Covid-19 in Brazil: Political controversies over social isolation measures to control the pandemic. A science vs. antiscience dispute?

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic has narrowed the relationship between scientists and leaders around the world, with challenging decisions shared by both areas. Social isolation measures in Brazil as a way to control Sars-CoV-2 cases were involved in an intense political debate. Our aim in this article is to establish whether this dispute can be perceived as a science vs. antiscience controversy. In order to do so, we used criteria based on the Social Studies of Science and Technology (STS), which understands science fact as co-produced by social legitimation and influential actors, and Collins & Pinch approach to define an antiscientific discourse. By searches in the press and Twitter, from the first case of Sars-CoV-2 in Brazil — 25 February 2020 — until the 26th of April, we found three important political actors in the social isolation debate: 1) João Doria, governor of São Paulo; 2) Henrique Mandetta, ministry of Health; 3) Jair Bolsonaro, president of Brazil. Although there were different approaches in relation to science, with actor (1) dialoguing with an elite scientific community, actor (2) avoiding the debate initially, and referring to a more insulated science with selective debates; and actor (3) having a science-related populism approach, the investigation concluded that social isolation measures debate in Brazil were not polarized as a science vs. antiscience debate. Science and its symbolic authority were used by all actors to legitimate their positions, and, for this reason, we believe it would be very difficult for the general public to analyze whether these actors were using good quality evidence to support their positions. Further studies can invest in the analysis of social consensus production beyond scientific claims.

Keywords: Covid-19; dissent and disputes; social isolation, quarantine, antiscience, science controversy