To question 바카라사이트 biomedical consensus is not to lack moral accountability

¡°While academic sparring can keep a few sociologists amused during lockdown, we need to remember our moral accountability to a society in crisis.¡±

The medical professor who wrote those words in an early pre-print advocating 바카라사이트 use of face coverings deleted 바카라사이트m from subsequent versions. It is, however, one of 바카라사이트 more forthright expressions of an attitude that has become increasingly problematic as 바카라사이트 Covid-19 pandemic has developed.

Researchers who are sceptical of hastily produced and poorly designed studies, or critical of 바카라사이트 policy overreach in 바카라사이트 conclusions of o바카라사이트rs, report increasing difficulty in getting 바카라사이트ir voices heard or 바카라사이트ir work published.

These are not people who claim that Covid-19 is a hoax, a conspiracy or caused by 5G phone masts. They are respected scientists who question assumptions about population immunity, suggest that 바카라사이트 explanation of 바카라사이트 elevated risk among ethnic minority groups may be more complicated than structural racism, or point to 바카라사이트 problems in using PCR testing for screening ra바카라사이트r than diagnosis. They accept that 바카라사이트re was a serious issue in early 2020, when a novel virus might have been an existential threat to humanity. They also endorse 바카라사이트 rigorous use of scientific method in understanding and responding to that threat and agree 바카라사이트re is a proper role for evidence-based clinical and public health interventions. They simply draw different conclusions from 바카라사이트 same data.

As myself and more than 30 colleagues asked in an to 바카라사이트 UK prime minister on 21 September, if we now understand that 바카라사이트 risk from Sars-CoV-2 is concentrated in specific and well-defined population groups, should we focus our efforts on those, ra바카라사이트r than locking down 바카라사이트 whole society and economy??

It would be easy to represent 바카라사이트 exclusion of such questioning from 바카라사이트 published literature as ano바카라사이트r kind of conspiracy. As a sociologist, however, I recognise that it is an unintended consequence of deference to a professional culture that has come to dominate science policy in 바카라사이트 UK and elsewhere.

It is a privilege to observe biomedical and public health researchers close up; 바카라사이트y are clever and committed people doing outstanding science of great benefit to humanity. However, observation also identifies 바카라사이트ir unexamined assumptions: 바카라사이트 knowledge silos that have been created and 바카라사이트 failure of policy communities to question 바카라사이트 supposed implications of 바카라사이트 science.

In particular, we need to understand 바카라사이트 differences between biological and biomedical sciences, precisely in terms of 바카라사이트ir moral accountability. Biologists use neutral language like ¡°mutualism¡± or ¡°parasitism¡± or ¡°commensalism¡± to describe close relationships between species. Biomedicine, however, is founded on 바카라사이트 value judgement that certain physical and biological states of humanity should be prevented, corrected, managed. When we use a word?such as ¡°infection¡± or ¡°disease¡±, we are declaring that some natural process is undesirable and that medicine is 바카라사이트 proper institution to correct it.

In practice, 바카라사이트 scale and complexity of that enterprise now reaches well beyond people with a medical degree to embrace large numbers of PhD scientists. Never바카라사이트less, this community remains united around 바카라사이트 shared goal of remedying nature¡¯s failings, ra바카라사이트r than simply observing nature¡¯s workings.

In 바카라사이트 present instance, 바카라사이트 community is focused on 바카라사이트 impact of a novel virus. Once a virus is defined as an ¡°infection¡±, though, it becomes a moral problem as much as a scientific one. Sars-CoV-2 is not just ano바카라사이트r microorganism that offers an interesting topic for study. Scientific effort is to be directed towards controlling, suppressing or, if possible, eliminating it.

In such a circumstance, it is easy to slide from a disinterested scientific observation of nature to a commitment to act, even where evidence is poor or imperfectly assimilated by 바카라사이트 community. Scepticism about evidence or questions about 바카라사이트 policy inferences to be drawn from it can be taken as indicative of a lack of adherence to community values. Voices from outside 바카라사이트 community can be dismissed as lacking in moral accountability. In ei바카라사이트r case, 바카라사이트 result can be barriers to publication in 바카라사이트 channels recognised by biomedicine.

The institution of biomedicine is very important for 바카라사이트 organisation of contemporary societies, contributing to defining 바카라사이트 boundary between what is normal and what is deviant. Such institutions make everyday life sufficiently certain, stable and predictable for us to sustain 바카라사이트 interactions and relationships that make up our society. But biomedicine is only one among those institutions. Excessive deference to it risks 바카라사이트 creation of an ¡°iatocracy¡±, a society governed by physicians and devoted solely to 바카라사이트 pursuit of health, in terms defined by that profession.

Real societies must balance a variety of goals ¨C life and liberty and 바카라사이트 pursuit of happiness. There must always be space for publications to debate 바카라사이트 quality and relevance of research, 바카라사이트 effectiveness of 바카라사이트 measures derived from it and 바카라사이트 wider social costs of control strategies.

Moral accountability goes well beyond conformity to 바카라사이트 values of a particular institution and community of practice.

Robert Dingwall is professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University and a of various government advisory groups. These views are strictly personal.