Causality, Impartiality and Evidence-Based Policy

Chapter
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 3)

Abstract

The overall aims of this chapter are to compare the use of randomised evaluations in medicine and economics and to assess their ability to provide impartial evidence about causal claims. We will argue that there are no good reasons to regard randomisation as a sine qua non for good evidential practice in either science. However, in medicine, but not in development economics, randomisation can provide impartiality from the point of view of regulatory agencies. The intuition is that if the available evidence leaves room for uncertainty about the effects of an intervention (such as a new drug), a regulator should make sure that such uncertainty cannot be exploited by some party’s private interest. We will argue that randomisation plays an important role in this context. By contrast, in the field evaluations that have recently become popular in development economics, subjects have incentives to act strategically against the research protocol which undermines their use as neutral arbiter between conflicting parties.

Keywords

External Validity Expert Judgement Regulatory Decision Causal Claim Mechanical Objectivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

List of Abbreviations

FDA

Food and Drug Administration

NGO

Non-Governmental Organisation

RCT

Randomised Clinical Trial

RFT

Randomised Field Trials

Notes

Acknowledgements

Our most sincere thanks to Hsiang-Ke Chao and Szu-Ting Chen for organising the very hospitable and intellectually fruitful conference in which this chapter was originally presented. Thanks to the editors and reviewers for their comments. Teira’s research has been funded by the Spanish Ministry grant FFI2011-28835.

References

  1. Akerlof, George. 1970. The market for ‘Lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3): 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee, Abhijit V., and Esther Duflo. 2009. The experimental approach to development economics. Annual Review of Economics 1(1): 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolton, Gary E., Jordi Brandts, and Axel Ockenfels. 2005. Fair procedures: Evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal 115(506): 1054–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnevale, Anthony Patrick, Stephen J. Rose, and Century Foundation. 2003. Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective admissions. http://www.tcf.org/Publications/White%5FPapers/carnevale%5Frose.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2012.
  5. Carpenter, Daniel P. 2010. Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, Daniel, and Colin Moore. 2007. Robust action and the strategic use of ambiguity in a bureaucratic cohort: FDA scientists and the investigational new drug regulations of 1963. In Formative acts, ed. Stephen Skowronek and Matthew Glassman, 340–362. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright, Nancy. 2007. Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties 2(1): 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cartwright, Nancy, and Eileen Munro. 2010. The limitations of randomized controlled trials in predicting effectiveness. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16(2): 260–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deaton, Angus. 2010. Instruments, randomization, and learning about development. Journal of Economic Literature 48: 424–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duflo, Esther. 2010. La politique de l’autonomie, Lutter contre la pauvreté, vol. 2. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  11. Duflo, Esther, and Michael Kremer. 2005. Use of randomization in the evaluation of development effectiveness. In Evaluating development effectiveness, World Bank Series on Evaluation and Development, vol. 7, ed. George Keith George, Osvaldo N. Feinstein, and Gregory K. Ingram, 205–232. New Brunswick/London: Transaction.Google Scholar
  12. Duflo, Esther, and Rema Hanna. 2006. Monitoring works: Getting teachers to come to school: C.E.P.R. discussion papers, CEPR discussion papers: 5426. LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Duflo, Esther, Rachel Glennerster, and Michael Kremer. 2007. Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit: C.E.P.R. discussion papers, CEPR discussion papers: 6059. LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure science. Aids and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Featherstone, Katie, and Jenny L. Donovan. 2002. “Why don’t they just tell me straight, why allocate it?” The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Social Science & Medicine 55(5): 709–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hacking, Ian. 1988. Telepathy: Origins of randomization in experimental design. Isis 79(3): 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckman, James. 1992. Randomization and social policy evaluation. In Evaluating welfare and training programs, ed. F. Manski and Garfinkel Irwin, 201–230. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Imbens, G. 2010. Better LATE than nothing: Some comments on Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009). Journal of Economic Literature 48: 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lasagna, L. 1959. Gripesmanship: A positive approach. Journal of Chronic Diseases 10: 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macklin, Ruth. 2004. Double standards in medical research in developing countries, Cambridge Law, Medicine, and Ethics, vol. 2. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marks, Harry M. 1997. The progress of experiment. Science and therapeutic reform in the United States, 1900–1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Marks, Harry M. 2000. Trust and mistrust in the marketplace: Statistics and clinical research, 1945–1960. History of Science 38: 343–355.Google Scholar
  23. Orr, Larry L. 1999. Social experiments: Evaluating public programs with experimental methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Petryna, Adriana. 2009. When experiments travel: Clinical trials and the global search for human subjects. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Porter, Theodore M. 1995. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pritchett, Lant. 2002. It pays to be ignorant: A simple political economy of rigorous program evaluation. Journal of Policy Reform 5(4): 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sackett, David, William Rosenberg, Muir Gray, Brian Haynes, and Scott Richardson. 1996. Evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal 312: 71–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stone, Peter. 2007. Why lotteries are just? The Journal of Political Philosophy 15(3): 276–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teira, D. 2011a. Frequentist versus Bayesian clinical trials. In Philosophy of medicine, ed. Fred Gifford, 255–297. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Teira, D. 2011b. Impartiality in clinical trials. London: University College London.Google Scholar
  31. Urbach, Peter. 1985. Randomization and the design of experiments. Philosophy of Science 52(2): 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson, Charles. 2008. Adverse selection. In The New Palgrave dictionary of economics, 2nd ed. Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Worrall, John. 2002. What evidence in evidence-based medicine? Philosophy of Science 69(3 Supplement): S316–S330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Worrall, John. 2007. Why there’s no cause to randomize. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58(3): 451–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de LógicaHistoria y Filosofía de la ciencia, UNEDMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyDurham UniversityDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations