{"title":"Styles of thought in healthcare governance: A situational analysis of English PrEP discourse 2016-2020.","authors":"Adam Christianson","doi":"10.1057/s41292-025-00351-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Attending to competing styles of thought in healthcare controversies may be helpful to critical health scholarship. This article reexamines the debate over the introduction of a new HIV prevention technology in England as a tension between epidemiological and molecular style of thoughts. I argue English HIV services were organised according to an epidemiological style of thought. The introduction of biomedical pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to the health system brought this rationality into question in ways the English health system was ill-prepared to manage. A situational analysis of English PrEP discourse in the lead up and following NHS-England's 'U-turn' on PrEP illustrates a split along epidemiologically and biomedically informed styles of thought. These networks have their dedicated administrators, experts, activists and ways of thinking about their target population and preferred organisation of HIV services. Though they often collaborate, these two groups have distinct moral and political agendas that relate to their style of thinking. This analysis further nuances existing critical interpretations of the PrEP controversy in England. Beyond England, this debate suggests a potential departure from the conventional biopolitical subject and rationality of advanced liberalism.</p>","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":"20 3","pages":"520-550"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12398422/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-025-00351-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Attending to competing styles of thought in healthcare controversies may be helpful to critical health scholarship. This article reexamines the debate over the introduction of a new HIV prevention technology in England as a tension between epidemiological and molecular style of thoughts. I argue English HIV services were organised according to an epidemiological style of thought. The introduction of biomedical pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to the health system brought this rationality into question in ways the English health system was ill-prepared to manage. A situational analysis of English PrEP discourse in the lead up and following NHS-England's 'U-turn' on PrEP illustrates a split along epidemiologically and biomedically informed styles of thought. These networks have their dedicated administrators, experts, activists and ways of thinking about their target population and preferred organisation of HIV services. Though they often collaborate, these two groups have distinct moral and political agendas that relate to their style of thinking. This analysis further nuances existing critical interpretations of the PrEP controversy in England. Beyond England, this debate suggests a potential departure from the conventional biopolitical subject and rationality of advanced liberalism.
期刊介绍:
BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society.
BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances.
As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe.
BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.