Author: Lea Taragin-Zeller – Technion and Cambridge, Israel

Co-authors:

  • Ayelet Baram-Tsabari – Technion, Israel
  • Yael Rozenblum – Technion, Israel

Drawing on the disproportionate magnitude of COVID-19-related morbidity on Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Jews, in this paper we examine their processes of COVID-19 health decision-making. While scholars have highlighted how science communication reifies forms of structural inequality, especially race and gender, we examine the challenges science communication pose for religious minorities. We ask: How do religious minorities engage with/and learn about science in their everyday lives? Is conventional public health messaging effective when dealing with a minority population with specific cultural practices and religious beliefs? And, what are the limits of receptivity of science and health advise among specific minority groups?

In Israel, at the height of the pandemic in March-June 2020, Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews accounted for 40-60% of all coronavirus patients at four major hospitals, even though they make up only 12% of Israel’s population (Waitzberg et al, 2020). In our study, we draw on studies in science communication to explore the ways Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel learned about the pandemic and examined their COVID-19-related decision-making.While scholars have argued that individuals operate either religious or scientific epistemologies (O’Brien and Noy 2015), our survey results show that both religious and health-related justifications were common for personal decisions. Yet, a disparity was found between the ways social distancing guidelines were perceived in the general education context compared to the religious context. Based on these findings, we argue that science-related communication and decision making is negotiated within and through many actors and systems of ‘local’ knowledge, since both scientific knowledge and socio-religious frameworks serve as “cultural and epistemological tunnels” of COVID-19 interpretations, attitudes and behavior (Canfield et al, 2020). The findings make a strong case for the importance of inclusive models of science communication that account for religious sensibilities and state-minority relations.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Individual paper
Theme: Time

Author: Sophie Uyoga – KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kenya

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited red blood cell disorder that results in the formation of abnormal haemoglobin. There are over 300,000 children born with SCD every year with most births occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. There is currently a lot of scientific research on the disease, and it is important that the researchers have a better understanding of what the patients experience in this community, and their views on the on-going research in order to develop a better working relationship with the research participants.

We have conducted 4 focus group discussions (FGDs) and 2 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with the patients and their caregivers to share experiences. The discussions highlighted the challenges and successes that the affected families experience. We also visited 7 homesteads for the contextualization of the key messages generated from the discussions. The content for the 28-page comic book that we have developed has been drawn from their experiences and will be targeted for children aged 7-14 years attending the sickle cell clinic to aid their understanding of the disease at an early age. We also have used our school engagement programme to distribute the comic book at the local schools where the patients come from as a way of creating awareness about the disease.

The presentation will showcase the comic book and highlight the use of engagement activities to develop awareness materials that will raise the profile of the social issues and challenges that people living with SCD experience.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Visual presentation
Theme: Transformation

Author: Angela Cassidy

This paper will explore the escalation and polarisation of public debates in the UK over government policies to cull wild badgers (Meles meles) in order to control bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in domestic cattle herds, which have been ongoing since the discovery of bTB infections in badgers during the early 1970s. Over the past forty years, the UK has seen a repeating cycle of policymaking, research, controversy, expert-led policy review, and escalating disease rates. It has also transitioned from a localised and/or specialist policy debate into a highly polarised public controversy attracting widespread media coverage, particularly since 2010. Science has played a central role in these debates – as one of several core sources of knowledge about badgers/bTB, but also as a rhetorical resource mobilised by all sides in these debates. This paper will present work in progress exploring the contrasting and frequently unfounded expectations that actors in badgers/bTB have made – about science (that it would easily resolve the problem); about policy (that it would be directed by ‘the evidence’); about publics and about animals (that they would lack agency and sociality). I argue that these persisting expectations, combined with legitimacy struggles over expertise, have contributed to the long-term continuation of this cycle, a breakdown of relationships between key actors and ongoing policy failure. I also present data on how the badger/bTB issue has been covered in the UK media, illustrating the roles of specialist journalists and audiences, non-governmental campaigners and party politicians in driving the further polarisation and public visibility of the debate. This case study can inform wider questions of how public scientific controversies come about, by identifying the factors driving change over time and precipitating the movement and uptake of an issue into the wider public sphere.