— wegorythm

1- Advent zweitausend’ndsiebzehn im ein’ndswansigsten jhrhndrt nach chrstlch abendlndscher zeitrechnng

HybrisBefangenheit oder Müdigkeit


[Global Hackteria Network] „Against Citizen Science“

– seems to provoke quite some discussions


On 24.Nov Julian wrote:

DIYBio – was burned and declared dead at Biofabbing. Why again?
DITO – was branded by institutions and sadly reminds me of intransparent and ‘money goes to money‘ european funding policy – of course thats not your fault Bruno.
Citizen Science always had a top-down crowdsourcing connotation, nothing new here.
Biohacking – is still quite sexy… although heavily used by cyborgs, transhumanists and self-optimizing quacks (try a google search!!) #ab2929 #961818

What can we learn from philosophizing about these terms, labels and brands? I think there is a lot to learn about how our modern world works…
It is very important to agree about what these terms mean – at least within the group that is using them. Not just names, but all the other questionable words that we use for this incredibly complex activity called communication: Who is the ‘citizen’ and what does ‘science’ mean anyway? What does ‘openness’ mean? What is a ‘grassroots movement’? I’m not calling for fixed definitions, but rather for a flexible consensus that allows us to talk about this stuff…

And whenever you need a break from all the discussions: just DO your thing!!

thomasmboa on November 26 wrote:



  • The word Citizen is problematic : it is related to what? citizenship or the fact to leave somewhere? The understanding of citizen is not the same in Cameroon and Western countries. So community science is most relevant to my context.

  • Citizen science is just an impression given to citizen that they are involved in the process: promoted as democratisation of science through participation of citizen in science, in the alignment with the so-called : participatory democracy. Because citizen can participate, but the final decision remains to the elite.

  • Citizen science is exploitation of people by scientists: many experience of citizen science I heared seems like, use citizen as a data collectors. So they can do “le travail de fourmi” that scientist can not do or don’t have time to do. Citizens can be everywhere at the same time.

  • Citizen science is elitist. It is amazing to see that only people from academia are talking about it. Is it a new way scientific brand, amplified to get more inspirations and fundings?

  • The good or the bad face of citizen science depend only of the promoters of the project. Some are using openness and community/volunteers for the Common good and others exploiting them for capitalist matter as digital labour.

So even if some people disagree with the authors, in terms of terminology or some concepts …The question on the title should not be one, for me It is an evidence that their is a big business behind citizen science, profitable only to politicians, researchers, businessman…but not citizens themselves

Schoggi – Gupf

Submit comment