Can science blogs save science journalism?

In this article, members of the scientific community discuss some of the many challenges presented to them by science journalism. Because journalists receive the vast majority of their information from PR memos, the information they provide to the general public is limited and biased. Furthermore, the way in which science news is delivered is often mystic by nature. By simply reporting on a study's results and discussing it implications, journalists skip methods, thus depriving the public of its ability to asses the validity conclusions rendered. In this sense, science is demoted to pure "magic." These issues are not new, but with the popularization of blogging, scientists are stepping up and providing valuable information (in laymen's terms) that journalists can use as background information while covering a story.

While I think this effort is commendable and can only help the situation, it is unclear to me how these sources will become widely used by journalists. Source credibility and accessibility are two issues that I foresee. First, on a blog such as this one, it is hard to determine the credibility of the source. Deception is a major factor online and anyone can sign there name with a phony a title and position. Second, with the abundant number of blogs out there, how will journalists locate credible blogs quickly? Unless scientists take their cue from PR professionals and send journalists their own memos indicating the existence of these blogs, I am unsure how this effort will have its desired impact.

Study Finds Many Patients Dissatisfied With Hospitals

“Poor communication is a major source of medical errors,” Dr. Clancy said. “If doctors are not listening carefully, patients may not bring up important information. Patients who do not understand discharge instructions are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital or end up in the emergency room.”

The above quote from the March 29th NYT article entitled “Study Finds Many Patients Dissatisfied With Hospitals” makes evident the importance of adequate doctor-patient and nurse-patient communication. Such nuances allow for patients to have an understanding of things to expect following a hospital stay and things to look out for, such as infection or complications. When one of these things is not accurately or effectively communicated, more worry is created for the patient and more work created for the healthcare givers.

Additionally, the article states that the questionnaire allowed for “an apples-to-apples comparison” of hospitals at the state, local and national levels. However, as we have seen in class, often these blanket methods of measurement do not actually measure anything at all. For example, from my own personal experience, two people can have the same medical care (same doctors, same procedure, etc.) and have markedly different views of the successfulness/comfort of their experience due to differences in their perception. So of what value is a certain rating? If you look at the questionnaire linked to the article, there are very specific criteria under each hospital, with general medical procedures people often have for various reasons. Since specific procedures are listed, people might try to generalize their experience in order to fit the category… with these things in mind, are responses really “apples-to-apples?”

Reaching Audiences at in Interactive Age

This article describes new obstacles faced by writers today- especially those in Hollywood. It discusses the need to incorporate new technology in modern stories in order to reach out to three different audiences; content consumers, sharers, and remixers. It talks about how the writers are going to have to adapt in order to thrive in new media environments. I think this is an interesting article, because it really demonstrates how new forms of technology are affecting a wide range of people.

Earth Hour!!!

For Earth Hour, many famous “icons of civilization” went dark on Saturday to show their support for the “worldwide campaign to highlight the waste of electricity and the threat of climate change.” This is such a cool idea and I wonder how this tradition started and when it started. It is an interesting way of green thinking because we can save so much money by using our energy wisely. By just turning our lights off for an hour we can do so much. Even google’s website is showing their support by having their entire page be dark. After doing some research, I found that Earth Hour was first held last year on March 31 (2007) in Sydney, Australia. It is promoted by the World Wide Fund for Nature which is an environmental lobby group. By doing an easy task such as turning your lights off for even hour, we can save great amounts of energy. I believe it is the beginning for “significant long-term changes” like Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore says.

article can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/29/lights.out.ap/index.html

Public Health Risk Seen as Parents Reject Vaccines

Reading this article from this week’s New York Times, I couldn’t help but recall our discussion today about different models of science literacy.

The article discusses the recent increase in parents’ refusal to vaccinate their infants. The article cites these statistics as “disturbing,” and while on the surface they are, an examination of the reasons behind parents’ objection left me to question which side was correct.

While vaccinations have proven effective in preventing certain diseases, evidence regarding potential risks has surfaced. According to one parent, “When I began to read about vaccines and how they work,” she said, “I saw medical studies, not given to use by the mainstream media, connecting them with neurological disorders, asthma and immunology.” Later on, autism was mentioned as another potential side effect.

As new parents trying to do the best for their children, this leaves many in a quandary. While the scientific community is telling parents that their fears are invalid and telling them the facts scientists think they should know, they are not taking into account lay knowledge (for example, family histories of asthma, immunology problems, or autism). If I were a parent who knew my child might be at a greater risk for developing serious health problems, I’m not sure I would be so trusting in the scientific community.

In a case like this, I think relying on a more contextual knowledge of science literacy would be advantageous. In this way, fears can be quelled and the true cost-benefit analysis can be assessed.

18 Year Old Cheerleader Dies in Elective Breast Surgery

I am attaching the link to a tragic story that occurred last week in Florida when an 18-year-old high school student Stephanie Kuleba died over the weekend from complications of corrective breasy surgery caused by malignant hyperthermia (an allergic reaction to the anesthesia). The article that I am linking is just one of many--if you search the story on your own many different articles, all taking different perspectives on the situation, will come up. I chose to highlight this case, because in my opinion it brings up some very important issues about communication, communicating medical risk, the differences in personal opinions, and changes that are occuring within the medical community as plastic surgery becomes an increasing trend.
Many people are using this case as an attack against plastic surgery, and are pointing to Stephanie's death as evidence that young people should not undergo plastic surgery. In my opinion however, the media is focusing on the wrong issue here! I believe that there is nothing wrong with an individual getting cosmetic surgery to fix something that they feel insecure about.
In my opinion, the real issue here is why Stephanie underwent her surgery at a clinic as opposed to in a hospital, where lifesaving measures could possibly have been taken! Also, with an increasing number of people dying or suffering from severe reactions to anesthesia, I am wondering why doctors dont change procedures a bit and start testing individuals for sensitivity to anesthesia before simply putting them under.
Finally, this case also brings up some issues regarding patient doctor confidentiality, and the media violating rights to privacy. All of the articles mention that Stephanie underwent the procedure to correct an inverted nipple and uneven breasts. In my opinion, this is very personal information. I am sure it was something that Stephanie was insecure about and would not have wanted broadcasted to the world.

"Vaccinating Boys for Girls' Sake?"

This article deals with the HPV vaccine and how it may be approved for males. The boys who get vaccinated will be helping to reduce the spread of some strains of HPV. This issue of male vaccination deals with many of the things we have talked about in class for the past few weeks, including doctor-patient communication and public health.
This is a public health issue because, as the article says, boys are mostly the ones giving the virus to girls. Although being infected with HPV is not as serious an issue for boys as it is for girls, vaccinating boys could prevent the further spread of the disease. Additionally, as long as the vaccine is not mandatory, it will be the doctors job to try to get patients vaccinated. This will require doctors to explain both the risks and benefits to their patients and their parents.
I am interested to see how many people will actually get vaccinated. I also think that one of the parents interviewed brought up a good point about people's perception of cervical cancer: “If there was a vaccine that sons could get that would get rid of breast cancer, most parents wouldn’t hesitate. But cervical cancer is the ‘sex cancer.’ " Additionally, another parent said she would not let her children get the vaccination unless it had been tested for several generations. I am curious as to whether the Chicken Pox Vaccination was met with the same amount of resistance, as it was developed in 1995 and will be incorporated into the measles and ruebella vaccine (which I think is required in every state).

Finding Political News Online, the Young Pass It On

This isn't exactly pertinent to communication in life sciences, however, it certainly has a lot to do with how we as college students receive/pass along information about what's going on in the world. The article discusses how people our age use social networking sites like Facebook to pass along links of interesting articles as well as current event-related articles to friends. The article also discusses how many people have been relying on sites like YouTube to watch many of the political debates that have been taking place as of late.

I don't have a TV here at school and rely on reading newspapers and things on the internet for keeping up with what's going on in the world. Oftentimes my friends and I post interesting links on our Facebook pages, or use the "e-mail this article" button on many sites to share a piece of information we found to be interesting or important.

The internet had undoubtedly revolutionized the way we are able to keep up with current events, ranging from politics and science to entertainment and everything in between.

Who's Getting It Right and Who's Getting It Wrong in the Debate About Science Literacy?

I found an article written a few years ago that touches on two differing perspectives of how to view science literacy (and it actually cites professor Lewenstein in it!) The "science literacy" perspective focuses on public education. If science literacy is increased, it will allow people recognize "bad science" when it comes to making judgements about science.

The "public engagement" perspective argues that we need to worry less about scientific fact and more about getting people involved in decisions involving science. Science literacy may be low not because people can't understand details and facts, but because they feel that they don't count when it comes to scientific decision making.

To increase scientific literacy, maybe we need to do more than pound facts into people's heads, but give them a reason to want to know these things. Exactly how to incorporate both sides is the question.

Big belly boosts risk of later dementia

I found this story on Yahoo.com and was written by Malcolm Ritter, an AP Science Writer. The article is focused on a recent study that found that excess fat in the abdominal region during your 40s can boost your risk of Alzheimer's diseease and other dimentia diseases during later years. In this article, the author explains how the study was performed in great detail, and he also lists the results in a very organized bullet point fashion. According to the results participants that have normal to excess body weight and have a large amount of fat in the abdominal region are 89% more likely to have a case of dementia than people with lower fat in their belly. The exact cause of the correlation is not quite certain, but one doctor (Jose Luchsinger) proposed that it may have something to do with extremely high insulin levels. I found this story sort of interesting because I have heard of excess fat leading to problems with the eart and blood, but i never could have imagined that it could have neurological effects as well.

Contextual and biomedical medical errors

I was just looking at this article for another class, it is a bit late, but I thought it was very interesting in how it relates to doctor patient communication. The article discusses a pilot study done that examines the two types of mistakes doctors make, relating to biomedical or contextual information. The test included mock patient interviews where residents were told to devise a treatment plan based on the information that the patient had given them (the patients were trained actors). TheI was just looking at this article for another class, it is a bit late, but I thought it was very interesting in how it relates to doctor patient communication. The article discusses a pilot study done that examines the two types of mistakes doctors make, relating to biomedical or contextual information. The test included mock patient interviews where residents were told to devise a treatment plan based on the information that the patient had given them (the patients were trained actors). The results show that residents were more likely to miss biomedical information than contextual, however the majority of the residents that obtained the contextual information ignored it in the treatment plan. I think this is interesting because the case was designed in a way that the contextual information should have greatly altered the treatment plan. This goes back to what was discussed in class about a patient’s ability to understand and carry out the instructions of their treatment plan, some of the examples used were those of patients who were prescribed to medication and it was not working because they were not taking it or they were taking it incorrectly, in many cases the doctors did not consider that before increasing the dosage. results show that residents were more likely to miss biomedical information than contextual, however the majority of the residents that obtained the contextual information ignored it in the treatment plan. I think this is interesting because the case was designed in a way that the contextual information should have greatly altered the treatment plan. This goes back to what was discussed in class about a patient’s ability to understand and carry out the instructions of their treatment plan, some of the examples used were those of patients who were prescribed to medication and it was not working because they were not taking it or they were taking it incorrectly, in many cases the doctors did not consider that before increasing the dosage.

Massive ice shelf on verge of breakup

This story was on the front page of cnn.com today and I found it to be quite alarming. I feel like this article encompasses everything that people talk about in regards to global warming, but it has never felt so real to me until I saw this article. The article describes how a piece of Antarctic ice shelf (220 square miles) has just recently collapsed. The pictures of the ice shelf "hanging by a thread" is extremely unsettling. The scientists interviewed discuss how this is just the beginning of the drastic consequences of global warming. This article also reminded me of the first paper we had to write for this class because it dealt with issues of global warming, as well as the newfound difficulties that the affected plants and animals are now facing.

Medicine's Cutting Edge: Re-Growing Organs

I was reading a novel this past spring break that dealt with a lot of science fiction notions, like faster-than-light travel, intelligent alien species, and advanced medical technology. The only thing is, some of the medical technology in that book is happening today, and the line between science fiction and science reality is becoming blurrier.

There is no doubt about the possibilities this research holds. Something as serious as coronary disease could become as easy to treat as a case of strep throat. In the article, it seems like organ regeneration could be extremely simple: the man only had to sprinkle powder on the wound where he lost his fingertip, and in four weeks he had a brand new fingertip. For people with failing livers or kidneys, organ regeneration could give them fresh, functioning organs in a matter of weeks, rather than the possible years it might take to find a suitable donor. One of the biggest upsides is that the new organs would be grown from the patient's own cells, meaning that organ rejection would not be a concern and there would be no need for the many immunosuppressants usually required.

When I first saw the title of this article, the first word that crossed my mind was "ethics," and I wondered how many ethical lines this research would cross. Organ and limb regeneration is an evolutionary benefit we don't enjoy, after all, and one would think that we would have been one of the few animals that can actually do this (such as a gecko) if we were supposed to. After reading the article, I don't really think there are any new ethical issues that this kind of research presents. The only problem I could see would be the use of stem cells in growing limbs. But there has been much advancement in obtaining pluripotent and totipotent stem cells from non-fetal sources, so that again might not be a concern. When I wonder about the countless lives this kind of limb regeneration may help, I can't help but think it might actually be unethical to abstain from developing this technology to it's fullest.

Prayer, Faith, and Doctors

"Religion isn't often talked about in medicine, but should it be?" Dr. Klitzman talks about his experience as an intern and how he was shocked when he heard a senior psychiatrist tell a patient that he would pray for her. He had never heard words such as these uttered by a doctor, which does not surprise me. However, he began to reconsider his spirituality when the roles switched, and he became the patient. He saw that it really helped throughout his healing process, and other doctors also seemed to agree with this.

I thought this was a really interesting point because I think that in a profession where your goal is always to help others, it is beneficial to put yourself in their shoes. Science is the most direct way to heal patients and is obviously the most important tactic that doctors use. However, there are other ways that have proved beneficial to patients; to a very religious patient who is not responding to treatment, sometimes a spiritual boost can show signs of improvement or even recovery. Doctors should keep in mind things that are important to the patient because this a way for them to connect with their patient. Small gestures such as the words, "I will pray for you," can help a patient's morale and well-being which is the first step on the road to recovery.

Connecting News With National Science Education Standards

After today's class discussion about National Education Standards in Science, I did some further readings and came across this site. I found the site extremely useful as a teaching device and also very interesting because the site is actually a blog created by the NSDL to encourage teachers to use current events as teaching opportunities. Every Thursday, MSP staff link a current news article to "related teaching resources that connect specific content standards to that event. " The related middle level, grades 5-8 content standards of the National Science Education Standards are included as well as ideas for turning the news event into an inquiry-based lesson to get the students more actively involved . I thought this fit rather well into what we had been discussing in class today regarding what we need to know about science, of science, and in science, and about the differing standards of education across the country. The site also provides a potential solution to ways in which teachers can cater to the diverse interests of all of their students, and encourage learning in a variety of different fields.

Clinical Trials

I came across this website, which is a subset of the NIH website, when I was looking for materials for another class on the NIH page. It got me thinking about why clinical trials are important and why people choose to participate, taking into account both the risks and the benefits of participating in a trial for a particular drug or treatment method. On a personal level, I think there are several benefits for signing up to be a part of a clinical study, the first being the hope that the treatment or drug will ameliorate the person’s condition or cure him/her. Additionally, study participants are also the first to receive cutting-edge treatments. Also, oftentimes such treatments are free, and participants are reimbursed for travel or other expenses. Sometimes there is even compensation beyond the treatment itself and reimbursement—which, I think, is a great incentive for particularly risky procedures or questionable treatments. (But then, this raises the question—what kinds of people do such incentives attract? If the majority of participants in a particular study came from a lower socioeconomic status, could that affect the outcome of the study?) Then there is also the larger incentive of contributing knowledge production and helping others with the same condition.

There are also risks to consider, depending on the treatment or drug to be tested—such as unforeseen side-effects, inconvenience/disruption of everyday life, hospitalization, the possibility of receiving a placebo (whereupon any medical benefits are forsaken), the need to understand study protocols and one’s own rights, and the possibility of ineffectual treatment, to name a few risks.

The website offers a good deal of useful information to patients who are considering participating in such a trial. What other benefits/risks are there to participating in a clinical trial? In what situations would some of these benefits/risks be larger than in others?

PatientsLikeMe website

I found this article extremely interesting, especially with the personal story it begins with. It is amazing that, based on medical information from people with the same conditions, a man realized that his dose was too low (something his doctor should have caught). The data a website like this can store can be extremely useful and help many deal with their conditions. Sharing information including dosages and treatments help keep everyone informed and avoides biases we discussed in class, such as the influence of the drug companies in doctor's offices.

However, with a site like this, how can you be sure everyone is being truthful? And how do you adjust for other factors that might affect what medication (or how much) you take? Each person is unique and while many may have the same condition, they might react to treatments differently. There is still a reliance on doctor's understanding the patient's inidividual needs and the hope that people will continue to listen to their doctor, in most cases, over that of people on the web.

As the by-line states, "is it the next step forward in medical science- or just a MySpace for the afflicted?," this site could be very helpful for some while for others, just a place to share their personal experiences with their condition (hopefully true). However, in either case, it is important in either allowing people to talk about it or the chance to help others that might be suffering. The advancement of technology and the internet is essential in the advancement of medicine.

A Daring Treatment, A Little Girl's Survival

While this article is evidently gratifying and hopeful, it poses a variety of questions regarding science communication and clinical trials.

At the start of the article, the author takes great care to paint a bleak and listless picture of the survival rate for a little girl with this type of condition. Pulling on your heart strings, they note her young age and the early onset of her illness. Then, however, despite all odds (and even, according to the author, his own expectations) the combination of drugs in small-dose treatments has a lasting effect that has ultimately “cured” Melanie of her brain tumor.

While such a story is not only remarkable, but miraculous, its small scale can provide both false hope and miscommunication to families in similar situations. While the author does note that this event was rare, it might prompt others to suggest such treatments to their doctors, even though their child might not benefit similarly. It may also provide an unbalanced view of the drug’s potential to “cure.”

Stories such as Melanie’s are fantastic accounts of the wonders of modern medicine… however we, as readers, and as individuals seeking to care for ourselves and our family members, must keep such stories in perspective.

Home Medical Tests: Safe And Reliable?

On a recent episode of The Early Show on CBS (Saturday, March 15th), Dr. Mallika Marshall made an appearance to weigh in on the issue of do-it-yourself medical tests. She ultimately asserts that the most familiar tests are helpful to the average person, but she definitely shows concern that many people don't read the directions carefully enough. The number and variety of tests that patients can administer on their own is staggering. Dr. Marshall makes an important point that most people seem to miss: these tests are not geared toward healthy people. She also urges viewers not to use these take home tests as substitutes for professional medical examinations.

The link posted here leads to an article that summarizes Dr. Marshall's thoughts as she expressed them on the recent episode of The Early Show. I suggest that you, my peers, watch the video before reading the article. The audiovisual spoke out to me much better than the article. Dr. Marshall's feelings on this issue made much more sense to me as I watched her different facial expressions and listened to the different tones in her voice throughout the show.

A Good (Medical) Use for the Internet

Montana State University is recruiting rural women for a study on chronic health conditions, and it appears that learning how to use the Internet is part of the study. I definitely agree with the previous post that the 'net can be fuel for hypochondriacs, but this study sounds like a great idea. A key difference here may be teaching the women how to find and evaluate pertinent medical information, and the obvious benefits of connecting people who are physically isolated from each other (and large populations in general).

A New Era In Treating Imaginary Ills

I couldn't help but think during today's class discussion that health information on the Internet can only feed into the fears of hypochondriacs. I myself have fallen victim to this before - you experience some symptom, look it up on the Internet and before you know it you think you have cancer. Most people can deal with this type of information logically, however people who suffer from the intense anxiety and dread of hypochondria may really suffer from the plethora of medical information that is on the Internet.
This article talks all about hypochondria. I think this topic is very important in the context of today's class discussion. This article cites the Internet as a resource that hypochodriacs use to reassure themselves, but I definitely think it could also be a resource that reinforces fears or creates new fears.

When a Brain Scientist Suffers a Stroke

The linked article from today's New York Times discusses the experience of Jill Taylor, a renowned brain scientist, who experienced a stroke and consequently gained greater insight to the workings of the human brain. While the article does not directly touch on her new-found understanding, it reminded me of the story Professor Lewenstein told about the similarly well-known doctor who was afflicted with health troubles from his own specialty. I wonder if such experiences allow doctors to have a greater understanding of what a patient feels, senses, and is able to do in a dire situation.

For example, after recognizing that she was unable to think clearly or speak as she was having her stroke, has Dr. Taylor taken steps to create a new alert system for patients who are at high risks for strokes? Might she encourage the use of such products as Life Alert, where a patient will simply have to activate a button to receive immediate medical aid, rather than call 911 and speak to an operator?

By using personal experiences, I believe that doctors can not only improve their medical knowledge, but can boost their empathy and understanding of patient experiences. Such incidents may lead to improved health care as well as a more pleasant doctor-patient relationship.

Many Doctors, Many Tests, No Rhyme, No Reason

Overconsultation and overutilization. These have become words used to describe a willing patient's visits to doctors. According to this New York Times article, health care has raised issues of cost and ethical values. I think this is a very interesting article because it highlights many of the points that we discussed in class about medical communication, and specifically, doctor-patient communication. It makes a very good argument about the negative aspects of medicine and health care. Just a few questions: What do people think this article says about medical communication? Does this counter the fact that doctors are always right? In my opinion, it seems that communication between doctor and patient has declined because of these financial and ethical issues. Communication between a doctor and a patient has become inhibited by monetary values, and quantity has taken priority over quality. Because of this, how do we know that what your doctor is telling you to do is not just to get you to pay more? I think this definitely highlights an important issue in health communication that should be discussed.

Training Therapists with Virtual Patients

I had read this article in Psychology Today about a new form of training for therapists; it uses a computer generated patients, each possessing signs/symptoms of a given psychological condition, to help therapists develop skills of diagnosing and treating actual patients. My opinion of using this type of training program is that in conjunction with traditional methods of training, it could prove to enhance the education of not only aspiring therapists, but also as a method of continuing education for practicing therapists--but I certainly do not think it should be used to replace actual clinical experience.

Given our recent lectures pertaining to doctor-patient relationships/communication, I'm curious to know what the rest of you think of this.

Patient Expectations

As I've mentioned, I've worked in a hospital for a year. My understanding of the medical system has been greatly affected by this exposure, so that it seems completely self-evident to me that doctors don't always have the answers, or aren't always right. My grandmother is from the old-school "the doctor knows best" ideology. I suspect that most people fall somewhere between these views, so I'm curious to know: as patients, what are your expectations of doctors, other health care professionals, and the health care system? How have your expectations changed as you've learned more about how the system works and what sorts of challenges doctors face?

Health Care Proxies and Living Wills

My mother has been a nurse for 25 years, and as long as I've been alive her speciality has been palliative (end of life) care. She's currently the patient care manager at Hospice of Central New York. I've always assumed that she would make decisions about my care if I ever was ill or in an accident. Today's class reminded me that even though I'm financially dependent on my parents, and covered by their health insurance, I still need to designate a health care proxy. While my family knows my wishes, a court (or a ethics committee) requires that I legally specify them.

I looked up some information on health care proxy laws in NYS. The NYS Department of Health website (linked in the title) has forms available for download online in English, Spanish, Russian and Chinese. The information about the role of a health care proxy is in English and Spanish, and is quite easy to understand. The information is divided into concise, clearly titled paragraphs like "Who Will Pay Attention to My Agent?" The form included on the site is the one we looked at in class.

Some information I found interesting:
-39 states have laws preventing a physician from being their patient's health care proxy. If a person wants an MD to be their proxy, that doctor cannot be directly involved in treating the patient.
-An advance health care direction (better known as a living will) should accompany a health care proxy. This outlines the types of treatment a person wants (or does not want) if they are unable to voice those decisions.
-An advance directive can include a "Do Not Resuscitate," or DNR, order. This order states that resuscitation should not be attempted if a person suffers cardiac or respiratory arrest.
-In searching google online, I found several stories and photos of people with DNR tattoos, generally near their heart. For those who are concerned about it, I think a medical id bracelet is a more common choice (neither is legally binding).

I'm 18, and death is something that I honestly don't fear. However, I realize that emergencies happen. The fifteen or twenty minutes it took to fill out a health care proxy and simple living will could save my parents a communication nightmare.

New Sins Include Pollution

I am astounded that the Vatican has really stepped up their game. Who better than the Pope, one of the most powerful people in the world, to help spread the word of modern evils.

A Vatican official has listed drugs, pollution and genetic manipulations as well as social and economic injustices as new areas of sinful behavior.

When asked to list the new areas of sinful behavior, Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti denounced “certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulations.”

A high-up Vatican official denounced pollution, which is causing environmental blight, and also the study of bioethics and genetic manipulation, such as stem cell research. Though some have interpreted his actions as commercial, I feel that many will take these new sins seriously over time.

This is a great example of how communicating science effectively works two-fold when celebrities or world leaders, such as the Pope, speak their voice on environmental and biological issues. More people listen.

A different approach to malpractice?

A couple of years ago I met a couple from the UK while on vacation. They were both doctors. In one of our conversations we discussed American healthcare. One of them made a joke that it was a good thing he was not practicing in the U.S. because he would have been sued for malpractice at least six times! And his wife indicated her situation to be similar! This couple was still pretty young, I remember being glad I was not being treated by doctors in the UK! However, later I realized that malpractice is probably an equally big issue here in the states and that maybe the only difference lies in disclosure.
After reading the March 2003 article in TIME, “When M.D.s Mess Up” (attached), I began to wonder what would happen if doctors were trained more rigorously in how to apologize for their mistakes. This article in particular talks about this issue—why doctors don’t disclose their mistakes to patients? And what happens when they do? Two interesting statistics are presented: 1.) “76% of doctors surveyed said that they had not fully disclosed a serious error to one of their patients” and 2.) Only 30% of patients surveyed said they had been informed when effected by a medical error. The major reason doctors gave for their lack of communication is obviously the fear of being sued. The article ends pretty much by saying the situation is irreconcilable, but the best thing you can do is ask questions. That brings up two more questions: 1.) Is the issue really irreconcilable? and 2.) As a patient, how do you know what questions to ask? I have run into this problem in the past. I wanted to make sure that a doctor was right for me, but I realized that the questions I was asking were not really getting to the point. In class we have talked a lot about science literacy, but when it comes to health care, the level and type of literacy required really varies. The Internet has become a great resource for patients, but I have learned that it does not have all the answers.
When you start dealing with your health a situation easily becomes emotionally charged, however, personally I would much rather a doctor give me the strait story and show sincere interest in helping me to solve my medical problem. Last summer I met a med student at a friend’s wedding. Somehow, I started telling her about some health problems my dad was having and how doctors did not seem to be helping him. Something she said really stuck with me. She explained how a often times illnesses on paper or even under a microscope don’t look like they do in the textbook. Bacteria, viruses, diseases, and the like are constantly mutating. Sometimes, she said, you have a “zebra” case, where different conditions mix together creating a different set of symptoms. Until then, I hadn’t realized how difficult being a doctor was. I always just thought there was just a long list of possibilities and they had to be really good at the matching game, but this makes it much harder to diagnose a patient with any real certainty. I wonder how other people would respond to this bit of insight. It seems beneficial for doctors to come together and start a health campaign all their own. A campaign that makes clear doctors' intentions vs. the challenges they face in their careers.

Risk Miscommunication

My mom has a subscription to Positive Thinking magazine. The current (March/April) issue has a feature article on buying organic food, with suggestions for which foods to focus on if you can't buy organic all the time. I was dismayed to read their take on dairy products, because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the dairy industry actually functions. It's also a prime example of the difficulties inherent in risk communication.

I'd link to the article, but you have to be a subscriber to view it. The offending paragraph reads:

There are compelling reasons to choose organic meat and dairy products. Conventionally raised cows are given recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to boost growth and milk production. The problem? These cows usually develop mastitis, an infection of the breast tissue. Traces of the antibiotics used to treat it can end up in the meat and milk of the animals. Ingesting antibiotics can cause allergic reactions in humans, Hoffman says. Even more alarming, antibiotic overuse enables bacteria to develop resistance.

There are several problems within that paragraph, but I'm able to spot them because I'm an Ag Sci major and have a family background in farming. When I mentioned it to my friends, they gave me blank looks and didn't see what the problem was. More than anything, that showed me that, while oversimplification is often necessary in risk communication, it can very often lead to misrepresentation and misunderstandings that aren't easy for the general population to pick up on. There are plenty of topics about which I am not knowledgeable enough to realize when a risk has been miscommunicated.

The problems I'm alluding to in the article are...

• Not all conventionally raised cows are given growth hormone.
• rBGH (actually, the term used in the industry is rBST - recombinant bovine somatotropin) is not given to growing animals. It is only given to full-grown, lactating animals; it does not impact growth in terms of size. It does increase the number (but not the size) of cells in the udder, which in turn increases production.
• rBGH does not cause mastitis! I'm really not sure where they got that idea from at all. Mastitis is the "inflammation of the mammary gland caused by microorganisms, usually bacteria, that invade the udder, multiply, and produce toxins that are harmful to the mammary gland." Incidence of mastitis is greatly affected by management practices like proper milking technique and sanitation; there is no connection between mastitis and growth hormone.
• Antibiotics are often used to treat mastitis, but the milk from cows undergoing treatment is not allowed to be shipped or sold. Farmers milk treated cows last and do not allow that milk into the bulk tank (where it is stored until it is picked up). The milk from each farm is tested; if antibiotics are discovered, the milk cannot be used. No farmer wants to risk losing payment for a whole shipment over antibiotic contamination! It is possible for mistakes and oversights to occur, but the chances are negligible.

Some other important info about hormone use in the dairy industry:

• rBGH is indistinguishable from the growth hormone the cow produces herself. There is no test that can determine if the cow was injected or not.
• No milk is hormone-free. All milk contains, at minimum, growth hormone produced by cows themselves. Most milk is fortified with Vitamin D, which is also a hormone.
• Bovine growth hormone is a protein-based hormone. These are digested in the stomach and small intestine and do not pose any threat to humans. The same is true for human growth hormone; a family member of mine who needed supplemental HGH needed daily injections, because ingestion would render it completely ineffective. I am not certain on this point, but I strongly suspect that we humans don't have the right receptors to respond to BGH even if we did somehow wind up with it in our bodies outside of the digestive system.

If I didn't have the knowledge to deconstruct the author's claims, I would probably still question how injections of growth hormone could cause infection. However, I can see how the rest of it makes sense if you're not familiar with the dairy industry. No sources were given for the article, so there's no way for me to determine where the author got her information from.

Does anybody else have examples of risk miscommunication that's only obvious if you have prior knowledge of the issue? Thoughts on how to address such incidents? In this case, I'm thinking about writing to the editor of the magazine. What can individuals and organizations do to address risk miscommunication on a broader scale instead of on a case-by-case basis?

Concern in Europe on Cellphone Ads for Children

When searching for a good example of an effective health campaign to post on the class blog, I started looking into the New York Times for help and by chance came across this article on cellphone use by children. While it doesn’t deal with a public health campaign directly, I think it’s a great example of how the media tries to educate the public about global issues that could be affecting all of us, especially issues that some of us didn’t even know existed.

However, I think that this article, although eye-opening about a problem unfamiliar to most of us, does not do a very adequate job describing what could be a potentially serious dilemma. It contains many quotes from scientists, but most of these quotes display a high level of uncertainty in results, and its quotes like this that contribute to the continued public doubt about other serious issues such as climate change and global warming.

Mostly, I’m just wondering how much certainty we think is necessary for an issue like this or any other to be considered a serious problem. Should the colorful, childlike cellphone ads be pulled from TV to prevent a potential health risk? Is there enough information in the article for that to be decided? And what about cost/benefit analysis-do the potential health risks, which from the article seem vague and indecisive, outweigh the benefits of knowing where your young child is and who he or she is with at all times?
This article left me with a disconcerted feeling. After reading it, I wasn’t sure what or who to believe about cellphone use. Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions about whether this article presents a convincing argument, or where else the public, after reading this article, might turn to for information on the subject?

Choose Clean Air!

In talking about effective public health campaigns, I found this air pollution campaign called "Choose Clean Air!" by the Utah Development of Environmental Quality. They have a page on their websites that describes what happens to your lungs as you breath in polluted air particles such as ozone large particles, small particles, and carbon monoxide. It is an interactive, educational site that depicts and describes how the particles enter your lungs and affect normal gas exchange. It starts from the macroscopic level and progresses to the microscopic level in the alveoli and red blood cells. They use simple language with key technical terms so that the general public may understand it. They also use everyday analogies such as comparing oxygen to a child that needs hemoglobin to baby sit it in the red blood cell.

I found this method to be a lot more effective in addressing health issues than the public service announcements we watched in class. By explaining to the public how air pollutants are affecting your lungs, people can actually understand why it is such a big concern. It addressed the ideas of susceptibility by showing how we are at risk just by breathing in the air. Other areas of the site gives tips on how to do your part to reduce pollution by taking public transportation, driving smarter, and buying environmentally friendly products to reduce air particle concentrations. This addressed the areas of benefits and self efficacy. Overall, the site was very user friendly and aesthetically pleasing for people to navigate through. It's a fun, educational website that is informative for people with all levels of environmental science knowledge.

Rocking the Polish Vote

This is a New York Times media clip about various campaigns in Poland urging the country to vote last year. I thought it would be beneficial to see what ads look like in other countries, and realize the same key campaign techniques are being applied. Note how the independently funded and professionally funded ads differ. The ads definitely use Polish humor (as I've noticed from my growing up in the culture), and reflect society well. Don't worry, there is English commentary played during the clip, so you don't have to understand Polish to get the picture. Although the slogans and the jokes do sound much better in Polish. This brings up a dilemma in making ads--if you translate an ad for various languages, you need to make sure it means the same thing to each cultural group. Whoever translates the ad needs a good knowledge of the culture as well as the "slang." For example, when I took French in high school, we learned the about proper language as well as the slang and jokes used by teens. I'm curious to know what the class thinks of these ads.

Blue Covenant: Maude Barlow on the Global Movement for Water Justice

On February 27, award-winning independent media (radio/television/web) outlet Democracy Now! interviewed Maude Barlow of the Blue Planet Project about a new documentary entitled "Flow, For Love of Water." The piece (both the interview and documentary) focuses on dangers of corporate interests privatizing a quintessential life source in impending water shortages attributed to global climate change as well as the process of "recycling" water as opposed to practicing and enforcing its conservation. Their argument taken from the Blue Planet Project's website: "Water justice is based on the right to water and on the principles that water is a public trust and part of the global commons."

For me, this is a pretty compelling example of a "low dread, high risk" situation. The documentary writers include a survey of the severity--in describing what the actual impact of global water shortages will be, and, based on the interview, begin describing regional effects before expounding upon global effects. There is a strong sense of urgency delivered, and a strong claim that each individual is susceptible to such a disaster, being touched by resource wars or an actual shortage (due to privatization, turning water into a commodity)--all in the name of water ownership.

The information provided through this particular choice of a media outlet is disseminated to a widely civic-literate audience which is generally comprised of activists and leftists. There is an assumption of some scientific literacy, on both the part of the interviewees as well as the interviewer, that the audience is familiar with climate change itself and what it means in terms of affecting water shortages.

-Kristin Herbeck (can't figure out how to change her handle!)

Blue Covenant: Maude Barlow on the Global Movement for Water Justice

On February 27, award-winning independent media (radio/television/web) outlet Democracy Now! interviewed Maude Barlow of the Blue Planet Project about a new documentary entitled "Flow, For Love of Water." The piece (both the interview and documentary) focuses on dangers of corporate interests privatizing a quintessential life source in impending water shortages attributed to global climate change as well as the process of "recycling" water as opposed to practicing and enforcing its conservation. Their argument taken from the Blue Planet Project's website: "Water justice is based on the right to water and on the principles that water is a public trust and part of the global commons."

For me, this is a pretty compelling example of a "low dread, high risk" situation. The documentary writers include a survey of the severity--in describing what the actual impact of global water shortages will be, and, based on the interview, begin describing regional effects before expounding upon global effects. There is a strong sense of urgency delivered, and a strong claim that each individual is susceptible to such a disaster, being touched by resource wars or an actual shortage (due to privatization, turning water into a commodity)--all in the name of water ownership.

The information provided through this particular choice of a media outlet is disseminated to a widely civic-literate audience which is generally comprised of activists and leftists. There is an assumption of some scientific literacy, on both the part of the interviewees as well as the interviewer, that the audience is familiar with climate change itself and what it means in terms of affecting water shortages.

-Kristin Herbeck (can't figure out how to change her handle!)

Loggers Invade Butterfly Haven, Photos Show

This article from the New York Times is about illegal logging in forest reserves in central Mexico. This logging is destroying the habitat of millions of monarch butterflies, where they roost for the winter. The information that the authors based the article on came from satellite photographs from the NASA website. The article is very similar to the ones read in class for the first paper, about how illegal logging was destorying rain forests in Brazil.

As well as discussing a similar dilemma as the articles about the rain forests in Brazil, I think it is interesting how this article uses photographs to relate information about science. The photos seem to do an effective job of showing the problem, however this article does not provide any hope towards protecting these forests and the butterflies that inhabit them. I think the authors could do a more effect job of communicating this information by providing more information about the negative causes and incentives to protect these areas more heavily.

Montana Meth Project

Several years ago, the State of Montana, through the help of a concerned rancher, founded the Montana Meth Project to help educate teens and reduce the number of people using/trying meth. To accomplish this, they began to using a variety of graphic and blunt television and billboard advertisements to get out their message. These ads are similar to those that New York State uses in it's anti-smoking campaign. You can view the meth ads here:

http://www.montanameth.org/View_Ads/index.php

This public health campaign is a good example of one that uses the Health Belief Model that we discussed in class. The rememberable graphic ads, which at times can break social taboos, help to increase the precieved susceptibility and severity of the meth problem, which in turn can lead to the desired behavior changes. According to the 'About Us' section of their website, the Montana Meth Project sees and approaches the problem as a "consumer products marketing problem." In order to combat this problem, the Meth Project has used a variety of techniques that incorporate the media. Mostly, they make use of graphic radio and TV advertising (which rely heavily on personal accounts and are influenced from imput from local teenagers), but are also working on an HBO documentary on the meth problem. This campaign makes use of many of the topics we've discussed so far in class and has been very effective across Montana.

The Falling Age of Puberty in U.S. Girls: What We Know, What We Need to Know

"Over the course of a few decades, the childhoods of U.S. girls have been significantly shortened" (Steingraber). Sandra Steingraber, author of The Falling Age of Puberty, came to speak at Cornell at the beginning of this semester about the early onset of development in young girls. This website outlines some of the main points of her talk and emulates the "Advocate's Guide" given out after the lecture. Together, with this website, Steingraber and the Breast Cancer Fund, are trying to increase awareness about this public health concern.

I have been thinking about this Steingraber's talk in relation to the past couple of lectures. Throughout her talk, Steingraber reiterated that there needs to be more open discussion about this phenomenon. Specifically, a common language must be employed to convey the seriousness of this issue and need for policy reforms. As discussed in class, I think this website is one attempt by Steingraber and the Breast Cancer Fund to increase health literacy and thus increase understanding that early puberty in U.S. girls is a public health concern because of its biological, cultural, and social consequences. The website is very straight-forward and explanatory; when used, scientific terms are well-defined and the language is simple. This website is a good example of a public health campaign that may not be well-known, but can gain strength through its health and, specifically, scientific literacy tactics.

Media and its Role in Global Climate Change

I found this article on the NY Times website extremely interesting. It is a response to a blogger's (J. Romm) view on media's role in global climate change issues. He believes that the media doesn't adequately cover the issue while the author of the article, Revkin, believes that this isn't necessarily the job of the media to change people's way of living but it is, in fact, that role of society and a change in societal nature is necessary. He believes that writing and creating documentaries on global warming won't curb population growth and carbon emissions. He says Romm should really be asking the question regarding if words will bring change, not if the media is worthless concerning climate change. People may be writing about the issues but nothing is being done about them because, as Revkin says, people aren't seeing the direct effects of climate change.

I found this article extremely interesting and relevant to what we have been discussing in class. I believe(d) the media has played a large role in getting information out to people about global warming and making green practices such as recycling and the use of CFC light bulbs mainstream (and therefore, less of a hippie practice). However, although people have been making little changes in their daily lives, will it be enough to make a difference? That is the big question at hand. With the onset of the primaries and unrest around the world, global warming doesn't seem to be on the front pages of many papers recently. However, I believe that the mass media does have an essential role in climate change information in that it is responsible for the "green revolution" we are seeing now and can further entice people to act to combat global warming. Media is essential in public health campaigns and getting the information out- that is for sure. But I also think it's responsible for making people act. And a bit more coverage of global warming and what people can do can never hurt. There must be a way to use words to get people to act. There has been in the past.

Biofuels: 'Green gold' or problems untold?

As I was looking through cnn.com for an article, I ran across this artcle concerning biofuel. I found this interesting because I had just read another article about ethanol and biofuel in a national geographic article. The issue of biofuels is quickly becoming a major discussion topic for our world leaders. We need to find a energy source that is dependable and doesn't hurt our planet more than it already is. Biofuel could be the answer to alot of the problems our societies face today, but until we are able to refine its production and solve the problems that arrive after it is harvested we are not ready to replace oil with this substitute. Biofuels bring up many more issues that hurt our enviroment than help it including releasing more greenhouse gases, reducing land for producing food crops, and diminishing our water supply by demanding such a large amount of water in production.

Intellectual Property: Political and Legal Issues

[Sorry, since the article I reference in here is not online, I can’t link you to it—if you would like to read the full text aside from what I’ve summarized/quoted in here, send me an email].

As I said in a comment about an earlier post, I am a Senior Literary Editor for The Triple Helix, which is an undergraduate journal of science, society, and the law which has many chapters worldwide. As a Senior Literary Editor, I come across many writers’ takes on different issues relating to science, society, and the law—a sphere which includes questions of science communication.

One of my writers at UC Berkeley, Dena Chen, raised my awareness to a particular issue in science communication during the last literary cycle. She wrote about the inadequacies of public access databases to inform scientific innovators about the politics and legal issues tied with the creation of a new product, or the publishing of a new discovery. Such issues arise, for example, in the judicial sides of patent law and intellectual property-- scientists unaffiliated with a large company may be underinformed or unaware of such issues in their quest for scientific innovation. These political and legal obstacles are often a great hindrance to the creative process.

In her article, Chen discusses the current methods scientific innovators use to gain awareness about the legalities and politics tied with scientific development. Court records and legal proceedings from previous cases aren’t free—under the current system, called PACER, such documents are too expensive for an individual to access. Thus, large companies are favored and individual scientists, lacking resources and knowledge of intellectual property rights, are at a distinct disadvantage. Chen continues by arguing for free public access to cases and past court documents relating to patent law and copyright infringement. She argues that “inventors, law firms, judges, juries, investors, and the public need the help of professional, conclusive judicial policies and free databases to observe a more efficient and functional intellectual property legal system.”

Though this issue somewhat relates more to our earlier units on knowledge distribution, I was wondering what the class thought of this issue. What do such legal and political obstacles mean for the production of “science” in terms of biases toward large companies or universities? Are these factors impeding the synthesis of “reliable knowledge about the world”? Is a free database system the answer?

Drama, Drama, Drama

This public service announcement relates to a couple things we've covered in class. First off, it reminds me of the video "The Bee-Team." The analysis we conducted in class concluded that the video added drama and more emotion and it was mentally more stimulating than just reading the articles. I think this advertisement does the same sort of thing. The music, intriguing camera angles, etc., initially interest the viewer and keep them entertained with emotion and drama. Secondly, it gives the "it's not what you think..." theme, that many of the health ads we've looked at in class have. This also adds to the drama and interest of the advertisement itself. What we initially think at the start of the advertisement doesn't provoke much thought, but when we realize what it's really about, there is a bigger impact. We think about why we originally thought what we did and the impact that that has on our opinions and preconceived notions. Even though it is a little cheesy, it does stick with the viewer and is memorable, which is important in advertising. Whether or not it changes an attitude or behavior, the idea is introduced.

Global Warming Debate- Who To Believe???

So, as I was searching for an article about the Global Warming Conference sponsered by the Heartland Institure this past weekend, I came across this article in the new york times that discusses the very issue of global warming in light of the conflicting veiwpoints about the recent cold spell. I consider myself a strong believer in global warming as a result of human activity. The large rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases correlates too strongly with global carbon dioxide emissions for these trends to be considered unrelated. However, hearing that there are a good number of scientists, some of whom are well known and respected, who doubt that global warming is entirely caused by humans suggesting that it may be a natural climatic event that we are simply accelerating and that it may not be entirely bad, makes me question my stance on the issue. This includes speakers from the conference this past weekend, ranging from those who "see a human influence but think it is not dangerous, to others who say global warming is a hoax, the sun’s fault or beneficial".

The number of conflicting opinions and amount of evidence and lack there of makes forming a strong opinion on this matter difficult. I believe global warming is real, especially in light of the IPCC report and the substantial long term evidence supporting it. However, haven't large institutes been wrong before? I think that global warming is dangerous, especially since I live in new york city and would hate for my neighborhood to be permanently covered by the Atlantic. But why are there scientists claiming that global warming may be beneficial? Humans are definitely emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide which has a role in warming the Earth's surface. But would the Earth be warmed anyway without human assistance due to natural processes? I can't answer these questions because, just as this article proves, the scientific community as a whole cannot answer these questions without debate.

If the scientific community is so torn about what to believe on this issue, how do we know that the information we do recieve is valid or that we're seeing the whole picture?

GM to Make Lithium-Ion Powered Hybrid Cars

When browsing CNN.com, this article really caught my eye. I've wondered for a long time about why many hybrid cars are still being made with nickel-metal-hydride batteries. Lithium-ion technology is a lot more powerful, and it's being used in virtually every kind of consumer electronic device made today. Apparently there were concerns with overheating with lithium-ion technology. This article states that Toyota had announced three months ago that it would start mass-producing lithium ion batteries, but it seems like GM is finally taking the initiative and turning away from the marketing of those 10 miles-per-gallon atrocities more commonly known as "Sport Utility Vehicles."

One thing that GM must keep in mind when designing this car is the costly nature of lithium-ion technology. It's not outrageously expensive, but certainly more expensive than previous technologies. If GM wants to do something good for the environment, they shouldn't market these new hybrids as luxury cars, but rather as cars for the average consumer. If they could make these cars as popular and affordable as the Honda Civic, it could mean a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Response: Luxury Homes Eco-Friendly?

So after reading the previous post of the fires, which I found extremely interesting, I came across an Associated Press article of the same issue. I think this is a good article to discuss about because the points of views on these 2 articles are very different. This AP article details that the luxury homes that were burnt down were actually eco-friendly, which makes us re-question the motives of the ELF, and moreover, whether it really was the ELF that headed this act of terrorism. I mean, if the homes were eco-friendly (as justified in the article), why would they burn it down? What message are they really trying to get across? From the other article, it seems feasible and justifiable that they would burn the houses down because the article did not say anything about the development being eco-friendly, but this article communicates otherwise. We can see how presentation of information can affect the way the article is interpreted.

An organization, which was created to save our earth, is actually destroying our earth

The first article that popped up on my CNN.com homepage this morning informed me that several luxury homes on the “Street of Dreams” development, in Washington state, have been purposely set afire. It is believed that the houses were set afire from those associated with the organization called “ELF”. ELF stands for Earth Liberation Front but is an ecoterrorist group. But wait, isn’t that a contradictory sentence? I’m confused. I did some research and found out that ELF is a group of anonymous individuals who use economic sabotage and guerilla warfare to stop the exploitation of the natural environment. So, if ELF was created in attempt to save our earth then why are they at the same time setting homes afire and destroying nature. Ecoterrorism is the concept of terrorism conducted for ecological or environmental causes—but this sounds like such an oxymoron. Ecoterrorism is also defined by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Domestic Terrorism as “the use or threatened use of violence for environmental political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often as a symbolic nature.” An easier to understand definition of ecoterrorism that I found is: “an act that terrorizes other species and threatens the ecological systems of the planet.” So why does an organization like ELF, whose purpose is to stop the destruction of natural environment, set houses afire and disrupt and destroy nature anyways? I’m very confused. Is there a concept that I’m not understanding correctly? Has anyone else ever heard of ELF?

These days there is much concern about saving our earth and protecting the longevity of our earth that reading about ecoterrorists is something I never thought I would come across. I never knew ecoterrorists existed until I read this article and it disturbs me (and even wierds me out) to think that there is an organization which believes in saving the earth by destroying the earth? Maybe destroying the luxury homes is symbolic of destroying materialistic beliefs—maybe it was an act against wealthy people who act as though they do not care about the environment but instead build beautiful homes to live in. I have no idea what the motive is but I still think there is something contradictory about the ELF organization and its beliefs and its actions. Any thoughts?

You can read the article at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/03/seattle.fire/index.html

Public Information Ads - Mental Health

This was a commercial, which aired about 5 years ago. It embodies some of the ideas discussed in lecture regarding awareness, knowledge, and attitudes about a public health concern – in this case, mental health.

While the opening seconds of the advertisement lead you to believe that the man passing out fliers was the subject, the advertisement went on to show that the well-dressed, unassuming man was, in fact, combating mental health issues. As the narrator tells the audience that 1 in 4 people experience mental health problems. After viewing this ad, people are not only aware that anyone can experience such problems, but potentially can have their attitudes changed regarding the ‘types of people’ and situations in which this is most common. Additionally, someone that is suffering from mental health troubles can gain a sense of community, knowing that they are not alone, and that they have the power to successfully overcome mental health issues after viewing the ad.

Vegas clinic may have exposed 40k to hepatitis, HIV

I thought that this recent development would be particularly pertinent to our topic this week: Communication and Public Health.

I also found it interesting that this information was released to the public, prior to the letters indicating that patients should be tested were sent out to the possibly 40,000 infected individuals. It is a prime example of risk communication: before the details of the potential infection via syringes was known, information was made public, and the public’s perception of the risk of contracting Hepatitis C or even HIV from a hospital will most likely be influenced.

Politics and Science "New US Climate offer too little"

America is paving the way for reducing global warming and radical climate changes, as well as proposing more innovative ideas and measures to carry out the process. Almost all the time issues such as these are extremely intertwined with the policies of the Government, as well as the international community. But what goals are communicated to the global community and what goals are actually pursued and accomplished? Unfortunately the number of goals communicated far exceeds the number of goals that are actually accomplished. This article I read on the BBC website, an international source/perspective about the policies of United States and its role in alleviating global warming sheds a far different light on the issue. There seems to be an inconsensus with the leaders of the European Union, and President Bush in the White House on the issues of achieving a sustainable Earth. One EU official even stated that "the US was becoming much smarter in its presentation of climate change policy, emphasising what it was prepared to do rather than what it would refuse to do." My question is how is the United States going to lead a global community to alleviate the problems of global warming and to build a sustainable environment when America herself fails to build better communication ties, and fails to follow up with the goals she sets out to accomplish?