Skip to main content

Search

pece_annotation_1473604750

Andreas_Rebmann

This study was published in PLOS Medicine, and publishes studies across the spectrum of medical science. It is peer-reviews, and authors pay a publishing fee. It goes against the “cycle of dependency that has formed between the journals and the pharmaceutical industry.” In 2014, PLOS Medicine was given an impact factor (which measures how often studies published in the journal are cited in other studies) of 14.429, ranking 7th out of 153.

pece_annotation_1474154245

Andreas_Rebmann

They have a lovely list on their website

Financially: Securing funding during unstable economic climate. Maintaining and improving their programs that rely on international funding. Having reserves to respond to new emergencies.

Human Resources: Finding experienced and committed staff, and qualified medical staff.

Operations: Security in areas of conflict. Balancing speaking out with accessing populations. Accessing appropriate medical treatments.

pece_annotation_1473104682

josh.correira

One argument presented is that public engagement in technical decisions can lead to great vigilance and confidence in emergency preparedness and that decisions governing technologies should not be left to the scientist. There is benefit in including lay people and STS scholars. This also includes public awareness about emergency response instead of one elite governing body controlling what is best for the public. Nuclear emergency responses must be transparent.