Open assessment and Opasnet Jouni Tuomisto THL CII

Open assessment and Opasnet Jouni Tuomisto, THL CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt

About THL (www. thl. fi) • THL = National Institute for Health and Welfare • Government research institute located in Helsinki, Kuopio, and 5 other cities in Finland • Ca. 1400 employees • Department of Environmental Health in Kuopio, ca. 120 employees – Motto: People have a right to breathe, eat, drink, use consumer products, and move in the environment trusting that their health is not compromised. – A unit for developing environmental health assessments, methods, and tools. • Main products: open assessment, Opasnet CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 2

Outline • • What are open assessment and Opasnet? Basic ideas Examples of use Practical implications Rules of application to manage the work Perceived and observed problems Discussion and more examples CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 3

What are open assessment and Opasnet? • Open assessment – How can scientific information and value judgements be organised for informing societal decision making in a situation where open participation is allowed? – [Previous names: open risk assessment, pyrkilo] • Opasnet – What is a web workspace that contains all functionalities needed when performing open assessments, based on open source software only? CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 4

Open risk management: overview Q R A • Mikko V Pohjola and Jouni T Tuomisto. . Environmental Health 2011, 10: 58 doi CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 5

Assessment in its societal context • Pohjola MV, Tuomisto JT, and Tainio M: The properties of good assessment - addressing use as the essential link from outputs to outcomes. Manuscript. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 6

How Opasnet helps in assessments • https: //docs. google. com/drawings/d/1 f 1 s 1 drjo 8 q. MJv. WR 3 BQgsf. Rb. H 2 DO 0 E 43 Xb 01 e. Rdd. Wc g/edit? hl=en_GB&authkey=CN_oqb. YK& pli=1 CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 7

An example of an open assessment • Health impact of radon in Europe CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 8

An example of a variable in a model CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 9

An example of a statement and resolution of a discussion • Is Pandemrix a safe vaccine? CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 10

Structured discussion of Pandemrix CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 11

Structure of a discussion CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 12

Opasnet: a web workspace for open assessments and shared understanding • Opasnet wiki: a user interface for contributing and using all of the functionalities listed below. • Opasnet Base: a database for all kinds of data with easy upload and use. • R-tools: statistical software R for modelling and data presentation. • Opasnet File: a file management system for sharing background documents, reports etc. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 13

Work that you can do in Opasnet • Describing, cleaning and archiving original data. • Statistical analysis of research data. • Collecting, organising, and synthesising literature and knowledge. Making conclusions. • Quantitative assessment and modelling. • Valuation of predicted outcomes. • Valuation of decision options based on their predicted outcomes. • Development of new policies and actions. • Scientific discussion on all above. • Non-scientific discussion on all above. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 14

What is the point with a single workspace? • You can do all your work with a small number of tools. • You can focus on your work, and all this happens as beneficial side effects: – – – Your data get archived. Your models get documented. Your results get published. Your conculsions come available for use. Your work gets commented and recognised. You enter a community that use the same tools and can help you out if you have problems. – New compatible tools become available to you. – You learn the same practices as the others. – It’s fun and socially rewarding! CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 15

Problems perceived 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. It is unclear who decides about the content. Expertise is not given proper weight. Strong lobbying groups will hijack the process. Random people are too uneducated to contribute meaningfully. The discussion disperses and does not focus. Those who are now in a favourable position in the assessment or decision-making business don’t want to change things. The existing practices, tools, and software perceived good enough. There is not enough staff to keep this running. People don’t participate: no time, no skills, not seen useful. People want to hide what they know (and publish it in a scientific journal). CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 16

Problems observed 1. People want to hide what they know (and publish it in a scientific journal). 2. People don’t participate: no time, no skills, not seen useful. 3. The existing practices, tools, and software perceived good enough. 4. There is not enough staff to keep this running. 5. Those who are now in a favourable position in the assessment or decision-making business don’t want to change things. 6. The discussion disperses and does not focus. 7. It is unclear who decides about the content. 8. Expertise is not given proper weight. 9. Strong lobbying groups will hijack the process. 10. Random people are too uneducated to contribute meaningfully. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 17

Main rules in open assessment (1) • Each main topic should have its own page. – Sub-topics are moved to own pages as necessary. • Each topic has the same structure: – Question (a research question passing the clairvoyant test) – Answer (a collection of hypotheses as answers to the question) – Rationale (evidence and arguments to support, attack, and falsify hypotheses and arguments) • ALL topics are open to discussion at all times by anyone. – Including things like ”what is open assessment” CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 18

Main rules in open assessment (2) • Discussions are organised around a statement. • A statement is either about facts (what is? ) or moral values (what should be? ) • All statements are valid unless they are invalidated, i. e. attacked with a valid argument [sword]. • The main types of attacks are to show that the statement is – irrelevant in its context, – illogical, or – inconsistent with observations or expressed values. • Statements can have defending arguments [shield]. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 19

Main rules in open assessment (3) • Uncertainties are expressed as subjective probabilities. • A priori, opinions of each person are given equal weight. • A priori, all conflicting statements are considered equally likely. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 20

Shared understanding: definition • There is shared understanding between two people about a topic, if both are able to explain what the other person thinks about the topic and why. • This can be extended to a group: – Everyone is able to explain what thoughts and reasonings there are in the group about the topic. – There is no need to know all thoughts on individual level. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 21

Shared understanding: graph • Pohjola MV et al: Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2011. In press. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 22

How could it look like in the future? • You enter the emission and name of a pollutant, and the LO/LA coordinates of the emission. You get as a result – – the total burden of disease, incidences of relevant diseases, concentration map of the pollutant, and a list of policies usually effective in mitigating that kind of emission. • This could work for selected pollutants already in 2012. – All tools needed exist. – Critical data for some pollutants exist. – Funding or workers to do this do not yet exist. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 23

A model using user input and a database CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 24

Model results: PM exposure • Exposure concentration distribution in the population <15 km away CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 25

Conclusions • Open assessment is a method that is available and usable. – However, so far tested only by a fairly small group in a few research projects. • Opasnet is a web workspace for doing any information work needed in environmental health assessments. – Modelling and database functionalities are moving from test phase to production phase. – Opasnet enables industrial production of assessments. • Users of the method and tool are searched for! CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 26

Other assessments • Farmed salmon: http: //en. opasnet. org/w/Benefitrisk_assessment_on_farmed_salmon • Composite traffic: http: //en. opasnet. org/w/Costbenefit_assessment_on_composite_traffic_in_Helsinki • Dampness and asthma: http: //en. opasnet. org/w/Assessment_of_building_policies%27 _effect_on_dampness_and_asthma_in_Europe • Indoor radon: http: //en. opasnet. org/w/Health_impact_of_radon_in_Europe CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 27

CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 28

How to develop shared understanding? 1. Focus on the topic, not on the speakers. 2. Focus on what is meant, not on what is said. 3. Don’t push for consensus. Just describe what is thought and understood about the topic. 4. Search for and require internal consistence even if participants themselves are inconsistent. 5. When under uncertainty, describe the situation as several possible worlds (probabilities!) 6. Base all rationale ultimately on observations about issues (what is? ) and opinions (what should be? ). CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 29

Examples • Swine flu in Finland http: //en. opasnet. org/w/Assessment_of_the_health_ impacts_of_H 1 N 1_vaccination – An assessment including models and discussion http: //en. opasnet. org/w/Talk: Assessment_of_the_hea lth_impacts_of_H 1 N 1_vaccination • Radon in Europe http: //en. opasnet. org/w/Health_impact_of_radon_in_ Europe – User can choose values (disability weights) – Defaults come from WHO http: //en. opasnet. org/w/Disability_weights CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 30

Roles of participants • Decision makers: bring in their values, objectives, and decision criteria. • Experts: bring in their knowledge (and values). • Citizens and other stakeholders: bring in their values, intentions, objectives, and knowledge. The success of a decision can be evaluated. The decision is based on knowledge. The decision leads action to acceptable directions. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 31

Objective: a written synthesis • The ultimate objective of shared understanding is to increase understanding of participants. • The practical objective is to develop a written synthesis of the thinking and the knowledge of the group. • This process is called trialogical approach. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 32

Useful things to share • Generic data: populations, background rates of diseases, intake fractions, exposure-response functions, … • Generic values: disability weights of diseases, value of statistical life, willingness to pay to avoid harm, … • Common decisions for individuals: choice of a trip mode, choice of a heating system in a new house, a heat pump investment, … • Common decisions for municipalities: city planning, implementation of district heating, public transport subsidies, … • Common decisions for national authorities: acceptability of a new chemical, limit values of noise for wind mill parks. , , , • Many other things; there is always someone who can learn. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 33

Conclusions • Shared understanding is (hopefully) a simple concept to discuss practices of decision making in a democratic society. • There is an urgent need for a major change in common practices, both among experts and among decision makers. – The change is already ongoing among citizens. • There is a lot of potential for doing things in a more open and sharing way. This development is slowed down by old practices and ignorance rather than ”real” causes. • There are enough practical tools to make a quantum leap in decision support. It is about learning to use them, and most importantly, learning to think in an open way. • Spread the word! • Join a group for open decision support! E. g. Avary • Change your own routines! CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 34

How benefit-risk assessments have been done in practice in Opasnet • Case: swine flu vaccination and narcolepsy risk – A major outrage in Finland, as narcolepsy was potentially associated with the swine flu vaccine. – The assessment contains descriptions about the situation, a computing model, and a large discussion that is organised and synthesised. – All this on openly available and editable wiki pages. – Details: http: //en. opasnet. org/w/Assessment_of_the_health_impacts_of_ H 1 N 1_vaccination CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 35

Swine flu assessment CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 36

Ilmastonmuutosta on tutkittava THL: ssä ja siitä on ohjeistettava • On tekeillä tai syntymässä useita terveyden ja ilmaston kannalta potentiaalisesti lose-politiikkoja: – Pienpolton lisääminen, kaupunkirakenteen hajautuminen, autoistuminen, Saksan ydinvoimapäätökset, kulutuskysynnän elvyttäminen ilmastoinvestointien tai tasa-arvon sijasta. • Näiden politiikkojen ja niiden vaihtoehtojen ymmärtäminen ja kytkentä ilmastoon ja terveyteen on kiireellinen tutkimuskohde. • Tämä tutkimustieto on myös saatava julki, avoimeen keskusteluun ja päätöksentekoon. • On lukuisia pieniä päätöksiä, jotka kaikki voivat näyttää optimaalisilta kapeasti tarkasteltuna, mutta ne kaikki huonontavat yleistä tilannetta (”tragedy of commons”) CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 37

Avoimen arvioinnin hyödyt • Yhteiskunnallinen päätöksenteko on aina monimutkainen yhdistelmä arvoja ja tutkimustietoa. • Johdonmukainen yhdistäminen ei onnistu kahvipöydässä (edes eduskunnassa), mutta avoimella arvioinnilla se onnistuu. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 38

There is a need for one tool: the one that handles information • [Repairing mobile phones] CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 39

Toimintaperiaatteet tietotyön tekemisessä Opasnetissä • Kaiken työn voi tehdä samassa paikassa. • Muutamalla yleiskäyttöisellä perustyökalulla hoidetaan suurin osa työstä. • Työ tehdään heti niin avoimesti kuin tieto sallii, jolloin julkaiseminen tapahtuu ”itsestään”. – Tiedon avaaminen myöhemmin pala kerrallaan tehdään myös helpoksi. • Modulaarisuus: työ pilkotaan valmiiksi järkeviin palasiin, joita voi työstää itsenäisesti. • Lainaaminen: Olemassa olevien tietojen lainaaminen tehdään mahdollisimman helpoksi niin THL: n sisällä kuin yhteiskunnassakin. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 40

Purpose of shared understanding • To give a theoretical framework and practical guidance to improve decisions about environmental health (and other topics). • To turn knowledge into actions. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 41

A test for shared understanding • From Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy: A discussion between the captain of a space ship and Ford Prefect, a space hitchhiker. – ”There was a good reason why our space ship was predetermined to crash on the planet that is our destination. ” – ”That was because you are a bunch of useless idiots!” – ”Ah, yes, that was the reason. ” CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 42

Typical expert’s views on shared understanding • Experts do not want to enter public discussions, because they think that – they will not have enough media time to make their point. – populists and interest groups that don’t stick with the truth will overwhelm the media coverage. – peer review is absolutely necessary but it is not possible in open discussions. Experts limit their responsibility to publishing scientific reports, lecturing, and possibly press releases of an institute. Open discussion is very unpopular idea among experts. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 43

There are typically many decisions related to an environmental health issue • One main decision: – City plan (by a city council) – Environmental permit for a factory (by an authority) – Environmental tax (by the Parliament) • Compensatory decisions – Investment in the city (by a company) – Avoidance of the taxed product (by a consumer) – Moving to/from the city (by a citizen) Do others behave as expected? This often drives the outcomes of decisions. These things should be included in the assessment. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 44

It is about changes in practices • There is nothing fundamentally new. • However, the current culture do not support the best practices. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 45

Jakso 1: • Esittely aiheeseen: johdatus riskinhallintaan ja päätösanalyysiin (sisältää pienen harjoituksen) Mikko Pohjola • Pääviesti • Tieto ja toiminnan kompleksisuus: ne kytkeytyvät yhteen, mikä tekee siitä erityisen vaikeaa mutta se on kuitenkin mahdollista. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 46

Jakso 2: • Kuopion ilmastopoliittisen ohjelman (2009 -2010) esittely (Erkki Pärjälä); huomioita ohjelman käytännön toteuttamisesta (Mikko Pohjola). – Pääviesti • Suunnitelmassa kytkentä suunnitellusta toiminnasta ja todellisesta vaikuttavuudesta kohtaavat huonosti. Rajoittunut näkemys. Hyvä että voidaan sopia tavoitteista mutta se ei riitä. Hyvä että ilmastotiede tuottaa ymmärrystä mutta sekään ei riitä. On myös tietoa toiminnan todellisista vaikutuksista. Mutta tarvitaan uskottava ja kattava kytkentä suunnitellusta toiminnasta tavoitteisiin, jotta se ohjaisi toimintaa. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 47

Jakso 3: • Tarkastelussa henkilöliikenne ja asuntojen lämmitys: kuinka paljon saavutettavissa, paljonko syntyy haittaa, ketkä päättävät? Minkä tiedon pohjalta toimitaan? Jouni Tuomisto – Pääviesti • On katsottava kokonaisenergiatasetta ja sen CO 2 päästöjä ja terveys- ym. vaikutuksia, ei yksittäisiä laitoksia tai polttoaineita. Tarkastelua voidaan ja pitää tehdä joukossa, yhdessä oppien. Tätä varten on tieto ja mallit jaettava. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 48

Jakso 4: • Yksin tai ryhmissä etsitään ratkaisuja päivän aikana esiintyneisiin ilmastokysymyksiin: mitä konkreettisia asioita voisi edistää? Miten ilmasto-ohjelman jotain tavoitetta saadaan käytännöllisemmäksi toiminnaksi? Miten tieto saadaan hyötykäyttöön? Jouni Tuomisto – Pääviesti • Kuinka toiminta saadaan aikaiseksi? Miten suunniteltu toiminta kytketään tavoitteisiin? Miten oikeasti toteutetaan? • Ryhmätyön/keskustelun kysymykset: – Millä toimilla voidaan vähentää esim. 20 % päästöistä/kulutuksesta? – Millä keinoilla nuo toimet voidaan toteuttaa oikeasti? Mitä vaikeuksia? Kuinka uskottavaa on, että toteutuisi oikeasti? – Mitä ympäristö- ja terveysvaikutuksia toimilla olisi? (tai muita: talous, sosiaaliset ym. vaikutukset) CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 49

Suggestion for Plantlibra • Similar web tools are applied in method development and case studies of benefit-risk assessments of plant-based food supplements. • All major tools needed exist and are in use in other projects. • Further development, such as interfaces, can and will be improved according to needs. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 50

SAB comments about Opasnet • SAB member WP 5 Wilhelm Stahl Open assessment. The idea in principle ok and I think that it is a new and interesting approach. When I tried to work with Opasnet (link given in the paper; just with the start page) I was very disappointed. The system is not user friendly; very poor navigation and help. It is extremely slow. Log in was not possible. I consulted our IT responsible person who was not able to put things forward. Finally I gave up after 45 min. Maybe my experience with Opasnet is not representative but I am very much afraid that opinions of people who do not frequently use such systems will finally be lacking if there are no changes made or further advice given how to handle the tool. • Vittorio Silano. Although I think it is a good idea to try to develop a more open methodology to assess risk-benefit, I have problems with many statements included in this document. In relation to Section 1. 3. , I have a problem with “inference rules”, e. g. n. 2. “ a promoted statement is considered valid unless it is invalidate “( my preference would be to say “any statement is suspended until it has been properly validated”) or n. 8 “ if two people within a group promote conflicting statements, the a priori belief is that each statement is equally likely to be true” ( my preference would be to say “if two people within a group promote conflicting statements, the a priori belief is that one or both of them is/are wrong”). Similarly, I have reservations with what are indicated as “discussion rules” at the end of section 1. 3. Another issue I would like to submit for consideration is how much open an open assessment should be; obviously, I am particularly thinking of a certain level of expertise needed to undertake successfully such a complex process and of possible conflict of interest which my make difficult maintenance of objectivity. Moreover, I cannot understand why we should not be using the safety factors in the risk component of the risk-benefit assessment. Obviously the most important part of such an approach is the “tiers of open assessment process”. However, in my opinion, the descriptions of the 3 tiers (from page 12 to page 15) are too generic and unclear. As EFSA has recently adopted an opinion on “Guidance on human health risk-benefit assessment of foods” (EFSA Journal 2010: 8(7), 1673 (www. efsa. europa. eu/efajournal. htm) my suggestion is that this opinion is made use for better defining the objective, the criteria, the approach and uncertainties of practical implementations. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 51

Comments for SAB • Wilhelm Stahl: 1) We have been improving Opasnet layout and structure since early April, and we will continue to do so. Any specific comments about problems or new ideas are welcome. We have become blind to these problems ourselves, we need new users to point out problems! 2) In early April, we had an unfortunate attack where someone created several new accounts per day and added spam pages to Opasnet. We had to limit the creation of new accounts for two weeks. Now the situation is normal again and people can create accounts. It is always possible to get an account by contacting us personally. Vittorio Silano: 3) “a promoted statement is considered valid unless it is invalidated “( my preference would be to say “any statement is suspended until it has been properly validated”). This thinking sounds intuitive, but it has a major problem. In brief, if you have data that is in line with a statement, it does not prove that the statement is correct, it only weakly supports that idea. In contrast, if you have data that is not in line with a statement, it is strong evidence against it. With a lot of data, you can show - beyond reasonable doubt - that a statement is incorrect and it should be abandoned. However, even if you have huge amounts of data that is in line with a statement, it still does not show beyond reasonable doubt that the statement should not be abandoned - there can always be some other statement that is even more correct. Actually, the idea we are promoting with inference rules is also called the scientific method. 4) “ if two people within a group promote conflicting statements, the a priori belief is that each statement is equally likely to be true” ( my preference would be to say “if two people within a group promote conflicting statements, the a priori belief is that one or both of them is/are wrong”). Of course it is true that if two statements are logically incompatible, at least one of them must be incorrect. But this is not the point. The point is that, a priori, we are not able to tell which statement is incorrect and which (possibly) is not. Therefore, the best thing to do is to believe that either one can be true and proceed with the thinking I described in comment 3. The discussion rules apply the same thinking. 5) We typically hear a practical argument that if anything is believed in a priori, there will be endless discussions about trivial and obviously incorrect statements. I don't believe this and so far we have not seen evidence about this in Opasnet. If a statement is obviously incorrect, it means that there is some easily available data that can falsify the statement. Then, it is easily done and no problem occurs. People also say that a malevolent person can generate tons of incorrect statements so that nobody has time to falsify them, and the whole system collapses because of junk. There is no evidence of this happening either. This is because incorrect statements are important only if they actually change conclusions of a risk-benefit assessment. It is actually not at all easy to develop incorrect statements that have these four properties at the same time: a) it affects conclusions, b) it is relevant for the issue, c) it cannot easily be falsified, and d) it has not already been presented and falsified. Our experience shows that the discussion rules are rather effective in organising understanding and preventing such malevolent attacks. 6) EFSA guidelines about tiered approach is indeed an important paper, and it will be taken into account in more detail in our method development. It is important to notice that our tiers are actually wider in scope, and the EFSA tiers can be included within them. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 52

Opasnetin asiakaslupaus • Tavoite on ollut, että mitä tahansa arviointityössä pitääkin tehdä, Opasnet tarjoaa siihen työkalut. • Asiakaslupaus: Jos jonkin tietotyön tekeminen Opasnetissä on mahdotonta, käynnistämme kehitysprojektin sen toiminnallisuuden sisällyttämiseksi. – Käytännössä uuden kehittämistä tärkeämpää on ollut olemassa olevien toiminnallisuuksien opettaminen ja käyttöönotto. Tämä edistää samalla myös työtapojen harmonisointia. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 53

Solutions to practical problems (1/4) • People don’t participate. – Demonstrate practical benefit of open collaboration in important real-life situations (Volcanic ash, Swine / Mexican flu vaccination program, Nuclear energy in Finland). – Current situation: demonstrations have not gained enough publicity. • Discussion does not focus. – Standardised information objects (question – rationale – answer) are used to organise information. One topic = one research question = one web page. – Discussion is organised as an essential part of an information object. – Current situation: Information objects have proven their applicability in focussing the discussion. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 54

Solutions to practical problems (2/4) • People hide information. – Focus on volunteers and the open-oriented minority of researchers. – Respect theory quantifies and assigns respect to people who release information to be used freely. • Practical implementation: One-click content evaluator has recently been installed in Opasnet for test use. – Current situation: Open-oriented people are desperately needed to promote openness in science and decision-making. • Citizens are too uneducated. – Take any group of experts, and most of the expertise in the world is outside that group. – Because the open collaboration groups are self-selected, people can focus on what they know. The groups are not random. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 55

Solutions to practical problems (3/4) • The privileged don’t want things to change. – Permission is not needed. The mass can change things simply by doing it, if it wants. – When the system grows large enough, it will influence decisions and thus gather further attention and participation. – Mahatma Gandhi: “First, they ignore you. Then, they laugh at you. Then, they fight against you. That’s when you have won. ” – Current situation: Many people have started laughing. • Strong lobbying groups will hijack the assessment process. – Technical measures can easily be taken to prevent direct editing of the content without limiting open discussion. – With critical information objects, it is possible to mobilise a large enough group to watch after the scientific quality of the content. – Haven’t you watched the news about the current situation (e. g. climate change)? CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 56

Solutions to practical problems (4/4) • Human nature does not change. People are selfish, short-sighted, and not interested in common good. – There is A LOT of evidence about how great things happen even if this was true, IF acting does not threaten personal security or justified interests. CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 57

Tieteen perimmäinen olemus? (1) © Wikipedia CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 58

Tieteen perimmäinen olemus? (2) © Risto Järvinen, Skepsis CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 59

Keskustelu tieto-olion sisällöstä Keskustelun jäsentäminen päätelmät Kysymys Perustelu Vastaus CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 60

Tieteen prosessi tieto-olion näkökulmasta Keskustelu Kysymys Perustelu Data Riippuvuudet Vastaus CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 61

Tieto-olioiden riippuvuudet Kysymys Perustelu Data Riippuvuudet Vastaus CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 62

Oliopohjainen malli CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 63

Oliopohjainen mallijärjestelmä CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 64

More traditional view on risk analysis CII, Cyprus, 26 Oct 2011 http: //en. opasnet. org/w/File: Open_assessment. ppt 65