In this paper we explore the expert controversy over the management of a major rural risk issue, the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak that affected the United Kingdom in 2001, and in particular the role of predictive epidemiological modeling in the decisionmaking process. We pose the questions of why this technique was identified as the right tool for the job by government and why, at the same time, its use was so fiercely contested by other experts in animal health. To set our analysis in context we outline briefly the causes, characteristics, and consequences of FMD together with its history in the United Kingdom. We then provide an account of the 2001 FMD outbreak and the policies that were employed to control the epidemic. In the main discussion we integrate the geographical concept of spatial practices with the concept, drawn from the sociology of scientific knowledge, of styles of scientific practice and apply this to the analysis of the knowledge practices and arguments of the scientific groups that advised on controlling the epidemic. We analyse the key differences between expert groups and their policy recommendations in terms of their different styles of scientific spatial practice. In the rhetorical boundary work of the opposing scientific groups we see these differences in ‘style’ being invoked to delineate the boundaries of ‘sound science’ and thereby legitimate their respective policy prescriptions. We conclude by discussing the relationship between styles of scientific spatial practice and recent trends in government policy style and its implications for future risk policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamD, 2001, “When the going gets tough…”Nature412472–473
2.
AndersonI, 2002Foot and Mouth Disease 2001: Lessons to be Learned—Inquiry Report HC 888 (The Stationery Office, London)
3.
Anon, 2001, “Opinion: lessons from an epidemic”Nature411977
BSE Inquiry, 2000, House of Commons papers, Session 1999–00, HC 88716 volumes (The Stationery Office, London)
7.
ClarkeAFujimuraJ H, 1992, “What tools? Which jobs? Why right?”, in The Right Tools for the Job Eds ClarkA EFujimuraJ H (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) pp 3–44
8.
CollinsHPinchT J, 1982Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary ScienceRoutledge and Kegan Paul, London)
DEFRA, 2002, Written response to questions from European Parliament: Temporary Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London), http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/inquiries/eptc.pdf
DonaldsonA IAlexandersenSSørensenJ HMikkelsenT, 2001, “Relative risks of the uncontrollable (airborne) spread of FMD by different species”Veterinary Record148602–604
14.
FergusonN MDonnellyCAndersonR M, 2001a, “The foot-and-mouth epidemic in Great Britain: pattern of spread and impact of interventions”Science2921115–1160
15.
FergusonN MDonnellyCAndersonR M, 2001b, “Transmission intensity and impact of control policies on the foot-and-mouth epidemic in Great Britain”Nature413542–548
16.
FreudenburgW R, 1993, “Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labour, and the rationality of risk perceptions”Social Forces71909–932
17.
FujimuraJ H, 1987, “Constructing do-able problems in cancer-research—articulating alignment”Social Studies of Science17257–293
18.
FujimuraJ HChouD Y, 1994, “Dissent in science—styles of scientific practice in the controversy over the cause of Aids”Social Science and Medicine381017–1036
19.
GierynT F, 1983, “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists”American Sociological Review48781–795
HackingI, 1992, “‘Style’ for historians and philosophers”Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science231–20
22.
HowardS CDonnellyC A, 2000, “The importance of immediate destruction in epidemics of foot and mouth disease”Research in Veterinary Science69(2) 189–196
23.
JasanoffS, 1987, “Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science”Social Studies of Science17195–230
24.
KaoR R, 2001, “Landscape fragmentation and foot-and-mouth disease transmission”Veterinary Record148746–747
25.
KaoR R, 2002, “The role of mathematical modeling in the control of the 2001 FMD epidemic in the UK”Trends in Microbiology10(6) 279–286
26.
KeelingM JWoolhouseM E J, 2001, “Dynamics of the 2001 UK foot and mouth epidemic; stochastic dispersal in a heterogeneous landscape”Science294813–817
27.
LefebvreH, 1991The Production of SpaceBlackwell, Oxford)
28.
MAFF, 1969, “Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Foot-and-Mouth Disease 1968”, parts one and two, Cmnd 3555 and Cmnd 4225, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (HMSO, London)
MichellB, 2001, “FMD control strategies”Veterinary Record148606
31.
MorrisR SWilesmithJ WSternM WSansonR LStevensonM A, 2001, “Predictive spatial modeling of alternative control strategies for the foot and mouth disease epidemic in Great Britain, 2001”Veterinary Record149137–144
32.
National Audit Office, 2002The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth DiseaseThe Stationery Office, London)
ShieldsR, 1991Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of ModernityRoutledge, London)
36.
SpectorMKitsuseJ I, 1987Constructing Social ProblemsDe Gruyter, New York)
37.
StarS L, 1989, “Layered space, formal representations and long-distance control: the politics of information”Fundamenta Scientiae10(2) 125–154
38.
TaylorN, 2003, “Review of the use of models in informing disease control policy development and adjustment: a report for DEFRA”, Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit, University of Reading, Reading
39.
TaylorP J, 1992, “Re/constructing socioecologies: system dynamics modeling of nomadic pastoralists in sub-Saharan Africa”, in The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth Century Life Sciences Eds ClarkeA EFujimuraJ H (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) pp 115–148
40.
The Royal Society, 2001, “Royal Society Inquiry into infectious diseases in livestock: note of meeting with Jim Scudamore, Chief Veterinary Officer, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, 23 November”, http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/inquiry/522.pdf
TinlineR R, 1972A Simulation Study of the 1967–68 Foot-and-Mouth Epizootic in Great Britain unpublished DPhil dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Bristol, Bristol
44.
WardNDonaldsonALoweP, 2004, “Policy framing and learning the lessons from the UK's foot and mouth disease crisis”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy22291–306
45.
Western Morning News, 2001Foot and Mouth: How the West Country Lived Through the NightmareWestern Morning Press, Plymouth)
46.
WoolhouseMChase-ToppingMHaydonDFriarJMathewsLHughesGShawDWilesmithJDonaldsonACornellSKeelingMGrenfellB, 2001, “Foot-and-mouth disease under control in the UK”Nature411258–259
47.
WynneB, 1989, “Sheep farming after Chernobyl: a case study in scientific communication”Environment3110–15, 33–40
48.
WynneB, 1996, “May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay divide”, in Risk, Environment and Modernity Eds LashSSzerszynskiBWynneB (Sage, London) pp 44–83
49.
WynneBSimmonsP, 2001, “Institutional cultures and the management of global environmental risks in the UK”, in Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks: A Comparative History of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion and Acid Rainvolume 1, Eds ClarkW CJägerJvan EijndhovenJDicksonN M (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 93–113
