Analyze

Addressing climate change in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais demands collaboration across traditional bureaucratic divisions. While the team officially tasked with devising climate plans falls under the purview of the Secretary of the Environment, their efforts to reduce vulnerability to climate change and support those already suffering its effects have brought them into many uneasy alliances. These efforts ranged from acquiring funding or technical support from European partners with fundamentally different views of environmental projection, to securing logistical aid from Civil Defense which was a part of the Mineiro military cabinet, to encouraging cooperation from the major economic institutions primarily focused around mining and agriculture. Working with these different groups necessitated that climate analysts become adept at shifting their rhetorical framing from audience to audience, but this work carried great ethical and practical risk. Were the climate scientists acting cynically when they adopted rhetoric they did not fully believe? Were they being naïve in trusting partners who may not genuinely value climate justice? What kinds of self-reflection might assist climate analysts and STS scholars in our efforts to grapple with the moral complexities of climate governance? 

Image Source: Ricardo Moraes/Reuters, "Deadly dam burst in Brazil prompts calls for stricter mining regulations," The Guardian, 10, November 2015.

Wald, Jonathan. 2023. "Beyond Cynicism and Naïveté: Ethical Complexities of Climate Governance." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

BIOETHNOGRAPHY: “Thus, instead of combining objects of inquiry (biology and culture), I conceived of bioethnography as combining two different methods for knowing the world (Mol 2002, 153)—ethnographic observation and biochemical sampling—in order to ask and answer research questions that could not be addressed through either method alone. This methodological focus involves exploring how our data collection and analysis might be shaped if we suspended the nature/culture binary” (Roberts, 2021, p. 2)

“bioethnography asks, what if we created numbers otherwise, upending the cooked data that reinforces inequality? In fact, bioethnography can enable us to identify structural forces, such as NAFTA and the global health apparatus itself, that are part of the bodily processes that make ill health. In other words, while we know that all data is cooked, it matters how it’s cooked.” (Roberts, 2021, p. 5)

Roberts describes their ongoing bioethnographic collaboration with a team of exposure scientists who are working in environmental engineering and health. Though ethnography is not easily enumerated, Roberts emphasizes that integrating it with quantitative data is worthwhile and makes for “better numbers”. As an example, Roberts describes 3 bioethnographic projects on neighborhoods, water distribution, and employment and chemical exposures. These projects were part of a longitudinal birth-cohort study in Mexico City called Early Life Exposures in Mexico to ENvironmental Toxicants (ELEMENT), created to understand the effects of early-life nutrition and exposure to toxicants (such as lead and phenols). Overtime, this project was expanded to include the study of new toxins (e.g. BPAS, mercury, and fluoride) and new health concerns (e.g. obesity, meopause, sleep).

Roberts’ focus on neighborhoods was produced from the ethnographic observation that neighborhood characteristics might influence exposure levels. Following this observation, Roberts’ and ELEMENT researchers sorted participants by neighborhood and identified significant differences in blood-lead levels. Additionally, Roberts applied previous ethnographic observation and scholarship to argue that high levels of toxicants like lead correlate with the capacity of neighborhoods to withstand other dangers, such as police violence. These findings prompted the development of two new bioethnographic project centered on water and the effect of neighborhood dynamics on health.

This registry allows for the tracking of the health effects of the 9/11 disaster. It is open to the public, where they can see the most common disorders and afflictions that those effected by 9/11 are dealing with today. The public can access this website and read up on the rates of lung infection, heart disease, PTSD, alcohol use, as well as the effect it has had on adolescent health. This registry was not only set up for the public use though, it is also used and produced by researchers. The researchers track the longterm health effects 9/11 has had on those exposed. The data also provides experts and researchers with the means to draw conclusions and analyses. Learning about the long term effects of 9/11 will raise awareness as well as allow for the understanding of how disasters of this caliber can effect those around it, in both long term and short term ways. 

Researchers use this system extensively in order to find correlations between 9/11 and different repercussions as well as to collect and gather data about those who were exposed during 9/11. A unique aspect of this registry is that it contains more participants than any other registry of its kind, making it a great tool for researchers. The public also utilizes this information to study their own forms of various research as well as to gain knowledge on possible afflictions related to the event. The registry also follows up with participants with interviews and matches with other health registries. The website also offers resources to researchers to learn more about the research at hand and where to find other published reports about 9/11.

The registry is funded with federal tax dollars. New York City itself has funded specific projects for the registry research, for example the respiratory study of Lower Manhattan. The registry is hosted by NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene but is mostly paid for by federal taxes. 

As mentioned, this site offers data on long term health afflictions of those exposed to 9/11. Yet the site also offers information about the participants in the registry. How they were selected, how many people are entered in the registry and where their exact locations were during the attacks. On top of providing data on the participants, the site also offers information on funding, as well as access to annual reports addressing the health impacts of 9/11. The site also gives access to those that the registry works with and collaborates with. The history behind the registry and the attacks are also provided. Sources for all data and a full bibliography is also available along with information about legal aspects of the health and compensation act, enrollee's confidentiality and thousands of other resources. 

The data is mainly visualized in report form. There is also a section of the site where data and statistics that have been confirmed are written out separated by disease/disorder type. So in the "what we know" tab PTSD, depression, tobacco use, asthma, lung function, respiratory issues, heart disease and adolescent health are separated into different sections with confirmed disease rates, correlations and numbers listed beneath each section. The same group that runs this registry in terms of research, called the 'WTC Medical Working Group' also provides links to other current studies on the matter, some of which they have partaken in. 

This site runs like any run of the mill website. If there are any issues or questions about the website there is contact information provided to seek assistance with the site or ask questions regarding the information. 

By phone: 866-692-9827
By email: wtchr@health.nyc.gov
By fax: 347-396-2893
By mail: WTC Health Registry
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
42-09 28th Street, CN 6W
Queens, NY 11101-4132

This health registry relies heavily on collaborations and other organizations. There is actually an entire section of the website dedicated to listing all the organizations that collaborate and work together in order to provide this information for the registry. The registry is a collaborative effort between the US Department of Health and Human Services and NYC. 

There are 3 advisory groups that work with WTC health Registry, they are the Community Advisory Board, the Labor Advisory Board and the Scientific Advisory Board. The following organizations are also listed as organizations that this registry depends on for research, number and data:

Government

• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Scientific 

• Albert Einstein College of Medicine
• Boston University – School of Public Health
• City University of New York – Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy
• City University of New York - Hunter College
• City University of New York - Queens College
• Columbia University - Mailman School of Public Health
• Columbia University – Medical Center
• Columbia University - New York Psychiatric Institute
• Cornell University
• Fire Department of New York City (FDNY) - Bureau of Health Services
• Fordham University
• HHC WTC Environmental Health Center at Bellevue Hospital Center
• Hospital for Special Surgery
• Johns Hopkins University - Bloomberg School of Public Health
• Mount Sinai Medical Center
• New School University
• New York City Police Department - Chief Surgeon's Office
• NYU Medical Center
• New York State Department of Health
• Rutgers University
• San Francisco State University
• State University of New York – Albany – School of Public Health
• State University of New York - Stonybrook
• State University of New York -Stonybrook University Medical Center
• University of California – San Francisco – School of Medicine
• University of Greenwich (United Kingdom)
• Weill Cornell Medicine