ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2022
COVID-19 and Biomedical Experts: When Epistemic Authority is (Probably) Not Enough.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical Principles in Legal Context: Vaccine Mandates During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Mental Health Experts as Objects of Epistemic Injustice-The Case of Autism Spectrum Condition.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Liminality: The Not-So-New Normal?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022Article
- Advocating for Greater Inclusion of Marginalized and Forgotten Populations in COVID19 Vaccine Rollouts.International journal of public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This critical essay evaluates the potential integration of distinct kinds of expertise in policymaking, especially during situations of critical emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This article relies on two case studies: (i) herd immunity (UK) and (ii) restricted access to ventilators for disabled people (USA). These case studies are discussed as examples of experts' recommendations that have not been widely accepted, though they were made within the boundaries of expert epistemic authority. While the fundamental contribution of biomedical experts in devising public health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic is fully recognized, this paper intends to discuss potential issues and limitations that may arise when adopting a strict expert-based approach. By drawing attention to the interests of minorities (disenfranchized and underrepresented groups), the paper also claims a broader notion of "relevant expertise." This critical essay thus calls for the necessity of wider inclusiveness and representativeness in the process underlying public health policymaking.
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.