EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 37 / No 1 (Janvier 2021) Med Sci (Paris), 37 1 (2021) 89-96 References
Open Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 37, Number 1, Janvier 2021
Page(s) 89 - 96
Section Forum
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2020254
Published online 25 January 2021
  1. Couderc B, Duguet AM, Cambon-Thomsen A, Rial- Sebbag E. Essai clinique et traitement. Quelle éthique en cas d’urgence sanitaire ? Exploreur 2020; https://exploreur.univ-toulouse.fr/essai-clinique-et-traitement-quelle-ethique-en-cas-durgence-sanitaire. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barré-Sinoussi F.. L’infection VIH/sida : l’histoire exemplaire d’une épidémie qui résiste. Med Sci (Paris) 2018 ; 34 : 499–500. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Kellert SH, Longino H, Waters CK. Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minessota Press, 2006 ; 272 p [Google Scholar]
  4. Ruphy S. Scientific pluralism reconsidered: a new approach to the (dis)unity of science. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2017 ; 208 p [Google Scholar]
  5. Coutellec L. La science au pluriel. Essai d’épistémologie pour des sciences impliquées. Paris: Éditions Quæ, 2015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 2018 ; 210 : 2–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Benmarhnia T, David PM, Godrie B. Les sociétés de l’expérimentation. Enjeux épisté-mologiques, éthiques et politiques. Québec : Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  8. Coutellec L. Ethics and Scientific Integrity in Biomedical Research. In: Iphofen R, ed. Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity. New York : Springer International Publishing, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kupferschmidt K, Cohen J. WHO launches global megatrial of the four most promising coronavirus treatments. Science, 22 mars 2020. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wang M, Cao R, Zhang L, et al. Remdesivir and chloroquine effective-ly inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro. Cell Res 2020; 10–0282. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gao J, Tian Z, Yang X. Breakthrough: chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies. Biosci Trends 2020; 14 : 72–3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Multicenter collaboration group of Department of science and technology of Guangdong province and health commission of Guangdong province for chloroquine in the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia. Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia. Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi 2020; 43 , pp. 185–188, doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-0939.2020.03.009. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Freedman B.. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987 ; 317 : 141–145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Alperovitch A, Lazar P. L’éthique des essais thérapeutiques. Med Sci (Paris) 2020; 36 : 303–7. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Miller GF, Joffe S. Equipoise and the randomized clinical trial dilemma. N Engl J Med 2011 ; 364 : 476–480. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gifford F.. Pulling the plug on clinical equipoise: a critique of Miller and Weijer. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2007 ; 17 : 203–226. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Steinbock B, London A. Clinical equipoise: foundational requirement or fundamental error?. In: Steinbock B, ed. The Oxford handbook of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Van der Graaf R, Van Delden H. On the necessity of embedding clinical equipoise in the Declaration of Helsinki. Conference on 11th World Congress of Bioethics. 2012. https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/van-der-graaf.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  19. Van der Graaf R, Van Delden H. Equipoise should be amended, not abandoned. Clinical Trials 2011 ; 8 : 408–416. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Communiqué de presse du CHU Angers, 2020 (consultable en ligne). [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuhn TS. Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In: The essential tension : selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1977. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cartwright N.. Are RCTs the gold standard?. Biosocieties 2007 ; 2 : 11–20. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Worrall J.. Evidence in medicine and evidence-based medicine. Phil Comp 2007 ; 2 : 981–1022. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 2018 ; 210 : 2–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gautret P., Lagier JC, Parola P, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020; 56 : 105949. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Bourdieu P. Le champ scientifique. In: Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, vol. 2, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  27. Demortain D, Joly PB. Urgence thérapeutique, controverses et production de la preuve dans l’espace public – à propos de l’hydroxychloroquine. AOC, 2020. https://aoc.media/analyse/2020/05/17/urgence-therapeutique-controverses-et-production-de-la-preuve-dans-lespace-public-a-propos-de-lhydroxychloroquine/. [Google Scholar]
  28. Israel-Jost V. Quelques obstacles à l’implication démocratique lors de « l’affaire de l’hydroxychloroquine » : analyse épistémologique et éthique. Medium 2020. https://medium.com/@visraeljost/quelques-obstacles-à-limplication-démocratique-lors-de-l-affaire-de-l-hydroxychloroquine-16cfce578d5. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cartwright N, Stegenga J. A theory of evidence for evidence-based policy. In: Dawid AP, Twining W, Vasilaki M, eds. Evidence, inference and enquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011 : 291–322. [Google Scholar]
  30. Worrall J.. Evidence: philosophy of science meets medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 2010 ; 16 : 356–362. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Girel M.. Agnotologie. Mode d’emploi. Revue. Critique 2013 ; 799 : 964–977. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Resnik DB, Shamoo AE. The Singapore statement on research integrity. Account Res 2011 ; 18 : 71–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hicks DJ. A new direction for science and values. Synthese 2014 ; 191 : 3271–3295. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Laudan L. Science and values. The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Brenner A. Raison scientifique et valeurs humaines. Essai sur les critères de choix objectif. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ruphy S.. Empiricism all the way down: a defense of the value-neutrality of science in response to Helen Longinos contextual empiricism. Perspectives on Science 2006 ; 14 : 189–214. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Riggs W. The value turn in epistemology. In: Hendricks V, Pritchard D, eds. New waves in epistemology. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  38. Longino H. Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: rethinking the dichotomy. In: Nelson L, Nelson J. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.