Abstract
Objectives We measured attitudes towards “immunity passports” in the context of COVID-19 of a large sample of scientists. Consensus of scientists’ opinions on a different aspect of immunity passports was assessed.
Methods We designed and implemented a survey to capture what scientists from around the world and different scientific background think about immunity certification. The survey was sent to the corresponding authors of scholarly articles published in the last five years in the top 20-ranked journals in each of the 27 subject areas between May and June 2020. Responses from 12,738 scientists were captured, and their distribution was tabulated by participants in health science and other fields. Consensus of responses was calculated using a variant of Shannon Entropy, made suitable for the ordinal response variables.
Results Half of the scientists surveyed, regardless of academic background agree that a potential immunity passport program will be good for public health (50.2%) and the economy (54.4%), with 19.1% and 15.4% of participants disagree, respectively. A significant proportion of scientists raised concerns about immunity certification over fairness to others (36.5%) and social inequality (45.5%). There is little consensus in the different aspects of immunity passport among scientists. Overall, scientists with health background hold a more conservative view towards immunity certification.
Conclusions Our findings suggest a lack of general agreement regarding the potential health and economic benefits, societal costs, and ethical issues of an immunity certification program within the scientific community. Given the relevant and important implications of immunity passport due to the increasing vaccine availability and efficacy, more attention should be given to the discussion of the design and implementation of immunity certification program.
Strengths and limitations of this study
First cross-disciplinary survey with a large and international sample size that enables mapping of scientists’ opinions and attitudes towards COVID-19 immunity certificates.
From the survey responses, we measured, reported, and compared the levels of consensus of scientists between health-related and non-health-related discipline.
Response rate and sample representativeness are moderate.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding for this work was provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy - EXC 2052/1 - 390713894 (Stadelmann). The German Research Foundation (DFG) had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval for the survey and the data collection was given on April 23, 2020 by the Ethics Commission of the Frankfurt School of Finance & Management (Frankfurt, Germany).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
