Securitising infectious disease outbreaks: The WHO and the visualisation of molecular life (original) (raw)
Related papers
A science that knows no country: Pandemic preparedness, global risk, sovereign science
Big Data & Society, 2017
This paper examines political norms and relationships associated with governance of pandemic risk. Through a pair of linked controversies over scientific access to H5N1 flu virus and genomic data, it examining the duties, obligations, and allocations of authority articulated around the imperative for globally free-flowing information and around the corollary imperative for a science that is set free to produce such information. It argues that scientific regimes are laying claim to a kind of sovereignty, particularly in moments where scientific experts call into question the legitimacy of claims grounded in national sovereignty, by positioning the norms of scientific practice, including a commitment to unfettered access to scientific information and to the authority of science to declare what needs to be known, as essential to global governance. Scientific authority occupies a constitutional position insofar as it figures centrally in the repertoire of imaginaries that shape how a global community is imagined: what binds that community together and what shared political commitments, norms, and subjection to delegated authority are seen as necessary for it to be rightly governed.
Biocommunicability and the Biopolitics of Pandemic Threats
Medical Anthropology, 2009
In this article we assess accounts of the H1N1 virus or ''swine flu'' to draw attention to the ways in which discourse about biosecurity and global health citizenship during times of pandemic alarms supports calls for the creation of global surveillance systems and naturalizes forms of governance. We propose a medical anthropology of epidemics to complement an engaged anthropology aimed at better and more critical forms of epidemic surveillance. A medical anthropology of epidemics provides insights into factors and actors that shape the ongoing production of knowledge about epidemics, how dominant and competing accounts circulate and interact, how different
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2020
Two theories on the origins of COVID-19 have been widely circulating in China and the West respectively, one blaming the United States and the other a highest-level biocontainment laboratory in Wuhan, the initial epicentre of the pandemic. Both theories make claims of biological warfare attempts. According to the available scientific evidence, these claims are groundless. However, like the episodes of biological warfare during the mid-twentieth century, the spread of these present-day conspiracy theories reflects a series of longstanding and damaging trends in the international scene which include deep mistrust, animosities, the power of ideologies such as nationalism, and the sacrifice of truth in propaganda campaigns. Also, the threats associated with biological warfare, bioterrorism, and the accidental leakage of deadly viruses from labs are real and growing. Thus, developing a better global governance of biosafety and biosecurity than exists at present is an urgent imperative for the international community in the broader context of a looming Cold War II. For such a governance, an ethical framework is proposed based upon the triple ethical values of transparency, trust, and the common good of humanity.
Bioinformational diplomacy: Global health emergencies, data sharing and sequential life
European Journal of International Relations, 2021
Global health emergencies – like COVID-19 – pose major and recurring threats in the 21st century. Now societies can be better protected against such harrowing outbreaks by analysing the detailed genetic sequence data of new pathogens. Why, then, is this valuable epistemic resource frequently withheld by stakeholders – hamstringing the international response and potentially putting lives at risk? This article initiates the social scientific study of bioinformational diplomacy, that is, the emerging field of tensions, sensitivities, practices and enabling instruments surrounding the timely international exchange of bioinformation about global health emergencies. The article genealogically locates this nascent field at the intersection of molecularised life, informationalised biology and securitised health. It investigates the deeper political, economic and scientific problematisations that are engendering this burgeoning field. It finally analyses the emergent international instruments developed by governments, scientists and industry to facilitate more rapid global sharing of bioinformation through novel practices of data passporting. Overall, the in-depth study of bioinformational diplomacy reveals just how deeply, and even constitutively, international relations are entangled with the life sciences – by carefully tracing how laboratory practices of sequencing life at molecular scale also end up recontouring the play of sovereignty, power and security in international relations.
Ferreting things out: Biosecurity, pandemic flu and the transformation of experimental systems
BioSocieties, 2015
At the end of 2011, microbiologists created a scientific and media frenzy by genetically engineering mutant avian flu viruses that transmitted through the air between ferrets, the animal most widely used to model human flu. Though the studies offered new evidence of avian flu's pandemic potential, they were nevertheless restricted from publication because of concerns about their possible threat to human health and security. In this article, I examine the mutant flu controversy to show how nascent biosecurity regulations engender transformations in experimental systems; namely, in the use and interpretation of experimental organisms, and in the establishment of a culture of security among a globalizing community of scientists. Drawing on analyses of academic publications, interviews with microbiologists and biosecurity regulators, and ethnographic observations at a biosecure laboratory, I show how these experimental transformations are structured by the local demands of scientific production as well as by broader concerns about biosecurity made visible in formal and informal regulations on scientific conduct. I further argue that while the controversy signals unprecedented controls over publication in the biological sciences, such controls build upon and extend ongoing shifts in scientific thought and practice in the wake of pandemic threats.
Policy and Science for Global Health Security: Shaping the Course of International Health
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
The global burden of infectious diseases and the increased attention to natural, accidental, and deliberate biological threats has resulted in significant investment in infectious disease research. Translating the results of these studies to inform prevention, detection, and response efforts often can be challenging, especially if prior relationships and communications have not been established with decision-makers. Whatever scientific information is shared with decision-makers before, during, and after public health emergencies is highly dependent on the individuals or organizations who are communicating with policy-makers. This article briefly describes the landscape of stakeholders involved in information-sharing before and during emergencies. We identify critical gaps in translation of scientific expertise and results, and biosafety and biosecurity measures to public health policy and practice with a focus on One Health and zoonotic diseases. Finally, we conclude by exploring wa...
Indiana Health Law Review, 2018
Much has already been written on this most recent EVD outbreak—evaluating and dissecting the contributions and failings of the various role-players involved, and considering what can be done differently in future. This article will contribute to this important and ongoing debate and will specifically focus on the international, operational, and national legal frameworks in terms of which large-scale health crises like that of Ebola play out. It will be argued that the very culture and architecture of this transnational legal and operational framework for public health emergencies is isolated from the national realities in which it operates and merely offers a hierarchical authority of what legally ought to be done, with little regard to what is actually necessary and possible on the ground. In considering the most recent Ebola outbreak, and juxtaposing it with the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (“SARS”) outbreak of 2003, it will be shown that a more nuanced transnational legal understanding of public health emergencies is indeed needed—a holistic approach that goes beyond biomedical/scientific and legalistic confines in dealing with disease outbreak and control. It is again important to emphasise here, for the sake of clarity, that this article is exclusively focused on the transnational legal and operational framework in which public health emergencies play out. International humanitarian responses, general public health considerations, as well as other national systemic considerations—like those relating to health systems—although important, will not be considered here. A brief interlude on the methodology of this article also deserves a place here. As already indicated above, much literature exists on the Ebola outbreak, and with the attention now shifting to the Zika virus, it is important to further distinguish the contribution of this article. This article utilises a primarily transdisciplinary lens in narrating the rise and fall of two notable epidemics of the modern world. A variety of sources, from different disciplines and bases, are used in presenting an easily accessible text that recounts key themes of both epidemics—highlighting similarities and differences, and raising important questions for the future. As with most narrative research methodologies, reliance is also placed on newspaper articles in constructing an account of how the two epidemics played out, each in its own particular time and space. The disease narrative ultimately presented in this article, therefore simultaneously serve as a chronicle of the two epidemics, while also reflecting why a more nuanced transnational legal understanding of public health emergencies is indeed needed. To facilitate this discussion and analysis, the content of this article is divided into four parts. First, in Part II, the lifecycle of two epidemics will be considered, Ebola, and the 2003 SARS outbreak. Considering these two outbreaks and the international legal responses thereto provides a valuable lens through which the multiple layers of disease outbreaks and control from the past to the present can be observed. In Part III, this paper provides an overview of the international legal and operational framework for public health emergencies, confined to references and examples from the two outbreaks selected for and discussed in Part II. Part IV considers the national legal responses of those countries most affected by the recent Ebola outbreak and the 2003 SARS outbreak. Part V discusses the question of whether to quarantine or not. Part VI discusses lessons to be learned, and why knowledge production beyond disciplinary confines is necessary. And finally, Part VII of this article concludes with a critical analysis of two observed failings of the current international legal and operational framework for public health emergencies. In considering the shortcomings of the current framework it will be argued that a more holistic approach to disease control is required that looks beyond disciplinary confines.
Prevent, Detect, Respond: An Ethnography of Global Health Security
PhD Dissertation, 2018
Beginning in the early 1990s, a new manner of articulating the threat posed by epidemics of infectious diseases took shape. ‘Global health security’ (GHS) emerged as a novel epistemic space as a response to the perceived threats posed by circulations and appearances of ‘global’ diseases. Marked throughout the 2000s by major events both political and pathogenic, GHS has undergone profound changes; from primarily a policy-legal framework to a forum for reconfiguring global health 'action'. This research examines how the problems that emerged in the 1990s are changing since the 2014 West African Ebola crisis and the announcement of new global health security projects and initiatives. How might these transformations constitute a new manner of thinking about, and acting on, epidemics as a ‘global’ problem? Contrasting genealogical-archival research with a series of field-based episodes, this dissertation explores how public health experts and technicians worked to define new problems and design the interventions aimed at addressing them. It juxtaposes a historical account of the emergence and transformation of GHS across the 2000s and 2010s against field-based ethnography of GHS during 2016 and 2017. Based on over a year working with a global health non-profit, the text’s episodes attend to day-to-day work that translated diffuse concepts of ‘threat' and ‘risk' into discrete technical practices and projects to mitigate and minimize those threats. Working with experts through the early stages of project development, attention is paid to the relational processes that went into making global health security a workable concept. Together, the episodes illustrate the routines and technical artistry that made GHS into a space not only to reimagine a ‘safer’ or ‘healthier’ world, but to build the means to realize it. The text also examines how communities of experts reworked their projects and programs during great destabilizations and disruptions, including both the 2016 US Presidential election as well as an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It explores how global health organizations and experts attempted to better 'prevent, detect, and respond' to public health emergencies after Ebola in 2014. Unpacking various understandings of the ‘global’ in GHS, it examines how experts worked to build novel 'global assemblages’ and reposition ‘reciprocal obligations between nations'. The research looks at novel techniques and technologies designed to ensure a ‘global’ community of healthy nations—ones able to live up to their responsibilities to care for and protect their vulnerable populations. In 2014, Ebola set the stage for dramatic changes to global health as new actors and organizations came to understand a pressing need for change. ‘GHS' emerged as a response to these calls for reform and improvement, an urgent effort to improve vulnerable health systems in developing countries. This research explores how GHS and some of its technicians became entangled with these emerging and evolving mix of policies, practices, and possibilities for global health practice.
Responsibility for Ensuring the World Biosafety: Rethinking in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 2021
The article provides insights on the current mechanisms for regulating relations in the field of global health and international interaction in the world, holding the States of the world internationally responsible for internationally wrongful acts in the field of health, including consideration of the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant attention is paid to find the response to the question of what COVID-19 pandemic a health emergency is or bioterrorism. It analyses the current international norms governing the field of the production and use of biological weapons, with particular emphasis on standards of regulation and international responsibility in this field. The findings of this study suggest that biosafety worldwide is a key dimension of global security and ensuring world peace. This study also recommended the establishment of the strong global norm that would provide for verification of disarmament and compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention, the responsibility of States to develop, manufacture, and accumulate of biological weapons should be adapted to that end. Furthermore, it is noted that the world community should reconsider the position on the mechanism of investigations by the United Nations Security Council, as well as the procedure for the use of the veto of the five permanent members of the Security Council in any decision concerning the maintenance of international peace and security.
Abstract. Pharmaceuticals are now critical to the security of populations. Antivirals, antibiotics, next-generation vaccines, and antitoxins are just some of the new ‘medical countermeasures’ that governments are stockpiling in order to defend their populations against the threat of pandemics and bioterrorism. How has security policy come to be so deeply imbricated with pharmaceutical logics and solutions? This article captures, maps, and analyses the ‘pharmaceu- ticalisation’ of security. Through an in-depth analysis of the prominent antiviral medication Tamiflu, it shows that this pharmaceutical turn in security policy is intimately bound up with the rise of a molecular vision of life promulgated by the biomedical sciences. Caught in the crosshairs of powerful commercial, political, and regulatory pressures, governments are em- bracing a molecular biomedicine promising to secure populations pharmaceutically in the twenty-first century. If that is true, then the established disciplinary view of health as a pre- dominantly secondary matter of ‘low’ international politics is mistaken. On the contrary, the social forces of health and biomedicine are powerful enough to influence the core practices of international politics – even those of security. For a discipline long accustomed to studying macrolevel processes and systemic structures, it is in the end also our knowledge of the minute morass of molecules that shapes international relations.