1 / 9

Seminar 1 - E. Dyachuk, K. Haikonen, K. Kovi, L. Saarinen, L. Sjökvist

Seminar 1 - E. Dyachuk, K. Haikonen, K. Kovi, L. Saarinen, L. Sjökvist. Technology, research and ethics E. Dyachuk, K. Haikonen, K. Kovi, L. Saarinen, L. Sjökvist Division of Electricity Dept. of Engineering Sciences Uppsala University Sweden. Themes. Responsibility

lieu
Download Presentation

Seminar 1 - E. Dyachuk, K. Haikonen, K. Kovi, L. Saarinen, L. Sjökvist

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Seminar 1-E. Dyachuk, K. Haikonen, K. Kovi, L. Saarinen, L. Sjökvist Technology, research and ethics E. Dyachuk, K. Haikonen, K. Kovi, L. Saarinen, L. Sjökvist Division of Electricity Dept. of Engineering Sciences Uppsala University Sweden

  2. Themes • Responsibility • Statistics and Errors • Conflicts

  3. Responsibility Prosecution: • Alledge the defendantsgave a falselyreassuringstatementbefore the quake • Did the scientists weightup all the risks, and communicatetheseclearly to thoseseekingadvice? • ”We just wanted to be warnedthatweweresitting on a bomb” Defendants: • Not possible be precise about the timing offuture events. 30 sec. warning is possible. • The best science can do is talk in terms of risk and ofprobabilities • Seismologistshavebeensayingsince 1998 that it is a high risk area.

  4. Responsibility • What is the scientists responsibility? • -Did they make the right decision or should the have warned the public, with the risk of crying wolf? • Communicating scientific results is called ”the third mission” of swedish universities, but how to communicate that ”low risk” does not mean ”not dangerous”?

  5. Statistics and errors: Reproducibility • Examples from drug research: • 6 out of 53 studies on cancer were possible to reproduce • ¼ av 67 seminal studies • Examples from machine learning: • Overfitting • Estimation: ¼ of results can be reproduced • Examples from publishing in general: • Reviewers pick up 2 of 8 deliberate mistakes (British medical journal) • An article with several obvious errors is accepted by ½ of the journals it was submitted to (biology/cancer)

  6. Errors and statistical power

  7. Good research practice • Disclose sources of error • Use blinded data • Publish also negative results • Reproduction studies are important • Thorough peer review very important • ”Minimal-threshold journals” which demand good scientific quality but not that the research is ”new” and ”significant”

  8. Conflicts • Scandal at Uppsala University, 2007 • The scandal • Public reaction

  9. Conflicts • Mail storm • Leakage of internal mails onto public domain. • Publishing anonymously on internet. • Open discussion by several others in public domain. • Discussion on the credibility of research models.

More Related