Analyze

Poetry and scientific text

Johanna Storz
Annotation of
In response to

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.

Disability, environmental harm and diagnoses

Johanna Storz
Annotation of
In response to

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.


Open question

Johanna Storz
Annotation of
In response to

 

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.

National Health Institute

odonia10
Annotation of
In response to

1. Instituto Nacional de Salud -INS- (National Health Institute) is one of the State-funded leading health and biomedicine institutions in charge of: i. Developing and managing scientific knowledge on health and biomedicine, in order to contribute the health conditions of people; ii. Researching health and biomedicine through basic and applied sciences; iii. Monitoring health safety; iv. Act as a national laboratory of reference.
2. During the beginning of Covid 19, INS has monitored the cases in Colombia, analyzed positive results from national labs, organize and systematize datasets; inform citizens about infection numbers and projections, and recommend epidemiological models to the central government.

Source link (here)

National Health Institute: Open Data

odonia10
Annotation of
In response to

https://www.datos.gov.co/Salud-y-Protecci-n-Social/Casos-positivos-de-COVID-19-en-Colombia/gt2j-8ykr/data

This is the online open data about the evolution of COVID-19 displayed by the National Health Institute INS (Instituto Nacional de Salud) from Colombia.

1. The INS publishes this data after gathering results from the rest of the country.
2. This informations supports government´s decisions on quarantine, projections and bringing normal life back.
3. The INS has criticized the results of tests received from some regions. They argue that they are not well handled and they must not to be reconfirmed.

The Group of Inmunovirology of the University of Antioquia

odonia10
Annotation of
In response to

The Group of Inmunovirology of the University of Antioquia isolated and cultured SARS-CoV2, the pathogen that causes the COVID-19. This will allow researchers to test how the virus acts against antiviral medication and desinfectant products, that will provide key information about the effectiveness of those.

Link source (here)

Evidence on cabin desinfection

odonia10
Annotation of
In response to

Cabin disinfection started to by adopted in different public places in Colombia, either by initiative of the private sector or public institutions. However, in this bulletin, the Ministry of Health reminds that they could harm human health and there is not evidence of its effectiveness.

https://www.minsalud.gov.co/Paginas/Cabinas-desinfectantes-no-son-recomendables-para-covid-19.aspx