. Re:Amateur chemistry is all but impossible now by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know i had this problem when i wanted 50% H2O2. The lab supplier said no, regardless of what paper work i came up with. But the industrial suppler was like "We don't sell one liter bottles, but 25kg is $50", which was about the same price as 1 liter from the lab suppler. I asked about permits etc. All i needed was a dangerous good vehicle if i was transporting more than 100kg. They also sold me some red fuming HNO3.

      Turns out at least in some countries there is a lot of "assumed" laws that don't exist. And lab suppliers seem to be paranoid.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    8. Re:Amateur chemistry is all but impossible now by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2

      The rules for that sort of thing are ridiculous. Its more or less impossible for the armature. Better off getting cosy with the local university or something.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  3. Amateur Science Too Expensive by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why bother with the time, expense, and hard work of amateur science when you can just outsource it to people who make stuff up?

  4. It never stopped by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Where is this David Lang getting this stuff from?
    Just the other day I was listening to an interview of an artist that had published a well received book on avian anatomy. Pick just about any field and there are people without degrees in that field doing real science and getting it taken seriously.

    1. Re:It never stopped by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where is this David Lang getting this stuff from?

      Read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioprospecting
      There have been numerous lawsuits on behalf of natives peoples to invalidate patents based on local plants and local knowledge.
      The West has a long history of appropriating plants and knowledge from countries, which is why TFA talks about the permits required for foreigners to do science in Mexico.

      Just the other day I was listening to an interview of an artist that had published a well received book on avian anatomy.

      Not all science is created equal.
      There aren't that many laws surrounding the study of avian anatomy, compared to chemistry or the atomic sciences.
      Most stuff a hobbyist ca not buy and, of the things a hobbyist can buy, a lot of them will put you on the FBI's radar.
      Hobbyist science ain't what it used to be and neither is the scope of the law.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:It never stopped by dbIII · · Score: 2

      a lot of them will put you on the FBI's radar

      So what? If you've got a legitimate use you tell them beforehand to avoid later confusion. You may drown in paperwork but if it's all sorted out before you actually have the stuff it doesn't really matter if you are "on their radar" or not.

  5. "legal issues" as a response to prior abuses by spasm · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA is not so much about "legal issues" as it is about the struggle to get permission to collect biological specimens in another country. Another country where there's unfortunately been a long history of scientists and pseudo-scientists from more wealthy countries showing up and taking whatever they wanted, sometimes to the severe detriment of the locals. Ok, we're talking about Mexico and the US if you're too lazy to read TFA. The "legal issues" are the system of review the Mexican government has put in place in response to prior abuses, designed to ensure new research projects don't exploit, destroy, or otherwise cause the kinds of problems both amateur and professional scientists have caused in the past. I'm glad the author of the TFA is attempting to work out how to make it work, rather than just declare that his 'right' to do research in another country trumps local law, and I'm also glad to hear the Mexican government people he emailed appear to be responding throughtfully.

    TL,DR - this isn't about citizen science being stifled by The Man, it's about a particular project hitting a hiccup caused by a long history of 'amateur scientists' exploiting and destroying another country's cultural and biological heritage.

  6. Re:obsicles.. by lxs · · Score: 2

    It's an example of the real reason. Most people can't even write their own name properly. That makes them too dumb to do real science.

  7. Amateur science is blocked by journals by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that scientific knowledge, in the form of scientific articles, is locked behind exorbitant journal paywalls is what is preventing amateur science the most, not to mention would be professional science in places that can't afford the outlandish subscription fees.

    It's a crime against humanity preventing what is often publicly funded scientific knowledge from being shared far and wide, as it could be with virtually no cost on the Internet.

    This is a shameful state of affairs that needs to be fixed one way or the other. Long live Aaron!

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Amateur science is blocked by journals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This depends on the field. In physics and astronomy, almost everything gets published on arxiv.org (in addition to the journals), where it's free to access.

  8. Just science, not "am" vs "pro" by chrismcb · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The article begins:

    For a group of citizen explorers, without an affiliation to a scientific institution, this is a daunting endeavor.

    I think this could just be amended to "For a group of scientists this is a daunting endeavor." Of course scientists attached to a legal institution can probably draw on the help of other resources and people who know how to jump through some of these hoops. But they still have to deal with the same legal issues.

  9. Re:Biased summary by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    23AndMe wasn't shut down, they just are no longer allowed to point out genes that may be linked to medical issues. It wasn't the use of samples, but the description of the analysis, not the analysis itself, but telling the "owner" of the DNA what it "means". You must pay a member of the AMA for that. The feds will go in and do everything in their power to protect that conservative union.

  10. Complexity by jones_supa · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't the complexity of doing stuff be the biggest bottleneck at some point?

    Just like game programming: in the past you could code simple games in a week (or a weekend if you are a tough guy). Compare that to modern shader-based graphics programming -- you will spend the first month just finding out how to set up things to draw anything meaningful on the screen.

    1. Re:Complexity by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      It's both. Comparing OpenGL (ES) to sprite-based and tile-based 2D is kind of like comparing J2EE in all its distributed splendor to PHP.

      OpenGL ES 2 was a pain, but dear Jesus God, I spent the better part of a day just TYPING IN the HelloWorld code for an OpenGL ES 3 Android app, and ended up with something like 8 or 10 classes that compiled into a .apk file several hundred kilobytes in size just to draw a yellow triangle on a black screen. Now, admittedly, the increased HelloWorld complexity eventually pays off by making it more straightforward to do COMPLICATED things, but GETTING to that point has absolutely become more painful over the years.

      ~25 years ago, I got a Vic-20 on Christmas Eve. By dinner on Christmas Eve, I was writing programs with custom characters, animation, and music. Today, you'd spend 2-3 days with a new computer just waiting for Windows Update to finish installing one or two service packs and several hundred individual updates. Some people might grouse about "cryptic code", but I dare anyone to compare the amount of code you need to open a native Window and make its background black under .net or Java to:

      POKE 36879, 8 (*)

      Butart is a big, huge problem too. Back when graphics were made from 8x8 characters that could either be 2 colors, or 4 colors at half-resolution, there were only *so* many ways to meaningfully make something, and most of them were dictated by a need to have at least 1 pixel separating major features (like eyes) so they'd be recognizable as such. The lack of resolution and subtle colors basically solved the problem for you.

      If anything, having an artist involved 25 years ago usually made the gameplay worse, because they'd force the programmer to make horrible performance compromises to implement their artistic vision. Instead of being able to play tricks with barrel-shifting and video timing, the programmer would be stuck shoveling raw bits around the slowest way possible because the artist designed an image whose width wasn't a whole multiple of 8 pixels.

      (*) of course, understanding WHY the value was 8, and not 0, as opposed to just blindly copying the value out of a book, required a few semesters in college ;-)

  11. Re:Don't do electrical engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Own a cellphone? You own a 'remote detonator for an explosive device' - you terrorist!
    Bleach and ammonia in your house? You have the makings of 'chemical weapons' - you terrorist!
    Can of gasoline and some fertilizer for your garden? You have 'elements for an explosive device' - you terrorist!
    (And heaven help you if you happen to own a pressure canner, and perhaps a box of nails or two!)

    And, damn, if you have even more electrical know-how and can program an Arudino or BS2 or something, you are an 'advanced' terrorist!

    And then of course, if you are here posting on slashdot about such things... well, you must be an anti-government subversive! And terrorist!

  12. one way around this... by Goldsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you want to do science on your own, you can and should incorporate. Be a non-profit if you'd like. The entrenched system which stifles non-university researchers gladly accepts small businesses and NGOs, as long as they have some funding.

    The number one thing you should not expect about doing science, at any level, is that it will be cheap, quick or lean. When it comes to science those words mean the same thing as "violating environmental and safety law" or simply doing a piss-poor job.

    If you want to do real chemistry or biology work, you will find that renting or begging lab space somewhere will be cheaper than actually making your garage legally suitable.

  13. Re:obsicles.. by lxs · · Score: 2

    I've heard of "scientists" taking samples of psychoactive cactus to be analysed via the bioassay method. It's a lot like Japanese whale studies.

  14. Re:Amateur literacy by lxs · · Score: 2

    Small correction. The editors on this site are paid employees. This was done by a professional illiterate.

  15. Ammoniacal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a second year biochemistry student who's had a lifelong passion for chemistry. I've slowly built myself a lab over the years, where I've mostly been making or purifying OTC chemicals to common lab reagents. One day I came across an old paper claiming high yields of acetonitrile when using calcium carbide as a dehydrating agents instead of phosphorus pentoxide. I've talked to quite a few people having problems finding phosphorus pentoxide, or it just being too expensive to use. So being the curious person I am, I thought I'd try both agents and report my yields on the forums. Because I wanted good numbers, I decided to buy some acetamide instead if making it. The only other reagent you use in the distillation. Simply ordered a 250 g jar off ebay, but the order never arrived. Four months later I receive a phone call by the police, interrogating me about the contents of the package, and my intentions with it. I invented a little half-lie on the spot, said I used it for a curing bath for photographic film. A month later I do receive it, labeled "Seized by customs". But now I'm afraid to do anything, expecting them to be at my door at any moment, to see what I'm "really" using it for. So I close down my "lab" temporarily, pack it all into some cases and put them for storage. The next week I get another call from the police, this time from an investigator on "my case". Asking about the amounts I had used, and for what. Etc.

    And now I don't know what to do anymore. And all this for acetamide, a substance you get when mixing ammonia and "non-acetone nail polish remover", not even a precursor to any drugs (although it can be used to make a precursor), and has no use in either bombs or pyrotechnics.

    Seems like a quick end to a rather short-lived hobby.

    1. Re:Ammoniacal by pepty · · Score: 2

      And all this for acetamide, a substance you get when mixing ammonia and "non-acetone nail polish remover", not even a precursor to any drugs (although it can be used to make a precursor), and has no use in either bombs or pyrotechnics.

      Seems like a quick end to a rather short-lived hobby.

      Maybe it was the actual use you intended (dehydration to acetonitrile) that freaked them out, or rather the idea of someone trying to obtain acetonitrile on the sly as opposed to getting it as a side product of acrylonitrile (carpet, ABS plastic, etc) like everyone else. After all, acetonitrile = methyl CYANIDE; Acetonitrile + terrorist + google search = SARIN GAS ATTACK TOKYO...

      Only time I ever had an issue with customs when ordering for a lab was a uronium salt (well, sort of an uronium salt: HBTU) from Canada, and it taking six weeks for them to realize there was no Uranium in the bottle.

  16. Expedition permits? Easier, actually... by Wdi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Very misleading original article full of misguided complaints. Controls on the export of native plants or other biological specimen have been in place for hundreds of years, and with much harsher penalties.

    The members of the expedition have a, admittedly tedious, path to get permits. Just play by the rules.

    When John Rolfe smuggled tobacco from Trinidad to Virginia in 1611, establishing its tobacco farming industry, there was a mandatory death sentence for seed smugglers imposed by the Spanish colonialists.

  17. Good by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    You mean regulatory authorities don't want random yahoos hauling biological samples across borders and flying unmanned drones all over the place? Shocking!

    Shit, they probably don't want people building nuclear reactors in their backyards, either.