---
title: "Citizen science"
chunk: 4/19
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:12:57.708518+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

They conclude that as citizen science continues to grow and mature, a key metric of project success they expect to see will be a growing awareness of data quality. They also conclude that citizen science will emerge as a general tool helping "to collect otherwise unobtainable high-quality data in support of policy and resource management, conservation monitoring, and basic science."
A study of Canadian lepidoptera datasets published in 2018 compared the use of a professionally curated dataset of butterfly specimen records with four years of data from a citizen science program, eButterfly. The eButterfly dataset was used as it was determined to be of high quality because of the expert vetting process used on site, and there already existed a dataset covering the same geographic area consisting of specimen data, much of it institutional. The authors note that, in this case, citizen science data provides both novel and complementary information to the specimen data. Five new species were reported from the citizen science data, and geographic distribution information was improved for over 80% of species in the combined dataset when citizen science data was included.
Several recent studies have begun to explore the accuracy of citizen science projects and how to predict accuracy based on variables like expertise of practitioners. One example is a 2021 study by Edgar Santos-Fernandez and Kerrie Mengersen of the British Ecological Society, who utilized a case study which used recent R and Stan programming software to offer ratings of the accuracy of species identifications performed by citizen scientists in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. This provided insight into possible problems with processes like this which include, "discriminatory power and guessing behaviour". The researchers determined that methods for rating the citizen scientists themselves based on skill level and expertise might make studies they conduct more easy to analyze.
Studies that are simple in execution are where citizen science excels, particularly in the field of conservation biology and ecology. For example, in 2019, Sumner et al. compared the data of vespid wasp distributions collected by citizen scientists with the 4-decade, long-term dataset established by the BWARS. They set up the Big Wasp Survey from 26 August to 10 September 2017, inviting citizen scientists to trap wasps and send them for identification by experts where data was recorded. The results of this study showed that the campaign garnered over 2,000 citizen scientists participating in data collection, identifying over 6,600 wasps. This experiment provides strong evidence that citizen science can generate potentially high-quality data comparable to that of expert data collection, within a shorter time frame. Although the experiment was to originally test the strength of citizen science, the team also learned more about Vespidae biology and species distribution in the United Kingdom. With this study, the simple procedure enabled citizen science to be executed in a successful manner. A study by J. Cohn describes that volunteers can be trained to use equipment and process data, especially considering that a large proportion of citizen scientists are individuals who are already well-versed in the field of science.
The demographics of participants in citizen science projects are overwhelmingly White adults, of above-average income, having a university degree. Other groups of volunteers include conservationists, outdoor enthusiasts, and amateur scientists. As such, citizen scientists are generally individuals with a pre-understanding of the scientific method and how to conduct sensible and just scientific analysis.

== Ethics ==
Various studies have been published that explore the ethics of citizen science, including issues such as intellectual property and project design.(e.g.) The Citizen Science Association (CSA), based at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA), based in the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, have working groups on ethics and principles.
In September 2015, ECSA published its Ten Principles of Citizen Science, which have been developed by the "Sharing best practice and building capacity" working group of ECSA, led by the Natural History Museum, London with input from many members of the association.

The medical ethics of internet crowdsourcing has been questioned by Graber & Graber in the Journal of Medical Ethics. In particular, they analyse the effect of games and the crowdsourcing project Foldit. They conclude: "games can have possible adverse effects, and that they manipulate the user into participation".
In March 2019, the online journal Citizen Science: Theory and Practice launched a collection of articles on the theme of Ethical Issues in Citizen Science. The articles are introduced with (quoting): "Citizen science can challenge existing ethical norms because it falls outside of customary methods of ensuring that research is conducted ethically. What ethical issues arise when engaging the public in research? How have these issues been addressed, and how should they be addressed in the future?"
In June 2019, East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal (EASTS) published an issue titled "Citizen Science: Practices and Problems" which contains 15 articles/studies on citizen science, including many relevant subjects of which ethics is one. Quoting from the introduction "Citizen, Science, and Citizen Science": "The term citizen science has become very popular among scholars as well as the general public, and, given its growing presence in East Asia, it is perhaps not a moment too soon to have a special issue of EASTS on the topic."
Use of citizen science volunteers as de facto unpaid laborers by some commercial ventures have been criticized as exploitative.
Ethics in citizen science in the health and welfare field, has been discussed in terms of protection versus participation. Public involvement researcher Kristin Liabo writes that health researcher might, in light of their ethics training, be inclined to exclude vulnerable individuals from participation, to protect them from harm. However, she argues these groups are already likely to be excluded from participation in other arenas, and that participation can be empowering and a possibility to gain life skills that these individuals need. Whether or not to become involved should be a decision these individuals should be involved in and not a researcher decision.