Evaluation

Overview | Concept | DIYbio | Workshops | Exhibition | Evaluation | Conclusion

Apart from the scientific result – A Public BioBrick – we also wanted to find out what participants learned from the collaboration, how it has helped the community forwards and how in-depth the collaboration was.

Depth of Collaboration

One of the important evaluation criteria for citizen science projects is the “degree of participation”, ie. how involved the citizen science collaborators were at different stages of the project. We designed a simple survey (adapted from "Public Participation in Scientific Research: a Framework for Deliberate Design", see reference) that each collaborator filled in after the workshops.

The results are a validation of our approach: both iGEMers and Biohackers felt they contributed in equal parts towards the collaboration.

Interviews of Workshop Participants

We held semi-structured interviews of about 30 minutes with 5 iGEM students and 4 participating Biohackers, to evaluate the results of the workshop.

iGEM Participants

What’s unique about the Biohackers?

“The Biohackers come from different backgrounds, but they’re united by the idea of doing biology, exploring it in its different aspects.”
“They’re very keen to know and understand each step in a protocol and why that step is important. They want to get the science behind it and sometimes go even deeper than us scientists, because for us, it’s often just a procedure, but for them, everything is interesting.”
“Their approach to science leads them to really see each step in its own right.”
“I was very surprised to find a group of people who are so motivated and curious about biology that they’re willing to give up their spare time for this project. They’re very dedicated.”

What are the Biohackers’ motivations?

“Pure desire to discover more about the world around them. It’s a lot closer to the renaissance spirit of exploration than what we normally see around us.”
“I think they’re interested in synbio because of the resemblance to electronics, which is the background for a lot of them.”

How do you think the Biohackers will develop?

“Science is continuously trying and re-trying with different conditions. So the fact that the Biohackers haven't got so many results before at the Hackspace is not as demotivating for them now that they see that [academic science] is not always successful either.”
“I think the Biohackers gained a lot of experience in terms of structure because within science, the steps to achieving a specific goal can sometimes be very hazy.”

What did you learn about supervising amateur scientists?

“I learned that enthusiasm and excitement for the field counts for a lot. Even though the Biohackers didn't have training, because of their interest they pick up stuff quickly.”
“Sometimes we're skipping too many details. [When working with amateur scientists] you need to think more with them about what you're doing. I actually really enjoyed that; it made me question every ingredient of the experiment.”

Could the collaboration be improved next time?

“The collaboration was fairly unidirectional in terms of we were supporting them, and less of other way around. There are many projects, like creating new devices, in which they could have been a great help to our project.”
“Targeting a more diverse range of biohackers.”

What’s the difference between the Biohackers / amateur scientists and professional academics (other than the trivial: “they’re getting paid for it”)

“We work within the established infrastructure of academia; I think it's easier for the biohackers to think out of the box when it comes to looking at problems that can be solved by synthetic biology or biohacking.”
“Academic build their knowledge step by step, but a biohacker may not have that structure of knowledge - they have gaps here and there, so their knowledge isn't so well organized.”

Community-level Outcome

“It can bring a community together, people that wouldn't normally meet, by fostering a sense of common interest.”

How would you describe your overall experience?

“I really enjoyed it. I wish I had spent more time doing it because it was learning experience for me as well as for them.”
“We were mutual teachers; [he] asked lots of questions on biology, but I asked him lots about electronics.”
“It was eye opening!”

References

Shirk, J. L., H. L. Ballard, C. C. Wilderman, T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, E. McCallie, M. Minarchek, B. V. Lewenstein, M. E. Krasny, and R. Bonney. 2012. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society 17(2): 29.