Another translated newspaper article, addressing some findings we discussed here before:
Scientists should not be tempted to draw premature conclusions from their studies to influence policy, warns Herman Goossens.
Who? Professor of Medical Microbiology (UAntwerp) and director of the Laboratory of Clinical Biology (UZAntwerp). Coordinator of the Prepare and Recover project.
What? It may not be such a good idea that the scientific review of articles is postponed.
An article by the research group of the German virologist Chris tian Drosten on the role of children in the spread of the coronavirus and the risk of a resurgence by the reopening of schools made me reflect on the role of scientists and the peer review process.
From a nice recent analysis of 78 publications by the British Royal College of Paediatrics, we can conclude that: children are less sick if they are infected, no direct evidence of transmission from children to adults has yet been found, and children may not play an important role. role in the spread of the virus. Of course, that does not mean that children cannot infect adults. The virus does not know that it is in the throat of a child or adult. So transfer will certainly happen. Does this mean that grandchildren are their great parents can see? Perhaps, but given that older people are the most vulnerable group, I would be very careful here, until we have more evidence of the limited role of young children in the transmission of the virus. The big unknown is the role of asymptomatic children in the spread of the virus.
Based on his studies, Christian Drosten warned about an unlimited reopening of the schools, which caused a lot of controversy. Every Friday we have our meeting of the EU-funded Recover project, in which many European experts, including Drosten, participate. Last Friday, May 1, we had a very animated and engaging discussion. We were very critical of each other, and that's how it should be. We found this an interesting study (Drosten is a brilliant virologist), but felt that he translated his virological results too prematurely and not nuanced enough into policy consequences. We also came to the conclusion that this article had better passed a peer review first.
Accelerated peer review
Scientists write articles and send them to (preferably) a top magazine. Journals send the articles to 'peers', which are preferably top scientists who are well acquainted with the research. They are expected to propose not to publish the article, or to publish the article, usually under certain conditions, for example after additional experiments or statistical analyzes, or with suggestions for rewriting the conclusions. When the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic broke out in January, some journals accepted that scientific findings could be published, even if they were not tested until later.
Originally I was enthusiastic about that, but now I wonder if it was wise. Numerous studies have now been published that will only go through the peer review later. At the same time, peer review of journals was kept as short as possible (sometimes one to two days) in order to quickly publish the results, which we can only applaud. But many experts are drowning in the Covid-19 work and have too little time for a thorough analysis.
In the meantime, numerous articles have been published that have a major impact on policy (for example on reopening schools), for the treatment of patients (e.g. with hydroxychloroquine), for the diagnosis of covid-19 (e.g. about PCR tests) that would never have passed the peer review. There are scientific articles published in top journals that clearly were reviewed in a sloppy way by peers, perhaps by haste. We then have to scuffle with politicians, journalists and the public as we question publications in journals or by top researchers. Last Thursday, countless European colleagues participating in the Recover project hung on the phone for many hours with journalists to explain why, in their view, the conclusion of Drosten's article on the schools is unfounded. In recent weeks we have had to constantly explain why Didier Raoult's studies of treating covid-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are scientifically substandard. Over the past few days, I've spent a lot of time refuting the claim that the PCR tests are unreliable. We published an article about this in the Journal of Medicine last week after I committed myself to thoroughly evaluate the Chinese studies on the sensitivity of PCR tests. It took me a long time, but it was necessary to draw a scientifically based conclusion. Constantly adjusting I ask the understanding of politicians, media and the population for the work of scientists. Knowledge about this new virus is evolving day by day. We may have to question what we say today. As a result, we have to make constant adjustments and experts are not always on the same page. But scientists should also exercise caution when publishing their findings. Scientists should not be tempted to certain barige conclusions from their studies to draw to influence policy. At our meeting of the Recover project on May 1, I suggested that we forward scientific articles to each other before publishing them. We must remain very critical of one another and dare to constantly question ourselves. A thorough analysis of the lessons we can learn from the pandemic is imperative. We also started this on 1 May within the Recover project.
In the meantime, scientists must state very clearly that their publication has not yet been subjected to a critical analysis by their peers, and politicians should have their policies guided by experts who may only base their advice on scientific studies that have undergone a thorough peer review.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram