The emergence of HIV in the U.S. blood supply:
Organizations, obligations, and the managementof uncertainty
KIERAN HEALY
Princeton University

In the early 1980s, blood suppliers in most Western nations went
through at least a crisis, and often a scandal. Thousands of people
were infected with HIV after receiving a blood transfusion or someother blood product. Blood-borne AIDS, like the AIDS epidemic as awhole, was a human tragedy. It was also an organizational disaster. If
we want to understand what happened, the experience of the UnitedStates provides a particularly important starting point. It has thelargest blood industry in the world. Unusually, a non-pro¢t whole
blood sector that relies on voluntary donations coexists with a large,
for-pro¢t plasma industry that buys its raw material from suppliers.
Almost the same volume of raw plasma is purchased as whole bloodis donated each year. In retrospect, the blood industry in the U.S.
between 1981 and 1983 provides a kind of natural experiment thatallows us to test and develop our ideas about the social embeddednessof economic transactions, and the reactions of complex organizations
to uncertainty.
This article seeks to explain why blood banks and plasma companies
reacted di¡erently to the same information about the spread of a new
disease through the blood supply in the United States. I draw on recent
work in economic sociology and the sociology of risk in order to givean account of these events. Using the concept of a ``negotiated information order'' to frame the analysis, I explain why blood banks andplasma companies acted as they did.1 The appearance of blood-borne
AIDS was an instance of an awkward kind of uncertainty. Actors inthe blood industry were not sure what was going on, and the available
information was ambiguous. They constructed a set of standards, aninformation order, to evaluate information about the problem. Drawing
Theory and Society 28: 529^558, 1999.
ß 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

530
on statements made to a commission of inquiry, as well as internal
memos, minutes, and transcripts, I show that these standards werein£uenced by three factors: the external dependencies of these organizations, the exchange relations that bound them in di¡erent ways totheir suppliers and recipients, and the organizational ties that linked
them to other stakeholders in the blood industry.
This study contributes to theory and research in two ways. First, it
extends ideas about the management of uncertainty by applying themto an under-explored area. Despite its importance to the medical system as a whole, remarkably little has been written about the socialorganization of the blood supply. Sociological theories of risk mostoften focus either on the day-to-day management of uncertainty, whereorganizations know something might go wrong, or on reactions toserious accidents, where something already has. For theoretical purposes, a distinctive feature of the AIDS disaster was that it unfoldedin slow-motion, as the participants gradually became convinced ofthe extent of the problem. Second, my analysis shows that particularexchange relations ^ that is, how blood and plasma were transferredamong suppliers, processors and recipients ^ had an important e¡ect
on the observed outcomes. Economic sociologists stress that strictly
economic interests are socially embedded. This study shows how economic interests were embedded in exchange relations that had a strong
moral component, and that these relations signi¢cantly a¡ected howorganizations acted.
Interestingly, one of the earliest empirical studies to stress the social
aspects of economic behavior was also partly responsible for the organization of the blood supply. Richard Titmuss's The Gift Relationshipmade a strong moral and empirical case against the commercial market for blood that existed in the United States prior to 1974. The bookled directly to the reorganization of the system along voluntary lines.
Changes in law and government policy encouraged people to donate
their blood rather than o¡er it for sale. Accepting the arguments of
The Gift Relationship, the government tried to ensure a clean and safe
supply by removing the pro¢t motive from the blood business. However, the system's reaction to the appearance of AIDS in the U.S.
between 1981 and 1983 shows that Titmuss was at best only partly
correct. The relationship between blood organizations and the qualityof supply is subtler than he realized.

531
Titmuss's argument was the main article of faith that the U.S. blood
supply rested on from 1974 to 1981. Understanding where Titmuss
erred provides a useful starting point for an empirical account of the
AIDS disaster of the 1980s, as well as an entrëe to the theoretical issues
at stake.
The legacy of The Gift Relationship
Titmuss compared the social organization of the blood supply in England and the United States. He argued that the then largely commercial,market-driven system of the United States was demonstrably inferior
to England's voluntary system. In the United States, hepatitis was achronic problem in the blood supply, whereas in England it was almost
entirely absent. Titmuss claimed that if blood is a commodity, individuals will have an incentive to lie about their health. Unsuitablesuppliers come forward and are paid for a bad product. The people
most likely to sell their blood are also those most likely to transmit
disease. (Titmuss referred to them as ``skid row'' suppliers.) In addition
to contaminating the supply, these commercial blood suppliers tend todrive volunteer donors away. By contrast, in an altruistic system there
are no such incentives to lie; thus no one from ``skid row'' will donate
blood and the supply will stay clean. In addition ^ and ultimately mostimportant ^ altruism is morally better for society than the market.
Markets are both ine¤cient and morally bankrupt. If blood remains a
gift, then the system will stay e¤cient and the bonds of community willremain strong.
The book was very in£uential. The response to its argument was generally favorable, and has remained so.2 It also had a remarkable in£uenceon blood policy. A few economists objected, but for once they wereignored.3 In 1973, the Assistant Secretary for Health announced the
National Blood Policy, which recognized that reliance on ``commercial
sources of blood and blood components for transfusion therapy has
contributed to a signi¢cantly disporportionate incidence of hepatitis,
since such blood is often collected from sectors of society in whichtransmissible hepatitis is more prevalent.'' 4 The National Blood Policy
aimed to eliminate pernicious commercialism in the blood supply byinstituting an all-volunteer system for the collection of whole blood.
There are many problems with Titmuss's argument. The book is astrong mix of empirical facts and moral charges. From the perspective

532
of economic sociology, it is an exemplary case of what Zelizer calls the``boundless model'' of markets.5 The market is seen as a voracious
entity liable to eat up whatever it can get its hands on. In a market
society, everything becomes commodi¢ed and can be put up for sale.
Important social relationships are destroyed. The only defense against
the market is the ``legal preservation of selected items or activities
outside of the cash nexus.'' 6 Some things ^ blood, for instance ^should be kept sacred. Zelizer notes that, although motivated by a
deep disgust with the evils of the market, these critics neverthelessaccept that markets really are laws unto themselves, unbeholden to
any social or cultural dampers. They do not accept the possibility that,once set loose, the logic of the market might still be inhibited orde£ected by other institutions. By contrast, more recent writing has
tended to stress that markets are related in complicated ways to otherfeatures of economic, cultural, and social structure. Markets are ``embedded'' in networks, subject to organizational and state interference,
and a¡ected by culture.7
Titmuss's argument about blood and the market assumes two important things. First, there must be a clear way to link an organization's
form to the quality of the blood it procures. We can isolate somemechanism that ensures that the one will a¡ect the other. Second, thislink is unmediated by any other factors. Market logic or altruistic virtue
will always have their respective e¡ects. Thus, the market has a direct,
unequivocally negative e¡ect upon the quality of the blood supply.
Both of these assumptions are false. The link between organizational
form and clean supply exists, but it is contingent. Both market andaltruistic arrangements are embedded within social structure and culture. I now have to justify these assertions in turn. The ¢rst point canbe argued for brie£y. Defending the second will mean giving a positive
account of the empirical relationships involved, drawing on concepts
and theory from economic sociology and the sociology of risk.
Do good gifts mean clean blood?
Titmuss was right to argue that, in the United States, payment forblood attracted people who contaminated the supply. But he waswrong to suggest that contamination occurred because they were
paid. Titmuss was able to con£ate these claims because he was mainly
concerned with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). This was indeed prevalent

533
amongst the supply population in the United States at the time. But, as
has been pointed out by several commentators, this does not mean that
we can assume that the price mechanism will always attract dirty
blood.8 Whether it does or not will be contingent upon the overlap ofblood-selling and disease-bearing populations. These commentators
note that some countries (such as Sweden) or hospitals (like the Mayo
Clinic) pay their suppliers and still manage to have a clean supply, but
the underlying argument that makes these examples relevant has notbeen clearly made.
Consider: If there is a virus £oating around in the blood supply thatno one knows about, then how important is it whether people sell or
freely give their blood to you? The answer is that, in the absence of
epidemiological information, it is not important. More precisely: it
may be true that market forms of organization attract infected populations. But the same might be said of voluntary forms. When the epidemiological pro¢le of a disease is unknown, the extent to which eachsystem appears to perform successfully is entirely dependent onwhether the virus-bearing population is co-extensive with the population of suppliers. To the extent that it is, the system will appear to be
failing.
Titmuss wrote at a time when hepatitis was the main risk to the qualityof the blood supply. Though recognized, this risk was not properly
understood. ``Serum hepatitis'' (as it was then called) seemed resistant
to attempts to weed it out of the system. There was no test that would
reliably distinguish carriers from the general population. Tests existed,
but they missed many carriers. It later turned out that this was because
another virus, hepatitis C, was also being transmitted by transfusion.9
Titmuss was lucky on both these counts. With one signi¢cant risk andno reliable test for it, he was able to assess the e¡ectiveness of markets
versus altruism as mechanisms for reducing that risk. The test oforganizational e¤ciency was obvious: all one had to do was examine
the prevalence of hepatitis amongst transfusion recipients. But this wasan e¡ective performance index only because of the unusual circumstances. Some of Titmuss's critics saw through this problem. They
pointed out that the issue was not simply whether you paid for blood,
but rather whether the person you paid had hepatitis.10 If we had adi¡erent way to get information about supply quality ^ through epidemiology, or accurate tests ^ then it wouldn't matter whether suppliers
were paid or not, since we would not be relying on that mechanism to
reduce the risk borne by the system.

534
Once we recognize that the relation between the social organizationand the cleanliness of the supply is contingent, it is easy to see whyneither voluntary nor price mechanisms can generally ensure anything
about the quality of supply in cases where we do not know about abloodborne pathogen. Titmuss's argument is then greatly weakened. Itamounts to saying that when we know that a disease is chronic in the
population we buy blood from, then our blood supply will be dirtierthan if we relied on voluntary donors who do not have the disease. This
is not saying very much. Sweden and the Mayo Clinic make the same
point. If Sweden has a naturally low rate of hepatitis across its population, or if the Mayo Clinic carefully screens all its donors, then it
doesn't matter if the suppliers are gift-givers or money-grubbers.
In spite of these £aws, Titmuss had the kind of e¡ect on government
policy that most social researchers only dream about. Both the UnitedStates and the European Union are presently committed to an altruistic supply system, and Titmuss is usually cited as the inspiration inboth cases.11 It is therefore surprising that so little has been written
about the e¡ects of this change. For the great irony of The Gift Relationship is that its success helped create the conditions that allowed
its argument to be turned upside down. In the case of AIDS, a population of responsible, voluntary donors happened to be co-extensivewith a large chunk of the disease-bearing population. The blood banks
knew homosexual men to be reliable givers and good volunteers. As it
turned out, they were also important vectors for HIV. The voluntary
system ended up attracting people who contaminated the supply. But,
as with commercial donors and hepatitis, they contaminated the supply not because they were donors, but because they had HIV. Titmuss's
system ended up selecting the wrong people in much the same way as
the previous market arrangement had selected the wrong people: byaccident.
To say there is only a contingent connection between organizational
form and supply quality is not to say that it is never observed. Diseases
are socially distributed, usually in ways predictably related to income,class, or race. Indeed, to be fair to The Gift Relationship, these distributions would probably lead us to expect ``Titmuss e¡ects'' more often
than not. In general, the better-o¡ are both less prone to certain
diseases and more likely to be blood donors. Therefore supply arrangements that select for the former will also happen to select for the latter.
But, like most useful rules of thumb, this assumes that importantunderlying conditions will not change over time. It is dangerous to535
ignore the potential for uncertainty. The U.S. blood supply managed to
do so for about seven years. Then something new showed up and thesystem failed to deal with it.
Titmuss's work remains a touchstone for those, like the blood bankers,
who argue that the blood supply ought to rely exclusively on voluntary
donation. It is therefore important to see clearly the ways in which it islimited or wrong. But if we want to understand what happened to the
supply in the early 1980s, we need a better theory than Titmuss canprovide. Zelizer urges that a course be charted to ``capture the complex
interplay between economic, cultural and social factors'' in the studyof economic institutions.12 The events of 1981^1983 give us an opportunity to examine this interplay in the case of the blood banks andplasma companies.
I argue that organizational responses to the emergence of AIDS are
best understood as a process of risk-managmenet operating undersocial-structural constraints. When a new uncertainty arises, these
constraints provide the grid within which the uncertainty will be understood. In 1981, the relative importance of suppliers and recipients, andthe kind of exchange relationships they had with one another, gave
managers a set of reference points that guided them as they evaluated
new information and made decisions to develop this argument, I begin
with some necessary background on the structure of the blood supply,
and then discuss theories of organizational response to risk and uncertainty.
How the U.S. blood supply works
Getting blood or plasma out of one person and safely into another is acomplicated business, and at present the people of the United States
have two di¡erent kinds or organizations to do this job for them. First,
there are the blood banks (including the Red Cross). They obtain almost all of their supply from voluntary donors.13 They process andthen distribute freely donated blood. They charge hospitals for theirservices, but they are non-pro¢t organizations. Every year in the
United States about 14 million units of blood are donated to theseorganizations. The American Red Cross collects about 45 percent of
the total, blood banks about 42 percent, hospitals 11 percent and thesmall remainder is imported.14 These donations are processed intodi¡erent blood products: whole blood, plasma, clotting factors, and536
others. About 3.6 million people receive transfusions of these products
every year. Blood banks generally enjoy local (geographical) monopolies. They do not compete with one another.
Plasma companies are the second kind of organization. They pay
people to undergo plasmapheresis. A supplier is paid about $15 to $20
for an uncomfortable couple of hours having about 700 mls of theliquid portion of their blood extracted and the red cells returned totheir body. It is estimated that about 13 million units of plasma arepurchased in the U.S. each year.15 There are four U.S. based companies. These organizations process plasma and sell it to those people ^mainly hemophiliacs ^ who need it. There is a competitive market forplasma products.
In 1981 neither the blood banks nor the plasma companies were in any
danger of being sued for infecting their recipients. So-called ``blood
shield'' laws passed in the 1950s and 1960s exempted blood and blood
products from strict liability or implied warranty claims, on the basisthat they provided a service rather than a sale. The collective bene¢tsof having a blood supply overrode individual rights to damages. A test
case in 1977 con¢rmed that the plasma companies were covered bythese laws in the same way as the blood banks.16
It would be highly impractical for an individual to negotiate a bloodtransfusion for herself. Individuals do not have the time, money orexpertise to obtain blood and monitor its quality. Instead, they rely onthese organizations to do it for them. By doing so, they hope that theorganization involved will minimize the risks involved in the transaction on their behalf. When there is good information about risks,
this process is reasonably straightforward. Most blood is processedand delivered safely.
Di¤culties arise when unexpected events occur. In the 1970s, bloodcollection and transfusion had a number of risks associated with it, inparticular the prevalence of hepatitis in the supply. But these problems
were risks precisely because their probabilities were reasonably wellknown. In late 1982, when evidence began to show that a new disease
might be spreading through blood products, things became more complicated. There appeared to be a threat, but its seriousness was di¤cult
to measure. In such conditions, risk cannot easily be assessed. Instead,the blood industry was faced with real uncertainties about what wasgoing on.17 Despite this, the blood organizations were nevertheless537
obliged to make decisions, and act on the basis of the information they
had. I o¡er an explanation for why, when they were faced with thesame uncertainties and armed with the same information, the bloodbanks and the plasma companies reacted in di¡erent ways.
At ¢rst blush, it seems that the blood banks reacted very badly: they
played down the extent of the risk, they claimed that the evidence did
not show conclusively that HIV was a blood-borne disease, and theyrefused to screen out potentially infected donors. By contrast, theplasma companies accepted that there was a good chance that HIV
was being transmitted by their products, they moved very quickly toswitch the source of their supply, and introduced new methods toinactivate viruses in plasma derivatives. But these positive moves were
mitigated by decisions to keep older product batches on the market,
and commercial plasma ended up infecting more people than did
donated blood. Both the banks and the companies fell, but at di¡erent
hurdles.
Organizations, risks, and disasters
There is a huge literature on the AIDS epidemic, but almost none of
it deals with the blood industry. Relevant commentaries tend to fall
into one of two categories: either they ignore the distinction between
the commercial and non-commercial parts of the system or, with thebene¢t of hindsight, they tell the story in a whiggish way, with those
who were in the right cast as heroes from the beginning.18 Sapolksy
and Boswell's brief characterization of the structural di¡erences between the banks and the companies stands out as a rare attempt to
explain their di¡erent reactions.19 They argue that the plasma companies reacted better because they were market-driven organizations witha competitive interest in selling a demonstrably safer product, whereas
the blood banks wished merely to protect their quiet monopolies. This
goes some of the way toward a satisfactory explanation. But Sapolsky
and Boswell tend to argue for the general superiority of markets, muchas Titmuss supported the opposite view.
A richer theoretical perspective is available. In recent years, social
scientists have paid increasing attention to the ways individuals andorganizations manage risk, and respond to disasters. This work has
yielded a body of case-studies and concepts that I draw on here. In
doing so, I also argue that the particular characteristics of the blood

538
industry can help us sharpen our general theories of organizational
responses to uncertainty.
The literature in this ¢eld can roughly be divided into three varieties.20
The ¢rst kind focuses on individual risk assessment and the social
construction of risk objects. Experimental work by Kahneman andTversky (and others) shows that individuals are not good judges ofrisk. If given choices between outcomes, with probabilities attached,people do not calculate expected values as decision theory says theyshould. Instead of doing a straightforward calculation, they draw onrules of thumb (``heuristics'') that systematically bias their choices.21
This experimental work shows how individuals can be made to misperceive risks in di¡erent ways. Sociologists taking up this perspective
became interested in what happened outside of laboratory settings. In
particular, they were interested in why some risks were perceived assuch and others were not.22 The question here is why particular ``risk
objects'' ^ seat belts on school buses, drunk drivers, tamper-proof
medicine bottles ^ emerge from an ocean of potential candidates to besocially constructed as real dangers. In general, the risks studied aresmall. Often, the research question is precisely why people bother toworry about them at all.
At the other end of the scale are studies of organizational responses tolarge disasters. Here the catastrophe has already occurred and what'sinteresting is how quickly the organization in charge reacts, whether it
acts in a competent manner, and whether it learns from the experience.
In the face of an obvious disaster ^ the Bhopal accident, for instance,or the Exxon Valdez oil spill ^ we ¢nd that organizations tend to be
slower to react and less £exible than they should be.23
The AIDS disaster re£ects aspects of both these problems, but falls
somewhere in between them. The blood industry had to decide whether
the data they had meant a real ``risk object'' existed, and they had toreact to a disaster as it happened. But the data were not good, and thecatastrophe occurred silently and in slow-motion. The blood industry
was not so much constructing a risk object or reacting to an accident,
as deciding whether a disaster was happening around them.
This brings us to the third variety of research in this area, the study of
how organizations continuously manage risk and uncertainty. Whenan organization knows the probability that some future event will
occur, it deals in risk. Risks can be insured against or otherwise

539
planned for. When outcomes are known to be possible but there is little
or no information about the probabilities involved, an organization is
simply uncertain about the the future. Research and theory suggestthat organizations (and institutions more generally) are important toquestions of risk and uncertainty for three reasons. First, the publicdoes not construct the risk objects they worry about, organizations do.
Organized interests ``devote sustained attention to constructing facts
and machines, laws and regulations, organizations and management
systems, risk objects and networks for controlling them.'' 24 Second, as
well as dealing with risk, organizations are complex systems that produce their own risks and uncertainties in the course of their day-to-day
operations.25 Third, the most common reason o¡ered for organizational failure or inadequate response ^ human error ^ is hopelessly
inadequate when it comes to explaining the way an organization behaved before and after a disaster.26
The sociology of risk and uncertainty, then, focuses on discovering``how organizational interests in£uence information classi¢cation andinterpretation, how information is used by responsible organizational
elites and by contending elites within organizations, the degree towhich technical elites and managerial elites are autonomous or interdependent and the symbolic roles of technical information.'' 27
The blood industry's information order
It is easy to say that interests are important, or that the relationships
between organizational elites matter. We need to be more speci¢c, boththeoretially and empirically. In explaining the decisions of the bloodbanks and plasma companies, I draw on Carol Heimer's concept ofa ``negotiated information order'' to show how structural interests,
exchange relationships, and organizational ties shaped the decisions
that the blood industry made about AIDS.28
Heimer studied how oil rigs in the Norwegian re¢ning industry getinsured. Drilling for oil in the North Sea is dangerous. As a relatively
new enterprise, ``experience-based information, usually the basis for
decision making in marine insurance, was unavailable ... there were nodata about what the losses were likely to be.'' 29 To turn these uncertainties into insurable risks, the insurers and drillers developed a setof standards and routines for evaluating the information they had.
Following Feldman and March, Heimer points out that the standards

540
for knowing something to be true vary by institutional setting: ``[W]henseveral actors are required to carry out [a] decision, then the problem
is not so much to get evidence to answer the question, but to get
information that everyone concerned will agree is evidence. That is,
the information needs to be socially su¤cient as well as technicallysu¤cient.'' 30 The ``negotiated information order'' is the set of criteria
for the social su¤ciency of information. It is partly determined by theinterests and bargaining power of the participating organizations.
Heimer's re¢ners and insurers had a well-worked-out set of rules, astable information order. This was partly because they were oriented
toward solving the problem of insurance from the beginning. In thecase of the blood supply, the blood banks and plasma companies had
to negotiate an information order on the £y, as they gradually becameaware of the uncertainties they faced. The result was open con£ict overthe social su¤ciency of the data they had. As we shall see, some players
could look at the available information about transfusion AIDS andsay ``How many more cases did they need?'' whereas others just saw``i¡y'' cases and ``soft and squiggly data.'' 31 The decision process ^ andthe resulting information order ^ was shaped by the interests of those
involved. It is not obvious what those interests were. What led theblood banks and plasma companies to act as they did? I argue thatthree factors were decisive: the external dependencies of the major
players, the exchange relations that these dependencies were embeddedin, and the organizational ties that linked the industry to other interested groups.
External dependencies
As I have said, we can think of the blood banks and the plasmacompanies as organizations that mediate between suppliers and recipients of blood and blood products, calculating risks and dealing
with uncertainty as they go. When a problem like AIDS comes along,the organization needs criteria to evaluate it. One option is to understand it in terms of its possible e¡ects on suppliers and recipients. If
there is a con£ict of interest between these groups, an organization will
move to protect the constituency it is externally dependent upon.
Social structural relations of relative power and dependency condition
the interests of the organization, and valuable or important relations
will be better attended to.32

541
The blood banks and plasma companies had di¡erent dependencies.
For the banks, suppliers were relatively more valuable than recipients.
Given a choice, blood bankers would much rather have a new supplierthan a new transfusion recipient. Suppliers are relatively rare. Recipientsare all too common. Given the same choice, plasma companies wouldmuch rather have a new recipient than a new supplier. In cases where
the organization is caught in a con£ict of interest between suppliers
and recipients, it will tend to side with the constituency most valuable
to it. The blood banks had a hard time ¢nding and keeping donors, butthey had plenty of recipients for these gifts at the other end. The plasmacompanies had a more or less stable population of recipients ^ determined in part by largely uncontrollable factors like the prevalence ofhemophilia ^ that was much smaller than the population of potential
suppliers. Their interests pointed to di¡erent constituencies.
Exchange relations
Interests are generally understood as forces that striaghtforwardly inform decisions. The concept of external dependence is a useful way tograsp the structural basis of organizational interests. But I argue that,in this case, the exchange relationships that linked organizations totheir suppliers and recipients in£uenced their actions independently of
their interests. The external dependencies were embedded in a set ofnorms and expectations of exchange that either dampened or exacerbated them. In our case, the organization structurally dependent upon
suppliers obtained units of blood as voluntary gifts. By contrast, theorganization structurally dependent upon recipients contracted with
its suppliers and sold its products in a competitive market. The social
obligation of the blood banks to their suppliers reinforced their dependency. If nothing else, Titmuss showed that making blood a gift
tends to sacralize it, placing the receiver in a debt of gratitude to the
supplier. The Red Cross had drawn on this powerful cultural notion ofgift-giving for years, in an e¡ort to create a moral community ofdedicated givers. The blood banks joined them after 1974. Having a
gift relationship with their suppliers made it very di¤cult for the bloodbanks to treat them in certain ways, including rejecting their gift or
directly questioning its provenance. No such bonds existed between theplasma companies and their suppliers or recipients. In the case ofplasmapheresis, contract and payment de¢ne and discharge the obligations of the transaction, leaving all parties free of any further responsibilities.

542
I argue that the consequences of each organization's structural dependencies were channeled through the exchange relations it had withthose it dealt with. This is an important part of what it means to say
economic interests and actions are socially embedded.33 Suppliers canmerely be suppliers, or they can be donors. Recipients can be patientsor customers, and so on. When it comes to understanding why
particular decisions were made, the structural dependencies and theexchange relations are analytically separable from one another, andhave independent e¡ects.
If we did not make this distinction, we might think at that the bloodbanks' supply pool was small simply because they did not pay forblood, whereas the reverse was true for plasma companies. This isincorrect, for two reasons. First, we are concerned here with therelative importance of the supply and demand populations in eachcase, not their absolute size. In absolute terms, more people donate
blood than are paid for plasma. Second, imagine that only a tiny
percentage of the population were physically able to donate plasma,
whereas a large number of people actually needed it. (This might betrue locally in times of war, or after a natural disaster, for example.)In this case plasma delivery organizations would be externally dependent upon suppliers regardless of whether they paid those who
showed up at the hospitals. Conversely, if donating blood was very
easy, and not many people needed it very often, then even a non-pro¢torganization would be more dependent upon recipients than suppliers
for its survival.34
The blood banks and plasma companies were externally dependent
on their respective suppliers and recipients. This dependency mainlyde¢ned their interests, but was itself embedded in a social relationship,in this case either gift-giving or market pricing. The structural and thesocial relationship were closely related, and variation in the one would
most likely a¡ect the other. But they remain separable, and need notpush in the same direction. Embeddedness is the further shaping ofstructurally-driven interests and goals by social relations and expectations.
Organizational ties
Finally, the blood banks and plasma companies were themselves
situated in important relationships with other organizations. These543
include government agencies, health authorities, the medical profession and groups representing suppliers and recipients. In each case,the kind of relationship that exists will a¡ect how the organizationinterprets new information. I focus on two organizations that signi¢cantly a¡ected responses in each case. The blood banks' decisions werein£uenced by their relationship with gay rights groups and the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC).35 Links to the medical profession and the
National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) were both important in thecase of the plasma companies. In the former case, the blood banks'
attitude toward gay rights groups and the CDC tended to encourage
the conservative and defensive stance they were already inclined to take.
In the latter, the initially positive response of the plasma companies
tended to be signi¢cantly watered down by the mediating in£uence ofphysicians and the NHF.
Data sources
The data for this article come mainly from an archive held at thelibrary of the National Research Council (NRC) in Washington, D.C.
In the wake of the HIV disaster, activists and critics of the blood andplasma industry campaigned for a full Senate investigation of the HIV
diaster. This demand was denied. Instead, in 1994 the Government
directed the Institute of Medicine to investigate the matter. They held
some public hearings and invited interested parties to submit arguments and information to them. However, they conducted all theirinterviews with blood industry executives in private. In addition tointerviews, they obtained access to internal memos, the minutes ortranscripts of meetings, and other previously con¢dential documents.
The committee published its report in 1995.
The archive at the NRC contains copies of all of the documents
received by the committee, as well as the notes made during face-toface or telephone interviews with the principal players. These notes are
not transcripts, though they often contain verbatim statements frominterviewees along with summaries, paraphrases, and observations by
the interviewer. Apart from the committee's own report, these data
have not been analyzed before now. It is the best available window into
the events of the period.36
The bulk of the information in the NRC archives concerns the internal
workings of the Red Cross, the blood banks, plasma companies, and544
the National Hemophilia foundation. In addition to these data, I also
draw on the o¤cial transcript of the public hearings held by thecommittee in September of 1994. This meeting heard evidence fromthe victims of the disaster, mainly hemophiliacs and their families.37
The blood banks: Defending suppliersThis was how things stood in 1981. In the case of non-pro¢t bloodbanks with voluntary donors, the recipient bore the risk of receiving
dirty blood. The recipient trusted the bank to minimize that risk, but
the bank bore no liability for passing contaminated products to therecipient. The law said blood was a service, not a product, and thebanks could not be sued for supplying bad blood. Strictly speaking, thesupplier bore no risk either. Blood is a gift that is safe to donate, anddonors are not culpable for any poisoned gifts they may hand over.
Of course, the blood banks had no interest in actually killing theirrecipients, so they tried to ensure a safe supply. There was a problem
with transfusion hepatitis that was controllable but could not be
eliminated. The banks were both externally dependent upon their donors and obliged to them for their gift. Only about eight percent ofeligible donors give blood in any one year, and the number of regulardonors is a much smaller number again.38 The gay community was
known to supply good donors, having been drawn into the system in
the 1970s during the e¡ort to develop a vaccine for hepatitis B.39 This
meant that, in the case of the blood banks, the risk-bearers (recipientsof transfusions) were di¡erent from the people the blood banks were
obliged to and reliant upon (blood donors). This imbalance had serious
consequences for recipients.
If they are to deal with uncertainty at all, organizations need information about what is happening. There are two important facts about the£ow of information in this case. First, we know what information wasavailable at various times during the disaster. Second, we also knowthat all the organizations involved got this information at the sametime ^ and often at the same meeting. This means we can be sure that itwas not simply that some organizations were better at gathering news
than others. Rather, they processed the same information in di¡erent
ways ^ why there were di¡erences is what needs to be explained.40
Evidence of blood-borne AIDS transmission began to appear in December 1981.41 A small number of hemophiliacs were found to have the545same sort of immune-suppressive disorder that had been seen inhomosexuals and recent Haitian immigrants. By August or September of 1982, epidemiologists at the Centers for Disease Control weresu¤ciently convinced that people were being infected by transfusions
to suggest the blood banks not accept high-risk donors. In December
1982, the ¢rst fully documented case of AIDS by transfusion wasreported. Bruce Evatt, an epidemiologist with the CDC, began topresent the data he had collected to various interested parties, including the Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) of the Food andDrug Administration (FDA). On January 4th 1983, the CDC held apublic meeting at their headquarters in Atlanta. Representatives attended from the FDA, NHF, the National Institutes of Health, theNational Gay Task Force, plasma fractionators, and blood suppliers.
At the meeting, Bruce Evatt and James Curran presented their dataand conclusions about the new disease and made a number of recommendations. Evatt had data on seven cases of transfusion AIDS, cases
where it seemed that the victims (for example, small children) could
only have contracted the disease through blood transfusions they hadreceived. On the basis of these cases, the CDC recommended thatblood banks and plasma fractionators screen out homosexual donors
and implement a surrogate test for the virus they believed must be thecause of AIDS.42
The organizations involved now had to decide what to do with thisinformation. When asked about it during the 1994 investigations, those
who attended turned out to have widely di¡ering recollections of the
conduct of the meeting, the e¡ectiveness of Evatt's presentation, andthe strength of his data. Evatt himself remembers being ``stunned anddepressed'' by the response he received.43
Blood bank representatives reacted by denying that the evidence
was conclusive. Dr Aaron Kellner, President of the New York Blood
Center, said ``There are at most three cases of AIDS from blood
donation and the evidence on two of these cases is very soft.'' 44 A
program of donor screening would cost money, and false positives
would mean that a lot of good blood would be thrown away. Dr Joseph
Bove, director of the blood bank at Yale University Hospitals and chairof the FDA committee on blood safety, said, ``We are contemplating
all these wide-ranging measures because one baby got AIDS after atransfusion from someone who later came down with AIDS and there
may be a few other cases.'' 45 Later, blood bankers admitted that there546
was a risk, but claimed that it was less than one-in-a-million transfusions.
Note that claims of this sort, about the likelihood of contracting AIDS
through transfusion, were not based on statistical risk assessment inany formal sense. There weren't enough data to do this kind of analysis. In an interview in 1994, Jay Epstein of the FDA noted in retrospectthat those who thought the objective risk was low had ``no scienti¢cbasis for that belief .... Instead of operating under the assumption ofan unknown risk, they operated under a low risk assumption.'' Dr.
June Osborn attended the January 4th meeting. She noted in her interview that she did not believe a formal model of cost versus risk wasformulated until after 1985, when the ELISA test for HIV came into
use.46 Although the vocabulary was the same, the language of risk wassocially rather than technically grounded. Mary Douglas has madethis argument in her work on risk and culture. As she suggests, phrases
like ``bene¢ts and risks'' were used by the blood industry ``in an antiquemode ... to legitimate policy or discredit it.'' Douglas argues that ``[t]heneutral vocabulary of risk is all we have for making a bridge between
the known facts of the world and the construction of a moral community.'' 47
In January of 1983, the blood banks issued a statement saying they did
not want to ask people about high-risk sexual practices. They had
ethical objections to limiting voluntary donation from high-risk
groups, saying that ``direct or indirect questions about a donor's sexual
preference are inappropriate.'' 48 They did encourage autologous donations, especially in elective surgery.49
The overriding reaction, as we would expect, was to deny that there
was a problem with the supply. The January statement stressed that``the possibility of blood born transmission [was] still unproven.'' 50 In
private, the banks were more forthright in their opposition. The banks
later added questions about AIDS symptoms to their standard listof questions before donation. However, they were against directly
questioning donors about their sexual behavior, and neither did they
recommend surrogate testing. An internal American Red Cross memo
circulated in February of 1983 shows how the o¤cials in the voluntary
sector were thinking at this time:547
Relevant facts are: (1) the focal group of concern is the gays, we are not likely
to incur much resistance with respect to elimination of any other group; ...
(3) homosexuals and bisexuals constitute up to 25% of the donor
population ... [male homosexuals] probably equal 15% or less of the donor
population; ... the scienti¢c basis for elimination of gays [from the donorpool] does not exist at present.51

Their refusal to test for co-indicators of AIDS indicates that the banks
were reluctant to take the time and money to question the quality of
the gift that was being given them. External dependence on their
suppliers meant that they were particularly aware of the implicationsof screening out homosexuals. The well-organized gay rights lobby saw
the question as one of personal autonomy. They argued that the evidence did not warrant what would amount to outright discrimination
against homosexuals. The blood banks tended to agree. The author of
the same memo says ``[e]thically, I don't think sexual preference is theproper business of anyone (or any institution).'' 52 This kind of concern
from the blood banks was con¢ned to homosexuals, however. Groups
with no representative organizations were more easily removed fromthe donor pool, although even this took some time. Prisoners andHaitians were excluded on the grounds that they had a high rate ofhepatitis, which was the most reliable surrogate marker for AIDS at
the time. Male homosexuals had a higher rate of HBV than both thesegroups, but were not excluded.
The blood banks began with the view that a volunteer blood donor is analtruistic person who, despite the inconvenience, takes the time to donate
blood. The idea of confronting such a donor with a prying and personalquestion about his sexual behavior seemed reprehensible and potentiallyvery damaging to donor movivation .... In addition, the blood banks perceived that the gay community might not co-operate if gay donors were
rejected on the basis of sexual orientation and, furthermore, that they might
donate on purpose out of spite.53

Beyond their relationship with donors, the way the banks evaluated theavailable evidence was further in£uenced by their relationship to otherorganizations in their environment. These groups had their own interests, which might be to the detriment of the banks and their donors.
The ARC's own analysis (in an internal memo from January 1983) of
the motives of the CDC is particularly striking:Even if the evolving evidence of an epidemic wanes CDC is likely to continue
to play up AIDS ^ it has long been noted that CDC increasingly needs amajor epidemic to justify its existence. This is especially true in the light of548
Federal funding cuts .... In short, we can not depend on CDC to provide
scienti¢c, objective, unbias [sic] leadership on the topic. However, because
CDC will continue to push for more action from the blood banking community, the public will believe there is a scienti¢c basis and means forelimininating gays.54

Similarly, at a meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee(BPAC) in February 1983, the participants heard a summary of thecases of transfusion AIDS that the CDC had identi¢ed. This evidence
was given by Dennis Donohue, the Director of the FDA's Division of
Blood and Blood Products. Donohue described the case reports as``very soft and squiggly data.'' 55 When asked whether the cases were
accepted as valid evidence by the CDC, Joseph Bove (the Chairperson)
responded, ``Yes. Oh, my goodness, they are hanging everybody on thebasis of it ... [these cases] are all, you know, very i¡y.'' 56 The banks'
assessment of risk was strongly conditioned by existing, institutionalized relationships with suppliers and other organizations. Their attitude was that if you looked a gift horse in the mouth, not only were you
being churlish, you risked having your nose bitten as well. The bloodbanks chose to play down the problem and defend their suppliers'
interests as their own. Unwilling to violate or question the gift relationship that gave them their blood, they acted as if rea¤rming their trustin donors was the same thing as reducing the risk borne by recipients.
The plasma companies: Defending recipients
As was the case with blood, plasma recipients bore the risk of exchange
and trusted the company to minimize it. The same liability laws applied. But in this case, the risk bearers were the more valuable groupfrom the organization's point of view. The market for plasma wascompetitive, and consumers might easily have bought a competitor's
alternative. The plasma companies also had an interest in keeping their
suppliers, of course, but this was largely solved by paying them fortheir time and e¡ort.
The plasma companies had the same information available to them as
the blood banks, were in the same legal position, and were faced withmuch the same range of choices. They reacted di¡erently. From December 1982, Alpha Theraputics began questioning donors directly.
They excluded Haitians, homosexual males, and IV drug users fromtheir supply population. A memo circulated to their a¤liates identi¢ed
the relevant risk groups and ordered them excluded from the company's

549
supply population. The memo said, ``While we recognize the potential
for the rejection of long term donors, we strongly believe that the lossof these donors is more than o¡set by the protection of our patients.'' 57
This move was strongly opposed by the blood banks and the gay
community. Nevertheless, the plasma companies ignored this opposition.58 They had no moral commitment to their suppliers.
After the January 1983 meeting in Atlanta, the American Blood
Resources Organization (the representative body of the plasma companies) issued recommendations about donor screening and deferral
to reduce the risk of AIDS. In addition, news of AIDS in the blood
supply caused research into viral inactivation methods to be accelerated. All of the U.S. plasma fractionators applied to the FDA to licensetreatment methods between June 1982 and December 1983. All were
producing heat- or detergent-treated antihemophilic factor (AHF)
concentrate by February 1984.
Although the businesslike exchange relationships with suppliers andrecipients initially pushed the plasma companies to protect their markets, more than half of the sixteen thousand or so hemophiliacs in the
United States contracted AIDS from contaminated plasma products.
There are a number of reasons for this. Research into ways to killhepatitis viruses in AFH concentrate began in the 1970s, but subsequently stalled. Plasma fractionators had the potential to develop viralinactivation methods prior to 1980, but failed to do so because most of
the people they were selling their product to ^ hemophiliacs ^ werealready HBV antibody positive. The bene¢ts of AHF concentrate weregreat, and their target population was already infected with a chronic,
but manageable, disease. The plasma companies assumed that nofurther protection would be necessary:
Hepatitis was viewed as an acceptable risk for individuals with hemophilia
because it was considered a medically manageable complication of a verye¡ective treatment for hemophilia.59

In this case, the plasma fractionators fail on the same grounds as the
blood banks. They had a set of known costs and bene¢ts that they used
to guide the marketing and further development of their products. But
they assumed that HBV was the only virus in the plasma supply andthat, seeing as most of their customers had it, there was no need todevelop a process to eliminate it from AHF concentrate supplies. They
contrasted the large bene¢ts brought by their products to the manage-

550
able cost of hepatitis, with the emphasis strongly on the bene¢ts. Whenevidence about AIDS began to mount, the feeling in the industry wasthat, whatever it was, the costs brought by this new problem could not
outweigh the bene¢ts of Factor VIII and related products.
At a BPAC meeting in December of 1982, a representative of Cutter
Biologics argued that ``we need to keep the life-sustaining signi¢canceof this product to the patient, and the lack of clear-cut risk based on
currently available information, foremost in our collective minds.'' 60
The anticipated arrival of a HBV vaccine added to this reluctance(the ¢rst one became available in 1982), because uninfected people
would be protected against it in that way, rather than by some new
manufacturing process. There were no market incentives to pursue theresearch. No one seemed to countenance the possibility that otherserious pathogens or latent agents (like Creutzfeld^Jakob disease orHIV) might also be present in untreated AHF concentrate. Once
AIDS appeared, the plasma companies were able to move quickly andin the right direction to defend their market, but by then most of thehemophiliacs were infected anyway.
The market mechanism failed to deliver a safe product to recipients
once it became available. By market logic, the new product shouldhave had a distinct competitive advantage over the old. But aspects of
the organizational environment de£ected the e¡ects of the market.
Despite having the newer, safer product available on the market,
physicians were reluctant to prescribe it to their patients. The Instituteof Medicine reports that hemophiliacs who came to their doctors
worried about catching AIDS from AHF concentrate were reassured
in spite of the evidence.61 The plasma companies had reacted to theinformation by developing a new product, but doctors tended to playdown the dangers. They were happy with the therapeutic e¡ects of
AHF, which outweighed any other worries:[P]hysicians tended to avoid, downplay, or deny the possible risk associatedwith the use of blood and blood products, one of the case studies revealed
that physicians often responded to the initial questions of the patients withreassurances that the risk was not serious, that the patient was overreacting,that there are always risks, and that patients and doctors should wait and see
what happens ... physicians emphasized the known bene¢ts of AHF concentrate and underweighed the risks of AIDS, which were still uncertain.62

The role of the plasma companies was further complicated by theirrelationship with the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF). The

551
NHF ``served a crucial function as and intermediary between thesources of scienti¢c and medical information i.e., CDC, FDA, plasma
fractionation industry), and the consumers of that information.'' 63
The NHF was funded in part by the plasma companies. The Instituteof Medicine reports that ``the NHF's credibility ... was eventuallyseriously compromised by its ¢nancial connections to the plasma fractionation industry.'' 64 In a series of newsletters, the NHF reassured
both doctors and patients that they could safely continue treatment
with older batches of AHF concentrate, and other plasma derivatives
that later turned out to have been infected. In July of 1982 ``Hemophilia Newsnotes'' stressed that ``it is important to note that at thistime the risk of contracting this immuno-suppressive agent [AIDS] is
minimal.'' 65
As with the blood banks, technically su¤cient data to make this sort ofstatement about risk were not available. The NHF took a conservativeline throughout 1982 and 1983. Its Medical and Scienti¢c Advisory
Council (MASAC) did eventually recommend, at a meeting in Octoberof 1983, that blood products not be collected from homosexuals andother at-risk groups. But (like the plasma companies) they continued
to use the good risk-bene¢t data they had about Hepatitis as though it
took care of uncertainty about AIDS. The NHF took the same stanceas the plasma companies: the bene¢ts that plasma concentrates
brought to hemophiliacs were just too large to be outweighed byinformation about a new disease. At worst, AIDS would probably
be like Hepatitis ^ endemic, but manageable. At their October 1983
meeting, the MASAC noted with approval that data from a CDC/NHF study showed the average life expectancy of hemophiliacs tohave risen from 11 years in 1968 to 20 years in 1983. ``These ¢ndings,''
they commented, ``put into good perspective the importance of the useof [plasma] concentrates vs the small risk of AIDS.'' 66 The newsletter
was still urging a conservative approach as late as January of 1984. As
a result of this reassurance, a variety of plasma products were kept on
the market for longer than they should have been, and many morehemophiliacs contracted HIV than might otherwise have been thecase.
The relationship of the plasma companies to their recipients wasmediated by both the medical profession and the National Hemophilia
Foundation. Both of these organizations underestimated the e¡ectsof AIDS. Doctor^patient and buyer^seller relationships were interdependent, and the representative bodies of the plasma companies and552
their recipeints were also closely interwoven, in this case with negativee¡ects.
Conclusion
With hindsight, there is no doubt that there was a right way and awrong way to react to the information about AIDS that began toappear from June 1981. Decisions about donor screening, risk assessment and patient treatment all seem obvious. But the reactions of theblood banks and plasma companies cannot be rightly understood fromthis point of view. What hindsight grants us is accurate risk assessment,
precisely what those involved did not have. What we can now see asrisks were then simply uncertainties. To take a risk means to place abet, and in order to place a bet you must know the odds. From thepoint of view of the organizations involved at the time, bets had to beplaced, but the odds were not obvious. Had AIDS turned out to be anon-disaster like Swine Flu, the blood banks would have appeared
prudent and the companies foolish.67
Given this state of a¡airs, the forces pushing on the decision-making
process are sociologically interesting. In this article I have o¡ered an
explanation for why one set of organizations rather than anothertended to do (what in retrospect turned out to be) the right thing, andwhy neither was ultimately successful. I have argued that in 1982 theblood banks and plasma companies found themselves living in an
unusually uncertain world. The result was a con£ict over the quality of
data, the credibility of sources, and the standards for evaluation, as
the organizations involved tried to construct a viable information
order. Unusually, in this case the standards of evidence had to besu¤cient not to judge the riskiness of future projects, but to establish
the existence of an ongoing disaster.
Decisions were shaped by structurally-based interests, morally-weighted
exchange relationships, and inter-organizational ties. The conjunctionof these contingent relationships led the blood banks to side with their
suppliers and the plasma companies with their recipients. External
dependencies and moral obligations combined to in£uence reactions
to the new information. This set of relationshiops was itself situated in
an extended organizational environment that further a¡ected how thebanks and plasma companies behaved. A number of forces pushed
against one another. Things might easily have been di¡erent. Had their553
external dependencies been di¡erent, the plasma companies might
have moved to defend the wrong group. Had their ties to other organizations been di¡erent, the blood banks might have found it easier to
get important information from their donors. Had their donors been
paid suppliers, the banks might have found it easier to eliminate someof them from the supply pool.
Although I have not argued for it here, it seems likely that blood
suppliers in other countries, particularly in Europe, faced similar uncertainties and obligations as they dealt with AIDS. Future researchmight examine how reactions to uncertainty in these countries wereshaped by similar factors to those identi¢ed here. Blood is an unusual
good, deeply human and culturally resonant, yet also a raw material ina sophisticated production and distribution system. The blood supply
provides a Mertonian ``strategic research site'' for the study of sociallyembedded economic relations. I have argued that, in the United States,
the contrast between donors and sellers was key. But other culturalfeatures might well play a role. The moral community bound by ``common blood'' is not just a vague idea. In France, for example, it was oneof the key considerations that prevented the government from using
the (American) ELISA test for AIDS, a decision that led to widespread
infection in the French supply pool and the imprisonment of bloodindustry executives. Three government o¤cials were tried for manslaughter: former prime minister Laurent Fabius, social a¡airs minister Georgina Dufoix, and health minister Edmond Hervë. The casewas heard March 1999. Fabius and Dufoix were aquitted; Hervë wasconvicted but given no sentence.
Titmuss was right to say that exchange relationships have importantconsequences for the blood supply. But, except contingently, they are
not the mechanism by which good or bad blood is brought into thesystem. In fact, there is no such mechanism driving things by itself.
Rather, a variety of theoretically distinct factors combine to produce
the e¡ects we observe. Although we can identify the relevant components in theory, it is an open question how things play out empirically.
The notion of ``embeddedness'' sensitizes us to the important e¡ects
that exchange relations can have on the process of risk assessment.
The evidence shows that the reactions of the di¡erent actors to a seriesof external events were strongly in£uenced by these relations, in addition to their ``interests'' more narrowly conceived. The external dependencies faced by the blood banks and plasma companies wereembedded in altruistic and pro¢t-seeking exchange relationships that554
were an important part of their identity. These in turn were set in thecontext of both wider organizational environments and cultural ideas
about gift giving and social obligations. These factors strongly in£uenced how organizational actors negotiated standards of proof, despite
a generally shared commitment to objectivity and scienti¢c integrity.
The continuous danger of new uncertainties and the persistence of
these institutional arrangements makes it very unlikely that any single
aspect of organizational form or culture can reliably ensure something
like the safe and e¤cient supply of blood.
Acknowledgments
I thank Paul DiMaggio, Paul Starr, Viviana Zelizer, Miguel Centeno,
and Laurie Paul for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of theis article. Thanks also to anonymous Theory and Society
reviewers for a number of decisive suggestions.

Notes
1. Carol Heimer, ``Allocating Information Costs in a Negotiated Information Order:
Interorganizational Constraints on Decision Making in Norwegian Oil Insurance,''
Administrative Science Quarterly 30 (1985): 395^417.
2. It has recently been re-issued in an updated edition that contains several newpapers (by others) rea¤rming the importance and validity of the original argument. Its place in the canon of economic sociology is assured, and its claims about
the social aspects of market exchanges are regularly and favorably cited. It also hada remarkable in£uence on blood policy. See Richard Titmuss, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy, expanded and updated edition (NewYork: New Press, 1997).
3. Harvey Sapolsky and Stan N. Finkelstein, ``Blood Policy Revisited ^ A New Lookat The Gift Relationship,'' The Public Interest 46 (Winter 1977): 15^27.
4. Institute of Medicine Report: Committee to study HIV Transmission throughBlood and Blood Products, HIV and the Blood Supply: An Analysis of Crisis
Decisionmaking, L. Leveton, H. Sox, and M. Stoto, editors (Washington: National
Academy Press, 1995): 41 (hereafter IOMR).
5. Viviana Zelizer, ``Beyond the Polemics of the Market: Establishing a Theoreticaland Empirical Agenda,'' Sociological Forum 3 (1988): 614^634.
6. Zelizer, ``Beyond the Polemics,'' 622.
7. Mark Granovetter, ``Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem ofEmbeddedness,''American Journal of Sociology 91 (1985): 481^510.
8. Sapolsky and Finkelstein, ``Blood Policy Revisited''; A. J. Culyer, ``Blood andAltruism: An Economic Review,'' in David B. Johnson, editor, Blood Policy: Issues
and Alternatives (Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy

555

9.

10.
11.

12.
13.

14.
15.
16.

17.
18.

Research, 1976), 29^58; Rueben Kessel, ``Transfused Blood, Serum Hepatitis andthe Coase Theorem,'' in Johnson, Blood Policy, 183^207.
The Hepatitis family has grown steadily since the 1960s. Hepatitis A (HAV) is themildest form. It is spread orally. Although blood-borne transmission is possible, it
is very rare. What Titmuss called serum hepatitis is caused by the hepatitis B virus(HBV). The virus is spread through the blood supply and is very infectious. It was
discovered in 1965, and by 1968 a direct test (the hepatitis B surface antigen test)
was available. A vaccine for HBV did not become available until 1982. In 1977, thehepatitis Delta virus (HDV) was discovered. This is an incomplete RNA virus thatcan be transmitted only in the company of HBV. By the late 1970s, it became clearthat there was still another form of hepatitis being transmitted through the blood
supply. The virus causing this form was identi¢ed in 1989 and named hepatitis C(HCV).
Jennings, quoted in Kessel, ``Transfused Blood,'' 190.
Jane Allyn Piliavin and Peter L. Callero, Giving Blood: The Development of an
Altruistic Identity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 2; Piet
Hagen, Blood Transfusion in Europe: A White Paper (Strassbourgh: Council ofEurope), 87.
Zelizer, ``Beyond the Polemics,'' 629.
Properly speaking, there are three kinds of organization and two representative
bodies in this voluntary sector. The American Red Cross (ARC) is the largest.
Community blood banks operate on a smaller, locale scale. Hospital blood banks
collect blood for use only by their controlling hospital. The American Associationof Blood Banks (AABB) and the Council of Community Blood Centers (CCBC)
are the two representative groups. In the past, the ARC and the Blood Banks haddi¡ering views about how blood should be collected. The ARC has always promoted a voluntary, community-based approach. The blood banks used to advocatea (sometimes for-pro¢t) philosophy of individual responsibility, but are now much
more like the ARC. In this paper, references to ``the banks'' or ``the blood banks''
refer also to the ARC.
IOMR, 29.
IOMR, 31.
Pamela Westfall, ``Hepatitis, AIDS and the Blood Products Exemption from Strict
Products Liability in California: A Reassessment,'' in Hastings Law Journal 37(1986): 1101. Note that if liability falls anywhere, it falls on the blood banks andplasma companies. This is true even though blood banks sell blood to and patients
receive blood in hospitals. Hospitals may be liable for a whole variety of other riskyinteractions with patients, but the implicit contract for blood transfusions remains
between the patient and the blood bank. This article does not discuss the relationship between hospitals and the blood banks, chie£y for want of information. I
expect that, given that they are a captive market, the hospitals did not play a very
important role in the banks' calculations.
Jens Beckert, ``What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty andthe embeddedness of economic action,'' Theory and Society 25/6 (1996): 803^840.
For the former di¤culty, see Charles Perrow and Mauro F. Guillën, The AIDS
disaster (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), and Sandra Panem, The AIDS
Bureaucracy (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1988); for the latter, see
Randy Shilts, And the Band Played On: Politics, people and the AIDS epidemic(New York: St Martin's Press, 1987), especially 115^116, 160^163, 168^171, and220^226. Perrow and Guillën's valuable work is the only study of the blood supply

556

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

31.

32.
33.
34.

35.
36.

from the perspective of the sociology of organizations. Shilts's book is the standard
history of the period, but his focus is not on the blood suppliers as such.
Harvey M. Sapolsky and Stephen L. Boswell, ``The History of Transfusion AIDS:
Practice and Policy Alternatives,'' in Elizabeth Fee and Daniel M. Fox, editors,
AIDS: The Making of a Chronic Disease (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1992).
For reviews see Carol Heimer, ``Social Structure, Psychology and the Estimation of
Risk,''Annual Review of Sociology 14 (1988): 491^519, and Lee Clarke and James F.
Short, Jr, ``Social Organization and Risk: Some Current controversies,'' Annual
Review of Sociology 19 (1993): 375^399.
D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, ``Subjective Probability: A Judgement of Representativeness,'' Cognitive Psychology 3 (1982): 430^454. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, andA. Tversky, editors, Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
Joseph Gus¢eld, The Culture of Public Problems (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1981); R. Kasperson et al., ``The Social Ampli¢cation of Risk: A Conceptual
Framework,'' Risk Analysis 8 (1988): 177^187.
P. Shrivastava, Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis (Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger, 1987);
Lee Clarke, ``The Disquali¢cation Heuristic: When do Organizations Misperceive?''
Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 5 (1993): 289^312.
Stephen Hilgartner, ``The Social Construction of Risk Objects, or, how to Pry OpenNetworks of Risk,'' in James F. Short, Jr, and Lee Clarke, editors, Organizations,
Uncertainties and Risks (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), 51. Emphasis in original.
Charles Perrow, Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies (New York:
Basic Books, 1984).
Diane Vaughan, ``Autonomy, Interdependence and Social Control: NASA and theSpace Shuttle Challenger,''Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 225^257.
Clarke and Short, ``Social Organization and Risk,'' 395.
Heimer, ``Allocating Information Costs.''
Heimer, ``Allocating Information Costs,'' 398.
Heimer, ``Allocating Information Costs,'' 397; Martha S. Feldman and James G.
March, ``Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol,'' Administrative Science
Quarterly 26 (1981): 171^186.
``Bruce Evatt Interview Notes,'' NRC archive Box 2 Folder 25, Interview andconversation notes; transcript of BPAC Meeting, February 7^8 1983, NRC archive
Box 3, Tab 86, 46^81.
Je¡rey Pfe¡er and Gerald Salancik, The External Dependence of Organizations: A
Resource Dependence Perspective (New York: Harper & Row, 1978).
Granovetter, ``Economic Action and Social Structure.''If a voluntary organization can rely on a steady supply of contributions from thepublic, it will be structurally dependent on the recipients of its charity. The organization owes its existence to them. If the recipients no longer need help, then the
charity is threatened with death regardless of the number of people willing to
donate money to it. More often than not in such a situation, the organization ¢nds
a new group to assist. This is the well known phenomenon of goal succession.
The CDC is the organization responsible for monitoring mortality and morbidity
in the United States.
If a relevant quotation appears in the Institute of Medicine Report, I cite it fromthere rather than the original documents, for convenience. Otherwise, I provide a
direct reference to the archives.

557
37. Committee to study HIV transmission through blood products. Proceedings of apublic meeting held on September 12, 1994 in Washington D.C., U.S. Department ofCommerce, National Technical Information Service Record Locator, No. PB95^
142345.
38. Piliavin and Callero, Giving Blood, 1.
39. IOMR, 101^102, 104.
40. This is also true of outcomes: the information-base was the same and (in retrospect) the decisions made by the blood banks and the plasma companies ought tohave been about the same. Thus, our attention is focused on the reasons why thedecision processes within each organization produced di¡erent outcomes.
41. Randy Shilts, And the Band Played On: Politics People and the AIDS Epidemic(New York: St Martin's Press, 1987), 105.
42. At this time, HIV had yet to be discovered. The only way to test blood for the virus(assuming there was one) was to test it for surrogate markers, i.e., known items
reliably found in the blood of AIDS patients. A hepatitis B core antigen test was theearliest such test. In early 1983, the CDC believed that implementing this test would
detect 90 percent of donors with AIDS. See IOMR, p. 106.
43. ``Bruce Evatt Interview Notes,'' NRC archive Box 2 Folder 25, Interview andconversation notes.
44. IOMR, 221.
45. IOMR, 221.
46. June Osborn interview notes p. 2, NRC archive Box 2 Folder 25, ``Interview andConversation Notes.''
47. Mary Douglas, ``Risk and Justice,'' in Mary Douglas, Risk and Blame (New York:
Routledge, 1982), 22^37.
48. IOMR, 106.
49. In autologous donation, patients ``donate to themselves'' by building up a store of
their own blood prior to surgery. Autologous donations account for about 2 percent of the supply, as of 1995.
50. IOMR, 277.
51. IOMR, 285^289.
52. IOMR, 285.
53. IOMR, 111.
54. IOMR, 287. Emphasis in original.
55. Transcript of BPAC meeting, February 7^8, 1983, NRC archive Box 3, Tab 86.
Quotation from page 46.
56. Transcript of BPAC meeting, February 7^8, 1983, 46^48. In his interview with theInstitute of Medicine committee in 1994, Bove said he ``wanted to see the relationship between the transfusion patient and AIDS proven to be closer cause and e¡ect[sic] ^ that the recipient had no other risk factors and that the donor came downwith the disease; and that the donor gave twice and both the recipients came downwith AIDS. Now I know I was asking for too much. But the epidemologic data
were not good in 1983.'' ``Joseph Bove Interview Notes,'' NRC archive Box 2 Folder
25, Interview and Conversation Notes.
57. IOMR, 270.
58. My argument does not extend to the workings of the pharmaceutical companies
involved in searching out a cure for AIDS. The relationship of this set of organizations to voluntary organizations, persons with AIDS, and Federal agencies isdiscussed in Steven Epstein, 1996, Impure Science: AIDS, activism and the politics
of knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press).

558
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.

IOMR, 93.
NRC Archive, Transcript of BPAC Meeting, December 4th, 1982, 104.
IOMR, 169^207.
IOMR, 195^196.
IOMR, 172.
IOMR, 212.
IOMR, 265, emphasis in original.
``National Hemophilia Foundation Meeting Minutes, October 22nd, 1983,'' NRC
archive Box 3.
67. In 1976, on the basis of three cases of swine £u, millions of Americans were
vaccinated. More people died from the vaccine than the disease. The episode was ahuge embarrassment for the government and the CDC. For a full account, see
Diana Dutton, 1988, Worse than the Disease (New York: Cambridge University
Press).