2 10 39 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/bac47e9b3298be7540ad3dea81c8c107.png a1cc631548f18dc15f7d9cd7dbe0700b 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 Faculty Club Meets Subject The topic of the resource News Description An account of the resource In 1921 at the faculty club meeting, Dr. William Davidson presented a scholarly review of John Watson’s “Psychology From the Viewpoint of The Behaviorist” Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Akin, Henry D. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Texas History Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Jan 25, 1921 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Open Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource News Article Language A language of the resource English https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/8b6626919baee8fbe57c827895f5fd10.jpg 0f3ab527643fde5a00fe4d6cc0bb0044 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 God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win Subject The topic of the resource The Brown Symposium XXXI Description An account of the resource Discussion of the “battle” between religion and atheism at the Brown Symposium XXXI. The author is seemingly more critical of religion. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Andrew Dornon 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 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/6aa51c1f2fe49ae0279b14fe27894a6a.jpeg 1d3756067a70075372ef9b392639153f https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/dee5b2251d375b8bdbce0345fd94a747.jpeg d848d699227211f729bebbac8a59b161 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. 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 Health Record Description An account of the resource 2004 version of the Southwestern University health form Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Southwestern University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 2004 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Form https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/e6a5570eab17fa06984acf530c8fa971.png cf2b84b1c1edb8681b4568701890e526 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/metapth634759/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 Health Services adds new doctors Subject The topic of the resource Addition of gynecology to Southwestern University Description An account of the resource An article written about the hiring of specialists in women's health to work at the Southwestern health center Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Marie Franki Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Portal to Texas History Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource September 21, 2006 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newsletter https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/e35ed324e11b3e64538e1c28de1bb776.jpg 4bf48ea6e41408ec7611bac2f028274b Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Popularizing the Wireless Transmitter Description An account of the resource The history of science is a history not often spotlighted by mainstream history, but it is a fascinating history that well deserves the recognition of historians. In the 21st century world we live in today we enjoy many comforts including but not limited by the microwave to quickly heat our food without huge fires, vaccines and germ theory to protect us against disease that might have wiped out entire continents a couple hundred years ago, and we live in an age where someone sitting on the Indian subcontinent can communicate with someone in their living room in Tucson Arizona almost instanously. The world of Twitter and other social media has linked the world in ways that would seem the world of science fiction a couple decades ago before the invention of the microchip. We live in a world that is so interconnected but yet so many people don’t know the story of how we got to this point in the year 2020. History has been argued by some scholars to be the study of stories. Essentially historians take primary accounts and sift through the data and find the puzzle that best matches the pieces. This is the same with the history of science, it is a story that doesn’t require the knowledge of the science being discovered by these great men and women of science it simply requires an understanding of how pieces fit together to compliment the whole. The globalized world of twitter and instant help from across the ocean had a starting place, and that starting place at least in the digital age began at Southwestern with an invention by a man named Robert Stewart Heyer in the year 1895<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> when he arguably for the first time in history sent a wireless message from his Southwestern laboratory to the jailhouse in Georgetown, a distance of over a mile. Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew is Heyer’s official autobiography written by his daughter Rey Heyer Brown and only 1000 copies were ever made. During his time, he was a professor of science’s, served as president of Southwestern and later served as president of Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Gugliemo Marconi is the Italian inventor and electrical engineer who went down in the history books as the first man in history to send a wireless transmission over a distance out of earshot. Marconi famously sent his transmission in the year 1901, Robert Heyer sent his signal in 1805<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>, six whole years before Marconi. Why did the world give the spotlight to Marconi when Heyer was actually the first to send a wireless transmission? Heyer’s feat has been collaborated by the other professors at Southwestern during his time there as well as countless students and the jailer who received his signal<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>. It turns out geography itself may be why the spotlight was given to Marconi. Georgetown was taken from the Tonkawa Indians was taken and settled in 1848 by George Washington Glasscock and had a steadily growing population. Even though Georgetown the town where Southwestern was situated was growing, Texas in the late 1800’s was still wilderness and besides a few towns here and there it was sparse wilderness. Telegraph lines were present but not everywhere that meant that there was little communication between settlements. Marconi who was working In Europe, a man born in Italy but setting up his company The Wireless Telegraph and Signal Company in the United Kingdom was in the most interconnected, funded and scientific areas of the world at the time. In Robert Stewart Heyer, the Man I Knew his daughter talks about other reasons, according to her he didn’t even want credit for his invention. He was unable to get a proper patent for his invention and prioritized his family over his invention. He was a tinkerer at heart and that sufficed his needs. Heyer and Marconi’s wireless transmitters although revolutionary, were not the first attempts at wireless transmission in history. The advantage of long-distance communication from everything from military maneuvers to city to city communication was a feat that had recognized significance. The very first attempts at distance communication took place by the Greeks, Persians and Chinese, simultaneously reaching the conclusion the distance communication could be advantageous independently around the same time period. They would use smoke signals on top of hills to communicate. Later in history around the beginning of the scientific revolution the advantage of distance communication was still feat that was valued and an invention called the Semaphore would demonstrate this. The semaphore used giant lever operated hands to send messages in a format that is similar to morse code to semaphore stations up to 12 miles away. A string of these stations could be set up on hilltops with a telescope at each station. But like imagining modern science in a context today without computers distance communication was limited to the eyes, and for distance communication to work a force unseen and powerful would be needed to work. The invention of the telegraph by Robert Morse was this invention. <a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>Thanks solely to the discovery of electromagnetism by Hans Oesrsted and the invention of the battery by Alessandro Volta, this unseen communication was brought to the world. “Hardly a day intervened when General Grant did not know the exact state of facts with me, more than fifteen-hundred miles off – William Tecumesh Sherman (civil war general)”, the civil war saw the unprecedented boom of telegraph technology on both Confederate and Union sides of the war<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>. There was a catch to this tech however and that was in order to communicate, telegraph lines would need to be set up. These lines would span hundreds, thousands of miles at times and would take the workforce of the nation in uncharted wilderness to erect, there had to be an easier way to do things and there was. Heyer followed by Marconi would start the ball rolling on an invention that used the same electrical pulses as the telegraph machine but sent the message without thousands of miles of cables, through the spark gap transmitter. Robert Heyer and Marconi both created a wireless transmitter that worked in almost the same way. what has been classified today as a Spark Gap Transmitter, this transmitter sent an electrical shock to an oscillatory circuit, consisting of an inductance/ capacitance in sequence, essentially an electrical shock was converted to a single radio wave of non-variable frequency and wave length. Controlling the electrical pulse on the sending end, Heyer and Marconi could send a message using morse code. This technology was immediately recognized for its full potential, in full by the US Navy.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> Around 1910 the US Navy conducted a huge experiment with two of its ships which were outfitted with Marconi’s radio technology, using an evolved Spark Gap-transmitter (the same type of transmitter invented by Heyer) 1000 miles away these ships were able to broadcast a clear and distinct message to a massive radio antenna sitting on the US coastline. What were the obstacles that prevented Heyer’s invention from becoming used worldwide as soon as they were invented before 1910? This was the Austin-Cohen theory, which stated radio waves decay at the inverse square root of a wavelength. This theory came into the mainstream scientific and engineering circles around the same time Heyer’s radio contraptions were being brought into the same circles. This theory actually soon had become a law, and for all early radio inventions, they all abided heavily by this theory. This theory basically inferred that a radio wave could not travel the length of the Atlantic Ocean because of this decay, and the only way to make this happen would be to create a receiver that is tall enough but the distances at stake are far too large and thus the receiver would need to be unfeasibly tall. Ultra-low frequency waves would change everything however, and the US navy demonstrated this in two tests the test in 1910 mentioned earlier and a later test in 1913. These ultra-low frequency waves (any wave between 300 hertz and 3 kilohertz) can be broadcast at a range between 100 and 1000KM. Extremely low frequency waves (ELF) waves are waves that broadcast at an even lower frequency (3 to 30 Hz) and these wavelengths can be broadcast at a range of 10,000 to 100,000 Kilometers. <a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>These two wave discoveries opened up the door for long distance radio communication. In the 1890’s was the decade actually that the navy began to take notice, that science and engineering advancements could intertwine not just in industry but also with warfare quoting “this is the birth of a new navy”. Heyer did not invent radio and communication, but his invention is a crucial piece to an emerging science and technological puzzle that was being solved at the end of the 19the and beginning of the 20th century. Without his invention that for intents of this paper can be symbolized through Marconi (because Heyer invented the wireless transmitter first) the invention of the radio that we are most familiar with today could not have been reached if the crucial stepping stone that was Heyer’s invention was not invented first. In chapter 40 of a little history of science, it is the final chapter of the book and it concludes everything by talking about science in the digital age. This age we live in now has its own chapter, arguably it is as important in the history of science to Marie Curie’s advancements on radiation if not more so. The level of importance doesn’t matter for the case of this argument, from the early days of the Hollerieth machine and the punch card in the early 20th century to Alan Turning’s early computer work eventually that led to the invention of the microchip. Computers talk to one another, and more so now than ever in the 5G world we live in now It is almost unfathomable to imagine a world where communication with the nearest town or city is weeks of walking away, or a fire on a hilltop, even in the arms of a semaphore across the valley. History of Science by Sean F. Johnson in his chapter 2 Big Ideas and Compelling approaches helps to put Marconi and Howe’s inventions in place in the global history of science. The global history of science started with astronomy with hunter gatherer populations. Astreo- archeology shows us their connection, left behind by these people such as the ‘marriage of earth and sky’ when the serpent from Serpent Mound (a site in Ohio possibly created by the Fort Ancient culture who were hunter gatherers, but its creation remains a mystery of giant serpent with an oval in its mouth) is positioned precisely true north and every summer solstice the sun shines through a precise gap in a nearby hilltop right down the center of the serpent. Plato and his republic used their knowledge of their times to create explanations for the world that fit logically. The scientific revolution was another key point in the history of science, with scientists revising many of Plato’s and the other Greek philosophers’ ideas and creating the framework for science as we see it today. In their own subset Marconi and Heyer’s invention was one of these turning points in the history of science, they helped to create communication that’s instantaneous and global, and for that we thank them today. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ian Jones Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Neuenfeldt, Eric. "Telegraph." In Wild Horse: Stories, 120-40. Amherst; Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd198v.12. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Neuenfeldt, Eric. "Telegraph." In Wild Horse: Stories, 120-40. Amherst; Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd198v.12. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Yeang, Chen-Pang. "Scientific Fact or Engineering Specification? The U.S. Navy's Experiments on Wireless Telegraphy circa 1910." Technology and Culture 45, no. 1 (2004): 1-29. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40060578. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a>Yeang, Chen-Pang. "Scientific Fact or Engineering Specification? The U.S. Navy's Experiments on Wireless Telegraphy circa 1910." Technology and Culture 45, no. 1 (2004): 1-29. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40060578. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Hyer Wireless Transmitter mockup Subject The topic of the resource Diagram Description An account of the resource Diagram explaining the science behind Hyer’s wireless transmitter Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource SU special Collections Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource January 21 1991 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/ca497dd4e9527de5fa041674f555765c.jpg 5ac18ab34240a8d4f6b6be6e0a700a4c 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 Lawrence Called Home by Death of His Father Subject The topic of the resource A student is called home due to his fathers death. Description An account of the resource The students father dies from complications stemming from Spanish Influenza. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gayle Waldrop Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone (Georgetown, Tex.), Vol. 12, No. 6, Ed. 1 Tuesday, November 5, 1918, p. 3 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 November 5, 1918 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Newspaper Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource News https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/5b12123716ce83ce55f942da16dcf2ae.png dc608917bf20476149ca96753c1cb6b5 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/metapth634603/m1/6/ 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 Let's Talk About AIDS Subject The topic of the resource AIDS outbreak Description An account of the resource Article giving information about AIDS and an upcoming panel on the topic at Southwestern University Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Martha Barrera Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource January 30, 1986 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newsletter https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/540bd7882f5cccdce8bc2dddd7fcd568.png 19510b062f20356794c1e1ece9c6c0cd 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/metapth634509/ 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 Living Well at Southwestern Subject The topic of the resource HIV Testing in the greater Austin area Description An account of the resource An article written by the SU health director on what HIV testing entails and how to access it. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jan Pickett 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 October 30, 1987 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newsletter https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/a4cee1bce6e9719f2a55fc4e28f58521.jpg 872fce1c656dea586681578fa9f7138c https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/f733733e02bad2be71f009ef7e306411.jpg 723c3f9d25b7326a631863d5e68b590e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Gastrointestinal Disease Hits Georgetown, Texas Description An account of the resource In the Summer of 1980, the city of Georgetown was thrown into a crisis when an outbreak of a mysterious gastrointestinal disease took the city by storm, infecting thousands within a week or two and businesses closed under the pressure.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Subsequent research culminated in a scientific article published 2 years later and confirmed local suspicions of a waterborne disease being the culprit however the primary viral agent was (and still) not identified.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Four years later, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in Braun Station, a small town near San Antonio and it’s waterborne qualities were identified for the first time.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Both towns received water from the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and both incidents contributed to changes in wastewater regulations for said aquifer.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> These two events are tied to the history of waterborne gastrointestinal epidemics and can be used to analyze how Georgetown responded to sudden outbreaks. The larger changes of environmental policies in the 1970s and 80s explain the different approaches in both cases of gastrointestinal disease These years saw an increase in environmental protection policies and the years that followed were defined by the public's response to them. In his monograph Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, Richard Andrews, a professor of environmental policies, writes about the long history of environmental policies in the United States. Andrews argues that the federal environmental policies of the 1970s could be summarized by the assertion of national standards and the cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to implement them.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, during the early 1980s, this federal initiative to control the environment would come under attack as President Ronald Reagan took office and dismantled many of them.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> These developments contextualize the state of environmental policies leading up to and during the Georgetown epidemics of gastrointestinal disease. From all of this, these outbreaks of gastrointestinal diseases become much more understandable at the state and municipal levels. First, it brings up the question of how the changes in federal support may have influenced the research done by the City of Georgetown (1980) and of that done by the local government at Braun Station (1984-85). Secondly, the developments leading up to 1980 construct a setting in which there is a clear divide in power between the federal government and the local municipal entities. These contextual insights become visible when looking at the primary sources of the different outbreaks. When comparing the primary scientific articles published for both epidemics, one immediately sees a difference in the extent of federal aid. The article that compiles the research done for the 1980 Georgetown outbreak was published under the journal American Water Works Association and supported by grants given by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health while also being assisted by the Williamson County Health Department.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> Whereas the article regarding the outbreak in Braun Station was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and gives acknowledgments to the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, and was in cooperation with local medical centers.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Furthermore, the reaction by those who wrote for the Williamson County Sun during the summer of 1980 depicted the local community and officials being fed up by the amount of involvement by state and federal entities. One writer talks about how the event has put their small city under an unwanted national spotlight and that they now have to, unfortunately, deal with the National Center for Disease Control and the EPA.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Another talks about the tensions between local city manager Leo Wood and Texas state officials over the legitimacy of the state officials’ claim that the sickness is likely being transmitted through the city water supply.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> These primary sources show that the 1980 case study of gastrointestinal disease in Georgetown occured right before funding was cut to federal environmental funding. They also point out a shift in power dynamics. The first paper was funded by federal agencies who gave money to local institutions to conduct the work (similar to Andrews’ claims) while the second paper was entirely conducted and funded by local and state agencies. This long-term shift from a multi directional to an entirely localized approach to environmental policies show the years between 1980-1984 as being defined by the political tensions that come with this shift. Additionally, the epistemological processes tied to the history of science can also be seen in this response to an epidemic. The interactions between Georgetown citizens and the local as well as federal ‘officials’ mirrors much of what historians of science have discussed in regards to public knowledge. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues that public science was a form of “promot[ing] public opinion as a political force… “ as it raised tensions between scientists and the public.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This is a process seen in my case study as political tensions played a huge part in the 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak. When the outbreak first occurred, the Georgetown government officials were quick to state that it was not caused by water, saying that the few tests for (known) waterborne gastrointestinal diseases were inconclusive; however, many of the city residents did not agree and continued to argue that the disease had to be waterborne.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In fact, the local and state officials involvement in the crisis was described (quoted from a State epidemiologist) as “experts” running “difficult” tests<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> and while they failed to find any answers, the publics’ response (or rather, “rumors”) point towards a possible sewage leak being responsible for the epidemic.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> This description of experts running complex tests was a reaffirmation to the public that even though scientists have not found evidence regarding the source or cause of the epidemic, they are trying. At the same time—in fact, before—the “rumors” of a sewage leakage causing the disease was a way for the public to affirm their own political influence. These tension between the public and the Georgetown officials as well as the tensions between municipal and federal officials reaffirms the historical ‘deficit model’ characterized by the assumption of a “considerable epistemological inferiority between experts and receivers of scientific discourse.”<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> The very first mention of the 1980 outbreak in The Williamson County Sun was a small story that gave the initial responses by Georgetown officials and experts.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> It discussed how a few people (mostly old and young individuals) have been hospitalized by an unknown illness. A local doctor was quoted as saying “it is just plain old intestinal flu” and affirms that “the water supply has been checked and found to be perfectly safe. This is strictly a viral infection.”<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> Three days later, the front page of the weekly newspaper was strictly about the epidemic. The same local doctor and the city manager refuted the popular theory amongst people about the illness (that it was a result of pesticide use) and apparently repeated statements such as “we’ve never seen anything like this before.”<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The writer cited two “passerby” who firmly believed the illness to be sourced from the water supply. The writer continued and cited the director of the Williamson County Health Department who said “you can’t just hand a bottle of water over to a laboratory and ask them to tell you what’s in it… you’ve got to know what you’re looking for.”<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> The tests that were conducted were for the presence of E. Coli and when they returned negative, the city manager reported “that ought to relieve some minds as far as the water is concerned” and the local doctor said “I believe we can now start looking elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> But the city residents did not agree. The local officials’ claim disregarding a waterborne illness would continue until the state and federal agencies got involved.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These initial responses portray the tension between everyday people and local/federal governments regarding disease and how to deal with it. As historian Nieto-Galan noted that experts often downplay certain risks seen as dangerous by lay people, “while the latter question the authority and legitimacy of the experts.”<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The Georgetown local officials disagreed with the public while the former disagreed with federal officials. The 1980 Georgetown outbreak of gastrointestinal disease occurred before federal funding to the EPA was cut so one would assume that the event was entirely under control. However, that was not the case. Instead, the outbreak was a convoluted case that had disagreements and tensions between people from multiple levels of power. To search for a top-down approach or bottom-up approach within this case study would take much more time and even then, such a dichotomy can not be entirely defined when looking into the societal influences that go into the history of science. Before the outbreak, the influence of the local and municipal government simply relied on the use of manually adjusted chlorine injections to clean their water, it was not till after the event that the systems saw an upgrade.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> During the outbreak, the rhetoric made by Georgetown officials displayed a scenario where the experts held the truth and were in control of the situation when in fact, they weren’t. It could be argued that the virus that caused the 1980 outbreak was Cryptosporidium and because it’s waterborne qualities were not known at the time, it made sense that there was no testing for it. However, even that argument does not take away the power dynamics at play when the city officials/experts refuted the idea of a water supply problem simply on the basis that E. Coli was not found. The 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak in Georgetown Texas is a clear example of how disease is much more than a biological threat. It exists within a society and is thus influenced by a number of complex sociocultural phenomena. This case study gives students and historians of science the chance to understand how political and social power dynamics influence a historical response to epidemics on the grounds of policies and epistemology. These complex relationships between disease and societal factors are important to understand, now more than ever. As we survive through the COVID-19 pandemic and transition into a new post COVID-19 world, these are the historical actors we must pay attention to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Saul Zuniga Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> D'Antonio RG, Winn RE, Taylor JP, Gustafson TL, Current WL, Rhodes MM, Gary GW Jr, and Zajac RA. “A Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Normal Hosts.” Annals of Internal Medicine 103, no. 6 (1985): 886–88. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Geological Society of America. Meeting (125th : 2013 : Denver, Colo.). Caves and Karst Across Time. Edited by Joshua Feinberg, Yongli Gao, and E. C Alexander. Special Papers / Geological Society of America, 516. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 2016. 56. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Andrews, Richard N. L., Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy 2 nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 249. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Richard Andrews, Managing the Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 255-56. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318–21. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> D’Antonio, “Normal Hosts,” 886-888. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> “Nationwide Attention,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 52, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 102. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness…” 13. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Emily Baker, “Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 6, June 26, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> “Virus sweeps Georgetown” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 51, June 15, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 210. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Mysterious Illness Strikes Thousands in City Subject The topic of the resource A case study into the history of waterborne gastrointestinal disease Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williamson County Sun. Editors and authors: Ray Jones, Emily Barker, Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Williamson County Sun Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Thursday, June 19, 1980 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newspaper Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Vol . 104, no. 5 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/522d89b4898740a40c0b0403a89eda3e.jpg 6408f41a0b079297e97a703c7081647a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Gastrointestinal Disease Hits Georgetown, Texas Description An account of the resource In the Summer of 1980, the city of Georgetown was thrown into a crisis when an outbreak of a mysterious gastrointestinal disease took the city by storm, infecting thousands within a week or two and businesses closed under the pressure.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Subsequent research culminated in a scientific article published 2 years later and confirmed local suspicions of a waterborne disease being the culprit however the primary viral agent was (and still) not identified.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Four years later, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in Braun Station, a small town near San Antonio and it’s waterborne qualities were identified for the first time.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Both towns received water from the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and both incidents contributed to changes in wastewater regulations for said aquifer.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> These two events are tied to the history of waterborne gastrointestinal epidemics and can be used to analyze how Georgetown responded to sudden outbreaks. The larger changes of environmental policies in the 1970s and 80s explain the different approaches in both cases of gastrointestinal disease These years saw an increase in environmental protection policies and the years that followed were defined by the public's response to them. In his monograph Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, Richard Andrews, a professor of environmental policies, writes about the long history of environmental policies in the United States. Andrews argues that the federal environmental policies of the 1970s could be summarized by the assertion of national standards and the cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to implement them.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, during the early 1980s, this federal initiative to control the environment would come under attack as President Ronald Reagan took office and dismantled many of them.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> These developments contextualize the state of environmental policies leading up to and during the Georgetown epidemics of gastrointestinal disease. From all of this, these outbreaks of gastrointestinal diseases become much more understandable at the state and municipal levels. First, it brings up the question of how the changes in federal support may have influenced the research done by the City of Georgetown (1980) and of that done by the local government at Braun Station (1984-85). Secondly, the developments leading up to 1980 construct a setting in which there is a clear divide in power between the federal government and the local municipal entities. These contextual insights become visible when looking at the primary sources of the different outbreaks. When comparing the primary scientific articles published for both epidemics, one immediately sees a difference in the extent of federal aid. The article that compiles the research done for the 1980 Georgetown outbreak was published under the journal American Water Works Association and supported by grants given by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health while also being assisted by the Williamson County Health Department.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> Whereas the article regarding the outbreak in Braun Station was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and gives acknowledgments to the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, and was in cooperation with local medical centers.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Furthermore, the reaction by those who wrote for the Williamson County Sun during the summer of 1980 depicted the local community and officials being fed up by the amount of involvement by state and federal entities. One writer talks about how the event has put their small city under an unwanted national spotlight and that they now have to, unfortunately, deal with the National Center for Disease Control and the EPA.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Another talks about the tensions between local city manager Leo Wood and Texas state officials over the legitimacy of the state officials’ claim that the sickness is likely being transmitted through the city water supply.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> These primary sources show that the 1980 case study of gastrointestinal disease in Georgetown occured right before funding was cut to federal environmental funding. They also point out a shift in power dynamics. The first paper was funded by federal agencies who gave money to local institutions to conduct the work (similar to Andrews’ claims) while the second paper was entirely conducted and funded by local and state agencies. This long-term shift from a multi directional to an entirely localized approach to environmental policies show the years between 1980-1984 as being defined by the political tensions that come with this shift. Additionally, the epistemological processes tied to the history of science can also be seen in this response to an epidemic. The interactions between Georgetown citizens and the local as well as federal ‘officials’ mirrors much of what historians of science have discussed in regards to public knowledge. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues that public science was a form of “promot[ing] public opinion as a political force… “ as it raised tensions between scientists and the public.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This is a process seen in my case study as political tensions played a huge part in the 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak. When the outbreak first occurred, the Georgetown government officials were quick to state that it was not caused by water, saying that the few tests for (known) waterborne gastrointestinal diseases were inconclusive; however, many of the city residents did not agree and continued to argue that the disease had to be waterborne.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In fact, the local and state officials involvement in the crisis was described (quoted from a State epidemiologist) as “experts” running “difficult” tests<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> and while they failed to find any answers, the publics’ response (or rather, “rumors”) point towards a possible sewage leak being responsible for the epidemic.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> This description of experts running complex tests was a reaffirmation to the public that even though scientists have not found evidence regarding the source or cause of the epidemic, they are trying. At the same time—in fact, before—the “rumors” of a sewage leakage causing the disease was a way for the public to affirm their own political influence. These tension between the public and the Georgetown officials as well as the tensions between municipal and federal officials reaffirms the historical ‘deficit model’ characterized by the assumption of a “considerable epistemological inferiority between experts and receivers of scientific discourse.”<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> The very first mention of the 1980 outbreak in The Williamson County Sun was a small story that gave the initial responses by Georgetown officials and experts.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> It discussed how a few people (mostly old and young individuals) have been hospitalized by an unknown illness. A local doctor was quoted as saying “it is just plain old intestinal flu” and affirms that “the water supply has been checked and found to be perfectly safe. This is strictly a viral infection.”<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> Three days later, the front page of the weekly newspaper was strictly about the epidemic. The same local doctor and the city manager refuted the popular theory amongst people about the illness (that it was a result of pesticide use) and apparently repeated statements such as “we’ve never seen anything like this before.”<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The writer cited two “passerby” who firmly believed the illness to be sourced from the water supply. The writer continued and cited the director of the Williamson County Health Department who said “you can’t just hand a bottle of water over to a laboratory and ask them to tell you what’s in it… you’ve got to know what you’re looking for.”<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> The tests that were conducted were for the presence of E. Coli and when they returned negative, the city manager reported “that ought to relieve some minds as far as the water is concerned” and the local doctor said “I believe we can now start looking elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> But the city residents did not agree. The local officials’ claim disregarding a waterborne illness would continue until the state and federal agencies got involved.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These initial responses portray the tension between everyday people and local/federal governments regarding disease and how to deal with it. As historian Nieto-Galan noted that experts often downplay certain risks seen as dangerous by lay people, “while the latter question the authority and legitimacy of the experts.”<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The Georgetown local officials disagreed with the public while the former disagreed with federal officials. The 1980 Georgetown outbreak of gastrointestinal disease occurred before federal funding to the EPA was cut so one would assume that the event was entirely under control. However, that was not the case. Instead, the outbreak was a convoluted case that had disagreements and tensions between people from multiple levels of power. To search for a top-down approach or bottom-up approach within this case study would take much more time and even then, such a dichotomy can not be entirely defined when looking into the societal influences that go into the history of science. Before the outbreak, the influence of the local and municipal government simply relied on the use of manually adjusted chlorine injections to clean their water, it was not till after the event that the systems saw an upgrade.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> During the outbreak, the rhetoric made by Georgetown officials displayed a scenario where the experts held the truth and were in control of the situation when in fact, they weren’t. It could be argued that the virus that caused the 1980 outbreak was Cryptosporidium and because it’s waterborne qualities were not known at the time, it made sense that there was no testing for it. However, even that argument does not take away the power dynamics at play when the city officials/experts refuted the idea of a water supply problem simply on the basis that E. Coli was not found. The 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak in Georgetown Texas is a clear example of how disease is much more than a biological threat. It exists within a society and is thus influenced by a number of complex sociocultural phenomena. This case study gives students and historians of science the chance to understand how political and social power dynamics influence a historical response to epidemics on the grounds of policies and epistemology. These complex relationships between disease and societal factors are important to understand, now more than ever. As we survive through the COVID-19 pandemic and transition into a new post COVID-19 world, these are the historical actors we must pay attention to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Saul Zuniga Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> D'Antonio RG, Winn RE, Taylor JP, Gustafson TL, Current WL, Rhodes MM, Gary GW Jr, and Zajac RA. “A Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Normal Hosts.” Annals of Internal Medicine 103, no. 6 (1985): 886–88. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Geological Society of America. Meeting (125th : 2013 : Denver, Colo.). Caves and Karst Across Time. Edited by Joshua Feinberg, Yongli Gao, and E. C Alexander. Special Papers / Geological Society of America, 516. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 2016. 56. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Andrews, Richard N. L., Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy 2 nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 249. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Richard Andrews, Managing the Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 255-56. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318–21. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> D’Antonio, “Normal Hosts,” 886-888. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> “Nationwide Attention,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 52, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 102. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness…” 13. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Emily Baker, “Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 6, June 26, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> “Virus sweeps Georgetown” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 51, June 15, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 210. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Nationwide Attention Subject The topic of the resource A case study into the history of waterborne gastrointestinal disease Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williamson County Sun. Editors and authors: Ray Jones, Emily Barker, Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Williamson County Sun