Previously published in Conner Bailey, Svein Jentoft and Peter Sinclair (eds.).
1996. Aquacultural Development: Sociological Dimensions of an Emerging
Industry.
Boulder, Co: Westview Press. Pp.263-281.
Mike Skladany
Introduction (1)
This chapter calls attention to an ongoing controversy between integrated aquafarming proponents and virologists concerned with public health effects of integrated aquacultural development. In a controversy, scientists construct
"societies" which support their claims. In this particular controversy, two groups of scientists advance a variety of heterogeneous social claims about human and nonhuman resources. These claims reshape the terrain of this dispute and reveal the integration of science and society in interesting and critically important ways. For sociologists, attention is drawn to "technoscience" itself as a valuable tool for sociological analysis (Callon 1986, 1987; Latour 1987). The particular example discussed and described here suggests a new approach to the study of aquaculture technology and development by including the discourse of scientists themselves into sociological analysis.
In this chapter, I first present a five stage summary of the controversy by using written accounts that have appeared in popular scientific journals.(2) In sum, a group of virologists have advanced claims that integrated farming practices may create conditions that could lead to deadly influenza A pandemics. Integrated aquafarming proponents counter that these claims are grossly overstated. In the second section of the chapter I describe how these scientists construct "societies." As the controversy continues, both groups of scientists define and assign roles to a series of social actors. They act as sociologists. In the conclusion, I discuss, with particular focus on aquacultural development, how an analysis of scientific controversies may provide valuable insights into science and society.

Background: Integrated Farming and Aquaculture Development
Integrated farming, including the incorporation of a fish subsystem, has emerged as a substantive research and development agenda in the 1980s. Integrated farming is promoted as holding substantial potential for sustainable and socially sound development. In the words of one aquaculture scientist, integrated farming offers
"the best prospects for involving millions of small-scale farmers in aquaculture"
(Edwards 1991:2). This development potential is deemed especially relevant in tropical inland areas of Asia, Latin America and Africa where resources are often greatly constrained (Costa-Pierce et al. 1991; Edwards et al., 1988a; Lovshin et al.
1986; Smith 1988). While the practice of combining livestock and fish has existed for centuries, most notably in China and Europe, concerted documentation and further scientific investigation of these practices have been fairly recent. (3)
Following examples derived from Chinese practices, the rationale put forth by proponents of integrated farming is straightforward. It involves a "whole farm" systems approach. Integrated farming with a fish subsystem provides for an efficient utilization of on-farm resources, increased food and income opportunities, fewer economic risks through farm diversification, and especially effective disposal of crop residues and animal wastes by turning these materials into high quality fish protein (Edwards et al. 1988a; Little and Muir 1987; NACA 1989; Pullin and
Shehadeh 1980). While the potential of integrated farming holds promise, it should be noted that on-farm practice of integrated crop-livestock-fish farming amounts to substantially less than one percent of farming populations in the tropics (Smith
1988).
International and regional research and development organizations actively promote integrated aquafarming. Central to our dispute are the efforts of the
Manila-based International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management
(ICLARM) and the Bangkok-based Asian Institute of Technology (AIT). Both the
ICLARM and the AIT aquaculture programs play prominent global roles in scientifically advancing integrated aquafarming. The influence these organizations have with donors is significant. Publications arising from these organizations are numerous, widely distributed, and important in terms of articulating integrated aquafarming research and development agendas.
In this light, the relevance of more inclusive social processes are generally recognized but have not been fully articulated in a systematic or thoroughgoing fashion. While there are expectations that this situation may change (Bailey 1991;
ICLARM 1990), for present purposes I will document the unfolding of simply a scientific-technical controversy. I will emphasize, however, that this scientific dispute is simultaneously a highly social one. It involves various spokespersons and their followers who speak and argue with each other on behalf of, and over, the welfare of small-scale farmers, the disadvantaged in tropical developing countries, colleagues, avian and human viral recombinations in "mixing vessels," fish ponds, fowl, livestock, international development agencies, and global human health. In

short, I intend to follow the controversy as it has unfolded in the written accounts
(Callon 1986; Latour 1987). With some reinterpretation, I will highlight key claims that both groups construct.
Key Actors in the Controversy
The publication of a 1988 "Commentary" by Christoph Scholtissek (a virologist at the Institute of Virology, University of Geissen) and Ernest Naylor (a zoologist at the
University of Wales) in the journal Nature initiated this dispute. Peter Edwards, a professor of aquaculture at the Asian Institute of Technology has responded to articles by Scholtissek and others throughout this dispute. Interestingly, this controversy has been aired almost exclusively in more general and popular scientific texts, an odd place to carry out a dispute. When need arises however, sources are cited from various "hard" research texts based on laboratory experiments, evolutionary theory, viral genetics, and technical field surveys accompanied by direct and indirect observations of Asian farming practices. Thus we will begin here and enter written accounts about viruses, poultry, pigs, fish, and people.
Stage 1: The Sholtissek and Naylor Article
In January 1988, Scholtissek and Naylor published a "Commentary" entitled "Fish
Farming and Influenza Pandemics," in Nature. Scholtissek and Naylor (1988) noted that new pandemic influenza A viruses arise every 10 to 20 years. These strains have new surface molecular configurations (antigens) and human antibodies are often illequipped to fend them off. The authors point out that pigs possess a unique capacity to act as an intermediate viral "mixing vessel" where the incubation of new human influenza strains is most likely to occur. In particular, Scholtissek and Naylor
(1988:215) suggest that "the region of South China, where pigs live in close contact with humans as well as with ducks, could facilitate reassortment of influenza viruses, which might explain why most pandemics start from that geographical area." The authors warn against proximate siting of pigs with humans and waterfowl. They then contrast this evolutionary pandemic outline with the active encouragement and adoption of integrated livestock-fowl-fish farming on the part of international development agencies. Specifically, Scholtissek and Naylor (1988:215) point to certain farming practices in Asia and specifically in Thailand, where pighen-fish culture is thought to be widespread: "the hens are in cages above the pigs which consume hen feces, and the pigs are in pens directly above fish ponds into which they defecate ... similar systems involving ducks, pigs and fish are used in
Hong Kong, Malaysia and Nepal."
Scholtissek and Naylor (1988) conclude that widespread support and promotion of integrated farming by international development organizations may simultaneously promote pandemic influenza A viruses. In sum, Scholtissek and Naylor (1988: 215) suggest that a potentially serious human health risk may exist "by bringing together the two reservoirs of influenza A viruses" through integrated farming. This state of affairs, they argue, may become intensified by the promotion and transfer of Asian farming techniques to other global regions by international development agencies.

Stage 2: Response by Edwards et al. and Reply
Edwards et al. (1988b) expressed concerns with possible negative impacts arising from the commentary by Scholtissek and Naylor. While Edwards's group agrees that integrated farming should not contribute to new health hazards, they contend that Scholtissek and Naylor have "grossly overstated" their case. They point out that the example from Thailand (Delemendo 1980) cited by Scholtissek and Naylor is a single farm case. This farm, they note, has since discontinued the practice.
Furthermore, they add that pig-hen-fish farming is virtually non-existent in the region.
Edwards et al. (1988b: 506), charge that Scholtissek and Naylor have "implied but did not actually state" that this particular practice was widespread. Edwards et al.
(1988b: 506) contend that multiple livestock-fish combinations are relatively rare in
Asia. They dismiss the statements about on-farm systems which were put forth by
Scholtissek and Naylor as, "another example of the danger in making a generalization from a very limited data base." In conclusion, Edwards et al.
(1988b:506) argue that management and marketing constraints mitigate against multiple livestock enterprises and that poultry manure has little nutritional value for pigs.
In a brief response in the same issue of Nature, Naylor and Scholtissek (1988: 506) counter: "We claimed no more than that pig-poultry-fish systems do occur and pointed out a potential health hazard of expanding the practice of co-locating pigs and poultry around fish ponds." Indeed, all parties agree that pig-fish systems and poultry-fish systems should be kept separate. But Naylor and Scholtissek have raised the stakes. They implicate international development agencies. They warn that achieving safe health practices requires qualification of a recent proposal submitted to the Consultative Group for International Agriculture Research, which
"argues forcefully for 'fully integrated crop/livestock/fish farming with maximal efficiency of use of on-farm resources'" (quoted in Naylor and Scholtissek 1988:
506).
At this point, there are unresolved claims with respect to the dispute. Integrated aquafarming proponents are clearly concerned with negative social impacts that they perceive may arise from Scholtissek and Naylor's article. As mentioned in the earlier sections of this chapter, both AIT and ICLARM, in conjunction with international development agency support, are at the forefront of emerging research and development themes related to integrated aquafarming. In the words of
Edwards et al. (1988a), "AIT, ICLARM and its cooperators ... constitute vital assets for the future development of tropical integrated farming and merit strong support to sustain their programs and expand their activities to help others."
Throughout their development, both AIT and ICLARM have embodied a substantial social commitment towards alleviating malnutrition in developing

countries. Integrated farming is put forth as one possible development solution. In this context, ICLARM and AIT act as spokespersons for small-scale farmers and international development agencies. Conversely, Scholtissek and Naylor speak as scientists concerned about global human health. They act as protagonists and construct an important association -- that promotion of integrated farming may lead to socio-ecological conditions that could induce a global influenza pandemic. These are serious charges. The results of these social constructions may alter the character, course, and direction of integrated farming networks. In this instance,
Scholtissek and Naylor threaten the stability of the social apparatus behind the continued promotion of and support for integrated farming.
Another set of social constructs needs to be highlighted; the early dispute does not lead to a joint resolution or settlement, but to many more unanswerable questions.
Can viruses be made to obey farming systems boundaries? What is meant by colocation of poultry and pigs? Human beings aside, how do fish ponds bring them together? Is this meant to be the same facility, same farm, same village, or same region? How much "proximity" between livestock systems and humans is safe?
Representative spokespersons are vague on these issues. Edwards et al. (1988b) tend to focus on individual farm cases and very rough farm aggregates from Southeast
Asian countries. They do not enter into, nor dispute the socio-viral world
Scholtissek and Naylor construct in their accounts. How can they? In fact, they concede that pigs can be "mixing vessels" to Scholtissek and Naylor. Scholtissek and
Naylor focus on viral-geographic regions, the social practices that may give rise to potentially hazardous new viral strains, and links to fragile global health conditions.
What about the stance of international development agencies and small-scale farmers? Both groups are passively enrolled in this dispute. International development agencies and small-scale farmers have been given social definitions and roles in the accounts by representative spokespersons. Whether these enrolled groups agree, are indifferent or dissent from the views expressed by the spokespersons, or whether the definitions and roles assigned to the two groups are accurate is irrelevant from the participants perspective (Callon 1986; Latour 1987).
In addition, both parties dispute what they see and what they reinterpret from each other and similar sources. Hence they begin modifying each other’s claims. For example, the "facts" about Asian farming practices that Scholtissek and Naylor present are more or less turned into "fictions" by Edwards et al. (1988b). They argue that the "commonly found" practices that Scholtissek and Naylor point out are rare and likely to remain so.
The initial arguments present only partial findings and much speculation with respect to common ground for dispute. Some associations and linkages put forth are stronger (e.g., viral recombinant mechanisms in pigs) than others (e.g., the incidence of hen-pig-fish farms). A geographical region, Asia, with certain farming practices has been targeted with implications for global health. Hence more human and nonhuman resources will have to be brought to bear on the controversy. Data will have

to be marshaled, the arguments must become more technical, and inscriptions will have to be used in order to persuade the readers of these articles.
An Early Fortification: "You Don't Belong Here"
In a highly influential ICLARM Studies and Reviews publication, Edwards et al.
(1988a: 30) summarized human health concerns in relation to livestock-crop-fish farming systems. After warning that Third World integrated systems should not pose threats to human health, they state "the inferred link (by Scholtissek and
Naylor) was grossly overstated. Pigs and poultry have been brought together without fish on traditional farms in Asia and Europe for centuries ... farming systems involving pigs, poultry and fish are rare and likely to remain so."
Chronologically, Edwards et al. (1988a) repeat, but in modified form (covering other water related human diseases), arguments made in correspondence published in
Nature. They expand the parameters of the debate from viral aspects to include the world of human bacterial diseases and a helminth parasite that is linked to schistosomiasis. Furthermore, they argue that for centuries humans have established livestock systems without adding a fish subsystem. In short, they "stack" and "stratify" evidence to tilt in their favor (Latour 1987). The condensed and expanded section on "Potential Health Hazards" stratifies findings on human health issues related to fish ponds. From pathogens such as Salmonella to mosquitoes to
Schistosoma, and finally leading to the "grossly overstated" claims imputed to
Scholtissek and Naylor, the number of associations the authors have put forth is used to weaken the claims of Scholtissek and Naylor and force them out of integrated farming (Edwards et al. 1988a:30; Latour 1987).
Stage 3: The Morse Essay and the World Aquaculture Society Editorial
Stephen Morse, a virologist from Rockefeller University picks up from where
Scholtissek and Naylor have temporarily left off. Morse (1990:16) brings a virologist's comparative molecular, environmental, and socio-evolutionary perspective to what he calls "viral traffic: the transfer to humans of diseases which exist within some animal population." In the broad framework of the article, Morse
(1990) calls into question integrated farming practices and international donors in creating conditions likely to increase "viral traffic." Morse (1990) warns that development organizations continue to ignore potentially hazardous health conditions by recommending integrated aquaculture projects in Asia, Latin
America and Africa.
Morse (1990:16) painstakingly builds his case by beginning with a discussion of how
"viral infections that strike seemingly out of nowhere" arise. According to Morse

(1990:16), new viruses were previously thought to emerge de novo "because of the great array of viruses and the speed with which they accumulate genetic mutations." Morse (1990:16,18) focuses, however, on some features that many emerging viruses share. Specifically he notes that throughout history, infectious diseases have largely entered human populations through animals.
Morse (1990:16) lists human diseases which have been linked to humans through animal carriers. A historical pattern involving animal carriers such as green monkeys, rats, lice, fleas, mosquitoes, tropical birds, and mice is apparent in cases ranging from Marburg disease, bubonic plague, typhus, malaria, yellow fever, parrot fever, and Argentine-Bolivian hemorrhagic fever. Through these vectors,
Morse (1990:18) points out that:
The catalyst ... is human activity -- in particular, the growing impact of that activity on the environment. The changes wrought by war, migration, agriculture, deforestation and population growth have expedited the movement of viruses from isolated animal reservoirs to the larger human community.
Hence "viral traffic" has risen with increased human activity and interaction with the environment.
Morse then turns away from socio-historical cases of "viral traffic" and moves to molecular viral structures. The particle possesses some unique outer glycoprotein molecular structures called hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). These structures "enable the virus to bind to a host cell and invade it, much as a thief might use a house key to break into a home" (Morse 1990: 20). Antibodies, which can be produced by vaccines, can attack the virus at this molecular level but viruses have remarkable genetic capabilities such that "the arrangement of [viral] surface molecules can change so significantly that the old antibodies no longer identify the virus." Tragically, during the outbreak of human influenza pandemics, antibodies fail to recognize newly arranged H-N sequences.
Morse calls the gradual process of viral mutation "antigenic drift." In humans, antigenic drift accounts for relatively mild epidemics of influenzas. Generally, no vaccines are developed to mitigate these mild and frequent viral outbreaks. Morse then introduces a much more radical viral genetic process, actually a reshuffling of present genes from different virus strains, which he calls "antigenic shift." In this phenomenon, a deadly human pandemic can result. When an antigenic shift takes place, changes in the surface molecular viral coats occur. Morse (1990:20) explains that:
There are thirteen major varieties of hemagglutinin, labeled H1 through H13, and nine major varieties of neuraminidase labeled N1 through N9, in the fluvirus population. If a cell is simultaneously infected by two strains of the virus possessing different H and N subtypes, the genes for the antigens can

reshuffle to form novel combinations -- arrangements never before seen by the human population.
Morse further focuses on the mechanisms and environments conducive for creating new viruses. Many of these new viral strains are subsequently transferred from animals to humans. Morse (1990:20) points out that "Every known subtype of the H protein can be found in ducks and other waterfowl." Morse then recaps the work of
Scholtissek and Naylor and their suggestion that pigs act as "mixing vessels" where they can simultaneously contract avian and human influenza strains. From this point in the text, Morse (1990:20) asks, "Where do the animals involved live in such proximity that the reservoirs [of viral strains] can mix in the first place?" (4)
The answer to Morse's question is in Asia, where "farmers ... have practiced a unique method of agriculture whereby fresh manure from livestock, particularly ducks and pigs, acts as fertilizer for fish ponds" (Morse 1990:20). From this question and answer sequence, it is only a short but carefully staged inference that international development agencies are partially responsible for the spread of such practices and the human health consequences that may arise through promotion of integrated farming in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Morse concludes his essay with some recommendations. These include taking into account the conditions likely to induce deadly viral traffic. Noting that field virologists are scarce and that there are only a few well equipped and staffed field laboratories in the world, Morse (1990:21) endorses the creation of a global network of tropical disease surveillance centers. Linking these centers with other centers and preexisting data bases would lead to an increased chance that harmful outbreaks would be identified early on. According to Morse (1990:21), doing so will require prioritizing this issue through proactive policy measures.
Morse has written a far reaching and provocative account of a potentially threatening global health problem. Integrated aquafarming and the level of support that the activity has attained with international donors are just one small set of linkages in the overall socio-viral network which emerge in his account of viral traffic. His intensive effort engulfs the previous debate and reopens the controversy, but in a much broader set of socio-environmental parameters and settings.
Morse's essay was featured in an editorial by Aiken (1991) in World Aquaculture.
Aiken (1991:2) summarizes Morse's essay for the 2,600 member World Aquaculture
Society. Aiken (1991:2) questions the role that international development agencies may play in the development "of devastating new influenza epidemics by promoting integrated aquaculture in developing countries" In conclusion, Aiken suggests that:
If indeed the linkage between integrated farming practices and new influenza viruses is as tight as Morse suggests, international development agencies that are vigorously promoting integrated farming practices around the world should reflect on the possible human health consequences of their programs.

Aiken's (1991) understated editorial is favorable to the position put forth by Morse.
While Morse has significantly raised the stakes with a "tightly" constructed essay with which Aiken tends to agree, the implicated role of international development agencies is still passively represented by both Morse and Aiken. In short, a spokesperson for these agencies has still not emerged. But Morse (1990) and Aiken
(1991) provoked integrated farming spokespersons. A response from them was forthcoming.
Stage 4: Managing for Damage Control?
In a featured letter to World Aquaculture, Edwards takes issue with the Aiken editorial. Specifically, Edwards (1991:2) addresses a perceived, "negative impact on the efforts of organizations and individuals to promote integrated farming systems" that the editorial may have instigated. In this letter, Edwards notes that pigs and poultry have been raised" without the need for fish to bring them together."
Edwards (1991:2) acknowledges that aquaculture may play a role in staging emerging viruses, but notes that "animal husbandry is likely to be a far greater culprit."
Edwards (1991) shifts to China and presents the first inscription put forth by integrated farming proponents, an FAO derived table (Table 15.1). The table presents human populations, agricultural land to human population ratios, gross animal numbers, and animal to human population ratios. Edwards (1991:3) summarized preliminary analysis of these data: "It makes sense that China would be the region where most influenza A pandemics start; China has a quarter of the world's population plus high densities of pigs and poultry (41% of the world's pigs,
63% of the world's ducks and 19% of the world's chickens)." Comparing China,
"our main suspect," with the rest of the world, Edwards (1991:3) notes that there are large number of pigs and chickens in the rest of the world. He concludes that
"large numbers of livestock raised in developed countries ... means that countries in this category present a potential threat also." The point that Edwards (1991) makes is that fish farming is a highly unlikely source for inducing pigs to act as "mixing vessels." With 344 million pigs, 316 million ducks, and 1,800 million chickens in
China, how can animal husbandry be ignored and fish farming be so implicated?
TABLE 15.1 Number and Density of Humans and Selected Livestock Species
China Other Asian Rest of World
& Pacific World Total
Total human pop. (x10 3 ) 1,072,078 1,532,925 2,310,647 4,915,650
Agric. Land/agric.pop (ha) 0.13 0.33 1.62 0.64
Pigs (x10 3 ) 344,248 54,967 440,637 839,852
Ducks (x10 6 ) 316 117 67 500
Chickens (x10 6 ) 1,796 1,294 6,355 9,445

Pigs/total human pop. 0.32 0.04 0.19 0.17
Pigs/human ag.pop. 0.46 0.06 0.69 0.37
Ducks/total human pop. 0.29 0.08 0.03 0.10
Ducks/human ag.pop. 0.42 0.13 0.10 0.22
Chickens/human pop. 1.68 0.84 2.75 1.92
Chickens/human ag. pop. 2.38 1.44 9.90 4.12
Source: Edwards (1991)
In addition, Edwards features his own work in the region to point out that multiple livestock-fish systems are extremely rare.(5) In conclusion, Edwards (1991:6) responds to Aiken’s question on the role of international development agencies.
Saying he is unsure, Edwards claims that both ICLARM and AIT "are aware of it
[potential health hazards] and do not encourage the farming of fish in conjunction with pigs and poultry."
The World Aquaculture Society issue also printed five other letters on the controversy.(6) Pullin (1991:6), who is the Director of ICLARM's Aquaculture
Program, found Aiken's editorial "greatly disturbing" because Aiken failed to
"consider subsequent correspondence also published in Nature." What is interesting about Pullin's letter is the socially derived stance that he takes on behalf of
ICLARM and the "disadvantaged in developing countries." ICLARM's research on developing integrated crop-livestock-fish farming is undertaken "because we are sure that it can and should become a major source of better nutrition and livelihood for the disadvantaged in developing countries" (Pullin 1991:6).
With publication of the article by Morse in The Sciences, the editorial by Aiken in
World Aquaculture, and letters by Edwards and Pullin, the controversy has been rekindled and the stakes progressively raised. There is a clear tendency to bring in harder evidence, other geographical regions of the world, and 344 million pigs, 316 million ducks, and 1,800 million chickens in China to bear on the dispute at hand.
Processes and concepts are extended in a variety of manners to fit a particular but changing social view of the integrated farming and viral worlds. Allies are sought beyond the discourse emanating from research centers.
In addition, there is constant transformation of the claims of the disputants.
"Millions of small-scale farmers" in Asia, Latin America and Africa have become the "disadvantaged in developing countries." ICLARM's claims to represent social actors and its constructions are vigorously defended. Indeed, these statements are presented in a manner that implies they are beyond questioning. In contrast, Morse favors establishment of an international tropical disease surveillance network.
Edwards repeatedly refers to farm studies and cases from Asia to show that the incidence of poultry-pig combinations on the same farm is rare. Morse calls for more linkages between molecular virology and field biology. All this occurs in a commentary, essays, an editorial, and a few letters.

Stage 5: "Cultivating a Killer Virus"
The most recent stage of the controversy involves a recent lead article published by
Scholtissek in the journal Natural History. He adds a subtitle which reads, "In
Southeast Asia, fish farming may inadvertently spawn new and potentially lethal strains of influenza." Scholtissek (1992:2) begins by recalling a conversation with
Naylor who was involved in the "Blue Revolution" (i.e., aquaculture development).
Scholtissek expressed concerns when considering his own work on the evolution of lethal viral strains in conjunction with conditions likely to stage influenza -- the promotion of integrated farming in Asia, Latin America and Africa. He explained to
Naylor that "The fish themselves play no role in the process, but the fish ponds bring humans and ducks into contact with pigs -- and pigs are the one animal that can serve as a `mixing vessel’ for the creation of new influenza viruses that may threaten world health."
Scholtissek describes how he and his colleagues have investigated the evolution of new human influenza viral strains, which are "partially derived from animal influenza viruses." Parallel to, but expanding on Morse (1990), Scholtissek (1992) presents a detailed description of molecular configurations that lie behind viral evolution, adding that influenza viral strains constantly change their surface molecular coats, rendering pre-existing human antibodies ineffective to combat them.
Scholtissek (1992:4) then describes antigenic shifts during which "a virus picks up one or more genes, including the hemagglutinin gene, from an animal influenza virus." This genetic mechanism accounts for outbreaks of influenza A. Influenza A viruses change their antigenic coats rapidly because they are the only particles found in animal and human populations. Scholtissek (1992:4) notes that ducks are
"influenza reservoirs" containing many influenza A strains that are passed among ducks and along worldwide flight paths. These nonlethal strains live and multiply predominantly in duck intestinal tracts and do not invade humans. Scholtissek then asks how these influenza pools merge to create new human pandemic strains.
Scholtissek constructs his argument from surface molecular coats to the actual mechanism by which viral strains multiply in a host. From experiments, Scholtissek
(1992:4) explains that the determinants of host specificity involve nucleoproteins, which: form the core of the virus, wrapping around the virus's genes. While surface antigens, such as hemagglutinin, are important for entering a host's cells, the nucleoprotein has to cooperate with almost all viral components in one way or another during multiplication, assembly, and maturation of infectious particles. Any of the viral genes can be exchanged without affecting host specificity except the nucleoprotein gene.

By replacing "the gene segment responsible for nucleoproteins in fowl plague virus with the corresponding gene from the human influenza virus," Scholtissek (1992:4) and his group could change which host the virus attacked. For instance, new laboratory strains were harmless in chickens, but would multiply in dog cells.(7)
Scholtissek (1992:4-5) and a colleague were then able to construct an evolutionary tree that suggested that pigs formed their own branch or were found intermingled with human and avian branches. Hence the role of pigs as "mixing vessels" for new strains of human influenza viruses becomes apparent. Scholtissek (1992) adds that pigs probably become infected with avian influenza viruses by eating duck droppings. If a farmer has the flu or cold, a pig can also become infected with that strain, allowing for the reshuffling of viral genetic material in the pig. The new strain "may find its way to the respiratory tract of the farmer and thus spread to the human population" (Scholtissek 1992:6). In conclusion, Scholtissek (1992) warns that new viral strains will continue to threaten global health. In his view, export of the "Blue Revolution" could invite disaster.
Throughout the course of this controversy, initial associations and inferences are extended by both parties, who then stage renewed claims (Latour 1987). The means, however, by which both parties advance claims are substantially different in terms of epistemological as well as methodological approach. Manufacturing claims requires constructing environments, societies, and social groups that are given definitions and roles by respective spokespersons (e.g., global health, viral recombinants, viral traffic, small-scale farmers, the disadvantaged in tropical developing countries, China, fish pond, animal husbandry, and international development agencies). In this light, there is not much in common for dispute, with the exception of reinterpretations of certain farming practices. Persuasion, however, is directed at outside readers and rests on appeals to and an ordering of heterogenous social criteria. These appeals may alert relevant social groups (e.g., aid agencies) and initiate new research and development opportunities. Hence, scientists in this dispute construct "societies" in order to advance and ultimately to justify their claims. We will now turn to some instances of these social constructions.
How Societies Are Created in the Controversy
In this ongoing controversy, both groups of scientists define and assign roles to social actors. In this context, commentators such as Callon (1986; 1987), Latour
(1987), Meyers (1990) and Pinch and Bijker (1987) have clearly demonstrated social constructivist aspects of technoscience systems. By constructing "societies" in order to situate and advance their particular world views, both groups of scientists are also attempting to shape a socially shared sense of meaning in order to influence relevant social groups. These groups are readers of these scientific journals and more critically the international development agencies who support research and development of integrated aquafarming. Published commentaries, letters, and essays in more popular scientific journals and magazines announce these intentions.
Hence, the controversy serves as a means to advertise the respective positions of both parties for a wider audience (Pinch and Bijker 1987).

Opportunities may arise for both integrated aquafarming proponents and virologists to expand their respective technoscience social networks. Morse (1990) suggests creation of tropical disease surveillance centers and more links between molecular and field virology. Edwards et al. (1988a) has consistently called for continued support and expansion of integrated aquafarming research and development. The controversy in which both parties are involved may just be the catalyst necessary for expansion.
Virologists construct associations between viral recombinations, mixing vessels, farming practices, and socio-environmental parameters. From these linkages the objects under scrutiny simply diffuse through society. Furthermore, this pattern corresponds to the emergence of previous infectious disease vectors. Viral traffic is on the rise and serious outbreaks are likely in the future. Associations emerge that carry the reader by leaps and bounds towards the present controversy. Conversely, integrated aquafarming proponents disassociate themselves from practices perceived likely to stage influenza pandemics. They do not promote harmful practices, nor are these practices widespread. The social objectives of alleviating malnutrition put forth by integrated aquafarming proponents in tropical developing countries are consistently stated. These objectives cannot be challenged by virologists who acknowledge their importance in these regions of the world.
Both parties modify each other's claims by defining "passage points" whereby they construct "the nature and the problems of the latter and then suggesting that these would be resolved if they [opponents] negotiated the ... [particular] researchers' programme of investigation" (Callon 1986:196). Concretely, the hen-pig-fish example disputed by both parties is the only critical "passage point" in this controversy. The claim that these practices were "commonly found" in Asia was refuted by integrated farming proponents. They pointed out that these systems are rare due to a variety of social (e.g., management and marketing) factors particular to the conditions of Asian small-scale farmers.(8) Surprisingly, virologists (Morse
1990 and Scholtissek 1992) have simply ignored them. Sidestepping this issue instead, they advance a much broader socio-historical framework whereby integrated farming is one potential source of influenza A recombinants. The controversy continues as closure has not been reached.
Integrated aquafarming proponents cannot challenge the claims emanating from the laboratories at the Institute of Virology, University of Geissen, or at Rockefeller
University. How can they? They revert to a table (Table 15.1) wherein numbers in the form of 344 million pigs, 316 million ducks and 1,800 million chickens in China are hurled at the reader. In addition, high numbers of livestock in the other regions of the world are used to advance claims that these areas are also at risk. Finally, integrated aquafarming proponents tell us that mixed animal husbandry practices are much more likely to stage influenza A recombinants than the addition of a fish pond. Human beings aside, aquafarming proponents argue that pigs and poultry have been brought together for centuries without the need for fish ponds. The socio-

viral world that virologists construct is simply not applicable to the historical record of aquafarming.
In this controversy, socially defined groups of actors such as small-scale farmers are transformed into the disadvantaged in tropical developing countries. These actors are presented as benefitting from improved and much needed farming practices.
Integrated aquafarming proponents construct these "societies" from personal observations, technical reports, and development project involvements in tropical regions. It is important to repeat that integrated aquafarming is limited to substantially less than one percent of tropical farming populations. Who these farmers are is important, but they remain unknown regardless of how they are defined and spoken for in the controversy. In addition, international development agencies remain curiously silent. It is likely that spokespersons for them will emerge.
Their lack of response indicates they are either unaware of the controversy, or consider the potential "threats" minimal. Both parties however, advertise their views with an implicit appeal to various forms of support.
Conclusion
In this controversy scientists act as sociologists. The controversy discussed in this chapter provides valuable insights into aquaculture development processes. In short, by following world views that scientists construct in a controversy, heterogeneous social networks are revealed which overlap purely "technical" or
"social" accounts. In essence, sociological and technoscientific constructs are inextricably intertwined (Callon 1987). An important and much neglected way for sociologists to learn about aquaculture development is to follow the innovators themselves in their research, publications, projects, and controversies. These innovators to a large degree set aquaculture research and development agendas.
Aquaculture scientists, when working on research and development systems such as modern integrated aquafarming, often develop an explicit sociology. These insights can be turned into advantages for sociologists of aquaculture by following sociological constructs that give rise to society and to technology. In this sense, the homogeneity of purely social relationships is replaced by the integration of more complex and situated heterogeneous socio-technoscientific networks (Callon 1987).
There is a strong need for a renewed focus on aquaculture scientists, research, and development. Sociologists should explore the development of technoscientific systems as fundamentally a social process. This process involves both previously separated "technical" and "social" dimensions. With a few notable exceptions, social scientists rarely have examined the socially derived claims made by scientists themselves.9 Social networks that comprise the complex system of international aquaculture development can be probed more effectively by combining both the
"social" and the "technoscientific" within a single frame of analysis. The effort presented herein points to a need for a fuller accounting of these networks.

Notes
1. The late Jay Artis inspired an early version of this chapter. Acknowledgments are due to Lawrence Busch, Michel Callon, Anne Ferguson, Bill Derman, Craig Harris,
Keiko Tanaka, Priscilla Weeks, and the editors of this volume for critical comments on earlier drafts of this chapter. Responsibility for the views expressed are mine alone.
2. An important qualification is in order. As discussed within these pages, this chapter is only a partial account of the controversy. I have not contacted any of the participants in this dispute. Nor did I contact the editors at Nature, The Sciences,
Natural History, ICLARM, or World Aquaculture. Hence findings and interpretations should be treated as preliminary. More importantly, the controversy is still "in the making" and has not reached closure.
3. See, for example, Edwards (1982), Edwards et al. (1983, 1986, 1988a), Hopkins and Cruz (1982), Little and Muir (1987), NACA (1989), Pullin and Shehadeh (1980).
4. In the mid-1960s, the predominant sequence of surface molecules was H2N2, a viral strain to which humans had developed immunity. However, Morse points out that the "Hong Kong" flu strain, which first appeared in 1968, had a subtype H3 configuration to which most people were not immune. The result was a deadly global pandemic. Scholtissek (1991) makes the same point.
5. ICLARM and AIT have no monopoly on, nor are these organizations abreast of
(an impossible task) the latest field developments that incorporate integrated croplivestock-fish farming systems. Both AIT and ICLARM are small organizations. In contrast, in Nong Khai Province of Thailand, where some integrated farm case studies were conducted (Engle and Skladany 1992), concentrated clusters of small commercial, integrated poultry-fish farms were found (approximately 100 in number). The area contained high densities of both animals and humans. A one hectare farm studied in some detail had 2,000 hens, a dozen Thai chickens, a few turkeys, 2 monkeys, 6 goats, a dozen Chinese quail, 3 cattle, a half dozen Muscovy ducks, and 2 fish ponds. The owners had recently sold 21 pigs but kept two adult breeders. Free ranging duck flocks, watched over by an attendant, scavenged in an adjacent swamp-reservoir. The hens directly manured the fish ponds and were enclosed in bamboo pens. Pigs were kept next to the house but separate from the other animals. Pig manure was discarded into a nearby paddy field. Cattle, monkeys, Chinese quail, and goats were either confined or staked to a particular area. Thai chickens, turkeys, and Muscovy ducks were free ranging. Interestingly, these developments were supported in part by Thai banks. There was little if any input from animal husbandry or fisheries agencies. In addition, the practice seemed to have caught on in the area as other farms had set up integrated operations independent of bank and/or agency financial and technical support.

6. Kutty (1991:6) from FAO anticipates that integrated farming proponents "will demand more confirmatory evidence before they are convinced to dissuade rural farmers from this practice." Kutty (1991:6), however, warns that "human health should be a paramount concern." Forbes (1991:6-7), an aquaculture consultant, agrees with Edwards "that international agencies should be encouraged, not discouraged, from promoting integrated farming within safe parameters." But
Forbes also recommends that Scholtissek's 1992 article in Natural History be given
"close scrutiny." Manci (1991:7), another consultant, wryly comments on aquaculturists' "bury-your-head-in-the sand" attitude. He suggests that suppressing those who criticize or raise real questions about the industry "does aquaculture a disservice." At a 1989 World Aquaculture Society conference, Manci raised questions about pollution from Norwegian salmon farming with a Norwegian official who told him that pollution from salmon net-pen operations was
"insignificant." Manci later found out in Seymour and Bergheim (1991) that salmon farming in Norway, a country with 4.2 million people, produces a pollution load equivalent to 2.7 million people.
7. Scholtissek (1992) discusses other cases such as a 1979-80 influenza epizootic which killed camels in Mongolia. This strain was a recombinant of two human strains which had been prepared and killed as a vaccine in Leningrad for the human population. Somehow, the recombinant particle survived and invaded the
Mongolian camel population at great economic loss.
8. A report by Pullin and Shehadeh (1980) contains numerous accounts of Asian integrated aquafarming systems derived from countries in the region.
References
Aiken, D. 1991. "Aquaculture and the Influenza Virus." World Aquaculture 22(1): 2.
Bailey, C. 1991. Memorandum to ICA Associates. International Center for
Aquaculture. Auburn University, Alabama.
Callon, M. 1986. "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay." In John Law, ed., Power, Action
and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
______. 1987. "Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for
Sociological Analysis." In W. E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T. Pinch, eds., The Social
Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Costa-Pierce, B.A., C. Lightfoot, K. Ruddle, and R.S.V. Pullin, eds. 1991.
Aquaculture Research and Development in Rural Africa. Summary Report on the
ICLARM-GTZ/Malawi Fisheries Department/University of Malawi Conference,
Zomba, Malawi, 2-6 April 1990. ICLARM Conference Proceedings Number 27.
Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.

Delemendo, M.N. 1980. "A Review of Integrated Livestock-Fowl-FishFarming
Systems." In R.S.V. Pullin and Z.H. Shehadeh, eds., Integrated Agriculture-
Aquaculture Farming Systems. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 4. Manila:
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
Edwards, P. 1982. "Report of Consultancy at the Regional Lead Centre for
Integrated Fish Culture, Wuxi, The People's Republic of China, October 12 to
November 22, 1981." (Unpublished ms.)
______. 1991. "Fish-fowl-pig Farming Uncommon." Letter to the Editor. World
Aquaculture 22(3):2-3, 6.
Edwards, P., K.E. Weber, E.W. McCoy, C. Chantachaeng, C. Pacharaprakiti, K.
Kaewpaitoon, and S. Nitsmer. 1983. "Small-scale Fishery Project in Pathum Thani
Province, Central Thailand: A Socio-economic and Technological Assessment of
Status and Potential." AIT Research Report No. 158. Bangkok: Asian Institute of
Technology.
Edwards, P., K. Kaewpaitoon, E.W. McCoy, and C. Chantachaeng. 1986. "Pilot
Small-scale Crop/Livestock/Fish Integrated Farm." AIT Research Report No. 184.
Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology.
Edwards, P., R.S.V. Pullin and J. Gartner. 1988a. Research and Education for the
Development of Integrated Crop-Livestock-Fish Farming Systems in the Tropics.
ICLARM Studies and Reviews 16. Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic
Resources Management.
Edwards, P., C. K. Lin, K. L. Wee, D. Little, and N.L. Innes-Taylor. 1988b. "Fish farming and Aquaculture." Scientific Correspondence. Nature 333: 505-506.
Engle, C.R. and M. Skladany. 1992. "The Economic Benefit of Chicken Manure
Utilization in Fish Production in Thailand." CRSP Research Report 92-45.
Corvallis, OR: Pond Dynamics CRSP, Oregon State University.
Forbes, A. 1991. "Proper Precautions Advocated." Letter to the Editor. World
Aquaculture 22(3):6-7.
Hopkins, K. D. and E.M. Cruz. 1982. The ICLARM-CLSU Integrated Animal-Fish
Farming Project: Final Report. ICLARM Technical Report 5. Manila: International
Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
ICLARM. 1990. "The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research."
NAGA, The ICLARM Quarterly 13(4): 3-7.

Kutty, M. N. 1991. "Enlightened Approach Needed." Letter to the Editor. World
Aquaculture 22(3):6.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Little, D. and J. Muir. 1987. A Guide to Integrated Warm Water Aquaculture.
Stirling, Scotland: Institute of Aquaculture.
Lovshin, L.L. N.B. Schwartz, V.G. de Castillo, C.R. Engle, and U.L. Hatch. 1986.
Cooperatively Managed Panamanian Fish Ponds: The Integrated Approach.
Research and Development Series No. 33. International Center for Aquaculture.
Auburn University, Alabama: Alabama Agricultural Experimental Station.
Manci, W.E. 1991. "Let's promote discussion." Letter to the Editor. World
Aquaculture 22(3):6.
Meyers, G. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific
Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Morse, S.S. 1990. "Stirring up Trouble: Environmental Disruption Can Divert
Animal Viruses into People." Essays and Comments in The Sciences.
September/October.
NACA. 1989. Integrated Fish Farming in China. Network of Aquaculture Centers in
Asia Technical Manual 7. Bangkok: Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia and the Pacific.
Naylor, E. and C. Scholtissek. 1988. Response to "Fish Farming and Aquaculture."
Scientific Correspondence. Nature 333:506.
Pinch, T. J. and W.E. Bijker. 1987. "The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts:
Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit
Each Other." In W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, eds, The Social
Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pullin, R.S.V. 1991. "Brush too Broad." Letter to the Editor. World Aquaculture.
22(3):6.
Pullin, R.S.V. and Z.H. Shehadeh, eds. 1980. Integrated Agriculture-Aquaculture
Farming Systems. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 4. Manila: International
Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
Scholtissek, C. 1992. "Cultivating a Killer Virus." Natural History 1/92:2-6.
Scholtissek, C. and E. Naylor. 1988. "Fish Farming and Influenza Pandemics."
Nature 333(21):215.

Seymour, E.A. and A. Bergheim. 1991. "Towards a Reduction of Pollution from
Intensive Aquaculture with Reference to the Farming of Salmonids in Norway."
Aquacultural Engineering 10: 73-88.
Smith, I. 1988. "Preface." In Peter Edwards, Roger S.V. Pullin, and James Gartner eds., Research and Education for the Development of Integrated Crop-Livestock-Fish
Farming Systems in the Tropics. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 16. Manila:
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.