"Follow the Science" in COVID-19 Policy: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1007/s10730-024-09521-w
Jacob R Greenmyer
{"title":"\"Follow the Science\" in COVID-19 Policy: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Jacob R Greenmyer","doi":"10.1007/s10730-024-09521-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>\"Follow the science\" was commonly repeated during debates on COVID-19-related policy. The phrase \"follow the science\" raises questions that are central to our theories of knowledge and the application of scientific knowledge to maximize the wellbeing of our society. The purpose of this study was to (1) perform a scoping review of literature discussing \"follow the science\" and COVID-19, and (2) consider \"follow the science\" in the context of pediatric health. A comprehensive search of 14 databases was performed on May 23, 2023. Articles were included if they used terms such as \"follow the science\", \"follow the scientists\", \"listen to science\" or \"listen to scientists\", and discussed COVID-19. There were 24 articles included in the final review. Existing literature on \"follow the science\" (1) differentiates between scientific knowledge and policy decisions; (2) emphasizes the importance of social sciences in policy making; (3) calls for more transparency in the knowledge synthesis and policy generating process; and (4) finds that scientific advisors see their role as advising on science rather than policy decision making. There was no definitional, epistemological, or philosophical intellectual defense of \"follow the science\" in the peer reviewed literature. Policy requires (1) reliable data and (2) agreement on what to do considering those empirical facts by appealing to values, ethics, morality, and law. A review of school shutdowns is used as an example of the inadequacy of \"follow the science\" as a guiding principle for public policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":" ","pages":"571-589"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-024-09521-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

"Follow the science" was commonly repeated during debates on COVID-19-related policy. The phrase "follow the science" raises questions that are central to our theories of knowledge and the application of scientific knowledge to maximize the wellbeing of our society. The purpose of this study was to (1) perform a scoping review of literature discussing "follow the science" and COVID-19, and (2) consider "follow the science" in the context of pediatric health. A comprehensive search of 14 databases was performed on May 23, 2023. Articles were included if they used terms such as "follow the science", "follow the scientists", "listen to science" or "listen to scientists", and discussed COVID-19. There were 24 articles included in the final review. Existing literature on "follow the science" (1) differentiates between scientific knowledge and policy decisions; (2) emphasizes the importance of social sciences in policy making; (3) calls for more transparency in the knowledge synthesis and policy generating process; and (4) finds that scientific advisors see their role as advising on science rather than policy decision making. There was no definitional, epistemological, or philosophical intellectual defense of "follow the science" in the peer reviewed literature. Policy requires (1) reliable data and (2) agreement on what to do considering those empirical facts by appealing to values, ethics, morality, and law. A review of school shutdowns is used as an example of the inadequacy of "follow the science" as a guiding principle for public policy.

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
COVID-19 政策中的 "遵循科学":范围审查。
在关于 COVID-19 相关政策的辩论中,"遵循科学 "被反复提及。遵循科学 "这一短语提出了一些问题,这些问题是我们的知识理论以及应用科学知识最大限度地提高社会福祉的核心问题。本研究的目的是:(1)对讨论 "遵循科学 "和 COVID-19 的文献进行范围界定;(2)在儿科健康的背景下考虑 "遵循科学"。研究于 2023 年 5 月 23 日对 14 个数据库进行了全面检索。如果文章使用了 "跟随科学"、"跟随科学家"、"聆听科学 "或 "聆听科学家 "等术语,并讨论了 COVID-19,则会被收录。共有 24 篇文章被纳入最终审查。关于 "跟着科学走 "的现有文献:(1) 区分了科学知识和政策决定;(2) 强调了社会科学在政策制定中的重要性;(3) 呼吁提高知识综合和政策制定过程的透明度;(4) 发现科学顾问认为他们的作用是提供科学建议,而不是政策决策。在同行评议的文献中,没有关于 "遵循科学 "的定义、认识论或哲学思想辩护。制定政策需要:(1)可靠的数据;(2)通过诉诸价值观、伦理、道德和法律,就如何处理这些经验事实达成一致意见。本文以学校停课事件为例,说明 "遵循科学 "作为公共政策指导原则的不足之处。
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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
期刊最新文献
Medical-Legal Partnerships and Prevention: Caring for Unrepresented Patients Through Early Identification and Intervention. Organizational Ethics in Healthcare: A National Survey. Non-Psychiatric Treatment Refusal in Patients with Depression: How Should Surrogate Decision-Makers Represent the Patient's Authentic Wishes? What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project. "Follow the Science" in COVID-19 Policy: A Scoping Review.
×
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