Disputed expertise and chaotic disinformation
Covid-19 and denialist physicians in Brazil
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2395576 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kenneth R De Camargo Jr (0000-0003-3606-5853, Instituto de Medicina Social Hésio Cordeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 61 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 714-723 |
| Publication date | 2024-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Transcultural Psychiatric Research Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0041-1108 • E-ISSN: 0315-4386 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/13634615231213835 |
| PMID | 38234170 |
| OpenAlex | W4390984074 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 29 |
This article aims to show how incorrect ideas about COVID-19 were promoted by physicians in Brazil, contributing to a catastrophic response at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and to examine the implications of this episode for the social studies of science, technology and medicine. The literature on the relationship between science and society takes two broad approaches, which are sometimes at odds with each other: (i) there is a traditional critique of science that points to unsupported claims of certainty and thus undue interference in general human affairs; (ii) there are many examples of attempts to undermine reasonable scientific claims, when they clash with economic and/or political interests of certain groups. Navigating those extremes is particularly critical in situations in which accurate knowledge is necessary for intervening in people's lives, as is the case in health-related issues. Determining who has actual epistemic expertise is a key factor in solving this conundrum. This became painfully clear during the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlighted the uncertainties of science in guiding decisions being made in real time, and provided opportunities for many forms of disinformation and conspiracy theories that hampered public health measures and promoted useless or even dangerous 'treatments'. This article discusses an instructive example of such developments in the chaotic response to the pandemic challenge in Brazil, which saw, among other unfortunate situations, physicians aligned with the denialist federal government advocating for unproven - or proven as ineffective - treatments and disseminating unfounded doubts about vaccines. Presumed expertise on the basis of professional training clearly did not translate into actual expertise in the necessary domains to ascertain the validity of such claims and scientific advice was overridden by ideology
Certainty · Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 · Disinformation · Epistemology · Government (linguistics · Misinformation · Odds · Pandemic · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Social media · Sociology · Law · Medicine · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Salvando a Ciência
Public Health, Science, and the Public’s Trust
Scientists as Experts in Public Debates Characterised by Scientific Uncertainty
Publicação acadêmica
Contested Illness and Alternative Expertise Networks in Global Health
Long Covid, the unending pandemic
Covid longa, a pandemia que não terminou
Science as Practice and Culture
Denialism
Revising the “Hype Pipeline” Model in Scientific Communication
The hydroxychloroquine alliance
How to Talk to a Science Denier
Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact
Post-truth
STS as science or politics
Real Science
The Third Wave of Science Studies
The Thought Style of Physicians
Public health and the knowledge industry
The Social Construction of What
Why democracies need science
Trying to make sense out of chaos
Medical populism
How to identify science being bent
Hydroxychloroquine Controversies
Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3,5 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 7 |