This is quite relevant to my field of study and interest, autism. The position of many in both science and the press is stuck at the situation: the claim that there isn’t even a problem so we don’t need to talk about solutions and policies.
But the problem with that is that there really is a problem. Both at the individual level for many people with the disorder, and at the population level, where the evidence consistently shows a long-running rapid increase in case incidence.
Yes, I realize that some people really don’t like to hear about this. And some would say that I am wrong here. But so far nobody has been able to produce valid evidence to that effect. What passes for evidence is usually opinion or citations of opinions. Some sources look like evidence but it falls apart on close inspection.
Adam, thank you for this systematic and clear approach on problem solving and thanks further on this Sir Bradford Hill quote "Our job was to ascertain the facts by research and publish them in medical journals. To become propagandists would ruin us as scientists and make us “biased” presenters of further material." I think it is wise for us researcher to adhere to.
In some theoretical perfect world Bradford Hills admonishing researchers to stay within the guardrails might be relevant. In todays world where governments lack any degree of technical skills and leadership tends to lack the courage to impose hard decisions when needed it could well be disastrous. As an aside query whether smoking and its disastrous health effects would have been reduced sooner if Bradford Hill and his fellow researchers had come out all guns blazing in favour of mandatory measures to change smokers behaviour straight away rather than letting governments take decades to take the lead. How much suffering could have been avoided. Sticking to such guardrails is not always the right course of action. In some cases it will be the easier option no doubt.
Unfortunately, this presumes a methodical relatively unbiased audience. Policy research often is intended to serve a population that lacks one or both of those traits. A well-supported identification of the situation clearly is necessary, but it often is met by "what are you going to do about it?" Another version of this problem is rejection of the analysis as not being the unique explanation of the situation. In policy research, unique responses often are not important; the objective may be identification of a sufficient condition for intervention, not a unique cause. Subtleties of this kind all present targets for a biased audience and points where an unbiased audience can get lost.
It is far, far easier to talk about methods with academic colleagues than people with wider public influence such as journalists. We often lose sight of this fact talking to each other. Distinctions among situation, intervention, and policy may be, in themselves, unacceptable subtleties.
This is quite relevant to my field of study and interest, autism. The position of many in both science and the press is stuck at the situation: the claim that there isn’t even a problem so we don’t need to talk about solutions and policies.
But the problem with that is that there really is a problem. Both at the individual level for many people with the disorder, and at the population level, where the evidence consistently shows a long-running rapid increase in case incidence.
Yes, I realize that some people really don’t like to hear about this. And some would say that I am wrong here. But so far nobody has been able to produce valid evidence to that effect. What passes for evidence is usually opinion or citations of opinions. Some sources look like evidence but it falls apart on close inspection.
Adam, thank you for this systematic and clear approach on problem solving and thanks further on this Sir Bradford Hill quote "Our job was to ascertain the facts by research and publish them in medical journals. To become propagandists would ruin us as scientists and make us “biased” presenters of further material." I think it is wise for us researcher to adhere to.
In some theoretical perfect world Bradford Hills admonishing researchers to stay within the guardrails might be relevant. In todays world where governments lack any degree of technical skills and leadership tends to lack the courage to impose hard decisions when needed it could well be disastrous. As an aside query whether smoking and its disastrous health effects would have been reduced sooner if Bradford Hill and his fellow researchers had come out all guns blazing in favour of mandatory measures to change smokers behaviour straight away rather than letting governments take decades to take the lead. How much suffering could have been avoided. Sticking to such guardrails is not always the right course of action. In some cases it will be the easier option no doubt.
Unfortunately, this presumes a methodical relatively unbiased audience. Policy research often is intended to serve a population that lacks one or both of those traits. A well-supported identification of the situation clearly is necessary, but it often is met by "what are you going to do about it?" Another version of this problem is rejection of the analysis as not being the unique explanation of the situation. In policy research, unique responses often are not important; the objective may be identification of a sufficient condition for intervention, not a unique cause. Subtleties of this kind all present targets for a biased audience and points where an unbiased audience can get lost.
It is far, far easier to talk about methods with academic colleagues than people with wider public influence such as journalists. We often lose sight of this fact talking to each other. Distinctions among situation, intervention, and policy may be, in themselves, unacceptable subtleties.