Public health has long grappled with moral and epistemic disagreement-conflicts over values and facts that shape decisions about how best to protect population health. While these forms of disagreement are not new, recent years have seen a shift toward a more entangled and intractable form, which we term "wicked" disagreement. This wicked disagreement, adapted from the concept of wicked problem, sees political identity as shaping both factual beliefs and moral commitments, rendering traditional tools of public health persuasion-such as appeals to evidence or shared values-ineffective. Wicked disagreement is not defined by what is disputed but by the polarized context in which facts, values, and identity are deeply fused. In this essay, we argue that public health must develop new strategies for navigating this terrain, including sustained engagement with a wide range of communities, transparent communication about uncertainty, and a willingness to revise guidance publicly. Navigating wicked disagreement is not about achieving consensus. It is about finding trustworthy ways to protect life and advance health in a fractured public sphere. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print February 5, 2026:e1-e9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308350).
Karim et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: