Follow *the* science? On the marginal role of the social sciences in the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

In this paper, we use the case of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe to address the question of what kind of knowledge we should incorporate into public health policy. We show that policy-making during the COVID-19 pandemic has been biomedicine-centric in that its evidential basis marginalised input from non-biomedical disciplines. We then argue that in particular the social sciences could contribute essential expertise and evidence to public health policy in times of biomedical emergencies and that we should thus strive for a tighter integration of the social sciences in future evidence-based policy-making. This demand faces challenges on different levels, which we identify and discuss as potential inhibitors for a more pluralistic evidential basis.

Epidemiologia e pandemia de Covid-19: oportunidades para rever trajetórias e planejar o futuro

“…Uma delas foi reavivar as tensões teóricas e políticas entre Epidemiologia e as outras subáreas estruturantes da Saúde Coletiva, quais sejam, as Ciências Sociais e Humanas em Saúde (CSHS) e Políticas, Planejamento e Gestão em Saúde (PPGS) 37 . É patente que a Epidemiologia teve maior peso nos processos de consulta aos especialistas, para fins de decisão sobre políticas públicas no âmbito da pandemia de Covid-19, do que as Ciências Sociais, que têm tido, historicamente, seu papel secundarizado 38 . Logo no início da pandemia, a Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva (Abrasco) captou rapidamente esse mal-estar em sua comunidade e procurou agir em várias frentes.…”

Pandemics, policy, and pluralism: A Feyerabend-inspired perspective on COVID-19

“…There was a widespread sense that little consideration was given to the societal aspects of the pandemic and the negative side-effects of drastic suppression strategies, reflecting the fact that public health strategies during the first waves of the pandemic, such as "flattening the curve" (The Economist 2020, February 29) and "the hammer and the dance" (Pueyo, 2020), were almost exclusively rooted in biomedical and epidemiological expertise. It seems that "follow the science"-even if taken with a grain of salt-was never an inclusive ideal, but only emphasised some disciplines, while marginalising others, especially the social sciences (see Lohse & Canali, 2021; see Kidd, 2021b on a Feyerabendian appraisal of "follow the science").…”

“…For more details on potential contributions of the social sciences to pandemic policy, seeLohse and Canali (2021).33 Indeed, many social scientists tried to get involved during the COVID-19 crisis. But more often than not, their input was not taken up by policy-makers (see, e.g Hadorn et al, 2022)…”

Gobernar según los “criterios de la ciencia”: imaginarios de la ciencia frente a la COVID-19 en el Principado de Asturias

“…Ya sea porque la idea de ciencia que se maneja en la cámara hace referencia clara a las ciencias naturales como las disciplinas biomédicas o porque las referencias al conocimiento de los cientí cos sociales son inexistentes. Al igual que en otros países, la respuesta política a la pandemia ha sido ante todo una respuesta biomédica, dejándose las ciencias sociales a un lado (Lohse and Canali, 2021). Esto queda manifestado en las discusiones en sede parlamentaria, donde las evidencias y los expertos a los que se aluden en los discursos pertenecen en su mayoría al ambito biomédico.…”