Live Microblogging Of “Evidence-based decision making: who’s counting the evidence…” Tonight At UCL

Follow @mmorabito67 for live microblogging of tonight’s UCL event “Evidence-based decision making: who’s counting the evidence…” 5.15pm GMT in London

And here all the notes as written (oldest note first):

• Starts right on time – speaker gets audience to move closer – who is the speaker? http://myloc.me/3GHcG
• It was a Sarah now it’s a Peter Piot of IGH presentation Lost In Translation
• Evidence means many things. ‘Deadly delay’ from science to global action eg tobacco cancer link 1950 Surgeon General 1964 etc
• Mentions climate change then antiretroviral prophylaxis for AIDS still only 35%
• Bridges from evidence to policy to implementation importance of clarity
• Example of condoms and other methods against Aids different efficacy theoretical vs actual
• Science comms issue incomprehensible language
• Policy not just based on evidence alone also preferences politics – progress depends on politics
• Eg Cardoso of Brazil not stopping provision of Aids drugs
• Don’t compromise on basic principle but need to pressure the right points
• Mbeki did not follow advice not a problem of missing information
• Not evidence-based but evidence-informed policy – don’t leave policy to technocrats
• Implementation: guidelines simple, right costs and allocated resources
• Community engagement then also dealing with beliefs eg polio vaccine leading to impotence and infertility
• Sun-tzu quote shown in Chinese- people might have good reason to be suspicious- don’t get to war, yet to understand all people
• Now director of NICE, Calypso ?, reader specialist in history of global health probs, senior health advisor Malcolm at DFID
• Room is uncomfortably hot light comes on then fades first panelist
• Talks of the way NICE works – on verge of dozing off http://myloc.me/3GJS0
• Not just what evidence but also whose
• Problem: need policy-relevant evidence making? No, just evidence alone is not enough
• Work on legitimacy, needs, values and also better processes
• Second panelist historian issue of who distributes evidence question for students of international health
• Social comms is key but whose voices are heard what is the effect of power relations? What voices are not been heard?
• Invites to avoid generalizations at state levels internal imbalances do matter
• Polio fear not just sex-related -talk to parents -example of Gates’ DVD reinforcing role of religion by selective translation
• Guy that gist finished seems to have done his field job now last panelist
• Claims DFID research strategy mentions already what we have been hearing – move to results-based funding
• 10% research budget for comms – also capacity building – why so little implementation?
• Bias against operational research still exists – lack of best practices – mentions prob of award funding to institutions
• Distribution not just to peers even if some academics not naturals at that
• Experts use opaque language – funding agencies now more cooperative and less technocratic
• Panel convenes only 15 mins left – my question first on AGW Cassandras
• Reply is do implementation research, talk to all, be open and engaging, build network of people with same goal even if different reasons
• Also do not assume nobody is listening maybe their voices must be looked for and helped to gain prominence
• Experts are sometimes part of the problem eg with infighting – put aside academic debates when not relevant
• Suggestion from DFID guy is also to start with demo project taking on all declared constraints
• Excessive engagement? It’s a developmental process
• Problem of experts writing too much so stiff is not even read
• Develop interpersonal and negotiation skills too quiet or aggressive – spread understanding of social sciences
• Risk, statistics, how to read scientific results also important to learn even before uni
• They are talking about medical education
• Last question on bias – suggestion is to handle it rather than avoid – engage all stakeholders – vested interests too
• Excessive passion and involvement can corrupt science – love/hate relationship with private sector – activist when needed
• One tool is to threaten publicity – also need regulatory based
• This is the end – climate and population symposium on March 1

Advertisement