We (epi & biostat folks) have a major conflict of interest when it comes to evaluating COVID research that I’m not sure we’ve fully acknowledged. 1/
Mostly, when we assess studies or evidence, we are at arm’s length from the problem we’re studying. Yes, we may know people who have a condition, but our findings don’t have implications for our lives. 2/
Indeed, we are justifiably skeptical of whether someone who is heavily invested in the outcome of a study can be objective in evaluating its quality. This is why we have COI declarations. 3/
But in COVID times, we are regularly asked to evaluate the quality of evidence in studies whose outcomes could have a major impact on our own lives. 4/
There’s no better alternative, but it does complicate the scientific dialogue. 6/
Most of us have strong views about what would best for our lives: send kids to school (or not), visit family (or not), etc. These views are Informed by our own personal degree of risk tolerance. 7/
Our assessments of the strength of evidence on various COVID-related topics will inevitably be filtered through this risk tolerance lens. 8/
For example, if you have a low risk tolerance, you are probably more likely to be critical of a study which presents imperfect evidence suggesting that a particular activity is relatively safe. 9/
This isn’t at all irrational; since the definition of “safe” is multi-dimensional, it is entirely reasonable to demand stronger evidence to be convinced that the level of risk is below your (low) personal threshold. 10/
Faced with the same evidence, someone with a higher risk tolerance might be equally justified in saying that the evidence is sufficient to conclude that the activity in question is sufficiently safe for their personal purposes. 11/
The problems arise when we bring these arguments to the public sphere. Two experts might actually agree about the strength of evidence, but argue for different conclusions because of their own personal risk lens. 12/
I don’t have any solutions, other than to suggest that we need to acknowledge that we are all in conflict of interest when it comes to COVID, and should think about how that affects the way we do our science. end/
Wanted to highlight some great points that people have made: 1) Many people work on problems that affect them, particularly researchers of color and those identifying as LGBTQ. We have a lot learn about personally-engaged research from these scientists.
2) Similarly, it is possible to be personally invested in one’s research without it being your lived experience.
3) The term “conflict of interest” isn’t perfect here, and brings a lot of negative connotations with it that I didn’t mean to imply.
4) This thread reflects my own impressions based on the public discussions I’ve seen around COVID. My perspective is doubtlessly North American-centric and leans more to the biostat side of the epi/biostat line.
Thanks to everyone who has added to the discussion!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Julian Wolfson

Julian Wolfson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DrJWolfson

29 Jun
In 2 weeks, @PublicHealthUMN will remove its number from ETS, going #GRExit for all programs. Our decision was largely based on the results of a RANDOMIZED assessment of how GRE scores influence admissions decisions.

What we did and what we found: a thread. 1/n
Quick #GRExit background: there is published literature looking at whether GRE scores predict success in grad school. Most show it doesn't (much), but it's tough to define/measure "success", and selection bias clouds interpretation of study results. 2/n
We decided to ask a simpler question: does seeing the GRE score actually affect how admissions committee members score an application?

Now *that's* a question we can design a randomized study to answer! 3/n
Read 19 tweets
8 Jul 19
Grad school application season is just around the corner. So, it’s time for a thread on #grexit. Spoiler: I’m on the fence. Here’s why. 1/
First, let’s limit the conversation: I want to talk about #grexit for PhD admissions in (bio)statistics. Why just PhD? Admit rates are (much) lower, and the “financial barrier” argument for #grexit is more relevant for a fully-funded program. 2/
Next, my experience: I am DGS and sit on the admissions committee at @umnbiostat. We receive ~180 PhD applicants each year, and make ~25 first-round offers. All members of the adcom score every PhD applicant; there are no “automatic rejects” based on grades or test scores. 3/
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!