Search

The bibliography suggests this article was produced through analysis of historical events and other works without any new experimentation or data collection.

“There is no such thing as being “too secure.” Living with risk, by contrast, acknowledges a more complex calculus. It requires new forms of political and ethical reasoning that take into account questions that are often only implicit in discussions of biosecurity interventions.” (Lakoff 28)

“On the one hand, they examine the different political and normative frameworks through which the problem of biosecurity is approached: national defense, public health, and humanitarianism, for example. On the other hand, they examine the styles of reasoning through which uncertain threats to health are transformed into risks that can be known and acted upon” (Lakoff 12)

“These initiatives build on a growing perception among diverse actors—life scientists and public health officials, policymakers and security analysts—that new biological threats challenge existing ways of understanding and managing collective health and security. From the vantage point of such actors, the global scale of these threats crosses and confounds the boundaries of existing regulatory jurisdictions. Moreover, their pathogenicity and mutability pushes the limits of current technical capacities to detect and treat disease” (Lakoff 8)

Schmid argues that previous nuclear disasters, such as Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl demonstrate the need for a nuclear emergency response group with the expertise to handle unexpected disasters as well as public and international support. The article focuses not only on the need for such a group but also on the requirements and challanges such a group would face.

The article mentioned a proposed framework for health threats of security created by the World Health Organization, I did some research on the organization in order to understand their approach to emergency response as outlined the their Health Emergencies Program.

Recent developments in life sciences and bioengineering were cited several times throughout the article as having the potential to be a health risk. I looked at the headline research being done in those areas to better understand how health risks may be changing.

The article mentioned an unsuccessful vaccination program meant to prevent a smallpox outbreak, I looked into the history of that as a way of considering the preventative aspects of disaster response.

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 main argument is supported primarily through policy changes that show a changing approach to public health safety in the government and private organizations, with specific examples such as changes to the US government funding for biodefense research in the early twenty-first century. The paper also includes examples of changing scientific knowledge during the later twentieth century, referencing studies and reports that highlight the changing opinions of the scientific community. Finally, the authors divide the paper into several sections each outlining a specific type of problem and the practices devised as a solution, this format clarifies the main argument and aids the reader in understanding the authors views.

The author Sonja D. Schmid is an assistant professor at Virginia Tech, she has expertise in the history of national energy policies looking at the risk associated with the nuclear industry. She has written several papers on the Soviet nuclear industry as well as policies and political controversies surrounding the nuclear industry and its potential military uses. 

The article referenced many other papers that focus on the modern health threats due to scientific advancement, the spread of disease in modern society, and on the current approach to health prevention and the response to epidemics. This suggests that the paper was a culmination of ideas that did not include new research or data.

The article focuses on the inherent necessity for emergency response to include community education, risk assessment, and premade policies that designate decision making authority in the event of a disaster, while also acknowledging the inherent unpredictability of emergencies that require flexible response plans. Emphasis is placed on the need for rapid response, and the importance of safeguarding expertise through training and records. 

The authors argue that while recent changes in health security have led to a modern knowledge base and understanding of health threats these new systems are still forming and adapting as the health problems faced change.