15 found
Order:
See also
  1.  46
    Rules Versus Standards: What Are the Costs of Epistemic Norms in Drug Regulation?David Teira & Mattia Andreoletti - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 44 (6):1093-1115.
    Over the last decade, philosophers of science have extensively criticized the epistemic superiority of randomized controlled trials for testing safety and effectiveness of new drugs, defending instead various forms of evidential pluralism. We argue that scientific methods in regulatory decision-making cannot be assessed in epistemic terms only: there are costs involved. Drawing on the legal distinction between rules and standards, we show that drug regulation based on evidential pluralism has much higher costs than our current RCT-based system. We analyze these (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  2.  30
    Replicability Crisis and Scientific Reforms: Overlooked Issues and Unmet Challenges.Mattia Andreoletti - 2021 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 33 (3):135-151.
    Nowadays, almost everyone seems to agree that science is facing an epistemological crisis – namely the replicability crisis – and that we need to take action. But as to precisely what to do or how...
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  10
    Genuine versus bogus scientific controversies: the case of statins.Carlo Martini & Mattia Andreoletti - 2021 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 43 (4):1-23.
    Science progresses through debate and disagreement, and scientific controversies play a crucial role in the growth of scientific knowledge. However, not all controversies and disagreements are progressive in science. Sometimes, controversies can be pseudoscientific; in fact, bogus controversies, and what seem like genuine scientific disagreements, can be a distortion of science set up by non-scientific actors. Bogus controversies are detrimental to science because they can hinder scientific progress and eventually bias science-based decisions. The first goal of this paper is to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4.  13
    More Than One Way to Measure? A Casuistic Approach to Cancer Clinical Trials.Mattia Andreoletti - 2018 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 61 (2):174-190.
    In recent years, science and technology have made great progress towards a better understanding of fundamental biological mechanisms of the diseases. Physicians, relying just on their own clinical experience, have long recognized that each patient is different from every other patient in many aspects. It is a matter of simple facts that many patients die without responding to any treatment, while others with the same disease survive. In oncology, the variability of treatment response has been a long-standing problem. Nowadays, thanks (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  7
    Introduction: Severe Uncertainty in Science, Medicine, and Technology.Mattia Andreoletti, Daniele Chiffi & Behnam Taebi - 2022 - Perspectives on Science 30 (2):201-209.
    This Special Issue titled "Severe Uncertainty in Science, Medicine and Technology" aims to shed new light on the understanding of severe uncertainty and its multifaceted implications. The main idea of the papers of this collection is that, despite possible sophisticated statistical judgments towards future risks in science, medicine, and technology, severe forms of uncertainty still exist.While ignorance is usually assumed to be a total absence of knowledge, uncertainty often refers to the incompleteness of knowledge or information. In its extreme form, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  17
    The Main Faces of Robustness.Giovanni Boniolo, Mattia Andreoletti, Federico Boem & Emanuele Ratti - 2017 - Dialogue and Universalism 27 (3):157-172.
    In the last decade, robustness has been extensively mentioned and discussed in biology as well as in the philosophy of the life sciences. Nevertheless, from both fields, someone has affirmed that this debate has resulted in more semantic confusion than in semantic clearness. Starting from this claim, we wish to offer a sort of prima facie map of the different usages of the term. In this manner we would intend to predispose a sort of “semantic platform” which could be exploited (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7.  8
    Special Issue: Severe Uncertainty in Science, Medicine, and Technology.Mattia Andreoletti, Daniele Chiffi & Behnam Taebi - forthcoming - Perspectives on Science:1-9.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  8
    Non-Empirical Uncertainties in Evidence-Based Decision Making.Malvina Ongaro & Mattia Andreoletti - 2022 - Perspectives on Science 30 (2):305-320.
    The increasing success of the evidence-based policy movement is raising the demand of empirically informed decision making. As arguably any policy decision happens under conditions of uncertainty, following our best available evidence to reduce the uncertainty seems a requirement of good decision making. However, not all the uncertainty faced by decision makers can be resolved by evidence. In this paper, we build on a philosophical analysis of uncertainty to identify the boundaries of scientific advice in policy decision making. We start (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  3
    Is medical science for sale?: Sergio Sismondo: Ghost-managed medicine: big pharma’s invisible hands. Manchester: Mattering Press, 2018, 231 pp, e-book open access. [REVIEW]Mattia Andreoletti - 2022 - Metascience 31 (2):281-282.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  11
    Care & Cure. An Introduction to Philosophy of Medicine: By Jacob Stegenga, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2018, ISBN 9780226595030, 288 Pp., $25.00.Mattia Andreoletti - 2020 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 33 (1):59-62.
    Among the philosophies of special sciences, Philosophy of Medicine is an emerging field, even though the relationship between philosophy and medicine dates back to ancient times. Since the 1980s, t...
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  14
    What’s Going to Happen to Me? Prognosis in the Face of Uncertainty.Daniele Chiffi & Mattia Andreoletti - 2021 - Topoi 40 (2):319-326.
    Reasoning in medicine requires the critical use of a clinical methodology whose validity must be evaluated as well as its limits. In the last decade, an increasing amount of evidence has shown severe limitations and flaws in the conduct of prognostic studies. The main reason behind this fact is that prognostic judgments are at high risk of error. In this paper we investigate the pragmatic and illocutionary aspects of different forms of linguistic acts and judgments involved in clinical practice. More (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. A Defense of Surgical Procedures Regulation.Mattia Andreoletti & Federico Bina - forthcoming - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics:1-14.
    Since the advent of drug regulation in 1962, regulatory agencies have been in the practice of using strict standards to test the safety and efficacy of medical treatments and products. Regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, demand two full-fledged Randomized Clinical Trials demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of drugs to grant its marketing authorization. On the contrary, surgical treatments are left completely unregulated. There are several reasons explaining this difference, and all of them point to the difficulty of conducting well-designed (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13.  12
    Introduction: Foundations of Clinical Reasoning—An Epistemological Stance.Mattia Andreoletti, Paola Berchialla, Giovanni Boniolo & Daniele Chiffi - 2019 - Topoi 38 (2):389-394.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  13
    We Are All Bayesian, Everyone is Not a Bayesian.Mattia Andreoletti & Andrea Oldofredi - 2019 - Topoi 38 (2):477-485.
    Medical research makes intensive use of statistics in order to support its claims. In this paper we make explicit an epistemological tension between the conduct of clinical trials and their interpretation: statistical evidence is sometimes discarded on the basis of an underlined Bayesian reasoning. We suggest that acknowledging the potentiality of Bayesian statistics might contribute to clarify and improve comprehension of medical research. Nevertheless, despite Bayesianism may provide a better account for scientific inference with respect to the standard frequentist approach, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15.  8
    Microbiota-Gut-Brain Research: A Plea for an Interdisciplinary Approach and Standardization.Mattia Andreoletti & Maria Rescigno - 2019 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 42.
    Hooks et al. note that microbiota-gut-brain research suffers from serious methodological flaws and interpretative issues. We suggest two corrective measures: first, taking more seriously the need of interdisciplinary work; second, interpreting some of the methodological issues as ordinary challenges of standardization, typical of emerging disciplines.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark