COVID‐19 and the generation of novel scientific knowledge: Research questions and study designs

• Published in: Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Vol. 27; no. 3; pp. 694 - 707
• Main Authors: Perillat, Lucie, Baigrie, Brian S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.06.2021; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Coronaviruses; COVID-19; Epistemology; Evidence-based medicine; Medical philosophy; Medical research; Original Paper; Original Papers; Pandemics; philosophy of medicine; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; philosophy of medicine; epistemology; medical research; evidence-based medicine
• ISSN: 1356-1294; 1365-2753
• DOI: 10.1111/jep.13550

Rationale, aims, and objectives One of the sectors challenged by the COVID‐19 pandemic is medical research. COVID‐19 originates from a novel coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) and the scientific community is faced with the daunting task of creating a novel model for this pandemic or, in other words, creating novel science. This paper is the first part of a series of two papers that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of scientific knowledge during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was chaotic and sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer‐reviewed journals, pre‐print servers, and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID‐19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges. Results This paper demonstrates that a lack of prioritization among research questions and therapeutics was responsible for the duplication of clinical trials and the dispersion of precious resources. Study designs, aimed at minimising biases and increasing objectivity, were, instead, the subject of fruitless oppositions. The duplication of research works, combined with poor‐quality research, has greatly contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge. Conclusions The COVID‐19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (1) finding and prioritising relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency.