Building Blocks for Better Science

Building Blocks for Better Science:

Case Studies in Low-Cost and Open

Tools for Science by Alison Parker, PhD, Wilson Center; Alexandra Novak, Wilson Center

Science and Technology Innovation Program This publication is part of The Science and Technology Innovation Program’s THING Tank: Understanding Low-Cost Tools for Science project. The Science and Technology Innovation Program’s work in low-cost and open hardware is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Except otherwise noted, Building Blocks for Better Science: Case Studies in Low-Cost and Open Tools for Science by Alison Parker and Alexandra Novak, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is licensed under CC BY 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0

ii Acknowledgements

In addition to contributing creative and impactful tools to science, the following people shared their insight and experience through interviews and content review. We are grateful for their contributions.

• Randa Milliron, TubeSat

• Sylvain Burdot, TubeSat

• Dave Bakker, PocketLab

• Jolyn Janis, PocketLab

• Dr. Adrian Bowyer, RepRap

• Dr. Zac Manchester, PyCubed

• Max Alvarez Holliday, PyCubed

• Andrew Specian, Quori

• Dr. Andrew Hill, Open Acoustic Devices

• Dr. Julian Stirling, University of Bath and OpenFlexure Project

• Dr. Patrick Mercier, UCSD Center for Wearable Sensors

• Adrian Dybwad, Purple Air

• Marty McGuire

Thanks to Anne Bowser, Alex Long, and Elizabeth Newbury for helpful edits and advice.

This research was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

iii About the Authors

Alison Parker, PhD serves as a Senior Program Associate with the Science and Technology Innovation Program (STIP) at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. With STIP, Alison evaluates and amplifies emerging approaches to science and technology, including low-cost and open source hardware and citizen science. She also serves on the Board of Directors for the Citizen Science Association. Previously, Alison held a fellowship in the Office of Research and Development at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Alison received her B.Sc. in Biological Sciences from the George Washington University and PhD in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Toronto.

Alexandra Novak is a Staff Research Intern with the Science and Technology Innovation Program (STIP) at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Alexandra conducts research on low-cost and open hardware for the Thing Tank Initiative. Previously, she worked in microscopy and held a Fulbright research fellowship in Paraguay. Alexandra received her B.Sc. in Chemistry from Union College.

Contents

Introduction to the Case Studies / 1

Case studies / 3

Arduino 3 Plantower 5 RepRap 6 MakerBot 9 Foldscope 11 OpenFlexure 13 PyCubed 15 IOS TubeSat Kits 18 Quori 20 Wearable Symptom Tracker 22 Microplate Flange Replacement 24 Sofar Ocean: Trident and Spotter 26 PocketLab 29 Purple Air 31 AudioMoth 33 Safecast - bGeigie 35

Observations / 39

Conclusion / 49

References / 50

Appendix A. Cost Comparison Chart / 55

v Foreword

Foldable and 3D printed microscopes are driving down price. The impact of are broadening access to the life sci- dramatic decreases in cost are easily ences, low-cost and open micropro- apparent in examples such as developer cessors are supporting research from boards like Raspberry Pi and Arduino, cognitive neuroscience to oceanogra- and low-cost sensors for air quality phy, and low-cost sensors are measur- such as Purple Air.1 Many tools are ing air quality in communities around the incrementally more accessible simply world. In these examples and beyond, due to decreased cost; others are sold the things of science – the physical tools at a cost so dramatically reduced that that generate data or contribute to sci- they may even be changing the nature entific processes – are becoming more of science itself (Appendix A). inexpensive and more open. As more people share designs openly As more tools become available at or create do-it-yourself (DIY) tools as a price point that is do-able for non- a substitute for expensive, proprietary professionals, the nature of access and equipment, the nature of tool design use is changing. Like many consumer and production is also changing. The goods, innovation and competition Open Source Hardware Association defines open source hardware (also known as open hardware, and including open science hardware) as “a term for tangible artifacts – machines, devices, or other physical things – whose design has been released to the public in such

Image: “Make Your Own Arduino Project” by fabola is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

vi …the things of science – the physical tools that generate data or contribute to scientific processes – are becoming more inexpensive and more open.

a way that anyone can make, modify, distribute, and use those things.” Open practices include product openness, or aspects of tools that allow for public sharing of documentation, and process openness, or “enabling participation of external people in the design process.”2,3 Open practices for hardware overlap extensively with those for software, including drawing on – and contributing to – Open Source Software (OSS) practices and licenses.

Moreover, many low-cost and open tools contribute to and intersect with not just developed by and for the profes- open practices in scientific research. sional scientific research community, They often produce open data, and but by a wide range of commercial, encourage its use. They can enable academic, nonprofit, and community en- citizen science, community science, terprises operating at a range of scales. and other participatory approaches that seek to broaden public participation in, Image: Dave Bakker, PocketLab, all and access to, the scientific enterprise. rights reserved, used with permission. Perhaps most importantly, tools – as well as the research they enable – are

vii viii Introduction to the Case Studies

Here, we outline 16 tools for science that expand access, and to what extent? are causing us to rethink the boundaries Finally, is the impact – and potential of scientific research. We include both impact – of these tools incremental, or low-cost tools and open tools, recogniz- potentially revolutionary? ing that these categories often intersect; some low-cost tools are developed and We also begin to examine the unique shared using open practices, and open value of open practices in this context. tools tend to be cheaper than proprietary How important is openness? Do open alternatives.4 Looking across these tools practices accelerate progress or expand and their individual impact on science access, and to what extent? Finally, is and society, we begin to ask questions the impact – and potential impact – of about their collective impact. How do open tools incremental, or revolutionary? low-cost tools impact science? Do these tools accelerate scientific progress or

Image: “2012-12-07” by Taema is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

1 A Note on Open Practices

Open practices describe practical ways that tool developers can enact ideals of openness including the right to “study, modify, make and sell” the design or tool. These open practices include making available and editable documentation files such as CAD files, assembly instructions, and bills of materials, and the use of open licenses, including those that allow for commercial use.5 The Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA) certifies products that include open documentation and have open licenses. Beyond product openness, process openness is often enacted via an open call for contributions or clearly stated guidelines for contributing to a tool’s design or development.6 Many tools also produce open data, and build communities around sharing and using open data.

In this publication, when we found evidence of these open practices, we include a check mark ( ) next to one or more of the following:

Documentation available

Documentation editable

Open license

Open process

Open data

These elements of openness are adapted from those described by Bonvoisin and Mies, 2018, with the addition of open data.7

Importantly, we included a check mark when there was any indication of their use, even when the terms described by Bonvoison and Mies and others were not fully met.

Open licenses grant permission for the use of a work, and allow the creator to specify how they would like their intellectual property to be used, re-used, modified, and shared. Some open licenses can be used for a wide range of creative work (e.g. the Creative Commons suite of licenses). Others were created for use with open source software (e.g. the GNU General Public License, Apache). Still others were designed specifically for use with hardware (e.g. the CERN Open Hardware License). These licenses vary in whether they restrict or allow commercial use, sharing of modifications, and/or if they require that the same or similar license is applied to derivative work (i.e. share-alike, or copyleft). Licenses used by the tools documented in these case studies include: Creative Commons Attribution (versions 3.0 and 4.0, including ShareAlike and NonCommercial), the GNU General Public License (GPL), Apache 2.0, and the CERN Open Hardware License.

Image: “Young female textiles technician creating bespoke insoles for people with medical condi- tions” by This is Engineering image library is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

1 Although some do not consider restrictions on commercial use (e.g. CC BY NC) to 2 be fully “open”, we include non-commercial licenses as open licenses here.8,9 Case Studies 1

Arduino Fun fact: Arduino was named after a bar named after an Ivrean King. At a glance: Website/contact: https://www.arduino Field of application: Electronics, multidisciplinary Analysis: Year initially developed: 2005 How was the tool developed? Who Description: Arduino is a company was and is involved? Arduino was that designs and manufactures low- initially developed as a master’s student cost, single-board microprocessor and project at Interaction Design Institute microcontroller kits. These electronics Ivrea (IDII) in Italy. Arduino was designed can read inputs (e.g. a signal from a for students who had little experience sensor) and transmit them into an output with electronics and programming, (e.g. turning on a light). The devices are although now users have expanded be- easy to use and compatible with various yond students to hobbyists, profes- operating systems. The electronics plat- sionals, artists, and much more. forms can be purchased from Arduino as The developers opened do-it-yourself (DIY) kits or full, pre-built up the hardware and products. Individuals can also make their software to the own devices with the publically available public, design files.

Arduino is known for being one of the first widespread and successful open hardware projects. As a result, Arduino electronics platforms have been key to the maker movement and are used in a diverse range of projects, ranging from education to music to professional engineering. Image: “Arduino Uno” by Snootlab is licensed under CC BY 2.0

3 allowing for a large number of communi- forms to share projects and tutorials, ties to debug codes, edit design files, such as Project Hub, Arduino Forum, create tutorials, and build community and an Arduino wiki. with other users. What makes the tool low-cost? Elements of Openness Even pre-assembled Arduino boards cost less than $50. Documentation available In what ways is this tool accelerat- Documentation editable ing science, enabling evidence- Open license based decision making, or broadening participation in science? Open process Arduino was one of the first widespread open source hardware tools. By the The hardware documentation can be founders’ eagerness to collaborate with found for each device in the store sec- community members, Arduino dem- tion of the Arduino website and under onstrated that the open source model the documentation drop down. The can accelerate technological innova- hardware files are licensed under a tion and that low-cost and open source Creative Commons Attribution Share can be a profitable business model Alike license. However, Arduino sug- for hardware.10 Due to its low-cost, gests only experienced makers create ease of use, and compatibility, Arduino a device from scratch. The software helped spark the maker movement and documentation is found on GitHub and broadened participation in science by is licensed to be accessed, modified, making electronics more accessible to and reproduced. There is also Arduino non-engineers. With applications such at Heart, a Brand License agreement for as Complubot, a microprocessor robot products that want to be recognized as designed by kids for STEM educa- an Arduino-based technology. tion purposes, aerial vehicles for bat research, and devices for water quality Arduino holds no patents. Contributions studies, Arduino is enabling science all guidelines to code and hardware are over the world. highlighted on the website. Finally, Arduino has multiple open source plat-

4 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

Plantower not publicly available. It does not have an open hardware license. At a glance: What makes the tool low-cost? The tool has PM sensors (PMA003) that Field of application: Sensors, envi- cost about $34 in 2018.11 This is low ronmental, health cost compared to personal PM sensors such as PDR-1200 from Thermo Fisher Year initially developed: 2014 Scientific ($6000) or the EPA approved MetOne BAM - 1020 ($12,000 to Description: Plantower is a company $21,000).12 that creates low-cost air quality sensors that are commonly used in affordable In what ways is this tool accelerat- air quality devices, such as Purple Air, ing science, enabling evidence- Public Lab’s Simple Air Sensor, and based decision making, or broad- the Air Quality Egg. The sensors detect ening participation in science? levels of particulate matter (PM), a type of harmful air pollution caused by small The low cost and functionality of solid and liquid particles suspended in Plantower enables the development the air. Plantower uses laser scattering of accessible air quality sensors that techniques to measure the sizes and provide quality data in real-time. By concentration of particles. They also driving down the cost, Plantower is sell sensors for formaldehyde gas and changing who can take part in carbon dioxide. The sensor can stream the collection of air quality data data in real-time and is compatible with and is increasing the availability various types of instruments. All sensors of air quality data. For example, can be purchased online. the Air Quality Egg, which uses Plantower sensors, is Website/contact: http://www.planto- being used by citizen scientists wer.com/ in Colorado to figure out the source of air pollution in their Analysis: community.13 Plantower is also used by Purple Air to make air How was the tool developed? Who quality data publicly accessible was and is involved? The tool was de- on the online map. PocketLab veloped by Beijing Plantower Co. They illustrates how Plantower can receive venture capital funding. be used to teach students about Image: “SCK 2.1 air quality and data analysis. Particle Sensor” Elements of Openness Plantower’s widespread use by smartcitizen is proves it is a key building block for Basic schematics, technical specifica- licensed under CC air quality research and environ- tions, and explanations of the particulate BY-NC-SA 2.0 matter sensors can be found online. The mentally-informed communities hardware and software design files are around the world.

5 RepRap Fun fact: RepRap was inspired by mutu- alism, the symbiotic relationship where At a glance: two species equally benefit from each other. In this case, people will build in Field of application: Manufacturing return, the printer will print parts for the tool, multidisciplinary people. The names of different RepRap printers, such as “Darwin,” “Mendel,” Year initially developed: 2004 and “Huxley,” are named after famous biologists. Description: RepRap, which stands for Replicating Rapid-Prototyper, was the Website/contact: https://reprap.org/ first low-cost, open source 3D printer wiki/RepRap and has become the most widely used printer in maker communities across the globe. The small desktop 3D printer has Analysis: the ability to replicate itself. Users can make the tool using the publicly avail- How was the tool developed? Who able design files, or purchase a full kit was and is involved? RepRap was or individual components. The original initially developed at the University of printers used plastic; newer versions Bath, inspired by Dr. Adrian Bowyer’s have expanded the types of materials interest in self-replicating machines that can be used. and by the versatility of 3D printers. Because patents would inhibit the

6 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

nature of self-replicating machines, the and produced the RepRap machine for documentation for the tool was made less than $40,000 - the full cost of a 3D publicly available from the start. The printer at the time.16 interest in the project skyrocketed and people began volunteering to help after Elements of Openness the story of RepRap was covered by the press around the world. This led to Documentation available a group of 16 principal collaborators as Documentation editable well as a broader global community of professionals and amateurs contributing Open license their expertise to the tool’s development. Open process The community provided recommen- dations, resolved problems, and even Hardware and software documentation created alternative designs, all under the can be found on the Build a RepRap single piece of guidance that everything page as well as GitHub along with be made open source. Despite “lots instruction manuals, all clearly labelled of failed experiments” in the develop- and available. The software and hard- ment of the tool, Dr. Bowyer attributes ware of RepRap are licensed under the the success of the tool to the support GNU General Public License (GPL). from the greater RepRap community. Additionally, RepRap suggests that According to Dr. Bowyer, “There was people license their hardware under the never a point when we were stuck. If GPL or Creative Commons Licensing. x didn’t work we still had y and z to go The RepRap website clearly outlines the 15 back on”. openness policies, missions, and best practices for contributing. All page activ- The tool development was supported ity is logged publicly for users to see. with funding from the UK Engineering Finally, designs for printing certain proj- and Physical Sciences Council. Dr. ects can be uploaded onto the RepRap Bowyer and collaborators developed

7 “In any sort of science, you need a physical kit of some kind. Suddenly there was the ability to have it, and in a customized way.” — Dr. Adrian Bowyer, RepRap14

wiki for public access, and ideas can be Many companies use RepRap printers, shared in RepRap forum. such as Prusa, one of the largest 3D printer producers in the world and a What makes the tool low-cost? The preferred brand of FabLabs, a large and prices for RepRap range from $300 to impactful network of makerspaces. In $620 depending on what level of “DIY” addition to FabLabs, RepRap’s acces- the user wants. When first created, the sibility has made it an integral tool to the cost of materials for one RepRap was broader broader maker community and 100 times lower than the price of 3D DIY movement. printers of similar quality at the time, which was approximately $40,000 USD RepRap enables access to 3D print- (note, however, that the cost of materi- ing in a large number of scientific labs als does not include the cost of labor).16 around the world, including in low- and Once a printer is produced, another one middle- income countries. RepRap can be printed essentially for free, with allows researchers to produce custom- just a few low-cost parts and printing ized lab equipment and tools that would materials. not be commercially viable and low cost. For example, it has been used to In what ways is this tool accelerat- 3D print laboratory research equipment ing science, enabling evidence- such as low-cost microscopes (e.g. based decision making, or broad- OpenFlexure) or a low-cost syringe ening participation in science? pump which is used in a variety of RepRap was the first open source, research activities to administer precise desktop 3D printer. The price point and amounts of liquids. the tool’s ability to self-replicate has made it one of the most widespread 3D printers, with over 30,000 printers purchased between 2004 to 2014.17

8 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

MakerBot Analysis:

How was the tool developed? Who At a glance: was and is involved? MakerBot’s first 3D printer, the Cupcake CNC, Field of application: Manufacturing was developed in the NYC Resistor tool, multidisciplinary Hackerspace. The founders were inspired to contribute to the RepRap Year initially developed: 2009 team’s mission to create a low-cost 3D printer for anyone. Seed funding came Description: Inspired by the RepRap from private donations, including a project, MakerBot was one of the first $25,000 donation from the founder of companies to make accessible and af- RepRap. Cupcake CNC was sold as fordable desktop 3D printers. Currently, a DIY kit. Community members largely the MakerBot printers are designed for contributed to the development of this professional manufacturing, design, and tool, even printing specific compo- educational applications and can be pur- nents for kits with their own MakerBots chased as pre-built, full products. The when consumer demand peaked. After original tool, however, was available as MakerBot released its first pre-assem- a DIY kit. The latest tools can print com- bled, low-cost printer, the design was plex geometries with plastic along with copied and almost sold under a different advanced materials, such as carbon name. This incident led to MakerBot fibers and resin. Additionally, MakerBot discontinuing its open source model.19 created Thingiverse, the largest online 3D design community. Elements of Openness

Website/contact: https://www.maker- The early 3D printers from MakerBot bot.com/ were developed using open practices

Images: “Makerbot Industries - Replicator 2 - 3D-printer 05” by Creative Tools is licensed under CC BY 2.0

9 Images: “Chiildren checking out the MakerBot at Maker Faire.” by bre pettis is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

and with participation from the com- decision making, or broadening munity. In 2012, MakerBot no longer participation in science? MakerBot supported its open source model and has contributed to a number of mile- the current models do not have an stones in 3D printing. MakerBot open source license but are patented.20 broadened participation in innovation MakerBot’s design platform Thingiverse by creating some of the first afford- is open to the public so that people able desktop 3D printers. These tools can create, share, provide feedback, made the method of 3D printing a well and discover 3D printing designs. The known term, shifted the perception of website encourages the use of Creative 3D printing from an industry tool to a Commons licenses for posted designs. “household” tool, and was key in the development of the maker movement. What makes the tool low-cost? The low-cost and modular features The lowest cost professional desktop of the professional printers enable 3D printer is $3,499.30 and the lowest scientists to experiment with advanced cost educational 3D printer is $1,799. printing materials in an accessible and Although there are desktop printers that customizable way, advancing the field of are more affordable, the functionality of industrial grade printing. The education these printers at this price point make printers have encouraged early learn- them a low-cost tool. Both of these ing opportunities in design thinking and printers sit on the lower end of profes- 3D printing. Finally, Thingiverse is one sional/performance printer prices. of the most widely used open design platforms by makers and the open In what ways is this tool accelerating source community, with over 8.5 million science, enabling evidence-based downloads between 2008-2012.21

10 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

Foldscope Website/contact: https://www.foldscope.com/ At a glance:

Field of application: Laboratory Analysis: equipment, education, multidisciplinary How was the tool developed? Year initially developed: 2014 Who was and is involved? The tool was developed in the Department of Description: Foldscope is an ultra- Bioengineering at Stanford University, affordable, portable paper microscope after researchers observed a lack of that was developed to democratize functional, affordable, and transport- science access. The tool can reach the able microscopes during field work in magnification and resolution of conven- low and middle income countries. They tional microscopes, but only costs $1 in launched a pilot program, mailing parts to make. In addition to its low cost, 60,000 Foldscopes to 130 countries these tools are lightweight and durable. to test the prototypes, mostly on a In fact, the Foldscope can be dropped volunteer basis. The pilot program was from a building and stepped on without funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore breaking. Foldscope can be purchased Foundation and the Spectrum-Stanford as a DIY kit. These microscopes have Clinical and Translational Science been used by over 1 million people for Award from the National Institutes of many applications around the world, Health. particularly in low- and middle- income countries. Some examples of applica- Elements of Openness tions include science education work- Documentation available shops in Peru, pest detection for local agriculture in India, and biodiversity Open process monitoring in India.22, 23, 24 Open data

Images: “File:Aufgebautes Foldscope.jpg” by Sockenpaket is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 11 The academic papers are open access with microscopes with similar resolution and include important design docu- that cost about $2,000. mentation and assembly instructions.25 The tool itself is patented, however, In what ways is this tool accelerat- Foldscope Inc. collaborates with a large ing science, enabling evidence- number of industry, non-profit, and based decision making, or broaden- community organizations.26 Foldscope’s ing participation in science? As “the website has a large number of open pencil of microscopy,” the Foldscope’s access resources including user guides, price and portability broaden participa- tutorials, lesson plans, and workshops. tion and accelerate science by making Additionally, on the Microcosmos plat- a microscope a tool that virtually anyone form, Foldscope owners can collaborate can own and carry around in their day to and share ideas, observations, tutorials, day activities. This is changing how and and information about data collected where microscopy is being done, as well with Foldscopes. as who is taking part. Reaching over 135 countries, the Foldscope is globally What makes the tool low-cost? The breaking down barriers in science edu- cheapest kit is $29.99, in comparison cation, healthcare, and research.

Images: “Foldscope India - A DBT-Prakash Labs initiative” by IndiaBioscience is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

12 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

OpenFlexure At a glance:

Field of application: Laboratory equipment, multidisciplinary Image: OpenFlexure Microscope by the OpenFlexure Year initially developed: Project is licensed CC BY 2016

Description: OpenFlexure 2017, the tool has been co-designed is a 3D printed microscope with high by the University of Bath, STICLab, precision mechanics, whose creation and SMEs in Tanzania. Other contribu- was inspired by the RepRap project. tions have come from other research The tool can use either traditional institutions, non-profits, and the wider microscope objectives or a Raspberry open source community. The tool was Pi camera as the optics lens. The tool funded by a variety of organizations, can be built for a low cost from design including the UK’s Engineering and files available to the public; the assem- Physical Sciences Research Council, bly uses a minimal number of parts. The the University of Cambridge and Bath, tool is also easily modifiable. Achieving The Royal Society, Royal Commission submicron stage precision and resolu- for the Exhibition of 1851, and the tion of a conventional microscope, the MRC Confidence in Concept award. microscope can be used for education OpenFlexure’s tools are used in all or research, and is undergoing trials for parts of the world, with exploration into use in healthcare.28 potential applications such as detect- ing bacteria contamination in water or Website/contact: https://openflexure. diagnosing malaria. org/ Elements of Openness

Analysis: Documentation available

How was the tool developed? Documentation editable Who was and is involved? The idea Open license for OpenFlexure was born when Dr. Richard Bowman at the University of Open process Cambridge was shown a 3D printed microscope and thought “I could print All the hardware and software files more of a microscope than that!”29 The are clearly labelled and found on the development of a fully 3D printable OpenFlexure website. The hardware microscope began then, with the goal to documentation is licensed with the make microscopes more accessible to CERN Open Hardware License. The research institutions and schools in low- software also has an open license so and middle- income countries. Since

13 “The frustration of needing to replicate an entire design to change one tiny little thing… how many times has the taxpayer paid to develop the microscope?” — Dr. Julian Stirling, University of Bath and OpenFlexure Project27

it can also be accessed, modified, and higher quality lens if higher resolution reproduced. Additionally, OpenFlexure’s is needed. For example, the Public forums and community page allow Lab platform hosts a microscope that builders to collaborate “in an open, is partially based on the OpenFlexure searchable way” that makes it easier design but customized for environmen- to resolve problems and share ideas.30 tal monitoring. Because most parts are Contribution guidelines are clearly 3D printed, “if you can build it locally, outlined. you can mend it locally,” avoiding the need for expensive service contracts.31 What makes the tool low-cost? The OpenFlexure accelerates science by cost of parts is estimated at $20 for an reducing financial and technical barriers educational microscope, and $200 for to access high quality microscopes; a research grade version (note, how- OpenFlexure has been used on all ever, that the cost of materials does not continents including Antarctica, and has include the cost of labor). Research even been in low-earth orbit. grade microscopes can cost £30,000 (approximately $39,000 USD).

In what ways is this tool accelerating science, enabling evidence- based decision making, or broadening participation in science? OpenFlexure allows scientists to easily build their own high-performance, low- cost microscopes, differing from other 3D printed microscopes that tend to be complicated to build and have low mechanical stability. As the design is open and modular, users can customize their tools, such as switching to a Image: OpenFlexure Microscope by the OpenFlexure Project is licensed CC BY

14 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

PyCubed At a glance:

Field of application: Aerospace

Year initially developed: 2019

Description: PyCubed is a low cost, DIY CubeSat, a small satellite for low earth orbit. It can transmit radio signals back to earth, such as a personalized Image: Dr. Zac Manchester, all rights message or collected magnetic field reserved, used with permission data.33,34 In the future, the tool could be used to carry sensors for the collection of distributed data on space weather.35 PyCubed integrates complicated-to- tions with National Aeronautics and build hardware to be easy to use, setting Space Administration (NASA) Ames it apart from other DIY CubeSats. These and NASA’s CubeSat ElaNa Launch tools are programmable using Python, Initiative. Due to the extremely small size the fastest growing coding language.36 of KickSat, further launches and devel- Though the tool is still a prototype, opment of the tool were restricted by anyone can purchase parts to make Federal Communications Commission their own. PyCubed’s avionics were first (FCC) regulations. An extension of the used in the KickSat-2 spacecraft launch KickSat project, PyCubed was devel- in early 2019. PyCubed is scheduled oped in the Aeronautics & Astronautics for two additional missions in December department at Stanford University. 2020. Adafruit Industries was a key collabora- tor in its development, helping PyCubed Website/contact: http://pycubed.org adapt their microcontrollers to Python.

PyCubed is used by students and Analysis: researchers, and graduate students contribute to its continued development. How was the tool developed? Dr. Manchester describes how “You get Who was and is involved? The first a different level of engagement [from generation of the PyCubed small satel- students] when the thing you build is lite family, the KickSat, was a CubeSat going into space.”37 Hackathons, Maker that used ultra-small “cracker sized” Faires, and user suggested experiments satellite chips. It was developed at were key in the development of both Cornell University with support from a tools. Kickstarter campaign and collabora-

15 “If satellites were the price of a smartphone, what would it lead to?” — Dr. Zac Manchester, PyCubed32

The PyCubed platform has also been lications for PyCubed are also publicly adapted to an emerging size-class accessible.38 of spacecraft: the PocketQubes. At 5cm3, PocketQubes are considered What makes the tool low-cost? the smallest satellite ever. However, the The tool can be built by purchasing PocketQube currently may not be flown PyCubed parts for about $200 to $300 from the US due to regulatory barriers. (note, however, that the cost of materials does not include the cost of labor). Elements of Openness A typical DIY CubeSat can cost up to $20,000. Non-DIY CubeSats can be Documentation available purchased and launched for between $50,000 to $1,000,000.39 Documentation editable

Open license In what ways is this tool accelerating science, enabling evidence- Open process based decision making, or broadening participation in science? Hardware and software documentation can be easily found and is clearly Most DIY CubeSats built from scratch labeled both on the website and GitHub. have a 60% failure rate. By integrating The software and hardware are licensed complicated electronics and mechani- under the Creative Commons Attribution cal hardware, PyCubed provides an 4.0 International License. Additionally, “off-the-shelf” CubeSat platform which instructions and troubleshooting forums addresses hardware failures and can to support building PyCubed are take two years off of the usual build included in the resource page. The pub- time. The use of Python to control the

16 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

hardware is enabling, as Python is easy The impact of PyCubed has extended to set up and use compared to other outside the field of aerospace. The software. By reducing the technical device was reconfigured to serve as as well as cost barriers to CubeSats, an IoT device for monitoring ammonium PyCubed has expanded participation in concentrations in water; the device space innovation and exploration from won the grand prize at the Keysight government organizations to universi- Technologies’ IoT Innovation Challenge. ties to industry. PyCubed serves as an Max Alvarez Holliday explains how engaging education tool in more than modularity can expand impact, com- 10 university groups, increasing interest menting “If you have the hardware & in space and science. With the goal of tools around, you can use them to ad- carrying sensors in the future, PyCubed dress any problem in front of you.”40 is promising to change how space data is being collected, in particular by expanding the ability to collect distributed, spatial information.

17 Interorbital Systems (IOS) TubeSat Kits At a glance:

Field of application: Aerospace

Year initially developed: 2009

Description: The TubeSat is the lowest cost professional grade Small- Sat. Unlike a traditional CubeSat, the TubeSat 1.0 had a tubular hexadecagon shape and TubeSat 2.0 has an icosagon Image: Interorbital Systems, all rights shape. The tool can be purchased as reserved, used with permission a DIY kit that comes with all circuits and components pre-soldered, making it easy to assemble. TubeSat also based on customer feedback from the receives many requests and provides a original version, and is more accessible, great deal of support for customization. easier to use, customizable, lighter, and TubeSats, like CubeSats, can be used stronger than TubeSat 1.0. IOS has for Low Earth Orbit space exploration, received funding through commercial experiments, spacecraft design lessons, sales and awards such as the National the transmission of personal messages, Aeronautics and Space Administration monitoring migrating animals, and many (NASA) Small Business Innovation other applications. IOS also provides a Research award.42 The tool is used for CubeSat 2.0 kit. numerous applications and by “customers ranging from students through Website/contact: https://www.interor- professionals,” including individuals, bital.com/Cubesat%20Kits small labs and universities, NASA and research organizations, private entities, musicians and artists, advertising com- Analysis: panies, and a cluster of small countries’ space programs.43 How was the tool developed? Who was and is involved? The concept of Elements of Openness TubeSat was developed by two satellite scientists at Interorbital Systems (IOS). When the kit is purchased, the cus- They were inspired to create a satel- tomer receives all the necessary parts lite kit that differed from a traditional and instructions to build the spacecraft. CubeSat and that could populate IOS’ Hardware and software files are not rocket launches. TubeSat 2.0, the most publically available, however, custom- recent version of the tool, was designed ers can have access to all design files,

18 “We wanted to give satellite-makers an affordable space-rideshare opportunity that, before the emergence of our kit-and- launch program, was wildly expensive and extremely hard to find.” — Randa Milliron, Interorbital Systems41

schematics, and circuit details on TubeSat’s low cost has made it “an request. They are free to modify it for entry point for people to begin to do their use as long as the core files are not space science”.46 In addition to its low distributed. The tool does not have an cost, the use of pre-soldered circuit open hardware license. When TubeSat boards and the Arduino coding platform, 1.0 was developed, IOS provided a TubeSat reduces technical barriers to forum for customers to ask questions building larger and more complex satel- and share ideas. Interorbital is creating lites. By providing access to the design a similar forum for TubeSat 2.0 and is files, builders and makers of the kit can considering adding an open satellite kit learn the science behind the device, to its STEM-product line in the future.44 customize the tool to their own needs, and thereby build “not only a satellite, What makes the tool low-cost? The but also a more robust and better-edu- TubeSat 2.0 is the lowest-cost profes- cated Small-Sat community.” sional full-scale CubeSat Small-Sat kit. It costs $6,200 for a kit and $12,400 The modular, customizable rockets for a kit with launch included. Costs used to launch TubeSats decrease for typical CubeSats and launches can the cost of launch services, making it be $50,000 to $1,000,000.45 When more financially feasible to launch what completed, these kits will fly on IOS’s IOS calls ‘the ultimate STEM tool.’ The NEPTUNE Rocket – the core launch first TubeSat was built and launched vehicle in the world’s least expensive by a group of middle-schoolers in rural rocket and spacelaunch service. Brazil. They launched their TubeSat on an H2 rocket in Japan and sent out In what ways is this tool accelerat- a message of peace. It was the first ing science, enabling evidence- TubeSat in orbit. based decision making, or broadening participation in science?

19 Quori At a glance:

Field of application: Robotics, com- puter science, social sciences

Year initially developed: 2015

Description: Quori is an innovative, affordable, socially interactive robot platform for enabling non-contact human- robot interaction (HRI) research in both in-lab and field experimental settings. Quori’s human-like, modular features allow for the customization of the hardware and its software is capable of programming various social behaviors. Image: Andrew Matia, all rights This robot can be used to study topics reserved, used with permission such as nonverbal communication, social robots for math education, mobility coaching for older adults, and infectious disease treatment. Quori will be used in level software packages that provide ten different academic research groups interoperable social behavior APIs and and is currently in the prototype stage of developer tools. The first recognizable development. Quori was finished in 2018 and had its debut at the Philadelphia Museum Website/contact: http://www.quori.org/ of Art in the fall of 2019. The National Science Foundation supports this work under Grant No. CNS-1513275 and Analysis: CNS-1513108.

How was the tool developed? Who Elements of Openness was and is involved? The Quori project began in 2015 as a collabora- Documentation available tive effort between research teams at the University of Pennsylvania and the Open process University of Southern California. The research teams surveyed experts in The tool was designed with the partici- the HRI and computing field as well as pation of the HRI community in impor- presented at workshops to get feed- tant design decisions, such as identify- back from the research community. The ing important hardware functionalities teams also worked with their industry and lowering the cost. Academic design partner, Semio, to integrate high- papers are made publically available.48

20 “[Quori] prevents researchers from reinventing the wheel, when they don’t have to.” — Andrew Specian, Quori47

Quori does not have an open hardware is only used once or having to buy an certification or license, however, some expensive system.”49 Quori is saving HRI of its software has an open license and researchers time and money by using is in a repository. low-cost parts and a robust design that allows anyone to customize the robot What makes the tool low-cost? The with a screwdriver. By removing these materials cost for the Quori robot are barriers to advanced HRI research, approximately $5,000. Note, however, Quori permits algorithm testing and data that the cost of materials does not collection for the HRI field to be done at include the cost of labor. The parts are a statistically significant level. Quori also modular, so the robots can be custom- provides a standard platform and tool for ized affordably. Other HRI robots on the HRI community, so that results can the market such as Nao or Pepper can be more accurately compared between cost up to $18,000 and are difficult to different research groups. Additionally, customize.49 Quori is one of the first robots that is “neither generic nor has an intended In what ways is this tool accelerat- gender identity”, which can help reduce ing science, enabling evidence- gender bias for researchers investigat- based decision making, or broadening the jobs and roles of robots in the ing participation in science? Current world.50, 51 researchers studying HRI have to either spend time “designing a niche tool that

21 Wearable Symptom devices, the UCSD’s wearable symptom Tracker tracker is ultra-low powered, compact, disposable, and collects data in real At a glance: time. The data is sent to a smartphone or smart watch for monitoring. Though Field of application: Sensors, health, the tool is still a prototype, the team of wearables researchers plans to have the device fully developed by 2021. Year initially developed: 2020 Website/contact: http://efficiency. Description: The University of ucsd.edu/ California San Diego (UCSD) is developing a low-cost wearable device that can track an individual’s temperature Analysis: and respiration metrics, which can How was the tool developed? Who detect fever, shortness of breath, and was and is involved? The tool was coughing. The purpose for this device developed by Dr. Patrick Mercier at is to help people who are at high risk of UCSD. His lab studies low powered COVID-19 self-identify their symptoms, techniques that do not require batteries, in addition to aiding those who are in- such as wifi, bluetooth, and magnetic fected monitor their recovery and health fields. In fact, Dr. Mercier holds the needs. The tool can be used to monitor world record for the lowest powered other viral infectious diseases as well. temperature sensor in the world, requir- Unlike other temperature and respiration ing 100,000x less power than a basic

22 digital watch. After relentless news In what ways is this tool accelerat- headlines about COVID-19 testing ing science, enabling evidence- shortages, Dr. Mercier was inspired based decision making, or broaden- to innovate “auxiliary ways to check for ing participation in science? symptoms” by combining his low powered temperature sensor with a device By allowing people to monitor their to monitor breathing. Since receiving own symptoms, the wearable symptom funding for the project from the National tracker changes how infectious diseases Science Foundation (NSF) Rapid “COVID-19 and beyond” can be moni- Research Response Grant, the lab tored and provides individuals with data has developed prototypes of individual to understand their personal health.53 components and is working to integrate The researchers intended the low cost them.52 to make the device accessible to those in limited resource settings and allow for Elements of Openness the widespread monitoring of viral infec- tions. With large quantities of data on The tool does not use open practices infection rate from the device, this could or have an open hardware license. improve epidemiology research. The However, the developers are interested success of the device is promising to in building capacity for users to volun- enable broader teer their anonymous data to be used in adoption of battery-less . epidemiological research on infection wearable technologies rates.

What makes the tool low-cost? The tool will cost $0.10 per unit to manufac- ture, as the device does not require batteries. Antigen testing, which similarly provides fast (50 min) feedback, costs $100.

23 Microplate Flange issues, avoids having to recreate or Replacement purchase expensive compounds, and decreases downtime.56 This tool is one At a glance: example among a set of very basic laboratory tools that can be 3D printed and Field of application: Biotechnology, have a huge impact on efficiency. The medical, laboratory equipment Microplate Flange Replacement can be made using the publicly available design Year initially developed: 2014 files found on the National Institute of Health (NIH)’s 3D Printing Exchange. Description: The Microplate Flange Replacement is a 3D printed replace- Website/contact: https://3dprint.nih. ment rim for a microplate. Hundreds of gov/discover/3dpx-000368 microplates are analyzed in a robotics system, in a technique called high- Analysis: throughput screening (HTS), which is How was the tool developed? used in medical and pharmaceutical Who was and is involved? The research to discover drugs and disease tools were developed at, and funded treatment research. The microplates are by, the National Center for Advancing picked up by the robots at the flange, to Translational Science (NCATS). Flange be transported to the experiment site. breakage had been a problem for years; If the flange on the microplates breaks, with access to 3D printing, engineers then the whole microplate holding the in the High-Throughput Screening lab experiment and the expensive com- invented a replacement flange using 3D pounds it contains is discarded.55 With printing within a few hours. Although the Microplate Flange Replacement, mi- this tool is specifically used by research- croplates can be repaired. This reduces ers conducting HTS, both general and experimental failure due to mechanical niche 3D printed laboratory solutions have been invented such as 3D printed gel electropho-

Image: Microplate Flage Replacement by Eric Jones is licensed CC BY NC.

24 “[It’s] a minor piece that’s very easy to overlook, but the entire system is contingent upon that working.” — Sam Michael, NCATS54

resis combs, pipette holders, and spider Flange Replacement saves money that holders.57 The NIH 3D Print Exchange would be lost due to having to prepare has been a key community involved new plates.58 in promoting 3D printed laboratory solutions. In what ways is this tool accelerating science, enabling evidence- Elements of Openness based decision making, or broadening participation in science? Documentation available The Microplate Flange Replacement is accelerating medical and pharmaceuti- Documentation editable cal research by improving workflow Open license and reducing failure costs of HTS. This enables projects such as discovering The documentation for 3D prototyping methods for treating rare diseases, and modeling can be downloaded from which is often underfunded or lacks the NIH 3D Print Exchange. The tool resources, or running preclinical trials has a Creative Commons Attribution- on determining drug dosage. This tool NonCommercial License. also demonstrates how low-cost and open source tools can be customized What makes the tool low-cost? The and even produced on-demand to solve compounds in the microplate library “everyday” science problems and have a at NCATS cost a total of $3 million to lasting impact. produce and purchase. The Microplate

25 Sofar Ocean: Trident temperature. All data collected by these and Spotter sensors is shared using an API and used to model and predict ocean and At a glance: global climate. Trident is an underwater drone that can be used to visualize the Field of application: Sensors, marine ocean floor, monitor water pollution, sciences identify species, and much more. Both tools can be purchased as pre-built, full Year initially developed: Trident, products; an older version of Trident can originally known as OpenRov, was also be made using publicly available developed in 2012. Spoondrift’s Spotter design files. was developed in 2016. In 2019, the two organizations merged and became Website/contact: https://www.sofar- Sofar Ocean. ocean.com/

Description: Sofar Ocean is an organization with a mission to increase Analysis: scientific knowledge and exploration of How was the tool developed? Who the ocean, through affordable and easy was and is involved? Spotter was to use tools. Spotter is a real-time, solar developed by Spoondrift, a Bay Area powered weather sensor for marine start-up, in 2016. The development of environments, e.g. wind, wave, and the tool was funded by the Advanced

Image: Bristol openrov.jpg by the Octopus Foundation is licensed CC BY

26 Research Projects Agency - Energy, US advanced skills to assemble.59 A second Department of Energy. Kickstarter campaign was launched with the name Trident with the ability Originally known as OpenRov, Trident to purchase the tool as a pre-built was developed to search for treasure product.60 in a cave near its founder’s home. Though no treasure was found, the The two organizations merged to form original project quickly attracted an Sofar in 2019 due to their same interest online community of contributors from in open data and tools for the accelera- over 50 countries who were interested tion of ocean research. Both Trident and in developing the tool. The original Spotter are currently used by scientists, Kickstarter campaign was launched engineers, and other ocean profession- as the OpenRov DIY kit, targeted to als. Trident is also targeted for educa- people with a background in making tion and hobbyists. and product development, as it required

Elements of Openness Trident: Spotter:

Documentation available Open data

Documentation editable

Open license

Open process

Open data

The software and hardware files of of OpenRov partnered with the National Trident’s older version, OpenRov, Geographic Society to create Open are available on GitHub. The files are Explorer, an open platform for explorers clearly labelled and are licensed under of all levels to share their expeditions via the Creative Commons Attribution digital storytelling. However, the platform Noncommercial Share Alike license. is no longer active. Documentation for the most recent versions of Trident are not easily available. Spotter’s hardware and software files On the OpenRov forum, tips and discus- are not available to the public, however, sions on problem solving is available to all the data collected from Spotter is the public. Additionally, the co-founders available to anyone with a Sofar Ocean

27 account. Additionally, tutorials and models used by the National Oceanic support for tool usage can be found on and Atmospheric Administration Sofar Ocean’s community page. (NOAA) (see figure 2 on webpage). This allows for stronger evidence-based What makes the tool low-cost? decision making regarding high energy The tools are designed for affordability. storms. Since the data platform is open, Trident costs $1,695 and Spotter costs it increases public knowledge and inter- $4,900, which are low prices for their est in the ocean. niche functionality. The Trident’s open source development In what ways is this tool accelerat- shows how both amateurs and profes- ing science, enabling evidence- sionals can be involved in bringing a based decision making, or broad- scientific tool to life. The affordability ening participation in science? and strong community network have As a low-cost and low-maintenance inspired professionals and citizen device, Spotter is an accessible marine scientist communities alike to explore, sensor. As a result, Sofar Ocean has monitor, and conduct research on the the largest network of privately owned ocean. Some examples of Trident’s use marine sensors, with almost 200 sen- in science include monitoring non- sors in the network. Additionally, Sofar native fish migration in Lake Michigan ocean has created its own data-driven and at various high schools for STEM modeling technique, which has proven education. to reduce wave forecast errors up to 50% in comparison to the statistical

28 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

PocketLab Analysis: At a glance: How was the tool developed? Who was and is involved? The idea for Field of application: Education, PocketLab began at Stanford University, multidisciplinary by a graduate student inspired to provide an alternative to high-cost, difficult Year initially developed: 2013 to use STEM sensors as well as enable open science exploration. In the proto- Description: PocketLabs are small, type stage, the sensors were tested by portable, and durable sensors for over 100 middle school, high school, physics, weather, and air quality data and university teachers as well as by collection. Designed to support STEM hobbyists, homeschoolers, and makers. education for all ages, PocketLab sen- The PocketLab project received support sors are low-cost, easy to use, and can and funding from its Kickstarter cam- be purchased as pre-built, complete paign, the National Science Foundation products. These include PocketLab (NSF) Small Business Innovator Award Voyager, PocketLab Air, PocketLab as well as prizes from the Yale School Weather and PocketLab Thermo. With of Management Education Leadership the click of one button, the data col- Conference and Stanford BASES. lected from the wireless sensors can be live-streamed using Notebook, the Elements of Openness PocketLab software, where students can analyze the data by making graphs, Open data videos, lab reports, and compare to PocketLab has various open platforms private or publicly available data. The and communities that are publicly software also allows educators to track available. On the website, anyone can students progress and create custom- access different lesson plans and ized lessons and activities. lab activities as well as user guides and tutorials. PocketLab also has a Website/contact: https://www.thep- popular ScIC “Science is Cool” virtual ocketlab.com/ unconference and rapidly-growing Facebook community, where thousands of educators and industry partners can

29 “He was frustrated because he couldn’t do simple measurements for less than $1000.” — Dave Bakker, PocketLab61

share ideas, connect, and collabo- ground. The openness of the platforms rate. Additionally, anyone can create and education material developed by a PocketLab Notebook account in the PocketLab and PocketLab users has PocketLab app, where lab reports, also cultivated a large community of activities, data, and resources can be educators, increasing collaboration in openly shared and accessed. education and exploratory science.

What makes the tool low-cost? Because PocketLab encourages PocketLab devices range from $100 “open ended exploration,” there is no to $300. The devices have up to 12 limit to how they can be used.63 They sensors within them, many of these have been used for lab activities such sensors would individually cost $2000 as attaching a sensor to a wheel to to $3000.62 The sensors produce high understand the physics concepts of re- quality data. Notebook Lite is free. sistance, inertia, and rotational motion. Notebook Pro is $150/year. The sensors are also used in citizen science projects such as studying local In what ways is this tool accelerat- air quality. ing science, enabling evidence- based decision making, or broadening participation in science? PocketLab increases accessibility to hands-on and experimental STEM learning activities for students of all ages due to its low cost and ease of use. PocketLab has reached over 250,000 students in the US alone and is used in 60 different countries, including Antarctica. PocketLab’s ease of use has made teaching science more accessible to teachers without a technical back-

30 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

Purple Air Analysis: At a glance: How was the tool developed? Who was and is involved? The idea Field of application: Sensors, envi- for Purple Air started when the tool ronmental science, health developer noticed large amounts of dust coming from the gravel mine near his Year initially developed: 2015 house in Utah. He believed that the government air quality sensors were unable Description: Purple Air is a low-cost to detect the mine dust, so he decided air quality sensor that measures particu- to invent his own. After designing a late matter pollution (PM), such as dust laser particle counter particulate matter and smoke. The sensor only requires sensor and using it in his backyard, he wifi and a power outlet, and the data gave out 80 sensors to people in the is uploaded in real-time to a map that region for free. This sparked even more can be viewed on the website. From its interest in the sensor, which conse- start in 2015 - 2018, the network has ex- quently became commercially available. panded to over 3,000 sensors allowing The tool is currently used by individuals, individuals across the globe to crowd- local government, industry, and schools/ source air quality data. The tool can be universities. purchased on the website.

Website/contact: https://www.purpleair.com/

31 Elements of Openness own sensors, broadening who is able to collect air quality data. Purple Air and Open data other low-cost sensors allow communities to better understand air quality The public can access the data col- issues, demonstrate environmental in- lected on the map, download the data, equality, and investigate health impacts. and share data in the network. Thorough For example, the Airkeepers program is installation and sensor registration working with local communities to docu- instructions can be found on the website ment air pollution issues in Charlotte’s as well. West End. The map of sensor data allows people from around the globe What makes the tool low-cost? to make evidenced-based decisions The tool prices range from $179 to regarding the real-time air quality in their $259. The sensor produces data that is location. For example, Purple Air sen- highly correlated to professional-grade sors are being widely used in regions EPA sensors which can cost between impacted by massive wildfires in recent $15,000 to $50,000. Purple Air – and years, guiding individual choices and low-cost air quality sensors in general demonstrating community-level risk. – are being evaluated for their potential Finally, low-cost sensors, including use as complementary to professional- Purple Air, also allow scientists to better grade EPA sensors.64 understand the spatial and temporal variability of air quality. For example, In what ways is this tool accelerat- individuals in the National Aeronautics ing science, enabling evidence- and Space Administration (NASA)’s based decision making, or broad- Air Quality Citizen Science project use ening participation in science? Purple Air Sensors to collect air quality Normally, air quality is monitored by data to validate satellite data collected government-owned sensors, however, by NASA scientists. there are typically only a few air quality sensors in a city. This may not give a comprehensive reading of a region’s air quality. The low cost and high functionality of Purple Air allows individuals and community groups to purchase their

32 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

AudioMoth Analysis: At a glance: How was the tool developed? Who was and is involved? The idea for Field of application: Sensors, con- AudioMoth was inspired by a citizen servation, ecology science project that used smartphones to record and determine whether or not Year initially developed: 2017 a rare cicada insect had gone extinct. The use of phones had the unintended “We started as open source be- effect of participants exploring off the cause… we wanted to get as many path to collect data, disturbing forest [devices] into the field as possible.” habitats.66 The Open Acoustic Devices — Dr. Andrew Hill, Open Acoustic research group, a collaboration between Devices65 University of Southampton and Oxford University, created AudioMoth to solve Description: AudioMoth is a low-cost this problem. Unlike a smartphone, this audio receiver that can be placed in device could be left in the field over a the open environment for biodiversity period of time. research. Named after the species with the most sensitive hearing, AudioMoth Upon hearing about the project, can detect sounds from audible to ecologists and biodiversity researchers ultrasonic frequencies. The tool is expressed interest in AudioMoth and low-cost, small and low-powered so it formed a community. The AudioMoth can be used in large-scale, long-term team collaborated with this community deployments to detect certain acoustic in the development of the device, using events, such as the song of a species of a user-centered approach. interest. AudioMoth is principally used to monitor wildlife and record incidents of human exploitation of nature, such as monitoring the relationship between illegal activities and jaguar and puma populations in unprotected Mexican forests. The tool can be purchased or made individually using the publicly available design files.

Website/contact: https:// www.openacousticdevices. info/

Image: Dr. Andrew Hill, all rights reserved, used with permission.

33 The original research was funded by key to driving down AudioMoth’s price the Engineering and Physical Sciences and scaling the business. Research Council and the Natural Environmental Research Council in the In what ways is this tool ac- UK.67 Open Acoustic Devices currently celerating science, enabling operates as a business. Though others evidence-based decision making, have reproduced the tool, AudioMoth or broadening participation in sci- tries to remain a step ahead of com- ence? AudioMoth is a more energy petition in the development of acoustic efficient device than current acoustic devices while further advancing con- monitors, which have too short a battery servation technologies. Due to its low life. This allows for useful data to be cost, the tool has been used in a variety collected over a longer period of time. of unexpected applications outside of Additionally, the size and durability of conservation. For example, the tool is the device makes it easy to transport used to study the health risks associated over long distances and the plan to add with noise pollution that is inaudible to wireless connectivity to the device will humans. permit data collection in more remote areas. The tool is low-cost, making it Elements of Openness more financially accessible to broad audiences. Because of the tool’s ac- Documentation available cessibility, it has been used to conduct impactful conservation research around Documentation editable the world, even leading to the discovery Open license of new species.69 AudioMoth hopes to further expand into underwater acoustic Open process monitoring. All software and hardware documentation can be found, clearly labeled in the resource section of the webpage. The hardware is licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution license. The software is also licensed so it can be accessed, modified, and reproduced. The webpage also has additional publically available user support materials, such as user guides, help forums, and publications.

What makes the tool low-cost? The device can be purchased for about $70. Acoustic recording devices can cost up to $5000.68 CircuitHub and GroupGets, companies which allow for the small Image: Dr. Andrew Hill, all rights re- scale production of open devices, were served, used with permission.

34 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

Safecast - bGeigie At a glance:

Field of application: Sensors, environmental, health

Year initially developed: 2011

Description: Safecast is a non-profit organization that was founded as a response to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster. The organization developed various low- cost radiation sensors, including the portable bGeigie. This device is easily attached to a car, bike, or another mode of transportation, where it can collect radiation and GPS location data in real time. In 2012, the organization expanded their tools to low-cost air quality devices for monitoring particulate matter. The Image: bGeigie nano by Safecast is data collected using Safecast’s devices licensed CC BY NC. by a global community of volunteers is uploaded to the Safecast dataset, where those accessible to the public produced anyone can access and download the low-quality data. Through communica- data or easily visualize the radiation tion over social media and open source risk levels on a map. The tool can be tools, the idea for bGeigie and it’s open purchased as a DIY kit, a full product, data platform was born. The device itself as well as made by individuals using the was designed at the Tokyo Hackerspace publicly available design files. through volunteer-based hackathons. A Kickstarter campaign was launched Website/contact: https://safecast.org/ to crowdfund the project. In addition, devices/bgeigie-nano/ Safecast was funded by the Knight Foundation and some smaller grants.70 Though the tool was originally devel- Analysis: oped for people of Fukushima after the nuclear accident, Safecast devices are How was the tool developed? used globally by citizen scientists as well Who was and is involved? After the as at larger institutions. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster, a group of entrepreneurs, activists, and innovators noticed a lack of supplies for Geiger counters and that

35 Elements of Openness how to use and and create an open API for for data collected by devices can be Documentation available easily found on the website. All the data uploaded to the Safecast dataset can Documentation editable be downloaded and used by anyone, Open license with no licensing requirement.

Open process What makes the tool low-cost? Open data The DIY kit costs $600 and the fully assembled device is $1,500. This is low The hardware and software documenta- cost for a device with the accuracy and tion can be publicly accessed on the GPS logging features of the radiation Safecast website. The hardware is free sensor. to “open, manipulate, hack, break, and improve” under a Creative Commons In what ways is this tool accelerating Attribution Share Alike license. The science, enabling evidence-based software is licensed to be accessed, decision making, or broadening modified and reproduced. Furthermore, participation in science? Safecast the page has additional links to discus- is an initiative where communities have sion groups and an owner user group been at the center of each part of the list, where users can ask for help and process, from design to data collection. receive updates about the device. The Instead of relying on the government list of tasks needed to be accomplished to collect data and take action, with in device development are also listed bGeigie, anyone can collect and view on the volunteer page, with detailed “mobile” radiation data, empowering instructions on how people can partici- individuals to assess their own envi- pate and how their contribution will be ronmental safety and make informed licensed. The Safecast iOS application decisions. As a result, the strong global can be downloaded by anyone, giving community fostered by Safecast has open access to nearby radiation data as created the largest radiation dataset in well as access to data from the US EPA the world. and other institutions. Instructions on

36 37 38 Observations 2

The review of case studies and our the tools presented here developed in conversations with tool creators led to an academic setting (e.g. OpenFlexure, many observations about “the state of RepRap, AudioMoth), and others devel- the field” for low-cost and open tools oped in makerspaces (e.g. MakerBot), for science. These observations provide by a non-governmental organization (e.g. insight on tool development and use, the Safecast), by a for-profit company (e.g. challenges and opportunities for low- TubeSat), by individuals (e.g. Purple cost and open tools, and the potential Air), and some through a combination for low-cost and open tools to acceler- (e.g. Safecast, Arduino). ate science and broaden participation. Observation 2. Federal funding Observation 1. Low-cost tools en- plays an important role in tool able diverse scientists (professional development. and not) to conduct research across a wide range of domains. Although we did not gather comprehensive information on funding sources for The tools profiled here span scientific all tools included here, it is clear that disciplines, from theoretical physics federal funding is important. Of the 16 to human-robot interaction research. tools highlighted here, eight had funding They have a huge variety of uses, from sources that included US federal agen- DIY creativity and entrepreneurship, to cies, including the National Aeronautics education and learning (e.g. PocketLab), and Space Administration (NASA), the to lab research (e.g. OpenFlexure) and National Institute of Health (NIH), the large scale data collection (e.g. Purple National Science Foundation (NSF), Air and Safecast). They are used by in- and the Department of Energy (DOE). dividuals, by communities, and by global Federal grant programs providing fund- networks; they are developed and used ing included the NASA Small Business by people with a variety of backgrounds Innovation Research award (TubeSat) and educational experiences. The and the NSF Small Business Innovator context for initial development of these award (PocketLab). Another three tools varies greatly as well, with most of were funded by government agencies

39 Image: Dr. Adrian Bowyer, all rights reserved, used with permission abroad (e.g. from the UK Engineering example, produced 700,000 boards and Physical Sciences Council). Other by 2014 and has catalyzed countless significant funding sources include ven- projects and, arguably, the maker move- ture capital, foundation grants, private ment itself. The RepRap 3D printer donors, prizes and challenges, and self- inspired MakerBot and OpenFlexure, funding. Interestingly, at least five tools motivating the creation of more tools (e.g. PocketLab, Safecast, OpenRov/ and ideas in the broader movement. Trident, and KickSat, the PyCubed pre- These tools are foundational and have decessor) generated revenue via crowd- had extraordinary impact within certain funding on Kickstarter; for these tools, disciplines and communities. the use of Kickstarter likely contributed to the twin goals of generating support However, our review of these tools and and developing community. the broader field of low-cost and open tools has highlighted that there are a Observation 3. The impact of low- huge variety of smaller-scale low-cost cost tools is not incremental. tools developed and used in lower num- bers. For example, while AudioMoth A few of the tools profiled here have a had manufactured approximately 4,000 broad user base and demonstrate the devices by 2019), it has contributed potential for low-cost tools to revolution- to scientific discoveries including the ize science by allowing new solutions to discovery of new animal species. These scale. The Arduino microcontroller, for tools have had a large impact directly in specific research, hobbyist, or other communities (e.g. Trident and Spotter),

40 Six of the tools profiled here use Arduino in some way, and six are 3D printed or contain 3D printed parts, enabled by 3D printers like RepRap and MakerBot.

and have made unique contributions to Many tool creators are surprised in the scientific practices. ways in which their tool is ultimately used; tools not designed to be “building Observation 4. “Building block” block” tools end up serving as a basis, tools enable other tools. or inspiration, for other creative uses. PyCubed, for example, was used to Low-cost and open tools are uniquely monitor the health of yeast and for water suited to enable innovation in other quality monitoring, among other unex- tools. Open tools, in particular, provide pected projects. AudioMoth, designed opportunities to create modifications for cicada research, was later used to and derivatives to support customiza- discover a new species of bush cricket, tion. Some foundational tools, like the and for noise pollution and underwater Arduino (and other microcontrollers) monitoring. and 3D printers, provide the “building blocks” for countless new tools. Observation 5. Modularity and OpenFlexure was originally designed to customization are key features for be 3D printed by RepRap 3D printers.71 low-cost and open tools. This enabling is additive; OpenFlexure itself inspired other microscope designs, For some tools, emphasizing modularity such as the ones included in Public Lab was the key to making the use of tools kits. Although bespoke tools do exist, for science less technically tedious; the prevalence of reusable solutions is Quori and AudioMoth emphasize an important accelerator for research. modularity and customization to reduce technical barriers but allow for custom- Some proprietary tools act as “building ized use. “Researchers were frustrated blocks” as well. The Plantower sensor is by spending the time to design a niche a component of many of the most popu- tool that is only used once, or having to lar low-cost air quality sensors, includ- buy an expensive system to meet their ing Purple Air and PocketLab. specific needs… [Quori] prevents them from reinventing the wheel when they don’t have to. The design is made so it

41 “Because of the cost and the size, anyone can do science.” — Dr. Andrew Hill, Open Acoustic Devices75

is easy to use and robust. You can use multiple orders of magnitude – between a screwdriver to take it apart.”72 As with low-cost tools and the tools alternatively the prevalence of “building block” tools, used. Dr. Adrian Bowyer, creator of modular and reusable components allow the RepRap 3D printer, noted that at for a wide range of tools to be designed the time of its invention in 2007, the quickly, and enable a level of custom- only available 3D printers were more ization that supports evolving scientific than $40,000; the RepRap was a few research needs.

Observation 6. “Low-cost” tools are significantly lower cost than those traditionally used.

The tools profiled here are low-cost relative to traditional tools; they range in cost from less than $50 (e.g. Foldscope, Plantower, Arduino) to multiple thousands (e.g. TubeSat, Quori). Although these tools were chosen due to their low cost, the extent of their cost difference is extraordinary (Appendix A). These tools for science are not exactly the same or equivalent to traditional, more expensive alternatives, and sometimes, the cited cost does not include the labor needed to build or assemble the tool; however, the difference in cost is often an order of magnitude – or Image: The OpenFlexure Project, licensed CC BY

42 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

Image: “Creator of the Foldscope” by NIH-NCATS is marked with CC PDM 1.0 hundred dollars to build.73 Other tools 3D designs), and links between tools decrease costs to a significant degree. and communities appear to be a central For example, the 3D printed microflange feature of business models. For ex- plate prevents approximately $3 million ample, PocketLab has filled a need for a in lost samples.74 Although more expen- community of educators that use hands- sive but still low-cost solutions do exist, on science tools in the classroom.76 the availability of tools at this price point For tools including Arduino, Makerbot, suggests tremendous potential for low- Trident, and Safecast, the commu- cost tools to democratize research by nity was key in both the development enabling a far greater range of scientists and use of final products. Some tool and innovators to contribute. creators cited their communities as essential to their business model, as their Observation 7. Many tools thrive contributions allowed them to innovate on community, and communities faster and stay one step ahead of any coalesce around tools. competition (e.g. AudioMoth, PyCubed). These communities are also part of the Many tools offer not just a product, but reason why “building block” tools and also access to a broad community of modular approaches to development are tool designers and users. Across the important: there are engaged audiences board, tool creators invest in cultivat- ready to test and use these creatively. ing community; this takes many forms, including online forums and other Other tools, such as Arduino, Trident, methods for sharing how individu- and Safecast, have cultivated strong als interact with tools. Many tools are platform-level user communities, and a known for their platform (e.g. MakerBot significant presence in broader com- is known for Thingiverse, its platform of munities such as the maker movement

43 “It’s quite difficult to make this easy.” — Dave Bakker, PocketLab81

and citizen and community science. For to understand local air quality, health, example, Public Lab brings together and exposure. tools created and used within a community of people committed to environ- “Most people want to buy a mental justice and community science. thing, they don’t want to make These communities share expertise and it… the biggest thing [for open multiply impact for advancing scientific discovery and broadening participation. hardware] is moving from something you can make to Observation 8. Low-cost and open something you can buy.” — tools cause us to rethink expertise; Dr. Julian Stirling, University at the same time, tool creators of Bath and OpenFlexure struggle to make their tools techni- Project79 cally accessible to broad audiences. However, the extent to which the user All of the tools profiled here broaden base is broadened varies greatly. Open who is able to design, create, and use tools in particular are “very focused tools for science. For example, al- on people who have the know-how.”80 though previously “government and the Many tools (e.g. OpenFlexure, RepRap, Department of Defense are the ones PyCubed) use a do-it-yourself (DIY) flying and innovating satellites,” with approach; they require some level of PyCubed, “you can be up and running in technical expertise to build, and a time minutes.”77, 78 PocketLab allows teachers commitment for climbing the hardware and students to use the types of sensors learning curve. A common barrier for traditionally reserved for professionals, tool developers is creating a tool that is and Purple Air does the same for com- accessible not just to other expert users munity members and individuals wanting or those with technical skills, but to broad audiences.

44 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

Image: “US-LS Science Lab” by Kentucky Country Day is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

Despite this, the collection of tools (by definition) occupy an exclusive mar- included here demonstrate that low- ket niche, demand is often uncertain. cost and open tools can be designed In some cases, minimum quantity batch for, and accessed by, a variety of users. manufacturing is supported by crowd- Some tools are sold in the form of a kit funding.82 Other tool creators (e.g. for users to assemble (e.g. TubeSat). RepRap) left commercial production More and more tools – including open entirely to external groups. Tool creators tools – are available “off the shelf” and who begin with small-scale production come with the “unboxing experience” of may soon find themselves in an in- a ready-to-use tool that many users seek between stage, with production needs out. Examples of this include Arduino, higher than what can be accomplished which – in addition to emphasizing open on their own, but not large enough to practices in their business model – provide users with an experience very similar to that of many proprietary tools. More work is needed to explore how off-the-shelf tools broaden participation beyond those that require more technical expertise.

Observation 9. Scaling tools is a key barrier.

Low-cost tools, and particularly open tools, challenge traditional production practices. Because open tools do not

45 Adafruit Industries

Adafruit Industries was founded by Limor Fried, also known as Ladyada, who started making and selling her own DIY electronics kits as a student at MIT. Since, the company has grown to be one of the largest and most influential open hardware communities, without ever accepting funding from venture capital. Adafruit’s platform contains thousands of tutorials and DIY projects and has about 14 million website views with over 2 million new visitors per month. The company, which is a certified Minority and Women- owned Business, has over 100 open source products, ranging from wearable fashion electronics to high speed microchips. Image: 2016_Limor_PnP_ Machine_02 by Adafruit Industries is licensed CC BY NC SA.

accommodate standard production that results in something more fully methods. For example, the creator of developed and broadly useful.83 Purple Air was manufacturing sensors in his house until he could no longer keep Observation 10. “Openness” exists up with production; the AudioMoth team on a spectrum. struggled to find a manufacturer that could produce a small number of tools Current labeling of tools as “open at a reasonable cost. The MakerBot hardware” or “open source hardware” team even relied on volunteers to fill may lead to a general understanding orders for the Cupcake CNC while of openness as binary; either a tool they navigated this in-between stage. is open, or it’s not. The case stud- Companies such as GroupGets and ies presented here demonstrate that CircuitHub have emerged to support openness exists on a spectrum, and small batch manufacturing and help that tool developers often choose to communities like AudioMoth meet their demonstrate openness in inconsistent needs. In many cases (e.g. PyCubed), ways (as also reported by researchers external communities (like Adafruit like Bonvoisin et al., 2017).85 These Industries, described in text box) pro- tools also show a range in openness in vided essential support and know-how both process and product. Some tools, for navigating issues related to scaling. such as OpenFlexure and RepRap, Similarly, there tends to be a funding demonstrate a high level of openness gap between the creation of a new tool by including documentation and clearly and the next stage of its development marking licenses that allow others to

46 “All of this would not be possible without companies like Adafruit.” — Max Alvarez Holliday, PyCubed84

“study, modify, make and sell” the tools. example, Purple Air air sensors make Others demonstrate the intention to be their data publicly available. Some tools open through providing the necessary use open practices but contain propri- documentation, but have limited acces- etary parts. Other tools began as fully sibility or ease of use. Others emphasize open but transitioned, at least partially, the openness of the data platform in to a proprietary business model (e.g. tool materials (e.g. Safecast), while still MakerBot). In still other cases, some others provide a data platform limited tools appear to be fully proprietary (e.g. by membership (e.g. Spotter). In some Plantower), with no indication of open cases, tools not generally perceived as practices. open contain elements of openness; for

Image: “Safecast Hackathon” by seanbonner is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

47 48 Conclusion 3

As these tools demonstrate, the things helping solve common problems and of science are changing the way sci- expanding their impact on science and ence happens. Low-cost and open tools society. They also demonstrate a chang- are accelerating scientific progress ing notion of expertise, and who is able and expanding access to science, from to participate in the scientific process. enabling custom tools to broadening what is possible in science classrooms. Finally, this close look at low-cost and The success of low-cost and open tools open tools for science hints at common may be due to the extent to which open barriers and opportunities, such as the practices, such as open documentation, challenge of designing technically ac- editable documentation, open pro- cessible tools, the barriers creators face cesses, open licenses, and open data when trying to scale, and the impor- enable innovation and enhance impact. tance of diverse funding sources, includ- It may be due to the modularity and the ing federal investment. More analysis is customization that they make possible, needed to explore and demonstrate the or the way that they spur the develop- value of these tools, understand com- ment of additional tools. Above all, the mon barriers, and evaluate practices success of low-cost tools may be as and business models. If barriers could simple as the extent to which they are be overcome or ameliorated, would low-cost, allowing more scientists (both these tools revolutionize science? Does professional and not) to experiment the future hold a new way of doing sci- with something new, build off of others’ ence that is faster, more actionable, and work, or simply build or purchase tools more inclusive, and will low-cost and they otherwise would not. open tools drive that change?

These tools also demonstrate that their impact extends far beyond the use of the tools themselves. The resulting communities enhance users’ experience,

49 References Genome Biol, 17(172). https://doi. org/10.1186/s13059-016-1040-y

1 Snyder, E. G., Watkins, T. H., Solomon, 10 Baeck, P., Reynolds, S., Sacha van P. A., Thoma, E. D., Williams, R. W., Tongeren, N.X., & Bria, F. (2014). Digital Hagler, G. S., Shelow, D.; Hindin, D.A., social innovation; Case Studies. London: Kilaru, V.J., & Preuss, P. W. (2013). Nesta. The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 11 Levy Zamora, M., Xiong, F., Gentner, 11369 –11377. https://doi.org/10.1021/ D., Kerkez, B., Kohrman-Glaser, J., & es4022602 Koehler, K. (2018). Field and laboratory evaluations of the low-cost plantower 2 Bonvoisin, J., Mies, R., Boujut, J.-F. and particulate matter sensor. Environmental Stark, R. (2017). What is the “Source” science & technology, 53(2), 838-849. of Open Source Hardware?. Journal https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05174 of Open Hardware, 1(1), p.5. http://doi. org/10.5334/joh.7 12 Levy Zamora, M. Field and laboratory evaluations. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. 3 Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innova- est.8b05174 tion. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

13 The Crowd & The Cloud. (n.d.). Air 4 Heradio, R., Chacon, J., Vargas, H., Quality Egg. The Crowd & The Cloud. Galan, D., Saenz, J., De La Torre, L., http://crowdandcloud.org/air-quality-egg & Dormido, S. (2018). Open-source hardware in education: A systema- 14 A. Bowyer - RepRap, personal communi- tic mapping study. IEEE Access, 6, cation, August 28, 2020. 72094-72103. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2018.2881929 15 A. Bowyer - RepRap.

5 Bonvoisin, J. What is the “Source” of Open Source Hardware? http://doi. 16 A. Bowyer - RepRap. org/10.5334/joh.7 17 A. Bowyer - RepRap. 6 Bonvoisin, J., & Mies, R. (2018). Measuring openness in open source 18 Yanamandram, V. M. K., & Panchal, J. H. hardware with the open-O-meter. (2014). Evaluating the level of openness Procedia CIRP, 78, 388-393. https:// in open source hardware. In Product doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.08.306 Development in the Socio-sphere (pp. 99-120). Springer, Cham. https://doi. 7 Bonvoisin, J. Measuring open- org/10.1007/978-3-319-07404-7_4 ness. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. procir.2018.08.306 19 Zakeski, A. (2016, December 1). The 3D Printing Revolution That Wasn’t. Wired. 8 Morin, A., Urban, J., & Sliz, P. (2012). A https://www.wired.com/2016/12/ quick guide to software licensing for the the-3d-printing-revolution-that-wasnt/ scientist-programmer. PLoS Comput Biol, 8(7), e1002598. https://doi. 20 Zakeski, A. 3D Printing Revolution. org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002598 https://www.wired.com/2016/12/ the-3d-printing-revolution-that-wasnt/ 9 Marszalek, R. T., & Flintoft, L. (2016). Being open: our policy on source code. 21 Yanamandram, V. M. K. Evaluating the level of openness. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-07404-7_4 50 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR BETTER SCIENCE: CASE STUDIES IN LOW-COST AND OPEN TOOLS FOR SCIENCE

22 Dai, A. (2018, August 14). Foldscoping IEEE Spectrum. https://spectrum. In The Peruvian Amazon, Part 1. ieee.org/aerospace/satellites/ Foldscope Instruments. https://www. exploring-space-with-chipsized-satellites foldscope.com/foldscope-blog/tag/ science+education 34 Holliday, M., Ramirez, A., Settle, C., Tatum, T., Senesky, D., & Manchester, 23 Prakya, S.K. (2018, November 19). Z (2019). PyCubed: An Open-Source, Foldscope introduced to horticultural Radiation-Tested CubeSat Platform farmers in Channapatna, Karnataka. Programmable Entirely in Python. 33rd Microcosmos. https://microcosmos. Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small foldscope.com/?p=81022 Satellites (pp. 1-9).

24 Rastogi, G. (2018, December 6). High- 35 Peck, M. Exploring Space. https:// resolution foldscopy of an unidentified spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/satellites/ benthic organism. Microcosmos. https:// exploring-space-with-chipsized-satellites microcosmos.foldscope.com/?p=92313 36 Holliday, M. PyCubed: CubeSat 25 Cybulski, J. S., Clements, J., & Prakash, Platform. M. (2014). Foldscope: origami-based paper microscope. PloS one, 9(6), 37 Z. Manchester - PyCubed. e98781. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0098781 38 Holliday, M. PyCubed: CubeSat Platform. 26 Newby, K. (2017). Wildly frugal. Stanford Medicine. https://stanmed.stanford. 39 Waldman, A. (2012). Democratized edu/2017spring/manu-prakashs-frugal- Science Instrumentation Guidebook. science-including-his-1-dollar-micros- https://arielwaldman.com/ cope-the-foldscope.html# democratizedscience/

27 J. Stirling - OpenFlexure, personal com- 40 M. Alvarez Holliday - PyCubed, personal munication, September 28, 2020. communication, August 20, 2020.

28 Sharkey, J. P., Foo, D. C., Kabla, 41 R. Milliron - Interorbital Systems, perso- A., Baumberg, J. J., & Bowman, R. nal communication, September 3, 2020. W. (2016). A one-piece 3D printed flexure translation stage for open- 42 Milliron, R.R. (2012, March) Focus: source microscopy. Review of Scientific A Jump-Off to a Brighter Year. Instruments, 87(2), 025104. https://doi. SatMagazine. http://www.satmaga- org/10.1063/1.4941068 zine.com/story.php?number=4348 53632#:~:text=Since%20the%20 29 J. Stirling - OpenFlexure. introduction%20of%20its,its%20 own%20commercial%20sales%20 30 J. Stirling - OpenFlexure. operations.&text=Roderick%20 Milliron%2C%20IOS- 31 J. Stirling - OpenFlexure. %20President%2FCoFounder,%2D%20 and%20flight%2Dtest%20program. 32 Z. Manchester - PyCubed, personal communication, August 6, 2020. 43 R. Milliron - Interorbital Systems.

33 Peck, M. (2011, July 28). Exploring Space with Chip-sized Satellites.

51 44 S. Burdot - Interorbital Systems, perso- 56 NIH 3D Print Exchange. How 3D prin- nal communication, September 3, 2020. ting helps. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=M3rObh4kFyM 45 Waldman, A. Democratized Science. https://arielwaldman.com/ 57 Coakley, M., & Hurt, D. E. (2016). 3D democratizedscience/ printing in the laboratory: Maximize time and funds with customized and open- 46 R. Milliron - Interorbital Systems. source labware. Journal of laboratory automation, 21(4), 489-495. https://doi. 47 A. Specian - Quori, personal communi- org/10.1177%2F2211068216649578 cation, August 10, 2020. 58 NIH 3D Print Exchange. How 3D prin- 48 Specian, A., Eckenstein, N., Yim, M., ting helps. https://www.youtube.com/ Mead, R., McDorman, B., Kim, S., & watch?v=M3rObh4kFyM Matarić, M. (2018). Preliminary system and hardware design for Quori, a low- 59 OpenROV. (2015, September 12). cost, modular, socially interactive robot. OpenROV - The Open Source In Workshop on social robots in the wild. Underwater Robot. Kickstarter. https:// www.kickstarter.com/projects/openrov/ 49 A. Specian - Quori. openrov-the-open-source-underwater- robot

50 A. Specian - Quori. 60 OpenROV. (2018, December 2018). OpenROV Trident - An Underwater 51 Lopez, I. (2019, November 12). Penn Drone for Everyone. Kickstarter. https:// Engineering and the Philadelphia www.kickstarter.com/projects/openrov/ Museum of Art Join Forces to Envision openrov-trident-an-underwater-drone- the Future. Medium. https://medium. for-everyone com/penn-engineering/penn-engineering-and-the-philadelphia-museum-of- art-join-forces-to-envision-the-future- 61 D. Bakker - PocketLab, personal com- bde4cbfc282f munication, August 12, 2020.

52 P. Mercier - Wearable Symptom Tracker, 62 D. Bakker - PocketLab. personal communication, September 29, 2020. 63 D. Bakker - PocketLab.

53 P. Mercier - Wearable Symptom Tracker. 64 Johnson, K., Gantt, B., VonWald, I., & Clements, A. (2019, December 54 NIH 3D Print Exchange. [NIH 3D Print 9). PurpleAir PM2.5 Performance Exchange]. (2014, February 6). How 3D Across the U.S. [PowerPoint sli- printing helps with High Throughput des]. Environmental Protection Screening at the NIH [Video]. Agency. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/ si/si_public_record_report. watch?v=M3rObh4kFyM cfm?Lab=CEMM&dirEntryId=348234

55 NIH 3D Print Exchange. How 3D prin- 65 A. Hill - AudioMoth, personal communi- ting helps. https://www.youtube.com/ cation, August 12, 2020. watch?v=M3rObh4kFyM 66 Zilli, D., Parson, O., Merrett, G. V., & Rogers, A. (2014). A hidden Markov

52 model-based acoustic cicada detector 79 J. Stirling - OpenFlexure. for crowdsourced smartphone biodiversity monitoring. Journal of Artificial 80 A. Hill - AudioMoth. Intelligence Research, 51, 805-827. 81 D. Bakker - PocketLab. 67 Hill, A., Prince, P., Snaddon, J., Doncaster, P.C., & Rogers, A. (2019). 82 Hill, A. AudioMoth: A low-cost acous- AudioMoth: A low-cost acoustic device tic device. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. for monitoring biodiversity and the envi- ohx.2019.e00073. ronment. HardwareX, 6, e00073. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ohx.2019.e00073 83 J. Stirling - OpenFlexure.

68 A. Hill - AudioMoth. 84 M. Alvarez Holliday - PyCubed.

69 Fianco, M., Preis, H., Szinwelski, N., 85 Bonvoisin, J. What is the “Source” of Braun, H., & Faria, L. R. (2019). On Open Source Hardware? http://doi. brachypterous phaneropterine ka- org/10.5334/joh.7 tydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Phaneropterinae) from the Iguaçu National Park, Brazil: three new spe- 86 A. Hill - AudioMoth. cies, new record and bioacoustics. Zootaxa, 4652(2), 240-246. https://doi. 87 Levy Zamora, M. Field and laboratory org/10.11646/zootaxa.4652.2.2 evaluations. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. est.8b05174 70 Baeck, P. Digital social innovation. 88 D. Bakker - PocketLab. 71 Sharkey, J. P., Foo, D. C., Kabla, A., Baumberg, J. J., & Bowman, R. 89 Waldman, A. Democratized W. (2016). A one-piece 3D printed Science. https://arielwaldman.com/ flexure translation stage for open- democratizedscience/ source microscopy. Review of Scientific Instruments, 87(2), 025104. https://doi. 90 A. Specian - Quori. org/10.1063/1.4941068 91 A. Bowyer - RepRap. 72 A. Specian - Quori. 92 Waldman, A. Democratized 73 A. Bowyer - RepRap. Science. https://arielwaldman.com/ democratizedscience/ 74 NIH 3D Print Exchange. How 3D printing helps. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=M3rObh4kFyM

75 A. Hill - AudioMoth.

76 D. Bakker - PocketLab.

77 Z. Manchester - PyCubed.

78 M. Alvarez Holliday - PyCubed.

53 54 Appendix A

Cost Comparison Chart the low-cost tool does not include the labor needed to build or assemble the tool because it is built by the user. In still The following chart compares the cur- other cases, the low-cost tool may not rent cost of tools to tools of similar use be exactly comparable to the traditional (referred to as “traditional tools”). There tool. However, these cost comparisons are important caveats here: sometimes, demonstrate the magnitude of the dif- the costs are estimates or from an ference in cost between low-cost and unknown date; other times, the cost of traditional tools.

Comparison to Tool Cost Traditional Tool Arduino All microcontrollers less than $50 N/A AudioMoth $70 $50086 (2020) COVID-19 Symptom $0.10/Device N/A Tracker Foldscope $29.99 $2,000 (2018) Professional -- $3,499 MakerBot $1000 to $10,000 (2020) Education -- $1,799 Microplate Flange N/A $3,000,000 loss (2014) OpenFlexure $200 $40,000 (2020) Plantower $34 (2019) $12,000 - $21,00087 (2019) Devices -- $100 to $300 Individual sensors -- $2000 to PocketLab $300088 (2020) Notebook lite -- $150/yr Purple Air $179 to $259 $15,000 to $50,000 (2018) PyCubed $200 to $300 $50,000 to $1,000,00089 (2014) Quori $5,000 without labor $18,00090 RepRap $300 to $620 $40,00091 (2004) DIY Kit -- $600 Safecast N/A Fully Assembled Device --$1,500 Spotter $4,900 N/A Trident $1,695 N/A Without launch -- $6,200 TubeSat $50,000 to $1,000,00092 (2014) With launch -- $12,400

55 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004-3027

The Wilson Center STIP

www.wilsoncenter.org www.wilsoncenter.org/program/science- [email protected] and-technology-innovation-program facebook.com/woodrowwilsoncenter [email protected] @thewilsoncenter @WilsonSTIP 202.691.4000 202.691.4321

Siene n Tehnolo Innotion Pror