Skip to main content

Search

pece_annotation_1478468977

seanw146

 Doctor Adriana Petryna holds a Ph.D in Anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley. She holds an M.A. in Anthropology as well as a B.S. in Architecture from the University of Michigan.

“…I have investigated the cultural and political dimensions of science and medicine in eastern Europe and in the United States (with a focus on the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and on clinical research and pharmaceutical globalization). My concerns center on public and private forms of scientific knowledge production, as well as on the role of science and technology in public policy (particularly in contexts of crisis, inequality, and political transition). I probe the social nature of scientific knowledge, how populations are enrolled in scientific experimentation, and what becomes of citizenship and ethics in that process. The anthropological method involves charting the lives of individuals and institutions over time through interviews, participation-observation, and comparative analysis. It illuminates fine-grained realities that are often more nuanced than those described by policy makers or captured in controlled experiments. The anthropological scrutiny of large-scale political and medical change always entails attending to how ordinary people—often encountering bewildering and overburdened systems—cobble together resources to protect their health and citizenship.” – from the University of Pennsylvania bio. 

pece_annotation_1472749013

seanw146

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.

pece_annotation_1473550345

seanw146

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”.

pece_annotation_1474841944

Zackery.White

The article involves several disasters throughout American history. The article examines the similarities and differences between the events, their responses, and the policies enacted because of them. The 1814 burning Capitol Building, Hague Street boiler explosion, and the attack on the WTC in 2001 are examples used by the author. The article makes the argument that the investigations resulted in recommendations for change to policy to prevent future damage.

pece_annotation_1474057189

seanw146

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.