Search

In this article, we explore a set of conceptual and technoscientific shifts that led to reconsiderations of the experience of hearing over the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and most specifi...

What sets someone on a life trajectory? This question is at the heart of studies of 21st-century neurosciences that build on scientific models developed over the last 150 years that attempt to link psychopathology risk and human development. Historically, this research has documented persistent effects of singular, negative life experiences on people's subsequent development. More recently, studies have documented neuromolecular effects of early life adversity on life trajectories, resulting in models that frame lives as disproportionately affected by early negative experiences. This view is dominant, despite little evidence of the stability of the presumably early-developed molecular traits and their potential effects on phenotypes. We argue that in the context of gaps in knowledge and the need for scientists to reason across molecular and phenotypic scales, as well as time spans that can extend beyond an individual's life, specific interpretative frameworks shape the ways in which individual scientific findings are assessed. In the process, scientific reasoning oscillates between understandings of cellular homeostasis and organisms' homeorhesis, or life trajectory. Biologist and historian François Jacob described this framework as the "attitude" that researchers bring to bear on their "objects" of study. Through an analysis of, first, historical and contemporary scientific literature and then ethnographic research with neuroscientists, we consider how early life trauma came to be associated with specific psychological and neurobiological effects grounded in understandings of life trajectories. We conclude with a consideration of the conceptual, ontological, and ethical implications of interpreting life trajectories as the result of the persistence of long-embodied biological traits, persistent life environments, or both.

ArgumentIn this article, we trace shifting narratives of trauma within psychiatric, neuroscience, and environmental epigenetics research. We argue that two contemporary narratives of trauma – each of which concerns questions of time and psychopathology, of the past invading the present – had to be stabilized in order for environmental epigenetics models of suicide risk to be posited. Through an examination of these narratives, we consider how early trauma came to be understood as playing an etiologically significant role in the development of suicide risk. Suicide, in these models, has come to be seen as a behavior that has no significant precipitating event, but rather an exceptional precipitating neurochemical state, whose origins are identified in experiences of early traumatic events. We suggest that this is a part of a broader move within contemporary neurosciences and biopsychiatry to seelife as post: seeing life as specific form of post-traumatic subjectivity.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. \ud \ud \ud METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. \ud \ud \ud FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. \ud \ud \ud INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. \ud \ud \ud FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older. METHODS: In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18-55 years, 56-69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 1010 virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18-55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56-69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5-6·5 × 1010 virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18-55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA80). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. FINDINGS: Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18-55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56-69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18-55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56-69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18-55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56-69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898-33 550], n=39; 56-69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233-40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705-37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA80 at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 193 [IQR 113-238], n=39; 56-69 years, 144 [119-347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73-323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18-55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841-2428], n=24; 56-69 years: 797 SFCs [383-1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458-1914], n=48). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

L’anthropologie médicale est un sous-champ de l’anthropologie socioculturelle qui s’intéresse à la pluralité des systèmes médicaux ainsi qu’à l’étude des facteurs économiques, politiques et socioculturels ayant un impact sur la santé des individus et des populations. Elle étudie les relations sociales, expériences vécues et pratiques impliquées dans la gestion et le traitement des maladies en lien avec les normes culturelles et les institutions sociales. Elle tient compte simultanément du biologique et du social.

Drawing on two ethnographic examples from a laboratory study of a group conducting environmental epigenetics research on suicide risk, we examine the ways in which researchers go about making credible claims in the face of a range of profound uncertainties. We first explore how a range of factors led to what is now accepted as a fact or discovery being explained away, several years ago, as a combination of technical error and known background noise. To set this first example within a broader context, we turn to a debate that erupted in the lab during a journal club meeting about claims-making and publishing in science. Through these examples, we aim to demonstrate the complex terrain in which scientists manage epistemic uncertainties and produce credibility in environmental epigenetics research. Our goal is to trace uncertainties from the unknowable reasons and internal states that lead people to respond to data in a particular way, through to the technical difficulties in identifying data from noise, through to issues of ethical self-making, as students learn to become certain types of scientists. We argue that the ways in which uncertainty takes on meaning, has effects and is managed also has much to do with its situatedness.

L’anthropologie médicale est un sous-champ de l’anthropologie socioculturelle qui s’intéresse à la pluralité des systèmes médicaux ainsi qu’à l’étude des facteurs économiques, politiques et socioculturels ayant un impact sur la santé des individus et des populations. Plus spécifiquement, elle s’intéresse aux relations sociales, aux expériences vécues, aux pratiques impliquées dans la gestion et le traitement des maladies par rapport aux normes culturelles et aux institutions sociales. Plusieurs généalogies de l’anthropologie médicale peuvent être retracées. Toutefois, les monographies de W.H.R. Rivers et d’Edward Evans-Pritchard (1937), dans lesquelles les représentations, les connaissances et les pratiques en lien avec la santé et la maladie étaient considérées comme faisant intégralement partie des systèmes socioculturels, sont généralement considérées comme des travaux fondateurs de l’anthropologie médicale. Les années 1950 ont marqué la professionnalisation de l’anthropologie médicale. Des financements publics ont été alloués à la discipline pour contribuer aux objectifs de santé publique et d’amélioration de la santé dans les communautés économiquement pauvres (Good 1994). Dans les décennies qui suivent, les bases de l’anthropologie médicale sont posées avec l’apparition de nombreuses revues professionnelles (Social Science Medicine, Medical Anthropology, Medical Anthropology Quarterly), de manuels spécialisés (e.g. MacElroy et Townsend 1979) et la formation du sous-groupe de la Society for Medical Anthropology au sein de l’American Anthropological Association (AAA) en 1971, qui sont encore des points de références centraux pour le champ. À cette époque, sous l’influence des théories des normes et du pouvoir proposées par Michel Foucault et Pierre Bourdieu, la biomédecine est vue comme un système structurel de rapports de pouvoir et devient ainsi un objet d’étude devant être traité symétriquement aux autres systèmes médicaux (Gaines 1992). L’attention portée aux théories du biopouvoir et de la gouvernementalité a permis à l’anthropologie médicale de formuler une critique de l’hégémonie du regard médical qui réduit la santé à ses dimensions biologiques et physiologiques (Saillant et Genest 2007 : xxii). Ces considérations ont permis d’enrichir, de redonner une visibilité et de l’influence aux études des rationalités des systèmes médicaux entrepris par Evans-Pritchard, et ainsi permettre la prise en compte des possibilités qu’ont les individus de naviguer entre différents systèmes médicaux (Leslie 1980; Lock et Nguyen 2010 : 62). L’aspect réducteur du discours biomédical avait déjà été soulevé dans les modèles explicatifs de la maladie développés par Arthur Kleinman, Leon Eisenberg et Byron Good (1978) qui ont introduit une distinction importante entre « disease » (éléments médicalement observables de la maladie), « illness » (expériences vécues de la maladie) et « sickness » (aspects sociaux holistes entourant la maladie). Cette distinction entre disease, illness et sickness a joué un rôle clé dans le développement rapide des perspectives analytiques de l’anthropologie médicale de l’époque, mais certaines critiques ont également été formulées à son égard. En premier lieu, Allan Young (1981) formule une critique des modèles explicatifs de la maladie en réfutant l'idée que la rationalité soit un model auquel les individus adhèrent spontanément. Selon Young, ce modèle suggère qu’il y aurait un équivalant de structures cognitives qui guiderait le développement des modèles de causalité et des systèmes de classification adoptées par les personnes. Au contraire, il propose que les connaissances soient basées sur des actions, des relations sociales, des ressources matérielles, avec plusieurs sources influençant le raisonnement des individus qui peuvent, de plusieurs manières, diverger de ce qui est généralement entendu comme « rationnel ». Ces critiques, ainsi que les études centrées sur l’expérience des patients et des pluralismes médicaux, ont permis de constater que les stratégies adoptées pour obtenir des soins sont multiples, font appel à plusieurs types de pratiques, et que les raisons de ces choix doivent être compris à la lumière des contextes historiques, locaux et matériaux (Lock et Nguyen 2010 : 63). Deuxièmement, les approches de Kleinman, Eisenberger et Good ont été critiquées pour leur séparation artificielle du corps et de l’esprit qui représentait un postulat fondamental dans les études de la rationalité. Les anthropologues Nancy Scheper-Hughes et Margeret Lock (1987) ont proposé que le corps doit plutôt être abordé selon trois niveaux analytiques distincts, soit le corps politique, social et individuel. Le corps politique est présenté comme étant un lieu où s’exerce la régulation, la surveillance et le contrôle de la différence humaine (Scheper-Hughes et Lock 1987 : 78). Cela a permis aux approches féministes d’aborder le corps comme étant un espace de pouvoir, en examinant comment les discours sur le genre rendent possible l’exercice d’un contrôle sur le corps des femmes (Manderson, Cartwright et Hardon 2016). Les premiers travaux dans cette perspective ont proposé des analyses socioculturelles de différents contextes entourant la reproduction pour contrecarrer le modèle dominant de prise en charge médicale de la santé reproductive des femmes (Martin 1987). Pour sa part, le corps social renvoie à l’idée selon laquelle le corps ne peut pas être abordé simplement comme une entité naturelle, mais qu’il doit être compris en le contextualisant historiquement et socialement (Lupton 2000 : 50). Finalement, considérer le corps individuel a permis de privilégier l’étude de l’expérience subjective de la maladie à travers ses variations autant au niveau individuel que culturel. Les études de l’expérience de la santé et la maladie axées sur l’étude des « phénomènes tels qu’ils apparaissent à la conscience des individus et des groupes d’individus » (Desjarlais et Throop 2011 : 88) se sont avérées pertinentes pour mieux saisir la multitude des expériences vécues des états altérés du corps (Hofmann et Svenaeus 2018). En somme, les propositions de ces auteurs s’inscrivent dans une anthropologie médicale critique qui s’efforce d’étudier les inégalités socio-économiques (Scheper-Hughes 1992), l’accès aux institutions et aux savoirs qu’elles produisent, ainsi qu’à la répartition des ressources matérielles à une échelle mondiale (Manderson, Cartwright et Hardon 2016). Depuis ses débuts, l’anthropologie médicale a abordé la santé globale et épidémiologique dans le but de faciliter les interventions sur les populations désignées comme « à risque ». Certains anthropologues ont développé une perspective appliquée en épidémiologie sociale pour contribuer à l’identification de déterminants sociaux de la santé (Kawachi et Subramanian 2018). Plusieurs de ces travaux ont été critiqués pour la culturalisation des pathologies touchant certaines populations désignées comme étant à risque à partir de critères basés sur la stigmatisation et la marginalisation de ces populations (Trostle et Sommerfeld 1996 : 261). Au-delà des débats dans ce champ de recherche, ces études ont contribué à la compréhension des dynamiques de santé et de maladie autant à l’échelle globale, dans la gestion des pandémies par l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS), qu’aux échelles locales avec la mise en place de campagnes de santé publique pour faciliter l’implantation de mesures sanitaires, telles que la vaccination (Dubé, Vivion et Macdonald 2015). L’anthropologie a contribué à ces discussions en se penchant sur les contextes locaux des zoonoses qui sont des maladies transmissibles des animaux vertébrés aux humains (Porter 2013), sur la résistance aux antibiotiques (Landecker 2016), comme dans le cas de la rage et de l’influenza (Wolf 2012), sur les dispositifs de prévention mis en place à une échelle mondiale pour éviter l’apparition et la prolifération d’épidémies (Lakoff 2010), mais aussi sur les styles de raisonnement qui sous-tendent la gestion des pandémies (Caduff 2014). Par ailleurs, certains auteur.e.s ont utilisé le concept de violence structurelle pour analyser les inégalités socio-économiques dans le contexte des pandémies de maladies infectieuses comme le sida, la tuberculose ou, plus récemment, l’Ébola (Fassin 2015). Au-delà de cet aspect socio-économique, Aditya Bharadwaj (2013) parle d’une inégalité épistémique pour caractériser des rapports inégaux dans la production et la circulation globale des savoirs et des individus dans le domaine de la santé. Il décrit certaines situations comme des « biologies subalternes », c’est à dire des états de santé qui ne sont pas reconnus par le système biomédical hégémonique et qui sont donc invisibles et vulnérables. Ces « biologies subalternes » sont le revers de citoyennetés biologiques, ces dernières étant des citoyennetés qui donnes accès à une forme de sécurité sociale basée sur des critères médicaux, scientifiques et légaux qui reconnaissent les dommages biologiques et cherche à les indemniser (Petryna 2002 : 6). La citoyenneté biologique étant une forme d’organisation qui gravite autour de conditions de santé et d’enjeux liés à des maladies génétiques rares ou orphelines (Heath, Rapp et Taussig 2008), ces revendications mobilisent des acteurs incluant les institutions médicales, l’État, les experts ou encore les pharmaceutiques. Ces études partagent une attention à la circulation globale des savoirs, des pratiques et des soins dans la translation — ou la résistance à la translation — d’un contexte à un autre, dans lesquels les patients sont souvent positionnés entre des facteurs sociaux, économiques et politiques complexes et parfois conflictuels. L’industrie pharmaceutique et le développement des technologies biomédicales se sont présentés comme terrain important et propice pour l’analyse anthropologique des dynamiques sociales et économiques entourant la production des appareils, des méthodes thérapeutiques et des produits biologiques de la biomédecine depuis les années 1980 (Greenhalgh 1987). La perspective biographique des pharmaceutiques (Whyte, Geest et Hardon 2002) a consolidé les intérêts et les approches dans les premières études sur les produits pharmaceutiques. Ces recherches ont proposé de suivre la trajectoire sociale des médicaments pour étudier les contextes d’échanges et les déplacements dans la nature symbolique qu’ont les médicaments pour les consommateurs : « En tant que choses, les médicaments peuvent être échangés entre les acteurs sociaux, ils objectivent les significations, ils se déplacent d’un cadre de signification à un autre. Ce sont des marchandises dotées d’une importance économique et de ressources recelant une valeur politique » (traduit de Whyte, Geest et Hardon 2002). D’autres ont davantage tourné leur regard vers les rapports institutionnels, les impacts et le fonctionnement de « Big Pharma ». Ils se sont intéressés aux processus de recherche et de distribution employés par les grandes pharmaceutiques à travers les études de marché et les pratiques de vente (Oldani 2014), l’accès aux médicaments (Ecks 2008), la consommation des produits pharmaceutiques (Dumit 2012) et la production de sujets d’essais cliniques globalisés (Petryna, Lakoff et Kleinman 2006), ainsi qu’aux enjeux entourant les réglementations des brevets et du respect des droits politiques et sociaux (Ecks 2008). L’accent est mis ici sur le pouvoir des produits pharmaceutiques de modifier et de changer les subjectivités contemporaines, les relations familiales (Collin 2016), de même que la compréhensions du genre et de la notion de bien-être (Sanabria 2014). Les nouvelles technologies biomédicales — entre autres génétiques — ont permis de repenser la notion de normes du corps en santé, d'en redéfinir les frontières et d’intervenir sur le corps de manière « incorporée » (embodied) (Haraway 1991). Les avancées technologiques en génomique qui se sont développées au cours des trois dernières décennies ont soulevé des enjeux tels que la généticisation, la désignation de populations/personnes « à risque », l’identification de biomarqueurs actionnables et de l’identité génétique (TallBear 2013 ; Lloyd et Raikhel 2018). Au départ, le modèle dominant en génétique cherchait à identifier les gènes spécifiques déterminant chacun des traits biologiques des organismes (Lock et Nguyen 2010 : 332). Cependant, face au constat que la plupart des gènes ne codaient par les protéines responsables de l’expression phénotypique, les modèles génétiques se sont depuis complexifiés. L’attention s’est tournée vers l’analyse de la régulation des gènes et de l’interaction entre gènes et maladies en termes de probabilités (Saukko 2017). Cela a permis l’émergence de la médecine personnalisée, dont les interventions se basent sur l’identification de biomarqueurs personnels (génétiques, sanguins, etc.) avec l’objectif de prévenir l’avènement de pathologies ou ralentir la progression de maladies chroniques (Billaud et Guchet 2015). Les anthropologues de la médecine ont investi ces enjeux en soulevant les conséquences de cette forme de médecine, comme la responsabilisation croissante des individus face à leur santé (Saukko 2017), l’utilisation de ces données dans l’accès aux assurances (Hoyweghen 2006), le déterminisme génétique (Landecker 2011) ou encore l’affaiblissement entre les frontières de la bonne santé et de la maladie (Timmermans et Buchbinder 2010). Ces enjeux ont été étudiés sous un angle féministe avec un intérêt particulier pour les effets du dépistage prénatal sur la responsabilité parentale (Rapp 1999), l’expérience de la grossesse (Rezende 2011) et les gestions de l’infertilité (Inhorn et Van Balen 2002). Les changements dans la compréhension du modèle génomique invitent à prendre en considération plusieurs variables en interaction, impliquant l’environnement proche ou lointain, qui interagissent avec l’expression du génome (Keller 2014). Dans ce contexte, l’anthropologie médicale a développé un intérêt envers de nouveaux champs d’études tels que l’épigénétique (Landecker 2011), la neuroscience (Choudhury et Slaby 2016), le microbiome (Benezra, DeStefano et Gordon 2012) et les données massives (Leonelli 2016). Dans le cas du champ de l’épigénétique, qui consiste à comprendre le rôle de l’environnement social, économique et politique comme un facteur pouvant modifier l’expression des gènes et mener au développement de certaines maladies, les anthropologues se sont intéressés aux manières dont les violences structurelles ancrées historiquement se matérialisent dans les corps et ont des impacts sur les disparités de santé entre les populations (Pickersgill, Niewöhner, Müller, Martin et Cunningham-Burley 2013). Ainsi, la notion du traumatisme historique (Kirmayer, Gone et Moses 2014) a permis d’examiner comment des événements historiques, tels que l’expérience des pensionnats autochtones, ont eu des effets psychosociaux collectifs, cumulatifs et intergénérationnels qui se sont maintenus jusqu’à aujourd’hui. L’étude de ces articulations entre conditions biologiques et sociales dans l’ère « post-génomique » prolonge les travaux sur le concept de biosocialité, qui est défini comme « [...] un réseau en circulation de termes d'identié et de points de restriction autour et à travers desquels un véritable nouveau type d'autoproduction va émerger » (Traduit de Rabinow 1996:186). La catégorie du « biologique » se voit alors problématisée à travers l’historicisation de la « nature », une nature non plus conçue comme une entité immuable, mais comme une entité en état de transformation perpétuelle imbriquée dans des processus humains et/ou non-humains (Ingold et Pálsson 2013). Ce raisonnement a également été appliqué à l’examen des catégories médicales, conçues comme étant abstraites, fixes et standardisées. Néanmoins, ces catégories permettent d'identifier différents états de la santé et de la maladie, qui doivent être compris à la lumière des contextes historiques et individuels (Lock et Nguyen 2010). Ainsi, la prise en compte simultanée du biologique et du social mène à une synthèse qui, selon Peter Guarnaccia, implique une « compréhension du corps comme étant à la fois un système biologique et le produit de processus sociaux et culturels, c’est-à-dire, en acceptant que le corps soit en même temps totalement biologique et totalement culturel » (traduit de Guarnaccia 2001 : 424). Le concept de « biologies locales » a d’abord été proposé par Margaret Lock, dans son analyse des variations de la ménopause au Japon (Lock 1993), pour rendre compte de ces articulations entre le matériel et le social dans des contextes particuliers. Plus récemment, Niewöhner et Lock (2018) ont proposé le concept de biologies situées pour davantage contextualiser les conditions d’interaction entre les biologies locales et la production de savoirs et de discours sur celles-ci. Tout au long de l’histoire de la discipline, les anthropologues s’intéressant à la médecine et aux approches de la santé ont profité des avantages de s’inscrire dans l’interdisciplinarité : « En anthropologie médical, nous trouvons qu'écrire pour des audiences interdisciplinaires sert un objectif important : élaborer une analyse minutieuse de la culture et de la santé (Dressler 2012; Singer, Dressler, George et Panel 2016), s'engager sérieusement avec la diversité globale (Manderson, Catwright et Hardon 2016), et mener les combats nécessaires contre le raccourcies des explications culturelles qui sont souvent déployées dans la littérature sur la santé (Viruell-Fuentes, Miranda et Abdulrahim 2012) » (traduit de Panter-Brick et Eggerman 2018 : 236). L’anthropologie médicale s’est constituée à la fois comme un sous champ de l’anthropologie socioculturelle et comme un champ interdisciplinaire dont les thèmes de recherche sont grandement variés, et excèdent les exemples qui ont été exposés dans cette courte présentation.

Funding from the European Research Council (grant award 335925) and the UK Economic and Social Research Council (award ES/P011489/1) has supported the research on which this introduction is grounded.

For many decades, the study of society and the study of biology have been estranged from one another. This Handbook provides the first comprehensive overview of the extent to which, and how quickly, we are moving beyond the charged debates that characterized much of the biological and social thought of the twentieth century. In this Handbook we show how nuanced attention to both the biological and the social sciences opens up novel perspectives on some of the most significant sociological, anthropological, philosophical, and biological questions of our era. Our central assertion is that the life sciences, broadly conceived, are currently moving toward a more social view of biological processes, just as the social sciences are beginning to reincorporate notions of the biological body into their investigations.

In this chapter, we consider the models of suicide risk emerging from environmental epigenetics research at the McGill Group for Suicide Studies. We argue that this research represents an emergent style of reasoning in which a range of contextual and environmental factors are both molecularized and located in the brain. We also argue that implicit in this research is a notion of a “suicidal brain”: a brain that responds to adverse life experiences with an increase in risk of suicidal behaviour. In examining both this concept and its attendant styles of reasoning, we highlight some of the issues which research in environmental epigenetics raises for the study of suicide, as well as for the social sciences more broadly.

Cognitive testing has become routine for well-designed surveys. However, the protocols for cognitive testing vary widely, and observers have been concerned that analysis of the results is not systematic, that results are not replicable, and that the bases for conclusions are not transparent. To address some of those concerns, in this study the cognitive interviews were structured so that interviewers gathered information specifically about whether there was a problem with any of the four standard issues in question answering: comprehension, retrieval, estimation, and providing an answer. From the tape-recorded interviews, the percentage of respondents who had “no problem” with each element of question answering was tabulated for each question. In addition to being systematic and transparent, a strength of the approach is that it documents the positive features of questions, potentially providing evidence for the validity of answers as well as identifying possible question problems.

In recent years, research on how the human environment and life-style influence gene expression has generated considerable scientific and public interest. Articles in prominent international newspapers with headlines such as “Why your DNA isn’t your destiny” (Time Magazine in 2010) or “Poverty leaves traces in children’s genome” (Süddeutsche Zeitung in 2016) have drawn public interest to the emerging field of environmental epigenetics. It is a sub-division of the much more heterogeneous research field of epigenetics, which aims to understand how interactions between the environment and the genome can lead to epigenetic modifications that affect gene expression. Environmental epigenetics is often heralded as providing a revolutionary perspective on disease etiology, particularly with regard to so-called ‘life-style diseases’ such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes. It is also often presented as a vital new framework for understanding differences in the susceptibility and resilience to mental illness and the long-term damaging effects of a wide variety of environmental factors. Environmental epigenetics engages with the social context of both individuals and populations. Studies investigate, for example, how socio-economic status, exercise habits, diet or experiences of trauma might influence biological processes at the molecular level. This has created great interest among social scientists and scholars in the humanities as it raises a number of questions at the intersection of the natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities: for example, how to conceptualize the social environment in a laboratory context. To explore research areas at these intersections and assess the potential social and political implications of environmental epigenetics, international scholars from the life sciences, social sciences and humanities met in January 2017 in Munich, Germany. This article presents some of the main findings from these interdisciplinary discussions. We conclude that environmental epigenetics has great potential for elucidating how human society affects human biology, but we caution against over-simplified translations from social structures to biological processes and vice versa.

Using the genetics of late onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) as illustrative, this paper argues for a reflexive critique of the involved science, specifically in connection with estimations of increased risk. Following a review of social science commentary on genetic testing and screening in general, current scientific understanding about the molecular and population genetics of LOAD is then presented. The results of open-ended interviews conducted with first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with LOAD at two study sites follow. It is shown that the majority of people interviewed embrace the idea of complexity in connection with Alzheimer's disease causation and that many draw on a concept of “blended inheritance” with respect to the disease that “runs” in their family. It is argued that knowledge about risk obtained from genetic testing for LOAD rarely usurps other forms of understanding, but is nested by interviewees into previously held ideas about who in the family is most at risk for the disease.

While social phobia is a well-known disorder in North America, it has been little known among the general French population. For several years now a small group of French clinicians and members of a social phobia support group have begun fighting for its recognition. Their voices have had a significant impact, and today information about the disorder has reached thousands or even millions of French citizens. The introduction of social phobia in France involves more than the acceptance of this one condition. Social phobia is a part of a standard North American diagnostic system that remains marginal in France; this therapeutic framework must be adopted in order for social phobia to be accepted. This article focuses on the words of French physicians, many of whom reject social phobia as a diagnosis, and a smaller number who are desperate for its acceptance. Through their words, I trace the multiple factors that are slowing the acceptance of social phobia, but not preventing it. Culture, history, economy and single-minded careerism are among the factors that clinicians link to the appearance of social phobia in France. In conclusion, I consider the argument that social phobia in France is an example of the global exportation of North American conceptions of mental health and mental disorder.

This study explored why adult offspring of individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) sought genetic susceptibility testing for AD. Participants (N = 60) were a subset of subjects from the first randomized controlled clinical trial to offer such testing. Qualitative analysis revealed two central constructs: altruism and learning. Planning for the future, hoping to prevent AD, and need to know were concepts that explained the value of learning. These results add important contextual information into why people might seek information on their genetic risk for a severe neurodegenerative disease for which there are, as yet, no preventative treatments. As genetic susceptibility testing for numerous other diseases enters clinical medicine, these findings can enhance the knowledge and sensitivity of researchers and clinicians when they are asked by participants or patients whether they should be tested.

Objective:To compare ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rates and patterns of isolates across studies of antibiotic and non-antibiotic methods for preventing VAP.Design:With the use of 42 cohort study groups as the reference standard, the prevalence of VAP was modeled in two linear regressions: one with the control groups and the other with the intervention groups of 96 VAP prevention studies. The proportion of patients admitted with trauma and the VAP diagnostic criteria were used as ecologic correlates. Also, the patterns of pathogenic isolates were available for 117 groups.Results:In the first regression model, the VAP rates for the control groups of antibiotic-based prevention studies were at least 18 (CI95, 12 to 24) per 100 patients higher than those in the cohort study groups (P< .001). By contrast, comparisons of cohort study groups with all other control and intervention groups in the first and second regression models yielded differences that were less than 6 per 100 and not significant (P> .05). For control groups with VAP rates greater than 35%, the patterns of VAP isolates, such as the proportion ofStaphylococcus aureus,more closely resembled those in the corresponding intervention groups than in the cohort groups.Conclusions:The rates of VAP in the control groups of the antibiotic prevention studies were significantly higher than expected and the patterns of pathogenic isolates were unusual. These observations suggest that inapparent outbreaks of VAP occurred in these studies. The possibility remains that antibiotic-based VAP prevention presents a major cross-infection hazard.

Deterministic dynamic models for coupled resident and invader populations are considered with the purpose of finding quantities that are effective at predicting when the invasive population will become established asymptotically. A key feature of the models considered is the stage-structure, meaning that the populations are described by vectors of discrete developmental stage- or age-classes. The vector structure permits exotic transient behaviour-phenomena not encountered in scalar models. Analysis using a linear Lyapunov function demonstrates that for the class of population models considered, a large so-called population inertia is indicative of successful invasion. Population inertia is an indicator of transient growth or decline. Furthermore, for the class of models considered, we find that the so-called invasion exponent, an existing index used in models for invasion, is not always a reliable comparative indicator of successful invasion. We highlight these findings through numerical examples and a biological interpretation of why this might be the case is discussed.

The CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) survey measures patients' experiences with health care providers and their office staff. It was designed to help providers improve the care they deliver (Hays et al. 2003; Solomon et al. 2005; Dyer et al. 2012) and to provide data for patients choosing their health care providers. The CG-CAHPS survey asks patients to report on their experiences in the last 12 months. It is available with 4-category (never, sometimes, usually, always) and 6-category response scales (never, almost never, sometimes, usually, almost always, always) (https://cahps.ahrq.gov/clinician_group/). The original survey used a 4-category response scale to be consistent with other CAHPS surveys (Solomon et al. 2005). Sufficient reliability data were only available for the 6-category response scale version when it was submitted to the National Quality Forum (NQF). Thus, the NQF endorsed the 6-category response scale (AHRQ et al. 2006) and many early adopters of the CG-CAHPS elected to use the 6-category response scale. The CG-CAHPS survey was designed for telephone or mail administration. To reduce costs, some vendors compressed the original 12-page mail questionnaire into fewer pages by removing some instructions and condensing the text. Many shorter ad hoc versions do not follow CAHPS recommendations or general survey development guidelines. Differences in administration and format can influence data obtained from CAHPS surveys (Fowler, Gallagher, and Nederend 1999; Hepner, Brown, and Hays 2005; de Vries et al. 2005; Anastario et al. 2010). How the 4-category and 6-category response scales, mode of administration, and mailed survey format influence the CG-CAHPS surveys' results has not been assessed. In this study, we examined the extent to which different response scales, methods of survey administration, and format of the mailed survey affected survey composite scores, reliability of the survey composite scores, and item response rates. To assess these issues, we randomized potential respondents to one of five conditions: a 12-page mail survey using 4-category response scales, a 12-page mail survey using 6-category response scales, a telephone survey using 4-category response scales, a telephone survey using 6-category response scales, or a four-page mail survey using 4-category response scales.

Throughout the process of being treated for mood and anxiety disorders, people dream of the “normal life” that awaits them. However, post-therapy, the distinctiveness of clinical normality (i.e., reduced symptomatology) and social normativity become more apparent. In this article we suggest that for people who have long felt socially excluded because of their psychiatric symptoms, being “normally shy” or “normally awkward” is not enough. Instead they aspire to an ideal life. This confusion between means and ends, between a nonsymptomatic self, a normative self, and an ideal self, leads these individuals to long-term self-doubt and confusion about how to reach their elusive goals. Yet, their never-ending pursuit of normative ideals applies to “normal” and “abnormal” people alike. An analysis of narratives of exclusion allows us to reflect the life-long search for social inclusion via a normal life.

This paper will examine how French neurotics are being transformed into ‘social phobics’ and how the appearance of this group may be tied to new personal and social ideals. There are many people and factors that contribute to this changing definition of mental illness. Amongst these, I will focus on the role of three groups who are most vocally acting as morality brokers in the creation of these new subjects: psychiatrists, patients’ groups and pharmaceutical companies.