The Journal of Biosocial Science regularly publishes papers addressing the social and cultural aspects of disease, sickness and well-being. Most of these papers attempt to understand the prevalence and distribution of disease and sickness within and between populations as well as local responses to biomedical interventions and public health policy more generally. They fall broadly within the remit of human ecology; and they embrace a ‘factorial’ model of disease in which social and cultural factors are deemed to be just one of a number of factors to be considered alongside a range of other factors. These include biological features of the infecting organism; nutritional factors; environmental factors; psychological factors; and genetic factors influencing susceptibility to disease at an individual and population level.

Uganda is invoked as a metaphor for a host of arguments and insights about HIV/AIDS. However, much of what has been asserted about the country is not based on the available evidence. This paper reviews findings by epidemiologists and anthropologists, and draws on the author’s experiences of researching in the country since the early 1980s. It comments on various myths about HIV/AIDS in Uganda, including myths about the origin and dissemination of the disease, about the links between HIV/AIDS and war, and about declining rates of infection. It shows that much less is known about Uganda than is commonly supposed, and it offers some alternative hypotheses for interpreting HIV prevalence and incidence data. In particular it draws attention to the importance of mechanisms for social compliance. It concludes by raising concerns about the current enthusiasm for provision of anti-retroviral drugs.

This paper traces the development of policies dealing with HIV/AIDS in Botswana from their beginning in the late 1980s to the current programme to provide population-wide anti-retroviral therapy (ARV). Using a variety of source material, including long-term ethnographic research, it seeks to account for the failure of Western-inspired approaches in dealing with the pandemic. It does this by looking at the cultural and institutional features that have created resistance to the message and inhibited effective implementation. The negative response to the first educational campaign stressing condom use is described and contextualized in terms of Tswana ideas of morality and illness. Nor, as was initially expected, did the introduction of free ARV therapy operate to break the silence and stigma that had developed around the disease. Take-up was very slow, and did not operate to encourage widespread testing. In 2003, key policymakers in Botswana began to argue for a break with the AIDS ‘exceptionalism’ position, with its emphasis on voluntarism, confidentiality and the human rights of patients. This resulted in routine testing being introduced in 2004. This links to a major argument running through the paper which is that the failure of policy cannot be attributed solely to the nature of local populations. Western cultural assumptions about ‘good practice’ also require critical examination.

In South Africa, disability grant allocation has been under review and tensions are evident in government rhetoric stressing welfare provision on the one hand, and encouraging ‘rationalization’ on the other. This ambiguity is traced down to the level of grant negotiations between doctors and ‘clients’ in a psychiatry clinic in Khayelitsha. Here ‘having nerves’ embodies the distress associated with harsh circumstances and is deemed by supplicants as sufficient to secure a grant. The paper illustrates how national discourses influence the presentation and experience of suffering and the way in which doctors mediate diagnoses. The implications of local understandings of ‘health citizenship’ for expectations of the post-apartheid state are explored.

This paper argues for the inclusion of ethnography as a research methodology for understanding the effects of public health policy. To do this, the implementation of DOTS (Directly Observed Therapy, Short-course) – the World Health Organization (WHO) prescribed policy for the control of the infectious disease tuberculosis – is explored in the context of Nepal. A brief history of DOTS and its implementation in Nepal is outlined, and the way it has been represented by those within the Nepal Tuberculosis Programme (NTP) is described. This is followed by an outline of the research done in relation to this, and the ethnographic methods used. These ethnographic data are then interpreted and analysed in relation to two specific areas of concern. Firstly, the effects around the epidemiological uses of ‘cases’ is explored; it is argued that a tightening of the definitional categories so necessary for the programme to be stabilized for comparative purposes has profound material effects in marginalizing some from treatment. Secondly, the paper examines some of the implications and effects relating to the way that the ‘directly observed’ component was implemented. The discussion explores how current debate on DOTS has been played out in some medical journals. It argues for the importance of ethnography as a method for understanding certain questions that cannot be answered by particular, and increasingly dominant, research ideologies informed by randomized controlled trials. This raises important issues about the nature of ‘evidence’ in debates on the relationship of research to policy.

This paper interrogates the routine and unproblematic use of terms such as ‘self-medication’ in biomedical and anthropological discourse. A typical depiction of the social factors that explain the practice of ‘self-medication’ in India is to put together the supply side factors (such as protection offered by the government for the production of generic drugs, especially in the small scale sector, and expansion of the number of drug store outlets), with the increasing demand for allopathic drugs. The paper provides an ethnographic account of the intricate connections between households and biomedical practitioners in urban neighbourhoods in Delhi. It breaks away from the conventional opposition drawn between the practices of physicians and the beliefs of their patients, and suggests that what constitutes the medical environments of these neighbourhoods is the product of medical practices, household economies and concepts of disease. Thus pharmaceutical use is determined as much by practices of dispensation and by how practitioners understand what constitutes therapy as by household understanding of the normal and the pathological. This paper uses both quantitative data and narrative interviews to provide an in-depth understanding of the circulation of pharmaceuticals within the life worlds of the urban poor.

Anthropological insights into the use of race/ethnicity to explore genetic contributions to disparities in health were developed using in-depth qualitative interviews with editorial staff from nineteen genetics journals, focusing on the methodological and conceptual mechanisms required to make race/ethnicity a genetic variable. As such, these analyses explore how and why race/ethnicity comes to be used in the context of genetic research, set against the background of continuing critiques from anthropology and related human sciences that focus on the social construction, structural correlates and limited genetic validity of racial/ethnic categories. The analyses demonstrate how these critiques have failed to engage geneticists, and how geneticists use a range of essentially cultural devices to protect and separate their use of race/ethnicity as a genetic construct from its use as a societal and social science resource. Given its multidisciplinary, biosocial nature and the cultural gaze of its ethnographic methodologies, anthropology is well placed to explore the cultural separation of science and society, and of natural and social science disciplines. Anthropological insights into the use of race/ethnicity to explore disparities in health suggest that moving beyond genetic explanations of innate difference might benefit from a more even-handed critique of how both the natural and social sciences tend to essentialize selective elements of race/ethnicity. Drawing on the example of HIV/AIDS, this paper demonstrates how public health has been undermined by the use of race/ethnicity as an analytical variable, both as a cipher for innate genetic differences in susceptibility and response to treatment, and in its use to identify ‘core groups’ at greater risk of becoming infected and infecting others. Clearly, a tendency for biological reductionism can place many biomedical issues beyond the scope of public health interventions, while socio-cultural essentialization has tended to stigmatize ‘unhealthy behaviours’ and the communities where these are more prevalent.

This paper considers how parents engage with a large, internationally supported childhood pneumococcal vaccine trial in The Gambia. Current analysis and professional reflection on public engagement is strongly shaped by the imperatives of public health and research institutions, and is thus couched in terms of acceptance and refusal, and ‘informed consent’. In contrast Gambian parents’ perspectives on the trial are couched in conceptual and experiential terms that are linked to their wider dilemmas of raising infants amidst the hazards of globally connected village life. Ethnographic research reveals how for most parents, longer-term experiences of the organization managing the research (the UK Medical Research Council Laboratories in The Gambia) as a health-providing institution override their reflection on trial-specific aims. A decision to participate in the trial involves a perceived balance of benefit and danger – in the extreme, of free medical treatment, versus one’s child being drained of blood for sale to Europe. Social relations (especially gender relations) shape this calculus and study participation. This case suggests how the idea of ‘public engagement with science’ in a globalized context might be recast, with implications for debates in biomedical ethics, and the sustainability of public participation in medical research.

A growing and substantial body of research suggests that female sex workers play a disproportionately large role in the transmission of HIV in many parts of the world, and they are often referred to as core groups by epidemiologists, mathematical modellers, clinicians and policymakers. Male sex workers, by contrast, have received little attention and it is not known whether it is helpful to conceptualize them as a core group. This paper draws upon ethnographic research documenting social and sexual networks in London and looks at the position of five male sex workers within a network comprising 193 men and seven women (as well as 1378 anonymous sexual contacts and 780 commercial contacts). In so doing, it suggests that there is no evidence to show that male sex workers are more or less likely to acquire or transmit HIV in the course of commercial sex compared with other types of sexual relationships. In addition, men engaging in non-commercial sex all reported having unprotected sex in a variety of contexts and relationships and there is no evidence to suggest that men who are not sex workers play less of a role in the transmission of HIV. In short, these data suggest that it would be inappropriate to conceptualize male sex workers as a core group. This is not to suggest that public policy should continue to overlook male sex workers. New and inventive approaches are required to reach out to a vulnerable but diverse group of men, selling sex for a variety of reasons; even if these men are no more vulnerable to acquiring and/or transmitting HIV than other men and women that form part of their network.

Academic disciplines like anthropology and epidemiology provide a niche for researchers to speak the same language, and to interrogate the assumptions that they use to investigate problems. How anthropological and epidemiological methods communicate and relate to each other affects the way public health policy is created but the philosophical underpinnings of each discipline makes this difficult. Anthropology is reflective, subjective and investigates complexity and the individual; epidemiology, in contrast, is objective and studies populations. Within epidemiological methods there is the utilitarian concept of potentially sacrificing the interests of the individual for the benefits of maximizing population welfare, whereas in anthropology the individual is always included. Other strengths of anthropology in the creation of public health policy include: its attention to complexity, questioning the familiar; helping with language and translation; reconfiguring boundaries to create novel frameworks; and being reflective. Public health requires research that is multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary. To do this, there is a need for each discipline to respect the ‘dignity of difference’ between disciplines in order to help create appropriate and effective public health policy.