Newsletter: April 2001
Ann Miles and Fred Bloom Co-Contributing Editors
How relevant are the terms "public interest" or "applied" to medical anthropology?
By Andi Johnson and Joan D. Koss-Chioino (Arizona State)
In ""Why I Am Not A Public Anthropologist," Merrill Singer highlighted the “conscious nonrecognition of applied anthropology” (September 2000 AN, p. 6) as implied in the discourse of some public interest anthropologists. Our experience corroborates Singer’s sensitivity toward the predictable “two-class system of ‘anthropological relevance’” that could arise as a result of the general intention of academic anthropologists to apply their research in the public sphere. Given the fact that the Society for Applied Anthropology is not a division within the AAA, the basis for separation seems to already exist (though we plead ignorance of the role of NAPA in this regard).
Yet the tension between the applied and public interest camps seems to be beset with ambiguities, including issues of employer, audience, funding, political agenda, and research topic. For example, while some assert that public interest anthropology (PIA) “is not a way of making applied work palatable to the academy,” (Sabloff, January 2000 AN, p.99), this is precisely what it appears to do. Public interest anthropologists can call for political agendas and/or work to stimulate social changes without having to label themselves “applied or academic or practitioner or [even] PIA anthropologists [because]…we do different related kinds of work throughout our careers.” In contrast, in the academy, applied anthropologists are frequently burdened with declaring themselves as such. However, once you accept the title, you are then subject to the attitude about applied research that pervades your department (presuming it is possible or preferable to stay in the academy). We ask, to what extent is the public interest movement influenced by the issue of doing academic (future-less) versus applied (future-oriented) anthropology?
Our perspective as medical anthropologists is that our subdisciplinary interest group seems to suffer little (if at all) from the division between academic and applied anthropology, and more recently, between public and applied anthropology. Examining why may shed some light on alternative ways to think about the issue.
First, while not all medical anthropologists engage in public work, it seems that the very nature of the topic includes an implicit applied/public dimension. In fact, it is the striking ease and necessity of interweaving theory and application in research on health and disease that drew the authors to medical anthropology. The anthropology of the environment and education share this same dualistic nature. Second, we assume, correctly or incorrectly, that issues of health and disease are of interest to all. Medical anthropologists largely avoid having to define “public,” in the sense of a widespread human audience.
Nor do we seem to be as critical about who pays for our colleagues’ research. While there are competing interests within health care, perhaps we are collectively comfortable working in any number of venues because, again, there is an implicit shared goal to promote health and decrease distress and illness- in all peoples. This is parallel to what is described as the intention of PIA, to conduct and publicize research appealing to public concerns.
Would medical anthropology’s embrace of public interest anthropology be redundant? Is it simply convenient or is it appropriate that many medical anthropologists do not label themselves as applied anthropologists? We appreciate the view of public interest anthropology that the discipline of anthropology needs to be made more relevant. But we also need to recognize that applied anthropology and PIA have overlapping goals that differ at the extremes. We suggest that it is beneficial for the discipline as a whole to support the commonalties, not the distinctions. By focusing on commonalties, especially with respect to research topics and goals, we can strengthen our discipline and perhaps avoid the two-tiered system so frustrating to Singer and many others.
In addition, may we suggest that the exigencies that accompany funding both applied and public interest research (and medical) need to be carefully considered for several reasons, not the least of which is to enhance intradisciplinary support for this essential dimension of anthropology.
Comments or controversy are welcome.
Call for papers
In 1982, neurologist and biochemist Stan Prusiner proposed the prion hypothesis to explain the mechanism of infection involved in a rare category of neurodegenerative diseases, the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). The prion hypothesis holds that the infectious agent of TSEs is not a virus but a protein. This proposition was clearly unorthodox and the question of whether it was breaking with Crick’s central dogma of molecular biology was raised. The prion hypothesis remains controversial, yet, in 1997 Prusiner was awarded the Nobel prize for Physiology or Medicine. There is no doubt that Prusiner's research has completely transformed the TSE field and has far- reaching implications for biology in general. For instance, it has recently been claimed that prions convey hereditary information.
The dramatic changes that took place in TSE research in the 15-year gap between Prusiner's formulation of the prion hypothesis and its full recognition are intertwined with equally dramatic political developments. In 1986, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) was first diagnosed by UK scientists. In 1996, the British government announced that the disease had transmitted to humans. This public health crisis has now reached international proportions. Rarely has the connection between science and politics been so topical.
We are seeking essays for an anthology examining Stan Prusiner and the prion controversy and/or the mad cow disease crisis. This is an interdisciplinary book -anthropological, rhetorical, philosophical, sociological, linguistic, cultural, political, and historical contributions are welcome. Contact Dr Eve Seguin, Dept of History, Aberdeen University, e.seguin@abdn.ac.uk.
Summer Program in Social and Cultural Psychology
McGill University Department of Psychiatry hosts the Seventh Annual Summer Program in Social and Cultural Psychiatry from May 7 to June 1, 2001. The program provides the conceptual background for research and clinical work in social and cultural psychiatry for postdoctoral trainees, researchers, clinicians, psychiatric residents, graduate students in health and social sciences, physicians, psychologists, social workers and other health professions. The Director of the Program is Laurence J. Kirmayer, MD and you may write for more information at mig2@musica.mcgill.ca.
To submit to this column, contact Ann Miles at miles@wmich.edu.