Burkle Frederick M, Hanfling Dan
Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC, USA.
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Center for Health Security, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
PLoS Curr. 2015 May 29;7:ecurrents.dis.fd8aaf6707cd5dd252e33c771d08b949. doi: 10.1371/currents.dis.fd8aaf6707cd5dd252e33c771d08b949.
Long before the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the United States was already experiencing a failure of confidence between politicians and scientists, primarily focused on differences of opinion on climate extremes. This ongoing clash has culminated in an environment where politicians most often no longer listen to scientists. Importation of Ebola virus to the United States prompted an immediate political fervor over travel bans, sealing off borders and disputes over the reliability of both quarantine and treatment protocol. This demonstrated that evidenced- based scientific discourse risks taking a back seat to political hyperbole and fear. The role of public health and medical expertise should be to ensure that cogent response strategies, based upon good science and accumulated knowledge and experience, are put in place to help inform the development of sound public policy. But in times of crisis, such reasoned expertise and experience are too often overlooked in favor of the partisan press "sound bite", where fear and insecurity have proved to be severely counterproductive. While scientists recognize that science cannot be entirely apolitical, the lessons from the impact of Ebola on political discourse shows that there is need for stronger engagement of the scientific community in crafting messages required for response to such events. This includes the creation of moral and ethical standards for the press, politicians and scientists, a partnership of confidence between the three that does not now exist and an "elected officials" toolbox that helps to translate scientific evidence and experience into readily acceptable policy and public communication.
早在2014年西非埃博拉疫情爆发之前,美国就已经在经历政治家与科学家之间的信任危机,主要集中在对极端气候的不同意见上。这种持续的冲突最终导致了一种局面,即政治家们往往不再听取科学家的意见。埃博拉病毒传入美国引发了关于旅行禁令、封锁边境以及检疫和治疗方案可靠性争议的立即政治狂热。这表明,基于证据的科学论述有可能让位于政治夸张和恐惧。公共卫生和医学专业知识的作用应该是确保制定基于良好科学、积累的知识和经验的有力应对策略,以帮助为合理的公共政策制定提供信息。但在危机时期,这种理性的专业知识和经验常常被忽视,而倾向于党派媒体的“简短有力的话语”,事实证明,恐惧和不安全感会产生严重的反作用。虽然科学家认识到科学不可能完全不涉及政治,但埃博拉对政治话语影响的教训表明,科学界需要更积极地参与制定应对此类事件所需的信息。这包括为媒体、政治家和科学家制定道德和伦理标准,建立这三方之间目前不存在的信任伙伴关系,以及一个“当选官员”工具箱,帮助将科学证据和经验转化为易于接受的政策和公共宣传。