Ciencia y política del coronavirus

  1. López Cerezo, José Antonio 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Oviedo
    info

    Universidad de Oviedo

    Oviedo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/006gksa02

Revista:
Artefactos

ISSN: 1989-3612

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 11

Número: 2

Páginas: 75-95

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.14201/ART20221127595 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Artefactos

Resumen

Based on demographic data regarding the relevance of political ideology in reluctance against COVID vaccination, this contribution analyzes the phenomenon of political instrumentalization of scientific information in the fight against the pandemic. In the first place, a negative causal influence is defended, on the vaccination campaign, by the use of the lack of scientific consensus as a political weapon. Second, the scope and nature of “coronavirus science” as a regulatory science is examined, distinguishing different types of external values with different degrees of justification in the closure of interpretive flexibility. It is then concluded, in the third place, the lack of foundation for a discretionary political use of the scientific information generated by the science of the coronavirus. Subsequently, fourthly, the philosophical presuppositions of the effective political use made of scientific information are identified, namely, the erroneous presupposition of an academic science that speaks with one voice. On this basis, it is finally argued in favor of the explicit recognition of the regulatory nature of the science of the coronavirus, with its strengths and limitations, as a basis for a more responsible political use of scientific information and the opening of its evaluative aspects to public debate and moral deliberation.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bauer, M.W., Shukla, R., Allum, N. (eds.) (2012). The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Around the World. Routledge: Londres.
  • Bennett, M. (2020). Should I Do as I’m Told? Trust, Experts, and COVID-19. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 30(3-4), 243-263.
  • Biss, E. (2014). On Immunity: An Inoculation. Minneapolis: Graywolf.
  • Childess, M.T., Clark, M.W. (2021). Comunicating with Policymakers in a Pandemic. En H. Dan O’Hair & Mary John O’Hair (eds.), Communicating Science in Times of Crisis (pp. 323-337). Hoboken, Nueva Jersey: Wiley.
  • Claessens, M. (2021). The Science and Politics of Covid-19: How Scientists Should Tackle Global Crises. Cham (CH): Springer.
  • Dewey, J. (1939). Theory of Valuation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive Risk and Values in Science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559-579.
  • Douglas, H. (2009). Science, Politics, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Douglas, M. (1985). La aceptabilidad del riesgo según las ciencias sociales. Barcelona: Paidós.
  • FECYT (2003-2021). Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en España 2002-2020. FECYT: Madrid.
  • FECYT-RICYT-OEI (2009). Cultura Científica en Iberoamérica. Encuesta en Grandes Núcleos Urbanos. Madrid: FECYT, RICYT, OEI.
  • Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R. (1990). Post-Normal Science: A New Science for New Times. Scientific European, 169, 20-22.
  • Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J. R. (1993). La ciencia posnormal: ciencia con la gente. Barcelona: Icaria.
  • Goldenberg, M. J. (2021). Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Hacking, I. (1992). Statistical Language, Statistical Truth and Statistical Reason: The Self-Autentification of a Style of Scientific Reasoning. En E. McMullin (ed.), The Social Dimensions of Science (pp. 130-157). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Hacking, I. (1993). Working in a New World: The Taxonomic Solution. En P. Horwich (ed.), World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science (pp. 275-310). Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
  • Hempel, C.G. (1965). Science and Human Values. En Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays (pp. 81-96). Nueva York: Free Press.
  • Holman, B. y Wilholt, T. (2022). The New Demarcation Problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 211-220.
  • Hughes, T. P. (1983). Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
  • Jasanoff, S. (1995). Procedural Choices in Regulatory Science. Technology in Society, 17, 279- 293.
  • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
  • Krause, N.M., I. Freiling, B, Beets, Brossard, D. (2020). Fact-Checking as Risk Communication: The Multi-Layered Risk of Misinformation in Times of COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7-8), 1052-1059. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1756385
  • Kreps, S.E. y Kriner, D. L. (2020). Model Uncertainty, Political Contestation, and Public Trust in Science: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Science Advances, 6(43), abd456. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd456
  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Fasification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes- En I. Lakatos y A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 91-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Laspra, B., López Cerezo, J. A. (2019). Procientíficos críticos e implicados en la población española. En FECYT (pp. 59-84). Madrid: FECYT.
  • Lobera Serrano, J., Cabrera Álvarez, P. (2021). Evolución de la percepción social de los aspectos científicos de la COVID-19 (julio 2020-enero 2021). Madrid: FECYT.
  • López Cerezo, J. A. (2017). Comprender y comunicar la ciencia. Madrid: Libros de la Catarata.
  • López Cerezo, J.A., Luján, J. L. (2000). Ciencia y política del riesgo. Madrid: Alianza.
  • Longino, H. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Merton, R. K. (1973). La sociología de la ciencia, 2 vols. Madrid: Alianza.
  • Nowling, W., Seeger, M. (2021). Communicating Deatch and Dying in the COVID-19 Pandemic. En H. Dan O’Hair & Mary John O’Hair (eds.), Communicating Science in Times of Crisis (pp. 375-390). Hoboken, Nueva Jersey: Wiley.
  • O’Hair, H.D., M.J. O’Hair (eds.) (2021). Communicating Science in Times of Crisis: The COVID-19 Pandemic. Vol. 1. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley.
  • Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjeturas y refutaciones. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
  • Ramón y Cajal, S. (1923). Reglas y consejos sobre investigación científica. Madrid: J. Pueyo.
  • Virchow, R. (1849). Scientific Method and Therapeutic Standpoints. En L.J. Rather (ed.), Disease, Life, and Man: Selected Essays by Rodolf Virchow (pp. 40-66). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Wagner, W. E. (2022). No One Solution to the ‘New Demarcation Problem’? A View from the Trenches. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 177-185.
  • Wilsdon, J., Willis, R. (2004). See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. Londres: Demos.
  • Zielonka, J. (2021). Who Should Be in Charge of Pandemics? Scientists or Politicians? En G. Delanty (ed.), Pandemics, Politics, and Society: Critical Perspectives on the Covid-19 Crisis (pp. 59- 73). Berlín-Boston: De Gruyter.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet