Pru Hobson-West

Understanding vaccination resistance: moving beyond risk

Mass childhood immunisation (MCI) is of primary importance to all modern public health systems and relies on high levels of uptake. Recent controversy in the UK about the safety of the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine has prompted widespread concerns and a government response that concentrates on providing more information to the public. This information has mainly adopted the language of risk, as exemplified in recent health promotion materials designed to persuade parents to choose the MMR vaccine. The paper analyses the key material and reveals three contestable assumptions; first, that individuals make decisions through a comparison of individual risk; second, that public concern about vaccination is due to a miscalculation of risk; third, that a policy of providing more risk statistics is the best response to the controversy. Through criticising these assumptions it is argued that some resistance to MCI is about alternative understandings of basic categories of health and disease. Further research is needed to investigate the role of uncertainty and trust in understanding anti-vaccination.

The role of ‘public opinion’ in the UK animal research debate

Animal research remains a deeply controversial topic in biomedical science. While a vast amount has been written about the ethical status of laboratory animals, far less academic attention has been devoted to the public and, more specifically, to public opinion. Rather than what the public think, this article considers the role of ‘public opinion’. It draws on a recent empirical study which involved interviews with laboratory scientists who use animals in their research, and with other UK stakeholders. The first section of the paper demonstrates that public opinion has become a kind of resource in the animal research debate. Public opinion polls, in particular, are frequently cited. The second section explores this further and argues that, for all sides, appealing to public opinion is a key way to show legitimacy. Finally, the paper shifts gear to consider whether public opinion should matter, both for ethical reasoning and for science policy.

Farmers’ perception of the role of veterinary surgeons in vaccination strategies on British dairy farms

There is limited research investigating the motivators and barriers to vaccinating dairy cattle. Veterinary surgeons have been identified as important sources of information for farmers making vaccination and disease control decisions, as well as being farmers’ preferred vaccine suppliers. Vets’ perception of their own role and communication style can be at odds with farmers’ reported preferences. The objective of this study was to investigate how dairy farmers perceived the role of vets in implementing vaccination strategies on their farm. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 dairy farmers from across Britain. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. Analysis revealed that farmers perceive vets to have an important role in facilitating decision-making in all aspects of vaccination, including the aspects of vaccine distribution and advice on implementation. This important role is acknowledged by farmers who have regular veterinary contact, but also farmers with solely emergency veterinary contact. Given this finding, future work should investigate the attitudes of vets towards vaccination and how they perceive their role. Combining this knowledge will enable optimisation of vaccination strategies on British dairy farms.

Ethical Boundary-work in the Animal Research Laboratory

The use of animals in scientific experiments continues to attract significant controversy, particularly in the UK. This article draws on in-depth interviews with senior laboratory scientists who use animals in their research. A key claim is that animal research is necessary for medical advance. However, this promissory discourse relies on the construction of three boundaries. The first is between humans and non-human animals. The second is between the positive and less positive impacts of Home Office regulation. The third is between the use of animals in medicine versus other domains such as farming. The article analyses these discourses and evaluates the applicability of ‘ethical boundary-work’ (Wainwright et al., 2006a). I conclude that the concept is a potentially useful device for foregrounding ethics but argue that it carries several dangers for sociologists interested in claim-making in areas of controversy.

Animals and anomalies: an analysis of the UK veterinary profession and the relative lack of state reform

The sociology of professions literature would predict that the contemporary state would not allow groups to continue unregulated or unreformed. However, this is indeed the case with the UK veterinary profession, with legislation dating back to 1966. Using an interdisciplinary analysis of published literature and reports, this paper assesses whether wider social, political and ethical dynamics can better explain this intriguing anomaly. We conclude with critical implications for the sociology of the professions. Furthermore, we argue that continuing to ignore the veterinary profession, and animals more generally, in sociological research will result in an impoverished and partial understanding of contemporary healthcare and occupations.

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Exploring Attitudes and Beliefs towards Implementing Cattle Disease Prevention and Control Measures: A Qualitative Study with Dairy Farmers in Great Britain.

Simple Summary Further understanding of why dairy farmers do not engage in disease prevention and control strategies (biosecurity) is required. Using semi-structured interviews informed by a health psychology approach with 25 dairy farmers, a number of barriers, such as disease testing inaccuracies, types of disease transmission, perceived lack of risk and effectiveness of measures, were identified. Motivators included being advised to undertake measures by veterinarians, and the increased threat and severity of the disease in focus. These results suggest there is an advantage to farm advisors and herd health professionals understanding and working with the beliefs of individual dairy farmers to target appropriate communication and advice strategies relating to biosecurity recommendations. Abstract Disease prevention and control practices are frequently highlighted as important to ensure the health and welfare of farmed animals, although little is known as to why not many practices are carried out. The aim of this study was to identify the motivators and barriers of dairy cattle farmers towards the use of biosecurity measures on dairy farms using a health psychology approach. Twenty-five farmers on 24 farms in Great Britain (GB) were interviewed using the Theory of Planned Behaviour framework. Results indicated that farmers perceived they had the ability to control what happened on their farms in terms of preventing and controlling disease, and described benefits from being proactive and vigilant. However, barriers were cited in relation to testing inaccuracies, effectiveness and time-efficiency of practices, and disease transmission route (e.g., airborne transmission). Farmers reported they were positively influenced by veterinarians and negatively influenced by the government (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)) and the general public. Decisions to implement practices were influenced by the perceived severity of the disease in question, if disease was diagnosed on the farm already, or was occurring on other farms. Farmers described undertaking a form of personal risk assessment when deciding if practices were worth doing, which did not always involve building in disease specific factors or opinions from veterinarians or other advisors. These results indicate that further guidance about the intricacies of control and prevention principles in relation to specific animal diseases may be required, with an obvious role for veterinarians. There appears to be an opportunity for farm advisors and herd health professionals to further understand farmer beliefs behind certain attitudes and target communication and advice accordingly to further enhance dairy cattle health and welfare.

Informed consent in veterinary medicine: ethical implications for the profession and the animal 'patient'

Informed consent processes are a vital component of both human and veterinary medicine. Current practice encourages veterinarians to learn from insights in the human medical field about how best to achieve valid consent. However, drawing on published literature in veterinary and medical ethics, this paper identifies considerable differences between the purposes of veterinary and human medical consent. Crucially, it is argued that the legal status of animal patients as ‘property’ has implications for the ethical role of veterinary informed consent and the protection of the animal ‘patient’. It is suggested that veterinary informed consent should be viewed as an ethical pivot point where the multiple responsibilities of a veterinary professional converge. In practice, balancing these responsibilities creates considerable ethical challenges. As an example, the paper discusses the renewed call for UK veterinarians to make animal welfare their first priority; we predict that this imperative may increasingly cause veterinary informed consent to become an ethical pressure point due to tensions caused by the often conflicting interests of animals, owners and the veterinary profession. In conclusion, the paper argues that whilst gaining informed consent can often be presented as a robust ethical justification in human medicine, the same cannot be said in veterinary medicine. If the veterinary profession wish to prioritise animal welfare, there is an urgent need to re-evaluate the nature of authority gained through owner informed consent and to consider whether animal patients might need to be better protected outside the consent process in certain circumstances.

Factors influencing veterinary surgeons’ decision-making about dairy cattle vaccination

The use of vaccines in the cattle industry is widespread; however, there is limited published guidance for use by decision-makers such as farmers and vets. To best support vets in advising dairy farmers on the optimisation of vaccination strategies, it is important to understand how and why vets make decisions about recommending the vaccination of cattle. The objective of this study was to explore in-depth farm animal vets’ motivators and barriers to the implementation of vaccination strategies on British dairy farms. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 vets. Results indicated that vets have a positive attitude towards the use of vaccination and have few barriers to advising its implementation. Vets appear to group farmers into three ‘character types’. This characterisation influences the vet–farmer relationship and how the vet communicates with the farmer. Vets required evidence of disease or a risk of disease as a motivator to advise vaccination. However, this seemed to be sometimes overruled by a risk-averse attitude; resulting in vaccination being advised ‘just in case’. Crucially, the need for resources to support and build on the vet–farmer relationship is highlighted as an area requiring further exploration in order to optimise vaccination strategies on farm.

‘Doing good by proxy’: Human-animal kinship and the‘donation’ of canine blood

Abstract This article demonstrates the relevance of animals to medical sociology by arguing that pet owners’ accounts of veterinary decision‐making can highlight key sociological themes which are important to both human and animal health. Based on semi‐structured interviews, the article argues that interspecies ‘kinship’ allows for the extension of sociological claims regarding altruism, self‐interest and mutuality from human blood donation to companion animal blood ‘donation’. Furthermore, this study extends sociological understanding of the human‐animal bond by showing how the dogs status as kin meant they were expected to donate blood, and that the act of donation itself represents an important opportunity for family ‘display’. However, owners who do not or cannot donate blood themselves describe pet blood donation as an opportunity to lessen associated feelings of guilt or obligation through ‘doing good by proxy’. These findings raise critical sociological and ethical questions concerning the risks and benefits of donation, and for how we understand third‐party decision making. Finally, the article argues for the close entanglement of human and animal health, and concludes that sociologists of health and medicine should explore the radical possibility that decision‐making in healthcare more generally might be influenced by experiences at the veterinary clinic, and vice versa. (A Virtual Abstract of this paper can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_979cmCmR9rLrKuD7z0ycA)