In light of globally declining biodiversity (Butchart et al., 2010; IPBES, 2019) and threats to both rare and common species (Gaston and Fuller, 2008; Dirzo et al., 2014), there are calls to utilize modern technologies for monitoring and conservation (Pimm et al., 2015; Lahoz-Monfort et al., 2019; Wich and Piel, 2021; Schulz et al., 2023). Technologies are deployed to improve data collection and analysis in both terrestrial and aquatic environments (Lahoz-Monfort and Magrath, 2021). These advancements can enable more efficient data collection compared to traditional survey methods (Witt et al., 2020) and aid crowdsourced data collection and processing (Dorward et al., 2017; Fraisl et al., 2022). There are emerging communities of practice, such as Conservation X Labs ¹ or WILDLABS ² which report on the state of conservation technology (Speaker et al., 2022) and provide guidelines on socially responsible use (Sandbrook et al., 2021).

The advancement of conservation technologies coincides with the increased adoption of open science practices. As defined in the Recommendation on Open Science ratified by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2021), open science entails inclusive, equitable, and sustainable approaches to scientific practices and outputs. Ecological research has increasingly adopted these practices (Hill et al., 2019), notably through more open and FAIR data (Hampton et al., 2015; Wilkinson et al., 2016). There also exists open source software used in biodiversity research, such as the R programming language (R Core Team, 2023) and analytical packages built on it.

However, unlike software and data, the hardware used for ecological research is still typically closed source (i.e. proprietary), and its designs (and accompanying software source code) are legally restricted, preventing others from studying, reproducing, or modifying them.

Apart from just increasing effort and cost when adapting existing equipment to new contexts, closed source hardware also reinforces global inequalities. As reviewed by Arancio (2023a), the manufacturing and dissemination of scientific equipment is often monopolized by entities in the Global North. This creates barriers for researchers in the Global South including, but not limited to, prohibitive costs, lack of availability, and technical support. They lead to epistemic injustice, where research questions are constrained by the physical tools researchers are allowed to access or modify. Additionally, the vendor lock-in and forced obsolescence of closed source hardware mean that users are legally barred from maintaining them. This creates e-waste, which has been described as a form of environmental crime (Bisschop et al., 2022).

One solution to these problems is open source hardware. It is defined as hardware whose design is “made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design” ³ . In our view, while open source hardware is beginning to be adopted for ecology research (Hill et al., 2019; Lahoz-Monfort and Magrath, 2021), its potential is still largely untapped.

We are researchers with experience in both ecology and open source hardware communities. In this opinion article, we argue for wider recognition and adoption of open source hardware in biodiversity research. Among other benefits, we provide examples demonstrating how open source hardware can: reduce upfront and maintenance costs; enable adapting to novel contexts; and improve research quality and transparency. We end with suggestions for individuals and institutions on adopting open source hardware in research.

By its nature, closed source hardware allow their manufacturers to command a high price through monopolies. In contrast, anyone can manufacture and sell hardware based on an open source design, so the cost of purchase can be close to the actual manufacturing cost. One study suggests that open source hardware can create cost savings of up to 87% compared to closed source functional equivalents (Pearce, 2020).

SnapperGPS ⁴ is one example of such low-cost open source hardware for ecology research. It is a location data logger specifically designed for wildlife tracking (Beuchert et al., 2023). In contrast with proprietary equivalents costing thousands of USD, the component cost of a SnapperGPS receiver is under USD 30, making it accessible to research groups with lower budgets. The project also has a discussion forum ⁵ where the community can ask questions, discuss issues, provide technical support, and share experiences.

Because users have complete access to the hardware design files, they can also maintain and repair their equipment independently, rather than having to rely on the original manufacturer who has an incentive to sell new units instead of repairing existing ones. Any knowledge about repair and maintenance can also be freely shared with the community further helping other users, without expensive support contracts or infringing on intellectual property restrictions. This is exemplified by the Appropedia Foundation ⁶ , an online community where sustainability researchers share designs and provide mutual help on the repair and maintenance of open source hardware (Pearce, 2012).

Off-the-shelf proprietary technology is unlikely to fit every application well. Ecologists, in particular, may need specific hardware properties to accommodate unique environments or species. However, modifying devices to meet research needs is difficult with closed source hardware, because its designs are not shared and modifications are not permitted. In the case of open source hardware, however, modifications can be added to an existing design and even be published as a new version that can then be freely manufactured and used by future researchers.

OpenFlexure ⁷ exemplifies this advantage. It is an open source, low-cost, lab-grade microscope, originally developed for microscopy in biomedical research (Collins et al., 2020). Its design has since been adapted to many other contexts. For example, researchers trialling OpenFlexure for orchid bee identification in Panamanian rainforests found the device was not suited for their use case, which does not require high magnification but does need robustness under field conditions. In response, the researchers adapted OpenFlexure into a dissection microscope that is easy to use and repair in the field. At the time of writing, the first version of this design has been completed, and feedback from field trials is being incorporated into the next version (Stirling and Quitmeyer, 2023).

Closed source hardware is opaque, preventing researchers from fully understanding how the equipment operates. This makes identifying systematic errors difficult, especially if the manufacturer has a monopoly on the technology so that users have no alternatives for comparison.

This problematic “black box” effect of closed source devices is exemplified by CTDs, an oceanographic instrument that measures salinity, temperature, and depth. These three variables are essential for almost all marine scientific studies. Commonly-used closed source CTDs are not only expensive (at least several thousand USD), but also require costly maintenance services. In recent years, the OpenCTD was developed as an open source CTD for coastal oceanographic research (Thaler et al., 2024), along with openly published calibration procedures ⁸ . Notably, in addition to making this technology more accessible, the OpenCTD team identified a systemic problem of handheld proprietary CTDs being out of calibration but remaining in field use (Thaler, pers comms). This error remained undetected for years until a comparison could be made with OpenCTD devices, and underscores the crucial role for open source hardware to improve research quality and transparency.

Open source hardware and software enshrine the freedoms to study, reproduce, modify, and distribute them without restrictions. They enable equitable access to technology, allowing context-relevant and cost-effective adaptations with the potential to improve research quality and transparency. The examples we used to illustrate these benefits are part of a growing movement, which seeks to adopt open source hardware in ecology and conservation research (Berger-Tal and Lahoz-Monfort, 2018; Hill et al., 2019; Lahoz-Monfort and Magrath, 2021; Zeuss et al., 2024). We end this opinion article with suggestions for publishing open source hardware in a reproducible way and reforming institutional policies to encourage its development.

The urgency of the biodiversity crisis is connected to technological waste and global inequalities (Bisschop et al., 2022; Kubiszewski et al., 2023; Arancio, 2023a). As biodiversity researchers, we have an ethical imperative to adopt open source hardware as part of the solution. In addition, with growing popular interest in biodiversity conservation (de Oliveira Caetano et al., 2023), the use of open source hardware (and software) would signal transparency and accountability that strengthens public trust in science. In this opinion piece, we highlighted the progress that open source hardware can enable for ecology research.

Lastly, we note that biodiversity researchers are not the only ones who would benefit from open source hardware. Anyone considering open source hardware for their research could engage with global practitioner communities, including the Gathering for Open Science Hardware ¹⁵ , Open Science Hardware Foundation ¹⁶ , Internet of Production Alliance ¹⁷ , or the Open Source Hardware Association ¹⁸ . They collectively sustain ongoing discourse on the development and use of open source hardware, and reflect a growing recognition for its role in scientific research.

P-YH: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BJ: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.