I am currently in the process of transitioning my M.A. level course on Science, Technology, and Development with 11 students to virtual instruction. One of my interests in engaging with COVID-19 is to examine how it (should) informs development ideologies and practices. How should students of development studies retool -- conceptually, methodologically, practically -- in wake of the pandemic?
Currently the only supported language is English. Older patients or people that are not as familiar with current technology my find this system difficult to use. There is no public data on the effectiveness of this platform. The video chats could lack the wholeness of in person visits and the online tests could be inaccurate.
Some works that referenced or discussed the article include: “Test for Athlete Citizenship: Regulating Doping and Sex in Sports”, “Reimaging (Bio)Medicalization, Pharmaceuticals and Genetics: Old Critiques and New Engagements”, “Depression in Japan: Psychiatric Cures for a Society in Distress”, “Sociological Reflections on the Neurosciences”, and “Posthumanism”. According to Google Scholar there are eighty-five other articles that reference “Biological Citizenship: The Science and Politics of Chernobyl-Exposed Populations”.
The author uses a wide variety of news and journal sources to make their point. Everything from the New York Times to East Asian Science. It also cites many volumes on disaster preparedness. For example, “The Chernobyl Accident: a Case Study in International Law Regulation State Responsibility for Transboundary”. The sources tell me that the article was developed around the news at the time and works that dealt with handling of disasters from the past. For me, this furthers the case that the author is making: that the way we have been doing things in the past is not working.
1) “Repeatedly, I have been surprised by the impact that even lightly sketched case histories can have on readers.”
2) “But even the manifesto conceded that less formal expertise would remain important in the areas of practice that had not been subject to high-level testing. THAT confession covers much of the territory.”
1) Factors affecting disease (HIV/AIDS) outcome in different biosocial settings are radically different despite similar, established “risk-factors” in lifestyles/behaviors for individuals. This is because biosocial factors play an important role that is far often overlooked by current medical systems and policies.
2) mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV, antiretroviral therapy (ART) and infant formula (preventing pediatric aids transmission through mother). MTCT of HIV is driven through universal breastfeeding being mainly pushed by the existing medical structures of the local and international healthcare policy makers. They claimed that the difficulty giving access to infant formula in rural areas and stigma around signing up for an HIV project doomed it to failure; however the projects in Rwanda and Haiti proved otherwise, when the structural “violence” was addressed. This was done mainly by giving both distal and proximal support and care as well as addressing the other social-economic barriers to good medical care in these communities.
3) When locals, who are much more aware of the areas biosocial setting, implications and problems, are utilized in the medical system, the results are multifold. Proximal care provided by an accompagnateur not only reduces barriers to care such as traveling to a hospital for basic medicine, but also creates jobs that contribute to raising the quality of life which is another major factor when examining structural “violence”.
Emergency response is addressed in how it should respond to gender violence in crises from a global/national/organizational perspective, effecting the end result and care on the ground.
1) In domains of biosecurity: bio-terrorism (smallpox, anthrax, etc.), emerging infectious diseases (AIDS, tuberculosis [TB], malaria, etc.), life science (intention production of various deadly organisms for research or otherwise), and food safety (animal borne pathogens and diseases like mad cow, E. coli, etc.)
2) Global health and emergency response: The DOTS (Directly-Observed Treatment, Short-Course) program failed in several areas to be a service-ready anywhere in the globe for drug resistant TB in places like Georgia. The strict regulations in treatment did not account for the variance in doctor training and practices in this area of the world. Its rigidness led to the breakdown of the protocol adherence.
3) Health security and modernization risks: As the world modernizes, we generate new risks that need to be addressed. For example, in the 20th century, the technological and system advancements in agriculture and food processing have aided in consistent and increased food supply, but also introduced new problems such as sanitation practices and diseases that led to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration and the expansion of the Department of Agriculture.
I uploaded this article because I believe it’s imporatant that groups are coming together to fight the pollution that the port contributes to. I have hopes that the port will one day be modernized and changed so that its footprint is reduced, because Newark could use some upgrading.
There were a few notable viewpoints that were not included. First, those on the international level, but also the doctors and those managing the outbreak (other than the one Ebola response member that was interviewed).