Guest post by Ilan Kelman, Professor of Disasters and Health, building on his captivating presentation in Session 2 of the UCL Open Science Conference 2024.

Open Science brings risks and opportunities when considering dangers to the public from conducting and publishing science. Opportunities mean detailing societal problems and responses to them, which could galvanise positive action to make society safer. Examples are the effectiveness of anti-bullying techniques, health impacts from various paints, and companies selling cars they knew were dangerous.

Risks emerge if pursuing or publicising research might change or create dangers to the public. Highlighting how pickpockets or street scams operate help the public protect themselves, yet could lead the perpetrators to changing their operations, making them harder to detect. Emphasising casualties from cycling could lead to more driving, increasing the health consequences from air pollution and vehicle crashes.

The latter might be avoided by comparing cycling’s health benefits and risks, including with respect to air pollution and crashes. Meanwhile, understanding pickpocketing awareness and prevention should contribute to reducing this crime over the long-term, if people learn from the science and take action.

In other words, context and presentation matter for risks and opportunities from Open Science regarding dangers to the public. Sometimes, though, the context is that science can be applied nefariously.

Explosives research

Airplane security is a major concern for travellers, with most governments implementing stringent measures at airports and in the air. Legitimate research questions for public safety relate to smuggling firearms through airport security and the bomb resistance of different aircraft.

Fiction frequently speculates, including in movies. A Fish Called Wanda showed a loaded gun getting past airport security screening while Non-Stop portrayed a bomb placed aboard a commercial flight.

Desk analyses could and should discuss these scenes’ dramatism and level of realism, just as the movies are analysed in other ways. Scientists could and should work with governments, security organisations, airport authorities, and airline companies to understand threats to aviation and countering them.

Open Science could compromise the gains from this collaboration. It could reveal the bomb type required to breach an airport’s fuselage or the key ways to get a weapon on board. The satirical news service, The Onion, lampooned the presumption of publicising how to get past airport security.

Figure 1: We should research a cargo hold’s explosion resistance, but why publicise the results? (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Endangering activists

The public can endanger themselves by seeking Open Science. I ran a research project examining corporate social responsibility for Arctic petroleum with examples in Norway and Russia. In one Russian site, locals showed our researcher decaying oil and gas infrastructure, including leaks. These local activists were assured of confidentiality and anonymity, which is a moral imperative as well as a legal requirement.

Not all of them supported this lack of identification. They preferred entirely Open Science, hoping that researchers outside of Russia would have the credibility and influence to generate action for making their community and environment safer and healthier. They were well aware of the possible consequences of them being identified (or of publicising enough information to make them identifiable). They were willing to take these risks, hoping for gain.

Figure 2: Trinity Tower, the Kremlin, Moscow, Russia during petroleum research (photo by Ilan Kelman).

We were not permitted to accede to their requests. We certainly published on and publicised our work, using as much Open Science as we could without violating our research ethics approval, as both an ethical and legal duty. We remain inspired and concerned that the activists, seeking to save their own lives, could pursue citizen science which, if entirely open as some of them would prefer, could place them in danger.

Caution, care, and balance

Open Science sometimes brings potential dangers to the public. Being aware of and cautious about these problems means being able to prevent them. Then, a balance can be achieved between needing Open Science and not worsening or creating dangers.

Post provided by Sheetal Saujani, Citizen Science Support Officer.

This week’s UCL Citizen Science Community Event brought researchers, academics, students and staff from across UCL together to celebrate citizen science and participatory research. The slides and programme are available online so that everyone can follow up with the references.

The morning was packed with engaging talks and workshops, highlighting unique perspectives and approaches to citizen science. From discussions about an innovative mapping tool and the role of the UCL Urban Room in preserving local memories to hands-on workshops that sparked new ideas, the event demonstrated the diversity and potential of citizen-led research. One highlight was seeing the genuine passion from the presenters, whose enthusiasm was contagious.

At the start of the event, the Citizen Science team at the Office for Science and Scholarship and the UCL Co-Production and Public Engagement teams showcased their services and support including training, resources and advice. Their dedication to supporting citizen science and public engagement left everyone excited and ready to get involved. Both teams are eager to hear from the UCL community about their projects and the support they may need, so they encourage everyone to get in touch.

We also heard from Marcos Moreu and Fabien Moustard from the Extreme Citizen Science Research Group (ExCites) about a new tool called Kapta that they have been involved in the design for, allowing mapping data to be collected simply using WhatsApp, allowing small or remote communities to collect data without extensive knowledge or additional training. More information can be found by looking at the slides above or on Kapta.earth.

Professor Muki Haklay delved into the topic of skills and competencies in citizen science, exploring how competency frameworks define the skills, knowledge, and values needed for success in this field. His talk highlighted frameworks like the UCL Academic Careers Framework, Vitae’s Researcher Development Framework, and ECS Academy’s Research Competencies framework, which outline progression paths, accreditation standards, and expectations at foundational to expert levels. These frameworks not only codify what individuals need to know but also guide learning, recruitment, and career development. A live Mentimeter poll engaged attendees, inviting their perspectives on key skills, competencies and areas for development, sparking conversations about advancing expertise in citizen science.

Dr Izzy Bishop led an interactive session where participants contributed their thoughts on the various elements required to include citizen science in a project proposal. The flipchart became a dynamic map, highlighting key areas such as co-design, engagement, training, communications, technology, volunteer management, data analysis, and impact. Each participant helped to identify UCL’s expertise and interest in these areas, promoting collaboration and a shared understanding.

We also discussed strategies for applying for and sustaining project funding, with a focus on Horizon Europe opportunities. Professor Muki Haklay provided valuable insights on successfully navigating the application process and securing support for citizen science initiatives.

Hearing Jo Baines discuss UCL’s Urban Room, and the innovative Memory Workshop was truly inspiring. These projects showcase the power of engaging communities, including underrepresented groups, to explore shared histories and reimagine urban spaces. The Memory Workshop and Memory Bike demonstrate citizen science in action, amplifying diverse voices, and uncovering new insights through creative, participatory research. By equipping participants with skills and tools that extend beyond the projects, they highlight how citizen science connects people and ideas to drive meaningful change.

We were captivated by voices from two remarkable projects Flotilla by Melanie Manchot and Breaking Waves, which highlight the power of art and storytelling to link communities and preserve collective memory. Both reflect the spirit of citizen science by fostering connections and inspiring new perspectives. The links to experience these projects for yourself are available in the slides linked above.

Before the event closed, there was a fun and relaxed speed networking session. The vibrant spirit of session encouraged meaningful conversations and connections, reminding us of the value of sharing knowledge and experiences across disciplines and communities!

A huge thank you to all the speakers, workshop leaders, and participants who made the event so worthwhile. We hope everyone left as inspired as we did to continue championing citizen science!