The belief that politics drive scientific research & its impact on COVID-19 risk assessment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McLaughlin DM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8059820 | biostudies-literature | 2021
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The belief that politics drive scientific research & its impact on COVID-19 risk assessment.
McLaughlin Danielle M DM Mewhirter Jack J Sanders Rebecca R
PloS one 20210421 4
We use survey data collected from 12,037 US respondents to examine the extent to which the American public believes that political motives drive the manner in which scientific research is conducted and assess the impact that such beliefs have on COVID-19 risk assessments. We find that this is a commonly held belief and that it is negatively associated with risk assessments. Public distrust in scientists could complicate efforts to combat COVID-19, given that risk assessments are strongly associa ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:We draw from an interdisciplinary literature on convictions to examine the manifestations and consequences of firmly held beliefs in Covid-19 (C19) science. Across three studies (N = 743), we assess participants' beliefs in C19 experts, and beliefs in supported and unsupported empirical evidence. Study 1 establishes the basic theoretical links and we show that an individual's belief in science on C19 is associated with dispositional belief in science and moralization of C19 mitigation measures. Our subsequent two studies show how stronger belief in C19 science influences distrust in unmasked individuals past the mandates, and greater endorsement of pandemic mitigation authoritarianism. We document the dark side that emerges when belief in C19 science extends beyond the generally desirable scientific literacy and manifests as a conviction that public health experts are the only ones who can handle the pandemic, and that even unsupported claims about C19 are supported by scientific evidence (e.g., risk of outdoor transmission is high). We also highlight our political ideology findings showing that both liberals and conservatives mis-calibrate C19 risks in different ways, and we conclude with discussing how examining the darker side of scientific beliefs can inform our understanding of people's reactions to the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8913370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 outbreak has posed an unprecedented challenge to humanity and science. On the one side, public and private incentives have been put in place to promptly allocate resources toward research areas strictly related to the COVID-19 emergency. However, research in many fields not directly related to the pandemic has been displaced. In this paper, we assess the impact of COVID-19 on world scientific production in the life sciences and find indications that the usage of medical subject headings (MeSH) has changed following the outbreak. We estimate through a difference-in-differences approach the impact of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific production using the PubMed database (3.6 Million research papers). We find that COVID-19-related MeSH terms have experienced a 6.5 fold increase in output on average, while publications on unrelated MeSH terms dropped by 10 to 12%. The publication weighted impact has an even more pronounced negative effect (-16% to -19%). Moreover, COVID-19 has displaced clinical trial publications (-24%) and diverted grants from research areas not closely related to COVID-19. Note that since COVID-19 publications may have been fast-tracked, the sudden surge in COVID-19 publications might be driven by editorial policy.
| S-EPMC8827464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Politics may color interpretations of facts, and thus perceptions of risk. We find that a higher share of Trump voters in a county is associated with lower perceptions of risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. Controlling for COVID-19 case counts and deaths, as Trump's vote share rises in the local area, individuals search less for information on the virus and its potential economic impacts, and engage in fewer visits to non-essential businesses. Our results suggest that politics and the media may play an important role in determining the formation of risk perceptions, and may therefore affect both economic and health-related reactions to unanticipated health crises.
| S-EPMC8502491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, conspiracy theories about the virus spread rapidly, and whilst governments across the globe put in place different restrictions and guidelines to contain the pandemic, these were not universally adhered to. This research examined the association between pandemic related risk perceptions, belief in conspiracy theories, and compliance with COVID-19 public guidelines amongst a UK sample (n = 368). Participants rated their level of concern for a series of potential risks during the pandemic (to the economy, personal health, freedom, media integrity and health risk to others). Participants also rated their level of belief in different conspiracy theories and self-reported their behaviour during the first UK lockdown. Mediational analyses showed that stronger belief in conspiracy theories was associated with perceptions of lower risk to health and higher risk to the economy and freedom, which in turn were associated with lower compliance with COVID-19 related governmental guidelines. Perception of information transparency risks did not mediate the association between belief in conspiracy theories and compliant behaviours. These results highlight the key role that risk perception may play in translating belief in conspiracy theories into low compliance with governmental COVID-19 related guidelines. Our findings suggest new patterns with respect to the relationship between conspiracy theory adherence and salience of different risk perceptions amidst the pandemic, which could have implications for the development of public health messaging and communication interventions.
| S-EPMC8824369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the middle of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) outbreak, the main efforts of the scientific community are rightly all focused on identifying efficient pharmacological treatments to cure the acute severe symptoms and developing a reliable vaccine. On the other hand, we cannot exclude that, in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive subjects, the virus infection could have long-term consequences, leading to chronic medical conditions such as dementia and neurodegenerative disease. Considering the age of SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects, the neuroinvasive potential might lead/contribute to the development of neurodegenerative diseases. Here, we analyzed a possible link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and Alzheimer's disease risk, hypothesizing possible mechanisms at the base of disease development. This reflection raises the need to start to experimentally investigating today the mechanistic link between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and COVID-19 to be ready tomorrow.
| S-EPMC7551579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies on COVID-19 scholarly articles have primarily focused on bibliometric characteristics, neglecting the identification of institutional actors that cite recent scientific contributions related to COVID-19 in the policy domain, and their locations.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the online citation network and knowledge structure of COVID-19 research across policy domains over 2 years from January 2020 to January 2022, with a particular emphasis on geographical frequency. Two research questions were addressed. The first question was related to who has been the most active in policy engagement with science and research information sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in terms of countries and organization types. The second question was related to whether there are significant differences in the types of coronavirus research shared among countries and continents.MethodsThe Altmetric database was used to collect policy report citations of scientific articles for 3 topic terms (COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 variants). Altmetric provides the URLs of policy agencies that have cited COVID-19 research. The scientific articles used for Altmetric citations are extracted from journals indexed by PubMed. The numbers of COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 variant research outputs between January 1, 2020, and January 31, 2022, were 216,787, 16,748, and 2777, respectively. The study examined the frequency of citations based on policy institutional domains, such as intergovernmental organizations, national and domestic governmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (think tanks and academic institutions).ResultsThe World Health Organization (WHO) stood out as the most notable institution citing COVID-19-related research outputs. The WHO actively sought and disseminated information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 vaccine citation network exhibited the most extensive connections in terms of degree centrality, 2-local eigenvector centrality, and eigenvector centrality among the 3 key terms. The Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia were the countries that sought and shared the most information on COVID-19 vaccines, likely due to their high numbers of COVID-19 cases. Developing nations, although gaining quicker access to COVID-19 vaccine information, appeared to be relatively isolated from the enriched COVID-19 pandemic content in the global network.ConclusionsThe global scientific network ecology during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed distinct types of links primarily centered around the WHO. Western countries demonstrated effective networking practices in constructing these networks. The prominent position of the key term "COVID-19 vaccine" demonstrates that nation-states align with global authority regardless of their national contexts. In summary, the citation networking practices of policy agencies have the potential to uncover the global knowledge distribution structure as a proxy for the networking strategy employed during a pandemic.
| S-EPMC10365591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleThe spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk.ObjectivesIn the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest understanding of the virus.MethodsWe drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework.ResultsOur framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential aerosolization while performing the activity. One of of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities which can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk.ConclusionsBy applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we can compare trial activities using the same criteria. This approach allows us to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our participants, local communities, and funders. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02944682).
| S-EPMC7668754 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8225273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A cluster of pneumonia (COVID-19) cases have been found in Wuhan China in late December, 2019, and subsequently, a novel coronavirus with a positive stranded RNA was identified to be the aetiological virus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2), which has a phylogenetic similarity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV). SARS-CoV-2 transmits mainly through droplets and close contact and the elder or people with chronic diseases are high-risk population. People affected by SARS-CoV-2 can be asymptomatic, which brings about more difficulties to control the transmission. COVID-19 has become pandemic rapidly after onset, and so far the infected people have been above 2 000 000 and more than 130 000 died worldwide according to COVID-19 situation dashboard of World Health Organization (https://covid19.who.int). Here, we summarized the current known knowledge regarding epidemiological, pathogenesis, pathology, clinical features, comorbidities and treatment of COVID-19/ SARS-CoV-2 as reference for the prevention and control COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7264656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale, aims, and objectivesOne of the sectors challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic is medical research. COVID-19 originates from a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the scientific community is faced with the daunting task of creating a novel model for this pandemic or, in other words, creating novel science. This paper is the first part of a series of two papers that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsDuring the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was chaotic and sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer-reviewed journals, pre-print servers, and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID-19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges.ResultsThis paper demonstrates that a lack of prioritization among research questions and therapeutics was responsible for the duplication of clinical trials and the dispersion of precious resources. Study designs, aimed at minimising biases and increasing objectivity, were, instead, the subject of fruitless oppositions. The duplication of research works, combined with poor-quality research, has greatly contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (1) finding and prioritising relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency.
| S-EPMC8014661 | biostudies-literature