Sociological interest in vaccination has recently increased, largely in response to media coverage of concerns over the safety of the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine. The resulting body of research highlights the importance of risk and trust in understanding parental and professional engagement with vaccination. To date, only limited attention has been paid to organised parental groups that campaign against aspects of vaccination policy. This paper reports findings from a qualitative study of contemporary groups in the UK, and develops three main lines of argument. First, these actors are best analysed as ‘Vaccine Critical groups’ and include Radical and Reformist types. Second, Vaccine Critical groups discursively resist vaccination through a reframing that constructs risk as unknown and non‐random. Third, trust as faith is negatively contrasted with the empowerment that is promised to result from taking personal responsibility for health and decision‐making. Whilst representing a challenge to aspects of vaccination policy, this study confirms that the groups are involved in the articulation and promotion of other dominant discourses. These findings have implications for wider sociological debates about risk and trust in relation to health.

Mass childhood immunisation (MCI) is of primary importance to all modern public health systems and relies on high levels of uptake. Recent controversy in the UK about the safety of the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine has prompted widespread concerns and a government response that concentrates on providing more information to the public. This information has mainly adopted the language of risk, as exemplified in recent health promotion materials designed to persuade parents to choose the MMR vaccine. The paper analyses the key material and reveals three contestable assumptions; first, that individuals make decisions through a comparison of individual risk; second, that public concern about vaccination is due to a miscalculation of risk; third, that a policy of providing more risk statistics is the best response to the controversy. Through criticising these assumptions it is argued that some resistance to MCI is about alternative understandings of basic categories of health and disease. Further research is needed to investigate the role of uncertainty and trust in understanding anti-vaccination.

This study confirms the important role of the vet in providing information about the issue of dog weight but also suggests that providing verbal information is sometimes insufficient. The study also indicates the potential value of qualitative research methods to further understand client perception of complex animal care issues and highlights the need for further in-depth research.

Simple SummaryFurther understanding of why dairy farmers do not engage in disease prevention and control strategies (biosecurity) is required. Using semi-structured interviews informed by a health psychology approach with 25 dairy farmers, a number of barriers, such as disease testing inaccuracies, types of disease transmission, perceived lack of risk and effectiveness of measures, were identified. Motivators included being advised to undertake measures by veterinarians, and the increased threat and severity of the disease in focus. These results suggest there is an advantage to farm advisors and herd health professionals understanding and working with the beliefs of individual dairy farmers to target appropriate communication and advice strategies relating to biosecurity recommendations.AbstractDisease prevention and control practices are frequently highlighted as important to ensure the health and welfare of farmed animals, although little is known as to why not many practices are carried out. The aim of this study was to identify the motivators and barriers of dairy cattle farmers towards the use of biosecurity measures on dairy farms using a health psychology approach. Twenty-five farmers on 24 farms in Great Britain (GB) were interviewed using the Theory of Planned Behaviour framework. Results indicated that farmers perceived they had the ability to control what happened on their farms in terms of preventing and controlling disease, and described benefits from being proactive and vigilant. However, barriers were cited in relation to testing inaccuracies, effectiveness and time-efficiency of practices, and disease transmission route (e.g., airborne transmission). Farmers reported they were positively influenced by veterinarians and negatively influenced by the government (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)) and the general public. Decisions to implement practices were influenced by the perceived severity of the disease in question, if disease was diagnosed on the farm already, or was occurring on other farms. Farmers described undertaking a form of personal risk assessment when deciding if practices were worth doing, which did not always involve building in disease specific factors or opinions from veterinarians or other advisors. These results indicate that further guidance about the intricacies of control and prevention principles in relation to specific animal diseases may be required, with an obvious role for veterinarians. There appears to be an opportunity for farm advisors and herd health professionals to further understand farmer beliefs behind certain attitudes and target communication and advice accordingly to further enhance dairy cattle health and welfare.

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.