– Hundreds online are fuming after professors at the University of Colorado told students that man-made climate change wouldn't be open for debate in their online course. In an email to students who complained after an initial lecture for "Medical Humanities in the Digital Age," professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren, and Eileen Skahill explain the course is "based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the 'other side' of the climate change debate be taught or discussed," per the College Fix. "If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course." The email notes students won't be allowed to debate man-made climate change in class forums and must use research materials peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The course syllabus also suggests only the negative impacts of fracking will be taught. Many have expressed their support, but hundreds have also objected, calling the professors "hostile control freaks." "If these professors feel they have such a case for man-made global warming, shouldn't they be able to take all comers?" an assistant professor at Missouri's Jefferson College says, per the Washington Times. A university rep says the professors have offered to discuss the course with students "who have concerns or differing opinions."

Expand this summary.
‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’ 
  
 Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course. 
  
 “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course. 
  
 Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change. 
  
 “Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued. 
  
 “… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.” 
  
 The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states. 
  
 Professors Laroche, Skahill, and Haggren did not respond to email inquiries from The College Fix seeking further comment on their email or their stance on debate in their online class. 
  
 The University Communications Director Tom Hutton told The College Fix via email that “Humanities 3990 is a special topics course with multiple choices for students to take when fulfilling requirements.” 
  
 “By clearly stating the class focus,” he continued, “the faculty are allowing students to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative. Additionally, the faculty who are leading the course have offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or differing opinions.” 
  
 In addition to teaching man-made climate change, the course also delves into the “health effects of fracking,” according to its syllabus. 
  
 The reading assignments in the fracking section focus on only its negative impacts and fail to present the other side of the issue, namely the possible benefits of fracking. 
  
 Assigned readings includes: “4 States Struggling to Maintain Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies,” and “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affected People.’” 
  
 An activity assigned within that section instructs students to take a test to measure their own carbon footprint. The purpose, reads the syllabus, “is not to create guilt or shame, though those emotions are entirely common.” 
  
 MORE: Ore. school board prohibits climate change skepticism 
  
 MORE: Campus flyers ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ ripped up 
  
 MORE: Profs argue capitalism abuses minorities through pollution 
  
 Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter 
  
 IMAGE: Brett Tatman / Flickr ||||| ‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’ 
  
 Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course. 
  
 “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course. 
  
 Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change. 
  
 “Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued. 
  
 “… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.” 
  
 The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states. 
  
 Professors Laroche, Skahill, and Haggren did not respond to email inquiries from The College Fix seeking further comment on their email or their stance on debate in their online class. 
  
 The University Communications Director Tom Hutton told The College Fix via email that “Humanities 3990 is a special topics course with multiple choices for students to take when fulfilling requirements.” 
  
 “By clearly stating the class focus,” he continued, “the faculty are allowing students to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative. Additionally, the faculty who are leading the course have offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or differing opinions.” 
  
 In addition to teaching man-made climate change, the course also delves into the “health effects of fracking,” according to its syllabus. 
  
 The reading assignments in the fracking section focus on only its negative impacts and fail to present the other side of the issue, namely the possible benefits of fracking. 
  
 Assigned readings includes: “4 States Struggling to Maintain Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies,” and “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affected People.’” 
  
 An activity assigned within that section instructs students to take a test to measure their own carbon footprint. The purpose, reads the syllabus, “is not to create guilt or shame, though those emotions are entirely common.” 
  
 MORE: Ore. school board prohibits climate change skepticism 
  
 MORE: Campus flyers ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ ripped up 
  
 MORE: Profs argue capitalism abuses minorities through pollution 
  
 Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter 
  
 IMAGE: Brett Tatman / Flickr ||||| DENVER — The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs is coming under fire after three professors warned their class that there would be no debate on human-caused climate change and that any students who disagree should drop the course. 
  
 The professors, who are team-teaching the fall online course Medical Humanities in the Digital Age, issued the memo after some students expressed concerns about the first online lecture on climate change, according to the College Fix, which obtained a copy of the email. 
  
 “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring,” said the professors. “We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course.” 
  
 “Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a nondebate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” they added. 
  
 For those who disagree with the course’s premise, “we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.” 
  
 The report on Wednesday generated hundreds of comments critical of the professors’ decision on the College Fix website. 
  
 “If these professors feel they have such a case for man-made global warming, shouldn’t they be able to take all comers?” said Douglas J. Hale, an assistant professor at Jefferson College in Hillsboro, Missouri. “Perhaps they aren’t qualified to defend it and simply choose to eliminate the debate from their curriculum. How sad.” 
  
 University spokesman Tom Hutton said that the faculty had clearly stated the “class focus,” which allows students “to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative.” 
  
 “Additionally, the faculty who are leading the course have offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or differing opinions,” Mr. Hutton said. 
  
 An online reading list posted by the professors — Wendy Haggen, Rebecca Laroche and Eileen Skahill — shows that the course also plans to address the “health effects of fracking.” 
  
 The course’s reading includes articles by EcoWatch, Frack Free Colorado, and Physicians for Social Responsibility as part of a section on “how marginalized communities (in this case class disparities) disproportionately suffer in our energy consumptive society in the age of climate change.” 
  
 Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves injecting highly pressurized liquid deep into sedimentary rock formations to loosen oil and natural gas deposits. The process, which has propelled the U.S. industry to world dominance in natural gas production, is staunchly opposed by the environmental movement, which has accused fracking of fouling groundwater and causing minor earthquakes in some areas. 
  
 Even so, the EPA released a preliminary study last year showing “no widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water” from fracking. 
  
 Several Colorado communities have voted to ban fracking, but those decisions were later overturned in court. Environmentalists led by Food & Water Watch failed to gather enough signatures earlier this week to place two anti-fracking measures on the November ballot. ||||| COURSE INSTRUCTORS (in alphabetical order) Please note: When asking general course information, please contact the instructor of your section. Wendy Haggren, Section OL3, whaggren@uccs.edu, Centennial Hall, rm 218. Office hours Wednesday 3:00 – 4:40 and by appointment. Dr. Haggren’s research includes genetic engineering of yeast for the production of biofuels and chemical signaling among bacteria. Rebecca Laroche, Section OL1, rlaroche@uccs.edu, Columbine Hall 1051, Office hours. Tuesdays 12:30-1:30 and 4:30-6:30 (unless otherwise noted in Weekly Content Folder) and by appointment. Prof. Laroche is an English Professor who works in texts from the sixteenth- and seventeenth-centuries (the age of Shakespeare). Her research is in early modern recipe collections. Eileen Skahill, Section OL2, eskahill@uccs.edu, Academic Offices 429. Office hours: Wednesdays 12:00-1:00, online via email 11am-2pm daily and by appointment. Prof. Skahill’s area of inquiry is the Sociology of climate change with an emphasis on environmental and social justice movements and the importance of Indigenous ways of knowing the natural world. COURSE DESCRIPTION AND STRUCTURE: This Humanities course will be delivered in two instructional sections. Phase One (Weeks 1–9) Introduces students to the various approaches within the field of the Medical Humanities—Narrative Medicine, History of Medicine, and Medical Ethics—and the topics that arise around these approaches such as empathy, knowledge communities, and complementary care. Phase Two (Weeks 10–16) further spurs students to conceptualize, explore, and evaluate how the Medical Humanities are transforming in the 21st century. Specifically, students will study how the concepts and practices examined in Phase One are being reborn in the digital world and examines ethical dilemmas and practical challenges in this age. COURSE OBJECTIVES: Each student who successfully completes this class will be able to HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 1 
  
 1. Define the medical humanities discipline and its constitutive parts of narrative medicine, history of medicine, and medical ethics. 2. Apply the methodologies of inquiry in the medical humanities to the digital age. 3. Analyze the effects of the digital age on the methods, scholarship, and public understanding of the medical humanities. 4. Integrate their analyses with their experiences of the applied case studies introduced over various weeks. COURSE REQUIREMENTS: Readings The readings for this course will be available on the course Blackboard site as PDF documents and through the purchase of e-books. Technology Please see details about technology requirements for this online course in the Welcome Letter, e-mailed to students enrolled in this class and found on the course Blackboard site. Our course technologist is Kathryn Andrus who can help with specific elements of this course. Her email is kandrus@uccs.edu. COURSE GRADING SYSTEM This course’s grading system is based on a total of 1000 possible points. Please note that each week includes a significant percent of the course’s total points: Week 1 Self-introduction, Start Here, and Smarter Measure Assignment up to 40 points out of 1000 total for course Weeks 2–7, and 10, 12–14: each week of content contains assignments worth up to 40 points out of 1000 total for course. Combined, these 10 weeks are worth up to 400 points out of 1000 total for the course. These assignments include quizzes, short answer assignments, Wiki contributions, discussion boards, and the like. Week 8: Writing Workshop. Assignments in this week are worth up to 40 points out of the 1000 for the course. Week 9 Midterm Written Assignment (400–500 words): up to 150 points out of 1000 for the course. Week 11: Revision Week up to 120 out of 1000 total for the course. Week 16 Final Assignment (600–700 words): up to 250 points out of 1000 total for the course. Part of this assignment will be to incorporate a revision of the Midterm assignment into your argument. CLASS SCHEDULE FOR HUM 3990-OL — Fall 2016 The details and content for each week’s assignments are provided in the course Blackboard site’s “Weekly Course Content” folders for each week. Phase 1: Questions in Action: Introduction to the Medical Humanities Week 1 Start Here (August 22–28): Introduction and How this Course Works Meeting your instructors, introducing yourself, and overview of this course. 1. Watch the Video titled “MED HUM 3990 OL F16 Introduction to Course” 2. Read “How this course works” 3. Submit Smarter Measure PDF. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 2 
  
 4. Introduce yourself (100–150 words) to your classmates by posting to your group’s discussion board and an image that represents you at this moment in your career at UCCS. Due Sunday August 28th at 11:59 p.m. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total. Week 2 (August 29–September 4): The Art of Memory: Book History, Cyborgs, and Narrative Medicine – Dr. Laroche 1. Complete Reading: Chapter 2 from An Introduction to Book History by David Finkelstein, and Alastair McCleery, to be purchased as an e-book at Amazon.com or like supplier: http://amzn.to/1vydMbH ; and “Narrative Medicine Heals Bodies and Souls” from The Utne Reader, September-October 2009: http://www.utne.com/mind-and-body/narrative-medicine-heals-bodies-andsouls.aspx 2. Listen to Podcast Episode: “Our Computers, Ourselves,” Invisibilia, episode from February 12, 2015. http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilia (through minute 33). 3. Listen to 20-minute lecture: “Reading, Writing, Listening, Memory, and the origins of Narrative Medicine” in Week 2 folder. 4. Complete Short Written Assignment: 1. Have someone in your life read an article to you (newspaper, magazine, or blogpost, either from online or in print). 2. Have that someone read another to you as you read along silently. 3. Now read another separately and silently. 4. Write a 150-word record (including the names of the articles and the identification of your reader) of the differences among these three experiences in not only the knowledge you attain, but also in the experience of attaining that knowledge with others. Post this to the discussion board labeled in the weekly content folder. Students must post their content before they can enter the discussion. 5. Having thus reflected on these differences and posted them and drawing on this week’s materials (including one direct quote), then consider (in about 150 words) in your response to a peer’s post the implications for this assignment if the situation in which the “article” being read is a patient’s narrative of her/his illness. Due by 11:59 pm September 4. Worth up to 40 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 3 (September 5–September 11) “Every Man His Own Doctor”: Cheap Print, Recipe Circulation, and the History of Medicine in Early Modern England – Dr. Laroche 1. Read: Chapter 3 from An Introduction to Book History by David Finkelstein, and Alastair McCleery From The Book: A Global History, and Harold Love, “Manuscript After the Coming of Print” (PDF); Four entries from recipes.hypotheses.org (linked in the Weekly Content folder for Week 3); 2. Watch: Short “Prologue” and “Syrup of Violets" and 35-Minute Video Lecture, “Every Man His Own Doctor”: Cheap Print, Recipe Circulation, and Medical Authority in Early Modern England". 3. Take the QUIZ on reading/video lecture (by 11:59pm, September 11). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 3 
  
 4. Complete Written Assignment (by 11:59 p.m., September 11). Worth up to 20 points out of 100 for the course: Part 1. Recipe Wiki. Transcribe a recipe from your local community (family, library, church, school) into a word document. This does not have to be a medicinal recipe. In the title of your recipe provide person(s) who is the source and their place of origin. Let us also know if you have made the recipe (and what the results were). If you haven't made the recipe, record any testimonies to its quality. Now copy this entry into the collective section wiki linked in the sidebar under Wiki Recipes, then your section number. Do not create your own page, but rather edit the wiki content that exists (the history function shows us each person's additions). Consider how you will distinguish your entry from others and where you will place your recipe amongst the collective. Part 2. Comment on your own wiki entry and answer the following questions in a paragraph (150 words): How may your relationship to your source inform the experience of making the recipe and your faith in the outcome? How did you decide where to place your recipe in the collective recipe book? How might selfnarration enter the collecting, writing, and making of recipes? Where does authority lie in the collecting of recipes? Finally, including at least one quotation from this week’s reading, tell how your experience taught you something about the relationship between individual recipe collecting to Oral culture/Manuscript culture/Print Culture/Computer Culture or perhaps the transition from one to the other? Submit this assignment separately as a Word doc. in the Recipes Reflection assignment link below in the Weekly Content folder. Week 4 (September 12–18) Plague: Community Perceptions of the Disease, the Victims, and the Survivors — Wendy Haggren 1. Watch: Voiced over powerpoint lecture on an ancient plague and a modern plague (40 min.) Sonia Shah (p. 13): “… telling the stories of new pathogens through the lens of a historical pandemic…” 2. Read: Thucydides: The Jowett Translation. 2.47-2.54 (431 BCE). http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/thucydides/thucydidespassages.php?pleaseget=2.47-54,2.57-58,3.87&passageid=The%20Plague (I have copied sections 2.47 – 2.54 into a word.docx); An account of the plague written by a general who was also an historian (3 pp). This is a first person account of disease symptoms; the first known mention of immunity in literature; and observation of who nursed the stricken. 3. Read: Shah, Sonia. Pandemic: Tracking Contagions, from Cholera to Ebola and Beyond. New York, Sarah Crichton Books, FSG, 2016.Chapter 1, pp. 15 – 35. 4. Watch: a short video by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/video/health/100000003420384/the-path-of-the-ebolaoutbreak.html, (5 min 13 sec). A factual, visual account of the initial spread of the Ebola virus from patient “0” in the distant forest to the crowded capital city of Guinea (Conakry). You can see the cleared land around the village, note the false sense of security when the number of cases originally dropped, similar to historical outbreaks deep in the African forests, and see the difference between village life and the capital city. 5. Read: Craig Spencer, “Having and fighting Ebola—Public health lessons from a clinician turned patient,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 372:1089-1091, March 19, 2015 (about 2 pages). First person narrative of surviving Ebola and HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 4 
  
 finding out that he had been vilified by the local media for walking around town before the fever developed. 6. Take quiz on lecture and readings (by 11:59pm, September 18). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. 7. Complete short written assignment: (300–400 words) Three medical professionals have recently returned to Colorado Springs from Africa where they treated people with Ebola. One has developed the fever and symptoms of Ebola and is in quarantine in a local hospital. Your aunt is very upset that the other two individuals are still walking around Colorado Springs and that you are volunteering at the hospital where the ill person is being treated. Write a short dialogue between you and your aunt in which you explain to her the medical possibilities of an Ebola outbreak in Colorado Springs and of her contracting the disease. Be sure to include at least 3 questions or statements from her. You may take any viewpoint you wish, as long as you support it with two quotes from this week’s lecture and readings. Be aware of the language and tone you use with your aunt who has a high school education and reads the newspaper (by 11:59pm, September 18). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 5 (September 19–25) The Cultural Context of Medical Treatment and Healing — Wendy Haggren 1. Watch: Voiced over powerpoint lecture on the biology of the immune system (briefly) and how Ebola affects the human body; African community-healer treatments for Ebola; modern medical treatments for Ebola; and what we have learned by not considering the culture of a community undergoing an Ebola outbreak. (40 min) 2. Read: Thompson, Amy E., “The Immune System,” Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA Patient Page, 313(16): 1686, 2015. (1 page) 3. Watch: a short video by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/video/health/100000003416721/ebolas-patient-zero.html (5 min 38 sec) This is a personal account of the initial Ebola victims by the man who lost his famil. Note how many languages were involved in the making of this video. Relate the response of the village-healers to this first outbreak to what you will read in the Hewlett and Amola (2003) paper. 4. Read: Barry S. Hewlett and Richard P. Amola, “Cultural contexts of Ebola in northern Uganda,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 9(10):1242-1248, 2003. This article considers lessons on effective treatment by combining appropriate local beliefs with modern medical science 5. Quiz: Complete this short assignment in Medical Science, trace, label and briefly explain, given a human outline with specific body areas indicated, the course by which humans might develop protective antibodies to Ebola and suggest why this doesn’t always happen (by 11:59pm, September 25). Worth up to 10 points out of 1000 total for the course. 6. Complete 2 Written Assignments: 1. Create a new recipe wiki by selecting a recipe from your week 3 wiki and identify which ingredients will help boost immune response and explain your answer. Modify a different recipe by exchanging ingredients for one or more that will boost the immune system; again, HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 5 
  
 explain (by 11:59pm, September 25). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. 2. Comment: Why or why not might a medical practice here in town be willing to distribute your immune-boosting recipes for free if you found a way to print hundreds of copies. What support or arguments do you think you might you receive from today’s medical professionals? (By 11:59pm, September 25). Worth up to 10 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 6 (September 26–October 2) Cultural Ways of Knowing Nature: Indigenous and 21st Century Perspectives On Our Relationship with the Natural World and Its Healing Power — Eileen Skahill *Watch: Brief Instructor video discussing the week’s content and explaining in detail the study of environmental sociology in the age of climate change, emphasizing the connections between society, ecology and the economy with the premise that the planet is a “shared commons”. *Read: 1. Wall-Kimmerer: Braiding Sweet Grass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants pgs: 1-38 BB 2. David Suzuki: “Interconnections” pgs. 1-11 BB 3. National Geographic: “This Is Your Brain on Nature” http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/call-to-wildtext?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm _content=link_fb20151223ngmcalltowild&utm_campaign=Content&sf17614328=1 *Written Assignment: Part 1 Watch 1. Numen (film trailer 5:46) https://vimeo.com/ondemand/numenfilm Part 2: Write (200-250 word count/ total): 2. Compare the perspectives of the village—healers in Dr. Haggren’s Week 5 content on Ebola with the Indigenous perspective in Wall— Kimmerer’s readings. How are their approaches similar or different? 3. Using the Numen video and the National Geographic article, answer the following questions considering the role of the whole of nature as a healing. a. What was your connection to nature when you were a child? Did you spend time outdoors and what did you do? b. What is your relationship with nature now as an adult? How has it changed? What role has technology played in the relationship you have with nature as an adult? c. Do you personally use nature (or realize that you do) as a “healing power” in managing stress in your life as the National Geographic article suggests HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 6 
  
 d. Do you personally use nature (or realize that you do) as a “healing power” in managing stress in your life? e. In what ways do you use herbal or medicinal plants as a form of health care and/or healing? Due by 11:59 pm October 2nd. Worth up to 40 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 7 (October 3–9): Fracking and Public Health: Narratives from the “Gas Patch” and the Medical Community Response to the Health Effects of Fracking -Eileen Skahill *Watch: Brief voiceover power point lecture on the history of energy development in the United States and how marginalized communities (in this case class disparities) disproportionally suffer in our energy consumptive society in the age of climate change. *Watch FILM: Split Estate *Read: 1. EcoWatch: “4 States Struggling to Manage Radioactive Fracking Waste http://www.ecowatch.com/4-states-struggling-to-manageradioactive-fracking-waste-1891181106.html 2. Frack Free Colorado: “Colorado’s Affected People” http://www.frackfreecolorado.com/cos-affected-people.html 3. Public News Service: “Fracking and Children”: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-05-23/climate-change-airquality/study-fracking-pollution-disproportionately-impactschildren/a52051-1 4. EcoWatch: “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies”: http://www.ecowatch.com/epa-­‐science-­‐advisory-­‐board-­‐fracking-­‐study-­‐ water-­‐contamination-­‐1968795058.html 5. Physician’s for Social Responsibility: “Position Statement” http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/psr-fracking-policy.pdf *Optional Reading: Concerned Health Professionals of New York- A Compendium: http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/ *Interactive Assignment: Take the My Ecological Footprint Quiz. (Go to: http://myfootprint.org/subscription.php and enter Professor Skahill’s UCCS address and password provided below.) This activity is meant to give you a sense of your personal carbon footprint and impact on the Earth and its resources (not to create guilt or shame, though those emotions are entirely common). Print or write out your results for use in the discussion forum assignment. HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 7 
  
 Use the following values when prompted to log in: E-mail: eskahill@uccs.edu Password: rAOELEWR *Discussion Forum: Part 1 & 2 (200–250 word count/ total) Part 1: 1. Post your Footprint result and the total amount of planets required for your lifestyle. Describe your reaction to your results. 2. Now think about your results in the context of the film Split Estate and the articles assigned for this week and answer the following question: • Knowing that our use of energy is derived primarily through the extraction of natural gas and oil, how do our carbon footprints, individually and collectively, affect the health and well being of people from both local and global communities? Due by 11:59 pm October 9th. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. Part 2: • • • • Apply your understanding of the Indigenous perspectives learned in Week 6 in answering the following question: Does our use of energy take into account the Indigenous perspective of the Earth and its resources? Do we see ourselves as having a relationship with the Earth where the balance of consumption and preservation are taken into account? Do we see that technological advances may benefit us as humans, but not always the planet? Is there really a separation of the two? (keep in mind Wall- Kimmerer, and Suzuki's idea of our interconnections with the natural world). You must thoughtfully comment on at least two (2) student posts. Due by 11:59 pm October 9th. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 8 (October 10–16): Reflection and Writing Workshop – Haggren, Laroche, and Skahill 1. Complete the Writing Center Workshop, which will prepare you for writing your first long written assignment by watching the PowerPoint presentation in this folder. This workshop has two discussion tasks associated with it that you will find in the group discussion forum. The workshop activities are worth up to 40 HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 8 
  
 points out of 1000 points total for the course. Please see complete instructions in the appendix page for Writing Workshop assignments. In this week: • • • • Watch this week’s videos for an orientation to the week’s activities and to your written assignment. The activities due this week will also help you prepare for the final written assignment, which is due in Week 16. Read the description of the Written Assignment for this week and the longer assignment due for Week 9 (also found in the syllabus in the Appendix). Write sample paragraph and post in the Group Discussion forum called “Sample Paragraphs Peer Review.” Once you have done so, you will be able to respond to a post of a peer. (Due Sunday, October 16th, at 11:59 p.m.). This is worth 20 points out of 1000 points total for the course. Share your writing process in a post in the Group Discussion forum called "Sharing your writing process" in writing or by attaching a file/image. Once you have done so, you will be able to respond to a post of a peer. (Due Sunday, October 16th, at 11:59 p.m.) This is worth 20 points out of 1000 points total for the course. Phase 2: Rethinking Medical Practice in the Digital Age Week 9 (October 17–23): Upload the Midterm Essay to the Assignment link for the Midterm Essay. Documents uploaded to this link will be automatically checked for originality. The Midterm Essay is worth up to 150 points total out of 1000 for the course. Please see directions for this assignment below. Due Sunday, October 23, by 11:59 p.m. Week 10 (October 24–30): The Question of (Cyber)Empathy — Rebecca Laroche 1. Watch “Prologue” video and content video “The Question of CyberEmpathy” 2. Read Leslie Jamison, “The Empathy Exams,” from The Empathy Exams, PDF provided. 3. Listen to Podcast, “The Secret, Gruesome Internet for Doctors,” episode #2 of the series Reply All, November 24, 2014. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/2instagram-for-doctors/ 4. Look over the images from: http://hyperallergic.com/104337/grotesque-andgorgeous-100000-art-and-medicine-images-released-for-open-use/ 5. Write in a Word Document, a 100-150-word fictional scene from the first-person point-of-view of the patient (one that empathizes with that patient) in one of the images from the website or described in the podcast. Now in 200-250 words, engaging Leslie Jamison’s essay and the podcast directly, analyze the tension between creative empathy and diagnostic detachment. Submit both of these in one document into the assignment folder in the Weekly Content Folder. Worth 40 out of the 1000 points for the course (Due by 11:59, October 30). Week 11 (October 31–November 6): Revision. In this week students will be revising their midterm assignment based on the assessment they have received from their instructor. In completing this assignment, students must read closely the comments and feedback they have received from the instructor in the margins, in the grade comments, and in the rubric for the assignment. The revision will be assessed based on the extent HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 9 
  
 to which these comments were considered and the level of revision. Worth 120 points out of the 1000 points for the course. Week 12 (November 7–13): Self-Diagnosis in the Digital Age — Rebecca Laroche 1. Read Heidi Julavits, “Diagnose This: How to be your own best doctor” (Harper’s Magazine, April 2014); Finkelstein and McCleary, Chapter 7, “The Future of the Book,” from An Introduction to Book History, which you purchased at the beginning of the course. 2. Watch Video Lecture (20 minutes), “Self-Diagnosis in the Digital Age.” 3. Take Quiz. (By 11:59 p.m., November 13), 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the course. 4. Surf some websites that give medical advice and diagnosis (Not Isabel as I'll be talking about that a little in lecture. Avoid computer viruses). Choose one and begin a discussion thread by providing its name as the thread title. In post answer the following: 1) What is the web address? Is it a .com, .org, or .edu? What does the address tell you about its source? 2) How does the site create a sense of authority? Does the site instill confidence? If yes, how so? If not, how does it fail to do so? 3). How does the site approach the problem of diagnosis? That is, how would you describe its approach? 4). How might this site change the relationship between doctor and patient as discussed in the reading (citing at least one instance from the reading)? Engage a post of one of your peers. (11:59 p.m., October 23). 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the course. Week 13 (November 14–20): Historical and Digital Age Opposition to Vaccination — Wendy Haggren 1. Watch: Voiced over powerpoint lecture on the history of variolation, vaccination, and the violent early history of anti-vaccinationsts from the 1721 smallpox outbreak in Boston to the 1777 and George Washington’s push to variolate his troops without congressional approval. The ups and downs of vaccine design and production; modern anti-vaxxers. (40 min) 2. Read: Robert M. Wolfe and Lisa K. Sharp, “Anti-vaccinationists past and present,” British Medical Journal, 325:430-432, 2002. 3. Read: Stefan Blancke, et al., “Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition,” Trends in Plant Sciences, (5 pages), 2015. Just substitute the term “vaccination” for “GMO;” this describes a philosophical view of ways that human nature influences decision making. 4. Read: Jeanette B. Ruiz and Robert A. Bell, “Understanding vaccination resistance: Vaccine search term selection bias and the valance of retrieved information,” Vaccine, 32:5776-5780, 2014. 5. Quiz: over this week’s lecture and reading (By 11:59 p.m., November 20), 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the course. 6. Discussion Board: Without naming names or inserting your viewpoint, interview and report on the attitude and reasoning of two friends or family members with opposing views on vaccination (~100 words). Then comment on one post from another student in which you empathize with a view not your own, but you do not have to agree with it. Be professional and respectful. (By 11:59 p.m., November 20), 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the course. Week 14 (November 21–27): Thanksgiving Break HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 10 
  
 Week 15 (November 28–December 4): The Consequences of Controlling Nature: Ethics and the Importance of Cultivating Gratitude — Eileen Skahill • • • Watch: Brief Instructor video reorienting students after fall break. Tie together the semester concepts in this final week with an emphasis on the Indigenous idea of respect compassion and empathy for each other cultivating gratitude for the earth and what it provides; that working in union with each other and the earth, all will prosper. Watch: Youtube: “GMO’s: Myths and Truths https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ztZGbLEJ0 Read: 1. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring: “A Fable for Tomorrow” BB 2. EcoWatch: “Glyphosate Found in the Urine of 93% of Americans” http://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-found-in-urine-of-93-percent-ofamericans-tested-1891146755.html 3. Common Dreams: “Huge Victory for American Consumers, Senate Rejects DARK Act” http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/16/huge-victoryamerican-consumers-senate-rejects-dark-act 4. The Guardian: “Should We Wipe Mosquitos Off the Face of the Earth?” https://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/feb/10/should-wewipe-mosquitoes-off-the-face-of-the-earth 5. “FDA Approves Genetically Modified mosquitoes” http://www.nationofchange.org/2016/08/08/fda-approvesgenetically-modified-mosquitoes-combat-zika-florida/ 6. Collective Evolution: “Larvicide Manufactured By Sumitomo, Not Zika Virus, True Cause of Brazil’s Microcephaly Outbreak?” http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/06/29/larvicidemanufactured-by-sumitomo-not-zika-virus-true-cause-of-brazilsmicrocephalyoutbreak/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campai gn=Feed%3A+Collective-evolution+%28Collective+Evolution%29 7. Wall Kimmerer: “Allegiance to Gratitude” pgs. 105-117. BB * Written Assignment: Recipes for Healing and Cultivating Gratitude The assignment for this week ties together the ideas presented throughout the semester on narratives and history of medicine, empathy and ethics. In this assignment you will be required to watch the short video on Plant Spirit Medicine and briefly read through the written portions of the attached document “The Healing Power of Plants” placing special emphasis on Plant Spirit Medicinal recipes. Part 1: Watch: 1. “Walk the Talk Show:” Eliot Cowen Talks Plant Spirit Medicine” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWB-QYRiBFw Explore/Scan 2. “The Healing Power of Plants: A Guide” pdf. BB Part 2: HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 11 |||||
– Hundratals online är fuming efter professorer vid University of Colorado berättade för studenter att människan skapade klimatförändringar inte skulle vara öppen för debatt i sin online kurs. I ett e-postmeddelande till studenter som klagat efter en inledande föreläsning för "Medicinsk humaniora i den digitala tidsåldern" förklarar professorerna Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren och Eileen Skahill att kursen bygger på den vetenskapliga förutsättningen att mänsklig framkallad klimatförändring är giltig och sker. Vi kommer aldrig att debattera klimatförändringens vetenskap, och inte heller kommer den "andra sidan" av klimatdebatten att läras ut eller diskuteras," enligt Kollegiet Fix. "Om du tror att denna premiss är en fråga för dig, ber vi dig respektfullt att inte följa den här kursen." E-posten noterar studenter kommer inte att tillåtas att debattera människan-gjorda klimatförändringar i klass forum och måste använda forskningsmaterial peer-reviewed av mellanstatliga panelen för klimatförändringar. Kursplanen föreslår också att endast de negativa effekterna av fracking kommer att läras ut. Många har uttryckt sitt stöd, men hundratals har också protesterat och kallat professorerna för "hostile control freaks". "Om de här professorerna känner att de har ett sådant fall för den globala uppvärmningen, borde de inte kunna ta alla som kommer?" En biträdande professor vid Missouris Jefferson College säger, enligt Washington Times. En universitetsrepresentant säger att professorerna har erbjudit sig att diskutera kursen med studenter "som har bekymmer eller olika åsikter." Utöka denna sammanfattning.
“Hundreds online are fuming after professors at the University of Colorado told students that man created climate change would not be open to debate in his online course. In an email to students complaining after an introductory lecture for "Medical Humanities in the Digital Age", professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill explain that the course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and takes place. We will never debate the science of climate change, nor will the "other side" of the climate debate be taught or discussed," according to College Fix. "If you think this premise is a matter for you, we respectfully ask you not to follow this course." The email notes students will not be allowed to debate human-made climate change in class forums and must use research material peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The syllabus also suggests that only the negative effects of fracking will be taught. Many have expressed their support, but hundreds have also protested and called the professors "hostile control freaks". "If these professors feel they have such a case for global warming, shouldn't they be able to take everyone who comes?" An assistant professor at Missouri's Jefferson College says, according to the Washington Times. A university representative says that the professors have offered to discuss the course with students "who have concerns or different opinions." Extend this summary.
– Vi kommer inte att diskutera klimatförändringsvetenskapen när som helst. Tre professorer samlär en onlinekurs som heter ”Medicinsk humaniora i den digitala tidsåldern” vid University of Colorado-Colorado Springs berättade nyligen för sina studenter via e-post att människan inte skapade klimatförändringar är öppna för debatt, och de som tror annat inte har någon plats i deras kurs. – Utgångspunkten för denna kurs bygger på den vetenskapliga förutsättningen att mänsklig framkallad klimatförändring är giltig och sker. Vi kommer aldrig att diskutera vetenskapen om klimatförändringar, och inte heller kommer den ”andra sidan” av klimatdebatten att läras ut eller diskuteras i denna kurs,” säger e-posten, varav en kopia lämnades till The College Fix av en student i kursen. Undertecknat av kursens professorer Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren och Eileen Skahill skickades den efter att flera studenter uttryckt oro för sin framgång i kursen efter att ha tittat på den första online föreläsningen om effekterna av klimatförändringarna. “Att öppna en debatt som 98% av klimatforskare entydigt enas om att vara en icke-debatt skulle minska de centrala frågor om miljö och hälsa som tas upp i denna kurs,” professorernas e-post fortsatte. “... Om du tror att denna premiss är en fråga för dig, ber vi respektfullt att du inte går denna kurs, eftersom det finns alternativ inom Humanistiska programmet för ansikte mot ansikte denna termin och online nästa.” Professorerna noterar också detta förbud mot debatt sträcker sig till diskussion bland studenter i online forum. Dessutom kan studenter som väljer att använda externa källor för forskning under sin tid i kursen välja endast de som har sakkunniggranskats av mellanstatliga panelen för klimatförändringar, e-posten uppger. Professorerna Laroche, Skahill och Haggren svarade inte på e-postförfrågningar från The College Fix som sökte ytterligare kommentarer på deras e-post eller deras inställning till debatt i deras online-klass. Universitetets kommunikationsdirektör Tom Hutton berättade för The College Fix via e-post att “Humanities 3990 är en specialkurs med flera val för studenter att ta när de uppfyller kraven.” “Genom att tydligt ange klassfokus”, fortsatte han, “fakulteten tillåter studenter att välja om de vill anmäla sig till kursen eller söka ett alternativ. Dessutom har den fakultet som leder kursen erbjudit sig att diskutera det med studenter som har oro eller olika åsikter. Förutom att undervisa människan skapade klimatförändringar, fördjupar sig kursen också i “hälsoeffekter av fracking”, enligt dess kursplan. Läsuppgifterna i fracking-avsnittet fokuserar endast på dess negativa effekter och misslyckas med att presentera den andra sidan av frågan, nämligen de eventuella fördelarna med fracking. Tilldelade avläsningar inkluderar: “4 stater som kämpar för att upprätthålla Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignorerade Contamination Studies,” och “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affekterade människor.’” En aktivitet som tilldelats inom det avsnittet instruerar eleverna att ta ett test för att mäta deras eget koldioxidavtryck. Syftet, läser kursplanen, “är inte att skapa skuld eller skam, även om dessa känslor är helt vanliga.” MER: Ore. skolstyrelsen förbjuder klimatförändringar skepticism MER: Campus flygblad ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ slits upp MER: Profs argumenterar kapitalismen missbrukar minoriteter genom föroreningar Som The College Fix på Facebook / Följ oss på Twitter IMAGE: Brett Tatman / Flickr <unk> ’Vi kommer inte, när som helst, att diskutera vetenskapen om klimatförändringar’ Tre professorer co-lära ut en online kurs kallad “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” vid University of Colorado-Colorado Springs nyligen berättade sina studenter via e-post att människan-gjorda klimatförändringar inte är öppen för debatt, och de som tror annars inte har någon plats i sin kurs. – Utgångspunkten för denna kurs bygger på den vetenskapliga förutsättningen att mänsklig framkallad klimatförändring är giltig och sker. Vi kommer aldrig att diskutera vetenskapen om klimatförändringar, och inte heller kommer den ”andra sidan” av klimatdebatten att läras ut eller diskuteras i denna kurs,” säger e-posten, varav en kopia lämnades till The College Fix av en student i kursen. Undertecknat av kursens professorer Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren och Eileen Skahill skickades den efter att flera studenter uttryckt oro för sin framgång i kursen efter att ha tittat på den första online föreläsningen om effekterna av klimatförändringarna. “Att öppna en debatt som 98% av klimatforskare entydigt enas om att vara en icke-debatt skulle minska de centrala frågor om miljö och hälsa som tas upp i denna kurs,” professorernas e-post fortsatte. “... Om du tror att denna premiss är en fråga för dig, ber vi respektfullt att du inte går denna kurs, eftersom det finns alternativ inom Humanistiska programmet för ansikte mot ansikte denna termin och online nästa.” Professorerna noterar också detta förbud mot debatt sträcker sig till diskussion bland studenter i online forum. Dessutom kan studenter som väljer att använda externa källor för forskning under sin tid i kursen välja endast de som har sakkunniggranskats av mellanstatliga panelen för klimatförändringar, e-posten uppger. Professorerna Laroche, Skahill och Haggren svarade inte på e-postförfrågningar från The College Fix som sökte ytterligare kommentarer på deras e-post eller deras inställning till debatt i deras online-klass. Universitetets kommunikationsdirektör Tom Hutton berättade för The College Fix via e-post att “Humanities 3990 är en specialkurs med flera val för studenter att ta när de uppfyller kraven.” “Genom att tydligt ange klassfokus”, fortsatte han, “fakulteten tillåter studenter att välja om de vill anmäla sig till kursen eller söka ett alternativ. Dessutom har den fakultet som leder kursen erbjudit sig att diskutera det med studenter som har oro eller olika åsikter. Förutom att undervisa människan skapade klimatförändringar, fördjupar sig kursen också i “hälsoeffekter av fracking”, enligt dess kursplan. Läsuppgifterna i fracking-avsnittet fokuserar endast på dess negativa effekter och misslyckas med att presentera den andra sidan av frågan, nämligen de eventuella fördelarna med fracking. Tilldelade avläsningar inkluderar: “4 stater som kämpar för att upprätthålla Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignorerade Contamination Studies,” och “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affekterade människor.’” En aktivitet som tilldelats inom det avsnittet instruerar eleverna att ta ett test för att mäta deras eget koldioxidavtryck. Syftet, läser kursplanen, “är inte att skapa skuld eller skam, även om dessa känslor är helt vanliga.” MER: Ore. skolstyrelsen förbjuder klimatförändringar skepticism MER: Campus flygblad ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ slet upp MER: Profs argumenterar kapitalismen missbrukar minoriteter genom föroreningar Som The College Fix på Facebook / Följ oss på Twitter IMAGE: Brett Tatman / Flickr â € ¢ DENVER — University of Colorado i Colorado Springs kommer under eld efter tre professorer varnade sin klass att det inte skulle finnas någon debatt om mänskligt orsakade klimatförändringar och att alla studenter som inte bör släppa kursen. Professorerna, som är teamundervisning hösten online kurs Medicinsk Humaniora i den digitala tidsåldern, utfärdade PM efter att några studenter uttryckte oro över den första online föreläsning om klimatförändringar, enligt College Fix, som fick en kopia av e-posten. “Utgångspunkten för denna kurs bygger på den vetenskapliga förutsättningen att mänskligt framkallade klimatförändringar är giltigt och inträffar,” sade professorerna. “Vi kommer inte att, när som helst, diskutera vetenskapen om klimatförändringar, inte heller kommer den ‘andra sidan’ av klimatdebatten att läras ut eller diskuteras i denna kurs.” “Öppna en debatt som 98% av klimatforskare entydigt samtycker till att vara en icke-debatt skulle minska de centrala frågor om miljö och hälsa som tas upp i denna kurs,” tillade de. För dem som inte håller med kursens premiss, “vi ber respektfullt att du inte går denna kurs, eftersom det finns alternativ inom Humanistiska programmet för ansikte mot ansikte denna termin och online nästa.” Rapporten på onsdag genererade hundratals kommentarer kritiska till professorernas beslut på College Fix webbplats. — Om dessa professorer tycka sig ha ett sådant fall för den av människan skapade globala uppvärmningen, borde de då inte kunna ta alla komers? sade Douglas J. Hale, en biträdande professor vid Jefferson College i Hillsboro i Missouri. – Kanske är de inte kvalificerade att försvara det och väljer helt enkelt att eliminera debatten från sin läroplan. Så sorgligt.” Universitetets talesman Tom Hutton sade att fakulteten tydligt hade uttalat “klassfokus”, vilket gör att studenterna “väljer om de vill skriva in sig på kursen eller söka ett alternativ.” “Dessutom har fakulteten som leder kursen erbjudit sig att diskutera det med studenter som har problem eller olika åsikter,” Mr Hutton sade. En online-läsningslista upplagd av professorerna - Wendy Haggen, Rebecca Laroche och Eileen Skahill - visar att kursen också planerar att ta itu med “hälsoeffekter av fracking.” Kursens läsning innehåller artiklar av EcoWatch, Frack Free Colorado, och Läkare för socialt ansvar som en del av ett avsnitt om “hur marginaliserade samhällen (i detta fall klassskillnader) oproportionerligt lider i vårt energiförbrukande samhälle i klimatförändringens tidsålder.” Hydraulisk spräckning, eller fracking, innebär att injicera mycket trycksatt vätska djupt i sedimentära bergformationer för att lösa olja och naturgasfyndigheter. Processen, som har drivit den amerikanska industrin till världsdominans inom naturgasproduktionen, motarbetas kraftfullt av miljörörelsen, som har anklagat fracking för att smutsa ned grundvattnet och orsaka mindre jordbävningar i vissa områden. Trots detta, EPA släppt en förstudie förra året som visar “ingen utbredd, systemiska effekter på dricksvatten” från fracking. Flera Coloradosamhällen har röstat för att förbjuda fracking, men de besluten kullkastades senare i domstol. Miljöaktivister som leddes av Food & Water Watch lyckades inte samla tillräckligt många underskrifter tidigare i veckan för att placera två anti-fracking åtgärder på November valsedeln. • KURSINSTRUKTOR (i alfabetisk ordning) Observera: När du frågar allmän kursinformation, kontakta instruktören på din sektion. Wendy Haggren, sektion OL3, whaggren@uccs.edu, hundraårssalen, rm 218. Kontorstid onsdag 3:00 – 4:40 och enligt överenskommelse. I Haggrens forskning ingår genteknik av jäst för framställning av biobränslen och kemisk signalering bland bakterier. Rebecca Laroche, sektion OL1, rlaroche@uccs.edu, Columbine Hall 1051, kontorstid. Tisdagar 12:30-1:30 och 4:30-6:30 (om inte annat anges i Veckoinnehållsmappen) och enligt överenskommelse. Prof. Laroche är en engelsk professor som arbetar i texter från sextonde- och sjuttonde centuries (shakespeares ålder). Hennes forskning finns i tidigmoderna receptsamlingar. Eileen Skahill, sektion OL2, eskahill@uccs.edu, akademiska kontor 429. Kontorstid: Onsdagar 12:00-1:00, på nätet via e-post 11:00-2:00 dagligen och enligt överenskommelse. Prof. Skahills undersökningsområde är klimatförändringens sociologi med tonvikt på miljö- och socialrättvisa rörelser och vikten av ursprungsbekanta sätt att känna naturen. KURSBESKRIVNING OCH STRUKTUR: Denna humanistiska kurs kommer att ges i två delkurser. Fas Ett (Veckor 1–9) introducerar studenterna till de olika tillvägagångssätten inom området medicinsk humaniora – Narrativ medicin, medicinhistoria och medicinsk etik – och de ämnen som uppstår kring dessa tillvägagångssätt såsom empati, kunskapsgemenskaper och kompletterande vård. Fas två (Veckor 10–16) sporrar vidare studenterna att konceptualisera, utforska och utvärdera hur Medicinsk humaniora omvandlas under 2000-talet. Eleverna kommer specifikt att studera hur de koncept och praktiker som undersöks i fas ett återföds i den digitala världen och undersöker etiska dilemman och praktiska utmaningar i denna tidsålder. KURS MÅL: Varje student som framgångsrikt avlägger denna kurs kommer att kunna HUM 3990 Kursplan s. 1 1. Definiera den medicinska humaniora disciplinen och dess konstitutiva delar av berättande medicin, historia av medicin, och medicinsk etik. 2. Tillämpa undersökningsmetoder inom medicinsk humaniora i den digitala tidsåldern. 3. Analysera effekterna av den digitala tidsåldern på metoder, stipendium och allmänhetens förståelse av den medicinska humaniora. 4. Integrera sina analyser med sina erfarenheter av de tillämpade fallstudier som införts under olika veckor. KURSKRAV: Avläsningar Avläsningarna för denna kurs kommer att finnas tillgängliga på kursen Blackboard site som PDF-dokument och genom inköp av e-böcker. Teknologi Se detaljer om teknikkrav för denna onlinekurs i välkomstbrevet, e-postat till studenter inskrivna i denna klass och som finns på kursen Blackboard webbplats. Vår kursteknolog är Kathryn Andrus som kan hjälpa till med specifika moment i denna kurs. Hennes mejl är Kandrus@uccs.edu. KURSGRADERINGSSYSTEM Kursens betygssystem bygger på totalt 1000 möjliga poäng. Observera att varje vecka inkluderar en betydande procent av kursens totalpoäng: Vecka 1 Självintroduktion, Start Här, och Smartare Mät Uppdrag upp till 40 poäng av 1000 totalt för kurs vecka 2–7, och 10, 12–14: varje vecka innehåller innehållsuppgifter värda upp till 40 poäng av 1000 totalt för kurs. Tillsammans är dessa 10 veckor värda upp till 400 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. Dessa uppdrag inkluderar frågesporter, korta svarsuppdrag, Wiki-bidrag, diskussionsforum och liknande. Vecka 8: Skrivarverkstad. Uppdrag under denna vecka är värda upp till 40 poäng av de 1000 för kursen. Vecka 9 Skriftligt inlämningsuppgift (400–500 ord): upp till 150 poäng av 1000 för kursen. Vecka 11: Revision Vecka upp till 120 av 1000 totalt för kursen. Vecka 16 Slutuppgift (600–700 ord): upp till 250 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. En del av uppdraget kommer att vara att införliva en revidering av halvtidsuppdraget i ditt argument. CLASS SCHEMA FÖR HUM 3990-OL — Hösten 2016 Detaljerna och innehållet för varje veckas uppdrag finns i kursen Blackboard webbplats “Veckokursinnehåll” mappar för varje vecka. Fas 1: Frågor i handling: Introduktion till Medicinsk humanistisk vecka 1 Start Här (22-28 augusti): Introduktion och hur denna kurs fungerar Att möta sina instruktörer, presentera sig själv och överblicka kursen. 1. Titta på Video med titeln “MED HUM 3990 OL F16 Introduktion till kurs” 2. Läs ”Hur den här kursen fungerar” 3. Skicka Smartare mått PDF. Värt upp till 20 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. HUM 3990 Kursplan s. 2 4. Presentera dig (100–150 ord) för dina klasskamrater genom att skicka in en bild som representerar dig just nu i din karriär på UCCS. På grund av söndag 28 augusti kl 23:59 värt upp till 20 poäng av 1000 totalt. Vecka 2 (29 augusti–september 4): Minneskonsten: Bokhistoria, Cyborgs, och Narrativ medicin – Doktor Laroche 1. Complete Reading: Kapitel 2 från An Introduction to Book History av David Finkelstein, och Alastair McCleery, att köpas som en e-bok på Amazon.com eller liknande leverantör: http://amzn.to/1vydMbH ; och “Narrative Medicine Heals Bodies and Souls” från The Utne Reader, september-oktober 2009: http://www.utne.com/mind-and-body/narrative-medicine-heals-bodies-andsouls.aspx 2. Lyssna på Podcast Episode: “Våra datorer, oss själva”, Invisibilia, avsnitt från 12 februari 2015. http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilia (genom minut 33). 3. Lyssna på 20-minutersföreläsning: “Läsa, skriva, lyssna, minnas och ursprunget till berättande medicin” i Vecka 2. 4. Komplett kort skriftlig uppgift: 1. Låt någon i ditt liv läsa en artikel för dig (tidning, tidskrift eller blogginlägg, antingen från nätet eller i tryck). 2. Låt den där någon läsa en annan för dig medan du läser tyst. 3. Läs nu en annan för sig och tyst. 4. Skriv en 150-ordsredogörelse (inklusive artiklarnas namn och identifieringen av din läsare) av skillnaderna mellan dessa tre erfarenheter i inte bara den kunskap du uppnår, utan också i erfarenheten av att uppnå denna kunskap med andra. Skriv det här till diskussionsforumet som heter i veckokatalogen. Studenterna måste lägga upp sitt innehåll innan de kan komma in i diskussionen. 5. Efter att alltså ha reflekterat över dessa skillnader och lagt upp dem och utnyttjat denna veckas material (inklusive ett direkt citat), sedan överväga (i omkring 150 ord) i ditt svar på en kamrat post konsekvenserna för detta uppdrag om den situation där “artikeln” läses är en patients berättelse om hennes / hans sjukdom. Förfaller kl. 23.59 den 4 september. Värt upp till 40 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. Vecka 3 (5 september – 11 september) “Varje människa sin egen läkare”: Billigt tryck, recept cirkulation, och historien om medicin i tidig modern England – Dr Laroche 1. Läs: Kapitel 3 från En introduktion till bokhistoria av David Finkelstein, och Alastair McCleery från boken: En global historia, och Harold Love, “Manuscript After the Coming of Print” (PDF); Fyra poster från recept.hypoteses.org (länkad i veckoinnehållsmappen för vecka 3); 2. Titta: Kort "Prolog" och "Syrup of Violets" och 35-Minute Video Lecture, "Every Man His Own Doctor": Billiga tryck, recept cirkulation, och medicinska myndigheten i tidig modern England". 3. Ta QUIZ på läsning/videoföreläsning (senast 23.59, 11 september). Värt upp till 20 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. HUM 3990 Kursplan s. 3 4. Fullständigt skriftligt uppdrag kl. 23.59, 11 september. Värt upp till 20 poäng av 100 för kursen: Del 1. Recept Wiki. Skriv in ett recept från din hembygd (familj, bibliotek, kyrka, skola) i ett orddokument. Detta behöver inte vara ett medicinskt recept. I titeln på ditt recept anges person(er) som är källan och deras ursprungsort. Låt oss också veta om du har gjort receptet (och vilka resultaten blev). Om du inte har gjort receptet, spela in några vittnesmål om dess kvalitet. Kopiera nu denna post i den kollektiva sektionen wiki länkad i sidofältet under Wiki recept, sedan ditt avsnitt nummer. Skapa inte din egen sida, utan redigera istället det wikiinnehåll som finns (historikfunktionen visar oss varje persons tillägg). Fundera på hur du kommer att skilja ditt inträde från andra och var du kommer att placera ditt recept bland kollektivet. Häfte 2. Kommentera ditt eget wikiinlägg och besvara följande frågor i ett stycke (150 ord): Hur kan ditt förhållande till din källa ge dig en bild av hur du gör receptet och tror på resultatet? Hur bestämde du dig för att placera ditt recept i den samlade receptboken? Hur kan självberättande komma in i insamlingen, skrivandet och görandet av recept? Var ligger auktoriteten när det gäller att samla in recept? Slutligen, inklusive minst ett citat från veckans läsning, berätta hur din erfarenhet lärt dig något om förhållandet mellan enskilda recept samla till muntlig kultur/manuskript kultur/Skriv ut kultur/datorkultur eller kanske övergången från det ena till det andra? Skicka in denna uppgift separat som en Word doc. i recepten Reflektionsuppdrag länk nedan i veckoinnehåll mappen. Vecka 4 (september 12–18) Plåga: Samhällsuppfattningar om sjukdomen, offren och överlevarna — Wendy Haggren 1. Titta: Röstade över powerpoint föreläsning om en gammal pest och en modern pest (40 min.) Sonia Shah (s. 13): “... berättar historier om nya patogener genom linsen av en historisk pandemi ...” 2. Läst: Thucydides: The Jowett Translation. 2.47-2.54 (431 f.Kr.). http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/thucydides/thucydidespassages.php?pleaseget=2.47-54,2.57-58,3.87&passageid=The%20Plage (Jag har kopierat avsnitt 2.47 – 2.54 till ett ord.docx); En redogörelse för pesten skriven av en general som också var historiker (3 s). Detta är en första persons redogörelse för sjukdomssymtomen; det första kända omnämnandet av immunitet i litteraturen; och observation av vem som ammade de drabbade. 3. Läs: Shah, Sonia. Pandemic: Spårande Smittämnen, från Cholera till Ebola och Beyond. New York, Sarah Crichton Books, FSG, 2016.Kapitel 1, pp. 15 – 35. 4. Titta: en kort video av New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/video/health/100000003420384/the-path-of-the-ebolaoutbreak.html, (5 min 13 sek). En saklig, visuell redogörelse för den första spridningen av ebolaviruset från patient “0” i den avlägsna skogen till den fullsatta huvudstaden Guinea (Conakry). Man kan se den röjda marken runt byn, notera den falska känslan av trygghet när antalet fall ursprungligen sjönk, liknande historiska utbrott djupt i de afrikanska skogarna, och se skillnaden mellan bylivet och huvudstaden. 5. Läs: Craig Spencer, “Att ha och slåss ebola—Folkhälsolektioner från en kliniker vände patienten,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 372:1089-1091, 19 mars 2015 (ca 2 sidor). Förstapersonsskildring om överlevande ebola och HUM 3990 Kursplan sid. 4 som fick reda på att han hade blivit förtalad av lokala medier för att ha vandrat runt i staden innan febern utvecklades. 6. Ta frågesport på föreläsning och läsningar (senast 23:59, 18 september). Värt upp till 20 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. 7. Fullständigt kort skrivet uppdrag: (300–400 ord) Tre läkare har nyligen återvänt till Colorado Springs från Afrika där de behandlat människor med ebola. Man har utvecklat febern och symtomen på ebola och sitter i karantän på ett lokalt sjukhus. Din moster är väldigt upprörd över att de andra två individerna fortfarande går runt Colorado Springs och att du är volontär på sjukhuset där den sjuka personen behandlas. Skriv en kort dialog mellan dig och din moster där du förklarar för henne de medicinska möjligheterna av ett ebolautbrott i Colorado Springs och att hon ådragit sig sjukdomen. Se till att inkludera minst 3 frågor eller uttalanden från henne. Du kan ta vilken ståndpunkt du vill, så länge du stöder det med två citat från denna veckas föreläsning och läsningar. Var medveten om vilket språk och vilken ton du använder med din moster som har en gymnasieutbildning och läser tidningen (senast 23:59, 18 september). Värt upp till 20 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. Vecka 5 (19–25 september) Den kulturella kontexten för medicinsk behandling och läkning — Wendy Haggren 1. Titta: Röstade över powerpoint föreläsning om biologin i immunsystemet (briefly) och hur ebola påverkar människokroppen; Afrikanska samhällshealer behandlingar för ebola; moderna medicinska behandlingar för ebola; och vad vi har lärt oss genom att inte överväga kulturen i ett samhälle som genomgår ett ebola utbrott. (40 min) 2. Läs: Thompson, Amy E., “The Immune System”, Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA Patient Page, 313(16): 1686, 2015. (1 sida) 3. Titta: en kort video av New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/video/health/100000003416721/ebolas-patient-zero.html (5 min 38 sek) Detta är en personlig redogörelse för de inledande ebolaoffren av mannen som förlorade sin familj. Lägg märke till hur många språk som var inblandade i skapandet av denna video. Hänvisa svaret från byläkarna till detta första utbrott till vad du kommer att läsa i tidningen Hewlett och Amola (2003). 4. Läst: Barry S. Hewlett och Richard P. Amola, “Kultursammanhang av ebola i norra Uganda,” Uppkommande infektionssjukdomar, 9(10):1242-1248, 2003. Den här artikeln behandlar lärdomar om effektiv behandling genom att kombinera lämplig lokal tro med modern medicinsk vetenskap 5. Frågesport: Avsluta detta korta uppdrag i medicinsk vetenskap, spåra, märka och kortfattat förklara, med tanke på en mänsklig kontur med specifika kroppsområden anges, kursen genom vilken människor kan utveckla skyddande antikroppar mot Ebola och föreslå varför detta inte alltid händer (till 23:59 pm, 25 september). Värt upp till 10 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. 6. Komplett 2 Skriftliga inlämningsuppgifter: 1. Skapa ett nytt recept wiki genom att välja ett recept från din vecka 3 wiki och identifiera vilka ingredienser som hjälper till att öka immunsvaret och förklara ditt svar. Ändra ett annat recept genom att byta ingredienser mot en eller flera som kommer att öka immunförsvaret; igen, HUM 3990 Kursplan p. 5 förklara (vid 11:59 pm, 25 september). Värt upp till 20 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. 2. Kommentar: Varför eller varför inte en medicinsk praxis här i stan vara villig att distribuera dina immun-boosting recept gratis om du hittat ett sätt att skriva ut hundratals kopior. Vilket stöd eller vilka argument tror du att du kan få från dagens läkare? Den 25 september kl. 23.59). Värt upp till 10 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. Vecka 6 (26 september-oktober 2) Kulturella sätt att känna naturen: Urfolkliga och 2000-talet perspektiv på vårt förhållande till naturen och dess helande makt — Eileen Skahill *Se: Korta Instruktör video diskutera veckans innehåll och förklara i detalj studiet av miljösociologi i klimatförändringens tidsålder, betona kopplingarna mellan samhälle, ekologi och ekonomi med förutsättningen att planeten är en “delad allmänning”. *Läs: 1. Vägg-Kimmerer: Fläta Sweet Grass: Indigenous Wisdom, vetenskaplig kunskap och undervisningen i växter pgs: 1-38 BB 2. David Suzuki: ”sammankopplingar” pgs. 1-11 BB 3. National Geographic: “This Is Your Brain on Nature” http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/call-to-wildtext?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm _content=link_fb20151223ngmcalltowild&utm_campaign=Content&sf17614328=1 *Written Uppdrag: Part 1 Watch 1. Numen (filmtrailer 5:46) https://vimeo.com/ondemand/numenfilm Del 2: Skriv (200-250 ordräkning/totalt): 2. Jämför byns perspektiv – helande i dr Haggrens innehåll Vecka 5 på Ebola med det inhemska perspektivet i Wall – Kimmerers uppläsningar. Hur är deras tillvägagångssätt liknande eller annorlunda? 3. Med hjälp av Numen-videon och National Geographic-artikeln besvarar du följande frågor med tanke på hela naturens roll som helande. a. Vad hade du för koppling till naturen när du var barn? Har du varit utomhus och vad har du gjort? b. Vad är ditt förhållande till naturen nu som vuxen? Hur har det förändrats? Vilken roll har tekniken spelat i relationen man har med naturen som vuxen? c. Använder du personligen naturen (eller inser att du gör det) som en "läkande kraft" i hanteringen av stress i ditt liv som National Geographic artikeln föreslår HUM 3990 Kursplan sid. 6 d. Använder du personligen naturen (eller inser att du gör det) som en "läkande kraft" i hanteringen av stress i ditt liv? e. På vilka sätt använder du ört- eller medicinalväxter som en form av sjukvård och/eller läkning? Ska komma kl. 23.59 den 2 oktober. Värt upp till 40 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. Vecka 7 (3–9 oktober): Fracking and Public Health: Berättar från "Gas Patch" och Medical Community Response to the Health Effects of Fracking -Eileen Skahill *Se: Kort taleover power point föreläsning om historien om energiutveckling i USA och hur marginaliserade samhällen (i detta fall klassskillnader) oproportionerligt lider i vår energi consumtive samhället i klimatförändringens tidsålder. *Se FILM: Split Estate *Läs: 1. EcoWatch: “4 Stater som kämpar för att hantera radioaktivt bråkavfall http://www.ecowatch.com/4-states-strider-till-manageradioactive-fracking-waste-1891181106.html 2. Frack Free Colorado: “Colorados drabbade människor” http://www.frackfreecolorado.com/cos-affected-people.html 3. Public News Service: “Fracking and Children”: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-05-23/klimat-förändring-luftkvalitet/studie-fracking-föroreningar-oproportionerligt-effekterbarn/a52051-1 4. EcoWatch: ”EPA-studie om fracking Ignorerade kontaminationsstudier”: http://www.ecowatch.com/epa-vetenskap--rådgivande-styrelse---fracking--studie---vatten--kontaminering---1968795058.html 5. Läkare för socialt ansvar: ”Position Statement” http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/psr-fracking-policy.pdf *Valfri läsning: Bekymrade hälso- och sjukvårdspersonal i New York- Ett kompendium: http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/ *Interaktivt uppdrag: Ta min ekologiska fotavtrycksquiz. (Gå till: http://myfootprint.org/abonnemang.php och skriv in professor Skahills UCCS-adress och lösenord som anges nedan.) Denna aktivitet är tänkt att ge dig en känsla av ditt personliga koldioxidavtryck och påverkan på Jorden och dess resurser (inte för att skapa skuld eller skam, även om dessa känslor är helt vanliga). Skriv ut eller skriv ut dina resultat för användning i diskussionsforumsuppdraget. HUM 3990 Kursplan sid. 7 Använd följande värden när du uppmanas att logga in: E-post: eskahill@uccs.edu Lösenord: rAOELEWR *Diskussionsforum: Del 1 & 2 (200–250 ordräkning/totalt) Del 1: 1. Lägg upp ditt Footprint-resultat och den totala mängden planeter som krävs för din livsstil. Beskriv din reaktion på dina resultat. 2. Tänk nu på dina resultat i samband med filmen Split Estate och de artiklar som tilldelats för denna vecka och besvara följande fråga: • Att veta att vår användning av energi främst härrör från utvinning av naturgas och olja, hur påverkar våra koldioxidavtryck, individuellt och kollektivt, hälsa och välbefinnande för människor från både lokala och globala samhällen? Ska vara klar kl. 23.59 den 9 oktober. Värt upp till 20 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. Del 2: • • • • Tillämpa din förståelse av de urbefolkningsperspektiv som vi lärde oss i vecka 6 för att besvara följande fråga: Tar vår energianvändning hänsyn till jordens urbefolkningsperspektiv och dess resurser? Anser vi att vi har en relation till Jorden där balansen mellan konsumtion och konservering beaktas? Ser vi att tekniska framsteg kan vara till nytta för oss som människor, men inte alltid för planeten? Finns det verkligen en separation av de två? (Tänk på Wall- Kimmerer, och Suzukis idé om våra kopplingar till naturen). Du måste kommentera minst två (2) studentposter. Ska vara klar kl. 23.59 den 9 oktober. Värt upp till 20 poäng av 1000 totalt för kursen. Vecka 8 (10–16 oktober): Reflektions- och skrivverkstad – Haggren, Laroche och Skahill 1. Fyll i skrivcentret Workshop, som kommer att förbereda dig för att skriva din första långa skriftliga uppgift genom att titta på PowerPoint presentation i denna mapp. Denna workshop har två diskussionsuppgifter kopplade till den som du hittar i gruppdiskussionsforumet. Workshopverksamheten är värd upp till 40 HUM 3990 Kursplan p. 8 poäng av 1000 poäng totalt för kursen. Se fullständiga instruktioner i bilagan för inlämningsuppgifter. Under denna vecka: • • • • Se veckans videor för en orientering till veckans aktiviteter och till ditt skriftliga uppdrag. Aktiviteterna denna vecka hjälper dig också att förbereda dig för det sista skriftliga uppdraget, som ska ske vecka 16. Läs beskrivningen av det skriftliga uppdraget för denna vecka och det längre uppdraget för vecka 9 (finns även i kursplanen i bilagan). Skriv prov stycke och inlägg i gruppen diskussionsforum som kallas “Utdrag stycken Peer Review.” När du har gjort det, kommer du att kunna svara på ett inlägg av en kamrat. (På söndag den 16 oktober klockan 23.59). Detta är värt 20 poäng av 1000 poäng totalt för kursen. Dela din skrivprocess i ett inlägg i diskussionsforumet "Shareing your writing process" skriftligen eller genom att bifoga en fil/bild. När du väl har gjort det, kommer du att kunna svara på en kamratpost. (På söndag den 16 oktober klockan 23.59) Detta är värt 20 poäng av 1000 poäng totalt för kursen. Fas 2: Omtanka Medicinsk Practice in the Digital Age Week 9 (17-23 oktober): Ladda upp Midterm Essay till Uppdragslänken för Midterm Essay. Dokument som laddas upp till den här länken kommer automatiskt att kontrolleras för originalitet. Midterm Essay är värd upp till 150 poäng totalt av 1000 för kursen. Se anvisningar för detta uppdrag nedan. Söndagen den 23 oktober kl. 23.59 Vecka 10 (24–30 oktober): Frågan om (Cyber)Känslomässighet — Rebecca Laroche 1. Se “Prolog” video och innehåll video “Frågan om CyberEmpath” 2. Läs Leslie Jamison, “Empatiproven”, från The Empatie Exams, PDF tillhandahålls. 3. Lyssna på Podcast, "Hemligheten, Gruesome Internet for Doctors", avsnitt #2 i serien Svara Alla, 24 november 2014. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/2instagram-for-doctors/ 4. Se över bilderna från: http://hyperallergiska.com/104337/grotesque-andgorgeous-100000-konst-och-medicin-bilder-släppta-for-open-use/ 5. Skriv i ett Word Document, en 100-150-ords skönlitterär scen från förstapersonspunkt-av-syn på patienten (en som empatiserar med den patienten) i en av bilderna från webbplatsen eller beskrivs i podcasten. Nu i 200-250 ord, engagera Leslie Jamisons essä och podden direkt, analysera spänningen mellan kreativ empati och diagnostisk avlossning. Skicka in båda dessa i ett dokument i inlämningsmappen i Veckoinnehållsmappen. Värt 40 av de 1000 poäng för kursen (Due by 11:59, October 30). Vecka 11 (31 oktober–6 november): Revidering. Under denna vecka kommer studenterna att revidera sitt halvtidsuppdrag utifrån den bedömning de har fått från sin instruktör. När du utför detta uppdrag måste du läsa noga igenom de kommentarer och den feedback du fått från instruktören i marginalerna, i betygskommentarerna och i rubricen för uppdraget. Revideringen kommer att bedömas utifrån i vilken utsträckning HUM 3990 Kursplan s. 9 dessa synpunkter beaktades och på vilken nivå dessa synpunkter reviderades. Värt 120 poäng av de 1000 poäng för kursen. Vecka 12 (7 november-13): Självdiagnos i den digitala tidsåldern — Rebecca Laroche 1. Läs Heidi Julavits, ”Diagnose This: How to be your own best doctor” (Harper’s Magazine, april 2014); Finkelstein och McCleary, kapitel 7, ”The Future of the Book”, från En introduktion till bokhistoria, som du köpte i början av kursen. 2. Titta på videoföreläsning (20 minuter), “Själv-Diagnosis i den digitala tidsåldern.” 3. Ta Quiz. (Vid 23:59, 13 november), 20 poäng av de 1000 slutpoängen för banan. 4. Surfa några webbplatser som ger medicinsk rådgivning och diagnos (Inte Isabel som jag kommer att tala om det lite i föreläsning. Undvik datorvirus). Välj en och börja en diskussionstråd genom att ange dess namn som trådtiteln. I inläggssvaret följande: 1) Vad är webbadressen? Är det en .com, .org, eller .edu? Vad säger adressen om dess källa? 2) Hur skapar webbplatsen en känsla av auktoritet? Ingjuter sajten förtroende? Om ja, hur då? Om så inte är fallet, hur underlåter den då att göra det? 3). Hur ser webbplatsen på problemet med diagnos? Det vill säga, hur skulle du beskriva dess tillvägagångssätt? 4). Hur kan denna webbplats ändra förhållandet mellan läkare och patient som diskuteras i läsningen (citerar minst en instans från läsningen)? Anlita en av dina kamrater. (11:59 e.m., 23 oktober). 20 poäng av de 1000 slutpoängen för banan. Vecka 13 (14-20 november): Historisk och digital tidsopposition mot vaccination — Wendy Haggren 1. Titta: Röstade över powerpoint föreläsning om historien om variolation, vaccination, och den våldsamma tidiga historien om anti-vaccinationer från 1721 smittkopps utbrott i Boston till 1777 och George Washingtons tryck att variolat sina trupper utan kongressens godkännande. Upp- och nedgångar i vaccindesign och -produktion; moderna antivaxers. (40 min) 2. Läs: Robert M. Wolfe och Lisa K. Sharp, ”Anti-vaccinationister förr och nu”, British Medical Journal, 325:430-432, 2002. 3. Läs: Stefan Blancke, et al., “Fatal attraktion: den intuitiva lockelsen av GMO-motstånd”, Trender inom växtvetenskap, (5 sidor), 2015. Det är bara att ersätta termen “vaccination” för “GMO;” detta beskriver en filosofisk syn på sätt som den mänskliga naturen påverkar beslutsfattandet. 4. Läs: Jeanette B. Ruiz och Robert A. Bell, “Förstå vaccinationsresistens: Vaccin söktermen val bias och vallans av hämtad information,” Vaccin, 32:5776-5780, 2014. 5. Frågesport: under veckans föreläsning och läsning (vid 23.59, 20 november), 20 poäng av de 1000 slutpoängen för kursen. 6. Diskussionsforum: Utan att namnge eller infoga din åsikt, intervjua och rapportera om två vänners eller familjemedlemmars inställning och resonemang med motsatta åsikter om vaccination (~100 ord). Sedan kommentera ett inlägg från en annan student där du empatiserar med en utsikt inte din egen, men du behöver inte hålla med om det. Var professionell och respektfull. (Vid 23:59, 20 november), 20 poäng av de 1000 slutpoängen för banan. Vecka 14 (21-27 november): Thanksgiving Break HUM 3990 Kursplan sid. 10 Vecka 15 (28 november – 4 december): Konsekvenserna av att kontrollera naturen: Etik och betydelsen av att odla tacksamhet — Eileen Skahill • • Titta: Kort video omorientering elever efter höstlovet. Bind ihop terminsbegreppen i denna sista vecka med betoning på den inhemska idén om respekt medkänsla och empati för varandra odla tacksamhet för jorden och vad den ger; att arbeta i gemenskap med varandra och jorden, alla kommer att blomstra. Se: Youtube: “GMO:s: Myter och sanningar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ztZGbLEJ0 Läs: 1. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring: “En fabel för morgondagen” BB 2. EcoWatch: “Glyfosat Found in the Urine of 93% of Americans” http://www.ecowatch.com/glyfosat-funnit-in-urin-av-93-procent-ofamericans-testade-1891146755.html 3. Common Dreams: ”Huge Victory for American Consumers, Senaten Avvisar DARK Act” http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/16/huge-victoryamerican-consumers-senate-rejects-dark-act 4. The Guardian: “Borde vi torka mosquitos utanför jordens yta?” https://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/feb/10/bör-vi-torka-moskvitéer-av-jordens-ansikte-. ”FDA godkänner genetiskt modifierade myggor” http://www.nationofchange.org/2016/08/08/fda-approvesgenetiskt-modifierade-moskvitéer-strider-zika-florida/ 6. Kollektiv evolution: “Larvicid tillverkat av Sumitomo, inte Zika Virus, sann orsak till Brasiliens Microcephali Outbreak?” http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/06/29/larvicid tillverkat av-sumitomo-inte-zika-virus-sanna-orsak-av-brazilsmicrocephalyoutbreak/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campai gn=Feed%3A+Kollektiv-evolution+%28Kollektiv+Evolution%29 7. Wall Kimmerer: “Allegiance to Tacksamhet” pgs. 105-117. BB * Skriftlig uppgift: Recept på helande och kultiverande tacksamhet Uppdraget för denna vecka binder samman de idéer som presenteras under hela terminen om berättelser och historia om medicin, empati och etik. I detta uppdrag kommer du att bli tvungen att titta på den korta videon om Plant Spirit Medicine och kort läsa igenom de skriftliga delarna av det bifogade dokumentet “The Healing Power of Plants” som lägger särskild vikt vid Plant Spirit Medicinal recept. Del 1: Bevaka: 1. “Walk the Talk Show:” Eliot Cowen Talks Plant Spirit Medicine” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWB-QYRiBFw Explore/Scan 2. ”Växternas helande kraft: en guide” pdf. BB Del 2: HUM 3990 Kursplan p. 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“We will not discuss climate change science at any time. Three professors are co-chairing an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man did not create climate change is open to debate, and those who believe otherwise have no place in their course. “The starting point of this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and takes place. We will never discuss the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate debate be taught or discussed in this course,” says the email, of which a copy was left to The College Fix by a student in the course. Signed by the course's professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern about their success in the course after watching the first online lecture on the effects of climate change. “Opening a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would reduce the key issues of environment and health raised in this course,” the professors’ email continued. “... If you think this premise is a matter for you, we respectfully ask you not to attend this course, because there are alternatives within the Humanities Program for face to face this semester and online next.” The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in online forums. In addition, students who choose to use external sources for research during their time in the course can choose only those who have been peer reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states. Professors Laroche, Skahill and Haggren did not respond to email requests from The College Fix seeking further comments on their email or their attitude to debate in their online class. University Communications Director Tom Hutton told The College Fix by email that “Humanities 3990 is a special course with multiple choices for students to take when they meet the requirements.” “By clearly specifying class focus,” he continued, “the faculty allows students to choose whether they want to enroll in the course or apply for an alternative. In addition, the faculty leading the course has offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or different opinions. In addition to teaching man created climate change, the course also deepens in “health effects of fracking”, according to its syllabus. The reading data in the fracking section focuses only on its negative effects and fails to present the other side of the issue, namely the possible benefits of fracking. Assigned readings include: “4 states struggling to maintain Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies,” and “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affected People.” An activity assigned within that section instructs students to take a test to measure their own carbon footprint. The purpose, reading the curriculum, “is not to create guilt or shame, even if these feelings are quite common.” MORE: Ore. the school board bans climate change skepticism MORE: Campus flyer ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ torn up MORE: Prof.s argues capitalism misuses minorities through pollution As The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter IMAGE: Brett Tatman / Flickr <unk> ‘We will not, at any time, discuss the science of climate change’ Three professors co-teach an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open to debate, and those who otherwise believe have no place in their course. “The starting point of this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and takes place. We will never discuss the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate debate be taught or discussed in this course,” says the email, of which a copy was left to The College Fix by a student in the course. Signed by the course's professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern about their success in the course after watching the first online lecture on the effects of climate change. “Opening a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would reduce the key issues of environment and health raised in this course,” the professors’ email continued. “... If you think this premise is a matter for you, we respectfully ask you not to attend this course, because there are alternatives within the Humanities Program for face to face this semester and online next.” The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in online forums. In addition, students who choose to use external sources for research during their time in the course can choose only those who have been peer reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states. Professors Laroche, Skahill and Haggren did not respond to email requests from The College Fix seeking further comments on their email or their attitude to debate in their online class. University Communications Director Tom Hutton told The College Fix by email that “Humanities 3990 is a special course with multiple choices for students to take when they meet the requirements.” “By clearly specifying class focus,” he continued, “the faculty allows students to choose whether they want to enroll in the course or apply for an alternative. In addition, the faculty leading the course has offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or different opinions. In addition to teaching man created climate change, the course also deepens in “health effects of fracking”, according to its syllabus. The reading data in the fracking section focuses only on its negative effects and fails to present the other side of the issue, namely the possible benefits of fracking. Assigned readings include: “4 states struggling to maintain Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies,” and “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affected People.” An activity assigned within that section instructs students to take a test to measure their own carbon footprint. The aim, reading the syllabus, “is not to create guilt or shame, even if these feelings are quite common.” MORE: Ore. the school board bans climate change skepticism MORE: Campus flyer ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ ripped up MORE: Prof.s argues capitalism misuses minorities through pollution As The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter IMAGE: Brett Tatman / Flickr <unk> DENVER — The University of Colorado in Colorado Springs comes under fire after three professors warned its class that there would be no debate about human-caused climate change and that all students who should not drop the course. The professors, who are team teaching fall online course Medical Humanities in the digital age, issued the memo after some students expressed concern about the first online lecture on climate change, according to College Fix, which received a copy of the email. “The starting point of this course is based on the scientific premise that human-induced climate change is valid and occurs,” said the professors. “We will not, at any time, discuss the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate debate be taught or discussed in this course.” “Open a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would reduce the key issues of environment and health raised in this course,” they added. For those who disagree with the course’s premise, “we respectfully ask that you do not attend this course, because there are alternatives within the Humanities Program for face to face this semester and online next.” The report on Wednesday generated hundreds of comments critical of the professors’ decision on the College Fix website. “If these professors think they have such a case for the man-made global warming, shouldn’t they be able to take all the comers?” said Douglas J. Hale, an assistant professor at Jefferson College in Hillsboro, Missouri. – Maybe they are not qualified to defend it and simply choose to eliminate the debate from their curriculum. So sad.” University spokesman Tom Hutton said that the faculty had clearly stated “class focus”, which means that students “choose whether they want to enroll in the course or seek an alternative.” “In addition, the faculty leading the course has offered to discuss it with students who have problems or different opinions,” Mr Hutton said. An online reading list posted by professors - Wendy Haggen, Rebecca Laroche and Eileen Skahill - shows that the course also plans to address “health effects of fracking.” The course's reading includes articles by EcoWatch, Frack Free Colorado, and Doctors for Social Responsibility as part of a section on “how marginalized communities (in this case class differences) disproportionately suffer in our energy consuming society in the age of climate change.” Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves injecting highly pressurised liquid deep into sedimentary rock formations to solve oil and natural gas deposits. The process, which has driven American industry to world dominance in natural gas production, is strongly opposed by the environmental movement, which has accused fracking of soiling groundwater and causing minor earthquakes in some areas. Nevertheless, the EPA released a feasibility study last year showing “no widespread, systemic effects on drinking water” from fracking. Several Colorado communities have voted to ban fracking, but those decisions were later overturned in court. Environmentalists led by Food & Water Watch failed to collect enough signatures earlier this week to place two anti-fracking actions on the November ballot. • COURSE TRUCKER (in alphabetical order) Note: When you ask general course information, contact the instructor on your section. Wendy Haggren, Section OL3, whaggren@uccs.edu, Centennial Hall, rm 218. Office time Wednesday 3:00 – 4:40 and by appointment. Haggren's research includes genetic engineering of yeast for the production of biofuels and chemical signalling among bacteria. Rebecca Laroche, Section OL1, rlaroche@uccs.edu, Columbine Hall 1051, office hours. Tuesdays 12:30-1:30 and 4:30-6:30 (unless otherwise specified in the Weekly Content Folder) and by agreement. Prof. Laroche is an English professor who works in texts from the sixteenth and seventeenth Centuries (the age of Shakespeare). Her research is in early modern recipe collections. Eileen Skahill, Section OL2, eskahill@uccs.edu, Academic Office 429. Office hours: Wednesdays 12:00-1:00, online via email 11:00-2:00 daily and by appointment. Prof. Skahill's field of study is the sociology of climate change with emphasis on environmental and social justice movements and the importance of familiar ways of feeling nature. COURSE DESCRIPTION AND STRUCTURE: This humanistic course will be given in two modules. Phase One (Weeks 1–9) introduces students to the different approaches in the field of medical humanities – Narrative medicine, medical history and medical ethics – and the topics arising around these approaches such as empathy, knowledge communities and complementary care. Phase two (Weeks 10–16) further spurs students to conceptualize, explore and evaluate how Medical Humanities are transformed in the 21st century. Students will specifically study how the concepts and practices examined in phase one are reborn in the digital world and examine ethical dilemmas and practical challenges in this age. COURSE OBJECTIVE: Any student who successfully completes this course will be able to HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 1 1. Define the medical humanities discipline and its constitutive parts of narrative medicine, history of medicine, and medical ethics. 2. Apply research methods in medical humanities in the digital age. 3. Analyze the effects of the digital age on methods, scholarship and public understanding of the medical humanities. 4. integrate their analyses with their experience of the case studies carried out in different weeks; COURSE REQUIREMENTS: Readings The readings for this course will be available on the course Blackboard site as a PDF document and through the purchase of e-books. Technology See details of technical requirements for this online course in the welcome letter, emailed to students enrolled in this class and available on the course Blackboard website. Our course technologist is Kathryn Andrus who can help with specific parts of this course. Her email is Kandrus@uccs.edu. COURSE GRADING SYSTEM The course rating system is based on a total of 1000 possible points. Please note that each week includes a significant percentage of the course total points: Week 1 Self Introduction, Start Here, and Smarter Measure Assignments up to 40 points out of 1000 total for course weeks 2–7, and 10, 12–14: each week contains content data worth up to 40 points out of 1000 total for course. Together, these 10 weeks are worth up to 400 points out of 1000 total for the course. These missions include quizzes, brief response missions, Wiki contributions, discussion forums and the like. Week 8: Printer workshop. Missions during this week are worth up to 40 points out of the 1000 for the course. Week 9 Written assignment (400–500 words): up to 150 points out of 1000 for the course. Week 11: Revision Week up to 120 out of 1000 total for the course. Week 16 Final assignment (600–700 words): up to 250 points out of 1000 total for the course. Part of the mission will be to incorporate a revision of the mid-term mission into your argument. CLASS SCHEMA FOR HUM 3990-OL — Autumn 2016 The details and content of each week's mission are available in the course Blackboard website “Week Course Contents” folders for each week. Phase 1: Questions in Action: Introduction to Medical Humanities Week 1 Start Here (22-28 August): Introduction and how this course works To meet your instructors, present yourself and review the course. 1. Watch Video entitled “MED HUM 3990 OL F16 Introduction to Course” 2. Read “How this course works” 3. Send Smarter Measures PDF. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 2 4. Present yourself (100–150 words) to your classmates by submitting an image that represents you right now in your career at UCCS. Due to Sunday 28 August at 23:59 worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total. Week 2 (29 August–September 4): The Art of Memory: Book History, Cyborgs, and Narrative Medicine – Dr. Laroche 1. Complete Reading: Chapter 2 from An Introduction to Book History by David Finkelstein, and Alastair McCleery, to be purchased as an e-book at Amazon.com or similar provider: http://amzn.to/1vydMbH ; and “Narrative Medicine Heals Bodies and Souls” from The Utne Reader, September-October 2009: http://www.utne.com/mind-and-body/narrative-medicine-health-bodies-and souls.aspx 2. Listen to Podcast Episode: “Our computers, ourselves”, Invisibilitya, episodes from February 12, 2015. http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilitya (through minute 33). 3. Listen to the 20-minute lecture: “Reading, writing, listening, remembering and the origins of narrative medicine” in Week 2. 4. Complete brief written data: 1. Let someone in your life read you an article (newspaper, magazine or blog post, either from online or in print). 2. Let that someone read another to you while you read quietly. 3. Now read another for yourself and quietly. 4. Write a 150-word account (including the names of the articles and the identification of your reader) of the differences between these three experiences in not only the knowledge you gain, but also in the experience of achieving this knowledge with others. Write this to the discussion forum named in the weekly directory. Students must post their content before they can enter the discussion. 5. Having thus reflected on these differences and posted them and utilized this week's material (including a direct quote), then consider (in about 150 words) in your response to a comrade post the consequences for this mission if the situation in which the “article” is read is a patient's story of her/his illness. Due at 11:59 p.m. on September 4. Worth up to 40 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 3 (5 September – 11 September) “Every human being his own doctor”: Cheap pressure, prescription circulation, and the history of medicine in early modern England – Dr. Laroche 1. Read: Chapter 3 from An Introduction to Book History by David Finkelstein, and Alastair McCleery from the book: A Global History, and Harold Love, “Manuscript After the Coming of Print” (PDF); Four entries from recipes.hypoteses.org (linked in the weekly content folder for week 3); 2. Watch: Short "Prologue" and "Syrup of Violets" and 35-Minute Video Lecture, "Every Man His Own Doctor": Cheap Pressures, Recipes Circulation, and Medical Authority in Early Modern England". 3. Take QUIZ on reading/video lecture (by 23.59, 11 September). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 3 4. Full written assignment at 11:59 p.m., 11 September. Worth up to 20 points out of 100 for the course: Part 1. Recipe Wiki. Enter a recipe from your locality (family, library, church, school) in a word document. This does not have to be a medical prescription. The title of your prescription indicates the person(s) who is the source and their place of origin. Let us also know if you have made the recipe (and what the results were). If you haven't made the recipe, record some testimony about its quality. Now copy this entry in the collective section wiki linked in the sidebar under Wiki recipes, then your section number. Do not create your own page, but instead edit the wiki content that exists (the history feature shows us each person's add-on). Consider how you will distinguish your entry from others and where you will place your prescription among the collective. Part 2. Comment on your own wiki post and answer the following questions in one paragraph (150 words): How can your relationship with your source give you an idea of how to make the recipe and believe in the result? How did you decide to place your recipe in the collected recipe book? How can self - narration get into the collection, writing, and making of recipes? Where is the authority to collect recipes? Finally, including at least one quote from this week's reading, tell us how your experience has taught you something about the relationship between individual recipes collecting into oral culture/manuscript culture/Printing culture/computer culture or perhaps the transition from one to the other? Submit this information separately as a Word doc. in the recipes Reflection assignment link below in the weekly content folder. Week 4 (September 12–18) Plague: Community Perceptions of the Disease, Victims, and Survivors — Wendy Haggren 1. Watch: Voiced over powerpoint lecture on an old plague and a modern plague (40 min.) Sonia Shah (p. 13): “... tells stories of new pathogens through the lens of a historical pandemic ...” 2. Retrieved: Thucydides: The Jowett Translation. 2.47-2.54 (431 BC). http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/thucydides/thucydidespassages.php?pleaseget=2.47-54,2.57-58.3.87&passageid=The%20Plage (I have copied sections 2.47 – 2.54 to a word.docx); An account of the plague written by a general who was also a historian (3 p). This is a first person's account of the symptoms of disease; the first known mention of immunity in literature; and observation of who nursed the sufferers. 3. Read: Shah, Sonia. Pandemic: Tracking Contaminants, from Cholera to Ebola and Beyond. New York, Sarah Crichton Books, FSG, 2016.Chapter 1, pp. 15 - 35. 4. Watch: a short video of the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/video/health/100000003420384/the-path-of-the-ebolaoutbreak.html, (5 min 13 sec). A factual, visual account of the first spread of the Ebola virus from patient “0” in the remote forest to the crowded capital of Guinea (Conakry). You can see the cleared land around the village, note the false sense of security when the number of falls originally sank, similar historical eruptions deep in the African forests, and see the difference between village life and the capital. 5. Read: Craig Spencer, “Having and Fighting Ebola—Public Health Lessons from a Clinic Turned the Patient,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 372:1089-1091, 19 March 2015 (about 2 pages). First-person account of surviving Ebola and HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 4 finding out that he had been slandered by local media for wandering around the city before the fever developed. 6. Take quiz at lecture and readings (by 23:59, 18 September). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. 7. Completely short written assignment: (300–400 words) Three doctors have recently returned to Colorado Springs from Africa where they treated people with Ebola. The fever and symptoms of Ebola have been developed and are quarantined in a local hospital. Your aunt is very upset that the other two individuals are still walking around Colorado Springs and that you volunteer at the hospital where the sick person is being treated. Write a brief dialogue between you and your aunt explaining to her the medical possibilities of an Ebola outbreak in Colorado Springs and that she contracted the disease. Make sure to include at least 3 questions or statements from her. You can take any position you want, as long as you support it with two quotes from this week's lecture and readings. Be aware of the language and tone you use with your aunt who has a secondary education and reads the paper (by 23:59, 18 September). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 5 (19–25 September) The cultural context of medical treatment and healing — Wendy Haggren 1. Watch: Voiced over powerpoint lecture on the biology of the immune system (briefly) and how Ebola affects the human body; African community healer treatments for Ebola; modern medical treatments for Ebola; and what we have learned by not considering the culture of a society undergoing an Ebola outbreak. (40 min) 2. Read: Thompson, Amy E., “The Immune System”, Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA Patient Page, 313(16): 1686, 2015. (1 page) 3. Watch: a short video of the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/video/health/100000003416721/ebolas-patient-zero.html (5 min 38 sec) This is a personal account of the initial Ebola victims of the man who lost his family. Note how many languages were involved in the creation of this video. Refer the answer from the village doctors to this first outbreak to what you will read in the Hewlett and Amola newspaper (2003). 4. Retrieved: Barry S. Hewlett and Richard P. Amola, “Culture Context of Ebola in Northern Uganda,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 9(10):1242-1248, 2003. This article deals with lessons about effective treatment by combining appropriate local faith with modern medical science 5. Quiz: Finish this brief mission in medical science, track, label and briefly explain, given a human outline with specific body areas indicated, the course through which humans can develop protective antibodies against Ebola and suggest why this does not always happen (until 23:59 pm, September 25). Worth up to 10 points out of 1000 total for the course. 6. Complete 2 Written assignments: 1. Create a new recipe wiki by selecting a recipe from your week 3 wiki and identifying which ingredients help increase the immune response and explain your response. Change another recipe by switching ingredients for one or more that will boost the immune system; again, HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 5 explain (at 11:59 pm, September 25). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. 2. Comment: Why or why not a medical practice here in town be willing to distribute your immune-boosting recipes for free if you found a way to print hundreds of copies. What support or arguments do you think you can get from today’s doctor? 25 September at 11.59 p.m.). Worth up to 10 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 6 (26 September-October 2) Cultural ways of knowing nature: Indigenous and 21st century perspectives on our relationship to nature and its healing power — Eileen Skahill *See: Short Instructor video discuss the content of the week and explain in detail the study of environmental sociology in the age of climate change, emphasizing the links between society, ecology and economics with the premise that the planet is a “shared common”. *Read: 1. Wall-Cimmerer: Braid Sweet Grass: Indigenous Wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teaching of plants pgs: 1-38 BB 2. David Suzuki: "interconnections" pgs. 1-11 BB 3. National Geographic: “This Is Your Brain on Nature” http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/call-to-wildtext?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm _content=link_fb20151223ngmcalltowild&utm_campaign=Content&sf17614328=1 *Write Mission: Part 1 Watch 1. The Num (film trailer 5:46) https://vimeo.com/ondemand/numenfilm Part 2: Write (200-250 word counting/total): 2. Compare the village perspective – healing in Dr Haggren's content Week 5 on Ebola with the domestic perspective in Wall – Kimmerer's readings. How is their approach similar or different? 3. With the help of the Numen video and the National Geographic article, you will answer the following questions given the whole role of nature as healing. a. What was your connection to nature when you were a child? Have you been outside and what have you done? b. What is your relationship with nature now as an adult? How's that changed? What role has technology played in the relationship with nature as an adult? c. Do you personally use nature (or realize that you are doing it) as a "healing force" in managing stress in your life as the National Geographic article suggests HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 6 d. Do you personally use nature (or realize that you are doing it) as a "healing force" in managing stress in your life? e. In what ways do you use herbal or medicinal plants as a form of health care and/or healing? I'm due at 11:59 p.m. on October 2. Worth up to 40 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 7 (October 3–9): Fracking and Public Health: Narrating from "Gas Patch" and Medical Community Response to the Health Effects of Fracking -Eileen Skahill *See: Brief talkover power point lecture on the history of energy development in the United States and how marginalized societies (in this case class differences) disproportionately suffer in our energy consuming society in the age of climate change. *See FILM: Split Estate *Read: 1. EcoWatch: “4 States struggling to handle radioactive fraction waste http://www.ecowatch.com/4-states-struggles-to-manageradioactive-fracking-waste-1891181106.html 2. Frack Free Colorado: “Colorados affected people” http://www.frackfreecolorado.com/cos-affected-people.html 3. Public News Service: “Fracking and Children”: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-05-23/climate-change-air quality/study-fracking-pollution-disproportionate-effect children/a52051-1 4. EcoWatch: ‘EPA study on fracking Ignored contamination studies': http://www.ecowatch.com/epa-science--advising-governance-fracking-study-water--contamination---1968795058.html 5. Social Responsibility Doctors: “Position Statement” http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/psr-fracking-policy.pdf *Electional Reading: Concerned Health Professionals in New York- A Compendium: http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/ *Interactive Mission: Take My Ecological Footprint Quiz. (Go to: http://myfootprint.org/subscription.php and enter Professor Skahill's UCCS address and password as given below.) This activity is meant to give you a sense of your personal carbon footprint and impact on Earth and its resources (not to create guilt or shame, even if these feelings are quite common). Print or print your results for use in the discussion forum assignment. HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 7 Use the following values when you are asked to log in: Email: eskahill@uccs.edu Password: rAOELEWR *Discussion Forum: Parts 1 & 2 (200–250 word counting/total) Part 1: 1. Post your Footprint results and the total amount of planets required for your lifestyle. Describe your reaction to your results. 2. Think now of your findings in connection with the movie Split Estate and the articles awarded for this week and answer the following question: • Knowing that our use of energy is mainly derived from the extraction of natural gas and oil, how does our carbon footprint, individually and collectively, affect the health and well-being of people from both local and global communities? I'll be ready at 11:59 on October 9. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. Part 2: • • • Apply your understanding of the indigenous perspectives we learned in week 6 to answer the following question: Does our energy use take into account the planet’s indigenous perspectives and its resources? Do we believe that we have a relationship with Earth where the balance between consumption and preservation is taken into account? Do we see that technological progress can benefit us as humans, but not always for the planet? Is there really a separation of the two? (Think about Wall- Kimmerer, and Suzuki's idea of our connections to nature). You must comment on at least two (2) student posts. I'll be ready at 11:59 on October 9. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 8 (10–16 October): Reflection and Writing Workshop – Haggren, Laroche and Skahill 1. Fill in the Writing Center Workshop, which will prepare you to write your first long written task by watching PowerPoint presentation in this folder. This workshop has two discussion tasks linked to the one you will find in the group discussion forum. The workshop activities are worth up to 40 HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 8 points out of 1000 points total for the course. See full instructions in the Annex for submission data. During this week: • • • • Watch the videos of the week for an orientation to the week’s activities and to your written assignment. The activities this week will also help you prepare for the last written assignment to take place in week 16. Read the description of the written assignment for this week and the longer assignment for week 9 (also available in the syllabus in the appendix). Write sample paragraph and posts in the discussion forum group called “Excerpt paragraphs Peer Review.” Once you have done so, you will be able to respond to a post by a peer. (On Sunday, October 16, at 11:59 p.m.). This is worth 20 points out of 1000 points total for the course. Share your writing process in a post in the discussion forum "Shareing your writing process" in writing or by attaching a file/image. Once you have done so, you will be able to respond to a peer position. (On Sunday 16 October at 11:59) This is worth 20 points out of 1000 points total for the course. Phase 2: Reconsider Medical Practice in the Digital Age Week 9 (October 17-23): Upload Midterm Essay to the Mission Link for Midterm Essay. Documents uploaded to this link will automatically be checked for originality. Midterm Essay is worth up to 150 points in total out of 1000 for the course. See instructions for this mission below. Sunday 23 October at 11.59 p.m. Week 10 (24–30 October): The question of (Cyber)Emotionality — Rebecca Laroche 1. See “Prolog” video and video content “The question about CyberEmpath” 2. Read Leslie Jamison, “The Empathy Sample”, from The Empatie Exams, PDF provided. 3. Listen to Podcast, "The Secret, Gruesome Internet for Doctors", episode #2 of the series Reply All, November 24, 2014. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/2instagram-for-doctors/ 4. Review the pictures from: http://hyperallergic.com/104337/grotesque-andgorgeous-10,000-art-and-medicine-images-released-for-open-use/ 5. Write in a Word Document, a 100-150-word fictional scene from first-person point-of-view on the patient (one empathizing with that patient) in one of the images from the website or described in the podcast. Now in 200-250 words, engage Leslie Jamison's essay and podcast directly, analyzing the tension between creative empathy and diagnostic detachment. Send both of these into a document in the submission folder in the Weekly Content folder. Worth 40 of the 1000 points for the course (Due by 11:59, October 30). Week 11 (31 October–6 November): Revision. During this week, students will revise their mid-term assignment based on the assessment they have received from their instructor. In carrying out this assignment, you must read carefully the comments and feedback you received from the instructor in the margins, in the grade comments and in the letter of the assignment. The revision will be assessed on the basis of the extent to which HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 9 these comments were taken into account and the level at which these comments were revised. Worth 120 points out of the 1000 points for the course. Week 12 (7 November-13): Self-diagnosis in the Digital Age — Rebecca Laroche 1. Read Heidi Julavits, “Diagnose This: How to be your own best doctor” (Harper’s Magazine, April 2014); Finkelstein and McCleary, chapter 7, “The Future of the Book”, from An Introduction to Book History, which you bought at the beginning of the course. 2. Watch video lecture (20 minutes), “Self-Diagnosis in the Digital Age.” 3. Take Quiz. (At 23:59, 13 November), 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the track. 4. Surf some sites that provide medical advice and diagnosis (Not Isabel as I will talk about it a little in lecture. Avoid computer viruses). Select one and start a news thread by entering its name as the thread title. In the post reply the following: 1) What is the URL? Is it a .com, .org, or .edu? What does the address say about its source? 2) How does the website create a sense of authority? Does the site inspire trust? If yes, how? If not, how does it fail to do so? - No, no, no, no, no. How does the website view the problem of diagnosis? That is, how would you describe its approach? 4). How can this website change the relationship between doctor and patient discussed in reading (quoting at least one instance from reading)? Hire one of your comrades. (11:59 p.m., 23 October). 20 points of the 1000 final points for the track. Week 13 (14-20 November): Historical and digital time opposition to vaccination — Wendy Haggren 1. Watch: Voiced over powerpoint lecture on the history of variolation, vaccination, and the violent early history of anti-vaccinations from the 1721 smallpox outbreak in Boston to 1777 and George Washington's pressure to variolate their troops without Congress approval. Ups and downs in vaccine design and production; modern anti-vaxers. (40 min) 2. Read: Robert M. Wolfe and Lisa K. Sharp, “Anti-vaccinationists past and present”, British Medical Journal, 325:430-432, 2002. 3. Read: Stefan Blancke, et al., “Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO resistance”, Trends in Plant Science, (5 pages), 2015. Simply replace the term “vaccination” for “GMO;” this describes a philosophical view in ways that human nature affects decision-making. 4. Read: Jeanette B. Ruiz and Robert A. Bell, “Understanding vaccination resistance: Vaccine search term selection bias and vallance of retrieved information,” Vaccine, 32:5776-5780, 2014. 5. Quiz: during this week's lecture and reading (at 23.59, 20 November), 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the course. 6. Discussion Forum: Without naming or inserting your opinion, interview and report on the attitude and reasoning of two friends or family members with opposing views on vaccination (~100 words). Then comment on a post from another student where you empathize with a view not your own, but you don't have to agree with it. Be professional and respectful. (At 23:59, November 20), 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the track. Week 14 (November 21-27): Thanksgiving Break HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 10 Week 15 (November 28 – December 4): The consequences of controlling nature: Ethics and the importance of cultivating gratitude — Eileen Skahill • • Watch: Short video reorientation students after autumn holidays. Tie together the term concepts of this last week with emphasis on the domestic idea of respect compassion and empathy for each other cultivate gratitude for the earth and what it provides; working in communion with each other and the earth, all will flourish. See: Youtube: “GMOs: Myths and Truths https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ztZGbLEJ0 Read: 1. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring: “A Fable for Tomorrow” BB 2. EcoWatch: “Glyphosat Found in the Urine of 93% of Americans” http://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosat-found-in-urin-of-93-percentage-of-ofamericans-tested-1891146755.html 3. Common Dreams: "Huge Victory for American Consumers, Senate Rejects DARK Act" http://www.commonreams.org/news/2016/03/16/huge-victoryamerican-consumers-senate-rejects-dark-act 4. The Guardian: “Should we dry mosquitos off the face of the earth?” https://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/feb/10/should-we-dry-mosquitoes-of-the-earth-face-. ‘FDA approves genetically modified mosquitoes’ http://www.nationofchange.org/2016/08/08/fda-approvesgenetically modified-mosquitoes-struggles-zika-florida/ 6. Collective evolution: “Larvicide made by Sumitomo, not Zika Virus, true cause of Brazil’s Microcephali Outbreak?” http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/06/29/larvicid made by-sumitomo-not-zika-virus-true-cause-of-brazilsmicrocephalyoutbreak/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campai gn=Feed %3A+Collective-evolution+%28Collective+Evolution%29 7. Wall Kimmerer: “Allegiance to Gratitude” pgs. 105-117. BB * Written task: Recipes for healing and cultivating gratitude The mission for this week ties together the ideas presented throughout the semester about stories and history of medicine, empathy and ethics. In this mission you will have to watch the short video about Plant Spirit Medicine and briefly read through the written parts of the attached document “The Healing Power of Plants” which places particular emphasis on Plant Spirit Medicinal Recipes. Part 1: Watch: 1. “Walk the Talk Show:” Eliot Cowen Talks Plant Spirit Medicine” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWB-QYriBFw Explore/Scan 2. “The healing power of plants: a guide” pdf. BB Part 2: HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 11 <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk>