BioSocieties

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 194–217 | Cite as

From ‘politics of numbers’ to ‘politics of singularisation’: Patients’ activism and engagement in research on rare diseases in France and Portugal

  • Vololona Rabeharisoa
  • Michel Callon
  • Angela Marques Filipe
  • João Arriscado Nunes
  • Florence Paterson
  • Frédéric Vergnaud
Original Article

Abstract

This article investigates how the engagement of patients’ organisations (POs) in research relates to the dynamics of their activism in the area of rare diseases. It traces back how certain concerned families and groups elaborated rareness as an issue of equity and social justice, gave shape to what we call a ‘politics of numbers’ for stating the fact of rare diseases as a major public health problem, and promoted patients’ critical involvement in biomedical and therapeutic research as a solution for mainstreaming rare diseases in regular health systems. It then studies three Portuguese and three French POs, which point to the limits of the epidemiological notion of rareness for capturing the compounded and intersecting nature of the bio-psycho-social make-up of their conditions. It finally shows how these critics progressively lead to the emergence of an alternative politics, which we call a ‘politics of singularisation’. At the core of this politics stands a collective and ongoing profiling of conditions and patients, whose similarities and differences relates to the ubiquity of biological pathways and diseases categories. Our contention is that this ‘politics of singularisation’ not only pictures a politics of illnesses which questions the rationale for nosological classifications, but also, and consequently, affects the making of social links by suggesting the simultaneous identification of individual patients and constitution of collectives to which they partake while asserting their specificities.

Keywords

patients’ organisations’ biomedical research rare diseases France Portugal politics of singularisation 

References

  1. Asbury, C.H. (1985) Orphan Drugs: Medical versus Market Value. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  2. Barataud, B. (1992) Au Nom de Nos Enfants. Paris: J’ai Lu.Google Scholar
  3. Barbot, J. (2002) Les Malades en Mouvements. La Médecine et La Science à L’épreuve Du Sida. Paris: Balland.Google Scholar
  4. Best, R.K. (2012) Disease politics and medical research funding: Three ways advocacy shapes policy. American Sociological Review 77 (5): 780–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (2006) On Justification. Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boon, W. and Broekgaarden, R. (2010) The role of patient advocacy organisations in neuromuscular disease R&D – The case of the Dutch neuromuscular disease association VSN. Neuromusuclar Disease 20 (2): 148–151.Google Scholar
  7. Borkman, T.J. (1976) Experiential knowledge: A new concept for the analysis of self-help groups. Social Science Review 50 (33): 445–456.Google Scholar
  8. Brewer, G.J. (ed.) (1983) Orphan Drugs and Orphan Diseases: Clinical Realities and Public Policy. New York: Alan R. Liss.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, P., Zavestoski, S., McCormick, S., Mayer, B., Morello-Frosch, R. and Gasior Altman, R. (2004) Embodied health movements: New approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health & Illness 26 (1): 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callon, M. (2007) An essay on the growing contribution of economic markets to the proliferation of the social. Theory, Culture & Society 24 (7–8): 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callon, M., Méadel, C. and Rabeharisoa, V. (2002) The economy of qualities. Economy and Society 31 (2): 194–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crompton, H. (2001) Rett Syndrome, rare diseases and UK research. Manchester, UK: Manchester Metropolitan University Business School Working Paper Series, WPS021.Google Scholar
  13. Crompton, H. (2007) Mode 2 knowledge production: Evidence from orphan drug networks. Science and Public Policy 34 (3): 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dodier, N. (2003) Leçons Politiques De l’épidémie De Sida. Paris: Editions de l’EHESS.Google Scholar
  15. Dresser, R. (2001) When Science Offers Salvation: Patient Advocacy and Research Ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2002) Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research 55 (7): 553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dumit, J. (2006) Illnesses you have to fight to get: Facts as forces in uncertain, emergent illnesses. Social Science and Medicine 62 (3): 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Epstein, S. (1995) The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, & Human Values 20 (4): 408–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Epstein, S. (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Epstein, S. (2007) Inclusion. The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eyal, G. (2010) The Autism Matrix. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G. and Hess, D.J. (2010) Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology & Human Values 35 (4): 44–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibbon, S. and Novas, C. (eds.) (2008) Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences. Making Biologies and Societies. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  26. Hedgecoe, A.M. (2003) Expansion and uncertainty: Cystic fibrosis, classification and genetics. Sociology of Health and Illness 25 (1): 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hess, D.J. (2007) Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in an Era of Globalization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hogan, A.J. (2013) Locating genetic disease: The impact of clinical nosology on biomedical conceptions of the human genome (1966–1990). New Genetics and Society 32 (1): 78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huyard, C. (2009a) Who rules rare disease associations? A framework to understand their action. Sociology of Health & Illness 31 (7): 979–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huyard, C. (2009b) What, if anything, is specific about having a rare disorder? Patients’ judgements on being ill and being rare. Health Expectations 12 (4): 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huyard, C. (2011) Quand la puissance publique fait surgir et équipe une mobilisation protestataire. L’invention des ‘maladies rares’ aux Etats-Unis et en Europe. Revue Française de Sciences Politiques 2 (61): 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keating, P. and Cambrosio, A. (2012) Cancer on Trial: Oncology as a New Style of Practice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lippman, A (1991) Prenatal genetic testing and screening: Constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. American Journal of Law and Medicine 17 (1–2): 15–50.Google Scholar
  34. Löfgren, H., de Leeuw, E. and Leahy, M. (eds.) (2011) Democratizing Health. Consumer Groups in the Policy Process. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  35. Lyle, W.H. (1975) Letter: More on ‘orphan’ drugs. New England Journal of Medicine 292 (15): 813–814.Google Scholar
  36. Marks, H. (1997) The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reforms in the United States 1900–1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Martucelli, D. (2010) La Société Singulariste. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  38. Moreira, T. (2012) Health care standards and the politics of singularity: Shifting in and out of context. Science, Technology & Human Values 37 (4): 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Navon, D. (2011) Genomic designation: How genetics can delineate new, phenotypically diffuse medical categories. Social Studies of Science 41 (2): 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Navon, D. and Shwed, U. (2012) The chromosome 22q11.2 deletion: from the unification of biomedical field to a new kind of condition. Social Science & Medicine 75 (9): 1633–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. No authors listed (1968) ‘Homeless’ or ‘orphan’ drugs. American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 25 (11): 609.Google Scholar
  42. Novas, C. (2006) The political economy of hope: Disease advocacy organisations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties 1 (3): 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nunes, J.A., Matias, M. and Filipe, A.M. (2007) Patient organizations as emerging actors in the health arena: The case of Portugal. RECIIS 1 (1): 1007–110.Google Scholar
  44. O’Donovan, O. (2007) Corporate colonisation of health activism? Irish health advocacy organisations’ modes of engagement with pharmaceutical corporations. International Journal of Health Services 37 (4): 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Panofsky, A. (2011) Generating sociability to drive science: Patient advocacy organizations and genetics research. Social Studies of Science 41 (1): 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paterson, F. and Barral, C. (1994) L’association Française contre les Myopathies: Trajectoire d’une association d’usagers et construction associative d’une maladie. Sciences Sociales et Santé 12 (2): 79–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rabeharisoa, V. (2003) The struggle against neuromuscular diseases in France and the emergence of the ‘partnership model’ of patient organisation. Social Science and Medicine 57 (11): 2127–2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rabeharisoa, V. and Bourret, P. (2009) Stating and weighting evidence in biomedicine: Comparing clinical practices in cancer genetics and psychiatric genetics. Social Studies of Science 39 (5): 691–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rabeharisoa, V. and Callon, M. (1999) Le Pouvoir Des Malades. L’Association Française Contre Les Myopathies & La Recherche. Paris: Les Presses de l’Ecole des mines de Paris.Google Scholar
  50. Rabeharisoa, V. and Callon, M. (2004) Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In: S. Jasanoff (ed.) States of Knowledge. The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 142–160.Google Scholar
  51. Rabinow, P. (1999) Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In: M. Biagioli (ed.) The Science Studies Reader. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 407–416.Google Scholar
  52. Rapp, R., Heath, D. and Taussig, K.-S. (2001) Genealogical disease: Where hereditary abnormality, biomedical explanation, and family responsibility meet. In: F. Franklin and S. McKinnon (eds.) Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 384–409.Google Scholar
  53. Rosanvallon, P. (2008) La Légitimité Démocratique: Impartialité, Réflexivité, Proximité. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  54. Silverman, C. (2011) Understanding Autism: Parents, Doctors, and the History of a Disorder. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stockdale, A. (1997) Conflicting Perspectives: Coping with Cystic Fibrosis in the Age of Molecular Medicine. PhD Thesis, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  56. Von Gizycki, R. (1987) Cooperation between medical researchers and a self-help movement: The case of the German retinitis pigmentosa society. In: S. Blume (ed.) The Social Direction of the Public Sciences. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel, pp. 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The London School of Economics and Political Science 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vololona Rabeharisoa
    • 1
  • Michel Callon
    • 1
  • Angela Marques Filipe
    • 2
  • João Arriscado Nunes
    • 3
  • Florence Paterson
    • 1
  • Frédéric Vergnaud
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre de sociologie de l’innovation, Mines-ParisTechParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Social ScienceHealth & Medicine, King’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Centre for Social Studies, University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations