• No results found

EDP JOURNALS - AUTHOR QUERY FORM

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "EDP JOURNALS - AUTHOR QUERY FORM"

Copied!
11
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Journal Code: parasite Article DOI: 10.1051/parasite/2020056

Article Number: parasite200053 First Author: Jérôme Michalon

Article Title: Accounting for One Health: Insights from the social sciences

AUTHOR QUERIES – TO BE ANSWERED BY THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Dear Author,

During the preparation of your manuscript for typesetting, the queries listed below have arisen. Please answer these queries by marking the required corrections at the appropriate point in the text.

Precopyedited Manuscript

h

While processing the precopyedited manuscript some oversights were noted. These have been listed below.

CE: Deepa V

Thanks for your assistance.

Queries and/or remarks

Location in article

Query/remark Response

Q1 Please provide in-text citation to the following references [1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 19, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 59, 62, 63].

Q2 Please provide the“total printed pages” for the references [5, 21, 23, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41, 49, 58, 65].

Q3 Please update reference [18].

Q4 Kindly provide page range for reference [43, 45, 52, 53].

(2)

1 2

3

Accounting for One Health: Insights from the social sciences

4 Jérôme Michalon* 5

6 UMR Triangle– ENS de Lyon site Descartes, Bat D4 (recherche) – 2ème étage, 15 parvis René Descartes, 69342 Lyon cedex 07 – France 7 Received 31 March 2020, Accepted 21 October 2020, Published online xxx

8 Abstract – This paper discusses the relationship between One Health (OH) and the social sciences. Using a compar- 9 ison between three narratives of the history of OH, it is argued that OH can be studied as a social phenomenon. The 10 narrative of OH by its promoters (folk narratives) emphasizes two dimensions: OH as a renewal of veterinary medicine 11 and OH as an institutional response to global health crises. Narratives from empirical social science work explore 12 similar dimensions, but make them more complex. For political sociology, OH is the result of negotiations between 13 the three international organisations (WHO, OIE and FAO), in a context of a global health crisis, which led to the 14 reconfiguration of their respective mandates and scope of action: OH is a response to an institutional crisis. For the 15 sociology of science, OH testifies to the evolution of the profession and veterinary science, enabling it to position itself 16 as a promoter of interdisciplinarity, in a context of convergence between research and policy. In the Discussion section, 17 I propose an approach to OH as an“epistemic watchword”: a concept whose objective is to make several actors work 18 together (watchword), in a particular direction, that of the production of knowledge (epistemic).

19

20 Key words: One Health, Political Sociology, Science studies, Watchword.

2122

23 Re´sume´ – Rendre compte de One Health : réflexions issues des sciences sociales. Cet article aborde les rapports 24 entre One Health (OH - « une santé » en français) et les sciences sociales. L’idée que OH peut être étudié comme un 25 phénomène social est défendue, au moyen d’une comparaison entre trois narrations de l’histoire de OH. La narration de 26 OH par ses promoteurs (narrations indigènes) insiste sur deux dimensions : OH comme renouveau de la médecine 27 vétérinaire et OH comme réponse institutionnelle à des crises sanitaires. Les narrations issues de travaux 28 empiriques en sciences sociales explorent des dimensions similaires, mais les rendent plus complexes. Pour la 29 sociologie politique, OH est le résultat d’une négociation entre les trois organisations internationales (OMS, OIE et 30 FAO), dans un contexte de crise sanitaire globale, ayant amené à reconfigurer leurs mandats et leurs périmètres 31 d’action respectifs : OH est une réponse à une crise institutionnelle. Pour la sociologie des sciences, OH témoigne 32 des évolutions de la profession et de la science vétérinaire, permettant à celle-ci de se placer en position de 33 promotrice de l’interdisciplinarité, dans un contexte de rapprochement entre recherche et action publique. Dans la 34 partie « discussion », je proposerai d’aborder OH comme un « mot d’ordre épistémique » : un concept dont 35 l’objectif est de faire travailler plusieurs acteurs ensemble (mot d’ordre), dans un sens particulier, celui de la 36 production de savoirs (épistémique).

37 38

39

Introduction: One Health and social

40

sciences

41 The purpose of this article is to contribute to reflections on 42 ways to articulate One Health (OH) and social sciences. By 43 “social science”, I mean the disciplinary corpus that has devel- 44 oped since the middle of the 19th century, and which deals 45 with the scientific understanding of human behavior, in its rela- 46 tion to institutions. I include in these disciplines: economics,

sociology, anthropology, social geography, history, political 47 48 science and psychology. Unlike philosophy, the social sciences

49 mobilize empirical approaches to answer the questions they ask

50 themselves. In this respect, they can claim the title of

“sciences”. Being themselves social entities, these disciplines 51 52 and their contours evolve according to periods and geo-political and institutional contexts. Some social sciences may, for 53

54 example, approach the life science’s epistemology, using labo-

55 ratory experimental protocols, such as behavioral psychology.

*Corresponding author:jerome.michalon@ens-lyon.fr

Special Issue– One Health: A social science discussion of a global agenda Invited Editors: Jean Estebanez & Pascal Boireau

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Parasitexx, xx (2020)

Ó J. Michalon, published byEDP Sciences, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2020056

Available online at:

www.parasite-journal.org

OPEN ACCESS

RESEARCHARTICLE

(3)

1 Conversely, some disciplines of life sciences use methods that 2 are sometimes close to those of the social sciences, such as 3 “field” ethology, for example. But the core of the social 4 sciences can be recognized by its attachment to the ideas of 5 the historicity of human practices, symbolic relationships to 6 others and to the environment, and the construction of institu- 7 tions and norms that organize collective life. It is this under- 8 standing, this vision of the social sciences, that will be 9 discussed in this article, in particular because it is the one most 10 found in the work on OH.

11 There are two ways in the literature to consider the relation- 12 ship between OH and social sciences. Thefirst is to take part in 13 the achievement of the One Health agenda [40]. The aim here is 14 to present the OH agenda as an opportunity for social sciences:

15 opportunity to promote their skills in producing a general 16 understanding of human behaviour: since changing individual 17 and collective practices is at the heart of the OH agenda, whose 18 disciplines would be better qualified than social sciences to 19 objectify the social, political, economic and legal processes that 20 can promote or hinder the management of global and trans- 21 specific health? In addition to this general knowledge of what 22 humans do, there is also knowledge of the local contexts in 23 which the practices to be changed are observed: How can we 24 ensure that the OH agenda can be achieved by taking into 25 account practices, knowledge and representations relating to 26 human health, animal health and ecosystem care [64]? On this 27 topic, the expertise of social sciences is presented as crucial 28 (especially that of anthropology, and in particular development 29 anthropology), for the successful deployment of global health, 30 which would not result in the imposition or plating of exoge- 31 nous norms and practices (by Northern countries) on heteroge- 32 neous cultural realities (symbolic and material). The model of 33 “social acceptability” (in its most asymmetrical form) or 34 “co-construction” (in its more egalitarian version) then appears.

35 The role of social sciences would be to ensure compatibility 36 between public policies, technological innovations or develop- 37 ment assistance mechanisms and a “target” population that is 38 supposed to receive, accept or co-construct them. In this 39 respect, the OH agenda presents a very favourable ground for 40 the application of survey methods and co-construction mecha- 41 nisms, mastered by social sciences and having already proved 42 their worth on other topics [13]. Social sciences therefore 43 propose a dual service offer to the OH agenda: a cognitive offer, 44 highlighting knowledge of the diversity in practices and repre- 45 sentations of human, animal and environmental health; and an 46 operational offer, highlighting knowledge of the processes by 47 which it is possible to arrange this diversity in such a way that 48 it serves the OH agenda. This operational proposal also applies 49 to the coordination of the actors (politicians, scientists, NGOs) 50 who are supposed to work together within the framework of 51 OH. Here again, social sciences are volunteering to improve 52 the understanding of different institutional and/or disciplinary 53 cultures and to go beyond the logic of“silos” [45]. Generally 54 formulated in purely epistemological terms, the opportunity 55 for social sciences to be included in the OH agenda is not, 56 however, disconnected from a context of institutional marginal- 57 ity: OH represents a significant call for financially and 58 epistemologically “dominated” disciplines, in the academic

59 world. The possibility of linking up with multidisciplinary

60 programmes, firmly funded and politically supported at the

61 international level, is not very frequent for social sciences,

62 which might explain their willingness to take an active part in the OH agenda. 63

64 This positioning, this service offer, is not the only way

65 social sciences can grasp OH. A second option is to analyse

66 OH as an object, as a social phenomenon in itself. This consists

67 in understanding the context in which “One Health” has emerged, which actors promote it, who makes it emerge, and 68

69 in which networks it circulates, and how it is appropriated by

70 some according to their interests, their strategies, etc. This

71 approach has already proved its worth, and has made it possible

72 to understand the emergence of OH in the wake of changes in public health management. A large body of literature has 73

74 focused on OH as the ultimate avatar of the globalisation

75 mechanisms of human health [26], and animal health [18]. In

76 this trend, a significant number of studies present OH as a

77 symptom of a new way of managing health risks, making

78 animal health control an opportunity to impose “biosecurity”

[20] on a global scale [16,17,40]. This descriptive and analyt- 79 80 ical work shows that the emergence of OH is linked to varied

81 and complex issues, which are partly beyond the reach of the

82 promoters of the OH agenda. An overview of OH, its history

83 and ramifications seems difficult to obtain, and the interest of social science work does not lie in the ambition to produce this 84

“meta”, “totalizing” point of view on OH. On the contrary, 85 86 social sciences can be useful to draw attention to some (not

87 all) dimensions that can be obscured by those who think and

88 implement the OH agenda, notably because of the profes-

89 sional and disciplinary interests that the OH agenda could help them serve. What does OH stand for? Who is talking 90

91 about OH? Who speaks in the name of OH? Who speaks for

92 OH? What does OH do? What does OH make actors do?

93 Why OH now? These dimensions can be quite basic from

94 the point of view of social sciences, but they can be neglected by OH promoters themselves, even (and perhaps even 95

96 more) when they intend to report them, and give them meaning.

97 This article aims to show that a social science perspective

98 can enrich the understanding of the emergence of OH, and

99 enrich the point of view of the actors involved in the promotion

100 of OH.

To demonstrate this, I will present three types of narratives 101 102 of the emergence of OH. First, I will focus on narratives

103 produced by authors explicitly engaged in the OH agenda (folk

104 narratives), to highlight how they explain “why OH now”?

105 Then, I will present a narrative produced from a political sociology perspective, then another produced from a sociology 106

107 of science perspective. I will show that these narratives are not

108 necessarily disconnected from each other: although the

109 narratives of the social sciences differ from folk narratives, they

110 take up certain elements of them, providing them with a new perspective. 111

112 In the discussion part, I will propose a way to continue the

113 sociological exploration of OH. Noting that the formal dimen-

114 sion of OH has not yet been taken sufficiently into account to

115 qualify what OH is, I will propose the notion of “epistemic watchword”. 116

(4)

1

Materials and methods

2 This article is based on the reading and analysis of more 3 than 20 articles, both in social sciences and life sciences. Their 4 common point is to propose, in varying proportions, narratives 5 of the history of OH. Two articles are presented in more detail.

6 They were chosen because there is still little empirical research 7 in the social sciences that traces the origin of OH. They seemed 8 to me to be the most advanced in the application of a sociolog- 9 ical approach to the object OH. Moreover, they present two 10 different aspects of this approach: one is based on a qualitative 11 survey, mobilizing interviews with actors who contributed to 12 the fabrication of the OH concept. The other is based on an 13 in-depth bibliometric survey, which gives access to the evolu- 14 tion of the scientific meanings of the OH concept. In both cases, 15 an empirical, evidence-based approach is applied. The choice of 16 these papers was therefore not made on the basis of their impact 17 in thefield of social sciences interested in OH. Rather, the aim 18 is to present two archetypal models of social science research.

19 Moreover, these two research styles correspond here to two 20 sub-fields of the social sciences: political sociology and sociol- 21 ogy of science. The first documents the power relations that 22 exist within and between actors and institutions related to public 23 decision making and politics in general. The second analyzes 24 the social dynamics within and between institutions and actors 25 in the scientific world, and approaches the production of 26 knowledge as a social phenomenon in its own right. Insofar 27 as OH presents itself as a new way of producing knowledge 28 and governing public health policies, these two articles provide 29 a highly complementary perspective.

30 This text is more of an essay than a rigorous scientific 31 analysis or a systematic review. Above all, it seeks to identify 32 avenues for reflection on the sociological understanding of OH.

33

Results

34 New bottle or new paradigm? The folk narratives

35 of OH

36 Talking about“folk narratives” is a way of indicating that 37 OH does not develop independently of the stories that are made 38 by the promoters of its genesis. These stories are woven from 39 factual and speculative elements, seeking to account for the 40 emergence of OH and to give particular guidance to the appli- 41 cation of the accompanying agenda. The common point of 42 these stories is that they are produced by authors working in 43 close proximity to the OH agenda, infinalised research, some- 44 times within international organisations that promote it. This is 45 what qualifies these stories as indigenous or “folk” and gives 46 their content a particular orientation, both descriptive and 47 strategic.

48 These narratives thus oscillate between two ways of 49 presenting OH: either as the new version of a traditional vision 50 of health, which would have been rediscovered; or as a radi- 51 cally new paradigm, appearing in new circumstances, which 52 required innovative responses.

53 In the first narrative, OH’s vision of trans-specific health 54 appears not to be new. Obviously, health care would have at 55 all times required thinking about the interactions between

56 humans, animals and ecosystems. Some authors explain that:

“the word HEALTH itself can be interpreted as an acronym 57 58 composed of: Humans - Ecosystems - Animals - Living -

59 Together - Harmoniously.” ([14], p. 415). This holistic and systemic dimension may have been forgotten, along the 60

61 development of scientific human medicine. Only veterinary

62 medicine may have preserved the memory and wisdom of this

“global” thought. OH philosophy is said to be at the very heart 63 64 of veterinary science and practice. OH could only be“old wine in a new bottle”; the novelty of the thing residing only in the 65

66 official recognition of the importance of this philosophy carried

67 since always by veterinarians [27,52]. From such a perspective,

68 making the history of OH is making the history of veterinarians,

69 and presenting some of them as precursors of OH. Although this narrative is rich in factual elements, the way they are 70

71 arranged clearly aims at enhancing the value of the veterinary

72 profession, in an exercise of legitimization well analysed by

73 historians [31,58] and sociologists [6]. Since its creation, the

74 veterinary profession has legitimized itself by emphasizing its

75 indirect contribution to the preservation of human health.

In view of the multiplication of narratives discussed here, it 76 77 can be assumed that OH provides a new opportunity for the

78 profession to mobilize this rhetoric of interconnection of health

79 processes and centrality of veterinary expertise, to account for

80 and take charge of them. Especially since, as we will see later, veterinarians have already tried to propose integrative concepts, 81

82 allowing the link between animal and human health (or illness),

83 such as“One Medicine” or even the concept of “zoonosis”.

84 The second folk narrative of OH’s genesis is found quite

85 regularly in the Introduction section of articles wishing to

86 implement the OH approach or presenting results from its appli- cation. Unlike thefirst version, this one insists on the radical 87

88 novelty that OH represents. Its appearance can be traced back

89 to the mid-2000s, following a series of global health crises that

90 began in the late 1990s. SARS, the H1N1 virus, but especially

91 the H5N1 virus, are presented as major events that have shown the organizational and scientific limitations of the systems of 92

93 actors in charge of global health management. These emerging

94 diseases, which have fallen under the control of health author-

95 ities and international organisations, seem to have overwhelmed

96 their prediction, modelling and coordination capacities. This is

97 what would have pushed these actors to adopt a systemic, holistic framework of thought to deal with the emergence of 98

99 new health risks. The chronology found in this type of narrative

100 includes the Manhattan Principles (2004), under the aegis of the

101 Wildlife Conservation Society, and their adoption by the

102 American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) following the launch of the One Health initiative in 2008, then by 103

104 WHO, FAO and OIE between 2008 and 2010 (concept note

105 on One World One Health – reiterated in 2017), and by the

106 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In this OH

107 narrative, a whole series of institutional responses to events requiring a new type of governance and expertise is listed. This 108

“rhetoric of response” is best illustrated by the article by 109 110 Scoones and Forster [54], which proposes an extensive double

111 entry table in the Appendix, showing in the left column the

112 biological events (disease biology) that occurred between 1997 and 2007, and in the right column the institutional 113

114 responses (policy responses). As unexpected as pandemics,

4 J. Michalon: Parasite 2020, xx, xx

(5)

1 OH then seems to emerge as a set of new answers to questions 2 that are no less unexpected. This form of narrative, mobilizing a 3 chronological and cumulative perspective (through the succes- 4 sion of strong statements and actions from powerful actors), 5 places OH in a certain relationship to temporality: OH is a 6 project that is continually being constituted, each new stage 7 being the opportunity to list new obstacles to its achievement 8 and new challenges to be met. The notion of“project” has been 9 well analysed by sociologists, mostly as a principle of 10 governance and a new tool for managing and controlling 11 behavior [5]. In this narrative, OH then becomes a horizon that 12 encourages action, an aspect to which I will return later. In 13 addition to the chronological dimension, the mention of certain 14 powerful actors who have adopted OH (international organisa- 15 tions, certain NGOs and certain professional organisations from 16 powerful States) also gives this narrative an incentive function.

17 Associating OH with these particular actors (and not others) 18 gives the concept an authority and power to convince anyone 19 of its interest in integrating into the OH agenda.

20 OH’s folk narratives, whether they insist on the radical 21 novelty of the concept or on its inclusion in the continuity of 22 past practices, have in common to serve the interests of their 23 authors. Such a conclusion will probably come as no surprise 24 to anyone in the world of social sciences. Historians have 25 taught us: writing history is anything but a trivial act. For a long 26 time reserved for the elites, writing history was a tool of power 27 and legitimization of power. OH’s stories are no exception. It is 28 therefore interesting to find other narratives, produced by 29 authors whose proximity to the OH agenda is less significant, 30 who approach the question of power relations between its 31 promoters in a more explicit way.

32 A response to a governance crisis:

33 OH as an object for political sociology

34 After these stories where OH appears as an institutional 35 response to events requiring a new form of governance and 36 expertise, let us now turn to a narrative resulting from research 37 in political sociology; in this case, the work of the American 38 sociologist Yu-Ju Chien, who published a paper entitled 39 “How did international agencies perceive the avian influenza 40 problem? The adoption and manufacture of the‘One World, 41 One Health’ framework”. [12] This research consisted in 42 qualitative research, investigating three international organisa- 43 tions (WHO, FAO and OIE), involving interviews with officials 44 of these organisations and also work on archives and grey 45 literature. Chien explains the context in which the OH concept, 46 despite its vague nature, has been adopted. The health crises of 47 the early 2000s, already mentioned, have indeed generated 48 tension between the three organisations. But unlike the folk 49 narratives, insisting on the organisational limits that health 50 crises brought to light, Chien refers rather to a crisis of legiti- 51 macy of the three organisations, in the making for a long time.

52 The spread of H5N1 has led to conflicts over how to limit its 53 impact. The preventive slaughter of poultry to limit contamina- 54 tion is a point of tension between WHO, which advocates the 55 solution as a public health measure, and FAO and OIE, which 56 have in mind the consequences of the measure on livestock 57 farmers and animals. Conflicts of mandate appear as follows:

58 protecting human health (WHO) and preserving animals and

59 economic interests related to animal health (FAO and OIE)

60 contradict each other. It can be added that tensions arise

61 between the OIE and the FAO precisely because each claims expertise and action on animal health protection, with slightly 62

63 different perspectives (public health for the OIE/livestock and

64 development support for the FAO). On the relationship between

65 the OIE and FAO regarding “animal health” and “zoonosis”,

66 see Camille Torres’s dissertation [60] and Frédéric Vagneron’s work [61]. These inherent tensions in the mandate of these 67

68 international organisations are exacerbated by a competition

69 for access to the exceptional funds released by some States to

70 respond to H5N1. For example, Canada played a key role in

71 the creation of several coordination bodies between FAO and OIE [60]. In addition to these tensions between international 72

73 organisations, there are also tensions within these organisations.

74 Between 2003 and 2008, debates emerged on how best to

75 manage public health problems on a global scale, Chien

76 explains. Three “frameworks of public action” are in conflict,

77 indexed to the different types of expertise found in these inter- national organisations (biologists, doctors, veterinarians, econo- 78

79 mists, epidemiologists, anthropologists, etc.). Biomedical or

80 technical framing– which could also be called “technocratic” –

81 consists in defending the application of sanitary measures,

82 coming from institutions (in a top-down logic), and whose legitimacy lies in the recognition of their effectiveness in 83

84 eliminating viruses and limiting their spread. This is a quasi

85 hunting logic, illustrated by a quote from the first consensus

86 note published by the three organisations: “‘Find it fast - kill

87 it fast - stop it spreading’ (FAO 2008: 13)” cited by Chien

88 ([12], p 217). This biomedical framework is promoted mainly by biomedical experts (human and veterinary medicine). Rather 89

90 supported by economists and social science researchers, the

“societal” or “democratic” framework defends that health 91 92 problems must be managed collectively, in a bottom-up logic,

93 with the people directly concerned, taking into account the diversity of social contexts and cultural representations, which 94

95 will make them all the more effective. It is as much a question

96 of ensuring the democratic legitimacy of the measures adopted

97 (an essential element for talking about public policy) as it is of

98 improving their implementation, from a strategic perspective.

99 Wefind here the elements mentioned in the Introduction, about the positioning of social sciences in relation to OH. Finally, the 100

“environmental” framework emphasizes the need to think about 101 102 the ecosystemic impacts of ways of managing public health

103 problems, and to always keep in mind the sustainability of

104 the proposed solutions. Led by conservation biology experts, this framework also emphasizes the instrumental dimension 105

106 of ecosystem concern: depending on whether or not ecosystem

107 functioning is taken into account, the spread of pathogens can

108 be accelerated or curbed. Even though these three frameworks

109 do not have the same institutional weight (biomedical framing is dominant, and the other two are more marginal), they were 110

111 subject to discussion between 2003 and 2005, and do not help

112 to ensure that the three international organisations present a

113 united front against the challenges of global health and health

114 crisis. The dynamic of collaboration between organisations, supported by some of their Member States, will consist in 115

116 reducing conflicts between these different frameworks, while

(6)

1 respecting the values and expertise that each represents. The 2 publication of the tripartite concept note in 2010 on One World 3 One Health is the result of this effort. OH emerges here as a 4 new, integrative framework. Its strength lies in the fact that it 5 has managed to reconcile the values of each of the three com- 6 peting frameworks (modernity– equality – sustainability), and 7 to call for the creation of new knowledge, merging or linking 8 hitherto fragmented areas of expertise. Here, the adoption of 9 OH is no longer an institutional response to health crises, but 10 more precisely, it is a response to institutional crises generated 11 or revealed by these health crises, in terms of governance and 12 expertise. OH is thus described by Chien as a tool for pacifying 13 relations between and within international organisations. The 14 success of the operation is based on the “blurry”, “vague”, 15 “imprecise” nature of the OH concept, which allows each actor 16 to reformulate its interests, legitimacy and skills as best it can.

17 For each of the actors, OH provides symbolic legitimacy since it 18 accentuates the common points between the missions of the 19 actors while attenuating their differences: a single health is 20 the objective that all must serve. And OH provides operational 21 legitimacy since it accentuates the differences between the skills 22 and expertise of the actors and reduces their common points:

23 varied and complementary expertise is necessary to achieve 24 the objective. The OH agenda will be constituted as the horizon 25 by which these two contradictory dynamics will be articulated.

26 In short, OH is a tool for pacification because it provides inter- 27 national organisations with a common agenda and recognises 28 that they have complementary skills to carry it out. OH is there- 29 fore approached here as a tool of governance, eminently polit- 30 ical. However, a purely institutional reading is not enough.

31 While OH calls for collaboration between different actors in

32 public health policy, it also encourages the production of a

33 new and innovative form of knowledge. Another narrative of

34 OH, just as relevant as the one just described, would then be

35 to look at the cross-fertilisation of the scientific disciplines

36 invited to work together.

A symptom of science/policy convergence: 37 OH as an object for sociology of science 38

39 This third narrative is proposed by Angela Cassidy, a

40 sociologist who worked with British historian Abigail Woods as part of a broad research programme to establish the history 41

42 of OH in the context of developments in modern medical

43 science [65]. Some of the results of this programme are

44 presented in a chapter of a collective book dedicated to the

45 empirical and critical analysis of interdisciplinary research

46 [11]. This bibliometric and historical study covering the period 1970–2014, leads to a narrative in which OH appears to be the 47

48 result of long and fluctuating interactions between various

49 scientific disciplines, in particular veterinary medicine, between

50 different ways of conceiving science (epistemic models), and

51 between the academic world and international organisations (Fig. 2). 52

53 One of the most interesting results is a synoptic representa-

54 tion of OH recent history (Fig. 1). It includes both the“events”

55 already mentioned (health crises and statements by international

56 organisations), but also institutional and scientific “actors”,

“research fields”, and, above all, the terminologies that 57 preceded or inspired OH. The relationships between these 58

59 different “items” are also represented. This scheme is very

60 telling, and reflects the complexity of what led to the adoption Figure 1. Overview of the One Health history– Cassidy (2016) – p. 226.

6 J. Michalon: Parasite 2020, xx, xx

(7)

1 of OH as a key word recognised by both institutional actors and 2 scientific disciplines. Far from OH’s unique genealogies, it can 3 be seen that multiple attempts to promote OH’s integrative 4 philosophy have been made since the 1950s, resulting in vari- 5 ous conceptual and semantic innovations. The conclusions that 6 can be drawn from this perspective are many. But at the risk of 7 simplifying Cassidy’s remarks, I propose to highlight one of 8 them, which is particularly salient. The appearance of OH in 9 the mid-2000s results from the encounter between two previ- 10 ously developed ways of thinking jointly about human and 11 animal health, corresponding to two terminologies: “One 12 Medicine” and “One World One Health”. The One Medicine 13 concept, attached to the name of veterinarian and epidemiolo- 14 gist Calvin Schwabe, is part of the continuity of an old 15 discipline– comparative medicine – and the development of 16 veterinary public health, while maintaining privileged links 17 with research on animal models and translational medicine. In 18 a nutshell, One Medicine gathers actors initially located on 19 the“academic” side and interested in “pure” research questions, 20 without favouring one disease over another: the link between 21 human and animal health represents an epistemic challenge.

22 The concept One World, One Health (OWOH) appears at the 23 crossroads of the field of international relations, in which 24 the concept One World has been used since the 1950s – and 25 thefields of public health and epidemiology, as practiced pre- 26 cisely in international organisations. As already mentioned, 27 management of infectious diseases, from a public policy per- 28 spective, is at the heart of the adoption of OWOH. It is impor- 29 tant to remember that OWOH is first and foremost a term 30 coined by the NGO Wildlife Society, which will register the 31 copyright. Between 2004 and 2010, OWOH has been used 32 and discussed by international agencies, which finally trans- 33 formed it into One Health, for copyright reasons. It is therefore

34 in the world of action (NGO’s and international organisations) that OWOH has mainly circulated. Simplifying again, OWOH 35

36 is more in line with an applied science, or“finalised” in the ser-

37 vice of public health. Here, the link between human and animal

38 health isfirst and foremost a public policy issue. In short, OH is

39 the meeting point between two ways of seeing and practising

40 veterinary science, one more academic, oriented towards research and the other more political or institutional, oriented 41

42 towards action in general and public action in particular. These

43 are, therefore, also two ways of conceiving the production of

44 knowledge that meet with OH, whose advent also testifies to

45 an intensification of the links between science and public action [28,34], also in the making for several years. 46

47 Indeed, since the 1990s, some sociologists have been

48 talking about a global change in the way they think about the

49 production of scientific knowledge [23,48]. For a long time,

50 they have argued that the scientific world was empowered vis-à-vis the rest of the social world, and it was able to decide 51

52 for itself how science should be done, its orientations and its

53 institutional organisation. Described as“mode 1” of knowledge

54 production, this situation is gradually being challenged, both for

55 institutional,financial and ideological reasons, considering that

56 science must serve society, and not the other way around. We would thus have switched to“mode 2” of knowledge produc- 57

58 tion, characterised by bringing together the scientific world

59 and extra-scientific actors (industrialists, NGOs, public action),

60 promoting applied and useful research,“context driven”, “prob-

61 lem-focused”, co-constructed with citizens, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary or post-disciplinary. Part of the research in 62

63 sociology of science also points to the need to rethink the

64 division between the natural sciences and the social sciences

65 [33,41], which is arbitrarily constructed according to a disci-

66 plinary logic (instead of an object-centered logic). For these Figure 2. One Health at the meeting point of research and policy– Author – Adapted from Cassidy (2016).

(8)

1 sociologists, it is indispensable to reconfigure the relationships 2 between disciplines starting from the objects, and not the other 3 way around. These works thus describe another way of 4 conceiving the production of knowledge, whichfits very well 5 with the one promoted by OH: interdisciplinary and centered 6 on one object (health) supposedly able to overcome the barriers 7 between natural and social sciences. For a critical synthesis of 8 this work, see Shinn [55]. It is then very clear that OH corre- 9 sponds to this new model of knowledge production, which is 10 widely supported by scientific and academic institutions. The 11 veterinary profession has been able to seize the opportunity 12 of such a context, through the promotion of OH. Cassidy notes 13 the strong investment of the veterinary world in OH, and notes 14 the recurring calls from its stakeholders for interdisciplinary, 15 collaborative research to be produced. Nevertheless, if we look 16 at which publication media have received the most OH-stamped 17 research, the weight of the veterinary discipline is overwhelm- 18 ing: 61%“One Health” labelled publications are published in 19 veterinary journals. Cassidy even points out that compared to 20 previous terminologies (One Medicine, Comparative medicine, 21 One World One Health), the weight of veterinary medicine has 22 increased in the production of knowledge from an OH perspec- 23 tive. Finally, the adoption of OH has positioned veterinary 24 medicine as a leader in interdisciplinary research on public 25 health issues. Thus, the analysis leads us to understand how 26 the promotion of interdisciplinary research can, paradoxically, 27 strengthen the institutional weight of certain disciplines [32].

28 If OH’s narrative from a political sociology perspective 29 makes it the product of an institutional crisis, Cassidy’s narra- 30 tive from the sociology of science insists on an institutional 31 transformation: (1) the unprecedented rapprochement between 32 research and policy, scientific institutions and international 33 agencies [22], of which the success of the notion of“evidence 34 based policy” is a sign [42], involving a redistribution of 35 knowledge production capacities (research policies no longer 36 depending solely on the academic world), (2) but also the 37 increased promotion of interdisciplinarity, also leading to a 38 weakening of the weight of certain disciplines, to the benefit 39 of others which present themselves as interdisciplinary by 40 nature.

41 While the narratives presented here take up some elements 42 of OH – OH’s folk narratives as a renewal of veterinary 43 medicine, and/or OH as an innovation of international public 44 action– the added value of an empirical approach in the social 45 sciences is to escape from a form of reductionism that would 46 consist in having to choose an official version of OH’s history.

47 The emergence of OH is addressed by the social sciences at 48 different scales, behind the scenes of the functioning of interna- 49 tional organisations, or in the long term as the institutional con- 50 texts in which science and public action are conceived and 51 practiced evolve. It is a whole social context that is depicted, 52 as well as the collective actors who have worked to make 53 OH a powerful concept, in relation to which a certain number 54 of actors are invited to position themselves. Thus, rather than 55 directly serving the interests of those who write them (and thus 56 giving them power), these narratives, on the contrary, make it 57 possible to better understand where OH’s attraction comes 58 from: this power of OH is explained by the power of the actors 59 who promote it collectively.

Discussion: OH as an epistemic watchword

60 61 As demonstrated above, the retrospective sociological

62 approaches of the manufacture of OH are crucial to understand

63 what OH stands for. However, little has been written so far about the right way to name what OH is. Again, there are 64

65 numerous folk terminologies:“Notion”, “Concept”, “Agenda”,

“Approach”, “Paradigm”, “Slogan”, “Umbrella Term”. These 66 67 concepts are used without justification by the authors, and

68 without the consequences really being drawn from this use.

Talking about an agenda or about an approach certainly does 69 70 not have the same symbolic weight. Here too, a social science

71 approach can be mobilised to helpfind an appropriate qualifier,

72 adapted to the sociological reality of what OH is. Let’s look at

73 what terms have been proposed by social scientists to describe

74 OH and others similar concepts.

Chien [12] speaks of OH as a“framework”, thus using the 75 76 terminology of international agencies, but which clearly reflects

77 the non-binding nature of what OH is, because some of these

78 organisations have limited normative power over the policies

79 of their Member States, and which, on many subjects, must be content to guide the eyes of national decision-makers, to 80

81 frame them. For example, on FAO’s difficulty in enforcing

82 animal health crisis management principles, beyond just

“framing”, see Torres [60]. In addition, framework refers to 83 84 the need for coordination between these organisations, which

85 also implies a certain latitude, which is well reflected in the term

“framework”. The notion therefore covers the function that OH 86 87 promoters intend to give it. Nevertheless, at the end of the

88 investigation, Chien prefers the notion of “boundary-object”,

89 because it better reflects what OH’s vagueness produces:

90 because OH is not clearly defined, each actor can project what they want, and appropriate it all the more easily, and to reaffirm 91

92 the specificity and complementarity of their expertise. In a

93 word, talking about “boundary-object” better reflects what

94 actors do with OH among actors: working together and, in

95 the same gesture, reaffirming what makes them different.

96 Nevertheless, OH is not an object, it is a word. This speci- ficity seems too important not to be diluted in the vocabulary of 97

98 the boundary-object, inherited from science studies, which can

99 cover a wide variety of things: technical objects, scientific fields, even institutions [56]. OH is a word and perhaps there 100

101 is more to explore about that. As Chien suggests, the formal dimension probably contributed to the adoption of OH by 102

103 international organisations:“Most officials at the three agencies

104 recognised that the OWOH slogan is catchy and appropriate.”

105 ([12], p. 219) Precisely, the principles OH covers have been

106 appropriate because OH is a word and a “good word”. What concept should we use to talk about OH, how should we name 107

108 it taking into account this formal specificity?

109 Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent [4] proposes the term

“buzzwords” to designate concepts such as sustainable develop- 110 111 ment, responsible innovation, personalised medicine, and green

112 technology for example. Like Chien, Bensaude-Vincent

113 indicates that conceptual vagueness plays an important role in

114 the coordination power of these concepts:“As shallow linguistic

115 units deprived of substantial meanings, they create a ‘trading

116 zone’ that allows different stakeholders to communicate.”

117 ([4], p. 250). But for Bensaude-Vincent, this conceptual blur

8 J. Michalon: Parasite 2020, xx, xx

(9)

1 is due to the very shape of the buzzword. Like advertising 2 slogans, these buzzwords take their form from marketing and 3 the business world. They are designed to be easily identifiable, 4 distinctive and memorable: catchy. According to Bensaude- 5 Vincent, the multiplication of these buzzwords in the world 6 of technosciences is as much a sign of the import of economic 7 thought into scientific activity as it is a sign of a change in the 8 scientific world, characterised by an increasing number of 9 scientific institutions, increased internationalisation and compe- 10 tition, as well as a need for coordination to face this competi- 11 tion. In a word: buzzwords are born from the economisation 12 of the scientific universe. From Bensaude-Vincent’s analysis, 13 I would like to retain these two dimensions: (1) the indexation 14 of conceptual vagueness on the necessarily synthetic form of 15 buzzwords, and (2) the fact that their purpose is to influence 16 the production of scientific knowledge. These two dimensions 17 plead to approach OH as a buzzword.

18 Buzzword has an intuitively depreciative or at least critical 19 connotation: buzzword is associated with impermanence, with 20 something superficial, ephemeral, trendy – a connotation that 21 denies OH the possibility of constituting a stable political and 22 scientific project. The term “buzz” also suggests that One 23 Health only generates a form of futile agitation, noise. The 24 epistemic dimension would be denied here: the knowledge 25 produced by OH would, again, only be superficial. For these 26 reasons, talking about OH as a buzzword is not totally satisfac- 27 tory. I would like to propose another terminology, another 28 concept: that of“watchword”. This notion, which is rather used 29 in the military or political, trade union or activistfields, reflects 30 the fact that OH is an injunction to collective action, conceived 31 as such, which other terms do not say or in a less obvious way.

32 The notion of watchword explicitly emphasizes OH’s strategic 33 and operational dimension: the link with public policies 34 becomes clearer [7]. Moreover, the formal dimension is not 35 neglected here. A watchword is above all a word: like the 36 slogan or the buzzword, the watchword has a particular, syn- 37 thetic form, which ensures a greater capacity for action.

38 Indeed, one could simply say that OH is a watchword 39 because it incites a certain number of actors to manage health 40 problems in a different way. I would like to emphasize another 41 type of action to which OH encourages: in addition to coordi- 42 nating actors to work together, it is about producing expert 43 knowledge on the links between human health, animal health 44 and ecosystem conservation. With OH, we are dealing with a 45 particular watchword, a watchword that could be described as 46 epistemic, since it invites several actors to engage in the produc- 47 tion of knowledge and reflection. OH aims at making scientists 48 work together, which justifies calling it an “epistemic watch- 49 word”. Talking about an epistemic watchword thus makes it 50 possible to account for OH’s scientific ancestry, but it also 51 opens up new avenues of research about the current dynamics 52 in the scientific world. While Cassidy’s work clearly shows that 53 OH is the product of the evolution of several scientific disci- 54 plines, there is still a need to explore the effects of OH on other 55 disciplines, and overall on ways of doing science. A first 56 indication of these effects: in a few years, OH has become a 57 “keyword” of research, used to identify work mobilising

58 integrative, interdisciplinary and holistic approaches to health

59 [15]. From “watchword” to “keyword”, the formal dimension

60 of OH is, again, something worth exploring to account for its

61 power.

There is another reason why I prefer epistemic watchword 62 63 to buzzword. When we look at how actors engage in the

64 reflection about OH, one of the first tasks they are working

65 on is to clarify the definition of OH. This is the same observa-

66 tion that Chien makes when he describes several conferences dedicated to OH, which begin with the participants’ recognition 67

68 of the extremely vague nature of the concept, and which

69 invariably end with the admission of a failure to develop a more

70 precise definition. “The final consensus of the meeting was that

71 One World, One Health could mean whatever people want to.” (Official OIE – interview 2009) ([12], p. 220). In a word, what 72

73 OH makes actors do is thinking about what OH is. Wefind a

74 rather similar phenomenon in the literature, where several

75 authors question the purely rhetorical or purely semantic

76 dimension of OH: is OH something more than a word, a label,

77 an idea? Countless papers provide examples of how the OH principles have been applied [15], with the aim of proving that 78

79 OH is not just a word, and that it is a tangible reality. Other

80 articles critically explore the neglected zones [50] and limits

81 of the OH agenda [57]. Probably reflecting a form of anxiety

82 about OH’s potentially incantatory dimension, the existence of these analyses also indicates the reflexivity of scientists 83

84 who engage in OH: they too fear that OH is only a fad, a

85 meaningless institutional injunction, a buzzword. They are

86 working to ensure that this is not the case. This brings back

87 to revisiting Chien’s proposition of OH as a concept whose

88 imprecision is actually very productive. The vagueness of OH attracts heterogeneous actors and to resolve their possible 89

90 conflicts. Staying in the blur, in the imprecision, is thus the

91 condition on which these actors can continue to work together.

92 When we look at things in the scientific literature on OH, we

93 realize that researchers are not very comfortable with the blur, and they are working at getting out of the blur, out of the 94

95 imprecision. Here, it is not the conceptual fuzziness itself that

96 makes actors act, but rather the awareness of this fuzziness,

97 and of the need to overcome it, by giving a more precise outline

98 to OH. The search for precision becomes productive.

99 Thus, if OH’s power lies partly in being promoted by powerful actors, it is also based on its formal qualities (being 100

101 a particular word), which encourages the mobilisation of the

102 reflective and critical capacities of the individuals to whom it

103 is addressed. The term “epistemic watchword” then seems to

104 me more appropriate to describe a concept like OH which has the explicit ambition to lead to the production of knowledge 105

106 and which has the (involuntary?) effect of encouraging its own

107 collective elucidation, even its elicitation.

Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank the two 108 anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions; Coralie 109

110 Martin and Jean Estebanez for the opportunity to present the preliminary results of this research; Amandine Gautier, Sébastien 111 Gardon and Gwenola Le Naour for the discussions, comments and 112

113 collective work on One Health.

(10)

1

References

2 1. Atlani-Duault L, Vidal L. 2013. Le moment de la santé globale.

3Q1 Formes,figures et agendas d’un miroir de l’aide internationale. 4 Revue Tiers Monde, 215(3), 7–16.

5 2. Barrett MA, Bouley TA. 2015. Need for enhanced environ- 6 mental representation in the implementation of One Health.

7 Ecohealth, 12, 212–219.

8 3. Baum SE, Machalaba C, Daszak P, Salerno RH, Karesh WB.

9 2017. Evaluating One Health: are we demonstrating effective- 10 ness? One Health, 3, 5–10.

11 4. Bensaude Vincent B. 2014. The politics of buzzwords at the 12 interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of 13 “Public Engagement in Science”. Public Understanding of 14 Science, 23(3), 238–253.

15Q2 5. Boltanski L, Chiapello E. 1999. Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme.

16 Gallimard.

17 6. Bonnaud L, Fortané N. 2018. L’État sanitaire de la profession 18 vétérinaire. Action publique et régulation de l’activité profes- 19 sionnelle. Sociologie, 9(2018/3), 253–268.

20 7. Bontems VK. 2014. What does Innovation stand for? Review of 21 watchword in research policies. Journal of Innovation 22 Economics & Management, 3(15), 39–57.

23 8. Brown MB. 2015. Politicizing science: Conceptions of politics 24 in science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science, 45 25 (1), 3–30.

26 9. Bruno I. 2015. Défaire l’arbitraire des faits. De l’art de 27 gouverner (et de résister) par les « données probantes ». Revue 28 Française de Socio-Économie, 2015(2), 213–227.

29 10. Camus E, Lancelot R. 2008. Les maladies émergentes 30 animales tropicales. Impacts inattendus de l’influenza aviaire.

31 Annales des Mines – Responsabilité et environnement, 51(3),

32 72–74.

33 11. Cassidy A. 2016. One Medicine? Advocating (Inter)disciplinar- 34 ity at the Interfaces of Animal Health, Human Health, and the 35 Environment, in Investigating Interdisciplinary Collaboration:

36 Theory and Practice across Disciplines. Frickel S, Albert M, 37 Prainsack B, Editors. Rutgers University.

38 12. Chien Y-J. 2013. How did international agencies perceive the 39 avian influenza problem? The adoption and manufacture of the 40 “One World, One Health” framework. Sociology of Health and 41 Illness, 35(2), 213–226.

42 13. Coffin JL, Monje F, Asiimwe-Karimub G, Janetrix-Amuguni H, 43 Terence O. 2015. A One Health, participatory epidemiology 44 assessment of anthrax (Bacillus anthracis) management in 45 Western Uganda. Social Science & Medicine, 129, 44–50.

46 14. Evans B, Leighton F. 2014. A history of One Health. Revue 47 scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 48 33(2), 413–420.

49 15. Falzon LC, Lechner I, Chantziaras I, Collineau L, Courcoul A, 50 Filippitzi M-E, Laukkanen-Ninios R, Peroz C, Pinto Ferreira J, 51 Postma M, Prestmo PG, Phythian CJ, Sarno E, Vanantwerpen 52 G, Vergne T, Grindlay DJC, Brennan ML. 2018. Quantitative 53 outcomes of a one health approach to study global health 54 challenges. EcoHealth, 15(1), 209–227.

55 16. Figuié M. 2013. Global health risks and cosmopolitisation:

56 From emergence to interference. Sociology of Health and 57 Illness, 35(2), 227–240.

58 17. Figuié M. 2014. Towards a global governance of risks:

59 International health organisations and the surveillance of 60 emerging infectious diseases. Journal of Risk Research, 17(4),

61 469–483.

62Q3 18. Figuié M. 2020. To Be Published: Animal health management: 63 between biosecurity and Global Public Good. Natures, Sciences,

64 Sociétés.

19. Figuié M, Peyre M-I. 2013. Le concept“Une seule santé” : une 65 réponse à l’incertitude dans la gouvernance internationale des 66 zoonoses émergentes ? Revue d’Élevage et de Médecine 67 Vétérinaire des Pays Tropicaux, 66(2), 41–46. 68

20. Fortané N, Keck F. 2015. How biosecurity reframes animal 69 surveillance. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9(2), a-l. 70 21. Frickel S, Moore K, Editors. 2006. The new political sociology 71 of science. Institutions, Networks, and Power, University of 72 Wisconsin Press: Madison. 73

22. Gardon S, Gautier A, Le Naour G. 2019. La santé globale au 74 prisme de l’analyse des politiques publiques. Santé publique, 75 agronomique et vétérinaire. Éditions de l’École Nationale des 76 Services Vétérinaires-VetAgro Sup: Marcy l’Etoile. 77

23. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Novotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, 78 Trow M. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics 79 of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage: London. 80 24. Gibbs EPJ. 2014. The evolution of One Health: A decade of 81 progress and challenges for the future. Veterinary Record, 82 174(4), 85–91. 83

84 25. Gieryn TF. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science

from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies 85 of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. 86

87 26. Harris J, White A. 2019. The sociology of global health. A

88 literature review. Sociology of Development, 5(1), 9–30.

89 27. Hendricks J, Newton CD, Rubenstein A. 2009. One medicine-

90 one health’ at the school of veterinary medicine of the

91 University of Pennsylvania– The First 125 Years. Veterinaria

92 Italiana, 45(1), 183–194.

93 28. Hess D. 2007. Alternative pathways in science and industry.

94 MIT Press.

29. Hinchliffe S. 2015. More than one world, more than one health: 95 Reconfiguring interspecies health. Social Science & Medicine, 96 129, 28–35. 97

30. Hinchliffe S, Craddock S. 2015. One World One Health? Social 98 science engagements with the one medicine agenda. Social 99 Science & Medicine, 129, 1–4. 100

31. Hubscher D. 1999. Les maîtres des bêtes. Les vétérinaires dans la 101 société française (XVIIIe-XXe siècle). Paris: Odile Jacob, p. 441. 102 32. Jacobs JA, Frickel S. 2009. Interdisciplinarity: A critical 103

assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1), 43–65. 104 33. Jasanoff S, Editor. 2004. States of knowledge. The co-production 105

of science and the social order. Routledge: New York. 106 34. Jasanoff SS. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as 107

policymakers. Harvard University Press: Cambridge. 108

109 35. Keck F. 2010. Un monde grippé. Flammarion: Paris.

36. Keck F. 2010. Une sentinelle sanitaire aux frontières du vivant. 110 111 Les experts de la grippe aviaire à Hong Kong. Terrain, 54, 26–41.

37. Keck F. 2013. Santé animale et santé globale: la grippe aviaire 112 en Asie. Revue Tiers Monde, 215(3), 35–52. 113

38. Keck F, Mongin O, Padis M-O. 2011. Expertise et choix 114 politique: retour sur la grippe pandémique. Esprit, Mars/avril 115 (3–4), 168–177. 116

39. Kerouedan D. 2013. Géopolitique de la santé mondiale. Collège 117 de France/Fayard: Paris. 118

40. Lapinski MK, Funk JA, Moccia LT. 2015. Recommendations 119 for the role of social science research in One Health. Social 120 Science & Medicine, 129, 51–60. 121

41. Latour B. 1993. We have never been modern. Harvard 122 University Press. 123

42. Laurent C, Baudry J, Berriet-Solliec M, Kirsch M, Perraud D, 124 Tinel B, Trouvé A, Allsopp N, Bonnafous P, Burel F, Carneiro 125 MJ, Giraud C, Labarthe P, Matose F, Ricroch A. 2009. 126 Pourquoi s’intéresser à la notion d’ “evidence-based policy” ? 127 Revue Tiers Monde, 4(200), 853–873. 128

10 J. Michalon: Parasite 2020, xx, xx

(11)

1 43. Leboeuf A. 2011. Making sense of one health: Cooperating at 2Q4 the human-animal-ecosystem health interface. IFRI Healthand 3 Environment Reports, 7.

4 44. Löwy I. 1992. The strength of loose concepts-boundary 5 concepts, federative experimental strategies and disciplinary 6 growth-the case of immunology. History of Science, 30(90),

7 371–396.

8 45. Manlove K, Walker J, Craft M, Huyvaert K, Joseph M, Miller 9 R, Nol P, Patyk K, O’Brien D, Walsh D, Cross P. 2016. “One 10 Health” or three? Publication silos among the One Health 11 disciplines. PLoS Biology, 14(4).

12 46. Min B, Allen-Scott L, Buntain B. 2013. Transdisciplinary 13 research for complex One Health issues: a scoping review of 14 key concepts. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 112, 222–229.

15 47. Murray M, Holmes P, Wright N, Jarrett O., Kennedy P. 2014.

16 History of one health and one medicine. Veterinary Record,

17 174, 227.

18 48. Nowotny H, Scott PB, Gibbons MT. 2001. Re-thinking science:

19 Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Wiley.

20 49. OIE OMdlSa, Editor. 2017. Bulletin 2017–1: Le bien-être 21 animal, un atout pour l’élevage. Ed. OIE: Paris.

22 50. Okello AL, Gibbs EPJ, Vandersmissen A, Welburn SC. 2011.

23 One Health and the neglected zoonoses: Turning rhetoric into 24 reality. Veterinary Record, 169(11), 281–285.

25 51. Osterhaus A, MacKenzie J. 2016. The“One Health” journal:

26 Filling a niche. One Health, 2, 18.

27 52. Roger F, Caron AC, Morand S, Pedrono M, de Garine- 28 Wichatitsky M, Chevalier V, Tran A, Gaidet N, Figuié M, de 29 Visscher M-N, Binot A. 2016. One Health and EcoHealth: The 30 same wine in different bottles? Infection, Ecology and 31 Epidemiology, 6(30978).

32 53. Rüegg S, Buttigieg S, Goutard F, Binot A, Morand S, Thys S, 33 Keune H. 2019. Editorial: Concepts and experiences in framing, 34 integration and evaluation of One Health and EcoHealth.

35 Frontiers in Veterinary Sciences, 6(155).

36 54. Scoones I, Forster P. 2008. The International Response to 37 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza: Science, Policy and 38 Politics. STEPS Working Paper 10. STEPS Centre: Brighton.

39 https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/2316.

55. Shinn T. 2002. Nouvelle production du savoir et triple hélice. 40 Tendances du prêt-à-penser les sciences. Actes de la Recherche 41 en Sciences Sociales, 141–142, 21–30. 42

56. Star LS, Griesemer J. 1989. Institutionnal ecology, “transla- 43 tions”, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals on 44 Berkeley’s museum of vertrebate zoology. Social Studies of 45 Science, 19(3), 387–420. 46

57. Stärk K, Arroyo Kuribrena M, Dauphin G, Vokaty S, Ward M, 47 Wieland B, Lindberg A. 2015. One Health surveillance– More 48 than a buzz word? Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 120(1), 49 124–130. 50

58. Swabe J. 1999. Animals, disease, and human society: Human 51 animal relations and the rise of veterinary medicine. Routledge: 52 London & New York. p. 243. 53

59. Tirado F, Gomez A, Rocamora V. 2014. The global condition of 54 epidemics: Panoramas in A (H1N1) influenza and their 55 consequences for One World One Health programme. Social 56 Science & Medicine, 129, 113–122. 57

60. Torres C. 2019. Structuring international public action by the 58 FAO in Animal Health. Example through animal health 59 emergency management and the EMC-AH service. Veta- 60 groSup/École Nationale des Services Vétérinaires/IEP de Lyon. 61 61. Vagneron F. 2015. Surveiller et sunir ? Le rôle de l’OMS dans 62 les premières mobilisations internationales autour d’un réservoir 63 animal de la grippe. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances, 64 9(2), 139–162. 65

62. Wallace RG, Bergmann L, Kock R, Gilbert M, Hogerwerf L, 66 Wallace R, Holmberg M. 2015. The dawn of Structural One 67 Health: A new science tracking disease emergence along 68 circuits of capital. Social Science & Medicine, 129, 68–77. 69 63. Wolf M. 2015. Is there really such a thing as One Health? 70

Thinking about a more than human world from the perspective of 71 cultural anthropology. Social Science & Medicine, 129, 5–11. 72 64. Woods A, Bresalier M. 2014. One health, many histories. 73

Veterinary Record, 28, 650–654. 74

75 65. Woods A, Bresalier M, Cassidy A, Mason Dentinger R,

76 Timmermann C, Editors. 2018. Animals and the Shaping of Modern Medicine. One Health and its Histories. Timmermann C, 77 Worboys M, Editors. Palgrave McMillan: Manchester. 78

79 Cite this article as: Michalon J. 2020. Accounting for One Health: Insights from the social sciences. Parasite xx, xx.

8081 An international open-access, peer-reviewed, online journal publishing high quality papers

82 on all aspects of human and animal parasitology

8384

85 Reviews, articles and short notes may be submitted. Fields include, but are not limited to: general, medical and veterinary parasitology;

86 morphology, including ultrastructure; parasite systematics, including entomology, acarology, helminthology and protistology, and molecular

87 analyses; molecular biology and biochemistry; immunology of parasitic diseases; host-parasite relationships; ecology and life history of

88 parasites; epidemiology; therapeutics; new diagnostic tools.

89 All papers in Parasite are published in English. Manuscripts should have a broad interest and must not have been published or submitted

90 elsewhere. No limit is imposed on the length of manuscripts.

91

92 Parasite (open-access) continues Parasite (print and online editions, 1994-2012) and Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée

93 (1923-1993) and is the official journal of the Société Française de Parasitologie.

94

95 Editor-in-Chief: Submit your manuscript at

96 Jean-Lou Justine, Paris http://parasite.edmgr.com/

97

References

Related documents

citizen, foreign service employees (except contract employees) of the DoS, the AID, the USIA and the Peace Corps located abroad, either at post or away from post, traveling

As indicated before, all of these notions described here are closely related to each other and therefore, some of them could be seen as responses to the other (e.g., the usage

Even without this mandate, it is not possible to further increase ethanol production solely on starch conversion alone, due to the finite amount of starch and sugar production

 Parenting Plans and Child Support for Parentage Cases and Modifications (parents not married) OR Parenting Plans and Child Support for Dissolution Cases and Modifications

Some state VHS pro- grams cap the number of credits stu- dents can take online, but while they may not restrict student participation, many districts use the VHS only for making

At t = 1, after receiv- ing an idiosyncratic liquidity shock, banks manage their liquidity by borrowing or lending in the unsecured interbank market, buying or selling government

The answer to the question “ Is it possible to solve problems associated with multinational corporations taking advantage of the lack of Thin Capitalization rules

He will discuss the new voir dire law, provide us with his insights as a member of the judicial implementation team for the new law, and go over Superior Court rules,