Discussion Board English

Discussion Board English ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion Board English Now that you have read at least 3 of the 5 12.7 Critical Approach Scholarly Articles , address the following: Discussion Board English Which approach are you leaning toward the most now that you have read about the five different critical approaches and some articles representing each approach? Why does this approach sound most appealing to you? (1 point) For each of the 3 articles you read (up to 3 points per article): Craft a one-sentence summary of the authors’ main claim, including the authors’ name(s) and title of article. Discussion Board English Choose 1-2 quotes that could be used in discussion of some aspect of Watchmen . For bonus points, you can complete the above for more than 3 articles. You will earn 3 bonus points for each article you read beyond the 3 required. So if you read 4 of the 5, you could earn 13/10 for this assignment. If you read all 5 articles, you could earn 16/10 on this assignment. Note that these bonus points do not count toward you 30 points of extra credit maximum. Those points will added directly to this assignment score. Discussion Board English brain_matters___from_environmental_ethics_to_environmental_neuroethics.pdf gender_evolution_in_graphic_novels.pdf introduction_comics_and_modernism.pdf marxism_and_consumer_culture.pdf our_unconscious_ Cabrera et al. Environmental Health (2016) 15:20 DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0114-3 COMMENTARY Open Access Brain matters: from environmental ethics to environmental neuroethics Laura Y. Cabrera1,2*, Jordan Tesluk1,3, Michelle Chakraborti1, Ralph Matthews3 and Judy Illes1 Abstract The ways in which humans affect and are affected by their environments have been studied from many different perspectives over the past decades. However, it was not until the 1970s that the discussion of the ethical relationship between humankind and the environment formalized as an academic discipline with the emergence of environmental ethics. A few decades later, environmental health emerged as a discipline focused on the assessment and regulation of environmental factors that affect living beings. Our goal here is to begin a discussion specifically about the impact of modern environmental change on biomedical and social understandings of brain and mental health, and to align this with ethical considerations. We refer to this focus as Environmental Neuroethics, offer a case study to illustrate key themes and issues, and conclude by offering a five-tier framework as a starting point of analysis. Keywords: Brain health, Mental health, Environment, Ethics, Social implications Background: At the crossroads of environment, brain and mental health Humans have altered their environments in pursuit of self-improvement and better opportunities since ancient times, but the scope and impact of these changes are unprecedented today [1]. Technological advancements have yielded positive economic growth, improved standards of living, and provided new ways of protecting human health. At the same time, technology has contributed to widespread negative changes in the environment that include global climate change, deforestation, suburban sprawl, ecosystem loss, and increased health risks from exposure to radiation, toxicants, and stress. While there are different views among scholars of environmental ethics about why humans should value the environment [2], a common position focuses on direct and potential consequences to human health and well-being [3]. Environmental health experts similarly focus on environmental changes in terms of their impact on human health. However, within approaches to environmental * Correspondence: Laura.cabrera@singularityu.org 1 National Core for Neuroethics, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Koerner S124, Vancouver, V6T 2B5 B.C., Canada 2 Center for Ethics & Humanities in the Life Sciences, Department of Translational Science and Molecular Medicine, Michigan State University, East Fee Hall, 965 Fee Road, Rm C211, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA Full list of author information is available at the end of the article ethics and environmental health, less attention has been paid to the specific ethical, social and legal implications of these changes for brain and mental health. Discussion Board English 1 To do so, requires that we probe the intersection of diverse biological, social and cultural contexts of human well-being. Brain and mental health are determined by complex interactions between individual predispositions and behavior, social and economic processes, and the environment [4, 5]. Classic examples pointing to an association between neurological function and environmental changes include neurological deficits from exposure to mercury [6] and lead [7–9], various forms of air [10–14] and water pollution [15], pesticides, and solvents [16–20]. Moreover, cross-cultural studies of indigenous worldviews on identity, concepts of the self, and wellness have highlighted the direct and intimate connections between individuals and their environments [21, 22]. These studies remind us not only about cross-cultural differences involved in experiencing brain health and the environment, but also about different layers of vulnerability [23] brought forward by the impact of environmental change. Children [24], the elderly [25], workers who may be exposed occupationally to neurotoxicants [20] and people who live in the proximity of neurotoxicant sources [26] are more vulnerable than other sectors of the population. These unequal levels of exposure interacting with brain stage in development or decline, and differential effects from environmental risks © 2016 Cabrera et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Cabrera et al. Environmental Health (2016) 15:20 are at the core of the environmental justice movement and, in regard to brain and mental health outcomes, are a central concern of Environmental Neuroethics. Our goal here is to begin a discussion specifically about the impact of modern environmental change on biomedical and social understandings of brain and mental health, and to align this with ethical considerations. There are several reasons for thinking that this approach is timely. To start, brain and mental health disorders, many of which have important environmental factors, are leading contributors to disabilities and morbidity that produce critical public health, societal and economic impacts [27]. In addition, brain development, as well as its optimal function throughout the life of individuals, is particularly susceptible to the environment to which a person is exposed [24]. Considering the vulnerability of brains towards environmental exposures that are not easy to identify or to eliminate [24], we can see why brain and mental health are matters of global concern and social justice and, in particular, as the health risks related to environmental exposures are often distributed unequally. Thus, it becomes crucial to mitigate the negative impacts of environmental change while ensuring fair distribution of the positive ones. This balance represents a key aspect of the Environmental Neuroethics approach we present here. Discussion Board English Fracking as a case study Fuel sources with low greenhouse gas emissions are frequently advanced as a replacement to the rapid expansion in fossil fuel usage [28]. Technological advancements such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) have now made extraction of these gas reserves profitable. The fracking process can impact the environment in various ways through the extraction and discharge of massive quantities of contaminated water, injection of various chemicals into the ground, and the disruption of the landscape with high densities of Page 2 of 5 roads and well-heads that encroach on human settlements and wild habitats [29]. Like other literature on environmental change, contamination of the air and water supplies in the vicinity of fracking operations [17, 30] has been linked to health impacts that include asthma, respiratory complaints, gastro-intestinal effects and nosebleeds [31, 32]. Such contamination is also related to negative neurological effects. For example, McKenzie and colleagues [26] carried out a retrospective cohort study of 124,842 births between 1996 and 2009 in rural Colorado examining the associations between maternal proximity to fracking sites and birth outcomes. They found that births to mothers residing close to or surrounded by wells (>125 wells/mile) were twice as likely to have a neural tube defects compared to those with no wells within a 10-mile radius (OR = 2.0; 95 % CI: 1.0, 3.9, based on 59 cases). With these types of foundational studies in mind, we examined the prevalence in the literature of associations made between fracking and neurological or mental health impacts. To this end, we carried out an extensive search of peer-reviewed and gray literature of articles, theses, books, abstracts, and government reports on unconventional gas development (UGD), environment, brain and mental health using Google Scholar, the most comprehensive database relevant to the goals of the study. The searches were based on two primary key terms: (1) unconventional gas development, and (2) brain; key UGD search terms: {unconventional natural gas (+/?) development}, {shale gas (+/?) development}, {fracking} and {hydraulic fracturing}; and, key brain search terms were {brain}, {neuro}, {neurological} and {mental}. We also used a range of secondary search terms to ensure that searches identify studies relevant to culture, First Nations, health, ethics, and solastalgia.2 Of the one hundred and six articles identified, 83 articles originated from the peer-reviewed literature (reviews, N = 57; primary research N = 26) and 23 from the gray literature, dating back to 2009 (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Number of articles on fracking and brain by year (*up to September 2014) Cabrera et al. Environmental Health (2016) 15:20 To provide context, we explored the origin of the cases in our sample for country of corresponding author and corresponding author disciplines. Most returns originated from the United States (USA) (N = 83). Twelve papers originated from Australia and six from Canada. One paper meeting our inclusion criteria originated each from China, Germany, New Zealand, Switzerland and United Kingdom. Based on the corresponding authors’ affiliation, we found that the majority of corresponding authors held multiple disciplinary associations (N = 45). Discussion Board English Twenty-two held affiliations in the health sciences (e.g., medicine), 21 in the social sciences (e.g., sociology, law), 11 were associated with environmental sciences, such as ecology or forestry, and seven have disciplines represented only in a limited basis such as engineering or regional planning. To explore the texts in depth, we conducted a three-part content analysis [33, 34] of the full set of cases. Each individual article was used as the unit of analysis. In the first phase of the analysis, we found that the dominant themes relate to public health (N = 31), and regulation and policy (N = 22). Five articles mention UGD and fracking broadly as a threat to Indigenous health. In a second phase, we focused on brain and mental health. Eight of the 106 papers contain elaborate detailed examination of the impact that UGD poses for brain and mental health, arguments for associations between brain and mental health related to UGD, or both. The remaining papers only explore the relationship between fracking chemicals and neurotoxicity superficially and provide little if any mention of ethical implications. In the third phase, we focused specifically on content related to ethics. Two papers provide substantial ethical discussion. One paper argues that environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing poses “a new threat to human rights” [35]. The other, written by members of the present author group, makes a call to the Presidential Commission for the integration of ethical considerations and neuroscience into the study of environmental change [36]. Sixty-five papers mention safety and issues related to the duty not to inflict harm; 41 papers mention at least one other ethical concern such as trust, vulnerability, justice, and disempowerment but without any further elaboration on the matter. Overall, the findings reveal that while there is emphasis on health, there is limited ethical discussion of brain and mental health impacts. Environmental Neuroethics in the wild Environmental Neuroethics can provide a framework to investigate the ethical and social implications of environmental change on brain and mental health. Building on previous work [37], we propose a five-tier framework: Page 3 of 5 1. Brain science and the environment: Neuroscience discovery that is aligned with the measurement and evaluation of factors that affect the way individuals, communities and society adapt and cope with real or perceived environmental threats to well-being. 2. The relational self and the environment: The interface between the environment and brain and mental health, and the mechanisms by which exposures at key points in life may mediate different brain and mental effects; relationships among mental health stressors, susceptibility to mental health issues, and resilience within the context of changing environments. 3. Cross-cultural factors and the environment: Exploration of the role of culture in the relationship between environment and brain and mental health; interactions between Traditional Ecological Knowledge and neuroscience evidence; the impact of environmental change and varying effects on First Nations and settler communities given respective relationships between culture and the environment. Discussion Board English 4. Social policy and the environment: Priorities and allocation of resources of local social organizations to deal with environmental impacts on brain and mental health. 5. Public discourse and the environment: The engagement of professional disciplines and communities in multidirectional communication and discourse about neurological, psychological, sociological and ethical dimensions of environmental change; facilitation of international, cross-disciplinary, transdisciplinary collaborations; creation of effective outreach programs that promote public understanding about the impact of environmental change on brain and mental health. This framework can be extended more broadly to other environmental impacts such as the extraction of natural resources, air pollution, use of agricultural chemicals, water contamination, proximity to noxious facilities, mining waste and nuclear plants, ocean degradation, food contamination, and habitat destruction. Moreover, while the focus here has been on changes to the physical environment, Environmental Neuroethics is also concerned with other environments such as digital and social environments, and how these impact neurological health. Notwithstanding the opportunity to expand ethical and social discussion around environmental change, priority setting and paths to action are not without challenges. Reliability and stability of evidence [38], knowledge of impacts [39], and appreciation of risk [40–42] are perceived and weighted differently by different stakeholders and are among the key obstacles. Cabrera et al. Environmental Health (2016) 15:20 Conclusions The identified gaps in the ethical discussion related to environmental change and health as well as the vulnerability of brains, suggest that it is time for an Environmental Neuroethics dedicated to address the interaction of biomedical and social understandings of anthropogenic environmental change. In moving forward, results and resulting scholarship and guidance must be specific, solution-oriented, and proportionate to the benefits and risks in play. Page 4 of 5 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Endnotes 1 We use the term mental health to include “wellbeing, everyday problems in living associated with bodily symptoms of stress and anxiety, mild depression, and seasonal fluctuations in mood and energy, as well as more severe psychiatric disorders, such as major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders” [21 xiv]. 2 A term used to refer to distress cause by environmental change. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 18. Authors’ contributions LC participated in the design of the study, carried out analysis of data and drafted the manuscript. MC gathered the data and helped with the analysis. JT, RM participated in the design of the study and interpretation of data. JI conceived the study, participated in its design and coordination, and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. 19. Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the support of CIHR (MOP-111240), the North Growth Foundation, and the Canada Research Chairs Program. This work was further enabled by support from the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute. 21. 20. 22. 23. 24. Author details 1 National Core for Neuroethics, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Koerner S124, Vancouver, V6T 2B5 B.C., Canada. 2Center for Ethics & Humanities in the Life Sciences, Department of Translational Science and Molecular Medicine, Michigan State University, East Fee Hall, 965 Fee Road, Rm C211, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA. 3Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. 25. 26. 27. v Received: 7 September 2015 Accepted: 4 February 2016 28. References 1. Watts N, Maiero M, Olson S, Hales J, Miller C, Campbell K, et al. Our planet, our health, our future. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012. 2. Sagoff M. Zuckerman’s dilemma: A plea for environmental ethics. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;21:1–10. 3. Katz E, Light A. Environmental pragmatism. New York: Routledge; 1996. 4. Blas E, Sommerfeld J, Kurup AS. Social determinants approaches to public health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. 5. Public Health Agency of Canada. What determines health? 2011. http:// www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/determinants/. Accessed 05 Dec 2014. 6. Grandjean P, Herz KT. Methylmercury and brain development: Imprecision and underestimation of developmental neurotoxicity in humans. Mt Sinai J Med. 2011;78:107–18. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Patterson CC. Contaminated and natural lead environments of man. Arch Environ Health. 1965;11:344–60. Needleman HL, Schell A, Bellinger D, Leviton A, Allred EN. The long-term effects of exposure to low doses of lead in childhood. An 11-year follow-up report. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:83–8. Nelson RM. Appropriate risk exposure in environmental health research. The Kennedy-Krieger lead abatement study. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2002;24:445–9. Calderón-Garcidueñas L, Azzarelli B, Acuna H, Garcia R, Gambling TM, Osnaya N, et al. Air pollution and brain damage. Toxicol Pathol. 2002;30: 373–89. Calderón-Garcidueñas L, Mora-Tiscareño A. Air pollution, cognitive deficits and brain abnormalities: A pilot study with children and dogs. Brain Cogn. 2008;68:117–27. Calderón-Garcidueñas L, Reed W, Maronpot R, Henriquez-Rold NC, DelgadoChavez R, Calderón-Garcidueñas A, et al. Brain inflammation and Alzheimer’s-like pathology in individuals exposed to severe air pollution. Toxicol Pathol. 2004;32:650–8. Field RA, Soltis J, Murphy S. Air quality concerns of unconventional oil and natural gas production. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2014;16:954–69. Peters A, Veronesi B, Calderón-Garcidueñas L, Gehr P, Chen LC, Geiser M, et al. Translocation and potential neurological effects of fine and ultrafine particles a critical update. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2006;3:13. Villanueva CM, Kogevinas M, Cordier S, Templeton MR, Vermeulen R, Nuckols JR, et al. Assessing exposure and health consequences of chemicals in drinking water: Current state of knowledge and research needs. Environ Health Perspec. 2014;122:213–21. Dick FD. Solvent neurotoxicity. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63:221–6. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Lancet. 2006;368:2167–78. Grandjean P, Harari R, Barr DB, Debes F. Pesticide exposure and stunting as independent predictors of neurobehavioral deficits in Ecuadorian school children. Pediatrics. 2006;117:e546–56. Harari R, Julvez J, Murata K, Barr D, Bellinger DC, Debes F, et al. Neurobehavioral deficits and increased blood pressure in school-age children prenatally exposed to pesticides. Environ Health Perspec. 2010;118: 890–6. Tang CY, Car … Discussion Board English Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat

Good News ! We now help with PROCTORED EXAM. Chat with a support agent for more information


Thank you for choosing MyCoursebay. Your presence is a motivation to us. All papers are written from scratch. Plagiarism is not tolerated. Order now for a 15% discount

Order Now