COVID-19 related interdisciplinary methods: Preventing errors and detecting research opportunities

More than 130,000 peer-reviewed studies have been published within one year after COVID-19 emerged in many countries. This large and rapidly growing field may overwhelm the synthesizing abilities of both researchers and policy-makers. To provide a sinopsis, prevent errors, and detect cognitive gaps that may require interdisciplinary research methods, the literature on COVID-19 is summarized, twice. The overall purpose of this study is to generate a dialogue meant to explain the genesis of and/or find remedies for omissions and contradictions. The first review starts in Biology and ends in Policy. Policy is chosen as a destination because it is the setting where cognitive integration must occur. The second review follows the opposite path: it begins with stated policies on COVID-19 and then their assumptions and disciplinary relationships are identified. The purpose of this interdisciplinary method on methods is to yield a relational and explanatory view of the field –one strategy likely to be incomplete but usable when large bodies of literature need to be rapidly summarized. These reviews identify nine inter-related problems, research needs, or omissions, namely: (1) nation-wide, geo-referenced, epidemiological data collection systems (open to and monitored by the public); (2) metrics meant to detect non-symptomatic cases –e.g., test positivity–; (3) cost-benefit oriented methods, which should demonstrate they detect silent viral spreaders even with limited testing; (4) new personalized tests that inform on biological functions and disease correlates, such as cell-mediated immunity, co-morbidities, and immuno-suppression; (5) factors that influence vaccine effectiveness; (6) economic predictions that consider the long-term consequences likely to follow epidemics that growth exponentially; (7) the errors induced by self-limiting and/or implausible paradigms, such as binary and reductionist approaches; (8) new governance models that emphasize problem-solving skills, social participation, and the use of scientific knowledge; and (9) new educational programs that utilize visual aids and audience-specific communication strategies. The analysis indicates that, to optimally address these problems, disciplinary and social integration is needed. By asking what is/are the potential cause(s) and consequence(s) of each issue, this methodology generates visualizations that reveal possible relationships as well as omissions and contradictions. While inherently limited in scope and likely to become obsolete, these shortcomings are avoided when this ‘method on methods’ is frequently practiced. Open-ended, inter-/trans-disciplinary perspectives and broad social participation may help researchers and citizens to construct, de-construct, and re-construct COVID-19 related research.