Objectives: "Anti-science" accusations are common in medicine and public health, sometimes to discredit scientists who hold opposing views. However, there is no such thing as "one science". Epistemology recognizes that any "science" is sociologically embedded, and therefore contextual and intersubjective. In this paper, we reflect on how "science" needs to adopt various perspectives to give a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of a phenomenon.
Study design: Opinion paper.
Methods: Based on a targeted literature survey, we first clarify the known limits of traditional scientific methods and then reflect on how the scientific reporting about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines has evolved.
Results: The first reports of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines randomised controlled trial results showed impressive efficacy. Nevertheless, an abundant literature has since depicted a far more nuanced picture of the effectiveness and safety of those vaccines over the medium-term. We organise them around five themes: (i) differentiating between relative and absolute reduction; (ii) taking account of time in reporting effectiveness; (iii) taking account of all outcomes, including adverse effects; (iv) stratifying effectiveness and considering other decision criteria (efficiency, equity, and acceptance); (v) changing the outcome of concern and assessing vaccines' effectiveness on mortality.
Conclusions: Science offers a wide range of perspectives on a given study object. Only the process of deliberation amongst scientists and other stakeholders can result in accepted new knowledge useful to support decision-making. Unfortunately, by trying to reduce "science" to simple messages set in stone, scientists can become the worse enemies of science.
Keywords: Covid-19; Health policy; Science; Vaccines.
© 2024 The Authors.