6 ms·

I was a researcher on an analogous research project involving dragonflies [1]. Let me explain the difference: all of our research had strict ethical guidelines

by beambot 13y ago

I was a researcher on an analogous research project involving dragonflies [1]. Let me explain the difference: all of our research had strict ethical guidelines backed by IRB approvals, the procedures were performed by trained biologists, and the outcome is fundamental neurology research that will be published in Science or Nature. Meanwhile, these cockroach experiments are being performed w/o oversight, by "citizen scientists", with no apparent outcome other than novelty and staving off boredom. BIG difference. I do not approve. * Thankfully, my work on the dragonfly project was the biotelemetry radio link rather than working with live animals. [1] http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/06/dragonfly-backpack-neuron/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/06/dragonfly-backpack... => No control of the dragonflies; only neural telemetry.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
You know, there's a school of thought that says IRB approvals prevent a lot of valuable research from happening. This isn't the ground I would have chosen to stand on to defend them. But beyond that fairly narrow issue, what you're espousing here is an incredibly benighted view. We want "citizen scientists" to be moved by the spirit of inquiry and run the experiments that take their fancy. That's how progress is made. "Novelty and staving off boredom" are a primary motivation for many professional scientists; I still remember the essay I read pointing out that the true scientific mindset was that of an overeager dog who just has to see what's behind that door... and the next one! and the next! Science-related toys for children have long been felt to promote positive goals, like sparking the interest of a future scientist or just raising awareness of what scientists might do. I see complaints all the time that you can't buy a decent chemistry set anymore. And here you're admitting that exactly this sort of experiment can be published in Nature, but children should keep their hands off? You don't see me crusading to keep Lego Mindstorms in professional hands only. I like it when children share my interests. Major progress has been made by serendipity and by "citizen scientists" acting without oversight. And, for that matter, by professional scientists acting without oversight. Making the tools more accessible can only get things to happen faster. You should be ashamed of yourself.
- DanBC 13y ago
  This is not citizen science. It's just a toy. There's no science taught here. It's just idle noodling. There's nothing about scientific method or repeatability or changing parameters or anything. You mention the fear that has caused chemistry sets to be reduced, but that's only part of the problem. The other problem is really bad toys being sold as "science" with nothing sciency about them.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    You've got a strange idea of what science is. > It's just a toy. There's no science taught here. It's just idle noodling. This doesn't remind you of, say, a C64? The kit is a tool. You can do different things with it. If, at any point, someone using the kit thinks to themselves "what would happen if I did X?" and then does X to see what happens, that is citizen science. > The other problem is really bad toys being sold as "science" with nothing sciency about them. This is a problem, although in my experience it's not a large one. It definitely doesn't apply here, though; witness yourself the people saying they've worked on similar projects. I've already mentioned several questions about the product that implicate "science" generally: - can you mount a camera on the roach? If you can, and it acts naturally afterwards (or even naturally with the caveat that it's stopped fitting into cockroach-sized cracks), you'll pick up extremely valuable footage that a biologist studying cockroaches would love to have. - Will other cockroaches accept one that's had this kit installed? If not, why not? - Can I use my RC cockroach to influence the behavior of a swarm? Choose for them where they'll sleep? Dictate what left-out food they choose to eat and what they pass by? Cockroaches are social. Using one to manipulate a colony would be huge.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      > This doesn't remind you of, say, a C64? No, it doesn't. The C64 and other early home computers came with extensive instruction manuals detailing the memory map and all the language instruction. People would enter a program. They'd debug it. They'd modify it. They'd create their own programs. Compare that to the toy - find bug, attach device, SCIENCE. It's really shitty marketing. > I've already mentioned several questions about the product that implicate "science" generally: If they had any of those in any of the marketing or the instructions they might just be able to scrape by calling this a science toy. They don't. By your definition any toy becomes a science toy. Look! Drop it off a building! That's gravity!
rflrob 13y ago
> Let me explain the difference: all of our research had strict ethical guidelines backed by IRB approvals, the procedures were performed by trained biologists... Maybe your university was different, but at the University of California, no IRB approval is necessary for invertebrates. This is part of what makes fruit flies such attractive model organisms (nb I am a fruit fly biologist).

by beambot 13y ago

thaumasiotes 13y ago

You know, there's a school of thought that says IRB approvals prevent a lot of valuable research from happening. This isn't the ground I would have chosen to stand on to defend them. But beyond that fairly narrow issue, what you're espousing here is an incredibly benighted view. We want "citizen scientists" to be moved by the spirit of inquiry and run the experiments that take their fancy. That's how progress is made. "Novelty and staving off boredom" are a primary motivation for many professional scientists; I still remember the essay I read pointing out that the true scientific mindset was that of an overeager dog who just has to see what's behind that door... and the next one! and the next! Science-related toys for children have long been felt to promote positive goals, like sparking the interest of a future scientist or just raising awareness of what scientists might do. I see complaints all the time that you can't buy a decent chemistry set anymore. And here you're admitting that exactly this sort of experiment can be published in Nature, but children should keep their hands off? You don't see me crusading to keep Lego Mindstorms in professional hands only. I like it when children share my interests. Major progress has been made by serendipity and by "citizen scientists" acting without oversight. And, for that matter, by professional scientists acting without oversight. Making the tools more accessible can only get things to happen faster. You should be ashamed of yourself.

DanBC 13y ago
This is not citizen science. It's just a toy. There's no science taught here. It's just idle noodling. There's nothing about scientific method or repeatability or changing parameters or anything. You mention the fear that has caused chemistry sets to be reduced, but that's only part of the problem. The other problem is really bad toys being sold as "science" with nothing sciency about them.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  You've got a strange idea of what science is. > It's just a toy. There's no science taught here. It's just idle noodling. This doesn't remind you of, say, a C64? The kit is a tool. You can do different things with it. If, at any point, someone using the kit thinks to themselves "what would happen if I did X?" and then does X to see what happens, that is citizen science. > The other problem is really bad toys being sold as "science" with nothing sciency about them. This is a problem, although in my experience it's not a large one. It definitely doesn't apply here, though; witness yourself the people saying they've worked on similar projects. I've already mentioned several questions about the product that implicate "science" generally: - can you mount a camera on the roach? If you can, and it acts naturally afterwards (or even naturally with the caveat that it's stopped fitting into cockroach-sized cracks), you'll pick up extremely valuable footage that a biologist studying cockroaches would love to have. - Will other cockroaches accept one that's had this kit installed? If not, why not? - Can I use my RC cockroach to influence the behavior of a swarm? Choose for them where they'll sleep? Dictate what left-out food they choose to eat and what they pass by? Cockroaches are social. Using one to manipulate a colony would be huge.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > This doesn't remind you of, say, a C64? No, it doesn't. The C64 and other early home computers came with extensive instruction manuals detailing the memory map and all the language instruction. People would enter a program. They'd debug it. They'd modify it. They'd create their own programs. Compare that to the toy - find bug, attach device, SCIENCE. It's really shitty marketing. > I've already mentioned several questions about the product that implicate "science" generally: If they had any of those in any of the marketing or the instructions they might just be able to scrape by calling this a science toy. They don't. By your definition any toy becomes a science toy. Look! Drop it off a building! That's gravity!

rflrob 13y ago

> Let me explain the difference: all of our research had strict ethical guidelines backed by IRB approvals, the procedures were performed by trained biologists... Maybe your university was different, but at the University of California, no IRB approval is necessary for invertebrates. This is part of what makes fruit flies such attractive model organisms (nb I am a fruit fly biologist).