Peter Donnelly started this topic off in a humorous way. He acknowledged he had a more challenging topic than some of the other presenters with seemingly more interesting topics. He shared a funny statement saying, “Statisticians liked figures but didn’t have the personality to become accountants.” He went on to joke about the best way to avoid a conversation with a stranger that you do not know is to tell them you are a statistician – they will quickly become disinterested and move on to someone else. He shared several humorous examples such as these. He engaged the audience in discussing the probability of how coin tosses would come out in a given number of tosses. Half the room could guess the coins would land heads, tails,
…show more content…
The first was the study of genetics in five different countries. The goal was to determine differences in people. Why do we care? He was trying to determine if there was genetic predisposition to diabetes and in which cultures this may appear. Likewise, what people are more susceptible to heart disease, stroke and so on. He was using statistics gained from these studies to ascertain certain conclusions. The second Project is correlated to the first. He and his team are focusing on eight specific diseases to understand what it is about genetic differences that causes the diseases. He states that we know very little about diseases, but if we can get to the bottom of understanding them as it relates to genetics, we can be much more advanced in treatment and cures. He also shared how statistics are very flawed when discussing probability of percent of the population acquiring a particular disease. It depends on so many factors, that it is difficult to narrow down an exact percent – thus leading to false …show more content…
Initially, it was determined that both of her children died of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). However, after the death of her second child, the prosecution brought in expert witnesses who stated that only 1 in 73 million children die of SIDS. Because of several experts citing statistics, Sally was convicted of the death of both of her children. But, here is the question – where did the 73 million figure come from. According to Donnelly, “the ‘expert’ assumed that whether or not a second child dies of SIDS was independent of the death of the first child. He relied on a study which showed that for non-smoking, professional families the risk of SIDS was about 1 in 8,500. Since two children died, he multiplied 8,500 by 8,500, thus coming up with the 73 million. This was completely implausible.” But, because the witness was deemed an expert, no one challenged those assumptions. Because of these implausible findings, she was found
The first was the study of genetics in five different countries. The goal was to determine differences in people. Why do we care? He was trying to determine if there was genetic predisposition to diabetes and in which cultures this may appear. Likewise, what people are more susceptible to heart disease, stroke and so on. He was using statistics gained from these studies to ascertain certain conclusions. The second Project is correlated to the first. He and his team are focusing on eight specific diseases to understand what it is about genetic differences that causes the diseases. He states that we know very little about diseases, but if we can get to the bottom of understanding them as it relates to genetics, we can be much more advanced in treatment and cures. He also shared how statistics are very flawed when discussing probability of percent of the population acquiring a particular disease. It depends on so many factors, that it is difficult to narrow down an exact percent – thus leading to false …show more content…
Initially, it was determined that both of her children died of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). However, after the death of her second child, the prosecution brought in expert witnesses who stated that only 1 in 73 million children die of SIDS. Because of several experts citing statistics, Sally was convicted of the death of both of her children. But, here is the question – where did the 73 million figure come from. According to Donnelly, “the ‘expert’ assumed that whether or not a second child dies of SIDS was independent of the death of the first child. He relied on a study which showed that for non-smoking, professional families the risk of SIDS was about 1 in 8,500. Since two children died, he multiplied 8,500 by 8,500, thus coming up with the 73 million. This was completely implausible.” But, because the witness was deemed an expert, no one challenged those assumptions. Because of these implausible findings, she was found