Fisher participation in citizen science of the US South Atlantic: Ethical concerns about engagement

This study explores commercial and charter fisher perspectives on fisheries management within the South Atlantic region of the United States, to inform potential future citizen science projects. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we investigated fisher participation, trust in management, and perceptions of regulatory practices. Data reveals dissonance between fishers' experiential knowledge and the scientific approaches underpinning management decisions, and distrust in managers and scientific data. Fishers' highlight perceived neglect of their expertise and concerns, and feel marginalized and disillusioned with the system. Findings are relevant to the potential for successful citizen science in the region. We introduce the concept of "moral discord" to encapsulate this ethical dilemma: fishers obliged to comply with a system they distrust, yet potentially benefiting or suffering from outcomes of voluntary efforts in citizen science initiatives. This paper addresses the need for researchers to reflect on the ethical implications of engaging fishers in studies that may exacerbate their sense of disenfranchisement. We offer criteria for assessing whether a citizen science project poses a risk of moral discord for participants, and propose guidance for identifying ways that citizen science projects can reduce ethical risks such as collaboration, transparency, and alignment with fishers' needs to rebuild trust.