Search

When the Zika virus burst onto the international scene in the second half of 2015, the development of diagnostic tools was seen as an urgent global health priority. Diagnostic capacity was restricted to a small number of reference laboratories, and none of the few available molecular or serological tests had been validated for extensive use in an outbreak setting. In the early weeks of the crisis, key funders stepped in to accelerate research and development efforts, and the WHO took responsibility for steering diagnostic standardization, a role it had successfully played during the West Africa Ebola virus outbreak. Yet when the WHO declared the end of the Zika Public Health Emergency of International Concern in November 2016, diagnostic capacity remained patchy, and few tools were available at the scale required in the countries that bore the brunt of the epidemic, particularly Brazil. This article analyses the limited impact of global R&D efforts on the availability of Zika diagnostic options where they were most needed and for those most vulnerable: women who might have been exposed to the virus during their pregnancy and children born with suspected congenital Zika syndrome. The truncated legacies of testing during the Zika crisis reveal some of the fault lines in the global health enterprise, particularly the limits of 'emergency R&D' to operate in geopolitical contexts that do not conform to the ideal type of a humanitarian crisis, or to tackle technical issues that are inextricably linked to domestic struggles over the scope and distribution of biological citizenship. Diagnostic shortcomings, we argue, lie at the heart of the stunning transformation, in less than two years, in the status of Zika: from international public health emergency to neglected disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uncertainty was a defining feature of the Brazilian Zika crisis of 2015–2016. The cluster of cases of neonatal microcephaly detected in the country's northeast in the second half of 2015, and the possibility that a new virus transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes was responsible for this new syndrome, created a deep sense of shock and confusion in Brazil and around the world. When in February 2016 the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), it noted that it did so on the basis of what was not known about the virus and its pathogenic potential. To better understand the role that non-knowledge played in the unfolding of the Brazilian Zika crisis we differentiate between three different kinds of uncertainty: global health uncertainty, public health uncertainty, and clinical uncertainty. While these three forms of uncertainty were difficult to disentangle in the early weeks of the crisis, very soon each one began to trace a distinct trajectory. Global health uncertainty centered on the question of the causative link between Zika virus infection and congenital malformations, and was declared resolved by the time the PHEIC was lifted in November 2016. Public health and clinical uncertainty, in contrast, persisted over a longer period of time and did, in some important ways, become entrenched. This taxonomy of uncertainties allows us to explore the systematic nonproduction of knowledge in times of medical emergency, and suggests structural limitations in the framework of "emergency research" that global health institutions have developed to deal with unexpected threats. • Uncertainty was a defining feature of the Brazilian Zika crisis of 2015–2016. • We identify three forms: global health, public health and clinical uncertainty. • Each form followed a different path as the crisis unfolded. • "Emergency research" was effective in tackling global health uncertainty. • But it proved less effective in addressing public health and clinical uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conceptual and practical work done by social medicine and global health have often overlapped. In this paper, we argue that new efforts to apprehend 'the social' in social medicine offer important insights to global health along five lines of critical analysis: (1) reconfigurations of the state and new forms of political activism, (2) philanthrocapitalism and the economisation of life, (3) The economy of attention, (4) anthropogenic climate change, and (5) the geopolitics of North and South. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article conveys how taking patient knowledge seriously can improve patient experience and further medical science. In clinical contexts related to infection-associated chronic conditions and other complex chronic illnesses, patient knowledge is often undervalued, even when clinicians have limited training in diagnosing and treating a particular condition. Despite growing acknowledgement of the importance of patients as 'stakeholders', clinicians and medical researchers have yet to fully develop ways to evaluate and, when appropriate, meaningfully incorporate patient knowledge-experiential, scientific, social scientific, historical or otherwise-into clinical practice and research. We argue that there are opportunities for clinicians and researchers to collaborate with patients and colleagues from the social sciences and humanities. We use two examples to demonstrate why patient knowledge should inform medical engagement with chronic and complex conditions. The first comes from a disability studies scholar who describes the social biases that can sideline patient expertise, and the second is from an anthropologist whose reading in medical humanities led to an effective treatment for her recovery. Rather than merely acknowledging 'lived experience', clinical and research teams should include patients with complex chronic conditions as 'knowledge partners'. These patients occupy unique and valuable epistemological positions, and their knowledge should be considered with as much openness and rigour as other forms of medical knowledge. As more medical schools, residency programmes and hospitals emphasise the need for 'deep listening' and patient input, we encourage meaningful engagement with patients whose insights can provide crucial knowledge for clinical and scientific advancement., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EM receives a stipend from Elsevier for her work as Editor in Chief of SSM-Mental Health., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In 2013, Hans Jörg Rheinberger proposed that Mendelian genetics and molecular biology were "scientific ideologies," that is, for him they are systems of thought whose objects are hyperbolic; they are not, or not yet, in the realm of and not, or not yet, under the control of that system. This article proposes that precision medicine today is a scientific ideology and analyses the implications of this statement for historians of biology, genetics, and medicine., (© 2022 The Authors. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.)

In the late 1930s, the 17D vaccine against yellow fever was produced in record time. 17D was and is an excellent vaccine. Its rapid diffusion led, however, to several problems, the most important among them being the 1942 massive contamination of the vaccine distributed to the US Army by the hepatitis B virus. The US part of this story is relatively well-known, but its Brazilian part much less so. In 1940, scientists who were producing the 17D vaccine in Rio de Janeiro found that it was contaminated by an "icterus virus" that originated in normal human serum. They solved this problem through the exclusion of human serum from vaccine production, but failed to persuade their US colleagues to do the same. The Rio experts, aware of the potential pitfalls of a new technology, carefully supervised the consequences of their vaccination campaigns. They were thus able to rapidly spot problems and eliminate them. By contrast, US scientists, persuaded of their technical superiority and distrustful of warnings that originated from a "less developed" country, neglected to implement basic public health rules. A major disaster followed. ( Am J Public Health . 2021;111(9): 1654-1660. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306313).

Since the first recorded case of COVID-19 on February 26, 2020, Brazil has seen an exponential growth in the number of cases and deaths. The national testing approach has been insufficient to correctly use this tool in the support of containing the epidemic in the country. In this communication, we discuss efforts and challenges to scale-up COVID-19 testing at the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). This communication presents the initial results of the research project created to investigate the political, industrial, technological, and regulatory aspects that may affect the diagnostic and testing capacity for COVID-19 in Brazil. The paper draws on the review of academic literature, media publication, and collection of public data on tests purchase and regulation. It enlists initiatives to enhance PCR testing, national production and development of technologies, as well as regulatory measures to fast-track new tests. Our analysis indicates some points of reflection. Firstly, the lack of a consistent national strategy to fight COVID-19 exarcebated supply problems of diagnostic components. If the country was eventually able to circumvent this situation, it still faces a more structural dependency on the importation of diagnostic components. Secondly, the discontinued funding and distribution of tests may have implied health policy fragmentation and the growing importance of local governments and non-state actors to fighting the epidemics within SUS. Finally, initiatives established since the second semester of 2020 have expanded the testing capacity at SUS. However, it has not been sufficient to control the progress of the epidemic in the country.

The claim that anti-malaria drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, can cure COVID-19 became a focus of fierce political battles that pitted promoters of these pharmaceuticals, Presidents Bolsonaro and Trump among them, against "medical elites." At the center of these battles are different meanings of effectiveness in medicine, the complex role of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in proving such effectiveness, the task of medical experts and the state in regulating pharmaceuticals, patients' activism, and the collective production of medical knowledge. This article follows the trajectory of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as anti-COVID-19 drugs, focusing on the reception of views of their main scientific promoter, the French infectious disease specialist, Didier Raoult. The surprising career of these drugs, our text proposes, is fundamentally a political event, not in the narrow sense of engaging specific political fractions, but in the much broader sense of the politics of public participation in science., (© 2020 The Authors. Medical Anthropology Quarterly published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Anthropological Association.)

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was developed to allow women/couples at risk of having a child with 'severe and incurable' hereditary disease to produce embryos through in-vitro fertilization, followed by implantation of embryos devoid of mutated genes, allowing the birth of children free of the pathology present in the family. This article examines the highly regulated practice of PGD in France, the highly deregulated practice of PGD in the USA and Brazil, and the extensive use of this biomedical technology in Israel, and highlights the ways that distinct national policies produce distinct definitions of risk and different norms, standards and rules. PGD, this article argues, is a situated practice. Shaped to an important extent by legal and economic constraints, it displays the ways that new technologies continuously reframe our definitions of the normal and the pathological., (© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

In the aftermath of the introduction of severe restrictions on abortion in several US states, some activists have argued that providing widespread access to an abortive drug, misoprostol, will transform an induced abortion into a fully private act and therefore will empower women. In Brazil, where abortion is criminalized, the majority of women who wish to terminate an unwanted pregnancy already use the illegal, but easily accessible, misoprostol. We examine the history of misoprostol as an abortifacient in Brazil from the late 1980s until today and the professional debates on the teratogenicity of this drug. The effects of a given pharmaceutical compound, we argue, are always articulated, elicited, and informed within dense networks of sociocultural, economic, legal, and political settings. In a conservative and repressive environment, the use of misoprostol for self-induced abortions, even when supported by formal or informal solidarity networks, is far from being a satisfactory solution to the curbing of women's reproductive rights.

This article examines the origins of the term "genetic disease." In the late 19 and early 20th century, an earlier idea that diseases that occur in families reflect a vague familiar "predisposition" was replaced by the view that such diseases have specific causes, while Mendelian genetics provided then clues to the patterns of their transmission. The genetictisation of inborn pathologies took a decisive turn with the redefinition, in 1959, of Down syndrome as a chromosomal anomaly, then the development of tests for the diagnosis of other hereditary pathologies. At that time, geneticists distinguished "hereditary" diseases that run in families, from "genetic" conditions that are the result of new mutations during the production of egg and sperm cells. In the latter case, the inborn impairment is produced by an anomaly in the genetic material of the cell, but is not hereditary, because it is not transmitted from one or both parents. In the late 20th and early 21st century, new genomic technologies blurred the distinction between hereditary and genetic impairments, extended the concept of genetic disease, and modified the experience of people living with such a disease.

Infection with the zika virus had a great impact not only on pregnant women and newborns, but also on public health, on popular ideas about Aedes aegypti and with respect to women's social rights. The objective of this paper is to identify this impact and the historical, social and health changes of the disease and the legacy of the zika virus. Interventions by researchers from different specialties foster conditions for more comprehensive investigations into future epidemic threats in Brazil and Latin America. This dialogue took place after the seminar "Aedes aegypti: past and future health emergencies," organized by the Casa de Oswaldo Cruz, when we talked with some speakers and other leading researchers about the history and challenges of Aedes aegypti and zika.