Scientific consensus views are useful, but dangerous, without a code of ethics.

Consensus Codes of Ethics Fukushima Nuclear Accident Radiation Protection
Fukushima nuclear accident code of ethics risk communication scientific consensus views

Journal

Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection
ISSN: 1361-6498
Titre abrégé: J Radiol Prot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8809257

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 07 2023
Historique:
received: 16 06 2023
accepted: 28 06 2023
medline: 13 7 2023
pubmed: 12 7 2023
entrez: 12 7 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Using the Fukushima accident experience, this letter discusses recent efforts on measuring scientific consensus views-that is, quantifying the agreement among scientists. In the field of radiological protection, the efforts to measure scientific consensus views deserve attention, because hoaxes have been spreading even after the Fukushima nuclear accident. We discussed two points. First, the visualization of the diversity of scientific opinions shatters the diversity illusion caused by the mass media's irresponsible dissemination of pro and con arguments. Second, the use of scientific consensus views without an ethical code is dangerous. Measuring scientific consensus views should be accompanied with the development of ethical guidelines on using it.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/ace265 PMID: 37435690
pubmed: 37435690
doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ace265
doi:

Types de publication

Letter Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2023 Society for Radiological Protection. Published on behalf of SRP by IOP Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Michio Murakami (M)

Center for Infectious Disease Education and Research, Osaka University, 2-8 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan.
ORCID: 0000-0002-5557-9801

Mao Yagihashi (M)

Center for Infectious Disease Education and Research, Osaka University, 2-8 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan.

Ryuichi Minoda Sada (RM)

Center for Infectious Disease Education and Research, Osaka University, 2-8 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan.

Articles similaires

REliable PIcking by Consensus (REPIC): a consensus methodology for harnessing multiple cryo-EM particle pickers.

Christopher J F Cameron, Sebastian J H Seager, Fred J Sigworth et al.
1.00
Cryoelectron Microscopy Algorithms Image Processing, Computer-Assisted Consensus Software

A Pilot Study in the Use of the Delphi Method to Document Conference Proceedings: Comparison of the Rate of Consensus Among Attending and Nonattending Participants.

Jeffrey Michael Franc, Eric S Weinstein
1.00
Humans Pilot Projects Delphi Technique Consensus Congresses as Topic

Clinical care guidance in patients with diabetes and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: A joint consensus.

Jee-Fu Huang, Tien-Jyun Chang, Ming-Lun Yeh et al.
1.00
Humans Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 Taiwan Insulin Resistance Consensus

The PHA4GE Microbial Data-Sharing Accord: establishing baseline consensus microbial data-sharing norms to facilitate cross-sectoral collaboration.

Emma J Griffiths, Peter van Heusden, Tsaone Tamuhla et al.
1.00
Humans Information Dissemination COVID-19 Consensus SARS-CoV-2

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Phénomènes psychologiques › Processus mentaux › Pensée (activité mentale) › Prise de décision › Consensus › Scientific consensus views are useful, but...
questionsmedicales.fr › Qualité, accès, évaluation des soins de santé › Assurance de la qualité des soins de santé › Recommandations comme sujet › Codes de déontologie › Scientific consensus views are useful, but...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Accidents › Émission de source de risque radioactif › Accident nucléaire de Fukushima › Scientific consensus views are useful, but...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Hygiène radiologique › Radioprotection › Scientific consensus views are useful, but...