对抗全球卫生政策中的战争逻辑:假药、抗菌药耐药性和逃逸科学。

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Anthropology & Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1080/13648470.2023.2274685
Laura A Meek
{"title":"对抗全球卫生政策中的战争逻辑:假药、抗菌药耐药性和逃逸科学。","authors":"Laura A Meek","doi":"10.1080/13648470.2023.2274685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Powerful pharmaceuticals are readily available for purchase throughout Tanzania and global health policy makers decry this situation as dangerous and disordered, as if no rules govern the use of drugs in Africa. In the prevailing global health understanding, 'truth' lies in the laboratory science that goes into the making and proper prescription of drugs, and such deviations as 'overuse' and 'misuse' result from the fact that locals supposedly misunderstand what these drugs are and how they should be used. However, my ethnographic research in Tanzania reveals that embodied epistemologies frequently enable medical practitioners and patients to evaluate the quality of various drugs and to identify <i>chakachua</i> (substandard or adulterated) pharmaceuticals through their material and sensory qualities-a practice I conceptualize as a form of 'fugitive science' (Rusert 2017). In light of this, I analyze the WHO's National Action Plan for Antimicrobial Resistance in Tanzania, demonstrating how such global health policies disregard this knowledge, employing neocolonial rhetoric that presents 'ignorance' and 'lack of hygiene' as the sources of growing antimicrobial resistance while simultaneously obscuring structural inequalities. I argue that such forms of global health surveillance operate through the logics and epistemologies of war (Chow 2006; Terry 2017) in ways that render populations in the Global South into threats and targets. I conclude by suggesting that fugitive science can work as counter-evidence to health security frameworks and, as such, represents a furtive form of resistance to these militarized logics.</p>","PeriodicalId":8240,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology & Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"139-155"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Countering the logics of war in global health policy: fake drugs, antimicrobial resistance, and fugitive science.\",\"authors\":\"Laura A Meek\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13648470.2023.2274685\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Powerful pharmaceuticals are readily available for purchase throughout Tanzania and global health policy makers decry this situation as dangerous and disordered, as if no rules govern the use of drugs in Africa. In the prevailing global health understanding, 'truth' lies in the laboratory science that goes into the making and proper prescription of drugs, and such deviations as 'overuse' and 'misuse' result from the fact that locals supposedly misunderstand what these drugs are and how they should be used. However, my ethnographic research in Tanzania reveals that embodied epistemologies frequently enable medical practitioners and patients to evaluate the quality of various drugs and to identify <i>chakachua</i> (substandard or adulterated) pharmaceuticals through their material and sensory qualities-a practice I conceptualize as a form of 'fugitive science' (Rusert 2017). In light of this, I analyze the WHO's National Action Plan for Antimicrobial Resistance in Tanzania, demonstrating how such global health policies disregard this knowledge, employing neocolonial rhetoric that presents 'ignorance' and 'lack of hygiene' as the sources of growing antimicrobial resistance while simultaneously obscuring structural inequalities. I argue that such forms of global health surveillance operate through the logics and epistemologies of war (Chow 2006; Terry 2017) in ways that render populations in the Global South into threats and targets. I conclude by suggesting that fugitive science can work as counter-evidence to health security frameworks and, as such, represents a furtive form of resistance to these militarized logics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anthropology & Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"139-155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anthropology & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2023.2274685\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropology & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2023.2274685","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

坦桑尼亚全国各地都能买到强效药品,全球卫生政策制定者谴责这种情况是危险和混乱的,就好像非洲的药物使用没有规则可循一样。在全球健康的普遍理解中,"真理 "在于实验室科学的药物制造和正确处方,而 "过度使用 "和 "滥用 "等偏差则是由于当地人误解了这些药物是什么以及应该如何使用。然而,我在坦桑尼亚进行的人种学研究显示,具身认识论经常使医疗从业者和患者能够评估各种药物的质量,并通过其物质和感官质量识别出 "掺假"(chakachua)药品--我将这种做法概念化为一种 "逃逸科学"(Rusert,2017 年)。有鉴于此,我分析了世界卫生组织的《坦桑尼亚抗菌药耐药性国家行动计划》,展示了此类全球卫生政策是如何无视这一知识,采用新殖民主义修辞,将 "无知 "和 "缺乏卫生 "视为抗菌药耐药性日益增长的根源,同时掩盖了结构性不平等。我认为,这种形式的全球卫生监督是通过战争逻辑和认识论来运作的(Chow,2006 年;Terry,2017 年),其方式将全球南部的人口变成了威胁和目标。最后,我提出,逃逸科学可以作为健康安全框架的反证,因此,它代表了对这些军事化逻辑的一种隐秘的抵抗形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Countering the logics of war in global health policy: fake drugs, antimicrobial resistance, and fugitive science.

Powerful pharmaceuticals are readily available for purchase throughout Tanzania and global health policy makers decry this situation as dangerous and disordered, as if no rules govern the use of drugs in Africa. In the prevailing global health understanding, 'truth' lies in the laboratory science that goes into the making and proper prescription of drugs, and such deviations as 'overuse' and 'misuse' result from the fact that locals supposedly misunderstand what these drugs are and how they should be used. However, my ethnographic research in Tanzania reveals that embodied epistemologies frequently enable medical practitioners and patients to evaluate the quality of various drugs and to identify chakachua (substandard or adulterated) pharmaceuticals through their material and sensory qualities-a practice I conceptualize as a form of 'fugitive science' (Rusert 2017). In light of this, I analyze the WHO's National Action Plan for Antimicrobial Resistance in Tanzania, demonstrating how such global health policies disregard this knowledge, employing neocolonial rhetoric that presents 'ignorance' and 'lack of hygiene' as the sources of growing antimicrobial resistance while simultaneously obscuring structural inequalities. I argue that such forms of global health surveillance operate through the logics and epistemologies of war (Chow 2006; Terry 2017) in ways that render populations in the Global South into threats and targets. I conclude by suggesting that fugitive science can work as counter-evidence to health security frameworks and, as such, represents a furtive form of resistance to these militarized logics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
(In) visibility of health and illness: Instagram as an unregulated public health platform. 'We are not done': reclaiming care after mobile health in Burkina Faso. Digital technologies and the future of health: aspirations, care and data. Phantom data and the potentials of radical caretaking in reproductive health. The insensitivity of 'sensitive care': the bureaucracy of pregnancy tissue disposal in England, UK.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1