What happens when scientific research begins to shift toward larger and larger, hierarchically-centralized projects?  Risk to the output of science overall, warns Colorado biologist Aaron E. Hirsh, who penned a guest science column for regular blogger Olivia Judson in The New York Times Jan. 13.

What happens when scientific research begins to shift toward larger and larger, hierarchically-centralized projects?  Risk to the output of science overall, warns Colorado biologist Aaron E. Hirsh, who penned a guest science column for regular blogger Olivia Judson in The New York Times Jan. 13.

Hirsh notes that the Large Hadron Collider, the massive experimental site for  particle physicists, is but one of several massive experimental sites starting to appear across a variety of disciplines, centralizing and constricting into tall and forbidding towers how and where scientists work. He notes the perils of consolidating power into the hands of an administrative few and worries what that might mean for the reams of important — but insignificant by relative comparison — data that might remain unexamined and uncollected as a result.

The problem should sound familiar to any journalist or media scholar concerned with the impact to quality journalism of Big Media. So should Hirsh's suggestion to mitigate the potential negative effects of research centralization.

Hirsh proposes science put some responsibility for research gathering into the hands of the people — noting the success and scientific significance of projects such as the Audobon Society's Christmas Bird Count project. That annual effort organizes many average citizens in a collective effort to contribute individual observations to a massive and valuable pool.

Considering science and journalism are similarly concerned with gathering and disseminating facts, a parallel thread exploring Citizen Science will be something Citizen Journalism advocates will want to watch.