Christianson Adam
Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK.
Biosocieties. 2025;20(3):520-550. doi: 10.1057/s41292-025-00351-8. Epub 2025 Apr 13.
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.
关注医疗保健争议中相互竞争的思维方式可能有助于批判性健康研究。本文重新审视了英格兰引入一种新的艾滋病毒预防技术的争论,将其视为流行病学思维方式与分子思维方式之间的一种紧张关系。我认为,英国的艾滋病毒服务是按照流行病学思维方式组织的。将生物医学暴露前预防(PrEP)引入卫生系统,以英国卫生系统准备不足应对的方式,使这种合理性受到质疑。对英国在国民保健署英格兰对PrEP“掉头”之前和之后的PrEP话语进行的情境分析表明,在基于流行病学和生物医学知识的思维方式上存在分歧。这些网络有其专门的管理人员、专家、活动家,以及思考其目标人群和艾滋病毒服务首选组织方式的方法。尽管它们经常合作,但这两个群体有与他们的思维方式相关的不同道德和政治议程。这一分析进一步细化了对英国PrEP争议的现有批判性解释。在英国之外,这场辩论表明可能背离了先进自由主义的传统生命政治主体和合理性。