The science facing the coronavirus: do not confuse speed and precipitation

Text by: Romain Philips Follow

In an attempt to provide clear answers to this novel disease that is Covid-19, the world of scientific research has been in turmoil for several months. He finds himself immersed in the enthusiasm of the media, political and public debate, not without some failures.

Publicity

Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic , which is responsible for more than 400,000 deaths in more than 7 million cases worldwide, the number of studies published by scientists on Covid-19 has exploded. From the beginning to publication, the entire chain of production of scientific knowledge on this disease has been reviewed to be accelerated.

The pandemic has "  demanded a lot of research from mobilization,  " confirms Ghislaine Filliatreau, delegate for scientific integrity at Inserm (National Institute of Health and Medical Research). Responding by the whole world to find an answer to the pandemic, the scientific world had to submit to the injunction to do its job faster but just as well. In recent months, the mobilization of researchers has been unprecedented but marked by events that have tarnished the world of research.

"  One of the biggest retractions in modern history  "

Latest, described as "  one of the biggest retractions in history  " by James Heathers , researcher at Northeastern University in Boston: the retraction, Thursday, June 4, of three of the four authors of a highly publicized study - covering 96,000 patients worldwide -  published in The Lancet , one of the most prestigious scientific journals. This study concluded that the treatment based on chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, two molecules made extremely popular by trials - controversial - published by Professor Didier Raoult, of the IHU of Marseille, was ineffective.

Since the mediatization of the molecule, which gave rise to virulent political debates, on social networks and in the media, "  there are endless twists and turns, it's really a soap opera, it's quite spectacular  ", notes Ghislaine Filliatreau. She explains this phenomenon by "  the enormous interest of the media which make the news from day to day, whereas the appropriation of scientific information requires a longer time  ". The World Health Organization (WHO) had even suspended its clinical trials on the molecule, before resuming it following the withdrawal of the majority of the authors of the Lancet .

This serial pushed, on June 4, the Futura Health site to no longer write about chloroquine, believing that "  the approach, the scientific spirit will not emerge unscathed from all its vicissitudes  ". Faced with a debate that has become "  politicized  ", Julien Hernandez, scientific journalist specializing in health issues at Futura believes that "  it has brought more negative consequences, vagueness and a sterile anxiety-provoking climate  ". He therefore decided to stop writing on the subject until he "  has elements robust enough to say all that we know and the scientific consensus in this regard  ".

However, with the case of the study published in The Lancet , “it  was a data problem, it is not the same thing as not having worked on your paper. We are on a deeper problem  , ”says the delegate for scientific integrity at Inserm. Indeed, peer review, the method used by most journals to validate a publication, is not able to detect a problem stemming from the data at the origin of the study. This affair around the publication in The Lancet "  is a huge scandal very damaging to the scientific community  ", according to Professor Gilbert Deray, of Pitié-Salpêtrière in Paris.

The Lancet article is withdrawn what was expected. Fraud is likely, an investigation is underway. It is a huge scandal very damaging to the scientific community.

Acceleration of the publication process

The " historical  " method  of scientific publication is to prepare an article and submit it to the journal of your choice, so that it can be reread by other scientists. They are thus in charge of criticizing the text before its publication, or not, by the journal. To respond to the considerable increase in proposals, the journals therefore had to modify their readings. Thus, according to an article in the journal Nature , certain publications on the Covid-19 appeared "  almost twice as quickly as other articles at the same time  ". Other journals, "  have set up short release loops so as not to have a tunnel effect and to tell immediately if they take or not  " the publication, specifies the delegate for scientific integrity.

"  We have to be careful about how quickly the job is done and how quickly the papers are published because people are likely to make hasty mistakes  ," said Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch , a website. specialized in monitoring retractions and scientific integrity. According to the same site, since the start of the pandemic, in addition to the Lancet study , 14 other retractions have taken place on publications concerning Covid-19, including 7 concerning "  preprints  " (preprints).

Explosion in number of preprints

The number of pre-prints for the coronavirus illustrates a trend that has exploded with the pandemic. Even before the Covid-19 appeared in China last December, “  research was changing. It was moving towards open access, a way of making research results accessible earlier and differently  , ”explains Ghislaine Filliatreau.

Since the coronavirus became a pandemic, medRxiv , one of the pre-publication publishing platforms - co-managed by Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and BMJ Publishing Group in London - has experienced rapid growth. Due in particular to the 3,700 prepublications on the Covid-19 deposited, representing a very large majority of the contents of the platform in April and May.

This phenomenon is new for bio-medical research. However, these pre-prints are not to be taken as publications. They are "  preliminary work reports that have not been peer-certified. They should not be used to guide clinical practice or health-related behaviors  , ”warns medRxiv on its website. On the other hand, other preprinting sites such as BioRxiv have not experienced the same increase with the pandemic, in particular because preprinting has already become commonplace in certain subsectors of bio-medical, mathematics or physics.

" Using science is bound to have a negative impact on it "

During this health crisis, scientific discourse was omnipresent in public and political debate. Evidenced by the positions of many personalities for or against chloroquine or the craze around this molecule on social networks. “  It put the spotlight on scientific research. It is a great opportunity to explore complexities that we do not usually see as the political scientific link or the scientific media link  ”, analyzes Ghislaine Filliatreau. She believes that there is a "  lack of experience on the part of the media to take over scientific work and on the part of scientists to anticipate what will be deduced from what they say  ".

The preponderant part of scientific discourse in public debate has so far been rather detrimental to science. “  At the level of scientific debate, only facts, experiences, and the debate between scientists can decide. The fact of instrumentalizing science necessarily contributes to a negative impact against it,  ”says Julien Hernandez. In times of uncertainty, as in the case of the health crisis, the expectation of a clear answer, even a solution, is extremely high.

However, scientific work, especially in the face of an unknown virus such as Covid-19, cannot answer all questions so quickly and precisely. “  The scientific approach is neither pro nor anti. (...)  Its vocation is to decide the real, not to lull us into reassuring illusions  , ”writes the editorial staff of Futura in its post.

"  It's the end of the story that will tell us if we were able to make an exit from the top or not but there will be work, that's for sure. I start from the principle that we will leave feathers there but that feathers is also an opportunity to learn,  ”concludes, optimistically, the delegate for scientific integrity.

Newsletter Receive all international news directly in your mailbox

Follow all international news by downloading the RFI application

• Coronavirus
• Research
• our selection

On the same subject

The Health Council

Covid-19 vaccine: where is the research?

Coronavirus info

Remdesivir, antibodies and immunity to coronavirus: research update

Coronavirus info

Coronavirus: antibodies and immunity, research update