Â鶹´«Ã½ the author: is a Vanier Scholar and PhD candidate in Microbiology and Immunology at Â鶹´«Ã½.
While the world continues to cope with COVID-19, it is clear that the decisions our public officials make today will have far-reaching consequences on people’s lives. It is for that reason that we need to make absolutely sure that our decisions are supported by robust science.
Scientists around the world have been working long hours identifying potential new treatments and diagnostic tools to handle the threat that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) poses. Many of these new treatments, , provide hope that we will soon be able to stop this pandemic in its tracks.
Early research claims
However, there have also been a number of exaggerated claims about early scientific data found in — a kind of initial posting of results prior to evaluation by scientific experts — and peer-reviewed journal articles.
Some of these claims, , have led people to self-medicate . To be clear, .
This is why it is so alarming to hear public officials in Canada, namely Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, .
While it may seem counter-intuitive, even in times of desperate measures and rapid response, science still requires time to make rigorous and robust conclusions. There are real consequences to rushing ahead of rigorous scientific data.
Historical lessons
A potent example of this is the use of thalidomide in Canada to treat nausea associated with pregnancy. Thalidomide was available in Canada in the early 1960s. This drug was approved in other jurisdictions, including West Germany and the United Kingdom. It was subsequently pulled from markets in both countries in 1961 and in Canada shortly after, when it became abundantly clear that the drug caused fetal malformations.
Notably, a Canadian-born American physician by the name of Dr. Frances Kelsey saw the scientific data on the use of thalidomide and was . As such, in her role as an advisor to the Food and Drug Administration, she blocked its approval for use in the United States. Her actions prevented .
Dr. Kelsey took a . Instead of pushing ahead with a drug that had been approved in other countries, she actively sought out evidence of its safety, and evaluated it for herself. This extra step, the extra interpretation of the data in her hands, helped to identify that the drug might not be safe and should not be approved without more evidence.
Read more:
Robust data
This highlights why having robust scientific data about a drug treatment is so vital. Health Canada’s is one part in a slow science framework, which protects Canadians and their health from the use of diagnostic tests and treatments that are not validated to be safe and effective.
Treatments and diagnostics for COVID-19 must follow this framework. Treatments that don’t work (or worse, are harmful) or diagnostic tests that provide many false positives () will only serve to hasten the spread and impact of COVID-19 on Canadians.
Read more:
Slow science will necessarily take more time than we might be immediately comfortable with. However, it is important that public officials, scientists and the public understand that treatments and diagnostics that work will require science that is rigorous, accurate and peer-reviewed. This requires time. Slow science will provide fewer opportunities for mistakes and more time for science to get it right.
which features includes relevant and informed articles written by researchers and academics in their areas of expertise and edited by experienced journalists.
Â鶹´«Ã½ is a founding partner of The Conversation Canada, an online media outlet providing independent, high-quality explanatory journalism. Originally established in Australia in 2011, it has had more than 85 commissioning editors and 30,000-plus academics register as contributors. A full list of articles written by Â鶹´«Ã½ academics can be found onÂ