Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical outcomes, while de-emphasizing output.

In April 2014, the drinking water source in Flint, Michigan was switched from Lake Huron water with phosphate inhibitors to Flint River water without corrosion inhibitors. The absence of corrosion control and use of a more corrosive source increased lead leaching from plumbing. Our city-wide citizen science water lead results contradicted official claims that there was no problem- our 90th percentile was 26.8 μg/L, which was almost double the Lead and Copper Rule action level of 15 μg/L. Back calculations of a LCR sampling pool with 50% lead pipes indicated an estimated 90th percentile lead value of 31.7 μg/L (±4.3 μg/L). Four subsequent sampling efforts were conducted to track reductions in water lead after the switch back to Lake Huron water and enhanced corrosion control. The incidence of water lead varied by service line material. Between August 2015 and November 2016, median water lead reduced from 3.0 to <1 μg/L for homes with copper service lines, 7.2-1.9 μg/L with galvanized service lines, and 9.9-2.3 μg/L with lead service lines. As of summer 2017, our 90th percentile of 7.9 μg/L no longer differed from official results, which indicated Flint's water lead levels were below the action level.

No abstract

No abstract

A citizen science collaboration between Flint residents, the Virginia Tech "Flint Water Study" team, and others helped to uncover the Flint Lead-in-Drinking Water Crisis and a community-wide outbreak of Legionella. The resulting Federal Emergency declaration in January 2016 resulted in more than $600 million in relief funding, an acknowledged case of environmental injustice, and resignations/indictments of some public officials. But after responsible government entities apologized and attempted to make amends and help with the recovery, some "citizen scientists" began making public statements that were in direct conflict with public health messaging of scientific authorities. A general state of science anarchy resulted, which created further distrust and confusion. Some practices employed were consistent with a concept of "citizen engineering," which aims to "undermine engineering [and science] expertise" in the name of "democratizing" science. "Citizen Engineers" view concepts of scientific rigor and objectivity as justification for abuse of power by authorities and scientists, and they embrace biases and conflicts of interest that scientists aspire to guard against. While there are ethical guidelines for professional scientists on research misconduct, no such framework exists for policing instances of unethical behavior by citizen scientists. Possible abuses of citizen science documented in Flint explored in this case study include: 1) collection of non-representative data that created unjustified fear among residents about the safety of water used for bathing and showering, 2) perceived financial conflicts of interest, and 3) falsification of data to obtain relief resources, support lawsuits, gain media attention, or support erroneous scientific conclusions. We also report the journey of an aspiring citizen scientist who openly acknowledged mistakes, made the "right" decision in relation to handling an ethical dilemma, and who was then publicly attacked for doing so. This experience highlights challenges to the practice of citizen science, especially during high profile emergency interventions and disasters involving environmental injustice.