Causal Inference: IJE Special Issue

Papers from the December 2016 special issue of IJE are now all available online. Several are open access, and I attach these.

Philosophers who want to engage with real life science, on topics relating to causation, epidemiology, and medicine, will find these papers a great resource. So will epidemiologists and other scientists who want or need to reflect on causal inference. Most of the papers are not written by philosophers, and most do not start from standard philosophical starting points. Yet the topics are clearly philosophical. This collection would also form a great starting point for a doctoral research projects in various science-studies disciplines.

Papers 1 and 2 were first available in January. Two letters were written in response (being made available online around April) along with a response and I have included these in the list for completeness. The remaining papers were written during the course of 2016 and are now available. Many of the authors met at a Radcliffe Workshop in Harvard in December 2016. An account of that workshop may be forthcoming at some stage, but equally it may not, since not all of the participants felt that it was necessary to prolong the discussion or to share the outcomes of the workshop more widely. At some point I might simply write up my own account, by way of part-philosophical, part-sociological story.

  1. Causality and causal inference in epidemiology: the need for  a pluralistic approach‘ Jan P Vandenbroucke, Alex Broadbent and Neil Pearce. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv341
  2. ‘The tale wagged by the DAG: broadening the scope of causal inference and explanation for epidemiology.’ Nancy Krieger and George Davey-Smith. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw114
    1. Letter: Tyler J. VanderWeele, Miguel A. Hernán, Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen, and James M. Robins. Letter to the Editor. Re: Causality and causal inference in epidemiology: the need for a pluralistic approach.
    2. Letter: Arnaud Chiolero. Letter to the Editor. Counterfactual and interventionist approach to cure risk factor epidemiology.
    3. Letter: Broadbent, A., Pearce, N., and Vandenbroucke, J. Authors’ Reply to: VanderWeele et al., Chiolero, and Schooling et al.
  3. ‘Causal inference in epidemiology: potential outcomes, pluralism and peer review.’ Douglas L Weed. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw229
  4. ‘On Causes, Causal Inference, and Potential Outcomes.’ Tyler VanderWeele. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw230
  5. ‘Counterfactual causation and streetlamps: what is to be done?’ James M Robins and Michael B Weissman. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw231
  6. ‘DAGs and the restricted potential outcomes approach are tools, not theories of causation.’ Tony Blakely, John Lynch and Rebecca Bentley. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw228
  7. ‘The formal approach to quantitative causal inference in epidemiology: misguided or misrepresented?’ Rhian M Daniel, Bianca L De Stavola and Stijn Vansteelandt. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw227
  8. Formalism or pluralism? A reply to commentaries on ‘Causality and causal inference in epidemiology.’ Alex Broadbent, Jan P Vandenbroucke and Neil Pearce. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw298
  9. ‘FACEing reality: productive tensions between our epidemiological questions, methods and mission.’ Nancy Krieger and George Davey-Smith. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw330

Paper: Causality and Causal Inference in Epidemiology: the Need for a Pluralistic Approach

Delighted to announce the online publication of this paper in International Journal of Epidemiology, with Jan Vandenbroucke and Neil Pearce: ‘Causality and Causal Inference in Epidemiology: the Need for a Pluralistic Approach

This paper has already generated some controversy and I’m really looking forward to talking about it with my co-authors at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine on 7 March. (I’ll also be giving some solo talks while in the UK, at Cambridge, UCL, and Oxford, as well as one in Bergen, Norway.)

The paper is on the same topic as a single-authored paper of mine published late 2015, ‘Causation and Prediction in Epidemiology: a Guide to the Methodological Revolution.‘ But it is much shorter, and nonetheless manages to add a lot that was not present in my sole-authored paper – notably a methodological dimension that, as a philosopher by training, I was ignorant. The co-authoring process was thus really rich and interesting for me.

It also makes me think that philosophy papers should be shorter… Do we really need the first 2500 words summarising the current debate etc? I wonder if a more compressed style might actually stimulate more thinking, even if the resulting papers are less argumentatively airtight. One might wonder how often the airtight ideal is achieved even with traditional length paper… Who was it who said that in philosophy, it’s all over by the end of the first page?

America Tour: Attribution, prediction, and the causal interpretation problem in epidemiology

Next week I’ll be visiting America to talk in Pittsburgh, Richmond, and twice at Tufts. I do not expect audience overlap so I’ll give the same talk in all venues, with adjustments for audience depending on whether it’s primarily philosophers or epidemiologists I’m talking to. The abstract is below. I haven’t got a written version of the paper that I can share yet but would of course welcome comments at this stage.


Attribution, prediction, and the causal interpretation problem in epidemiology

In contemporary epidemiology, there is a movement, part theoretical and part pedagogical, attempting to discipline and clarify causal thinking. I refer to this movement as the Potential Outcomes Aproach (POA). It draws inspiration from the work of Donald Ruben and, more recently, Judea Pearl, among others. It is most easily recognized by its use of Directed Acycylic Graphs (DAGs) to describe causal situations, but DAGs are not the conceptual basis of the POA in epidemiology. The conceptual basis (as I have argued elsewhere) is a commitment to the view that the hallmark of a meaningful causal claim is that they can be used to make predictions about hypothetical scenarios. Elsewhere I have argued that this commitment is problematic (notwithstanding the clear connections with counterfactual, contrastive and interventionist views in philosophy). In this paper I take a more constructive approach, seeking to address the problem that troubles advocates of the POA. This is the causal interpretation problem (CIP). We can calculate various quantities that are supposed to be measures of causal strength, but it is not always clear how to interpret these quantities. Measures of attributability are most troublesome here, and these are the measures on which POA advocates focus. What does it mean, they ask, to say that a certain fraction of population risk of mortality is attributable to obesity? The pre-POA textbook answer is that, if obesity were reduced, mortality would be correspondingly lower. But this is not obviously true, because there are methods for reducing obesity (smoking, cholera infection) which will not reduce mortality. In general, say the POA advocates, a measure of attributability tells us next to nothing about the likely effect of any proposed public health intervention, rendering these measures useless, and so, for epidemiological purposes, meaningless. In this paper I ask whether there is a way to address and resolve the causal interpretation problem without resorting to the extreme view that a meaningful causal claim must always support predictions in hypothetical scenarios. I also seek connections with the notorious debates about heritability.

Is consistency trivial in randomized controlled trials?

Here are some more thoughts on Hernan and Taubman’s famous 2008 paper, from a chapter I am finalising for the epidemiology entry in a collection on the philosophy of medicine. I realise I have made a similar point in an earlier post on this blog, but I think I am getting closer to a crisp expression. The point concerns the claimed advantage of RCTs for ensuring consistency. Thoughts welcome!

Hernan and Taubman are surely right to warn against too-easy claims about “the effect of obesity on mortality”, when there are multiple ways to reduce obesity, each with different effects on mortality, and perhaps no ethically acceptable way to bring about a sudden change in body mass index from say 30 to 22 (Hernán and Taubman 2008, 22). To this extent, their insistence on assessing causal claims as contrasts to well-defined interventions is useful.

On the other hand, they imply some conclusions that are harder to accept. They suggest, for example, that observational studies are inherently more likely to suffer from this sort of difficulty, and that experimental studies (randomized controlled trials) will ensure that interventions are well-specified. They express their point using the technical term “consistency”:

consistency… can be thought of as the condition that the causal contrast involves two or more well-defined interventions. (Hernán and Taubman 2008, S10)

They go on:

…consistency is a trivial condition in randomized experiments. For example, consider a subject who was assigned to the intervention group … in your randomized trial. By definition, it is true that, had he been assigned to the intervention, his counterfactual out- come would have been equal to his observed outcome. But the condition is not so obvious in observational studies. (Hernán and Taubman 2008, s11)

This is a non-sequitur, however, unless we appeal to a background assumption that an intervention—something that an actual human investigator actually does—is necessarily well-defined. Without this assumption, there is nothing to underwrite the claim that “by definition”, if a subject actually assigned to the intervention had been assigned to the intervention, he would have had the outcome that he actually did have.

Consider the intervention in their paper, one hour of strenuous exercise per day. “Strenuous exercise” is not a well-defined intervention. Weightlifting? Karate? Swimming? The assumption behind their paper seems to be that if an investigator “does” an intervention, it is necessarily well-defined; but on reflection this is obviously not true. An investigator needs to have some knowledge of which features of the intervention might affect the outcome (such as what kind of exercise one performs), and thus need to be controlled, and which don’t (such as how far west of Beijing one lives). Even randomization will not protect against confounding arising from preference for a certain type of exercise (perhaps because people with healthy hearts are predisposed both to choose running and to live longer, for example), unless one knows to randomize the assignment of exercise-types and not to leave it to the subjects’ choice.

This is exactly the same kind of difficulty that Hernan and Taubman press against observational studies. So the contrast they wish to draw, between “trivial” consistency in randomized trials and a much more problematic situation in observational studies, is a mirage. Both can suffer from failure to define interventions.