Difference between revisions of "Talk:Attributable risk"
(first draft of ISEE abstract) |
(→Abstract to ISEE, Rome 2016) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Abstract to ISEE, Rome 2016 == | == Abstract to ISEE, Rome 2016 == | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''Discussion rules as a method to resolve scientific disputes |
Jouni T. Tuomisto, | Jouni T. Tuomisto, | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Pauli Ordén | Pauli Ordén | ||
| − | Introduction: | + | Introduction: In the science-policy interface, we need better tools to synthesise discussions. We tested whether freely expressed discussions can be synthesised into resolutions using a few simple rules. We aimed at understanding key issues, not at mutual agreement of participants. |
| − | Methods: We studied two case studies about controversial topics and reorganised the information produced by participants. The topic was | + | Methods: We studied two case studies about controversial topics and reorganised the information produced by participants. The topic was defined as research questions, and all content was evaluated against capability to answer the questions. The content was summarised into statments and, if possible, organised hierarchically so that statements attacked or defended one another. Statements not backed up by data were given little weight. |
| − | Results: The first case was a scientific dispute about how to estimate attributable deaths of air pollution in | + | Results: The first case was a scientific dispute about how to estimate attributable deaths of air pollution in Lelieveld et al., Nature 2015: 525(7569):367-71. Discussion between the authors and critics was reorganised to identify and clarify the essence of the dispute. The information structure produced by the rules showed that the main dispute was about whether excess fraction or etiologic fraction should have been used. |
| − | In the second case, we reorganised open discussion about | + | In the second case, we reorganised open web discussion about security risks caused by irregular immigrants in Finland in 2015. The discussion was held on a website coinciding with a national TV discussion. Most participants talked about their personal experience, but a few provided links to scientific studies and statistics, providing material for evidence-based discussion almost real-time. |
| − | Conclusions: Disputes about even heated and controversial topics can be clarified, understood or even resolved by using a set of rules for participation and information synthesis. Complex topics, openness, or large number of lay people participation did not hamper the process. Such | + | Conclusions: Disputes about even heated and controversial topics can be clarified, understood or even resolved by using a set of rules for participation and information synthesis. Complex topics, openness, or large number of lay people participation did not hamper the process. Such rules should be tested in resolving scientific disputes on a large scale. If successful, the use of science in the society could benefit from practices of open collaboration. |
* Primary topic: Health impact assessment and participatory epidemiology | * Primary topic: Health impact assessment and participatory epidemiology | ||
Revision as of 16:23, 8 March 2016
Abstract to ISEE, Rome 2016
Discussion rules as a method to resolve scientific disputes
Jouni T. Tuomisto, John S. Evans, Arja Asikainen, Pauli Ordén
Introduction: In the science-policy interface, we need better tools to synthesise discussions. We tested whether freely expressed discussions can be synthesised into resolutions using a few simple rules. We aimed at understanding key issues, not at mutual agreement of participants.
Methods: We studied two case studies about controversial topics and reorganised the information produced by participants. The topic was defined as research questions, and all content was evaluated against capability to answer the questions. The content was summarised into statments and, if possible, organised hierarchically so that statements attacked or defended one another. Statements not backed up by data were given little weight.
Results: The first case was a scientific dispute about how to estimate attributable deaths of air pollution in Lelieveld et al., Nature 2015: 525(7569):367-71. Discussion between the authors and critics was reorganised to identify and clarify the essence of the dispute. The information structure produced by the rules showed that the main dispute was about whether excess fraction or etiologic fraction should have been used. In the second case, we reorganised open web discussion about security risks caused by irregular immigrants in Finland in 2015. The discussion was held on a website coinciding with a national TV discussion. Most participants talked about their personal experience, but a few provided links to scientific studies and statistics, providing material for evidence-based discussion almost real-time.
Conclusions: Disputes about even heated and controversial topics can be clarified, understood or even resolved by using a set of rules for participation and information synthesis. Complex topics, openness, or large number of lay people participation did not hamper the process. Such rules should be tested in resolving scientific disputes on a large scale. If successful, the use of science in the society could benefit from practices of open collaboration.
- Primary topic: Health impact assessment and participatory epidemiology
- Secondary topic: Policy and public health
- Presentation type: Oral or poster, no preference
- Do the findings in this presentation, when combined with previous evidence, support new policy?
- Yes. Open collaboration and structured discussions could be used in resolving scientific disputes and improving contributions from citizen science.
- No financial conflicts of interest to declare
- All funding and employment resources:
- Tuomisto JT, Asikainen A and Ordén P were funded by the National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland, and VN-TEAS funding Yhtäköyttä from the Prime Minister's Office, Finland.
- Evans JS was funded by ...
