Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy.
Identifieur interne : 002F20 ( PubMed/Curation ); précédent : 002F19; suivant : 002F21Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy.
Auteurs : M Granger Morgan [États-Unis]Source :
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [ 1091-6490 ] ; 2014.
Descripteurs français
- KwdFr :
- MESH :
- Wicri :
- geographic : États-Unis.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- MESH :
- chemical , analysis : Environmental Pollutants.
- geographic : United States.
- methods : Environmental Health.
- Climate Change, Decision Making, Environmental Exposure, Expert Testimony, Humans, Probability, Public Policy, Software.
Abstract
The elicitation of scientific and technical judgments from experts, in the form of subjective probability distributions, can be a valuable addition to other forms of evidence in support of public policy decision making. This paper explores when it is sensible to perform such elicitation and how that can best be done. A number of key issues are discussed, including topics on which there are, and are not, experts who have knowledge that provides a basis for making informed predictive judgments; the inadequacy of only using qualitative uncertainty language; the role of cognitive heuristics and of overconfidence; the choice of experts; the development, refinement, and iterative testing of elicitation protocols that are designed to help experts to consider systematically all relevant knowledge when they make their judgments; the treatment of uncertainty about model functional form; diversity of expert opinion; and when it does or does not make sense to combine judgments from different experts. Although it may be tempting to view expert elicitation as a low-cost, low-effort alternative to conducting serious research and analysis, it is neither. Rather, expert elicitation should build on and use the best available research and analysis and be undertaken only when, given those, the state of knowledge will remain insufficient to support timely informed assessment and decision making.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319946111
PubMed: 24821779
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream PubMed, to step Corpus: Pour aller vers cette notice dans l'étape Curation :002F41
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:24821779Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy.</title><author><name sortKey="Morgan, M Granger" sort="Morgan, M Granger" uniqKey="Morgan M" first="M Granger" last="Morgan">M Granger Morgan</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 granger.morgan@andrew.cmu.edu.</nlm:affiliation><country wicri:rule="url">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh</wicri:regionArea></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2014">2014</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:24821779</idno><idno type="pmid">24821779</idno><idno type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1319946111</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">002F41</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">002F41</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Curation">002F20</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Curation">002F20</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy.</title><author><name sortKey="Morgan, M Granger" sort="Morgan, M Granger" uniqKey="Morgan M" first="M Granger" last="Morgan">M Granger Morgan</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 granger.morgan@andrew.cmu.edu.</nlm:affiliation><country wicri:rule="url">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh</wicri:regionArea></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America</title><idno type="eISSN">1091-6490</idno><imprint><date when="2014" type="published">2014</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Climate Change</term><term>Decision Making</term><term>Environmental Exposure</term><term>Environmental Health (methods)</term><term>Environmental Pollutants (analysis)</term><term>Expert Testimony</term><term>Humans</term><term>Probability</term><term>Public Policy</term><term>Software</term><term>United States</term></keywords><keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr"><term>Changement climatique</term><term>Expertise</term><term>Exposition environnementale</term><term>Humains</term><term>Logiciel</term><term>Politique publique</term><term>Polluants environnementaux (analyse)</term><term>Prise de décision</term><term>Probabilité</term><term>Santé environnementale ()</term><term>États-Unis d'Amérique</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" qualifier="analysis" xml:lang="en"><term>Environmental Pollutants</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="geographic" xml:lang="en"><term>United States</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="analyse" xml:lang="fr"><term>Polluants environnementaux</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Environmental Health</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Climate Change</term><term>Decision Making</term><term>Environmental Exposure</term><term>Expert Testimony</term><term>Humans</term><term>Probability</term><term>Public Policy</term><term>Software</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr"><term>Changement climatique</term><term>Expertise</term><term>Exposition environnementale</term><term>Humains</term><term>Logiciel</term><term>Politique publique</term><term>Prise de décision</term><term>Probabilité</term><term>Santé environnementale</term><term>États-Unis d'Amérique</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Wicri" type="geographic" xml:lang="fr"><term>États-Unis</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The elicitation of scientific and technical judgments from experts, in the form of subjective probability distributions, can be a valuable addition to other forms of evidence in support of public policy decision making. This paper explores when it is sensible to perform such elicitation and how that can best be done. A number of key issues are discussed, including topics on which there are, and are not, experts who have knowledge that provides a basis for making informed predictive judgments; the inadequacy of only using qualitative uncertainty language; the role of cognitive heuristics and of overconfidence; the choice of experts; the development, refinement, and iterative testing of elicitation protocols that are designed to help experts to consider systematically all relevant knowledge when they make their judgments; the treatment of uncertainty about model functional form; diversity of expert opinion; and when it does or does not make sense to combine judgments from different experts. Although it may be tempting to view expert elicitation as a low-cost, low-effort alternative to conducting serious research and analysis, it is neither. Rather, expert elicitation should build on and use the best available research and analysis and be undertaken only when, given those, the state of knowledge will remain insufficient to support timely informed assessment and decision making.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">24821779</PMID><DateCreated><Year>2014</Year><Month>05</Month><Day>21</Day></DateCreated><DateCompleted><Year>2014</Year><Month>07</Month><Day>15</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2017</Year><Month>02</Month><Day>20</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1091-6490</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>111</Volume><Issue>20</Issue><PubDate><Year>2014</Year><Month>May</Month><Day>20</Day></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>7176-84</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1073/pnas.1319946111</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>The elicitation of scientific and technical judgments from experts, in the form of subjective probability distributions, can be a valuable addition to other forms of evidence in support of public policy decision making. This paper explores when it is sensible to perform such elicitation and how that can best be done. A number of key issues are discussed, including topics on which there are, and are not, experts who have knowledge that provides a basis for making informed predictive judgments; the inadequacy of only using qualitative uncertainty language; the role of cognitive heuristics and of overconfidence; the choice of experts; the development, refinement, and iterative testing of elicitation protocols that are designed to help experts to consider systematically all relevant knowledge when they make their judgments; the treatment of uncertainty about model functional form; diversity of expert opinion; and when it does or does not make sense to combine judgments from different experts. Although it may be tempting to view expert elicitation as a low-cost, low-effort alternative to conducting serious research and analysis, it is neither. Rather, expert elicitation should build on and use the best available research and analysis and be undertaken only when, given those, the state of knowledge will remain insufficient to support timely informed assessment and decision making.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Morgan</LastName><ForeName>M Granger</ForeName><Initials>MG</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 granger.morgan@andrew.cmu.edu.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D013486">Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2014</Year><Month>05</Month><Day>12</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>United States</Country><MedlineTA>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>7505876</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0027-8424</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><ChemicalList><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D004785">Environmental Pollutants</NameOfSubstance></Chemical></ChemicalList><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><CommentsCorrectionsList><CommentsCorrections RefType="CommentIn"><RefSource>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Oct 14;111(41):E4284</RefSource><PMID Version="1">25239235</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Risk Anal. 1994 Feb;14(1):25-34</RefSource><PMID Version="1">8146399</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Environ Sci Technol. 2007 Sep 15;41(18):6598-605</RefSource><PMID Version="1">17948814</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Environ Sci Technol. 2010 Jan 1;44(1):476-82</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19958027</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1994 Aug;20(1 Pt 1):15-36</RefSource><PMID Version="1">7838990</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Science. 2007 Sep 14;317(5844):1505-6</RefSource><PMID Version="1">17872430</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Environ Health. 2010;9:19</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20420657</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Nature. 2010 Jan 21;463(7279):294-5</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20090733</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Environ Sci Technol. 1995 Oct 1;29(10):468A-76A</RefSource><PMID Version="1">22667250</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Environ Monit Assess. 2005 Jun;105(1-3):229-59</RefSource><PMID Version="1">15952522</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Risk Anal. 2005 Apr;25(2):481-92</RefSource><PMID Version="1">15876219</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Environ Sci Technol. 2008 Apr 1;42(7):2268-74</RefSource><PMID Version="1">18504952</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31</RefSource><PMID Version="1">17835457</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Risk Anal. 2004 Dec;24(6):1515-27</RefSource><PMID Version="1">15660608</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Environ Sci Technol. 2008 Dec 15;42(24):9031-8</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19174867</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1981 Aug;7(4):928-35</RefSource><PMID Version="1">6457103</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Environ Sci Technol. 2012 Nov 6;46(21):11497-504</RefSource><PMID Version="1">23002786</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Risk Anal. 1989 Jun;9(2):197-207</RefSource><PMID Version="1">2762606</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 26;113(17 ):4615-22</RefSource><PMID Version="1">21844351</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Part Fibre Toxicol. 2009 Jul 24;6:19</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19630955</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jun 11;110(24):9686-91</RefSource><PMID Version="1">23716682</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jul 13;107(28):12451-6</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20616045</PMID></CommentsCorrections></CommentsCorrectionsList><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D057231" MajorTopicYN="N">Climate Change</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003657" MajorTopicYN="Y">Decision Making</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D004781" MajorTopicYN="N">Environmental Exposure</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D004782" MajorTopicYN="N">Environmental Health</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D004785" MajorTopicYN="N">Environmental Pollutants</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000032" MajorTopicYN="N">analysis</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005104" MajorTopicYN="Y">Expert Testimony</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011336" MajorTopicYN="N">Probability</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011640" MajorTopicYN="Y">Public Policy</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D012984" MajorTopicYN="N">Software</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D014481" MajorTopicYN="N" Type="Geographic">United States</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList><OtherID Source="NLM">PMC4034232</OtherID></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2014</Year><Month>5</Month><Day>14</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2014</Year><Month>5</Month><Day>14</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2014</Year><Month>7</Month><Day>16</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24821779</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pii">1319946111</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1073/pnas.1319946111</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC4034232</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Amérique/explor/PittsburghV1/Data/PubMed/Curation
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002F20 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Curation/biblio.hfd -nk 002F20 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Amérique
|area= PittsburghV1
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Curation
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:24821779
|texte= Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Curation/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:24821779" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Curation/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a PittsburghV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.38. |  |