engleski

Trust-distrust in science. A fundamental paradox

Unfortunately, a rigorous approach to the scientific method is a slow and ponderous process. Trials must adhere to strict safety and statistical standards and obtain ethical reviews. Their results need to be confirmed by other trials and discussed in open scientific fora. Before they can be published they typically undergo peer review. As a result, the scientific process operates on the temporal scale of decades and years. Yet the Coronavirus will not wait and thousands need a cure, vaccine, or treatment now. As a result, natural, social, and behavioral science are all under great pressure to answer difficult questions in unrealistic time frames. Consequently, methodological niceties may be sacrificed or neglected, whether consciously or subconsciously, in the rush to publication. That is the reason why the credibility of many research or policy papers was recently questioned. A good example of this is the statistical bias that arises from attempts to understand the share of people who have contracted the coronavirus. Basic but fatal problems arise from the misinterpretation and miscalculation of epidemiological concepts. The second most important cause of bias is that a key metric, the number of coronavirus-caused deaths, tends to lag. Although many areas publish daily death counts, those numbers are typically undercounted, suffering from unrepresentative sampling and daily variability. The sampling- variability issue is exacerbated by the fact that polls or studies with extreme results are more likely to get reported on (“publication bias” ). These are the main reasons why we can’t rely completely on the data that are part of the more than 500 research papers on COVID-19 being published every day. The cause for this explosion in publications is primarily due to the adoption of new scientific practice stimulating scientists to share pre-print research directly online, without formal peer-review. The new practice is also creating a lot of skepticism, as junk science, like quickly-prepared fast food, may initially satisfy an urge but ultimately results in regret and disease. Efforts to tackle our most pressing issues have been stymied by conflict within the scientific community and mixed messages symptomatic of a rushed approach.

science ; trust ; paradox ; COVID-19

nije evidentirano