Author(s):

  • Gary Isaac Wolf
  • Martijn De Groot

Abstract:

This paper introduces a conceptual framework to guide research and education into the practice of personal science, which we define as using empirical methods to pursue personal health questions. Personal science consists of five activities: questioning, designing, observing, reasoning, and discovering. These activities are conceptual abstractions derived from review of self-tracking practices in the Quantified Self community. These practices have been enabled by digital tools to collect personal real-world data. Similarities and differences between personal science, citizen science and single subject (N-of-1) research in medicine are described. Finally, barriers that constrain widespread adoption of personal science and limit the potential benefits to individual well-being and clinical and public health discovery are briefly discussed, with perspectives for overcoming these barriers.

Documentation:

https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.00021

References:

Ajana, B. (2017). Digital health and the biopolitics of the Quantified Self. Digital Health 3:2055207616689509. doi: 10.1177/2055207616689509

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Almalki, M., Gray, K., and Sanchez, F.M. (2015). The use of self-quantification systems for personal health information: big data management activities and prospects. Health Inf. Sci. Syst. 3 (Suppl. 1):S1. doi: 10.1186/2047-2501-3-S1-S1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Choe, E.K., Lee, N.B., Lee, B., Pratt, W., and Kientz, J.A. (2014). “Understanding quantified-selfers’ practices in collecting and exploring personal data,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, ON), 1143–1152. doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557372

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Christiansen, T.B. (2018). Which Grasses Aggravate My Allergies? Quantified Self Show&Tell Library. Available online at: https://quantifiedself.com/show-and-tell/?project=1122 (accessed February 13, 2020).

de Groot, M., Drangsholt, M., Martin-Sanchez, F. J., and Wolf, G. (2017). Single subject (N-of-1) research design, data processing, and personal science. Methods Inform. Med. 56, 416–418. doi: 10.3414/ME17-03-0001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heyen, N.B. (2017). Quantified Self as Personal (Citizen) Science. Havard Bill of Health. Available online at: http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2017/05/11/quantified-self-as-personal-citizen-science/ (accessed February 12, 2020).

Heyen, N. B. (2020). From self-tracking to self-expertise: the production of self-related knowledge by doing personal science. Public Underst Sci. 29, 24–138. doi: 10.1177/0963662519888757

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-Case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Kratochwill, T.R., and Levin, J. R. (2010). Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: randomization to the rescue. Psychol Methods 15, 124–144. doi: 10.1037/a0017736

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kravitz, R. L., and Duan, N. (2014). Design and Implementation of N-of-1 Trials: A User’s Guide. AHRQ Publication No. 13(14)-EHC122-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available online at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/N-~1-Trials.cfm

Kravitz, R. L., Schmid, C. H., Marois, M., Wilsey, B., Ward, D., and Hays, R. D. (2018). Effect of mobile device–supported single-patient multi-crossover trials on treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Eur PMC. 178, 1368–1377. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3981

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kullenberg, C., and Kasperowski, D. (2016). What is citizen science? – A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11:e0147152. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147152

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, V. R. (2013). The Quantified Self (QS) movement and some emerging opportunities for the educational technology field. Educ. Technol. 39–42. doi: 10.2190/ET.42.1.d

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lupton, D. (2016). The Quantified Self . Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Google Scholar

Martin, B., and Brouwer, W. (1993). Exploring personal science. Sci. Educ. 77, 441–459. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730770407

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McDonald, S., McGree, J., and Bazzano, L. (2019). Finding benefit in n-of-1 trials. JAMA Internal Med. 179, 454–455. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8382

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Meyer, L. (2011). Tracking My Hearing Loss, Quantified Self Show&Tell Library. Available online at: https://quantifiedself.com/show-and-tell/?project=424 (accessed February 13, 2020).

Google Scholar

Mirza, R. D., and Guyatt, G. (2018). A randomized clinical trial of n-of-1 trials—tribulations of a trial. JAMA Internal Med. 178, 1378–1379. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3979

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mirza, R. D., Punja, S., Vohra, S., and Guyatt, G. (2017). The history and development of N-of-1 trials. J. R. Soc. Med. 110, 330–340. doi: 10.1177/0141076817721131

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Morozov, E. (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. Chester, UK: Public Affairs.

Mueller, M. P., Tippins, D., and Bryan, L.A. (2011). The future of citizen science. Democr. Educ. 20, 1–12. Available online at: https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol20/iss1/2.

NAS – National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Neff, G., and Nafus, D. (2016). Self-tracking. Cambridge: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/10421.001.0001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Prainsack, B. (2014). “Understanding participation: the ‘citizen science’ of genetics,” in Genetics as Social Practice, eds B. Prainsack, G. Werner-Felmayer, G. Schicktanz (Farnham: Ashgate), 147–164.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Riggare, S. (2012). Tracking Parkinsons and Medication. Quantified Self Show&Tell Library. Available online at: https://quantifiedself.com/show-and-tell/?project=479 (accessed February 13, 2020).

Roberts, S. (2014). Seth’s Blog – Personal Science, Self Experimentation, Scientific Method. Available online at: https://sethroberts.net/category/personal-science/ (accessed February 12, 2020).

Sharon, T. (2017). Self-tracking for health and the quantified self: re-articulating autonomy, solidarity, and authenticity in an age of personalized healthcare. Phil. Technol. 30, 93–121. doi: 10.1007/s13347-016-0215-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Swan, M. (2013). The quantified self: fundamental disruption in big data science and biological discovery. Big data 1, 85–99. doi: 10.1089/big.2012.0002

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vayena, E., and Tasioulas, J. (2015). We the scientists: a human right to citizen science. Phil. Technol. 28, 479–485. doi: 10.1007/s13347-015-0204-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vohra, S., Shamseer, L., Sampson, M., Bukutu, C., Schmid, C. H., Tate, R., et al. (2016). CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 Statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 76, 9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wolf, G. (2010). The data-driven life. New York, NY: The New York Times, 28.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar