IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v63y2006i4p1072-1083.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Borna disease virus: The generation and review of a scientific study

Author

Listed:
  • Wood, Fiona
  • Bloor, Michael J.

Abstract

The paper uses interviews and observational data gathered among a group of UK scientists and civil servants responsible for managing a study examining the possible transmission to humans of Borna disease virus (BDV), a disease primarily of farm animals. From a science and technology studies perspective, the paper examines the social processes whereby this scientific problem (possible human transmission) was constituted as a worthy topic of scientific investigation, came to receive funding, and was subjected to independent review. It appears that BDV research displays only some of the characteristics of 'post-normal science' with little participation by extended peer communities. Civil servants and scientists reported social interests that were complex and both fractionated and cross-occupational. An important motivation for engaging in the research was the need to maintain investment in pre-existing scientific resources (assay development, virus stocks and an existing epidemiological cohort). In respect of translation theory, influence was a two-way street, with civil servants eager to enrol scientists and represent the interests of science, and with scientists presenting themselves as defenders of the public good. Despite the dynamic character of scientific debate, the 'career' of BDV investigation appears to have ended in disengagement, rather than closure.

Suggested Citation

  • Wood, Fiona & Bloor, Michael J., 2006. "Borna disease virus: The generation and review of a scientific study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 1072-1083, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:4:p:1072-1083
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(06)00047-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:4:p:1072-1083. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.