I don't know what that first sentence means. But with regard to "accepting a risk for a benefit" ...
I really don't care what risk a person decides to take for themselves. But the key word is decides, which implies informed consent.
So if you tell students ...
"Currently research is indicating that our approach to decompression involves some level of additional risk. But UTD has decided that accepting some additional DCS risk is a worthwhile tradeoff for [fill in the perceived benefits].
The magnitude of the additional risk is not quantifiable with the information we now have. But you should know that it may be significant in some diving contexts and, therefore, may require substantially longer decompressions in order to obtain the same level of risk as other alternatives that current research would imply more efficiently reduce risk."
... then that's responsible and would allow an informed decision on risk/reward.
But if the research is downplayed or implied to be inconsequential in practice (as you've done on this thread), then in my opinion it's irresponsible.
I get what you're saying.
I am consistently clear with clients about limitations and suboptimalities of RD, and often have conversations with clients about the Spisni- and NEDU studies.
I also am clear that it's not an algorithm and it's
not a scientific formula - I say that, and UTD
officially says that, too.
They also emphasise the risk/benefit perspective, and they're
very clear that it's open to personal adaptation as one's knowledge and experience develops.
(On here, if it's come across as though I'm trying to downplay the scientific materials available - let me be clear that my motivation has solely been arguing unsubstantiated claims; e.g. "RD is dangerous/defective/irresponsible/unsafe".
If at any point this has come across as though I'm trying to say RD is in fact "optimal" and the body of knowledge available is invalid, then my meaning has come across differently than intended)
Look, let's start with what's the general practice among organizations.
Some (the majority?) simply say something to the effect of "your instructor will show you", or "do as your computer manufacturer says".
Personally, this is what landed me on VPM when I first started tech diving, with a technical branch of an organization that prides itself in teaching the world to dive.
1) Do you feel that's the "right" solution?
Also, I feel that it's
very clear from UTDs Student and Diver Procedures that it's not a scientific, algorithm-style endeavouring of an optimal decompression schedule, rather a starting point from which divers can grow, learn, adapt and adjust as their knowledge and experience develops.
Setting aside any potential previous conceptualizations, and looking only at the letters in the above paragraph;
2) Do you feel that's a fair premise?
In the field of scuba, it's my opinion that adaptability is generally scarce (buddy-breathing, nitrox, trimix, etc.).
The Spisni study is one year old. RD2.0 has been on the streets for a while "already". But, all that aside;
3) How long should it maximally take an organization to adapt to new input from the scientific field?
