50T Simulation for Evidence Based Decision Making - Learning Central
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
50T Simulation for Evidence Based Decision Making
Table of Contents
11:00–11:10: Overview, Ground Rules
11:10–12:00: Scenario Introduced, Teams
Examine Evidence
12:00–12:30: Teams Prepare
Recommendation
12:30–12:45: Break
12:45–1:30: Plenary Discussion of
Recommendations
2
Ground Rules & Assumptions • Don’t fight the scenario. Our objective is not to debate whether this scenario could happen, but rather to explore evidence-based decision making. • We never have as much evidence as we would like to make decisions in the real world. You will use what you have and make the best decision possible. • This scenario is a conglomeration of imagined characters, events and scientific studies. Some organizations are real, others fictitious. The evidence presented may or may not have grounding in actual facts, physics or medicine. • This event is not for attribution – nothing you say here today will be attributed to you or your organization. • It’s ok to use a device to seek more evidence. Be conscious of the time. 3
Simulation Structure
Assess Plenary
Overview
Evidence Discussion
Teams
Scenario
read and Facilitated
Introduced
Discuss Q&A
11:10 – 11:15 11:15 – 12:30 12:45 – 1:30
4
Overview: Fictional Scenario
We are playing a fictional scenario that
unfolds over two weeks in June 2028.
You and your table colleagues are federal
senior executives from an array of agencies
that each has some jurisdiction over cell
phone safety.
Each table will play the role of a fictional
White House task force that has been
convened on short notice to examine
whether a new mobile phone network is
responsible for an increase in brain cancer.
Each team must prepare a recommendation
to the White House. All players are co-equal.
You’ll need to reach consensus on what
you’re seeing in the evidence.
Have fun with this challenging scenario – it’s
a risk free environment!
5
5
CDC: Spike in Brain Cancers
Table 1. Reported Cases of Brain Cancers, U.S. General Population,
All Ages
2024 2025 2026
New 26,478 29,322 (+11%) 33,879 (+16%)
diagnoses
Deaths 7,040 9,451 (+34%) 14,623 (+55%)
Table 2. Reported Cases of Brain Cancers, U.S. Children Ages 1 - 18
2024 2025 2026
New 5,013 6,944 (+39%) 7,297 (+ 5%)
diagnoses
Deaths 1,470 2,862 (+95%) 4,312 (+51%)
66
Age-Specific Brain Cancer Rates, 2005 - 2020
Source: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (2021)
7
“The World Health
Organization’s International
Agency for Cancer Research
(IACR) concluded in 2024 that
the heaviest cell-phone users
were 80 percent more likely to
develop glioma. The study also
concluded that individuals who
had owned a cell phone for 10
years or longer saw their risk
of glioma increase by nearly
120 percent.”
8Since 2011, non-ionizing
near-field radio-frequency
(RF) radiation has been
classified as a Group 2B
“possible” human
carcinogen by the IARC.
9“A limited number of studies
have shown some evidence of
statistical association of cell
phone use and brain tumor
risk…”
– National Institutes of Health,
National Cancer Institute
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
1050T Network 2028 • Chinese communications giant F2Ai acquires Verizon, AT&T • 2023: F2Ai mothballs its 5G network, rolls out 50T • Massive network of large towers and small transmitters based on drones, roofs, street lamps, etc. • Users can download 1 terabyte of data in 50 seconds • Children are using mobile devices in record numbers
BEGIN: TASK FORCE APPOINTED
MONDAY JUNE 11, 2028. 10:00 AM – CONVENE AT OLD EXECUTIVE
OFFICE BUILDING
Make sense of this public health crisis and recommend an
evidence-based course of action to the White House. Options:
Take no action.
Direct agencies to conduct further analysis and acquire or
produce more evidence.
Recommend a public information campaign, including new
safety warnings for mobile devices and RF transmitters.
Recommend suspension of the 50T network (with
reinstatement of 5G for F2Ai customers).
Some combination of the above options.
Other.
12OMB SENDS EVIDENCE TEAM TO ADVISE
THE TASK FORCE
The Evidence Team advises the task force to consider these
questions:
• What kind of evidence do we have?
• What questions will the evidence answer?
• What kind of bold action can we recommend with the evidence
we have?
• Do we need additional evidence to make a recommendation?
What kind of evidence? Who will produce it?
13SIMULATION TIMELINE
Begin
Monday June 11, 10:00 AM
You are appointed to the task force
and told to meet immediately in the
Old Executive Office Building. You
are presented with evidence of
potential public health crisis and told
to go to work at once to make sense
of the evidence and bring to bear
expert knowledge from your agency.
14INJECT #1: DTA GOES ON THE OFFENSIVE
Overall, brain cancer rates have declined since the early
1990s, according to the National Cancer Institute of NIH. The
rising rates in persons younger than 30 in recent years did
not come as a surprise, says Dr. Stephen Hancock of NCI.
Oncologists and neurologists have become much more
adept at accurately diagnosing brain tumors with the
deployment of ultra-sensitive cranial laser spectrometry
(UCLS) in 2020. “We saw a dramatic surge in reported cases
with the widespread adoption of UCLS technology by
children’s hospitals in the middle of the decade.”
“No crisis, no link to phones or 50T. Wired kids are safer
kids.” – frmr. Surgeon General Sally Goodman
15SIMULATION TIMELINE
Friday June 22, 1:00 PM
Briefing to the White House Chief of
Inject 1 – Monday June 18, 9:00 AM
Staff on task force recommendation.
Digital Telecommunications
Association goes on the offensive
with PR campaign and lobbying blitz.
Begin
Monday June 11, 10:00 AM
You are appointed to the task force
and told to meet immediately in the
Old Executive Office Building. You Wednesday June 27, 10:00 AM
are presented with evidence of The President will hold Rose
potential public health crisis and told Garden press conference to
to go to work at once to make sense announce executive branch plan
of the evidence and bring to bear of action.
expert knowledge from your agency.
16INJECT #2: THE HACKERS STRIKE BACK
A leaked industry memo reveals that F2Ai knew before the
rollout of 50T that laboratory rats exposed to far-field RF
developed schwannomas of the heart at statistically higher
rates than control animals that were not exposed.
Mice exposed to the same doses of far-field RF developed
heart schwannomas at even higher rates than the rats, as
well as abnormal rates of brain schwannomas.
17SIMULATION TIMELINE
Friday June 22, 1:00 PM
Briefing to the White House Chief of
Inject 1 – Monday June 18, 9:00 AM
Staff on task force recommendation.
Digital Telecommunications
Association goes on the offensive
with PR campaign and lobbying blitz.
Begin
Monday June 11, 10:00 AM Inject 2 – Thursday June
You are appointed to the task force 20, 7:00 AM
and told to meet immediately in the Washington Dispatch runs
Old Executive Office Building. You story on the Pandora hack Wednesday June 27, 10:00 AM
are presented with evidence of and release of the Nilsson The President will hold Rose
potential public health crisis and told memo. Garden press conference to
to go to work at once to make sense announce executive branch plan
of the evidence and bring to bear of action.
expert knowledge from your agency.
18PREPARE FOR PLENARY DISCUSSION
YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE YOUR RECOMMENDATION?
A. Take no action
• What kind of evidence do we B. Direct agencies to conduct further
have? analysis and acquire or produce
• What questions will the more evidence
evidence answer? C. Recommend a public information
• What kind of bold action can campaign, including new safety
we recommend with the warnings for mobile devices and
evidence we have? RF transmitters
• Do we need additional D. Recommend suspension of the
evidence to make a 50T network (with reinstatement of
recommendation? What kind 5G for F2Ai customers)
of evidence? Who will produce E. Some combination of the above
it? options
F. Other
19DISCUSS RECOMMENDATIONS
• What kind of evidence did you have to make your
recommendation?
• Was the evidence you had credible? How did you know?
• Did you find yourself agreeing with evidence that bolstered
your own thinking? Were you more critical of evidence when
it conflicted with your beliefs?
• What challenges did you face in applying the evidence to
your decisions?
• Did you come up with any solutions to mitigate these
challenges? (e.g. some are fixable, some are not.)
• Is there critical evidence that is missing to make an informed
recommendation? How would you think about beginning to
build this evidence?
20EPILOGUE
“A limited number of studies
have shown some evidence of
statistical association of cell
phone use and brain tumor
risk…but most studies have
found no association.”
– National Institutes of Health,
National Cancer Institute
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
2150T in 2028: Applications Today
Things to Consider Questions to Ask
• Discern between credible and non-credible • What kind of evidence do you have to make
evidence. your recommendation?
• Recognize when personal bias and beliefs • Was the evidence you had credible? How
affect how we perceive and use evidence. did you know?
• Determine what a body of evidence does or • Did you find yourself agreeing with evidence
does not tell us about an issue. that bolstered your own thinking? Were you
• Practice using all types of credible evidence more critical of evidence when it conflicted
to help develop a strategy to address a with your beliefs?
policy decision, rather than cherry picking • What challenges did you face in applying
evidence we like best. the evidence to your decisions?
• Recognize when there are gaps in evidence • Did you come up with any solutions to
and the steps that need to be taken to build mitigate those challenges? (i.e., some are
evidence moving forward for future decision fixable, some are not)
making. • Was there critical evidence that was missing
to make an informed recommendation?
How would you think about beginning to
build this evidence?
6/25/2018 22You can also read
