Nov 12, 2022 01:15 PM - 03:15 PM(America/New_York)
20221112T1315 20221112T1515 America/New_York Values and Policy Birmingham PSA 2022
Cooperative Epistemic TrustworthinessView Abstract
Contributed Papers 01:15 PM - 01:45 PM (America/New_York) 2022/11/12 18:15:00 UTC - 2022/11/12 18:45:00 UTC
Extant accounts of trust in science focus on reconciling scientific and public value judgments, but neglect the challenge of learning audience values. I argue that for scientific experts to be epistemically trustworthy, they should adopt a cooperative approach to learning about the values of their audience. A cooperative approach, in which expert and non-expert inquirers iteratively refine value judgments, better achieves important second-order epistemic dimensions of trustworthiness. Whereas some epistemologists take trustworthiness to be a precondition for the objectivity of science, I suggest that strong objectivity in the standpoint theoretic sense is sometimes a prerequisite for trustworthiness itself.
Marina DiMarco
University Of Pittsburgh HPS
Peer Review, Innovation, and Predicting the Future of Science: The Scope of Lotteries in Science Funding PolicyView Abstract
Contributed Papers 01:45 PM - 02:15 PM (America/New_York) 2022/11/12 18:45:00 UTC - 2022/11/12 19:15:00 UTC
Recent science funding policy scholars and practitioners have advocated for the use of lotteries, or elements of random chance, as supplementations of traditional peer review for evaluating grant applications. One of the primary motivations for lotteries is their purported openness to innovative research. The purpose of this paper is to argue that current proponents of funding science by lottery overestimate the viability of peer review and thus unduly restrict the scope of lotteries in science funding practice. I further show how this analysis suggests a different way of introducing lotteries into science funding policy.
Jamie Shaw
University Of Toronto
Institutional Values Influence the Design and Evaluation of Transition Knowledge in Funding Proposals at NOAAView Abstract
Contributed Papers 02:15 PM - 02:45 PM (America/New_York) 2022/11/12 19:15:00 UTC - 2022/11/12 19:45:00 UTC
This paper shows how institutional values influence the design and evaluation of arguments in funding proposals for scientific research. We characterize a general argument made within proposals and several kinds of subarguments that contribute to it. We indicate that funders’ values inform the kinds of proposal documents funders require and their relative weighting of them. We illustrate these points by showing how the U.S. federal agency NOAA uses its public service mission to require and heavily weigh arguments to transition new knowledge to agency service providers. We suggest conceptual questions raised by the use of transition arguments.
Steve Elliott
Presenter, NOAA/AAAS
Gina Eosco
Joe Conran
Laura Newcomb
Against Evidentiary Pluralism in Pharmaceutical RegulationView Abstract
Contributed Papers 02:45 PM - 03:15 PM (America/New_York) 2022/11/12 19:45:00 UTC - 2022/11/12 20:15:00 UTC
We examine arguments for and against the use of mechanistic evidence in assessing treatment efficacy and find that advocates of EBM+ and their critics have largely been talking past each other due to difference in focus. We explore aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease as a case which may (eventually) speak to the role of EBM+ in pharmaceutical regulation. The case suggests the debate may be more fruitful if philosophers confine debates to particular domains of medical science and weigh in prospectively instead of relying on historical cases where outcomes are known and which are susceptible to hindsight bias.
Richard Sung
Bennett Holman
Presenter, Yonsei University
University of Pittsburgh HPS
University of Toronto
Dr. Roberta  Millstein
University of California, Davis
No attendee has checked-in to this session!
Program Navigator
518 visits