From subjects to relations: Bioethics and the articulation of postcolonial politics in the Cambodia Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis trial

How and why to use 'vulnerability': an interdisciplinary analysis of disease risk, indeterminacy and normality

In recent years, 'vulnerability' has been getting more traction in theoretical, professional and popular spaces as an alternative or complement to the concept of risk. As a group of science and technology studies scholars with different disciplinary orientations yet a shared concern with biomedicine, self and society, we investigate how vulnerability has become a salient and even dominant idiom for discussing disease and disease risk. We argue that this is at least partly due to an inherent indeterminacy in what 'vulnerability' means and does, both within and across different discourses. Through a review of feminist and disability theory, and a discussion of how vulnerability and disease both get recruited into a binary conceptualisation of normal versus abnormal, we argue that vulnerability's indeterminacy is, in fact, its strength, and that it should be used differently than risk. Using COVID-19 management in the UK as an illustration of the current ambivalence and ambiguity in how vulnerability versus risk is applied, we suggest that instead of being codified or quantified, as it has started to be in some biomedical and public health applications, vulnerability and its remedies should be determined in conjunction with affected communities and in ways that are polyvalent, flexible and nuanced. The concept of vulnerability encapsulates an important precept: we must recognise inequality as undesirable while not attempting to 'solve' it in deterministic ways. Rather than becoming fixed into labels, unidirectional causalities or top-down universalising metrics, vulnerability could be used to insist on relational, context-specific understandings of disease and disease risk-in line with contemporary social justice movements that require non-hierarchical and non-universal approaches to problems and solutions.

High PrEP acceptability and need for tailored implementation in Cambodian key populations: results from a qualitative assessment

The HIV epidemics in Cambodia is concentrated in key populations (KPs). Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been officially approved in the country since 2019. However, its use may still be controversial after a PrEP clinical trial was interrupted in Cambodia after being deemed unethical in 2004. In this context, it was necessary to evaluate PrEP acceptability and administration preferences of KPs in Cambodia, with a view to increasing roll-out and uptake. We conducted a qualitative study in 2022 comprising six focus groups and four semi-structured individual interviews with transgender women, men who have sex with men, male entertainment workers, venue-based female entertainment workers (FEW), street-based FEW, and PrEP users who participated in a PrEP pilot study that started in 2019. Overall, KPs positively perceived PrEP, with some reservations. They preferred daily, community-based PrEP to event-driven, hospital-based PrEP, and highlighted that injectable PrEP would be a potential option if it became available in Cambodia. We recommend (i) proposing different PrEP regimens and PrEP delivery-models to broaden PrEP acceptability and adherence in Cambodia (ii) increasing the number of community-based organisations and improving the services they offer, (iii) rolling out injectable PrEP when it becomes officially available, and (iv) improving PrEP side effects information.

The CARE (Curiosity, Attentiveness, Respect and Responsiveness, and Embodiment) Model: Operationalizing Cultural Humility in the Conduct of Clinical Research

Cultural competence training has been criticized for reinforcing existing stereotypes, ignoring intersectionality and inadvertently marginalizing some individuals and groups. In contrast, cultural humility offers the possibility of transformational learning, requiring individuals to pursue a lifelong course of self-examination. This approach makes authentic engagement with others possible. We review the premises underlying cultural competence and cultural humility, as well as proposed models for the integration of cultural humility into the clinical context. We propose a new model for the integration of cultural humility into clinical research: CARE, signifying Curiosity, Attentiveness, Respect and Responsiveness, and Embodiment. We conclude that the concept of cultural humility can be integrated into the conduct of clinical research.

Mistrust: Community engagement in global health research in coastal Kenya

This article explores a case of mistrust in global health research and community engagement. It uses ethnographic material collected in 2014 and 2016 in Kenya, concerning community engagement by a HIV vaccine research group working with men who have sex with men and transgender women. In 2010, the research group was attacked by members of the wider community. Following the attack, the research group set up an engagement program to reduce mistrust and re-build relationships. Analysis focusing on mistrust shows the dynamics underlying the conflict: Norms around gender and sexuality, political support for LGBTIQ+ rights, and resources disparities were all at stake for those embroiled in the conflict, including researchers, study participants, religious leaders, and LGBTIQ+ activists in the region. Rather than a normative good with liberatory potential, community engagement in this paper is discussed as a relational tool with which mistrust was managed, highlighting the fragility of participation.

Homo adhaerens: Risk and adherence in biomedical HIV prevention research

After the turn of the millennium, HIV clinical researchers pivoted from developing and testing new antiretrovirals (ARVs) for treatment, to reconfiguring the same molecules for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). In 2012, Truvada became the first HIV therapy to also be approved by the FDA for PrEP, regarded as a magic bullet that promised to end the epidemic. However, six years after its approval, it continues to be inaccessible to those who are most vulnerable. In this article, I critically analyze HIV PrEP clinical trials, dissecting the novel techniques researchers use to demonstrate efficacy. I argue that in making sense of the interplay between adherence to a prophylactic regimen and risk for HIV, biomedical HIV prevention research has revealed a new subject of biopolitics, Homo adhaerens. In the early 2000s, clinical researchers operating in the Global South identified Homo adhaerens as the ideal subject, one who embodies both high-risk behavior and diligent adherence to a daily oral regimen. I trace the construction of Homo adhaerens to the United States, where I listen closely to activists engaged with the ongoing DISCOVER trial of PrEP. Activists either aspire for Homo adhaerens as a standard, making the liberal argument that expanding access could make PrEP successful, or they rebuke the framework of clinical research that produces narrow understandings of adherence, efficacy, and universality. Ultimately, I argue that by failing to grapple with the social realities that underlie poor adherence, PrEP clinical trials produce knowledge that is not useful for those who are most vulnerable.

Recent advances in pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV

Although pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)-the use of antiretroviral drugs by non-infected people to prevent the acquisition of HIV-is a promising preventive option, important public health questions remain. Daily oral emtricitabine (FTC)-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is highly efficacious in preventing the acquisition of HIV in people at risk as a result of a range of different types of sexual exposure. There is good evidence of efficacy in women and men, and when men who have sex with men use event based dosing. Studies have been conducted in several countries and epidemics. Because adherence to this treatment varies greatly there are questions about its public health benefit. Oral FTC-TDF is extremely safe, with minimal impact on kidney, bone, or pregnancy outcomes, and there is no evidence that its effectiveness has been reduced by risk compensation during open label and programmatic follow-up. It is too early to assess the impact of this treatment on the incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) at a population level. Many challenges remain. Access to pre-exposure prophylaxis is limited and disparities exist, including those governed by race and sex. Different pricing and access models need to be explored to avoid further widening inequalities. The optimal combination prevention program needs to be defined, and this will depend on local epidemiology, service provision, and cost effectiveness. This review updates the evidence base for pre-exposure prophylaxis regarding its effectiveness, safety, and risk compensation.

Counting bodies? On future engagements with science studies in medical anthropology

Thirty years ago, Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Margaret Lock outlined a strategy for 'future work in medical anthropology' that focused on three bodies. Their article - a zeitgeist for the field - sought to intervene into the Cartesian dualisms characterizing ethnomedical anthropology at the time. Taking a descriptive and diagnostic approach, they defined 'the mindful body' as a domain of future anthropological inquiry and mapped three analytic concepts that could be used to study it: the individual/phenomenological body, the social body, and the body politic. Three decades later, this paper returns to the 'three bodies'. It analyses ethnographic fieldwork on chronic illness, using a rescriptive, practice-oriented approach to bodies developed by science studies scholars that was not part of the initial three bodies framework. It illustrates how embodiment was a technical achievement in some practices, while in others bodies did not figure as relevant. This leads to the suggestion that an anthropology of health need not be organized around numerable bodies. The paper concludes by suggesting that future work in medical anthropology might embrace translational competency, which does not have the goal of better definitions (better health, better bodies, etc.) but the goal of better engaging with exchanges between medical and non-medical practices. That health professionals are themselves moving away from bodies to embrace 'planetary health' makes a practice-focused orientation especially crucial for medical anthropology today.