Ethics and biases in evaluating evidence
Please note that for mobiles we stream the presentation slides and audio of the speaker.
Mr Raymond Neutra argues that a commitment to transparent and balanced argumentation is needed to facilitate the corrective action of skeptical peer review. He argues that a hypothetical update of Bradford Hill's famous 1965 article would recognise the different styles of causal inference from statistical findings in pure science and in the realm of regulation.
This lecture was filmed at the 'Association or causation in miasmas and mixtures: current reflections on Bradford Hill's 1965 contribution to public health' meeting at the Royal Society of Medicine in London.
Date of lecture: 14th of October 2016