Talk:Attributable risk

Abstract to ISEE, Rome 2016

Structured discussion as a method to resolve scientific disputes

Jouni T. Tuomisto, John S. Evans, Arja Asikainen, Pauli Ordén

Introduction: The amount of scientific information expands in increasing rate. We need better tools to combine and resolve issues. We tested whether freely expressed discussion can be organised into a concise synthesis using a few simple rules. We aimed at resolutions about the topics, not mutual agreement of participants.

Methods: We studied two case studies about controversial topics and reorganised the information produced by participants. The topic was organised into a form of research questions, and all content was evaluated against capability to answer the questions. In addition, statements were organised hierarchically so that they either attacked or defended the one above.

Results: The first case was a scientific dispute about how to estimate attributable deaths of air pollution in the paper 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 dispute was whether attributable fraction or etiological fraction should have been used. In the second case, we reorganised open discussion about the magnitude of safety risk caused by irregular immigrants in Finland in 2015. The discussion was held on a website together with a national TV discussion. Most participants provided information 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 approaches could be tested in resolving in scientific disputes on a large scale, and if successful, the culture of making science could be opened up for 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 ...