Policy: twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims

Format: Websites

,

Texts

,

Language/s: English

,

Resource Link: Visit the Website

Target Audience: Further education

|

Self-directed learning

|

Short Description:

This list will help non-scientists to interrogate advisers and to grasp the limitations of evidence.

Key Concepts addressed:

• 1-3 関連性と因果関係は同じではない
• 1-10 希望は非現実的な期待を招く場合もある
• 2-1 治療効果を特定するためには比較が必要です
• 2-2 比較群は同等でなければなりません
• 2-9 公正な比較のレビューは系統的である必要があります
• 2-8 関連する公正な比較はすべて検討してください
• 3-2 あなたは試験を受けた人々と大きく異なりますか？

Details

This list will help non-scientists to interrogate advisers and to grasp the limitations of evidence, say William J. Sutherland, David Spiegelhalter and Mark A. Burgman.

Calls for the closer integration of science in political decision-making have been commonplace for decades. However, there are serious problems in the application of science to policy — from energy to health and environment to education.

One suggestion to improve matters is to encourage more scientists to get involved in politics. Although laudable, it is unrealistic to expect substantially increased political involvement from scientists. Another proposal is to expand the role of chief scientific advisers1, increasing their number, availability and participation in political processes. Neither approach deals with the core problem of scientific ignorance among many who vote in parliaments.

Read more or print PDF

William J. Sutherland, David Spiegelhalter and Mark A. Burgman. Nature 2013;503:335-7.