lemonde.fr
COVID-19 Pandemic Spurs Reassessment of Scientific Practices and Public Health
Historians of science are reassessing the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on global health, questioning scientific globalization, epidemiological practices, and the role of social media; a new book explores the historical context of anti-vaccine movements and their relationship to the French state.
- What immediate impact did the COVID-19 pandemic have on the established models of global scientific collaboration and health policy?
- Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, historians of science are reevaluating its impact. Critiques target globalization of science, especially in global health, questioning epidemiological practices and diverse knowledge systems.
- How did the pandemic reveal the tensions between established scientific practices, traditional medicine, and public trust in government health initiatives?
- The pandemic spurred debate about mathematical modeling (Johns Hopkins, Imperial College), prompting calls for more localized and traditional medicine-inclusive approaches to planetary health. Concerns also arose regarding the influence of anti-elitist, populist personas on social media, challenging scientific ethics.
- What are the long-term implications of the pandemic-induced critiques of scientific authority and communication on the future of public health initiatives and scientific research?
- This reevaluation impacts historical research, as seen in Jean-Luc Chappey's book on Pasteur and anti-vaccine movements. The work examines the political links between the French Republic, medicine, and the nascent welfare state, highlighting the historical context of public mistrust towards vaccination.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the critiques of the scientific response to Covid-19 and the controversies surrounding Louis Pasteur. The headline, if there was one, would likely have reflected this emphasis. The introduction immediately highlights criticisms of globalization of science, epidemiological practices, and the 'persona' of scientists on social media. This sets a critical tone and may skew the reader's perception towards a negative view of the scientific community.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and academic in tone. However, phrases like "versant obscur" (dark side) when discussing Pasteur's legacy and descriptions of certain viewpoints as 'particularly harsh' or 'anti-elitist and populist' subtly introduce a negative connotation. More neutral phrasing could enhance objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on critiques of the scientific response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the historical reassessment of Louis Pasteur, potentially omitting other significant aspects of the pandemic's impact and response. There is no mention of the economic or social consequences, the development and distribution of vaccines beyond the mention of Pasteur's rabies vaccine, or the role of international organizations. This omission limits the reader's understanding of the pandemic's multifaceted nature.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't present a clear false dichotomy, but it could be argued that by focusing heavily on criticisms of the scientific response, it implicitly sets up a dichotomy between 'critics' and 'establishment science'. This simplifies a complex issue where a range of opinions and approaches exist.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article reflects on the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact, prompting critical analysis of global health systems, epidemiological practices, and the role of science communication. This leads to discussions on improving global health preparedness and response, aligning with the SDG target of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages.