Vi gjorde experiment som förklarar lärande och beslut under osäkerhet för gymnasieelever och besökande under ForskarFredag den 28e och 29e september på Vattenhallen i Lund.
Osäkerhetsexperiment på ForskarFredag
RISKUT2019
On August 22nd I (Ullrika) arranged together with Linda Kvarnlöf and Per Strömsjö a one day meeting about teaching risk. We named this meeting RISKUT as in risk utbildning (risk education). It was very stimulating and fun to meet people passionate about teaching risk both from within and outside academia.
The meeting was supported by the Swedish Society for risk sciences Riskkollegiet and the program is available here
Graduate course: Interdisciplinary in Environmental Research
This course on 3 credits is given as part of the Environmental Science Graduate Studies at Lund University and the research school ClimBEco.
Last day to apply was 15 September 2019
Course Syllabus NMV001F-Eng
Contact: Ullrika Sahlin
1st of .October – Theme Philosophy of Research in Environmental Science and Social Sciences
All lectures are given in Lundmarksalen
11 – 12 Environmental Science – Ullrika Sahlin, Lund University Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, and Henrik Thoren, Philosophy, Helsinki University
12 – 13 Environmental Psychology – Maria Johansson, Environmental Psychology, LTH
Common lunch
14 – 15 Social science – Lars Harrysson, School of Social Work
15 – 16 Sustainability science and transdisciplinary – Barry Ness, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)
2nd of October – Theme More perspectives on Philosophy of Research in Empirical and Computational Sciences and Interdisciplinarity
All lectures are given in Lundmarksalen
9 – 10 Physics – Leif Lönnblad, Department of particle physics
Coffee
10:30 – 11.30 Philosophical perspectives on computer models when used for policy or as evidence – Wendy Parker, University of Durham (via link)
11:30 – 12 Models and scenarios: know thy assumptions – Markku Rummukainen, Lund University Centre for Environmental and Climate research
Fix your own lunch
13.00 – 15 Natural science – Per Lundberg, Department of Biology
15 – 16 Interdisciplinarity Research – Miles MacLeod, University of Twente, Netherlands
3rd of October – Interdisciplinarity and self-reflection
Biskopshuset/Bishops house
9 – 11 Interdisciplinary – Miles MacLeod och Henrik Thoren
11 – 11.30 My experience of going interdisciplinary – Maria von Post BECC postdoc
11.30 – 12 The Pufendorf Institute work towards interdisciplinary research – Ann-Katrin Bäcklund Director of the Pufendorf Institute
Common lunch
13 – 15 Student self-reflection – discussions in groups and reporting back
Examination
Active participation at lectures and seminar and an individual paper/report of self-reflection considering at least one of the themes.
Instructions for self-reflection: Is my research interdisciplinary? How can it be interdisciplinary? What advantages/disadvantages or barriers/drivers would come from making it more interdisciplinary? Refer to the course literature (at least one of the essays in Humprey or Sayer). 2-3 pages of text sent to ullrika.
Literature
Chalmers, Alan F. What is this Thing Called Science? Buckingham: Open University Press 1999.
Humphreys, Paul. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press 2016.
Parker, Wendy S (2017). Environmental Science: Empirical Claims in Environmental Ethics. In The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Gardiner, Stephen & Thompson, Allen Oxford University Press. 27-39.
Sayer, Andrew. Realism and Social Science. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE 2000.
Öberg, Gunilla. Interdisciplinary environmental studies – a primer. Wiley-Blackwell 2011.
Extra material from the Social Science lecture
Gabriel Abend, The meaning of ‘theory’, Sociological Theory 26:2 June 2008
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00324.x
Discussion about Alfred Kinsey
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.93.6.894
Introduction to Erwin Goffmans book “Presentation of self in everyday Life”
http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/6714/6875653/readings/MSL_Goffman_Presentation.pdf
One of many interesting papers by Ellinor Ostrom:
Gunvor Andersson after seven out of nine rounds of interviews in a long term study “Foster children: a longitudinal study of placements and family relationships”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00570.x
Graduate course in Risk, uncertainty and decision making Fall 2019
This is a research-oriented introductory course in risk which gives an introduction into different scientific perspectives on risk with international outlook and aid the students to formulate relevant research questions. The course corresponds to 7.5 credits and takes place at two occasions in Sweden during the fall 2019.
First occasion: October 8-9th in Gothenburg
Second occasion: November 5-6 in Lund (on Nov 7th in Copenhagen there is an opportunity to attend a multi-disciplinary risk conference)
The course is organised by Ullrika Sahlin, Åsa Knaggård and Daniel Slunge. More info: ullrika.sahlin @ cec.lu.se
Funding: ClimBECO research school
Supported by: Centre for Environmental and Climate Reserach, Lund University, FRAM Centre for Future Chemical Risk Assessment and Management Strategies, Lund University Centre for Risk Assessment and Management LUCRAM, the Nordic Chapter of the Society for Risk Analysis and Riskkollegiet
Literature list Litlist_2019 see also below in this post
Participants are expected to prepare in advance to the meetings by reading the assigned literature. The course is examined through attendance of the physical meetings and a completed individual paper.
Reading block I
Prepare to literature seminar
Meeting in Gothenburg
Oct 8th Scientific perspectives on risk analysis
10.30 Introduction to the course, Ullrika Sahlin and Daniel Slunge
11.00 Risk assessment in water management – examples of methods and applications, Lars Rosén
12.00 The anthropology of risk management, Åsa Boholm
The lectures by Lars and Åsa were recorded by Riskkollegiet (the Swedish Society for Risk Sciences).
Lunch
Theme Chemical mixtures – risk, uncertainty and decision making
14.00 Chemical risk assessment, Thomas Backhaus
15.00 Health impacts from chemical mixtures, Lars Barregård
16.00 Mixtures exposure and effect in Ecology, Maj Rundlöf
17.00 An economic perspective on assessing and managing chemical mixture risks, Jessica Coria
Oct 9th Scientific perspectives on uncertainty and decision making
09.00 Uncertainty and decision theory, Ullrika Sahlin
10.15 Working with risk in an interdisciplinary context, Kelsey Lamere
11.00 – 14.00 Literature seminar incl. lunch
Reading block II
Read all course literature (see literature list)
Meeting in Lund
Room Maskrosen, bottom floor at the Ecology Building
Nov 5th Social science and Philosophical perspectives on risk, uncertainty and decision making
10.30 – 14.45 Scientific perspectives on risk communication, Ragnar Löfstedt (incl lunch)
15.00 – 16.00 Social sciences approaches in risk research, Åsa Knaggård
Nov 6th Scientific perspectives on managing and assessing risk and uncertainty
Room Maskrosen, bottom floor at the Ecology Building
10:00 Risk Philosophy, Sven Ove Hansson
Lunch
14.00 Uncertainty communication and its psychological effects, Anne Marten van der Bles
16.00 – 17.30 Discussion seminar ”Self-reflection on students own research in the context of risk, uncertainty and decision making” – Åsa Knaggård and Ullrika (Research questions on risk, Methods to study risk)
Nov 7th Copenhagen (optional) Networking, keynotes and contributing talks
Nordic Chapter of the Society for Risk Analysis Conference: keynote and contributed talks on different topics in risk research. www.risklab.dtu.dk/sra-nordic-2019. The course participants are encouraged to attend and we are looking for options to cover the conference fee.
Individual paper (mandatory)
The individual paper should be reflection where at least two themes of the course is discussed in relation to the participants PhD subject or field of interest. Length – at least 3 pages. Cite at least three references on the literature list. Include at least two scientific perspectives on risk, uncertainty or decision making.
Send as Word or pdf to Ullrika before January 7th 2020.
Literature seminar on Oct 9th
The Purpose of the Seminar
This seminar offers you an opportunity to deepen your understanding of key concepts related to risk, uncertainty and decision-making based on a set of papers on the topic.
Preparation for the Seminar
Before the seminar, you should read the articles listed below and think about possible answers to the questions posed.
Question 1: How can risk be defined? Which different definitions of and perspectives on risk are represented in the articles (listed below). Are these definitions contradictory or convergent?
– Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On The Quantitative Definition of Risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1), 11-27. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x
– Haimes, Y. Y. (2009). On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems-Based Approach. Risk Analysis, 29(12), 1647-1654. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01310.x
– Boholm, Å. & Corvellec H. 2011. A relational theory of risk. Journal of Risk Research, 14 (2): 175 – 190.
Question 2: Are risk perceptions rational? When and why is there a divide in expert and laypersons perceptions of risk?
– Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. doi:DOI 10.1126/science.3563507
– Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., . . . Ratick, S. (1988). The Social Amplification of Risk – a Conceptual-Framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187. doi:DOI 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
– Pidgeon, N. (2012). Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Climate Policy, 12, S85-S106. doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.702982
– Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty – Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. doi:DOI 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Question 3: What is the role of uncertainty and ambiguity in science communication? Discuss definitions and perspectives on these concepts based on the articles below.
– Fischhoff, B. (1995). RISK PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION UNPLUGGED – 20 YEARS OF PROCESS. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137-145. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x
– Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Analysis, 22(6), 1071-1094. doi:Doi 10.1111/1539-6924.00274
– Kinzig, A. P., Starrett, D., Arrow, K., Aniyar, S., Bolin, B., Dasgupta, P., . . . Walker, B. (2003). Coping with uncertainty: A call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio, 32(5), 330-335. doi:Doi 10.1639/0044-7447(2003)032[0330:Cwuacf]2.0.Co;2
– Cairney, P., Oliver, K., & Wellstead, A. (2016). To Bridge the Divide between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as Much as Uncertainty. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 399-402. doi:10.1111/puar.12555
During the seminar you will be divided into three groups, each discussing one of the three questions. Then each group will share their reflections and conclusions with the other groups. We strongly encourage you to participate actively during the seminar so that we can have a fruitful and lively discussion!
Guess your time in Lundaloppet Predictive Challenge 2019
Länk till denna sida på svenska
We are curious to know how good people are in being uncertain. To test this, we asked participants of the running race Lundaloppet (Lund May 4th 2019) to guess their time. When the race was over, we collected the actual times posted on the official web page to compare.
This is not about running as fast as possible, but to make a good guess. Remember, that being uncertain can actually help you to be less wrong.
Results
About 60% of you made a good guess of your running time. Blue dots denote guesses where the actual time fell inside your stated uncertainty interval. 
For comparision, we asked you how many balls there are in this box.
For this question, only 30% of managed to cover the true number and the there was a large variation in the range of your stated uncertainty.
We are now using this material to develop ways to test expert’s ability to be uncertain. Thank you for your cooperation. We have selected three winners of a book about uncertainty.
Contact Ullrika ullrika.sahlin [at] cec.lu.se if you want to know more.
Gissa din tid i Lundaloppet Predictive Challenge 2019
Resultat från gissningsutmaningen finns på den engelska versionen (English version) av denna sida.
Vi är nyfikna på hur bra människor är på att vara osäkra. För att testa detta frågar vi deltagare i Lundaloppet (4 maj 2019) att gissa deras löptid. När tävlingen är över kommer vi samla in de tider som publiceras på Lundaloppets hemsida och jämföra.
Vi bryr oss inte om vem som har sprungit snabbast, utan vem som gör bra gissningar. Kom ihåg – att vara osäker kan faktiskt hjälpa dig att göra färre fel.
Kontakta Ullrika ullrika.sahlin [at] cec.lu.se om du vill veta mer.
Program for the 6th version of Bayes@Lund is now online
Bayes@Lund 2019 – a Mini-conference on Bayesian Methods at Lund University, 7th of May, 2019
You are welcome to participate in the sixth edition of Bayes@Lund! The purpose of this conference is to bring together researchers and professionals working with or interested in Bayesian methods.
The conference will take place at Lund University, Sweden on the 7th of May 2019 starting at 9.00 and ending at 17.00. It will include contributed talks and invited presentations. This year we are more than pleased to have two invited speakers:
- Maggie Lieu, astrophysics research fellow working at the European Space Agency, who will talk about Hierarchical models and their applications in astronomy; how hierarchical models can be a powerful tool for inference.
- Robert Grant, a medical statistician, turned freelance trainer, coach and writer in Bayesian models and data visualisation. His talk Visualisation for refining and communicating Bayesian analyses will review relevant general principles of effective visualisation, recent work on Bayesian workflow, and the role of interactive graphics.
For the full program and how register, please see the conference web site.
We hope to see you there!
All best,
The committee
Ullrika Sahlin, Rasmus Bååth and Alex Holmes
Uncertainty in the focus
On February 21-22nd 2019 we, the research group Uncertainty and Evidence Lab, attended the International Conference on Uncertainty in Risk Analysis jointly organised by BfR and EFSA. It was special with a conference focussing on uncertainty as opposed to treatment of risk or on applications.
Ullrika and Scott Ferson had a workshop the day before the conference.
It is possible to view talks from the conference on Youtube. Ullrika’s talk is on Youtube.
Liverpool students are challenged by Ullrika and Scott
On Feb 6th Ullrika Sahlin and Scott Ferson debated two alternative ways to quantify epistemic uncertainty in scientific assessments – precise and bounded probability. In simple terms, subjective precise probability is the measure for epistemic uncertainty in classical Bayesian inference, while subjective bounded (imprecise, approximative) probability is a measure for epistemic uncertainty in a generalisation of Bayesian infernce allowing for sets of probabilities. The generalisation of Bayesian inference is sometimes called Robust Bayesian inference. Bounds on probability can be derived in other ways as well.
Professor Scott Ferson have a lot of experience in using precise and bounded probability. He is also a well known workshopier.
Photo. Caroline Morais
Scott and Ullrika had a discussion/battle for students at the Institute for Risk and Uncertainty Centre for Doctoral Training – University of Liverpool. The quantification of epistemic uncertainty by precise or bounded probability was approached by challenge problems. Solutions to these will be published in due time.
As the writer of this post, I, Ullrika, give my view on this. I think that precise probability is sometimes disregarded as a measure for epistemic uncertainty for wrong reasons or could be done better. I am often unsure of how the quantification of bounded probability is done in assessments. Propagation of bounded probability is sometimes faster than a 2-dimensional Monte Carlo simulation (separating aleatory and epistemic uncertainty), and provide conservative ouptut which can be used in a tiered risk assessment.
With a background in Bayesian inference, I am open for embrasing the bounded probability as a measure for epistemic uncertainty, which can be useful in situations when the assessors judge precise probability as not enough to fully characterise epistemic uncertainty. By comparing these two measures for epistemic uncertainty we can strenghten the understanding of them and in a longer perspective the quantification of uncertainty in scientific assessments.
FRAM-seminar on uncertainty in scientific assessments
On February the 7th 2019 Ullrika Sahlin gave a seminar at the FRAM Centre for Future Chemical Risk Assessment and Management Strategies in Gothenburg.
Ullrika gave an snapshot of recent debates around the developments of management of uncertainty and evidence with a focus on scientific assessments. What standards for management of uncertainty are asked for today and in the future?
Risk analysis is a field which for a long time has been focusing on managing uncertainty. There are not only many sources to uncertainty, but also different types of uncertainty and ways to characterise them. Principles for risk analysis are useful for scientific assessments in general, especially when there is an aim to evaluate the impact of uncertainty due to lack of knowledge on the conclusions of an assessment. It can be to rely on empirical evidence as well as expert knowledge and data generated by models. Lately, the strengths in underlying evidence has become part of the characterisation of uncertainty. Managing uncertainty and evidence according to standards requires resources and experts on uncertainty. Who will provide these resources and where do these experts come from?
Comments