Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34648101›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2021

How Good is the Science That Informs Government Policy? A Lesson From the U.K.'s Response to 2020 CoV-2 Outbreak.

Jessica Cooper, Neofytos Dimitriou, Ognjen Arandjelovíc

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A Lost Idyll of Connection?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jessica CooperUniversity of St Andrews North Haugh, KY16 9SX Fife, St Andrews, Scotland, UK.
Neofytos DimitriouUniversity of St Andrews North Haugh, KY16 9SX Fife, St Andrews, Scotland, UK.
Ognjen ArandjelovícUniversity of St Andrews North Haugh, KY16 9SX Fife, St Andrews, Scotland, UK. ognjen.arandjelovic@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9314-194X
University of St Andrews · GBAndrews University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an era when public faith in politicians is dwindling, yet trust in scientists remains relatively high, governments are increasingly emphasizing the role of science based policy-making in response to challenges such as climate change and global pandemics. In this paper we question the quality of some scientific advice given to governments and the robustness and transparency of the entire framework which envelopes such advice, all of which raise serious ethical concerns. In particular we focus on the so-called Imperial Model which heavily influenced the government of the United Kingdom in devising its response to the COVID-19 crisis. We focus on and highlight several fundamental methodological flaws of the model, raise concerns as to the robustness of the system which permitted these to remain unchallenged, and discuss the relevant ethical consequences.

Indexed as

COVID-19GovernmentHumansPandemicsPolicySARS-CoV-2COVID-19, epidemicDecision-makingMethodologyModellingPublic policy

Identifiers

PMID34648101
PMCPMC8515150
OpenAlexW3205513578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.