diff --git a/neurolibre.00031/10.55458.neurolibre.00031.crossref.xml b/neurolibre.00031/10.55458.neurolibre.00031.crossref.xml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a4be84e --- /dev/null +++ b/neurolibre.00031/10.55458.neurolibre.00031.crossref.xml @@ -0,0 +1,315 @@ + + + + 20241215T213158-fb15d30a85169ae02e18e179c029b99df6f79a68 + 20241215213158 + + NeuroLibre Admin + admin@neurolibre.org + + Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Geriatrie de Montreal + + + + NeuroLibre Reproducible Preprints + + + Evelyn + McLean + + + Jane + Abdo + + + Nadia + Blostein + https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1864-1899 + + + Nikola + Stikov + https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8480-5230 + + + + Little Science, Big Science, and Beyond: How Amateurs +Shape the Scientific Landscape + + + 12 + 15 + 2024 + + + http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ + http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ + http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ + + + + Repository archive + 10.5281/zenodo.14348880 + + + Dataset archive + 10.5281/zenodo.14348882 + + + Book archive + 10.5281/zenodo.14348876 + + + Container archive + 10.5281/zenodo.14348886 + + + GitHub technical screening + https://github.com/neurolibre/neurolibre-reviews/issues/31 + + + Executable preprint + https://preprint.neurolibre.org/10.55458/neurolibre.00031 + + + + 10.55458/neurolibre.00031 + https://neurolibre.org/papers/10.55458/neurolibre.00031 + + + https://preprint.neurolibre.org/10.55458/neurolibre.00031.pdf + + + + + + De humani corporis fabrica libri +septem + Vesalius + 1543 + Vesalius, A. (1543). De humani +corporis fabrica libri septem. + + + Little science, big science + Derek J. de Solla + 10.7312/pric91844 + 9780231885751 + 1963 + Derek J. de Solla, P. (1963). Little +science, big science. Columbia University Press. +https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844 + + + Stanford encyclopedia of +philosophy + Zalta + 1995 + Zalta, E. N., Nodelman, U., Allen, +C., & Perry, J. (1995). Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. +Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language; +Information …. + + + History of science | definition, natural +philosophy, & development of science + Williams + 2000 + Williams, L. P. (2000). History of +science | definition, natural philosophy, & development of science. +Encyclopedia Britannica. +https://www.britannica.com/science/history-of-science + + + The institutionalization of science in +europe, 1650–1850 + Grantham + Science in the modern world polity: +Institutionalization and globalization + 10.11126/stanford/9780804771856.003.0003 + 2011 + Grantham, G. (2011). The +institutionalization of science in europe, 1650–1850. In G. S. Drori, J. +W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, & E. Schofer (Eds.), Science in the modern +world polity: Institutionalization and globalization (pp. 51–85). +Stanford University Press. +https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9780804771856.003.0003 + + + The institutionalization and +professionalization of history in europe and the united +states + Lingelbach + The oxford history of historical writing: +Volume 4: 1800-1945 + 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199533091.003.0005 + 2011 + Lingelbach, G. (2011). The +institutionalization and professionalization of history in europe and +the united states. In S. Macintyre, J. Maiguashca, & A. Pók (Eds.), +The oxford history of historical writing: Volume 4: 1800-1945 (pp. +78–96). Oxford University Press. +https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199533091.003.0005 + + + Next steps for citizen +science + Bonney + Science + 6178 + 343 + 10.1126/science.1251554 + 2014 + Bonney, R., Shirk, J., Phillips, T., +Wiggins, A., Ballard, H. L., Miller-Rushing, A. J., & Parrish, J. K. +(2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436–1437. +https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251554 + + + Meet the anarchists making their own +medicine + Oberhaus + Vice + 2018 + Oberhaus, D. (2018). Meet the +anarchists making their own medicine. Vice. +https://www.vice.com/en/article/43pngb/how-to-make-your-own-medicine-four-thieves-vinegar-collective + + + Making modern science + Bowler + 10.7208/chicago/9780226365930.001.0001 + 2020 + Bowler, P. J., & Morus, I. R. +(2020). Making modern science (Second). University of Chicago Press. +https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226365930.001.0001 + + + Knowingless + Aella + 2021 + Aella. (2021). Knowingless. +https://aella.substack.com/. + + + Aristotle + Shields + 2022 + Shields, C. (2022). Aristotle. The +Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Metaphysics +Research Lab, Stanford University. +https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/aristotle/ + + + History | AccessHealth MA l +CRI + AccessHealth MA (formerly Community Research +Initiative CRI) + 2022 + AccessHealth MA (formerly Community +Research Initiative CRI). (2022). History | AccessHealth MA l CRI. +https://accesshealthma.org/about-accesshealthma/history/. + + + Roger bacon + Hackett + 2022 + Hackett, J. (2022). Roger bacon. The +Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Metaphysics +Research Lab, Stanford University. +https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/roger-bacon/ + + + Plato + Kraut + 2022 + Kraut, R. (2022). Plato. The Stanford +Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Metaphysics Research +Lab, Stanford University. +https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/plato/ + + + Archives + Slime Mold Time Mold + 2023 + Slime Mold Time Mold. (2023). +Archives. https://slimemoldtimemold.com/. + + + Mary anning + Rafferty + 2023 + Rafferty, J. P. (2023). Mary anning. +Encyclopedia Britannica. +https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-Anning + + + Decentralized science (DeSci) + Ethereum Foundation + Ethereum Foundation. (n.d.). +Decentralized science (DeSci). +https://ethereum.org/en/desci/#further-reading. + + + Four thieves vinegar collective – harm +reduction for the living + Four thieves vinegar collective – +harm reduction for the living. (n.d.). +https://fourthievesvinegar.org/. + + + NeuroLibre : A preprint server for +full-fledged reproducible neuroscience + Karakuzu + 10.31219/osf.io/h89js + 2022 + Karakuzu, A., DuPre, E., Tetrel, L., +Bermudez, P., Boudreau, M., Chin, M., Poline, J.-B., Das, S., Bellec, +P., & Stikov, N. (2022). NeuroLibre : A preprint server for +full-fledged reproducible neuroscience. OSF Preprints. +https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/h89js + + + Beyond advertising: New infrastructures for +publishing integrated research objects + DuPre + PLOS Computational Biology + 1 + 18 + 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009651 + 2022 + DuPre, E., Holdgraf, C., Karakuzu, +A., Tetrel, L., Bellec, P., Stikov, N., & Poline, J.-B. (2022). +Beyond advertising: New infrastructures for publishing integrated +research objects. PLOS Computational Biology, 18(1), e1009651. +https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009651 + + + The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform—An +open science framework for the neuroscience community + Harding + PLOS Computational Biology + 7 + 19 + 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011230 + 2023 + Harding, R. J., Bermudez, P., +Bernier, A., Beauvais, M., Bellec, P., Hill, S., Karakuzu, A., Knoppers, +B. M., Pavlidis, P., Poline, J.-B., Roskams, J., Stikov, N., Stone, J., +Strother, S., Consortium, C., & Evans, A. C. (2023). The Canadian +Open Neuroscience Platform—An open science framework for the +neuroscience community. PLOS Computational Biology, 19(7), 1–14. +https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011230 + + + + + diff --git a/neurolibre.00031/10.55458.neurolibre.00031.jats b/neurolibre.00031/10.55458.neurolibre.00031.jats new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4becb45 --- /dev/null +++ b/neurolibre.00031/10.55458.neurolibre.00031.jats @@ -0,0 +1,1081 @@ + + +
+ + + + +NeuroLibre Reproducible Preprints +NeuroLibre + +0000-0000 + +NeuroLibre + + + +31 +10.55458/neurolibre.00031 + +Little Science, Big Science, and Beyond: How Amateurs +Shape the Scientific Landscape + + + + +McLean +Evelyn + + + + + + +Abdo +Jane + + + + +https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1864-1899 + +Blostein +Nadia + + + + +https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8480-5230 + +Stikov +Nikola + + + + + + + +Sundae Theory Artist Collective, Portland State University, +Oregon, USA + + + + +The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington, +USA + + + + +NeuroPoly, Polytechnique Montreal, Quebec, +Canada + + + + +Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Quebec, +Canada + + + + +Center for Advanced Interdisciplinary Research, Ss. Cyril +and Methodius University, Skopje, North Macedonia + + + + +2 +12 +2024 + +4 +48 +31 + +Authors of papers retain copyright and release the +work under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC +BY 4.0) +2022 +The article authors + +Authors of papers retain copyright and release the work under +a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY +4.0) + + + +Amateur Science +Patents +History of Science + + + + + + Abstract +

The idea of an amateur in science is pretty new - + many of the most significant scientists in history were curious people + with regular jobs in their time (like monk, or tutor or son of a rich + guy) who observed natural phenomena and then interpreted their + findings. This pattern has changed dramatically over the last century + – most science these days is done by professionals, and it is quite + difficult for independent researchers to do science outside of + academic or governmental institutions. This article covers the history + of amateur science and traces its transformation from a wide variety + of activities conducted by philosophers and hobbyists to a narrowly + defined and highly competitive professional field. The article ends + with an exploration of the role of the amateur in the production of + scientific knowledge in the 21st century and the tools that have + emerged to make it possible.

+
+ + Introduction +

In 1962 physicist and historian of science + Derek + de Solla Price gave a series of lectures in which he + divided the whole history of science into two distinct periods: he + called them little science and big science + (Derek + J. de Solla, 1963).

+

Little science, according to Price, encompassed the whole period of + scientific activity that occurred prior to the + Scientific + Revolution. Before this inflection point, scientific + endeavors were carried out on a small scale by people working + independently or in small groups, and were either self-funded or + supported by rich patrons.

+

Big science, characterized by ambitious and highly complex research + conducted by large numbers of scientists and carried out with the + support of institutions like universities and governments, emerged in + the 20th century. Though government-funded research did increase + throughout the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution as + the possible applications of scientific research became increasingly + ambitious, 20th century projects like the space race and the Manhattan + Project exemplify the world-changing technology that big science was + built to produce.

+

The emergence of big science changed many things about the way + scientific knowledge was produced, and those changes have had lasting + impacts. Price argued that the extensive institutionalization of + science through the 20th century created the conditions for the + current paradigm of scientific advancement, in which the boundaries of + scientific knowledge expand incrementally through the accumulation of + isolated discoveries, rather than through the emergence of + paradigm-shifting theories.

+

The central role that the government and private industry play in + funding big science, and the vast bureaucracy that allocates that + funding, have led to a scientific process that is more hierarchical + and less autonomous than the scientific process of previous eras. + These dynamics are exacerbated by the increasingly arduous standards + set by academic institutions and journals that all players in the + field must meet in order to participate in mainstream science.

+

Despite these challenges, a devoted lineage of amateurs have + continued to expand their fields from outside of the academy. In the + last 60 years, new pathways have emerged for interested amateurs to + contribute to large-scale scientific projects, and many have found + ways to dialogue with professional scientists in their field. Recent + developments in technology and increased access to scientific + knowledge have spurred several movements calling for a more + transparent and democratic scientific paradigm. These changes + prompt the question: are we on the verge of a renaissance in amateur + science?

+

This article features original research on patents, interviews with + case study subjects, and discussion of secondary sources such as the + Stanford + Encyclopedia of philosophy + (Zalta + et al., 1995), scholarly articles on the history of science, + and Bowler and Morus’ textbook on the subject, Making Modern Science + (Bowler + & Morus, 2020).

+
+ + The Long Reign of the Natural Philosopher +

“Science” in the modern sense refers both to an agreed-upon body of + knowledge about the world, and to the distinct set of practices by + which that knowledge is created. The concept of the scientific method + is now so synonymous with the idea of science that it might be + confusing to think of the activities of pre-modern researchers and + natural philosophers as “science”, especially as they overlap with + epistemological systems now considered to be unscientific, such as + astrology, theology, and alchemy. But curious people have been doing + some version of science, i.e., discovering new things about the world + and using these discoveries to solve practical problems, since the + formation of the earliest civilizations.

+

The modern version of the scientific method was established a few + hundred years ago during the scientific revolution, but some of its + component parts date back to the emergence of + natural + philosophy in Ancient Greece. Natural philosophy was the + earliest form of what we might call scientific practice. Natural + philosophers, such as + Plato + and + Aristotle, + made detailed observations about the world and attempted to use their + findings to generate more general hypotheses about the nature of + reality + (Williams, + 2000).

+

This approach was inherently interdisciplinary. Natural + philosophers were attempting to answer big, existential questions + using all the tools they had at their disposal, and the bodies of work + produced by these scholars were often wide-ranging and heterogenous, + drawing on direct observation, religious texts, mathematics, + intuition, folk wisdom, and formal logic.

+

Plato’s discovery of the deductive method was central to the + development of science as we now know it, and laid the groundwork for + his student Aristotle, who completed the earliest known formal study + of logic in history, + the + Organon. Aristotle’s discovery of inductive reasoning and + emphasis on empiricism make him perhaps the most significant figure in + the development of modern science before the 17th century. He also + made founding contributions to the fields that would become physics, + astronomy, geology, biology, zoology, and psychology, as well as + setting the stage for centuries of productive engagement with these + ideas throughout the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic Empire, long + after Western Europe had plunged into the Dark Ages after the fall of + Rome + (Kraut, + 2022).

+ + Case Study: Aristotle +

Aristotle joined Plato’s Academy when he was 17 or 18 and stayed + in Athens until his late 30s. After leaving Athens he traveled, + including a trip with one of his students to the isle of Lesbos, + where they studied the animals, insects, plants, and environmental + conditions of two lagoons on the island, writing three books on his + theories of the origins of animals and their relationship to the + environment. He was invited back to Macedonia, his birthplace, to be + a tutor to the king’s son (who would go on to take the throne as + Alexander the Great), and later tutored two other future-kings, + Ptolemy and Cassander. Eventually he moved back to Athens and + established his own school, called Lyceum, where he taught courses + for the next 12 years. He is thought to have produced the bulk of + his body of work during that time + (Shields, + 2022).

+
+
+ + Golden Eras and Dark Ages +

The fall of Rome in the 5th century distanced Western Europe from + the intellectual legacies of + Classical + Antiquity, marking the beginning of a period of declining + scholarship in the West. On the other hand, scholars in China, India, + and the Middle East continued making important discoveries in the + fields of astronomy, medicine, physics, and mathematics over the next + 12 centuries. Golden eras and dark ages came and went as the Byzantine + and Islamic empires grew, building schools, libraries, civic and + religious institutions, and then fell into periods of decline. + Aristotle’s manuscripts were translated into Latin and brought to + Medieval Europe starting in the 11th century, which sparked a renewed + interest in the knowledge of the ancients. In particular, translations + of Aristotle’s work on logic, which were brought to Europe by Greek + scholars fleeing Constantinople after it fell to the Turks in the 15th + century, introduced the idea of deduction and empiricism to Western + scientists and set the stage for the Scientific Revolution to + come.

+

Scientists of classical antiquity and the Middle Ages, though + amateurs, were usually educated, either as a student in a + philosopher’s school, a religious institution or, later on, at a + university. The 11th and 12th centuries saw the emergence of the first + European universities. These academic institutions mainly trained + students to become doctors, lawyers, or priests, but students were + also required to study grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, + astronomy, geometry, and music. The scientists of the Middle Ages + spent much of their time engaging in dialogue with scholars in a wide + range of disciplines, and most scientific progress before the 16th + century was achieved by individuals reading texts (and commentary on + those texts), and then conducting their own experiments and writing + their own books and commentaries in response.

+

Since all science was being produced by “amateurs” rather than + professionals, once an aspiring scientist was educated they had to + find a way to support their research. Some were from wealthy or + aristocratic families, and so did their research alongside familial + and political obligations. Others took jobs at universities, or in the + government or church. And some found a patron who was willing to + support their work. Many pursued their interests independent of (and + sometimes directly against the wishes of) the institutions they were + embedded within.

+ + Case Study: Roger Bacon +

Bacon + was a 13th-century scientist and early champion of the empirical + method. After earning his Master’s degree at Oxford he took a job as + a teacher, lecturing on Latin grammar, Aristotelian logic, + arithmetic, geometry, and the mathematical aspects of astronomy and + music. In his mid-life he spent about a decade as an independent + scholar, then became a friar in the Franciscan order. Soon after + joining, a new prohibition against members of his order publishing + books or pamphlets without prior approval from the Catholic + bureaucracy prevented him from engaging in his studies.

+

Eventually he found a patron to support his work. This patron + encouraged him to keep writing, but to keep his activities a secret. + As was typical of scientists of Bacon’s era, his work included + writing on a plethora of subjects including linguistics, morality, + empiricism, mathematics, optics, alchemy, astronomy, and how to + incorporate Aristotelian logic into theology + (Hackett, + 2022).

+
+
+ + The Rise of the Gentleman Scholar +

Of the many transformations which took place in the 15th century, + three of the most significant to the history of amateur science were + the invention of the + printing + press in 1440, the + fall + of Byzantium in 1453, and the discovery of the + “New + World” in 1492. In each case, new ideas, new ways of + thinking, and new methods for organizing society were developed, + culminating in a widespread and systematic reorganization of human + thought: the Scientific Revolution.

+

Many historians consider 1543 to be the beginning of the Scientific + Revolution. Two books published that year would set off an + unprecedented period of scientific development. One was + De + Humani Corporis Fabrica (On the Workings of the + Human Body) by Andreas Vesalius + (Vesalius, + 1543). This work critiqued and updated the theory of anatomy + proposed by + Galen, + the legendary physician and philosopher from Ancient Greece whose + writing on anatomy had prevailed for over a century. The other was + De + Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the + Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) by Nicolaus Copernicus, which + made a compelling mathematical case for + heliocentrism + and consequently turned the world upside with its religious + implications. Luckily for Copernicus, the book was published while he + was on his deathbed, which allowed him to avoid the (likely + devastating) personal consequences that he would have faced from the + Church for proposing the heretical theory that the Earth was not at + the center of the Universe.

+

Scientific activity proliferated and scientific discoveries + accelerated rapidly over the next 100 years. In the mid-17th century, + amateur scientists formed scientific academies and societies. + Previously, scientific communication had largely happened privately + via letters, but meeting in person had several advantages: talking in + a group made it easier to keep up with the pace of discoveries, which + was becoming harder to do. And due to the increasing emphasis on the + empirical method, any experiment needed trustworthy witnesses to + confirm the results: the higher the status of the witness, the more + credible their testimony. The members of the more prestigious + academies felt a need to defend their positions as the arbiters and + able practitioners of the “new science”. Thus, participation in these + groups was limited to + “gentleman + scholars”, (and their rich patrons), whose social standing + and pedigree were signals of the veracity and trustworthiness of their + findings.

+

Within a few years of their formation, the academies began to + collect and publish regular reports of the experiments they’d heard + about in their vast network of correspondents. These reports, which + were the precursor to the modern academic journal, were essentially a + scientific news service, certifying, broadcasting, and archiving news + about what was happening in the emerging scientific communities. These + publications also engaged the public, who began to take an interest in + scientific matters. Ironically, the publication of scientific journals + by these exclusive clubs likely had a hand in popularizing science and + whetting the public’s appetite to engage in scientific + experimentation. Though the members of scientific societies were also + amateurs – wealthy landowners or young urban bourgeoisie who + participated in science as a hobby – a hierarchy of amateurs was + emerging.

+

Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, scientific societies spread + through Europe. As they gained social prominence, they became + increasingly exclusive, authoritative, and elite. The founding of the + prestigious + École + polytechnique in Paris at the end of the 18th century + represented the first monumental investment by a government in an + institution that would begin to educate students in the new methods of + scientific discovery. The École Polytechnique, founded during the + French Revolution, was originally a technical school that trained + students to become civil and military engineers. This landmark + investment was an endorsement of the idea that French scientists had + been pitching the government on since the founding of the Royal + Society: that funding scholars who could then apply the scientific + method to the problems of society could offer a significant return on + investment.

+

Government support for the “new science” in other nations, however, + was slow to emerge. Universities still largely adhered to religious + doctrine, and continued on with the curriculum that had been developed + in the Middle Ages. Private laboratories, gardens and museums formed + to give more structure to the activities of the societies, but science + remained largely in the purview of gentleman amateurs and their + patrons.

+ + Case Study: Mary Anning +

Mary + Anning, a working class woman in Dorset, England, + collected and sold fossils she found on the beach. Despite her few + years of formal education, she studied all the writing on + paleontology that she could find, and eventually became well known + for her skill of identifying, classifying, and drawing the specimens + she found. Her collection was renowned among fossil-lovers + throughout England (the first complete Plesiosaurus was one of her + most significant finds), including the members of the + Geological + Society of London, to whom she regularly sold her + fossils. As a working-class woman, however, she was unable to take + part in any of the activities of the society. It was not uncommon + for her to sell a fossil to a member of a society who would then + fail to credit her in the article he published about the specimen + (Rafferty, + 2023).

+
+
+ + The Emergence of the Professional Scientist +

The beginning of the 19th century was a lively time for the growing + community of middle and working class Europeans who had taken an + interest in science. New societies like + The + Société Astronomique de France sprang up as + amateur-friendly alternatives to the Royal Academies. In industrial + regions of England like Manchester, working-class amateur naturalists + gathered in pubs to discuss botany and zoology, and all across Europe + extensive amateur meteorological observation networks sprang up, + gathering data used by the emerging professional field of meteorology + (Lingelbach, + 2011).

+

It was also a time of conflict, as amateur scientists began to push + back against the limitations that both governments and scientific + societies imposed. Amateur astronomers in France argued for a more + democratic approach to astronomy, allowing for wider public + involvement in research through activities like tracking meteor + showers, and amateur archaeologists in Germany, Prussia, and France + organized to protest legislation that required permits for + excavations, limiting the freedom to study ancient archaeological + sites.

+

Trained scientists were also beginning to chafe against the + academies’ control over funding and the production of knowledge. + Societies like the British Association for the Advancement of Science + coordinated scientists nationwide and lobbied governments for funding + and recognition, attempting to transform science from an activity for + wealthy hobbyists to a government-funded professional institution + whose advances could be systematized and applied for the benefit of + society.

+

Their petitions worked – increases in the institutional support for + science led to the creation of more technical schools, and to + government scientific agencies like geological surveys, physics labs + and health institutes. The first modern PhD programs, in which + professors were expected to train their students to produce + independent research while conducting their own research, were + established in Germany in the early 19th century. Scientific + disciplines continued to organize into specialized departments, + schools, and journals. By the late 19th century, most scientists + worked in academic or government settings, not as independent + gentlemen.

+

The changes in scientific institutions that occurred in the 19th + century reflect the social and material transformations caused by the + Industrial Revolution. The stark and growing divisions between + socioeconomic classes and the miraculous possibilities of the machine + age that co-occurred initiated an ongoing public debate about social + inequality and the distribution of power and resources in society. + Many people saw science and technology as tools that could be used to + address social inequality, but opinions differed widely on the best + way to apply them + (Grantham, + 2011).

+
+ + Big Science: The Last 100 Years +

Over the previous 300 years, science had become indispensable to + the functioning of the modern world, but it had also become + increasingly tied to, and reliant on, political and economic power + structures. Throughout the 20th century scientific institutions became + increasingly intertwined with government and industry. Funding for + science in this period was abundant but increasingly focused on + applied research, which was becoming more specialized.

+

The 20th century also witnessed the escalating influence of science + and industry on world events. The First World War intensified the + development of research to advance military capability, spurring + massive projects like the Manhattan Project for the atomic bomb and + later the space race, projects which proved instrumental in the + outcomes of World War II and the Cold War era, respectively. + Scientific research became a strategic imperative leveraged by + governments worldwide; many countries formally institutionalized + science as a national priority, establishing dedicated policy bodies + like the U.S. National Science Foundation in 1950.

+

The growth of research in government, private and academic settings + accelerated the institutionalization of science, and led to a steady + decline in the popularity of amateur science. Our research into + worldwide patent applications over the course of the 20th century + illustrates this shift. [fig1] + highlights the relative proportion of patent applications filed by + private companies, public research centers, and universities, as + compared to patent applications filed by individual researchers. The + steady increase in applications by institutions, and the decrease in + applications filed by solo inventors, continues nearly unbroken for + over 100 years.

+ +

Worldwide patent applications classification (1910 - + 2023). Please scroll horizontally to see the full figure. Source: + WIPO Patentscope. +

+ +
+

Relative proportion of worldwide patent applications classified by + research/company and solo inventor from 1910 to 2023. The data shows + an initial predominance of Solo Inventor patents and the steady + increase of Research/Company patents during the mid-20th century, + showing the professionalization of science. See + [appendixa] for more + detail on the methodology used.

+

Though the scientific institutions of the 20th century had become + more open to women and ethnic minorities, amateurs were more + marginalized than ever. A few fields maintained a role for amateur + involvement: astronomers and naturalists in particular continued + making new discoveries in their fields, and tinkering with radio and + electrical systems in home workshops was a popular hobby for many + amateur inventors. But compared to professional scientists, amateur + research was given little credit or legitimacy during this period, and + the tools needed to conduct cutting-edge research in many fields were + totally inaccessible to the lay public

+
+ + The Rebirth of Amateur Science +

Big science continued to expand through the second half of the 20th + century, but several social and political movements that focused on + the lack of public involvement in science policy forced scientific + institutions to accept more input from the public on research agendas. + The environmental movement, the anti-nuclear movement, and HIV/AIDS + activists all fought to create ways to involve the public in setting + priorities for scientific research and assessing the risks of new + technologies. These groups demanded more oversight over scientific + research, more public buy-in, more communication, and more decision + making power for the people impacted by new scientific products. AIDS + activists, for example, became well-versed in the drug development + process and successfully argued for changes to the FDA’s policies on + testing and distributing experimental treatments. They also demanded + changes to the conditions in which clinical tests were carried out, + lobbied the CDC to broaden the definition of AIDS to include symptoms + and outcomes that were more commonly diagnosed in women, and helped + found alternative research facilities such as Boston’s Community + Research Initiative (1987) + (AccessHealth + MA (formerly Community Research Initiative CRI), 2022).

+

Though these movements failed to significantly alter the broader + structures underlying scientific establishments, they did serve to + empower amateurs and activists, giving rise to the citizen science + movement, a massive network of amateurs engaged in data collection and + analysis on a staggering scale. Amateur engagement through field + observation and data collection have existed for over a century, + particularly in the environmental sciences and astronomy, but the + development of digital technology in recent decades has made it + possible to efficiently collect and process data from tens of + thousands of citizen scientists, further expanding the possibilities + of big science. More recently citizen science has expanded into fields + like social science and health + (Bonney + et al., 2014).

+ + Case Study: Aella +

Aella + (a pseudonym) is a well-known writer and sex researcher. She is + unique, even among amateur scientists, for her lack of formal + education. She grew up in rural Idaho, where she was homeschooled, + and attended college for one semester before dropping out. She has + never taken a college-level science class, and her knowledge of data + collection, data analysis, survey design and psychology is entirely + self-taught. She has a community of friends (many of whom are + trained statisticians and engineers) who can answer questions and + offer feedback about her work. In 2022, she published a survey about + sexual fetishes and kinks that now has over 600,000 responses, + making it one of the largest (if not the largest) surveys of its + kind ever done. She has done studies on a wide array of subjects, + including categories of enlightenment, relationship types, and + social taboos. She publishes her findings and makes her data + available to all on her + Substack + (Aella, + 2021).

+
+ + Case Study: The Four Thieves Vinegar Collective +

The + Four Thieves Vinegar Collective was founded in 2015 with + the goal of increasing access to essential generic medications like + insulin and epinephrine by producing them using DIY techniques. + Named after a legend about a group of medical students who broke + into pharmacies to redistribute medicine to the poor, the + decentralized collective aims to make medications affordable by + developing open source protocols for safely synthesizing drugs at + home. Their first major project was developing an open source recipe + for Daraprim, an AIDS medication whose price was controversially + raised over 50-fold in 2015. The following year, when the + pharmaceutical company Mylan raised the price of EpiPens from $57 to + $318, they published DIY instructions for a $30 “EpiPencil” + autoinjector that could be easily made at home using common + materials. By publicizing alternative production methods, the + collective hopes to undermine monopolies and empower patients + worldwide through decentralizing pharmaceutical production + (Four + Thieves Vinegar Collective – Harm Reduction for the Living, + n.d.; + Oberhaus, + 2018).

+
+ + Case Study: Slime Mold Time Mold +

This pseudonymous collective of scientists has been writing + a + blog about nutrition and the obesity epidemic since 2020. + Though they haven’t publicly identified as either amateurs or + academics (“There isn’t one single answer for our background, + because we are a hive mind/collaboration”), their articles feature + collaborations and exchanges with amateurs and academics alike. In + 2022 they recruited over 200 people to take part in the “All-Potato + Diet”, in an effort to find evidence for their theory on the role of + lithium in the obesity epidemic. 64 participants finished the + month-long experiment. The results of the experiment, and a + six-month follow-up, can be found on their blog + (Slime + Mold Time Mold, 2023).

+

When asked in an interview what kind of impact they hope to make + with their research, they wrote:

+ +

We’d like science to be more diverse — more kinds of people, + doing more kinds of science, using more kinds of methods and + paradigms, in more kinds of communities and institutions, and + communicating their work in more and more different ways. We also + want to usher in a 21st century scientific revolution. Ambitious + research is possible, both inside and outside of institutions. + We’d like this to be our impact, but also it doesn’t really matter + since we think that at some level this is inevitable. Authority is + brittle, it requires constant attention — the natural state of + science is chaos.

+
+
+ + Case Study: Seeds of Science +

Seeds + of Science is an open-access journal founded by a + collaborative team including a psychology professor, a physics PhD, + and science enthusiasts. It aims to offer a publishing platform for + non-traditional researchers without constraints of conventional + academic formats.

+

Seeds of Science believes in talent beyond university walls: The + journal aspires to be a hub for disenfranchised scientists and + individuals outside academia, facilitating collaboration, + mentorship, and publication. Despite hurdles such as conforming to + academic indexing standards and database inclusion, Seeds of Science + remains committed to its mission. The journal advocates for a more + inclusive and diverse scientific community, where unconventional + ideas and speculative research can flourish. By challenging + traditional gatekeeping mechanisms, they aspire to cultivate a + culture that values open inquiry and fosters the next generation of + innovative thinkers.

+
+
+ + Conclusion +

21st Century Science

+

Since the 1980s and the beginning of home computing, new + technologies have allowed amateurs to participate once again in many + scientific fields through large-scale crowdsourcing, citizen science + projects, and open online collaborations between amateurs and + professionals. It’s possible that we’re entering a new era, where the + new tools for collecting, storing, analyzing, and displaying data, and + for funding and publishing research make scientific research + accessible to the public in new ways. Many of these tools and + platforms have been created as a part of the Open Access and + Decentralized Science (or DeSci) movements.

+

The Open Access movement began around 2000 with the goal of making + scientific knowledge more accessible to all. Early Open Access + pioneers created new journals that didn’t have paywalls, removing the + financial and institutional barriers that prevented non-professionals + from accessing new scientific literature. However, these publications + supplemented their lost income from subscriptions by instituting large + fees for authors and institutions, merely moving the cost of access to + the scientists and institutions looking to publish. A new movement, + known as Diamond or Platinum Open Access emerged in the 2010s, and + used institutional funding and volunteer labor to create publishing + platforms for scientific research that were free for both researchers + and readers.

+

DeSci is a new set of methods for doing scientific research that + doesn’t rely on traditional centralized institutions like universities + or government labs. Instead, it leverages distributed networks, open + collaborations, and decentralized technologies to democratize access, + enable global participation, and facilitate peer-to-peer validation of + scientific claims and data. Desci aims to accelerate scientific + progress by removing barriers, increasing transparency, and + incentivizing contributions from a broader pool of researchers and + citizen scientists worldwide. It uses decentralized autonomous + organizations (DAOs), open science frameworks, and web3 technologies. + These decentralized blockchain-based protocols allow researchers to + self-organize into projects, validate each other’s work through peer + review, and get funding from distributed sources + (Ethereum + Foundation, n.d.).

+ +

Timeline of amateur science through history. +

+ +
+

As we enter the 21st century, powerful new technological tools and + the emergence of innovations in the field of open science offer + amateurs perhaps the greatest opportunity since the Scientific + Revolution to directly participate in expanding the frontiers of + knowledge. Just outside the gates of big science, where scores of + professionals conduct their research under the purview of governments, + universities, and corporations, there are countless amateurs, + conducting their own research and contributing to the dream of a more + democratic, decentralized science.

+
+ + Appendix A: Methodology for classifying patents +

The dataset in [figstat] + was obtained by web scraping the WIPO PatentScope website from 1910 to + 2023. For each year we scraped the first 99 pages from the database + each year (~200 patents per page), creating a sample of around 19,800 + patents per year before cleaning and preprocessing. Patents were + sorted using the “Relevance” criterion, an algorithm applied to + keyword searches (see Guide + here). + As no keywords were searched (only the publication year), the + displayed patents are considered to be randomly sampled. Due to + computational constraints, patents were scraped without delving into + each individual patent. This approach limited the extraction of fields + such as “Applicant” and “Inventor” to only the first row, possibly + causing the observed fluctuations during the years 2010–2017. Patents + were classified into three types: + Solo Inventor, + Research/Company, or + Other. These fields usually appear in the first + row of the patent description. If this wasn’t the case, or if the + classification was unclear, the patent was + Other. Other patents, typically unclear, were + omitted from the analysis. Research/Company patents included + applicants from private industries, research centers, and + universities, while Solo Inventor patents had individuals as + applicants. The relative proportions of the two patent types were + calculated for each year and displayed as stacked bars using the + Plotly Express library in Python, executed by and compiled into a + MyST-formatted integrated research article + (DuPre + et al., 2022) by NeuroLibre + (Harding + et al., 2023; + Karakuzu + et al., 2022).

+

Below is a more detailed breakdown of the decision tree used for + classifying patents into Solo Inventor, + Research/Company, or + Other:

+ +

Decision tree for classifying patents.

+ +
+
+ + + + + + + VesaliusAndreas + + De humani corporis fabrica libri septem + 1543 + + + + + + Derek J. de SollaPrice + + Little science, big science + Columbia University Press + New York Chichester, West Sussex + 1963 + 9780231885751 + 10.7312/pric91844 + + + + + + ZaltaEdward N + NodelmanUri + AllenColin + PerryJohn + + Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy + Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language; Information … + 1995 + + + + + + WilliamsL. Pearce + + History of science | definition, natural philosophy, & development of science + Encyclopedia Britannica + 2000 + https://www.britannica.com/science/history-of-science + + + + + + GranthamGeorge + + The institutionalization of science in europe, 1650–1850 + Science in the modern world polity: Institutionalization and globalization + + DroriGili S. + MeyerJohn W. + RamirezFrancisco O. + SchoferEvan + + Stanford University Press + 2011 + 10.11126/stanford/9780804771856.003.0003 + 51 + 85 + + + + + + LingelbachGabriele + + The institutionalization and professionalization of history in europe and the united states + The oxford history of historical writing: Volume 4: 1800-1945 + + MacintyreStuart + MaiguashcaJuan + PókAttila + + Oxford University Press + 2011 + 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199533091.003.0005 + 78 + 96 + + + + + + BonneyRick + ShirkJennifer + PhillipsTina + WigginsAndrea + BallardHeidi L. + Miller-RushingAbraham J. + ParrishJulia K. + + Next steps for citizen science + Science + 2014 + 343 + 6178 + 10.1126/science.1251554 + 1436 + 1437 + + + + + + OberhausDaniel + + Meet the anarchists making their own medicine + Vice + 2018 + https://www.vice.com/en/article/43pngb/how-to-make-your-own-medicine-four-thieves-vinegar-collective + + + + + + BowlerPeter J. + MorusIwan Rhys + + Making modern science + University of Chicago Press + 2020 + Second + 10.7208/chicago/9780226365930.001.0001 + + + + + + Aella + + Knowingless + https://aella.substack.com/ + 2021 + + + + + + ShieldsChristopher + + Aristotle + The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University + 2022 + https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/aristotle/ + + + + + + AccessHealth MA (formerly Community Research Initiative CRI) + + History | AccessHealth MA l CRI + https://accesshealthma.org/about-accesshealthma/history/ + 2022 + + + + + + HackettJeremiah + + Roger bacon + The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University + 2022 + https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/roger-bacon/ + + + + + + KrautRichard + + Plato + The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University + 2022 + https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/plato/ + + + + + + Slime Mold Time Mold + + Archives + https://slimemoldtimemold.com/ + 2023 + + + + + + RaffertyJohn P. + + Mary anning + Encyclopedia Britannica + 2023 + https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-Anning + + + + + + Ethereum Foundation + + Decentralized science (DeSci) + https://ethereum.org/en/desci/#further-reading + + + + + Four thieves vinegar collective – harm reduction for the living + https://fourthievesvinegar.org/ + + + + + + KarakuzuAgah + DuPreElizabeth + TetrelLoic + BermudezPatrick + BoudreauMathieu + ChinMary + PolineJean-Baptiste + DasSamir + BellecPierre + StikovNikola + + NeuroLibre : A preprint server for full-fledged reproducible neuroscience + OSF Preprints + 202204 + osf.io/h89js + 10.31219/osf.io/h89js + + + + + + DuPreElizabeth + HoldgrafChris + KarakuzuAgah + TetrelLoı̈c + BellecPierre + StikovNikola + PolineJean-Baptiste + + Beyond advertising: New infrastructures for publishing integrated research objects + PLOS Computational Biology + Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA + 2022 + 18 + 1 + 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009651 + e1009651 + + + + + + + HardingRachel J. + BermudezPatrick + BernierAlexander + BeauvaisMichael + BellecPierre + HillSean + KarakuzuAgah + KnoppersBartha M. + PavlidisPaul + PolineJean-Baptiste + RoskamsJane + StikovNikola + StoneJessica + StrotherStephen + ConsortiumCONP + EvansAlan C. + + The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform—An open science framework for the neuroscience community + PLOS Computational Biology + 202307 + 19 + 7 + 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011230 + 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011230 + 1 + 14 + + + + +
diff --git a/neurolibre.00031/10.55458.neurolibre.00031.pdf b/neurolibre.00031/10.55458.neurolibre.00031.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..34c5d04 Binary files /dev/null and b/neurolibre.00031/10.55458.neurolibre.00031.pdf differ diff --git a/neurolibre.00031/media/static/appendix.png b/neurolibre.00031/media/static/appendix.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f03b5b4 Binary files /dev/null and b/neurolibre.00031/media/static/appendix.png differ diff --git a/neurolibre.00031/media/static/fig1.png b/neurolibre.00031/media/static/fig1.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..de91fd8 Binary files /dev/null and b/neurolibre.00031/media/static/fig1.png differ diff --git a/neurolibre.00031/media/static/fig2stat.png b/neurolibre.00031/media/static/fig2stat.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..34ba825 Binary files /dev/null and b/neurolibre.00031/media/static/fig2stat.png differ