Did anyone see the article “Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims” in Nature in November (by William J. Sutherland, David Spiegelhalter and Mark Burgman)? It claimed that “this list will help non-scientists to interrogate advisers and to grasp the limitations of evidence”. It then generated some fairly energetic debate (as might have been expected) on whether these really were appropriate and correct.
So, in the context of thinking about how best to give advice to your local MP about why we should be committing to long term investment in engineering in the UK’s universities, what would be the engineering community’s top 20 tips for understanding and interpreting engineering research?
Click on “leave a comment”