Analyze

publication of data in open science

What I find really noteworthy in this text is how Julia Watts Belser takes the poem by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and includes it into a scientific text. In this way, she not only allows an affected person to have her say, the poem also leaves the reader with a very striking image of the connection between the river and the body, in multiple ways, as well as the connection between enviromental harm and disability.

The text was published in 2020 (Vol. 40, No. 4) by The Ohio State University Libraries in their Journal Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ). It is, as you can read on their Homepage "a multidisciplinary and international journal of interest to social scientists, scholars in the humanities and arts, disability rights advocates, and others concerned with the issues of people with disabilities. It represents the full range of methods, epistemologies, perspectives, and content that the field of disability studies embraces. DSQ is committed to developing theoretical and practical knowledge about disability and to promoting the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in society."

The author connects disability theories and activism with environmental justice, this approach allows her to show how disability is related to and through environmental harm, she shows how diagnoses are used politically in these cases, and looks critically at how these processes determine how, when and in what favor human and environmental harm is taken into account. The writing is shaped by the consequences of the Anthropocene like environmental harm linked to health isusses, especially affected are communities of color and poor communities in the United States, here pre-existing patters of structural inequality, already known from climate change come into play,  this communities are the most affected and the least responsible.

The text left me with a question that I actually often find frustrating in the process of research. On page 6, the authors take up the criticism of a Fukushima resident who says: “[W]hat you call research does not give benefits to local people” (Miyamoto and Ankei, 2008, cited in Ankei, 2013, p.24). The authors here suggest adopting or borrowing terms from the field that are used by citizens to create a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003). From the authors' point of view, this can be achieved above all by paying closer and careful attention to the language of citizen organizations and the contexts these groups work in. After further elaboration, the authors call for citizen science terms and concepts developed by, for and with citizens to better reflect the values, priorities, and stakes of its main agents and of all concerned parties. But I am not sure that this approach alone would be sufficient to adequately address such expressed criticism. Perhaps one should ask about the expectations of people one is researching with/about in order to enter into a conversation and to be able to understand this criticism. Perhaps the authors will address this point again in further publications. I think to ask oneself how to deal with this criticism methodically and ethically could also be very fruitful for empirical research in general.

This organization does not respond to disasters, but rather provides long term assistance to members of the military and their families. The issues faced by veterans, both medical and social, are often chronic and require a lifetime of support. This is in a way a constant emergency for them and their families, and the US Department of Veteran Affairs aims to provide the necessary support.

The bibliography, and passages in the article, indicate that the author spent a considerable amount of time interviewing workers at Chernobyl during the initial disaster, workers involved in the continuing maintenance efforts, as well as doctors and policymakers involved in the health care system for those with radiation exposure.

This article has been referenced in several other works concerning the Fukushima plant disaster, such as “The Fukushima Effect: Traversing a New Geopolitical Terrain” by Hindmarch and Priestley, where it was quoted for its opinion that an international group would be needed to overcome bias that may be present in national regulatory agencies.

The bibliography was not included in the pdf, and was not easily available online. From the article itself it is clear that the author was involved in a significant amount of original research in Ankara to gather data for this article.

Emergency response is addressed in terms of both long term response and future emergency prevention. The method used by the PIH in both Haiti and Rwanda were implemented in response to high rates of disease in those places, showing that an emergency can occur gradually and the response may require creating a permanent system. Prevention is also discussed as a portion of emergency response, that it is important not only to deal with emergencies as they occur but also to identify the causes and change the system to prevent the same emergency in the future.

The main argument is supported using historical data and documents from humanitarian aid organizations as well as analyzing media reports in order to determine the public opinions over the past several decades.