I just put the finishing touches on my article for Language and Politics, an academic journal which is publishing a special issue on avian flu. This afternoon, I sent it off to the editor, two days ahead of schedule. So, in other words, I’m feeling pretty good and largely carefree right now.
The article is entitled, “The Politics of Bird Flu: The Battle over Viral Samples and China’s Entry into Global Public Health”. The basic premise is that viral samples are not just about biology, but about politicking. Access to viral samples has been a big deal over the past few years, with both Indonesia and China withholding theirs from the largely ‘Western’ epidemiological community. However, the WHO recently issued a report requesting that all nations who request samples from donor nations give those donor countries full access to the benefits (i.e. vaccines, drugs, etc.). Also, any work already done by the donor country’s scientists must be credited. My article discusses this from the vantage point of the overlap of public health and politics. I suggest that there is a new kind of diplomat on the scene – a health diplomat. I’m not the first to suggest this – in fact, I went to an entire meeting concerning the possible future training in ‘health diplomacy’ – but the article is still saying something fairly fresh and interesting.
Not that I’m biased. I’ll keep you posted on where you can find the special issue and when it is available.
The Politics of Public Health
13 07 2007A few days ago, the former Surgeon General, Dr. Richard Carmona, addressed a House committee – just days before the confirmation hearings of his successor. Basically, he accused the Bush administration of trying to suppress important health information that contradicted the administrations’ policies or beliefs. This is, perhaps, not so surprising. I suppose what is so surprising is that it is being openly talked about, debated, and discussed.
Science, as a rule, is seen to be somehow above and outside of the remainder of our culture. What goes on in the lab is supposed to be, for lack of a better way to describe it, sterile. We want our scientific facts to be facts. Cold, hard, and as clean as possible. What Carmona’s testimony implies is that we don’t always get what we want.
What people in science studies have been showing for years is that we have probably never received untainted facts in our entire scientific existence. It’s impossible largely because scientists, as far as I can tell, are human beings. And human beings are, as far as I can tell, human. They have wants and desires and political and religious beliefs (studies have shown that outstanding achievement in physics doesn’t necessarily belie an inherent atheism). That being a ‘fact’, I think we should take it for granted that what scientists study, what they look for, and ultimately, what they find is either stressed or downplayed or labeled ‘for further study’ due to some combination of the above human desires and beliefs.
What we want, in a perfect world, is a direct flow of information from scientists (who would ideally get money from trees to do whatever they saw fit with it) to the public health officials (who would ideally set policy based on unbiased scientific findings). We want doctors to tell us about STDs, not politicians. Though, clearly, politicians might have more practical knowledge about STDs than we would otherwise care to admit.
Admittedly, the idea of politics setting the health agenda is scary. However, I think that this is, was, and probably will be, the way things actually work. After all, the government and/or private industry fund research, and they generally fund projects that they like, for whatever reason they deem appropriate (profit-making potential, accordance with religious beliefs, etc.). This is how research gets done and how science progresses.
The good news is: the people who pay for and discover ‘facts’ usually don’t have much end-user control over them. Just look at nuclear technology, for one potent example (though this is an example of the nastier side of the point I’m making), or program codes. Technology and research are incredibly well-traveled. What one country bans or limits (stem cell research and DVD hacking in the US), another embraces (cutting-edge stem cell research and $1 DVDs in China).
In other words, science is political. Of course it is. Not as overtly or as much as WTO trade agreements, but in a similar vein. It is called the WHO, after all. Notice the acronym resemblance? Coincidence? (I’m a budding power conspiracy theorist, in case you couldn’t tell.)
The article I’m currently researching/writing makes just my point with bird flu. It’s ironic, really, that this story came out just as I was writing my intro. I changed it, to include the debate. I think that bird flu is a significant case in point – where politics and public health rub shoulders. In the end, the public health officials of the future won’t look, sound or act much different from their cohorts in the state departments or embassies. And, to be clear, their jobs will be just as important as a general’s or an ambassador’s. Certainly in the case of bird flu or XDR-TB, lives will be at stake.
Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: bird flu, commentary, disease, politics
Categories : avain influenza, bird flu, politics, public health