All posts by Jesse Weissman

Impact On Society

Anti-vaccination: what in the data are we talking about?

Anti-vaccination propaganda is testing our immunity against harmful misinformation. The scientific method for evaluating vaccine safety is losing credibility to more socialized minority opinion. And this anti-vaccination dilemma is a petri dish for exploring how we respond to the different ways data is communicated to the public.

Vaccine safety is a hot topic in The New York Times, and two recent articles dig into the data of vaccine safety. The first, “By the Numbers: Vaccines Are Safe” summaries key findings (and data) in a bulleted list such as the following:

Billions of doses of vaccines have been given to Americans in the 30 years of the injury program’s existence. During that time, about 21,000 people filed claims. Of 18,000 claims that have been evaluated so far, roughly two-thirds have been dismissed because the program determined that the evidence showed vaccines were not at fault.

The second, “Vaccine Injury Claims Are Few and Far Between,” is a much longer piece that includes the following chart:

The chart incorporates bullet-style annotations excerpted from the article, such as “After an exhaustive review, federal courts ruled in 2010 that vaccines do not cause autism.” And the chart adheres to good principles of design, such as consistent increments on both axis, that are often overlooked or manipulated by less attentive publications.

The chart does an excellent job of narration…there is a timeline with story points and measurements. Charts are great for reading and research, but difficult or awkward to produce if you’re in an heated debate at the local pub with someone spouting “facts” from questionable sources.

Bullet points tell a different story and the narrative walks us down a numeric path of size and scope. We start with a reminder that “billions” of doses of vaccines have been administered over 30 years and arrive at 18,000 evaluated claims, the majority of which (two-thirds) have been dismissed by the judicial system.

Bullet points work well at the local pub. You can accent each one with a stern poke in the general direction of your less informed drinking pal. The inevitable problem with the bullet point approach is that nuance is often lost. The judicial process involved in dismissing claims that vaccines cause autism is just one example. Your new friend is likely to counter that institutions are all simply puppets of Big Pharma before making reference to a lesser-known doctor who has “proven” the case exhaustively…on YouTube.

I do not know whether the overuse of charts or bullet points have diminished our capacity for dialog. I do suspect that the surplus of quick “facts” and scarcity of attention has eroded patience for the long tale…rational arguments built by weighing different and opposing facts in an inviting narrative best shared with friends over beer or coffee and in the spirit of good company.

Impact On Society

Analytics on a Dime

I started Your Life in Data over two years ago to celebrate the work of the Analytical community, and to explore the ways data are transforming our day-to-day lives. Unfortunately, one such way is the viral spread of misleading information and deceptive analysis.

Over the past few months I’ve thought about the responsibility we share to combat the plague of misinformation. Our primary role as Analysts is to enlighten with objective truth and to communicate with clarity and urgency. We are the scouts and messengers of the modern age.

The Mercury Dime symbolizes these essential qualities with a reminder of our duty as Analysts to protect “liberty of thought.” I collected Mercury Dimes as a kid…something about the design spoke to my 13-year-old self. Today, I find that it speaks to the professional mission I share with millions of other Analysts.

Stay tuned for a new series of posts that explore the use and misuse of data for rationalizing the most important decisions in our lives.

Forward Thinkers

The Analytics of Sustainability: Jaclyn Olsen and Caroleen Verly

On a quiet street just outside of the Square, Harvard’s Office for Sustainability occupies a decidedly green space.  The walls are literally a shade of green that hovers comfortably between lime and under-ripe avocado.  And if that becomes too perplexing, alternating blue walls (somewhere between ocean and indigo) provide visual relief.  My hosts Caroleen Verly and Jaclyn Olsen quickly explain that the colors were deliberately chosen as part of a broader mission to understand how the built environment affects health.  As I would soon learn, the Office for Sustainability views environmentalism with a wide-angle lens.

Jaclyn and Caroleen share an awe-inspiring picture of coordinated sustainability that extends well beyond the Harvard campus.  Back in 2008, the University set a campus-wide goal of reducing greenhouse gases 30% by 2016, from a 2006 baseline.  It was also the first sustainability goal that unified Harvard’s sprawling, decentralized operations towards a common objective with a clear deliverable and set of priorities. The only problem was that no one had yet agreed on what constituted a greenhouse gas or common standards of measurement.

One important role the Office for Sustainability plays is collecting and analyzing University-wide data for transparency and accountability, both internally and externally. This includes facilitating the collection and management of (large) volumes of data for participants to consume. When it came to implementing the 2006-2016 greenhouse gas reduction goal, OFS’ first step was to work with partners across campus to create a common measurement vocabulary that aligned participants in and outside of Harvard.  Let us not forget that we are talking about aggregating data from disjoint “Emissions Accounting” systems that might include building data, scope 3 emissions (e.g. Air Travel, Food) data, and procurement data.  We discuss the definition of “chicken” at length…does it only include the roasted variety?  What about chicken parmigiana?  The environmental difference between sourcing fresh vs. package meat is significant, and the challenge of creating a single definition of poultry is nothing to cluck about.

Jaclyn and Caroleen work with the Harvard and commercial communities to create new, credible measures for concepts such healthy food or greenhouse gases.  It’s an exercise of collaborating on a vision of what the ideal measurement should be, reaching consensus,  and then using this vision to assess or fit the available data into an emerging jigsaw puzzle.

So how are things going?

The ten year goal of reducing greenhouse gases by 30% was successfully achieved by 2016.  Harvard is now tackling a new set of goals striving to become fossil fuel-free by 2050, with an interim goal of becoming fossil fuel-neutral by 2026.  Never mind that  “Fossil Fuel Neutral” is a new term requiring the same level of definition that “Greenhouse Gas” needed  in 2008.  And this is only one component of Harvard’s overarching Sustainability Plan.  The Office’s work extends well beyond Harvard, providing leadership to Boston’s Green Ribbon Commission and a consortium of Higher Education in the New England area.

So how do they do it?

One of the key ingredients of successful Analytics initiatives is clear direction from the executive team.  The goal to reduce greenhouse gases by 30% came from the top, and echoed across campus.  Same for Harvard’s new goals around Fossil Fuel usage.

A second ingredient that is often overlooked is passion.  In their work on- and off-campus, Jaclyn and Caroleen refer to a shared sense of environmental purpose among participants.

A third factor is alignment between organizational and data strategy.  The data group (and hub) is designed to satisfy the strategic goals established in the Sustainability Plan.

The fourth factor is raw talent and sustained curiosity.  The Office employs expert analysts like Caroleen who are capable of the forensic work necessary to make sense of ambiguous data sources.  With a clear sense of direction, she is able to model an ideal data set and work backwards with the data at-hand to see what pieces fit and ultimately hang together with credibility.

Jaclyn Olsen is the Associate Director of the Harvard Office for Sustainability where she leads the development of new strategic initiatives and facilitates partnerships with faculty and other key University partners.

Caroleen Verly is an Analyst at the Harvard Office for Sustainability. Before joining OFS in 2013, Caroleen worked for the City of Cambridge to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a citywide curbside composting program.