This article has been referenced in several articles, although due to the number of scientific articles written about the World Trade Center Collapse there are likely more. One such article is “Dealing with Disaster: The Politics of Catastrophe in the United States, 1789-1861”.
The primary method of supporting the main argument is a series of historical examples including policies such as those created by the World Health Organization, outbreaks including AIDS, and previous attempts to provide health security such as the Smallpox Caccination Program. The use of these examples highlights the changing nature of health problems and how that effects the type health security. Specific dates and data from the examples is included, which allows for a more detailed analysis to support the main argument.
Scott Gabriel Knowles is an expert in disaster and risk, he has written several papers and books on the cause of disasters and the risks found in the modern industrial era. He currently works as a professor at Drexel university and is a member of the Fukushima Forum collaborative research community.
Emergency response is not addressed in terms of the immediate response. The article focuses instead on the aftermath of the incident on Sept. 11th, dealing primarily with the cleanup efforts and investigation that followed in an effort to provide closure to the public and resume the regular business of the city, both important steps in recovering from a disaster.
“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)
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.
Several historical examples are used including the burning of the US Capital in 1814, the Hague St. explosion in 1850, and the Iroquois theater fire in 1903. The article uses examples that were in the public awareness at the time of the disaster in order to exemplify the many agents pressuring investigators to make a rapid and acceptable decision including the public, the government, and the businesses effected.
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 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 demands placed on an investigation have as much, or more, to do with defining the dominant investigator and quickly addressing the fears and anger of the press, government, and an outraged public than they do with discovering the definitive technical truths of a catastrophic event.” (Knowles 11)
“The Hague Street inquest featured many experts, none with the authority to effect real change. The result was a blanket of blame that covered everyone” (Knowles 19)
“With the exception of federal oversight, Iroqouis set the tone for investigations of modern disasters from the Baltimore Conflagration (1904) to the world Trade Center collapse.” (Knowles 24)