Risk perception and communication



  • Challenge trials, ethics approvals, confounders and surveillance

  • The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics:

    The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster.

Incoming

Knit these together with observational data to argue that experimental ethics imply the demand for a pervasive surveillance state.

References

Athey, Susan. 2017. Beyond Prediction: Using Big Data for Policy Problems.” Science 355 (6324): 483–85.
Huang, Zaijing, and Andrew Gelman. 2005. Sampling for Bayesian Computation with Large Datasets.” SSRN Electronic Journal.
Killingley, Ben, Alex Mann, Mariya Kalinova, Alison Boyers, Niluka Goonawardane, Jie Zhou, Kate Lindsell, et al. 2022. Safety, Tolerability and Viral Kinetics During SARS-CoV-2 Human Challenge.”
Vehtari, Aki, Andrew Gelman, Tuomas Sivula, Pasi Jylänki, Dustin Tran, Swupnil Sahai, Paul Blomstedt, John P. Cunningham, David Schiminovich, and Christian Robert. 2019. Expectation Propagation as a Way of Life: A Framework for Bayesian Inference on Partitioned Data.” arXiv:1412.4869 [Stat], November.
Wang, Xiangyu, and David B. Dunson. 2013. Parallelizing MCMC via Weierstrass Sampler,” December.

No comments yet. Why not leave one?

GitHub-flavored Markdown & a sane subset of HTML is supported.