Abstract
David Turnbull's article on malaria is challenged on a number of grounds. It is based on too narrow an example, too dependent on a North-South confrontational framework, and epistemologically flawed by its over-identification with the currently-dominant paradigm for malariology. An alternative approach based on analysis of the succession of antimalarial programmes is offered. Turnbull's thesis is applauded, however.
Understanding of political and social forces is necessary to assure that the poor will benefit from improved malaria technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
