̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - David Spiegelhalter

CamFest Speaker Spotlight: Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter

zs332 — Fri, 16 Feb 2024 15:03:36 +0000

Your chance to get to know more about some of the speakers taking part in this year's festival.

Interactive tool helps you decide how to protect yourself and others from COVID-19

sc604 — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 00:08:47 +0000

A new interactive graphic developed by UK researchers and published by ̽��ֱ��BMJ will help people decide what to do in everyday situations to protect themselves, and others, from COVID-19.

Based on estimates provided by 26 international experts, it shows the different pathways that may be taken by the virus that causes COVID-19 when it transfers between two people.

It is designed to help illustrate the risks of catching COVID-19 in different scenarios - and what can be done to reduce those risks - based on the available evidence.

As well as the areas of scientific consensus, it also conveys the uncertainties and the disagreement that exists between experts about how the virus behaves, how it is transmitted, and how we can best reduce the likelihood of transmission through personal and social measures.

̽��ֱ��researchers say the tool should support decision-makers and the public to make informed decisions about how to reduce virus transmission in different contexts, such as how to make a workplace or a public area as safe as it can be while still being open and functional.

To create the tool, the researchers, led by the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, consulted 26 experts from a range of disciplines and countries, asking them for every value needed to underpin the graphic.

These included the importance of different virus transmission routes (eg. small and large airborne droplets, contact with contaminated surfaces) during a range of activities (eg. talking, coughing, exercising, eating) in different environments (eg. outdoors or indoors in different sized rooms, with or without ventilation).

They also gathered estimates on the importance of different protective measures, such as face coverings and screens, physical distancing, hand hygiene, surface cleaning, in reducing transmission.

Analysis of all the values showed that airborne transmission routes were most important in almost all situations, while face coverings, especially when worn by an infected person as a form of source control, were the most important mitigation measure.

But importantly, all routes were considered to play a part in transmission, and simple measures such as physical distancing, hand washing, and respiratory hygiene all made a useful contribution.

̽��ֱ��researchers found important evidence gaps and differences in opinion among experts around several variables, including the role of aerosol transmission; the effects of different kinds of masks on inhaled aerosols; and the effects of face coverings on transfer from hand to eyes, nose, and mouth.

“Everyone has been keen to know how much difference each possible action we’ve been told about makes, and finally we have been able to gather together enough knowledge from experts from around the world and in a range of fields to answer those questions,” said co-lead author Dr Alexandra Freeman from Cambridge’s Winton Centre for Risk & Evidence Communication.

She added: “ ̽��ֱ��tool is interactive, so that you can explore the scenarios that are most relevant to you, whether it’s because you sing in a choir, or want to know about the risks of eating in a small restaurant. How much difference would it make if you opened the windows, or cleaned the surfaces? Have a look and find out.”

“It is all too easy to focus on just a single route of spread for COVID and forget about all the others,” said co-author Harry Rutter from the ̽��ֱ�� of Bath. “One of the ways a tool like this can help is by making it clear that all the transmission routes matter, in different proportions in different contexts. ̽��ֱ��fact that one of those routes - airborne transmission - is the main one in most situations doesn’t mean that we can ignore the others.”

̽��ֱ��authors acknowledge some study limitations and say generating robust evidence on the complex and highly contingent routes of COVID-19 virus transmission is not straightforward. But they say they hope their approach will prove helpful to those faced with the challenge of communicating complex, imprecise, and uncertain evidence in the future.

̽��ֱ��research was supported by the PROTECT COVID-19 National Core Study on transmission and environment (managed by the Health and Safety Executive on behalf of HM Government), and the David and Claudia Harding Foundation. Cambridge co-authors on the paper also included Dr Shaun Fitzgerald from the Department of Engineering and Professor David Spiegelhalter from the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication.

Reference:
Alexandra LJ Freeman et al. ‘Expert elicitation on the relative importance of possible SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and the effectiveness of mitigations.’ BMJ Open (2021). DOI: 10.1136/ bmjopen-2021-050869

Harry Rutter et al. ‘Visualising SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and mitigations.’ BMJ (2021). DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-065312

Adapted from a BMJ press release.

Is it risky to sing in a choir? What are the risks of eating in a small restaurant? How much difference does it make to open windows or clean surfaces? New interactive tool helps people make decisions on COVID-19.

Everyone has been keen to know how much difference each possible action we’ve been told about makes, and finally we have been able to gather together enough knowledge from experts from around the world and in a range of fields to answer those questions

Alexandra Freeman

Will Stahl-Timmins, ̽��ֱ��BMJ

COVID-19 risk calculator

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Nine Cambridge researchers among this year’s Royal Society medal and award winners

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Aug 2020 05:00:00 +0000

He is one of the 25 Royal Society medals and awards winners announced today, nine of whom are researchers at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge. ̽��ֱ��annual prizes celebrate exceptional researchers and outstanding contributions to science across a wide array of fields.

President of the Royal Society, Venki Ramakrishnan, said:

" ̽��ֱ��Royal Society’s medals and awards celebrate those researchers whose ground-breaking work has helped answer fundamental questions and advance our understanding of the world around us. They also champion those who have reinforced science’s place in society, whether through inspiring public engagement, improving our education system, or by making STEM careers more inclusive and rewarding.

"This year has highlighted how integral science is in our daily lives, and tackling the challenges we face, and it gives me great pleasure to congratulate all our winners and thank them for their work."

Sir Alan Fersht FMedSci FRS, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Chemistry and former Master of Gonville and Caius College, is awarded the Copley Medal for the development and application of methods to describe protein folding pathways at atomic resolution, revolutionising our understanding of these processes.

"Most of us who become scientists do so because science is one of the most rewarding and satisfying of careers and we actually get paid for doing what we enjoy and for our benefitting humankind. Recognition of one’s work, especially at home, is icing on the cake," said Sir Alan. "Like many Copley medallists, I hail from a humble immigrant background and the first of my family to go to university. If people like me are seen to be honoured for science, then I hope it will encourage young people in similar situations to take up science."

As the latest recipient of the Royal Society’s premier award, Sir Alan joins an elite group of scientists, that includes Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Dorothy Hodgkin, and more recently Professor John Goodenough (2020) for his research on the rechargeable lithium battery, Peter Higgs (2015), the physicist who hypothesised the existence of the Higgs Boson, and DNA fingerprinting pioneer Alec Jeffreys (2014).

Professor Barry Everitt FMedSci FRS, from the Department of Psychology and former Master of Downing College, receives the Croonian Medal and Lecture for research which has elucidated brain mechanisms of motivation and applied them to important societal issues such as drug addiction.

Professor Everitt said: "In addition to my personal pride about having received this prestigious award, I hope that it helps draw attention to experimental addiction research, its importance and potential."

Professor Herbert Huppert FRS of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, and a Fellow of King’s College, receives a Royal Medal for outstanding achievements in the physical sciences. He has been at the forefront of research in fluid mechanics. As an applied mathematician he has consistently developed highly original analysis of key natural and industrial processes. Further to his research, he has chaired policy work on how science can help defend against terrorism, and carbon capture and storage in Europe.

In addition to the work for which they are recognised with an award, several of this year’s recipients have also been working on issues relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Professor Julia Gog of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics and a Fellow of Queens’ College, receives the Rosalind Franklin Award and Lecture for her achievements in the field of mathematics. Her expertise in infectious diseases and virus modelling has seen her contribute to the pandemic response, including as a participant at SAGE meetings. ̽��ֱ��STEM project component of her award will produce resources for Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14) maths pupils and teachers exploring the curriculum in the context of modelling epidemics and infectious diseases and showing how maths can change the world for the better.

̽��ֱ��Society’s Michael Faraday Prize is awarded to Sir David Spiegelhalter OBE FRS, of the Winton Centre for Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and a Fellow of Churchill College, for bringing key insights from the disciplines of statistics and probability vividly home to the public at large, and to key decision-makers, in entertaining and accessible ways, most recently through the COVID-19 pandemic.

̽��ֱ��full list of Cambridge’s 2020 winners and their award citations:

Copley Medal
Alan Fersht FMedSci FRS, Department of Chemistry, and Gonville and Caius College
He has developed and applied the methods of protein engineering to provide descriptions of protein folding pathways at atomic resolution, revolutionising our understanding of these processes.

Croonian Medal and Lecture
Professor Barry Everitt FMedSci FRS, Department of Psychology and Downing College
He has elucidated brain mechanisms of motivation and applied them to important societal issues such as drug addiction.

Royal Medal A
Professor Herbert Huppert FRS, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, and King’s College
He has been at the forefront of research in fluid mechanics. As an applied mathematician he has consistently developed highly original analysis of key natural and industrial processes.

Hughes Medal
Professor Clare Grey FRS, Department of Chemistry and Pembroke College
For her pioneering work on the development and application of new characterization methodology to develop fundamental insight into how batteries, supercapacitors and fuel cells operate.

Ferrier Medal and Lecture
Professor Daniel Wolpert FMedSci FRS, Department of Engineering and Trinity College
For ground-breaking contributions to our understanding of how the brain controls movement. Using theoretical and experimental approaches he has elucidated the computational principles underlying skilled motor behaviour.

Michael Faraday Prize and Lecture
Sir David Spiegelhalter OBE FRS, Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and Churchill College
For bringing key insights from the disciplines of statistics and probability vividly home to the public at large, and to key decision-makers, in entertaining and accessible ways, most recently through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Milner Award and Lecture
Professor Zoubin Ghahramani FRS, Department of Engineering and St John’s College
For his fundamental contributions to probabilistic machine learning.

Rosalind Franklin Award and Lecture
Professor Julia Gog, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, and Queens’ College
For her achievements in the field of mathematics and her impactful project proposal with its potential for a long-term legacy.

Royal Society Mullard Award
Professor Stephen Jackson FMedSci FRS, Gurdon Institute, Department of Biochemistry
For pioneering research on DNA repair mechanisms and synthetic lethality that led to the discovery of olaparib, which has reached blockbuster status for the treatment of ovarian and breast cancers.

̽��ֱ��full list of medals and awards, including their description and past winners can be found on the Royal Society website: https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/awards/

Adapted from a Royal Society press release.

A leading pioneer in the field of protein engineering, Sir Alan Fersht FMedSci FRS, has been named as the 2020 winner of the world’s oldest scientific prize, the Royal Society’s prestigious Copley Medal.

Yes

UK public ‘most concerned’ about coronavirus – more than Spain or Italy, study suggests

fpjl2 — Wed, 06 May 2020 08:22:53 +0000

A new study of public attitudes across Europe, America and Asia has found that people in the UK have the highest overall levels of concern about coronavirus – more than Italy or Spain – while those in South Korea are the least concerned.

Researchers from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge conducted surveys on how people feel and think about the risk of the virus between mid-March and mid-April, across ten different countries with varying approaches to tackling the pandemic.

̽��ֱ��study, co-authored by Dr Sarah Dryhurst and Dr Claudia Schneider from the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, measured risk perception by combining people’s ratings of how prevalent, how life-threatening, and how worrying they thought the virus was.

̽��ֱ��Cambridge team also set out to uncover some of the key psychological factors behind people’s concern. ̽��ֱ��findings, based on data from 6,991 participants, are published today in the Journal of Risk Research.

“Without pharmaceutical treatment, we are relying on people changing their behaviour to put the brakes on this pandemic,” said Dr Sander van der Linden, study lead and Director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab.

“ ̽��ֱ��willingness to adopt protective behaviours such as frequent hand-washing or physical distancing is likely to be influenced, in part, by how risky people perceive the virus to be.”

“We think this is the first comparative evidence of how people perceive the risk of COVID-19 around the world,” he said.

In the study’s sample, Spain followed the UK for greatest public concern about coronavirus, with the US in third place. Although remaining differences were smaller, Germany came in fourth above Sweden – where the government has been less proscriptive about lockdowns – followed by Australia then Japan.

Perhaps surprisingly, Italy – the pandemic’s first European epicentre – ranked fairly low out of the ten nations, with only Mexico and South Korea having lower average risk perception scores.

However, there was little difference between many of the countries, with risk perception generally high in all nations.

̽��ֱ��researchers also found that greater concern about the virus did indeed correlate with taking a number of preventative public health measures such as increased hand washing or wearing facemasks.

Men typically had lower levels of concern about the virus than women, despite the fact that, on average, COVID-19 appears to be considerably more dangerous to men if contracted.

̽��ֱ��significance of different psychological factors varied between countries. However, some attitudes and traits consistently indicated increased perception of risk in people across several countries.

For example, across all nations, those who suspected they had already contracted the virus perceived a higher risk from it. In several countries, people who got information on the virus from friends or family also perceived higher risk.

“Prosociality”, or a belief in the importance of doing things for the benefit of others, related to heightened concern about the virus in nine of the ten countries. In fact, it emerged as one of the most important psychological factors of risk perception internationally.

“Appealing to prosocial motives can be an important part of solving social dilemmas during pandemics,” said Dr Claudia Schneider, co-author of the study. “For example, ‘clap for our carers’ campaigns help us to publicly signal prosocial intentions through shared sentiment and the spread of positive emotions.”

By contrast, what the researchers term an “individualistic worldview” – inferred from a belief that governments meddle too much in our lives – related to lower levels of concern about the risks of coronavirus.

While this worldview is famously associated with certain US states, it was also significantly related to risk perception in several other countries, such as Germany, Sweden, Spain, Japan and the UK.

“ ̽��ֱ��perception that the government is restricting people’s freedom might cause psychological pushback among some people with strong individualistic worldviews,” said Dr Sarah Dryhurst, co-author of the study. “We see this expressed in anti-lockdown protests in the US and Germany, for example.”

Political ideology was less significant for risk perception overall, although a more conservative outlook was associated with lower levels of concern in the UK and the US.

“Governments are asking people to stay inside and give up their livelihoods in order to protect their societies. It’s important we understand how people react to the information and instructions they receive about the virus,” said Dr Alexandra Freeman, Director of the Winton Centre.

“We’ve made all our data publicly available to help institutions and journalists communicate better. We hope that this work can help the global effort to react appropriately to this threat,” she said.

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, co-author and Chairman of the Winton Centre, added: "As we move towards relaxing the lockdown, it is important to understand both the overall levels of concern, and the variability between people in their attitudes to the virus and the counter-measures taken. This evidence suggests that different worldviews need to be taken into account."

How you can support Cambridge's COVID-19 research effort

Donate to support COVID-19 research at Cambridge

“Risk perception” among UK population greater than in nine other countries surveyed for latest research.

Appealing to prosocial motives can be an important part of solving social dilemmas during pandemics

Claudia Schneider

Yes

How different countries are reacting to the COVID-19 risk and their governments’ responses

fpjl2 — Tue, 24 Mar 2020 12:52:31 +0000

Researchers at the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication spent the weekend surveying people's attitudes towards the risk of coronavirus, and their governments’ reactions.

Uncertainty about facts can be reported without damaging public trust in news – study

fpjl2 — Mon, 23 Mar 2020 16:33:08 +0000

̽��ֱ��numbers that drive headlines – those on Covid-19 infections, for example – contain significant levels of uncertainty: assumptions, limitations, extrapolations, and so on.

Experts and journalists have long assumed that revealing the 'noise' inherent in data confuses audiences and undermines trust, say ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge researchers, despite this being little studied.

Now, new research has found that uncertainty around key facts and figures can be communicated in a way that maintains public trust in information and its source, even on contentious issues such as immigration and climate change.

Researchers say they hope the work, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, will encourage scientists and media to be bolder in reporting statistical uncertainties.

“Estimated numbers with major uncertainties get reported as absolutes,” said Dr Anne Marthe van der Bles, who led the new study while at Cambridge’s Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication.

“This can affect how the public views risk and human expertise, and it may produce negative sentiment if people end up feeling misled,” she said.

Co-author Sander van der Linden, director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, said: “Increasing accuracy when reporting a number by including an indication of its uncertainty provides the public with better information. In an era of fake news that might help foster trust.”

̽��ֱ��team of psychologists and mathematicians set out to see if they could get people much closer to the statistical 'truth' in a news-style online report without denting perceived trustworthiness.

They conducted five experiments involving a total of 5,780 participants, including a unique field experiment hosted by BBC News online, which displayed the uncertainty around a headline figure in different ways.

̽��ֱ��researchers got the best results when a figure was flagged as an estimate, and accompanied by the numerical range from which it had been derived, for example: '…the unemployment rate rose to an estimated 3.9% (between 3.7%–4.1%)'.

This format saw a marked increase in the feeling and understanding that the data held uncertainty, but little to no negative effect on levels of trust in the data itself, those who provided it (e.g. civil servants) or those reporting it (e.g. journalists).

“We hope these results help to reassure all communicators of facts and science that they can be more open and transparent about the limits of human knowledge,” said co-author Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, Chair of the Winton Centre at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Catherine Dennison, Welfare Programme Head at the Nuffield Foundation, said: “We are committed to building trust in evidence at a time when it is frequently called into question. This study provides helpful guidance on ensuring informative statistics are credibly communicated to the public.”

̽��ֱ��findings are published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Most experiment participants were recruited through the online crowdsourcing platform Prolific. They were given short, news-style texts on one of four topics: UK unemployment, UK immigration, Indian tiger populations, or climate change.

Uncertainty was presented as a single added word (e.g. ‘estimated’), a numerical range, a longer verbal caveat – 'there is uncertainty around this figure: it could be somewhat higher or lower' – or combination of these, as well as the ‘control’ of a standalone figure without uncertainty, typical of most news reporting.

They found that the added word did not register with people, and the longer caveat registered but significantly diminished trust – the researchers believe it was too ambiguous. Presenting the numerical range (from minimum to maximum) had the right balance of signaling uncertainty with little evidence for loss of trust.

Prior views on contested topics within news reports, such as migration, were included in the analysis. Although attitudes towards the issue mattered for how facts were viewed, when openness about data uncertainty was added it did not substantially reduce trust in either the numbers or the source.

̽��ֱ��team worked with the BBC to conduct a field experiment in October 2019, when figures were released about the UK labour market.

In the BBC’s online story, figures were either presented as usual, a ‘control’, or with some uncertainty – a verbal caveat or a numerical range – and a link to a brief survey. Findings from this 'real world' experiment matched those from the study’s other 'lab conditions' experiments.

“We recommend that journalists and those producing data give people the fuller picture,” said co-author Dr Alexandra Freeman, Executive Director of the Winton Centre.

“If a number is an estimate, let them know how precise that estimate is by putting a minimum and maximum in brackets afterwards.”

Sander van der Linden added: “Ultimately we’d like to see the cultivation of psychological comfort around the fact that knowledge and data always contain uncertainty.”

“Disinformation often appears definitive, and fake news plays on a sense of certainty,” he said.

“One way to help people navigate today’s post-truth news environment is by being honest about what we don’t know, such as the exact number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the UK. Our work suggests people can handle the truth.”

Last month, David Spiegelhalter launched a podcast about statistics, ‘Risky Talk’. In the first episode he discusses communicating climate change data with Sander van der Linden and Dr Emily Shuckburgh, leader of the ̽��ֱ��’s new climate initiative Cambridge Zero.

How you can support Cambridge's COVID-19 research effort

Donate to support COVID-19 research at Cambridge

A series of experiments – including one on the BBC News website – finds the use of numerical ranges in news reports helps us grasp the uncertainty of stats while maintaining trust in data and its sources.

Ultimately we’d like to see the cultivation of psychological comfort around the fact that knowledge and data always contain uncertainty

Sander van der Linden

Yes

Cambridge Science Festival returns for milestone 25th year

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:48:27 +0000

Celebrating its 25th year, the Festival runs for two weeks from 11-24 March and explores the theme of ‘discoveries’. An impressive line-up of acclaimed scientists includes microscopist Professor Dame Pratibha Gai, Astronomer Royal Professor Lord Martin Rees, 2018 Nobel prize winner Sir Gregory Winter, geneticist Dr Giles Yeo, statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter, engineer Dr Hugh Hunt, marine biologist and author Helen Scales, THIS Institute Director Professor Mary Dixon-Woods, futurist Mark Stevenson, and science presenter Steve Mould.

̽��ֱ��full programme is teeming with events ranging from debates, talks, exhibitions, workshops and interactive activities to films, comedy and performances, held in lecture theatres, museums, cafes and galleries around Cambridge. There are events for all ages and most are free.
With so many events on offer, audiences will be spoilt for choice. Some of the biggest events in week one include:

Is technology making us miserable? (11 March). Virtually every interaction we have is mediated through technology. Despite being ‘always-on’, are we any better off? Are we better connected? Or is technology making us miserable?
Putting radioactivity in perspective (12 March). Following a renewal of electricity generated by nuclear power, Professors Ian Farnan and Gerry Thomas, Imperial College London, discuss radioactivity in the natural world and the outcomes of decades of study on the health effects of radiation. Could these research outcomes reset attitudes towards radiation and the risks?
̽��ֱ��universe of black holes (13 March). Christopher Reynolds, Plumian Professor of Astronomy, describes how future research into black holes may yet again change our view of reality.
̽��ֱ��long-term perspective of climate change (14 March). Professors Ulf Büntgen, Mike Hulme, Christine Lane, Hans W Linderholm, Clive Oppenheimer, Baskar Vira, and Paul J Krusic discuss how we investigate past climate and the challenges we face in applying this to the policy-making process.
Catalytic activation of renewable resources to make polymers and fuels (15 March). Professor Charlotte Williams, ̽��ֱ�� of Oxford, discusses the development of catalysts able to transform carbon dioxide into methanol, a process which may deliver more sustainable liquid transport fuels in the future.
Does the mother ever reject the fetus? (15 March). Professor Ashley Moffett discusses fetal rejection and explores new discoveries that show that there are multiple mechanisms to ensure there is a peaceful environment in the uterus, where the placenta is allowed to grow and develop to support the fetus.

Top picks for the second week include:

Cambridge gravity lecture: Sir Gregory Winter (18 March). Sir Gregory is a molecular biologist and 2018 Nobel Laureate best known for his work on developing technologies to make therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. His research has led to antibody therapies for cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.
Discoveries leading to new treatments for dementia (18 March). Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Associate Director of the UK Dementia Research Institute, Giovanna Mallucci discusses how new research leading to insights into dementia and degenerative brain diseases may lead to new treatments.
Improving quality and safety in healthcare (19 March). THIS Institute Director Professor Mary Dixon-Woods looks at the challenges to improving quality and safety in healthcare and considers why it’s so hard to answer the question: Does quality improvement actually improve quality? With Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief of ̽��ֱ��BMJ.
Immunology: the future of medicine? (19 March) Professor Clare Bryant and a panel of Cambridge immunologists discuss how understanding disease triggers may enable entirely new approaches to treating and potentially preventing disease.
Polar ocean: the dead end of plastic debris (19 March). An estimated 80% of all the litter in our oceans is plastic, and a significant concentration of plastics debris is found in both polar oceans. ̽��ֱ��impact of this debris on the sensitive polar ecosystem could be profound. Pelagic marine ecologist Dr Clara Manno, British Antarctic Survey, explores the current research and existing situation in the polar regions.
Reluctant futurist (19 March). Old models for healthcare, education, food production, energy supply and government are creaking under the weight of modern challenges. Futurist Mark Stevenson looks at the next 30 years and asks, how can we re-invent ourselves for the future?
Adolescent mental health: resilience after childhood adversity (20 March). Adolescence is characterised by huge physiological changes as well as a rapid rise in mental health disorders. Around 45% of adolescent mental health problems are caused by childhood difficulties but fortunately not all who experience difficulties develop mental health disorders. Dr Anne-Laura van Harmelen discusses mechanisms that may help adolescents with a history of childhood difficulty to become more resilient.
Making algorithms trustworthy (21 March). Increasingly, algorithms are being used to make judgements about sensitive parts of our lives. How do we check how their conclusions were arrived at, and if they are valid and fair? Professor David Spiegelhalter looks at efforts to make algorithms transparent and trustworthy, using systems that make predictions for people with cancer as an example.
On the future: prospects for humanity (22 March). Professor Lord Martin Rees argues that humanity’s prospects on Earth and in space depend on our taking a different approach to planning for tomorrow.

This year’s Cambridge Science Festival also celebrates significant milestones in science, including the 200th anniversary of Cambridge Philosophical Society, Cambridge’s oldest scientific society, and 150 years since the publication of the modern Periodic Table.

Speaking ahead of the Festival, Dr Lucinda Spokes, Festival Manager, said: “We are tremendously proud of this year’s programme due to the variety of events and the calibre of our speakers from a range of institutions and industries.

“Alongside the meatier topics we have an array of events for all ages and interests across both weekends. We have everything from the science of perfumery and how your mood affects your taste, to a science version of 'Would I Lie to You?'

“One of my personal top picks are the open days at the various institutes and departments based at the West Cambridge site on Saturday 23 March. As always, the site is hosting some truly fascinating events, everything from the future of construction and how to make Alexa smarter, to how nanotechnology is opening up new routes in healthcare, and state-of-the-art approaches to low-cost solar energy and high-efficiency lighting solutions.

“A Festival of this magnitude would not be possible without the help from many people; we thank all our scientists, supporters, partners and sponsors, without whom the Festival would not happen. Most of all, we thank the audiences – there are more than 60,000 visits to the Festival events every year. We very much look forward to welcoming everyone from all ages to join us in March to explore the fabulous world of science.”

You can download the full programme here.

Bookings open on Monday 11 February at 11am.

This year’s Festival sponsors and partners are Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� Press, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Illumina, TTP Group, Science AAAS, Anglia Ruskin ̽��ֱ��, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge Science Centre, Cambridge Junction, IET, Hills Road 6th Form College, British Science Week, Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� Health Partners, Cambridge Academy for Science and Technology, and Walters Kundert Charitable Trust. Media Partners: BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and Cambridge Independent.

̽��ֱ��2019 Cambridge Science Festival is set to host more than 350 events as it explores a range of issues that affect today’s world, from challenges around climate change policy, improving safety and quality in healthcare, and adolescent mental health, to looking at what the next 25 years holds for us and whether quantum computers can change the world.

We have everything from the science of perfumery and how your mood affects your taste, to a science version of 'Would I Lie to You?'

Dr Lucinda Spokes

Yes

Science fiction vs science fact: World’s leading AI experts come to Cambridge

sjr81 — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:22:27 +0000

̽��ֱ��two-day conference (July 13-14) at Jesus College is the first major event held by the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (CFI) since its globally-publicised launch by Stephen Hawking and other AI luminaries in October 2016.

Bringing together policy makers and philosophers, as well as leading figures from science and technology, speakers include Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, Matt Hancock (Minister for Digital and Culture), Baroness Onora O'Neill and Francesca Rossi (IBM).

Dr Stephen Cave, Executive Director of CFI, said: “Rarely has a technology arrived with such a rich history of myth, storytelling and hype as AI. ̽��ֱ��first day of our conference will ask how films, literature and the arts generally have shaped our expectations, fears and even the technology itself.

“Meanwhile, the second day will ask how and when we can trust the intelligent machines on which we increasingly depend – and whether those machines are changing how we trust each other."

Programme highlights of the conference include:

Sci-Fi Dreams: How visions of the future are shaping development of intelligent technology
Truth Through Fiction: How the arts and media help us explore the challenges and opportunities of AI
Metal people: How we perceive intelligent robots – and why
Trust, Security and the Law: Assuring safety in the age of artificial intelligence
Trust and Understanding: Uncertainty, complexity and the ‘black box’

Professor Huw Price, Academic Director of the Centre, and Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge, said: “During two packed days in Cambridge we’ll be bringing together some of the world’s most important voices in the study and development of the technologies on which all our futures will depend.

“Intelligent machines offer huge benefits in many fields, but we will only realise these benefits if we know we can trust them – and maintain trust in each other and our institutions as AI transforms the world around us.”

Other conference speakers include Berkeley AI pioneer Professor Stuart Russell, academic and broadcaster Dr Sarah Dillon, and Sir David Spiegelhalter, Cambridge’s Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk. An AI-themed art exhibition is also being held to coincide with the Jesus College event.

CFI brings together four of the world’s foremost universities (Cambridge, Berkeley, Imperial College and Oxford) to explore the implications of AI for human civilisation. Researchers will work with policy-makers and industry to investigate topics such as the regulation of autonomous weaponry, and the implications of AI for democracy.

Many researchers take seriously the possibility that intelligence equal to our own will be created in computers within this century. Freed of biological constraints, such as limited memory and slow biochemical processing speeds, machines may eventually become more broadly intelligent than we are – with profound implications for us all.

Launching the £10m centre last year, Professor Hawking said: “Success in creating AI could be the biggest event in the history of civilisation but it could also be the last – unless we learn how to avoid the risks. Alongside the benefits, AI will also bring dangers like powerful autonomous weapons or new ways for the few to oppress the many.

“We cannot predict what might be achieved when our own minds are amplified by AI. ̽��ֱ��rise of powerful AI will either be the best or the worst thing to happen to humanity. We do not yet know which.”

Professor Maggie Boden, External Advisor to the Centre, whose pioneering work on AI has been translated into 20 languages, said: “ ̽��ֱ��practical solutions of AI can help us to tackle important social problems and advance the science of mind and life in fundamental ways. But it has limitations which could present grave dangers. CFI aims to guide the development of AI in human-friendly ways.”

Dr Cave added: “We've chosen the topic of myths and trust for our first annual conference because they cut across so many of the challenges and opportunities raised by AI. As well as world-leading experts, we hope to bring together a wide range of perspectives to discuss these topics, including from industry, policy and the arts. ̽��ֱ��challenge of transitioning to a world shared with intelligent machines is one that we all face together.”

̽��ֱ��first day of the conference is in partnership with the Royal Society, while the second is in partnership with Jesus College's Intellectual Forum. ̽��ֱ��conference is being generously sponsored by Accenture and PwC.

Further details and ticketing information can be found here.

Some of the world’s leading thinkers and practitioners in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will gather in Cambridge this week to look at everything from the influence of science fiction on our dreams of the future, to ‘trust in the age of intelligent machines’.

Rarely has a technology arrived with such a rich history of myth, storytelling and hype as AI.

Dr Stephen Cave

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes