Download 15 - Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Previously published in Conner Bailey, Svein Jentoft and Peter Sinclair (eds.).
1996. Aquacultural Development: Sociological Dimensions of an Emerging
Industry. Boulder, Co: Westview Press. Pp.263-281.
Fish, Pigs, Poultry, and Pandora's Box:
Integrated Aquaculture
and Human Influenza
Mike Skladany
Introduction (1)
This chapter calls attention to an ongoing controversy between integrated
aquafarming proponents and virologists concerned with public health effects of
integrated aquacultural development. In a controversy, scientists construct
"societies" which support their claims. In this particular controversy, two groups of
scientists advance a variety of heterogeneous social claims about human and nonhuman resources. These claims reshape the terrain of this dispute and reveal the
integration of science and society in interesting and critically important ways. For
sociologists, attention is drawn to "technoscience" itself as a valuable tool for
sociological analysis (Callon 1986, 1987; Latour 1987). The particular example
discussed and described here suggests a new approach to the study of aquaculture
technology and development by including the discourse of scientists themselves into
sociological analysis.
In this chapter, I first present a five stage summary of the controversy by using
written accounts that have appeared in popular scientific journals.(2) In sum, a
group of virologists have advanced claims that integrated farming practices may
create conditions that could lead to deadly influenza A pandemics. Integrated
aquafarming proponents counter that these claims are grossly overstated. In the
second section of the chapter I describe how these scientists construct "societies." As
the controversy continues, both groups of scientists define and assign roles to a
series of social actors. They act as sociologists. In the conclusion, I discuss, with
particular focus on aquacultural development, how an analysis of scientific
controversies may provide valuable insights into science and society.
Background: Integrated Farming and Aquaculture Development
Integrated farming, including the incorporation of a fish subsystem, has emerged as
a substantive research and development agenda in the 1980s. Integrated farming is
promoted as holding substantial potential for sustainable and socially sound
development. In the words of one aquaculture scientist, integrated farming offers
"the best prospects for involving millions of small-scale farmers in aquaculture"
(Edwards 1991:2). This development potential is deemed especially relevant in
tropical inland areas of Asia, Latin America and Africa where resources are often
greatly constrained (Costa-Pierce et al. 1991; Edwards et al., 1988a; Lovshin et al.
1986; Smith 1988). While the practice of combining livestock and fish has existed for
centuries, most notably in China and Europe, concerted documentation and further
scientific investigation of these practices have been fairly recent. (3)
Following examples derived from Chinese practices, the rationale put forth by
proponents of integrated farming is straightforward. It involves a "whole farm"
systems approach. Integrated farming with a fish subsystem provides for an
efficient utilization of on-farm resources, increased food and income opportunities,
fewer economic risks through farm diversification, and especially effective disposal
of crop residues and animal wastes by turning these materials into high quality fish
protein (Edwards et al. 1988a; Little and Muir 1987; NACA 1989; Pullin and
Shehadeh 1980). While the potential of integrated farming holds promise, it should
be noted that on-farm practice of integrated crop-livestock-fish farming amounts to
substantially less than one percent of farming populations in the tropics (Smith
1988).
International and regional research and development organizations actively
promote integrated aquafarming. Central to our dispute are the efforts of the
Manila-based International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management
(ICLARM) and the Bangkok-based Asian Institute of Technology (AIT). Both the
ICLARM and the AIT aquaculture programs play prominent global roles in
scientifically advancing integrated aquafarming. The influence these organizations
have with donors is significant. Publications arising from these organizations are
numerous, widely distributed, and important in terms of articulating integrated
aquafarming research and development agendas.
In this light, the relevance of more inclusive social processes are generally
recognized but have not been fully articulated in a systematic or thoroughgoing
fashion. While there are expectations that this situation may change (Bailey 1991;
ICLARM 1990), for present purposes I will document the unfolding of simply a
scientific-technical controversy. I will emphasize, however, that this scientific
dispute is simultaneously a highly social one. It involves various spokespersons and
their followers who speak and argue with each other on behalf of, and over, the
welfare of small-scale farmers, the disadvantaged in tropical developing countries,
colleagues, avian and human viral recombinations in "mixing vessels," fish ponds,
fowl, livestock, international development agencies, and global human health. In
short, I intend to follow the controversy as it has unfolded in the written accounts
(Callon 1986; Latour 1987). With some reinterpretation, I will highlight key claims
that both groups construct.
Key Actors in the Controversy
The publication of a 1988 "Commentary" by Christoph Scholtissek (a virologist at
the Institute of Virology, University of Geissen) and Ernest Naylor (a zoologist at the
University of Wales) in the journal Nature initiated this dispute. Peter Edwards, a
professor of aquaculture at the Asian Institute of Technology has responded to
articles by Scholtissek and others throughout this dispute. Interestingly, this
controversy has been aired almost exclusively in more general and popular scientific
texts, an odd place to carry out a dispute. When need arises however, sources are
cited from various "hard" research texts based on laboratory experiments,
evolutionary theory, viral genetics, and technical field surveys accompanied by
direct and indirect observations of Asian farming practices. Thus we will begin here
and enter written accounts about viruses, poultry, pigs, fish, and people.
Stage 1: The Sholtissek and Naylor Article
In January 1988, Scholtissek and Naylor published a "Commentary" entitled "Fish
Farming and Influenza Pandemics," in Nature. Scholtissek and Naylor (1988) noted
that new pandemic influenza A viruses arise every 10 to 20 years. These strains have
new surface molecular configurations (antigens) and human antibodies are often illequipped to fend them off. The authors point out that pigs possess a unique capacity
to act as an intermediate viral "mixing vessel" where the incubation of new human
influenza strains is most likely to occur. In particular, Scholtissek and Naylor
(1988:215) suggest that "the region of South China, where pigs live in close contact
with humans as well as with ducks, could facilitate reassortment of influenza
viruses, which might explain why most pandemics start from that geographical
area." The authors warn against proximate siting of pigs with humans and
waterfowl. They then contrast this evolutionary pandemic outline with the active
encouragement and adoption of integrated livestock-fowl-fish farming on the part of
international development agencies. Specifically, Scholtissek and Naylor (1988:215)
point to certain farming practices in Asia and specifically in Thailand, where pighen-fish culture is thought to be widespread: "the hens are in cages above the pigs
which consume hen feces, and the pigs are in pens directly above fish ponds into
which they defecate ... similar systems involving ducks, pigs and fish are used in
Hong Kong, Malaysia and Nepal."
Scholtissek and Naylor (1988) conclude that widespread support and promotion of
integrated farming by international development organizations may simultaneously
promote pandemic influenza A viruses. In sum, Scholtissek and Naylor (1988: 215)
suggest that a potentially serious human health risk may exist "by bringing together
the two reservoirs of influenza A viruses" through integrated farming. This state of
affairs, they argue, may become intensified by the promotion and transfer of Asian
farming techniques to other global regions by international development agencies.
Stage 2: Response by Edwards et al. and Reply
Edwards et al. (1988b) expressed concerns with possible negative impacts arising
from the commentary by Scholtissek and Naylor. While Edwards's group agrees
that integrated farming should not contribute to new health hazards, they contend
that Scholtissek and Naylor have "grossly overstated" their case. They point out
that the example from Thailand (Delemendo 1980) cited by Scholtissek and Naylor
is a single farm case. This farm, they note, has since discontinued the practice.
Furthermore, they add that pig-hen-fish farming is virtually non-existent in the
region.
Edwards et al. (1988b: 506), charge that Scholtissek and Naylor have "implied but
did not actually state" that this particular practice was widespread. Edwards et al.
(1988b: 506) contend that multiple livestock-fish combinations are relatively rare in
Asia. They dismiss the statements about on-farm systems which were put forth by
Scholtissek and Naylor as, "another example of the danger in making a
generalization from a very limited data base." In conclusion, Edwards et al.
(1988b:506) argue that management and marketing constraints mitigate against
multiple livestock enterprises and that poultry manure has little nutritional value
for pigs.
In a brief response in the same issue of Nature, Naylor and Scholtissek (1988: 506)
counter: "We claimed no more than that pig-poultry-fish systems do occur and
pointed out a potential health hazard of expanding the practice of co-locating pigs
and poultry around fish ponds." Indeed, all parties agree that pig-fish systems and
poultry-fish systems should be kept separate. But Naylor and Scholtissek have
raised the stakes. They implicate international development agencies. They warn
that achieving safe health practices requires qualification of a recent proposal
submitted to the Consultative Group for International Agriculture Research, which
"argues forcefully for 'fully integrated crop/livestock/fish farming with maximal
efficiency of use of on-farm resources'" (quoted in Naylor and Scholtissek 1988:
506).
At this point, there are unresolved claims with respect to the dispute. Integrated
aquafarming proponents are clearly concerned with negative social impacts that
they perceive may arise from Scholtissek and Naylor's article. As mentioned in the
earlier sections of this chapter, both AIT and ICLARM, in conjunction with
international development agency support, are at the forefront of emerging research
and development themes related to integrated aquafarming. In the words of
Edwards et al. (1988a), "AIT, ICLARM and its cooperators ... constitute vital assets
for the future development of tropical integrated farming and merit strong support
to sustain their programs and expand their activities to help others."
Throughout their development, both AIT and ICLARM have embodied a
substantial social commitment towards alleviating malnutrition in developing
countries. Integrated farming is put forth as one possible development solution. In
this context, ICLARM and AIT act as spokespersons for small-scale farmers and
international development agencies. Conversely, Scholtissek and Naylor speak as
scientists concerned about global human health. They act as protagonists and
construct an important association -- that promotion of integrated farming may lead
to socio-ecological conditions that could induce a global influenza pandemic. These
are serious charges. The results of these social constructions may alter the
character, course, and direction of integrated farming networks. In this instance,
Scholtissek and Naylor threaten the stability of the social apparatus behind the
continued promotion of and support for integrated farming.
Another set of social constructs needs to be highlighted; the early dispute does not
lead to a joint resolution or settlement, but to many more unanswerable questions.
Can viruses be made to obey farming systems boundaries? What is meant by colocation of poultry and pigs? Human beings aside, how do fish ponds bring them
together? Is this meant to be the same facility, same farm, same village, or same
region? How much "proximity" between livestock systems and humans is safe?
Representative spokespersons are vague on these issues. Edwards et al. (1988b) tend
to focus on individual farm cases and very rough farm aggregates from Southeast
Asian countries. They do not enter into, nor dispute the socio-viral world
Scholtissek and Naylor construct in their accounts. How can they? In fact, they
concede that pigs can be "mixing vessels" to Scholtissek and Naylor. Scholtissek and
Naylor focus on viral-geographic regions, the social practices that may give rise to
potentially hazardous new viral strains, and links to fragile global health conditions.
What about the stance of international development agencies and small-scale
farmers? Both groups are passively enrolled in this dispute. International
development agencies and small-scale farmers have been given social definitions and
roles in the accounts by representative spokespersons. Whether these enrolled
groups agree, are indifferent or dissent from the views expressed by the
spokespersons, or whether the definitions and roles assigned to the two groups are
accurate is irrelevant from the participants perspective (Callon 1986; Latour 1987).
In addition, both parties dispute what they see and what they reinterpret from each
other and similar sources. Hence they begin modifying each other’s claims. For
example, the "facts" about Asian farming practices that Scholtissek and Naylor
present are more or less turned into "fictions" by Edwards et al. (1988b). They
argue that the "commonly found" practices that Scholtissek and Naylor point out
are rare and likely to remain so.
The initial arguments present only partial findings and much speculation with
respect to common ground for dispute. Some associations and linkages put forth are
stronger (e.g., viral recombinant mechanisms in pigs) than others (e.g., the incidence
of hen-pig-fish farms). A geographical region, Asia, with certain farming practices
has been targeted with implications for global health. Hence more human and nonhuman resources will have to be brought to bear on the controversy. Data will have
to be marshaled, the arguments must become more technical, and inscriptions will
have to be used in order to persuade the readers of these articles.
An Early Fortification: "You Don't Belong Here"
In a highly influential ICLARM Studies and Reviews publication, Edwards et al.
(1988a: 30) summarized human health concerns in relation to livestock-crop-fish
farming systems. After warning that Third World integrated systems should not
pose threats to human health, they state "the inferred link (by Scholtissek and
Naylor) was grossly overstated. Pigs and poultry have been brought together
without fish on traditional farms in Asia and Europe for centuries ... farming
systems involving pigs, poultry and fish are rare and likely to remain so."
Chronologically, Edwards et al. (1988a) repeat, but in modified form (covering other
water related human diseases), arguments made in correspondence published in
Nature. They expand the parameters of the debate from viral aspects to include the
world of human bacterial diseases and a helminth parasite that is linked to
schistosomiasis. Furthermore, they argue that for centuries humans have
established livestock systems without adding a fish subsystem. In short, they "stack"
and "stratify" evidence to tilt in their favor (Latour 1987). The condensed and
expanded section on "Potential Health Hazards" stratifies findings on human health
issues related to fish ponds. From pathogens such as Salmonella to mosquitoes to
Schistosoma, and finally leading to the "grossly overstated" claims imputed to
Scholtissek and Naylor, the number of associations the authors have put forth is
used to weaken the claims of Scholtissek and Naylor and force them out of
integrated farming (Edwards et al. 1988a:30; Latour 1987).
Stage 3: The Morse Essay and the World Aquaculture Society Editorial
Stephen Morse, a virologist from Rockefeller University picks up from where
Scholtissek and Naylor have temporarily left off. Morse (1990:16) brings a
virologist's comparative molecular, environmental, and socio-evolutionary
perspective to what he calls "viral traffic: the transfer to humans of diseases which
exist within some animal population." In the broad framework of the article, Morse
(1990) calls into question integrated farming practices and international donors in
creating conditions likely to increase "viral traffic." Morse (1990) warns that
development organizations continue to ignore potentially hazardous health
conditions by recommending integrated aquaculture projects in Asia, Latin
America and Africa.
Morse (1990:16) painstakingly builds his case by beginning with a discussion of how
"viral infections that strike seemingly out of nowhere" arise. According to Morse
(1990:16), new viruses were previously thought to emerge de novo "because of the
great array of viruses and the speed with which they accumulate genetic
mutations." Morse (1990:16,18) focuses, however, on some features that many
emerging viruses share. Specifically he notes that throughout history, infectious
diseases have largely entered human populations through animals.
Morse (1990:16) lists human diseases which have been linked to humans through
animal carriers. A historical pattern involving animal carriers such as green
monkeys, rats, lice, fleas, mosquitoes, tropical birds, and mice is apparent in cases
ranging from Marburg disease, bubonic plague, typhus, malaria, yellow fever,
parrot fever, and Argentine-Bolivian hemorrhagic fever. Through these vectors,
Morse (1990:18) points out that:
The catalyst ... is human activity -- in particular, the growing impact of that
activity on the environment. The changes wrought by war, migration,
agriculture, deforestation and population growth have expedited the
movement of viruses from isolated animal reservoirs to the larger human
community.
Hence "viral traffic" has risen with increased human activity and interaction with
the environment.
Morse then turns away from socio-historical cases of "viral traffic" and moves to
molecular viral structures. The particle possesses some unique outer glycoprotein
molecular structures called hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). These
structures "enable the virus to bind to a host cell and invade it, much as a thief
might use a house key to break into a home" (Morse 1990: 20). Antibodies, which
can be produced by vaccines, can attack the virus at this molecular level but viruses
have remarkable genetic capabilities such that "the arrangement of [viral] surface
molecules can change so significantly that the old antibodies no longer identify the
virus." Tragically, during the outbreak of human influenza pandemics, antibodies
fail to recognize newly arranged H-N sequences.
Morse calls the gradual process of viral mutation "antigenic drift." In humans,
antigenic drift accounts for relatively mild epidemics of influenzas. Generally, no
vaccines are developed to mitigate these mild and frequent viral outbreaks. Morse
then introduces a much more radical viral genetic process, actually a reshuffling of
present genes from different virus strains, which he calls "antigenic shift." In this
phenomenon, a deadly human pandemic can result. When an antigenic shift takes
place, changes in the surface molecular viral coats occur. Morse (1990:20) explains
that:
There are thirteen major varieties of hemagglutinin, labeled H1 through H13,
and nine major varieties of neuraminidase labeled N1 through N9, in the fluvirus population. If a cell is simultaneously infected by two strains of the
virus possessing different H and N subtypes, the genes for the antigens can
reshuffle to form novel combinations -- arrangements never before seen by
the human population.
Morse further focuses on the mechanisms and environments conducive for creating
new viruses. Many of these new viral strains are subsequently transferred from
animals to humans. Morse (1990:20) points out that "Every known subtype of the H
protein can be found in ducks and other waterfowl." Morse then recaps the work of
Scholtissek and Naylor and their suggestion that pigs act as "mixing vessels" where
they can simultaneously contract avian and human influenza strains. From this
point in the text, Morse (1990:20) asks, "Where do the animals involved live in such
proximity that the reservoirs [of viral strains] can mix in the first place?" (4)
The answer to Morse's question is in Asia, where "farmers ... have practiced a
unique method of agriculture whereby fresh manure from livestock, particularly
ducks and pigs, acts as fertilizer for fish ponds" (Morse 1990:20). From this
question and answer sequence, it is only a short but carefully staged inference that
international development agencies are partially responsible for the spread of such
practices and the human health consequences that may arise through promotion of
integrated farming in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Morse concludes his essay with some recommendations. These include taking into
account the conditions likely to induce deadly viral traffic. Noting that field
virologists are scarce and that there are only a few well equipped and staffed field
laboratories in the world, Morse (1990:21) endorses the creation of a global network
of tropical disease surveillance centers. Linking these centers with other centers and
preexisting data bases would lead to an increased chance that harmful outbreaks
would be identified early on. According to Morse (1990:21), doing so will require
prioritizing this issue through proactive policy measures.
Morse has written a far reaching and provocative account of a potentially
threatening global health problem. Integrated aquafarming and the level of support
that the activity has attained with international donors are just one small set of
linkages in the overall socio-viral network which emerge in his account of viral
traffic. His intensive effort engulfs the previous debate and reopens the controversy,
but in a much broader set of socio-environmental parameters and settings.
Morse's essay was featured in an editorial by Aiken (1991) in World Aquaculture.
Aiken (1991:2) summarizes Morse's essay for the 2,600 member World Aquaculture
Society. Aiken (1991:2) questions the role that international development agencies
may play in the development "of devastating new influenza epidemics by promoting
integrated aquaculture in developing countries" In conclusion, Aiken suggests that:
If indeed the linkage between integrated farming practices and new influenza
viruses is as tight as Morse suggests, international development agencies that
are vigorously promoting integrated farming practices around the world
should reflect on the possible human health consequences of their programs.
Aiken's (1991) understated editorial is favorable to the position put forth by Morse.
While Morse has significantly raised the stakes with a "tightly" constructed essay
with which Aiken tends to agree, the implicated role of international development
agencies is still passively represented by both Morse and Aiken. In short, a
spokesperson for these agencies has still not emerged. But Morse (1990) and Aiken
(1991) provoked integrated farming spokespersons. A response from them was
forthcoming.
Stage 4: Managing for Damage Control?
In a featured letter to World Aquaculture, Edwards takes issue with the Aiken
editorial. Specifically, Edwards (1991:2) addresses a perceived, "negative impact on
the efforts of organizations and individuals to promote integrated farming systems"
that the editorial may have instigated. In this letter, Edwards notes that pigs and
poultry have been raised" without the need for fish to bring them together."
Edwards (1991:2) acknowledges that aquaculture may play a role in staging
emerging viruses, but notes that "animal husbandry is likely to be a far greater
culprit."
Edwards (1991) shifts to China and presents the first inscription put forth by
integrated farming proponents, an FAO derived table (Table 15.1). The table
presents human populations, agricultural land to human population ratios, gross
animal numbers, and animal to human population ratios. Edwards (1991:3)
summarized preliminary analysis of these data: "It makes sense that China would
be the region where most influenza A pandemics start; China has a quarter of the
world's population plus high densities of pigs and poultry (41% of the world's pigs,
63% of the world's ducks and 19% of the world's chickens)." Comparing China,
"our main suspect," with the rest of the world, Edwards (1991:3) notes that there
are large number of pigs and chickens in the rest of the world. He concludes that
"large numbers of livestock raised in developed countries ... means that countries in
this category present a potential threat also." The point that Edwards (1991) makes
is that fish farming is a highly unlikely source for inducing pigs to act as "mixing
vessels." With 344 million pigs, 316 million ducks, and 1,800 million chickens in
China, how can animal husbandry be ignored and fish farming be so implicated?
TABLE 15.1 Number and Density of Humans and Selected Livestock Species
China
Total human pop. (x103 ) 1,072,078
Agric. Land/agric.pop (ha)
0.13
3
Pigs (x10 )
344,248
Ducks (x106)
316
6
Chickens (x10 )
1,796
Other Asian
& Pacific
1,532,925
0.33
54,967
117
1,294
Rest of
World
2,310,647
1.62
440,637
67
6,355
World
Total
4,915,650
0.64
839,852
500
9,445
Pigs/total human pop.
Pigs/human ag.pop.
Ducks/total human pop.
Ducks/human ag.pop.
Chickens/human pop.
Chickens/human ag. pop.
Source: Edwards (1991)
0.32
0.46
0.29
0.42
1.68
2.38
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.13
0.84
1.44
0.19
0.69
0.03
0.10
2.75
9.90
0.17
0.37
0.10
0.22
1.92
4.12
In addition, Edwards features his own work in the region to point out that multiple
livestock-fish systems are extremely rare.(5) In conclusion, Edwards (1991:6)
responds to Aiken’s question on the role of international development agencies.
Saying he is unsure, Edwards claims that both ICLARM and AIT "are aware of it
[potential health hazards] and do not encourage the farming of fish in conjunction
with pigs and poultry."
The World Aquaculture Society issue also printed five other letters on the
controversy.(6) Pullin (1991:6), who is the Director of ICLARM's Aquaculture
Program, found Aiken's editorial "greatly disturbing" because Aiken failed to
"consider subsequent correspondence also published in Nature." What is interesting
about Pullin's letter is the socially derived stance that he takes on behalf of
ICLARM and the "disadvantaged in developing countries." ICLARM's research on
developing integrated crop-livestock-fish farming is undertaken "because we are
sure that it can and should become a major source of better nutrition and livelihood
for the disadvantaged in developing countries" (Pullin 1991:6).
With publication of the article by Morse in The Sciences, the editorial by Aiken in
World Aquaculture, and letters by Edwards and Pullin, the controversy has been
rekindled and the stakes progressively raised. There is a clear tendency to bring in
harder evidence, other geographical regions of the world, and 344 million pigs, 316
million ducks, and 1,800 million chickens in China to bear on the dispute at hand.
Processes and concepts are extended in a variety of manners to fit a particular but
changing social view of the integrated farming and viral worlds. Allies are sought
beyond the discourse emanating from research centers.
In addition, there is constant transformation of the claims of the disputants.
"Millions of small-scale farmers" in Asia, Latin America and Africa have become
the "disadvantaged in developing countries." ICLARM's claims to represent social
actors and its constructions are vigorously defended. Indeed, these statements are
presented in a manner that implies they are beyond questioning. In contrast, Morse
favors establishment of an international tropical disease surveillance network.
Edwards repeatedly refers to farm studies and cases from Asia to show that the
incidence of poultry-pig combinations on the same farm is rare. Morse calls for
more linkages between molecular virology and field biology. All this occurs in a
commentary, essays, an editorial, and a few letters.
Stage 5: "Cultivating a Killer Virus"
The most recent stage of the controversy involves a recent lead article published by
Scholtissek in the journal Natural History. He adds a subtitle which reads, "In
Southeast Asia, fish farming may inadvertently spawn new and potentially lethal
strains of influenza." Scholtissek (1992:2) begins by recalling a conversation with
Naylor who was involved in the "Blue Revolution" (i.e., aquaculture development).
Scholtissek expressed concerns when considering his own work on the evolution of
lethal viral strains in conjunction with conditions likely to stage influenza -- the
promotion of integrated farming in Asia, Latin America and Africa. He explained to
Naylor that "The fish themselves play no role in the process, but the fish ponds
bring humans and ducks into contact with pigs -- and pigs are the one animal that
can serve as a `mixing vessel’ for the creation of new influenza viruses that may
threaten world health."
Scholtissek describes how he and his colleagues have investigated the evolution of
new human influenza viral strains, which are "partially derived from animal
influenza viruses." Parallel to, but expanding on Morse (1990), Scholtissek (1992)
presents a detailed description of molecular configurations that lie behind viral
evolution, adding that influenza viral strains constantly change their surface
molecular coats, rendering pre-existing human antibodies ineffective to combat
them.
Scholtissek (1992:4) then describes antigenic shifts during which "a virus picks up
one or more genes, including the hemagglutinin gene, from an animal influenza
virus." This genetic mechanism accounts for outbreaks of influenza A. Influenza A
viruses change their antigenic coats rapidly because they are the only particles
found in animal and human populations. Scholtissek (1992:4) notes that ducks are
"influenza reservoirs" containing many influenza A strains that are passed among
ducks and along worldwide flight paths. These nonlethal strains live and multiply
predominantly in duck intestinal tracts and do not invade humans. Scholtissek then
asks how these influenza pools merge to create new human pandemic strains.
Scholtissek constructs his argument from surface molecular coats to the actual
mechanism by which viral strains multiply in a host. From experiments, Scholtissek
(1992:4) explains that the determinants of host specificity involve nucleoproteins,
which:
form the core of the virus, wrapping around the virus's genes. While surface
antigens, such as hemagglutinin, are important for entering a host's cells, the
nucleoprotein has to cooperate with almost all viral components in one way
or another during multiplication, assembly, and maturation of infectious
particles. Any of the viral genes can be exchanged without affecting host
specificity except the nucleoprotein gene.
By replacing "the gene segment responsible for nucleoproteins in fowl plague virus
with the corresponding gene from the human influenza virus," Scholtissek (1992:4)
and his group could change which host the virus attacked. For instance, new
laboratory strains were harmless in chickens, but would multiply in dog cells.(7)
Scholtissek (1992:4-5) and a colleague were then able to construct an evolutionary
tree that suggested that pigs formed their own branch or were found intermingled
with human and avian branches. Hence the role of pigs as "mixing vessels" for new
strains of human influenza viruses becomes apparent. Scholtissek (1992) adds that
pigs probably become infected with avian influenza viruses by eating duck
droppings. If a farmer has the flu or cold, a pig can also become infected with that
strain, allowing for the reshuffling of viral genetic material in the pig. The new
strain "may find its way to the respiratory tract of the farmer and thus spread to
the human population" (Scholtissek 1992:6). In conclusion, Scholtissek (1992) warns
that new viral strains will continue to threaten global health. In his view, export of
the "Blue Revolution" could invite disaster.
Throughout the course of this controversy, initial associations and inferences are
extended by both parties, who then stage renewed claims (Latour 1987). The means,
however, by which both parties advance claims are substantially different in terms
of epistemological as well as methodological approach. Manufacturing claims
requires constructing environments, societies, and social groups that are given
definitions and roles by respective spokespersons (e.g., global health, viral
recombinants, viral traffic, small-scale farmers, the disadvantaged in tropical
developing countries, China, fish pond, animal husbandry, and international
development agencies). In this light, there is not much in common for dispute, with
the exception of reinterpretations of certain farming practices. Persuasion, however,
is directed at outside readers and rests on appeals to and an ordering of
heterogenous social criteria. These appeals may alert relevant social groups (e.g., aid
agencies) and initiate new research and development opportunities. Hence, scientists
in this dispute construct "societies" in order to advance and ultimately to justify
their claims. We will now turn to some instances of these social constructions.
How Societies Are Created in the Controversy
In this ongoing controversy, both groups of scientists define and assign roles to
social actors. In this context, commentators such as Callon (1986; 1987), Latour
(1987), Meyers (1990) and Pinch and Bijker (1987) have clearly demonstrated social
constructivist aspects of technoscience systems. By constructing "societies" in order
to situate and advance their particular world views, both groups of scientists are
also attempting to shape a socially shared sense of meaning in order to influence
relevant social groups. These groups are readers of these scientific journals and
more critically the international development agencies who support research and
development of integrated aquafarming. Published commentaries, letters, and
essays in more popular scientific journals and magazines announce these intentions.
Hence, the controversy serves as a means to advertise the respective positions of
both parties for a wider audience (Pinch and Bijker 1987).
Opportunities may arise for both integrated aquafarming proponents and
virologists to expand their respective technoscience social networks. Morse (1990)
suggests creation of tropical disease surveillance centers and more links between
molecular and field virology. Edwards et al. (1988a) has consistently called for
continued support and expansion of integrated aquafarming research and
development. The controversy in which both parties are involved may just be the
catalyst necessary for expansion.
Virologists construct associations between viral recombinations, mixing vessels,
farming practices, and socio-environmental parameters. From these linkages the
objects under scrutiny simply diffuse through society. Furthermore, this pattern
corresponds to the emergence of previous infectious disease vectors. Viral traffic is
on the rise and serious outbreaks are likely in the future. Associations emerge that
carry the reader by leaps and bounds towards the present controversy. Conversely,
integrated aquafarming proponents disassociate themselves from practices
perceived likely to stage influenza pandemics. They do not promote harmful
practices, nor are these practices widespread. The social objectives of alleviating
malnutrition put forth by integrated aquafarming proponents in tropical developing
countries are consistently stated. These objectives cannot be challenged by
virologists who acknowledge their importance in these regions of the world.
Both parties modify each other's claims by defining "passage points" whereby they
construct "the nature and the problems of the latter and then suggesting that these
would be resolved if they [opponents] negotiated the ... [particular] researchers'
programme of investigation" (Callon 1986:196). Concretely, the hen-pig-fish
example disputed by both parties is the only critical "passage point" in this
controversy. The claim that these practices were "commonly found" in Asia was
refuted by integrated farming proponents. They pointed out that these systems are
rare due to a variety of social (e.g., management and marketing) factors particular
to the conditions of Asian small-scale farmers.(8) Surprisingly, virologists (Morse
1990 and Scholtissek 1992) have simply ignored them. Sidestepping this issue
instead, they advance a much broader socio-historical framework whereby
integrated farming is one potential source of influenza A recombinants. The
controversy continues as closure has not been reached.
Integrated aquafarming proponents cannot challenge the claims emanating from
the laboratories at the Institute of Virology, University of Geissen, or at Rockefeller
University. How can they? They revert to a table (Table 15.1) wherein numbers in
the form of 344 million pigs, 316 million ducks and 1,800 million chickens in China
are hurled at the reader. In addition, high numbers of livestock in the other regions
of the world are used to advance claims that these areas are also at risk. Finally,
integrated aquafarming proponents tell us that mixed animal husbandry practices
are much more likely to stage influenza A recombinants than the addition of a fish
pond. Human beings aside, aquafarming proponents argue that pigs and poultry
have been brought together for centuries without the need for fish ponds. The socio-
viral world that virologists construct is simply not applicable to the historical record
of aquafarming.
In this controversy, socially defined groups of actors such as small-scale farmers are
transformed into the disadvantaged in tropical developing countries. These actors
are presented as benefitting from improved and much needed farming practices.
Integrated aquafarming proponents construct these "societies" from personal
observations, technical reports, and development project involvements in tropical
regions. It is important to repeat that integrated aquafarming is limited to
substantially less than one percent of tropical farming populations. Who these
farmers are is important, but they remain unknown regardless of how they are
defined and spoken for in the controversy. In addition, international development
agencies remain curiously silent. It is likely that spokespersons for them will emerge.
Their lack of response indicates they are either unaware of the controversy, or
consider the potential "threats" minimal. Both parties however, advertise their
views with an implicit appeal to various forms of support.
Conclusion
In this controversy scientists act as sociologists. The controversy discussed in this
chapter provides valuable insights into aquaculture development processes. In
short, by following world views that scientists construct in a controversy,
heterogeneous social networks are revealed which overlap purely "technical" or
"social" accounts. In essence, sociological and technoscientific constructs are
inextricably intertwined (Callon 1987). An important and much neglected way for
sociologists to learn about aquaculture development is to follow the innovators
themselves in their research, publications, projects, and controversies. These
innovators to a large degree set aquaculture research and development agendas.
Aquaculture scientists, when working on research and development systems such as
modern integrated aquafarming, often develop an explicit sociology. These insights
can be turned into advantages for sociologists of aquaculture by following
sociological constructs that give rise to society and to technology. In this sense, the
homogeneity of purely social relationships is replaced by the integration of more
complex and situated heterogeneous socio-technoscientific networks (Callon 1987).
There is a strong need for a renewed focus on aquaculture scientists, research, and
development. Sociologists should explore the development of technoscientific
systems as fundamentally a social process. This process involves both previously
separated "technical" and "social" dimensions. With a few notable exceptions,
social scientists rarely have examined the socially derived claims made by scientists
themselves.9 Social networks that comprise the complex system of international
aquaculture development can be probed more effectively by combining both the
"social" and the "technoscientific" within a single frame of analysis. The effort
presented herein points to a need for a fuller accounting of these networks.
Notes
1. The late Jay Artis inspired an early version of this chapter. Acknowledgments are
due to Lawrence Busch, Michel Callon, Anne Ferguson, Bill Derman, Craig Harris,
Keiko Tanaka, Priscilla Weeks, and the editors of this volume for critical comments
on earlier drafts of this chapter. Responsibility for the views expressed are mine
alone.
2. An important qualification is in order. As discussed within these pages, this
chapter is only a partial account of the controversy. I have not contacted any of the
participants in this dispute. Nor did I contact the editors at Nature, The Sciences,
Natural History, ICLARM, or World Aquaculture. Hence findings and
interpretations should be treated as preliminary. More importantly, the controversy
is still "in the making" and has not reached closure.
3. See, for example, Edwards (1982), Edwards et al. (1983, 1986, 1988a), Hopkins
and Cruz (1982), Little and Muir (1987), NACA (1989), Pullin and Shehadeh (1980).
4. In the mid-1960s, the predominant sequence of surface molecules was H2N2, a
viral strain to which humans had developed immunity. However, Morse points out
that the "Hong Kong" flu strain, which first appeared in 1968, had a subtype H3
configuration to which most people were not immune. The result was a deadly
global pandemic. Scholtissek (1991) makes the same point.
5. ICLARM and AIT have no monopoly on, nor are these organizations abreast of
(an impossible task) the latest field developments that incorporate integrated croplivestock-fish farming systems. Both AIT and ICLARM are small organizations. In
contrast, in Nong Khai Province of Thailand, where some integrated farm case
studies were conducted (Engle and Skladany 1992), concentrated clusters of small
commercial, integrated poultry-fish farms were found (approximately 100 in
number). The area contained high densities of both animals and humans. A one
hectare farm studied in some detail had 2,000 hens, a dozen Thai chickens, a few
turkeys, 2 monkeys, 6 goats, a dozen Chinese quail, 3 cattle, a half dozen Muscovy
ducks, and 2 fish ponds. The owners had recently sold 21 pigs but kept two adult
breeders. Free ranging duck flocks, watched over by an attendant, scavenged in an
adjacent swamp-reservoir. The hens directly manured the fish ponds and were
enclosed in bamboo pens. Pigs were kept next to the house but separate from the
other animals. Pig manure was discarded into a nearby paddy field. Cattle,
monkeys, Chinese quail, and goats were either confined or staked to a particular
area. Thai chickens, turkeys, and Muscovy ducks were free ranging. Interestingly,
these developments were supported in part by Thai banks. There was little if any
input from animal husbandry or fisheries agencies. In addition, the practice seemed
to have caught on in the area as other farms had set up integrated operations
independent of bank and/or agency financial and technical support.
6. Kutty (1991:6) from FAO anticipates that integrated farming proponents "will
demand more confirmatory evidence before they are convinced to dissuade rural
farmers from this practice." Kutty (1991:6), however, warns that "human health
should be a paramount concern." Forbes (1991:6-7), an aquaculture consultant,
agrees with Edwards "that international agencies should be encouraged, not
discouraged, from promoting integrated farming within safe parameters." But
Forbes also recommends that Scholtissek's 1992 article in Natural History be given
"close scrutiny." Manci (1991:7), another consultant, wryly comments on
aquaculturists' "bury-your-head-in-the sand" attitude. He suggests that suppressing
those who criticize or raise real questions about the industry "does aquaculture a
disservice." At a 1989 World Aquaculture Society conference, Manci raised
questions about pollution from Norwegian salmon farming with a Norwegian
official who told him that pollution from salmon net-pen operations was
"insignificant." Manci later found out in Seymour and Bergheim (1991) that salmon
farming in Norway, a country with 4.2 million people, produces a pollution load
equivalent to 2.7 million people.
7. Scholtissek (1992) discusses other cases such as a 1979-80 influenza epizootic
which killed camels in Mongolia. This strain was a recombinant of two human
strains which had been prepared and killed as a vaccine in Leningrad for the
human population. Somehow, the recombinant particle survived and invaded the
Mongolian camel population at great economic loss.
8. A report by Pullin and Shehadeh (1980) contains numerous accounts of Asian
integrated aquafarming systems derived from countries in the region.
References
Aiken, D. 1991. "Aquaculture and the Influenza Virus." World Aquaculture 22(1): 2.
Bailey, C. 1991. Memorandum to ICA Associates. International Center for
Aquaculture. Auburn University, Alabama.
Callon, M. 1986. "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of
the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay." In John Law, ed., Power, Action
and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
______. 1987. "Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for
Sociological Analysis." In W. E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T. Pinch, eds., The Social
Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Costa-Pierce, B.A., C. Lightfoot, K. Ruddle, and R.S.V. Pullin, eds. 1991.
Aquaculture Research and Development in Rural Africa. Summary Report on the
ICLARM-GTZ/Malawi Fisheries Department/University of Malawi Conference,
Zomba, Malawi, 2-6 April 1990. ICLARM Conference Proceedings Number 27.
Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
Delemendo, M.N. 1980. "A Review of Integrated Livestock-Fowl-FishFarming
Systems." In R.S.V. Pullin and Z.H. Shehadeh, eds., Integrated AgricultureAquaculture Farming Systems. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 4. Manila:
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
Edwards, P. 1982. "Report of Consultancy at the Regional Lead Centre for
Integrated Fish Culture, Wuxi, The People's Republic of China, October 12 to
November 22, 1981." (Unpublished ms.)
______. 1991. "Fish-fowl-pig Farming Uncommon." Letter to the Editor. World
Aquaculture 22(3):2-3, 6.
Edwards, P., K.E. Weber, E.W. McCoy, C. Chantachaeng, C. Pacharaprakiti, K.
Kaewpaitoon, and S. Nitsmer. 1983. "Small-scale Fishery Project in Pathum Thani
Province, Central Thailand: A Socio-economic and Technological Assessment of
Status and Potential." AIT Research Report No. 158. Bangkok: Asian Institute of
Technology.
Edwards, P., K. Kaewpaitoon, E.W. McCoy, and C. Chantachaeng. 1986. "Pilot
Small-scale Crop/Livestock/Fish Integrated Farm." AIT Research Report No. 184.
Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology.
Edwards, P., R.S.V. Pullin and J. Gartner. 1988a. Research and Education for the
Development of Integrated Crop-Livestock-Fish Farming Systems in the Tropics.
ICLARM Studies and Reviews 16. Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic
Resources Management.
Edwards, P., C. K. Lin, K. L. Wee, D. Little, and N.L. Innes-Taylor. 1988b. "Fish
farming and Aquaculture." Scientific Correspondence. Nature 333: 505-506.
Engle, C.R. and M. Skladany. 1992. "The Economic Benefit of Chicken Manure
Utilization in Fish Production in Thailand." CRSP Research Report 92-45.
Corvallis, OR: Pond Dynamics CRSP, Oregon State University.
Forbes, A. 1991. "Proper Precautions Advocated." Letter to the Editor. World
Aquaculture 22(3):6-7.
Hopkins, K. D. and E.M. Cruz. 1982. The ICLARM-CLSU Integrated Animal-Fish
Farming Project: Final Report. ICLARM Technical Report 5. Manila: International
Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
ICLARM. 1990. "The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research."
NAGA, The ICLARM Quarterly 13(4): 3-7.
Kutty, M. N. 1991. "Enlightened Approach Needed." Letter to the Editor. World
Aquaculture 22(3):6.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Little, D. and J. Muir. 1987. A Guide to Integrated Warm Water Aquaculture.
Stirling, Scotland: Institute of Aquaculture.
Lovshin, L.L. N.B. Schwartz, V.G. de Castillo, C.R. Engle, and U.L. Hatch. 1986.
Cooperatively Managed Panamanian Fish Ponds: The Integrated Approach.
Research and Development Series No. 33. International Center for Aquaculture.
Auburn University, Alabama: Alabama Agricultural Experimental Station.
Manci, W.E. 1991. "Let's promote discussion." Letter to the Editor. World
Aquaculture 22(3):6.
Meyers, G. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific
Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Morse, S.S. 1990. "Stirring up Trouble: Environmental Disruption Can Divert
Animal Viruses into People." Essays and Comments in The Sciences.
September/October.
NACA. 1989. Integrated Fish Farming in China. Network of Aquaculture Centers in
Asia Technical Manual 7. Bangkok: Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia and
the Pacific.
Naylor, E. and C. Scholtissek. 1988. Response to "Fish Farming and Aquaculture."
Scientific Correspondence. Nature 333:506.
Pinch, T. J. and W.E. Bijker. 1987. "The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts:
Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit
Each Other." In W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, eds, The Social
Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pullin, R.S.V. 1991. "Brush too Broad." Letter to the Editor. World Aquaculture.
22(3):6.
Pullin, R.S.V. and Z.H. Shehadeh, eds. 1980. Integrated Agriculture-Aquaculture
Farming Systems. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 4. Manila: International
Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
Scholtissek, C. 1992. "Cultivating a Killer Virus." Natural History 1/92:2-6.
Scholtissek, C. and E. Naylor. 1988. "Fish Farming and Influenza Pandemics."
Nature 333(21):215.
Seymour, E.A. and A. Bergheim. 1991. "Towards a Reduction of Pollution from
Intensive Aquaculture with Reference to the Farming of Salmonids in Norway."
Aquacultural Engineering 10: 73-88.
Smith, I. 1988. "Preface." In Peter Edwards, Roger S.V. Pullin, and James Gartner
eds., Research and Education for the Development of Integrated Crop-Livestock-Fish
Farming Systems in the Tropics. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 16. Manila:
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.