Search

Rationale, Aims, and Objectives: The disciplinary profile and the quality of production of knowledge on Corona pandemic is studied. This scientific field is called 'Medical Corona Science'. Methods: Criteria of analytical philosophy of science and science studies are systematically applied. Results: It is shown that mainly auxiliary medical disciplines such as virology and epidemiology but not clinical disciplines provide Corona knowledge. We see a laboratory‐centered, technology‐ and data‐driven science, largely ignoring clinical issues. Therefore we call these approaches "Medical Corona Science" (MCS). We see the need to adapt to features of a 'post‐normal science', a 'mode 2 science' and of 'Integration and Implementation Science', especially as clinical knowledge must be integrated. There is also a severe lack of theoretical considerations that could help to frame the pandemic as a complex dynamic system. Conclusions: We suggest a deeper meta‐scientific discussion of the epistemic value of MCS and propose the application of tools from systems science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]