Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Fortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Branco
Data de Publicação: 2020
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0037-86822020000100207
Resumo: Abstract Two decades ago, Robert Proctor coined the term agnotology to refer to the study of ignorance that stems from scientific research. Amid the coronavirus disease pandemic, the world is witnessing the greatest natural experiment ever, and countries have adopted different response strategies. An evaluation of the effectiveness of different policies will play a valuable role in preparing for future public health emergencies. However, controversial issues such as the timing and pathways of viral emergence, the effectiveness of social distancing and lockdown strategies, and the use of antimalarial drugs as therapy have still not been fully resolved. This serves as a fertile breeding ground for agnotological strategies, whereby scientific studies are deliberately or unintentionally designed to create distractions or draw conclusions that are not supported by research findings. Researchers, public health authorities, and healthcare workers should be equipped to identify such agnotological strategies, distinguish them from scientific fraud, and avoid drawing misleading inferences based on an irrational adherence to hypotheses and a lack of criticism of implausible results.
id SBMT-1_4befba13443c636a0d6aae403e16acaf
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0037-86822020000100207
network_acronym_str SBMT-1
network_name_str Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
repository_id_str
spelling Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 scienceCoronavirus diseaseEpidemiologyKnowledgePhilosophyAbstract Two decades ago, Robert Proctor coined the term agnotology to refer to the study of ignorance that stems from scientific research. Amid the coronavirus disease pandemic, the world is witnessing the greatest natural experiment ever, and countries have adopted different response strategies. An evaluation of the effectiveness of different policies will play a valuable role in preparing for future public health emergencies. However, controversial issues such as the timing and pathways of viral emergence, the effectiveness of social distancing and lockdown strategies, and the use of antimalarial drugs as therapy have still not been fully resolved. This serves as a fertile breeding ground for agnotological strategies, whereby scientific studies are deliberately or unintentionally designed to create distractions or draw conclusions that are not supported by research findings. Researchers, public health authorities, and healthcare workers should be equipped to identify such agnotological strategies, distinguish them from scientific fraud, and avoid drawing misleading inferences based on an irrational adherence to hypotheses and a lack of criticism of implausible results.Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical - SBMT2020-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0037-86822020000100207Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical v.53 2020reponame:Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropicalinstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT)instacron:SBMT10.1590/0037-8682-0475-2020info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Brancoeng2020-09-18T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0037-86822020000100207Revistahttps://www.sbmt.org.br/portal/revista/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||dalmo@rsbmt.uftm.edu.br|| rsbmt@rsbmt.uftm.edu.br1678-98490037-8682opendoar:2020-09-18T00:00Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical - Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science
title Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science
spellingShingle Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science
Fortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Branco
Coronavirus disease
Epidemiology
Knowledge
Philosophy
title_short Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science
title_full Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science
title_fullStr Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science
title_full_unstemmed Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science
title_sort Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science
author Fortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Branco
author_facet Fortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Branco
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Fortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Branco
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Coronavirus disease
Epidemiology
Knowledge
Philosophy
topic Coronavirus disease
Epidemiology
Knowledge
Philosophy
description Abstract Two decades ago, Robert Proctor coined the term agnotology to refer to the study of ignorance that stems from scientific research. Amid the coronavirus disease pandemic, the world is witnessing the greatest natural experiment ever, and countries have adopted different response strategies. An evaluation of the effectiveness of different policies will play a valuable role in preparing for future public health emergencies. However, controversial issues such as the timing and pathways of viral emergence, the effectiveness of social distancing and lockdown strategies, and the use of antimalarial drugs as therapy have still not been fully resolved. This serves as a fertile breeding ground for agnotological strategies, whereby scientific studies are deliberately or unintentionally designed to create distractions or draw conclusions that are not supported by research findings. Researchers, public health authorities, and healthcare workers should be equipped to identify such agnotological strategies, distinguish them from scientific fraud, and avoid drawing misleading inferences based on an irrational adherence to hypotheses and a lack of criticism of implausible results.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0037-86822020000100207
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0037-86822020000100207
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0037-8682-0475-2020
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical - SBMT
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical - SBMT
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical v.53 2020
reponame:Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT)
instacron:SBMT
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT)
instacron_str SBMT
institution SBMT
reponame_str Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
collection Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical - Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||dalmo@rsbmt.uftm.edu.br|| rsbmt@rsbmt.uftm.edu.br
_version_ 1752122162008817664