1 10 39 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/aed5032053df02bb9a0a22aee41ce857.JPG d14710b9b2bd4d5491c46ba961ef2b13 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 Technological Advances Effect on Women's Rights Description An account of the resource The Women's Rights movement was a very important time in history for generations of women to come. It gave women the right to vote, right to an education, right to work, etc. What really gave the Women's Rights Movement its momentum was technology which helped spread information and news to other women interested in joining the movement and educated men on why women should have the same rights as they do. I am researching how the role of technology helped men understand political science and realize how important the women's rights movement was and how Southwestern University went from being male dominated to having a campus with many female faculty members and having the first female president in the history of Southwestern University. . The Women's Rights Movement started in 1848 when the first woman's rights convention was held in Seneca Falls, New York. It was spearheaded by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. The main point of the movement was to bring attention to the inequality between men and women and to bring attention to women's rights and to fight for them. The movement went on until 1920, when the NWP(National Women's Party) picketed the White House and demanded Wilson and the Congress to pass a women's suffrage amendment, and finally the 19th amendment which enfranchised women was put into effect. However, in May 1885, Southwestern University released another volume of their monthly magazine called The Alamo and San Jacinto Monthly. In that specific volume, there was an excerpt called “Women in Politics”. This passage showed that they believed that women should not be in politics, that “she can secure her ‘rights,’yea, all that is in the power of man to give,by appealing to his affections...her sole access to the will of man, is through the channel of affection. By nature, then, we see, that woman is disqualified to assume public functions, or to direct the affairs of State,” (Knight 228). They were no different than any other males at the time when it came to what women can do. They believed women were supposed to stay in the house all day taking care of the kids, cleaning, cooking and making sure there was a hot meal on the table by the time their husbands got home from work and that their very nice and gentle nature is no fit for things like having jobs, going to school, or being in politics or anything that was deemed a “males job”. After this was published, the movement started getting a ton of spotlight and attention. This was due to science taking a turn for the best during this time period. There were technological advances with the telegraph, but there were also new inventions such as the first ever radio and telephone. “The new electrical industries in particular- telegraphy, telephone, lighting and radio- attracted an early and growing involvement by practising scientists”(Johnston 290). This growth in technology also led to a spread of information from state to state all around the country. This helped the movement because as the information about what they were fighting for spread, it allowed for them to gain followers. More women started to realize that they wanted to do more in their life than be stuck at home with the kids doing home chores. There were also men who supported the movement and were not affected by the thought of women being allowed to do what men were allowed to do and thought that women should be allowed an education and that it was important to be educated. Women wanted more to life than to be seen and treated as less than men. They wanted more than to stay home all day with children while needing to clean and cook. Even when women were allowed to secure jobs, they were paid even less than men were for doing the same job. For example, women who became telegraphers were underpaid compared to men. “They competed directly with men, demanding, and occasionally getting, equal pay; they moved into both management and senior technical positions. Women telegraphers comprised a subculture of technically educated workers whose skills, mobility and independence set them apart from their contemporaries,”(Scott). Women would do what they needed to do to get jobs and get the pay they deserved. Even well educated women were still seen as less than men. There was a gender gap when it came to who worked certain jobs. “... women were preferred for the subordinate technical roles of telephone operator and lamp inspector,”(Johnston 295). While women were able to have jobs, there was still a gap between the sex’s because men would do the “manly” jobs and women had to work these jobs because they were seen as “more patient “ and “meticulous”. This fueled the movement even more. Around this time, Southwestern released another monthly magazine issue that had an excerpt called “Female Education”. This excerpt was a little different than the one prior, and they wrote that “A subject which is now receiving a great deal of attention is that of woman, her sphere, her duties and rights. There is, however, none of more importance than her education… It has been discussed on scientific principles… The necessity for female education need hardly be discussed. It is the greatest factor in our civilization,” (Andrews 238). As is obvious, they went from saying that women do not need rights when they belong in the house, to saying that they deserve an education and that there is nothing more important and that their rights are important. This shows how big of an impact that the Women's Rights movement had on society and how it was growing and impacting so many. The growth is due to the telegraph, increase in the production of newspapers, and the new use of the radio. Southwestern was starting to open their minds and understand where their women's opinions were coming from. As Agustí Nieto-Galán said, “.. there is the question of the relationship between public understanding and public support for science…”, which is very apparent in this time period because when the Women's Rights Movement started , which involved Political Science. Men did not try to understand where women were coming from. They had a poor understanding of the science revolving the movement at first but as time went on, they started learning and understanding the premise of it all, and the movement started receiving male supporters as well when they realized that they would not like it if they were the ones without rights and if they were seen as too inept to work or recieve an education and that things would be better and easier if women were allowed to do the same things as men. Also, take into account what C.P. Snow says in “The Two Cultures”, “That is, its members need not, and of course often do not, always completely understand each other…” (101), much like scientists, women and men at that time and beyond dont understand each other very much, but can come together and figure things out and fight for things to be fair. This is like what a male dominated Southwestern university did, they in time started to agree with women about their rights and what they deserve, and they helped advocate to people of their school and town for women's rights. Fast forward a century and half, and Southwestern University has tons of female faculty employed at their school. There are many women professors, it is my first year attending the school and I have had 8 women professors out of the 9 classes I have taken. Tons of women also work in administration, the business office, the book store, the Commons, the cove, and there are even lots of women who are the coaches or assistant coaches of the sports team. Also recently, it was announced that the new president of Southwestern University, Laura E. Skandera Trombley, is the first woman in Southwestern history to be the president of the school. That is a huge accomplishment for women all over. It really shows how much Southwestern University has adapted to change and did a very good job at involving and employing women over the years since they used to believe that women were not fit to vote or recieve an education, let alone be the president of the university. All these years it has been a male dominated position but finally the 16th president is a woman and it opens up doors for her and other women like her who want to join a job field that is male dominated, such as being a sports reporter, being a neurosurgeon, and many other jobs where the number of men working is much larger than the number of females working in that job field. Females have been fighting for opportunities like this since the mid 1800’s and even today there are still problems with the way men see and treat women, and there is still a huge wage gap between men and women even when women deserve to be paid the same or even more as men for their job. In all, the Women's Rights Movement was enhanced by the upcoming new technologies in both communication and printing. If it were not for these advancements in technology, the movement would not have had the kick it needed to create a real change for women. Women fought hard for their rights and it was places like Southwestern University that could have really helped them, even though they believed women should only have certain jobs, their belief in women education was just another one in many that led to a huge change for them. The Women's Rights Movement opened a lot of new doors and new opportunities for us women in today's day and age. Without them we would still not be able to vote, get an education, have a job, and many things that were not available to them either. As can see, Southwestern University ended up being swayed into siding with the Women's Rights Movement and the use of technology and advocacy helped get the Women's Rights movement on its feet and successfully getting the rights. The understanding of science and others opinions behind it really helped with the movement and rights. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <ul> <li>Knight, R. E. L. “Women in Politics.” in The Alamo and San Jacinto Monthly, 227-32. The Literary Society, 1885.Johnston, Sean History of Science: A Beginners Guide (Beginners Guides), Ch. 2. Oneworld Publications.</li> <li>Scott, “Introduction: Women in Politics,” in International Journal of Sociology, 3-11. 1978, Accessed May 7, 2020</li> <li>Johnston, Sean History of Science: A Beginners Guide (Beginners Guides), Ch. 3. Oneworld Publications.</li> <li>Andrews, “Female Education” in The Alamo and San Jacinto Monthly, 233-37. The Literary Society, 1885.</li> <li>Nieto-Galán, Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere, Ch. 3</li> <li>Snow, P. The Two Cultures, 101. The American Council of Learned Societies,2015. Accessed May 7,2020.</li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alexys Matcuk 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 Women in Politics Subject The topic of the resource Women in Politics Description An account of the resource Politics and how men should be the only ones in politics and that woman's job is to cater to men and shower them with affection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource R. E. L. Knight Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Alamo and San jacinto Monthly Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Alamo and San Jacinto Literary Society, Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1885 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Southwestern University, Special Collections Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Journal Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Article Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Knight, R. E. L., “Women in Politics,” The Alamo and San Jacinto Monthly, vol. 3, no. 9 (1885): 227-32. https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/abcea9ec34276207a6ee19b4fd8da783.jpg 01669ba5614e9e57b9d506cd97a09db5 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 Wireless Transmitter Photograph Subject The topic of the resource Photograph Description An account of the resource A picture of Robert Stewart Heyer and other professors at SU gathered around his transmitter Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Southwestern Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Diagram of Hyer’s Wireless Transmitter Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available SU Special Collections Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1895 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Property of Southwestern University Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Photograph https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/4e13b433a81cfa1a3ff1270d79d527f3.jpg 941ce1e1cf55dd9789472e6748cc566a 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 Woman and Science at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource Women's pursuit of an equal, in-depth, high-level education as adults has met many stumbling blocks over the centuries: inferior standards or the complete absence of education, beliefs in women's intellectual inferiority, and worries that education in non-domestic subjects wouldn't adequately prepare women for their "natural" role as wives and mothers. Both people and institutions of higher education have had their opinion on this subject throughout history and they have used varying approaches from religion to science to defend their opinion. Dr. Estelle Ramey’s guest lecture on November 5, 1971 titled Why Bother to Educate Women given at Southwestern University takes established scientific results to continue the argument that women should be educated. This lecture took a scientific approach to tackle not only a social but political issue. It is crucial to look both at the historical context and issues in the history of science to further analyze and understand the role Dr. Estelle Ramey’s lecture at Southwestern University plays in the scheme of the history of science at Southwestern. Dr. Estelle Ramey taught chemistry at the University of Tennessee, was Assistant Professor in the Department of Physiology at the University of Chicago Medical School where she taught endocrinology, and at the time of the lecture, was a professor of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University Medical School. In both of the latter institutions she completed extensive research in the area of the relationship of glands and the nervous system to stress responses. In 1970 Dr. Edgar Bergman, a physician, made headlines when he suggested that women were unfit to hold positions of responsibility because of their “raging hormonal influences.” This was too much for Dr. Estelle Ramey. She debated Dr. Bergman in a national forum and used her established scientific research to defend her argument, which has had a tremendous effect on the topic. Although she is the main person leading the communication process, there were additional characters that played a role in the communication process. The lecture was sponsored Southwestern University’s organizations including the Ideas and Issues Committee of the Union, the Association of Women Students, the Office of the Dean of Students, and the Office of the Chaplain. As stated previously, the lecture was a result of a debate between Dr. Estelle Ramey and Dr. Edgar Bergman after a comment was made that women were unfit to hold positions of responsibility due to hormonal differences. Steven Shapin in his article said, “Indeed, it might be said (in the canonical version) that science has progressively shed its public and circumscribed the role of the public, as well as that on non-scientific intellectuals, in scientific affairs.” Just as intellectuals have used, and in Dr. Ramey’s case did use scientific research as a political force, the public turned to science to continue and find support in science to make their case for women’s rights. Bruce Lewenstein added to the definition of popularization by saying that it is, “not only simplifications of technical information, but also sites for expressing new ideas about the natural world.” In the 1970’s people were trying to make sense of the natural world and most importantly, women were trying to find a more equal role in society amongst men. Furthermore, what Dr. Estelle Ramey is arguing in her lecture is discussed in A History of Science: A Beginners Guide where Johnston says, “As Bacon and Oldenburg had suggested, women were commonly identified as having the wrong emotional nature to pursue science. Later medical men suggested that female intellectual capacity was also suspect, theorizing that physiological demands of menstruation, childbirth and nurturing of children chronically limited their abilities to think abstractly.” This is particularly interesting when taking into consideration that Dr. Estelle Ramey was the Assistant Professor in the Department of Physiology of the University of Chicago Medical School where she taught endocrinology, and at the time of the lecture, was a professor of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University Medical School. This not only makes her a legitimate source to refute this idea, but also makes her a perfect example of how the claim is false. Furthermore, Johnston in chapter 7 says, “Social history, a branch of historical studies that had been growing since the 1950s, called attention to ‘history from below’. Its proponents argued that social norms and beliefs could arise from, and be sustained by, the masses rather than from figures of authority. Applied to the history of science, social history focused on audiences and different portions of the public – by class, education, occupation or national origin – rather than on men and women of science.” This is a topic that arose in the history of science that occurred approximately 20 years prior to Dr. Ramey’s lecture and clearly this was an issue prior to, but the fact that this examination in history was occurring as she was critiquing and challenging the view of women through science reinforces the importance social aspects were playing in not only science but the history of science. Dr. Estelle Ramey stated, “As an endocrinologist in good standing, I was startled to learn that ovarian hormones are toxic to brain cells.” This opening statement is referencing her reaction to Dr. Edgar Berman’s comments that women shouldn’t be given roles of leadership or even the right to hold any position of authority outside the confines of “natural” women roles due to their raging hormonal influences. She went on to remind the public that during the Cuban missile crisis, the nation had a president who suffered from a severe hormonal imbalance: John F. Kennedy, who had Addison’s disease, an endocrine disorder, was in a position of authority and leadership during a very stressful and detrimental time of coherency. Furthermore, Dr. Estelle Ramey contended that not only do women handle their “raging hormonal influences” quite well, but one of those hormones, estrogen, actually gives women “the protoplasmic edge” over men. In addition to this, she has even gone further and stated that men seem to be at a natural hormonal disadvantage as men are more inclined toward aggression, die sooner and are more prone to heart attacks and strokes. The focus of Dr. Estelle Ramey’s research was on the connections between stress and hormones and her overall approach to why bother educating women centers around the women’s natural ability due to hormones to handle stressful situations quite well. Ultimately this case study is about a debate that started and was being had on a national level, therefore this case study pertains to a population bigger than just the Southwestern community. However, it is remarkable that a university of our size has had the opportunity to participate in such a historical moment and openly embraced this dialogue at a time where the controversy was at its peak. The relationship between the public and the expert, though one-sided due to the format of the presentation, grappled with the common belief that women should be educated. I believe the communication of science in this case aims at more than just increasing knowledge and translating the information to a lay public in the most understandable way possible. Rather, it also aims at changing a political climate and societal roles, which at that point in time was a major event occurring in our society. It is interesting to see how science was used to argue and support an opinion and how that opinion could have become a fact with the establishment of scientific research. It is evident that we need to understand both the historical context and issues in the history of science to evaluate and appreciate the role Dr. Estelle Ramey’s lecture at Southwestern University played in the greater narrative of the history of science at Southwestern, but also nationally because the conversation of females in science is continuously developing. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gissell C. Perez Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Steven Shapin, “Science and the Public,” in Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by R. C. Olby, G. N. Cantor, J. R. R. Christie and M J. S. Hodge, London Routledge, 1990, 991 Bruce V. Lewenstein, “Popularization,” in The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by John L. Heilborn, Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ.Press, 2003, 667-668. Johnston, Sean F.. History of Science: A Beginner's Guide (Beginner's Guides), Ch 6. Oneworld Publications. Kindle Edition. Johnston, Sean F.. History of Science: A Beginner's Guide (Beginner's Guides), Ch 7. Oneworld Publications. Kindle Edition. Ramey, Estelle. Why Bother to Educate Women. Lecture, Southwestern University Ramey, Estelle. Why Bother to Educate Women. Lecture, Southwestern University 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 Why Bother to Educate Women? Subject The topic of the resource Science Education Description An account of the resource Manuscript detailing Dr. Ramey’s guest lecture at SU Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Southwestern Univ. – Lecture Series/Special Events Box 2, Folder4 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 5, 1971 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Image, jpeg Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/764b4ac5ef8bf44da847002e74cbca88.jpg 38c977ea8ff4c074489375e1b182869c https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/539bd8cb6f256f31f2ce87e6bae00a92.jpg 4aa161257bd06607917fad20a4c0a3dd 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 Physics at SU Description An account of the resource The Southwestern experience is one that encourages students to explore. We have many courses throughout our time here that are specifically engineered to include multiple ideas from many disciplines, sometimes it even helps us do better in our classes. During my time at SU, my experience with science has been in a class about chocolate, where we explored the chemical properties of chocolate, and a neuroscience class that was extremely open ended. I ended up writing an essay on cognitive processes while someone watched a suspense film and how scene composition can affect us. It has been wildly different from most of the other experiences I have had in science classes and I believe this is pretty unique to Southwestern. Until this class I have had no experience with any physics topics or classes, but a visiting professor’s comments on the science department at Southwestern changed that, and those comments, according to what I have found, helped shape not only the physics department, but the whole of SU into what it is today. The Cold War and a worldwide paranoia helped shape Dr. Seeger’s suggestions into how the department could prepare their students for a uniquely uncertain future. This uncertainty prompted the physics department to become more crystallized, and this report probably encouraged the administration to change other curriculums to be more paideia focused, so the history of physics at SU is much more interesting than many would think. War, paranoia and its proliferation of physics changed SU in the late 60s into what I know it as today. During the Sputnik era, President During Fleming announced a program to expand the schools endowment to 15 million from 8 million and increase staff and student enrollment<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. The University wanted to bring on more specialized staff members for more different classes and disciplines, as well as give students better opportunities for more doctorate degrees<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>. Also there is a very clear dichotomy between the science and mathematics department and the fine arts department. All of the suggestions for the sciences suggest a need for students gaining knowledge at an accelerated rate. It says that science students should take an accelerated math course in the beginning of their studies<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>. However it is specified in the address that more science classes will be available for non science majors and more arts courses available for science majors. This is common today at many colleges. The plan for expansion also talks a little about a flight school for southwestern, which will not only teach classes about the discipline, but actually have them fly planes<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>. This too feels extremely reactionary and is probably the most indicative that the Cold War is what brought these changes about. In the fine arts, the same suggestions for increased classes and faculties are made, but they also state a move towards more interdepartmental learning<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>. Interdepartmental learning is one of the tenants of paideia curriculum today. Southwestern University was clearly not immune to the fears during the Cold War and it even created some fairly reactionary ideas that changed the University into what it is today. Science, no matter how crystallized it can get, will never operate in a vacuum. Dr. Raymond J. Seeger’s report to the President of the University was not much different from the universities later plans but it has a key difference, he suggests that the introductory science courses should be brought more into the realm of science majors so they would not have non science majors filling that class<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>. This can also show us how faculty and students interacted in the physics department at that time. The students and faculty were meeting frequently, possibly discussing more about material and getting a more holistic view of the class and an all around better education. However this means that those teachers would have been spending less time engaging with and researching for their respective national organizations, like the American Physical Society. Dr. Seeger suggests that each full time staff member should be attending a convention at least once per year, which he believes will not not benefit them and their research, but the student as well<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>. This would be common for a small school, where almost the entire student body could fit into a physics lecture in a UT auditorium. Dr. Seeger’s comments suggest a need for students and teachers to spend less time outside of the classroom so the teachers can go do independent research on whatever is needed<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>. During the Cold War, most of that research would have been in some way connected to maintaining a stable nation and keeping it adequately prepared for any threat that might arise<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a>. The timing by which these changes were announced suggests that they are a bit reactionary in nature so therefore I believe they might not have happened at all or they would have happened at the next time of crisis, probably 9/11 which would have seen the proliferation of computer sciences more than physics. Teachers are supposed to prepare their students for and rely information to them about the world outside of the education institutions. By the end of an education track, the student should be well off enough with ideas and skills to be properly prepared for work in a desired field. The Cold War made it very difficult for teachers to prepare their students for the world because no one knew what was going to happen. However the teacher reacts to an event and works through it is going to have a big effect on a student who is trying to learn that discipline. Throughout elementary school, I was taught a very rudimentary form of history that included memorizing dates and knowing very clean little narratives about different events. Good historical analysis was not a part of my curriculum because it was not important to them at that time. In middle school and high school I began to get a more in depth look into history and by way of some very passionate teachers who encouraged me to do my own reading into history, I came to major in history in college. During the Cold War, in a physics education, in Dr. Seeger’s ideal university, the teacher would have spent time at a conference with whatever information and those teachers would have brought back that information to teach to their students<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. The students now have this information and the slight jingoism that probably would have come along with it would have encouraged them to pursue that field. The government was also sponsoring a number of different grants for physics graduates to work in labs across the country and teachers would have pushed them to pursue that<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a>. Paranoia tends to make people freeze up, not a lot of time would have been spent on theory in the physics department during this time, and so a clear demarcation of information from the government, to science spheres that interpret it into their work, to students who then study to enter that work, and then the public who can hear about the latest military advancement or invention on the news. Physics has such a unique history because it accelerated so fast in the 20th century with both world wars and really seems to lack a strong connection between the elite and the public sphere. I believe that SU has adjusted well. The Cold War prompted a lot of drastic changes and is probably what led to a series of plans that turned the university into what it is today. Physics is vital to understanding our world and creating things that can be used. The need for physics and other applied sciences outside of Southwestern is at least partly responsible for Southwestern University in its current form. The timing by which these changes were announced suggests that they are a bit reactionary in nature so therefore i believe they might not have happened at all or the would have happened at the next time of crisis, probably 9/11 The stereotypical view of physics is one that looks like a massive auditorium filled with students bored to tears as a professor writes endless symbols and numbers down on a board. Even worse than a bored student is a scared student, who would not dare ask a question for fear of a number of things that any shy student can imagine. When there is a disconnect between scientific spheres and the public spheres, images like this arise and create no path for communication between the two. The history of physics at Southwestern creates a much nicer and more open picture of science. One in which most of the time students and teachers move separate spheres of knowledge instead of locked into concentric circles of knowledge. If war had not dominated the 20th century, what would physics be like, would southwestern have changed as well? I do not have the slightest idea but I’m sure the changes would be drastic. War, paranoia and its proliferation of physics changed SU in the late 60s into what I know it as today. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nicholas Shanning Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> The Megaphone, Vol. 59, No. 15, Ed. 1 Tuesday, February 1, newspaper, Georgetown, Texas, (1966) pg. 1. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> The Megaphone, (1966). 1. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report to President Durwood Fleming Southwestern University on the Science and Mathematics Program.(1966) 1. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Kaiser, David. "Cold War Requisitions.” (2002): 136 <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Kaiser, David. "Cold War Requisitions.” (2002): 137 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 Where is Southwestern Headed?: Changes Will Realize Academic Goals Subject The topic of the resource An essay by Barry Browne in the Megaphone about the changes Southwestern will be making to the curriculums in the future Description An account of the resource The president of the University recently announced some changes that would be taking effect soon on the school and this students is explaining what they are to the readers of the newspaper. It lists both the financial and educational goals of the University Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Barry Browne Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone, Vol. 59, No. 15, Ed. 1 Tuesday, February 1, 1966, pp. 1,3. Georgetown, Texas, Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource February 1, 1966 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/baa23a000c9d4da8f1c074337c2a0f4e.jpg f7951999066ec564da51335f54cd9c12 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 and Discourse Around Evolution at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The theory of evolution proposes that life changed and diversified over time through a process known as natural selection, in which organisms who are better suited to survive outreproduce and outlast other organisms.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> The main ideology that opposes evolutionary theory goes under the monikers “creationism”, “creation science”, or “intelligent design”.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> They claim that life was created in it’s final form, usually by a god.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Religion has always been somewhat at odds with evolution, which is a natural occurrence resulting from the lack of any mention of evolution in the Bible and other holy texts. The rejection of evolution by much of the religious public seems to be on the decline in recent years, however, with the introduction of new theories that allow aspects of creationism to be conserved while still accepting evolutionary thought. But as the principles behind evolution are brought to other fields, some of that tension seems to be resurfacing as people look for evolutionary perspectives that allow them to keep their faith intact. These effects were put on display at Southwestern University in 2009, with the discourse at times returning to an ideological battle. The split between scientists and the lay people can be seen in the conflict between followers of evolution and creationism, with a major battleground for them being the rules around what is taught in public schools. Evolution has slowly replaced creationism in US public schools, but never in every state at once, and with uniformity within states.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> In many instances teachers are not allowed to speak out against creationism while teaching evolution, and are allowed to frame them as “alternatives” to each other without taking a clear side.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Many of the decisions are handled on the state level.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> In addition, teacher religious beliefs have been found to be predictive of their willingness to teach evolution.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> For example, in 2007, Texas Education Agency’s Director of Science Curriculum, Christine Comer was forced to resign from her position after asking an anti-creationism speaker to speak at the school.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The Texas Education Agency explained that she had made it look like the TEA had taken a side on the evolution debate when they intended to remain neutral.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> This example (which occured around two years before the Brown Symposium discussed in this paper) hilights that the “war” had yet to be won by the other side, and that battles were still being fought. In CP Snow’s lecture the Two Cultures, he says that academia has been fractured along the lines of “scientists' ' and “literary intellectuals” <a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. This makes sense in light of the increasing knowledge gap between scientists and others caused by specialization of science<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> . In a way, Snow describes a deficit model, in which the scientists are separated not only from the general public, but also from other intellectuals from outside their field. But as we will see, the deficit model is not always accurate to reality. As said by Bensaude-Vincent, “notions such as “lay public” and “science mediators’ are historical constructions rather than stable categories”<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>. The “deficit model”, depicts the public as having a deficit of scientific knowledge and somewhat helpless, requiring the help of enlightened scientists to guide them to knowledge.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> While it is easy to view the issue of evolution as seen by the public along the lines of the deficit model, with the evolutionists representing the scientists, and the ignorant and the religious representing the lay public, that is a reductionist view that ignores many of the nuances of reality. In 2009, two speakers spoke about evolution and religion at Southwestern University. One speaker was David Sloan Wilson, with his talk “ Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion”.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> His talk revolved around the use of evolution as a model for the development of Religion.<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> He pointed out how the “survival tactics” of religious groups often mimicked the behavior of different species of animals in the wild, by cooperating with group members, and at times being hostile towards other, competing groups.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> He described this as emerging from a type of “evolution”, not of species, but of ideas behind religion.<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> His insistence that religions were entirely human ideas gathered some dissent from the audience, with two (out of four) questions having to do with his claims against the “engaged god hypothesis”, or whether there is an active god.<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> This can be seen as a case of the popularization of science being done in a way that alienates the people it was attempting to reach. This plays into the version of the deficit model that depicts the evolutionist attempting to reach the religious masses, who reject him (at least in part) due to finding parts of his message offensive. But it can also be seen as an incident of a dialogue being had between the two worlds, something unexpected in the deficit model, in which communication is only necessary in the direction of scientist to layperson. The other speaker on evolution was Simon Conway Morris, who spoke on a religious view of evolution, describing an “alternate look between Darwin and Creationism”.<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> In “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation”, he spoke at length about convergent evolution, which is the evolution of two unrelated species arriving at a point in which the species are very similar in form.<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> He repeatedly used the word “inevitable” to describe this evolution, and he said that he was considering the possibility that the results of all evolution was predetermined.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> This speaker shows some traits of religiosity while definitely being a part of the “scientific elite”, given his academic achievements (he was a professor of evolutionary palaeobiology at Cambridge).<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> This breaks down the version of the deficit model that paints religiosity, and even (to an extent) creationism as the common people who the scientists must educate. The audience used the question and answers to gain further information about the lecture, which is a more active involvement than the deficit model usually depicts. The deficit model and Snow’s two culture models do not seem to apply neatly to the two lectures discussed. Wilson’s lecture featured a dialogue with the audience, dirtying the deficit model, and he occupied both the scientific and literary fields of academia simultaneously, working poorly with Snow’s Two Cultures proposition. The lecture represents somewhat of a reversal from much of history: the interpretation of religion in the light of evolution, rather than interpreting evolutionary thought in the light of religion. Morris’ presentation gives a modern take on religious interpretation of evolutionary theory: an attempt to potentially merge evolutionary thought with religious thought, rather than an attempt to subdue evolutionary thought with religion. Morris’ talk was much more religious than his contemporaries would have made it, despite being a scientist, which deflates the notion that religion can be used as a stand in for lay people in the deficit model. The presence of both speakers presenting in a very public forum in front of a mixed secular and religious audience is an example of the evolutionary and religious groups continuing to coexist in the modern day. The students of Southwestern University published several responses to the Symposium shortly after the event. Their opinions were somewhat mixed, with some viewing the event with reverence and others with complete disregard. One student, William Thomas referred to it as an “eye-opening opportunity” that can “broaden their field of knowledge” in his article “The question: Class or Brown Symposium'' in which he advocates for students to be allowed to attend future Symposiums instead of class.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> In addition, some students seemed to resent the way the symposium approached the topic of Religion and Science, wanting it to focus more on science that backs up the validity of religion. In his article “God vs. science duke it out at SU, neither win,” Andrew Dornon stated that “The point of academia is to promote truth and the dismantling of false paradigms, such as racism and sexism. So why not religion?”, and called the lack of scientific proof of religion the ignored “pink elephant in the room”.<a href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> This stance was also represented in the question and answer section of the symposium (in which every speaker is gathered), in a question that asked why religious scientists don’t apply scientific principles to religion.<a href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> Interestingly, Morris and Wilson both had a response to the question, with Morris pointing out that science doesn’t have the answer to all questions, giving religion some usefulness in that regard, while Wilson pointed out that science was not a “value system” on its own, while religion can provide a value system.<a href="#_ftn26">[26]</a> The conflict between religion and evolution continues, and has been imortalized in Southwestern history. Andrew Dornon put it accurately when he said “neither God nor science won at Southwestern.”<a href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> In the question and answer section of Wilson’s talk, this conflict came to light somewhat and was abruptly cut short by time without finding a clear resolution. There is seemingly an anxiety around taking evolutionary theories and thinking too far: issuing a direct challenge to religion, specifically Christian religion. While most agree that the Genesis account of the creation of life as we know it isn’t literally what happened, people seem to become upset and challenged when it is suggested that biblical events didn’t happen. Some people, namely atheists such as Dornon seem very keen to push the issue as far as they can, perhaps in hopes of winning some ideological battles. So it remains that evolutionary theories can be used together with religious thought (as in Morris’ presentation), it can also still be seen as an affront to them (as in the crowd’s reaction to Wilson’s presentation). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nancy Scott Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “Theory of Evolution.” National Geographic Society, June 5, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Singham, Mano. God vs. Darwin: the War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom (Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education, 2011), vii <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “Creationism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., March 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Zabarenko, Deborah. “Tennessee Teacher Law Could Boost Creationism, Climate Denial.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, April 13, 2012. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Mangahas, Ana Marie E. “Perceptions of High School Biology Teachers in Christian Schools on Relationships Between Religious Beliefs and Teaching Evolution.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 26, no. 1 (January 2017): 24 <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Snow, C. P. (Charles Percy), 1905-1980. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York :Cambridge University Press, 1959., 87-88 <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.’” ISIS 100, no. 2 (June 2009): 361. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599547 <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.”, 365 <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Nieto-Galan, Agusti. Science in the Public Sphere. (Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2016), 3 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Wilson, David Sloan. “Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion.” Lecture, The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Morris, Simon Conway. “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation.” Lecture,The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 5, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Thomas, William. “The Question: Class or Brown Symposium.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. 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 The Question: Class or Brown Symposium Subject The topic of the resource The Brown Symposium XXXI Description An account of the resource Discussion around class times running at the same time as the Brown Symposium, covering multiple viewpoints. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource William Thomas Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone, school newspaper of Southwestern University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Megaphone. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Feburary 12, 2009 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Physical Newspaper Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Opinion Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context The Brown Symposium XXXI https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/938038facce8f368f68a75a092bcc48f.jpg 0d904ae850a2c00b67d738a3e91bb3d6 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/d22acf1b5dfc00499d48568188cdac36.jpg a5c25eef35d781101e7276e54d03efcc https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/c44c49e9129db097bb6a87702e5914c1.jpg bc1b874919dc199294e697278cd06716 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/12f63a0806dcc03f417981d26995b563.jpg 821822bfdf2f41314d967400c1bb56af 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 Learning about the Human Genome Project Description An account of the resource With the introduction of the Brown Symposium lecture series in 1978, Southwestern University continued to expand its education of a broad range of topics. Through the endowment of the Brown Foundation Inc., the Brown Symposium brings scientists, scholars, artists, and other individuals to Southwestern to present their ideas and work to students, faculty, and the public.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> One notable Brown Symposium was the Twentieth Brown Symposium in 1998, titled “The Human Genome Project: Advances, Repercussions and Challenges.”<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> At that symposium, seven lectures were presented to give the attendees a better understanding and appreciation of the project. The Human Genome Project (HGP) began in 1990 and was an international, collaborative research program to completely map and understand all the genes in human beings, known as the human “genome.”<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Since the project was expected to be completed in 2005, the 1998 symposium provided a great opportunity to discuss past, current and future work on the project. As the chairperson for the Twentieth Brown Symposium, Dr. Vicente Villa, (Professor of Biology at Southwestern University) organized the event and selected four pioneers in genetics to speak: Dr. Nancy Wexler, (Higgins Professor of Neuropsychology at the Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry of the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and President of the Hereditary Disease Foundation); Dr. Leroy Hood, (Founder and Chairman for the Department of Molecular Biotechnology at the University of Washington); Dr. C. Thomas Caskey, (Senior Vice President for Research at Merck Research Laboratories); and Dr. Susan Henry, (Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics at Cornell University).<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> Over two days, they presented attendees with different ideas regarding the work and implications of the HGP. Dr. Wexler gave the opening and the closing lectures. During her opening lecture “Venezuela to Victory,” she discussed how she began researching Huntington’s Disease in 1979 because she had multiple family members with the disease. Hoping to discover the gene for the disease and eventually a cure, she assembled a group called the Huntington’s Disease Collaborative Research Group. They examined the blood of a large family in Venezuela with many members who had Huntington’s to find any commonalities in their DNA. After three years, they found a marker close to the Huntington’s gene on chromosome 4 and noticed the DNA there was different for those with the disease. After further study, the group observed that the gene contained DNA that featured the repeating sequence of bases CAG, which tells the body to produce the amino acid glutamine, which appears in excess in people with other diseases. Although Dr. Wexler had not yet discovered a cure by the time of the symposium, she encouraged others to help.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> For Dr. Wexler’s closing lecture, “The Oracle of DNA: Repercussions of the Human Genome Project,” she focused on potential outcomes of the HGP and how it was creating issues that were important not just for scientists, but for everyone to discuss. In her lecture, she pointed out a gap between finding a gene for a genetic disorder and knowing what to do with that knowledge, which was causing debate among those facing discrimination for genetic disorders. When people want to learn more about their genes, only they should be able to give consent. Dr. Wexler then showed interviews of individuals tested for Huntington’s disease and discussed their reactions after discovering that they had Huntington’s disease and the probability of having a genetic mutation. Lastly, she discussed the problems that occur when people want to manipulate genes to clone humans or control the characteristics of future generations, which could seriously complicate the diversity and acceptance of the modern age.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> Dr. Hood followed Dr. Wexler on the first day of the symposium and preceded her on the second day. During Dr. Hood’s lecture “Genomics and the Analysis of Complex Biological Systems,” he discussed the development of instruments to interface with computers to better analyze data, along with the revolutionary potential of biology. He stated that biology consists of biological information, which occurred in three places: in DNA, in Messenger RNA and in complex systems and networks. By understanding the information of DNA encoded in genes, experts could better understand the sequence of the DNA, and how it affects different genes and cells. Also, since information in Messenger RNA is converted to amino acids in proteins, it allowed scientists to understand what determines the structure of a protein, and how that structure indicates the function. Lastly, understanding the information of biological systems would help researchers understand the components of different systems, along with their interactions and functions. Dr. Hood mentioned that biological information, systems and networks are similar to computer programming languages, systems and networks, meaning that HGP and advancements in computer science can benefit from each other.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> During Dr. Hood’s second lecture, titled “Genomics, Immunity, Development, and Cancer,” he discussed how scientists wanted to improve medicine by analyzing biological systems and information in three different model organisms: yeast, urchins, and mice. Yeast was a single-celled organism used to define biological complexity and help researchers understand how drugs worked for specific phenomena, like DNA reparation or replication. The genetic rules of the sea urchin made it effective for deciphering the language that regulates and controls its genes. The mouse is more complex and has an immune system so was used to understand how information travels in systems. Mice could also be used to study and possibly cure diseases, and to determine the functions of genes affected by diseases. Since scientists were aware that some genes may cause diseases or predispose someone to a specific disease, they expected the HGP would identify those genes in people and allow for a sooner treatment.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Dr. Caskey gave two lectures on the first day of the symposium. During his lecture titled “Genome Science Drives New Drug Development,” he focused on an application of the HGP. Although at the time of this symposium, the HGP was still being conducted, people were already considering the applications for the knowledge that would be gained from the project. Since many diseases were related to genes and hereditary, drug development and therapeutic development were expecting to benefit. Dr. Caskey discussed how Merck and other companies were still determining how to use the information being generated and the technologies being developed for the HGP to develop new drugs.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> During Dr. Caskey’s second lecture titled “Bypass Bypasses by Gene Therapy,” he discussed how Merck was studying new delivery vectors to transport (deliver) the genetic material into the target (recipient) for neovascularization and other gene therapies. They were seeing promising results with it stimulating the growth of new blood vessels to bypass restricted or blocked vessels. Although gene therapy was still in early development, Dr. Caskey’s lecture demonstrated scientists were eagerly working on applications for the knowledge of the human genome.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> Between Dr. Caskey’s two lectures, Dr. Henry gave a single lecture titled “Not Only Human! What Are We Learning from Those Other Genomes?” While the HGP focused on the human genome, Dr. Henry mentioned that dozens of other genome projects were mapping other organisms, since it was considered immoral to experiment regularly on humans. The organisms that were selected were ones in “which it [was] easier to carry out the functional genomics, [including what] all of those genes do.”<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This could be done by modifying the genes of other organisms, and to determine how that modification could have an effect on the genes in humans, where in a cell or organism a gene product is located, and which gene products interact with each other. One organism whose genome had already been completed a year prior to the symposium was baker’s year, which was used to understand gene functions. Other organisms were chosen since there are important human pathogen, like Hemophilus influenza. Although they were not as large as the human genome, they did provide an idea of what could be learned from the human genome itself.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> On January 22 and January 29, issues of The Megaphone contained articles about the symposium and the HGP. The former was published on the first day of the symposium, and gave some background for the HGP, as well as brief descriptions for both how the Brown Symposium would operate and the names and qualifications of the lecturers. It also featured a short Q&A from Dr. Villa, which not only explained the backstory and purposes of the project, but also touched on the fact that those working on the project needed to consider ethical problems.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> The latter included the opinions of some attendees, many of whom were impressed by the lectures, finding them highly informative. Some attendees appreciated when lecturers spoke in terms that were easier to understand, and others praised Dr. Villa for organizing the symposium. One of those points that was given was that although many college students majoring in the sciences may consider the HGP understandable to only a few individuals, “with the increasing rate of technological growth in this field [of science], no one can get left behind.”<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> As demonstrated by those issues, the 1998 Brown Symposium helped the Southwestern community and the public better understand the HGP. Thus, the attendees to the 1998 Brown Symposium gained a better understanding and appreciation of the HGP, even five years before its completion. By having experts from different scientific backgrounds present at the symposium, the Southwestern faculty provided the attendees with a lot of information regarding the work that was being conducted for the HGP and the impacts that it could have for the world. Without the different points of view regarding the project, the symposium would not have been as informative as it was. In fact, it was thanks to the 1998 Brown Symposium that the Southwestern community and the people of Georgetown were able to understand work being conducted for the HGP and the goals of the project. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Carson Vogel Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “Brown Symposium,” Academics, Southwestern <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> The Human Genome Project: Advancements, Repercussions & Challenges. Southwestern University, 1998. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “What is the Human Genome Project?,” National Human Genome Research Institute, accessed May 8, 2020, https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/What <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> The Human Genome Project: Advancements, Repercussions & Challenges. Southwestern University, 1998. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Nancy S. Wexler, “Venezuela to Victory.” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 22, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Nancy S. Wexler, “The Oracle of DNA: Repercussions of the Human Genome Project” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 23, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Leroy Hood, “Genomics and the Analysis of Complex Biological Systems.” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 22, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Leroy Hood, “Genomics, Immunity, Development and Cancer” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 23, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Thomas C. Caskey, “Genome Science Drives New Drug Development” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 22, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Thomas C. Caskey, “Bypass Bypasses by Gene Therapy” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 22, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Susan A. Henry, “Not Only Human! What Are We Learning from Those Other Genomes?” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Susan A. Henry, “Not Only Human! What Are We Learning from Those Other Genomes?” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Trinh, Tina. “Q & A: Villa discusses Human Genome Project.” The Megaphone. January 22, 1998. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634654/. <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Newton, Adam P. “Brown Symposium XX: recapping a success.” The Megaphone. January 29, 1998. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634905/ 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 The Human Genome Project: Advances, Repercussions, & Challenges Description An account of the resource This item is a brochure for the twentieth Brown Symposium, which took place in 1998 and focused on many aspects of the Human Genome Project. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Southwestern University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource January, 1998 Language A language of the resource English https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/7311e1d7878b1021a41e1f4ad27f0433.jpg 575d6d0e2714b12943151ea9000c21fa https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/fe042067c18247b61fdf337e32ab87a6.jpg f44bfb1382b86ef7a3b9e82e112869e5 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/888d06cbc744bca67884fc55a2400c9b.jpg c459e9025b2e181a7491c240a56676cf https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/ef55dca5a4e9378101423ce6cb3e7faa.jpg 0544142dfcd569b88cc899b392945d52 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/d7647cc60bfdf424923eff3c3f917f83.jpg 4bb1578f732e54a6bcfe444b975a21b7 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/e0a4f5b4f1e268ce25f54e75791addcc.jpg b05f11e69f85d19b46df48bf492e467d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/25cf2e74b2feed35400b3efe01628ac4.jpg a3038cac30ade1719df0711f202004f0 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 History of Germ Theory and Vaccination at SU Description An account of the resource It is well known that with every scientific discovery comes disbelievers, nay-sayers, and even conspiracists. Since its conception, vaccinations have been contested by anti-vaccination beliefs. To learn the source of public resistance to vaccines, examples of its implementation in other nations may provide the necessary insight. Qualitative research of numerous historical, scholarly, and peer-reviewed texts reveals much about the nature of the controversial history of germ theory and vaccinations. Evidently, few physicians, and even fewer people understand the history or science behind vaccinations. There is a trend of government involvement affecting the public perception of the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Outside of America- Cuba, China, and Japan all experienced unique implementations of vaccines. The manner in which the science and history surrounding vaccinations is communicated to the public is another potential influencing factor. As B. Bensaude-Vincent points out, there is an ever present and ever increasing gap between scientists and the public. Naturally, this gap creates an uninformed public, and what fills the void instead of knowledge is uncertainty, which inevitably leads to fear. The manner in which scientific knowledge has been disseminated to the public has largely followed the deficit model. The deficit model, as B. Bensaude-Vincent explains, characterizes the public as uninformed, unintelligent, and nothing more than recipients of scientific advancements . The likelihood that the deficit model is a large influencing factor in the development of the controversy surrounding vaccines, and perhaps other scientific controversies, is great. Southwestern University adopted the deficit model to communicate scientific knowledge as early as 1891. This is evident in the Alamo and San Jacinto monthly of March that year, in which is a collection of articles by the Alamo and San Jacinto societies. The article of importance is titled “The Germ Theory of Vaccinations” by one W.D. Gordon. The article is essentially a general historical background, and simplified scientific explanation of vaccinations and germ theory. More importantly, it is an example of Southwestern utilizing the deficit model of scientific communication. W.D. Gordon himself makes the assumption that few physicians and few patients fully understand the science and history of germ theory and vaccinations. He then begins clearly explaining in layman's terms the historical and scientific backing. This correlates with Bensaude-Vincents definition of the deficit model in which the public is uninformed and simply receives the benefits without participating. There is no way for the public to participate in this model, so the article serves purely to popularize the idea of vaccinations. The communication of scientific knowledge, especially pertaining to medicine, is largely in the hands of physicians. W.D. Gordon implies however that physicians are largely uninformed when it comes to the history and science of vaccinations and germ theory. This leaves only the scientific societies such as the San Jacinto and Alamo societies at Southwestern to spread knowledge to the local public, ie Georgetown Texas. As Bruce V. Lewenstein explains, scientific societies played a large role in not only the popularization of science, but more importantly, the marketing of scientific discoveries. The involvement of scientific societies in the popularization of science with the intention of marketing the discoveries creates tension between the rich and poor. As CP Snow points out, there is already a long lasting gap between the rich and poor that is widening due to the capital requirement of science. To then go ahead and market scientific discoveries to the poorer public who already is unsure of the richer scientific population and their discoveries causes the tension to grow more. As tension mounts, it is not hard to imagine an outcome in which the uncertainty surrounding vaccinations results in an anti-scientific conspiracy. While the controversy surrounding vaccinations is in the forefront of scientific controversy, there is much to be learned from examples of controversy elsewhere. Controversy that has arisen due to the gulf between scientists and the public is nothing new or isolated. In fact, it has occurred all over the world and all throughout history. As an example, Steven Shapin points out that Official Newtonian science was initially questioned during the enlightenment, despite it being incredibly well established at the time. Similarly, the basis of vaccination is germ theory which has been researched abundantly, and the efficacy of vaccinations is unquestionable. The apparent truth is that no matter how well a scientific discovery is established, poor communication via the deficit model will get in the way of consensus. If a consensus cannot be reached, the progress of science as a whole can become stagnant. In an attempt to better understand the relationship between vaccines, and its controversy, one must research the history of vaccines and germ theory. The Alamo and San Jacinto Monthly publication from March of the year 1891 is preserved at the Sotuhwestern special collections. This specific publication was based in Georgetown, and edited by the Alamo and San Jacinto societies, consisting of Willie Boyce, R.L. Daniel, J.L. Brooks, and H.A. Alan, with the chief editor being W.D Gordon. This edition of the publication contains an article by W.D. Gordon himself titled “The Germ Theory of Vaccination ''. The article is a direct example of the attitude a respected doctor of the era held regarding vaccination. Following a detailed history of germ theory, W.D Gordon describes vaccinations as having the ‘utmost benefit to humanity’ of any other medicine. With this glowing praise, one must wonder what turn of events led to the current opposition to vaccinations. The smallpox vaccination did not make its way to Cuba until 1803 when small amounts were being transported across Latin America. It was not until one Dr. Vincente Ferrer made strides in producing and implementing the vaccine. Ferrer pioneered a new method of administering vaccines, where he utilized an infected calf. The standard option for vaccination at the time was arm to arm, which was considered much less sanitary. The introduction of his technique clashed with the opinions of physicians who preferred arm to arm. As it would seem, the main topic of discussion in Cuba has been about which method of vaccination is best. In comparison to America, neither country seems to be able to reach a consensus regarding vaccines. If physicians in Cuba were as unaware as physicians in America regarding the history of vaccines , that could be a source of the disagreement. In China, tuberculosis was a major problem up until the 1930’s when the Nationalist Party rose to power and established the Ministry of Health. Prior to that, the understanding of the disease was that it was familial, rather than a matter of germs. The Ministry of Health expanded and modernized Chinese healthcare, and classified tuberculosis as a disease that merited serious attention. Initial efforts to prevent the disease did not involve vaccinations, but rather education and isolation programs. By the 1930s the Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccine was the standard preventative measure for tuberculosis, but the Chinese government had doubts about the vaccine, and claimed that its efficacy was not verifiable. It was not until a researcher named Wang Liang made strides in normalizing the vaccine in China, but the hesitance to its integration remained on a governmental level. Throughout the 1940’s, many pieces of scientific literature on the BCG vaccine were written by Chinese physicians, but the lack of consensus remained. In 1937, the second Sino-Japanese war began, and China was determined to win. To improve their odds of victory, they cut funding to research into the BCG vaccine by two thirds. Much like in America, China never seemed to be able to come to a full consensus regarding the efficacy of vaccines. It was amongst the physicians and politicians where the disagreement laid, which is to be expected, presuming the same level of ignorance regarding the history of vaccines as is present in America The citizens of China, generally speaking, required the vaccine greatly, but the lack of governmental implementation defied the needs of the people. In contrast to America, the presence of governmental implementation was one of the causes of the lack of consensus. It may be that the ongoing wars in China diluted the apparent need for a consensus to be made at all. In America, the lack of ongoing war created an increased opportunity for rumination about the efficacy of vaccinations, resulting in a lack of consensus. Japan was focused on vaccinations prior to the Meiji Restoration of 1868, before they even had a practical government. Medicine at the time was privatized, and not of the interest of the government. Medical and scientific discussion with the rest of the world was essentially non-existent. Rather, medical knowledge was privately shared amongst families, and lineage structures. Vaccines were present in Japan as early as 1804, thanks to Dutch-Japanese trade routes. The downside is that the only individuals who could obtain vaccines were Japanese physicians who could speak Dutch and knew about the value of vaccines. By the 1820’s, Dutch books detailing Jennerian vaccinations were circulating Japan. By the 1840’s, Western medicine, including vaccinations, was prevalent in Japan, but only to the rich overlords and merchants. By 1850, vaccination clinics were present in Japan, but the government was not interested in helping the implementation at all. It was not until 1860, when a government in Japan showed interest in assisting implementation. The Tokugawa government recruited experienced vaccinators to spread the immunization to thousands of Japanese children. That same year, a public clinic was opened in the capital at the time, Edo. Later that decade, the Tokugawa government relinquished its rule to oligarchs once again. Interestingly, it was the oligarchy government that really helped spread and implement vaccinations. Evidently, there was little resistance to the implementation of vaccines in Japan. The reason for the lack of resistance is that the vaccines were known by private, trusted, shaman like physicians prior to the government involving itself at all. Unlike American physicians, these shamans had a full understanding of the history and science of vaccines. The people of Japan understood the history of, trusted and used vaccines well before the Japanese government did. Because the people already understood the history of vaccines, they accepted government implementation with open arms. In contrast to America, few people knew any history regarding vaccines prior to governmental implementation, as such, the implementation was resisted. The deficit model has been the predominant method of communicating science for centuries, yet its effectiveness remains in question. Alternative models such as the participatory model may be significantly more effective at engaging the public while keeping them informed. Scientific societies are the main groups practising the deficit model, in which they condescend to the ‘uniformed’ public in layman's terms as they are simply the recipients of science and nothing more. Southwestern University had adopted the deficit model with their very own San Jacinto and Alamo scientific societies and their monthly publications. The effect the deficit model has on scientific outcomes is negative, as the public becomes more and more unsure of the scientists and their discoveries. Additionally, the fact that the discoveries were marketed predominantly to the poor from the wealthy, made the gap between the public and the scientific community even greater. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Aidan Clark Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Bensaude-Vincent, B. “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.’” University of Chicago Press, n.d., 362. Bensaude-Vincent, B. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Institute of Physics Publishing, n.d., 103. Lewenstein, Bruce V. “Popularization ,” n.d., 668. Brazelton, Mary Augusta. 2019. “Danger in the Air: Tuberculosis Control and BCG Vaccination in the Republic of China, 1930–1949.” Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review 8 (1): 139–64. doi:10.1353/ach.2019.0006. Bynum, William F. Little History of Science. Yale University Press, 2013. Conis, Elena. 2013. “A Mother’s Responsibility: Women, Medicine, and the Rise of Contemporary Vaccine Skepticism in the United States.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 87 (3): 407–35. doi:10.1353/bhm.2013.0047. Gonzalez, Stephanie H. 2018. “The Cowpox Controversy: Memory and the Politics of Public Health in Cuba.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 92 (1): 110–40. doi:10.1353/bhm.2018.0005. Gordon, W D. “The Germ Theory of Vaccination .” Alamo and San Jacinto Monthly 9, no. 5 (March 1891): 427–33. Jannetta, Ann. 2009. “Jennerian Vaccination and the Creation of a National Public Health Agenda in Japan, 1850–1900.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 83 (1): 125–40. doi:10.1353/bhm.0.0185. Johnston, Sean F. History of Science: a Beginners Guide. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2012. Shapin, Steven. Science and the Public, n.d. Snow, CP. “The Two Cultures.” The Two Cultures, n.d., 46. 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 The Germ Theory of Vaccination Subject The topic of the resource Germ theory and vaccination Description An account of the resource A monthly journal publication written by the Alamo and San Jacinto literary societies. Contains an article detailing The Germ theory of Vaccination. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource W. D. Gordon Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Alamo and San Jacinto Monthly, volume IX, number 5 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Alamo and San Jacinto Literary Societies, Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource March, 1891 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Southwestern Special Collections Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Southwestern University Relation A related resource All other articles in this publication. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Monthly journal Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Article Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Gordon, W D., “The Germ Theory of Vaccination ,” Alamo and San Jacinto Monthly 9, no. 5 (March 1891): 427–33. https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/fbd25c291b14884c933215d7576e2dc5.pdf 43c504667cad9e44aa13bc8f3eb2d55c 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 History of the Spanish Flu at SU Description An account of the resource The Spanish influenza spread throughout the United States from 1918-1920. It was able to claim more than 675,00 American lives. While technology today allows for the fast and almost instantaneous spread of knowledge, means of communication in the early twentieth century were much less expeditious. The radio and newspaper were the two main forms of media that were available to the public. These two medias were responsible for communication knowledge from the scientists to the public. Through them, the public was able to stay continuously informed on the happenings of the country. Important information, such as updates on the rapidly spreading pandemic, were able to make people in many places aware of the threat at hand. This essay aims to understand how and why, during one of the deadliest pandemics, life at Southwestern University seemed to continue as normal. In the United States, as World War 1 was ending, it was the beginning of a new period of time in the country. The Spanish influenza was quickly spreading worldwide and by the end the pandemic, claimed more than 675,000 deaths in the United States alone. The spanish flu has been recognized to have taken place in three waves, with the first starting around spring or summer of 1918. It took a heavy toll on the young adult population as it killed roughly one in four of its victims. This was a considerably higher mortality rate, as compared to other epidemics which killed about one in every thousand.1 The Spanish flu spread with great speed across the country, largely in cities with military bases. While it is hard to pinpoint where the pandemic began, it can be said to have originated in Kansas in January of 1918. It became impossible to stop the spread once it began, as interconnected transportation networks allowed the virus to find itself all over the world. To understand how this epidemic spread with such strength and speed, it is important to look at those who spread it: the general public. How much did the public know about the Spanish Flu? How much did the public know about germs and viruses in general? It is necessary to look to the history of germ theory in order to find out the information the public had at the time. Before germ theory, nobody thought that a living organism from the outside could cause a disease. Doctors had been explaining illnesses by linking them to internal changes in the humours. Overindulgence in food and drink, or bad habits have also been seen as causes of illnesses before the concept of falling ill from other organisms.2 The introduction of germ theory was a big turning point in medicine as it brought with it the concept of warfare within the body. The realization that the body has to defend against small living creatures, was one spurred interest in how these microorganisms play a role in everyday things. While looking into the role of microorganisms in events such as baking bread or brewing beer, Louis Pasteur made many discoveries in dairy products that are still used today. Showing that bacteria and other microorganisms caused diseases in not only humans, but also in animals was important as it helped show that these organisms caused disease. Diseases were explained by doctors as contagious. This meant that the disease could be spread by contact between people. Cholera, the most feared disease of the 1800s, was a disease that doctors had trouble explaining. A major fear shared by many people, was that Cholera was spreading through the air. In order to figure out how it was spreading, English physician, John Snow, mapped out London neighborhoods. By doing this, he became sure that Cholera was being spread by water. He concluded that the feces and vomit of Cholera victims was contaminating the water, which was then pumped into the city from a public pump in Soho, central London.3 What Snow’s research did was raise awareness for the need for clean water for public health. By raising awareness, the public began to understand how they were spreading the disease. They were informed by the discoveries made by scientists like Snow, and were able to learn the importance of having clean water to avoid the rampant spread of disease. The creation of the vaccine is another example of communication between scientists and the public improving. Louis Pasteure aimed to make the Anthrax bacterium weaker, to be able to inject it into patients as a vaccine. Anthrax was a disease that was sometimes spread from farm animals to humans, and caused sores of the skin. If it is spread to the bloodstream, anthrax can kill. As Pasteure found out where the bacterium thrived and where it was vulnerable, he was able to create an anthrax bacteria that was much weaker and less able to cause disease. This made Anthrax the first human disease preventable by vaccine.4 Once Pasteur made his discovery, he invited newspaper reporters to his house soon after his creation. In front of live reporters, Pasteur was able to show how the non vaccinated animals died, while the vaccinated animals were unaffected. This helped make the public aware of the powerful steps medical science was making.5 The process of disseminating knowledge created by scientists to the public has been proven throughout the history of disease and germs to be an important process. As scientists discovered microorganisms in the air and all around us, they better understood how to prevent the spread of disease. Cholera placed a big emphasis on sanitation, while innovations like Louis Pasteure’s vaccine for Anthrax let the public know of science’s leaps forward. Though the communication between scientists and the public in instances like these were strong, other attempts of communication are not so successful. There was a fear of the flu nearly everywhere in the United States, but in some areas, the flu did not cause panic or fear. With daily reports of the influenza spreading in other countries or even the rampant spread in the US, some areas did not see the Spanish flu as an imminent threat. The reason for this seemingly irrational behavior in these places was cognitive inertia.6 This is the tendency of existing beliefs or habits of thought to blind people to change realities. Cognitive inertia was fueled by the understanding of the flu as only a seasonal visitor rather than a viral threat. It was also believed to only seldom kill the strong and healthy, which was horribly untrue. As the public began to rely more on sources such as newspapers to stay informed, news of the troops overseas and updates on the war overshadowed the pandemic in some areas. Although these areas affected by cognitive inertia were informed on what was happening in other parts of the world, they chose to ignore what scientists were saying, and instead stuck with their own beliefs. The communication between the scientist and public was further weakened by the newspapers, who focused their attention on the war overseas, rather than the viral war they were facing at home. According to the deficit model of science communication, information moves from experts to the public. This is called popularization. This creation and diffusion of information for the general public to create new knowledge is what bridges the gap between the experts and the public.7 In order for the popularization of science to occur, this relies on mediums of information exchange such as books and museums, in order for the people to become educated. While these fountains of information were readily available to observe, the newspaper and radio were essential to relay messages in a fast manner. The relationship between the experts and the public becomes increasingly important in times of uncertainty and fear, such as a pandemic. Expert sources such as the Surgeon General can be seen giving advice in The Williamson County Sun, in articles titled “How to fight Spanish Influenza”. Here, they make the public aware of different ways to stop the spread of the virus such as washing one's hands or avoiding crowds.8 While this is a step in the right direction, there seems to be a lack of a sense of urgency in making the public aware of the gravity of the situation. This was made apparent after looking through The Williamson County Sun and its issues from 1918 to 1920. While the pandemic was sweeping the nation, students and faculty alike at Southwestern seem to have been under informed. The Surgeon General allowed readers to understand how to combat the virus more effectively, but the lack of more articles like these seems strange due to the severity of the pandemic. The lack of information in the SU community about the Spanish Influenza was not due to the experts, as the communication of knowledge is dependent on the newspaper and journalists, which report to the public. Experts and the media are heavily reliant on each other to disseminate knowledge to the public. While the experts lead the communication process by producing knowledge, they rely on the media to spread it. Without experts, the media would not be able to spread any information that the public may need. The public has its own role in this process, as they agree to scientific judgements, and pledge their support for activities that scientists have deemed desirable or essential.9 In terms of participation, the public can only react and interpret the knowledge they receive. The public can express how they feel, as journalists record and translate that expression into a newspaper article. An example of this is in The Megaphone, where an article titled “Lawrence Called Home By Death Of His Father”, describes a student whose father had died of complications resulting from the Spanish influenza.10 While there was communication between the public and experts, it was not sufficient on Southwestern’s campus, as there was not enough public awareness of the virus. This may have caused the public to be unprepared for the virus that came to take a heavy toll on the SU community. As medical advancements in the world improved the quality of life, there were some things that even medical advancements cannot control. The spread of the Spanish influenza through the United states from 1918-1920 was one that ravaged the American people. Despite this, the SU community seemed nearly unfazed, and displayed no signs of panic. One cause to blame for this reaction may have been cognitive inertia. Cognitive inertia may have been one of the causes, but this stems from an uninformed public. In order to keep the general public informed, experts must communicate through the media, which provides outlets for audiences to observe. While the Spanish Influenza’s effect was felt at SU, the community may have prepared better, if media outlets such as The Megaphone and The Williamson County Sun had made the public more aware about the pandemic at hand. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nicolas Guarin Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived 1 Tom Dicke, “Waiting for the flu: Cognitive Inertia and the Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918-19,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 70, no. 2 (April 2015):201, accessed February 15, 2020, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/579501. 2William Bynum, A Little History of Science (Yale University Press, 2012), 161. 3 Bynum, A Little History, 163. 4 Bynum, A Little History, 164. 5 Bynum, A Little History, 165. 6 Dicke, “Waiting for the flu: Cognitive Inertia and the Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918-19,” 197. 7 Bruce V. Lewenstein, Popularization, 667 8 “How To Fight Spanish Influenza,” Williamson County Sun, October 18, 1918 9 Steven Shapin, “Science and the Public,” in Companion to the History of Modern Science, ed. R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, M.J.S. Hodge (London: Princeton University Press ,1974), 992 10 Waldrop, Gayle, “Lawrence Called Home By Death Of His Father,” The Megaphone, November 5, 1918, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth394998/m1/3/ 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 Surgeon General Blue Issues Advice on Influenza Subject The topic of the resource How to fight Spanish influenza Description An account of the resource The article describes various ways to combat the Spanish influenza such as hand washing and avoiding crowds. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Surgeon General Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Williamson County Sun, October 18, 1918, Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Williamson County Sun Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource October 18, 1918 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource News https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/a291f7f679ff4e0f5d60fa18b0de5c98.png ff62c66c0e1b0246363c6c8d70416388 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/. Subject The topic of the resource AIDS at Southwestern Description An account of the resource While many universities have a responsibility to educate their students in practicing medicine, they all have the responsibility to provide medicine. The set of services present in a student health center on college campuses has evolved enormously, primarily due to new discoveries in the field of medicine as well as changes in the social dynamics of the United States. Putting Southwestern University in the context of the historical development of medicine and social justice establishes the university as an institution willing to acquiesce to change and generally providing the best possible resources for its students. Southwestern is also communicative and responsive to medical developments that best benefit its health services. A very current issue related to the development of medicine is the outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) and the changes being made everywhere to try to control the pandemic. Southwestern University officially moved the Spring 2020 semester to distance learning on March 19th, with school services (including the health center) being provided remotely. Southwestern’s response to this presently evolving case opens up questions to historically similar situations. The best way to historically observe Southwestern’s measures for adjusting to social change and developing needs of students is through the university’s handling of the HIV/AIDS crisis during the 1980s and 1990s. Over time, there has been a significant improvement in treatment in the sphere of sexual health on college campuses in the United States. Beginning under the euphemism of “social hygiene,” prevention and treatment of sexual health issues on college campuses began during the World War II era. Due to the increasing number of women attending college as well as evolving degrees of sex positivity and freedom, treatments for sexual health became less taboo and conversations became more open. Since college campus demographics are mostly made up of young people, this movement could be seen in American universities. Unfortunately, one side of this conversation is significantly less positive than others. The outbreak of HIV/AIDS raised questions about health that were never explored before, notably regarding the nature of the epidemic and how separate groups could be disproportionally affected by disease. AIDS, formally known as acquired immune deficiency syndrome, emerged as a “leading cause of death among young adults in the United States” in the 1980s. Somewhat surprisingly, college students attending school at the height of the HIV scare were a relatively low-risk group, to use the terminology of the time, for contracting the virus. This was due in part to the proportion of heterosexual students to non-heterosexual students, since the primary reason that heterosexual adults would be at risk was associated with conditions of poverty. Therefore, most students of universities were “not in sexual networks that will include a significant proportion of heterosexual partners who have HIV.” This is not to say that a low risk level meant no action was taken. In a conference held at Southwestern regarding the outbreak, assistant professor of sociology Edward L. Kain emphasized the impact that diseases could have on a population, and warned against developing an “us vs. them” mentality. Kain made it clear that just because you “don’t fall into a high risk group, it doesn’t mean you’re not going to get it.” The low-risk environment of college campuses could be partially attributed to the response universities had to the outbreak in terms of education and prevention. Once information about the issue became more accessible and de-stigmatized, many institutions developed non-discriminatory policies towards students with HIV, experimented with peer education programs, and implemented risk assessment in health centers. It also became essential to prevent the spread of misinformation and harmful rumors. Edward Kain discussed this problem through research he conducted with his sociology students at the time of the outbreak. He concluded that rumors are born from panic, created to fill in gaps where knowledge is lacking. Kain found this to be important because the public’s attitude towards AIDS would “determine how effectively the disease is treated medically and educationally.” It was of great consequence that the knowledge cultivated by a community (in this case, Southwestern University) was accurate and easily transmitted to the public. Since the sole purpose of a university’s health center is to make medical knowledge and practice readily available to its students, the AIDS epidemic is an appropriate lens through which to assess Southwestern’s care of its students. At the height of the epidemic (and once it had become clear that this was a health threat that went beyond sexual orientation), it became vital for universities to “sponsor programs that inform students about the disease and advocate for measures to prevent transmission of the virus.” While there are no records indicating the presence of HIV antibody testing on campus at Southwestern, a 1987 issue of the Megaphone contains an article written by health center employee Jan Pickett about the issue of testing. The article gives general information regarding the importance of at-risk individuals being tested, what a test entails, and various locations and phone numbers of testing institutions. Pickett notes the importance of practicing safe sex and adopting any changes necessary to protect from the virus, making it clear that receiving a negative test result is not protection in and of itself. Additionally, there is an issue of the Megaphone published the year prior containing an article titled “Let’s talk about AIDS.” The article not only gives basic information on the AIDS crisis, but it also announces a panel discussion to take place on campus in which professionals with broad knowledge and perspective on the issue would inform students and answer questions. The panel was to include a nurse specialist, the director of the Austin AIDS Project, the Deputy Director of the Williamson County Health Department, and an AIDS patient. This event especially showcases Southwestern’s willingness to adapt and provide necessary aid to its students. In tandem with societal attitudes of the time, mentions of the gay liberation movement or the AIDS epidemic in the 1970s and 1980s in Southwestern publications were made with a tendency towards anonymity. The aforementioned article by Jan Pickett emphasizes locations for anonymous testing and promises to protect the secrecy of students visiting her office for HIV/AIDS-related questions. The first article found in the Megaphone that directly discusses the gay rights movement is from 1973, titled “Suppressed Minority: A Concerned Student Speaks Out.” The anonymous student writes to the readers, pleading for equality and understanding on campus and implying that they had faced discrimination while attending Southwestern. Therefore, it would appear it was not until the mid-to-late 1980s and the breakout of AIDS that homosexuality became a topic of sincere conversation on Southwestern campus and something under the eye of health services. The health center, in this case, acts as a middleman in the transmission of medical knowledge, though in some cases more quickly and effectively than in others. While it can be assumed that those employed within the health center are aptly qualified for their position, the changing nature of medicine requires communication of knowledge both within the field and beyond it. The evolving breadth of services provided and medical standards of the student body at Southwestern implies that this communication has been constantly occurring throughout the school’s history, as shown through samples of blank student health records from 2004 and 2018 (actual student records are not attainable due to confidentiality), requiring more and more immunizations and stamps of approval from physicians prior to attending the university. Since Southwestern does not have its own practice of medical research, discoveries, treatments, and anything else that could benefit the student body is presumably acquired from outside, credible sources. The university has done its part to remain up to date on medical developments and has adjusted its policies accordingly The history of medicine, and more specifically of medicine on college campuses, reveals a great deal about the nature of social dynamics both within a student body and within the institution itself. The liberal arts environment of Southwestern has lent to its increasingly open attitude towards change in social justice, and the relationship between these changes and medical issues can be observed through the history of health services. There have been areas in which the university’s health center has found itself behind the times, such as in the case of the delay in providing women’s health services. But otherwise, there has been a general urgency to keep up with the evolving medical needs of students. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elaine Goulden Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 8, 2020 Language A language of the resource English Title A name given to the resource Community in Crisis: Southwestern and the AIDS Epidemic Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Barrera, Martha. “Let’s talk about AIDS,” The Megaphone, January 30, 1986, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634603/. Cohen, Elliot D., and Michael Davis, eds. AIDS: Crisis in Professional Ethics. Temple University Press, 1994. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bt3gc. Franki, Marie. “Health Services adds new doctors,” The Megaphone, September 21, 2006, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634759/. “Health Record,” Form. Georgetown, TX: Southwestern University, Special Collections, May 2004. Pickett, Jan. “Living Well at Southwestern,” The Megaphone, October 30, 1987, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634509/. Rollins, Laura. “AIDS: from SU to the World,” Williamson County Sun, November 14, 1987, 12. “Southwestern seminar eyes AIDS and society,” Williamson County Sun, November 1, 1987. “Student Health Record,” Form. Georgetown, TX: Southwestern University, Special Collections, 2018. “Suppressed Minority: A Concerned Student Speaks Out,” The Megaphone, May 4, 1973, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634200/. Turner, H. Spencer, and Janet L. Hurley, eds. The History and Practice of College Health. University Press of Kentucky, 2002. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt130j9xw. Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634200/m1/1/ 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 Suppressed Minority: A Concerned Student Speaks Out Subject The topic of the resource Discrimination against homosexuality at Southwestern Description An account of the resource An anonymous letter from a student detailing the discrimination and ridicule they have faced as a Southwestern student Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Anonymous Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Portal to Texas History Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 4, 1973 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newsletter