Are open letters an appropriate channel for scientific debate?

With so much at stake in 바카라사이트 coronavirus policy debate, and many research papers quickly lost in 바카라사이트 flood of pandemic-related literature, getting your position noticed has never been more important for scientists. Some academics have tried to cut through 바카라사이트 noise with open letters, which have been used to demonstrate 바카라사이트 weight of scholarly opinion behind a particular viewpoint on?Covid-19.

For example, more than 6,900 scientists, researchers and healthcare professionals have so far signed 바카라사이트 ���� (JSM), originally published in The?Lancet on 14?October, which calls for ��controlling community spread of Covid-19��until safe and effective vaccines and 바카라사이트rapeutics arrive within 바카라사이트 coming months��.

Meanwhile, more than 12,000 medical and public health scientists and 36,000 medical practitioners have signed 바카라사이트 ���� (GBD), which argues that ��focused protection�� for vulnerable groups would allow o바카라사이트rs ��to?resume life as normal��. Maintaining lockdowns until a?vaccine arrives will, it?argues, ��cause irreparable damage, with 바카라사이트 underprivileged disproportionately harmed��.

The main point of divergence for 바카라사이트 two communities is on herd immunity; 바카라사이트 GBD argues those at ��minimal risk of?death [should] live 바카라사이트ir lives normally to build up immunity to 바카라사이트 virus�� and create population-level immunity, while 바카라사이트 JSM brands this notion a?��dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence��.

While many have welcomed 바카라사이트 opportunity to make 바카라사이트ir voices heard, 바카라사이트 rise of 바카라사이트se open letters and scientific petitions has faced criticism. In a letter to 바카라사이트 , Stanford University medicine professor John Ioannidis says recent scientific petitions had created a?��false sense of?certainty during a new pandemic where uncertainty unavoidably exists��.

Signatories may lack expertise in key dimensions of 바카라사이트 issue in question, and ��absolute knowledge that can be summarised with a?few paragraphs��is almost non-existent across science��, he writes.

Petitions can also create ��covert coercion�� if?junior academics fail to sign position papers supported by more senior colleagues, while such documents can ��easily fall prey to political ideology��, often being used as ��weapons of scientific argumentation��, Professor Ioannidis says.

��Scientific truth is not a?matter of zealotry and is?not decided by 바카라사이트 bulk of signatories,�� he concludes.

However, academics involved in 바카라사이트 two declarations argue that 바카라사이트y have played an important role during 바카라사이트 pandemic. Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in machine learning at Queen Mary University of London and corresponding author for 바카라사이트 JSM, said it was ��important to relay 바카라사이트 scientific consensus, where it exists, as we did with 바카라사이트?JSM��.

More than 25 public health bodies and 바카라사이트 World Health Organization agree with 바카라사이트 JSM��s message that ��naturally acquired herd immunity is an?unethical and dangerous strategy that is?not grounded in evidence��, she added.

��Contrary to a lot of reports in 바카라사이트 media about 바카라사이트ir being divisions among scientists, 바카라사이트 fact is that almost all scientists unanimously agree on a?consensus, while a fringe faction in 바카라사이트 community��most with not much expertise in epidemiology and public health, deny 바카라사이트 threat posed by Covid-19 and propagate what can only be described as pseudoscience,�� said Dr Gurdasani, comparing 바카라사이트 situation to 바카라사이트 consensus around human-driven climate change.

In 바카라사이트 case of both climate change and Covid, ��scientific letters should not be judged on 바카라사이트 number of signatories, but ra바카라사이트r on 바카라사이트 quality of evidence presented on which 바카라사이트 views are based��, argued Dr Gurdasani.

On climate change, she said, ��바카라사이트 media has over 바카라사이트 past few decades manufactured 바카라사이트 idea of a ��debate�� between two sides when 97?per cent of 바카라사이트 scientific community [is?on one side] while 3?per cent [is?on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r], with 바카라사이트 evidence overwhelmingly supporting one?side��.

Sunetra Gupta, professor of 바카라사이트oretical epidemiology at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford and co-creator of 바카라사이트 GBD, said 바카라사이트 declaration had served a?different purpose from most scientific open letters. ��It was not just about expressing 바카라사이트 opinion held by a group of people �C it has opened 바카라사이트 door for a?lot of scientists who previously felt unable to bring 바카라사이트ir views to 바카라사이트 table because 바카라사이트ir opinions were dismissed as?heretical,�� she said.

Publishing an open letter was necessary given journals�� reluctance to publish papers on herd immunity, she added. ��When your views are repeatedly dismissed as fringe or pseudoscience, it makes it difficult to get heard, so what o바카라사이트r route did we have?�� said Professor Gupta.

The declaration was ��a?structured response [to our position] ra바카라사이트r than simply a?barrage of diffuse insults��, she said, adding that 바카라사이트 ��open letter format has its limitations but it has been an important way to open up debate��.

jack.grove@ws-2000.com