Jeffrey Warren: Public Lab is a com­mu­ni­ty and a non­prof­it, and we do envi­ron­men­tal work with peo­ple all over the world. And we real­ly try to address envi­ron­men­tal issues that affect peo­ple. What we do we call com­mu­ni­ty sci­ence, and I think some peo­ple some­times think of Public Lab’s work as trans­lat­ing sci­ence to the pub­lic in a sense. But I real­ly think it’s not exact­ly it. We work a lit­tle on the inside, a lit­tle on the out­side.

And what we try to do is actu­al­ly dis­tinct from cit­i­zen sci­ence. Citizen sci­ence is often defined as peo­ple assist­ing sci­en­tists in the col­lec­tion of data or in doing sci­ence, and it’s admirable, it’s good work. But com­mu­ni­ty sci­ence is about plac­ing sci­en­tif­ic issues that affect communities—which are often envi­ron­men­tal issues—at the cen­ter of the dis­course, and com­mu­ni­ties at the cen­ter of address­ing some of these prob­lems.

And com­mu­ni­ty sci­ence involves peo­ple not only in data col­lec­tion but in all aspects of the sci­en­tif­ic method and the sci­en­tif­ic process. And we specifically—at Public Lab we sup­port com­mu­ni­ties who are inves­ti­gat­ing local envi­ron­men­tal issues that might affect them and their health: oil spills, chem­i­cal spills, effects of the oil and gas indus­try.

And through this work, we get a lot of ques­tions about how knowl­edge is pro­duced at all; like in gen­er­al, in the broad­er sense. And real­ly specif­i­cal­ly how exper­tise func­tions. Who gets to ask the ques­tions or act on the answers? Our mod­el is to place the com­mu­ni­ties that are fac­ing prob­lems at the cen­ter of the work, but also to engage for exam­ple for­mal sci­ence and tech­nol­o­gy com­mu­ni­ties, DIY mak­er com­mu­ni­ties, edu­ca­tors, learn­ers, free cul­ture activists, com­mu­ni­ty orga­niz­ers, facil­i­ta­tors.

And as you can imag­ine, that involves a lot of cul­tur­al work. So, bridg­ing gaps. I mean, peo­ple speak dif­fer­ent domain‐specific lan­guages. People aren’t used to think­ing of how oth­er peo­ple approach top­ics or work through issues. And a lot of this is real­ly about equi­ty. It goes beyond open source. Because in a sense open source, or open access…the idea that every­one should have equal access to it, is not as pow­er­ful or deep an idea as the idea that peo­ple have been pre­vent­ed from hav­ing equal access and so we have to do pro­por­tion­al work to make up those gaps and to bridge those gaps. And Max Liboiron gives a great talk on equi­ty ver­sus equal­i­ty that you should watch instead of lis­ten­ing to me on the sub­ject.

And so a lot of this ends up being work not only on mak­ing sci­ence find­ings acces­si­ble but its meth­ods, its tools…who actu­al­ly par­tic­i­pates in it. The struc­tur­al issues. And this means both mak­ing more acces­si­ble on‐ramps into sci­ence, envi­ron­men­tal sci­ence in par­tic­u­lar, but also chal­leng­ing what’s pos­si­ble, or what ques­tions are asked by lever­ag­ing peer pro­duc­tion and using an open‐source col­lab­o­ra­tion mod­el. Engaging peo­ple who have not been includ­ed in sci­ence process­es, but peo­ple who have key and crit­i­cal ques­tions.

So a lot of peo­ple may ask like, why do it your­self? Like why go through the trou­ble of invent­ing new tools or invent­ing new process­es? Like, why can’t we just scale sci­ence up so that every­one can do it, like make it more avail­able and then you know…but basi­cal­ly unchanged. And if more peo­ple can do it then we’re okay. So it’s more like an edu­ca­tion­al mod­el.

And I think it’s because…for all that they can do, experts often have a pret­ty nar­row con­cep­tion of where the pub­lic might become involved in sci­ence. Public dis­sem­i­na­tion of sci­ence, for exam­ple, or data entry. Or where sci­ence might lead us. Sandra Harding talks about how the pub­lic should be more involved in select­ing prob­lem­at­ics; choos­ing the prob­lems which we should engage in. And com­mu­ni­ties that are fac­ing some­thing like an oil spill are well‐placed to be dri­ving what kinds of ques­tions sci­ence should be address­ing and what kind of evi­dence we should be col­lect­ing to achieve greater envi­ron­men­tal jus­tice. And then of course cost is anoth­er bar­ri­er, I think. So we have to address some of the issues of like, build­ing your own tools, because the exist­ing tools are too expen­sive.

Just for an exam­ple, part of rec­og­niz­ing and respect­ing dif­fer­ent forms of exper­tise— This is actu­al­ly a pic­ture from the Gowanus Canal. A bal­loon blue map­ping project. So a lot of what Public Lab does, one of our biggest projects is bal­loons map­ping; tak­ing aer­i­al pho­tos with bal­loons. And this one revealed an inflow into the canal that the EPA Superfund process had not dis­cov­ered, and an engi­neer­ing sur­vey of the site had not dis­cov­ered. And it was local activists who who knew the canal, knew the pat­terns, they knew to go and take a pic­ture when it was frozen because that lit­tle chan­nel com­ing out above the word and” is melt­ed ice from that inflow.

And so there’s local exper­tise that is real­ly pow­er­ful that we want to reify and ampli­fy as part of our sort of embrace of what Sandra Harding again calls strong empiri­cism,” the idea that like we dou­ble down the idea of evidence‐based knowl­edge, that it can be more equi­table through that approach.

Demystifying is anoth­er way we approach this. I want­ed to note this. It’s one of our better‐known projects that’s a paper­craft spec­trom­e­ter that you can build. You can down­load the plans, it’s all open‐source. But part of the idea here is to break down what instru­men­ta­tion means through a hands‐on prac­tice, through arti­facts, through the selec­tion of mate­ri­als.

This is anoth­er ver­sion of that cat that’s actu­al­ly made out of Legos. So we speak through the choice of mate­ri­als. We speak through the lan­guage we use to describe these things. And that reflects our com­mu­ni­ty val­ues at Public Lab.

And I think just to wrap it up, one of the projects I want­ed to high­light was one where peo­ple are mak­ing DIY micro­scopes to ana­lyze sam­ples of res­pirable sil­i­ca dust that results from frac sand min­ing in the Wisconsin area and oth­er places. And real­ly like, what is a micro­scope? And so to try to demys­ti­fy and break that down, cre­ate on‐ramps into that. And to enable peo­ple to build their own cheap micro­scopes that are good enough to actu­al­ly see par­ti­cles at the scale that res­pirable sil­i­ca occurs at, we have a basic micro­scope kit that we dis­trib­ute, and it’s build­ing on a lot of oth­er open hard­ware efforts, col­lab­o­ra­tions, and so forth.

So that’s just one exam­ple of how we do it. But I think the gist of this is that do‐it‐yourself means chang­ing how we pro­duce knowl­edge, not just tak­ing the exist­ing frame­work and scal­ing it up but actu­al­ly look­ing at some of the struc­tur­al issues that pre­vent peo­ple who most need a more robust envi­ron­men­tal sci­ence frame­work to have access to it and to have agency and the abil­i­ty to direct it.

Thank you very much.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.