Health, environment and colonial legacies: Situating the science of pesticides, bananas and bodies in Ecuador.

Pesticide-related health impacts in Ecuador's banana industry illustrate the need to understand science's social production in the context of major North-South inequities. This paper explores colonialism's ongoing context-specific relationships to science, and what these imply for population health inquiry and praxis. Themes in postcolonial science and technology studies and critical Latin American scholarship guide this exploration, oriented around an ethnographic case study of bananas, pesticides and health in Ecuador. The challenge of explaining these impacts prompts us to explore discursive and contextual dynamics of pesticide toxicology and phytopathology, two disciplines integral to understanding pesticide-health linkages. The evolution of banana phytopathology reflects patterns of banana production and plant science in settings made accessible to scientists by European colonialism and American military interventions. Similarly, American foreign policy in Cold War-era Latin America created conditions for widespread pesticide exposures and accompanying health science research. Neocolonial representations of the global South interacted with these material realities in fostering generation of scientific knowledge. Implications for health praxis include troubling celebratory portrayals of global interconnectedness in the field of global health, motivating critical political economy and radical community-based approaches in their place. Another implication is a challenge to conciliatory corporate engagement approaches in health research, given banana production's symbiosis of scientifically 'productive' military and corporate initiatives. Similarly, the origins and evolution of toxicology should promote humility and precautionary approaches in addressing environmental injustices such as pesticide toxicity, given the role of corporate actors in promoting systematic underestimation of risk to vulnerable populations. Perhaps most unsettlingly, the very structures and processes that drive health inequities in Ecuador's banana industry simultaneously shape production of knowledge about those inequities. Public health scholars should thus move beyond simply carrying out more, or better, studies, and pursue the structural changes needed to redress historical and ongoing injustices.

Corporate sponsorship of global health research: Questions to promote critical thinking about potential funding relationships.

Funding options for global health research prominently include grants from corporations, as well as from foundations linked to specific corporations. While such funds can enable urgently-needed research and interventions, they can carry the risk of skewing health research priorities and exacerbating health inequities. With the objective of promoting critical reflection on potential corporate funding options for global health research, we propose a set of three questions developed through an open conference workshop and reflection on experiences of global health researchers and their institutions: 1) Does this funding allow me/us to retain control over research design, methodology and dissemination processes? 2) Does accessing this funding source involve altering my/our research agenda (i.e., what is the impact of this funding source on research priorities)? 3) What are the potential "unintended consequences" of accepting corporate funding, in terms of legitimizing corporations or models of development that are at the root of many global health problems? These questions outline an intentional and cautionary approach to decision-making when corporate funding for global health research is being considered by funding agencies, institutions, researchers and research stakeholders.

Epidemiology and 'developing countries': writing pesticides, poverty and political engagement in Latin America.

The growth of the field of global health has prompted renewed interest in discursive aspects of North-South biomedical encounters, but analysis of the role of disciplinary identities and writing conventions remains scarce. In this article, I examine ways of framing pesticide problems in 88 peer-reviewed epidemiology papers produced by Northerners and their collaborators studying pesticide-related health impacts in Latin America. I identify prominent geographic frames in which truncated and selective histories of Latin America are used to justify research projects in specific research sites, which nevertheless function rhetorically as generic 'developing country' settings. These frames legitimize health sector interventions as solutions to pesticide-related health problems, largely avoiding more politically charged possibilities. In contrast, some epidemiologists appear to be actively pushing the bounds of epidemiology's traditional journal article genre by engaging with considerations of political power, especially that of the international pesticide industry. I therefore employ a finer-grained analysis to a subsample of 20 papers to explore how the writing conventions of epidemiology interact with portrayals of poverty and pesticides in Latin America. Through analysis of a minor scientific controversy, authorial presence in epidemiology articles, and variance of framing strategies across genres, I show how the tension between 'objectivity' and 'advocacy' observed in Northern epidemiology and public health is expressed in North-South interaction. I end by discussing implications for postcolonial and socially engaged approaches to science and technology studies, as well as their relevance to the actual practice of global health research. In particular, the complicated interaction of the conflicted traditions of Northern epidemiology with Latin American settings on paper hints at a far more complex interaction in the form of public health programming involving researchers and research participants who differ by nationality, ethnicity, gender, profession, and class.

Climate change, vector-borne disease and interdisciplinary research: social science perspectives on an environment and health controversy.

Over the last two decades, the science of climate change's theoretical impacts on vector-borne disease has generated controversy related to its methodological validity and relevance to disease control policy. Critical social science analysis, drawing on science and technology studies and the sociology of social movements, demonstrates consistency between this controversy and the theory that climate change is serving as a collective action frame for some health researchers. Within this frame, vector-borne disease data are interpreted as a symptom of climate change, with the need for further interdisiplinary research put forth as the logical and necessary next step. Reaction to this tendency on the part of a handful of vector-borne disease specialists exhibits characteristics of academic boundary work aimed at preserving the integrity of existing disciplinary boundaries. Possible reasons for this conflict include the leadership role for health professionals and disciplines in the envisioned interdiscipline, and disagreements over the appropriate scale of interventions to control vector-borne diseases. Analysis of the competing frames in this controversy also allows identification of excluded voices and themes, such as international political economic explanations for the health problems in question. A logical conclusion of this analysis, therefore, is the need for critical reflection on environment and health research and policy to achieve integration with considerations of global health equity.