Skip to main content

Core values of genomic citizen science: results from a qualitative interview study


Genomic citizen science initiatives that promote public involvement in the study or manipulation of genetic information are flourishing. These initiatives are diverse and range from data donation studies, to biological experimentation conducted in home and community laboratories, to self-experimentation. Understanding the values that citizen scientists associate with their activities and communities can be useful to policy development for citizen science. Here, we report values-relevant data from qualitative interviews with 38 stakeholders in genomic citizen science. Applying a theoretical framework that describes values as transcendent beliefs about desirable end states or behaviors that can be categorized according to the motivational goals they express and the interests they serve, we identified nine core values of genomic citizen science: altruism, autonomy, fun, inclusivity, openness, reciprocity, respect, safety, and solidarity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  • Aungst, H., J.R. Fishman, and M.L. McGowan. 2017. Participatory genomic research: Ethical issues from the bottom up to the top down. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 18: 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltimore Underground Science Space (BUGSS). (no date) Checking ourselves before wrecking ourselves: Co-evolving innovation and safety in the DIYBio community. Baltimore Underground Science Space, Accessed 17 Oct 2019.

  • Baumgaertner, E. 2018. As D.I.Y. gene editing gains popularity, ‘someone is going to get hurt.’ The New York Times, 14 May.

  • Bietz, M., K. Patrick, and C. Bloss. 2019. Data donation as a model for citizen science health research. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonetta, L. 2009. New citizens for the life sciences. Cell 138 (6): 1043–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. 2016. Meet the guy biohacking puppies to make them glow in the dark. Splinter, 28 September,, accessed 29 October 2019.

  • Brown, K. 2017. Genetically engineering yourself sounds like a horrible idea—but this guy is doing it anyway. Gizmodo, 29 November,, accessed 29 October 2019.

  • Bensaude-Vincent, B. 2016. The moral economy of synthetic biology. In Synthetic Biology: Metaphors, Worldviews, Ethics, and Law, ed. J. Boldt, 87–100. Weisbaden: Springer VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ceccaroni, L., A. Bowser, and P. Brenton. 2017. Civic education and citizen science: Definitions, categories, knowledge representation. In Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research, eds. L. Ceccaroni and J. Piera, 1–23. IGI Global: Hershey.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Global Security Research (CGSR). 2016. Independent biotechnology: The innovation-regulation dilemma. 19 August, Accessed 10 Dec 2019.

  • (no date), accessed 13 December 2019.

  • Davies, S.R. 2018. Characterizing hacking: Mundane engagement in US hacker and makerspaces. Science, Technology, & Human Values 43 (2): 171–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delfanti, A. 2013. Biohackers: The Politics of Open Science. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 2011. Codes., accessed 1 April 2020.

  • DIYbiosphere. (no date), accessed 29 October 2019.

  • DIYbio Community Survey. 2013., accessed 15 December 2019.

  • Eitzel, M.V., J.L. Cappadonna, C. Santos-Lang, R.E. Duerr, A. Virapongse, S.E. West, C.C.M. Kyba, A. Bowser, C.B. Cooper, A. Sforzi, A.N. Metcalfe, E.S. Harris, M. Thiel, M. Haklay, L. Ponciano, J. Roche, L. Ceccaroni, F.M. Shilling, D. Dörler, F. Heigl, T. Kiessling, B.Y. Davis, and Q. Jiang. 2017. Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2 (1): 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, K.C., and J. Rosenberg. 2019. Philosophical foundations for citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4 (1): 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eveleigh, A., C. Jennett, A. Blandford, P. Brohan. and A.L. Cox. 2014. Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 26 April-1 May, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. New York: ACM Press, pp. 2985–2994.

  • Fiske, A., L. Del Savio, B. Prainsack, and A. Buyx. 2019. Conceptual and ethical considerations for citizen science in biomedicine. In Personal Health Science, eds. N.B. Heyen, S. Dickel, and A. Brüninghaus, 195–217. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frensley, T., A. Crall, M. Stern, R. Jordan, S. Gray, M. Prysby, G. Newman, C. Hmelo-Silver, D. Mellor, and J. Huang. 2017. Bridging the benefits of online and community supported citizen science: A case study on motivation and retention with conservation-oriented volunteers. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2 (1): 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garneau, N.L., T.M. Nuessle, M.M. Sloan, S.A. Santorico, B.C. Coughlin, and J.E. Hayes. 2014. Crowdsourcing taste research: Genetic and phenotypic predictors of bitter taste perception as a model. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 8: 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Community Bio Summit (GCBS). (no date) Accessed 29 Mar 2020.

  • Grushkin, D., T. Kuiken. and P. Millet. 2013. Seven myths and realities about do-it-yourself biology. Woodrow Wilson Center Report, November,, accessed 10 December 2019.

  • Guerrrini, C.J., M.A. Majumder, M. Lewellyn, and A.L. McGuire. 2018. Citizen science, public policy. Science 361 (6398): 134–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrini, C.J., M. Lewellyn, M.A. Majumder, M. Trejo, I. Canfield, and A.L. McGuire. 2019a. Donors, authors, and owners: How is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs? BMC Medical Ethics 20: 84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrini, C.J., G.E. Spencer, and P.J. Zettler. 2019b. DIY CRISPR. North Carolina Law Review 97: 1399–1462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrini, C.J., A. Wexler, P.J. Zettler, and A.L. McGuire. 2019c. Biomedical citizen science or something else? Reflections on terms and definitions. American Journal of Bioethics 19 (8): 17–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrini, C.J., J.K. Wagner, S.C. Nelson, G.H. Javitt, and A.L. McGuire. 2020. Who’s on third? Regulation of third-party genetic interpretation services. Genetics in Medicine. 22: 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustetic, J. 2018. Scaling up policy innovations in the federal government: Lessons from the trenches. Issues in Science and Technology 34 (2).

  • Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). 1996. Public Law No. 104–19, as codified and amended.

  • Hecker, S., R. Bonney, M. Haklay, F. Hölker, H. Hofer, C. Goebel, M. Gold, Z. Makuch, M. Ponti, A. Richter, L. Robinson, J.R. Iglesias, R. Owen, T. Peltola, A. Sforzi, J. Shirk, J. Vogel, K. Vohland, T. Witt, and A. Bonn. 2018. Innovation in citizen science—Perspectives on science-policy advances. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 3 (1): 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikemoto, L.C. 2017. DIY Bio: Hacking life in biotech’s backyard. University of California Davis Law Review 51: 539–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S.S., L.E. Sumner, C.H. Garnier, C. Basham, L.T. Sun, P.L. Simone, D.S. Gardner, and R.J. Casagrande. 2019. The accelerating pace of biotech democratization. Nature Biotechnology 37: 1403–1408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, S. 2012. The rise of DIY scientists: Is it time for regulation? Washington Lawyer, May, Accessed 11 Oct 2019.

  • Kimura, A.H., and A. Kinchy. 2016. Citizen science: Probing the virtues and contexts of participatory research. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2: 331–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuiken, T., E. Pauwels. and S.W. Denton. 2018. The rise of the new bio-citizen: Ethics, legitimacy, and responsible governance in citizen-driven biomedical research and innovation. Woodrow Wilson Center Report, July, Accessed 29 Oct 2019.

  • Kullenberg, C., and D. Kasperowski. 2016. What is citizen science? – A scientometric meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 11 (1): e0147152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGowan, M.L., S. Choudhury, E.T. Juengst, M. Lambrix, R.A. Settersten, and J.R. Fishman. 2017. “Let’s pull these technologies out of the ivory tower”: The politics, ethos, and ironies of participant-driven genomic research. BioSocieties 12 (4): 494–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. 2013. Domesticating and democratizing science: A geography of do-it-yourself biology. Journal of Material Culture 18 (2): 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, P. 2017. Upgrading biosafety and biosecurity: Open Philanthropy awards $700k for DIYbio. Genetic Engineering and Society Center, 22 September,, accessed 25 October 2019.

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2018. Appendix A: Demographic analyses of citizen science. In Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design, eds. R. Pandya and K.A. Dibner, 159–168. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Genographic Project (NGP). (no date), accessed 1 April 2020.

  • National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). 2015. Trans-NIH workshop to explore the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of citizen science. 13 March,, accessed 26 November 2019.

  • National Institutes of Health Citizen Science Working Group (NIH CSWG). 2016., accessed 13 December 2019.

  • Nelson, S.C., and S.M. Fullerton. 2018. “Bridge to the literature”? Third-party genetic interpretation tools and the views of tool developers. Journal of Genetic Counseling 27 (4): 770–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. 2015. The nature, niche, value, and. fruit of qualitative inquiry. In Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 4th ed, ed. M.Q. Patton, 2–44. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, B. 2012. Cyborg America: Inside the strange new world of basement body hackers. The Verge, 8 August, Accessed 29 Oct 2019.

  • Raddick, M.J., G. Bracey, P.L. Gay, C.J. Lintott, C. Cardamone, P. Murray, K. Schawinski, A.S. Szalay, and J. Vandenberg. 2010. Galaxy Zoo: Exploring the motivations of citizen scientist volunteers. Astronomy Education Review 12: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B. 2019. Citizen scientists as human subjects: Ethical issues. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4 (1): 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, M.A., J.T. Wilbanks, and K.B. Brothers. 2015. Citizen science on your smartphone: An ELSI research agenda. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43 (4): 897–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotman, D., J. Preece, J. Hammock, K. Procita, D. Hansen, C. Parr, D. Lewis. and D. Jacobs. 2012. Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work; 11–15 February, Seattle, Washington. New York: ACM, pp. 217–226.

  • Sanchez Barba, G.A. 2014. We are biohackers: Exploring the collective identity of the DIYbio movement. MSc thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.

  • Schwartz, S.H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S.H. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 50 (4): 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S.H., and W. Bilsky. 1987. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (3): 550–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S.H., and W. Bilsky. 1990. Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (5): 878–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfried, G., L. Pei, and M. Schmidt. 2014. European do-it-yourself (DIY) biology: Beyond the hope, hype and horror. Bioessays 36: 548–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, M., K. Hathaway, C. Hogg, R. McCauley, and A. Vollrath. 2010. Citizen science genomics as a model for crowdsourced preventative medicine research. Journal of Participatory Medicine 2: e20.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Cuttlefish Project (TCP). (no date), accessed 28 March 2020.

  • Thorogood, A., J. Bobe, B. Prainsack, A. Middleton, E. Scott, S. Nelson, M. Corpas, N. Bonhomme, L.L. Rodriguez, M. Murtagh, E. Kleiderman, and Participant Values Task Team of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. 2018. APPLaUD: Access for patients and participants to individual level uninterpreted genomic data. Human Genomics 12: 7.

  • Tong, A., P. Sainsbury, and J. Craig. 2007. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19 (6): 349–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toombs, A., S. Bardzell, and J. Bardzell. 2014. Becoming makers: Hackerspace member habits, values, and identities. Journal of Peer Production 5: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, A. 2019. NOLS and nutcrackers: The motivations, barriers, and benefits experienced by outdoor adventure educators in the context of a citizen science project. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4 (1): 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census Regions and Divisions of the United States. Census map,, accessed 25 October 2019.

  • US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2019. Title 21, parts 50, 56; title 45, part 46.

  • US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2017. Information about self-administration of gene therapy. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 21 November,, accessed 25 October 2019.

  • Vayena, E., and J. Tasioulas. 2013. Adapting standards: Ethical oversight of participant-led health research. PLOS Medicine 10 (3): e1001402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, A., and J. Wilbanks. 2019. The rise of citizen science in health and biomedical research. The American Journal of Bioethics 19 (8): 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarate, O.A., J.G. Brody, P. Brown, M.D. Ramirez-Andreotta, L. Perovich, and J. Matz. 2016. Balancing benefits and risks of immortal data: Participants’ views of open consent in the Personal Genome Project. The Hastings Center Report 46 (1): 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zettler, P.J., C.J. Guerrini, and J.S. Sherkow. 2019. Regulating genetic biohacking. Science 365 (6448): 34–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Development of this manuscript was funded by National Human Genome Research Institute Grant K01-HG009355. The authors wish to thank Whitney Bash-Brooks for research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christi J. Guerrini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guerrini, C.J., Trejo, M., Canfield, I. et al. Core values of genomic citizen science: results from a qualitative interview study. BioSocieties 17, 203–228 (2022).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Citizen science
  • Community science
  • Biohacking
  • ELSI
  • Genetic privacy