Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38680164›Full record

ArticleBiology methods & protocols2024

Teaching scientific evidence and critical thinking for policy making.

Natalia Pasternak Taschner, Paulo Almeida

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Biology methods & protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Natalia Pasternak TaschnerCenter for Science and Society, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7559-602X
Paulo AlmeidaInstituto Questão de Ciência, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While there is worldwide tendency to promote the use of scientific evidence to inform policy making, little has been done to train scientists and policy makers for this interaction. If we want to bridge the gap between academia, scientific knowledge, and policy, we must begin by providing formal training and skill building for actors and stakeholders. Scientists are not trained to communicate and inform policy, and policy makers are not trained to understand scientific process and assess evidence. Building an environment where this collaboration can flourish depends on teaching competencies and abilities specific for decision-making processes. As professors of policy with a background in science, we have started teaching preliminary courses on the use of scientific evidence in policy making. Feedback from students and institutions has been positive, paving the way for similar courses in other schools and institutions and maybe even new career paths. This article is intended to share our experience in designing and teaching courses aimed at training policy makers. Moving forward we plan to include training for science majors, thus encompassing the two main sides of this dialogue and opening new career opportunities for scientists and policy makers.

Indexed as

critical thinkingpolicy makingscience advicescience-based policyscientific evidenceteaching

Identifiers

PMID38680164
PMCPMC11052655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.