Unearthing new learning opportunities: adapting and innovating through the ‘Antibiotics under our feet’ citizen science project in Scotland during COVID-19
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
‘Antibiotics under our feet’ is a Scottish citizen science project that aimed to raise science capital in primary school learners and their teachers through measurement of microbial diversity in urban soil samples in the search for novel antimicrobial compounds. Resistance to antibiotics is rising, posing a global threat to human health. Furthermore, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills are in crisis, jeopardising our capacity to mobilise as a society to fight antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Originally conceived as a response to the AMR and STEM emergencies, our project was hit by the unprecedented challenge of engaging with schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe how we adapted our project to enable remote participation from primary schools and youth groups, utilising COVID-19 response initiatives as opportunities for multi-level co-creation of resources with learners in primary, secondary, and higher education. We produced portable kit boxes for soil sample collection with learning activities and videos linked to the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence. We also addressed glaring project specific content gaps relating to microbiology on English and Simple English Wikipedia. Our hybrid model of working extended our geographical reach and broadened inclusion. We present here the inception, implementation, digital resource outputs, and discussion of pedagogical aspects of ‘Antibiotics under our feet’. Our strategies and insights are applicable post-pandemic for educators to develop STEM skills using soil, microbes, and antibiotics as a theme.
Article activity feed
-
-
The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community.
-
-
The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community. The reviewers have highlighted minor concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments.
-
Comments to Author
This a well written paper on the citizen science project "Antibiotics Under Our Feet" and how it was realised during the COVID-19 pandemic. The manuscript is very readable and easy to follow with relevant figures and tables throughout highlighting results in an easily understood manner. The writing flows very well and has a conversational style fitting to the subject matter. The manuscript has a wide and current literature review, with the discussion and conclusions summarising all of the findings in a thorough manner. There are three places where there are errors line 160 "Error! reference source not found"- should this be "Figure 1" line 180 "Error ! reference source not found"- should this be "Table 2" line 234 "Error! Reference source not found" - reference number missing here perhaps?
…
Comments to Author
This a well written paper on the citizen science project "Antibiotics Under Our Feet" and how it was realised during the COVID-19 pandemic. The manuscript is very readable and easy to follow with relevant figures and tables throughout highlighting results in an easily understood manner. The writing flows very well and has a conversational style fitting to the subject matter. The manuscript has a wide and current literature review, with the discussion and conclusions summarising all of the findings in a thorough manner. There are three places where there are errors line 160 "Error! reference source not found"- should this be "Figure 1" line 180 "Error ! reference source not found"- should this be "Table 2" line 234 "Error! Reference source not found" - reference number missing here perhaps?
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
This paper describes an exciting citizen science initiative, which has potential for application more broadly throughout Scotland and the UK. It does address some of the pressing needs in AMR drug discovery and STEM education. However, a little more detail is needed, particularly in some of the methods, and the authors could perhaps do a more thorough job of placing this study in the context of other citizen science initiatives. 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data a) The data have been made available, which is excellent to see. However, it would be best if the authors could also upload their sequencing reads to a repository such as the NCBI Sequence Read Archive. b) The methods in many places could be described more clearly, so that the audience better …
Comments to Author
This paper describes an exciting citizen science initiative, which has potential for application more broadly throughout Scotland and the UK. It does address some of the pressing needs in AMR drug discovery and STEM education. However, a little more detail is needed, particularly in some of the methods, and the authors could perhaps do a more thorough job of placing this study in the context of other citizen science initiatives. 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data a) The data have been made available, which is excellent to see. However, it would be best if the authors could also upload their sequencing reads to a repository such as the NCBI Sequence Read Archive. b) The methods in many places could be described more clearly, so that the audience better understands exactly how things were done, and/or would be able to repeat the experiments if needed. i. Vega (line 234) - how was this used? It is not clear from the text how this analysis could be reproduced. What is the link between this and ORES? ii. More detail needed for how the feedback was coded (240-1). iii. It is not clear how the sequence files in the dataset available from the University of St. Andrews were generated. More detail is needed on how the samples were processed after they were received from participants - was there any selective isolation done or are these metagenomics sequences? It could also be made clearer exactly what was present in the kits, and the instructions that participants were given on how to collect soil. iv. One of the datasets also seems to indicate that heavy metal analysis was done, it is not clear how this was performed? v. More detail on the methods of the service evaluation, how this was done (even if it was outsourced). vi. It would be helpful for the audience if more detail was provided on the exact contents of the kits that were distributed and perhaps a comparison table of how these differ from the materials that would have been needed to run this as in-person workshops. 2. Presentation of results a) Some of the text on figures is very small and hard to read. b) Table 3 is unclear - is that the number of articles that the STEP student editors viewed? The number of times that the articles they created/edited had been viewed? If the latter, is that an overall number of article views, or the number of views that the pages received after they edited them? c) Data presentation in Figure 4 is extremely confusing; suggest reconsider presenting this as a Venn diagram (particularly where the overlap is "none"). Presentation of Simple Wiki and English Wiki as equal-sized circles is misleading. Italicization of topics/species names is somewhat idiosyncratic. d) Figure 5 - suggest removing the background image from the word cloud, it skews the reader's ability to visualise this data (artificially creates sub-categories on hills/sky; from the figure legend it appears that all should be in the same category). e) Figure 6 seems to be missing a legend, and it is not very clear how this data was generated/how it could be reproduced. 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings a) The paper is generally well-written and -organized. The delineation between the methods and results section is perhaps not very clear. A more comprehensive methods section (including the points from 1 above) will help with this, and/or perhaps a little more historically structured approach to the results section. Instead of beginning with the location of the soil samples, perhaps the authors could restructure this a little to present the narrative of their project in historical order? b) The authors refer several times to "science capital" - this is a rather jargon-y term that could be better explained for the audience. c) Line editing throughout, for example, errors on line 60, 188 4. Literature analysis or discussion More detail needed in the literature review/introduction; for example, the authors could explain how their work is similar/different to similar antibiotic discovery CUREs/citizen science initiatives, such as the Small World Initiative, or Swab and Send: Caruso JP, Israel N, Rowland K, Lovelace MJ, Saunders MJ. Citizen Science: The Small World Initiative Improved Lecture Grades and California Critical Thinking Skills Test Scores of Nonscience Major Students at Florida Atlantic University. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2016;17(1):156-162. Published 2016 Mar 1. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1011 Roberts AP. Swab and Send: a citizen science, antibiotic discovery project. Future Sci OA. 2020;6(6):FSO477. Published 2020 May 6. doi:10.2144/fsoa-2020-0053 (not a comprehensive list of references) in the discussion, the authors could then compare the impact of their work, with the impact from other similar studies. 5. Any other relevant comments The authors' ethical statement is that "As no individually identifiable information was collected, ethical approval was not sought." However, ethical approval doesn't hinge on whether identifiable information is being collected or not. Ethical approval is needed for all experiments which involve people as participants. An area of concern here in particular is that Table 2 seems to suggest that some of the participants are underage.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
No: The authors’ ethical statement is that “As no individually identifiable information was collected, ethical approval was not sought.” However, ethical approval doesn’t hinge on whether identifiable information is being collected or not. Ethical approval is needed for all experiments which involve people as participants. An area of concern here in particular is that Table 2 seems to suggest that some of the participants are underage.
-
Comments to Author
This is an interesting paper which i think would be of interest to readers of Access Microbiology. I particularly like how detailed the description of the project is and the stages the authors went through to adapt the project to work during COVID. I think this would help other readers who are interested in undertaking a similiar project. My one concern is the lack of ethical approval for the evaluation aspects of the project. I know in my instituition we would be required to apply for ethical approval. The research objectives are clearly stated. There is adequate review of the literature in the introduction but i feel the results from this project could be placed into context in the discussion section. In general the paper is organised well and has a logical flow which is easy to follow. I have …
Comments to Author
This is an interesting paper which i think would be of interest to readers of Access Microbiology. I particularly like how detailed the description of the project is and the stages the authors went through to adapt the project to work during COVID. I think this would help other readers who are interested in undertaking a similiar project. My one concern is the lack of ethical approval for the evaluation aspects of the project. I know in my instituition we would be required to apply for ethical approval. The research objectives are clearly stated. There is adequate review of the literature in the introduction but i feel the results from this project could be placed into context in the discussion section. In general the paper is organised well and has a logical flow which is easy to follow. I have included some additional suggestions below. L40 page 3 : Could the author provide more information/context about why STEM skills are in crisis? Can you also expand on what are considered STEM skills. L47 : Can you expand on "studies have demonstrated links between environmental contamination, antimicrobial resistance and shifts in biodiversity [8]" and perhaps cite more supporting references if more than one study. Methods P4 Line 98 - primary 5-7 pupils, is this age 5-7 pupils or year 5-7? Could the ages be included for readers who are not from a Scottish background. P5 :105- may be worth including what topical science is as not all readers may be familiar with it. L117 page 5- more detail needs to be provided about how primary learners were recruited. Page 6 - Line 161 - broken link which needs fixing No mention of ethics approval in the methods section for evaluating the work? I think ethics would be needed if you are publishing responses from participants. Results Line 188 page 8 - broken link which needs fixing, assume it should refer to Figure 2 Table 2 - Audience statistics - is it possible to include the numbers of students engaged from the different schools and youth groups? Could Figure 3 be made larger otherwise its difficult to read/view the righthand side of the figure. Page 12 L234 - Broken link with references not found Figure 5- can you include the number of students who submitted free text responses to make this word cloud. Figure 6 - again include the number of students whose feedback was coded for the common themes and the number of comments coded. Discussion I think more data needs to be provided to support the following : Focussing on the dimensions of science capital [36] AUOF raised learners' scientific literacy, helped explore science-related attitudes, values, and dispositions So for example did you look at science literacy in the students before and after engagement with the project? Have you looked at science values? In the discussion section, I think it would be helpful to place your results into the context of other studies which have done similarly things. Also what were the limitations of the work and things you would do differently if you repeated the study?
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
No: I believe the authors should have applied for ethical approval. I know they state the responses are anonymous and it was optional. But the people who were completing their evaluations will not have known how their data will be used and included in publications. I know in my instiution, this type of project would have required ethical approval.
-