‘Medical Corona Science’: Philosophical and systemic issues: Re‐thinking medicine? On the epistemology of Corona medicine

Abstract

Rationale, Aims, and Objectives The disciplinary profile and the quality of production of knowledge on Corona pandemic is studied. This scientific field is called ‘Medical Corona Science’. Methods Criteria of analytical philosophy of science and science studies are systematically applied. Results It is shown that mainly auxiliary medical disciplines such as virology and epidemiology but not clinical disciplines provide Corona knowledge. We see a laboratory‐centered, technology‐ and data‐driven science, largely ignoring clinical issues. Therefore we call these approaches “Medical Corona Science” (MCS). We see the need to adapt to features of a ‘post‐normal science’, a ‘mode 2 science’ and of ‘Integration and Implementation Science’, especially as clinical knowledge must be integrated. There is also a severe lack of theoretical considerations that could help to frame the pandemic as a complex dynamic system. Conclusions We suggest a deeper meta‐scientific discussion of the epistemic value of MCS and propose the application of tools from systems science.

Navigating complex trade‐offs in public health interventions

“…The relations between science and policy, or between knowledge and action, have never been simple, linear, or straightforward in any obvious way, and are rightly defined as ‘complex’ or ‘wicked’ 1–4 . The Covid‐19 pandemic, to be sure, has been a catalyst for the urgent need to engage this complexity and find new ways to generate knowledge and turn it into policy interventions 5–7 . We share critical views of evidence‐based or science‐driven approaches in policy making, 8‐10 and seek to contribute to the literature that is delineating better ways of generating knowledge, designing interventions and acting under high uncertainty.…”

Perspectives of (/memorandum for) systems thinking on COVID‐19 pandemic and pathology

“…We propose that a more conclusive management of the Corona pandemic can be achieved in the context of a more concept‐driven systemic perspective on the population as on the individual. 1 To this end, adaptive systems thinking could guide the development of scientific models to understand better these behaviours across all system scales.…”

“…To overcome this conundrum, functional organisation of quantitative and qualitative observations by conceptual embedding could be useful in terms of rule‐guided hypotheses and explanatory integrative framing that are to be tested and accompanied by interpretations based on causal models, similar as knowledge growth in physics can be understood by interplay between empirical and experimental observations and theoretical reasoning. 1 This is true for understanding both population health and individual health. For such an integrative understanding of COVID‐19, we need not only ‘disciplined interdisciplinarity’ but also the construction of integrative (systemic) medical theories .…”

“…This information has been data‐driven (inductive) and not theory‐driven (deductive) and resulted in an overwhelming multitude and diversity of orientations and behaviour regulations in all societal domains. We propose that a more conclusive management of the Corona pandemic can be achieved in the context of a more concept‐driven systemic perspective on the population as on the individual 1 . To this end, adaptive systems thinking could guide the development of scientific models to understand better these behaviours across all system scales.…”

“…Unfortunately, more data do not necessarily mean more knowledge, as information can be confusing or misleading if it is not embedded in a larger comprehensive conceptual context. To overcome this conundrum, functional organisation of quantitative and qualitative observations by conceptual embedding could be useful in terms of rule‐guided hypotheses and explanatory integrative framing that are to be tested and accompanied by interpretations based on causal models, similar as knowledge growth in physics can be understood by interplay between empirical and experimental observations and theoretical reasoning 1 . This is true for understanding both population health and individual health.…”