Transforming scientific information with everyday thinking: A social representations perspective

Cette thèse examine la circulation et l'intégration des informations scientifiques dans la pensée quotidienne d'après la théorie des représentations sociales (TRS). En tant qu'alternative aux approches traditionnelles de la communication de la science, les transformations survenant entre le discours scientifique et le discours de sens commun sont considérées comme adaptatives. Deux études sur la circulation des informations dans les media (études 1 et 2) montrent des variations dans les thèmes de discours exposés aux profanes, et parmi les discours de ceux-ci, en fonction de différentes sources. Ensuite, le processus d'ancrage dans le positionnement préalable envers la science est étudié, pour l'explication qu'il fournit de la réception et de la transmission d'informations scientifiques dans le sens commun. Les effets d'ancrage dans les attitudes et croyances préexistants sont reportés dans différents contextes de circulation des informations scientifiques (études 3 à 7), incluant des études de type corrélationnel, experimental et de terrain. Globalement, cette thèse procure des arguments en faveur de la pertinence de la TRS pour la recherche sur la communication de la science, et suggère des développements théoriques et méthodologiques pour ces deux domaines de recherche. Drawing on the social representations theory (SRT), this thesis examines the circulation and integration of scientific information into everyday thinking. As an alternative to the traditional approaches of science communication, it considers transformations between scientific and common-sense discourses as adaptive. Two studies, focused on the spreading of information into the media (Studies 1 and 2), show variations in the themes of discourses introduced to laypersons and in the themes among laypersons' discourses, according to different sources. Anchoring in prior positioning toward science is then studied for the explanation it provides on the reception and transmission of scientific information into common sense. Anchoring effects in prior attitudes and beliefs are reported in different contexts of circulation of scientific information (Studies 3 to 7) by using results from correlational, field, and experimental studies. Overall, this thesis provides arguments for the relevance of SRT in science communication research and suggests theoretical and methodological developments for both domains of research.

On the applicability of mathematics : philosophical and historical perspectives

The present thesis is a contribution to the debate on the applicability of mathematics; it examines the interplay between mathematics and the world, using historical case studies. The first part of the thesis consists of four small case studies. In chapter 1, I criticize "ante rem structuralism", proposed by Stewart Shapiro, by showing that his so-called "finite cardinal structures" are in conflict with mathematical practice. In chapter 2, I discuss Leonhard Euler's solution to the Königsberg bridges problem. I propose interpreting Euler's solution both as an explanation within mathematics and as a scientific explanation. I put the insights from the historical case to work against recent philosophical accounts of the Königsberg case. In chapter 3, I analyze the predator-prey model, proposed by Lotka and Volterra. I extract some interesting philosophical lessons from Volterra's original account of the model, such as: Volterra's remarks on mathematical methodology; the relation between mathematics and idealization in the construction of the model; some relevant details in the derivation of the Third Law, and; notions of intervention that are motivated by one of Volterra's main mathematical tools, phase spaces. In chapter 4, I discuss scientific and mathematical attempts to explain the structure of the bee's honeycomb. In the first part, I discuss a candidate explanation, based on the mathematical Honeycomb Conjecture, presented in Lyon and Colyvan (2008). I argue that this explanation is not scientifically adequate. In the second part, I discuss other mathematical, physical and biological studies that could contribute to an explanation of the bee's honeycomb. The upshot is that most of the relevant mathematics is not yet sufficiently understood, and there is also an ongoing debate as to the biological details of the construction of the bee's honeycomb. The second part of the thesis is a bigger case study from physics: the genesis of GR. Chapter 5 is a short introduction to the history, physics and mathematics that is relevant to the genesis of general relativity (GR). Chapter 6 discusses the historical question as to what Marcel Grossmann contributed to the genesis of GR. I will examine the so-called "Entwurf" paper, an important joint publication by Einstein and Grossmann, containing the first tensorial formulation of GR. By comparing Grossmann's part with the mathematical theories he used, we can gain a better understanding of what is involved in the first steps of assimilating a mathematical theory to a physical question. In chapter 7, I introduce, and discuss, a recent account of the applicability of mathematics to the world, the Inferential Conception (IC), proposed by Bueno and Colyvan (2011). I give a short exposition of the IC, offer some critical remarks on the account, discuss potential philosophical objections, and I propose some extensions of the IC. In chapter 8, I put the Inferential Conception (IC) to work in the historical case study: the genesis of GR. I analyze three historical episodes, using the conceptual apparatus provided by the IC. In episode one, I investigate how the starting point of the application process, the "assumed structure", is chosen. Then I analyze two small application cycles that led to revisions of the initial assumed structure. In episode two, I examine how the application of "new" mathematics - the application of the Absolute Differential Calculus (ADC) to gravitational theory - meshes with the IC. In episode three, I take a closer look at two of Einstein's failed attempts to find a suitable differential operator for the field equations, and apply the conceptual tools provided by the IC so as to better understand why he erroneously rejected both the Ricci tensor and the November tensor in the Zurich Notebook.

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation: Pawn or Global Player?,

This contribution aims at exploring the significance of the new generation of UNESCO conventions for the recognition of higher education qualifications. It discusses three possible scenarios and links them to the empirical findings of a study that compares the enabling conditions of the first generation of recognition conventions established in the 1970s and 1980s with the ones establishing the second generation today. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, the paper argues that the changes illustrate a more general shift in the architecture of the global order and highlights a new role of UNESCO.

Authorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations.

In 2008, a Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences working group chaired by Professor Emilio Bossi issued a "Memorandum on scientific integrity and the handling of misconduct in the scientific context", together with a paper setting out principles and procedures concerning integrity in scientific research. In the Memorandum, unjustified claims of authorship in scientific publications are referred to as a form of scientific misconduct - a view widely shared in other countries. In the Principles and Procedures, the main criteria for legitimate authorship are specified, as well as the associated responsibilities. It is in fact not uncommon for disputes about authorship to arise with regard to publications in fields where research is generally conducted by teams rather than individuals. Such disputes may concern not only the question who is or is not to be listed as an author but also, frequently, the precise sequence of names, if the list is to reflect the various authors' roles and contributions. Subjective assessments of the contributions made by the individual members of a research group may differ substantially. As scientific collaboration - often across national boundaries - is now increasingly common, ensuring appropriate recognition of all parties is a complex matter and, where disagreements arise, it may not be easy to reach a consensus. In addition, customs have changed over the past few decades; for example, the practice of granting "honorary" authorship to an eminent researcher - formerly not unusual - is no longer considered acceptable. It should be borne in mind that the publications list has become by far the most important indicator of a researcher's scientific performance; for this reason, appropriate authorship credit has become a decisive factor in the careers of young researchers, and it needs to be managed and protected accordingly. At the international and national level, certain practices have therefore developed concerning the listing of authors and the obligations of authorship. The Scientific Integrity Committee of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences has collated the relevant principles and regulations and formulated recommendations for authorship in scientific publications. These should help to prevent authorship disputes and offer guidance in the event of conflicts.

Statistical hypothesis testing and common misinterpretations: should we abandon p-value in forensic science applications?

Many people regard the concept of hypothesis testing as fundamental to inferential statistics. Various schools of thought, in particular frequentist and Bayesian, have promoted radically different solutions for taking a decision about the plausibility of competing hypotheses. Comprehensive philosophical comparisons about their advantages and drawbacks are widely available and continue to span over large debates in the literature. More recently, controversial discussion was initiated by an editorial decision of a scientific journal [1] to refuse any paper submitted for publication containing null hypothesis testing procedures. Since the large majority of papers published in forensic journals propose the evaluation of statistical evidence based on the so called p-values, it is of interest to expose the discussion of this journal's decision within the forensic science community. This paper aims to provide forensic science researchers with a primer on the main concepts and their implications for making informed methodological choices.