Recently in 10: Biofears (Nov 10) Category

During class on Monday we listed off many examples of un/trustworthy research examples in science - one being vaccines. I immediately thought of the blog that I posted just a couple of weeks ago regarding the flu vaccine's untrustworthiness. This vaccine, as we all know, is administrated to anyone who wants it and at several convenient locations such as grocery stores, pharmacy convenience stores - CVS, Walgreens, schools, churches, etc., making the flu vaccine easily attainable. When I think of a vaccine being given at any other place other than the doctor's office, I would normally consider it to be safe because otherwise why would they make it so attainable if they even slightly question its possible effects? I'm sure all the possible side-effects for receiving the flu vaccine are available for viewing, but the few times that I was given the shot I was never told that I could possibly contract Dystonia - the neurological disease that the young woman in the video from the original post had contracted. We are led to believe that vaccines help us and not hurt us, which is shown to be false with this particular case. But the part that scares me the most is that we are encouraged (and sometimes even told) by several different parties to receive these vaccines - parties that we often trust with our health: doctors, pharmacists, etc. The woman from the film said, "she received the vaccine to earn points for her work health plan that gives perks for each level of wellness that is attained." (according to H1N1VaccineRisks.org). How are we supposed to know which vaccines we should be given if seemingly-credible sources are giving us recommendations and incentives to receive them? Can we further trust these seemingly-credible parties that recommend and administer the vaccines? Can we trust the vaccines that we have always thought to be safe? How do we get to the bottom of what is actually safe?

Reference to original blog post: Fear of the Annual Flu Vaccine by djk0467, Week 10: Biofears

Upon hearing the presentation about Biofears and the discussion about invasive species, I sort of felt like the group was downplaying the problems that invasive species cause. Yes, some invasive species can be beneficial or not affect other species in a harmful manner, but with the vast majority of invasive species, this is not always the case.

Case in point: the asian carp. The asian carp is a real and current problem in our Great Lakes. I recently read an article concerning this and how asian carp eat up all the plankton in the lakes, causing other fish higher up in the food chain to starve. This, in turn, causes great concern to fishermen and the loss of biodiversity in the lakes. Many efforts are going into how we can block or deter the Asian Carp, since the current electrical barriers are not stopping all the carp from traveling, and DNA has even been found further up streams.
The article also noted how U.S. current spends billion of dollars to help combat invasive species and that aquatic invasive species are the worst.

So, my questions for you all is basically, what are your thoughts of invasive species in general? Do you have any thoughts on the Asian carp debate? Do you think the rhetoric of such articles always give the impression that invasive species are bad? How should this be solved?

I think the rhetoric of such articles is something to be looked at, and talked about how it needs to be changed.

The link for the article can be found here:

I remember during the biofears presentation the topic of automatic soap dispensers was brought up. The general response to them was a negative one which I don't think was fair. People against them argued that they are just another way that companies are scarring consumers with the idea of germs and as a result they are making a profit off of people's fears. Furthermore, that automatic soap dispensers are a stupid idea and completely unnecessary because you are washing your hands so even if there are germs on the traditional soap dispenser's pump, they will be washed away. What wasn't mentioned is that the utilization of an automatic soap dispenser in addition to an automatic water faucet would be a highly effective way to decrease one's susceptibility to acquiring additional germs. The only problem with the previous proposal is that consumer automatic water faucets are uncommon and expensive. One could also argue that companies manufacturing automatic water faucets are also profiting off of people's fears of germs. I actually own this automatic soap dispenser made by Lysol. Some of the benefits I have found from using it are it decreases susceptibility to additional germs (germs present on traditional soap pumps) and it is efficient due to it's specific allocations of soap which are delivered through an electronic pumping system. One negative aspect I have found with it are the soap replacement cartridges are relatively expensive. You are forced to buy specific soap replacement cartridges, made by the company (Lysol), which are also fairly small. By forcing consumers to have to buy these specific soap cartridges they are making an even greater profit off of the consumer's fear of germs. What is your stance on automatic soap dispensers? Do you believe that they are necessary? Do you believe that they serve a purpose and are beneficial? Or that they just cause additional fears of germs which companies use to make a profit?

In the 'Infections and Biofears' presentation on Wednesday the group discussed how invasive species were portrayed in a negative light and were believed to "take over" the environment they were introduced in, killing off or diminishing many of the the other organisms. A study has been done by Brown University on the Asian shore crab that 'invaded' the New Jersey shore. In this article, posted by Science Daily, researchers report that the Asian shore crab does not harm the other species, but they actually coexist very nicely. This is an example of one invasive species that did not conquer the native ecosystem, but instead has gotten along with the other species quite well. Normally when we hear about invasive species we hear about how they dominate the landscape at the expense of the other species and how they cause more harm than good. This study actually showed that instead of the crabs crowding out the natives, there was actually a higher number of native plants where the crabs were because they worked off eachother so well. This is just one example of the natives and invasives living together in harmony and working off of eachother. We can compare the invasive plants to immigration, and see that the rhetoric for both are very similar. Both are seen in a negative light by many. Many people believe that immigrants will come in and take away jobs, hurting the 'natives.' My question is, why aren't people looking at the situation in a more positive light? Why don't people see immigration as an opportunity to learn to coexist and thrive from each other? People need to see all the good being brought in by immigrants and stop focusing on negative aspects that aren't even true. Why are people stuck in this way of thought even though our nation was built by immigrants? Almost everyone can trace back their family line to the time when their ancestors came to the United States from a far away land. Isn't it time to learn to live in harmony with each other??

Just a few days before the public health and biofears groups presented, my friend's facebook status was the title of this post (according to GOOGLE I have mono). Alarmed by the message I immediately called her up and inquired about the status. After being tested, it turns out she doesn't have mono.

The discussions we have been having in class about how the way mass media presents information has caused lots of biofears among society reminded me of this situation. It shows how the accessibility of more information, specifically on health, is causing many to self-diagnosis themselves with sicknesses and diseases that they don't actually have. I looked up the symptoms of mono on the Internet and could probably justify that I have mono as well. But I don't, and it is easy to see the benefits and downfalls to the accessibility to this type of information to the general public. It is allowing society to have more control over their own health problems, but at the same time it is increasing biofears.

This website, does a very good job outlining the pros and cons of using mass media to transfer information on public health. It states, "They (mass media) are important tools in advancing public health goals" (1). This is because advanced society of very dependant on mass media to transfer information on health. But also the website goes on to say that, "using mass media can be counterproductive if the channels used are not audience-appropriate, or if the message being delivered is too emotional, fear arousing, or controversial" (2). If mass media is not used correctly then it could deliver incomplete messages and biofears among society.

My dad is a general practitioner and he says that he couldn't even count the number of times he has had patients come to his office telling him that they have so and so fourth problems. He says that the Internet, word of mouth, and the television are where most get health related information. They decide they have these problems and demand medications. This shows that drug companies are doing a good job advertising and giving society fears and in turn they seek the products, perceptions, and vaccinations. Like we talked about in class the pressure many parents were feeling about giving their daughters the GARDASIL vaccination.

Do you think that the pros out way the cons when it comes to using mass media as a means to transfer information on public health? Why or why not? What are other ways we transfer information on public health? And how do you think we could insure that the mass media is transfering complete and correct information? Also, lots of companies advertise their product in the mass media, but do you think drug companies should be able to do the same?

While we were talking about infections and biofears, I instantly thought of the newest episode of The Office. It is just the opening scene that you need to watch as that is the only part of the episode that pertains to the issue of infections and biofears. Dwight is actually bringing up great points about germs and the antibodies that we develop from being exposed to different kinds of germs and how using hand sanitizers are not actually benefiting us all that much (mentioned also in class). Even though the clip has some extreme points to it, such as the suggestion of bowls of vomit around the office and people actually sneezing and coughing directly on Dwight, I feel that this is a step in the right direction in showing society that they do not need to be so scared of infections and biofears.Do you think by having a very popular comedy show mention this issue, it will actually reach out to the public and get them thinking in a different direction on infections and germs? Do you think more places in popular culture should do this? Would it help society get over the fear?

Recently I have been hearing a lot about the differences between washing your hands with soap and water or using hand sanitizer as a substitute. As a student volunteer at the hospital, I am constantly using hand sanitizer to prevent the spread of infection. Most hand sanitizers advertise that they eliminate 99.9% of germs. Is this accurate? About.com wrote an article about how the hand sanitizer removes the outer layer of oil from your skin actually ridding the body of natural bacteria and not the kind that get you sick. The manufacturers test these products on inanimate surfaces and this is how they come to the conclusion that 99.9% of germs are killed by their product. Do you think this is ethical of them to advertise their product when it is not even tested for effectiveness on live tissue? Read the article to see your stance on the issue. Researchers are also coming to the conclusion that plain soap is just as effective as antibacterial soap in protection from bacteria related infection, and living in an ultra-clean environment may inhibit the development of the immune system in children. Why do you think this information is not advertised to us as consumers? We could be aiding in the development of a superbug by using too many antibacterial products just because as a society we are so afraid of bacteria and what may happen if we catch a cold. Our body has its own system of protection against disease and granted we need a little boost every once in a while from a medicine, we can't go overboard because of what we hear on tv commercials or programs that may have profit on their minds. Should we regulate what the media tells us when it comes to biofears? And if so, how?

When I was younger my parents didn't make me or my siblings get the flu shot. Not because they don't believe in vaccines, but just because we didn't usually get sick with the flu so they didn't find it necessary. During my first semester of college my mom told me she wanted me to get the flu shot because I was obviously more prone to sicknesses living in the limited-spaced dorms. After receiving the vaccine, someone on my floor showed me this news story...

After watching it I was immediately terrified. Evening though I hadn't received it earlier, I had never intentionally avoided getting the vaccine. To me, the flu shot seems like something you get to be extra cautious - and contracting a disease from it would be the last thing I would expect, especially since this vaccine is so widely used. Since then I have never received the flu shot and I don't think I ever will. Becoming sick with the flu, even though miserable at times, isn't worth contracting a disease like the one in the news story. Do you think you could still receive the flu shot knowing that this could happen to you? Does it make you question other vaccines that are used as frequently?

After completing our first week of ethics presentations, I want to make sure our class keeps a few things in mind, in order to move forward more productively:

All of the topics selected are contentious, and this is precisely the point: from day one of this course, we've discussed how science is an ever-evolving dialogue, an imperfect process in a quest for greater understandings of our shared world.

These presentations discuss a wide range of topics from many perspectives. While some of you have chosen to present "pros," "cons," and "neutrals" of a subject, we have to remember that the benefits and drawbacks of a particular topic should not be conflated with whether you're "for" or "against" it. When we make simplistic conclusions about an issue, we not only create unnecessary polarization, but we also foreclose the possibility for other insights to be revealed. The truth is, there are positives and negatives to most things in life, but ethical concerns are raised in science when we weigh questions of power:
...Who has the ability to control a scientific process and why? Who will benefit and who won't?
...What, exactly, makes this topic so contentious to some? What fears, anxieties, traditions, ideologies, does it uphold or threaten?
...What kinds of relationships should we demand between science and academies, industries, and governments?
...And though it will always be imperfect, impartial, and finite, how can we create BETTER ways of practicing science, science that promotes more livable ways of relating across the spectrum of races, genders, species, etc. for generations to come?

Finally, a note of caution on creating a classroom climate conducive to healthy debate, for there have been moments when productive questions have been shut down. Once we understand that:
...no topic presented is "bad" or "good,"
...that the point of these exercises is NOT to reach a final conclusion or resolve the debate,
...and that multiple considerations, in multiple contexts, must be weighed in order to grasp these complex issues,
we can move forward as a class asking more questions, becoming more aware and critical knowers, consumers, voters, and researchers, and creating a space where varying viewpoints can be aired. Remember, if critiques are raised, they can be harnessed to develop better ways of employing whatever scientific development we're considering, making it more effective, more sustainable, and more liberatory.

These presentations are meant to inform our class on important topics that may be brand new to some. But more importantly, they are meant to showcase ethical dilemmas. Keep this in mind, whether you present in the upcoming classes or listen as an active audience member. What larger concerns do these topics raise, especially within a context of feminist science?