Scholarlink

<p>The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a fundamental crisis in bioscientific governance as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) transitioned from a therapeutic promise into a political symbol. Drawing upon digital controversy mapping and material participation, we identify how political leaders and counterpublics leveraged platform affordances to construct parallel spheres of legitimacy. Our analysis reveals a confrontational communication model characterized by unsuccessful attempts to re-establish vertical authority within a decentralized platform society, allowing HCQ to dominate public discourse at the expense of other mitigation strategies—a trend corroborated by Google Trends data. Rather than engaging in reductive binary debates over a single treatment’s efficacy, we argue that public health communication must emphasize the inherent complexity of pandemic response, advocating for a multi-strategic approach that simultaneously addresses diverse biological and social fronts. For cases of inevitable polarization, we propose the Frictional Bioscientific Communication (FBC) framework. The FBC model constructs a governance arena capable of withstanding intense public debate by advocating for the respectful acknowledgment—yet strategic containment—of dissent within its specific arenas of origin. This approach seeks to insulate the scientific method (not from society, but from polarization overcoding), ensuring its resilience amidst the turbulent forces of contemporary crises.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

From therapeutic promise to political symbol: hydroxychloroquine, bioscientific governance, and the case for ‘frictional communication’

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月30日

查看全文
  • Monique Batista de Oliveira,
  • Sylvia Maria Affonso da Silva,
  • Diogo Lopes de Oliveira,
  • Roberto Mitsuo Takata

摘要

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a fundamental crisis in bioscientific governance as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) transitioned from a therapeutic promise into a political symbol. Drawing upon digital controversy mapping and material participation, we identify how political leaders and counterpublics leveraged platform affordances to construct parallel spheres of legitimacy. Our analysis reveals a confrontational communication model characterized by unsuccessful attempts to re-establish vertical authority within a decentralized platform society, allowing HCQ to dominate public discourse at the expense of other mitigation strategies—a trend corroborated by Google Trends data. Rather than engaging in reductive binary debates over a single treatment’s efficacy, we argue that public health communication must emphasize the inherent complexity of pandemic response, advocating for a multi-strategic approach that simultaneously addresses diverse biological and social fronts. For cases of inevitable polarization, we propose the Frictional Bioscientific Communication (FBC) framework. The FBC model constructs a governance arena capable of withstanding intense public debate by advocating for the respectful acknowledgment—yet strategic containment—of dissent within its specific arenas of origin. This approach seeks to insulate the scientific method (not from society, but from polarization overcoding), ensuring its resilience amidst the turbulent forces of contemporary crises.