دورية أكاديمية
Who is “anti-science”?
| العنوان: | Who is “anti-science”? |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Paul, Elisabeth, Brown, Garrett W., Ridde, Valéry, Sturmberg, Joachim P. |
| المصدر: | Public Health in Practice, 7, 100493 (2024-03-29) |
| بيانات النشر: | Elsevier BV, 2024. |
| سنة النشر: | 2024 |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Health Policy, Covid-19, Science, Human health sciences, Public health, health care sciences & services, Business & economic sciences, Sciences de la santé humaine, Santé publique, services médicaux & soins de santé, Sciences économiques & de gestion |
| الوصف: | Objectives“Anti-science” accusations are common in medicine and public health, sometimes to discredit scientists who hold opposing views. However, there is no such thing as “one science”. Epistemology recognizes that any “science” is sociologically embedded, and therefore contextual and intersubjective. In this paper, we reflect on how “science” needs to adopt various perspectives to give a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of a phenomenon.Study designOpinion paper.MethodsBased on a targeted literature survey, we first clarify the known limits of traditional scientific methods and then reflect on how the scientific reporting about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines has evolved.ResultsThe first reports of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines randomised controlled trial results showed impressive efficacy. Nevertheless, an abundant literature has since depicted a far more nuanced picture of the effectiveness and safety of those vaccines over the medium-term. We organise them around five themes: (i) differentiating between relative and absolute reduction; (ii) taking account of time in reporting effectiveness; (iii) taking account of all outcomes, including adverse effects; (iv) stratifying effectiveness and considering other decision criteria (efficiency, equity, and acceptance); (v) changing the outcome of concern and assessing vaccines’ effectiveness on mortality.ConclusionsScience offers a wide range of perspectives on a given study object. Only the process of deliberation amongst scientists and other stakeholders can result in accepted new knowledge useful to support decision-making. Unfortunately, by trying to reduce “science” to simple messages set in stone, scientists can become the worse enemies of science. |
| نوع الوثيقة: | journal article http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 article peer reviewed |
| اللغة: | English |
| Relation: | https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S2666535224000302?httpAccept=text/xml; urn:issn:2666-5352 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100493 |
| URL الوصول: | https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/315935 |
| حقوق: | open access http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| رقم الأكسشن: | edsorb.315935 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | ORBi |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100493 |
|---|