Analyze

Pödelwitz is an activist initiative  in the central german coal district, which is located in a village which was supposed to be evacuated for a planned expansion of a neighboring coal mine. After successfully resisting this expansion, the activists now promote social-ecological transformation in the village and the wider region. I will collaborate with them as part of my project in C-urge to study the role of justice in such transformations. Thereby we hope to arrive at an understanding of justice that is not opposed to urgent societal transformation in light of climate change, but a means of achieving this.

Data infrastructure supporting recognition of the anthropocenic air pollution in the context of the 6th Naphtha plants is the collection of health related and biological data, as it could be one possibility to sue. The data collected in scientific studies mentioned in the film were the concentration of a certain metabolite (produced when being exposed to VCM) in the bodies of children visiting the schools nearby and the incidence of cancer in the surrounding area. Doing medical and epidemiological research on these topics could help to set regulations. And - and that's maybe even more important to the people affected - if you can prove that you got a disease from being near the factory, you might be able to sue.

I think what is very striking in this text, is the author puts her perspective of the disability studies and uses it to draw lines from the disability studies, more particular the queer black disability studies, to the environmental justice movement. From reading the text, I think one can see, that Julia Belser is very involved in disability studies and the field of critical medicine/ psychology. The way she describes that we should turn away from always seeking to get (back) the pure nature, the healthy environment, the "healthy" body, she reminded me of the general idea of overcoming pure categories (for example Latour etc.) - and dualisms. Additionally, I think one could locate her in the area of inequality studies and the field analyzing structural violence.

"Within this latter understanding of citizen social science, listening to the field becomes an important tool to accumulate not only concerns and issues expressed by citizens (Morris-Suzuki, 2014), but also to adopt and borrow terminologies used by citizens to generate a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003)." (p. 6)

Concept of citizen science (top-down/ bottom-up), and also dealing with the question of the politicalness of data, I think that's quite interesting. As one of the members says: "We agreed that if we just measure accurately, the truth will shine through. If we start saying that we are against [the government], people will label us as against [the government]. So it becomes more difficult for everyone to join us. [...]" (p. 4) - so data is configured as something apolitical, neutral here, and so the citizen science groups also can be like this. I think this is interesting, that they have this concept of data.

I think the concept of citizen science and participation is interesting when we look at the participatory project of the Höchst Industriepark for the residents: They are invited to discuss about impacts of the Industriepark on the districts around. But in this context, the citizens they don't acquire data, but are invited to get informed about what Höchst Industriepark wants to do, what their plans are. I think the aspect of participation is a little hypocritical here: For me it seems to be a measure of making residents feel like they can participate, but there is no decision-making power with them.

Could we see the acquirement of data by citizen as unpaid work? Who gets the credit for this work? (In the context of top-down citizen sciences)

What about participation as a technology of governing?

I think the text is not very critical in terms of top-down citizen sciences.