[DIYbio] Fwd: Re: [itas-synbio] ECSA stakeholder roundtable

Dear all,    Sorry to step into this discussion with just two brief remarks (the   whole issue would merit a more extensive debate, of course):    - the EC mentions four current funding opportunities for citizen science   here (plus some running / finished projects):   https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/citizen-science    The overall budget for these specific calls is 25 millions Euro, so the   43 m. seem not too far away. BUT: typically, these programmes include   all different kinds of activities, so we should not take this figure as   the amount that is spent on citizen science projects directly, but   rather it could be the sum that the EC spents in total for various   activities related to citizen science.    - That leads us to the question about the role of the EC with regard to   citizen science and how funding yould be organised to better support   bottom up projects such as in DIYbiology. There is currently a survey   runnig to evaluate Horizon 2020:  https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/bb3fb8f9-8a14-476a-81ae-f6212bee7feb  I'm not sure how much the views expressed in that survey count in   designing future funding programmes, but at least it's one opportunity!    The EC website on citizen science mentioned above also links to the   Digital4science platform, saying "Have your say on Citizen Science and   any Open Science topic on the Digital4science platform"   (https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/digital4science/tags/e-infrastructures).    But I don't really see how you can have a say on that platform...    Best regards,  Steffen      https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/bb3fb8f9-8a14-476a-81ae-f6212bee7feb    Am 10.11.2016 um 04:46 schrieb Coenen, Christopher (ITAS):  > Dear all,  >  >  >  > My impression is that certain socio-economic and funding-related aspects  > of citizen science (and of DIY-style grassroots activities in  > particular) which have been discussed on some of the mailing lists  > addressed by Rüdiger and in other contexts for quite some time now, are  > now increasingly gaining relevance in discussions, also against the  > backdrop of a rather massive funding under the label 'citizen science'  > taking place not only on EU level but in various EU Member States, in  > the US, and elsewhere.  >  >  >  > I cannot really believe, however, that in fact 48,000k EUR are earmarked  > for citizen science activities; but this should be easy to find out.  > With a view to the question of how citizen science in the DIY sense will  > develop in the future, it will also be important to understand better  > how the EC plans to frame possible future funding (for example what kind  > of institutions and stakeholders are expected to be included, and how).  >  >  >  > As regards the closing remarks by Rüdiger in which he mentions the  > Synenergene project in which some of you have been involved, I would  > recommend not to overestimate the relevance of one single project. And  > Rene von Schomberg is, as far as I know, not so much involved in the  > EC's activities on citizen science proper. Moreover -- and please do not  > see this as arrogant but just as a remark from the perspective of  > someone with a political science background who is involved in EU  > projects etc. for quite some time now --, the idea that the "ball is in  > the field" of "policy makers we were working for all these years" is not  > reflecting the role of EC staff (who are not policy makers) and also  > oversimplifies the decision processes within and around complex  > institutions.  >  >  >  > But it was and in fact still is an aim of the Synenergene project to  > help the DIYBio grassroots community to bring in its perspective on the  > EU level, also within the context of responsible research and  > innovation. In the last couple of years, I have learned that this  > community is very diverse and I have the impression that the stance(s)  > in this community towards politics and the policy sphere etc. sometimes  > make it difficult for the community to act as efficiently as other, more  > established stakeholder groups. I want to point out that it is part of  > the mandate of our project to support true mutual learning among all  > stakeholders, also with a view to funding policies. So, if the  > community, or members of the community will draft a statement, position  > paper or the like, we will be happy to help create attention for it. The  > project will end, however, in June 2017, so in order to be able to  > support the raising of awareness for it effectively, the document would  > need to be drafted already in Winter.  >  >  >  > Best regards  >  > Christopher  >  >  >  > *Von:*dusjagr@gmail.com [mailto:dusjagr@gmail.com] *Im Auftrag von *Marc  > Dusseiller  > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 10. November 2016 03:50  > *An:* R. Trojok  > *Cc:* Coenen, Christopher (ITAS); Markus Schmidt;  > itas-synbio@lists.kit.edu; FOR-synenergene; biocommons@bioartsociety.fi;  > Kitchen@hackteria.org; Digest Recipients  > *Betreff:* Re: ECSA stakeholder roundtable  >  >  >  > Good morning and greetings from Seoul,  >  >  >  > not so surprised by reading these words. thx Rüdiger for "speaking out"...  >  > i have been observing various similar projects, DITOs aswell as others,  > and also seeing the same patterns.  >  > also we started to analyse budgets / rethorics and defined some points  > of action in these circumstances. see our notes:  >  > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrOuW6UkLd8-1DPab7XYFPIyGSy2LEdmv8w0M_YGh7U/edit#heading=h.6kvxltu19xhe  >  >  >  > a similar top-down approach is growing also in switzerland. the original  > idea of the "Zurich Standard for Citizen Science" to be exclusively  > going towards "all funding for CS must go to established universitites"  > seems to be filed into some drawer.  >  > http://www.citizenscience.ch  >  >  >  > but rumours go that in Zurich we will soon see the rise of a "Center for  > Citizen Science"... how contradictory is that :-) you can guess who will  > host that "Center".  >  >  >  > greetings,  >  > marc  >  >  >  > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:34 AM, R. Trojok <ruediger.t@gmail.com  > <mailto:ruediger.t@gmail.com>> wrote:  >  > Hey all,  >  > @Christopher, thanks for correcting the TAZ comment.  >  > @Markus, Chris de Lutz from Artlaboratory Berlin verified the 480M Euro  > for citizen science. We both heard it, he even  >  > asked a second time to make sure we heard it right and he reconfirmed  > the number to me by email later  >  > me: "who was the guy who mentioned the 480m euro thing?"  >  > Chris: "Dr. Philippe Galiayin the keynote - his slides may be viewable  > ask Claudia..."  >  > Please ask Claudia Göbel for more info:  > http://ecsa.citizen-science.net/about-us/contact  >  > Best,  >  > Rüdiger  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  > Am 09.11.2016 um 17:15 schrieb Coenen, Christopher (ITAS):  >  >     Many thanks, dear Rüdiger, for the impressions, points of views and  >     analysis. There are certainly many things to discuss and think about  >     in this context. At this stage, only one comment, mainly for those  >     members of the various lists you have addressed who are not so  >     familiar with German politics: TAZ is of course not a "communist"  >     newspaper, but a center-left newspaper of the Green movement with  >     roots in the (largely anti-communist) left-wing alternative culture  >     of West Germany and West Berlin. Best wishes, Christopher  >  >  >  >     *Von:*itas-synbio-request@lists.kit.edu  >     <mailto:itas-synbio-request@lists.kit.edu>  >     [mailto:itas-synbio-request@lists.kit.edu] *Im Auftrag von *Markus  >     Schmidt  >     *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 9. November 2016 15:44  >     *An:* R. Trojok; itas-synbio@lists.kit.edu  >     <mailto:itas-synbio@lists.kit.edu>; FOR-synenergene;  >     biocommons@bioartsociety.fi <mailto:biocommons@bioartsociety.fi>;  >     Kitchen@hackteria.org <mailto:Kitchen@hackteria.org>; Digest Recipients  >     *Betreff:* Re: [itas-synbio] ECSA stakeholder roundtable  >  >  >  >     Dear Rüdiger!  >  >  >  >     Thanks for your insights and thoughts on the workshop, which reveal  >     IMO a wider underlying problem.  >  >     When I saw the announcement of the Workshop it struck me that few  >     active DIYBio or Hackers were on board, and reminded me of similar  >     initiatives here in Austria supporting top-down citizen scientists,  >     that pretty much aim to extend the exploitation of precarious  >     researchers to non-scientists.  >  >     (see: https://www.fwf.ac.at/de/forschungsfoerderung/fwf-programme/foerderinitiative-top-citizen-science/  >     and of course this is aimed to citizens of both sex regardless of  >     age, sex or social class /‚Dt: Bürgerinnen und Bürger  >     unterschiedlichen Alters, Geschlechts und sozialer Herkunft.. To  >     emulate PC goodie points)  >  >  >  >     This might be because of ignorance, of other forms of involvement  >     of non-scientists or because the old institutions have no interest  >     in handing over their "/sovereignty of interpretation" /Dt.  >     Deutungshoheit) to the un-initiated citizen scientists./  >  >  >  >     A sign of a power struggle between established traditional  >     institutions and grass roots movements?  >  >  >  >     In the field of astronomy this systems seems to work, but is based  >     on a large enthusiastic group of amateur astronomers, who – by the  >     way – don't get paid but are at least respected by their  >     professional colleagues and even mentioned when the contribute to  >     important findings.  >  >  >  >     You mentioned that " *the EU* *comission allocated 480.000.000 Euro  >     to Citizen Science" do you have any source for that claim? The  >     Galley site doesn't say anything about it!*  >  >  >  >     Best wishes, Markus  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >     *Von: *"R. Trojok" <ruediger.t@gmail.com <mailto:ruediger.t@gmail.com>>  >     *Datum: *Mittwoch, 9. November 2016 um 14:28  >     *An: *"itas-synbio@lists.kit.edu <mailto:itas-synbio@lists.kit.edu>"  >     <itas-synbio@lists.kit.edu <mailto:itas-synbio@lists.kit.edu>>,  >     FOR-synenergene <synenergene@for.kit.edu  >     <mailto:synenergene@for.kit.edu>>, Biocommons  >     <biocommons@bioartsociety.fi <mailto:biocommons@bioartsociety.fi>>,  >     <Kitchen@hackteria.org <mailto:Kitchen@hackteria.org>>, Digest  >     Recipients <diybio@googlegroups.com <mailto:diybio@googlegroups.com>>  >     *Betreff: *ECSA stakeholder roundtable  >  >  >  >     Hey Synenergeners,  >     yesterday I participated at the Do It Together (DITO) Science EU  >     Program stakeholder roundtable.  >     This is what the website states about the project:  >  >     "Doing It Together Science (DITOs) will implement many innovative  >     participatory event formats across Europe focusing on the active  >     involvement of citizens in two critical areas: the cutting edge  >     topic of biodesign and the pressing area of environmental  >     monitoring. *The project will advance the EU Responsible Research  >     and Innovation agenda by moving beyond more traditional approaches  >     into direct engagement that builds upon DIY, grassroots, and frugal  >     innovation initiatives so that in the short and medium term we  >     sustain localised capacity building and in the long term the effects  >     of these grassroots efforts channel into policy action at different  >     levels.*  >     The consortium includes a pan-European network (European Citizen  >     Science Association ECSA - linking practitioners, scientists, and  >     supporting policy makers), SMEs (Tekiu; Eutema), universities (UCL;  >     Université Paris Descartes - CRI; Université de Geneve), science  >     galleries, museums and arts organisations (Kapelica Gallery /  >     Kersnikova; Medialab-Prado; RBINS) and NGOs (Meritum Association;  >     Waag Society). These organisations cross multiple countries and  >     languages, enabling coverage of much of Europe in its native languages.  >     Dr Katrin Vohland (Naturkundemuseum Berlin), vice-chair of the  >     European Citizen Science Association added: "*DITOs provides a great  >     opportunity not only to experiment with different pathways for  >     different persons and communities to engage at different intensities  >     but to enhance mutual learning for lasting effects at the interface  >     of science and society.*""  >  >     It sounds like smooth language, but in reality, when you meet the  >     people on the spot, it becomes obvious that the only organisations  >     that have any ties and reputation in grassroots citizen science  >     projects are the Waag society and the art people from Kapelica  >     Gallery. The rest of them were classical institutes that understand  >     citizen science in a top down fashion in the style of:  >     *Let the illiterate citizen do the laborous work for the scientists,  >     they will be happy and grateful to make a contribution.*  >     It made the impression as if DITO and ECSA use a lot of not or  >     poorly understood buzzwords like  >     biomimicry, biodesign, do it together science, mutual learning,  >     Responsible Research and Innovation, Open Science  >  >     During the event it got obvious that there is a schizm between  >     grassroots and top down citizen science.  >     Martin Brocklehurst, Policy, Strategy, Governance and Partnerships  >     for DITO for instance wants citizen science  >     in a strict top down fashion, citizens as mere data providers to  >     research institutes. unpaid, of course, doing the laborous work in  >     the field.  >     Somtimes Naturkundemuseum boss Vogel hovers over the scene like a  >     zeppelin, far away and bloated beyond proportion, not involved in  >     the discussion on citizen science and most likely not even noticing  >     the contradictions in the DITO program. At one time a strange  >     Journalist from the TAZ (communist newspaper in germany) grabbed me  >     and questioned me on the relationship between islamic state  >     terrorists and biohackers, which i never heard of to this point. He  >     bought my book and may feature it in TAZ. (not a nice thought to be  >     put in such a context, but at least it would boot the sales :)  >     Luckily, Waag society leader Lucas Evers a biohack-promoter and  >     beneficiary was speaking up against attempts to criminalize biohacking.  >  >     In contrast to this top down attitude, Egle, a biohacker and science  >     communicator from Technarium Hackerspace, Lithuania, came unpaid  >     participant to the event. She told me her perspective:  >     _What does "responsible research" mean for your project?  >     including everyone in the research process who wants to be included  >     - by doing citizen science, by helping to build lab tools, by  >     organizing the activities; allowing all "citizens" to play a part,  >     if they want to be a part of it  >     communicate the research process & the results to a wide audience,  >     as clearly as possible, without jargon (blog)  >     educate everyone involved (as well as just hearing about the  >     project) about what we're actually doing; all citizens have the  >     right to understand, and to ask as many questions as they like  >     _How is "open science" relevant to your project?  >     "open" is at the core of what we do at Technarium. *We believe the  >     process of science (not just results) needs to be shared with each  >     other, and with the public*  >     open science allows other people to build upon our ideas & our work.  >     What comes out of Technarium is totally free to grab  >     -          Where do you see common ground between Citizen Science  >     and DIYScience?  >     *both "communities" believe science can and should be done beyond  >     the walls of academia  >     some DIY scientists are already citizen scientists - we are doing  >     the same thing; except we are completely grass roots*, but that is  >     included in the definition of citizen science  >     *we have the same goals: contribute to knowledge gaining, solve  >     major problems like fossil fuels, disease etc., improve the  >     scientific understanding of the public, push the boundaries of science*  >  >     Another external visitor in the stakeholder meeting, Eugenio  >     Battaglia, Hackeria member and a frequent participant of my  >     workshops and events in Synenergene and co-creator of the Biocommons  >     concept  >     complained to me about this unpaid work citizens are asked to do  >     when taking part in RRI processes:  >  >     "Yea, I did not "work", like I didn't have a contract whatsoever : ^  >     )*like many of these consortia is not clear the type of engagement*,  >     but even if it were only correcting your text writing application  >     trying to connect some value between the two thing, or neurotically  >     translate the paper to in a night of august to put it online,  >     *that's for me working. There's no money nor contract involved, and  >     I know! *But I value also other types of currencies, like respect.  >     Ah, yea, besides, traveling (not always reimbursed), organizing at  >     my expense the event in Italy, and pretty much a lot of my time and  >     attention connecting with people, and helping you. Y*ea, "I didn't  >     worked", in fact I don't claimed to have had a contract. I don't  >     blame it to you, of course. but the type of engagement and  >     crowdsourcing of people's brain in such kind of consortia is not  >     always clear. That's why I got nausea of this public stuff.*"  >     This struck me personally, as i was the one doing the RRI in the  >     grassroots community for years, asking my friends, colleagues and  >     citizens to participate in the events for synenergen, making the  >     promise we  >     can actually influence EU comission politics on Citizen Science. I  >     noted this down and read it during the stakeholder workshop to *Ron  >     Dekker, Open Science Policy Platform, European Commission, DG  >     Research and Innovation *He seemed to understand it and replied  >     something like that we have to build a parallel structure for  >     citizen science, as it is not going to work with this old people  >     from the institutes (yes, it has something to do with a generational  >     shift in academia!)  >  >  >     In a response to the ECSA show-off in Naturkundemuseum hackteria  >     posted this comment on their facebook page:  >     "*The new schicki-micki scene of citizen science.*  >     As often these days #culturalamnesia Someone yesterday told me:  >     "*You pay taxes, and you do citizen science for twenty years or  >     something, then somebody win a grant to understand citizen science,  >     stealing a lot of your concepts, idea and work, apparently ignoring  >     your existence or the existence of what you represent, without  >     respect.* But then they know you and they offer you to participate  >     (for free of course!), but only in events organised in the Tuesday  >     morning(!)... because yeah, every citizen science activist is  >     usually free during the week. He/she doesn't have a job. You know?  >     They just go around and do everything for free, that's why we love  >     them, they might think up there". It's a war between poor people,  >     because at the end you cannot even blame any random researcher  >     probably more prekariat than you who ends up doing part of his  >     exploitational PhD or post doc cause the PI happen to be in such  >     kind of consortia #sick #diwym  >         https://www.facebook.com/hackteria/?ref=nf  >  >  >     *Lucy Patterson*, a unemployed grassroots citizen science  >     practitioner (PhD. in moleular Biology and former Science  >     Communicator). She is well known as has a long track record in  >     Citizen Science in Berlin. She founded and leads the *Berlin Science  >     Hacking Community *(http://www.meetup.com/Berlin-Science-Hacking/),  >     which formed around Science Hack Day Berlin  >     (http://berlin.sciencehackday.org/): a mix of scientists, designers,  >     developers, artists and enthusiasts who hack together in their spare  >     time on interdisciplinary projects that take DIY approaches to  >     scientific ideas, data, or methodologies,  >     repurposing/subverting/celibrating/questioning them for  >     cultural/societal/scientific applications. As a volunteer  >     organisation she says, they are very limited in scope, but their  >     approach, accumulated expertise, and community would offer great  >     potential for knowledge transfer and citizen science. In terms of  >     policy support, their community would request:  >  >     _ a way to connect our community to academic science in a more  >     substantial way (i.e. not just PhD students in their limited spare  >     time). *I would advocate for funding to support hackspaces, DIY bio  >     labs, or science shops inside universities or (scientific/cultural)  >     institutions *that encourage serious collaboration between  >     university/institution researchers at all career levels together  >     with groups/communities from OUTSIDE of those  >     universities/institutions. Good examples are the Imperial College  >     Advanced Hackspace in London  >     (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/advanced-hackspace/) and the Manchester  >     Metropolitan Digital Innovation Space (http://diginnmmu.com/). Both  >     provide support to mixed internal/external communities. Taking full  >     advantage of the potential of these kind of collaborations would  >     make everyone feel like their time was well spent.  >  >     _*funded positions for community managers (this work is  >     time-consuming and usually very undervalued)*, either through grants  >     or as staff positions, perhaps at the kind of hackerspaces mentioned  >     above.  >  >     _ *instead of only funding new initiatives, offer sustainability  >     funding for pre-existing successful volunteer-run projects *that  >     might otherwise die out - rather like funding basic infrastructure  >     for DIY science communities (funding space, personnel, some basic  >     overheads) - this gives such communities the chance to  >     professionalise and start applying for further funding. For example,  >     it is only through this kind of funding that publiclab has become so  >     successful.  >  >     _ maker communities bridge the line between citizen science and  >     knowledge transfer - perhaps it makes sense for the two strands to  >     sometimes *join forces in terms of policy-making and funding.*  >  >     _ similarly, DIY science/maker communities have a lot more to offer  >     science than just the development of DIY data collection tools for  >     volunteer data collection. But IMO it's still an open question - is  >     citizen science ONLY about novel empirical research, or does it also  >     include scientific knowledge transfer...?  >  >     _ to*ensure that DIY science *(typically volunteer-run  >     projects/communities, without the resources or capacity to afford  >     conference registration fees or to attend weekday meetings) can  >     expect the same level of representation and support as any other  >     stakeholder in the citizen science movement, if it is claimed that  >     they are part of that movement. (added by Rüdiger: the last event by  >     ECSA cost 380€ entrance fee and there were bodyguards shielding off  >     the public from the venue)  >  >     Another person from EU comission level, Dr. Philippe Galiay,  >     European Commission, DG Research and Innovation  >     told us during the workshop that *the EU* *comission allocated  >     480.000.000 Euro to Citizen Science.*  >     http://opendays2015.lodzkie.pl/dr-philippe-galiay/  >             *  >     *Taken together, Naturkundemuseum Berlin, DITO and ECSA are showing  >     off as biohackers and DIYbio people, althought they have no clue  >     what they are talking about (with few exceptions).  >     Most obviously, the claims of Biodesign is ill guided and most  >     likely unsuccessfull attempt to override the  >     emancipatory and anti-authoritatian narrative inherent in biohacking  >     culture, while maintaining the fancy aspects of the topic.  >     The appearance of DITO and ECSA was unprofessional, showed a lack of  >     knowledge of their very topic citizen science and acted disrespectul  >     and  >     exclusive to grassroots organisations and individuals. *DITO seem to  >     me to be a kind of "potemkin village" for EU commission to cash in  >     using fashionable buzzwords. *  >  >     In general, the concept and outcomes of RRI need to be critically  >     reviwed. If there is no real world impact, RRI means stealing  >     valuable time of volunteering citizens for nothing.  >  >     *Lessons learned for Synenergene: *We need to make sure to feed our  >     insights and experience to the EU comission level so that our work  >     was not in vain.  >     The citizen science policy must not be implemented in a top down  >     fashion and the needs and potential of grassroots communities  >     need to be taken into account and adressed adequatly. This means  >     grassroots Citizens Scientists need to be able to influence  >     where these 480M Euro will be spent. If not, people will understand  >     quickly that they were tricked and then RRI will a dead concept very  >     soon.  >     Further, a knowledge transfer between Synenergene RRI practices and  >     DITO to prevent or maybe even reverse the ongoing degradation of the  >     RRI idea is an important move.  >     Mr. Schomburg and the other policy makers we were working for all  >     these years, the ball is in your field now, show us that RRI and  >     citizen involvment in EU politics is a two way road.  >  >     Thanks for reading to the end.  >     Best,  >     Rüdiger Trojok  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  > --  >  > *******************************************************  >  > !!NOTICE: new phone nr:  tel: +41 77 9930877  >  > *******************************************************  > //////dusjagr labs/////////////////////////////////////////  > Dr. Marc Dusseiller  > Schöneggstr. 34 | CH-8004 Zürich | tel: +41 77 9930877 | skype: dusjagr  > www.dusseiller.ch/labs <http://www.dusseiller.ch/labs>  > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////  > SGMK | Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Mechatronische Kunst  > Postfach 2161 | CH-8031 Zürich  > www.mechatronicart.ch <http://www.mechatronicart.ch>  > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////  > hackteria | Open Source Biological Art  > www.hackteria.org <http://www.hackteria.org>  > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////  >    --   --  Steffen Albrecht    Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)  Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS)  Karlstr. 11  76133 Karlsruhe, Germany    Phone: +49 171 6290421  Email: steffen.albrecht@kit.edu  Web: www.itas.kit.edu            www.itas.kit.edu/synbio.php    KIT – University of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg and National   Research Center of the Helmholtz Association