Scientific debate around Covid-19 on Twitter and beyond has become increasingly polarised & unpleasant in recent weeks. It’s not a great look. Ironically, I think it’s less down to scientific disagreement, & more down to the limits of scientific knowledge. A few thoughts. (1/16) #AcademicTwitter is rarely the civilised, courteous affair that people outside academia might expect of university researchers, but since the pandemic started it’s been particularly rough-and-tumble. (2/16)

A quick preview of my part of a panel presentation with @rwjdingwall & @DrEsmee at the virtual @BSAMedsoc conference this Thursday. You can register at the link below. We’ll be discussing science, policy & society, with face mask policy as a focus. (1/5)

https://twitter.com/britsoci/status/1298972403658354688

Mask policies have rapidly expanded in the UK & elsewhere. Wearing a mask is seen as the right thing to do. Opposition to mask wearing is portrayed as irrational, reactionary, anti-scientific posturing: see this New Statesman piece, for example. (2/5) newstatesman.com/politics/uk/20…

Introducing the four-stage Martin approach to qualitative analysis (aka 'I did it properly, honest' @LLocock @Laurainbradford @OliWilliamsPhD). Stage 1: There’s nothing in here that’s useful and although I’ve got about 30 different codes, each of them has just one excerpt of data in it so they’re really just interesting things that people have said or done. Why am I an academic?

I've seen plenty of this. But I worry about the opposite as well - that scientists/academics limit themselves to what they can truly claim to be experts on, which by definition tends to be very limited. (1/4)

https://twitter.com/drg1985/status/1273542955144548352

I've also seen people getting bashed on the basis of ‘this -ology has nothing to say about that -ology’, which is a pretty lazy way of invalidating opposing views. It also doesn’t really do justice to science as an interdisciplinary/collaborative effort. (2/4)

Just a short comment on the face masks policy question. It's generating far more heat than light, on Twitter at least. A polarised, personalised exchange is not helpful to debate or to public health. Therefore this will be my last word on it, at least for a while. (1/4) I don't think there's much point in engaging with someone who characterises our work as ‘mischief’, who dismisses the contribution of an entire discipline as indifferent armchair commentary, and who (deliberately or otherwise) misconstrues the whole point of our paper. (2/4)

These headlines look like they were written before the event. The BBC describes people flocking to Brighton beach, and reports “more than 3000 people” in Brockwell Park, Brixton. The newspapers offer similar accounts of collective irresponsibility. (1/4) bbc.co.uk/news/uk-521720… That makes it sound like the place was thronging with people, cheek by jowl. In practice, 3000 people over the course of a day in a park of 125 acres looks more like this. (2/4)

https://twitter.com/alswanson/status/1246466868011032577

So, on a slightly more serious note, this seems to be the crux of the scientific debate at present. Can a lockdown, if effective, get anywhere close to eliminating the virus? (1/9)

https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1239936951823843328

The original government policy was based on the premise that it couldn’t, and therefore it wasn’t worth doing at all – because short-term lockdown measures would delay or even sharpen (rather than flatten) the peak of cases, meaning health system overwhelm later on. (2/9)

On @BBCFrontRow this evening, @StigAbell called The Sims "a fictional utopia." He's clearly never seen my daughter (@avaamartini) play it. She's done many unspeakable things to her Sims, but I'll mention just one. (1/5) @BBCFrontRow @StigAbell @avaamartini One poor Sim made the mistake of kissing the wrong character in the game. She punished him by putting him in a room with glass walls and no door. She them made him order pizza, again and again and again. (2/5)

I'm going to be giving a talk on academic writing next month, so I am starting to think about what I might say.

I plan to put my thoughts together in this thread, partly in case they're of use to anyone else, but mainly so that other people can add ideas for me to steal.

1/n First thought: academic publishing is increasingly competitive. That makes it more important than ever to show that you've got something novel to say. You need to make your 'so what?' clear from the start. 2/n

Really engaging and interesting talk from @RachelMeacock at #hsruk19 on literature review fleshing out the notion of spillovers (indirect +ve/-ve effects of interventions on wider populations) - enriching the health economic literature with insights from diverse disciplines. .@PhilipBritteon puts flesh on the concept in relation to best practice tariffs for day surgery - do improvements spread to non-incentivised procedures, or so clinicians/organisations focus their efforts away from these areas? #hsruk19

A few non-exhaustive thoughts.

1. Often you’re asked to review a paper outside your methodological/substantive expertise. While it may be worth querying if it feels far outside your comfort zone, often this is deliberate, and other reviewers’ expertise will compensate. (1/9)

https://twitter.com/IainMoppett/status/1145287757121691648

2. Accordingly, read the paper thoroughly, and do what you can to understand it. Sometimes you won’t, either because of faults in the paper, or limitations of your own knowledge. That’s OK, and it’s legitimate to say this. (2/9)

Thanks @LLocock for this interesting introduction to the history of peer review (Spier 2002). Some take homes:
(i) Peer review predates the schism of social/natural sciences; it's partly the increased scope/volume/specialisation of study that necessitated it (1/2)

https://twitter.com/LLocock/status/1136742236992020484

(ii) Technological development (typewriter then photocopier!) was crucial in making it possible
(iii) It's been just as important in curtailing the power of journal editors (who previously would have made unilateral decisions) as of authors (2/2)

A few thoughts on this graphic. First, while none of the options got a yes, some of them are edging closer. For example, had the SNP voted in favour of the customs union option instead of abstaining, it would have commanded a majority. (1/5)

https://twitter.com/MShepheard/status/1112849078071775234

But the same could be said of Theresa May’s plan, which has moved closer to a majority with each successive Meaningful [sic] Vote.

It seem that people on both sides still feel they have more to lose than gain by compromising. But that’s a dangerous game. (2/5)

Interesting and challenging session on conceptualising good research use at #transformure. Thread of key insights to follow. First, @VivianT88 asks: how (if at all) would a normative model of good research use look different from a model of good policymaking or good decision-making?

(Perhaps in how it frames the relationship with other, 'non-evidence', considerations?) #transformure

So I decided to spend some time with some of the Sunday papers to try to make sense of where things stand with Brexit, including the parliamentary situation. Here are a few points of note from The Sunday Telegraph and The Observer, in case of interest to anyone else. (1/12) Suella Braverman on her resignation in the ST. Brexit negotiated by small-c conservative civil servants exceeding their mandate without political accountability. Fine, but feels like a bit of a dereliction on the part of DeExEU ministers, dare I suggest? (2/12)

.@AnnetteBoaz and @oliver_kathryn introduce #transformure: UK not as good as we think we are at evidence-informed policy; lots of current research, policy and practice interest; need to think beyond barriers and facilitators to evidence use. Huw Davies tracks the history of evidence-informed policy in the UK from 'what counts is what works' forward. A field that has initiated interesting debate, but (ironically) tended through time towards introspection? #transformure

Those involved in #ref2021 planning might be interested in this. In fact, I'm surprised I'm the 1st person who's done it. Relative value of 1output v 1 impact case study v 100 words of environment statement in determining final score, based on draft guidance on submissions. [1/2] The headline: with the move to 25% of profiles being determined by impact (plus the impact statement being incorporated into the environment statement), one impact case study is now worth between five and 21 times one output (for FTEs of 10 and 200 respectively). #ref2021 [2/2]

You can sign up to @thetimes for free, and read a couple of articles a month. I did so in order to read Alistair Jarvis's piece. (Hey @UniversitiesUK, perhaps you could communicate with your members' employees too?) For those thinking of doing the same, I wouldn't bother. [1/4]

https://twitter.com/JosephineCumbo/status/975272843503198209

Lots of fawning about how @UniversitiesUK has listened and taken account of shifting views of its members. Nothing on the flawed (stacked?) survey methodology that gave rise to its position in the first place. [2/4]

This is a point that I made at @leicesterucu emergency meeting this morning. We don’t know what our national @ucu negotiators were facing, and I don’t doubt for one moment that they worked hard for the best deal they thought achievable. [1/4]

https://twitter.com/LLocock/status/973503674730328064

I am not convinced that the Pensions Regulator will see members’ rejection of a @ucu-negotiated deal as progress towards agreement—and then the default option becomes imposition of the earlier deal, which is clearly far worse than what’s on the table now. [2/4]