1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
  4. Volume 21, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Volume 21, 2020

Credit for and Control of Research Outputs in Genomic Citizen Science

Abstract

Citizen science encompasses activities with scientific objectives in which members of the public participate as more than passive research subjects from whom personal data or biospecimens are collected and analyzed by others. Citizen science is increasingly common in the biomedical sciences, including the fields of genetics and human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives are diverse and involve citizen scientists in collecting genetic data, solving genetic puzzles, and conducting experiments in community laboratories. At the same time that genomic citizen science is presenting new opportunities for individuals to participate in scientific discovery, it is also challenging norms regarding the manner in which scientific research outputs are managed. In this review, we present a typology of genomic citizen science initiatives, describe ethical and legal foundations for recognizing genomic citizen scientists’ claims of credit for and control of research outputs, and detail how such claims are or might be addressed in practice across a variety of initiatives.

Keyword(s): citizen science, copyright, crowdsourcing, intellectual property, participatory research, patent
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021812
2020-08-31
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/genom/21/1/annurev-genom-083117-021812.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021812&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    23andMe 2019. About us. 23andMe https://mediacenter.23andme.com/company/about-us
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Angrist M. 2009. Eyes wide open: the Personal Genome Project, citizen science and veracity in informed consent. Pers. Med. 6:691–99
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Assoc. Univ. Technol. Manag. (AUTM) 2007. In the public interest: nine points to consider in licensing university technology. AUTM https://www.autm.net/AUTMMain/media/Advocacy/Documents/Points_to_Consider.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Aungst H, Fishman JR, McGowan ML 2017. Participatory genomic research: ethical issues from the bottom up to the top down. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 18:357–67
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Aymé S, Kole A, Groft S 2008. Empowerment of patients: lessons from the rare diseases community. Lancet 371:2048–51
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Baltim. Undergr. Sci. Space 2019. Baltimore Under Ground Science Space (BUGSS) membership application and agreement. Baltimore Underground Science Space http://www.bugssonline.org/membership-options/bugssmembership-agreement
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Bietz M, Patrick K, Bloss C 2019. Data donation as a model for citizen science health research. Citiz. Sci. 4:6
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    BioBricks Found 2010. The BioBrick™ contributor agreement: version 1 (January 2010) Agreem. Doc., BioBricks Found San Francisco: https://biobricks.org/wp-content/themes/bbf2016/bpa-sample.php
  9. 9. 
    Boguraev A-S, Christensen HC, Bonneau AR, Pezza JA, Nichols NM et al. 2017. Successful amplification of DNA aboard the International Space Station. npj Microgravity 3:26
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Bohannon J. 2016. For RNA paper based on a computer game, authorship creates an identity crisis. Science Feb. 17. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/rna-paper-based-computer-game-authorship-creates-identity-crisis
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Bonetta L. 2009. New citizens for the life sciences. Cell 138:1043–45
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Botkin JR, Mancher M, Busta ER, Downey AS 2018. Returning individual research results to participants: guidance for a new research paradigm Rep., Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med Washington, DC:
  13. 13. 
    Boxer EE, Garneau NL. 2015. Rare haplotypes of the gene TAS2R38 confer bitter taste sensitivity in humans. SpringerPlus 4:505
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Burstein MJ, Murray FE. 2016. Innovation prizes in practice and theory. Harv. J. Law Technol. 29:401–53
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Carter-Johnson J. 2014. Beyond Einstein and Edison: claiming space for non-faculty inventors in technology transfer. Indiana Law Rev 47:645–88
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Castelvecchi D. 2015. Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors. Nature May 15. https://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Ceccaroni L, Bowser A, Brenton P 2017. Civic education and citizen science: definitions, categories, knowledge representation. Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research L Ceccaroni, J Piera 1–23 Hershey, PA: IGI Glob.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Chow SY. 2017. A snapshot of online contracting two decades after ProCD v. Zeidenberg. Bus. Lawyer 73:267–76
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Coburn C. 2014. Play to Cure: Genes in Space. Lancet Oncol 15:688
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Contreras JL. 2011. Bermuda's legacy: policy, patents, and the design of the genome commons. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 12:61–125
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Contreras JL. 2013. Confronting the crisis in scientific publishing: latency, licensing and access. Santa Clara Law Rev 53:491–575
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Contreras JL. 2015. A market reliance theory for FRAND commitments and other patent pledges. Utah Law Rev 2015:479–558
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Contreras JL. 2016. Genetic property. Georget. Law J. 105:1–54
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Contreras JL. 2017. From private ordering to public law: the legal frameworks governing standards-essential patents. Harv. J. Law Technol. 30:211–31
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Contreras JL. 2019. The false promise of health data ownership. N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 94:624–61
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Contreras JL, Floratos A, Holden AL 2013. The International Serious Adverse Events Consortium's data sharing model. Nat. Biotechnol 31:17–19
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Contreras JL, Knoppers BM. 2018. The genomic commons. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 19:429–53
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Contreras JL, Schultz K, Teerlink CC, Maness T, Meyer LJ, Cannon-Albright LA 2020. Legal terms of use and public genealogy websites. J. Law Soc. Sci. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Contreras JL, Sherkow JS. 2017. CRISPR, surrogate licensing, and scientific discovery. Science 355:698–700
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Cooper CB, Lewenstein BV. 2016. Two meanings of citizen science. The Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Science D Cavalier, EB Kennedy 51–62 Tempe, AZ: Consort. Sci. Policy Outcomes
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Cooper S, Khatib F, Treuille A, Barbero J, Lee J et al. 2010. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 466:756–60
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Creative Commons 2019. CC licenses and examples. Creative Commons https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-examples
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    de Laat PB. 2001. Open source software: a new Mertonian ethos?. Ethics and the Internet A Vedder 33–48 Antwerp, Belg: Intersentia
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    de Vries M, Land-Zandstra A, Smeets I 2019. Citizen scientists’ preferences for communication of scientific output: a literature review. Citiz. Sci. 4:2
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    D'haeseleer P. 2017. How to set up your own DIY bio lab. Make: Magazine Apr. 11. https://makezine.com/2017/04/11/how-to-set-up-your-own-lab
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    D'haeseleer P, Juul M, Rouskey C 2014. Real vegan cheese. BioCoder 4:71–77
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    DIYbio 2011. Draft DIYbio code of ethics from European Congress. DIYbio https://diybio.org/codes/draft-diybio-code-of-ethics-from-european-congress
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Eisenberg RS. 1987. Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. Yale Law J 97:177–231
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Eitzel MV, Cappadonna JL, Santos-Lang C, Duerr RE, Virapongse A et al. 2017. Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citiz. Sci. 2:1
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Elkavich A. 2019. History in the making: student experiment edits DNA with CRISPR technology in space. ISS360 May 24. https://www.issnationallab.org/blog/history-in-the-making-student-experiment-edits-dna-with-crispr-technology-in-space
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Ellickson RC. 1991. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  42. 42. 
    Eriksson M, Brown WT, Gordon LB, Glynn MW, Singer J et al. 2003. Recurrent de novo point mutations in lamin A cause Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome. Nature 423:293–98
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Eterna 2020. Empowering citizen scientists to invent medicine. Eterna https://eternagame.org/web/about/
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Eur. Citiz. Sci. Assoc 2015. Ten principles of citizen science Princip. Doc., Eur. Citiz. Sci. Assoc Berlin: https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/sites/default/files/ecsa_ten_principles_of_citizen_science.pdf
  45. 45. 
    Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co 499 U.S. 340 1991.)
  46. 46. 
    Fiske A, Del Savio L, Prainsack B, Buyx A 2019. Conceptual and ethical considerations for citizen science in biomedicine. Personal Health Science NB Heyen, S Dickel, A Brüninghaus 195–217 Wiesbaden, Ger: Springer VS
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Follett R, Strezov V. 2015. An analysis of citizen science based research: usage and publication patterns. PLOS ONE 10:e0143687
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Forrest CB, Bartek RJ, Rubinstein Y, Groft SC 2011. The case for a global rare-diseases registry. Lancet 377:1057–59
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Ganzevoort W, van den Born RJG, Halffman W, Turnhout S 2017. Sharing biodiversity data: citizen scientists’ concerns and motivations. Biodivers. Conserv. 26:2821–37
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Garneau NL, Nuessle TM, Sloan MM, Santorico SA, Coughlin BC et al. 2014. Crowdsourcing taste research: genetic and phenotypic predictors of bitter taste perception as a model. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 8:33
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Garneau NL, Nuessle TM, Tucker RM, Yao M, Santorico SA et al. 2017. Taste responses to linoleic acid: a crowdsourced population study. Chem. Senses. 42:769–75
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Gelinas L, Largent EA, Cohen IG, Kornetsky S, Bierer BE et al. 2018. A framework for ethical payment to research participants. New Engl. J. Med. 378:766–71
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Genes in Space 2020. Meet us. Genes in Space https://www.genesinspace.org/meet-us
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB 2014. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user's guide Rep 3:14 -EHC111 Agency Healthc. Res. Qual Rockville, MD:
  55. 55. 
    Glob. Alliance Genom. Health (GA4GH) 2019. Data Use Ontology approved as a GA4GH technical standard News Release, GA4GH Toronto: https://www.ga4gh.org/news/data-use-ontology-approved-as-a-ga4gh-technical-standard
  56. 56. 
    Glob. Commun. Bio Summit 2018. Statement of Shared Purpose (3.0). Global Community Bio Summit https://www.biosummit.org/#shared-purpose-3-0-section
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Greenberg DS. 2007. Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  58. 58. 
    Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, Inc. 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003.)
  59. 59. 
    Greshake B, Bayer PE, Rausch H, Reda J 2014. openSNP—a crowdsourced web resource for personal genomics. PLOS ONE 9:e89204
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Grewal DS. 2017. Before peer production: infrastructure gaps and the architecture of openness in synthetic biology. Stanf. Technol. Law Rev. 20:143–211
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Guerrini CJ. 2018. A gathering of biohackers: the future of science. PolicyWise Sept. 14. https://blogs.bcm.edu/2018/09/14/a-gathering-of-biohackers-the-future-of-science
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Guerrini CJ, Curnutte MA, Sherkow JS, Scott CT 2017. The rise of the ethical license. Nat. Biotechnol. 35:22–24
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Guerrini CJ, Lewellyn M, Majumder MA, Trejo M, Canfield I, McGuire AL 2019. Donors, authors, and owners: How is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs. BMC Med. Ethics. 20:84
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Guerrini CJ, Majumder MA, Lewellyn MJ, McGuire AL 2018. Citizen science, public policy. Science 361:134–36
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Guerrini CJ, Spencer GE, Zettler PJ 2019. DIY CRISPR. N.C. Law Rev. 97:1399–461
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Deleted in proof
  67. 67. 
    Hecker S, Bonney R, Haklay M, Hölker F, Hofer H et al. 2018. Innovation in citizen science—perspectives on science-policy advances. Citiz. Sci. 3:4
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Hertel G, Niedner S, Herrmann S 2003. Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Res. Policy 32:1159–77
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Ikemoto LC. 2017. DIY Bio: hacking life in biotech's backyard. Univ. Calif. Davis Law Rev 51:539–68
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Int. Comm. Med. J. Eds 2019. Defining the role of authors and contributors. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Int. Genet. Eng. Mach. (iGEM) Found 2019. iGEM 2019: Giant Jamboree Program, iGEM Found Boston: https://2019.igem.org/wiki/images/5/58/2019_booklet.pdf
  72. 72. 
    Jackson SS, Sumner LE, Garnier CH, Basham C, Sun LT et al. The accelerating pace of biotech democratization. Nat. Biotechnol. 37:1403–7
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Kawrykow A, Roumanis G, Kam A, Kwak D, Leung C et al. 2012. Phylo: a citizen science approach for improving multiple sequence alignment. PLOS ONE 7:e31362
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Kelty CM. 2010. Outlaw, hackers, Victorian amateurs: diagnosing public participation in the life sciences today. J. Sci. Comm. 9:1 https://doi.org/10.22323/2.09010303
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Kelwick R, Bowater L, Yoeman KH, Bowater RP 2015. Promoting microbiology education through the iGEM synthetic biology competition. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 362:fnv129
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Kennedy EB. 2016. When citizen science meets science policy. The Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Science D Cavalier, EB Kennedy 21–50 Tempe, AZ: Consort. Sci. Policy Outcomes
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Kevles DJ. 1998. The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character New York: Norton
  78. 78. 
    Kirkpatrick BE, Riggs ER, Azzariti DR, Miller VR, Ledbetter DH et al. 2015. GenomeConnect: matchmaking between patients, clinical laboratories, and researchers to improve genomic knowledge. Hum. Mutat. 36:974–78
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Konski AF, Wu LX. 2015. Inventorship and authorship. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 5:a020859
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Kullenberg C, Kasperowski D. 2016. What is citizen science?—a scientometric meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 11:e0147152
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Landhuis E. 2016. Science and culture: putting a game face on biomedical research. PNAS 113:6577–78
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Lee J, Kladwang W, Lee M, Cantu D, Azizyan M et al. 2014. RNA design rules from a massive open laboratory. PNAS 111:2122–27
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Madison MJ, Frischmann BM, Strandburg KJ 2010. Constructing commons in the cultural environment. Cornell Law Rev 95:657–709
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Marcus AD. 2011. Citizen scientists. Wall Street Journal Dec. 3. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204621904577014330551132036
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Martin G. 2017. BK BioReactor. BioCoder May, pp 19–21
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Maxson Jones K, Ankeny RA, Cook-Deegan R 2018. The Bermuda Triangle: the pragmatics, policies, and principles of data sharing in the history of the Human Genome Project. J. Hist. Biol. 51:693–805
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    McGowan ML, Choudhury S, Juengst ET, Lambrix M, Settersten RA Jr et al. 2017. “Let's pull these technologies out of the ivory tower”: the politics, ethos, and ironies of participant-driven genomic research. BioSocieties 12:494–519
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Meeker HJ. 2012. Open source and the age of enforcement. Hastings Sci. Technol. Law J. 4:267–90
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Merges RP. 2011. Locke. In Justifying Intellectual Property31–67 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Merton RK. 1973. The normative structure of science. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations NW Storer 267–78 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Miller-Rushing A, Primack R, Bonney R 2012. The history of public participation in ecological research. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10:285–90
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Millien R. 2016. The default law of joint IP ownership. IP Watchdog Feb. 18. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/02/18/the-default-law-of-joint-ip-ownership/id=66154
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Montague TG, Almansoori A, Gleason EJ, Copeland DS, Foley K et al. 2018. Gene expression studies using a miniaturized thermal cycler system on board the International Space Station. PLOS ONE 13:e0205852
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Moore v. Regents of the University of California 51 Cal. 3d 120 (S. Ct. Calif. 1990.)
  95. 95. 
    Nelson SC, Bowen DJ, Fullerton SM 2019. Third-party genetic interpretation tools: a mixed-methods study of consumer motivation and behavior. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 105:122–31
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Nelson SC, Fullerton SM. 2018. “Bridge to the literature”? Third-party genetic interpretation tools and the views of tool developers. J. Genet. Counsel. 27:770–81
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Nicol D, Dreyfuss RC, Gold RE, Li W, Liddicoat J et al. 2019. International divergence in gene patenting. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 20:519–41
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Off. Sci. Technol. Policy 2019. Implementation of federal prize and citizen science authority: fiscal years 2017–18 Rep., Off. Sci. Technol. Policy Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Off. Soc. Innov. Civic Particip 2015. Prizes and challenges. Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/sicp/initiatives/prizes-challenges
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Ostrom E, Hess C. 2007. Introduction: an overview of the knowledge commons. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice C Hess, E Ostrom 41–81 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Paltoo DN, Rodriguez LL, Feolo M, Gillanders E, Ramos EM et al. 2014. Data use under the NIH GWAS Data Sharing Policy and future directions. Nat. Genet. 46:934–38
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Patry WF. 2019. Patry on Copyright 2: Toronto: Thomson Reuters
  103. 103. 
    Pauwels E. 2018. The rise of citizen bioscience. Scientific American Jan. 5. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-rise-of-citizen-bioscience
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Perens B. 1999. The open source definition. Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution C DiBona, S Ockman, M Stone 171–88 Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Prince AER. 2013. Comprehensive protection of genetic information: one size privacy or property models may not fit all. Brooklyn Law Rev 79:175–227
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Rai AK. 1999. Regulating scientific research: intellectual property rights and the norms of science. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 94:77–152
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Rai AK. 2012. Patent validity across the executive branch: ex ante foundations for policy development. Duke Law J 61:1237–81
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Rallapalli G, Fraxinus Play, Saunders DG, Yoshida K, Edwards A et al. 2015. Lessons from Fraxinus, a crowd-sourced citizen science game in genomics. eLife 4:e07460
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Reichman JH, Uhlir PF. 2003. A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Law Contemp. Probl. 66:315–462
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Resnik DB. 2019. Citizen scientists as human subjects: ethical issues. Citiz. Sci. 4:11
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Resnik DB, Elliott KC, Miller AK 2015. A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science. Environ. Sci. Policy 54:475–81
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Riesch H, Potter C. 2014. Citizen science as seen by scientists: methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Underst. Sci. 23:107–20
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Rothstein MA, Wilbanks JT, Brothers KB 2015. Citizen science on your smartphone: an ELSI research agenda. J. Law Med. Ethics 43:897–903
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Rotman D, Preece J, Hammock J, Procita K, Hansen D et al. 2012. Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. CSCW 2012: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work217–26 Seattle, WA: ACM Press
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Sarna-Wojcicki D, Perret M, Eitzel MV, Fortmann L 2017. Where are the missing coauthors? Authorship practices in participatory research. Rural Sociol 82:713–46
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Scassa T, Chung H. 2015. Managing intellectual property rights in citizen science: a guide for researchers and citizen scientists Rep., Woodrow Wilson Int. Cent. Sch Washington, DC:
  117. 117. 
    Scassa T, Chung H. 2015. Typology of citizen science projects from an intellectual property perspective: invention and authorship between researchers and participants Policy Memo Ser. Vol. 5 Woodrow Wilson Int. Cent. Sch Washington, DC:
  118. 118. 
    Scheifele LZ, Burkett T. 2016. The first three years of a community lab: lessons learned and ways forward. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 17:81–85
     [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    Scotchmer S 2004. Innovation and Incentives Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  120. 120. 
    Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L 2012. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. J. Am. Med. Assoc 307:1583–84
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Sharp RR, Foster MW 2002. Community involvement in the ethical review of genetic research: lessons from American Indian and Alaska Native populations. Environ. Health Perspect 110:Suppl. 2145–48
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A et al. 2012. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol. Soc 17:29
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Silka L. 2017. Reflections: cutting-edge citizen science in the desert and at a museum. Maine Policy Rev 26:89–91
     [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Silvertown J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24:467–71
     [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Skloot R. 2010. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks New York: Broadway Books
  126. 126. 
    Strasser BJ, Baudry J, Mahr D, Sanchez G, Tancoigne E 2019. “Citizen science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Sci. Technol. Stud. 32:52–76
     [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    Sullivan K. 2019. Scientists are looking for medical cures in toxic waste. Daily Beast June 25. https://www.thedailybeast.com/scientists-are-looking-for-medical-cures-in-toxic-waste
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Swan M. 2011. DIYgenomics crowdsourced health research studies: personal wellness and preventive medicine through collective intelligence Tech. Rep. SS-12-05, Assoc. Adv. Artif. Intell Palo Alto, CA:
  129. 129. 
    Swan M. 2012. Crowdsourced health research studies: an important emerging complement to clinical trials in the public health research ecosystem. J. Med. Internet Res. 14:e46
     [Google Scholar]
  130. 130. 
    Swan M, Hathaway K, Hogg C, McCauley R, Vollrath A 2010. Citizen science genomics as a model for crowdsourced preventative medicine research. J. Particip. Med. 2:e20
     [Google Scholar]
  131. 131. 
    Terry SF, Terry PF, Rauen KA, Uitto J, Bercovitch LG 2007. Advocacy groups as research organizations: the PXE International example. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8:157–64
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132. 
    Thackrah A, Cernicchiaro N, Cohnstaedt LW 2016. The Invasive Mosquito Project: a public education tool. Wing Beats 27:23–24
     [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Thorogood A, Bobe J, Prainsack B, Middleton A, Scott E et al. 2018. APPLaUD: access for patients and participants to individual level uninterpreted genomic data. Hum. Genom. 12:7
     [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    UN 1886. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Revised 1971, amended 1979, S. Treaty Doc 99–27
  135. 135. 
    US Copyr. Off 2017. Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices Washington, DC: US Copyr. Off, 3rd ed..
  136. 136. 
    Vilanova C, Porcar M. 2014. iGEM 2.0—refoundations for engineering biology. Nat. Biotechnol. 32:420–24
     [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    Washington University v. Catalona 490 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2007.)
  138. 138. 
    Wiggins A, Crowston K. 2011. From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of citizen science. 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Piscataway, NJ: IEEE https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.207
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  139. 139. 
    Wiggins A, Wilbanks J. 2019. The rise of citizen science in health and biomedical research. Am. J. Bioeth. 19:3–14
     [Google Scholar]
  140. 140. 
    Woolley JP, McGowan ML, Teare HJA, Coathup V, Fishman JR et al. 2016. Citizen science or scientific citizenship? disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives. BMC Med. Ethics 17:33
     [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    World Trade Organ 1994. Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 33 I.L.M. 1197, World Trade Organ., Geneva, Switz .
  142. 142. 
    Yu PK. 2019. Data producers’ right and the protection of machine-generated data. Tulane Law Rev 93:859–29
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021812
Loading
Credit for and Control of Research Outputs in Genomic Citizen Science
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 21, 465 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021812
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021812
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021812
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error