CC BY
6Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics
2021; Vol 2 (1)
© 2021 by the authors. This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eISSN: 2708-9800 https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.20212.101
EDITORIAL
HYPOTHESES AND ETHICS IN THE TIME OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Received: March 28, 2021 Accepted: March 30, 2021
Marlen Yessirkepov1* https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2511 -6918 Bekaidar Nurmashev2 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3949-2543 Armen Yuri Gasparyan3 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8749-6018 department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan
2South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK
Corresponding author:
Marlen Yessirkepov, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy,
Al-Farabi Square 1/1, Shymkent, 160019, Kazakhstan;
Twitter handle: @MYessirkepov; E-mail: m.yessirkepov@gmail.com
Keywords: COVID-19, Pandemic, Central Asia, Periodicals as topic, Hypothesis, Health information management How to cite: Yessirkepov M, Nurmashev B, Gasparyan AY. Hypotheses and ethics in the time of the covid-19 pandemic. Cent Asian J Med Hypotheses Ethics 2021;2(1):10-13. https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.20212.101
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic and warned of its unprecedented public health and socioeconomic consequences [1]. Over the past year, the global number of COVID-19 cases has reached 127,306,725 with 2,789,920 deaths as of March 28, 2021 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/).
Since the beginning of this pandemic, uncountable human sufferings have been described across all countries due to the loss of lives, psychoemotional stress, and quarantine restrictions [2]. Although the ongoing COVID-19 vaccine rollout in some countries raises hopes of fast recovery and resuming a normal life, the world will never be the same after this pandemic. This pandemic has revealed heroism in ordinary people and health professionals who knowingly risked their lives fighting the coronavirus and saving countless lives. However, the same pandemic has shifted attention of all researchers to the emerging research topics in COVID-19 and uncovered numerous ethical issues that have
slowed the global science growth and negatively affected
healthcare
[3-5].
The past year has been marked with a substantial growth of empirical reports and hypotheses on COVID-19 prevention and treatment. The annual publication activity in Medical Hypotheses, one of the leading MEDLINE-indexed journal, increased from 482 in 2019 to 921 in 2020. Numerous hypotheses have been published urging to repurpose available bacterial and viral vaccines and anti-inflammatory drugs to curb the COVID-19 pandemic. While vaccine hypotheses were mainly based on observations of cross-reactivity and low COVID-19 cases in regularly vaccinated pediatric populations [6, 7], drug repurposing suggestions were relying on a limited experience of previously controlled coronavirus epidemics [8].
With the exception of the notorious hydroxychloroquine hypothesis, no any repurposed drug therapy has
received immediate attention of the global scientific community. While most COVID-19 hypotheses contained some evidence-based points, there have also been groundless suggestions to boost immunity and curb the pandemic by non-specific and apparently pseudoscientific methods [9, 10]. The lack of adherence to widely publicized hypothesis standards [11] and inappropriate editorial strategies could have contributed to the multiplication of unjustified, untestable, and potentially dangerous recommendations [12, 13].
Although the pandemic has hampered research in most non-COVID-19 areas, it has paved the way for new scientific directions and necessitated adjustments in research ethics review and protocol approval [14]. The COVID-19 emergency measures have emphasized the importance of online evaluation, remote monitoring of approved projects, and implementing online informed consents to minimize unnecessary risks and digitize the entire research process. Some research ethics committees have entirely switched their workflows to online mode, with regular video conferencing arranged for discussing research protocols and other documents [15, 16]. Apparently, the current pace of digitization will allow minimizing ethics review turnaround times, improving ethics committees' workflows, and facilitating essential cross-country research. The digital transformation can be particularly beneficial for ethics committees in non-mainstream science countries with ill-equipped documentation and approval procedures [17].
Importantly, an analysis of the global COVID-19 research productivity revealed a disproportionate distribution of related reports, with most Central Asian and African countries being deprived from widely visible publications [18]. Additionally, mapping of social media uses across Central Asia pointed to unpopularity and/or
restricted access to online channels which are extensively employed for research elsewhere in the world [19]. The described trends might be due to the loopholes in the research management which are deep rooted in the non-adherence to evidence-based standards coupled with language barriers and unawareness of global ethics norms [20-22].
Experts have voiced their concerns over the wasteful (predatory) publishing that continue affecting unwitting non-Anglophone authors and their valuable COVID-19 reports [23]. The absolute majority of predatory journals, including those indexed by reputable databases, continue spreading harmful misinformation about COVID-19 therapies and milking public funds that could be allocated to live-saving clinical research and practice [24]. Redundant, senseless, and misleading COVID-19 reports find their way to established ethical journals due to the deficiencies in the (fast) peer review and inadequate editorial policies. Although no journal is immune to erroneous and misleading reports, attentively evaluating central hypotheses and filtering out submissions with redundant and unjustified conclusions may spare indexed periodicals from wasteful publications [13].
In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered numerous issues in research evaluation and publishing. Some of these issues are rooted in the rigidity of research management and resistance to the enforcement of globally acceptable ethical norms. More emphasis on generated hypotheses and their ethical implications is advisable to improve the quality and dissemination of research projects in the era of COVID-19.
REFERENCES
1. WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020 [Updated March 11, 2020]. Available from: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 [Accessed March 28, 2021].
2. Gopichandran V. Clinical ethics during the Covid-19 pandemic: Missing the trees for the forest. Indian J Med Ethics 2020. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2020.053. Online ahead of print.
3. Adam D. Scientists fear that 'covidization' is distorting research Nature 2020;588(7838):381 -382.
4. [No authors listed] COVID is amplifying the inadequacy of research-evaluation processes. Nature 2021 ;591 (7848):7.
5. Delgado J, Siow S, de Groot J, McLane B, Hedlin M. Towards collective moral resilience: the potential of communities of practice during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. J Med Ethics 2021. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106764. Online ahead of print.
6. Ismail MB, Omari SA, Rafei R, Dabboussi F, Hamze M. COVID-19 in children: Could pertussis vaccine play the protective role? Med Hypotheses 2020;145:110305.
7. Meenakshisundaram R, Senthilkumaran S, Thirumalaikolundusubramanian P. Protective effects of vaccinations and endemic infections on COVID-19: A hypothesis. Med Hypotheses 2020;143:109849.
8. Kashour T, Tleyjeh IM. It is time to drop hydroxychloroquine from our COVID-19 armamentarium. Med Hypotheses 2020;144:110198.
9. Caulfield T. Pseudoscience and COVID-19 - we've had enough already. Nature 2020. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-01266-z].
10. Farooq F, Rathore FA. COVID-19 Vaccination and the challenge of infodemic and disinformation. J Korean Med Sci 2021;36(10):e78.
11. Gasparyan Ay, Ayvazyan L, Mukanova U, Yessirkepov M, Kitas GD. Scientific Hypotheses: Writing, Promoting, and Predicting Implications. J Korean Med Sci 2019;34(45):e300.
12. Eisen MB, Akhmanova A, Behrens TE, Weigel D. Publishing in the time of COVID-19. Elife 2020;9:e57162.
13. Panda S. Publishing in the time of pandemic: Editorial policy of a dermatology journal during COVID-19. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2020;86(4):337-340.
14. Cagnazzo C, Besse MG, Manfellotto D, Minghetti P, Cazzaniga S, Cottini L, Fontanella A, Maruti I, Stabile S, Testoni S, Trogu P, Sinno V, Gussoni G. Lessons learned from COVID-19 for clinical research operations in Italy: what have we learned and what can we apply in the future? Tumori 2021;107(1):6-11.
15. Agrawal V, Nath C, Mishra SK. Ethics committee meeting by video-conferencing during Covid-19. Indian J Med Ethics 2020. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2020.062. Online ahead of print.
16. Fagherazzi G, Goetzinger C, Rashid MA, Aguayo GA, Huiart L. Digital Health Strategies to Fight COVID-19 Worldwide: Challenges, Recommendations, and a Call for Papers. J Med Internet Res 2020;22(6):e19284.
17. Ng LC, Hanlon C, Yimer G, Henderson DC, Fekadu A. Ethics in global health research: the need for balance. Lancet Glob Health 2015;3(9):e516-e517.
18. Gasparyan AY, Zimba O, Misra DP, Kitas GD. Monitoring Information Flow on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Mediterr J Rheumatol 2020;31(Suppl 2):243-246.
19. Gaur PS, Gupta L. Social Media for Scholarly Communication in Central Asia and Its Neighbouring Countries. J Korean Med Sci 2021;36(4):e36.
20. Yamshchikov GV, Schmid GP. Publication practices and attitudes towards evidence-based medicine in central Asia. Lancet Glob Health 2013;1(2):e73-e74.
21. Yessirkepov M, Nurmashev B, Anartayeva M. A Scopus-Based Analysis of Publication Activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: Positive Trends, Concerns, and Possible Solutions. J Korean Med Sci 2015;30(12):1915 -1919.
22. Machacek V, Srholec M. Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences. Scientometrics 2021 ;1-25. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4. Online ahead of print.
23. Memon AR, Rathore FA. Publishing research during pandemics: are you vulnerable to the COVID-19 or predatory publishers? J Pak Med Assoc 2020;70(Suppl 3)(5):S166-S168.
24. Vervoort D, Ma X, Shrime MG. Money down the drain: predatory publishing in the COVID-19 era. Can J Public Health 2020;111 (5):665-666.
COVID-19 ПАНДЕМИЯСЫ КЕЗ1НДЕГ1 ГИПОТЕЗАЛАР МЕН ЭТИКА ТYйiндi сездер: COVID-19, пандемия, Орталы; Азия, мерзiмдi басылымдар такырып ретiнде/ гипотеза, денсаулы; са;тау акпаратын баскару
Дэйексез Yшiн: EcipKenoB М., Нурмашев Б., Гаспарян А. COVID-19 пандемиясы кезщцеп гипотезалар мен этика. Медициналы; гипотеза мен этиканын Орта Азиялы; журналы. 2021; 2 (1): 10-13. https://doi.Org/10.47316/caimhe.2021.2.1.01
ГИПОТЕЗЫ И ЭТИКА ВО ВРЕМЯ ПАНДЕМИИ COVID-19 Ключевые слова: COVID-19, пандемия, Центральная Азия, периодические издания как тема, гипотеза, управление информацией здравоохранения
Для цитирования: Есиркепов М., Нурмашев Б., Гаспарян А. Гипотезы и этика во время пандемии COVID-19. Центральноазиатский журнал медицинских гипотез и этики. 2021; 2 (1): 10-13. https://doi.Org/10.47316/cajmhe.2021.2.1.01
