PhilMed RG Schedule (May–October 2026)

The next set of readings will focus on philosophy of public health. As previously, each week there will be two online meetings of the group to discuss the same section of text, one on Wednesday night at 5pm BST, one on Thursday morning at 10am BST, in hopes of accommodating group members in a variety of time zones. There is no need to attend all meetings—please come when you can.

You can join the group here: https://groups.google.com/g/philmed-rg/

If you need the meeting links or have any other queries please contact Alex Broadbent or Elisabetta Lalumera.

Block 1

Week 1 — Wed 6 May / Thu 7 May

Grote, T. & Broadbent, A. (2023)
Machine Learning and Public Health: Philosophical Issues.
In S. Venkatapuram & A. Broadbent (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Public Health, pp. 190-204. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675411-16

Week 2 — Wed 20 May / Thu 21 May

Steel, D. (2022)
Medicine and Public Health.
In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Public Health, pp. 27–39. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675411

Week 3 — Wed 3 June / Thu 4 June

Smart, B. (2025)
The Goal of Public Health (Chapter 2, pp. 29–50).
In The Philosophy of Public Health: A Capacities Approach. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-98804-2_2

Week 4 — Wed 17 June / Thu 18 June

Smart, B. (2025)
Towards a Capacities-Based Principlism (Chapter 6, pp. 141–169).
In The Philosophy of Public Health: A Capacities Approach. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-98804-2_6

Week 5 — Wed 1 July / Thu 2 July

Venkatapuram, S. (2025)
Social Determinants of Health.
In The Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-2252-8_72

Block 2

Week 6 — Wed 30 September / Thu 1 October

Kukla, Q. R. (2024)
Healthism, Elite Capture, and the Pitfalls of an Expansive Concept of Health.
In A Pragmatic Approach to Conceptualization of Health and Disease, pp. 275–294. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62241-0_21

Week 7 — Wed 14 October / Thu 15 October

Wilson, J. (2021)
The Right to Public Health (Chapter 6, pp. 110–125).
In Philosophy for Public Health and Public Policy: Beyond the Neglectful State. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192844057.003.0006

Week 8 — Wed 28 October / Thu 29 October

Wilson, J. (2021)
Measuring and Combatting Health-Related Inequalities (Chapter 9, pp. 184–204).
In Philosophy for Public Health and Public Policy: Beyond the Neglectful State. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192844057.003.0009

Book Panel: The New Modern Medicine, by Jonathan Fuller

Thursday, 14 May 2026, 15:00 – 16:30 BST | Online

In The New Modern Medicine: Disease, Evidence, and Epidemiological Medicine (OUP, 2025), Jonathan Fuller examines contemporary scientific medicine and its distinctive philosophical problems, particularly problems brought about by the integration of modern epidemiology into medicine. In this book panel, guest respondents will provide commentary on the book before the audience is welcomed into the discussion.

The New Modern Medicine is available to download open access: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-new-modern-medicine-9780190066147?cc=us&lang=en&#

Discussion Chair: Sarah Wieten, Durham University

Author: Jonathan Fuller, University of Pittsburgh

Respondents: Ross Upshur, University of Toronto; Jacob Stegenga, NTU Singapore; Nancy Cartwright, Durham University; Alex Broadbent, Durham University

This online event is organised by the Centre for Philosophy of Epidemiology, Medicine and Public Health, which is hosted by the Institute for Medical Humanities, Durham University.

If you have any accessibility requirements, please get in touch with us at imh.events@durham.ac.uk.

This event is free to attend, please register via Microsoft Teams.

Power, Knowledge, and Covid-19: The Making of a Scientific Orthodoxy

Delighted to announce the publication of this book, available open access here:
https://www.routledge.com/Power-Knowledge-and-Covid-19-The-Making-of-a-Scientific-Orthodoxy/Broadbent-Streicher/p/book/9781041224822

This book is an attempt to make sense of what happened at the science-policy interface during the Covid-19 pandemic. It asks not only what scientific claims were made, but how certain positions came to acquire exceptional authority, to stand for “the science”, and to shape policy on that basis. Through a series of case studies on modelling, lockdowns, masks, vaccines, dissent, and the politics of “following the science”, it argues that a scientific orthodoxy emerged during the pandemic.

A scientific orthodoxy is a dynamic arising at the science-policy interface in which some parts of science come to stand for the whole, and to wield outsized authority. The book analyses scientific orthodoxy into five elements: methodological rigidity, scientific dogma, suppression of dissent, illegitimate indirect political authority, and scientific injustice. For each, it offers a set of criteria – or tests – and shows how they were satisfied during the pandemic. The aim is not retrospective score-settling, but explanation: to understand clearly enough what happened that similar failures might be avoided in future crises.

The book’s approach aligns closely with CPEMPH’s commitment to philosophically serious, empirically engaged inquiry into questions in epidemiology, medicine, and public health that matter beyond the academy. It also reflects an international partnership. One of its distinctive features is that it does not treat Covid-19 simply as a story about Britain or the United States. It draws on material from a range of settings and argues that one-size-fits-all scientific and policy frameworks often obscured local realities, especially in lower-resource contexts. Global South perspectives are not an optional supplement to the analysis, but part of what makes better sense of the pandemic possible.

The wider questions raised here extend well beyond Covid-19. How should expertise function in emergencies? What happens when scientific disagreement is narrowed too quickly? Under what conditions does scientific advice properly guide policy, and under what conditions does it harden into something more like orthodoxy? These are not questions confined to one pandemic. They are likely to recur wherever scientific authority and political decision-making converge under pressure.

Power, Knowledge, and Covid-19 is published by Routledge. Its open-access publication was supported by the Discovery Research Platform for Medical Humanities at Durham, funded by Wellcome.

‘Can you lock down in a slum?’ published in Global Epidemiology

Delighted that this paper co-authored with Pieter Streicher has now been published in Global Epidemiology.

Broadbent A, Streicher P. Can you lock down in a slum? And who would benefit if you tried? Difficult questions about epidemiology’s commitment to global health inequalities during Covid-19. Global Epidemiology. 2022;4:100074. doi:10.1016/J.GLOEPI.2022.100074 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113322000049)

Was lockdown racist?

Delighted to be giving a new talk this week in Cambridge and Utrecht.

Tuesday 17 May, 2.30pm BST: Cambridge Moral Sciences Club, Newnham College

Friday 20 May, 16.15 CET: Conference, Covid-19 and Public Policy, Utrecht University

Abstract

In 2016, South African learner Zulaikha Patel argued that a school rule requiring hair to be neat was racist. Even though the rule applied equally to everyone, public opinion swung behind Patel: a rule that imposed a disproportionate burden on Black learners could be racist even if it applied equally to all. The school suspended the rule. Basing itself on this case, this paper argues that global lockdowns in the first half of 2020 were racist. The paper focuses on Africa, arguing first that the lockdown strategy of implementing stringent stay-at-home regulations was externally imposed upon Africa, tracing the origins of this policy to the way that modelling results were presented so as to make just one option feasible. The resulting recommendations were promulgated globally by the World Health Organisation, and geopolitical power relations placed huge pressures on African states to comply. Next, the paper argues that locking down placed a disproportionate burden on Africa, whose population is the poorest in the world and for whom no work often means no food. At the same time, the potential benefit of the policy was small. With a median age of 19.7, much of the population was just too young for Covid ever to be a serious public health problem, and by the same token other threats to life compete for attention. Slum-dwellers cannot reduce their social contact by 75%, which is the figure used in the model upon which the recommendations were based. Most states in the region are unable to afford or implement meaningful food or grant schemes to compensate. Many African countries have no ventilators and low access to health care, so protecting the healthcare system was not a meaningful goal. And the strategy of locking down until a vaccine was available could never have been credible in a region where millions of children die annually from diseases treatable by penicillin. Where a policy originates in Europe and has disproportionate negative effect in Africa, it is impossible to ignore racial dynamics. “Black” is a colonial vestige that does not do justice to the ethnic diversity in Africa. Yet it can be legitimately used as Patel used it: for purpose of internal critique, and as an adjunct identity that does not negate other identities. Lockdown had a disproportionate negative effect on a very large number of Black people, and it was externally imposed. Therefore lockdown was racist.

Great piece from @JonathanJFuller ‘What’s Missing in Pandemic Models: Philosophy is needed to put the science of COVID-19 in perspective.’ In @NautilusMag #epitwitter

http://nautil.us/issue/84/outbreak/whats-missing-in-pandemic-models

Jonathan Fuller writes: “In the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous models are being used to predict the future. But as helpful as they are, they cannot make sense of themselves. They rely on epidemiologists and other modelers to interpret them. Trouble is, making predictions in a pandemic is also a philosophical exercise. We need to think about hypothetical worlds, causation, evidence, and the relationship between models and reality.”

Read more…

Boston Review: ‘COVID-19 has revealed a contest between two competing philosophies of scientific knowledge. To manage the crisis, we must draw on both’ says @JonathanJFuller #epitwitter

http://bostonreview.net/science-nature/jonathan-fuller-models-v-evidence

‘How do the coronavirus models generating these hypothetical curves square with the evidence? What roles do models and evidence play in a pandemic? Answering these questions requires reconciling two competing philosophies in the science of COVID-19.’ Great piece which will still be interesting a week, month, year and decade from now, unusually at present.

Thinking rationally about Coronavirus

I have written an op ed which can be found here:

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/country-readiness

There is also a very good (in my opinion) peace in the Lancet which emphasizes the importance of rate of spread and anticipates public health measures as an inevitability, better embraced sooner than later.

https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(20)30567-5

Events like this really make me feel that epidemiology must be much more widely understood in the contemporary world. Debates about red meat do the same, but less dramatically. This is such a stark case. Epidemiological expertise must guide us and basic comprehension of epidemiology – even as basic as just knowing that there is such a thing and that there are Experts in it, and that they are not necessarily doctors – would help so much. Politicians aren’t better educated than the rest of the educated public. I’m not critiquing any particular decision – so far, things have mostly been sensible, I think – but the sense of not knowing could be greatly alleviated. How about just a short module on epidemiology as part of high school biology?…

M, PhD and PostDoc opportunities at UJ

The University of Johannesburg has released a special call offering masters, doctoral and postdoctoral fellowships, for start asap, deadline 8th Feb 2020.

These are in any area, but I would like to specifically invite anyone wishing to work with myself (or colleagues at UJ) on any of the areas listed below. From May 2020, I will be Director of the Institute for the Future of Knowledge at UJ (a new institute – no website yet – but watch this space!), and being part of this enterprise will, I think, be very exciting for potential students/post-docs. I would be delighted to receive inquiries in any of the following areas:

  • Philosophy of medicine
  • Philosophy of epidemiology
  • Causation
  • Counterfactuals
  • Causal inference
  • Prediction
  • Explanation (not just causal)
  • Machine learning (in relation to any of the above)
  • Cognitive science
  • Other things potentially relevant to the Institute, my interests, your interests… please suggest!

If you’re interested please get in touch: abbroadbent@uj.ac.za

The call is here, along with instructions for applicants:

2020 Call for URC Scholarships for Master’s_Doctoral_Postdoctoral Fellowships_Senior Postdoctoral fellowships