Coronavirus Researches Are as Swift as The Outbreak

Coronavirus is threatening us as the coronavirus death toll continues to rise. This COVID-19 spread is fast and scientists are working hard to research and find a coronavirus cure. They are applying both robust and rogue science, posting and sharing the research results with a speed that matches the viral outbreak’s pace. Already the number of deaths exceeded 2,000 and affected more than 45,000.   

Scientific analysis to find a coronavirus cure is absolutely the right decision. But whether the research is good or bad, depends on time limit and steadfastness. Coronavirus symptoms are on the rise with high speed and infecting people quickly. So, the faster the researches, the better. But faulty or misleading science can not only worsens the outbreak but also increases it.  

According to research on 153 studies by Reuters, the researchers focused on genetic analyses, clinical reports, and epidemiological papers to examine every aspect of the disease. After that, they published or posted their study on COVID-19 outbreak. The number of researchers in them include 675.

The analysts compared these results with the studies on the SARS outbreak back in 2003. It needed more than a year to publish half the studies on the SARS.

Richard Horton and his team had the surge capacity to handle 30 to 40 submissions of scientific research each day. He is the editor-in-chief of The Lancet group of science and medical journals.

Most of his works are accurate and useful. Clinicians, vaccine developers, policy agencies, and diagnostic makers worked hard on epidemiological models, phylogenetic trees, and genetic codes. The critical target of them was to find out the virus spread.   

But the fact is that not all of them are correct as they are raw. Experts opine that many of them are not peer-reviewed and are not standard enough. Instead, some of them are considered flawed and did not enlist as fruitful and ditched away. 

Science Media Centre is a non-profit organization in Britain. A science communications specialist from there, Tom Sheldon says, “The public will not benefit from early findings if they are flawed or hyped.”  

About the preprints

Sheldon believes that the quick and free sharing of the information about the new coronavirus without peer review is causing problems. 60% of the 153 studies were preprints. 

The authors of the preprints complete them so that their works can help the ongoing scientific debate and work to improve the studies jointly. The preprints are instant and can attract public attention and international media. 

Horton says, “Some of the material that’s been put out - on preprint servers for example - clearly has been... unhelpful. Whether it’s fake news or misinformation or rumour-mongering, it’s certainly contributed to fear and panic.”

There are “uncanny” similarities between HIV and new coronavirus, according to Indian scientists in New Delhi. They posted their work on Jan. 31.

But the scientists from other parts of the world criticized the work. But the work was a hit on Twitter with more than 17,000 tweets. As a result, 25 news outlets picked up this.

Another researcher from Britain sends his submission to The Lancet saying that the new coronavirus is a viral attack from outer space.

On on Jan. 22, the Journal of Medical Virology published a study pointing at the snakes as the source of the new coronavirus and it is a snake flu. For spreading this rumour, the study is now known as “the snake paper.”  Although many experts doubted this study, nothing could stop it from being viral. 

About the pressure

Why are researchers on a hustle to finish their study? The answer is ‘pressure.’ Besides stopping the international disease outbreak, the best study result will increase reputation for any scientific agency. They will get future funding for having a good profile. 

Efstathios Giotis says, “Due to the evolving nature of the (coronavirus) outbreak, scientists are often under pressure to communicate their findings in real-time.” He is an Imperial College London infectious disease expert.

Giotis is in the belief that all the research works should be monitored under the guidance of the experts in this relevant field independently and rigorously. But this is not the case in facing the new coronavirus.

Nature’s editor-in-chief Magdalena Skipper and her team do the job of selecting and filtering submitted manuscripts.

She says, “We will never compromise the rigour of our peer review, and papers will only be accepted once ... they have been thoroughly assessed.”