Readings & Audiovisual

This report is the third instalment of the ‘Social Science in Epidemics’ series, commissioned by the USAID Office of U.S. Foreign Direct Assistance (OFDA). In this series, past outbreaks are reviewed in order to identify social science ‘entry points’ for emergency interventions and preparedness activities. The aim is to determine tangible ways to address the social, political and economic dynamics of epidemics and to ensure that interventions build on the social and cultural resources of the communities they aim to support. This report explores lessons about the social dimensions of past and recent influenza epidemics and the emergence of SARS-CoV.

This study investigated the cognitive-affective-behavioral sequence of public activism by examining the role of citizens’ perception of government dialogic communication during a national pandemic crisis. Through a case study of the 2015 Middle-East respiratory syndrome (MERS) outbreak in South Korea, the results of a survey of 400 South Korean citizens showed that distrust in government and a high level of situational uncertainty were significantly mitigated by citizens’ perceptions of government efforts for dialogic communication during the crisis. Conversely, when the perception of dialogic government communication was low, high distrust in government increased cynicism, anger, and anxiety among citizens; high situational uncertainty led to higher levels of anger and anxiety, but not cynicism. Consequently, the findings showed that anger, anxiety, and cynicism significantly motivated citizens’ intentions to take actions against the government. Direct and positive effects of anger, anxiety, and cynicism on activism participation were not found and were mediated by the citizens’ activism intentions.

This article investigates camel raising as a possible cause of transmission of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) on the Arabian Peninsula. Drawing on collective research among camel workers in Qatar, it shows the difficulties of asking questions about camel raising in the context of a potential zoonosis, given the secretive nature of herding practices and the values attached to camels in Arab societies. It suggests that the concentration of camels in farms and central markets after the ban of camel grazing as well as the revival of the tradition of drinking camel milk have increased the risks of the transmission of MERS-CoV from camels to humans. The recent valorisation of camels, in the context of the transformation of Qatar from a pastoral economy to a global trade centre, may appear to be an obstacle in the surveillance of MERS-CoV, since camel owners are prone to denying that their animals are infected, but it can be converted into an asset if public health becomes a key element of national pride alongside camel raising.

The purpose of this article is to provide an understanding of how different countries formulate and regulate antibiotic use in animals raised for human consumption. A comparative case study was undertaken, analysing historical documents from the 1950s to the 1990s from the UK, the first country to produce a scientific report on the public health risks of agricultural antibiotic use; and Sweden, the first country to produce legislation on the growth promotor use of antibiotics in food animals. Sheila Jasanoff's concepts of ‘co‐production’ and ‘political cultures’ have been used to explore how both countries used different styles of scientific reasoning and justification of the risks of agricultural antibiotic use. It will be argued that national dynamics between policy, science and public knowledges co‐produced different risk classifications and patterns of agricultural antibiotic use between both countries. UK's political culture used ‘expert committees’ to remove the issue from public debate and to inform agricultural antibiotic policies. In contrast, the Swedish ‘consensus‐oriented’ political culture made concerns related to agricultural antibiotic use into a cooperative debate that included multiple discourses. Understanding how national policies, science and public knowledges interact with the risks related to agricultural antibiotic use can provide valuable insights in understanding and addressing countries agricultural use of antibiotics.

Durant l’épidémie d’Ebola de 2014-2016, les anthropologues se sont engagés dans la riposte de trois manières : en tant qu’experts d’Ebola, médiateurs culturels entre populations et soignants, et chercheurs. L’article propose une esquisse de bilan de leurs approches et contributions, et discute les enjeux de cet engagement sur la base d’une revue de la littérature, d’études de cas et de débats lors de colloques. Les résultats de recherches en anthropologie présentés dans l’article concernent quatre thèmes : les contextes épidémiologiques de la transmission ; l’interprétation culturelle de la maladie et les réponses sociales ; la construction sociale de l’expérience des acteurs ; l’analyse critique des interventions de santé publique. Outre des contributions éclairantes en particulier sur les contextes sociopolitiques et leurs interfaces avec les mesures de santé publique globales, les anthropologues ont expérimenté des formes de communication de leurs résultats accessibles pour les acteurs de santé publique. Cependant, ces formes d’engagement hétérogènes soulèvent quelques questions, notamment lorsqu’elles reflètent des interprétations de l’anthropologie par ceux qui la sollicitent ou qui s’en revendiquent lui déniant toute portée critique ou réflexive, ou lorsqu’elles la confondent avec une intervention sociale. Néanmoins, les acquis de la recherche anthropologique sont importants, et pourraient l’être davantage si les réseaux transnationaux mis en place par les chercheurs pour analyser les dimensions sociopolitiques, économiques et bio-culturelles des épidémies émergentes pouvaient être pérennisés pour « préparer » la riposte à de futures crises sanitaires. [Afrique de l’Ouest; Ebola; Anthropologie; Épidémie; Sciences sociales]

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) is a severe viral respiratory illness that is caused by a new strain from the beta group of coronavirus (CoV). At both the global and national level (Saudi Arabia), men are at a greater risk of contracting the virus (68%) in comparison to women. This disparity presents an interesting question: What accounts for these observed sex differences in MERS infection rates? Using an analytic lens that considers the unique dynamics of socially constructed and specific gender roles, this review challenges the common assumption that biological differences in vulnerability (genetic disposition) are the primary drivers for the disparate male infection rates. Specifically, the author uses a gender-based analysis (GBA) to explore gender-based risk factors within Saudi Arabia that may contribute to this disparity. The findings of this review suggest that particular gendered risk factors including religious (Hajj) and cultural practices (shisha smoking), and social roles pertaining to livestock management (dromedary camels) may create different exposures to MERS-CoV. Ultimately, this research illustrates a significant gap in the current knowledge and understanding of how gender dynamics affect infectious diseases, especially concerning the issue of containment of and protection from MERS. [MERS, MERS-CoV, Middle-East Respiratory Syndrome, Gender-based Analysis]

In attempting to provide protection to individuals and communities, childhood immunization has benefits that far outweigh disease risks. However, some parents decide not to immunize their children with some or all vaccines for reasons including lack of trust in governments, health professionals, and vaccine manufacturers. This article employs a theoretical analysis of trust and distrust to explore how twenty-seven parents with a history of vaccine rejection in two Australian cities view the expert systems central to vaccination policy and practice. Our data show how perceptions of the profit motive generate distrust in the expert systems pertaining to vaccination. Our participants perceived that pharmaceutical companies had a pernicious influence over the systems driving vaccination: research, health professionals, and government. Accordingly, they saw vaccine recommendations in conflict with the interests of their child and “the system” underscored by malign intent, even if individual representatives of this system were not equally tainted. This perspective was common to parents who declined all vaccines and those who accepted some. We regard the differences between these parents—and indeed the differences between vaccine decliners and those whose Western medical epistemology informs reflexive trust—as arising from the internalization of countering views, which facilitates nuance.