1 10 39 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/6c2c8a94b6f17648875b360f837d6ec6.jpg 9090c09d0d7bcb9cf0ce0f979d430f7d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Psychology at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource During my time at Southwestern University, I have been able to be enrolled in many wonderful classes. Each course has been extremely unique and worthwhile. In the course entitled, Popularizing Science, we study the history of science and how many aspects of it have progressed greatly. We learn just how important science is to society as well as the past, present, and future. The goal of this class is to learn about how it affects the world. Southwestern University is just one of the many unique places where history changes constantly. Countless people have seen Southwestern’s growth throughout the years which allows for much research to be done. Due to the Special Collections department in the library, historians have been able to keep very valuable items in tack. These items include old article clippings, lectures, clothing, and even course catalogs from the beginning of the school's establishment. Many of the following sources are from Special Collections as well as scholarly articles and books. The goal of this paper is to display how I as a student can display the changing concepts of psychology by showing past items and explaining the significance of their change throughout the decades at Southwestern University. Throughout the past weeks, I have been able to collect many different forms of data and historical records about Southwestern University. The focus of my research has been the progression of the psychology department throughout the decades. My passion for this comes from the fact that I intend to major in psychology. Psychology has always been a subject of interest. As many people have learned, psychology can be applied in mostly any situation, which truly makes it one of the most diverse subjects. There are many concepts and theories that can be implemented in daily life. This is so essential that Southwestern University decided to introduce it as a major and minor. During the mid-1900s, Southwestern created the first psychology course <a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. In the beginning, it was slowly implemented into the education department. Some of the classes that involved psychology include “principles of education”, “school management”, “educational psychology” and “educational sociology”. This knowledge is found from a Southwestern University course catalog. During that time the professor of psychology was Oscar A. Ullrich.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Due to the fact that those were the beginning classes the full implementation of psychology was brief yet impactful. The The class “Principles of Education” in the mid-1900s at Southwestern University, hoped to discuss the psychological, administrative, and social phases of education. By implementing psychology into this class they were able to see the different ways of handling situations that come regularly in schools. Because there is such a diverse amount of ages in school, it is key to learn how to deal with certain situations within that age group. Another class mentioned was “School Management”, which focused on the discussion of the responsibilities and problems involved in the management of schools and how they are treated. This also goes along the lines of how important psychology is. Secondly, “Educational Sociology” was a course of interest because this class discusses the training of social efficiency and the gradual changes in the demands made upon school due to present social conditions and the principal lines of thought pursued. Finally, the educational psychology class is split into two parts. An introductory course in psychology was the beginning and their students would study lecture readings and have plenty of discussions with Professor Davidson. As for part two in educational psychology, topics discussed were the original laws of learning, individual differences, and the relation to education. Two of the texts that they read were Thorndike's “Educational Psychology'' and Colvin’s “The Learning Process”. All of these courses were explained in the Southwestern University catalog in Special Collections. Furthermore, I was fortunate enough to find a test from a psychology test entitled “Psychology 331” from Special Collections.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> This test was really helpful because he gave me an insight into the types of questions that teachers would ask the students as well as the different levels that the students were expected to know about psychology. Here we are able to see the most relevant topics that the psychology department is teaching Southwestern students. This test was given in a way that a student must answer a question as true false but they also implemented basic knowledge questions as well as more psychological questions. This allowed for a good sense of variety as well as implementing the key values of the psychology course. An example of a true or false question is “the bee knows by instinct how to construct the honeycomb”. The next question is “the psychologist objects to you regarding flight from danger as belonging to an instinct of self-preservation because it is illogical to regard it so“. The diverse examples allow students to not just consider psychological terms or methods that were taught in class but apply them to real-life situations that they may or may not know. There are countless more tests with these same ideas. To explain this more, an example of another question on a different psychology exam was “mixing blue and yellow pigments gives green”. If anyone has ever taken an art class, they would know that the same is true but if you had not taken a psychology class before this the next question will be challenging. It states “Taste shows more sensory adaptation and smell”. In psychology for an introductory class, you learn a lot about the senses. I know because I took an introduction to psychology last semester. A test example includes a question such as “Why is depth perception critical to a person”? It is good to see how the test from the mid-1900s to now has changed but yet say the same. We are still learning the key elements of psychology but implementing it into our tests and quizzes in different ways. In the United States in the 1970s, the beginnings of development psychology came into light.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> This subfield of psychology focuses on explaining growth through the lifespan. It includes thinking, feeling, and behavior change. One of the many reasons it grew was because of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hinde">Robert Hinde's publication</a> of “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_Bases_of_Human_Social_Behavior&action=edit&redlink=1">Biological Bases of Human Social Behavior</a>”, a text in etiological-oriented developmental psychology. At Southwestern during the mid-70s, a lecture came entitled “Behavior Modification in Public Schools Clinic Settings”. This lecture took place on March 30, 1974. This particular lecture was brought here because of its importance in understanding the development of children in public school clinic settings. There are many instances where it is difficult to find a direct problem with a person, but with the helpful methods of developmental psychology, people can get a helpful insight as to how to control a rough situation. College is still a time where adolescents are growing and developing. By having this lecture come, specialists can direct the specific advice for the age range at Southwestern. Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes. This existed in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Greek.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> In the beginning, it was a branch of philosophy but eventually was broken down into an independent branch in the late 1800s. Psychology has been able to be diversified into many different subjects. For example, a business person could use psychology with human resources. The key values and concepts of psychology would help greatly in dealing with certain situations in a work environment. Today at Southwestern there are many different psychology groups on campus. There is psychology tutoring, a psychology club where you get together and do research, as well as a bunch of different research labs and activities that even non-majors can participate in. Those are just a few of the many different ways that knowledge is being communicated at Southwestern. By coming up with events, spreading awareness, and allowing specialists to come to campus to discuss certain topics with students, it is beneficial to everyone. All events that come to Southwestern to the psychology program are wonderful and allow anyone to visit whether it’s non-majors and even the public. Science will continue to grow and develop and it is key that people stay up-to-date with things because it could help us in the future in ways that we could not imagine today. The branch of psychology at Southwestern University continues to do such things and as students, it is important to implement ourselves in the opportunities given to us. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Belen Micklas Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Psychology 331, True or False Test, Page 2 and 7, Psychology Department, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Oscar A. Ullrich, Psychology Department, Faculty, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Psychology 331, True or False Test, Page 2 and 7, Psychology Department, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Greenfield, Patricia M. “The Changing Psychology of Culture From 1800 Through 2000.” Psychological Science <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> “In Search of Psychology.” From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to William James Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Dean of Psychology Description An account of the resource A picture of Oscar A. Ulrich who was the Dean of Psychology and professor at Southwestern University from 1920-1965 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/3feb004673e8504a889b32d9e6e772ed.jpg 41542ab466593763294093ac7590aabc https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/cdedc91c27c1b4b2310c118ae95ce273.jpg 74d2be0c600225ca468e0d96fce6c908 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Psychology at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource During my time at Southwestern University, I have been able to be enrolled in many wonderful classes. Each course has been extremely unique and worthwhile. In the course entitled, Popularizing Science, we study the history of science and how many aspects of it have progressed greatly. We learn just how important science is to society as well as the past, present, and future. The goal of this class is to learn about how it affects the world. Southwestern University is just one of the many unique places where history changes constantly. Countless people have seen Southwestern’s growth throughout the years which allows for much research to be done. Due to the Special Collections department in the library, historians have been able to keep very valuable items in tack. These items include old article clippings, lectures, clothing, and even course catalogs from the beginning of the school's establishment. Many of the following sources are from Special Collections as well as scholarly articles and books. The goal of this paper is to display how I as a student can display the changing concepts of psychology by showing past items and explaining the significance of their change throughout the decades at Southwestern University. Throughout the past weeks, I have been able to collect many different forms of data and historical records about Southwestern University. The focus of my research has been the progression of the psychology department throughout the decades. My passion for this comes from the fact that I intend to major in psychology. Psychology has always been a subject of interest. As many people have learned, psychology can be applied in mostly any situation, which truly makes it one of the most diverse subjects. There are many concepts and theories that can be implemented in daily life. This is so essential that Southwestern University decided to introduce it as a major and minor. During the mid-1900s, Southwestern created the first psychology course <a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. In the beginning, it was slowly implemented into the education department. Some of the classes that involved psychology include “principles of education”, “school management”, “educational psychology” and “educational sociology”. This knowledge is found from a Southwestern University course catalog. During that time the professor of psychology was Oscar A. Ullrich.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Due to the fact that those were the beginning classes the full implementation of psychology was brief yet impactful. The The class “Principles of Education” in the mid-1900s at Southwestern University, hoped to discuss the psychological, administrative, and social phases of education. By implementing psychology into this class they were able to see the different ways of handling situations that come regularly in schools. Because there is such a diverse amount of ages in school, it is key to learn how to deal with certain situations within that age group. Another class mentioned was “School Management”, which focused on the discussion of the responsibilities and problems involved in the management of schools and how they are treated. This also goes along the lines of how important psychology is. Secondly, “Educational Sociology” was a course of interest because this class discusses the training of social efficiency and the gradual changes in the demands made upon school due to present social conditions and the principal lines of thought pursued. Finally, the educational psychology class is split into two parts. An introductory course in psychology was the beginning and their students would study lecture readings and have plenty of discussions with Professor Davidson. As for part two in educational psychology, topics discussed were the original laws of learning, individual differences, and the relation to education. Two of the texts that they read were Thorndike's “Educational Psychology'' and Colvin’s “The Learning Process”. All of these courses were explained in the Southwestern University catalog in Special Collections. Furthermore, I was fortunate enough to find a test from a psychology test entitled “Psychology 331” from Special Collections.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> This test was really helpful because he gave me an insight into the types of questions that teachers would ask the students as well as the different levels that the students were expected to know about psychology. Here we are able to see the most relevant topics that the psychology department is teaching Southwestern students. This test was given in a way that a student must answer a question as true false but they also implemented basic knowledge questions as well as more psychological questions. This allowed for a good sense of variety as well as implementing the key values of the psychology course. An example of a true or false question is “the bee knows by instinct how to construct the honeycomb”. The next question is “the psychologist objects to you regarding flight from danger as belonging to an instinct of self-preservation because it is illogical to regard it so“. The diverse examples allow students to not just consider psychological terms or methods that were taught in class but apply them to real-life situations that they may or may not know. There are countless more tests with these same ideas. To explain this more, an example of another question on a different psychology exam was “mixing blue and yellow pigments gives green”. If anyone has ever taken an art class, they would know that the same is true but if you had not taken a psychology class before this the next question will be challenging. It states “Taste shows more sensory adaptation and smell”. In psychology for an introductory class, you learn a lot about the senses. I know because I took an introduction to psychology last semester. A test example includes a question such as “Why is depth perception critical to a person”? It is good to see how the test from the mid-1900s to now has changed but yet say the same. We are still learning the key elements of psychology but implementing it into our tests and quizzes in different ways. In the United States in the 1970s, the beginnings of development psychology came into light.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> This subfield of psychology focuses on explaining growth through the lifespan. It includes thinking, feeling, and behavior change. One of the many reasons it grew was because of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hinde">Robert Hinde's publication</a> of “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_Bases_of_Human_Social_Behavior&action=edit&redlink=1">Biological Bases of Human Social Behavior</a>”, a text in etiological-oriented developmental psychology. At Southwestern during the mid-70s, a lecture came entitled “Behavior Modification in Public Schools Clinic Settings”. This lecture took place on March 30, 1974. This particular lecture was brought here because of its importance in understanding the development of children in public school clinic settings. There are many instances where it is difficult to find a direct problem with a person, but with the helpful methods of developmental psychology, people can get a helpful insight as to how to control a rough situation. College is still a time where adolescents are growing and developing. By having this lecture come, specialists can direct the specific advice for the age range at Southwestern. Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes. This existed in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Greek.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> In the beginning, it was a branch of philosophy but eventually was broken down into an independent branch in the late 1800s. Psychology has been able to be diversified into many different subjects. For example, a business person could use psychology with human resources. The key values and concepts of psychology would help greatly in dealing with certain situations in a work environment. Today at Southwestern there are many different psychology groups on campus. There is psychology tutoring, a psychology club where you get together and do research, as well as a bunch of different research labs and activities that even non-majors can participate in. Those are just a few of the many different ways that knowledge is being communicated at Southwestern. By coming up with events, spreading awareness, and allowing specialists to come to campus to discuss certain topics with students, it is beneficial to everyone. All events that come to Southwestern to the psychology program are wonderful and allow anyone to visit whether it’s non-majors and even the public. Science will continue to grow and develop and it is key that people stay up-to-date with things because it could help us in the future in ways that we could not imagine today. The branch of psychology at Southwestern University continues to do such things and as students, it is important to implement ourselves in the opportunities given to us. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Belen Micklas Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Psychology 331, True or False Test, Page 2 and 7, Psychology Department, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Oscar A. Ullrich, Psychology Department, Faculty, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Psychology 331, True or False Test, Page 2 and 7, Psychology Department, Special Collections <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Greenfield, Patricia M. “The Changing Psychology of Culture From 1800 Through 2000.” Psychological Science <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> “In Search of Psychology.” From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to William James Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Psychology 331 Test Questions Subject The topic of the resource Psychology Description An account of the resource Psychology 331 test questions that are true or false Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Special Collections Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1942 Language A language of the resource English https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/4e13b433a81cfa1a3ff1270d79d527f3.jpg 941ce1e1cf55dd9789472e6748cc566a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Woman and Science at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource Women's pursuit of an equal, in-depth, high-level education as adults has met many stumbling blocks over the centuries: inferior standards or the complete absence of education, beliefs in women's intellectual inferiority, and worries that education in non-domestic subjects wouldn't adequately prepare women for their "natural" role as wives and mothers. Both people and institutions of higher education have had their opinion on this subject throughout history and they have used varying approaches from religion to science to defend their opinion. Dr. Estelle Ramey’s guest lecture on November 5, 1971 titled Why Bother to Educate Women given at Southwestern University takes established scientific results to continue the argument that women should be educated. This lecture took a scientific approach to tackle not only a social but political issue. It is crucial to look both at the historical context and issues in the history of science to further analyze and understand the role Dr. Estelle Ramey’s lecture at Southwestern University plays in the scheme of the history of science at Southwestern. Dr. Estelle Ramey taught chemistry at the University of Tennessee, was Assistant Professor in the Department of Physiology at the University of Chicago Medical School where she taught endocrinology, and at the time of the lecture, was a professor of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University Medical School. In both of the latter institutions she completed extensive research in the area of the relationship of glands and the nervous system to stress responses. In 1970 Dr. Edgar Bergman, a physician, made headlines when he suggested that women were unfit to hold positions of responsibility because of their “raging hormonal influences.” This was too much for Dr. Estelle Ramey. She debated Dr. Bergman in a national forum and used her established scientific research to defend her argument, which has had a tremendous effect on the topic. Although she is the main person leading the communication process, there were additional characters that played a role in the communication process. The lecture was sponsored Southwestern University’s organizations including the Ideas and Issues Committee of the Union, the Association of Women Students, the Office of the Dean of Students, and the Office of the Chaplain. As stated previously, the lecture was a result of a debate between Dr. Estelle Ramey and Dr. Edgar Bergman after a comment was made that women were unfit to hold positions of responsibility due to hormonal differences. Steven Shapin in his article said, “Indeed, it might be said (in the canonical version) that science has progressively shed its public and circumscribed the role of the public, as well as that on non-scientific intellectuals, in scientific affairs.” Just as intellectuals have used, and in Dr. Ramey’s case did use scientific research as a political force, the public turned to science to continue and find support in science to make their case for women’s rights. Bruce Lewenstein added to the definition of popularization by saying that it is, “not only simplifications of technical information, but also sites for expressing new ideas about the natural world.” In the 1970’s people were trying to make sense of the natural world and most importantly, women were trying to find a more equal role in society amongst men. Furthermore, what Dr. Estelle Ramey is arguing in her lecture is discussed in A History of Science: A Beginners Guide where Johnston says, “As Bacon and Oldenburg had suggested, women were commonly identified as having the wrong emotional nature to pursue science. Later medical men suggested that female intellectual capacity was also suspect, theorizing that physiological demands of menstruation, childbirth and nurturing of children chronically limited their abilities to think abstractly.” This is particularly interesting when taking into consideration that Dr. Estelle Ramey was the Assistant Professor in the Department of Physiology of the University of Chicago Medical School where she taught endocrinology, and at the time of the lecture, was a professor of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University Medical School. This not only makes her a legitimate source to refute this idea, but also makes her a perfect example of how the claim is false. Furthermore, Johnston in chapter 7 says, “Social history, a branch of historical studies that had been growing since the 1950s, called attention to ‘history from below’. Its proponents argued that social norms and beliefs could arise from, and be sustained by, the masses rather than from figures of authority. Applied to the history of science, social history focused on audiences and different portions of the public – by class, education, occupation or national origin – rather than on men and women of science.” This is a topic that arose in the history of science that occurred approximately 20 years prior to Dr. Ramey’s lecture and clearly this was an issue prior to, but the fact that this examination in history was occurring as she was critiquing and challenging the view of women through science reinforces the importance social aspects were playing in not only science but the history of science. Dr. Estelle Ramey stated, “As an endocrinologist in good standing, I was startled to learn that ovarian hormones are toxic to brain cells.” This opening statement is referencing her reaction to Dr. Edgar Berman’s comments that women shouldn’t be given roles of leadership or even the right to hold any position of authority outside the confines of “natural” women roles due to their raging hormonal influences. She went on to remind the public that during the Cuban missile crisis, the nation had a president who suffered from a severe hormonal imbalance: John F. Kennedy, who had Addison’s disease, an endocrine disorder, was in a position of authority and leadership during a very stressful and detrimental time of coherency. Furthermore, Dr. Estelle Ramey contended that not only do women handle their “raging hormonal influences” quite well, but one of those hormones, estrogen, actually gives women “the protoplasmic edge” over men. In addition to this, she has even gone further and stated that men seem to be at a natural hormonal disadvantage as men are more inclined toward aggression, die sooner and are more prone to heart attacks and strokes. The focus of Dr. Estelle Ramey’s research was on the connections between stress and hormones and her overall approach to why bother educating women centers around the women’s natural ability due to hormones to handle stressful situations quite well. Ultimately this case study is about a debate that started and was being had on a national level, therefore this case study pertains to a population bigger than just the Southwestern community. However, it is remarkable that a university of our size has had the opportunity to participate in such a historical moment and openly embraced this dialogue at a time where the controversy was at its peak. The relationship between the public and the expert, though one-sided due to the format of the presentation, grappled with the common belief that women should be educated. I believe the communication of science in this case aims at more than just increasing knowledge and translating the information to a lay public in the most understandable way possible. Rather, it also aims at changing a political climate and societal roles, which at that point in time was a major event occurring in our society. It is interesting to see how science was used to argue and support an opinion and how that opinion could have become a fact with the establishment of scientific research. It is evident that we need to understand both the historical context and issues in the history of science to evaluate and appreciate the role Dr. Estelle Ramey’s lecture at Southwestern University played in the greater narrative of the history of science at Southwestern, but also nationally because the conversation of females in science is continuously developing. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gissell C. Perez Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Steven Shapin, “Science and the Public,” in Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by R. C. Olby, G. N. Cantor, J. R. R. Christie and M J. S. Hodge, London Routledge, 1990, 991 Bruce V. Lewenstein, “Popularization,” in The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by John L. Heilborn, Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ.Press, 2003, 667-668. Johnston, Sean F.. History of Science: A Beginner's Guide (Beginner's Guides), Ch 6. Oneworld Publications. Kindle Edition. Johnston, Sean F.. History of Science: A Beginner's Guide (Beginner's Guides), Ch 7. Oneworld Publications. Kindle Edition. Ramey, Estelle. Why Bother to Educate Women. Lecture, Southwestern University Ramey, Estelle. Why Bother to Educate Women. Lecture, Southwestern University Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Why Bother to Educate Women? Subject The topic of the resource Science Education Description An account of the resource Manuscript detailing Dr. Ramey’s guest lecture at SU Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Southwestern Univ. – Lecture Series/Special Events Box 2, Folder4 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 5, 1971 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Image, jpeg Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/938038facce8f368f68a75a092bcc48f.jpg 0d904ae850a2c00b67d738a3e91bb3d6 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/d22acf1b5dfc00499d48568188cdac36.jpg a5c25eef35d781101e7276e54d03efcc https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/c44c49e9129db097bb6a87702e5914c1.jpg bc1b874919dc199294e697278cd06716 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/12f63a0806dcc03f417981d26995b563.jpg 821822bfdf2f41314d967400c1bb56af Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Learning about the Human Genome Project Description An account of the resource With the introduction of the Brown Symposium lecture series in 1978, Southwestern University continued to expand its education of a broad range of topics. Through the endowment of the Brown Foundation Inc., the Brown Symposium brings scientists, scholars, artists, and other individuals to Southwestern to present their ideas and work to students, faculty, and the public.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> One notable Brown Symposium was the Twentieth Brown Symposium in 1998, titled “The Human Genome Project: Advances, Repercussions and Challenges.”<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> At that symposium, seven lectures were presented to give the attendees a better understanding and appreciation of the project. The Human Genome Project (HGP) began in 1990 and was an international, collaborative research program to completely map and understand all the genes in human beings, known as the human “genome.”<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Since the project was expected to be completed in 2005, the 1998 symposium provided a great opportunity to discuss past, current and future work on the project. As the chairperson for the Twentieth Brown Symposium, Dr. Vicente Villa, (Professor of Biology at Southwestern University) organized the event and selected four pioneers in genetics to speak: Dr. Nancy Wexler, (Higgins Professor of Neuropsychology at the Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry of the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and President of the Hereditary Disease Foundation); Dr. Leroy Hood, (Founder and Chairman for the Department of Molecular Biotechnology at the University of Washington); Dr. C. Thomas Caskey, (Senior Vice President for Research at Merck Research Laboratories); and Dr. Susan Henry, (Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics at Cornell University).<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> Over two days, they presented attendees with different ideas regarding the work and implications of the HGP. Dr. Wexler gave the opening and the closing lectures. During her opening lecture “Venezuela to Victory,” she discussed how she began researching Huntington’s Disease in 1979 because she had multiple family members with the disease. Hoping to discover the gene for the disease and eventually a cure, she assembled a group called the Huntington’s Disease Collaborative Research Group. They examined the blood of a large family in Venezuela with many members who had Huntington’s to find any commonalities in their DNA. After three years, they found a marker close to the Huntington’s gene on chromosome 4 and noticed the DNA there was different for those with the disease. After further study, the group observed that the gene contained DNA that featured the repeating sequence of bases CAG, which tells the body to produce the amino acid glutamine, which appears in excess in people with other diseases. Although Dr. Wexler had not yet discovered a cure by the time of the symposium, she encouraged others to help.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> For Dr. Wexler’s closing lecture, “The Oracle of DNA: Repercussions of the Human Genome Project,” she focused on potential outcomes of the HGP and how it was creating issues that were important not just for scientists, but for everyone to discuss. In her lecture, she pointed out a gap between finding a gene for a genetic disorder and knowing what to do with that knowledge, which was causing debate among those facing discrimination for genetic disorders. When people want to learn more about their genes, only they should be able to give consent. Dr. Wexler then showed interviews of individuals tested for Huntington’s disease and discussed their reactions after discovering that they had Huntington’s disease and the probability of having a genetic mutation. Lastly, she discussed the problems that occur when people want to manipulate genes to clone humans or control the characteristics of future generations, which could seriously complicate the diversity and acceptance of the modern age.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> Dr. Hood followed Dr. Wexler on the first day of the symposium and preceded her on the second day. During Dr. Hood’s lecture “Genomics and the Analysis of Complex Biological Systems,” he discussed the development of instruments to interface with computers to better analyze data, along with the revolutionary potential of biology. He stated that biology consists of biological information, which occurred in three places: in DNA, in Messenger RNA and in complex systems and networks. By understanding the information of DNA encoded in genes, experts could better understand the sequence of the DNA, and how it affects different genes and cells. Also, since information in Messenger RNA is converted to amino acids in proteins, it allowed scientists to understand what determines the structure of a protein, and how that structure indicates the function. Lastly, understanding the information of biological systems would help researchers understand the components of different systems, along with their interactions and functions. Dr. Hood mentioned that biological information, systems and networks are similar to computer programming languages, systems and networks, meaning that HGP and advancements in computer science can benefit from each other.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> During Dr. Hood’s second lecture, titled “Genomics, Immunity, Development, and Cancer,” he discussed how scientists wanted to improve medicine by analyzing biological systems and information in three different model organisms: yeast, urchins, and mice. Yeast was a single-celled organism used to define biological complexity and help researchers understand how drugs worked for specific phenomena, like DNA reparation or replication. The genetic rules of the sea urchin made it effective for deciphering the language that regulates and controls its genes. The mouse is more complex and has an immune system so was used to understand how information travels in systems. Mice could also be used to study and possibly cure diseases, and to determine the functions of genes affected by diseases. Since scientists were aware that some genes may cause diseases or predispose someone to a specific disease, they expected the HGP would identify those genes in people and allow for a sooner treatment.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Dr. Caskey gave two lectures on the first day of the symposium. During his lecture titled “Genome Science Drives New Drug Development,” he focused on an application of the HGP. Although at the time of this symposium, the HGP was still being conducted, people were already considering the applications for the knowledge that would be gained from the project. Since many diseases were related to genes and hereditary, drug development and therapeutic development were expecting to benefit. Dr. Caskey discussed how Merck and other companies were still determining how to use the information being generated and the technologies being developed for the HGP to develop new drugs.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> During Dr. Caskey’s second lecture titled “Bypass Bypasses by Gene Therapy,” he discussed how Merck was studying new delivery vectors to transport (deliver) the genetic material into the target (recipient) for neovascularization and other gene therapies. They were seeing promising results with it stimulating the growth of new blood vessels to bypass restricted or blocked vessels. Although gene therapy was still in early development, Dr. Caskey’s lecture demonstrated scientists were eagerly working on applications for the knowledge of the human genome.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> Between Dr. Caskey’s two lectures, Dr. Henry gave a single lecture titled “Not Only Human! What Are We Learning from Those Other Genomes?” While the HGP focused on the human genome, Dr. Henry mentioned that dozens of other genome projects were mapping other organisms, since it was considered immoral to experiment regularly on humans. The organisms that were selected were ones in “which it [was] easier to carry out the functional genomics, [including what] all of those genes do.”<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This could be done by modifying the genes of other organisms, and to determine how that modification could have an effect on the genes in humans, where in a cell or organism a gene product is located, and which gene products interact with each other. One organism whose genome had already been completed a year prior to the symposium was baker’s year, which was used to understand gene functions. Other organisms were chosen since there are important human pathogen, like Hemophilus influenza. Although they were not as large as the human genome, they did provide an idea of what could be learned from the human genome itself.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> On January 22 and January 29, issues of The Megaphone contained articles about the symposium and the HGP. The former was published on the first day of the symposium, and gave some background for the HGP, as well as brief descriptions for both how the Brown Symposium would operate and the names and qualifications of the lecturers. It also featured a short Q&A from Dr. Villa, which not only explained the backstory and purposes of the project, but also touched on the fact that those working on the project needed to consider ethical problems.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> The latter included the opinions of some attendees, many of whom were impressed by the lectures, finding them highly informative. Some attendees appreciated when lecturers spoke in terms that were easier to understand, and others praised Dr. Villa for organizing the symposium. One of those points that was given was that although many college students majoring in the sciences may consider the HGP understandable to only a few individuals, “with the increasing rate of technological growth in this field [of science], no one can get left behind.”<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> As demonstrated by those issues, the 1998 Brown Symposium helped the Southwestern community and the public better understand the HGP. Thus, the attendees to the 1998 Brown Symposium gained a better understanding and appreciation of the HGP, even five years before its completion. By having experts from different scientific backgrounds present at the symposium, the Southwestern faculty provided the attendees with a lot of information regarding the work that was being conducted for the HGP and the impacts that it could have for the world. Without the different points of view regarding the project, the symposium would not have been as informative as it was. In fact, it was thanks to the 1998 Brown Symposium that the Southwestern community and the people of Georgetown were able to understand work being conducted for the HGP and the goals of the project. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Carson Vogel Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “Brown Symposium,” Academics, Southwestern <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> The Human Genome Project: Advancements, Repercussions & Challenges. Southwestern University, 1998. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “What is the Human Genome Project?,” National Human Genome Research Institute, accessed May 8, 2020, https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/What <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> The Human Genome Project: Advancements, Repercussions & Challenges. Southwestern University, 1998. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Nancy S. Wexler, “Venezuela to Victory.” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 22, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Nancy S. Wexler, “The Oracle of DNA: Repercussions of the Human Genome Project” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 23, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Leroy Hood, “Genomics and the Analysis of Complex Biological Systems.” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 22, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Leroy Hood, “Genomics, Immunity, Development and Cancer” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 23, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Thomas C. Caskey, “Genome Science Drives New Drug Development” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 22, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Thomas C. Caskey, “Bypass Bypasses by Gene Therapy” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, January 22, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Susan A. Henry, “Not Only Human! What Are We Learning from Those Other Genomes?” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Susan A. Henry, “Not Only Human! What Are We Learning from Those Other Genomes?” (Lecture, Southwestern University, Georgetown, 1998). <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Trinh, Tina. “Q & A: Villa discusses Human Genome Project.” The Megaphone. January 22, 1998. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634654/. <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Newton, Adam P. “Brown Symposium XX: recapping a success.” The Megaphone. January 29, 1998. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634905/ Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Human Genome Project: Advances, Repercussions, & Challenges Description An account of the resource This item is a brochure for the twentieth Brown Symposium, which took place in 1998 and focused on many aspects of the Human Genome Project. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Southwestern University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource January, 1998 Language A language of the resource English https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/daf96b73b6ca30e8e558e114fd9ce452.jpeg b5ee3f03b64e84233663b9e0f8f0b0cb Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of the Bausch and Lomb microscope at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource Throughout the history of biological studies at Southwestern University, the microscope has provided students with a vital tool to observe microscopic subjects when the bare human eye couldn’t. In this case study we will be observing this early 1900s era Bausch & Lomb microscope by using the whiggism methodological approach. By using the whiggism methodological approach we will be able to intemperate this instrument with our present-day perspectives. We will review the importance of the biological sciences and the contributions of this scientific instrument. We will also observe how this microscope earned its place in the history of the Southwestern Biology department. We will look into the history of Bausch & Lomb and understand how and why Southwestern University chose this microscope. Then we will observe the importance of this microscope to the students’ academic experience at Southwestern. To understand the importance of this scientific tool we must understand the subject that this tool falls in. The study of Biological sciences has contributed to the greater good of humanity by granting us the opportunity to seek further then our eye can see to understand advancements in medical and environmental phenomena. Since the creation of the microscope, academics and scientists have been able to observe objects that the bare human eye cannot see. This instrument provided scientists the ability to comprehend the results from their experiments by having the advantage over their normal vision. The microscope also granted academics and medical studies the ability to explain biological phenomena and methods. This instrument resulted in an increased spread of academic and medical progress by allowing people to physically observe biological advancements in depth. This instrument allowed students to visually experience discoveries and learn concepts that will guide them to comprehend the theories being taught. This instrument contributes to the education of elementary school introduction to biological studies. Supporting this, Susan Green and Julian Smith III describes in their article Small Things Draw Big Interest, “We introduced microscopy to third-grade classes. As a result, students have shown more interest in science and their grades have improved” . This evidence helps us determine that the microscope have been proven to contribute to an increase in interest from elementary students for biological sciences. Like the elementary students, students at the university level have proven that microscopes are essential to progress in biological sciences at their level. James Strick states an example of microscopes being critical in his book Wilhelm Reich Biologist, “Reich stressed that what high magnifications were critical from was not distinguishing fine details of structure, but rather for being able to see details of movements clearly enough to distinguish” . With this evidence we can come to a determination that the power of the microscope has proven to help biologists at the university level study new concepts and methods. Therefore, the microscope has brought a lasting impact from elementary level to university level studies in biology. Now that we have come to understanding on the importance of the fields this magnificent tool has taken part in, we can now observe the microscope itself and its purpose. Once the microscope was only for the labs of the scientist, but this simple constructed tool has become marketed and mass-produced so the public can participate in biological studies. Public participation in the biological sciences has made it possible for the public to investigate phenomena themselves. The microscope communicates knowledge of the biological sciences by providing both the scientists and the public the ability to understand their environment and themselves. An example of how scientists used the microscope to understand their environment and themselves in the book Seven Under the Microscope by Kristin Johannsen when she stated, “They’re almost beautiful as they slowly drift along with these dazzling, transparent shapes beneath the lens of a microscope” . Since the microscope is a mass-produced scientific tool, it has become common that academic institutions implement this instrument to communicate scientific methods and theories to students who wish to pursue the scientific field. The relationship between the experts and the public is the microscope itself. The microscope allows the public with little scientific experience to observe items just the same as experienced scientists. Agusti Nieto-Galan states in his book Science in the Public Sphere, “Curious people enthusiastically waiting to view spectacular physics or chemistry experiments” . Which provides both scientific professions and pubic the ability to investigate phenomena. The people that are involved in this communication between biological scientists and the public are those who market microscopes. The microscope industry mass produces microscopes to the public that are similar to the microscopic instruments that those in the scientific professions use to research their methods. Henceforth, the simplicity of the microscope has allowed itself to be mass-produced. Which allowed scientists to better communicate their theories and methods behind biological phenomena to the public. Henceforth, we can understand the microscope and its purpose. Now that we have come to the understanding of the microscope and its purpose to academia. We can now observe Bausch & Lomb and their history of creating quality microscopes. Which will then lead us to our next step of this journey to understand why Southwestern chose this scientific tool and observe this antique artifact’s distinctions that made this microscope the scientific tool of choice by the faculty and students at Southwestern University. In 1853, a 23-year-old German immigrant John Jacob Bausch with 2 years of experience as an optical lens grinder in Switzerland, established a little optical equipment shop of his own in Rochester, New York. As he needed more capital to continue his Business, Bausch acquired an investment of $60 from his friend, Henry Lomb. In return Bausch made a commitment that if his small business flourished, Lomb would then become a full partner. As the business flourished so did the partnership. In the adolescence of the partnership the main product that the business produced was a state-of-the-art eyeglass frame that was constructed of rubber. Other miniscule products that were sold ranged from a variety of optical marchandise that were made to a high standard of precision engenuity. By the 1890s, the growing company had begun a revolutionary product change by developing and manufacturing optical products such as binoculars, microscopes, lenses for spectacles and telescopes. Supporting this John Simkin states in his newsletter titled John Jacob Bausch,“In 1876 the company began manufacturing microscopes. Later that year the Bausch & Lomb Optical Company won a distinction at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition” . Though the company reached new markets, they still maintained their reputation for high quality optical merchandise. To better understand the pride and assurance the company had in their products the Bausch & Lomb website states in their company information page, “In the 1900’s, Bausch + Lomb continued to demonstrate its place at the forefront of technological innovation for optical products. Bausch + Lomb produced the first optical quality glass made in America, developed ground-breaking sunglasses for the military in World War I, and created the lenses used on the cameras that took the first satellite pictures of the moon” . Based on the evidence we can come to a determination that the Bausch & Lomb company has built an exceptional reputation for precision optical devices. Which would make their optical products such as their microscope a high-quality tool for science exploration and education. Now that we understand the history of the Bausch & Lomb company and its reputation of precision manufactured optical products. We can now move further and observe this early 20th century microscope and how it was applied to Southwestern University. To observe how this instrument assisted students in pursuing biological studies at Southwestern, we will look at the Biology department course catalog from 1903 to 1912. These course catalog’s will provide us where this tool was located and who was responsible for its existence at the university. As we look into this catalog, we can identify that the biology department that was instructed by Professor Tinsley, required instruments that provided students the ability to study offered courses such as zoology and botany. According to the catalog, the zoology course states, “In Zoology types of the different order are studied, going into their habits, characteristics, and anatomy” . As we can see the zoology course requires the study of an anatomy of an animal which requires an instrument such as this Bausch & Lomb microscope to observe microscopic organs and veins. Though many of the scientific lectures were taken part in classrooms, the application of the studies of biology was conducted in the biological laboratory. Located in the first two rooms on the first floor of the main university building, the biological laboratory had plenty of accessible scientific tools that provided the students the ability to apply what they have learned in their lectures. To describe these tools, the 1903-1912 course cataloged states, “Sufficient sets of dissecting instruments, tripod magnifiers, and a number of modern compound microscopes are on hand” . Therefore, we can determine that this Bausch & Lomb microscope and others like it were in this biological laboratory providing students the ability to dissect and observe small objects such as microscopic plant and animal anatomy. Also, Professor Tinsley was in charge of the campus financial responsibilities. Therefore, we can determine that Professor Tinsely had the financial ability to pick out the precision-made Bausch & Lomb microscopes for his biology department. In this case study we have observed this early 1900s era Bausch & Lomb microscope by using the whiggism methodological approach. We reviewed the importance of the biological sciences and the contributions of this scientific instrument. Also, we have observed how this microscope earned its place in the history of the Southwestern Biology department. To include the history of Bausch & Lomb we now understand how and why Southwestern University chose this microscope. Then observed its importance to the students’ academic experience at Southwestern. Therefore, we can conclude that this microscope served as a precision tool that provided the students during the early 1900s the ability to understand and apply what they have learned in the biological sciences. Henceforth earning its place in the history of Southwestern University. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jordan Cummings Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived 1. Green, Susan, and Julian Smith. "Small Things Draw Big Interest." Science and Children 42, no. 4 (2005): 30-34. Accessed February 28, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/43172432. 2. STRICK, JAMES E. "REICH AND DU TEIL: CONTROL EXPERIMENTS BEGIN." In Wilhelm Reich, Biologist, 99-145. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press, 2015. Accessed March 2, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjf9wpq.6. 3. JOHANNSEN, KRISTIN. "UNDER THE MICROSCOPE." In Ginseng Dreams: The Secret World of America's Most Valuable Plant, 163-88. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2006. Accessed March 9, 2020. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt2jcqhw.11. 4. Nieto-Galan, Agusti. Science in the Public Sphere (pp. 17-18). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition 5. Simkin, John. â€œJohn Jacob Bausch.â€Â Spartacus Educational, Spartacus Educational, Sept. 1997, spartacus-educational.com/USAbausch.htm. 6. “Our Company.” Bausch + Lomb, www.bausch.com/our-company/about-bausch-lomb/the-bausch-lomb-story. 7. Southwestern University, 1903-1912 Undergraduate Cataloge, 3-5-2020, 20. 8. Southwestern University, 1903-1912 Undergraduate Cataloge, 3-5-2020, 2. 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 Bausch and Lomb Microscope Description An account of the resource This is a early 20th century Bausch & Lomb Microscope Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Approx: 1908 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/ca6a65dd10edc9bfa276addb5831d7ca.jpg 66a34eebd1448695402f1893f79adbc3 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 Southwestern seminar eyes AIDS and society Subject The topic of the resource AIDS research conducted in Williamson County Description An account of the resource Newspaper article discussing AIDS research and a seminar being held in Williamson County providing information 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 November 1, 1987 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newspaper https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/e2d4493dd5c5b157273f9e4bc1b0fd5e.jpg 95cb654440370058e3af8e5a5cf336bc https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/861449ba0cfbb1220563ec59ce3fbebb.jpg 5c47547c4ded817e4a16ece7429eb88b https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/e4b44ded8439a0b5e9d272a4bc58cbed.jpg f0cdd5b5edf022a2f2baa9894eaf8c13 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/7b617151fa8c9d811fcd9f28f832ccf2.jpg 7c02927c7f4637ea88a4632e9992117c https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/50992d57fbfeea311d0cec8f15f828f5.jpg b37e2c2cee2bb06ff81a1ad286a61469 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/df98359292e9fed70543e1dd76536d6d.jpg 0ff214a14d4ccdce066e941a926095a3 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/b727cd5ab8e5eae39b4ec78f5fc0bb8a.jpg 948b790975c44421ec3ff0cde1be814b https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/9013cdee24ffccdd1606691b4efa9d0d.jpg 2420ef4f49a52db958e6d4980ba627e5 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/86544ec00d7457c296cf3942f97305f3.jpg 57165a7214a5f81a4c7b7a76e0a0ad89 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/ef8a44c24a1d94b9a2bc7efb3bc90f73.jpg d6fa7bfb55de845b8b2ea6bbaf103890 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/1c180e25f865731f0e5079aaa3866b7b.jpg d567bba387f81192fb2664c00f10684d https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/d57db15f0d127407d136bbba417cec25.jpg 686c759f7103e94d9e7fe5d53670a3d3 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/a8e77bf41fd8049918fda0df829ffe77.jpg b116daee83b8de85bc4edddfaa43c9c3 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/9e94d80ef5cc638573afd91221916205.jpg 3183bd165f59af88cddb5ee3efbcf586 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/0de58f624325a6975d03b9c7c135d2a9.jpg eb0129c90658eb0253a00ba773231f11 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Gastrointestinal Disease Hits Georgetown, Texas Description An account of the resource In the Summer of 1980, the city of Georgetown was thrown into a crisis when an outbreak of a mysterious gastrointestinal disease took the city by storm, infecting thousands within a week or two and businesses closed under the pressure.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Subsequent research culminated in a scientific article published 2 years later and confirmed local suspicions of a waterborne disease being the culprit however the primary viral agent was (and still) not identified.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Four years later, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in Braun Station, a small town near San Antonio and it’s waterborne qualities were identified for the first time.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Both towns received water from the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and both incidents contributed to changes in wastewater regulations for said aquifer.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> These two events are tied to the history of waterborne gastrointestinal epidemics and can be used to analyze how Georgetown responded to sudden outbreaks. The larger changes of environmental policies in the 1970s and 80s explain the different approaches in both cases of gastrointestinal disease These years saw an increase in environmental protection policies and the years that followed were defined by the public's response to them. In his monograph Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, Richard Andrews, a professor of environmental policies, writes about the long history of environmental policies in the United States. Andrews argues that the federal environmental policies of the 1970s could be summarized by the assertion of national standards and the cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to implement them.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, during the early 1980s, this federal initiative to control the environment would come under attack as President Ronald Reagan took office and dismantled many of them.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> These developments contextualize the state of environmental policies leading up to and during the Georgetown epidemics of gastrointestinal disease. From all of this, these outbreaks of gastrointestinal diseases become much more understandable at the state and municipal levels. First, it brings up the question of how the changes in federal support may have influenced the research done by the City of Georgetown (1980) and of that done by the local government at Braun Station (1984-85). Secondly, the developments leading up to 1980 construct a setting in which there is a clear divide in power between the federal government and the local municipal entities. These contextual insights become visible when looking at the primary sources of the different outbreaks. When comparing the primary scientific articles published for both epidemics, one immediately sees a difference in the extent of federal aid. The article that compiles the research done for the 1980 Georgetown outbreak was published under the journal American Water Works Association and supported by grants given by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health while also being assisted by the Williamson County Health Department.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> Whereas the article regarding the outbreak in Braun Station was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and gives acknowledgments to the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, and was in cooperation with local medical centers.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Furthermore, the reaction by those who wrote for the Williamson County Sun during the summer of 1980 depicted the local community and officials being fed up by the amount of involvement by state and federal entities. One writer talks about how the event has put their small city under an unwanted national spotlight and that they now have to, unfortunately, deal with the National Center for Disease Control and the EPA.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Another talks about the tensions between local city manager Leo Wood and Texas state officials over the legitimacy of the state officials’ claim that the sickness is likely being transmitted through the city water supply.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> These primary sources show that the 1980 case study of gastrointestinal disease in Georgetown occured right before funding was cut to federal environmental funding. They also point out a shift in power dynamics. The first paper was funded by federal agencies who gave money to local institutions to conduct the work (similar to Andrews’ claims) while the second paper was entirely conducted and funded by local and state agencies. This long-term shift from a multi directional to an entirely localized approach to environmental policies show the years between 1980-1984 as being defined by the political tensions that come with this shift. Additionally, the epistemological processes tied to the history of science can also be seen in this response to an epidemic. The interactions between Georgetown citizens and the local as well as federal ‘officials’ mirrors much of what historians of science have discussed in regards to public knowledge. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues that public science was a form of “promot[ing] public opinion as a political force… “ as it raised tensions between scientists and the public.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This is a process seen in my case study as political tensions played a huge part in the 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak. When the outbreak first occurred, the Georgetown government officials were quick to state that it was not caused by water, saying that the few tests for (known) waterborne gastrointestinal diseases were inconclusive; however, many of the city residents did not agree and continued to argue that the disease had to be waterborne.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In fact, the local and state officials involvement in the crisis was described (quoted from a State epidemiologist) as “experts” running “difficult” tests<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> and while they failed to find any answers, the publics’ response (or rather, “rumors”) point towards a possible sewage leak being responsible for the epidemic.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> This description of experts running complex tests was a reaffirmation to the public that even though scientists have not found evidence regarding the source or cause of the epidemic, they are trying. At the same time—in fact, before—the “rumors” of a sewage leakage causing the disease was a way for the public to affirm their own political influence. These tension between the public and the Georgetown officials as well as the tensions between municipal and federal officials reaffirms the historical ‘deficit model’ characterized by the assumption of a “considerable epistemological inferiority between experts and receivers of scientific discourse.”<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> The very first mention of the 1980 outbreak in The Williamson County Sun was a small story that gave the initial responses by Georgetown officials and experts.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> It discussed how a few people (mostly old and young individuals) have been hospitalized by an unknown illness. A local doctor was quoted as saying “it is just plain old intestinal flu” and affirms that “the water supply has been checked and found to be perfectly safe. This is strictly a viral infection.”<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> Three days later, the front page of the weekly newspaper was strictly about the epidemic. The same local doctor and the city manager refuted the popular theory amongst people about the illness (that it was a result of pesticide use) and apparently repeated statements such as “we’ve never seen anything like this before.”<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The writer cited two “passerby” who firmly believed the illness to be sourced from the water supply. The writer continued and cited the director of the Williamson County Health Department who said “you can’t just hand a bottle of water over to a laboratory and ask them to tell you what’s in it… you’ve got to know what you’re looking for.”<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> The tests that were conducted were for the presence of E. Coli and when they returned negative, the city manager reported “that ought to relieve some minds as far as the water is concerned” and the local doctor said “I believe we can now start looking elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> But the city residents did not agree. The local officials’ claim disregarding a waterborne illness would continue until the state and federal agencies got involved.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These initial responses portray the tension between everyday people and local/federal governments regarding disease and how to deal with it. As historian Nieto-Galan noted that experts often downplay certain risks seen as dangerous by lay people, “while the latter question the authority and legitimacy of the experts.”<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The Georgetown local officials disagreed with the public while the former disagreed with federal officials. The 1980 Georgetown outbreak of gastrointestinal disease occurred before federal funding to the EPA was cut so one would assume that the event was entirely under control. However, that was not the case. Instead, the outbreak was a convoluted case that had disagreements and tensions between people from multiple levels of power. To search for a top-down approach or bottom-up approach within this case study would take much more time and even then, such a dichotomy can not be entirely defined when looking into the societal influences that go into the history of science. Before the outbreak, the influence of the local and municipal government simply relied on the use of manually adjusted chlorine injections to clean their water, it was not till after the event that the systems saw an upgrade.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> During the outbreak, the rhetoric made by Georgetown officials displayed a scenario where the experts held the truth and were in control of the situation when in fact, they weren’t. It could be argued that the virus that caused the 1980 outbreak was Cryptosporidium and because it’s waterborne qualities were not known at the time, it made sense that there was no testing for it. However, even that argument does not take away the power dynamics at play when the city officials/experts refuted the idea of a water supply problem simply on the basis that E. Coli was not found. The 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak in Georgetown Texas is a clear example of how disease is much more than a biological threat. It exists within a society and is thus influenced by a number of complex sociocultural phenomena. This case study gives students and historians of science the chance to understand how political and social power dynamics influence a historical response to epidemics on the grounds of policies and epistemology. These complex relationships between disease and societal factors are important to understand, now more than ever. As we survive through the COVID-19 pandemic and transition into a new post COVID-19 world, these are the historical actors we must pay attention to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Saul Zuniga Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> D'Antonio RG, Winn RE, Taylor JP, Gustafson TL, Current WL, Rhodes MM, Gary GW Jr, and Zajac RA. “A Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Normal Hosts.” Annals of Internal Medicine 103, no. 6 (1985): 886–88. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Geological Society of America. Meeting (125th : 2013 : Denver, Colo.). Caves and Karst Across Time. Edited by Joshua Feinberg, Yongli Gao, and E. C Alexander. Special Papers / Geological Society of America, 516. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 2016. 56. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Andrews, Richard N. L., Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy 2 nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 249. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Richard Andrews, Managing the Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 255-56. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318–21. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> D’Antonio, “Normal Hosts,” 886-888. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> “Nationwide Attention,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 52, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 102. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness…” 13. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Emily Baker, “Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 6, June 26, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> “Virus sweeps Georgetown” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 51, June 15, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 210. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water Subject The topic of the resource A case study into the history of waterborne gastrointestinal disease Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williamson County Sun. Editors and authors: Ray Jones, Emily Barker, Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Williamson County Sun Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Thursday, June 26, 1980 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newspaper article https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/522d89b4898740a40c0b0403a89eda3e.jpg 6408f41a0b079297e97a703c7081647a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Gastrointestinal Disease Hits Georgetown, Texas Description An account of the resource In the Summer of 1980, the city of Georgetown was thrown into a crisis when an outbreak of a mysterious gastrointestinal disease took the city by storm, infecting thousands within a week or two and businesses closed under the pressure.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Subsequent research culminated in a scientific article published 2 years later and confirmed local suspicions of a waterborne disease being the culprit however the primary viral agent was (and still) not identified.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Four years later, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in Braun Station, a small town near San Antonio and it’s waterborne qualities were identified for the first time.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Both towns received water from the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and both incidents contributed to changes in wastewater regulations for said aquifer.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> These two events are tied to the history of waterborne gastrointestinal epidemics and can be used to analyze how Georgetown responded to sudden outbreaks. The larger changes of environmental policies in the 1970s and 80s explain the different approaches in both cases of gastrointestinal disease These years saw an increase in environmental protection policies and the years that followed were defined by the public's response to them. In his monograph Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, Richard Andrews, a professor of environmental policies, writes about the long history of environmental policies in the United States. Andrews argues that the federal environmental policies of the 1970s could be summarized by the assertion of national standards and the cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to implement them.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, during the early 1980s, this federal initiative to control the environment would come under attack as President Ronald Reagan took office and dismantled many of them.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> These developments contextualize the state of environmental policies leading up to and during the Georgetown epidemics of gastrointestinal disease. From all of this, these outbreaks of gastrointestinal diseases become much more understandable at the state and municipal levels. First, it brings up the question of how the changes in federal support may have influenced the research done by the City of Georgetown (1980) and of that done by the local government at Braun Station (1984-85). Secondly, the developments leading up to 1980 construct a setting in which there is a clear divide in power between the federal government and the local municipal entities. These contextual insights become visible when looking at the primary sources of the different outbreaks. When comparing the primary scientific articles published for both epidemics, one immediately sees a difference in the extent of federal aid. The article that compiles the research done for the 1980 Georgetown outbreak was published under the journal American Water Works Association and supported by grants given by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health while also being assisted by the Williamson County Health Department.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> Whereas the article regarding the outbreak in Braun Station was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and gives acknowledgments to the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, and was in cooperation with local medical centers.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Furthermore, the reaction by those who wrote for the Williamson County Sun during the summer of 1980 depicted the local community and officials being fed up by the amount of involvement by state and federal entities. One writer talks about how the event has put their small city under an unwanted national spotlight and that they now have to, unfortunately, deal with the National Center for Disease Control and the EPA.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Another talks about the tensions between local city manager Leo Wood and Texas state officials over the legitimacy of the state officials’ claim that the sickness is likely being transmitted through the city water supply.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> These primary sources show that the 1980 case study of gastrointestinal disease in Georgetown occured right before funding was cut to federal environmental funding. They also point out a shift in power dynamics. The first paper was funded by federal agencies who gave money to local institutions to conduct the work (similar to Andrews’ claims) while the second paper was entirely conducted and funded by local and state agencies. This long-term shift from a multi directional to an entirely localized approach to environmental policies show the years between 1980-1984 as being defined by the political tensions that come with this shift. Additionally, the epistemological processes tied to the history of science can also be seen in this response to an epidemic. The interactions between Georgetown citizens and the local as well as federal ‘officials’ mirrors much of what historians of science have discussed in regards to public knowledge. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues that public science was a form of “promot[ing] public opinion as a political force… “ as it raised tensions between scientists and the public.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This is a process seen in my case study as political tensions played a huge part in the 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak. When the outbreak first occurred, the Georgetown government officials were quick to state that it was not caused by water, saying that the few tests for (known) waterborne gastrointestinal diseases were inconclusive; however, many of the city residents did not agree and continued to argue that the disease had to be waterborne.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In fact, the local and state officials involvement in the crisis was described (quoted from a State epidemiologist) as “experts” running “difficult” tests<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> and while they failed to find any answers, the publics’ response (or rather, “rumors”) point towards a possible sewage leak being responsible for the epidemic.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> This description of experts running complex tests was a reaffirmation to the public that even though scientists have not found evidence regarding the source or cause of the epidemic, they are trying. At the same time—in fact, before—the “rumors” of a sewage leakage causing the disease was a way for the public to affirm their own political influence. These tension between the public and the Georgetown officials as well as the tensions between municipal and federal officials reaffirms the historical ‘deficit model’ characterized by the assumption of a “considerable epistemological inferiority between experts and receivers of scientific discourse.”<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> The very first mention of the 1980 outbreak in The Williamson County Sun was a small story that gave the initial responses by Georgetown officials and experts.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> It discussed how a few people (mostly old and young individuals) have been hospitalized by an unknown illness. A local doctor was quoted as saying “it is just plain old intestinal flu” and affirms that “the water supply has been checked and found to be perfectly safe. This is strictly a viral infection.”<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> Three days later, the front page of the weekly newspaper was strictly about the epidemic. The same local doctor and the city manager refuted the popular theory amongst people about the illness (that it was a result of pesticide use) and apparently repeated statements such as “we’ve never seen anything like this before.”<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The writer cited two “passerby” who firmly believed the illness to be sourced from the water supply. The writer continued and cited the director of the Williamson County Health Department who said “you can’t just hand a bottle of water over to a laboratory and ask them to tell you what’s in it… you’ve got to know what you’re looking for.”<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> The tests that were conducted were for the presence of E. Coli and when they returned negative, the city manager reported “that ought to relieve some minds as far as the water is concerned” and the local doctor said “I believe we can now start looking elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> But the city residents did not agree. The local officials’ claim disregarding a waterborne illness would continue until the state and federal agencies got involved.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These initial responses portray the tension between everyday people and local/federal governments regarding disease and how to deal with it. As historian Nieto-Galan noted that experts often downplay certain risks seen as dangerous by lay people, “while the latter question the authority and legitimacy of the experts.”<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The Georgetown local officials disagreed with the public while the former disagreed with federal officials. The 1980 Georgetown outbreak of gastrointestinal disease occurred before federal funding to the EPA was cut so one would assume that the event was entirely under control. However, that was not the case. Instead, the outbreak was a convoluted case that had disagreements and tensions between people from multiple levels of power. To search for a top-down approach or bottom-up approach within this case study would take much more time and even then, such a dichotomy can not be entirely defined when looking into the societal influences that go into the history of science. Before the outbreak, the influence of the local and municipal government simply relied on the use of manually adjusted chlorine injections to clean their water, it was not till after the event that the systems saw an upgrade.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> During the outbreak, the rhetoric made by Georgetown officials displayed a scenario where the experts held the truth and were in control of the situation when in fact, they weren’t. It could be argued that the virus that caused the 1980 outbreak was Cryptosporidium and because it’s waterborne qualities were not known at the time, it made sense that there was no testing for it. However, even that argument does not take away the power dynamics at play when the city officials/experts refuted the idea of a water supply problem simply on the basis that E. Coli was not found. The 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak in Georgetown Texas is a clear example of how disease is much more than a biological threat. It exists within a society and is thus influenced by a number of complex sociocultural phenomena. This case study gives students and historians of science the chance to understand how political and social power dynamics influence a historical response to epidemics on the grounds of policies and epistemology. These complex relationships between disease and societal factors are important to understand, now more than ever. As we survive through the COVID-19 pandemic and transition into a new post COVID-19 world, these are the historical actors we must pay attention to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Saul Zuniga Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> D'Antonio RG, Winn RE, Taylor JP, Gustafson TL, Current WL, Rhodes MM, Gary GW Jr, and Zajac RA. “A Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Normal Hosts.” Annals of Internal Medicine 103, no. 6 (1985): 886–88. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Geological Society of America. Meeting (125th : 2013 : Denver, Colo.). Caves and Karst Across Time. Edited by Joshua Feinberg, Yongli Gao, and E. C Alexander. Special Papers / Geological Society of America, 516. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 2016. 56. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Andrews, Richard N. L., Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy 2 nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 249. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Richard Andrews, Managing the Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 255-56. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318–21. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> D’Antonio, “Normal Hosts,” 886-888. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> “Nationwide Attention,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 52, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 102. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness…” 13. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Emily Baker, “Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 6, June 26, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> “Virus sweeps Georgetown” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 51, June 15, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 210. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Nationwide Attention Subject The topic of the resource A case study into the history of waterborne gastrointestinal disease Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williamson County Sun. Editors and authors: Ray Jones, Emily Barker, Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Williamson County Sun https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/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/7d156d1c9d4f59c7cc116471e8736bc8.jpg 9a075e3b4dfab068133dc077bf83c7f2 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/1e319f19400fc7b4f6a240addf2bddba.jpg 343839be1e37b9b7d70b3b2bde00fba4 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/495fdb2c31e5761304698ab0202e29e5.jpg ba9b9c982ade1f9071e76e536d65d4cd Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Gastrointestinal Disease Hits Georgetown, Texas Description An account of the resource In the Summer of 1980, the city of Georgetown was thrown into a crisis when an outbreak of a mysterious gastrointestinal disease took the city by storm, infecting thousands within a week or two and businesses closed under the pressure.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Subsequent research culminated in a scientific article published 2 years later and confirmed local suspicions of a waterborne disease being the culprit however the primary viral agent was (and still) not identified.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Four years later, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in Braun Station, a small town near San Antonio and it’s waterborne qualities were identified for the first time.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Both towns received water from the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and both incidents contributed to changes in wastewater regulations for said aquifer.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> These two events are tied to the history of waterborne gastrointestinal epidemics and can be used to analyze how Georgetown responded to sudden outbreaks. The larger changes of environmental policies in the 1970s and 80s explain the different approaches in both cases of gastrointestinal disease These years saw an increase in environmental protection policies and the years that followed were defined by the public's response to them. In his monograph Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, Richard Andrews, a professor of environmental policies, writes about the long history of environmental policies in the United States. Andrews argues that the federal environmental policies of the 1970s could be summarized by the assertion of national standards and the cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to implement them.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, during the early 1980s, this federal initiative to control the environment would come under attack as President Ronald Reagan took office and dismantled many of them.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> These developments contextualize the state of environmental policies leading up to and during the Georgetown epidemics of gastrointestinal disease. From all of this, these outbreaks of gastrointestinal diseases become much more understandable at the state and municipal levels. First, it brings up the question of how the changes in federal support may have influenced the research done by the City of Georgetown (1980) and of that done by the local government at Braun Station (1984-85). Secondly, the developments leading up to 1980 construct a setting in which there is a clear divide in power between the federal government and the local municipal entities. These contextual insights become visible when looking at the primary sources of the different outbreaks. When comparing the primary scientific articles published for both epidemics, one immediately sees a difference in the extent of federal aid. The article that compiles the research done for the 1980 Georgetown outbreak was published under the journal American Water Works Association and supported by grants given by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health while also being assisted by the Williamson County Health Department.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> Whereas the article regarding the outbreak in Braun Station was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and gives acknowledgments to the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, and was in cooperation with local medical centers.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Furthermore, the reaction by those who wrote for the Williamson County Sun during the summer of 1980 depicted the local community and officials being fed up by the amount of involvement by state and federal entities. One writer talks about how the event has put their small city under an unwanted national spotlight and that they now have to, unfortunately, deal with the National Center for Disease Control and the EPA.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Another talks about the tensions between local city manager Leo Wood and Texas state officials over the legitimacy of the state officials’ claim that the sickness is likely being transmitted through the city water supply.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> These primary sources show that the 1980 case study of gastrointestinal disease in Georgetown occured right before funding was cut to federal environmental funding. They also point out a shift in power dynamics. The first paper was funded by federal agencies who gave money to local institutions to conduct the work (similar to Andrews’ claims) while the second paper was entirely conducted and funded by local and state agencies. This long-term shift from a multi directional to an entirely localized approach to environmental policies show the years between 1980-1984 as being defined by the political tensions that come with this shift. Additionally, the epistemological processes tied to the history of science can also be seen in this response to an epidemic. The interactions between Georgetown citizens and the local as well as federal ‘officials’ mirrors much of what historians of science have discussed in regards to public knowledge. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues that public science was a form of “promot[ing] public opinion as a political force… “ as it raised tensions between scientists and the public.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> This is a process seen in my case study as political tensions played a huge part in the 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak. When the outbreak first occurred, the Georgetown government officials were quick to state that it was not caused by water, saying that the few tests for (known) waterborne gastrointestinal diseases were inconclusive; however, many of the city residents did not agree and continued to argue that the disease had to be waterborne.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In fact, the local and state officials involvement in the crisis was described (quoted from a State epidemiologist) as “experts” running “difficult” tests<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> and while they failed to find any answers, the publics’ response (or rather, “rumors”) point towards a possible sewage leak being responsible for the epidemic.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> This description of experts running complex tests was a reaffirmation to the public that even though scientists have not found evidence regarding the source or cause of the epidemic, they are trying. At the same time—in fact, before—the “rumors” of a sewage leakage causing the disease was a way for the public to affirm their own political influence. These tension between the public and the Georgetown officials as well as the tensions between municipal and federal officials reaffirms the historical ‘deficit model’ characterized by the assumption of a “considerable epistemological inferiority between experts and receivers of scientific discourse.”<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> The very first mention of the 1980 outbreak in The Williamson County Sun was a small story that gave the initial responses by Georgetown officials and experts.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> It discussed how a few people (mostly old and young individuals) have been hospitalized by an unknown illness. A local doctor was quoted as saying “it is just plain old intestinal flu” and affirms that “the water supply has been checked and found to be perfectly safe. This is strictly a viral infection.”<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> Three days later, the front page of the weekly newspaper was strictly about the epidemic. The same local doctor and the city manager refuted the popular theory amongst people about the illness (that it was a result of pesticide use) and apparently repeated statements such as “we’ve never seen anything like this before.”<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The writer cited two “passerby” who firmly believed the illness to be sourced from the water supply. The writer continued and cited the director of the Williamson County Health Department who said “you can’t just hand a bottle of water over to a laboratory and ask them to tell you what’s in it… you’ve got to know what you’re looking for.”<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> The tests that were conducted were for the presence of E. Coli and when they returned negative, the city manager reported “that ought to relieve some minds as far as the water is concerned” and the local doctor said “I believe we can now start looking elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> But the city residents did not agree. The local officials’ claim disregarding a waterborne illness would continue until the state and federal agencies got involved.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These initial responses portray the tension between everyday people and local/federal governments regarding disease and how to deal with it. As historian Nieto-Galan noted that experts often downplay certain risks seen as dangerous by lay people, “while the latter question the authority and legitimacy of the experts.”<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The Georgetown local officials disagreed with the public while the former disagreed with federal officials. The 1980 Georgetown outbreak of gastrointestinal disease occurred before federal funding to the EPA was cut so one would assume that the event was entirely under control. However, that was not the case. Instead, the outbreak was a convoluted case that had disagreements and tensions between people from multiple levels of power. To search for a top-down approach or bottom-up approach within this case study would take much more time and even then, such a dichotomy can not be entirely defined when looking into the societal influences that go into the history of science. Before the outbreak, the influence of the local and municipal government simply relied on the use of manually adjusted chlorine injections to clean their water, it was not till after the event that the systems saw an upgrade.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> During the outbreak, the rhetoric made by Georgetown officials displayed a scenario where the experts held the truth and were in control of the situation when in fact, they weren’t. It could be argued that the virus that caused the 1980 outbreak was Cryptosporidium and because it’s waterborne qualities were not known at the time, it made sense that there was no testing for it. However, even that argument does not take away the power dynamics at play when the city officials/experts refuted the idea of a water supply problem simply on the basis that E. Coli was not found. The 1980 gastrointestinal outbreak in Georgetown Texas is a clear example of how disease is much more than a biological threat. It exists within a society and is thus influenced by a number of complex sociocultural phenomena. This case study gives students and historians of science the chance to understand how political and social power dynamics influence a historical response to epidemics on the grounds of policies and epistemology. These complex relationships between disease and societal factors are important to understand, now more than ever. As we survive through the COVID-19 pandemic and transition into a new post COVID-19 world, these are the historical actors we must pay attention to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Saul Zuniga Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> D'Antonio RG, Winn RE, Taylor JP, Gustafson TL, Current WL, Rhodes MM, Gary GW Jr, and Zajac RA. “A Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Normal Hosts.” Annals of Internal Medicine 103, no. 6 (1985): 886–88. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Geological Society of America. Meeting (125th : 2013 : Denver, Colo.). Caves and Karst Across Time. Edited by Joshua Feinberg, Yongli Gao, and E. C Alexander. Special Papers / Geological Society of America, 516. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, 2016. 56. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Andrews, Richard N. L., Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy 2 nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 249. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Richard Andrews, Managing the Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 255-56. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318–21. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> D’Antonio, “Normal Hosts,” 886-888. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> “Nationwide Attention,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 52, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 102. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness…” 13. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Emily Baker, “Amount of Chlorine Boosted in City Water,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 6, June 26, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> “Virus sweeps Georgetown” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 6 No. 51, June 15, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Jones, “Mysterious illness strikes thousands in city,” Williamson County Sun Vol. 104 No. 5, June 19, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid. <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Emily Baker, “ ‘Leo says: prove it’ - State Takes Away Water Approval,” Williamson County Sun: The Sunday Sun Vol. 7 No. 1, June 22, 1980. Accessed through Southwestern University on March 1, 2020. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Nieto-Galan Agustí. Science in the Public Sphere : A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 210. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Hejkal, T.W, B Keswick, R.L LaBelle, C.P Gerba, Y Sanchez, G Dreesman, B Hafkin, and J.L Melnick. “Viruses in a Community Water Supply Associated with an Outbreak of Gastroenteritis and Infectious Hepatitis.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 74, no. 6 (1982): 318-21. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Virus Sweeps Georgetown Subject The topic of the resource A case study into the history of waterborne gastrointestinal disease Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williamson County Sun. Editors and authors: Ray Jones, Emily Barker, Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Williamson County Sun Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Sunday, June 15, 1990 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newspaper article