‘Medical Corona Science’: Philosophical and systemic issues: Re‐thinking medicine? On the epistemology of Corona medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The disciplinary profile and the quality of production of knowledge on Corona pandemic is studied. This scientific field is called 'Medical Corona Science'. METHODS: Criteria of analytical philosophy of science and science studies are systematically applied. RESULTS: It is shown that mainly auxiliary medical disciplines such as virology and epidemiology but not clinical disciplines provide Corona knowledge. We see a laboratory-centered, technology- and data-driven science, largely ignoring clinical issues. Therefore we call these approaches "Medical Corona Science" (MCS). We see the need to adapt to features of a 'post-normal science', a 'mode 2 science' and of 'Integration and Implementation Science', especially as clinical knowledge must be integrated. There is also a severe lack of theoretical considerations that could help to frame the pandemic as a complex dynamic system. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest a deeper meta-scientific discussion of the epistemic value of MCS and propose the application of tools from systems science.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.