Persona: Teira Serrano, David
Cargando...
Dirección de correo electrónico
dteira@fsof.uned.es
ORCID
0000-0002-4551-2371
Fecha de nacimiento
Proyectos de investigación
Unidades organizativas
Puesto de trabajo
Apellidos
Teira Serrano
Nombre de pila
David
Nombre
56 resultados
Resultados de la búsqueda
Mostrando 1 - 10 de 56
Publicación Is the Genie Out of the Bottle? Digital Platforms and the Future of Clinical Trials(2019-01-01) Tempini, Niccolo; Teira Serrano, DavidIs it possible to conduct impartial clinical trials in a world full of digital networking tools that patients can use to coordinate themselves and act against research protocols? This paper builds on an ethnography of PatientsLikeMe, a company running an Internet social media network where patients with different conditions share their clinical data with standardised questionnaires. The company faced a serious dilemma in 2011 when some ALS patients, members of the site, started sharing data about a phase II clinical trial of an experimental drug (NP001) in which some of them were participating, to anticipate the experiment’s outcomes and understand each one’s allocation over trial arms. In parallel, some other patients were using the site and other web tools to coordinate and run their own replication of the trial with homebrew mixes of industrial grade chemicals. PatientsLikeMe researchers reflected on their position as networks managers and eventually decided to use the collected data to develop their own analysis of the efficacy of the original compound, and of the homebrewers’ compound. They presented the NP001 events as a case in point for articulating a new social contract for clinical research. This paper analyses these events, first, by understanding the clinical trial as an experiment organisation form that can succeed only as long as its protocol can be enforced; second, we observe how web networks make it dramatically easier for the trial protocol to be violated; finally, we point out how a potentially dangerous confluence of interests over web networks could incubate developments that disrupt the status quo without creating a robust and safe alternative for experimentation. We conclude by warning about the interests of the pharmaceutical industry in exploiting patients’ methodological requests to its own advantage.Publicación Choosing expert statistical advice: practical costs and epistemic justificationGonzález de Prado Salas, Javier; Teira Serrano, DavidWe discuss the role of practical costs in the epistemic justification of a novice choosing expert advice, taking as a case study the choice of an expert statistician by a lay politician. First, we refine Goldman’s criteria for the assessment of this choice, showing how the costs of not being impartial impinge on the epistemic justification of the different actors involved in the choice. Then, drawing on two case studies, we discuss in which institutional setting the costs of partiality can play an epistemic role. This way we intend to show how the sociological explanation of the choice of experts can incorporate its epistemic justification.Publicación Los economistas como metodólogos: Friedman y Samuelson(2008-05-15) Teira Serrano, DavidBreve presentación de las posiciones metodológicas de Milton Friedman y Paul Samuelson. De próxima publicación en el volumen de Filosofía de la economía, editado por J. C. García-Bermejo para la Enciclopedia Iberoamericana de FilosofíaPublicación On the normative foundations of pharmaceutical regulation(['Barbara Osimani', 'Adam LaCaze'], 2017-06-08) Teira Serrano, DavidI argue that behind the 1962 Food and Drug Administration Act we find a combination of two normative principles: a liberal argument for the protection of pharmaceutical markets (in terms of quality control) and a paternalist argument for the protection of pharmaceutical consumers (in terms of drug safety and efficacy). These normative intuitions go hand in hand with the choice of regulatory testing standards: depending on the values the regulator wants to protect, she will avail herself of different testing methods. I explore two potential justifications for regulatory paternalism, in terms of risk aversion and impartiality. I defend our current regulatory arrangement against socialist and libertarian critiques.Publicación Facts, Norms and Expected Utility Functions(2008-05-15) Jallais, Sophie; Pradier, Pierre Charles; Teira Serrano, DavidIn this paper we want to explore an argumentative pattern that provides a normative justification for expected utility functions grounded on empirical evidence, showing how it worked in three different episodes of their development. The argument claims that we should prudentially maximize our expected utility since this is the criterion effectively applied by those who are considered wisest in making risky choices (be it gamblers or businessmen). Yet, to justify the adoption of this rule, it should be proven that this is empirically true: i.e., that a given function allows us to predict the choices of that particular class of agents. We show how expected utility functions were introduced and contested in accordance with this pattern in the 18th century and how it recurred in the 1950s when M. Allais made his case against the neobernoulliansPublicación Frank Knight : le risque comme critique de l ' économie politique(2000-03-17) Pradier, Pierre Charles; Teira Serrano, DavidIn this paper we try to throw some light on the Knightian distinction between risk and uncertainty attending to a number of previous contributions to philosophy and economics. On the economists' side, we propose to read Knight's distinction on the light of the distribution controversy that took place at the Quarterly Journal of Economics at the end of the XIX century. On the philosophers' side, the pair risk/uncertainty can be analysed in view of Knight's epistemological sources, as opposing a sort of probabilistic positivism to an agnostic variety of positivism. His philosophical commitments can be of use in explaining why Knight closes down the distribution controversy, proposing instead a reconstruction of economics as a rational choice science. En el presente artículo intentamos obtener algunas claves para iluminar la distinción knightiana entre riesgo e incertidumbre a partir de la obra de sus predecesores. Por parte de los economistas, podemos interpretar la distinción a la luz del debate sobre la distribución que tuvo lugar en el Quarterly Journal of Economics a finales del XIX. Por otra parte, atendiendo a sus fuentes filosóficas podemos analizar la distinción entre riesgo e incertidumbre en términos de teoría del conocimiento oponiendo positivismo probabilístico a positivismo agnóstico. El análisis de la epistemología de Knight nos permite explicar por qué cierra por absurdo el debate sobre la distribución, proponiendo a cambio una reconstrucción de la teoría económica como ciencia de la elección racional.Publicación Introducción(Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (España). Editorial, 2021-07-01) Elías Pérez, Carlos; Teira Serrano, DavidPublicación Blinding and the non-interference assumption in medical and social trials(2012-12-25) Teira Serrano, DavidIn this paper, I am going to present and defend the following claims. First, if the participants are not indifferent regarding treatments, we need to implement a blinding device in every trial in order to ground the Non Interference Assumption. But we cannot take its efficacy for granted: we need to test that the blinding actually controlled for the expectations of the participants and no malign unmasking spoiled the NIA. Precisely because this test is necessary, we can only blind the participants up to a certain point: we cannot deceive them. There is evidence showing that if they suspect they are being deceived, they will deviate from the trial protocol, flawing the outcome.Publicación On the limits of cultural relativism as a debiasing method(2021-01-01) Teira Serrano, DavidI analyse cultural relativism as a methodological strategy to correct for ethnocentric biases in anthropological fieldwork. I discuss the format debiasing norms may adopt (rules or standards) depending on whether a discipline has a causal or interpretative outlook. Boas and his school advocated for an interpretative approach to ethnographic fieldwork, in which cultural relativism was implemented as a standard (“Only culturally unbiased reports are admissible”) to be interpreted by expert third parties. Legitimate as it may be as a debiasing method, it does not allow anthropologists to adjudicate their debates on biases in their ethnographic record.Publicación Quasi- and Field Experiments(2015) Díaz García, Alejandro; Jiménez Buedo, María; Teira Serrano, DavidField trials and quasi-experiments are comparative tests in which we assess the effects of one intervention (or a set thereof) on a group of subjects as compared to another intervention on another group of similar characteristics. The main difference between field trials and quasi-experiments is in the way the interventions are assigned to the groups: in the former the allocation is randomized whereas in the latter is not. We are going to see first the different roles played by randomization in medical experiments. Then we discuss how controlled field trials, originating in psychology, spread to the social sciences throughout the 20th century. Finally, we will show how the idea of a quasi-experiment appeared around a debate on what constitutes a valid test and what sort of controls guarantee it.