Is It Better to Be Safe Than Sorry?
Critical thinking, scientific reasoning and expert evidence in occupational hygiene
How do we know what we think we know?
Join us for a thought provoking session that takes a closer look at how occupational hygienists assess evidence, apply scientific reasoning and make decisions when the answers are not always clear.
Using occupational hygiene as the applied setting, the session will revisit some of the fundamental principles behind exposure assessment, causal reasoning, expert evidence and decision making, including the use of Bayesian thinking to help us assess evidence and uncertainty.
The session will explore how we balance potential costs, benefits and harms when making decisions, including the risks of both over-detection and under-detection. It will also consider how occupational hygienists can navigate an increasingly complex and, at times, "epistemically polluted" environment, where information is abundant but the quality and reliability of that information can vary significantly.
Practical case studies will bring these concepts to life, including the current issue of asbestos in sand, alongside examples from court matters involving occupational hygiene, epidemiology and expert evidence.
The session will demonstrate how the same scientific framework can be applied across occupational hygiene, epidemiology and law, providing a practical opportunity to step back, question our assumptions and consider how we reach conclusions that can stand up to scrutiny.
Whether you work in consulting, industry, regulation, research or professional practice, this session provides an opportunity to refresh your critical thinking skills and consider how we use evidence to make sound occupational hygiene decisions.
Join us for a session that asks a deceptively simple question, is it better to be safe than sorry?
