Neonatal Screening (NBS) is a mass screening, secondary prevention policy aimed at detecting one or several often congenital disorders in all neonates in a given country. The French CF NBS programme is completely functional since the middle of 2003. Drawing its inspiration from the socio-material approach, this article advances a description and analysis of the interactions between the biomedical technologies used in neonatal cystic fibrosis screening and the resulting changes in clinical practice, the bioethical debate and finally in the interstice between voluntary individual consent to screening and the management of a population’s health. The analysis grid focuses on four dimensions: institutional, techno-scientific, regulatory and socio-professional. Backed up by a field survey conducted in the specialised healthcare centres, this study explores two major aspects of the repercussions of NBS: first, the genesis and institutionalisation of this public policy and the impact of a more flexible form of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and the sustained controversy on the neonatal screening programme uniting the community of cystic fibrosis paediatrics. This study suggests that institutional stability remains fragile and in this respect constitutes a paradoxical form of production with incompleteness and uncertainty as constituting factors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenD.B.FarrellP.M. (1996). Newborn screening: Principles and practice. Advances in Pediatrics, 43, 231–270.
2.
AmeisenJ.C.CambienF.DervauxB.DouaiS.GaudilliereJ.P.Julian-ReynierC.RabeharisoaV.RousseyM.SobolH.VerstuyftC.. (2008). Tests génétiques: questions scientifiques, médicales et sociétales [Genetic testing: scientific, medical and societal questions]. Éditions de l’Inserm, 351 pages.
3.
AndermannA.BlancquaertI.BeauchampS.DéryV. (2008). Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: A review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ, 86(4), 317–319.
4.
ArdaillouR.Le GallJ.-Y. (2007). Le dépistage néonatal généralisé par des tests d’analyse biologique [Mass neonatal screening using biological testing]. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité, 35, 367–374.
5.
BaradK. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.
6.
BergM.HorstmanK.PlassS.Van HeusdenM. (2000). Guidelines, professionals and the production of objectivity: Standardization and the professionalism of insurance medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness, 22, 765–791.
7.
BourretP. (2005). BRCA patients and clinical collectives: New configurations of action in cancer genetics practices. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 41–68.
8.
CamP.FaquetC. (2008). Les pratiques d’annonce du diagnostic de mucoviscidose. Rapport commenté de l’enquête par questionnaire réalisée auprès des Centres de Ressources et de Compétences de la Mucoviscidose (CRCM) [Diagnosis announcement practices of the cystic fibrosis. Commented Report on the questionnaire survey conducted among Resource and Expertise Centres for Cystic Fibrosis (RECCF)]. Retrieved from http://www.centre-reference-muco-nantes.fr/downloads/AnnDiag/AnnDiag_Rapport1.pdf
9.
CallonM. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge.
10.
CallonM.LascoumesP.BartheY. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world. An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
11.
CambrosioA.KeatingP.SchlichT.WeiszG. (2006). Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine. Social Science & Medicine, 63(1), 189–199.
12.
CastelP. (2009). What’s behind a guideline? Authority, competition and collaboration in the French Oncology sector. Social Studies of Science, 39(5), 743–764.
13.
ClarkeA.ShimK.ShostakS.NelsonA. (2009). Biomedicalizing genetic health, diseases and identities. In AtkinsonP.GlasnerP.LockM. (Eds), Handbook of genetics and society: Mapping the new genomic era (pp. 21–40). London: Routledge.
14.
ClarkeA.ShimK.MamoL.FosketJ.FismanJ. (2003). Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and US medicine. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 161–185.
15.
ComeauA.M.AccursoF.J.WhiteT.B.CampbellP.W.3rdHoffmanG.ParadR.B.WilfondB.S.RosenfeldM.SontagM.K.MassieJ.FarrellP.M.O’SullivanB.P. (2007). Guidelines of implementation of cystic fibrosis newborn screening programs: Cystic fibrosis foundation workshop report. Pediatrics, 119, 495–518.
16.
Comité Consultatif National d’Éthique (CCNE) (2007). Avis 97: Questions éthiques posées par la délivrance de l’information génétique néonatale à l’occasion du dépistage de maladies génétiques (exemples de la mucoviscidose et de la drépanocytose (French Advisory Council on Bioethics Issues), 7 pages.
17.
FarrellP.M.RosensteinB.J.WhiteT.B.AccursoF.J.CastellaniC.CuttingG.R.DurieP.R.LegrysV.A.MassieJ.ParadR.B.RockM.J.CampbellP.W.3rd (2008). Guidelines for diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in newborns through older adults: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation consensus report. Journal of Pediatics, 153(2), 4–14.
18.
FarrellP.M. (2004). Cystic fibrosis newborn screening: shifting the key question from ‘should we screen’ to ‘how should we screen?’Pediatrics, 113, 1811–1813.
19.
FarrellP.M. (2008). Is newborn screening for cystic fibrosis a basic human right?Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, 7(3), 262–265.
20.
FarrellP.M. (2007). The meaning of ‘early’ diagnosis in a new era of cystic fibrosis care. Pediatrics, 119(1), 156–157.
21.
FreeseJ.ShostakS. (2009). Genetics and social inquiry. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 107–128.
22.
FreeseJ. (2008). Genetics and the social science explanation of individual outcomes. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 1–35.
23.
GrosseS.D.BoyleC.A.BotkinJ.R.ComeauA.M.KharraziM.RosenfeldM.WilfondB.S. (2004). Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: Evaluation of benefits and risks and recommendations for state newborn screening programs. MMWR Recomm Rep., 53(RR-13), 1–36.
24.
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS)
(2009). Le dépistage néonatal systématique de la mucoviscidose en France: état des lieux et perspectives après 5 ans de fonctionnement. French National Authority for Health, 174 pages.
25.
HedgecoeA. (2010). Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 163–186.
26.
HedgecoeA (n.d.). Pharmacogenetics as alien science: Alzheimer’s, core sets, and expectations. Social Studies of Science, 36(5), 723–752.
27.
KeatingP.CambrosioA. (2003). Biomedical platforms: Realigning the normal and the pathological in late-twentieth century medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
Knorr CetinaK. (1997). Sociality with objects: Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4), 1–30.
29.
LangeardC.MinguetG. (2009). Recommandations pour l’annonce du diagnostic de la mucoviscidose. Rapport commenté de l’enquête dans les CRCM [Recommendations for the diagnosis announcement practices of cystic fibrosis. Commented Report on the interviews and focus groups survey conducted among Resource and Expertise Centres for Cystic Fibrosis (RECCF)]. Retrieved from http://www.centre-reference-muco-nantes.fr/downloads/AnnDiag/AnnDiag_Synthese_Result_Oct2010.pdf
30.
LangeardC.MinguetG.GuégantonL.CamP.FaquetC.LombrailP.RaultG. (2011). L’expérience professionnelle du médecin hospitalier à l’épreuve du dépistage: le cas de l’annonce du diagnostic de la mucoviscidose [Hospital doctors’ professional experience put to the test by routine screening: the case of cystic fibrosis diagnosis communication]. Revue Française des Affaires Sociales, 2–3, 80–102.
31.
LatourB. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, geneaology. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.
32.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor–network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
LatourBWoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London, Beverly Hills: SAGE.
34.
LeonardiP.M.BarleyS.R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3), 159–176.
35.
MolA. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
36.
MunckA.DhontJ.L.SahlerC.RousseyM. (2008). Implementation of the French nationwide cystic fibrosis newborn screening program. Journal of Pediatrics, 153, 228–233.
37.
OrlikowskiW.J.ScottS.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
38.
RabeharisoaV. (2006). Vers une nouvelle forme de travail médical ? Le cas d’une consultation en psychiatrie génétique de l’autisme [Towards a new form of medical work in psychiatry genetics: The case of autism]. Sciences Sociales et Santé, 24(1), 83–116.
39.
RabeharisoaV.BourretP. (2009). Staging and weighting evidence in biomedicine: Comparing two clinical practices in cancer genetics and psychiatric genetics. Social Studies of Science, 39(6), 91–715.
40.
RoseN. (2009). Normality and pathology in a biomedical age. Sociological Review, 57(2), 66–83.
41.
Sermet-GaudelusI.MunckA.RotaM.RousseyM.FeldmannD.Nguyen-KhoaT. (2010). Recommandations françaises pour la réalisation et l’interprétation du test de la sueur dans le cadre du dépistage néonatal de la mucoviscidose [French guidelines for sweat test practice and interpretation for cystic fibrosis neonatal screening]. Archives de pédiatrie, 17(9), 1349–1358.
42.
SuchmanL.A. (2007). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
TournayV.(dir.) (2007). La gouvernance des innovations médicales [The governance of medical innovations]. Paris: PUF.
44.
TimmermansS.BuchbinderM. (2010). Patients-in-waiting: Living between sickness and health in the genomics era. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(4), 408–423.
45.
Travert and Wursteisen (1999). Dépistage néonatal de la mucoviscidose [Neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis]. Caen: Caen University Press.
46.
VaillyJ. (2004). Une politique de dépistage a priori. Le dépistage néonatal de la mucoviscidose en Bretagne [Biomedical arguments and modes of action around an « a priori » health policy: neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis in Brittany]. Sciences Sociales et Santé, 22(4), 35–60.
47.
VaillyJ. (2006). Genetic screening as a technique of government: The case of neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis in France. Social Science and Medicine, 63(12), 3092–4001.
48.
VaillyJ. (2007). Dépister les nouveau-nés. Évolutions, débats et consensus [Neonatal screening: Trends, debates and consensus]. Médecine /Sciences, 23(3), 323–326.
49.
VaillyJ. (2008). The expansion of abnormality and the biomedical norm: Neonatal screening, prenatal diagnosis and cystic fibrosis in France. Social Science & Medicine, 66(12), 2532–2543.
50.
VaillyJ. (2011). Naissance d’une politique de la génétique [The birth of a genetics policy]. Paris: PUF.
51.
WilsonJ.M.G.JungnerF. (1968). Principles and practice of screening for disease. Public Health Papers, Number 34. Geneva: World Health Organization.
