Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

BIM-Based Quality Control for Safety Issues in the Design and Construction Phases

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seunghwa Park ◽  
Inhan Kim
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Traditional Method ◽  
Building Information Modeling ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Information Modeling ◽  
Use Case ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Building Information ◽  
Building Safety

Today’s buildings are getting larger and more complex. As a result, the traditional method of manually checking the design of a building is no longer efficient since such a process is time-consuming and laborious. It is becoming increasingly important to establish and automate processes for checking the quality of buildings. By automatically checking whether buildings satisfy requirements, Building Information Modeling (BIM) allows for rapid decision-making and evaluation. In this context, the work presented here focuses on resolving building safety issues via a proposed BIM-based quality checking process. Through the use case studies, the efficiency and usability of the devised strategy is evaluated. This research can be beneficial in promoting the efficient use of BIM-based communication and collaboration among the project party concerned for improving safety management. In addition, the work presented here has the potential to expand research efforts in BIM-based quality checking processes.

Applying design thinking to the decision-making process: a field study in Swedish local authorities

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Elisabeth Frisk ◽  
Frank Bannister
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Local Government ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Complex Decision Making ◽  
Complex Decision

PurposeThis study aims to examine the application of design thinking to complex decision-making processes in local government and to link the design thinking to the theoretical work of leading thinkers in decision-making.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses multiple case studies, including non-participant observation, group discussions, semi-structured interviews, presentations and questionnaires.FindingsFor complex decisions, design thinking can contribute to more effective decision-making by expanding the range of solutions considered, people consulted and involved, sources of data/information and decision tools as well as in achieving buy-in to the eventual decision.Research limitations/implicationsThe principal limitations include that this is one study in one country and in the public sector. There were some practical problems with external factors disrupting two of the cases, but these do not affect the findings. The principal implication is that by adopting a design thinking approach to complex decision-making, the quality of decision-making and decisions can be significantly improved.Practical implicationsWhen it comes to complex decisions, organisations can improve the quality of both their decision-making processes and their decisions by adopting and implementing ideas and insights from design thinking.Social implicationsFor local authorities, a design approach can enhance the quality of the services provided by local authorities to citizens in particular in better meeting the needs of users and other stakeholders and in opening up better lines of communications between officials and citizens.Originality/valueThis research was based on an initiative in Swedish local government and its first implementation in practice. The authors are not aware of any similar study done elsewhere.

scholarly journals A Process for Evaluating Quality Decision-Making Practices During the Development, Review and Reimbursement of Medicines

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Bujar ◽  
Neil McAuslane ◽  
Stuart Walker ◽  
Sam Salek
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Development Review ◽  
Raising Awareness ◽  
Quality Decision

Background: The development of a medicine is not only underpinned by good science but also by Quality DecisionMaking Practices (QDMPs). Indeed, it is important to ensure that all organisations involved in the lifecycle of medicines are aligning their practices in decision-making to the QDMPs to ensure quality, transparent and consistent decisionmaking processes. Methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate the practicality of QoDoS (Quality of Decision-Making Orientation Scheme) in assessing the incorporation of ten QDMPs during the development, review and reimbursement of medicines, illustrated by case studies with a pharmaceutical company, a regulatory authority and a health technology assessment (HTA) agency. Individuals from each organisation completed the 47-item QoDoS questionnaire. Results: The results demonstrate the applicability of QoDoS in identifying favourable and unfavourable practices and in assessing the consistency and transparency of the QDMPs within each organisation, as well as across the different stakeholders. Furthermore, the study established the value of the methodology in raising awareness of the biases and best practices in decision-making, as well as having a basis for discussion for differences within and across stakeholders to promote consistency and alignment in decision-making. Finally, the QoDoS demonstrated the need for improvement across a number of decision-making practices for the 3 organisations such as the evaluation of alternatives and of the decision impact. Conclusion: The QoDoS can be used to benchmark organisations’ decision-making practices to provide a basis for discussion to ultimately encourage a level of trust across and within organisations and helping to identify areas for improvement.

Evaluation of the Academic Setting in Spain 1This study was financed by the University of Oviedo.

1995 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Fernández ◽  
Miguel A. Mateo ◽  
José Muñiz
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Climate ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Academic Setting ◽  
Teaching And Research ◽  
Evaluation Questionnaire ◽  
University Teachers ◽  
The University

The conditions are investigated in which Spanish university teachers carry out their teaching and research functions. 655 teachers from the University of Oviedo took part in this study by completing the Academic Setting Evaluation Questionnaire (ASEQ). Of the three dimensions assessed in the ASEQ, Satisfaction received the lowest ratings, Social Climate was rated higher, and Relations with students was rated the highest. These results are similar to those found in two studies carried out in the academic years 1986/87 and 1989/90. Their relevance for higher education is twofold because these data can be used as a complement of those obtained by means of students' opinions, and the crossing of both types of data can facilitate decision making in order to improve the quality of the work (teaching and research) of the university institutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document