This document discusses the political dimension of scientific evidence and the assessment of carcinogenic risks. It argues that evidence of causation requires considering multiple sources, including correlations between potential causes and effects as well as underlying mechanisms. Acknowledging plural evidential sources and integrating different types of evidence provides stronger support for causal claims than any single type alone. The document also notes that scientific knowledge and the communication of evidence to the public have implications beyond evidence disputes and affect policy decisions with real impacts on people's lives and health.
I have forgot to put my other reference that help me in this presentation. She is Josephine Pineda Dasig that have made also a presentation about social dimension of education. Thank You so much Ma'am...
Symbolic Interactionism Theory - PHDessay.com. (PDF) Symbolic Interactionism. Symbolic Interactionism In Sociology Pdf - slide share. Symbolic Interactionism | PDF | Sociology | Gender. Compare and contrast two of the following: functionalism, conflict .... Symbolic Interactionism as a Tool for Conveying Ideas: Dissecting the .... 10 Symbolic Interactionism Examples (And Easy Definition).
Discussion 1-3 EPid ( two pages)Because it draws from other fielhuttenangela
Discussion 1-3 EPid ( two pages)
Because it draws from other fields such as biostatistics and social sciences, epidemiology is described as being interdisciplinary. From which aspects of other disciplines do you feel epidemiology borrows? In what ways does epidemiology differ from those disciplines? When responding to your classmates, provide additional connections between epidemiology and other disciplines. Support your response with specific examples.
Response one
Epidemiology and Other Disciplines
Epidemiology is the “study of the distribution and determinants of health and disease, morbidity, injuries, disability, and mortality in populations” (Friis & Sellers, 2014, p. 743). Epidemiology was first developed to understand causes of certain diseases such as smallpox and polio among humans. It now also includes the study of factors associated with non-transmissible diseases like cancer. It is described as interdisciplinary as it borrows elements from many other disciplines including microbiology and sociology. Epidemiology utilizes microbiology to help understand specific disease agents and modes of transmission. Microbiological techniques are borrowed to help in revealing sources of outbreaks and to determine sources. Sociology is equally important in epidemiology to aid in the study of social conditions and disease processes. Social sciences also assist epidemiologists in providing different methods on sampling such as measurement, questionnaire development, design, and delivery (Friis & Sellers, 2014). “Social factors have become more important precisely because epidemiological and biomedical knowledge has shifted the causes and consequences of disease from fate, accident, and bad luck to factors that are under some human control” (Link, 2008, p. 367).
Epidemiology differs from other disciplines in its perspective on groups or populations rather than individuals. It contrasts diseases and characteristics relative to different time periods, different places or different groups. It also differs from the physical sciences because it does not investigate the biological mechanism leading from exposure to disease. Epidemiologists can identify modifiable conditions that contribute to the health outcome without also identifying the biological mechanism or agent that lead to the outcome. An example of this is the improvements of environmental hygiene that reduced infectious diseases like cholera, that was possible before the identification of the actual bacteria (Ahrens, Krickeberg, & Pigeot, 2005).
Epidemiological studies are crucial to preventing, controlling and eradicating diseases. The research helps us to understand the incidence and prevalence of diseases, the cost of illness, and the burden of disease on society (Friis & Sellers, 2014). I have attached an article that I read about the role of mathematical modeling and prediction in infectious disease epidemiology that I felt was interesting and relevant to our Epidemiology course.
Mat ...
This presentation by Morris Kleiner (University of Minnesota), was made during the discussion “Competition and Regulation in Professions and Occupations” held at the Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 10 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/crps.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
0x01 - Newton's Third Law: Static vs. Dynamic AbusersOWASP Beja
f you offer a service on the web, odds are that someone will abuse it. Be it an API, a SaaS, a PaaS, or even a static website, someone somewhere will try to figure out a way to use it to their own needs. In this talk we'll compare measures that are effective against static attackers and how to battle a dynamic attacker who adapts to your counter-measures.
About the Speaker
===============
Diogo Sousa, Engineering Manager @ Canonical
An opinionated individual with an interest in cryptography and its intersection with secure software development.
Have you ever wondered how search works while visiting an e-commerce site, internal website, or searching through other types of online resources? Look no further than this informative session on the ways that taxonomies help end-users navigate the internet! Hear from taxonomists and other information professionals who have first-hand experience creating and working with taxonomies that aid in navigation, search, and discovery across a range of disciplines.
Acorn Recovery: Restore IT infra within minutesIP ServerOne
Introducing Acorn Recovery as a Service, a simple, fast, and secure managed disaster recovery (DRaaS) by IP ServerOne. A DR solution that helps restore your IT infra within minutes.
This presentation, created by Syed Faiz ul Hassan, explores the profound influence of media on public perception and behavior. It delves into the evolution of media from oral traditions to modern digital and social media platforms. Key topics include the role of media in information propagation, socialization, crisis awareness, globalization, and education. The presentation also examines media influence through agenda setting, propaganda, and manipulative techniques used by advertisers and marketers. Furthermore, it highlights the impact of surveillance enabled by media technologies on personal behavior and preferences. Through this comprehensive overview, the presentation aims to shed light on how media shapes collective consciousness and public opinion.
Sharpen existing tools or get a new toolbox? Contemporary cluster initiatives...Orkestra
UIIN Conference, Madrid, 27-29 May 2024
James Wilson, Orkestra and Deusto Business School
Emily Wise, Lund University
Madeline Smith, The Glasgow School of Art
3. “The congenital weakness of the sociology of science is its
propensity to look for obvious stated political motives and
interests in one of the places, the laboratories, where
sources of fresh politics as yet unrecognized as such are
emerging.
If by politics you mean elections and law, Pasteur […] was not
driven by political interests […]. Thus his science is
protected from enquiry and the myth of the autonomy of
science is saved.
If by politics you mean to be the spokesman of the forces
you mould society with and of which you are the only
credible and legitimate authority, then Pasteur is a fully
political man. Indeed, he endows himself with one of the
most striking fresh sources of power ever.”
Latour, Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world, 1982
3
4. An argument from philosophy of science,
rather than sociology
Whether and how notions and concepts of
evidence, knowledge, or certainty can
contribute to a better making and
understanding of science
4
5. Overview
Why bothering?
The assessment of carcinogenicity of glyphosate and red
meat
What evidence?
Evidential pluralism: correlations, mechanism, and
reinforced concrete
Beyond evidence quarrels
Questions about objective knowledge and truth
5
15. Causality and evidence
C causes E
Red meat consumption causes cancer
Breathing glyphosate causes cancer
Statins lower cholesterol
Exercising reduces cardiovascular disease
…
How do we know that?
What makes a causal claim true /versus/
What evidence supports a causal claim
15
16. Evidential pluralism
To establish a causal claim we need multiple sources
of evidence:
That C makes a difference to E
Correlations, counterfactuals, …
That C produces E
Mechanisms, processes, …
Russo and Williamson,
Interpreting causality in the health sciences, ISPS 2007
Epistemic causality and evidence-based medicine. HPLS 2011
Clarke et al,
The evidence that evidence-based medicine omits, Preventive Medicine
2013
Mechanisms and the evidence hierarchy, Topoi 2014
16
17. Disambiguation
Mechanistic evidence / difference-making evidence
Evidence of …
Evidence-gathering methods are not evidence
Do RCTs suffice? Do lab experiments suffice?
Illari, Disambiguating the Russo-Williamson Thesis, ISPS 2011
18. What mechanisms?
What mechanism ought to support a causal claim?
Fully-known? Confirmed? Plausible?
Gillies, The Russo-Williamson thesis and the question of whether smoking causes heart
disease, in Causality in the Sciences. 2011
19. “[…] In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in
the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma. A
second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma
in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell
adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate
formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion
study in mice. Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and
urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption. […]”
19
20. The analogy of reinforced concrete
Evidence: integration, not substitution
Integration helps tackle more problems
Difference making and mechanisms help each other
with their respective weaknesses
Difference making helps with masking
Mechanisms helps with confounding
22. Generic vs single-case
Generic causal claim are about epidemiological facts
Population-level, repeatable
“ […]Positive associations were seen in cohort studies and
population-based case- control studies between consumption of
red meat and cancers of the pancreas and the prostate […], and
between consumption of processed meat and cancer of the
stomach. […]”
Single-case causal claims happens once in time and space
E.g., individual diagnosis and prognosis
Russo and Williamson, Generic vs. single-case causality. The case of
autopsy. EJPS 2011
22
23. Mixed aetiology
Disease causation is not just a bio-chemical fact
Social factors participate in the whole process of
disease development
Changes in dietary habits and lifestyles are key
The whole life world matters
E.g.: fast food hypothesis, exposure to asbestos
Kelly et al, The integration of social, behavioural, and biological mechanisms in
models of pathogenesis, Perspect. Biol. Med. 2014
23
24. Knowledge and action
How much do we need to know before acting?
Ban glyphosate? Anti-inflammatory drugs (Aulin and
Mesulid)?
What can we learn from history of science?
The Semmelweis case: puerperal fever and hand washing
24
29. We made progress in phil sci
Evidence, causation, knowledge
Benefits cross the borders of the discipline
Integration of philosophical theorising in real,
concrete situations
IARC on assessment of carcinogenicity
NICE on preparation of guidelines for public health
ZINL on regulation of health care
29
Scientific evidence is at heart of epistemological and methodological discussions among scientists as well as philosophers of science. But what happens to these theories of evidence once the debate crosses the borders of science and philosophy and enters the ‘political’ sphere? What use are these theories outside the ‘comfort zone’ in which they have been developed? In this talk, I will discuss just a selection of issues that arise when scientific claims reach the political arena and generate public controversies. To motivate and exemplify the claims made in the talk, I will make reference to some work by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and that concludes to the (non-)carcinogenicity of selected chemicals or other substances. Specifically, I will refer to two such decisions: the one on glyphosate — a widely used pesticide – and the recent one concerning consumption of red and processed meat. The objective is not to take side for or against these decisions, but to show how some debates in philosophy of science can help re-frame these controversies. I will present recent work in philosophy of science that develop pluralistic account of evidence. More specifically, I will introduce a thesis – also known as ‘the Russo-Williamson Thesis’ or RWT for short – according to which causal relations in the health sciences are typically established on the basis of evidence of correlation and of mechanisms. I will also present some corollaries about this thesis, namely about the distinction between generic causal knowledge and individual-level causal assessment, and about the integration of social factors in the explanation of disease mechanisms. All these considerations, I will argue, also shed light on another important aspect: the distinction between knowledge and action. To be sure, these philosophical concepts – as well as many others – shed light on numerous aspects of the scientific practice ‘outside the lab’. Yet, the examples examined in this talk function as good test cases for a long-term project that tries to get philosophy of science more actively engaged with several aspects of the scientific practice and with science communication.EndFragmentUseful links:http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdfhttps://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdfhttp://ebmplus.org
Conflict of interest >> precaution
Knowledge vs action / decision
Sommelweis case
? Glyphosate, IARC and Monsanto
Defending science beyond reason
Scientism and dogmatism from the backdoor
Elena Cattaneo’s defence of GMO
What evidence? Integrating statistics with mechanisms
Glyphosate, why IARC put in 2A
Check stuff on IARC monograph on red meat and processed meant + Lancet oncology to be issued on 26 Oct
In particular, I will discuss the following cases. First, claims about epidemiology as junk science because of the huge amount of false positives. Second, the publication of certain scientific results published by respectable scientific agencies– for instance about the carcinogenicity of red and processed meat. Third, the strenuous defense of the safety of some products – e.g., OGMs – by knowledgeable scientists. The objective is not to take side for or against such claims, but to show how some debates in philosophy of science can help re-frame these controversies. The morals to be draw from these cases concern three distinct, albeit often related, levels. First, a separation of methodological caveats from science communication issues. Second, a lack of integration of social, economic, and environmental factors in disease explanation. Third, a confusion between the validity of scientific results and absolute truths. To be sure, these – and many other – philosophical considerations shed light on numerous (and less controversial) aspects of the scientific practice ‘outside the lab’. Yet, the examples examined in this talk function as good test case for a long-term project that tries to get philosophy of science more actively engaged with science in practice.
Autonomies of
Science
Philosophy of science
Philosophers of science in the agorà
Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice
EBM+ consortium
Political: politikos, pertaining to the polis
Scientific evidence and the politês
So in the end: not interested in arguing for or against some of the controversies that I will mention, but to highlight how some concepts can help re-frame the debate
Glyphosate: probably carcinogenic (2A)
Mention various regulatory bodies that expressed favourable opinion
sufficient evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of processed meat.
limited evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat.
Muddled evidence for a causal claim with having knowledge written on the stone. Mostly, objective truth, with a scientistic and positivist flavour enters from the back door.
In other cases the problem is muddling issues about what science establishes with the way the results are communicated