Search

The article highlights public health security and "biosecurity" in the context of large scale efforts/interventions in response to public health threats. Various frameworks have been proposed and implemented to analyze and respond to the new range of pathogenic threats. These take form as research groups, global health initiatives, legislation and emergency preparedness plans. The article proposes looking at biosecurity with an STS multidisciplinary approach (though not explicitly stated as such) and has separated biosecurity into four unique domains. These are emerging infection disease, bioterrorism, cutting-edge life-sciences, and food safety. These all overlap throughout the article. The article further highlights the faults of the "public health" approach and emphasized the trend towards a preparadness model.

The arguments are supported by citing many studies and past experiences of organizations such as WHO and CDC. Based off the examination of current protocols of biosecurity interventions, it has been deduced that the process is still in formation and not completely settled. There are not "stable" or "clearly defined" understandings or strategies of possible interventions cited by WHO and CDC. This proving the point that there are clear actions that need to be made in terms of protocol development today.The AIDS crisis in the 80s was also used a supporting point for the argument in terms of response to emerging infectious diseases. The main focus of this was the alarm that was caused by science reports, journalists and novelists during that time. The effects this response had can be used today in the possible reformation of threat response now. The policy changes that have been seen in terms of public health and threat safety  were adequately researched and discussed in this paper. Showing the need for a changing system that adapts with time and needs globally.

The article cites the merits and failures of the investigations following three disasters. These are the burning of the Capitol Building in 1814, a boiler explosion in 1850, and the Iroquois Theater Fire of 1903.

I researched the Iroquois Theater Fire in Chicago as well as the US Capitol Building burning in 1814 and the Hague Street boiler explosion. I wanted to learn more about the magnitude of each of these disasters and the type of repercussions they had on the people surrounding as well as any implications it could have on the after math. This allowed me to better understand the investigation's findings in the research article. I also researched the political fallout behind the 9/11 attacks as well as the structural issues with the building that occurred after the planes hit.

This was published by the International Atomic Energy Agency and is published as a part of the Radiological Assessment Reports Series.

The author cites a number of cases in which the law proved difficult to enforce. One example is seen when looking at the difference in residency application acceptance rates between different locales/prefects. The much larger and metropolitan areas would accept down to 47% of the applications, indicating a possibly fair division of candidates reviewed. Other more rural areas would accept over 90% of the applications, showing almost no distiguishment between ailments. The question becomes whether this is reflective on the doctors' judgements of "serious ailment" given location, the political beliefs of the prefect, or simply the lack of caring whether someone emmigrates or not. Another example of the flaws in this law is highlighted by a personal anecdote from a patient. The patient was given a diagnosis when originially coming to France on a personal visa. They were told their condition was quite serious and would require ongoing care. However, when the doctor who diagnosed him was asked to sign for evaluation for the residency permit, the doctor changed his diagnosis to something much less serious. The political thought behind the poicy came into play and interrupted the normal proceedings, tearing doctors between their obligations to the law (and only allow exceptional cases) and to medicine (and err on the side of caution).  

The author also highlights the development of this law and its effects in three stages. Pre-1990: Serious illness was a factor in residency completely at the discretion of local government. Immigrants were seen as workers and they served that purpose only. If a worker was sick, they were of no use to society. 1990-1998: Illness was more often factored into the decision making process, but those allowed to stay received no paid employment or social wellfare benefits. Post 1998: Written into law, ill immigrants were allowed to stay with the opportunity for pay and legal status in France. 

A lot of background information and history was used to support and produce claims made in the article. Laws were discussed as well as their origins and effects on the population. Yet, specific stories were told about a 33 year old Tunisian, another about a Moroccan man who applied for a residence permit due to health issues, another about a Malian who lived in France. Real stories and accounts of problems faced in terms of immigration and health issues, as well as past experiences, were a main tool and method used in order to produce valid arguments throughout this text.

Though this is a very new area of study and expertise, Columbia University is very highly regarded. The public and other institutions respect this program and school alike. It shows much promise and innovation in the medical and healthcare fields. 

Emily Goldmann is an Assistant Research Professor at NYU in the College of Global Public Health. Her research primarily focuses on the social and environmental factors affecting mental health. She has written several articles on the mental health conditions in soldiers, which can sometimes be extended to emergency responders in disaster zones. 

Sandro Galea is a professor and dean at Bostom University and former Chair of Epidemiology at Columbia University. He formerly was an emergency physician and served with MSF. His research primarily focuses on the causes of mood and anxiety disorders in realtion to urban populations. He also talks on inequality in health care and the consequences of traumatic events on specific populations.