Epistemological disputes in the causal link between Zika virus and congenital syndrome: a controversy analysis

Abstract

An increase in child malformations in 2015 in Brazil is associated with a Zika virus spread months earlier, leaving disputes that still echo. Using elements from a sociology field dedicated to scientific controversy mapping, the present study conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with researchers and administrators involved in this causal association. Our work investigated how actors from different areas observe the role of social conditions in the outcome of the Congenital Zika Syndrome (SCZ) and the paths taken to mitigate them after the epidemic. Concern with social variables and their relevance in the SCZ outcome was observed, with a widespread disappointment about the referral of these issues after the case’s peak; however, these factors have not entered the core narrative about causality. There are epistemic disputes about this outcome. Some attach responsibility to the public power or resign themselves to the result; others demand more active positions from researchers who had access to the decision-making process, with disagreements about the positioning of science. The article points out the need for reflective sciences that dialogue with their agency on the phenomena, as well as for interdisciplinary and multicausal articulations for public narratives on public health crises in Brazil.