http://ecohealth.net/pdf/Announcements/StudentAwardApplicationForm.pdf
Applications are due 3 August 2012. Questions? Leave a comment here or email us: [email protected]
Today we're announcing the EcoHealth Student Ambassador Award, which provides support for travel to the EcoHealth 2012 Conference. Applicants must be a student member of IAEH to be eligible to apply. Preference will be given to students from Asian and/or HINARI-group countries. For more information, download the application form:
http://ecohealth.net/pdf/Announcements/StudentAwardApplicationForm.pdf Applications are due 3 August 2012. Questions? Leave a comment here or email us: [email protected]
1 Comment
(Posted by Dr. Paul Watts)
On June 7, the Development Newswire reported: Slow progress in crafting a sustainable development road map that will be adopted at Rio+20 is fueling concerns that the U.N.-backed event would end in “complete collapse.” The challenge strikes at the heart of this month’s question: How do you see capacity development for improved local, regional and national EcoHealth goals to be realized? The deep divisions between developed and less developed countries regarding concepts such as the green economy and Sustainable Development goals can perhaps be partially addressed by asking: Who are the leaders and who needs to follow? Globally we are facing runaway levels of greenhouse gases as the world is misled by countries such as Canada and their per capita emissions. Even within Canada, an examination of the ecohealth related principles of traditional Indigenous knowledge could provide national leadership – if Canadians as a country devoted energy to listening and recognizing the need to follow. There is a critical and growing need to embrace the Indigenous philosophy of decision making with an effort to consider the effects on generations into the future. The same as the government of Canada could build capacity towards national ecohealth goals by listening to the Indigenous peoples of the country, international forums could also recognize the leadership of less developed countries that are characterized by a more sustainable approach to the carbon cycle. Conferences such as RIO + 20 can perhaps benefit by focusing on process for consensus that is based upon small-scale accomplishments and philosophies; leadership from the bottom-up. While there is often work done to study the sustainable approach to resource utilization in less developed countries; perhaps it is now time to look more closely at the dominate economic countries and cities. Developed countries perhaps need to follow the leadership of less developed nations and focus on reducing the dis-ease they are bringing on the planet. If we consider planet earth from the GAIA perspective, the developed states need to look for further wisdom, cut back on their technology-based disease and stem the global cancer of climate change. Perhaps every official vying for election in these countries should be confronted with the question: How will you take leadership from the more sustainable cultures of the world in promoting regional, national and global wellness for people and the environment? We can build ecohealth capacity within more sustainable cultures, by following their leadership and thus promote a new concept of ecohealth – where the problems are largest, in the more developed countries. We can only hope that the negotiators for the more developed countries at the RIO + 20 talks move towards promoting change and an enhanced bottom-up approach to ecohealth, to help realign global health and economy to be for all people, as some indigenous cultures suggest - looking forward 7 generations and beyond. As identified by the International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), RIO + 20 might best consider the following leadership agenda: Indigenous peoples have identified 5 key messages for Rio+20, which they described in their contribution to the Zero Draft and which they lobbied for during the summit. 1. Recognition of culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. This cultural pillar encompasses the cultural and spiritual relation to land and nature. Life in harmony with nature can only be realized through a culturally transformed vision of sustainable development. 2. Recognition of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard in the implementation of sustainable development at all levels. The human-rights based approach to sustainable development should be affirmed and integrated in the outcome document of Rio + 20. 3. The cornerstones of green economies are diverse local economies, in the context of poverty eradication and sustainable development, biodiversity loss and climate change. References to “the Green Economy” in the Zero Draft must be changed to “green economies,” embracing economic diversity, including Indigenous Peoples’ diverse local economies, which are critical components of resilient economies and ecosystems. 4. Safeguard the lands, territories and resources, and associated customary management and sustainable use systems. Beyond income, indigenous peoples and the poor need to have secured rights over their lands, territories and resources and be able to exercise their customary resource management and sustainable use systems, which are their basic sources of wealth and well-being - particularly in a situation of intensifying conflicts arising from resource extractive industries. 5. Indigenous and traditional knowledge are distinct and special contributions to 21st century learning and action. Reference in the Zero Draft to learning and knowledge-sharing platforms must embrace Indigenous and local knowledge, and diverse knowledge systems, as equally important as science for the purposes of assessment processes, monitoring and defining indicators for sustainable development. Read more about indigenous peoples' side events, international conference and participation before and during the Rio + 20 Conference http://www.iwgia.org/environment-and-development/sustainable-development/indigenous-peoples-participation-in-rio-20- (Posted by Marta Berbes-Blazquez. Thanks to Donna Mergler who got me thinking...)
As academics, most of us feel a lot of pressure to publish in peer-reviewed academic journals. With a high impact factor, if possible. That is a part of our trade and we do it, even though we often complain that no one reads academic publications outside a very small group of people who are interested in exactly the same thing as us. Once someone told me that the average academic paper gets read by 1.25 people. More optimistic guestimates say that it is 3, even 7, at any rate, no more than 10 people. These are discouraging news considering the amount of work and resources that go into each published article. Also discouraging considering that our research should be put to the service of the wider society, that we must communicate our findings and ideas to solve conundrums, offer alternatives, change minds. But then, I read the article published on The Guardian entitled "Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist" by George Monbiot. Murdoch, really? The article points to the exorbitant fees that a person non-affiliated with an academic institution would have to pay if they wanted to access results published in an academic journal. Currently these fees range between US$31 and US$42 per article. Let's remember that non-academics are also our audience. They are the people who we work with, the people who agree to let us interview them, who fill out questionnaires, let us analyze their blood, and the people who ultimately might be able to organize for change. Of course, they can go to a library if there is one nearby. However, libraries are facing their own difficulties in this era of budgetary restraint and cuts to everything public. Annual subscriptions for journals range from a few hundreds to a few thousands of dollars. So library budgets are only further choked by these subscriptions that take up 65% of their funding according to Monbiot. The tide might be changing, recently a panel chaired by Dame Janet Finch, Professor of Sociology at the University of Manchester argued that "access to Britain's published scientific research should be open and free of charge to all". Some highly regarded academic journals such as Ecology & Society (impact factor 3.3) or the Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals have been publishing under an open-access system for years now. There is no free lunch, instead of the readership, the authors pay a fee. The fee for Ecology & Society is US$850, for PLoS ONE is US$1350. Presumably, the authors are able to cover this fee using the same public funds that support their research in the first place. If the authors are unable to pay that fee, the journals will wave it. For comparison, checking the "open access" box for a publication with a conventional academic publisher is about US$3,000. Is open-access the answer? Does it put to rest all the qualms about publishing in a largely specialized language? In English? Over the internet? Probably not, but it's a start. It is difficult to wrap my head around the implications of academic publishing. I start to question if we should be publishing in academic venues at all. But let's say that we do, that there is value in peer-review, I think that there is still ample opportunity for experimenting with new models of publication and for questioning old ones. So the question that I like to put out to the community is: how shall we publish? A Melbournian ethnographer's journey to better understand Aboriginal peoples' connections to land6/24/2012 (By Yotti Kingsley)
I feel my life is a jigsaw, finally completed in compiling a PhD focused on how humans connect to nature and how this impacts their health. For ninety-nine percent of human existence we have been hunter-gatherers in tune with the environment (Wilson, 1993) with one percent of time spent moving towards urban and sedentary lifestyles. I feel, at times, I grew up in the wrong one percent of human history. As a child, I used to run around our family garden naked, no matter the weather. Back in the 1980’s there was not the same public health awareness revolving around skin cancer and I was a determined child who always wanted to be outdoors. Although, growing up in the city, I always felt connected to the natural environment. This connection was augmented by having sheep dogs who were my companions and fostered a mutual relationship with humans, animals, and the natural landscape. It is not surprising that research confirms the health benefits of having contact with animals (Maller et al., 2008). Indigenous people worldwide place a significant emphasis on this connection with animals, passed down through ancestry. Videbsky (2005: 27, 261) describes Indigenous Siberian reindeer peoples’ deep relationship with these creatures: The relationship set up at the beginning of time between the Eveny and their animals is different from the relationship in Genesis, where God gives Adam ‘dominion’ over every kind of creature. For the Eveny, animals are … psychologically more complex… each relate[ing] to humans in their own distinctive way During my adolescence, the place where I escaped my frustrations and built close relationships was an urban park. This safe environment provided a deep and powerful sense of harmony for me. Having this space allowed me to appreciate natural environments and move beyond the urban landscape. Pretty (2007, VII) maintains that humans are slowly losing this connection to nature which he believes is wrongly viewed by modern society as uncivilised or a romantic notion stating: there will for the first time be more people worldwide living in urban than rural areas... We lose nature … we forget the animals ... We eat anonymized food that have no place-based stories, and put the fat of land on ourselves… we seem to buy into a comforting idea that all we do contributes to inevitable economic progress ... We can no longer conceive of Indigenous people living in old… ways … and so seek to convert them all to the benefit of modern life... Perhaps we are too frightened to think that they might have something useful to tell us… Since my early twenties I have been privileged to be able to work in Aboriginal communities across Australia where I observed this rather useful, historically significant and complex culture. One such example of this occurred when I met Tim Nelson[1] in 2006, a Gija Traditional Custodian, whom I assisted in setting up school holiday programs in his remote community in Western Australia. I transferred skills to Tim and other community leaders that led to young people from his community dancing at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, as part of the Australian Football League’s Dreamtime at the G[2] game in 2007 in front of 70,000 people. Tim was a special person and we instantly became friends. We spent many days after work, hunting and walking his land that meant so much to his health and that of his people. I reciprocally shared my culture when he came to Melbourne - staying with and sharing festivals with my family. When I met Tim he had just recovered from a car accident caused by excessive alcohol intake. He had been in a coma for 3 months and facial scars were a constant reminder of this period. We spoke about the accident and he wanted to change past habits, not getting involved in the grog[3] and making sure the youth in his community got a better chance to learn about their culture. For him culture revolved around living sustainably within nature and protecting and maintaining his Country. I gave him a vehicle, through the holiday program, to take kids from his community and teach them the skills that his Elders had taught him about Country. This contributed to him being elected as a representative on his community’s leadership committee. He was the youngest on this board, but his knowledge of the land and how it interlinked with the health and wellbeing of his community was extensive. Tim had come from a tough background and yet achieved so much. This stimulated me to work rigorously on my postgraduate research project focused on the health benefits of Country to Victorian Aboriginal people. In 2008 Tim died in a motorcar accident. This distressed me but strengthened my resolve to work with Aboriginal communities to improve poor health outcomes and convey his message of how important traditional land is. After nearly a decade of experience in this field I believe there is a mindset that needs to change. The only way that health outcomes will improve is through Aboriginal people taking control of every aspect of their lives. Years after Tim died I felt guilty for not being able to do more but the reality is that there were factors out of my control. Tim getting involved in the grog was only the tip of the iceberg – a number of factors in his community needed to be remedied. For example, destruction of the natural environment, loss of traditional land management practices, lack of job opportunities and so on. I have come to realise that holistic and reciprocal approaches are required to gain tangible health and environmental outcomes. Listening, hearing and then providing assistance is critical, with communities meeting in the middle, to ensure that all parties control the initiative. Throughout my career I have immersed myself in Aboriginal communities realising there was a great deal that could be learnt from their deep connection to land and health. I have done this because I believe Aboriginal concepts and models of health and the environment will assist all humanity in the future. Therefore, I would classify myself as an ethnographer meaning to: immerses [myself] … in a social setting for an extended period of time, observing behaviour, listening to what is said in conversation both between others and with the fieldworker, and asking questions (Bryman, 2004; 539) As a non-Indigenous researcher working in this field I cannot speak from an Indigenous perspective. However, because of my approach I can better gauge and adapt to a number of determinants affecting communities. There are a number of complex issues affecting Australian Aboriginal communities, which varies from place to place, with every group having their own unique needs and programs that will work within them. For myself, understanding Aboriginal peoples’ connection to land required the ability to respect the values of local communities – this takes time and trust building - not bulldozing personal views and perceptions. I chose ethnography as the way of understanding complex issues by immersing myself in the field, with the aim of learning and then acting. In my opinion this method can greatly improve health and environmental policies not only in Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities but most populations. Therefore, my life is like a jigsaw finally completed by understanding human-nature links better and providing alternatives to reduce health inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Reference: AFL (2011) Dreamtime At The 'G: http://www.afl.com.au/dreamtimeattheg/tabid/14346/default.aspx. Accessed: 23rd of August, 2011. Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods- Second Edition. Oxford University Press, Melbourne Gouldner, A.W. (2004) Towards a reflexive sociology. In Social research methods, ed. Seale C., Routledge, Taylor and Frances group, New York, 381-383 Kingsley J, Phillips R, Townsend M, Henderson-Wilson C (2010) Using a qualitative approach to research to build trust between a non-Aboriginal researcher and Aboriginal participants, Qualitative Research Journal, 10(1), 2-12 Maller, C., Townsend, M. St Leger, L., Henderson-Wilson, C. Pryor, A., Prosser, L. Moore, M. (2008) Healthy parks, healthy people: The health benefits of contact with nature in a park context: A review of relevant literature. Deakin University Burwood, Melbourne Pretty, J. (2007) The Earth Only Endures: On Reconnecting with Nature and Our Place in it. Earthscan, James and James Science Publications, London Videbsky, P. (2005) Reindeer People: living with animals and spirits in Siberia. Houghton Mifflin, Boston Wilson, E. O. (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge [1] I will be referring to an Aboriginal person (who has pasted away) so to protect this individual for cultural reason I will use pseudonyms in place of their real name [2] Dreamtime at the G is the annual Australian Rules football match highlighting the Indigenous Round and is a celebration of Indigenous culture (AFL, 2011) [3] Australian slang for alcohol (Posted by Marta Berbes-Blazquez)
World Health Organization, calls for the integration of human health, environmental health, and sustainable development at the Rio Conventions: Executive Summary Health is our most basic human right and one of the most important indicators of sustainable development. We rely on healthy ecosystems to support healthy communities and societies. Well- functioning ecosystems provide goods and services essential for human health. These include nutrition and food security, clean air and fresh water, medicines, cultural and spiritual values, and contributions to local livelihoods and economic development. They can also help to limit disease and stabilize the climate. Health policies need to recognize these essential contributions. The three so-called Rio Conventions arising from the 1992 Earth Summit – the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification – together aim to maintain well-functioning ecosystems for the benefit of humanity. There is growing evidence of the impacts of global environmental changes on ecosystems and people, and a renewed consciousness among peoples and nations of the need to act quickly to protect the planet’s ecological and climatic systems. In the last two decades, the Rio Conventions have brought global attention to the impacts of anthropogenic change on the ecosystems of the planet. Increasingly unsustainable practices are placing pressure on natural resources to meet the demands of our economies and the needs of a rapidly growing global population, resulting in soil, water and air pollution, increased emissions of greenhouse gases, deforestation and land use change, expanded urban areas, introduction of non-native species, and inadequately planned development of water and land resources to meet food and energy needs. These changes are having both direct and indirect impacts on our climate, ecosystems and biological diversity. More than ever, the pursuit of public health, at all levels from local to global, now depends on careful attention to the processes of global environmental change. Traditional knowledge and scientific evidence both point to the inexorable role of global environmental changes in terms of their impact on human health and well-being. In many countries, anthropogenic changes to agriculture-related ecosystems have resulted in great benefits for human health and well-being, in particular through increased global food production and improved food security. These positive impacts, however, have not benefited everyone, and unsustainable levels of use of ecosystems have resulted in irreparable loss and degradation, with negative consequences for health and well-being. These range from emerging infectious dis- eases to malnutrition, and contribute to the rapid rise in noncommunicable diseases. Large-scale human transformation of the environment has contributed to increased disease burdens associated with the expansion of ecological and climatic conditions favourable for disease vectors. For all humans, the provision of adequate nutrition, clean water, and long-term food security depend directly on functioning agro-ecosystems and indirectly on the regulating ecosystem services of the biosphere; these ecosystem services can be eroded if overexploited and poorly managed. To download full report click here. (Posted by Marta Berbes-Blazquez/ Dr. Melanie Lemire)
Dr. Mélanie Lemire is a post-doctoral fellow at the Centre de Recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec and has been involved with the Canadian Community of Practice in Ecosystem Approaches to Health since its inception. Her current work focuses on the impact of selenium and environmental contaminants on adult cardiovascular health in Nunavik (Canada) from an ecohealth perspective. Mélanie also looks at the concentrations and bioavailability of nutrients (such as selenium) and contaminants (such as mercury and PBCs) in the Inuit traditional diet. Mélanie was the 2010 recipient of the Exceptional Early Career Contribution to the field of EcoHealth. We interviewed her and here is our conversation where she reflects about her work, food, research in the Artic and the direction of ecohealth in general: 1) Tell me briefly about the ecohealth work for which you received the Award. For my master’s and my doctoral studies, I participated in the CARUSO Project in the Lower Tapajós Region of the Brazilian Amazon. This research team has been a leader in bringing together researchers from the social, natural and health sciences to identify the sources, transmission and effects of mercury exposure in this region since 1994. This interdisciplinary work was carried out in collaboration with several Brazilian universities (Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade de Brasília, Universidade Federal do Pará and Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro) and local communities to build viable and healthy solutions. Deforestation and subsequent soil erosion were identified as the major source of mercury in fish, the dietary mainstay of this population. In this region, high chronic mercury exposure has been related to neurologic disorders such as motor and visual impairment as well as cardiovascular problems. Discussions with women of the villages lead us to also study elements of their traditional diet which could influence mercury toxicity, and to examine social communication networks to better understand the dynamics of information dissemination regarding mercury and health. We were thus able to propose viable solutions and target different stakeholder groups to implement various intervention strategies. My particular research focuses on selenium, an essential element and important anti-oxidant. My initial work showed that blood selenium levels in the region vary from normal to elevated. My doctoral studies identified Brazil nuts as the major sources of selenium in the local diet. Further work revealed that there were no signs and symptoms of selenium toxicity in this population despite levels of selenium that surpassed concentrations which are considered toxic. One of the new and important findings of my doctoral research is that in this population, which has elevated mercury levels, dietary selenium has a beneficial influence on age-related cataracts and motor system impairment. These are the first studies to provide strong evidence that organic selenium from the diet may be less toxic than other forms of selenium and a key element in offsetting some deleterious effects of mercury in fish-eating populations. In our studies in the Brazilian Amazon, we have shown that through participatory methods, interdisciplinary research and attention to gender/sex and equity issues, it is possible to maintain fish consumption, promote benefits from local foods, and reduce mercury exposure and related effects on health. The success of these endeavours, which relied largely on the participation of women from the riverside communities, provided the basis for our research, which seeks to maximize nutritional input from natural resources and minimize toxic risk. Between 2008 and 2010, I have been working in close collaboration with professors from the University of Guelph, the University of British Columbia, the University of North Vancouver, the Université de Moncton and the Université du Québec à Montréal to build the first Canadian Community of Practice in Ecosystem Approaches to Health (CoPEH-Canada). As the Quebec-Acadie-Atlantique node coordinator of CoPEH-Canada, my role was to create a dynamic collaborative network of researchers and graduate students involved and/or interested in Ecosystem Approaches to Health in the eastern part of the country and to strengthen communication and collaborations with other stakeholders such as the members of the scientific community, local and provincial organisations and the general public. I was also involved in the organisation of two Cafés Scientifiques and in coordinating and teaching at three of the CoPEH-Canada intensive short courses. I’m now part of the co-investigator team of CoPEH-Canada. I’ve also been a member of CoPEH-LAC, a Community of Practice in Ecosystem Approaches to Health in Latin America and the Caribbean for the last 8 years. In this CoPEH, I have been involved in the coordination, organisation and teaching of the Ecosystem Approaches to Health in different events throughout Central and South America, and I have develop an extensive network of collaborators in several countries and with others CoPEHs. 2) From the Amazon to Northern Canada, what interests you about Nunavik? The people! Both Inuit and riverside populations are currently facing very similar difficulties… They used to and still live from fishing, hunting and trapping; they have developed very deep interconnections with the surrounding ecosystems. They are also facing profound environmental and socio-political crises, contaminants and climate change, the rapid exploitation of natural resources, cultural loss or transition between generations, etc. Food insecurity is also very frequent and both are going through a rapid dietary transition towards a modern diet. Working in these contexts, I have learned a lot while exchanging and sharing with these kind, patient and welcoming persons. Instead of just doing research, I have made friends… They are my leitmotiv to promote ecosystem health approaches among our academic institutions! 3) One last question, as we move forward, what do you think should be the priorities in ecohealth work and research? What are we missing? I’m part of a new generation of Ecohealth scientists. Born to be wild! More and more research grants and fellowships promote and require this interdisciplinary, participatory and equity-minded approach. By contrast, it is very hard to find a place for us as academics, since most of the university departments are disciplinary by definition. The currently budgetary scarcity that we are facing both at the provincial and federal levels in Canada is not helping the situation. We need to join our efforts to continue teaching Ecoheath inside and outside universities, and to put pressure on our institutions to foster a paradigm shift towards research and teaching programs that embrace complexity and that work in close collaboration with communities, collectives and the wider society. (Posted by Marta Berbes-Blazquez)
Distinguished Professor Elinor Ostrom, who received the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for her groundbreaking research on the ways that people organize themselves to manage resources has passed away. Elinor was a source of inspiration to many of us as an academic and as a person. Her energy, enthusiasm, and ideas will be greatly missed. The Annual Review of Political Science published A Long Polycentric Journey, where Elinor reflects on her career and future directions for research. (By Marta Berbes-Blazquez / Dr.Colin D Butler)
Building on his previous article "Human carrying capacity and human health", Dr. Colin Butler has recently organised a workshop on the topic "limits to growth and human health" at the Population Health Congress in Adelaide, a large public health meeting that brings together members of the four main Australian public health groups. EcoHealth co-editor Prof Phil Weinstein will also be participating in this workshop. The two of them recently authored the editorial "Global ecology, global health, ecohealth" in the EcoHealth journal related to this topic. About the idea of limits to growth and health Colin says: "I am trying to raise awareness within the health community of the concept, term, risk and possible solutions to 'Limits to growth' (LTG). In parallel, I am trying to raise awareness within the wider community of the health risks from LTG, especially at a population level. The term LTG came into common use in 1972, and for several years it was widely considered credible, though scary. It essentially forecast the collapse of civilisation in about 2050 – which was a long way off in 1972, but is not so far away now. LTG ran into ferocious opposition especially from the 1980s. Part of this was a disinformation campaign which tried to erase the memory of its initial favourable reception. In part this disinformation worked because of the success at that time of the Green Revolution, which saw a massive reduction in the number of people classified as hungry. LTG refers to complex inter-related phenomena (including pollution and climate change) that restrict the scale and impact of global civilization. In the last 5 years, scientific interest in LTG has been revived, driven by rising global energy and food prices, and the increasingly apparent flaws of the dominant economic system. I have recently set up a Facebook group about this topic where I have listed six concerns (not necessarily in order) pertinent to the biophysical elements, social drivers, risk, and solutions: Biophysical elements: 1) Fossil fuel sources of energy; 2) Phosphorus; 3) Biodiversity; 4) Rare Earths; 5) Earth's capacity to absorb greenhouse gases; 6) Fertile soils and fresh water. Social drivers: 1) Scale of problem seems insurmountable; 2) The opposite: Ignorance, complacency, denial; 3) Suppression of understanding by vested interests; 4) Diminishing returns to investment - excessive complexity of civilisation; 5) Evolutionary novelty, i.e. while humans can anticipate some future problems but collectively we have no experience of possible planetary civilisation contraction and collapse, hence we do not prepare for it; 6) Excessive faith in technological rescue. Six dangers: 1) Large scale nuclear conflict; 2) Policy makers abandon hope of reducing poverty and instead decide on a "triage" world; 3) Runaway climate change intervenes just as we take the problem seriously; 4) Efficient energy capture technologies remain slightly too elusive, locking us into burning all buried carbon; 5) Global protectionism, following on from the European financial crisis; 6) A mega-techno-fix (e.g. ejecting sulphur into the atmosphere) goes wrong (e.g. worsening droughts and leading to nuclear conflict.) Six suggested solutions: 1) Greater global equality and fairness, slowing population growth in the South, strengthening their social and physical capacity to deal with the coming shocks and stresses; 2) leadership by the global middle class, including academics, scientists, business people, the military and leaders of the great faiths; 3) New forms of energy capture, especially solar; 4) More efficient use of phosphorus, new ways to recover phosphorus from sewage; 5) More recycling of rare earths and development of technologies that require less use of them; 6) New ways of measuring and promoting economic growth, consistent with a steady state physical economy, which still enable high employment. The scale of these problems can easily seem overwhelming. That is not my intention, of course. I am also promoting the concept of a “social vaccine”. A real vaccine has a small dose of the pathogen, which provokes an immune response sufficient to reject the full dose of the pathogen, if encountered. A vaccine that is excessively immunogenic can cause illness, that is, although some people can tolerate a higher dose too much “doom and gloom” is counter-productive. But also a placebo vaccine is useless, even dangerous, as it promotes overconfidence. It is true that almost all of the ingredients I have listed are being recognised as health issues. For example, the American Journal of Public Health had special issue of peak oil and health in 2011. Also, EcoHealth recognises biodiversity loss, and to a lesser extent climate change, as affecting human health. There are many linkages between these six ingredients and I personally prefer to think of them systemically" Tons of provocative ideas, what are your reactions? (Posted by Marta Berbes-Blazquez / Dr. Jena Webb) There is not much use in doing research if its results do not reach those whose livelihoods are most impacted by the issues that we study. Yet, we typically spend more time and effort defining appropriate research questions and methodologies than designing a strategy to return results to participants and ensuring that these results make sense in the particular cultural or social context. Dr. Jena Webb has explored the use of theatre and video as a disseminating strategy in the Andean Amazon where she carried her thesis work. One of her dissemination strategies was the making of the documentary "Zona cruda". Here is what Jena has to say about her team's experience: "The use of performance arts as a recognized means of research and research dissemination has only emerged in the past few decades. Theatre is particularly well suited to health research because health is an inherently emotive topic. Despite the fact that the use of theatre is especially fitting when communicating research results to illiterate people, examples of its use in low and middle income countries are sparse. In my doctoral work, I made use of theatre and video to return the results of my study to local community members in the Andean Amazon. My research determined the levels of mercury (Hg) in human hair and fish and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and inorganic Hg in human urine in three biogeochemically similar rivers with differing land-use characteristics creating a continuum of deforestation and petroleum exploitation intensity: the Napo River (Ecuador), the Pastaza River (Peru), and the Corrientes River (Peru). We used the actionable message, ‘eat more fish that don’t eat other fish,’ as the cornerstone of our dissemination strategy. This is a positive statement that recognizes the benefits of fish and encourages people to eat more fish, while at the same time steering community members away from highly contaminated predatory fish. The theatre piece was designed to explain to community members how contaminants move through the food chain so that they could then implement the actionable message. The core of the work in disseminating this message was done through workshops in five of the communities and to one of the Indigenous federations. The workshops, including the play and an activity for children, were designed in conjunction with an Ecuadorian public health care professional, Dr. Edy Quizphe. At these workshops, the dynamic of mercury and other contaminants was explained using theatre, the parts of oil well, tree, fish, and humans being acted out with costumes by community members themselves. The costumes were made by a local woman in order to capture local aesthetics. The costumes were also simple; this was the first time theatre had come to these remote villages and props and costumes that were too elaborate would have clashed with the setting. The workshops were held at the local communal meeting place. The workshops were animated by Dr. Edy Quizphe, in Ecuador, and by a Canadian biologist, Mr. Nicolas Mainville, in Peru. A game involving children followed the play. We asked for ten children to come to the front and we gave them each a tee-shirt. The tee-shirts had the parts of plant, herbivore, small piscivore and large piscivore printed on them. We provided each of the “plants” with a couple of mercury props. We asked the kids to chase each other and “eat” that which was appropriate to its species, transferring the mercury each time. After the game we opened up the session for a discussion period. A medium sized documentary for the internet (22 min) was produced by Mr. Delfin, a Peruvian filmmaker, while we were disseminating the results in the two Peruvian communities. The video, Zona Cruda, carries the message to a wider audience. Zona Cruda documented the theatre experience (to see parts of the theatre piece begin at minute 8:58), scientific information about contamination using a cartoon (to see the cartoon begin at 13:10), exchanges between researchers and community members, and the peoples’ voices. Mr. Delfin, as director, had artistic discretion and made decisions on the content of the video. As a Peruvian, this ensured that the video had cultural relevancy. The video launch was sent to over 700 people, including public health staff, managers and policy-makers. The video is hosted on our blog and in vimeo and has been viewed by over 2,000 people. The use of theatre in knowledge transfer has obvious advantages. Through correct answers to our questions during the performance, pertinent questions and children’s comprehension of the game played after the play, our experience has shown that theatre is an effective way to convey a complex scientific idea and findings, especially with respect to bio-accumulation. We also learned that people were eager to engage. The recruitment of volunteers as actors in the play was seamless and they had no trouble following the instructions given by the narrators. This system heightened the participants’ involvement in information acquisition by directly involving some members of the community or by involving an individual’s family member (since in these tight-knit communities almost everyone is related). Finally, the simple act of returning the results to the research participants in a way that valued their participation, prioritized maximum understanding and took their enjoyment into consideration, contributed to building trust in a region where many local people complain of researchers gathering information that is never made available to the people who so laboriously provided it." From left to right: Jena Webb, her then baby son Joakim Mainville, Mauricio Delfin and Nicolas Mainville (posted by Marta Berbes-Blazquez)
The work of Dr. Raina Plowright, and other researchers associated with ecohealth, has been featured in a short article in the NY Times entitled "In wild animals, charting the pathways of disease": "The new work on wild immune systems casts disease in a new light: as an environmental issue. One ecological driver of bat virus transmission is development in the flying foxes’ natural habitat. Instead of living in a wild forest, the bats swoop into the cities and suburbs that replaced it, feeding on nectar in gardens and trees and then passing viruses along to horses and humans. A common thread, disease ecologists say, is that clearing or altering a forest can be akin to opening a Pandora’s box. Keeping nature intact, or developing it in sustainable ways, protects against disease. " |