An epistemology for democratic citizen science.

More than ever, humanity relies on robust scientific knowledge of the world and our place within it. Unfortunately, our contemporary view of science is still suffused with outdated ideas about scientific knowledge production based on a naive kind of realism. These ideas persist among members of the public and scientists alike. They contribute to an ultra-competitive system of academic research, which sacrifices long-term productivity through an excessive obsession with short-term efficiency. Efforts to diversify this system come from a movement called democratic citizen science, which can serve as a model for scientific inquiry in general. Democratic citizen science requires an alternative theory of knowledge with a focus on the role that diversity plays in the process of discovery. Here, we present such an epistemology, based on three central philosophical pillars: perspectival realism, a naturalistic process-based epistemology, and deliberative social practices. They broaden our focus from immediate research outcomes towards cognitive and social processes which facilitate sustainable long-term productivity and scientific innovation. This marks a shift from an industrial to an ecological vision of how scientific research should be done, and how it should be assessed. At the core of this vision are research communities that are diverse, representative, and democratic.

Implementing the Co-Immune Open Innovation Program to Address Vaccination Hesitancy and Access to Vaccines: Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The rise of major complex public health problems, such as vaccination hesitancy and access to vaccination, requires innovative, open, and transdisciplinary approaches. Yet, institutional silos and lack of participation on the part of nonacademic citizens in the design of solutions hamper efforts to meet these challenges. Against this background, new solutions have been explored, with participatory research, citizen science, hackathons, and challenge-based approaches being applied in the context of public health. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to develop a program for creating citizen science and open innovation projects that address the contemporary challenges of vaccination in France and around the globe. METHODS: We designed and implemented Co-Immune, a program created to tackle the question of vaccination hesitancy and access to vaccination through an online and offline challenge-based open innovation approach. The program was run on the open science platform Just One Giant Lab. RESULTS: Over a 6-month period, the Co-Immune program gathered 234 participants of diverse backgrounds and 13 partners from the public and private sectors. The program comprised 10 events to facilitate the creation of 20 new projects, as well as the continuation of two existing projects, to address the issues of vaccination hesitancy and access, ranging from app development and data mining to analysis and game design. In an open framework, the projects made their data, code, and solutions publicly available. CONCLUSIONS: Co-Immune highlights how open innovation approaches and online platforms can help to gather and coordinate noninstitutional communities in a rapid, distributed, and global way toward solving public health issues. Such initiatives can lead to the production and transfer of knowledge, creating novel solutions in the public health sector. The example of Co-Immune contributes to paving the way for organizations and individuals to collaboratively tackle future global challenges.

Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities.

Resource allocation is essential to selection and implementation of innovative projects in science and technology. Current "winner-take-all" models for grant applications require significant researcher time in writing extensive project proposals, and rely on the availability of a few time-saturated volunteer experts. Such processes usually carry over several months, resulting in high effective costs compared to expected benefits. We devised an agile "community review" system to allocate micro-grants for the fast prototyping of innovative solutions. Here we describe and evaluate the implementation of this community review across 147 projects from the "Just One Giant Lab's OpenCOVID19 initiative" and "Helpful Engineering" open research communities. The community review process uses granular review forms and requires the participation of grant applicants in the review process. Within a year, we organised 7 rounds of review, resulting in 614 reviews from 201 reviewers, and the attribution of 48 micro-grants of up to 4,000 euros. The system is fast, with a median process duration of 10 days, scalable, with a median of 4 reviewers per project independent of the total number of projects, and fair, with project rankings highly preserved after the synthetic removal of reviewers. Regarding potential bias introduced by involving applicants in the process, we find that review scores from both applicants and non-applicants have a similar correlation of r=0.28 with other reviews within a project, matching traditional approaches. Finally, we find that the ability of projects to apply to several rounds allows to foster the further implementation of successful early prototypes, as well as provide a pathway to constructively improve an initially failing proposal in an agile manner. Overall, this study quantitatively highlights the benefits of a frugal, community review system acting as a due diligence for rapid and agile resource allocation in open research and innovation programs, with implications for decentralised communities.