Analysing a Science Communication Article — Part 1

India is one of the leading manufacturers of global pharmaceuticals, contributing to almost 60% of the vaccines. Recently, India’s Drug regulator approved Covishield (a vaccine developed in the UK) and Covaxin (homegrown vaccine) to be administered in the Indian subcontinent. The article addresses the vaccinations’ controversies, addressing the science behind the vaccine and its effectiveness and concludes by stating the vaccination drive’s current state across the globe.

The homegrown government-backed Covaxin has been in the news over the last few weeks. Although the Indian regulator and the manufacturers have approved the use of Covaxin by stating that the vaccination is safe and provides a robust immune response, the drug did not finish phase-III clinical trials. The article acknowledges the controversy associated with the immunisation and sudden approval for administration, by stating that the All India Drug Action Network was quizzical concerning the drug regulator’s decision. However, the article does not restrict the flow of information one-way and reports the Drug regulator and manufacturer’s reasoning point. The green light for administering the vaccine was provided based on the data from phase-III clinical trials from studies in Brazil and the United Kingdom; however, no bridging studies in the Indian population have been completed yet. The manufacturers propose to provide information on the efficacy of the vaccine by February. The framework of the article suggests that it follows the CUSP model of science communication and the judgement about the effectiveness of the vaccine to be soon is only a conditional fact which will be validated based on the data, which is a classic feature of the portraying the information mentioned as ‘hot science’.

The controversy regarding the efficacy of the vaccine is analysed critically from ‘hot science’ as there is uncertainty regarding the therapeutic efficacy. Moreover, the statistical reports of the sensitivity and specificity of the vaccines compared are ambiguous. The time duration between two jabs seems to be a critical factor affecting the effectiveness of the vaccine. The reader is well informed regarding the mechanism behind the vaccine’s working in simplistic terms without complex terminology. Although the vaccine Covishield is made from weakened versions of the common cold virus, the reader is reassured that it cannot cause illnesses by describing the vaccine’s working in detail. The detailed description is a hallmark of the CUSP model of scientific communication. The nature and working of science, instructions to administer, the time duration between jabs, storage conditions, and the cost are effectively conveyed to the general public from critics viewpoint. It also compares the mentioned parameters of all the approved vaccines available for coronavirus across the world and subtly points out the effectiveness of India’s vaccine. The aim of vaccinating the millions in the subcontinent is a tedious task at hand. The government-backed manufacturers led by the scientific community estimate that the job is doable in the stipulated time frame with no compromise in quality. This reassures the society, reiterating that the government, scientists, manufacturers and policymakers are collectively working towards the welfare of the people.

In summary, the article follows the CUSP (Critical Understanding of Science in Public) and critically evaluates the uncertainty around coronavirus vaccines. This article is a brilliant example of how boosterism fails while communicating hot science and the evident necessity of using the CUSP model to communicate hot science.

Reference: Covaxin and Covishield: What we know about India’s Covid vaccines