Miasmas, mental models and preventive public health: some philosophical reflections on science in the COVID-19 pandemic.

IF 3.6 3区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Interface Focus Pub Date : 2021-10-12 eCollection Date: 2021-12-06 DOI:10.1098/rsfs.2021.0017
Trisha Greenhalgh
{"title":"Miasmas, mental models and preventive public health: some philosophical reflections on science in the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Trisha Greenhalgh","doi":"10.1098/rsfs.2021.0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When the history of the COVID-19 pandemic is written, it is likely to show that the mental models held by scientists sometimes facilitated their thinking, thereby leading to lives saved, and at other times constrained their thinking, thereby leading to lives lost. This paper explores some competing mental models of how infectious diseases spread and shows how these models influenced the scientific process and the kinds of facts that were generated, legitimized and used to support policy. A central theme in the paper is the relative weight given by dominant scientific voices to probabilistic arguments based on experimental measurements versus mechanistic arguments based on theory. Two examples are explored: the cholera epidemic in nineteenth century London-in which the story of John Snow and the Broad Street pump is retold-and the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and early 2021-in which the evidence-based medicine movement and its hierarchy of evidence features prominently. In each case, it is shown that prevailing mental models-which were assumed by some to transcend theory but were actually heavily theory-laden-powerfully shaped both science and policy, with fatal consequences for some.</p>","PeriodicalId":13795,"journal":{"name":"Interface Focus","volume":"11 6","pages":"20210017"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504883/pdf/","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interface Focus","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

When the history of the COVID-19 pandemic is written, it is likely to show that the mental models held by scientists sometimes facilitated their thinking, thereby leading to lives saved, and at other times constrained their thinking, thereby leading to lives lost. This paper explores some competing mental models of how infectious diseases spread and shows how these models influenced the scientific process and the kinds of facts that were generated, legitimized and used to support policy. A central theme in the paper is the relative weight given by dominant scientific voices to probabilistic arguments based on experimental measurements versus mechanistic arguments based on theory. Two examples are explored: the cholera epidemic in nineteenth century London-in which the story of John Snow and the Broad Street pump is retold-and the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and early 2021-in which the evidence-based medicine movement and its hierarchy of evidence features prominently. In each case, it is shown that prevailing mental models-which were assumed by some to transcend theory but were actually heavily theory-laden-powerfully shaped both science and policy, with fatal consequences for some.

瘴气、心理模式和预防性公共卫生:对2019冠状病毒病大流行中的科学的一些哲学思考。
当新冠肺炎大流行的历史被书写出来时,很可能会表明,科学家所持有的心理模型有时促进了他们的思考,从而挽救了生命,有时限制了他们的思维,从而导致了生命的丧失。本文探讨了传染病如何传播的一些相互竞争的心理模型,并展示了这些模型如何影响科学过程以及产生、合法化和用于支持政策的各种事实。论文的一个中心主题是,主流科学声音对基于实验测量的概率论点与基于理论的机械论点的相对权重。探讨了两个例子:19世纪伦敦的霍乱疫情,讲述了约翰·斯诺和布罗德街水泵的故事,以及2020年和2021年初新冠肺炎大流行的展开,其中循证医学运动及其证据层次突出。在每一种情况下,都表明,一些人认为主流的心理模型超越了理论,但实际上充斥着大量的理论,它们有力地塑造了科学和政策,给一些人带来了致命的后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Interface Focus
Interface Focus BIOLOGY-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Each Interface Focus themed issue is devoted to a particular subject at the interface of the physical and life sciences. Formed of high-quality articles, they aim to facilitate cross-disciplinary research across this traditional divide by acting as a forum accessible to all. Topics may be newly emerging areas of research or dynamic aspects of more established fields. Organisers of each Interface Focus are strongly encouraged to contextualise the journal within their chosen subject.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信