Search

Main argument

Anonymous (not verified)
In response to
Lee argues that EJ practice has long stagnated over an inability to properly define the concept of disproportionate (environmental and public health) impacts, but that national conversations on system racism and the development of EJ mapping tools have improved his outlook on the potential for better application of the concept of disproportionate impact. Lee identifies mapping tools (e.g. CalEnviroScreen) as a pathway for empirically based and analytically rigorous articulation and analysis of disproportionate impacts that are linked to systemic racism. In describing the scope and nature of application of mapping tools, Baker highlights the concept of cumulative impacts (the concentration of multiple environmental, public health, and social stressors), the importance of public participation (e.g. Hoffman’s community science model), the role of redlining in creating disproportionate vulnerabilities, and the importance of integrating research into decision making processes. Baker ultimately argues that mapping tools offer a promising opportunity for integrating research into policy decision making as part of a second generation of EJ practice. Key areas that Lee identifies as important to the continued development of more effective EJ practice include: identifying good models for quantitative studies and analysis, assembling a spectrum of different integrative approaches (to fit different contexts), connecting EJ research to policy implications, and being attentive to historical contexts and processes that produce/reproduce structural inequities.

pece_annotation_1479010171

wolmad
Annotation of
In response to

This article utilizes excerpts from interviews to illustrate the story narrative of an illness, showing how emotion and values are reflected in the creation of a "plot" of the narrative, and uses statistics and broader research to analize these stories from a broader, more societal perspective. 

pece_annotation_1473350972

wolmad
Annotation of
In response to

The Red Cross opened a Red Cross R&D in 1961 to further existing research on blood component technology, blood safety, plasma-derived therapeutics, transfusion medicine, and biomedical science. Red Cross R&D has made accievements in the following areas, listed on their website:

  • Developed a technique to freeze red blood cells, preserving their viability for up to 3 years, helping to ensure a steady supply of red cells for patients needing rare blood types. (1971)
  • Contributed to the development of bar-coding for blood products. (1977)
  • Developed procedures for large-scale purification of therapeutic blood proteins like gamma globulin and factor VIII. (1978)
  • Collaborated with scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to define the window period—the length of time between infection with the virus and the earliest stage in infection that can be detected by a test—for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) following implementation of universal HIV testing of donor blood. (1994)
  • Investigated the prevalence of blood-transmitted diseases like human T-lymphotropic virus-1 (HTLV-1) and Chagas disease, providing key data that led to implementation of testing for these diseases. (HTLV-1 in 1987, Chagas disease in 2008)
  • Continue to facilitate improvements in bacterial testing of blood products.
  • Investigated the role of antibodies in female-source plasma in causing transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), leading to reduction in the incidence of TRALI by providing male-predominant plasma for transfusion. (2009)
  • Modified height and weight restrictions for donors younger than 19, which has significantly reduced adverse reactions among young donors. (2009)

pece_annotation_1480177143

wolmad
Annotation of
In response to

Based on this article's bibliography, it appears that a large ammount of information from this article was drawn from MSF reports and essays, United Nations reports, and previous scholarly research done in the fields of humanitarianism, feminism, and the social aspects of medicine.

pece_annotation_1473862459

wolmad
Annotation of
In response to

The authors of the article are Andrew Lakoff and Stephen Collier, both of whom are anthropologists. Andrew Lakoff works at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and Stephen Collier works at The New School in New York City. The two focus a large ammount of their studies on international studies and biopolitics, and have collaborated on a number of papers pertaining to these topics. One of Lakoff's most current works is a book called Disaster and the Politics of Intervention, which may be relivant ot the the DSTS network.