Fernando Alcoforado
Abstract: This article aims to emphasize the importance of using the scientific method in the search for a drug for the cure of people infected with the new Coronavirus and a vaccine to immunize the population, as well as coordinating action by governments to prevent the spread of viruses in order to safeguard the population’s health and avoid its harmful effects on the economy.
Keywords: New Coronavirus. The scientific method. The government in the fight against the new Coronavirus.
1. Introduction
Several posts have been published through social networks trying to demonstrate that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are the medicine to fight new Coronavirus. Opposed to this view are professors from Oxford University and Birmingham University who consider chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine harmful to health in the treatment of Coronavirus. The widespread use of hydroxychloroquine exposes some patients to rare but potentially fatal damage, including severe skin reactions, fulminant liver failure and ventricular arrhythmias (especially when prescribed with azithromycin), according to Robin Ferner of the Institute of Clinical Sciences at the University of Birmingham, and Jeffrey Aronson, from the Department of Health Sciences at the University of Oxford, UK [3]. For Karl Popper the support of a theory or the result of a research is always provisional since its conclusions must always be tested empirically in other places by qualified scientists. This will have to be done for both hydroxychloroquine and any medicine so that they can be considered as a solution for the cure of patients with new Coronavirus. To try to solve this problem, Popper established what he himself calls the “deductive test method” [5].
To test a theory or the result of research with hydroxychloroquine and any medication, you can use Popper’s method that proposes four steps, or types of evidence: 1st) Internal tests: seek the consistency of the conclusions drawn from the statement; 2º) Tests of form: it consists of tests to know if the theory is, in fact, an empirical or scientific theory or merely tautology, that is, an analytical proposition that always remains true, since the attribute is a repetition of the subject; 3rd) Innovation tests: verification if the theory is really new or is already understood by others existing in the system; and, 4) Empirical tests: verification of the applicability of the conclusions drawn from the new theory. Popper says that a theory or research result will be more valid the more it is falsifiable, that is, the more there are possibilities of being falsified and, even so, it continues to respond to scientific problems. Once proposed, speculative theories will have to be proved rigorously and relentlessly by observation and experimentation. Theories that do not exceed observable and experimental evidence must be eliminated and replaced by other speculative conjectures.
It is worth noting that the scientific method concerns a cluster of basic rules of how the procedure should be in order to produce scientific knowledge [1], whether it is new knowledge, a correction or an increase in previously existing knowledge. In most scientific disciplines, the scientific method consists of gathering verifiable empirical evidence based on systematic and controlled observation, usually resulting from laboratory or field experiments or research and analyzing them using logic. The scientific method is nothing more than logic applied to science. Therefore, the result of the research can only be considered a demonstration of the effectiveness in combating new Coronavirus if it is repeated in other places and reaches the same result with the use of the scientific method. In order to describe a law of nature, it is necessary to repeatedly test, collect and record the results, wait for this to be repeated with several other researchers before being considered valid [2]. That is, a scientific law is valid when the scientific community, founded on particular experiences, reaps similar or supposedly equal results repeatedly.
What has just been exposed represents a response to science deniers such as Donald Trump in the United States, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, among other leaders, and his followers who insist on taking a stand against science-based measures to combat the new Coronavirus. By adopting this negationist position in science, both the United States and Brazil’s leaders are responsible for the leadership of both countries in the global statistics of those infected and killed by the new Coronavirus because they have not developed coordinating action by their governments to combat new Coronavirus.
2. The importance of using the scientific method in combating the new Coronavirus
The fight against the new Coronavirus is not limited to the search for a drug that can cure patients. It is fundamentally necessary to develop a vaccine capable of immunizing the population. With regard to the vaccine against the new Coronavirus, researchers from the United States and Germany are ahead in this race with about 20 groups dedicated to finding an immunization against the disease. China has developed its first prototype and the Ministry of Defense has announced that the country is ready to start clinical trials on humans [3]. Volunteers between 18 and 60 are being called in to test the vaccine. The United States, which started the first phase of its clinical trials the day before the Chinese announcement, is also pursuing a quick, effective and safe solution. The vaccine problem, however, does not end with the discovery. It is necessary to carry out tests on human beings based on the scientific method to assess their safety and effectiveness in preventing the disease. A vaccine should only be adopted after being tested repeatedly, collecting and recording the results, waiting for this to be repeated with several other researchers before being considered valid. Only then can it be produced on a large scale and distributed to millions of people.
It should be noted that the search for an adequate scientific method guided the action of most thinkers of the 16th and 17th centuries, standing out among them Galileo Galilei, Francis Bacon, René Descartes and Isaac Newton, who with their contributions were decisive for the structuring of what we call today modern science. Galileo is considered the “father of modern science”. For Galileo, the objective of the investigations must be knowledge of the law that presides over the phenomena [4]. In addition, the main focus of science must be quantitative relations. From 1623, Galileo Galilei founded modern science with the formulation of the scientific inductive method that is still used today. Galileo’s method is known as experimental induction. With Galileo, the study of nature took a different approach than Aristotle’s when science became more experimental than speculative. With the establishment of the scientific method, the Aristotelian paradigm that prevailed until then was broken. Aristotle’s scientific conceptions used only a formal and not an empirical methodology. Galileo was the first theoretician of the experimental method [5].
It can be said, therefore, that the result of any and all research is provisional since its conclusions need to be empirically tested elsewhere by qualified scientists to ensure its validity. Science progresses through trial and error, conjecture and refutation, according to Popper [5]. The method of science is the method of daring and ingenious conjectures followed by rigorous attempts to prove them. Truth is the genuine aim of scientific research. The truth is an interpretation of reality, confirmed by other human beings and confirmed by mathematical equations forming a model capable of predicting future events in the same coordinates. For Leibniz, it would be necessary to distinguish two types of truth: on the one hand the truths of reason and on the other the truths of fact. The truths of reason state that a thing is necessarily and universally cannot be different from what it is, like mathematical ideas, being innate. The truths in fact, on the contrary, are those that depend on experience, expressing ideas obtained through sensations, perception and memory, being, therefore, empirical. According to Leibniz, the relationship between truths of reason and fact, judged by the rationalization of information, allows to know the reality.
3. Conclusions
From the above, it can be concluded that the fight against the new Coronavirus is not reduced to the search for a drug capable of curing patients and the development of a vaccine capable of immunizing the population based on the scientific method to evaluate its safety and effectiveness, respectively, in curing and preventing disease. It is also necessary for governments to develop coordinating action with the adoption of public health measures to prevent the spread of the virus, in addition to planning the economy to adapt it to the new situation imposed by the new Coronavirus pandemic.
Therefore, the fight against the new Coronavirus is not reduced to the search for a drug capable of curing patients and the development of a vaccine capable of immunizing the population. It is also necessary that governments act to adopt public health measures to prevent the spread of the virus, in addition to planning the economy to adapt it to the new situation imposed by the new Coronavirus pandemic. Unfortunately, while scientific institutions were working and are still working on the search for a vaccine to immunize the population and medicines capable of curing people infected with the new Coronavirus, the governments of the United States and Brazil, among others, have not developed plans to combat new Coronavirus, nor of adapting their economies to the situation created by the pandemic on the basis of which they should develop their coordinating action of the whole society in facing public health and economic problems. The result of all this has been the devastating numbers of people infected and killed by the new Coronavirus, the threat of collapse in the health system, the dizzying fall in economic activity with harmful effects on the unemployment of the population and the bankruptcy of countless companies.
The coordinating action of the governments would compete, fundamentally, in the articulation with the different levels of federal, state and municipal government and with the private sector to prevent the spread of the virus and to minimize the damages of the health crisis on the economy and on the population based on public and economic health plans. The public health plan should focus on the implementation of actions capable of preventing humanitarian disaster by contributing to conduct tests of the entire population to isolate infected people, to promote investments in the implantation of field hospitals, in the production of hospital equipment, medicines and vaccines, in addition to adopting social isolation and even the population’s lockdown in critical regions of the country. The economic plan should include the adoption of measures to benefit the unemployed and the poor with the transfer of income from the government to the families and the suspension of the payment of taxes and the granting of low-interest loans to companies, in exchange for not carrying out layoffs of employees during the pandemic. This set of measures should be maintained as long as the pandemic lasts so as not to aggravate the social conditions of the population, especially the most vulnerable, and the economic conditions of micro, small and medium-sized companies.
To cope with the drop in government tax collection at all levels resulting from reduced economic activities, the central government of each country should allocate resources in the volume necessary for regional and local governments to address problems with the health system and, also, the social problems concerning the most vulnerable populations while the new Coronavirus pandemic lasts. It is necessary that the government at all levels has the financial resources necessary to fulfill its roles at this critical moment. None of this happened in United States and Brazil. In addition to science deniers, Trump and Bolsonaro were and are incompetent in combating the new Coronavirus because they did not elaborate public health plans, nor economic plans to deal with the problem.
One fact is evident: until a drug for the cure of patients is developed and a vaccine is scientifically proven to immunize the population against the new Coronavirus, total social isolation is absolutely necessary at this time worldwide to prevent the collapse of the system health care that, under these conditions, will not be able to serve not only patients with the new Coronavirus, but also those affected by other diseases. Any solution other than this would mean exposing the population to the virus and consequent death. Another fact is evident: while the pandemic lasts, it is absolutely necessary to adopt a government income transfer policy for the population, especially the vulnerable, in order to avoid that, due to the need for survival, they are forced to leave their homes to work in offices or on the street. In other words, the government should pay people not to take to the streets so as not to contaminate or be infected by the virus. Unfortunately, in Brazil, the Bolsonaro government has already announced that it will suspend the process of transferring income to the population adopted so far in December 2020. This decision will cause a significant portion of the population to die of hunger.
In addition to the income transfer policy for the population, measures should also be taken by the government to help companies, especially micro, small and medium-sized companies, to survive in this moment of falling revenues, as well as states and municipalities to avoid their insolvency due to the drop in tax collection. Only the federal government in the United States and Brazil has the capacity to implement these measures.
Author
Fernando Alcoforado is a PhD in Territorial Planning and Regional Development from the Barcelona University, Spain. He graduated in Electrical Engineering from UFBA – Federal University of Bahia, Brazil, and Specialist in Engineering Economy and Industrial Administration from UFRJ – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Currently he is a member of the Polytechnic Institute of Bahia (IPB), holds the position of professor of postgraduate courses in Administration, Economics and Engineering from several Brazilian educational institutions and as a Consultant in the areas of strategic planning, regional planning, planning of systems of science, technology and innovation
and planning of systems of energy. He held the positions of Coordinator of Strategic Planning of Ceped- Research and Development Center, Secretary of Planning of City of Salvador, Undersecretary of Energy of the State of Bahia, President of IRAE – Instituto Rômulo Almeida of Higher Studies, Director of the Faculty of Administration from the Faculties Integrated Olga Mettig of Salvador, Bahia and Consultant of Winrock International in the area of renewable energy and UNESCO- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and Culture. He received the Brazilian Medal of Merit of Engineering from the CONFEA (Federal Council of Engineering and Agronomy of Brazil) and he is a member of the Bahia Academy of Education. He is the author of 14 books which deal with issues relating to Brazilian Economy, Energy, Economic and Social Development, Environment, Global Warming, Science and Technology and Globalization.
REFERENCES
[1] ALCOFORADO, Fernando. As Grandes Revoluções Científicas, Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo. Curitiba: Editora CRV, 2016.
[2] DESCARTES, René. Discurso do método. Porto Alegre:L&PM POCKET, 2005.
[3] FERMER, Robin, ARONSON, Jeffrey. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in covid-19. Available on the website <https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1432>.
[4] MARCONI, M. A. e LAKATOS, E. M. Fundamentos da Metodologia Científica. São Paulo: Atlas, 2003.
[5] POPPER, Karl. Lógica da Investigação Científica, in Os Pensadores. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1975.
Site Title 