engleski

Science in the times of SARS-Cov-2

This contribution demonstrates the utility and validity of applying a 'human rights lens' to topical and vital issues in science and society through an in-depth case study of the current SARS- COVID-2 pandemic. Following a section setting out the relevant background, recent developments in the scientific fight against the pandemic are considered in light of the provisions of Article 15 ICESCR and 27 UDHR, which enshrine the human right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. The right is relevant to several aspects of the scientific process, from funding, data acquisition, hypothesis selection and experimentation all the way through to publication, knowledge-sharing, and the implementation of resulting knowledge in the spheres of policy and technology. Reflecting this composite nature, the first part of this chapter, like the Articles themselves, treats the major components of the right separately. The right elements and importance are elucidated throughout and demonstrated in practice by empirical references to ongoing developments in the SARS- COVID-2 pandemic. The second half of this essay focuses on a highly pertinent but little-discussed dimension of scientific research: the speed at which it is conducted. The analysis proceeds by way of analogy to the central thesis of Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman's summary of decades of research into heuristics and biases, Thinking: Fast and Slow. It is suggested that the dichotomy between a 'fast, ' instinctive and affective cognitive process and its' slow, ' logical, and deliberative counterpart also accurately characterizes two idealized, diametrically opposed, and extreme approaches to the scientific process. Nowhere is this distinction of greater practical significance than in the contemporary response to the SARS-COVID-2 pandemic. The influence of the 'fast' process can be appreciated by the incredible statistic that more than 10, 000 scientific papers have already been published on the topic. The ongoing threat to human life and progress, the constant attention by the media and the public, and the possibility of glory for significant advances all have practical impacts on scientists and through them on their work. This enables practical co-operation and reduces the timeframe for possible breakthroughs to such an extent as to offer hope to individuals currently suffering under the burden of the disease. On the other hand, these same factors likely introduce the very heuristics and biases that the scientific method is supposed to rule out or minimize. From an abstract, collective, and long-term perspective, nothing beats 'slow, ' curiosity- driven, and methodologically unimpeachable research based on a rigorous understanding of the scientific method. Yet the price paid for greater certainty is greater latency, and in the case of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, time is already running short for hundreds of thousands of infected individuals. Building on this discussion, the importance of trust in science and evidence are underlined, and the argument advanced that the 'right to science lens' provides a useful framework for identifying the elements necessary for such trust, and thus provides guidance as to how it is best achieved. We argue that this can be seen in practice through a comparison of the disparate impact of the virus in different countries. We identify three broad factors which account for much of this difference: the presence of a scientifically informed leadership with respect for slow science and methodological rigor ; trust in both science and in political and public health leadership ; and a lower degree of income and wealth inequality. The RtS, as elucidated in the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights' authoritative General Comment No. 25 and elsewhere in this volume, provides valuable and workable guidance as to how the development of these factors can be encouraged.

COVID-19 ; science ; right to science ; Control Policies

nije evidentirano