Some of the big questions we try to teach in Epidemiology for Lawyers, whether students go to a firm, the Hill, WH, judiciary or elsewhere: what principles & processes help us make decisions on limited data & how do we change decisions (but keep trust) as evidence evolves?
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1377620884387725322
Two quick examples:
for the first question,
1) what is the quality of the evidence (systematic review, cohort, case study)
2) is better evidence possible
3) could it do harm to wait or act (e.g. should we apply a precautionary approach)
for the first question,
1) what is the quality of the evidence (systematic review, cohort, case study)
2) is better evidence possible
3) could it do harm to wait or act (e.g. should we apply a precautionary approach)
for the second question, using clear risk communication strategies early on can help minimize damage to public trust. Tell public:
1. what we know (how we know)
2. what we don't know
3. what we're doing to find out more
4. when we'll give our next update
1. what we know (how we know)
2. what we don't know
3. what we're doing to find out more
4. when we'll give our next update
These are just snippets and not comprehensively, but building scientific literacy for policy-makers and for the public, is critical.
Prior to 2020, I wanted to rename the course "scientific literacy for lawyers", but now everyone knows what an epidemiologist is.
Prior to 2020, I wanted to rename the course "scientific literacy for lawyers", but now everyone knows what an epidemiologist is.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
