ArticleHistory and philosophy of the life sciences2021
The road from evidence to policies and the erosion of the standards of democratic scrutiny in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in History and philosophy of the life sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining self-described policy-relevant evidence base for policymaking: an evidence map of COVID-19 literature.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Evidence use in the UK's COVID-19 Free School Meals Policy: a thematic content analysis.Policy design and practice · 2023Article
- To vaccinate or to isolate? Establishing which intervention leads to measurable mortality reduction during the COVID-19 Delta wave in Poland.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Diversity regained: Precautionary approaches to COVID-19 as a phenomenon of the total environment.The Science of the total environment · 2022Article
- Analysis of the Quantitative Evaluation of the Public Medical and Health System Costs During Pandemic Governance: Investigation Based on COVID-19.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic poses extraordinary public health challenges. In order to respond to such challenges, most democracies have relied on so-called 'evidence-based' policies, which supposedly devolve to science the burden of their justification. However, the biomedical sciences can only provide a theory-laden evidential basis, while reliable statistical data for policy support is often scarce. Therefore, scientific evidence alone cannot legitimise COVID-19 public health policies, which are ultimately based on political decisions. Given this inevitable input on policy-making, the risk of arbitrariness is ubiquitous and democratic scrutiny becomes essential to counter it. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the standards of scientific and democratic scrutiny have been, as a matter of fact, substantially lowered. This erosion potentially damages democracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.