Science under Covid-19's magnifying glass

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

Datos Bibliográficos

ID2399731
AutoresEmily 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, autor de correspondencia)
Año2022
Volumen58
Número1
Páginas76-94
Fecha de publicación2022-03-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of Sociology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1440-7833 • E-ISSN: 1741-2978
EditorialSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/1440783321999453
OpenAlexW3112304378
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas3
Referencias citadas38

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