Incorporation of the Bug Busting approach to head lice into clinical practice in school communities contributes to sustainable control whilst overcoming health inequalities in participating families.

In the 1970s Donaldson applied the principles of infectious disease surveillance to pediculosis capitis infestation with head lice. This provided a lasting insight into an effective strategy for prevention. Research in Teesside, UK, proved that the first step in breaking the chain of transmission is the engagement of parents in an intensive detection/treatment campaign. United action halved the infestation rate, even though failing lindane treatments were in use. Subsequently although effective malathion treatment was introduced, it became clear that the late detection of light cases of head lice still undermines eradication. This paper analyzes the development by the health charity, Community Hygiene Concern, of the Bug Busting programme based on this solid evidence. In the 1990s the charity solved the problem of detecting asymptomatic lice using a specially designed Bug Buster louse comb in wet, conditioned hair. It undertook the popularization of this method and the co-ordination of national detection days (Bug Busting Days) through primary schools. In 2004 this structured approach to prevention was adopted in Chester. It produced a 24% reduction in health authority spending on treatment products in the first year and appreciable savings in professional time. It is concluded that participation in the Bug Busting programme benefits community health providers and schools. Provision of dependable detection combs with the correct instructions to families at risk, empowers them to gain sustainable, cost-effective control of head lice.

In his editorial (October 2002 JRSM 1) Dr Beale proposes an incomplete solution. The universal vaccination idea is based on the view that the current conflict is caused by a few 'rotten apples' ('rogue states', etc.) bent on upsetting an otherwise perfect world. Is it not more 'scientific' and morally less repugnant to use some of the money which will be dedicated to rendering the good apples biologically immune, to sociological, psychological, political, linguistic, religious and conceptual research so that the reasons why people have become 'careless with their lives' can be understood? Have the human sciences also been thrown overboard?

In his editorial (October 2002 JRSM 1) Dr Beale proposes an incomplete solution. The universal vaccination idea is based on the view that the current conflict is caused by a few 'rotten apples' ('rogue states', etc.) bent on upsetting an otherwise perfect world. Is it not more 'scientific' and morally less repugnant to use some of the money which will be dedicated to rendering the good apples biologically immune, to sociological, psychological, political, linguistic, religious and conceptual research so that the reasons why people have become 'careless with their lives' can be understood? Have the human sciences also been thrown overboard?