Announcing a New Journal: Philosophy of Medicine

We are thrilled to announce the launch of a new academic journal, Philosophy of Medicine. The journal’s website is live for submissions at

Philosophy of Medicine is an open-access journal that publishes exceptional original philosophical research and perspectives on all aspects of medicine, including medical research and practices. Through its public-facing section The Examination Room, it also publishes content for the wider public, including health professionals and health scientists.

The mission of Philosophy of Medicine is to serve as the flagship journal for the field by advancing research in philosophy of medicine, by engaging widely with medicine, health sciences and the public, and by providing open-access content for all.

The journal is led by Alex Broadbent as inaugural Editor-in-Chief and Jonathan Fuller as Deputy Editor in Chief (see the full editorial team here: It is published by the University of Pittsburgh Library System through Open Journal Systems (OJS) with generous financial support from the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh and the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Johannesburg.

Queries about the journal can be sent to

The editors of Philosophy of Medicine look forward to stewarding the journal through this exciting new phase in the development of our field.


Alex Broadbent and Jonathan Fuller

Co-Founding Editors

Philosophy of Medicine

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

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

‘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.

Relative Activity in philosepi

Having neglected this blog for several months I find myself suddenly swamped with things to write about. My book has been translated into Korean by Hyundeuk Cheon, Hwang Seung-sik, and Mr Jeon, and judging by their insightful comments and questions they have done a superb and careful job. Next week there is a workshop on Prediction in Epidemiology and Healthcare at KCL, organised by Jonathan Fuller and Luis Jose Flores, which promises to be exciting. Coming up in August is the World Congress of Epidemiology, where I’m giving two talks, hopefully different ones – one on stability for a session on translation and public engagement, and one on the definition of measures of causal strength as part of a session for the next Dictionary of Epidemiology. And I’m working on a paper on risk relativism which has been accepted by Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health subject to revisions in response to the extremely interesting comments of 5 reviewers – I think this is possibly the most rigorous and most useful review process I have encountered. Thus this is a promissory note, by which I hope to commit my conscience to writing here about risk relativism, stability and measures of causal strength in the coming weeks.