1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 19, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 19, 2023

Beyond Law as a Tool of Public Health: Vaccines in Interdisciplinary Sociolegal and Science Studies

Abstract

Research on vaccines in the law and social sciences skews heavily toward an instrumentalist approach to knowledge in service of vaccine promotion. Overcoming hesitancy and promoting vaccine acceptance have been major goals, but successful levers for behavioral change remain elusive. Research with constructivist approaches to vaccines from feminist sociology and anthropology has uncovered ethnographic richness to describe how vaccine debates illuminate inequalities in parenting and re-entrench patterns of racism and colonialism. There is considerable potential in science and technology studies approaches that take seriously the materiality and movement of vaccines in networks of production, finance, and global politics, though there are considerable methodological challenges for these research designs. This review charts the lopsided bibliography of law and social science research on vaccines, asking why scholars rarely move away from instrumentalist conceptions of law in the service of public health and, when they do, explaining what theoretical tools enable it.

Keyword(s): ethnography, public health, science and technology studies, sociolegal studies, vaccines
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-090534
2023-10-05
2024-04-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/19/1/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-090534.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-090534&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abramson BD, Reiss D, Safir PO, Thomas JR. 2022. Vaccine, Vaccination, and Immunization Law Washington, DC: Am. Health Law Assoc., 2nd ed..
  2. Alexander K, Lacy TA, Myers AL, Lantos JD. 2016. Should pediatric practices have policies to not care for children with vaccine-hesitant parents?. Pediatrics 138:4e20161597
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Attwell K, Navin MC. 2019. Childhood vaccination mandates: scope, sanctions, severity, selectivity, and salience. Milbank Q. 97:4978–1014
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes J, Burke TF. 2015. How Policy Shapes Politics: Rights, Courts, Litigation, and the Struggle over Injury Compensation New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  5. Barraza L, Reiss D, Freeman P. 2019. Legal and policy responses to vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. J. Law Med. Ethics 47:Suppl. 211–14
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bednarczyk RA, King AR, Lahijani A, Omer SB. 2019. Current landscape of nonmedical vaccination exemptions in the United States: impact of policy changes. Expert Rev. Vaccines 18:2175–90
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Beisel U 2020. What might we learn from ANT for studying healthcare issues in the majority world, and what might ANT learn in turn?. The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory I Farias, C Roberts, A Blok 246–55. Abingdon, UK: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Benjamin R. 2016. Informed refusal: toward a justice-based bioethics. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41:6967–90
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Biehl J, Amon JJ, Socal MP, Petryna A. 2012. Between the court and the clinic: lawsuits for medicines and the right to health in Brazil. Health Hum. Rights 14:1E36–52
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Biehl J, Prates LEA, Amon JJ. 2021. Supreme Court v. necropolitics: the chaotic judicialization of COVID-19 in Brazil. Health Hum. Rights 23:1151–62
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Burris S, Anderson E 2013. Legal regulation of health-related behavior: a half century of public health law research. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 9:95–117
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Burris S, Ashe M, Levin D, Penn M, Larkin M. 2016. A transdisciplinary approach to public health law: the emerging practice of legal epidemiology. Annu. Rev. Public Health 37:135–48
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Casper MJ, Carpenter LM. 2008. Sex, drugs, and politics: the HPV vaccine for cervical cancer. Sociol. Health Illn. 30:6886–99
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cent. Dis. Control Prev 2020. COVID data tracker accessed April 28, 2023. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker
  15. Cerulo KA. 2009. Nonhumans in social interaction. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:531–52
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Charles N. 2021. Suspicion: Vaccines, Hesitancy, and the Affective Politics of Protection in Barbados Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  17. Cloatre E. 2018. Law and ANT (and its kin): possibilities, challenges, and ways forward. J. Law Soc. 45:4646–63
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cloatre E, Pickersgill M. 2020. A sociology of law and science. The Research Handbook on the Sociology of Law J Přibáň 81–92. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cole SA, Bertenthal A. 2017. Science, technology, society, and law. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 13:351–71
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Colgrove JK. 2006. State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth-Century America Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  21. Conis E. 2016. Vaccine Nation: America's Changing Relationship with Immunization Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Paperback ed .
  22. Cowan SK, Mark N, Reich JA. 2021. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is the new terrain for political division among Americans. Socius 7: https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211023657
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Crum T, Mooney K, Tiwari BR. 2021. Current situation of vaccine injury compensation program and a future perspective in light of COVID-19 and emerging viral diseases. F1000Research 10:652
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Decoteau CL. 2021. The Western Disease: Contesting Autism in the Somali Diaspora Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  25. Decoteau CL, Underman K. 2015. Adjudicating non-knowledge in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings. Soc. Stud. Sci. 45:4471–500
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Demasi M. 2022. COVID-19: Is the US compensation scheme for vaccine injuries fit for purpose?. BMJ 377:o919
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dubé E, Gagnon D, MacDonald NE. 2015a. Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: review of published reviews. Vaccine 33:344191–203
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Dubé E, Vivion M, MacDonald NE. 2015b. Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: influence, impact and implications. Expert Rev. Vaccines 14:199–117
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Durbach N. 2005. Bodily Matters: The Anti-Vaccination Movement in England, 1853–1907 Radic. Perspect. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  30. Epstein S. 1998. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge Med. Soc. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  31. Fernandes B, Navin MC, Reiss DR, Omer SB, Attwell K. 2022. US state-level legal interventions related to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. JAMA 327:2178–79
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Goldenberg MJ. 2021. Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science Sci. Values Public. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh Press
  33. Gostin LO. 2021. Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  34. Greer S 2022. Professions, data, and political will: from the pandemic toward a political science with public health. Integrating Science and Politics for Public Health P Fafard, A Cassola, E de Leeuw 33–57. Palgrave Stud. Public Health Policy Res Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Greer S, Bekker M, de Leeuw E, Wismar M, Helderman J-K et al. 2017. Policy, politics and public health. Eur. J. Public Health 27:Suppl. 440–43
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Greer S, King E, da Fonseca EM, Peralta-Santos A, eds. 2021. Coronavirus Politics: The Comparative Politics and Policy of COVID-19 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  37. Hinman AR, Orenstein WA, Williamson DE, Darrington D. 2002. Childhood immunization: laws that work. J. Law Med. Ethics 30:3 Spec. Suppl.122–27
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Jacob M-A, Kirkland A, eds. 2020. Research Handbook on Socio-Legal Studies of Medicine and Health Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  39. Jarrett C, Wilson R, O'Leary M, Eckersberger E, Larson HJ 2015. Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy—a systematic review. Vaccine 33:344180–90
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Jasanoff S. 1995. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  41. Kirkland A. 2012a. Credibility battles in the autism litigation. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42:2237–61
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kirkland A. 2012b. The legitimacy of vaccine critics: What is left after the autism hypothesis?. J. Health Politics Policy Law 37:169–97
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kirkland A. 2016. Vaccine Court: The Law and Politics of Injury New York: NYU Press
  44. Klawiter M. 2008. The Biopolitics of Breast Cancer: Changing Cultures of Disease and Activism Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  45. Latour B. 2011. Networks, societies, spheres: reflections of an actor-network theorist. Tetrahedron Lett. 5:796–810
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Leach M, Fairhead J. 2007. Vaccine Anxieties: Global Science, Child Health and Society London: Earthscan
  47. Levi R, Valverde M. 2008. Studying law by association: Bruno Latour goes to the Conseil d'État. Law Soc. Inq. 33:3805–25
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Lillvis D. 2019. Managing dissonance and dissent: bureaucratic professionalism and political risk in policy implementation. Law Policy 41:3310–35
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Lillvis D, Willison C, Noyes K. 2020. Normalizing inconvenience to promote childhood vaccination: a qualitative implementation evaluation of a novel Michigan program. BMC Health Serv. Res. 20:683
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Liu T, He Z, Huang J, Yan N, Chen Q et al. 2021. A comparison of vaccine hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination in China and the United States. Vaccines 9:6649
     [Google Scholar]
  51. McCoy CA. 2019. Adapting coercion: how three industrialized nations manufacture vaccination compliance. J. Health Politics Policy Law 44:6823–54
     [Google Scholar]
  52. McCoy CA. 2020. Diseased States: Epidemic Control in Britain and the United States Amherst: Univ. Mass. Press
  53. Morales DX, Beltran TF, Morales SA. 2022. Gender, socioeconomic status, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the US: an intersectionality approach. Sociol. Health Illn. 44:6953–71
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Mungwira RG, Guillard C, Saldaña A, Okabe N, Petousis-Harris H et al. 2020. Global landscape analysis of no-fault compensation programmes for vaccine injuries: a review and survey of implementing countries. PLOS ONE 15:5e0233334
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Navin M. 2016. Values and Vaccine Refusal: Hard Questions in Ethics, Epistemology, and Health Care Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  56. Nelson A. 2011. Body and Soul: The Black Panther Party and the Fight against Medical Discrimination Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  57. Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL. 2014. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133:4e835–42
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Parthasarathy S. 2010. Breaking the expertise barrier: understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Sci. Public Policy 37:5355–67
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Piltch-Loeb R, DiClemente R. 2020. The vaccine uptake continuum: applying social science theory to shift vaccine hesitancy. Vaccines 8:176
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Ragin CC, Becker HS. 1992. What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  61. Reich JA. 2014. Neoliberal mothering and vaccine refusal: imagined gated communities and the privilege of choice. Gend. Soc. 28:5679–704
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Reich JA. 2018. Calling the Shots: Why Parents Reject Vaccines New York: NYU Press
  63. Reiss DR, Karako-Eyal N. 2019. Informed consent to vaccination: theoretical, legal, and empirical insights. Am. J. Law Med. 45:4357–419
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Reiss DR, Weithorn LA. 2015. Responding to the childhood vaccination crisis: legal frameworks and tools in the context of parental vaccine refusal. Buffalo Law Rev. 63:4881–980
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Riles A. 2000. The Network Inside Out Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  66. Riles A. 2005. A new agenda for the cultural study of law: taking on the technicalities essays. Buffalo Law Rev. 53:3973–1034
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Riles A. 2011. Collateral Knowledge: Legal Reasoning in the Global Financial Markets Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  68. Santos Rutschman A. 2022. Vaccines as Technology: Innovation, Barriers, and the Public Health Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  69. Shamir R. 2013. Current Flow: The Electrification of Palestine Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  70. Silbey SS. 2008. Law and Science Int. Libr. Essays Law Soc Burlington, VT: Ashgate
  71. Thompson KM, Orenstein WA, Hinman AR. 2020. Performance of the United States Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP): 1988–2019. Vaccine 38:92136–43
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Underman K, Sweet PL, Decoteau CL. 2017. Custodial citizenship in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. Sociol. Forum 32:3544–65
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Valverde M. 2015. Chronotopes of Law: Jurisdiction, Scale and Governance Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  74. van Wichelen S, de Leeuw M. 2022. Biolegality: how biology and law redefine sociality. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 51:1383–99
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Washington HA. 2006. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present New York: Harlem Moon 1st paperback ed .
  76. Weithorn LA, Reiss DR. 2018. Legal approaches to promoting parental compliance with childhood immunization recommendations. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 14:71610–17
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Winter JD, Cole C, Wacholder J. 2019. Toward a global solution on vaccine liability and compensation. Food Drug Law J. 74:11–17
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Yang R, Penders B, Horstman K. 2020. Addressing vaccine hesitancy in China: a scoping review of Chinese scholarship. Vaccines 8:12
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-090534
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error