COVID-19 Health Technology Governance, Epistemic Competence, and the Future of Knowledge in an Uncertain World.

Abstract

OMICS: A Journal of Integrative BiologyVol. 24, No. 8 EditorialFree AccessCOVID-19 Health Technology Governance, Epistemic Competence, and the Future of Knowledge in an Uncertain WorldVural Özdemir, Simon Springer, Colin K. Garvey, and Mustafa BayramVural ÖzdemirAddress correspondence to: Vural Özdemir, MD, PhD, DABCP, Editor-in-Chief, OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, New Rochelle, NY 10801, USA E-mail Address: ojib@liebertpub.comE-mail Address: vural.ozdemir@protonmail.comOMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, New Rochelle, New York, USA.Search for more papers by this author, Simon SpringerCentre for Urban and Regional Studies, Discipline of Geography and Environmental Studies, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.Search for more papers by this author, Colin K. GarveyStanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.Search for more papers by this author, and Mustafa BayramDepartment of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:3 Aug 2020https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2020.0088AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”-George Orwell (Venturini, 1982)To stem the crises brought about by pandemics, we need to address complex and interdependent challenges in health care and society. A crosscutting issue amid the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 is governance of emerging health technologies and innovations when the facts are uncertain and the stakes are high (Bayram et al., 2020; Sclove, 2020). There is extraordinary potential for abuse as everyday decisions that impact millions of people under lockdown are currently being made, ranging from access to COVID-19 diagnostics to acceleration of vaccine and drug innovation and to the rhythms of quotidian life, for travel, vacation, and how we live, work, and play (Özdemir, 2020a, 2020b; Wade, 2020).Historically, the debates on innovation policy have tended to focus on technical knowledge. Questions such as “what is the diagnostic performance of COVID-19 diagnostic tests” and “which technologies should underpin the development of new vaccines and drugs against the pandemic?” among others usually come to the fore. These are essential questions. But they are insufficient to make responsible innovation policies that stand the test of time, not to mention the diverse social and political contexts across the planet (Von Schomberg, 2019; Von Schomberg and Hankins, 2019).To democratize the pandemic digital innovation policy, presence of elections and elected political leaders do not, in and of themselves, guarantee the democratic quality of the innovation policy outcomes. Indeed political scientists have long noted the imprecision of voting as mechanism for democratic decision making, and observed that elected officials and government functionaries can in fact act as barriers to greater popular control over policy making (Lindblom and Woodhouse, 1993). An innovation policy can help steer the COVID-19 science and technology to democratic ends (Table 1).Table 1. Rationale for COVID-19 Pandemic Innovation PoliciesInnovation policies are important. They can, in the ideal case, broaden our thinking, enhance the reflexivity of persons and communities, and conjure up collective imaginations on the: (1) broader social and political contexts in which scientific discoveries emerge, (2) alternatives to proposed technology solutions, (3) proponent as well as dissenting views on new technologies, (4) multiple possible future(s) and scenarios in which innovation trajectories evolve, and (5) unintended (positive or negative) consequences of emerging technologies.Adapted from Bayram et al. (2020).Because factors such as race, gender, and region are likely to be included in systematic data collection efforts related to COVID-19, addressing data provenance is crucial for avoiding biases and other unintended consequences that could “skew predictions, diagnoses, risk scores, and decisions about where, or to whom, finite resources and care should be prioritized” (Horvitz et al., 2020).We also need to check the frames and framing of science and technology before a body of knowledge is transitioned for implementation in planetary health (Koopman, 2017; Özdemir and Springer, 2018). Epistemology concerns the frames and framings of knowledge: how do we know what we know? Questioning the epistemology of a given body of COVID-19–related knowledge, before accepting its veracity and legitimacy, is a necessary new skill set in 21st century (Garvey, 2019; Özdemir, 2019, 2020c). An “epistemic check” provides a crucial opportunity to provide checks and balances against abuses of power, and ensures that whatever pathways we ultimately take, we have considered the contingencies and potential obstacles.We highlight this skill set as “epistemic competence,” the ability and willingness to examine the frames and framings in which knowledge is produced.Epistemic Competence Matters for Innovation PolicyTo illustrate the concept and practice of epistemic competence, and even though vacations are currently postponed with the pandemic, let us imagine a travel scenario where we are taking the pictures of beautiful scenery. The breadth of our lens and the angle we choose for the camera determine the photograph contents and the types of images we create. If a 100-year old interesting and beautiful tree is left outside the camera frame, it will not be in the photograph. If we choose a close up versus a distant shot, that impacts what comes across prominently in the photograph or remains in the shadows in the background.Knowledge production is no different in life sciences or social sciences and humanities. How we frame a question determines the type of answers we create and represents a distinct application of power within contemporary society (Law, 2004; Özdemir, 2019; Özdemir and Springer, 2018). The framings of planetary health policy in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic are shaping what gets to be produced as solutions and who has access to them and who does not (Wade, 2020). The choice of a particular framing over another, for example, whether health care is a human right and ought to be available to all persons especially amid the pandemic or a commodity to be traded has direct impacts on the targets prioritized and the outcomes of COVID-19–related innovation policies. No doubt, we cannot stem a planetary scale health challenge such as COVID-19 if health care were available only to some but not all persons on the planet. This line of critical inquiry also begins to scratch the surface of the taken-for-granted understandings of wealth distribution in our societies, since we know that impoverishment, whether moderate or widespread, is not conducive to positive health outcomes (Kickbusch et al., 2020; Wade, 2020).Health is consequently “part of the right to an adequate standard of living,” as recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 2008). The right to health was also recognized as a human right in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (United Nations, 2008). To this end, the COVID-19 pandemic has raised both instrumental and principled questions.From a practical or efficiency standpoint, inclusive access to planetary health care, by all people from all walks of life and economic status, is important for robust and effective pandemic response. That is, who and what are omitted matter greatly (Barad, 2011). Absent inclusive access to health care, the marginalized, underserved communities, overcrowded work spaces that lack preventive health care and social distancing, not to mention war and social conflict zones, will pave the way for recurring peaks of new cases and deaths from SARS-CoV-2, especially if extensive diagnostics capacity is not in place to test, trace, and isolate the new cases. Prioritizing profit over people is never going to result in health care delivery that results in equitable outcomes (Kickbusch et al., 2020; Springer, 2016; Wade, 2020), and it is becoming increasingly evident that the public is ready for systemic change toward a greater ethic of community care (Butler, 2020; Springer, 2020).Framing and understanding of health as a universal human right are part of the epistemic competence crucial for emerging health technology governance (Özdemir, 2020b; Özdemir and Springer, 2018). Health technology governance ought to check the framings of the complex questions and solutions emerging as part of the pandemic (Bayram et al., 2020; Springer, 2016).Placing epistemology/framing before the knowledge serves as a “truth tracker” and can boost collective reflexivity as new science and innovation policies emerge in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic, and other likely zoonotic outbreaks in the future (Holst and Molander, 2019).ConclusionsTo the extent that epistemologies shape the types of knowledge we produce in science and society, epistemic competence in emerging health technology governance and innovation policy has bearings on the future of trustworthy and veritable knowledge in the 21st century (Boschele, 2020). Moreover, if epistemic competence and framing of scientific knowledge are broadly appreciated, whereby society starts to recognize the “bigger picture” through greater understanding of the cognitive biases we maintain, it may offer opportunities for new and creative solutions.In particular, and of profound consequence in the current moment, we might begin to address the disparity between the enormous technical progress and investments made in health technologies versus our currently inadequate and underfunded understanding of the societal dimensions of health technologies that are being deployed to stem the pandemic (Frodeman, 2020).DisclaimerViews expressed are the personal opinions of the authors only.Funding InformationNo funding was received in support of this article.ReferencesBarad K. (2011). Erasers and erasures: Pinch's unfortunate “uncertainty principle.” Soc Stud Sci 41, 443–454. Crossref, Google ScholarBayram M, Springer S, Garvey CK, and Özdemir V. (2020). COVID-19 digital health innovation policy: A portal to alternative futures in the making. OMICS 24 (in press). Medline, Google ScholarBoschele M. (2020). Politics and Its New Dimensions in the 21st Century. (Original in Turkish: 21. Yüzyılda Yeni Boyutlarıyla Siyaset). Istanbul: DER Publishers. Google ScholarButler J. (2020). The Force of Nonviolence. Brooklyn, New York and London, UK: Verso. Google ScholarFrodeman R. (2020). What happens when society emphasizes technical education and treats the humanities as irrelevant? The Dallas Morning News, February 3rd. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/03/what-happens-when-society-emphasizes-technical-education-and-treats-the-humanities-as-irrelevant/ Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarGarvey C. (2019). Hypothesis: Is “Terminator Syndrome” a barrier to democratizing artificial intelligence and public engagement in digital health? OMICS 23, 362–363. Link, Google ScholarHolst C, and Molander A. (2019). Epistemic democracy and the role of experts. Contemp Polit Theory 18, 541–561. Crossref, Google ScholarHorvitz E, Clyburn M, Griffiths JM, and Matheny J. (2020). Privacy and Ethics Recommendations for Computing Applications Developed to Mitigate COVID-19. White Paper Series on Pandemic Response and Preparedness, No. 1. Washington, DC: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, May 2020. Google ScholarKickbusch I, Leung GM, Bhutta ZA, Matsoso MP, Ihekweazu C, and Abbasi K. (2020). Covid-19: How a virus is turning the world upside down. BMJ 369, m1336. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarKoopman C. (2017). The power thinker. Original, painstaking, sometimes frustrating and often dazzling. Foucault's work on power matters now more than ever. Aeon, March 16. https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarLaw J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London and New York: Routledge. Crossref, Google ScholarLindblom CE, and Woodhouse EJ. (1993). The Policy-making Process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2019). Toward an “ethics-of-ethics” for responsible innovation. In: International Handbook of Responsible Innovation. A Global Resource. von Schomberg RHankins J, eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 70–82. Crossref, Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2020a). The science and politics of coronavirus. Istanbul: DUVAR English. https://www.duvarenglish.com/opinion/2020/03/16/the-science-and-politics-of-coronavirus/ Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2020b). Toward digital personalized medicine and responsible innovation. The New England Journal of Medicine Panel on Personalized Medicine, the World Economic Forum 50th Annual Meeting, Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, January 23. Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2020c). Why are some omics biotechnologies more popular than others? The sociomateriality of glycans offers new clues. OMICS 24, 57–59. Link, Google ScholarÖzdemir V, and Springer S. (2018). What does “Diversity” mean for public engagement in science? A new metric for innovation ecosystem diversity. OMICS 22, 184–189. Link, Google ScholarSclove R. (2020). Democracy and technology: An Interview with Richard Sclove from Beth Simone Noveck. Digit Gov Res Pract 1, Article 5. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3368273 Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarSpringer S. (2016). The discourse of neoliberalism. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Google ScholarSpringer S. (2020). Caring geographies: The COVID-19 interregnum and a return to mutual aid. Dialogues in Human Geography 10(2), Epub in advance; DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2043820620931277 Accessed June 2, 2020. Google ScholarUnited Nations. (2008). The Right to Health. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarVenturini VG. (1982). Partners in Ecocide: Australia's Complicity in the Uranium Cartel. Clifton Hill, Australia: Rigmarole Book Publishers. Google ScholarVon Schomberg R. (2019). Why responsible innovation? https://app.box.com/s/h8gib5ga6wtcv81dste3kjlhyz1zpu91 Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarVon Schomberg R, and Hankins J. (2019). International Handbook on Responsible Innovation. A Global Resource. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. Crossref, Google ScholarWade F. (2020). Judith Butler on the Violence of Neglect Amid a Health Crisis. A conversation with the theorist about her new book, The Force of Nonviolence, and the need for global solidarity in the pandemic World. The Nation May 13. https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/judith-butler-force-of-nonviolence-interview/ Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByDigital Is Political: Why We Need a Feminist Conceptual Lens on Determinants of Digital Health Vural Özdemir8 April 2021 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 25, No. 4From the Editor's Desk: Systems Science 2010–2020, and Post-COVID-19 Vural Özdemir10 February 2021 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 25, No. 2“One Nature”: A New Vocabulary and Frame for Governance Innovation in Post-COVID-19 Planetary Health Vural Özdemir4 November 2020 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 24, No. 11Growing Up in a Digital World with COVID-19 and Governing Health Futures: Who Guards the Guards? Vural Özdemir4 November 2020 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 24, No. 11Full Throttle: COVID-19 Open Science to Build Planetary Public Goods René Von Schomberg and Vural Özdemir2 September 2020 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 24, No. 9 Volume 24Issue 8Aug 2020 InformationCopyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Vural Özdemir, Simon Springer, Colin K. Garvey, and Mustafa Bayram.OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology.Aug 2020.451-453.http://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2020.0088Published in Volume: 24 Issue 8: August 3, 2020Online Ahead of Print:June 8, 2020PDF download