2.0

credits

Average Course Rating

Distinguishes between good science and “junk science,” defines the role of scientists and epidemiologists in translating evidence to practice and policy, and examines how science fares in the legislative, regulatory, and judicial settings. Places special emphasis on contemporary cases in which the evidence is actively debated. Topics include nutrition recommendations (e.g. reductions in sodium, saturated fat), screening recommendations (e.g. mammography for women in their forties and screening for prostate cancer); gun-control; fraudulent research (e.g. purported link between autism and prior MMR vaccination); and legal and policy implications of class action lawsuits (e.g. lawsuits for breast implants and the Björk-Shiley mechanical heart valve). Faculty present examples with which they have been personally involved in order to share the “inside scoop” with students. Presents key methodologic issues, e.g. surrogate outcomes, use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.