Uncertain Science Research Articles

Back to the future: Retrograde alcohol calculations an uncertain science

Retrograde extrapolations, known as back calculations are widely used in forensic toxicology to estimate the blood alcohol concentration of an individual at some prior time. In the UK guidelines have been issued by the United Kingdom and Ireland Association of Forensic Toxicologists) and the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science. However, these guidelines are not fully agreed and open tointerpretation. Alcohol elimination rates have been discussed in numerous publications since Widmark’s original data was published. The current guidance from UKIAFT, is to report the most likely back calculated result together with a range of results based on the 95% confidence limit elimination rates (9 to 29 mg/100 mL/hour).The Divisional Court, upheld by the House of Lords, ruled that in order to convict someone for being over the prescribed limit on the basis of any back calculation, the case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A 99.73% confidence interval increased to 3 standard deviations at the lower end would provide a greater factual basis for the court and cover alarger proportion of the population, this can be achieved by increasing the elimination range to 8 to 29 mg/100 mL/hour. Retrograde extrapolations also rely on the subject being post absorptive at the prior time. In the UK, back calculations are validif the subject has not eaten or consumed alcohol withinonehour ofthe back calculation time. Where the subject has eatenprior to the back calculation, experts are instructed to consider whether the back calculation is applicable. In Germany and the United States back calculations are not permitted to a time within 2 h after last drink consumed. The 2 h limit would better meet the highest standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ burden of proof, and should be used. These proposed changes would decrease the uncertainty associated with retrograde calculations carried out by UK toxicologists.

Review: Meat the Future, by Liz Marshall

Review: <i>Meat the Future</i>, by Liz Marshall

How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework.

Understanding how to portray uncertain science to the public is a pressing goal for science communication. This study compared US public audience reactions to a news article depicting a novel discovery in neurogenomics as certain or uncertain, with statements of (un)certainty attributed to either affiliated or unaffiliated scientists. The uncertainty disclosure had no main effect on perceived news article credibility, scientist trustworthiness, objectivity of the scientists' depiction, or willingness to participate in genomic research. However, news credibility and scientist objectivity ratings were higher for uncertainty disclosure attributed to the affiliated scientists. Participants with greater preference for information about uncertainty found the scientists more trustworthy, their depictions more balanced, and the news article more credible when the research was described as uncertain, and these effects were stronger for affiliated scientist attribution. Findings underscore the important roles of disclosure source and audience characteristics in public reactions to media representations of scientific uncertainty.

Back to the future: Retrograde alcohol calculations an uncertain science

To respond to Labay and Logan's call for a scientific consensus regarding retrograde extrapolations in alcohol DUI cases by describing the existing practices in England and Wales and outlining changes that need to be made. Retrograde extrapolations, known as back calculations in England and Wales, are widely used in toxicology to estimate the blood alcohol concentration of an individual at some prior time. In 2018, Labay and Logan (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2018, Vol 63. No 5, 1602–1603) published a call for a scientific consensus regarding back calculations. In the UK guidelines have been issued by the United Kingdom and Ireland Association of Forensic Toxicologists (UKIAFT, 2021, Guidelines for Alcohol Calculations, Version 4.3), while in the US, the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science have issued draft guidelines (2020, Guidelines for Performing Alcohol Calculations in Forensic Toxicology). However, these guidelines are not fully agreed and open for interpretation. Alcohol elimination rates have been discussed in many publications since Widmark's original data were published. The current guidance from UKIAFT, is to report the most likely back calculated result together with a range of results based on the 95% confidence limit elimination rates from Jones's 1996 study of drinking drivers (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1996, Vol 41, No 5, 922–926). That range of elimination rates being from 9 to 29 mg/100 mL/hour (0.009 to 0.029 g/dL/hour). There is an acceptance of this 95% confidence interval for the reported final result by practitioners. The Divisional Court, upheld by the House of Lords, however ruled that in order to convict someone for being over the prescribed limit on the basis of any back calculation, the case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While the 95% confidence interval covers a large portion of the population, 1 in 20 individuals may fall outside the reported values. It is clearly not sufficient to prove a defendant's guilt so clearly that it must be accepted as fact, a common requirement of UK law. A confidence interval increased to 3 standard deviations or 99.73% would provide a greater factual basis for the court and cover a much larger proportion of the population. There is a reluctance within the forensic community to use this larger range as it often renders the calculation ineffective. However, that is simply a consequence of the considerable population variation. Retrograde extrapolations also rely on the subject being post absorptive at the prior time. In the UK, it is considered safe to back calculate if the subject has not eaten or consumed alcohol in the hour prior to the back calculation time. Where the subject has eaten recently prior to the back calculation time, experts are instructed to consider whether the back calculation is valid. In Germany back calculations are not permitted to a time within 2 hours after last drink consumed. The 2 hour limit would better meet the highest standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ burden of proof, and should be used. There is a lot of debate around certain elements of the back calculations and experts have the freedom to interpret variables differently to an extent. Based on the review of many publications the have proposed modifications to the current practice in forensic casework to provide a more robust uncertainty and confidence interval. This will ensure consistency in the testimony given by different experts to the court and provide greater clarity for judges and juries in the assessment of scientific concepts and evidence.

The uncertain science of preimplantation and prenatal genetic testing.

The uncertain science of preimplantation and prenatal genetic testing.

The Administrative Precautionary Approach at the Time of Covid-19: The Law of Uncertain Science and the Italian Answer to Emergency

The health emergency linked to Covid-19 brought to the fore the problem of the usefulness and correct application of the precautionary principle. In the paper proposed for the call, the topic will be analyzed starting from the foundations of the precautionary principle, to see consequently how it must be ‘handled’ in practice when the Administration (in the Italian fight against the pandemic, the Government, but also the Regions) is called to decide in contexts of health crisis. Particular attention will be paid, just from the beginning, to the relationship between science and Public Administration, in order to demonstrate how the precautionary approach represents a ‘rule of action’ for the public decision-maker when there is no full scientific certainty. In this perspective, the analysis will be developed starting from the definition of a general context: that one represented by the so-called ‘irreducible uncertainty.’ This premise will be the starting point to define a law of uncertain science,’ which ‘follows’ the facts and is characterized for its flexibility. The problem will then be reported to the administrative decisions, called in emergency times to be ‘adaptive’ and reviewable. The reflection on precaution ‘in action’ will have the Italian case as an observation ‘laboratory.’ In this perspective, the investigation will be conducted by looking at the ‘answer’ of the Italian legal system to the emergency related to Covid-19. This will lead to see if the precautionary approach has been taken seriously by the Italian Administration and, subsequently, what characters have taken the measures to fight against the spread of the Coronavirus outbreak. In conclusion, it will be necessary to understand whether the ‘postulates’ of precaution ‘in the books’ have been translated into an adequate precaution ‘in action.’ In other terms, the attention will be focused on two different aspects: the first related to the ‘time’ of the action; the second to the content of the measures taken to fight against the spread of the virus. This will allow us to understand if the Italian Government acted promptly (in compliance with the precautionary approach) and what was the decision-making process that brought to these measures.

Who's Guarding the Gate? The Reach of Prereviewed Emerging Science and Implications for Family Medicine Education.

Online publication of prereviewed manuscripts disseminates research simultaneously to scientists, clinicians, and patients, enabling the media and public to act as scientific reviewers for studies that are not yet endorsed by the scientific and clinical community. This study describes the reach of prereview literature and frames it within the pursuit to teach evidence-based medicine. In this deductive content analysis, the primary unit of analysis was the individual preprint manuscript submitted to the medRxiv preprint server during the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The coding scheme included study design, negative or positive findings, dissemination status (whether it was withdrawn from the server or eventually published), and three levels of reach: user engagement, news media coverage, and social media engagement. Prereviewed manuscripts describe a variety of study methods. Dissemination status was significantly related to abstract views, manuscript views, news coverage, and social media exposure. Studies with negative findings had higher counts of abstract views, manuscript views, and news coverage, but no significant relationships were detected. Results demonstrate that not only are scientists publishing negative findings, but that those studies reach a wide audience. Notably, eventually-withdrawn manuscripts, potentially containing incomplete or uncertain science, is reaching the public domain. Increasingly, family physicians will need to critically appraise emerging literature before it is peer reviewed, whether they encounter it in their own searches or when a patient presents information they found before an appointment.

Novelty, Ignorance and the Unknown: Uncertain Science and the Frontiers of Science Doctrine

This paper examines the historical boundaries of relying upon risk assessment as the bedrock of environmental law. It does so by revisiting a number of historical environmental and public health cases that illustrate the ebbs and flows of judicial and regulatory insights into uncertain science. The paper concludes that the current approach to dealing with scientific uncertainty and doubt based on risk and quantification in environmental law is flawed. A fresh look at the frontiers of science doctrine which developed the link between, novelty, uncertain science and ignorance requires fresh appraisal. Without this key doctrine in place neither a precautionary approach nor the EU’s precautionary principle can function as a driver for key environmental protection.

The Hidden Curriculum of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The Hidden Curriculum of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The ‘Rights’ Way to Democratize the Science–Policy Interface in International Environmental Law? A Reply to Anna-Maria Hubert

Abstract Science is widely regarded as being necessary for effective international environmental decision-making and risk assessment processes. However, it is equally well recognized that uncertainties or the complexity of phenomena under study mean that science may only offer partial knowledge for environmental problems in many circumstances. ‘Democratization’ of science is often proposed as a solution to this dilemma. This may involve incorporating a wider spectrum of expert views and public inputs in risk assessments of new technologies, public participation in science through so-called ‘citizen science’ initiatives or the application of the precautionary principle. This reply reviews these approaches and contrasts them with another tantalizing possibility offered by Anna-Maria Hubert’s article; a human rights-based approach drawing on the ‘oft-neglected’ right to science. It assesses the extent to which a rights-based approach, utilizing the right to science, offers a way to bridge the gap between science and democracy in contested international environmental legal decision-making processes. While it concludes that there are important potential benefits to the application of the right to science in international environmental law, it is far from clear that it provides a panacea given the limitations on the right expressed in the international human rights instruments in which it is found, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Instead, the right to science can be seen as placing another thumb on the scales – alongside the precautionary and participatory approaches – in favour of enabling broader, more democratically accountable decision-making in cases of uncertain science and contested environmental risks.

COVID-19 immunity certificates: science, ethics, policy, and law.

There is much discussion of adopting COVID-19 immunity certificates to allow those proven to have antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 to resume normal life and help restart the economy. This article points out issues that must be considered before adopting any such program. These issues fall into six categories: the uncertain science of COVID-19 immunity; the questionable quality of COVID-19 antibody tests; practical problems with issuing such certificates; deciding how the certificates might be used; ethical and social issues they would raise, especially fairness and self-infection; and potential legal barriers. It does not ultimately take a position on whether some narrow COVID-19 immunity plans should be adopted, concluding that the answer depends on too many currently unknown conditions. But its seventh part makes recommendations to decision-makers who might consider implementing such programs.

SEISMIC HAZARD ESTIMATION IN STABLE CONTINENTAL REGIONS: DOES PSHA MEET THE NEEDS FOR MODERN ENGINEERING DESIGN IN AUSTRALIA?

Damaging earthquakes in Australia and other regions characterised by low seismicity are considered low probability but high consequence events. Uncertainties in modelling earthquake occurrence rates and ground motions for damaging earthquakes in these regions pose unique challenges to forecasting seismic hazard, including the use of this information as a reliable benchmark to improve seismic safety within our communities. Key challenges for assessing seismic hazards in these regions are explored, including: the completeness and continuity of earthquake catalogues; the identification and characterisation of neotectonic faults; the difficulties in characterising earthquake ground motions; the uncertainties in earthquake source modelling, and; the use of modern earthquake hazard information to support the development of future building provisions. Geoscience Australia recently released its 2018 National Seismic Hazard Assessment (NSHA18). Results from the NSHA18 indicate significantly lower seismic hazard across almost all Australian localities at the 1/500 annual exceedance probability level relative to the factors adopted for the current Australian Standard AS1170.4–2007 (R2018). These new hazard estimates have challenged notions of seismic hazard in Australia in terms of the recurrence of damaging ground motions. This raises the question of whether current practices in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) deliver the outcomes required to protect communities and infrastructure assets in low-seismicity regions, such as Australia. This manuscript explores a range of measures that could be undertaken to update and modernise the Australian earthquake loading standard, in the context of these modern seismic hazard estimates, including the use of alternate ground-motion exceedance probabilities for assigning seismic demands for ordinary-use structures. The estimation of seismic hazard at any location is an uncertain science, particularly in low-seismicity regions. However, as our knowledge of the physical characteristics of earthquakes improve, our estimates of the hazard will converge more closely to the actual – but unknowable – (time independent) hazard. Understanding the uncertainties in the estimation of seismic hazard is also of key importance, and new software and approaches allow hazard modellers to better understand and quantify this uncertainty. It is therefore prudent to regularly update the estimates of the seismic demands in our building codes using the best available evidence-based methods and models.

Abstract ES9-1: Discussing risk &amp; uncertainty with patients in the context of GEP testing

Abstract Many discussions between physicians and their patients about the logic and rationale for different treatment recommendations are increasingly complex. The information required to aid educated decision-making requires careful balancing of the likely absolute benefits in terms of cure or preventing recurrence versus any treatment-related side effects. Few realise that medicine is an uncertain science where most facts are probabilities defined and refined by repeated hypothesis testing. In the context of life-threatening disease this can make communication with patients about risk and uncertainty challenging. Health literacy and numeracy skills in the general population are often poor, creating other communication difficulties; furthermore confusion increases when such conversations are set against a backdrop of fear and anxiety. Clinico-pathologic features traditionally help determine which women with early stage breast cancer are most likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, but many patients still believe that in life-threatening situations, more treatment must be better. Scores from gene expression profiling tests such as OncotypeDX®, EndoPredict® and Prosigna® may reduce some of the uncertainty and anxiety about omitting chemotherapy and increase the confidence of doctors helping patients with their decision-making.(1) However explaining high, intermediate and low risk test scores is not always straightforward especially when patients have widely varying personality and socio-educational characteristics. Both clinicians and their patients may also have a measurable intolerance to uncertainty that may contribute (irrespective of the recurrence score) to seemingly irrational decisions about treatment. This interactive session will incorporate materials from Talking About Risk in the context of Genomic Testing (TARGET), an evidence-based program (2) funded by the BCRF- This includes didactic presentations (PPT) exercises and video clips of doctors explaining risk scores from genomic tests. After attending the session participants should:- a) recognise how poor literacy and numeracy in general populations affects understanding about risk and decision-making b) understand how their own intolerance to uncertainty may ‘leak’ through into communication with patients and c) increase their repertoire of skills when explaining GEP scores to patients

Applying Uncertain Science to Nature-Based Coastal Protection: Lessons From Shallow Wetland-Dominated Shores

Climate change and associated sea-level rise alongside the potential for alterations in the magnitude and frequency of extreme storm events, rapidly rising coastal populations, and a legacy of coastal land reclamation have led to the consideration of nature-based approaches towards coastal flood and erosion protection over recent years. The descriptions of such approaches highlight the flood protection value of natural coastal features but examples of their implementation remain few and far between and nature-based solutions to the rising coastal flood and erosion risk can certainly not (yet) be considered mainstream. One key problem around the implementation of these types of approaches has, arguably, been the relative lack of perceived scientific certainty, amongst stakeholders, surrounding the efficiency with which natural landforms reduce wave action on landward lying structures and the persistence of such landforms in an uncertain future. This makes nature-inclusive approaches less attractive to more traditional engineering-only approaches that rely solely on one ‘hard’ structure with a well-defined impact on waves and a specified design life. Using existing evidence for the coastal protection function of salt marshes, this paper offers a new perspective on this apparent lack of scientific certainty by offering a ‘no-regret’ application of existing science that allows decision makers and coastal planners to implement nature-inclusive approaches to coastal flood and erosion risk reduction measures with greater confidence.

Countering Expert Uncertainty: Rhetorical Strategies from the Case of Value-Added Modeling in Teacher Evaluation

This study investigates how uncertainty works in science policy debates by considering an unusual case: one in which uncertainty-based arguments for delay come from the scientific community, rather than industry actors. The case I present is the central use of value-added modeling (VAM) in the evaluation of individual teachers, a controversial trend in education reform. In order to understand how policy actors might counter inconvenient statements of uncertainty from experts, I analyze speeches from Education Secretary Arne Duncan, a committed and influential advocate of VAM. I identify a three-part rhetorical tactic, the “Overcaution Allegation,” and describe its persuasive potential to legitimize policies that elicit caution from the scientific community because they are built on uncertain science.

Government Dietary Guidelines: Uncertain Science Leads to Questionable Public Health Policy

The US Department of Agriculture has issued dietary recommendations for more than a century, and during that period the health, longevity, and nutritional status of Americans improved markedly. Before the release of the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) in 1980, the recommendations were based on rigorous science and simply offered general information on choosing foods and beverages to prevent deficiencies and maintain health. Yet with each subsequent version, the DGA became increasingly complex, prescriptive, and nutrient-focused (as opposed to food-based) despite an ever-increasing uncertainty and lack of credibility in the supporting evidence. This review examines the historical record of the development of the DGA and demonstrates that current recommendations were based on biased, implausible anecdotal evidence and that rigorous contrary research and the diversity of expert opinions on diet–health relationships were ignored. It concludes with an examination of the unintended negative public health consequences of founding policy on uncertain science.

Quality of epidemiological studies: Procedural rules for uncertain science for policy, a case study on bisphenol-A

This paper proposes a method for in-depth mapping of heterogeneity in expert judgment, in the evaluation of the quality of epidemiological studies used in regulatory chemical risk assessment. Whereas consensus in scientific advisory groups provides legitimation for subsequent political action, it can also have unintended effects on the quality of regulatory risk assessment.Based on empirical testing of our method, called Qualichem_epi, with ten experts and two epidemiological case studies about bisphenol A (BPA)’s effects on human health, we have shown that expert judgment plays an essential role in managing uncertainty and deciding what “quality” of a study actually means. We found substantial heterogeneity of scientists’ judgments about the quality of epidemiological studies, even if the same criteria were used for the assessment. This heterogeneity is not present anymore in reports produced by expert groups, where results are presented under the collective signature of all the scientists involved. We argue that flattening heterogeneity can be an important problem when it is not the result of true scientific agreement but only a secondary effect of consensus-based working procedures of agencies that experts have to follow.Qualichem_epi provides an easy to understand color-based picture of both majority and minority opinions in a scientific advisory group. We suggest that it could be used on a regular basis for communicating quality assessments of epidemiological studies in regulatory chemical risk assessment.

The uncertain science of predicting tuberculosis

The uncertain science of predicting tuberculosis

Science communication for uncertain science and innovation

Differences in viewpoints between science and society, like in for example the HPV-vaccination debate, should be considered from a socio-technical system perspective, and not solely from a boundary perspective between the lay public, medical doctors and scientists. Recent developments in the HPV-vaccination case show how the debate concerning uncertainty amongst scientists and the lay audience is mostly focussed on the improvement of understanding of lay people about why vaccination is important. This boundary thinking leads to the idea that once the boundary is crossed, the problem is solved. However, such ‘bug-fixing’ and technocentric boundary thinking is not leading to sustainable resolutions. We view science communication as a key aspect of the socio-technical system of scientific, technological and innovation development, in which the vaccine and its corresponding immunisation program are socially constructed. A process of construction that takes place all the way from the fuzzy front-end of their scientific conception until the marketing back-end. The authority, legitimacy and therefore the license to operate of scientists, engineers and policy makers are discussed, primarily at this boundary, but develops during the whole process of innovation. During upstream processes, professional roles and according behaviour are also defined. In this commentary we state that the development of science communication strategies should also start upstream, and that the ‘bug-fixes’ of improved listening to (and not by) the lay audience, could be become a more sustainable solution to the HPV-debate if this process of listening by experts considers the socio-technical system of vaccination as a whole. One of the outcomes might be that the dialogue between scientists, policy makers and the lay audience is about the various possible scenarios that deal with inherent scientific and societal uncertainty in which the inevitable uncertainty of science becomes more explicit. It is not known according whether this will lead to more profound interactions, however we would like to explore this possibility a bit more from an uncertain innovation process point of view. This could clear the way for a process of co-inquiry into ideas concerning shared responsibility and accountability. The latter means that the focus in the debate is more balanced and concerns the social network, and is not purely focussed on the betterment ofunderstanding by the lay audience. Moreover, in this way we consider communication and interaction between actors not as a means of crossing any boundaries (since that may be impossible), but as a means to perturb a status quo or equilibrium within a network of actors. This makes apparent boundaries more explicit and discussable. Methods of interaction, e.g. based on concepts like midstream modulation, may lead to another discourse and give way to new dynamics in this social system.

Prescriptive Laws, Uncertain Science, and Political Stories: Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada

In the late 1990s, national forests in California's northern Nevada became centrally involved in two competing trends in natural resource management. One, a trend toward increased community-based resource management, produced the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act, a law designed to govern logging and forest restoration in the Northern Nevada. The law was championed by the Quincy Library Group, a local organization that became one of the most visible examples of community-based planning. The other, a trend toward increased ecological sensitivity in forest management, produced a Forest Service plan, known colloquially as the Sierra Nevada Framework, which purported to govern the same lands. Both plans were backed by compelling narratives, and both would apply in contexts of contested politics, demanding legal obligations, and pervasive scientific uncertainty. This article explores the interrelationships between those plans, and the related interrelationships among conflicting narratives, uncertain science, and the legal superstructure. It concludes that in such contexts of uncertainty, environmental managers will be prone to allowing narrative rather than scientific criteria to drive policy, but that taking such a course of action is problematically inconsistent with a legal structure ostensibly demanding decision-making grounded in science.