Citizen science and stakeholders involvement
Metztli hernandezCITIZEN SCIENCE
Epistemic negotiation
Stakeholders (indigenous groups, activist, scientist, scholars, etc)
CITIZEN SCIENCE
Epistemic negotiation
Stakeholders (indigenous groups, activist, scientist, scholars, etc)
Teach 3.11 was developed to serve students and general public. It allows the public to have more access to different books, teaching material, and research regarding disasters. The website was built in response to the Fukushima disaster of 2011, in order to provide "an educational space for understanding the history, memory, and context of social disasters" (Teach 3.11). The editorial team has members from different countries, reflecting the international collaboration that natural and nuclear disasters require. With it's availability in six different languages, public contribution and comments enabled on articles gives a global platform for discussion and sharing. They are currently accepting papers for their "Terms of Disaster" collection.
Increased funding from the U.N., distribution of cholera vaccines, focus on poorer populations to educate and give access to medications/water, and clean up of the Arbonite River.
The report has several small sections dedicated to possible ways the MSF could have responded better to the 2014 ebola outbreak; such as the medical challenges they faced, MSF challenges within the organization, and a "Looking to the future" about the importance of learning lessons from this epidemic.
The author is Didier Fassin, a French sociologist and anthropologist who was trained as a physician in internal medicine. He developed the field of critical moral anthropology and currently does research on punishment, asylum, and inequality. This research looks at the social and political forces that affect public health trends, so is not directly involved in emergency response.
All levels of government and Indian tribal government in the United States.
The policy was created in in 1999 after concerns brought up by the Team Leader of the Chemical Weapons Improved Response Team (CWIRT), U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command over whether first responders to WMD (weapons of mass destruction) incidents were liable for pollution and other environmental consequences of their decontamination/ life-saving efforts.
The article's main points cover the major challenges impeding research studies on violence that affects health service delivery in "complex security environments". The problem isn't lack of data regarding violence affecting health service delivery, but the lack of "health specific" and "gender-disaggregated" data, or data that's not completely tied to humanitarian aid.
The authors suggest several ways to increase research: increased collaboration between academia, NGO's, and health service organizations, inserting a research component in aid operations, and increasing funding to academic and aid organizations.
This article used data from Baltimore about AIDS care, and the authors' research in Rwanda, discussing results from the Partners in Health structural interventions and comparing them to produce their claims.
The article cites other reports, experts in various fields, and notes historical events (previous epidemics, disease outbreaks, bioterrorism) to support its arguments for biosecurity.