Opportunities for Microbiology Citizen Science: Lessons Learnt from Three Pilot Projects
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Citizen science is the partnering of professional scientists and members of the public to answer real world scientific questions. There has been huge growth in citizen science over the past two decades but uptake in microbiology research has, thus far, been relatively limited. Here we demonstrate why this is a missed opportunity. Citizen science is well aligned with microbiology research because sample collection methods can be simplified and used in a variety of environments; projects are expected to appeal to participants as topics are likely to be of relevance to people’s lives and interests, including the health of people and the environment; and projects can also lead to real world impact, including the identification of new drugs or biotechnological solutions. In the second part of the paper we present our reflections from three pilot microbiology projects we have recently completed. In order for the field to grow, people need to share both their successes as well as the challenges they have faced, so others wanting to use the method can learn from these experiences. We share simplified sampling methods for yeast strains from home brewing and baking, antimicrobial resistant bacteria on home grown produce and microbes on chopping boards. However, participation in our projects was limited by a range of factors, including time available and resourcing, which impacted on our ability to generate new knowledge and wider impacts. We provide recommendations for others wishing to run microbiology citizen science projects, including ensuring appropriate resourcing and considering ethical implications of projects.
Article activity feed
-
Thank you for your submission to Access Microbiology. This is an interesting manuscript and will be of great value to the academic community, both within microbiology and the broader public engagement community. The reviewers have also expressed the view that this manuscript is useful and containing interesting data and narratives. To allow the community to gain the most from this manuscript we require some elements of the paper to be re-drafted and the overall structure of the piece altered, please see the reviewers comments below. These revisions are on the boundary between minor and major revisions, so I have put it through as a major revision to allow you more time to make the changes. I look forward to seeing an updated version of the manuscript as I feel the reviewers requests will greatly strengthen this work.
-
Comments to Author
This paper provides a nice overview of citizen science, focusing on microbiology. I particularly like the recommendations at the end of the paper. I also appreciated how the authors have addressed difficulties encountered with citizen science projects, and the difficulties of obtaining good evaluation etc. Specific comments: Abstract line 30 'microbiology…relatively limited'. Could the same be said for other sciences such as biochemistry, physiology etc etc. Perhaps omit this sentence, and address the issues in the introduction and paper text? Similarly, 'here we demonstrate (perhaps add - 'in the first part of the paper') why this is a missed opportunity' is perhaps an over-statement for the abstract? 5.1 nice examples. How did you search for them? How confident are you that you have found 'all' (or …
Comments to Author
This paper provides a nice overview of citizen science, focusing on microbiology. I particularly like the recommendations at the end of the paper. I also appreciated how the authors have addressed difficulties encountered with citizen science projects, and the difficulties of obtaining good evaluation etc. Specific comments: Abstract line 30 'microbiology…relatively limited'. Could the same be said for other sciences such as biochemistry, physiology etc etc. Perhaps omit this sentence, and address the issues in the introduction and paper text? Similarly, 'here we demonstrate (perhaps add - 'in the first part of the paper') why this is a missed opportunity' is perhaps an over-statement for the abstract? 5.1 nice examples. How did you search for them? How confident are you that you have found 'all' (or most) of the examples that there have been? 5.2 replace 'vast'(line 104). Line 114, rather vague reference to International Microbiology Literacy Initiative - how does this project relate to citizen science, and what evidence is there as yet for its success? 5.3 replace 'wicked' (line 134) 5.4 line 140 punctuation. Insert fullstop before 'there' perhaps? And expand on the exit points for participants (rather than participation?). How can you keep participants in the study (any references?) Line 145. I do think that one particular aspect of CS in microbiology is addressed in this paragraph - that of health and safety (as well as contamination). Perhaps it needs more emphasis and some references/examples of protocols? 5.5 add a reference line 175. Table 1, it is interesting that the most ambitious outcomes tend not to be achieved. Are they too ambitious? Could they be broken down into more achievable sub-sections? Were these intended outcomes specified in the original proposals? (are there any references?) Line 212 transferable 5.6 As I said previously, I think these recommendations are really useful. Particularly ensuring that ethics aspects are incorporated into planning. Can you prioritise? How can you address health and safety concerns? Have you included qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods, and how can you secure better participation latterly? More detailed descriptions of the three case studies follow. I really feel that there should be an overall conclusion added at the end of the paper, rather than an abrupt ending of the third case 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?
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
1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data This is excellent. The three case study projects were carefully designed and the data, though less plentiful than the authors had hoped, has been well analyzed using appropriate methods. 2. Presentation of results This should be improved. The authors confine themselves to a single figure in the main text, a somewhat tangential illustration. All of the results arising from the case study CS projects are described in prose rather than with tables or charts. I recommend that the authors consider how tables and/or graphs might be used to communicate their results more clearly. 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings The organization of the paper must be improved. It is wrong to …
Comments to Author
1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data This is excellent. The three case study projects were carefully designed and the data, though less plentiful than the authors had hoped, has been well analyzed using appropriate methods. 2. Presentation of results This should be improved. The authors confine themselves to a single figure in the main text, a somewhat tangential illustration. All of the results arising from the case study CS projects are described in prose rather than with tables or charts. I recommend that the authors consider how tables and/or graphs might be used to communicate their results more clearly. 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings The organization of the paper must be improved. It is wrong to start with the conclusion that microbiology needs more citizen science, and then to list recommendations for microbiology CS projects, and only then to describe the case studies and the results. The order should instead be the traditional introduction, methods, results, conclusions. By introducing the case studies right after the introduction, readers will immediately see practical examples of microbiology CS projects, which will help contextualize the subsequent discussion. The reader should clearly see, as they read from start to finish, how the authors derive each of their seven recommendations. At the moment some of them are briefly alluded to (e.g. "Carefully consider IP issues..." in the SuperYeast project) but there isn't enough detail for it to be useful to the reader. The authors could even explicitly refer, by number, to each of their recommendations at appropriate points in the case studies. In some cases the reference will highlight a success, because a recommendation was followed, and in other cases it will be something that they would do differently next time, because a recommendation was not. (Incidentally I think recommendation 7 is particularly important if microbiology CS projects are to take off.) 4. Literature analysis or discussion The authors know the literature very well and adduce examples expertly. There are a few rogue "n.d."s in the reference list that need removing. 5. Any other relevant comments This is an excellent piece of work that only needs some reorganizing to be very useful to the community.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Poor
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
-