Science Cheerleader

Last week, Nature Magazine’s Daniel Sarewitz, wrote this about a science policy initiative SciCheer helped to inspire:

“More and earlier public involvement is required to steer powerful new technologies wisely….Relative to the cost of research and development, increasing this capacity would be cheap. It could be paid for by a small tithe on the federal research budget, and coordinated by one or more loose networks of non-governmental groups, research universities, and government laboratories (for example, see www.ecastnetwork.org). New social networking technologies could permit such discussions on scales from local to international, in venues ranging from science museums and research laboratories to presidential commissions and nationwide virtual conferences. This is the momentum of democracy. In the long run, it will also be the best thing for science.”

His column,  “Not by experts alone” boldly and clearly states the case for participatory technology assessment. Readers of Science Cheerleader know this is something of an obsession of mine. This passion led to the incarnation of ECAST (which has been cited or endorsed by the White House, Nature Magazine, and dozens of other academic, professional, and mainstream publications): Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology. This network of universities, science centers, and policy makers, anchored by the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., will play ring-leader to several forthcoming pilot projects designed to integrate public participation into critical discussions of emerging technologies (synthetic biology to name one).

Why is this important? I’ll turn the mic back to Sarewitz:

We are an innovating species, engaged in a balancing act. In the decades after the Second World War, innovation fuelled an unprecedented era of wealth creation while keeping us on the brink of nuclear annihilation. The green revolution fed billions while poisoning soil and water and destroying agrarian cultures. Today, synthetic biology and geoengineering portend a future in which managing socio-technical complexity will be every bit as challenging, if not more so. Is there a better way forward?

Maybe — if we act fast, embrace our ignorance, and keep experts from taking over.

Once a complex technology is widely used — like the automobile or the coal-fired power plant — restricting, reorienting or replacing it becomes incredibly difficult. So the key to making better choices is to start early, when uncertainty about a technology’s future is high, by maximizing the diversity of perspectives and interests involved in the discussion.

The goal is not to convince the hoi polloi that they have nothing to fear, but to improve social outcomes of emerging technologies. Scientists may be inclined to ignore or dismiss the efforts of non-experts to influence complex technical discussions — for example, in discounting the views of English sheep farmers during the response to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster, or belittling the critiques of AIDS patients in early efforts to develop treatments. But when it comes to the future of an emerging technology, no one (or everyone) is an expert.

If you’d like to learn more or get involved, simply go to the  (beta) ECAST website and  sign up.  We’ll send you news and invitations as they become available.

Next up in the realm of science policy and public participation….The U.S. Government Accountability Office just made public one if its reports. I spoke with GAO’s Chief Scientist, Tim Persons, about this report and its implications. Stay tuned for more on that interview.

Wrote this post calling for the White House, National Academy of Engineering, and others, to create an Emergency Response 2.0 system to pre-wire the nation so we can rapidly and effectively respond to the next natural disaster.

As of this evening, it’s been Tweeted out, Facebooked, and Dug over at Digg nearly 400 times already. Looks like we’re rattling some cages. Let’s hope this attention and excitement results in action. I’ll continue to keep you posted.

Read the post that got this party started.

Nice feature in the May edition of the American Chemical Society’s magazine:

Momentum for technology assessment based on input from everyday citizens who are not experts in a particular topic, or participatory technology assessment, is just beginning to build in the U.S. To get the conversation started, a group of institutions, universities, and science museums, as well as a former Philadelphia 76ers cheerleader turned science policy enthusiast (C&EN, Jan. 12, 2009, page 56), have teamed up and proposed a network dedicated to the process.

Called Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology (ECAST), the project is envisioned to be a geographically distributed network of complementary institutions that are independent of government. Nonpartisan policy research organizations would help broadly disseminate information to decisionmakers. Universities would both help assess technology and develop new ways to assess it. And science museums would help educate the public and inform society in user-friendly ways.

Read the full article, here.

Bob Grant, Associate Editor, The Scientist, writes:

Meet citizen science’s answer to match.com – http://scienceforcitizens.net/. The new website, brainchild of Darlene Cavalier (AKA – The Science Cheerleader) and colleagues, seeks to hook researchers up with members of the general public who want to volunteer for duty in the scientific process. “We hope to enable regular people to do real science by connecting them to existing citizen science projects,” Cavalier told The Scientist. Read more.

Excerpted from a piece I just posted on DiscoverMagazine.com:

Prizes: This old idea is making a sweeping comeback and it is changing the way government, industry and foundations help revolutionize future discovery. It’s high time we offer prizes to motivate and galvanize the public to come up with creative, real-time solutions to major disasters, such as the BP oil spill.

Approximately one-and-a-half weeks ago, I received an email from Andrew Revkin (who writes the DotEarth blog at The New York Times) in which he challenged researchers and others to think creatively about substantive approaches to stanching the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

“There’s a lot of talk about sweeping Grand Engineering Challenges this year. But one is unfolding in real-time in the Gulf. Waiting months for a relief well seems pretty in the box,” he wrote in the email (reprinted with Revkin’s permission), and reiterated in this blog post.

While it’s true that BP is accepting public suggestions about ideas to mitigate the oil spill, the process needs some tweaking. From the Deepwater Horizon Response website: “Once a formal suggestion has been filed, BP technical personnel will carefully evaluate each and every one for technical feasibility and proof of application. If the engineering group finds the suggestion feasible, the person submitting the suggestion will be contacted if and when their support is needed.”

BP technical personnel will evaluate the suggestions? Seems a little too cozy to me.

For the same reasons President Obama wants to divide the Minerals Management Service into two agencies–one charged with inspecting oil rigs, investigating oil companies and enforcing safety regulations, and another to oversee leases for drilling and collection of billions of dollars in royalties–perhaps we should consider a third-party administrator to solicit and evaluate proposed solutions from the public.

I suspect the White House would agree. Earlier this week, Beth Noveck, U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer and Director of the White House Open Government Initiative, summarized on the White House blog the highlights of a  recent Prize Summit organized by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and some of the major players in the world of big prizes. “Leaders from over thirty Federal agencies have come to learn about how to incorporate prizes and incentive-backed challenges into their work of addressing complex policy problems,” Noveck reported.  The summit helped agencies learn more about the benefits of prizes while setting forth guidelines, like this one from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB): “A prize should not be an end in itself, but one means within a broader strategy for spurring private innovation and change.”

Hold the phone. What if one IS looking for an end in itself, such as an immediate solution to the oil spill? Read full post.

We’re on a roll, team! Two years ago this month, ScienceCheerleader.com launched with three goals:

1) help increase adult science literacy (see Brain Makeover). [Check!]

2) raise the ranks of citizen scientists and create a shared space for researchers and the public to socialize and work together. (see ScienceForCitizens.net) [Check!]

3) open doors to public participation in science policy (see this breaking news item) [Check!]

Thursday’s ground-breaking announcement in Washington, D.C. marked an important milestone for us (we accomplished the third goal); but, more importantly, it has already started to alter thinking in Washington, D.C. and within the science community.

Two years ago, some folks thought I was “misguided,” “naive,” “nuts,” to push for this level of public participation in science. (It’s one thing to ask someone to help count fireflies or monitor water quality, but to suggest people might add value to critical science policy discussions sometimes drew reactions of shock and horror.)

In two short years, the reactions have changed considerably. On Thursday,  when we issued a report on how to build a 21st century technology assessment mechanism, and announced the formation of a network that will put the report into action, the response was incredible. From Beth Noveck at the White House, to representatives from the EPA and other government agencies as well as universities, museums–and, yes, even scientists–the reception was remarkably warm if not enthusiastic.

Here’s a virtual toast to everyone who helped make this happen. Now rest up because we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us.

Larry Bock, the unflappable founder of the USA Science and Engineering Festival, sent the following message to 40,000+ people this morning. Hope you can joins us!

“We are very pleased to announce our partnership with Science For Citizens, a brand new website co-founded by Darlene Cavalier (who blogs at the Science Cheerleader) and Michael Gold (a science editor and writer). This site aggregates citizen science projects (also known as amateur science projects or participatory research) and enlists volunteers to get their hands dirty with science. Discover Magazine calls it the Amazon.com of citizen science, Innocentive gives it two big thumbs up, and the National Science Foundation’s Science and Media Site says “Sci4Cits may by the solution to fragmentation, a serious issue for the informal science education community and its followers.”

Science For Citizens, in collaboration with the USA Science and Engineering Festival, the Coalition for the Public Understanding of Science(COPUS), and Science House, will have a major presence at the Festival playing host to numerous hands-on, citizen science activities.

Visitors at the Sci4Cits exhibit will have the opportunity to sort galaxies, test water quality, identify birds and fireflies, and participate in lots of other honest-to-goodness scientific research activities. Sci4Cits is now accepting applications from interested citizen science project leaders who wish to participate in this first-of-its-kind expo by demonstrating activities with thousands of festival goers-turned-scientists. If you lead a citizen science project and would like to participate in the Sci4Cits exhibit, please complete this brief surveybefore April 30 so we can better accommodate your goals and requirements. If you do not run a citizen science project, but would like to volunteer to help demonstrate one or more, that’s great, too! Just complete the contact information and make a note of your interest to be a volunteer in the final comments section (last question). Feel free to email Sci4Cits at info@scienceforcitizens.net with any questions or comments.”

Stay tuned for an announcement re: Science Cheerleader’s presence at this event. It includes a performance by a troop of pro cheerleaders-turned-scientists and engineers!

Last week, the Charlotte Observer ran this article about the growing popularity of all-things-citizen science. The Science Cheerleader is quoted. [Admires self in reflection of computer monitor.]

Innocentive built the first global Web community for open innovation where organizations or “Seekers” submit complex problems or “Challenges” for resolution to a “Solver” community of more than 200,000 engineers, scientists, inventors, business professionals, and research organizations in more than 200 countries. Prizes for winning solutions are financial awards up to $1,000,000 although most hover around the $10K-$25K range. Not too bad for a couple of day’s worth of creative thinking. Solver David Bradin (a chemist-turned-attorney) explains his flash of insight moment when he scrolled through Innocentive’s list of challenges and came up with a solution almost out of the blue. “It took me more time to register as a Solver than it took to win the Challenge,” he quips.

Last week, Innocentive’s CEO, Dwayne Spradlin announced a partnership with The Economist:

“We are trying to tackle the most complex and dire issues facing humanity- how do you provide access to clean water in developing countries? How do you feed everyone in areas with burgeoning populations? In our partnership with The Economist, these are the types of questions we will be asking. By tapping into the world’s brightest minds for access to fresh and bold thinking we can empower real invention and meaningful growth.”

Spradlin is a real evangelist for crowd-sourcing and collaboration. I’ve had the pleasure of chatting with him about participatory technology assessment and citizen science (public involvement in science research and science policy discussions). He described Science Cheerleader and its sister site, ScienceForCitizens.net, as “close cousins” of Innocentive. I agree! These sites demonstrate an authentic belief in the benefits of public participation–from restoring trust, to creating a better informed citizenry, to assessing risks–all while advancing innovation.

Sometimes the best ideas come from the fringes.

Harvard University did a study on Innocentive’s solvers and found that, on average, people who solved the posted challenges were six areas away from the discipline most closely associated with the challenge. For example, a few years ago an oil company posted a speculative challenge for an application likely to be needed in the Artic: the capability to empty tanks in freezing conditions. Not an easy task. When oil gets cold and starts to coagulate, siphoning it is akin to sipping the last bits of a Slurpee (you know how the icy bits move to the side, making it tricky to sip up anything good?).

Who came up with the winning solution? An industry outsider.  How? “It really had nothing to do with my training or education,” he explained in an interview with me last year. “It was the result of a chance encounter with a cement mixer.” (more…)

We are thrilled to report that our own Dr. John Ohab took home the Hive Award for Best Podcast (he hosts and produces the Department of Defense’s Armed with Science podcast, when he’s not doing science cheers with the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders or jamming with science-loving, indie rock bands). Winners were announced at SXSW Interactive earlier this month in Austin, TX.

Way to go, John!