2022
DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2022.2063827
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

“Idealists and capitalists”: ownership attitudes and preferences in genomic citizen science

Abstract: The perspectives of genomic citizen scientists on ownership of research outputs are not well understood, yet they are useful for identifying alignment of participant expectations and project practices and can help guide efforts to develop innovative tools and strategies for managing ownership claims. Here, we report findings from 52 interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 to understand genomic citizen science stakeholders’ conceptualizations of, experiences with, and preferences for ownership of research outputs… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The project's participants might be comfortable, for example, with a plan that gives type II diabetic participants two times the profit share of other participants, but what about thirty times? As we heard during interviews with genomic citizen science stakeholders (Guerrini et al 2022), at a certain point, the difference becomes indefensible. Identifying that point is challenging and context dependent, but factors to consider include the distribution ratio (e.g., 1:2 v. 1:30) and absolute value of the benefits (e.g., $2 v. $4, $2,000 v. $60,000).…”
Section: Relative Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The project's participants might be comfortable, for example, with a plan that gives type II diabetic participants two times the profit share of other participants, but what about thirty times? As we heard during interviews with genomic citizen science stakeholders (Guerrini et al 2022), at a certain point, the difference becomes indefensible. Identifying that point is challenging and context dependent, but factors to consider include the distribution ratio (e.g., 1:2 v. 1:30) and absolute value of the benefits (e.g., $2 v. $4, $2,000 v. $60,000).…”
Section: Relative Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Empirical studies have described citizen science project practices related to accessing, controlling, and sharing in the benefits of outputs, with a focus on data sets, and probed relevant perspectives of citizen science practitioners, participants, and scholars (Borda, Gray, and Fu 2019;Bowser et al 2020;Guerrini et al 2019;Guerrini et al 2022). Potential legal claims of citizen scientists to project outputs also have been examined (Guerrini and Contreras 2020;Scassa and Chung 2015a,b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%