How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance - OpenEdition ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances
9-2 | 2015
Ce que fait la biosécurité à la surveillance des
animaux
How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance
Ce que fait la biosécurité à la surveillance des animaux
Cómo la bioseguridad redefine la vigilancia de los animales
Nicolas Fortané and Frédéric Keck
Translator: Christopher Hinton
Electronic version
URL: http://journals.openedition.org/rac/3140
ISSN: 1760-5393
Publisher
Société d'Anthropologie des Connaissances
Electronic reference
Nicolas Fortané and Frédéric Keck, « How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance », Revue
d’anthropologie des connaissances [Online], 9-2 | 2015, Online since 01 June 2015, connection on 10
April 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rac/3140
This text was automatically generated on 10 April 2020.
Les contenus de la Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances sont mis à disposition selon les termes de
la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0
International.How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 1
How biosecurity reframes animal
surveillance
Ce que fait la biosécurité à la surveillance des animaux
Cómo la bioseguridad redefine la vigilancia de los animales
Nicolas Fortané and Frédéric Keck
Translation : Christopher Hinton
1 Over the last twenty years, the number of health crises caused by zoonoses (animal
diseases which can be transmitted to humans) has led to changes in the norms
governing the control of animal populations. In Europe, BSE or “mad cow disease”
changed the ways in which epidemiological studies are conducted (Barbier, 2006;
Granjou and Barbier, 2010). New methods of monitoring animal products, which we
might bring together under the heading of traceability (Torny, 1998; Granjou, 2003),
have made it possible to secure the food chain through a series of written traces. A few
years later, “avian flu” provided the opportunity to set up a global mechanism for
monitoring mutations of the influenza virus in domestic poultry and wild birds. This
mechanism is essentially based on the definition of sentinel populations, so that the
alert can be sounded when new pathogens emerge (Keck, 2010).
2 In social science research, the concept of biosecurity (Collier, Lakoff and Rabinow, 2004)
makes it possible to describe this transformation in scientific and political techniques,
as they relate to the management of “emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases”
(King, 2002). The concept appeared at the intersection of health and military logics, and
designates a new rationality of risk in relation to the management of the living
resources. Whereas previous forms of biopolitics were based on statistical models
which made it possible to predict and measure risks, biosecurity is about preparing for
a catastrophe the probability of which is incalculable and the occurrence of which is
deemed to be imminent (Lakoff and Collier, 2008). The emergence of a new pathogen is
thus perceived to be an event for which health authorities must be prepared, by
imagining its yet uncertain consequences for the human population.
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 2
3 In addition, unlike forms of risk management such as vaccination, quarantine or
slaughter, biosecurity is not intended to create watertight boundaries between healthy
and unhealthy, but to deploy methods of controlling a pathogen at the very heart of the
living entity (Hinchliffe et al., 2013; Hinchliffe and Ward, 2014), in this respect echoing
forms of biopolitics such as traceability. The corollary of this reconfiguration of public
health from a biosecurity standpoint is the development of global monitoring
mechanisms which are now becoming the principal tool for this new “style” (Fearnley,
2008) of risk management. Even if the threat cannot be determined with any certainty,
recognition of the different signals is becoming the main tool of a policy which no
longer looks so much to predict as to prepare for the next crisis, and whose conditions
for emergence already exist, one way or another.
4 Several works have already looked at how this new biosecurity imperative has
transformed public health policies. Drug stockpiling and scenario building (Lakoff,
2008) have brought fictional logics into the field of public healthcare (Zylberman, 2013),
and through the mechanisms for triaging populations in emergency situations, they
have also impacted humanitarian policies (Lachenal, Lefève and Nguyen, 2014).
Although these new methods of preparing for health crises have been studied in
relation to public health, in the field of animal disease management –which was
nevertheless one of the starting points for thinking about biosecurity, not to mention
the exemplary case of international mobilisation in relation to avian flu– there has so
far been little research to test the concept of biosecurity. To this end, this issue of the
Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances offers a three-dimensional approach.
5 The first is a thematic orientation which concerns an instrument central to biosecurity
policies in this era of zoonotic threat: the surveillance of animal disease. With the
global alert for a pandemic of avian origin, surveillance was examined from the angle of
the rearrangements required in health networks at a global level, particularly that of
the coordination of animal and human health data implied under the “One Health”
watchword (Hinchliffe and Craddock, 2015). Field epidemiology thus takes a new turn
when it shifts from retrospective research on causes to real-time surveillance of
disease, especially when these mechanisms are essentially oriented towards the
detection of new cases. This constant attention to “emergence” has been thoroughly
examined with respect to the military logic of American epidemiology, for example
through the development of monitoring tools which have now shifted from the
traditional medical census of “cases” towards a “syndromic surveillance” which looks
at far broader signals, such as social exchanges on digital networks (Fearnley 2008;
Caduff, 2014). The role played by international organisations –particularly the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the World Animal Health Organization (OIE)– in the
development of these global surveillance devices is also well documented (Figuié, 2013;
Chien, 2013). Participating to a shift from “international threat management” to
“global risk governance”, they set themselves up as key actors in the standardisation
and coordination of the global management of emerging infectious diseases, the
surveillance of which constituted the backbone of their intervention and hence of the
legitimisation of their action.
6 However, whilst these works document the transformations of these global surveillance
devices, they tend to analyse them solely from the public health standpoint and pay
little attention to their specificity when they relate above all to animal populations.
Animal surveillance brings with it particular challenges, mainly of an agricultural and
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 3
veterinary nature, along with specific knowledge, techniques and actors. Furthermore,
as other kind of “hotspots” (Brown and Kelly, 2014), these surveillance devices bring
into play relationships between humans and animals, for which they are a ground for
both expression and transformation (Nading, 2013). The notion of “animal reservoir”,
which was constructed in relation to the development of flu surveillance and which
designates the ecosystem in which interspecific pathogen mutations take place (i.e.
which may be transmitted between humans and/or animals) thus implies an entire
recomposition of the continuities and discontinuities between species, of the
boundaries between wild and domestic (Fearnley, 2013). The definition of “sentinel”
populations or species, which would be the preferred terrain for these mutations and
which would therefore constitute a hub for surveillance, supposes sociotechnical
mechanisms into which animals are enrolled due to their sensitivity to invisible threats
affecting human beings (Keck and Lakoff, 2013). What interests us here are the specific
forms of this enrolment, with the range of techniques and knowledge that make it
possible and the transformations in human-animal relations that it conveys.
7 The second orientation, which stems from the first, is methodological. In order to
understand what biosecurity is and what it does, one needs to study surveillance
practices “from the bottom up”, instead of starting from the directives or principles
which orient them “from the top down”. There are a certain number of works which
retrace the origins of epidemiological surveillance (Fearnley, 2010; Youde, 2011; Buton
and Pierru, 2012). But whilst this focus on processes of reforming or developing public
policies reveals the institutional configurations and political-administrative issues that
guide the development of these new public health instruments, it does not allow us to
grasp how surveillance functions ordinarily, or the actual operations that surveillance
performs on an everyday basis (especially with regard to animals). Other works
(Barbier, 2006; Prete, 2008; Law and Mol, 2010) have demonstrated the utility of taking
a closer look at field practices and at the types of work that shape surveillance devices
and enable them to exist within complex social universes which are not necessarily
organised (or at least essentially organised) in relation to animal surveillance. In this
respect, it is important to consider the actors whom we might consider to be the
“surveillance mediators” and who “to some extent and not without tension, accept to
adjust the formal rules of health surveillance so as to work towards a solution for
overcoming the blockages that they create” (Prete, 2008: 501).
8 This issue thus explores ordinary surveillance practices, whether they are part of
domestic husbandry and the management of wild fauna, or embedded in veterinary
practices for livestock health management. We look at how surveillance is perceived,
accepted or rejected by the actors who implement it on an almost daily basis, in
relation to other modes of risk perception and management. For example, how do
surveillance devices shift the boundary between wild and domestic, so as to manage a
wild population as if it were livestock? In what way do they help form new professional
identities or new forms of involvement? How do they redefine links between the
different actors, both human and non-human, who are de facto involved in
surveillance?
9 However, at this level, surveillance practices do not just lead to new forms of
knowledge and understanding in relation to animal disease; they also foster the
production and/or maintenance of ignorance (Kleinman and Suryanarayanan, 2013;
Jouzel and Dedieu, 2013). Whilst animal surveillance devices throw light on what are
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 4
sometimes highly controversial issues (such as the role that wild fauna play in the
emergence of new diseases, especially in the case of vector-borne diseases such as Lyme
Disease or Chikungunya), they also fudge certain aspects which are more difficult to
document (such as the impact of the circulation of domestic populations within
integrated sectors, particularly with regard to so-called “production” diseases, which
are often not fatal). Surveillance thus focuses the attention of public authorities on
zoonoses that have a strong emotional impact (such as avian influenza), to the
detriment of other more confidential animal diseases (such as brucellosis) which whilst
they can be transmitted to humans, have an invisible effect on animals. Yet rather than
deductively suggesting that surveillance devices only make visible the “major”
zoonotic diseases which receive mediatic and political attention, we believe on the
contrary that it is by an attention to the know-how and techniques employed on a daily
basis by surveillance actors that we will gain a better understanding of the mechanisms
of the social production of (non)knowledge on animal diseases. Indeed, observation of
concrete situations where actors must resolve the practical dilemmas and uncertainties
with which they are regularly confronted, allows us to decipher the multiple
assemblages of biosecurity: must surveillance follow the model of post-infection
eradication or can it tolerate a certain endemicity of disease? Must it detect early alarm
signals or should it identify diseases which are circulating under the radar? Each device
thus has its own specificities relating to the diversity of social activities (and therefore
not only to surveillance) taking place within it.
10 This methodological bias of apprehending surveillance devices “from the bottom up”,
i.e. the ways of actually managing the tensions and uncertainties expressed within
them, is fed by a third orientation, which is theoretical. This orientation consists in
seriously putting into perspective the assertion whereby biosecurity in general and
surveillance in particular are new forms of risk management. Often expressed through
the idea of a significant “breakdown” or “transformation” of health and environmental
policies since the 1990s, the concept of biosecurity is deemed to be a set of
fundamentally new types of knowledge, techniques and policies, the two pillars of
which are surveillance and preparation (Keck, 2013a), which replace the old forms of
risk management such as vaccination, slaughter or quarantine which have always been
used to manage animal disease such as bovine tuberculosis or foot and mouth disease
(Berdah, 2010; Woods, 2004, 2011). In reality, certain forms of surveillance have been
instruments of animal disease (zoonotic or otherwise) management for some time,
particularly when statistical tools are required to study or map a population’s state of
health, as in the classic case of bovine tuberculosis (Enticott, 2001; Jones, 2004). It is
then no longer innovation which must be taken into account, but the forms of
assemblage which reinvent animal disease management (in this case, surveillance) in
the name of biosecurity.
11 The works brought together in this issue show that animal surveillance is made up of a
heterogeneous assemblage of devices, knowledge and techniques which, whilst
reorganising themselves around biosecurity, nevertheless predate it. This is reflected
in the idea that the implementation of biosecurity reconfigures a whole set of
boundaries –biological, geographical, social and political (Enticott, 2008; Hinchliffe et al
., 2013): “The complexity of this disease ecology and the attendant knowledge practices
makes scanning surveillance less a matter of detecting known enemies and more a
procedure of piecing together evidence from a variety of tests, learning to respond with
various epistemic objects” (Hinchliffe, 2015: 33). Biosecurity could not in fact set itself
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 5
up as such a performative watchword if it did not incorporate a whole range of pre-
existing practices that follow their own normativities and temporalities. In the case of
avian influenza for example, surveillance, through joint funding, made it possible to
bring together activities which had until then been separate (Scoones and Forster,
2008). Preparation for an imminent catastrophe caused by inter-species transmission
must therefore be compatible with longer-term objectives, such as the preservation of
species or the development of academic networks. It is therefore important to grasp
the different facets of animal surveillance, from the perception of background signals
to health crisis management and the creation of groups to deal with everyday animal
disease matters. This allows us to understand how surveillance crystallises around
certain metrological devices, such as censuses, alerts, the creation of databases, etc.
whilst at the same time deploying technical and cognitive tools, along with very
different modes of organisation, cooperation and competition between actors.
***
12 We asked contributors to this volume to examine the multiple assemblages of
biosecurity devices in order to describe different modes of animal surveillance. Above
and beyond the purpose of surveillance, in its strictest sense and as defined by
biosecurity principles to prepare for global threats, the works collected in this issue
throw light on at least five types of activity which integrate surveillance devices.
13 First of all, for biosecurity purposes the aim of animal surveillance is to intersect in
several ways with the monitoring of biodiversity (Manceron, 2013; Granjou and Mauz,
2012). Between the threat of an imminent health crisis and that of a species becoming
extinct, there are different levels of mobilisation. The conception of nature as a
diversity reserve is undoubtedly just as normative as the protection of human health,
but the tension between these two norms, which may well orient the same surveillance
networks, makes it possible to grasp a range of practices at work in socio-technical
devices. Animal surveillance allows us to do something quite different from predicting
and preparing for an emerging infectious disease. For example, it might lead to the
development of devices for tracking wild fauna with a view to protecting the latter for
its own sake rather than protecting it for human benefit alone (Benson, 2010, 2012).
Birdwatchers now contribute towards avian flu’ surveillance by using their knowledge
of migratory trajectories to help prepare for pandemics; in return, they benefit from
media coverage of the alert to defend the cause of wild birds (Keck, 2013b). In this issue,
Sandrine Dupé shows how the introduction of sterilized mosquitos to control the
Chikungunya epidemic in Reunion Island is caught in a tension between the protection
of human populations and the management of vector diversity. Frédéric Vagneron
studies the emergence of an ecological approach to infectious diseases which has
developed as a corollary to the WHO’s implementation of a comprehensive influenza
surveillance device, thus turning man’s attention away from health concerns and more
towards the environment (of which the “animal reservoir” is an essential component)
in the etiology of zoonotic diseases.
14 Yet imperatives other than the protection of biosecurity can also orient animal
surveillance. So secondly, on the pretext of monitoring the health of livestock, methods
of monitoring human populations might be deployed. Whilst this operation is
sometimes related directly to public health concerns, especially when threats emerging
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 6
from the animal reservoir are linked to human behaviour towards them (Serna, 2014),
it also very often relates, in the southern hemisphere in particular, to a post-colonial
aspect of animal disease management, or to biosecurity in general (King, 2002). Indeed,
whilst historically speaking we know that tropical veterinary medicine has constituted
a preferred area for research on infectious zoonotic diseases, and that in this respect it
has helped build a “colonial” knowledge base (Gilfoyle, 2005; Gradman, 2010),
epidemiological surveillance of animals still remains a way of “domesticating” their
owners, by ensuring that their behaviour (farming and hunting practices in particular)
comply with existing biosecurity norms. Epidemiology thus constitutes knowledge
which makes it possible to disqualify certain forms of relationship with animals, such
as the marmot-hunting “coolies” accused of causing the great Manchurian pneumonic
plague at the beginning of the 20th century (Lynteris, 2013). Surveillance is then no
longer just a health monitoring device, but also a political tool for organising social
relationships, or even a policy instrument in the widest sense, as is the case with the
fight against malaria-carrying mosquitos in Tanzania (Kelly and Lezaun, 2014). In the
relations between the French mainland and its overseas territories, or between western
importing countries and (southern-hemisphere) foodstuff-exporting countries, the
articles by Muriel Figuié, Aurélie Binot and Alexandre Caron on the one hand, and by
Sandrine Dupé on the other, show the extent to which animal disease management
comes with a moralising undercurrent which aims to domesticate not only animals, but
also the human beings who live nearby.
15 Thirdly, surveillance can also lead to the development of academic and/or industrial
research activities which broaden the scientific networks and object fields that they
inhabit. Antoine Doré and Marc Barbier show how entomological research has been one
of the main driving forces for locust surveillance in Mauritania. Nicolas Fortané
describes the surveillance device for resistant bacteria of animal origin as a
microbiological research network which essentially –or at least during its first years of
operation– targets the circulation of strains of bacteria which are deemed to be of
scientific interest. Frédéric Vagneron shows how the WHO’s introduction of the notion
of “animal reservoir” is embedded in the epistemological context of the increasing
popularity of an ecological approach to infectious disease, which reconfigures the
relationship between virologists and epidemiologists. In this specific case, it should also
be noted that industrial research is never far away, as the flu virus constitutes a major
challenge for the manufacture of vaccines aimed at the human population (Aranzazu,
2013). Because the animal reservoir is considered to be where the next flu strain will
emerge, pharmaceutical laboratories can relieve international authorities in the
constitution of surveillance centres and, more particularly, help standardise the
techniques and devices that are implemented.
16 However, the economic and business interests linked to surveillance practices do not
concern the pharmaceutical sector alone. Fourthly and more broadly, it is the overall
management of the agri-food sector and of the global circulation of foodstuffs that is
linked to the development of these biosecurity devices. Muriel Figuié, Aurélie Binot and
Alexandre Caron show how the surveillance of animal diseases in Zimbabwe is linked to
the food safety imperatives of international trade and to the exportation of animal
products to northern-hemisphere countries in particular. More broadly, we know that
since the 1950s, the development of animal health policies in Europe is linked to the
creation of the common market (Ollivier, 2013), and that the steps taken to manage
avian influenza in south-east Asia were designed just as much to control the inter-
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 7
species transmission of the disease as to ensure continued food production in countries
where poultry is an important resource (Figuié et al., 2013; Porter 2013; Forster and
Charnoz, 2013). In the same way, surveillance has an affinity with biosecurity logics of
preparedness and resilience (Gilbert et al., 2010; Torny, 2012) in that it maintains the
continuity of economic and social relations throughout long-lasting risks and,
sometimes, crises. It thus has links with the deployment of the neo-liberal paradigm in
the field of agricultural production and trade, as driven in particular by the World
Trade Organization in as much as it aims to redefine local practices in the light of
global economic, health and security issues (Enticott, 2014).
17 This aspect intersects with a fifth register around which variations and
accommodations of animal surveillance devices emerge: the logics behind the technical
framing of agricultural practices (more specifically, in this case, farming practices). The
historical construction of epidemiological surveillance networks in the field of animal
health has to a large extent been left to the farmers and veterinarians who are in daily
contact with the animals (Fortané, 2017). These are the people who do the small tasks,
the aggregation and overlapping of which make it possible to produce surveillance
data. For example, information about a case of bovine brucellosis could not be passed
on without farmers keeping a careful eye on their herds and spotting the tiniest
suspicious signs, or without veterinary surgeons who, once alerted, come to carry out a
clinical examination of the animal in question and who decide whether or not to take
biological samples to confirm their suspicions (Bronner et al., 2013). So as Sandrine
Ruhlmann and Nicolas Fortané show, these two professions are at the forefront of
animal surveillance. In Mongolia, the partnerships between farmers and non-
governmental organisations such as Agronomes et Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (AVSF)
bring the figure of “sentinel-farmers” into a context where public health
infrastructures are being disintegrated, thus causing the government to hesitate
between contradictory animal health management policies (vaccination and slaughter
in particular). In France, after the mobilisation on antibiotic-resistant bacteria,
networks monitoring these bacteria in animals give a major role to farmers and “field”
veterinarians who, by virtue of their everyday animal health management practices,
constitute the first link in the epidemiological surveillance chain.
***
18 One of the challenges of the concept of surveillance is to integrate certain practices
into health crisis preparation devices: practices for managing agricultural production,
business practices, academic practices and practices for monitoring human populations
or for maintaining biodiversity. These are redefined as biosecurity practices the
purpose of which is to produce surveillance data. A whole range of skills and
perceptions is thus remobilised in accordance with modalities which might give rise to
forms of resistance and develop new areas of ignorance. Biosecurity is now globalising
that which has already been observed in relation to traceability: the signs which alert
us to new diseases would have no meaning if they were not embedded in pre-existing
practices. Biosecurity therefore only exists through the assemblages that it is able to
create between the knowledge, techniques and activities which can simultaneously
meet other objectives, often complementary but sometimes contradictory.
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 8
19 In the most contemporary and globalised forms of biosecurity, animal surveillance thus
expresses the variable relationships between humans and animals. It may be that all
surveillance involves this ambiguous mix of domination and proximity that connects
the human race to the species it has domesticated, and that the surveillance practices
most equipped with knowledge and socio-technical tools prolong forms of pastoral
care. The idea that new pathogens emerge from the animal reservoir demonstrates the
distance that now exists between these domestic species and mankind; no longer
evolving in close proximity, we have lost our shared immunity (Digard, 1990; Gualde,
2006). It is therefore up to the social sciences to reveal all of the practices which cause
human beings to pay more attention to the signs that animals send them, concerning
the diseases that affect them in common.
The Axa project “Social representations of pathogens at the frontiers between species” and the
ANR JCJC project “Pan, governing animals” supported this special issue.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aranzazu, A. (2013). Le réseau mondial de surveillance de la grippe de l’OMS. Modalités de
circulation des souches virales, des savoirs et des techniques, 1947-2007. Sciences sociales et santé,
31(4), 41-64.
Barbier, M. (2006). Surveiller pour abattre. La mise en dispositif de la surveillance
épidémiologique et de la police sanitaire de l’ESB. Terrains & travaux, 11(2), 101-121.
Benson, E. (2010). Wired wilderness. Technologies of tracking and the making of the modern wildlife.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Benson, E. (2012) One Infrastructure, Many Global Visions: The Commercialization and
Diversification of Argos, a Satellite-Based Environmental Surveillance System. Social Studies of
Science, 42(6), 846-871.
Berdah, D. (2010). La vaccination des bovidés contre la tuberculose en France, 1921-1963 : entre
modèle épistémique et alternative à l’abattage. Revue d’Études en Agriculture et Environnement,
91(4), 393-415.
Bronner, A. et al. (2013). Why do farmers and vets not report all bovine abortions, as requested by
the clinical brucellosis surveillance system in France ? BMC Veterinary Research, 10(93).
Brown, H. & Kelly, A. (2014). Material proximities and hotspots: towards an anthropology of viral
hemorrhagic fevers. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 28(2), 280-303.
Buton, F. & Pierru, F. (2012). Instituer la police sanitaire. Mise en circulation de l’épidémiologie
appliquée et agencification de l’État sanitaire. Gouvernement et action publique, 4(4), 67-90.
Caduff, C. (2014). Sick weather ahead. On date-mining, crowd-sourcing and white noise.
Cambridge Anthropology, 32(1), 32-46.
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 9 Chien, Y.-J. (2013). How did international agencies perceive the avian influenza problem? The adoption and manufacture of the ‘One World, One Health’ framework. Sociology of Health and Illness, 35(2), 213-226. Digard, J.-P. (1990) L’homme et les animaux domestiques. Anthropologie d’une passion. Paris : Fayard. Enticott, G. (2001). Calculating nature: the case of badgers, bovine tuberculosis and cattle. Journal of Rural Studies, 17(2), 149-164. Enticott, G. (2008). The spaces of biosecurity: prescribing and negotiating solutions to bovine tuberculosis. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1568-1582. Enticott, G. (2014). Biosecurity and the bioeconomy: The case of disease regulation in the UK and New Zealand, in A. Morley & T. Marsden (Eds.), Researching sustainable food: Building the new sustainability paradigm (pp. 122-142). London: Earthscan. Fearnley, L. (2008). Signals come and go: syndromic surveillance and styles of biosecurity. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1615-1632. Fearnley, L. (2010). Epidemic Intelligence: Langmuir and the Birth of Disease Surveillance. Behemoth, 3, 37-56. Fearnley, L. (2013). The birds of Poyang Lake: Sentinels at the interface of wild and domestic. Limn, 3, 20-24. Figuié, M. (2014). Towards a global governance of risks: international health organisations and the surveillance of emerging infectious diseases. Journal of risk research, 17(4), 469-483. Figuié, M., Pham, A.T. & Moustier, P. (2013). Grippe aviaire dans la filière. La réorganisation du secteur agro-industriel au Vietnam. Revue d’Études en Agriculture en Environnement, 94(4), 397-419. Forster, P. & Charnoz, O. (2013). La production de connaissances en temps de crise sanitaire. Que nous apprend la réponse internationale à la grippe aviaire en Indonésie ? Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances, 7(1), 112-144. Fortané, N. (2017). Naissance et déclin de l’écopathologie. L’essor contrarié d’une médecine vétérinaire alternative. Regards sociologiques, (50-51), 139-159. Gilbert, C., Bourdeaux, I. & Raphaël, L. (2010). La résilience, un enjeu politique ? L’approche française du risque de pandémie grippale (H5N1). Télescope, 16(2), 22-36. Gilfoyle, D. (2006). Veterinary immunology as colonial science: Method and quantification in the investigation of horsesickness in South Africa, c. 1905-1945. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 61(1), 26-65. Gradman, C. (2010). Robert Koch and the invention of the carrier state: tropical medicine, veterinary infections and epidemiology around 1900. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 41, 232-240. Granjou, C. (2003). L’introduction de la traçabilité dans la filière de la viande bovine. Cahiers internationaux de Sociologie, 115, 327-342. Granjou, C. & Barbier, M. (2010). Métamorphoses de l’expertise. Précaution et maladies à prions. Versailles : Quae, coll. Natures sociales. Granjou, C. et Mauz, I. (2012). Des espaces frontières d’expérimentation entre protection de la nature et pastoralisme. Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, 20(3), 310-317 Gualde, N. (2006). Comprendre les épidémies. La co-évolution des microbes et des hommes. Paris : Seuil, coll. Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015
How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 10 Hinchliffe, S. (2015). More than one world, more than one health: Reconfiguring interspecies health. Social Science & Medicine, 129, 28-35. Hinchliffe, S. & Craddock, S. (2015). One World One Health? Social science engagements with the one medicine agenda. Social Science &Medicine, 129, 1-4. Hinchliffe, S. & Ward, K. (2014). Geographies of folded life: How immunity reframes biosecurity. Geoforum, 53, 136-144. Hinchliffe, S. et al. (2013). Biosecurity and the topologies of infected life: From borderlines to borderlands. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(4), 531-543. Jones, S. (2004). Mapping a Zoonotic Disease: Anglo-American Efforts to Control Bovine Tuberculosis before World War I. Osiris, 19, 133-148 Jouzel J.-N. et Dedieu, F. (2013). Rendre visible et laisser dans l’ombre. Savoir et ignorance dans les politiques de santé au travail. Revue française de science politique, 63(1), 29-49. Keck, F. (2010). Une sentinelle sanitaire aux frontières du vivant. Les experts de la grippe aviaire à Hong-Kong. Terrain. Revue d’ethnologie de l’Europe, 54, 26-41. Keck, F. (2013a). Surveiller les animaux, préparer les humains, in S. Revet et J. Langumier (Eds.), Le gouvernement des catastrophes (pp. 73-100). Paris : Karthala. Keck, F. (2013b). Compter les virus, observer les oiseaux. Des bases de données pour la grippe aviaire. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances, 7(4), 857-883. Keck, F. & Lakoff, A. (Eds.). (2013). Sentinel devices. Limn, 3. Kelly, A. & Lezaun J. (2014). Urban mosquitoes, situational publics, and the pursuit of interspecies separation in Dar es Salaam. American Ethnologist, 41(2), 368-383. King, N. (2002). Security, disease, commerce: Ideologies of post-colonial global health. Social Studies of Science, 32(5-6), 763-789. Kleinman, D. & Suryanarayanan, S. (2013). Dying bees and the social production of ignorance, Science Technology and Human Values, 38 (4), 492-517. Lachenal, G., Lefève, C. & Nguyen, V.K. (Eds.) (2014). La médecine du tri. Histoire, éthique, anthropologie. Paris : Presses universitaires de France. Lakoff, A. (2008). The Generic Biothreat, or How We Became Unprepared. Cultural Anthropology, 23(3), 399-428. Lakoff, A. & Collier, S. (Eds.) (2008). Biosecurity interventions. Global health and security in question. New York: Columbia University Press. Law, J. & Mol A. (2011). Veterinary realities: what is foot and mouth disease? Sociologia Ruralis, 51(1), 1-16. Lynteris, C. (2013). Skilled natives, inept Coolies: Marmot hunting and the great Manchurian pneumonic plague (1910-1911). History and Anthropology, 24(3), 303-321. Manceron, V. (2013). Recording and Monitoring: Between Two Forms of Surveillance. Limn, 3, 25-30. Nading, A. (2013). Humans, Animals, and Health: From Ecology to Entanglement. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 40(1), 60-78. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015
How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 11 Ollivier, B. (2013). Quand les vétérinaires et les animaux font l’Europe. L’action publique européenne en santé animale, une institutionnalisation fragmentée. Thèse de science politique. Science Po Paris, 549 p. Porter, N. (2013). Bird Flu biopower. Strategies for multispecies coexistence in Viêt Nam. American Ethnologist, 40(1), 132-148. Prete, G. (2008). Surveiller en éradiquant : l’importance des « médiateurs de la surveillance » et des réseaux informels dans la surveillance des risques sanitaires et environnementaux. Sociologie du travail, 50(4), 489-504. Scoones, I. (2010). Avian Influenza: Science, Policy and Politics. London: Routledge. Serna, P. (2014). Surveiller les animaux et contrôler les citoyens, ou comment policer les bêtes pour mieux hiérarchiser les humains entre 1789 et 1799. Annales historiques de la Révolution française, 377, 109-144. Torny, D. (1998). La traçabilité comme technique de gouvernement des hommes et des choses. Politix, 11(44), 51-75. Torny, D. (2012). De la gestion des risques à la production de la sécurité. L’exemple de la préparation à la pandémie grippale. Réseaux, 71, 45-66. Woods, A. (2004). Why slaughter? The cultural dimensions of Britain’s foot and mouth disease control policy, 1892-2001. Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Ethics, 17, 341-362. Woods, A. (2011). A historical synopsis of farm animal disease and public policy in twentieth century Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 1943-1954. Youde, J. (2011). Mediating risk through the International Health Regulations and bio-political surveillance. Political Studies, 59, 813-830. Zylberman, P. (2013). Tempêtes microbiennes. Essai sur la politique de sécurité sanitaire dans le monde transatlantique. Paris : Gallimard, NRF Essais. ABSTRACTS Several works have already looked at how the new biosecurity imperative has transformed public health policies. Although the new methods of preparing for health crises have been studied in relation to public health, in the field of animal disease management there has so far been little research to test the concept of biosecurity. To this end, this issue offers a three-dimensional approach. The first is a thematic orientation which concerns the central instrument of biosecurity policies in this era of zoonotic threat: the surveillance of animal disease. The second orientation is methodological; one needs to study surveillance practices “from the bottom up”. The third concerns the new forms of knowledge in relation to animal disease and the production and/or maintenance of ignorance. De nombreux travaux ont déjà porté sur la façon dont le nouvel impératif de biosécurité a transformé les politiques de santé publique. Si les nouvelles formes de préparation aux crises sanitaires ont bien été étudiées dans le domaine de la santé publique, en revanche, dans le domaine de la gestion des maladies animales, peu de travaux ont pour l’instant cherché à mettre à l’épreuve le concept de biosécurité. Face à ce constat, ce numéro propose une triple inflexion. La première concerne l’instrument central des politiques biosécuritaires : la surveillance des maladies animales. La seconde est méthodologique ; il s’agit d’étudier « par le bas » les pratiques Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015
How biosecurity reframes animal surveillance 12 de surveillance. La troisième concerne les formes de connaissances sur les maladies animales et la production et/ou le maintien d’ignorances. Un gran numero de trabajos ha analizado cómo el nuevo imperativo de bioseguridad transformó las políticas de salud pública. Si bien es cierto que las nuevas formas de preparación frente a una crisis humanitaria han sido estudiadas desde la perspectiva de la salud pública, existen pocos trabajos que les hayan cuestionado en la óptica de la gestión de las enfermedades animales. Éste número propone ante ello una inflexión triple. La primera es de orden temático y se focaliza en el instrumento central de las políticas de bioseguridad frente a la amenaza zoonótica: la vigilancia de enfermedades animales. La segunda orientación es metodológica: se necesita estudiar «desde abajo» las prácticas de vigilancia. La tercera se enfoca en las nuevas formas de conocimiento de las enfermedades animales y en la producción y/o mantenimiento de la ignorancia. INDEX Mots-clés: biosécurité, surveillance, animaux, politique de santé, crise sanitaire, maladie animale Palabras claves: bioseguridad, vigilancia, animales, políticas de salud pública, crisis humanitaria, enfermedad animale Keywords: biosecurity, surveillance, animals, health policies, health crisis, animal disease AUTHORS NICOLAS FORTANÉ Research fellow in the RiTME unit of the French Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA), he works on animal health and veterinary public health policy. He especially studies the regulation of veterinary medicines, by analysing the political, professional, economic and technical issues that frames antibiotic use in livestock production. Regarding the development of animal health surveillance and preventive veterinary medicine, he published « Naissance et déclin de l’écopathologie : l’essor contrarié d’une médécine vétérinaire alternative », Regards sociologiques, 2017. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6479-5808 Address: INRA – RiTME, 65 boulevard de Brandebourg, FR-94205 Ivry-sur-Seine (France). E-mail: nicolas.fortane[at]ivry.inra.fr FRÉDÉRIC KECK Head of the department of research and education at the Musée du Quai Branly, after works on the history of social sciences (Claude Lévi-Strauss, une introduction, Paris, La Découverte, 2005 ; Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, entre philosophie et anthropologie, Paris, CNRS, 2008), he investigated biopolitical questions raised by Avian Influenza (Un monde grippé, Paris, Flammarion, 2010; (with Noelie Vialles, Eds.) « Des hommes malades des animaux », Cahiers d’anthropologie sociale, Paris, L’Herne, 2012). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7711-7288 Address: Musée du Quai Branly, 222 rue de l’Université, FR-75343 Paris Cedex 7 (France). E-mail: Frederic.keck[at]quaibranly.fr Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9-2 | 2015
You can also read
