Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
Soc Stud Sci. 2011 Jun;41(3):361-84. doi: 10.1177/0306312710395341.
This paper examines the debate about the safety of kava (Piper methysticum Forst. f, Piperaceae), a plant native to Oceania, where it has a long history of traditional use. Kava became popular as an anti-anxiety treatment in Western countries in the late 1990s, but it was subsequently banned in many places due to adverse reports of liver toxicity. This paper focuses on the responses to the bans by scientists involved in kava research, contrasting their evidential culture with that employed by clinicians and regulatory officials. Cultural constructions and social negotiations of risk are shown to be context-specific, and are shaped by professional, disciplinary, and organizational factors, among others. Though the science of hepatotoxicity is uncertain enough to allow for multiple interpretations of the same data, the biomedical/clinical narrative about kava remains dominant. This case study explores the influence of these cultural, social, and political factors on the production of scientific knowledge and the assessment of benefit/risk posed by comestibles.
本文探讨了有关卡瓦（Piper methysticum Forst. f，胡椒科）安全性的争论，卡瓦是一种原产于大洋洲的植物，在那里它有着悠久的传统使用历史。卡瓦在 20 世纪 90 年代末作为一种抗焦虑治疗方法在西方国家流行起来，但由于有肝毒性的不良报告，它随后在许多地方被禁止使用。本文主要关注参与卡瓦研究的科学家对这些禁令的反应，将他们的证据文化与临床医生和监管官员所采用的证据文化进行对比。研究表明，风险的文化构建和社会协商是特定于情境的，并受到专业、学科和组织等因素的影响。尽管有关肝毒性的科学还存在不确定性，足以对同一数据进行多种解释，但关于卡瓦的生物医学/临床叙述仍然占主导地位。本案例研究探讨了这些文化、社会和政治因素对科学知识的产生以及对食品带来的获益/风险评估的影响。
