Citizen science: are people distinguishable from bacteria?

Publication Type:


Transliteration of original Title: 
Narodnaya nauka: otlichimy li lyudi ot bakterii?
Sergei Yu. Shevchenko
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Issue number: 
No.1 (Vol.55)

Technoscientific ethos has specific features in the fields of public expectation of new technologies and their human-oriented character. Today technoscientific ethos can be recognized as a norm in life sciences. The ability to modulate life processes is basic criterion of successful theory or approach. But citizen science has in many respects opposite values and there is a significant line of values deliberation that crosses the borders of academic institutions. From the one hand, methodological standardization simplifies delegation of concrete research practices. But from the other hand we can observe the shift in emphasis from factual and methodological dimension of science towards consideration social role of science and its axiology. The discussions of Merton’s normativity starts again, and citizen participation in this deliberative process is a key issue for description of citizen science in terms of distributed knowledge and collective agent of cognition. In the article these problems are considered on an example of solving one of the central problems of modern life sciences - the disclosure of the spatial structure of protein molecules.


scientific values, citizen science, technoscience, R. Merton, L. Laudan, distributed knowledge, collective agent of cognition

Collins, H. M., Evans, R. J. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience”, Social Studies of Sciences, 2002, no. 32 (2). pp. 235-296.

Cooper, S, Khatib, F, Treuille, A, Barbero, J, Lee, J, Beenen, M, Leaver-Fay, A, Baker, D, Popović, Z, Players, F. “Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game”, Nature, 2010, no. 466, pp. 756-760. 

Feyerabend, P. K., Nikiforov, A.L. (transl.). Nauka v svobodnom obshchestve” [Science in a Free Society]. Moscow: AST, 2010, 378 pp. (In Russian)

Fuller, S. New Frontiers in Science and Technology Studies. N.Y. : Polity Press, 2007, p. 151.

Jasanoff, S., Sang-Hyun, K. “Sociotechnical Imaginaries and National Energy Policies”, Science as Culture, 2013, no. 22(2), pp.189-196.

Kasavin I.T. . “Kollektivnyy sub"yekt poznaniya kak predmet epistemologicheskogo analiza” [Collective Agent as a Matter of Epistemological Analysis], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2015, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 5-18. (In Russian)

Kasavin I.T. “Kak vozmozhna politicheskaya filosofiya nauki?” [How Is Political Philosophy of Science Possible?], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2015, vol. 45, no.3, pp. 5-15. (In Russian)

Kasavin I.T. “Poznanie i yazyk” [Cognition and language], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2011, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 5–15. (In Russian)

Laudan L. “Nauka i tsennosti” [Science and Values], in: Pechenkin A. (ed.). Sovremennaya filosofiya nauki: znaniya, ratsional'nost', tsennosti v trudakh myslitelei Zapada [Modern Philosophy of Science: Knowledge, Rationality, Values in the Works of Western Thinkers: Antology]. Moscow: Logos, 1994, p. 199. (In Russian)

Lynch, M. “Razvivaya Vitgenshteyna: reshayushchiy shag ot epistemologii k sotsiologii nauki” [Extending Wittgenstein: the pivotal move from epistemology to the sociology of science], Sociology of Power, 2013, no 1-2, pp. 155-213. (In Russian)

Merton, R. “The Normative Structure of Science”, in: Storer N.W. (ed.). The Sociology of Science. Chi. : Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 267–268;

Nov, O., Arazy, O., Anderson, D. “Scientists@Home: What Drives the Quantity and Quality of Online Citizen Science Participation?”, PLoS ONE, 2014, 9(4), e90375 [, accessed on 15.05.2017]

Nowotny, H., Testa, G. Naked Genes: Reinventing the Human in the Molecular Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2010, p. 152.

Ovchinnikov, S, Park, H, Varghese, N, Huang, PS, Pavlopoulos, GA, Kim, DE, Kamisetty, H, Kyrpides, NC, Baker, D. “Protein structure determination using metagenome sequence data”, Science, 20 Jan 2017, Vol. 355, Issue 6322, pp. 294-298.

Porus, V. N. “Vybor interpretatsii kak problema sotsial'noy epistemologii” [The Choice of Interpretation as a Problem af Social Epistemology], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2012, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 18-35. (In Russian)

Stepin, V.S., Stochik, A.M., Zatravkin, S.N. “Istoriya i filosofiya meditsiny. Nauchnyye revolyutsii XVII-XIX vekov” [History and philosophy of medicine. Scientific revolutions of the XVII-XIX centuries]. Moscow: Akademicheskiy Proekt, 2017, 236 pp. (In Russian)

Tishchenko P.D. “Dvoynaya spiral' tekhnologizatsii zhizni” [Double Helix of Life Technologization], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2015, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 51-53. (In Russian)

Wittgenstein, L. “Filosofskiye issledovaniya” [Philosophische Untersuchungen], in: Wittgenstein L. Filosofskiy trudy [Philosophical Papers], part 1. Moscow: Gnozis Publ., 1994. p. 288. (In Russian)

Woolley, J. P., McGowan, M. L., Teare, H. J. A., Coathup, V., Fishman, J. R., Settersten, R. A., Juengst, E. T. “Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives Donna Dickenson, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Michael Morrison”, BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 17, No. 1, 04.06.2016.

Yudin B. G. “Ob etose tekhnonauki” [About Ethos of TechnoScientific Science], Filosofskie nauki, 2010, no. 12, pp. 58-66. (In Russian)

Full Text: