Researching new diseases: assumptions and trajectories

New diseases in humans and animals have been the subject of considerable research as well as policy development and popular attention. Researchers commonly proceed on the basis of plausible assumptions about mechanisms, pathways, and dangers but seldom question the assumptions themselves. Studies in the history and sociology of science show that research trajectories are conditioned by social, political, and economic arrangements. The assumptions underlying research into three new diseases—devil facial tumor disease in Tasmanian devils, AIDS in humans, and leukemia in soft-shell clams—are examined, and dominant and alternative research programs compared. In each case, most research has assumed the disease is spread through “natural processes”, while research about possible human influences has been left undone.

Dissent and heresy in medicine: models, methods, and strategies

Understanding the dynamics of dissent and heresy in medicine can be aided by the use of suitable frameworks. The dynamics of the search for truth vary considerably depending on whether the search is competitive or cooperative and on whether truth is assumed to be unitary or plural. Insights about dissent and heresy in medicine can be gained by making comparisons to politics and religion. To explain adherence to either orthodoxy or a challenging view, partisans use a standard set of explanations; social scientists use these plus others, especially symmetrical analyses. There is a wide array of methods by which orthodoxy maintains its domination and marginalises challengers. Finally, challengers can adopt various strategies in order to gain a hearing.

The politics of a scientific meeting: the origin-of-AIDS debate at the Royal Society

The Royal Society of London held a scientific meeting in September 2000 focusing on two theories of the origin of AIDS: one, that it occurred through "natural transfer" of immunodeficiency virus from monkeys or chimpanzees to humans; and the other, that it occurred through iatrogenic transfer via contaminated polio vaccines used in Africa in the late 1950s. This meeting was the culmination of years of public contention over the polio-vaccine theory. Several dimensions of the politics of science are revealed by analysis of this issue, including the power of scientific editors, the use of the mass media, decisions regarding selection of speakers and organization of the meeting, and epistemological assumptions made by participants.

The burden of proof and the origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome

There is a distinct difference in the way that different theories about the origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome have been treated, with the widely supported cut-hunter theory given relatively little scrutiny, while the oral polio vaccine theory has been subject to intense criticism. This difference in treatment cannot be explained as application of the scientific method. A better explanation is that the burden of proof is put on all contenders to the cut-hunter theory, giving it an unfair advantage, especially given that this assignment of the burden of proof appears to reflect non-scientific factors.

The African polio vaccine-acquired immune deficiency syndrome connection

Seroepidemiological, clinical and molecular findings suggest that the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus human immunodeficiency virus-1 was introduced into the human species at the time (late 1950s) and in the geographic area (Zaire) in which millions of Africans were vaccinated with attenuated poliomyelitis virus strains that were produced in kidney tissue obtained from monkeys. Since monkeys not only harbor viruses that are remarkably similar to and genetically related to human immunodeficiency virus-1, but also served as tissue donors for the African polio vaccine, it is reasonable to suspect that a then non-detectable monkey virus with human-1-like properties was unknowingly co-cultured with the attenuated poliovirus virus and subsequently administered to the vaccinees. The possibility of such a polio vaccine-acquired immune deficiency syndrome connection is a reminder of the unpredictable danger of artifically crossing natural species-barriers in biomedical laboratories.