Sunday, January 27, 2008
Final Group Project
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Final thoughts by Jeremy W.
JUA Conclusion
I think that the sites we visited didn’t help answer our questions. While I learned a lot visiting with the pharmacoepidemioligist, the environmentally friendly Epicenter, the Museum of Science, and at the Children’s Hospital, I didn’t gather enough information to accurately answer any of our focus questions. I feel that the sites we visited were bias in that they only argued in favor of science “Saving Us.” It’s hard to get any views at a hospital or environmentally sound building of how technology hurts us when these places are examples of technology saving us. I would like to have talked to a pollution specialist or a war analysis. I would like to have learned just how bad cars hurt the environment and other problems with modern technology. If JUA 2008 chooses to do this trip, they need to learn from our mistake and visit a more wide variety of sites. Additionally, the places we visited talked about subjects a little stray from our driving questions. To learn whether environmentally friendly buildings will save the planet, we need to learn more numbers and talk to experts. It was interesting seeing how one building incorporated green technologies, but I didn’t know to what extent. I didn’t know how much it cost them, if they were saving money, if they were saving that much energy. I didn’t know how they put the system in place and the benefits and consequences of the building for its artists and for the community. I learned a lot at the MOS, but there wasn’t enough specific information about renewable energy. I liked the solar-wind power exhibit, but all I learned was how a wind mill works, not how it can change the world. I really enjoyed my time at the Children’s Hospital, but the only really helpful information was that of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Otherwise, the slideshow and the tour of the microbiology and virology labs didn’t help me answer our questions. I can see how technology helps the hospital prevent infections, analyze bacteria, and even show good slideshows, but I couldn’t get a good perspective on whether these technologies will ultimately save us. Sure they seem to help now, but the doctors/scientists didn’t say to what extent and the problems that they endure. If I don’t know about their successes and failures, then I can’t truly say whether this technology is saving us or not. However, I learned a lot at all the exhibits, and regardless if I answered our focus questions or not, I answered a thousand others. I learned a lot about technology, medicine, and renewable resources and it will help me with my life. Most importantly, at least more so than the specific facts that I learned which I will probably forget soon, I learned to be a better thinker. I analyzed everything I head, saw, smelt, touched, and tasted. I took in knowledge and came out with ideas. I brought a notebook along the trip, and by the end, I came out with designs for utopian communities, subways, skyscrapers, restaurants, and youth hostels. This experience allowed me to see what the quality of life is in Boston. For the most part, people seemed happy. However, the traffic jams, high cost of food, pollution, dirt, coldness, and other little things made me realize that there is so much that needs improvement. We may have clean technology, new highways, cheaper food, green buildings, warm clothes and spaces, but the majority of Boston doesn’t enjoy these luxuries. We still have problems that reduce the quality of life. Until these problems are solved, or at least minimized, we are dying. We may have the technology that can save us, but until we put in place, we are losing. Many people believe that seeing evil and doing nothing is almost as bad as doing that evil oneself. The same applies to technology. Learning the technology that can increase the quality of our lives, but doing nothing, is just as bad as not trying to gain new technologies. Why can’t these revolutionary sciences be put in place? If they aren’t in place, there must be an answer. If there is an answer, then science is not winning. It may not be slaying us, but it just as well may be. Unless we use science to save us, we will die. People are dying. People around the world die every day from starvation, disease, and lack of shelter, among others. Many people think that global warming will result in ruin and that we don’t have the safe measures to protect people from war and nuclear holocaust. Innocent people do die in war and countries do have nuclear weapons. Science must act to save us, because by not acting, it is indirectly slaying us. For it was this science that allowed for so many people to be alive and get sick and develop guns and machines to contribute to global warming. I am not suggesting that we take away all of our technologies because that would be wrong. They have increased our quality of life. More people can be alive. Each person can have enough food and shelter and medicine to live happily. We have the means to travel to experience more in the world. We have the institutions to let people learn, play, and have fun. People can live an entire life in happiness- with school, friends, a fun job, and a happy retirement. It is possible for every person to be happy. We must not get rid of our technologies. However, we need to recognize that we are past the point of improving our quality of life and onto hurting it. We must recognize this error, fix our mistakes, and step forward with caution so that technology adds to happiness and doesn’t take away from it. In our experience here in Boston, experiencing the life of students, employees, the rich, the poor, we have found that for the most part, technology is a good thing and can save us. Most importantly, we have found out what it will save us from. Before we left on JUA, I asked my peers what science is going to save us from and they had no answers. A few people said global warming, but there was no general consensus. But on this trip, we discovered that science is going to save us from living unhappy. It’s going to save us from living happily while others live unhappily. Science causes many evils, but we are evil if we don’t use science. Science causes much happiness, but we are unhappy with the results of science. Science will save us. But we must change our ways now. Otherwise, science is as guilty for causing all the bad in the world as every bad person. It is time for America to step up and take action. It is not too late to build a better place to live. It is not too late to late to realize our mistakes and revitalize the planet. It is not too late to acknowledge the problems with the world and to take action. It is not too late to act based on what we now know. We will not know until we are too late.
Jeremy's thoughts on infection control
I. Introduction
1) Background
a. purpose- to reduce the risks of infections at the hospital
b. staff- 3 full time epidemiologists, 1 manager, and 1 physician
2) How infections occur
a. source
b. susceptible person
c. mode of transportation
II. Infection
A. Source
1. People
i. with active infections
ii. with chronic diseases (hepatitis C or HIV)
iii. with normal bacteria (normal flora)
2. Contaminated equipment 3. Animals and insects (Lime, West Nile)
B. Susceptible Person
1. Person with no immunity who is exposed
2. Person with a weak immune system
C. Modes of Transportation
1. Common Source
i. multiple people get sick from the same source
ii. ex. Manufacturing mistake, or tainted food at a party
2. Contact
i. direct- skin to skin contact
ii. indirect- contact with a contaminated object (an intermediate object)
a. ex. Doorknob
3. Droplet Transmission (respiratory)
i. Droplets generated by coughing, sneezing, talking, etc.
ii. Propelled less than three feet
iii. Deposited on a host’s eyes, nose, or mouth
4. Airborne
i. Same as Droplet
ii. Remain in air for more than three feet
iii. Inhaled by another person
5. Vector Born
III. Prevention
A. Wash Hands
B. Standard Precautions
1. Wear protection: gloves, gowns, masks, eye protection, etc.
C. Patient Placement and Isolation
1. Private rooms or grouped by bug
2. Follow standard precautions
3. Dedicate equipment to only one patient
4. ex. Tuberculosis- add ventilation to rooms
IV. Bacteria Resistance
A. Micro bacteria have a drive to survive
B. Bacteria evolve to make antibiotics less effective or useless
C. The Question: Will we keep going back and forth with new antibacterial medicine and bacteria evolving so we have to make new medicine so the bacteria evolve…or will science win in the end?
D. Why Bacteria are resistant
1. People use antibiotics improperly- By not completing a prescription, the bacteria adapt to the antibacterial drugs
2. Bacteria have genetic mutations
3. Resistant genes can be transmitted between bacteria without mutation (conjugation)
V. The Lab
A. Hospitals have extensive and high-tech labs which can test bacteria and viruses to find their makeup to figure out what antibacterial will kill them
B. Boston Children’s Hospital handles about 200 bacteria or virus samples a day- below their capacity
Jeremy’s Reaction after visiting Children’s Hospital
It appears that science is improving the quality of life at hospitals. Although hospitals add pollution to the atmosphere, cause congestion in the streets, use high amounts of electricity and water, and often infect healthy people, they save far more lives than they hurt. They save people’s lives who would otherwise die, and that is a huge positive for such a small price to pay. Technologies that go into hospitals and medicine are definitely saving us.
~Jeremy W
Virology @ Children's Hospital
After the Epidemiology tour we were shown across the hall to the Virology wing of the laboratory. Dr. Riley led us into a "level 2" lab with many expensive-looking machines. Unfortunately, no researchers were present, so we didn't get to see any high-tech machinery in action. She talked about the different processes in which samples were tested for various viruses, including a new technique that gives results in less than 24 hours, much quicker than the previous 21-day expectancy for a negative sample. The lab also had three "hood" systems, tables where any possibly infected air was pulled through a complex vent system to remove any viruses, and then dispersed the air back outside. Though this particular tour was short lived, our group learned a lot about the "secret life" of viruses, and how researchers handle these viruses for study.
Luke H.
Epidemiology @ Children's Hospital
First off, Patti Scanlon, the avid epidemiologist, was generous enough to show us an awesome power point presentation on infections and infections control. She told us that her job was to minimize and reduce the possibility of infection in and near where she worked; the Boston Children’s Hospital. She gave us a brief summary of what processes went on during a normal day in analyzing bacteria. She has to analyze how infections occur, where they occur, the difference between normal and common, and nasty and infectious bacteria, for example, Normal flora, is the bacteria that lives in and around us. After learning about how infections can be controlled, she wrapped up her insightful presentation saying, “we are in the microbial drive to survive.” Next Ms. Riley gave us a very informative tour of the microbiology and virology labs. She walked us through how they determine what type of bacteria is causing the infection. First, bacteria is cultured on a 5% sheep's blood agar medium. Once the bacteria are present, paper discs infused with various antibiotics are placed on the agar plate. After 24 hours, the diameter of dead bacteria around the disc is measured. The larger the diameter, the more effective the antibiotic. The lab would then report this to the doctor where the doctor would prescribe the strongest and most prevalent antibiotic. The process and the facilities they had were amazing and gave us an amazing insight into the world of medicine. In this case, science is definitely saving, rather the slaying us.
-Erik Caron
Lunch and Free Time
Museum of Science
Today we went to the Science Museum in Boston. The group saw many exhibits that we were all intrigued with. When we first entered everyone stopped and looked at a big structure that all theses balls that were moving around. I think we looked at that thing trying to figure it out for at least 10 minutes. Then we migrated through out the “Blue Wing.” What I think really caught us next was the electricity exhibit. We learned about how we can use solar power to even run a car. There was also an exhibit on wind power and a display that listed the costs and benefits of various types of fuel. ~ Morgan D.
(pictures coming soon!)
Monday, December 17, 2007
Jeremy's Reaction to JUA
Green Building
~ Jeremy W.
Green Building (mini summary)
Notes from Dr. Klompas
1) Background on Dr. Klompas
a. an infectious disease specialist
b. if an infection doesn’t respond to normal treatments, he is called
c. if the infection is from abroad
d. if one has an extremely weak immune system
e. if one is in post surgery
f. works with infection control within the hospital
2) Does a person’s genetic makeup determine their impact by medicine?
a. yes- gender and race as well as location, origin, and activities
b. examples:
i. Elderly people are more likely to receive the West Nile Virus and the disease effects them more than younger people
ii. People who travel abroad are more likely to get tuberculosis
iii. Gardeners may get spothrax
iv. Swimmers are more likely to get librio collum
3) How does a hospital prevent against spreading diseases since hospitals can host bacteria that no other place can host due to the combination of so many bacterias?
a. compare medical problems to the past to determine if it is first time disease has shown in patient
b. if a disease shows for the first time, determine if its seasonal or irregular
c. if the disease is non-environmental or repeated, determine its source by comparing charts
d. once they find who has the disease, find out what they have in common
i. surgery procedure, same doctor, same equipment, same room, etc.
ii. ex. 8 nurses and 10 patients got effected, discovered it was from a nurse party, sent nurses home and cleaned patient area to solve the problem
4) How has technology helped with the current AIDS epidemic?
a. After discovering HIV, it took only three years to develop AZT
5) How has technology helped with other treatments?
a. Antibiotics that fail to work means the patient has to go through surgery or other treatments. New medicine has reduced the number of treatments and safety of surgeries
i. ex. Created medicine to knockout liver so treatments could be delivered without being detoxed by the liver
6) Other benefits of technology?
a. antibiotics:
i. now we can fight influenza
ii. now we can fight AIDS
b. people come in knocking on death’s door and can be cured in 3-4 days
7) Bad results from technology?
a. Sometimes hospitals give patients diseases they wouldn’t otherwise get – can result in death
CONCLUSION: Technology has led us to research and develop medicines. We found that medicine needs to be created with caution because it can be tainted and overprescribed, which may cause deaths and allow for bacteria to mutate. While these medicines result in deaths on rare cases, ultimately, medicine has improved the quality of life for many people and allowed people to live who would otherwise die.
Meeting with Dr. Klompas
David M. – Doctor Summary
Dr. Klompas is an infection control specialist (pharmacoepidemiologist), and he talked a lot about drugs and their effects on the body. He explained some of the worst cases he’s had, and one of them involved flesh-eating bacteria. Apparently it is highly painful, and it required defacing surgery to be dealt with. But he also pointed to the good things that have happened in his career: people’s lives have been saved because of his efforts. Dr. Klompas was highly optimistic to the future of medicine, and he said that world-wide disease prevention would be more likely to occur with more doctor-moms. If many moms were trained with basic medical skills, the cases of disease would be much less. He said that he enjoys his work, and he likes to help people in general. Will science save us or slay us? He said save.
Blogging from Best Buy
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Outside of the box and outside of oil
David M.
JUA Day 1: Research
Ross, Alex T., David M. and Jeremy W. all working on researching their driving questions.
Luke and Matt are a little camera shy, but who cares so long as they are productive.
Who's marketing medicine to you?
menopausal studies does more than alleviate the
symptoms of menopause. It was also discovered to
cause an increased rate of heart attack along with
other ailments of the circulatory system. The article
goes on to explain how this could have happened,
suggesting that results of a drug can vary depending
on the patient taking it to the fact that some
companies want their novel drugs to be sold so quickly
that their method of retail can sometimes cause the
quality of a product to suffer. Next, turning the
attention towards doctors, they address these doctors
can do about the drug. It seems that some drug
companies try to sell their product to the doctors
through bribery, often offering education seminars.
Lastly we find out what can we do as the consumer.
The best thing anyone can do is to be educated and ask
as many questions as possible. Like testing the
aspect of science through the JUA, you're urged to
test the legitimacy of the drug and the knowledge of
your doctor about the drug.
Summary by Eric C. of http://www.healingedge.net/store/side_effects.html
Over the counter or out of the ground?
Summary by Ross A.
This Green Old House
Summary by Mike R.
What does not kill them makes them stronger.
Them, in this case, refers to the growing number of bacterial strains that can survive assaults by the most powerful antibiotics known to medicine. They have earned the nickname, "superbugs," and they're a potentially deadly threat that man has actually helped to create.
Drug Resistant Disease
Alex T.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Group Meeting
Alex is supplying the video camera
Morgan is bring the digital camera
Morgan, Annie, Jeremy, David and Thrower are bringing laptops
Thrower and Ricci are bring suits
Erik & Alex D..............................Pharmacoepidemiology
Jeremy, Annie & Matt Ye ........LEED Certified Green Buildings
David & Morgan.........................MOS
Ricci, Thrower Alex D...............Filming
Ross & Luke...............................Infection Control
Monday, December 10, 2007
Final Itinerary for JUA
What is LEED Platinum Certified Mean?
In the United States and in a number of other countries around the world, LEED certification is the recognized standard for measuring building sustainability. Achieving LEED certification is the best way for you to demonstrate that your building project is truly "green." The LEED green building rating system -- developed and administered by the U.S. Green Building Council, a Washington D.C.-based, nonprofit coalition of building industry leaders -- is designed to promote design and construction practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings and improving occupant health and well-being. For more information visit The Natural Resource Defense Council
Thursday, November 29, 2007
What are we doing in Boston?
Monday
We are going to head out to our first learning block, a community exploration between 10:30 and 11:00am.
We need to be at the Pharmacoepidemiology Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention at 12:45 to meet with Dr. Michael Klompas.
After this we'll do something else (TBD).
After our TDB we'll head to dinner at the Scanlan-Saxe house where we'll blog to our hearts content and talk to Beth Scanlan, a family R.N. and L.P.N. who can answer many of your health questions.
On Tuesday we're going to the MOS and in the afternoon visiting Patti Scanlon (no relation) and R.N. who is an infection control specialist.