Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia.
New South Wales Health Pathology-ICPMR Westmead, University of Sydney, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia.
J Bioeth Inq. 2023 Dec;20(4):575-583. doi: 10.1007/s11673-023-10303-1. Epub 2023 Sep 11.
Intense public interest in scientific claims about COVID-19, concerning its origins, modes of spread, evolution, and preventive and therapeutic strategies, has focused attention on the values to which scientists are assumed to be committed and the relationship between science and other public discourses. A much discussed claim, which has stimulated several inquiries and generated far-reaching political and economic consequences, has been that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and then, either inadvertently or otherwise, released to the public by a laboratory worker. This has been pursued despite a clear refutation, through comprehensive genomic analysis, of the hypothesis that the virus was deliberately engineered and the failure of detailed investigations to identify any evidence in support of a laboratory leak. At the same time a substantial, established body of knowledge about the many factors underlying the emergence of novel zoonotic diseases has been largely ignored-including climate change and other mechanisms of environmental destruction, tourism, patterns of trade, and cultural influences. The existence and conduct of these debates have raised questions about the vulnerability of science to manipulation for political purposes. Scientific discourses are vulnerable because: (i) claims can be made with no more than probabilistic force; (ii) alleged "facts" are always subject to interpretation, which depends on social, ethical, and epistemological assumptions; and (iii) science and scientists are not inherently committed to any single set of values and historically have served diverse, and sometimes perverse, social and political interests. In the face of this complexity, the COVID-19 experience highlights the need for processes of ethical scrutiny of the scientific enterprise and its strategic deployment. To ensure reliability of truth claims and protection from corrupting influences robust ethical discourses are required that are independent of, and at times even contrary to, those of science itself.
公众对有关 COVID-19 的科学主张产生了浓厚的兴趣,这些主张涉及 COVID-19 的起源、传播方式、演变以及预防和治疗策略,这引起了人们对科学家所信奉的价值观以及科学与其他公共话语之间关系的关注。一个备受讨论的主张是,SARS-CoV-2 是武汉病毒研究所故意设计的,然后由实验室工作人员无意间或其他方式释放到公众中。尽管通过全面的基因组分析明确驳斥了该病毒是故意设计的假设,并且详细调查也未能发现任何支持实验室泄漏的证据,但这一主张仍在继续。与此同时,关于新型人畜共患疾病出现的许多因素的大量既定知识,包括气候变化和其他环境破坏机制、旅游业、贸易模式和文化影响,在很大程度上被忽视了。这些争论的存在和进行引发了人们对科学是否容易受到政治目的操纵的质疑。科学话语容易受到攻击,原因有三:(i) 主张只能用概率力来提出;(ii) 所谓的“事实”总是受到解释的影响,而解释取决于社会、伦理和认识论假设;(iii) 科学和科学家本身并不必然致力于任何一套特定的价值观,而且在历史上一直服务于各种不同的、有时甚至是反常的社会和政治利益。面对这种复杂性,COVID-19 的经历凸显了需要对科学事业及其战略部署进行伦理审查的过程。为了确保真理主张的可靠性并防止受到腐败影响,需要进行强有力的伦理讨论,这些讨论独立于科学本身,有时甚至与科学本身背道而驰。