Epistemic responsibility in the face of a pandemic. Issue 1 (28th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Levy, Neil; Savulescu, Julian
• Is Part Of: Journal of law and the biosciences. Volume 7:Issue 1(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-05-28
• Subjects: Responsibility -- knowledge -- testimony -- deference; Life sciences -- Law and legislation -- Periodicals; Science and law -- Periodicals; Law and biology -- Periodicals; Biotechnology -- Law and legislation -- Periodicals; Bioethics -- Periodicals; 344.0957
• DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsaa033
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2053-9711

Abstract

Abstract: Should non-experts defer to epidemiologists with regard to the response to the coronavirus pandemic? We argue that deference is required with regard to settled science: non-experts (that is, people who may possess expertise of their own but whose expertise is not relevant to a particular question) ought to defer with regard to climate science and the efficacy of vaccines. However, we suggest that this deference is warranted because these questions have been appropriately probed many times by many different kinds of people. While non-experts should defer to epidemiologists with regard to matters within the sphere of epidemiology specifically, responding to the pandemic requires expertise from many fields. We best build a consensus worth deferring to by contributing our expertise now. Ethicists and philosophers are not epistemically arrogant if they question policy responses. Rather, they play a responsible role in building a reliable consensus.