Regaining Trust in Public Health and Biomedical Science following Covid: The Role of Scientists

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Hastings Center Report Pub Date : 2023-11-14 DOI:10.1002/hast.1531
Arthur L. Caplan
{"title":"Regaining Trust in Public Health and Biomedical Science following Covid: The Role of Scientists","authors":"Arthur L. Caplan","doi":"10.1002/hast.1531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>Biomedical science suffered a loss of trust during the Covid-19 pandemic. Why? One reason is a crisis fueled by confusion over the epistemology of science. Attacks on biomedical expertise rest on a mistaken view of what the justification is for crediting scientific information. The ideas that science is characterized by universal agreement and that any evolution or change of beliefs about facts and theories undermines trustworthiness in science are simply false. Biomedical science is trustworthy precisely because it is fallible, admits error, adjusts to new information, and, most importantly, is practical. Successful diagnosis and cure demarcate the boundaries of warranted knowledge. The other reason is sociological. As the pandemic made all too clear, the loss of faith in scientific experts was due to the failure of most of them to engage in regular public dialogue, reflecting a failure to recognize the obligation that science has to bolster trust in its work and findings by concerted public engagement</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"53 S2","pages":"S105-S109"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.1531","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Biomedical science suffered a loss of trust during the Covid-19 pandemic. Why? One reason is a crisis fueled by confusion over the epistemology of science. Attacks on biomedical expertise rest on a mistaken view of what the justification is for crediting scientific information. The ideas that science is characterized by universal agreement and that any evolution or change of beliefs about facts and theories undermines trustworthiness in science are simply false. Biomedical science is trustworthy precisely because it is fallible, admits error, adjusts to new information, and, most importantly, is practical. Successful diagnosis and cure demarcate the boundaries of warranted knowledge. The other reason is sociological. As the pandemic made all too clear, the loss of faith in scientific experts was due to the failure of most of them to engage in regular public dialogue, reflecting a failure to recognize the obligation that science has to bolster trust in its work and findings by concerted public engagement.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2019冠状病毒病后重新获得对公共卫生和生物医学科学的信任:科学家的作用
在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,生物医学科学失去了信任。为什么?原因之一是对科学认识论的困惑引发了一场危机。对生物医学专业知识的攻击是基于对科学信息可信性的错误认识。认为科学的特点是普遍的共识,认为对事实和理论的信念的任何演变或改变都会破坏科学的可信度,这些观点完全是错误的。生物医学科学是值得信赖的,正是因为它容易犯错,承认错误,适应新的信息,最重要的是,它是实用的。成功的诊断和治疗划定了可靠知识的界限。另一个原因是社会学的。正如大流行所清楚表明的那样,人们对科学专家失去信心是由于他们中的大多数人未能定期参与公众对话,这反映出他们未能认识到科学有义务通过协调一致的公众参与来增强对其工作和发现的信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
期刊最新文献
Adam Omelianchuk, Alexander Morgan Capron, Lainie Friedman Ross, Arthur R. Derse, James L. Bernat, and David Magnus reply: Gender, Pediatric Care, and Evidence Johan C. Bester replies: Language Matters: The Semantics and Politics of “Assisted Dying” On Normothermic Regional Perfusion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1