TY - JOUR
T1 - The Cochrane Case
T2 - An Epistemic Analysis on Decision-Making and Trust in Science in the Age of Information
AU - Boem, F.
AU - Bonzio, S.
AU - Osimani, B.
AU - Sacco, A.
N1 - Funding Information:
The work is supported by the ERC Grant: “Philosophy of Pharmacology: Safety, Statistical Standards, and Evidence Amalgamation”, GA:639276. The first author acknowledges also the ERC Grant “Making Scientific Inferences More Objective”, GA:640638. We also thank Emanuele Ratti and two anonymous referees for their useful comments.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Springer Nature B.V.
PY - 2023/3
Y1 - 2023/3
N2 - In this study we analyze a recent controversy within the biomedical world, concerning the evaluation of safety of certain vaccines. This specific struggle took place among experts: the Danish epidemiologist Peter Gøtzsche on one side and a respected scientific institution, the Cochrane, on the other. However, given its relevance, the consequences of such a conflict invest a much larger spectrum of actors, last but not least the public itself. Our work is aimed at dissecting a specific aspect happening in this complex scenario: strategy. In other words, we want to highlight the value and the impact of strategic decisions when complex issues, as those analyzed, are at stake. In order to address this we have decided to adopt a game-theoretic approach. Our work will be structured as it follows. First, we will introduce the controversy and the two main actors: Peter Gøtzsche and the Cochrane. Second, we will explain why this controversy is important and its value beyond its academic relevance. Third, we will frame the controversy as a game and will provide several models representing different situations, also furnishing an analysis of these distinct scenarios. In the end we will argue why such game-theoretic approach can be useful in dissecting this type of issues.
AB - In this study we analyze a recent controversy within the biomedical world, concerning the evaluation of safety of certain vaccines. This specific struggle took place among experts: the Danish epidemiologist Peter Gøtzsche on one side and a respected scientific institution, the Cochrane, on the other. However, given its relevance, the consequences of such a conflict invest a much larger spectrum of actors, last but not least the public itself. Our work is aimed at dissecting a specific aspect happening in this complex scenario: strategy. In other words, we want to highlight the value and the impact of strategic decisions when complex issues, as those analyzed, are at stake. In order to address this we have decided to adopt a game-theoretic approach. Our work will be structured as it follows. First, we will introduce the controversy and the two main actors: Peter Gøtzsche and the Cochrane. Second, we will explain why this controversy is important and its value beyond its academic relevance. Third, we will frame the controversy as a game and will provide several models representing different situations, also furnishing an analysis of these distinct scenarios. In the end we will argue why such game-theoretic approach can be useful in dissecting this type of issues.
KW - Cochrane
KW - Decisions
KW - Experts disagreement
KW - HPV vaccine
KW - Public health policies
KW - n/a OA procedure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085008370&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10699-020-09668-y
DO - 10.1007/s10699-020-09668-y
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85085008370
SN - 1233-1821
VL - 28
SP - 143
EP - 158
JO - Foundations of science
JF - Foundations of science
IS - 1
ER -