4 10 39 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/e35ed324e11b3e64538e1c28de1bb776.jpg 4bf48ea6e41408ec7611bac2f028274b Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Popularizing the Wireless Transmitter Description An account of the resource The history of science is a history not often spotlighted by mainstream history, but it is a fascinating history that well deserves the recognition of historians. In the 21st century world we live in today we enjoy many comforts including but not limited by the microwave to quickly heat our food without huge fires, vaccines and germ theory to protect us against disease that might have wiped out entire continents a couple hundred years ago, and we live in an age where someone sitting on the Indian subcontinent can communicate with someone in their living room in Tucson Arizona almost instanously. The world of Twitter and other social media has linked the world in ways that would seem the world of science fiction a couple decades ago before the invention of the microchip. We live in a world that is so interconnected but yet so many people don’t know the story of how we got to this point in the year 2020. History has been argued by some scholars to be the study of stories. Essentially historians take primary accounts and sift through the data and find the puzzle that best matches the pieces. This is the same with the history of science, it is a story that doesn’t require the knowledge of the science being discovered by these great men and women of science it simply requires an understanding of how pieces fit together to compliment the whole. The globalized world of twitter and instant help from across the ocean had a starting place, and that starting place at least in the digital age began at Southwestern with an invention by a man named Robert Stewart Heyer in the year 1895<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> when he arguably for the first time in history sent a wireless message from his Southwestern laboratory to the jailhouse in Georgetown, a distance of over a mile. Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew is Heyer’s official autobiography written by his daughter Rey Heyer Brown and only 1000 copies were ever made. During his time, he was a professor of science’s, served as president of Southwestern and later served as president of Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Gugliemo Marconi is the Italian inventor and electrical engineer who went down in the history books as the first man in history to send a wireless transmission over a distance out of earshot. Marconi famously sent his transmission in the year 1901, Robert Heyer sent his signal in 1805<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>, six whole years before Marconi. Why did the world give the spotlight to Marconi when Heyer was actually the first to send a wireless transmission? Heyer’s feat has been collaborated by the other professors at Southwestern during his time there as well as countless students and the jailer who received his signal<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>. It turns out geography itself may be why the spotlight was given to Marconi. Georgetown was taken from the Tonkawa Indians was taken and settled in 1848 by George Washington Glasscock and had a steadily growing population. Even though Georgetown the town where Southwestern was situated was growing, Texas in the late 1800’s was still wilderness and besides a few towns here and there it was sparse wilderness. Telegraph lines were present but not everywhere that meant that there was little communication between settlements. Marconi who was working In Europe, a man born in Italy but setting up his company The Wireless Telegraph and Signal Company in the United Kingdom was in the most interconnected, funded and scientific areas of the world at the time. In Robert Stewart Heyer, the Man I Knew his daughter talks about other reasons, according to her he didn’t even want credit for his invention. He was unable to get a proper patent for his invention and prioritized his family over his invention. He was a tinkerer at heart and that sufficed his needs. Heyer and Marconi’s wireless transmitters although revolutionary, were not the first attempts at wireless transmission in history. The advantage of long-distance communication from everything from military maneuvers to city to city communication was a feat that had recognized significance. The very first attempts at distance communication took place by the Greeks, Persians and Chinese, simultaneously reaching the conclusion the distance communication could be advantageous independently around the same time period. They would use smoke signals on top of hills to communicate. Later in history around the beginning of the scientific revolution the advantage of distance communication was still feat that was valued and an invention called the Semaphore would demonstrate this. The semaphore used giant lever operated hands to send messages in a format that is similar to morse code to semaphore stations up to 12 miles away. A string of these stations could be set up on hilltops with a telescope at each station. But like imagining modern science in a context today without computers distance communication was limited to the eyes, and for distance communication to work a force unseen and powerful would be needed to work. The invention of the telegraph by Robert Morse was this invention. <a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>Thanks solely to the discovery of electromagnetism by Hans Oesrsted and the invention of the battery by Alessandro Volta, this unseen communication was brought to the world. “Hardly a day intervened when General Grant did not know the exact state of facts with me, more than fifteen-hundred miles off – William Tecumesh Sherman (civil war general)”, the civil war saw the unprecedented boom of telegraph technology on both Confederate and Union sides of the war<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>. There was a catch to this tech however and that was in order to communicate, telegraph lines would need to be set up. These lines would span hundreds, thousands of miles at times and would take the workforce of the nation in uncharted wilderness to erect, there had to be an easier way to do things and there was. Heyer followed by Marconi would start the ball rolling on an invention that used the same electrical pulses as the telegraph machine but sent the message without thousands of miles of cables, through the spark gap transmitter. Robert Heyer and Marconi both created a wireless transmitter that worked in almost the same way. what has been classified today as a Spark Gap Transmitter, this transmitter sent an electrical shock to an oscillatory circuit, consisting of an inductance/ capacitance in sequence, essentially an electrical shock was converted to a single radio wave of non-variable frequency and wave length. Controlling the electrical pulse on the sending end, Heyer and Marconi could send a message using morse code. This technology was immediately recognized for its full potential, in full by the US Navy.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> Around 1910 the US Navy conducted a huge experiment with two of its ships which were outfitted with Marconi’s radio technology, using an evolved Spark Gap-transmitter (the same type of transmitter invented by Heyer) 1000 miles away these ships were able to broadcast a clear and distinct message to a massive radio antenna sitting on the US coastline. What were the obstacles that prevented Heyer’s invention from becoming used worldwide as soon as they were invented before 1910? This was the Austin-Cohen theory, which stated radio waves decay at the inverse square root of a wavelength. This theory came into the mainstream scientific and engineering circles around the same time Heyer’s radio contraptions were being brought into the same circles. This theory actually soon had become a law, and for all early radio inventions, they all abided heavily by this theory. This theory basically inferred that a radio wave could not travel the length of the Atlantic Ocean because of this decay, and the only way to make this happen would be to create a receiver that is tall enough but the distances at stake are far too large and thus the receiver would need to be unfeasibly tall. Ultra-low frequency waves would change everything however, and the US navy demonstrated this in two tests the test in 1910 mentioned earlier and a later test in 1913. These ultra-low frequency waves (any wave between 300 hertz and 3 kilohertz) can be broadcast at a range between 100 and 1000KM. Extremely low frequency waves (ELF) waves are waves that broadcast at an even lower frequency (3 to 30 Hz) and these wavelengths can be broadcast at a range of 10,000 to 100,000 Kilometers. <a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>These two wave discoveries opened up the door for long distance radio communication. In the 1890’s was the decade actually that the navy began to take notice, that science and engineering advancements could intertwine not just in industry but also with warfare quoting “this is the birth of a new navy”. Heyer did not invent radio and communication, but his invention is a crucial piece to an emerging science and technological puzzle that was being solved at the end of the 19the and beginning of the 20th century. Without his invention that for intents of this paper can be symbolized through Marconi (because Heyer invented the wireless transmitter first) the invention of the radio that we are most familiar with today could not have been reached if the crucial stepping stone that was Heyer’s invention was not invented first. In chapter 40 of a little history of science, it is the final chapter of the book and it concludes everything by talking about science in the digital age. This age we live in now has its own chapter, arguably it is as important in the history of science to Marie Curie’s advancements on radiation if not more so. The level of importance doesn’t matter for the case of this argument, from the early days of the Hollerieth machine and the punch card in the early 20th century to Alan Turning’s early computer work eventually that led to the invention of the microchip. Computers talk to one another, and more so now than ever in the 5G world we live in now It is almost unfathomable to imagine a world where communication with the nearest town or city is weeks of walking away, or a fire on a hilltop, even in the arms of a semaphore across the valley. History of Science by Sean F. Johnson in his chapter 2 Big Ideas and Compelling approaches helps to put Marconi and Howe’s inventions in place in the global history of science. The global history of science started with astronomy with hunter gatherer populations. Astreo- archeology shows us their connection, left behind by these people such as the ‘marriage of earth and sky’ when the serpent from Serpent Mound (a site in Ohio possibly created by the Fort Ancient culture who were hunter gatherers, but its creation remains a mystery of giant serpent with an oval in its mouth) is positioned precisely true north and every summer solstice the sun shines through a precise gap in a nearby hilltop right down the center of the serpent. Plato and his republic used their knowledge of their times to create explanations for the world that fit logically. The scientific revolution was another key point in the history of science, with scientists revising many of Plato’s and the other Greek philosophers’ ideas and creating the framework for science as we see it today. In their own subset Marconi and Heyer’s invention was one of these turning points in the history of science, they helped to create communication that’s instantaneous and global, and for that we thank them today. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ian Jones Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Neuenfeldt, Eric. "Telegraph." In Wild Horse: Stories, 120-40. Amherst; Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd198v.12. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Neuenfeldt, Eric. "Telegraph." In Wild Horse: Stories, 120-40. Amherst; Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd198v.12. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Yeang, Chen-Pang. "Scientific Fact or Engineering Specification? The U.S. Navy's Experiments on Wireless Telegraphy circa 1910." Technology and Culture 45, no. 1 (2004): 1-29. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40060578. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a>Yeang, Chen-Pang. "Scientific Fact or Engineering Specification? The U.S. Navy's Experiments on Wireless Telegraphy circa 1910." Technology and Culture 45, no. 1 (2004): 1-29. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40060578. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Hyer Wireless Transmitter mockup Subject The topic of the resource Diagram Description An account of the resource Diagram explaining the science behind Hyer’s wireless transmitter Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource SU special Collections Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource January 21 1991 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/7d156d1c9d4f59c7cc116471e8736bc8.jpg 9a075e3b4dfab068133dc077bf83c7f2 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/1e319f19400fc7b4f6a240addf2bddba.jpg 343839be1e37b9b7d70b3b2bde00fba4 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/495fdb2c31e5761304698ab0202e29e5.jpg ba9b9c982ade1f9071e76e536d65d4cd Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Gastrointestinal Disease Hits Georgetown, Texas Description An account of the resource In the Summer of 1980, the city of Georgetown was thrown into a crisis when an outbreak of a mysterious gastrointestinal disease took the city by storm, infecting thousands within a week or two and businesses closed under the pressure.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Subsequent research culminated in a scientific article published 2 years later and confirmed local suspicions of a waterborne disease being the culprit however the primary viral agent was (and still) not identified.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Four years later, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in Braun Station, a small town near San Antonio and it’s waterborne qualities were identified for the first time.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Both towns received water from the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and both incidents contributed to changes in wastewater regulations for said aquifer.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> These two events are tied to the history of waterborne gastrointestinal epidemics and can be used to analyze how Georgetown responded to sudden outbreaks. The larger changes of environmental policies in the 1970s and 80s explain the different approaches in both cases of gastrointestinal disease These years saw an increase in environmental protection policies and the years that followed were defined by the public's response to them. In his monograph Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, Richard Andrews, a professor of environmental policies, writes about the long history of environmental policies in the United States. Andrews argues that the federal environmental policies of the 1970s could be summarized by the assertion of national standards and the cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to implement them.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, during the early 1980s, this federal initiative to control the environment would come under attack as President Ronald Reagan took office and dismantled many of them.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> These developments contextualize the state of environmental policies leading up to and during the Georgetown epidemics of gastrointestinal disease. From all of this, these outbreaks of gastrointestinal diseases become much more understandable at the state and municipal levels. First, it brings up the question of how the changes in federal support may have influenced the research done by the City of Georgetown (1980) and of that done by the local government at Braun Station (1984-85). Secondly, the developments leading up to 1980 construct a setting in which there is a clear divide in power between the federal government and the local municipal entities. These contextual insights become visible when looking at the primary sources of the different outbreaks. When comparing the primary scientific articles published for both epidemics, one immediately sees a difference in the extent of federal aid. The article that compiles the research done for the 1980 Georgetown outbreak was published under the journal American Water Works Association and supported by grants given by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health while also being assisted by the Williamson County Health Department.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> Whereas the article regarding the outbreak in Braun Station was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and gives acknowledgments to the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, and was in cooperation with local medical centers.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Furthermore, the reaction by those who wrote for the Williamson County Sun during the summer of 1980 depicted the local community and officials being fed up by the amount of involvement by state and federal entities. One writer talks about how the event has put their small city under an unwanted national spotlight and that they now have to, unfortunately, deal with the National Center for Disease Control and the EPA.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Another talks about the tensions between local city manager Leo Wood and Texas state officials over the legitimacy of the state officials’ claim that the sickness is likely being transmitted through the city water supply.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> These primary sources show that the 1980 case study of gastrointestinal disease in Georgetown occured right before funding was cut to federal environmental funding. They also point out a shift in power dynamics. The first paper was funded by federal agencies who gave money to local institutions to conduct the work (similar to Andrews’ claims) while the second paper was entirely conducted and funded by local and state agencies. This long-term shift from a multi directional to an entirely localized approach to environmental policies show the years between 1980-1984 as being defined by the political tensions that come with this shift. Additionally, the epistemological processes tied to the history of science can also be seen in this response to an epidemic. The interactions between Georgetown citizens and the local as well as federal ‘officials’ mirrors much of what historians of science have discussed in regards to public knowledge. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues that public science was a form of “promot[ing] public opinion as a political force… “ as it raised tensions between scientists and the public.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This is a process seen in my case study as political tensions played a huge part in the 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak. When the outbreak first occurred, the Georgetown government officials were quick to state that it was not caused by water, saying that the few tests for (known) waterborne gastrointestinal diseases were inconclusive; however, many of the city residents did not agree and continued to argue that the disease had to be waterborne.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In fact, the local and state officials involvement in the crisis was described (quoted from a State epidemiologist) as “experts” running “difficult” tests<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> and while they failed to find any answers, the publics’ response (or rather, “rumors”) point towards a possible sewage leak being responsible for the epidemic.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> This description of experts running complex tests was a reaffirmation to the public that even though scientists have not found evidence regarding the source or cause of the epidemic, they are trying. At the same time—in fact, before—the “rumors” of a sewage leakage causing the disease was a way for the public to affirm their own political influence. These tension between the public and the Georgetown officials as well as the tensions between municipal and federal officials reaffirms the historical ‘deficit model’ characterized by the assumption of a “considerable epistemological inferiority between experts and receivers of scientific discourse.”<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> The very first mention of the 1980 outbreak in The Williamson County Sun was a small story that gave the initial responses by Georgetown officials and experts.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> It discussed how a few people (mostly old and young individuals) have been hospitalized by an unknown illness. A local doctor was quoted as saying “it is just plain old intestinal flu” and affirms that “the water supply has been checked and found to be perfectly safe. This is strictly a viral infection.”<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> Three days later, the front page of the weekly newspaper was strictly about the epidemic. The same local doctor and the city manager refuted the popular theory amongst people about the illness (that it was a result of pesticide use) and apparently repeated statements such as “we’ve never seen anything like this before.”<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The writer cited two “passerby” who firmly believed the illness to be sourced from the water supply. The writer continued and cited the director of the Williamson County Health Department who said “you can’t just hand a bottle of water over to a laboratory and ask them to tell you what’s in it… you’ve got to know what you’re looking for.”<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> The tests that were conducted were for the presence of E. Coli and when they returned negative, the city manager reported “that ought to relieve some minds as far as the water is concerned” and the local doctor said “I believe we can now start looking elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> But the city residents did not agree. The local officials’ claim disregarding a waterborne illness would continue until the state and federal agencies got involved.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These initial responses portray the tension between everyday people and local/federal governments regarding disease and how to deal with it. As historian Nieto-Galan noted that experts often downplay certain risks seen as dangerous by lay people, “while the latter question the authority and legitimacy of the experts.”<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The Georgetown local officials disagreed with the public while the former disagreed with federal officials. The 1980 Georgetown outbreak of gastrointestinal disease occurred before federal funding to the EPA was cut so one would assume that the event was entirely under control. However, that was not the case. Instead, the outbreak was a convoluted case that had disagreements and tensions between people from multiple levels of power. To search for a top-down approach or bottom-up approach within this case study would take much more time and even then, such a dichotomy can not be entirely defined when looking into the societal influences that go into the history of science. Before the outbreak, the influence of the local and municipal government simply relied on the use of manually adjusted chlorine injections to clean their water, it was not till after the event that the systems saw an upgrade.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> During the outbreak, the rhetoric made by Georgetown officials displayed a scenario where the experts held the truth and were in control of the situation when in fact, they weren’t. It could be argued that the virus that caused the 1980 outbreak was Cryptosporidium and because it’s waterborne qualities were not known at the time, it made sense that there was no testing for it. However, even that argument does not take away the power dynamics at play when the city officials/experts refuted the idea of a water supply problem simply on the basis that E. Coli was not found. The 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak in Georgetown Texas is a clear example of how disease is much more than a biological threat. It exists within a society and is thus influenced by a number of complex sociocultural phenomena. This case study gives students and historians of science the chance to understand how political and social power dynamics influence a historical response to epidemics on the grounds of policies and epistemology. These complex relationships between disease and societal factors are important to understand, now more than ever. As we survive through the COVID-19 pandemic and transition into a new post COVID-19 world, these are the historical actors we must pay attention to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Saul Zuniga Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> D'Antonio RG, Winn RE, Taylor JP, Gustafson TL, Current WL, Rhodes MM, Gary GW Jr, and Zajac RA. “A Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Normal Hosts.” Annals of Internal Medicine 103, no. 6 (1985): 886–88. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Geological Society of America. Meeting (125th : 2013 : Denver, Colo.). Caves and Karst Across Time. Edited by Joshua Feinberg, Yongli Gao, and E. C Alexander. Special Papers / Geological Society of America, 516. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 2016. 56. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Andrews, Richard N. L., Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy 2 nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 249. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Richard Andrews, Managing the Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 255-56. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318–21. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> D’Antonio, “Normal Hosts,” 886-888. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> “Nationwide Attention,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 52, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 102. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness…” 13. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Emily Baker, “Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 6, June 26, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> “Virus sweeps Georgetown” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 51, June 15, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 210. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Virus Sweeps Georgetown Subject The topic of the resource A case study into the history of waterborne gastrointestinal disease Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williamson County Sun. Editors and authors: Ray Jones, Emily Barker, Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Williamson County Sun Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Sunday, June 15, 1990 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newspaper article https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/a4cee1bce6e9719f2a55fc4e28f58521.jpg 872fce1c656dea586681578fa9f7138c https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/f733733e02bad2be71f009ef7e306411.jpg 723c3f9d25b7326a631863d5e68b590e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Gastrointestinal Disease Hits Georgetown, Texas Description An account of the resource In the Summer of 1980, the city of Georgetown was thrown into a crisis when an outbreak of a mysterious gastrointestinal disease took the city by storm, infecting thousands within a week or two and businesses closed under the pressure.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Subsequent research culminated in a scientific article published 2 years later and confirmed local suspicions of a waterborne disease being the culprit however the primary viral agent was (and still) not identified.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Four years later, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in Braun Station, a small town near San Antonio and it’s waterborne qualities were identified for the first time.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Both towns received water from the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and both incidents contributed to changes in wastewater regulations for said aquifer.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> These two events are tied to the history of waterborne gastrointestinal epidemics and can be used to analyze how Georgetown responded to sudden outbreaks. The larger changes of environmental policies in the 1970s and 80s explain the different approaches in both cases of gastrointestinal disease These years saw an increase in environmental protection policies and the years that followed were defined by the public's response to them. In his monograph Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, Richard Andrews, a professor of environmental policies, writes about the long history of environmental policies in the United States. Andrews argues that the federal environmental policies of the 1970s could be summarized by the assertion of national standards and the cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to implement them.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, during the early 1980s, this federal initiative to control the environment would come under attack as President Ronald Reagan took office and dismantled many of them.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> These developments contextualize the state of environmental policies leading up to and during the Georgetown epidemics of gastrointestinal disease. From all of this, these outbreaks of gastrointestinal diseases become much more understandable at the state and municipal levels. First, it brings up the question of how the changes in federal support may have influenced the research done by the City of Georgetown (1980) and of that done by the local government at Braun Station (1984-85). Secondly, the developments leading up to 1980 construct a setting in which there is a clear divide in power between the federal government and the local municipal entities. These contextual insights become visible when looking at the primary sources of the different outbreaks. When comparing the primary scientific articles published for both epidemics, one immediately sees a difference in the extent of federal aid. The article that compiles the research done for the 1980 Georgetown outbreak was published under the journal American Water Works Association and supported by grants given by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health while also being assisted by the Williamson County Health Department.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> Whereas the article regarding the outbreak in Braun Station was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and gives acknowledgments to the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, and was in cooperation with local medical centers.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Furthermore, the reaction by those who wrote for the Williamson County Sun during the summer of 1980 depicted the local community and officials being fed up by the amount of involvement by state and federal entities. One writer talks about how the event has put their small city under an unwanted national spotlight and that they now have to, unfortunately, deal with the National Center for Disease Control and the EPA.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Another talks about the tensions between local city manager Leo Wood and Texas state officials over the legitimacy of the state officials’ claim that the sickness is likely being transmitted through the city water supply.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> These primary sources show that the 1980 case study of gastrointestinal disease in Georgetown occured right before funding was cut to federal environmental funding. They also point out a shift in power dynamics. The first paper was funded by federal agencies who gave money to local institutions to conduct the work (similar to Andrews’ claims) while the second paper was entirely conducted and funded by local and state agencies. This long-term shift from a multi directional to an entirely localized approach to environmental policies show the years between 1980-1984 as being defined by the political tensions that come with this shift. Additionally, the epistemological processes tied to the history of science can also be seen in this response to an epidemic. The interactions between Georgetown citizens and the local as well as federal ‘officials’ mirrors much of what historians of science have discussed in regards to public knowledge. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues that public science was a form of “promot[ing] public opinion as a political force… “ as it raised tensions between scientists and the public.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This is a process seen in my case study as political tensions played a huge part in the 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak. When the outbreak first occurred, the Georgetown government officials were quick to state that it was not caused by water, saying that the few tests for (known) waterborne gastrointestinal diseases were inconclusive; however, many of the city residents did not agree and continued to argue that the disease had to be waterborne.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In fact, the local and state officials involvement in the crisis was described (quoted from a State epidemiologist) as “experts” running “difficult” tests<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> and while they failed to find any answers, the publics’ response (or rather, “rumors”) point towards a possible sewage leak being responsible for the epidemic.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> This description of experts running complex tests was a reaffirmation to the public that even though scientists have not found evidence regarding the source or cause of the epidemic, they are trying. At the same time—in fact, before—the “rumors” of a sewage leakage causing the disease was a way for the public to affirm their own political influence. These tension between the public and the Georgetown officials as well as the tensions between municipal and federal officials reaffirms the historical ‘deficit model’ characterized by the assumption of a “considerable epistemological inferiority between experts and receivers of scientific discourse.”<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> The very first mention of the 1980 outbreak in The Williamson County Sun was a small story that gave the initial responses by Georgetown officials and experts.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> It discussed how a few people (mostly old and young individuals) have been hospitalized by an unknown illness. A local doctor was quoted as saying “it is just plain old intestinal flu” and affirms that “the water supply has been checked and found to be perfectly safe. This is strictly a viral infection.”<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> Three days later, the front page of the weekly newspaper was strictly about the epidemic. The same local doctor and the city manager refuted the popular theory amongst people about the illness (that it was a result of pesticide use) and apparently repeated statements such as “we’ve never seen anything like this before.”<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The writer cited two “passerby” who firmly believed the illness to be sourced from the water supply. The writer continued and cited the director of the Williamson County Health Department who said “you can’t just hand a bottle of water over to a laboratory and ask them to tell you what’s in it… you’ve got to know what you’re looking for.”<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> The tests that were conducted were for the presence of E. Coli and when they returned negative, the city manager reported “that ought to relieve some minds as far as the water is concerned” and the local doctor said “I believe we can now start looking elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> But the city residents did not agree. The local officials’ claim disregarding a waterborne illness would continue until the state and federal agencies got involved.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These initial responses portray the tension between everyday people and local/federal governments regarding disease and how to deal with it. As historian Nieto-Galan noted that experts often downplay certain risks seen as dangerous by lay people, “while the latter question the authority and legitimacy of the experts.”<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The Georgetown local officials disagreed with the public while the former disagreed with federal officials. The 1980 Georgetown outbreak of gastrointestinal disease occurred before federal funding to the EPA was cut so one would assume that the event was entirely under control. However, that was not the case. Instead, the outbreak was a convoluted case that had disagreements and tensions between people from multiple levels of power. To search for a top-down approach or bottom-up approach within this case study would take much more time and even then, such a dichotomy can not be entirely defined when looking into the societal influences that go into the history of science. Before the outbreak, the influence of the local and municipal government simply relied on the use of manually adjusted chlorine injections to clean their water, it was not till after the event that the systems saw an upgrade.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> During the outbreak, the rhetoric made by Georgetown officials displayed a scenario where the experts held the truth and were in control of the situation when in fact, they weren’t. It could be argued that the virus that caused the 1980 outbreak was Cryptosporidium and because it’s waterborne qualities were not known at the time, it made sense that there was no testing for it. However, even that argument does not take away the power dynamics at play when the city officials/experts refuted the idea of a water supply problem simply on the basis that E. Coli was not found. The 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak in Georgetown Texas is a clear example of how disease is much more than a biological threat. It exists within a society and is thus influenced by a number of complex sociocultural phenomena. This case study gives students and historians of science the chance to understand how political and social power dynamics influence a historical response to epidemics on the grounds of policies and epistemology. These complex relationships between disease and societal factors are important to understand, now more than ever. As we survive through the COVID-19 pandemic and transition into a new post COVID-19 world, these are the historical actors we must pay attention to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Saul Zuniga Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> D'Antonio RG, Winn RE, Taylor JP, Gustafson TL, Current WL, Rhodes MM, Gary GW Jr, and Zajac RA. “A Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Normal Hosts.” Annals of Internal Medicine 103, no. 6 (1985): 886–88. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Geological Society of America. Meeting (125th : 2013 : Denver, Colo.). Caves and Karst Across Time. Edited by Joshua Feinberg, Yongli Gao, and E. C Alexander. Special Papers / Geological Society of America, 516. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 2016. 56. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Andrews, Richard N. L., Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy 2 nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 249. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Richard Andrews, Managing the Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 255-56. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318–21. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> D’Antonio, “Normal Hosts,” 886-888. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> “Nationwide Attention,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 52, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 102. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness…” 13. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Emily Baker, “Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 6, June 26, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> “Virus sweeps Georgetown” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 51, June 15, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 210. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Mysterious Illness Strikes Thousands in City Subject The topic of the resource A case study into the history of waterborne gastrointestinal disease Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williamson County Sun. Editors and authors: Ray Jones, Emily Barker, Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Williamson County Sun Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Thursday, June 19, 1980 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newspaper Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Vol . 104, no. 5 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/522d89b4898740a40c0b0403a89eda3e.jpg 6408f41a0b079297e97a703c7081647a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Gastrointestinal Disease Hits Georgetown, Texas Description An account of the resource In the Summer of 1980, the city of Georgetown was thrown into a crisis when an outbreak of a mysterious gastrointestinal disease took the city by storm, infecting thousands within a week or two and businesses closed under the pressure.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Subsequent research culminated in a scientific article published 2 years later and confirmed local suspicions of a waterborne disease being the culprit however the primary viral agent was (and still) not identified.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Four years later, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in Braun Station, a small town near San Antonio and it’s waterborne qualities were identified for the first time.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Both towns received water from the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and both incidents contributed to changes in wastewater regulations for said aquifer.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> These two events are tied to the history of waterborne gastrointestinal epidemics and can be used to analyze how Georgetown responded to sudden outbreaks. The larger changes of environmental policies in the 1970s and 80s explain the different approaches in both cases of gastrointestinal disease These years saw an increase in environmental protection policies and the years that followed were defined by the public's response to them. In his monograph Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, Richard Andrews, a professor of environmental policies, writes about the long history of environmental policies in the United States. Andrews argues that the federal environmental policies of the 1970s could be summarized by the assertion of national standards and the cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to implement them.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, during the early 1980s, this federal initiative to control the environment would come under attack as President Ronald Reagan took office and dismantled many of them.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> These developments contextualize the state of environmental policies leading up to and during the Georgetown epidemics of gastrointestinal disease. From all of this, these outbreaks of gastrointestinal diseases become much more understandable at the state and municipal levels. First, it brings up the question of how the changes in federal support may have influenced the research done by the City of Georgetown (1980) and of that done by the local government at Braun Station (1984-85). Secondly, the developments leading up to 1980 construct a setting in which there is a clear divide in power between the federal government and the local municipal entities. These contextual insights become visible when looking at the primary sources of the different outbreaks. When comparing the primary scientific articles published for both epidemics, one immediately sees a difference in the extent of federal aid. The article that compiles the research done for the 1980 Georgetown outbreak was published under the journal American Water Works Association and supported by grants given by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health while also being assisted by the Williamson County Health Department.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> Whereas the article regarding the outbreak in Braun Station was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and gives acknowledgments to the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, and was in cooperation with local medical centers.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Furthermore, the reaction by those who wrote for the Williamson County Sun during the summer of 1980 depicted the local community and officials being fed up by the amount of involvement by state and federal entities. One writer talks about how the event has put their small city under an unwanted national spotlight and that they now have to, unfortunately, deal with the National Center for Disease Control and the EPA.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Another talks about the tensions between local city manager Leo Wood and Texas state officials over the legitimacy of the state officials’ claim that the sickness is likely being transmitted through the city water supply.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> These primary sources show that the 1980 case study of gastrointestinal disease in Georgetown occured right before funding was cut to federal environmental funding. They also point out a shift in power dynamics. The first paper was funded by federal agencies who gave money to local institutions to conduct the work (similar to Andrews’ claims) while the second paper was entirely conducted and funded by local and state agencies. This long-term shift from a multi directional to an entirely localized approach to environmental policies show the years between 1980-1984 as being defined by the political tensions that come with this shift. Additionally, the epistemological processes tied to the history of science can also be seen in this response to an epidemic. The interactions between Georgetown citizens and the local as well as federal ‘officials’ mirrors much of what historians of science have discussed in regards to public knowledge. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues that public science was a form of “promot[ing] public opinion as a political force… “ as it raised tensions between scientists and the public.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This is a process seen in my case study as political tensions played a huge part in the 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak. When the outbreak first occurred, the Georgetown government officials were quick to state that it was not caused by water, saying that the few tests for (known) waterborne gastrointestinal diseases were inconclusive; however, many of the city residents did not agree and continued to argue that the disease had to be waterborne.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In fact, the local and state officials involvement in the crisis was described (quoted from a State epidemiologist) as “experts” running “difficult” tests<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> and while they failed to find any answers, the publics’ response (or rather, “rumors”) point towards a possible sewage leak being responsible for the epidemic.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> This description of experts running complex tests was a reaffirmation to the public that even though scientists have not found evidence regarding the source or cause of the epidemic, they are trying. At the same time—in fact, before—the “rumors” of a sewage leakage causing the disease was a way for the public to affirm their own political influence. These tension between the public and the Georgetown officials as well as the tensions between municipal and federal officials reaffirms the historical ‘deficit model’ characterized by the assumption of a “considerable epistemological inferiority between experts and receivers of scientific discourse.”<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> The very first mention of the 1980 outbreak in The Williamson County Sun was a small story that gave the initial responses by Georgetown officials and experts.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> It discussed how a few people (mostly old and young individuals) have been hospitalized by an unknown illness. A local doctor was quoted as saying “it is just plain old intestinal flu” and affirms that “the water supply has been checked and found to be perfectly safe. This is strictly a viral infection.”<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> Three days later, the front page of the weekly newspaper was strictly about the epidemic. The same local doctor and the city manager refuted the popular theory amongst people about the illness (that it was a result of pesticide use) and apparently repeated statements such as “we’ve never seen anything like this before.”<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The writer cited two “passerby” who firmly believed the illness to be sourced from the water supply. The writer continued and cited the director of the Williamson County Health Department who said “you can’t just hand a bottle of water over to a laboratory and ask them to tell you what’s in it… you’ve got to know what you’re looking for.”<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> The tests that were conducted were for the presence of E. Coli and when they returned negative, the city manager reported “that ought to relieve some minds as far as the water is concerned” and the local doctor said “I believe we can now start looking elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> But the city residents did not agree. The local officials’ claim disregarding a waterborne illness would continue until the state and federal agencies got involved.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These initial responses portray the tension between everyday people and local/federal governments regarding disease and how to deal with it. As historian Nieto-Galan noted that experts often downplay certain risks seen as dangerous by lay people, “while the latter question the authority and legitimacy of the experts.”<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The Georgetown local officials disagreed with the public while the former disagreed with federal officials. The 1980 Georgetown outbreak of gastrointestinal disease occurred before federal funding to the EPA was cut so one would assume that the event was entirely under control. However, that was not the case. Instead, the outbreak was a convoluted case that had disagreements and tensions between people from multiple levels of power. To search for a top-down approach or bottom-up approach within this case study would take much more time and even then, such a dichotomy can not be entirely defined when looking into the societal influences that go into the history of science. Before the outbreak, the influence of the local and municipal government simply relied on the use of manually adjusted chlorine injections to clean their water, it was not till after the event that the systems saw an upgrade.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> During the outbreak, the rhetoric made by Georgetown officials displayed a scenario where the experts held the truth and were in control of the situation when in fact, they weren’t. It could be argued that the virus that caused the 1980 outbreak was Cryptosporidium and because it’s waterborne qualities were not known at the time, it made sense that there was no testing for it. However, even that argument does not take away the power dynamics at play when the city officials/experts refuted the idea of a water supply problem simply on the basis that E. Coli was not found. The 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak in Georgetown Texas is a clear example of how disease is much more than a biological threat. It exists within a society and is thus influenced by a number of complex sociocultural phenomena. This case study gives students and historians of science the chance to understand how political and social power dynamics influence a historical response to epidemics on the grounds of policies and epistemology. These complex relationships between disease and societal factors are important to understand, now more than ever. As we survive through the COVID-19 pandemic and transition into a new post COVID-19 world, these are the historical actors we must pay attention to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Saul Zuniga Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> D'Antonio RG, Winn RE, Taylor JP, Gustafson TL, Current WL, Rhodes MM, Gary GW Jr, and Zajac RA. “A Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Normal Hosts.” Annals of Internal Medicine 103, no. 6 (1985): 886–88. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Geological Society of America. Meeting (125th : 2013 : Denver, Colo.). Caves and Karst Across Time. Edited by Joshua Feinberg, Yongli Gao, and E. C Alexander. Special Papers / Geological Society of America, 516. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 2016. 56. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Andrews, Richard N. L., Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy 2 nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 249. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Richard Andrews, Managing the Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 255-56. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318–21. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> D’Antonio, “Normal Hosts,” 886-888. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> “Nationwide Attention,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 52, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 102. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness…” 13. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Emily Baker, “Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 6, June 26, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> “Virus sweeps Georgetown” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 51, June 15, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 210. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Nationwide Attention Subject The topic of the resource A case study into the history of waterborne gastrointestinal disease Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williamson County Sun. Editors and authors: Ray Jones, Emily Barker, Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Williamson County Sun https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/e2d4493dd5c5b157273f9e4bc1b0fd5e.jpg 95cb654440370058e3af8e5a5cf336bc https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/861449ba0cfbb1220563ec59ce3fbebb.jpg 5c47547c4ded817e4a16ece7429eb88b https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/e4b44ded8439a0b5e9d272a4bc58cbed.jpg f0cdd5b5edf022a2f2baa9894eaf8c13 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/7b617151fa8c9d811fcd9f28f832ccf2.jpg 7c02927c7f4637ea88a4632e9992117c https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/50992d57fbfeea311d0cec8f15f828f5.jpg b37e2c2cee2bb06ff81a1ad286a61469 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/df98359292e9fed70543e1dd76536d6d.jpg 0ff214a14d4ccdce066e941a926095a3 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/b727cd5ab8e5eae39b4ec78f5fc0bb8a.jpg 948b790975c44421ec3ff0cde1be814b https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/9013cdee24ffccdd1606691b4efa9d0d.jpg 2420ef4f49a52db958e6d4980ba627e5 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/86544ec00d7457c296cf3942f97305f3.jpg 57165a7214a5f81a4c7b7a76e0a0ad89 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/ef8a44c24a1d94b9a2bc7efb3bc90f73.jpg d6fa7bfb55de845b8b2ea6bbaf103890 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/1c180e25f865731f0e5079aaa3866b7b.jpg d567bba387f81192fb2664c00f10684d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/d57db15f0d127407d136bbba417cec25.jpg 686c759f7103e94d9e7fe5d53670a3d3 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/a8e77bf41fd8049918fda0df829ffe77.jpg b116daee83b8de85bc4edddfaa43c9c3 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/9e94d80ef5cc638573afd91221916205.jpg 3183bd165f59af88cddb5ee3efbcf586 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/0de58f624325a6975d03b9c7c135d2a9.jpg eb0129c90658eb0253a00ba773231f11 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Gastrointestinal Disease Hits Georgetown, Texas Description An account of the resource In the Summer of 1980, the city of Georgetown was thrown into a crisis when an outbreak of a mysterious gastrointestinal disease took the city by storm, infecting thousands within a week or two and businesses closed under the pressure.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Subsequent research culminated in a scientific article published 2 years later and confirmed local suspicions of a waterborne disease being the culprit however the primary viral agent was (and still) not identified.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Four years later, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in Braun Station, a small town near San Antonio and it’s waterborne qualities were identified for the first time.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Both towns received water from the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and both incidents contributed to changes in wastewater regulations for said aquifer.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> These two events are tied to the history of waterborne gastrointestinal epidemics and can be used to analyze how Georgetown responded to sudden outbreaks. The larger changes of environmental policies in the 1970s and 80s explain the different approaches in both cases of gastrointestinal disease These years saw an increase in environmental protection policies and the years that followed were defined by the public's response to them. In his monograph Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, Richard Andrews, a professor of environmental policies, writes about the long history of environmental policies in the United States. Andrews argues that the federal environmental policies of the 1970s could be summarized by the assertion of national standards and the cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to implement them.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, during the early 1980s, this federal initiative to control the environment would come under attack as President Ronald Reagan took office and dismantled many of them.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> These developments contextualize the state of environmental policies leading up to and during the Georgetown epidemics of gastrointestinal disease. From all of this, these outbreaks of gastrointestinal diseases become much more understandable at the state and municipal levels. First, it brings up the question of how the changes in federal support may have influenced the research done by the City of Georgetown (1980) and of that done by the local government at Braun Station (1984-85). Secondly, the developments leading up to 1980 construct a setting in which there is a clear divide in power between the federal government and the local municipal entities. These contextual insights become visible when looking at the primary sources of the different outbreaks. When comparing the primary scientific articles published for both epidemics, one immediately sees a difference in the extent of federal aid. The article that compiles the research done for the 1980 Georgetown outbreak was published under the journal American Water Works Association and supported by grants given by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health while also being assisted by the Williamson County Health Department.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> Whereas the article regarding the outbreak in Braun Station was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and gives acknowledgments to the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, and was in cooperation with local medical centers.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Furthermore, the reaction by those who wrote for the Williamson County Sun during the summer of 1980 depicted the local community and officials being fed up by the amount of involvement by state and federal entities. One writer talks about how the event has put their small city under an unwanted national spotlight and that they now have to, unfortunately, deal with the National Center for Disease Control and the EPA.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Another talks about the tensions between local city manager Leo Wood and Texas state officials over the legitimacy of the state officials’ claim that the sickness is likely being transmitted through the city water supply.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> These primary sources show that the 1980 case study of gastrointestinal disease in Georgetown occured right before funding was cut to federal environmental funding. They also point out a shift in power dynamics. The first paper was funded by federal agencies who gave money to local institutions to conduct the work (similar to Andrews’ claims) while the second paper was entirely conducted and funded by local and state agencies. This long-term shift from a multi directional to an entirely localized approach to environmental policies show the years between 1980-1984 as being defined by the political tensions that come with this shift. Additionally, the epistemological processes tied to the history of science can also be seen in this response to an epidemic. The interactions between Georgetown citizens and the local as well as federal ‘officials’ mirrors much of what historians of science have discussed in regards to public knowledge. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues that public science was a form of “promot[ing] public opinion as a political force… “ as it raised tensions between scientists and the public.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This is a process seen in my case study as political tensions played a huge part in the 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak. When the outbreak first occurred, the Georgetown government officials were quick to state that it was not caused by water, saying that the few tests for (known) waterborne gastrointestinal diseases were inconclusive; however, many of the city residents did not agree and continued to argue that the disease had to be waterborne.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In fact, the local and state officials involvement in the crisis was described (quoted from a State epidemiologist) as “experts” running “difficult” tests<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> and while they failed to find any answers, the publics’ response (or rather, “rumors”) point towards a possible sewage leak being responsible for the epidemic.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> This description of experts running complex tests was a reaffirmation to the public that even though scientists have not found evidence regarding the source or cause of the epidemic, they are trying. At the same time—in fact, before—the “rumors” of a sewage leakage causing the disease was a way for the public to affirm their own political influence. These tension between the public and the Georgetown officials as well as the tensions between municipal and federal officials reaffirms the historical ‘deficit model’ characterized by the assumption of a “considerable epistemological inferiority between experts and receivers of scientific discourse.”<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> The very first mention of the 1980 outbreak in The Williamson County Sun was a small story that gave the initial responses by Georgetown officials and experts.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> It discussed how a few people (mostly old and young individuals) have been hospitalized by an unknown illness. A local doctor was quoted as saying “it is just plain old intestinal flu” and affirms that “the water supply has been checked and found to be perfectly safe. This is strictly a viral infection.”<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> Three days later, the front page of the weekly newspaper was strictly about the epidemic. The same local doctor and the city manager refuted the popular theory amongst people about the illness (that it was a result of pesticide use) and apparently repeated statements such as “we’ve never seen anything like this before.”<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The writer cited two “passerby” who firmly believed the illness to be sourced from the water supply. The writer continued and cited the director of the Williamson County Health Department who said “you can’t just hand a bottle of water over to a laboratory and ask them to tell you what’s in it… you’ve got to know what you’re looking for.”<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> The tests that were conducted were for the presence of E. Coli and when they returned negative, the city manager reported “that ought to relieve some minds as far as the water is concerned” and the local doctor said “I believe we can now start looking elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> But the city residents did not agree. The local officials’ claim disregarding a waterborne illness would continue until the state and federal agencies got involved.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These initial responses portray the tension between everyday people and local/federal governments regarding disease and how to deal with it. As historian Nieto-Galan noted that experts often downplay certain risks seen as dangerous by lay people, “while the latter question the authority and legitimacy of the experts.”<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The Georgetown local officials disagreed with the public while the former disagreed with federal officials. The 1980 Georgetown outbreak of gastrointestinal disease occurred before federal funding to the EPA was cut so one would assume that the event was entirely under control. However, that was not the case. Instead, the outbreak was a convoluted case that had disagreements and tensions between people from multiple levels of power. To search for a top-down approach or bottom-up approach within this case study would take much more time and even then, such a dichotomy can not be entirely defined when looking into the societal influences that go into the history of science. Before the outbreak, the influence of the local and municipal government simply relied on the use of manually adjusted chlorine injections to clean their water, it was not till after the event that the systems saw an upgrade.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> During the outbreak, the rhetoric made by Georgetown officials displayed a scenario where the experts held the truth and were in control of the situation when in fact, they weren’t. It could be argued that the virus that caused the 1980 outbreak was Cryptosporidium and because it’s waterborne qualities were not known at the time, it made sense that there was no testing for it. However, even that argument does not take away the power dynamics at play when the city officials/experts refuted the idea of a water supply problem simply on the basis that E. Coli was not found. The 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak in Georgetown Texas is a clear example of how disease is much more than a biological threat. It exists within a society and is thus influenced by a number of complex sociocultural phenomena. This case study gives students and historians of science the chance to understand how political and social power dynamics influence a historical response to epidemics on the grounds of policies and epistemology. These complex relationships between disease and societal factors are important to understand, now more than ever. As we survive through the COVID-19 pandemic and transition into a new post COVID-19 world, these are the historical actors we must pay attention to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Saul Zuniga Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> D'Antonio RG, Winn RE, Taylor JP, Gustafson TL, Current WL, Rhodes MM, Gary GW Jr, and Zajac RA. “A Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Normal Hosts.” Annals of Internal Medicine 103, no. 6 (1985): 886–88. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Geological Society of America. Meeting (125th : 2013 : Denver, Colo.). Caves and Karst Across Time. Edited by Joshua Feinberg, Yongli Gao, and E. C Alexander. Special Papers / Geological Society of America, 516. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 2016. 56. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Andrews, Richard N. L., Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy 2 nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 249. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Richard Andrews, Managing the Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 255-56. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318–21. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> D’Antonio, “Normal Hosts,” 886-888. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> “Nationwide Attention,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 52, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 102. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness…” 13. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Emily Baker, “Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 6, June 26, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> “Virus sweeps Georgetown” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 51, June 15, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 210. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water Subject The topic of the resource A case study into the history of waterborne gastrointestinal disease Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williamson County Sun. Editors and authors: Ray Jones, Emily Barker, Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Williamson County Sun Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Thursday, June 26, 1980 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newspaper article https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/31d2bd9125afef9cad51d79dc2bc4378.jpg d0980be072257daf510ebc7314b73b42 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/b59611e4d37015935631f07de8224185.jpg c5b3227774b0c82a571b593b47a45722 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/d13794eba94a9eb7e25a54e41d96b7ed.jpg a8f4b204f7acf38291d4fa415600a7d2 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/f536e4124b3c9efc0fa558b35c3117e8.jpg 6d76409d3b4a1ce84ac49c169243a55d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/a65aee3ee6c3f14301258f2f1db8c0a6.jpg 1b61ef6e0715a710453334daf3f0b93d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/dfbbbdb47b81e4f727e0d3301744ab5a.jpg 538b452006605d2fcdbcc5194cd84b40 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/eadf2a3bee207ee87902bd1504bc80bf.jpg 2d0a04aec3bec5b4b2cd1993a9668245 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/82dc403b22d248f3c8edd205c1742b07.jpg c9c555ab0bc85b31dcf8cbd05e948d0d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/91bc0b6b094d52db1d27571a1c05f2a5.jpg c9c555ab0bc85b31dcf8cbd05e948d0d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/888c6ede7add0292c2a620c0e0e0c0a4.jpg 8b036dbd5ec3e00c3f5c907366625e4f https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/21004ae44f2b2c2aa95e34aa966cf8ec.jpg e284d454b1686a7a7b651cf8a569872c https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/a4c32d28d3c390639b4158cceba38439.jpg ce1a11a1126340ab65ea0cd4a641b994 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/c6a85e85e09afcaaac3d0a74a53c36ef.jpg 09546282a00234a22e9a0e8725aa9206 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/9929e001548d6b410c385ce472357da5.jpg 756f55512368c6cdffd2f7fd6bb42ac1 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/46425189096929809d361d514ce6eb99.jpg 756f55512368c6cdffd2f7fd6bb42ac1 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/6573e84699bf1160ecd1f1f29bc68889.jpg 50c8dff1a0eef2d0de1499134d5fbac4 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/460b07857fdc13803f9a84ea5049a019.jpg 370600d1351e71a0fe923575eb6ffd14 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/33bf10239c95bd6b9459e1c51952dda6.jpg d0980be072257daf510ebc7314b73b42 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/0918c45e35fc9b0e956bc5f709adf7ac.jpg c5b3227774b0c82a571b593b47a45722 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/bbc4573e372851e75e32a94bf74f7fd4.jpg a8f4b204f7acf38291d4fa415600a7d2 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/f2b9725e9a7317c5fd288d00f2b70e6b.jpg 6d76409d3b4a1ce84ac49c169243a55d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/d06528ee774101d4f350e2fb08778f43.jpg 1b61ef6e0715a710453334daf3f0b93d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/0a02411eaa1428ce84df892443f538c9.jpg 538b452006605d2fcdbcc5194cd84b40 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/01ae7cad854ebb4e29122a00ae512aaf.jpg 2d0a04aec3bec5b4b2cd1993a9668245 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/18b6194b8afde9e3008bc5dd571e6087.jpg c9c555ab0bc85b31dcf8cbd05e948d0d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/6da921fe0de42c27e1c8c4d5bcf6eeb3.jpg c9c555ab0bc85b31dcf8cbd05e948d0d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/0a43d8fa5f3d9224cb4a5d1193b181f2.jpg 8b036dbd5ec3e00c3f5c907366625e4f https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/fc2fdec433aa4224b7358e028869cff7.jpg e284d454b1686a7a7b651cf8a569872c https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/25ab4b4fa54848177c2b1b64eaa37df7.jpg ce1a11a1126340ab65ea0cd4a641b994 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/dbab95c88c23635a054ca99bb16ac64b.jpg 09546282a00234a22e9a0e8725aa9206 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/314afe1f2014664fcdc26e5847b05320.jpg 756f55512368c6cdffd2f7fd6bb42ac1 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/ce900f0e967b6c5e24fd6c3a3e359aca.jpg 756f55512368c6cdffd2f7fd6bb42ac1 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/dc0f919a5ca7e53774b44a514a236cfa.jpg 50c8dff1a0eef2d0de1499134d5fbac4 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/438269885e86052ee78fc69546a7a6b2.jpg 370600d1351e71a0fe923575eb6ffd14 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Gastrointestinal Disease Hits Georgetown, Texas Description An account of the resource In the Summer of 1980, the city of Georgetown was thrown into a crisis when an outbreak of a mysterious gastrointestinal disease took the city by storm, infecting thousands within a week or two and businesses closed under the pressure.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Subsequent research culminated in a scientific article published 2 years later and confirmed local suspicions of a waterborne disease being the culprit however the primary viral agent was (and still) not identified.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Four years later, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in Braun Station, a small town near San Antonio and it’s waterborne qualities were identified for the first time.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Both towns received water from the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and both incidents contributed to changes in wastewater regulations for said aquifer.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> These two events are tied to the history of waterborne gastrointestinal epidemics and can be used to analyze how Georgetown responded to sudden outbreaks. The larger changes of environmental policies in the 1970s and 80s explain the different approaches in both cases of gastrointestinal disease These years saw an increase in environmental protection policies and the years that followed were defined by the public's response to them. In his monograph Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, Richard Andrews, a professor of environmental policies, writes about the long history of environmental policies in the United States. Andrews argues that the federal environmental policies of the 1970s could be summarized by the assertion of national standards and the cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to implement them.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, during the early 1980s, this federal initiative to control the environment would come under attack as President Ronald Reagan took office and dismantled many of them.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> These developments contextualize the state of environmental policies leading up to and during the Georgetown epidemics of gastrointestinal disease. From all of this, these outbreaks of gastrointestinal diseases become much more understandable at the state and municipal levels. First, it brings up the question of how the changes in federal support may have influenced the research done by the City of Georgetown (1980) and of that done by the local government at Braun Station (1984-85). Secondly, the developments leading up to 1980 construct a setting in which there is a clear divide in power between the federal government and the local municipal entities. These contextual insights become visible when looking at the primary sources of the different outbreaks. When comparing the primary scientific articles published for both epidemics, one immediately sees a difference in the extent of federal aid. The article that compiles the research done for the 1980 Georgetown outbreak was published under the journal American Water Works Association and supported by grants given by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health while also being assisted by the Williamson County Health Department.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> Whereas the article regarding the outbreak in Braun Station was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and gives acknowledgments to the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, and was in cooperation with local medical centers.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Furthermore, the reaction by those who wrote for the Williamson County Sun during the summer of 1980 depicted the local community and officials being fed up by the amount of involvement by state and federal entities. One writer talks about how the event has put their small city under an unwanted national spotlight and that they now have to, unfortunately, deal with the National Center for Disease Control and the EPA.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Another talks about the tensions between local city manager Leo Wood and Texas state officials over the legitimacy of the state officials’ claim that the sickness is likely being transmitted through the city water supply.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> These primary sources show that the 1980 case study of gastrointestinal disease in Georgetown occured right before funding was cut to federal environmental funding. They also point out a shift in power dynamics. The first paper was funded by federal agencies who gave money to local institutions to conduct the work (similar to Andrews’ claims) while the second paper was entirely conducted and funded by local and state agencies. This long-term shift from a multi directional to an entirely localized approach to environmental policies show the years between 1980-1984 as being defined by the political tensions that come with this shift. Additionally, the epistemological processes tied to the history of science can also be seen in this response to an epidemic. The interactions between Georgetown citizens and the local as well as federal ‘officials’ mirrors much of what historians of science have discussed in regards to public knowledge. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues that public science was a form of “promot[ing] public opinion as a political force… “ as it raised tensions between scientists and the public.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This is a process seen in my case study as political tensions played a huge part in the 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak. When the outbreak first occurred, the Georgetown government officials were quick to state that it was not caused by water, saying that the few tests for (known) waterborne gastrointestinal diseases were inconclusive; however, many of the city residents did not agree and continued to argue that the disease had to be waterborne.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In fact, the local and state officials involvement in the crisis was described (quoted from a State epidemiologist) as “experts” running “difficult” tests<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> and while they failed to find any answers, the publics’ response (or rather, “rumors”) point towards a possible sewage leak being responsible for the epidemic.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> This description of experts running complex tests was a reaffirmation to the public that even though scientists have not found evidence regarding the source or cause of the epidemic, they are trying. At the same time—in fact, before—the “rumors” of a sewage leakage causing the disease was a way for the public to affirm their own political influence. These tension between the public and the Georgetown officials as well as the tensions between municipal and federal officials reaffirms the historical ‘deficit model’ characterized by the assumption of a “considerable epistemological inferiority between experts and receivers of scientific discourse.”<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> The very first mention of the 1980 outbreak in The Williamson County Sun was a small story that gave the initial responses by Georgetown officials and experts.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> It discussed how a few people (mostly old and young individuals) have been hospitalized by an unknown illness. A local doctor was quoted as saying “it is just plain old intestinal flu” and affirms that “the water supply has been checked and found to be perfectly safe. This is strictly a viral infection.”<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> Three days later, the front page of the weekly newspaper was strictly about the epidemic. The same local doctor and the city manager refuted the popular theory amongst people about the illness (that it was a result of pesticide use) and apparently repeated statements such as “we’ve never seen anything like this before.”<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The writer cited two “passerby” who firmly believed the illness to be sourced from the water supply. The writer continued and cited the director of the Williamson County Health Department who said “you can’t just hand a bottle of water over to a laboratory and ask them to tell you what’s in it… you’ve got to know what you’re looking for.”<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> The tests that were conducted were for the presence of E. Coli and when they returned negative, the city manager reported “that ought to relieve some minds as far as the water is concerned” and the local doctor said “I believe we can now start looking elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> But the city residents did not agree. The local officials’ claim disregarding a waterborne illness would continue until the state and federal agencies got involved.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These initial responses portray the tension between everyday people and local/federal governments regarding disease and how to deal with it. As historian Nieto-Galan noted that experts often downplay certain risks seen as dangerous by lay people, “while the latter question the authority and legitimacy of the experts.”<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The Georgetown local officials disagreed with the public while the former disagreed with federal officials. The 1980 Georgetown outbreak of gastrointestinal disease occurred before federal funding to the EPA was cut so one would assume that the event was entirely under control. However, that was not the case. Instead, the outbreak was a convoluted case that had disagreements and tensions between people from multiple levels of power. To search for a top-down approach or bottom-up approach within this case study would take much more time and even then, such a dichotomy can not be entirely defined when looking into the societal influences that go into the history of science. Before the outbreak, the influence of the local and municipal government simply relied on the use of manually adjusted chlorine injections to clean their water, it was not till after the event that the systems saw an upgrade.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> During the outbreak, the rhetoric made by Georgetown officials displayed a scenario where the experts held the truth and were in control of the situation when in fact, they weren’t. It could be argued that the virus that caused the 1980 outbreak was Cryptosporidium and because it’s waterborne qualities were not known at the time, it made sense that there was no testing for it. However, even that argument does not take away the power dynamics at play when the city officials/experts refuted the idea of a water supply problem simply on the basis that E. Coli was not found. The 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak in Georgetown Texas is a clear example of how disease is much more than a biological threat. It exists within a society and is thus influenced by a number of complex sociocultural phenomena. This case study gives students and historians of science the chance to understand how political and social power dynamics influence a historical response to epidemics on the grounds of policies and epistemology. These complex relationships between disease and societal factors are important to understand, now more than ever. As we survive through the COVID-19 pandemic and transition into a new post COVID-19 world, these are the historical actors we must pay attention to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Saul Zuniga Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> D'Antonio RG, Winn RE, Taylor JP, Gustafson TL, Current WL, Rhodes MM, Gary GW Jr, and Zajac RA. “A Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Normal Hosts.” Annals of Internal Medicine 103, no. 6 (1985): 886–88. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Geological Society of America. Meeting (125th : 2013 : Denver, Colo.). Caves and Karst Across Time. Edited by Joshua Feinberg, Yongli Gao, and E. C Alexander. Special Papers / Geological Society of America, 516. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 2016. 56. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Andrews, Richard N. L., Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy 2 nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 249. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Richard Andrews, Managing the Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 255-56. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318–21. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> D’Antonio, “Normal Hosts,” 886-888. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> “Nationwide Attention,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 52, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 102. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness…” 13. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Emily Baker, “Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 6, June 26, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> “Virus sweeps Georgetown” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 51, June 15, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 210. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource State Takes Away Water Approval Subject The topic of the resource A case study into the history of waterborne gastrointestinal disease Description An account of the resource Williamson County Sun. Editors and authors: Ray Jones, Emily Barker, Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williamson County Sun https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/900e6c66ddedc4536ba0bfbbf3dbde1b.jpg 96e7160361e87eb119115e18748fe861 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/dfdf865211d67b8ee29a1d7f26d9d493.jpg c4a4d6080a538543b3da13a6fe0ca547 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Psychology at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource During my time at Southwestern University, I have been able to be enrolled in many wonderful classes. Each course has been extremely unique and worthwhile. In the course entitled, Popularizing Science, we study the history of science and how many aspects of it have progressed greatly. We learn just how important science is to society as well as the past, present, and future. The goal of this class is to learn about how it affects the world. Southwestern University is just one of the many unique places where history changes constantly. Countless people have seen Southwestern’s growth throughout the years which allows for much research to be done. Due to the Special Collections department in the library, historians have been able to keep very valuable items in tack. These items include old article clippings, lectures, clothing, and even course catalogs from the beginning of the school's establishment. Many of the following sources are from Special Collections as well as scholarly articles and books. The goal of this paper is to display how I as a student can display the changing concepts of psychology by showing past items and explaining the significance of their change throughout the decades at Southwestern University. Throughout the past weeks, I have been able to collect many different forms of data and historical records about Southwestern University. The focus of my research has been the progression of the psychology department throughout the decades. My passion for this comes from the fact that I intend to major in psychology. Psychology has always been a subject of interest. As many people have learned, psychology can be applied in mostly any situation, which truly makes it one of the most diverse subjects. There are many concepts and theories that can be implemented in daily life. This is so essential that Southwestern University decided to introduce it as a major and minor. During the mid-1900s, Southwestern created the first psychology course <a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. In the beginning, it was slowly implemented into the education department. Some of the classes that involved psychology include “principles of education”, “school management”, “educational psychology” and “educational sociology”. This knowledge is found from a Southwestern University course catalog. During that time the professor of psychology was Oscar A. Ullrich.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Due to the fact that those were the beginning classes the full implementation of psychology was brief yet impactful. The The class “Principles of Education” in the mid-1900s at Southwestern University, hoped to discuss the psychological, administrative, and social phases of education. By implementing psychology into this class they were able to see the different ways of handling situations that come regularly in schools. Because there is such a diverse amount of ages in school, it is key to learn how to deal with certain situations within that age group. Another class mentioned was “School Management”, which focused on the discussion of the responsibilities and problems involved in the management of schools and how they are treated. This also goes along the lines of how important psychology is. Secondly, “Educational Sociology” was a course of interest because this class discusses the training of social efficiency and the gradual changes in the demands made upon school due to present social conditions and the principal lines of thought pursued. Finally, the educational psychology class is split into two parts. An introductory course in psychology was the beginning and their students would study lecture readings and have plenty of discussions with Professor Davidson. As for part two in educational psychology, topics discussed were the original laws of learning, individual differences, and the relation to education. Two of the texts that they read were Thorndike's “Educational Psychology'' and Colvin’s “The Learning Process”. All of these courses were explained in the Southwestern University catalog in Special Collections. Furthermore, I was fortunate enough to find a test from a psychology test entitled “Psychology 331” from Special Collections.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> This test was really helpful because he gave me an insight into the types of questions that teachers would ask the students as well as the different levels that the students were expected to know about psychology. Here we are able to see the most relevant topics that the psychology department is teaching Southwestern students. This test was given in a way that a student must answer a question as true false but they also implemented basic knowledge questions as well as more psychological questions. This allowed for a good sense of variety as well as implementing the key values of the psychology course. An example of a true or false question is “the bee knows by instinct how to construct the honeycomb”. The next question is “the psychologist objects to you regarding flight from danger as belonging to an instinct of self-preservation because it is illogical to regard it so“. The diverse examples allow students to not just consider psychological terms or methods that were taught in class but apply them to real-life situations that they may or may not know. There are countless more tests with these same ideas. To explain this more, an example of another question on a different psychology exam was “mixing blue and yellow pigments gives green”. If anyone has ever taken an art class, they would know that the same is true but if you had not taken a psychology class before this the next question will be challenging. It states “Taste shows more sensory adaptation and smell”. In psychology for an introductory class, you learn a lot about the senses. I know because I took an introduction to psychology last semester. A test example includes a question such as “Why is depth perception critical to a person”? It is good to see how the test from the mid-1900s to now has changed but yet say the same. We are still learning the key elements of psychology but implementing it into our tests and quizzes in different ways. In the United States in the 1970s, the beginnings of development psychology came into light.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> This subfield of psychology focuses on explaining growth through the lifespan. It includes thinking, feeling, and behavior change. One of the many reasons it grew was because of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hinde">Robert Hinde's publication</a> of “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_Bases_of_Human_Social_Behavior&action=edit&redlink=1">Biological Bases of Human Social Behavior</a>”, a text in etiological-oriented developmental psychology. At Southwestern during the mid-70s, a lecture came entitled “Behavior Modification in Public Schools Clinic Settings”. This lecture took place on March 30, 1974. This particular lecture was brought here because of its importance in understanding the development of children in public school clinic settings. There are many instances where it is difficult to find a direct problem with a person, but with the helpful methods of developmental psychology, people can get a helpful insight as to how to control a rough situation. College is still a time where adolescents are growing and developing. By having this lecture come, specialists can direct the specific advice for the age range at Southwestern. Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes. This existed in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Greek.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> In the beginning, it was a branch of philosophy but eventually was broken down into an independent branch in the late 1800s. Psychology has been able to be diversified into many different subjects. For example, a business person could use psychology with human resources. The key values and concepts of psychology would help greatly in dealing with certain situations in a work environment. Today at Southwestern there are many different psychology groups on campus. There is psychology tutoring, a psychology club where you get together and do research, as well as a bunch of different research labs and activities that even non-majors can participate in. Those are just a few of the many different ways that knowledge is being communicated at Southwestern. By coming up with events, spreading awareness, and allowing specialists to come to campus to discuss certain topics with students, it is beneficial to everyone. All events that come to Southwestern to the psychology program are wonderful and allow anyone to visit whether it’s non-majors and even the public. Science will continue to grow and develop and it is key that people stay up-to-date with things because it could help us in the future in ways that we could not imagine today. The branch of psychology at Southwestern University continues to do such things and as students, it is important to implement ourselves in the opportunities given to us. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Belen Micklas Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Psychology 331, True or False Test, Page 2 and 7, Psychology Department, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Oscar A. Ullrich, Psychology Department, Faculty, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Psychology 331, True or False Test, Page 2 and 7, Psychology Department, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Greenfield, Patricia M. “The Changing Psychology of Culture From 1800 Through 2000.” Psychological Science <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> “In Search of Psychology.” From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to William James Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Description of classes and who taught them Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Southwestern University Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Course catalog Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1917-18 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Photocopy https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/3feb004673e8504a889b32d9e6e772ed.jpg 41542ab466593763294093ac7590aabc https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/cdedc91c27c1b4b2310c118ae95ce273.jpg 74d2be0c600225ca468e0d96fce6c908 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Psychology at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource During my time at Southwestern University, I have been able to be enrolled in many wonderful classes. Each course has been extremely unique and worthwhile. In the course entitled, Popularizing Science, we study the history of science and how many aspects of it have progressed greatly. We learn just how important science is to society as well as the past, present, and future. The goal of this class is to learn about how it affects the world. Southwestern University is just one of the many unique places where history changes constantly. Countless people have seen Southwestern’s growth throughout the years which allows for much research to be done. Due to the Special Collections department in the library, historians have been able to keep very valuable items in tack. These items include old article clippings, lectures, clothing, and even course catalogs from the beginning of the school's establishment. Many of the following sources are from Special Collections as well as scholarly articles and books. The goal of this paper is to display how I as a student can display the changing concepts of psychology by showing past items and explaining the significance of their change throughout the decades at Southwestern University. Throughout the past weeks, I have been able to collect many different forms of data and historical records about Southwestern University. The focus of my research has been the progression of the psychology department throughout the decades. My passion for this comes from the fact that I intend to major in psychology. Psychology has always been a subject of interest. As many people have learned, psychology can be applied in mostly any situation, which truly makes it one of the most diverse subjects. There are many concepts and theories that can be implemented in daily life. This is so essential that Southwestern University decided to introduce it as a major and minor. During the mid-1900s, Southwestern created the first psychology course <a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. In the beginning, it was slowly implemented into the education department. Some of the classes that involved psychology include “principles of education”, “school management”, “educational psychology” and “educational sociology”. This knowledge is found from a Southwestern University course catalog. During that time the professor of psychology was Oscar A. Ullrich.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Due to the fact that those were the beginning classes the full implementation of psychology was brief yet impactful. The The class “Principles of Education” in the mid-1900s at Southwestern University, hoped to discuss the psychological, administrative, and social phases of education. By implementing psychology into this class they were able to see the different ways of handling situations that come regularly in schools. Because there is such a diverse amount of ages in school, it is key to learn how to deal with certain situations within that age group. Another class mentioned was “School Management”, which focused on the discussion of the responsibilities and problems involved in the management of schools and how they are treated. This also goes along the lines of how important psychology is. Secondly, “Educational Sociology” was a course of interest because this class discusses the training of social efficiency and the gradual changes in the demands made upon school due to present social conditions and the principal lines of thought pursued. Finally, the educational psychology class is split into two parts. An introductory course in psychology was the beginning and their students would study lecture readings and have plenty of discussions with Professor Davidson. As for part two in educational psychology, topics discussed were the original laws of learning, individual differences, and the relation to education. Two of the texts that they read were Thorndike's “Educational Psychology'' and Colvin’s “The Learning Process”. All of these courses were explained in the Southwestern University catalog in Special Collections. Furthermore, I was fortunate enough to find a test from a psychology test entitled “Psychology 331” from Special Collections.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> This test was really helpful because he gave me an insight into the types of questions that teachers would ask the students as well as the different levels that the students were expected to know about psychology. Here we are able to see the most relevant topics that the psychology department is teaching Southwestern students. This test was given in a way that a student must answer a question as true false but they also implemented basic knowledge questions as well as more psychological questions. This allowed for a good sense of variety as well as implementing the key values of the psychology course. An example of a true or false question is “the bee knows by instinct how to construct the honeycomb”. The next question is “the psychologist objects to you regarding flight from danger as belonging to an instinct of self-preservation because it is illogical to regard it so“. The diverse examples allow students to not just consider psychological terms or methods that were taught in class but apply them to real-life situations that they may or may not know. There are countless more tests with these same ideas. To explain this more, an example of another question on a different psychology exam was “mixing blue and yellow pigments gives green”. If anyone has ever taken an art class, they would know that the same is true but if you had not taken a psychology class before this the next question will be challenging. It states “Taste shows more sensory adaptation and smell”. In psychology for an introductory class, you learn a lot about the senses. I know because I took an introduction to psychology last semester. A test example includes a question such as “Why is depth perception critical to a person”? It is good to see how the test from the mid-1900s to now has changed but yet say the same. We are still learning the key elements of psychology but implementing it into our tests and quizzes in different ways. In the United States in the 1970s, the beginnings of development psychology came into light.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> This subfield of psychology focuses on explaining growth through the lifespan. It includes thinking, feeling, and behavior change. One of the many reasons it grew was because of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hinde">Robert Hinde's publication</a> of “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_Bases_of_Human_Social_Behavior&action=edit&redlink=1">Biological Bases of Human Social Behavior</a>”, a text in etiological-oriented developmental psychology. At Southwestern during the mid-70s, a lecture came entitled “Behavior Modification in Public Schools Clinic Settings”. This lecture took place on March 30, 1974. This particular lecture was brought here because of its importance in understanding the development of children in public school clinic settings. There are many instances where it is difficult to find a direct problem with a person, but with the helpful methods of developmental psychology, people can get a helpful insight as to how to control a rough situation. College is still a time where adolescents are growing and developing. By having this lecture come, specialists can direct the specific advice for the age range at Southwestern. Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes. This existed in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Greek.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> In the beginning, it was a branch of philosophy but eventually was broken down into an independent branch in the late 1800s. Psychology has been able to be diversified into many different subjects. For example, a business person could use psychology with human resources. The key values and concepts of psychology would help greatly in dealing with certain situations in a work environment. Today at Southwestern there are many different psychology groups on campus. There is psychology tutoring, a psychology club where you get together and do research, as well as a bunch of different research labs and activities that even non-majors can participate in. Those are just a few of the many different ways that knowledge is being communicated at Southwestern. By coming up with events, spreading awareness, and allowing specialists to come to campus to discuss certain topics with students, it is beneficial to everyone. All events that come to Southwestern to the psychology program are wonderful and allow anyone to visit whether it’s non-majors and even the public. Science will continue to grow and develop and it is key that people stay up-to-date with things because it could help us in the future in ways that we could not imagine today. The branch of psychology at Southwestern University continues to do such things and as students, it is important to implement ourselves in the opportunities given to us. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Belen Micklas Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Psychology 331, True or False Test, Page 2 and 7, Psychology Department, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Oscar A. Ullrich, Psychology Department, Faculty, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Psychology 331, True or False Test, Page 2 and 7, Psychology Department, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Greenfield, Patricia M. “The Changing Psychology of Culture From 1800 Through 2000.” Psychological Science <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> “In Search of Psychology.” From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to William James Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Psychology 331 Test Questions Subject The topic of the resource Psychology Description An account of the resource Psychology 331 test questions that are true or false Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Special Collections Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1942 Language A language of the resource English https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/6c2c8a94b6f17648875b360f837d6ec6.jpg 9090c09d0d7bcb9cf0ce0f979d430f7d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Psychology at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource During my time at Southwestern University, I have been able to be enrolled in many wonderful classes. Each course has been extremely unique and worthwhile. In the course entitled, Popularizing Science, we study the history of science and how many aspects of it have progressed greatly. We learn just how important science is to society as well as the past, present, and future. The goal of this class is to learn about how it affects the world. Southwestern University is just one of the many unique places where history changes constantly. Countless people have seen Southwestern’s growth throughout the years which allows for much research to be done. Due to the Special Collections department in the library, historians have been able to keep very valuable items in tack. These items include old article clippings, lectures, clothing, and even course catalogs from the beginning of the school's establishment. Many of the following sources are from Special Collections as well as scholarly articles and books. The goal of this paper is to display how I as a student can display the changing concepts of psychology by showing past items and explaining the significance of their change throughout the decades at Southwestern University. Throughout the past weeks, I have been able to collect many different forms of data and historical records about Southwestern University. The focus of my research has been the progression of the psychology department throughout the decades. My passion for this comes from the fact that I intend to major in psychology. Psychology has always been a subject of interest. As many people have learned, psychology can be applied in mostly any situation, which truly makes it one of the most diverse subjects. There are many concepts and theories that can be implemented in daily life. This is so essential that Southwestern University decided to introduce it as a major and minor. During the mid-1900s, Southwestern created the first psychology course <a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. In the beginning, it was slowly implemented into the education department. Some of the classes that involved psychology include “principles of education”, “school management”, “educational psychology” and “educational sociology”. This knowledge is found from a Southwestern University course catalog. During that time the professor of psychology was Oscar A. Ullrich.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Due to the fact that those were the beginning classes the full implementation of psychology was brief yet impactful. The The class “Principles of Education” in the mid-1900s at Southwestern University, hoped to discuss the psychological, administrative, and social phases of education. By implementing psychology into this class they were able to see the different ways of handling situations that come regularly in schools. Because there is such a diverse amount of ages in school, it is key to learn how to deal with certain situations within that age group. Another class mentioned was “School Management”, which focused on the discussion of the responsibilities and problems involved in the management of schools and how they are treated. This also goes along the lines of how important psychology is. Secondly, “Educational Sociology” was a course of interest because this class discusses the training of social efficiency and the gradual changes in the demands made upon school due to present social conditions and the principal lines of thought pursued. Finally, the educational psychology class is split into two parts. An introductory course in psychology was the beginning and their students would study lecture readings and have plenty of discussions with Professor Davidson. As for part two in educational psychology, topics discussed were the original laws of learning, individual differences, and the relation to education. Two of the texts that they read were Thorndike's “Educational Psychology'' and Colvin’s “The Learning Process”. All of these courses were explained in the Southwestern University catalog in Special Collections. Furthermore, I was fortunate enough to find a test from a psychology test entitled “Psychology 331” from Special Collections.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> This test was really helpful because he gave me an insight into the types of questions that teachers would ask the students as well as the different levels that the students were expected to know about psychology. Here we are able to see the most relevant topics that the psychology department is teaching Southwestern students. This test was given in a way that a student must answer a question as true false but they also implemented basic knowledge questions as well as more psychological questions. This allowed for a good sense of variety as well as implementing the key values of the psychology course. An example of a true or false question is “the bee knows by instinct how to construct the honeycomb”. The next question is “the psychologist objects to you regarding flight from danger as belonging to an instinct of self-preservation because it is illogical to regard it so“. The diverse examples allow students to not just consider psychological terms or methods that were taught in class but apply them to real-life situations that they may or may not know. There are countless more tests with these same ideas. To explain this more, an example of another question on a different psychology exam was “mixing blue and yellow pigments gives green”. If anyone has ever taken an art class, they would know that the same is true but if you had not taken a psychology class before this the next question will be challenging. It states “Taste shows more sensory adaptation and smell”. In psychology for an introductory class, you learn a lot about the senses. I know because I took an introduction to psychology last semester. A test example includes a question such as “Why is depth perception critical to a person”? It is good to see how the test from the mid-1900s to now has changed but yet say the same. We are still learning the key elements of psychology but implementing it into our tests and quizzes in different ways. In the United States in the 1970s, the beginnings of development psychology came into light.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> This subfield of psychology focuses on explaining growth through the lifespan. It includes thinking, feeling, and behavior change. One of the many reasons it grew was because of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hinde">Robert Hinde's publication</a> of “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_Bases_of_Human_Social_Behavior&action=edit&redlink=1">Biological Bases of Human Social Behavior</a>”, a text in etiological-oriented developmental psychology. At Southwestern during the mid-70s, a lecture came entitled “Behavior Modification in Public Schools Clinic Settings”. This lecture took place on March 30, 1974. This particular lecture was brought here because of its importance in understanding the development of children in public school clinic settings. There are many instances where it is difficult to find a direct problem with a person, but with the helpful methods of developmental psychology, people can get a helpful insight as to how to control a rough situation. College is still a time where adolescents are growing and developing. By having this lecture come, specialists can direct the specific advice for the age range at Southwestern. Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes. This existed in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Greek.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> In the beginning, it was a branch of philosophy but eventually was broken down into an independent branch in the late 1800s. Psychology has been able to be diversified into many different subjects. For example, a business person could use psychology with human resources. The key values and concepts of psychology would help greatly in dealing with certain situations in a work environment. Today at Southwestern there are many different psychology groups on campus. There is psychology tutoring, a psychology club where you get together and do research, as well as a bunch of different research labs and activities that even non-majors can participate in. Those are just a few of the many different ways that knowledge is being communicated at Southwestern. By coming up with events, spreading awareness, and allowing specialists to come to campus to discuss certain topics with students, it is beneficial to everyone. All events that come to Southwestern to the psychology program are wonderful and allow anyone to visit whether it’s non-majors and even the public. Science will continue to grow and develop and it is key that people stay up-to-date with things because it could help us in the future in ways that we could not imagine today. The branch of psychology at Southwestern University continues to do such things and as students, it is important to implement ourselves in the opportunities given to us. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Belen Micklas Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Psychology 331, True or False Test, Page 2 and 7, Psychology Department, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Oscar A. Ullrich, Psychology Department, Faculty, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Psychology 331, True or False Test, Page 2 and 7, Psychology Department, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Greenfield, Patricia M. “The Changing Psychology of Culture From 1800 Through 2000.” Psychological Science <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> “In Search of Psychology.” From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to William James Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Dean of Psychology Description An account of the resource A picture of Oscar A. Ulrich who was the Dean of Psychology and professor at Southwestern University from 1920-1965