The forum on the topic of the relationship between scientific expertise and public policies was organized on September 15 with the intention of starting a discussion in the public sphere about the short-term and long-term consequences of the subjection of the profession to political interests and decisions. The state of emergency and the prescribed measures to protect against the Kovid-19 virus set the concept profession in the center of media and public interest. While on the one hand praises could be heard because the implemented measures were taken in consultation with science and experts, on the other hand criticisms could be heard on account of political abuse and manipulation of trust in scientific authority. And outside our country, the global pandemic has triggered an avalanche of questions about the trust we have or don't have in science. A particularly complex issue, which we want to address at this forum, is how the views and recommendations of science are translated into political measures and decisions.
The panelists were: prof. Dr. Tatjana Pejčić, pulmonologist at the Clinic for Lung Diseases in Niš and full professor at the Faculty of Medicine in Niš, Dr. Gazela Draško Pudar, director of the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, and member of the Coordination Board of the Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement (MASA), Dr. Rastislav Dinić, assistant professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Niš and activist of the United Movement of Freelancers from Niš, and Dr. Nemanja Krstić (moderator), assistant professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Niš and trustee of MASE for Niš. About 30 people visited the tribune, in compliance with all prescribed epidemiological safety measures (physical distance, mandatory wearing of masks, use of disinfectants).
The tribune itself was organized in two parts. In the first part of the panel, the participants discussed the contradictions in the public statements of politicians and representatives of the profession, as well as the conflicting opinions that the representatives of the profession had regarding measures to combat the corona virus. This was joined by the questions of the role of the academic and professional community in confronting the public with manipulations that came from a group of politicians and representatives of the medical profession, but also placing these models of manipulation in a wider social context (the problem of authoritarian government, clientelistic management of resources, the struggle to win the autonomy of civil institutions society, the process of deprofessionalization, the reaction of professional associations to scientifically unproven treatment methods and the like). Also, the issues of establishing responsibility for making certain decisions and their implementation in practice were also raised, as well as consideration of models that eliminate or minimize the possibility of being held accountable for implemented decisions and measures.
The second part of the forum was dedicated to talking with the audience. Some of the main views expressed by the audience are that there is a noticeable model of mistrust in institutions and singling out individuals from all areas of the profession as good examples that need to be followed, the necessity of understanding and interpreting the irresponsible and unprofessional behavior of individuals from the perspective of the social context, the characterization of the overall conflict between civil society on one side, and politics and the profession that works in the interests of politics, on the other, as revenge for bad students who came to positions of power.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
