Science under Covid-19's magnifying glass

Lessons from the first months of the chloroquine debate in the French press

Bibliographic Data

ID2399731
AuthorsEmily Schultz (0000-0002-6215-3606, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement), Emilien Schultz (IRD, Paris, France), Jeremy K Ward (0000-0003-3389-6870, INSERM, Villejuif, France, corresponding author)
Year2022
Volume58
Issue1
Pages76-94
Publication date2022-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Sociology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1440-7833 • E-ISSN: 1741-2978
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/1440783321999453
OpenAlexW3112304378
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited38

Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, all hopes are turned towards science. In this article, we put forward a qualitative analysis of how the French national press covered the issue of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the first months, with a focus on the descriptions of the scientific world. We show that during epidemic outbreaks the various tensions existing within the scientific world are more likely to be presented to the public. In their coverage of hydroxychloroquine, journalists shed light on a variety of aspects of contemporary medical research, ranging from the way scientists approach a given drug, the stages of research on medical treatments, the types of proofs used and the institutional make-up of biomedical research. But in doing so they also presented a series of tensions and disagreements which devolved into public accusations of scientific misconduct and anti-science behaviours

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) · Hydroxychloroquine · Media studies · Misconduct · Pandemic · Political science · Social science · Sociology · Variety (cybernetics) · Antibiotic Use and Resistance · Law · Medicine · Misinformation and Its Impacts