Like many people, I’ve had a general interest in science since I was a teenager. I remember playing with things like photomicroscopy, electronics and computers in the late 70s and 80s, and fascination with all sorts of scientific areas has played a big part in my life. And, like many others I also built up a bit of expert knowledge over my career, and even managed to fit in a PhD. Yet, despite decades of becoming more specialised, science in general seems as exciting as ever. So, why does there seem such a big divide between ‘amateur’ and ‘professional’ science?
That’s probably one of the reasons why I found ‘The Victorian Scientist’, by Jack Meadows, so fascinating when I first read it a few years ago. My view is that he describes a growth of specialism during late Victorian times, each with its own, often highly mathematical, language and methods inaccessible to all but those with the time and money to learn them. So, despite centuries over which major scientific discoveries had been made by fascinated, and often relatively poor, amateurs, non-professionals became relegated to observational sciences that some of the new professional breed considered inferior to purer topics such as mathematics and physics.
Fortunately there’s less snobbery about professional scientific themes nowadays, with a seemingly endless list of research specialisms that cover everything from observation to blue sky thinking. And there’s still an army of amateur thinkers and observers, and in many areas their efforts are becoming more and more critical to the success of academic projects. We only have to look as far as astronomy and biology to realise that the pioneering scientific spirit is still alive outside of specialist research organisations. Which made me wonder: why is science still so inaccessible, to so many people, beyond the level of pop-science?
Perhaps it’s still the language of science that creates the barriers. But, does ‘dumbing it down’ really help people contribute to science, or just justify to the masses why so much money is spent on it? And does it really help the more dedicated amateurs, most of whom are likely to become just as fluent in specialist terminology as professionals if given sufficient access to research outcomes? Or, is it still the age old issue of funding, as amateurs usually have to dig into their own pockets to fund their materials and equipment? Yet in this age of Makers, with all the new technology that goes with it, amateurs are in a good position to compete with professionals, and in some areas often do.
Personally I don’t have a definite answer to these questions, but unsurprisingly I’m betting on a big barrier between amateur and professional science being access to good scientific results. And that means I find open access publishing, and open data, very exciting. But, as a trained scientist I also have to acknowledge the importance of good training and quality journals. Yet, having done a PhD after many years in practical engineering, I also realise that much of the academic rigour of scientific investigation is little different to the rigour we all develop when building expertise in non-academic professions. So I think it’s fair to say that finding enough time in our busy lives, and willingness to spend the time needed to be scientifically rigorous, are also very significant barriers.
Anyway, if you’ve read this far, you’ll probably be wondering what the above photo has to do with these ramblings. Well, it’s a tourist attraction I visited recently on Anglesey, called Stone Science. It’s an excellent place to visit for people of all ages and has a wonderful ability to convey geology in a fascinating and accessible way, yet without shying away from the academic rigour that goes with a deeper understanding of the subject. More importantly though, it made me remember something else: scientists are never professional or amateur, they’re just people with a thirst for knowledge and the dedication to put their time into finding it.
For that reason Citizen Science is no different from any other branch of science, and the best ‘professionals’ probably consider themelves one anyway. I certainly do! So, regardless of whether they do it as a job or in their spare time, if scientists put in the time and effort needed to do something useful in their areas of interest, they deserve access to the knowledge science generates. That’s why I don’t wholeheartedly agree that simply removing paywalls to scientific data is a panacea for the barriers Citizen Scientists face, but I do wholeheartedly believe all scientists have to work together to create a model for science that goes back to its roots of being inclusive to everybody with the desire to create good knowledge.
And if you want to know how to do that you could always pop in to Stone Science for a bit of inspiration :-)
