Searching for smart, safe news you can TRUST?

Support safe, smart, REAL journalism. Sign up for our Axios AM & PM newsletters and get smarter, faster.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Searching for smart, safe news you can TRUST?

Support safe, smart, REAL journalism. Sign up for our Axios AM & PM newsletters and get smarter, faster.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Minneapolis-St. Paul

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa-St. Petersburg news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa-St. Petersburg

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

A recent spate of problems with some coronavirus studies combined with top-level miscommunication about the virus is raising concern that people's trust in scientific data and scientists may falter.

Why it matters: Without trust in science, people can't make informed decisions about the risk of getting COVID-19, treatments for it and any potential future vaccines, public health experts warn.

What's happening: Researchers retracted two recent studies about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19, the World Health Organization has had a pattern of mistakes and miscommunication, and there's a lack of a strong scientific voice from the federal government.

1. The push for fast research is a double-edged sword. A majority of registered clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments from early to late March had "many, many shortcomings" of various degrees of seriousness, says Caleb Alexander, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness.

  • In a study published Tuesday in the journal BMJ Open, researchers examined 201 clinical trials around the world on drugs and plasma therapies to get a snapshot look at how they were conducted.
  • One-third lacked the endpoints needed to define success/failure; one-half enrolled fewer than 100 patients; and two-thirds could be subject to bias as the patients and doctors knew who was receiving which therapy.
  • "The reason they are cutting corners is that they have to, or they wouldn't get the studies done" fast enough, co-author Alexander says.
  • Yes, but: There are now more than 2000 trials and some are "quite elegant and nuanced and there are many trials that are adaptive ... where the trial itself changes iteratively based on the scientific information that's learned," he added.

2. Recent events like the two studies that had to be retracted due to questionable patient data collected by Surgisphere "could potentially erode the trust that we have in science in general," Dominique Brossard, professor and chair of the Department of Life Sciences Communication at UW Madison, tells Axios.

  • "It's important to stress to people that science is built upon uncertainty. It's better to say, 'Look, we do everything we can to find out what's going on and there's a lot of uncertainty, but we are moving in the right direction,'" Brossard says.
  • "We may have a study or two that falls flat, and we certainly have misinterpretations of data as it comes in, but the scientific principles are sound and they've been with us for hundreds of years," Alexander points out.

3. Mixed messages from government and public health officials are eroding trust in science and scientists, several experts said.

  • "There's such a mixed message from the administration, with concerns from different figures about the use of this [hydroxychloroquine] drug, while the president is saying that he himself is using it and would advocate it for anyone," says Julie Fischer, professor of microbiology and immunology at Georgetown University.
  • "With the CDC effectively silenced, we're missing that strong, credible voice that's both scientifically credible and has a real public health role," Fischer says.
  • Recent actions taken by the WHO are also causing confusion, Brossard adds. The WHO waffled on whether or not to include hydroxychloroquine in its studies, changed its mind on masks, and then miscommunicated the role of asymptomatic people in the pandemic.
  • "At the end of the day, it's better to say 'the best practice is this, although we're not 100% sure and we'll let you know as soon as we know more,'" Brossard says.

Between the lines: "[G]overnments make policy based on limited knowledge and minimal control of the outcomes, and they often respond with trial-and-error strategies. The latter is fine if attention to policy is low and trust in government sufficiently high," Adam Wellstead, professor of public policy at Michigan Technological University, co-writes in a blog post.

  • "However, in countries like the U.K .and U.S., each new choice prompts many people to question not only the competence of leaders but also their motivation."

The bottom line: Public trust in science data and top-down communication must be retained for this pandemic to be eradicated.

Go deeper

Rep. Brooks: We need to better prepare for pandemics

Axios' Margaret Talev (L) and Rep. Susan Brooks (R). Photo: Axios

Insufficient stockpiles and a lack of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic should serve as a warning for America on future preparedness, Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.) said at an Axios virtual event on Friday.

What they're saying: "Congress had been beefing up for years — the appropriations for preparedness — it certainly was not enough, and we recognize that," Brooks said.

Updated 14 hours ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

  1. Vaccines: Key information about the effective COVID-19 vaccines — Oxford and AstraZeneca's vaccine won't just go to rich countries.
  2. Health: U.S. coronavirus hospitalizations keep breaking recordsWhy we're numb to 250,000 deaths.
  3. World: England to impose stricter regional systemU.S. hotspots far outpacing Europe's — Portugal to ban domestic travel for national holidays.
  4. Economy: The biggest pandemic labor market drags.
  5. Sports: Coronavirus precautions leave college basketball schedule in flux.
Sep 18, 2020 - Health

Rep. Khanna: COVID-19 could change the perception of public health care

Rep. Khanna and Axios' Margaret Talev

The universal experience of COVID-19 could change how opponents view Medicare for All, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said at an Axios virtual event on Friday.

What they're saying: "The pandemic has reminded us of our shared humanity with other American citizens. It's no longer possible to think, 'Oh, we're not part of those who get sick.' Now almost everyone knows, unfortunately, someone who has been hospitalized, someone who had a serious bout with COVID," Khanna said.

Get Axios AM in your inbox

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!