Unresolved COVID Controversies: ‘Normal science’ and potential non-scientific influences

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 health crisis has so far involved enormous consequences in human pain, suffering and death. While biomedical science responded early, its response has been marked by several controversies between what appeared to be mainstream perspectives, and diverse alternative views; far from leading to productive debate, controversies often preceded polarisation and, allegedly, exclusion and even censorship of alternative views, followed by the pretense of scientific consensus. This paper describes and discusses the main controversies in the production of COVID biomedical knowledge and derived control measures, to establish if alternative positions are also legitimate from a ‘normal science’ perspective (rather than comparing them for superiority); explores potential non-scientific explanations of the alleged exclusion of certain views; and analyzes ethical issues implied. The operation of non-scientific factors in scientific and regulatory processes (e.g. various forms of subtle corruption) has been documented in the past; the intervention of such influences in the mishandling of controversies (i.e. on early management, non-pharmacological prevention and vaccination) cannot be ruled out and deserves further investigation. Some of these controversies, increasingly visible in the public domain, also involve ethical challenges that need urgent attention. Polarisation, censorship and dogma are foreign to true science and must be left behind.

KEYWORDS:

• COVID-19
• controversy
• scientific method
• scientific integrity
• medical practice
• academic freedom
• media
• evidence
• epistemology
• ethics

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the valuable comments of Drs. Enrique Castañeda, Carlos Zamudio, Yesenia Musayón and José Luis Calderón to earlier drafts of this manuscript. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, which do not necessarily reflect those of his institution.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.