Scientific Priorities and Relational Dynamics During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

To rapidly respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis, researchers have been called upon to prioritize pandemic research, while simultaneously modifying their existing research to maintain the safety of all stakeholders (researchers, staff, trainees, and human subjects). This study aims to explore the experiences of health science researchers in their scientific practices, research priorities, and professional relational dynamics due to COVID-19. Specifically, we interviewed 31 researchers from diverse fields at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Participants worked on COVID-19, non-COVID-19 related research, or both. We integrated inductive and deductive coding using a thematic coding method. The following four themes were explored: 1) impact of research, 2) research priorities, 3) professional relationships and 4) contextual influences on science. Participants were drawn to COVID-19 work for a diversity of reasons including social need, scientific interest, professional duty, and increased access to funding opportunities. While collaborations have increased for COVID-19 researchers, interpersonal relationships have been challenging for participants. Additionally, political, familial, and personal stresses due to the pandemic have taken a toll on researchers in very different and often inequitable ways. To ensure team cohesion, there is a need to develop research practices, policies and systems that value empathy, flexibility, and interdependence.

1. Background

On March 11^th 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic (World Health Organization 2020). From the onset of the pandemic, researchers in health science areas of relevance to COVID-19 were acutely aware of the need for scientific research to better understand this novel coronavirus, prevent or mitigate its contagion, and ultimately find a vaccine or cure. A significant influx of funding for COVID-19 related projects is fueling a network of concurrent research initiatives on a global scale (Norton et al. 2020; Prudêncio and Costa 2020). That and preexisting experience with SARS-Cov and MERS-Cov set the stage for COVID-19 vaccine development at unprecedented speed – far quicker than the traditional 15 year timeframe (Krammer 2020). Also, in addition to reprioritizing their research infrastructure to support COVID-19 projects, many institutions modified non-COVID-19 projects to ensure the health and safety of research subjects and research staff (Omary et al. 2020).

Since health science research has become a collaborative imperative (Bozeman and Boardman 2014), team members are called upon to realign priorities, modify teamwork and manage their shifting realities. Understanding how the pandemic influences different team members remains crucial to properly address emerging concerns and maintain the welfare, creativity, innovation, and productivity of the team. Individuals within teams have repurposed their skillsets to meet the needs of new COVID-19 research priorities (Egede et al. 2021). To prevent the spread of COVID-19, teams migrated to virtual platforms. However, some researchers were classified as essential workers and continued going into physical work spaces with new health safety requirements in place (Omary et al. 2020). Different changing realities and professional and personal responsibilities have increased productivity inequities amongst researchers; women, underrepresented minorities, early career researchers, and researchers with children seem to be experiencing a decline in productivity which may have long term negative effects on their career (Termini and Traver 2020; Woitowich et al. 2021; King and Frederickson 2021; Byrom 2020).

Idealized epistemic values of science often promote objectivity, disinterestedness and neutrality in the separation of professional activities from non-professional activities (Merton 1942). One could view the COVID-19 pandemic as external to one’s profession with limited influence on research dynamics other than possible modification of certain priorities based on population need. The underlying rationale for such neutrality is that a lack of compartmentalization may seemingly lead to issues of conflict of interest and bias, and ultimately a lack of impartiality or objectivity central to research integrity and responsible conduct of research training (Friedman 2002; Claxton 2007; Abraham 1995). It follows that the political and social dimensions of a scientist’s individual life should be and are often disconnected from scientific inquiry.

More broadly, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, and science and technology research studies have demonstrated how science and scientists are not completely objective but rather, science has been influenced by certain values embedded in its structure, practice and institutions (Harding 1992; Kuhn 1962; Lacey 2005). An individual’s personal, social, and political reality will influence the critical lens through which they view scientific development. Moreover, the social and political climate will influence the types of knowledge that will be prioritized, developed, and valued (Elliott 2017). Although there is general acknowledgement that the social and political structures surrounding scientists influence how they do science, the COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the social, political and scientific environment that impacts both the professional and personal spheres of a researcher’s life. The public health requirements – quarantines, masking, and social distancing – has changed the way researchers work as well as how they live their personal lives. Scientists are not immune to the many personal hardships related to COVID-19 from economic instability, family tensions, sickness, and death.

This research explores perceptions of health science researchers regarding the impact of COVID-19 on their research practices, priorities, and team dynamics. We will also explore effect of external (social, political, personal) events in a scientist’s life on scientific practice. Research was conducted from September to December 2020 at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in Galveston. UTMB is a public state based academic health science center which has a broad representation of health science fields. This institution also includes the Galveston National Laboratory (GNL), a high containment research facility with the goal of developing diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines to combat infectious diseases (“UTMB Galveston National Lab” 2022). The GNL includes biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) and biosafety level 4 (BSL-4)) laboratories with the highest levels of biological safety to conduct research on diseases with pandemic potential. The institution has close collaborations with international, domestic, and institutional researchers who have the expert knowledge related to high containment research of infectious diseases pathogens, including coronaviruses. During the pandemic, UTMB has been involved in studies on various topics related to COVID-19 including basic understanding of symptomology, drug repurposing such as Remdesivir clinical trials, vaccine development and evaluation, and long-term effects of COVID-19.

Our interviews started during September 2020 and ended in December of 2020. This specific point in time is important as it marks a time of extraordinary change and panic on a world scale. By the end of September 2020 there had been more than 2 million cases of COVID-19 and over 37 thousand deaths globally (“WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard” 2022). Locally, there were a total of 19,368 COVID-19 confirmed cases by the end of 2020 and a total of 234 fatalities in Galveston County (Texas Department of State Health Services 2022). In the State of Texas, there were a total of 385,676 deaths involving COVID-19 which results in 8.79% of all deaths in Texas during 2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2022). The stay at home order in Galveston County started in March 24^th and ended April 3rd (State of Texas, County of Galveston 2022) which was a few months prior to our interviews. By the time we conducted interviews, the clinics were beyond capacity and the long-term effects of COVID-19 remained unclear.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed for expanded use authorization¹ of the first Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on December 11, 2020 (FDA 2021). Since researchers were up to date with the scientific advancement regarding vaccine development most knew that effective vaccination was likely. This research was conducted at a time where there were ongoing political controversies regarding public health measures such resisting any masking mandates (Gonzalez et al. 2021) and opposition to vaccinations (Flaskerud 2021).

2. Methods

2.1. Questionnaire Development

The questionnaire drew upon knowledge from authors in the fields of research ethics and research integrity. Since it was developed at the beginning of the pandemic, it is based on the literature available at that time (before August 2020). The questionnaire comprises six sections: 1) demographic information, 2) COVID-19 impacts, 3) individual context and priorities, 4) research ethics on human subjects, 5) research integrity, and 6) support, collaboration and professional relationships (semi-structured questionnaire is available in supplementary material). The semi-structured format provided a general outline of inquiry that could be adapted to participants’ particular practices based on the type of research they conduct.²

2.2. Sample and Data Collection

Data was collected via semi-directed interviews with 31 participants. We used purposive sampling to identify potential participants. Sample size was determined based on 1) saturation of responses within each field (bench sciences, clinical research, public health and interdisciplinary or translational science) and 2) representation of a diversity of characteristics (e.g. field, gender, race). We wished to include people who were conducting research on COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 topics. To identify potential participants, we contacted Research Services Office at UTMB who provided us with a list of researchers and their recent publications and grants. This allowed us to identify who had been working on what topic within different fields. Once we had obtained an exemption from the Institutional Review Board (IRB; # 20–0177), we sent recruitment emails monthly or bimonthly from mid-October to December inviting researchers within each field to participate in this study. Number of emails sent per month was variable based on the availability of interviewers and interviewees; a total of 224 emails were sent. Most researchers did not respond or refused to participate. We started recruiting equally within each field and then ended up targeting researchers that were underrepresented in our sample to ensure diversity of viewpoints and inclusion of researchers doing COVID-19 as well as non-COVID-19 work.

Having received the oral consent of participants, interviews were conducted via virtual platform (e.g. Zoom) or in person, consistent with social distancing requirements during the months of September through December 2020. All authors conducted interviews which lasted approximately 30 minutes to 50 minutes, depending on the extent of discussion with participants. All interviews were recorded, manually transcribed verbatim using REV.com, and anonymized. Transcripts were then validated by the interviewer.

2.3. Analysis

We used qualitative content analysis integrating both deductive and inductive coding (Schreier 2012). This approach allowed for the identification of thematic concept domains, as well as concepts (sub-codes) that provide additional information and characterization with which to better explore the topic (Bradley, Curry, and Devers 2007). This enabled us to specify common areas of inquiry such as “professional dynamics” and then investigate what was discussed by researchers. We also used directional views (positive, negative, neutral) to explore researchers general perceptions regarding the impacts of COVID-19 (Bradley, Curry, and Devers 2007).

Two different coders read through all the interviews and took notes independently using open coding. Although certain key themes were deductively included from the onset based on the questionnaire (e.g. impact, priorities), many were refined and developed further using inductive coding. We compared intercoder reliability of three interviews in Atlas.ti to assess the validity of the coding framework. We used Krippendorff’s c-α-binary to assess intercoder agreement for the deductive coding. The average score is 0.756 and scores per code ranging from 0.63–0.99 (see supplementary material). Coders then separated the remaining documents and coded independently. Disagreements and any uncertainties were discussed and managed by consensus during weekly meetings. When agreement was not possible, no code was applied.

3. Results

All 31 participant researchers interviewed self-identified their demographic information including age, gender, and race (see Table 1). There were more men than women. Race included White or Caucasian (n=21), Hispanic or LatinX (n=2), Native or Pacific Islander (n=2), or Black/African American (n=3). Participants worked in various fields including basic science, clinical research, public health/health professions, and translational medicine (see Table 2). We define translational/interdisciplinary medicine as research drawn from more than one field to produce readily applicable knowledge. Participants represent various types of research including human subject research and animal research. Others contribute by working on tissues, databases, and computer modeling. An overview and definition of themes is available in Table 3.

Table 1:

Demographics (n=31)

Sex
Male	20
Female	11
Race/Ethnicity
Asian	1
Black or African American	3
Hispanic or LatinX	2
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	2
White or Caucasian	21
Not disclosed	2
Age
30–40	8
41–50	5
51–60	4
>60	9
n/a	5

Table 2:

Types of Research

Field of Study
Basic Sciences	7
Clinical Research	5
Public Health and Health Professions	11
Interdisciplinary and/or Translational Medicine	8
Human Subject Research
No	11
Yes	20
BSL 3–4
No	27
Yes	4
Animal Research
No	21
Yes	10
Conducts research related to COVID-19
No	11
Yes	20

Table 3:

Definitions of Themes Used during Coding Process

Themes	Sub-Themes	Definition
Impact	Impact Positive	Modification identified by the researcher as a direct positive impact on research
	Impact negative	Impact/modification to research, or research environment specifically identified by researchers as negative
	Impact neutral	Impact/modification to research, or research environment that is neither positive nor negative.
Priorities	COVID-19 Research Priority	Modification identified by the researcher as a direct positive impact on research
	Non-COVID-19 secondary research activity	Research activities that have been modified because of COVID-19 (but remain non-COVID-19 research). This includes change in timeline, process, relationship with participants.
Professional Relationships	NA	Modifications in interpersonal and professional relationships. This may include relationships with staff, research participants, administrative staff, colleagues, etc.
Contextual Influences on Science	NA	Discussion about how external factors have impacted research. External factors may include sickness or death of friends or family, financial loss within household, change in childcare (such as children staying home), working remotely, stress due to self-isolation/quarantine/stay-home orders, or other similar circumstances.

3.1. Impact of COVID-19 on Research

We asked researchers to identify both the positive and negative impacts of COVID-19 on their research. Researchers were initially much more likely to identify negative impacts of the pandemic, but many also recognized modifications to research which they considered to be positive. Certain researchers’ immediate initial reaction was to dissociate the pandemic with anything perceived as beneficial or positive. As one researcher remarked, when asked if impacts were positive, negative or both:

Well, obviously negative, I don’t see anything positive about COVID. I didn’t really have any like specific career drawbacks or anything, but I have two-year-old daughter. And just to keep her safe, my family safe I have to stay away from other people and quarantine myself as much as possible.

(ID #11)

However, several researchers did acknowledge positive impacts such as the development and availability of research-related resources, expanded interdisciplinary and international collaborations, and increased productivity and innovation. Some suggested that COVID-19 constraints engendered alternative opportunities, such as the development of online research training products. While some researchers suggested that working at home saved time by eliminating or limiting the commute to work, others found it very challenging to change working environments.

Many mentioned a lack of social interaction with colleagues that impacted research collaborations both positively and negatively (further discussed in the collaboration section). Many researchers working with human subjects did need to suspend certain activities although most saw this as a temporary, reasonable, and necessary measure. However, as in the case of interview studies, researchers did have greater difficulty establishing rapport when they moving certain in-person activities to virtual communication in a digital workplace. Many experienced fear, anxiety, and stress which affected their capacity to do research. There was concern that restrictions on non-COVID-19 research activities decreased productivity in those projects. Some felt that the publication process for non-COVID-19 research appeared to slow down significantly, and that non-COVID-19 media coverage became non-existent.

Many researchers found some research modifications such as increased safety measures, changes in research priorities, and new public-private collaborations had neither positive nor negative impact. A minority of researchers stated that their professional life had not really been impacted or changed, or that their work was not really inconvenienced. Often, respondents assessed their own situation relative to that of other researchers. For example, those working on datasets consider themselves much less affected or exposed than those working in laboratory settings where there is closer physical proximity to colleagues.

3.2. Shifting Priorities during COVID-19

Of the 31 participants, 19 conducted research related to COVID-19. Some researchers mentioned that a rigid COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 dichotomy did not appropriately depict research at this time. As one researcher explained, although some do only COVID-19 research, many are doing both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 research while others are doing no COVID-19 related work at all. In other words, there are varying degrees of interest, capacity, and involvement in COVID-19 research during this national emergency. Notably, researchers in the GNL underscored their professional duty to take part in COVID-19 research since they work in one of the few BSL-4 laboratories in the world.

We have to because it’s a national crisis and the researchers here at the [institution], we realize that it’s our responsibility to address this as well as other institutions around the country. The National Lab, we consider ourselves as a national resource that everyone can use to combat these emerging infectious diseases. We feel like it’s our responsibility. So yes, it has impacted us in that sense. Everyone is making that a priority to deal with this just because it’s a national crisis at this time.

(ID #29)

As well, researchers outside the institution recognized the academic health science center’s strong infectious disease component and that it should take part in COVID-19 research. According to participants, resources and assets were centralized in support of COVID-19 research, including developing a COVID-19 biorepository, prioritizing BSL-3 and 4 space for COVID-19 research, increasing availability of animal models for replication, and additional pilot resources for novel research.

Some researchers were drawn to the fast-tracking of COVID-19 research regarding funding, IRB process, and publication. Although some point critically to greater funding as the “real” motivation for most researchers to shift priorities, others maintained that COVID-19 research will benefit the “greater good” and is therefore warranted.

I read about this, and I know that there’s some critique of like the coviditization of research, where everything is about coronavirus. But I think that’s probably not fair because probably a lot of people who are doing that, they’re not just doing it so they can get funding.

(ID #23)

While some researchers wondered if non-COVID-19 research might not be as appealing and fall by the wayside, others did not think that this would transpire because of reduced funding and importance over the long term. Many questioned the use, misuse, and politicization of COVID-19-related research, and notably, underscored the need for more timely decision-making to address underlying, systemic, and ongoing societal conditions that contribute to illness. COVID-19 research is novel, but researchers also mentioned that many types of public health research become redundant, repetitive, and less valuable if stakeholders do not act upon the scientific evidence.

I am concerned that it will be obvious what the impact of COVID is on vulnerable populations, yet we will continue to study it without funding the existing evidence-based solutions that we could implement now (…) Now, things like the long-term impact of COVID on health, that should be studied. But, when I’m talking about the social impacts that we already have been studying for decades, I do worry we get in this loop where we continue to study those things when we have solutions available. The problem is the solutions aren’t always politically attractive.

(ID #2)

Researchers conducting non-COVID-19 research had to pause or cancel most activities requiring subjects to be in proximity at the beginning of the pandemic. At the time of our interviews - from September 2020 to December 2020 - many respondents were preoccupied with how they would make up for lost time, especially those projects involving human subjects and animals. Even if the institution was not required to close for a long period of time, labs in other institutions did, and this impacted interactions and collaborations. As an example, researchers working with animals had to euthanize those kept at other institutions and restart experiments.

We lost thousands of dollars in money [because] of animals that have to be sacrificed because there were not enough people to take care of the animals. (…) And then they had to restart everything from scratch, but with a really limited number of animals just in case that happened again.

(ID #9)

Many suggested that although a research topic may not change, its context had shifted, the mechanics of doing research had to be adjusted to deal with various cross-impacts, be they administrative or educational.

3.3. Professional Relationships

Except for one researcher who worked remotely, most experienced significant impacts attributable to the pandemic. They highlighted that increased use of online communication like Zoom, Skype, and Microsoft Teams allowed research to continue. However, researchers noted that lack of proximity reduced the quality of exchanges and changed the human dynamic wherein colleagues enjoy and benefit from greater connectedness.

It’s not nearly as much fun because there’s some enjoyment about being in the same room and kind of kidding around, and joking around and this, that and the other. But I think we’re able to accomplish what we need to accomplish.

(ID #5)

The researcher (ID #5) quoted above did not perceive any significant impact on research results. But this was not the case for others who noted that they missed the casual conversation in the workplace deemed important to bonding and building communities within their research environment. These communities serve as forums for the ongoing sharing of ideas and problem solving. Researchers in translational medicine highlighted the challenges of working remotely with others to conduct interdisciplinary research.

I think that the interdisciplinary and translational component of it is pretty much gone right now. We don’t have that interaction where you go and you physically meet with someone to be like, “Let’s talk about this. And then you get on different tangents and this, that, and the other.” It’s much more challenging in that sense.

(ID #26)

Other researchers noted an increase in interpersonal issues during the pandemic. Some mentioned that federal politics could trigger discord among team members and a few researchers found communication to be generally more difficult since people were stressed. One researcher stated that “lasting damage” has resulted from complex interprofessional conflicts:

It had tremendous influences on the interprofessional interactions we had in the lab. There was a lot of tension, a lot of stress. (…) For the first time in 10 years, I had conflicts in the lab that I never had before in my whole career. (…) This sounds negative, but I think it had an influence on productivity because you spend so much time thinking about other things. I think the biggest impact was on just the relationships, the interpersonal relationships. We all need to trust each other because we work in a shared space. It’s high-risk work and these interprofessional relationships are really important.

(ID #6)

In this last quote, the notion of “high-risk” refers to the nature of work in BSL-4 containment units involving high-consequence pathogens for which neither infection prophylaxes nor treatment exist. Conversely, many experienced the BSL 3–4 units as a positive workplace – they suggested that values of trust and community in the high containment units were essential during the pandemic and that there was a shared and implicit understanding that team members really need to help each other to keep things running smoothly and safely. Whether trust fully prevailed or not, most researchers, especially those in high-containment units, acknowledged it as an important value in the scientific process.

Researchers mentioned that their own research team provides mutual support during the pandemic. Some felt more engaged and inspired by the increase in novel collaborations. Researchers also pointed to the creation of meaningful international collaborations that have made available new and innovative resources for COVID-19 research:

And one of the things that we’ve done is we have a reference collection here for exotic viruses. We’ve been systematically collecting COVID isolates. We got the first isolate from US patients and grew that up. And we’ve shared that with a couple of 100 different labs around the world. We’ve also made other reagents for the research community and shared those as well.

(ID #15)

Many echoed this sense of greater openness and generosity. However, a few researchers noted that the sharing of resources and knowledge was not implemented cohesively at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, and this proved overwhelming. Certain researchers felt that resources and knowledge were shared only within or between certain more prominent or elite groups. Given the accelerated pace of COVID-19 work, clinicians often felt that they were required to do research without the necessary time allocated to do so; one physician-researcher considered research to be “pure sweat equity” (ID #25).

More broadly, participants noticed that COVID-19 amplified inequities between researchers. For example, one researcher mentioned that one of their students with an autoimmune condition could not come to the lab. Many researchers mentioned that trainees and new faculty are hard pressed to get adequate support and mentorship. Another researcher mentioned that collaborators from Low to Middle Income Countries (LMIC) could rarely participate in online discussions due to bandwidth issues. A few mentioned that the transition to online models of research was challenging, especially for those who may not be technologically inclined. Many researchers described how post-doctoral fellows and graduate students will experience a significant career disadvantage; notably, networking opportunities afforded by in-person, professional conferences and central to career advancement were no longer readily available.

Researchers in leadership positions (Chair, department head) had trouble implementing decisions for their faculty especially related to personal protective equipment (PPE) and risk reduction guidelines. One researcher/leader mentioned that even if they were making evidence-based decisions, faculty were often hesitant to follow guidance. Certain leaders believed that their decisions would be rejected by faculty and staff. Conversely, other leaders maintained that most researchers at the institution were very thankful and accepting of safety-related policies and procedures.

3.4. Contextual Influences on Science

During the pandemic, researchers, their families, friends, and communities had to deal with difficult societal circumstances – and they still do. Exceptionally, a minority of researchers did not believe that, or were unsure if, external pressures were impacting their research. When asked about the impacts of personal, family, and societal challenges, many respondents identified ways that external pressures affected work. Many expressed concerns about their own mental health. Some respondents identified dealing with sadness, isolation, anxiety, loneliness, distress, stress, societal PTSD, and/or depression. A few mentioned that working at home allowed them to focus without workplace distractions. Conversely, others admitted to being less motivated and having limited ability to concentrate.

Cognition is, you can’t force your brain to function maximally all the time, and particularly under stressful conditions, worried about your parents, your grandparents, your kids. Having to sustain isolation, all of this, it raises that, I’m sure you are familiar with the inverted-U of stress. So there’s a peak level of performance that is different for everyone. And we always need some level of stress defined generally. But if you go too far over that, performance starts going to hell in a handbasket. So, I think a lot of us are on that bad side of that equation, and it’s not that people don’t want to perform, it’s just hard right now.

(ID #18)

Many suggested that they suffered from accumulated fatigue - the result of an inability to emotionally rest and recover. This exacerbated irritability, impatience, and adversely impacted collegiality, as well as creativity and productivity.

I told them, ‘You guys should really take off a week. I don’t want to see you here at work. Go home and do something.’ They did. They took off. (…) I assumed that I had done something good by giving them a week off. One of my staff members actually had more tension at home and didn’t feel like it was relaxing for her. It was actually more stressful, but I didn’t know that.

(ID #6)

This inability to rest/relax and recover was increased by the delicate balancing of tasks of childcare with work from home. Indeed, many researchers did discuss the practical challenges in ensuring childcare; however, many also expressed great contentment in being close to family during this difficult time. One researcher believed that gender played a significant role in one’s ability to multitask in the home environment. However, the large majority of researchers did not consider gender as a factor in their responses but rather focused more on childrearing responsibilities.

A few researchers shared how their own family or friends got sick or died from COVID-19. This experience leads to a renewed motivation and determination to develop research regarding COVID-19. Conversely, other researchers found that family and friends contributed dispiriting political and social discord that only added stress. Indeed, certain researchers stopped listening to news outlets during the pandemic to reduce stress. Although many researchers tried to compartmentalize or separate work from other life experiences, many noted that this is not feasible in a pandemic crisis that is all pervasive. According to a few, scientific research is in fact fueled by panic.

We were just discussing do we need to change that classic model to respond to the crisis? I think normally sober, thoughtful people risk being remarkably cavalier using the crisis as an excuse. That under other circumstances they would have been aghast at looking at somebody else doing what they’re doing and justifying. You have somebody in a theater shouting fire, no one is turning around and looking for secondaries, is there a smoke? Is there heat? Is there any evidence of a fire? Everybody is immediately hitting the fire alarm, calling the fire department and everybody has got to get out of there right now versus someone saying, wait a second, we’ve got a crowded theater here, there will be a stampede if we panic. Unfortunately, we’re humans, so we’re starting to panic, so we need to get this research done, we need to publish, we need to get these results out and we end up with some point having to go back and say, ‘Boy, where did we go wrong?’

(ID #1)

The minority of individuals who did not feel that outside pressures impacted their work were often simply not personally affected by the pandemic. For example, they did not have young children at home or did not personally know anyone with COVID-19. They noted that they were able to compartmentalize work life from their personal life. Two researchers, self-identified as white and privileged, felt they did not bear the difficulties that the less fortunate or racialized minorities had experienced. They consciously chose to be more altruistic and help those who may not enjoy comparable privilege. One participant highlighted that their support staff were much more likely to be negatively affected by the pandemic which may influence the broader scientific workforce.

4. Discussion

Overall, researchers were mindful that a global pandemic is not the most effective environment to facilitate deliberative scientific decision-making. Extraordinary levels of pressure and stress negatively impact memory, executive function and ethical decision-making (Porcelli and Delgado 2017; Starcke et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2020). Participants faced different life circumstances which also impacted their scientific practices in heterogeneous ways. Ultimately, most did experience a change in their scientific practice and the type of research they could reasonably conduct during the pandemic.

Notably, the meaning that researchers assigned to certain changes before the pandemic were interpreted in a different manner during the pandemic. For example, prior to the pandemic, increased funding in one’s area of research would unequivocally be considered a good thing. Researchers who work in more fundable fields of health sciences will benefit from the reward system since funding provides more opportunities and capacity to conduct research, publish, and disseminate knowledge. However, some researchers perceived the increased and focused funding on COVID-19 projects as problematically opportunistic. Indeed, some respondent of our study perceived taking advantage of a public emergency merely for funding purposes as lacking professional integrity.

Researchers witnessed and experienced the dramatic shift in funding from valuable and important non-COVID-19 to urgent COVID-19 research and may have concluded that funding had become a zero-sum game where one’s loss is another’s gain. Recent survey research has indeed demonstrated that researchers are feeling a “crowding out” effect in which they have less confidence when applying for non-pandemic related research (Walker et al. 2022); the survey data suggests that this effect seems to be more pronounced in the case of early career researchers. This supports the idea that an individual’s personal, social, and political reality does impact their scientific practice.

Increased focus and prioritization on COVID-19 research, i.e. “covidization”, leads to a considerable increase in citations which may boost the profile and career success of certain researchers; creating a scientific elite (Ioannidis et al. 2022). However, “covidization” itself pose a risk should the heightened sense of emergency peak and the research-worthiness and funding dissipate as was the case for Ebola research which was deemed to be less critical even as cases increased in the DR Congo (Pai 2020). Many of our respondents highlighted the case of Ebola but also hoped that greater future funding would be allocated towards pandemic prevention more broadly.

The diversity of researchers’ experiences – e.g. some have lost family members and friends while others have made it through with little personal, direct impact – may be one reason why researchers often seemed curious to know what their colleagues (or other interview participants) would think about topics discussed in the interviews. For some researchers, this diversity of experiences created a sense of alienation or feelings of being misunderstood by colleagues. Researchers in the life sciences have dealt with the most significant impacts especially those working in wet labs (Korbel 2020). Research on women and racialized minorities has suffered disproportionately and this is especially evident for early career researchers (Woitowich et al. 2021). Researchers working on non-COVID-19 have received less resources than COVID-19 related research. Inequities may be problematic because they are contrary to values of justice and representation in science (Oh et al. 2015).

However, a case could be made that justice requires us to allocate a disproportionate number of resources to pandemic research because of increasing morbidity and mortality rates. Indeed, Pierson and Millum (2018) have highlighted how funding institutions have an obligation to maximize the social value of research. As such, the representation of researchers conducting the research may arguably seem like a secondary concern. However, any inequities of representation of researchers and research priorities should be corrected as soon as possible. If inequities become systemic and ongoing they become problematic because researchers who believe they are being treated unfairly are more likely to compromise the integrity of science (Martinson et al. 2006).

Although a person should not be disadvantaged for circumstances outside of their job function (family responsibilities, childcare responsibilities), the delimitations of such circumstances were often impossible to keep separate from work activities during the pandemic. Working remotely blurred the boundaries separating work from home life (Utoft 2020); this was clearly highlighted by many of our study respondents. Beyond the physical blurring of boundaries, respondents reported the blurring of emotional boundaries. The emotional burden of the pandemic seemed to be too overwhelming for many to simply compartmentalize or ignore during their scientific work hours. The ability to compartmentalize – however imperfect in pre-pandemic times – completely disappeared for many researchers. They felt distraught in some way and acknowledged that the pandemic has impacted, to some extent, their concentration, productivity, relationships, and the broader scientific ecosystem. Researchers seemed to wonder if the creative and exciting aspect of research is diminished by emotional distress, isolation, and lack of collaborative interconnected spaces in which researchers exchange ideas. They emphasized that although they could be productive and finish manuscripts that had been on their desks for some time, the ability to deliver truly innovative research seemed difficult to maintain in the long run.

Trust and relational issues in teams or laboratories were identified as problematic by some researchers during the pandemic with the ongoing concern about the inability of colleagues to understand each other’s respective contextual reality. This concern may be heightened by the very different circumstances which researchers experience at home also impact them at work in various ways. Although the pandemic is a collective event experienced that all researchers experienced, personal repercussions may differ profoundly and create feelings of isolation. This may be further exacerbated by the physical distancing and virtual communication in place to reduce contagion. The inability to relate to colleagues at a time when greater collegiality and support is critical, underscores the need for novel, more flexible and effective models of collaboration. Modified parameters would better accommodate the diversity of our personal and professional needs while also achieve institutional and scientific objectives. This is not to suggest the implementation of some process that would systemically breach individual privacy to understand diverse personal circumstances; rather the focus would be on exploring various modes of collaborative thinking and doing to benefit researchers and science.

It is notable that elements of relational ethics such as collegiality, trust, and team cohesion are much less prominent in the literature on research ethics and responsible conduct of research compared to other values, such as rigor or accuracy. Often a “good scientist” is deemed as a responsible individual in terms of how they relate to science and the construct of science is said to be “meritocratic” by highlighting metrics such as citations and impact factors. However, many scholars have demonstrated that these are shortsighted and biased as they do not look to expand scientific impact beyond citations to also fully value community outreach, educational development, science communication and even collaboration (Davies et al. 2021). This is problematic in that most science is conducted in a collaborative team-based environment (Wuchty, Jones, and Uzzi 2007) which relies on relational and communal bonds and responsibilities.

According to our study, researchers who reported being most resilient during the pandemic seemed to be those with a support network inside the scientific system. These researchers relied on their colleagues not only for help with research but also for acceptance, guidance and understanding on other matters. Reaching out to colleagues may have strengthened relationships and helped to create a more empathetic and responsive workspace. The positivistic stereotype of the “objective” scholar who works alone to come up with novel ideas is certainly outdated. One team discussed the need to “check in” or simply take the time to talk about their personal challenges before tackling any scientific ideas. Qualitative inquiries on leadership in science have demonstrated how relationship-building which includes respect, gratitude and adequate conflict resolution are a prerequisite of sorts to more effective scientific innovation (A. Antes 2018; A. L. Antes, Kuykendall, and DuBois 2019; A. L. Antes, Mart, and DuBois 2016).

During this pandemic, there has been growing interest in, and advocacy for, greater solidarity, relational autonomy and reciprocity in clinical care and public health practice (Jeffrey 2020). While relational dynamics are gaining prominence in research ethics respecting community involvement and citizen based science (Zyl and Sabiescu 2020), the ethics and values of team dynamics in science are not as readily discussed. In the literature on team science there is discussion of credit, co-authorship, attenuation of mentor-mentee relationship, cross- border collaboration and the universality of norms (Petersen, Pavlidis, and Semendeferi 2014). There may well be the need to develop research practices to better operationalize values of empathy, flexibility, interdependence, and collective risk management.

5. Limitations

This study was conducted at one site – at an institution [name anonymized for peer-review] - much like a case study. There are only four BSL 4 laboratories in the US which makes this institution unique and also central to pandemic response. Although there is significant diversity within this institution, the qualitative study results cannot be generalized and attributed to other institutions. Data collection was conducted limited snapshot in time, between September and December of 2020. The views of researchers may well have evolved since then, given the development and distribution of the vaccine in January 2021. Lastly, the intercoder analysis of the codes related to “priorities” (COVID-19 research priority and non-COVID-19 secondary research activity) did yield lower than average scores (see supplementary analysis). Differences between coders were linked to the unit of analysis or the unitization problem which is typical in semi-structured interviews where it is difficult to identify how many sentences truly reflect the appropriate meaning (Campbell et al. 2013).

6. Conclusion and recommendations

The scope and complexity COVID-19, a highly contagious virus capable of attacking multiple systems, has challenged not only virologists but experts in numerous medical fields. Researchers from diverse disciplines and countries continue to respond to the pandemic. In this study, we interviewed 31 health science researchers, with different personal and professional experiences. Most did conduct some COVID-19 research which they felt was socially needed, of scientific interest and/or provided opportunity for increased funding and publication. Three main general recommendations can be discussed further based on this study.

1. Increased discussions about the future of COVID-19 research and identification of underfunded areas which have contributed to a scarcity of non-COVID-19 research. Discussions about pandemic preparedness have been considered by many in bioethics and public health and are obviously not new. However, the scarcity of research in other important non-COVID-19 areas and its impacts have also been noted as worthy of more attention by researchers in our study.

2. Consider long term inequities especially for minority population researchers who have suffered - and perhaps continue to suffer - substantial burdens during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many institutions have made some accommodations for inequities created during COVID-19, researchers certainly feel that more can be done to remedy inequities.

3. Create fora that build relational team dynamics to foster innovation. Our study, like many others, demonstrates that even though some individuals stay productive during the pandemic, innovation decreases for those among many scholars who rely on collaborative teams to conduct research. Alternative modes of collective innovation are needed now and over the longer term since the COVID-19 pandemic will likely be with us for some time and other pandemics may well emerge at some point.

Data availability:

The data for this research is qualitative and identifiable in nature and therefore cannot be shared.