Division of Community Health and Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, 300 Prince Philip Drive, St. John's, NL A1B 3V6, Canada.
BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Feb 12;14:6. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-6.
In 2009, Dr. Paolo Zamboni proposed chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) as a possible cause of multiple sclerosis (MS). Although his theory and the associated treatment ("liberation therapy") received little more than passing interest in the international scientific and medical communities, his ideas became the source of tremendous public and political tension in Canada. The story moved rapidly from mainstream media to social networking sites. CCSVI and liberation therapy swiftly garnered support among patients and triggered remarkable and relentless advocacy efforts. Policy makers have responded in a variety of ways to the public's call for action.
We present three different perspectives on this evolving story, that of a health journalist who played a key role in the media coverage of this issue, that of a health law and policy scholar who has closely observed the unfolding public policy developments across the country, and that of a medical ethicist who sits on an expert panel convened by the MS Society of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to assess the evidence as it emerges.
This story raises important questions about resource allocation and priority setting in scientific research and science policy. The growing power of social media represents a new level of citizen engagement and advocacy, and emphasizes the importance of open debate about the basis on which such policy choices are made. It also highlights the different ways evidence may be understood, valued and utilized by various stakeholders and further emphasizes calls to improve science communication so as to support balanced and informed decision-making.
2009 年,Paolo Zamboni 博士提出慢性脑脊髓静脉功能不全(CCSVI)可能是多发性硬化症(MS)的一个病因。尽管他的理论和相关治疗方法(“解放疗法”)在国际科学界和医学界几乎没有引起更多关注,但他的想法在加拿大引起了巨大的公众和政治紧张。这个故事迅速从主流媒体传播到社交网络。CCSVI 和解放疗法迅速得到了患者的支持,并引发了显著而持续的倡导努力。政策制定者以各种方式回应了公众要求采取行动的呼吁。
我们从三个不同的角度呈现了这个不断发展的故事,即一位在该问题的媒体报道中发挥关键作用的健康记者、一位密切观察全国各地公共政策发展的健康法律和政策学者,以及一位坐在加拿大多发性硬化症协会和加拿大卫生研究院召集的专家小组评估证据的医学伦理学家。
这个故事提出了关于科学研究和科学政策中资源分配和优先事项的重要问题。社交媒体力量的增强代表了公民参与和倡导的新水平,强调了就此类政策选择的基础进行公开辩论的重要性。它还突出了不同利益相关者可能理解、重视和利用证据的方式,并进一步呼吁改善科学传播,以支持平衡和知情的决策。