- Razib, who took the initiative and carried out the analysis
- Scientists who wrote the software used
- 23andMe, who sold a product providing genotype data
- Donors, who paid for the test
- The actual individual who contributed his/her DNA for science
Scientific progress = active brains using tools to examine data and produce new knowledge
In the grand scheme of things it may be a trifle that the Betsileo are Bantu+Malay. But, the fact that ordinary people can band together and produce new knowledge within a few months is anything but a trifle. An equivalent academic study would have taken years: drafting proposals, dealing with funding agencies, getting consent forms, navigating institutional review boards, dealing with bureaucrats, convincing reviewers and editors, and finally producing an article that might end up hidden behind a paywall for the profit of some publishing company.
Would the end product be better? Perhaps, but the whole point of citizen science is that you can do it better, and you can tell the whole world if it's bad.
Citizen science is no longer a sideshow, and traditional science must take her into account, lest she be reduced to a sideshow before long.
There are, of course, things that citizen science can't, or won't do.
It won't do the kind of meaningless navel-gazing work that scientists in some disciplines are able to get away with at the public expense. It won't inveigle in the hope of being printed in the pages of a high-status publication. It won't split and bundle itself into least publishable units. It won't sit in a drawer afraid of having its data and ideas co-opted by the competition.
But, it can't do the type of highly sophisticated, technical and expensive work that requires a concerted interdisciplinary effort and substantial human and monetary resources.
There is plenty of common ground between traditional and citizen science, so let's hope that their noble competition and ability to learn from each other will benefit the lady Science herself.
12 comments:
Would be nice to make a Dodecad of these Madagascar people.
Yes, but the same "citizen science" and citizen collaboration that you and I value also produces total whackjobs who take advantage of the Internet and gullible minds in a relatively new branch of science to sell Mass Market tripe to non-scientists in bize-sized packets of nonsense.
Like the people who thought forever that just because they tested as J2, they were Jewish.
Like the people who think every Y haplogroup must mark a historic (instead of prehistoric) migration, and use certain haplogroups to tell people with certainty that they are descendants of Vandals, Cimbri, Normans, or other fashionable historic "conquerors."
I could go on and on. Yes, it sucks that they've embargoed Oetzi for so long, but from what I've seen on this board, from people overdramatizing his death (like the statement "he must have been an outsider who was the first to migrate there and was murdered because he was different!") -- I'm not sure that is so bad.
Thanks for spelling out some of the rationale for DIY science. You and other have been doing it for a quite a while but its important to spell out why its a good and necessary thing.
also produces total whackjobs
Total whackjobs can be found in both peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed science. Actually, the former are more dangerous, because, having airs of respectability they can derail entire fields of study for decades: "it was published by X in Y" so it must be true.
@ mooreisbetter
from people overdramatizing his death (like the statement "he must have been an outsider who was the first to migrate there and was murdered because he was different!")
If you are referring to me, this was only one hypothesis, and I have always supported the contrary: that Oetzi was an ancient Italian and G2a4 and other G could be more Italian in their origin than Caucasian. See the Dienekes’ reply to me.
Who was it that gave us the "three ice age refugia" nonsense that will likely linger in the popular imagination for decades?
And btw, you dont know who Oetzi was. Science needs to consider all the possibilities. The idea that no one is allowed to think about Oetzi's data until some "expert" decides is ridiculous -- so that they can have themselves published of course.
And when will we get Tut's data? Ever? Is it because 'citizens' just cant be trusted to act responsibly? Will we *ever* get Oetzi's data?
And yes, the Normans indisputably were "conquerors", get over it.
“Citizen science is no longer a sideshow, and traditional science must take her into account, lest she be reduced to a sideshow before long.”
Amen, you tell them Dienekes!
“Total whackjobs can be found in both peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed science. Actually, the former are more dangerous, because, having airs of respectability they can derail entire fields of study for decades: "it was published by X in Y" so it must be true.”
That’s exactly the way it was. I can name one that was the freak show at the carnival long before I got involved.
There are many suspicious peer-reviewed studies out there, which border amateurish levels, such as associating haplogroups with certain ethnicities (such as saying G2a, J2 must be of Sephardic origin) and stuff like that.
Looks like I touched a nerve here.
Citizen science is more dangerous compared to things buried in some peer-reviewed journal read only by eggheads. I grant you, certainly, that the air of respectability with journals is a danger.
But the Internet, where he who shouts loudest (or has the best SEO) wins, is a huge problem for science. There are so many very ill-informed people out there because of mass-marketed websites that really cant even been called science.
I have given the example before of people on boards who have written, "I am a descendant of a lady named Helena." For those who dont catch the reference, these are people who believe that one of Brian Sykes' cleverly named "daughters of Eve" really existed, bearing the names he gave them.
I could go on and on.
@ Apostate: Easy there Turbo. Yes the Normans were "conquerors" for a few hundred years. Those who stayed home in Scandinavia, however, were couch potatoes.
With few exceptions, everyone in history has been conqueror and conquered. YOU need to get over your I1a fantasies that sparked such a nasty response.
@ Truth:
I totally agree. I lump the newer, "peer reviewed" journals in with "citizen science."
One such journal regularly "reviews" publications with lawyers, medical doctors, people with a Ph.D. in chemistry, etc. It's laughable.
It was one of those such journals that brought us the "R1c must be Cimbri" theory.
We can probably agree that these are the worst of both worlds: to people who dont know as much as we do, they come across respectable because they use fancy words and are "peer reviewed." Yet they inject the worst kind of Internet-style hype and fantasy into genetics.
<< @ Apostate: Easy there Turbo. YOU need to get over your I1a fantasies that sparked such a nasty response. >>
"I1a fantasies... nasty response"? What on earth are you ranting about?
"Easy there Turbo"? Thank goodness for the "experts"! lol
The merits of a scientific opinion shouldn't be evaluated based upon whether that opinion comes from a citizen scientist a or "traditional" scientist. Rather, we have something called the "scientific method," the adherence to which determines the credibility of a scientist's conclusions.
With respect to peer review of "citizen scientist" opinions, at least on the internet, it seems that the opinions most accessible to the public (whether via SEO or otherwise), are also subject to the most scrutiny by the public, including "traditional" scientists who read the opinions.
For example, the credibility of the opinions expressed in this blog is validated (or occasionally invalidated) by the opinions expressed in the comments of each post, many of which are made by "traditional" experts in the subjects discussed.
Post a Comment