Author: sbubrooklogue

America’s Youth Suicide Crisis: How An Unprecedented Epidemic Spiraled Out of Control

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Vignesh Subramanian, May 15, 2024

In 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published up-to-date data on suicide rates among American youth that stunned public health and medical professionals nationwide. The federal report, issued in June, found that the overall suicide rate among U.S. youth ages 10 to 24 had surged 62% over the prior two decades (2001-2021), after decades of prior decline (Curtin & Garnett, 2023). On average, 11 young Americans died by suicide out of every 100,000 each year during this period; for children ages 10-14, the suicide rate had tripled from 2007-2018 (from 0.9 to 2.9 people per 100,000); for adolescents ages 15-19, it rose 57% from 2009-2017 (from 7.5 to 11.8 people per 100,000); and for young adults ages 20-24, it rose 63% over the entire period (from 11.9 people in 2001 to 19.4 in 2021 per 100,000). The findings painted a stark picture of a nation in the throes of a full-fledged crisis, with millions of its young people suffering in silence and thousands compelled by circumstance to take their own lives. 

Yet this grim milestone was seen by many as preceded by years of warning signs. Well before the COVID-19 pandemic, CDC reports noted that suicide rates among U.S. youth ages 10-24 had jumped 57.4% from 2007-2018 (rising from less than 7 deaths per 100,000 to nearly 11), with even such states as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – widely viewed as having strong safety nets for at-risk youth – seeing increases in youth suicide rates ranging from 40% to 60% over that single decade (Curtin, 2020). The issue notably remained pervasive for young Americans of all ages. Between 2007 and 2019, the suicide rate among pre-teens ages 8 to 12 surged a disturbing 166% (Penfold, 2021), with 8.4% of children as young as nine and ten years old reporting suicidal thoughts and 1.3% even making attempts (Janiri et al., 2020). From 2018-2019, 18.8% of adolescents ages 12-17 seriously considered attempting suicide, with 15.7% making a suicide plan, 8.9% attempting suicide at least once, and 2.5% making an attempt that required medical treatment (Ivey-Stephenson et al., 2020), corresponding to around 1.24 million medically attended suicide attempts by American teenagers nationwide. This data came on the heels of separate studies finding that suicide rates more than doubled in the preceding decade (from approximately 2 deaths per 100,000 people in 2008 to 5 per 100,000 in 2018) for adolescents as young as thirteen and fourteen years old (Levine et al., 2023). And since 2019, emerging American adults ages 18-25 have demonstrated the highest prevalence of both serious suicidal thoughts (11.8% in 2019, rising to 13.6% by 2022) and suicide attempts made (1.8% in 2019, rising to 2.7% by 2021 before dropping to 2.1% by 2022) among adults across all age groups (National Institute of Mental Health, 2024; Richesson et al., 2022; Keating & Rudd-Arieta, 2021).

In 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published up-to-date data on suicide rates among American youth that stunned public health and medical professionals nationwide. The federal report, issued in June, found that the overall suicide rate among U.S. youth ages 10 to 24 had surged 62% over the prior two decades (2001-2021), after decades of prior decline (Curtin & Garnett, 2023). On average, 11 young Americans died by suicide out of every 100,000 each year during this period; for children ages 10-14, the suicide rate had tripled from 2007-2018 (from 0.9 to 2.9 people per 100,000); for adolescents ages 15-19, it rose 57% from 2009-2017 (from 7.5 to 11.8 people per 100,000); and for young adults ages 20-24, it rose 63% over the entire period (from 11.9 people in 2001 to 19.4 in 2021 per 100,000). The findings painted a stark picture of a nation in the throes of a full-fledged crisis, with millions of its young people suffering in silence and thousands compelled by circumstance to take their own lives. 

Yet this grim milestone was seen by many as preceded by years of warning signs. Well before the COVID-19 pandemic, CDC reports noted that suicide rates among U.S. youth ages 10-24 had jumped 57.4% from 2007-2018 (rising from less than 7 deaths per 100,000 to nearly 11), with even such states as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – widely viewed as having strong safety nets for at-risk youth – seeing increases in youth suicide rates ranging from 40% to 60% over that single decade (Curtin, 2020). The issue notably remained pervasive for young Americans of all ages. Between 2007 and 2019, the suicide rate among pre-teens ages 8 to 12 surged a disturbing 166% (Penfold, 2021), with 8.4% of children as young as nine and ten years old reporting suicidal thoughts and 1.3% even making attempts (Janiri et al., 2020). From 2018-2019, 18.8% of adolescents ages 12-17 seriously considered attempting suicide, with 15.7% making a suicide plan, 8.9% attempting suicide at least once, and 2.5% making an attempt that required medical treatment (Ivey-Stephenson et al., 2020), corresponding to around 1.24 million medically attended suicide attempts by American teenagers nationwide. This data came on the heels of separate studies finding that suicide rates more than doubled in the preceding decade (from approximately 2 deaths per 100,000 people in 2008 to 5 per 100,000 in 2018) for adolescents as young as thirteen and fourteen years old (Levine et al., 2023). And since 2019, emerging American adults ages 18-25 have demonstrated the highest prevalence of both serious suicidal thoughts (11.8% in 2019, rising to 13.6% by 2022) and suicide attempts made (1.8% in 2019, rising to 2.7% by 2021 before dropping to 2.1% by 2022) among adults across all age groups (National Institute of Mental Health, 2024; Richesson et al., 2022; Keating & Rudd-Arieta, 2021).

Surges in suicidal ideation and attempts among young Americans subsequently contributed to sharp increases in long-running trends of associated emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. From 2011-2020, pediatric ED visits by children, adolescents, and young adults ages 6-24 nearly doubled nationwide (from 4.8 million visits, or 7.7% of all pediatric ED visits, to 7.5 million, or 13.1% of all visits), even as the overall number of pediatric ED visits for all causes decreased (Bommersbach et al., 2023). This spike in visits included a five-fold increase in the number of pediatric ED visits for suicide-related symptoms (from 0.9% of all visits in 2011 to 4.2% in 2020), which now make up an average of 5% of all visits by this age group. This alarming trend has been substantiated by other large national studies examining related healthcare data. Analyses of insurance claims for 24.5 million youths ages 1-21 found that mental health-related inpatient hospital admissions surged 61% among this population between 2016-2021, alongside a 45% increase in mental health-related ED visits and a 74% increase in ED visits for suicidal ideation, attempts, and self-harm by 2022, with the increases being most pronounced for adolescents and young adults (Clarify Health Institute, 2022; Clarify Health Institute, 2023). A review of 4.8 million pediatric hospitalizations from 2009-2019 at U.S. acute care hospitals revealed that a diagnosis of suicide or self-injury made up 64% of all mental health-related hospitalizations (Arakelyan et al., 2023). Other studies have found that all mental-related pediatric ED visits among youths ages 3-17 rose 8% annually from October 2015 to February 2020 (compared to an average increase of just 1.5% for visits for other reasons) (Cushing et al., 2022), with 13% of all patients revisiting within 6 months, and that from 2019-2020 – the last full year before the pandemic – the overall number of behavioral health cases for youth under 18 increased 30%, with pediatric ED cases of suicide attempts and self-injury in particular having jumped 50% (Children’s Hospital Association, 2023). 

It was this already escalating crisis that proceeded to become severely exacerbated by the pandemic: in 2021, the first full year of the pandemic in the United States, the national suicide rate among youths 10-24 years old returned to 2018 highs after two years of moderate declines (Stone et al, 2023; Curtin et al., 2022). The stressful impacts of the period were acutely felt by young Americans of varied educational levels. The CDC found that 22% of U.S. high school students – including roughly a third (30%) of female students (Gaylor et al., 2023) – had seriously considered suicide the previous year, with 18% making a plan and 10% attempting at least once (drastically up from 16%, 13%, and 8% a decade prior, respectively) (CDC, 2023b). Separate reports also noted that three months into the pandemic, roughly a quarter (25.5%) of young people ages 18-24 – the largest age demographic on college campuses – had seriously considered suicide in the prior 30 days (Czeisler et al., 2020), and a Healthy Minds Survey found that 15% of U.S. college students surveyed during the 2021-2022 school year had seriously considered suicide, the highest rate in the survey’s 15-year history (Eisenberg et al., 2023). The CDC further found that beginning in April 2020 – shortly after the start of the pandemic in the United States – and proceeding through October of that same year, the proportion of mental health emergency-related visits among all pediatric ED visits surged 24% for children ages 5 to 11 and 31% for those ages 12 to 17 relative to 2019 levels (Leeb et al., 2020). In the second full year of the pandemic (from March 2021 to February 2022), pediatric mental health-related ED visits for youths ages 5-17 collectively jumped another 7%; the percentage of their ED visits resulting in psychiatric inpatient admission rose 8%; and the mean length of their stay increased 4%, with youth in both years of the pandemic more likely to spend two or more nights experiencing prolonged boarding (Overhage et al., 2023). 

Overall, amid the pandemic, U.S. youth and young adults ages 10-24 began to represent 15% of all suicides nationally, and demonstrated exorbitantly high rates of ED visits for mental health emergencies and self-harm in particular, with 354.4 such visits per 100,000 members of this population in 2020 (compared to 128.9 visits per 100,000 people for middle-aged adults) (CDC, 2023a). Adolescent girls were noted to be at particularly high risk, with the proportion of ED visits for suicide attempts among those ages 12-17 jumping 50.6% from February-March 2019 to February-March 2021 (compared to just a 3.7% increase for boys and young men of the same ages) (Yard et al., 2021). Girls and young women ages 10-24 overall demonstrated a 43.6% increase in visits for suicidal ideation over the past two decades (Overhage et al., 2023), as well as an associated ED visit rate in 2021 measuring roughly double that of boys and young men (though the latter themselves consistently report some of the largest increases in suicide rates, including an 8% increase among those ages 15-24 in the same year) (CDC, 2023a; Curtin et al., 2022). Even more stark disparities in suicide rates have been discovered among other marginalized groups – with over a quarter of LGBTQ+ youths reporting attempting suicide in 2021, a significantly higher rate than that of their peers (Jones et al., 2022); higher percentages of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youths experiencing suicidality than any other race or ethnicity that same year; Latina adolescents consistently being twice as likely to attempt suicide than their peers of the same race (Ivey-Stephenson et al., 2020); Black youths experiencing the largest percentage increases in suicides among any racial group in recent years (Stone et al., 2023); and Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) adolescents and young adults being the only racial group to have suicide rank as their leading cause of death (CDC, 2018) – that merit an entirely separate article beyond the limitations of this paper.

For several years, U.S. lawmakers have demonstrated a propensity to pin the blame for the country’s youth suicide crisis entirely on the pandemic – despite such claims not covering the full story (Warner & Zhang, 2022). It is clear that this crisis had already reached epidemic proportions by the time COVID-19 took hold in early 2020. Yet even if this myopic view of its origins is genuinely held by those in elected office, it has failed to translate into substantive policy reforms that might address the widespread and life-threatening struggles with mental health currently faced by millions of young Americans. Nearly two full years into the pandemic (in October 2021), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children’s Hospital Association joined together to issue the unprecedented declaration of a national state of emergency in children’s mental health (AAP et al., 2021). The declaration took into account “dramatic increases” in rates of pediatric suicidality and ED visits for mental health emergencies, and called upon “policymakers at all levels of government and advocates for children and adolescents to join us” in working to institute a series of reforms, including securing sustainable funding for mental health screenings, establishing suicide prevention programs and risk assessments in schools and primary care, and addressing acute care needs in hospital settings by expanding access to adequate numbers of beds, step-down programs from inpatient units, and short-stay stabilization units, among other measures (Hua et al., 2024). Less than two months later, the U.S. Surgeon General echoed these calls, issuing an advisory highlighting the scope of the youth mental health crisis and outlining recommendations for governments and private healthcare organizations to collaborate to support children’s emotional and social well-being (Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, 2021), and roughly a year later, the AAP and over 130 other healthcare organizations explicitly called upon the Biden administration to declare a federal national emergency in children’s mental health (AAP et al., 2022). Yet despite these high-profile calls to action, no comprehensive federal legislation has been passed to support crisis identification, prevention, and intervention services for youth in either community or hospital settings (Roubein & Beard, 2022), and President Biden has yet to declare a national emergency in youth mental health, neglecting an opportunity to mobilize the full leverage and resources of the federal government to address the crisis.

At the state and local levels, attempts to contend with the youth suicide crisis have hardly fared better. As of June 2023, while half of all U.S. states and D.C. have enacted laws over the past decade that uniformly require their K-12 schools and school districts to adopt suicide prevention and intervention policies and guidelines outlining how staff should respond to students exhibiting suicidal ideation, 25 states have still not done so, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP, 2023). Furthermore, while 13 states uniformly require K-12 school personnel to be annually trained in such prevention and intervention protocols, a plurality of states (24, plus D.C.) do not mandate such training to occur every year – raising the risk that recall of key protocols may be poor in an emergency – and another 13 states do not require training at all. 22 states also uniformly require schools to develop curricula for student education in either suicide awareness and prevention and/or mental health more generally, but a majority (28, plus D.C.) continue not to do so. Statewide policy is even less consistent at the collegiate level, with 22 states having enacted laws uniformly requiring colleges and universities to adopt various specified suicide prevention policies – ranging from printing hotline numbers on student ID cards and publicizing student mental health resource information to adopting institutional awareness programs or prevention and intervention strategies – while the majority of states (28, plus D.C.) lacked any laws establishing a uniform standard of preparedness for higher education institutions as of December 2022 (AFSP, 2022). The resulting patchwork of policies, fragmented across thousands of campuses and communities, fails to offer a comprehensive response to the nationwide youth suicide crisis that transcends their outskirts and borders. Meanwhile, conflicting guidelines on the ages at which youths are recommended to be screened early in childhood for suicide risk (the AAP recommends those ages 12 and up be universally screened annually, with those ages 8-11 screened when clinically indicated, while the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force argues there is insufficient evidence to justify screening any asymptomatic youths for suicide risk) continue to confuse localities and providers seeking to address the root causes of such ideation (Jenco, 2022). Hospitals and inpatient facilities are also becoming overwhelmed by surging numbers of suicidal young adults, adolescents, and increasingly younger-aged children who arrive in EDs already at their crisis point (Richtel & Flanagan, 2022), with no end to this epidemic in sight as of yet.

Today, suicide is the third leading cause of death among young Americans ages 15-24 and the second leading cause of death among those ages 10-14. The United States loses far more of its young people to suicide than any other developed nation each year, with the total number of lives lost representing a disproportionately large segment of its youth population (Doran & Kinchin, 2020). For every young person lost to suicide, roughly 1,000 others are estimated to be considering and struggling with the idea of attempting (National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2024) – but every one of these suicides is preventable. Despite having an abundance of options with which to act, the nation’s leaders have collectively and inexcusably allowed this crisis to spiral out of control, and in so doing, have left millions of vulnerable children, adolescents, and young adults at risk. We must act swiftly and decisively to change course, advancing reforms that will reshape national policy to confront these harsh clinical realities – and ultimately save lives. 

Works Cited

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, & Children’s Hospital Association. (2021). AAP-AACAP-CHA declaration of a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health. American Academy of Pediatrics. https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/child-and-adolescent-healthy-mental-development/aap-aacap-cha-declaration-of-a-national-emergency-in-child-and-adolescent-mental-health/ 
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, & Children’s Hospital Association. (2022). Health organizations urge the Biden administration to declare a federal national emergency in children’s mental health. American Academy of Pediatrics. https://www.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2022/health-organizations-urge-the-biden-administration-to-declare-a-federal-national-emergency-in-childrens-mental-health/ 
  3. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. (2023). Policy priority: Suicide prevention in schools (K-12). American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Public Policy Office. https://www.datocms-assets.com/12810/1686164392-afsp-k-12-schools-issue-brief.pdf
  4. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. (2022). Policy priority: Suicide prevention on university and college campuses. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Public Policy Office. https://www.datocms-assets.com/12810/1677181582-afsp-colleges-universities-issue-brief.pdf 
  5. Arakelyan, M., Freyleue, S., Avula, D., McLaren, J. L., O’Malley, A. J., & Leyenaar, J. K. (2023). Pediatric mental health hospitalizations at acute care hospitals in the US, 2009-2019. JAMA, 329(12), 1000-1011. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.1992 
  6. Bommersbach, T. J., McKean, A. J., Olfson, M., & Rhee, T. G. (2023). National trends in mental health–related emergency department visits among youth, 2011-2020. JAMA, 329(17), 1469-1477. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.4809
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). LCWK1 – Deaths, percent of total deaths, and death rates for the 15 leading causes of death in 5-year age groups, by race and Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, 1-195. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lcwk/lcwk1_hr_2017-a.pdf 
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023a). Disparities in Suicide. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/disparities-in-suicide.html 
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023b). Youth Risk Behavior Survey data summary & trends report: 2011-2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/YRBS_Data-Summary-Trends_Report2023_508.pdf 
  10. Children’s Hospital Association. (2023). The latest pediatric mental health data. Children’s Hospital Association. https://www.childrenshospitals.org/news/childrens-hospitals-today/2023/04/the-latest-pediatric-mental-health-data 
  11. Clarify Health Institute. (2022). The kids are not alright – Pediatric mental health care utilization from 2016-2021. Clarify Health. clarifyhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-Clarify-Health-Institute-Research-Brief_The-Kids-Are-Not-Alright.pdf 
  12. Clarify Health Institute. (2023). The kids are not alright – Mental health utilization among children and young adults: 2016-2022. Clarify Health. clarifyhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Clarify-Health-Institute-Research-Brief-The-Kids-Are-Not-Alright-2023.pdf 
  13. Curtin, S.C. (2020). State suicide rates among adolescents and young adults aged 10–24: United States, 2000–2018. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics Reports, 69(11), 1-10. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr69/nvsr-69-11-508.pdf
  14. Curtin, S .C. & Garnett, M. F. (2023). Suicide and homicide death rates among youth and young adults aged 10–24: United States, 2001–2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (471). DOI: 10.15620/cdc:128423
  15. Curtin, S. C., Garnett, M. F., & Ahmad, F. B. (2022). Provisional Numbers and Rates of Suicide by Month and Demographic Characteristics: United States, 2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics Reports, (24), 1-7. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr024.pdf 
  16. Cushing, A. M., Liberman, D. B., Pham, P. K., Michelson, K. A., Festekjian, A., Chang, T. P., & Chaudhari, P. P. (2022). Mental health revisits at US pediatric emergency departments. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(2), 168-176. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4885
  17. Czeisler, M. E., Lane, R. I., Petrosky, E., Wiley, J. F., Christensen, A., Njai, R., Weaver, M. D., Robbins, R., Facer-Childs, E. R., Barger, L. K., Czeisler, C. A., Howard, M. E., & Rajaratnam, S. M. W. (2020). Mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic — United States, June 24–30, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(32), 1049-1057. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6932a1 
  18. Doran, C. M. & Kinchin, I. (2020). Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index. PLOS One, 15(5). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232940
  19. Eisenberg, D., Lipson, S. K., Heinze, J., Zhou, S., Vyletel, B., Henry, H., Fucinari, J., Murphy, M., Voichoski, E., & Inscore, A. (2023). The Healthy Minds Study: 2021-2022 data report. Healthy Minds Network. https://healthymindsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/HMS-National-Report-2021-22_full.pdf
  20. Gaylor, E. M., Krause, K. H., Welder, L. E., Cooper, A. C., Ashley, C., Mack, K. A., Crosby, A. E., Trinh, E., Ivey-Stephenson, A. Z., & Whittle, L. (2023). Suicidal thoughts and behaviors among high school students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(1), 45-54. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.su7201a6
  21. Hua, L. L., Lee, J., Rahmandar, M. H., Sigel, E. J., Committee on Adolescence, & Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention. (2024). Suicide and suicide risk in adolescents. Pediatrics, 153(1). DOI: 10.1542/peds.2023-064800
  22. Ivey-Stephenson, A. Z., Demissie, Z., Crosby, A. E., Stone, D. M., Gaylor, E., Wilkins, N., Lowry, R., & Brown, M. (2020). Suicidal ideation and behaviors among high school students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2019. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(1), 47-55. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.su6901a6 
  23. Janiri, D., Doucet, G., Pompili, M., Sani, G., Luna, B., Brent, D., & Frangou, S. (2020). Risk and protective factors for childhood suicidality: a US population-based study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(4), 317-326. DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30049-3
  24. Jenco, M. (2022). AAP urges suicide screening despite USPSTF call for more research. American Academy of Pediatrics News. https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/19948/AAP-urges-suicide-screening-despite-USPSTF-call 
  25. Jones, S. E., Ethier, K. A., Hertz, M., DeGue, S., Le, V. D., Thornton, J., Lim, C., Dittus, P. J., & Geda, S. (2022). Mental health, suicidality, and connectedness among high school students during the COVID-19 pandemic — Adolescent behaviors and experiences survey, United States, January–June 2021.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 71(3), 16-21. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/su/pdfs/su7103a1-a5-H.pdf 
  26. Keating, S. R. & Rudd-Arieta, M. (2021). Emerging adults’ attitudes and beliefs about suicide and technology/social media. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 17(7), 833-839. DOI: 10.1016/j.nurpra.2021.04.010 
  27. Leeb, R. T., Bitsko, R. H., Radhakrishnan, L., Martinez, P., Njai, R., & Holland, K. M. (2020). Mental health–related emergency department visits among children aged <18 years during the COVID-19 pandemic — United States, January 1–October 17, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(45), 1675-1680. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6945a3
  28. Levine, R. S., Levine, E. M., Rubenstein, A., Muppala, V., Mejia, M. C., Gonzalez, S., Zoorob, R. J., Hennekens, C. H., & Wood, S. K. (2023). Continuing alarming increases in suicide in American youths: Clinical and research challenges. Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/jounal-article-pdfd/Annals-of-Pediatrics-and-Child-Health/pediatrics-11-1301.pdf 
  29. National Institute of Mental Health. (2024). Suicide. The National Institutes of Health. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide 
  30. National Alliance on Mental Illness (2024). What you need to know about youth suicide. NAMI. https://www.nami.org/Your-Journey/Kids-Teens-and-Young-Adults/What-You-Need-to-Know-About-Youth-Suicide 
  31. Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. (2021). Protecting youth mental health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/youth-mental-health/index.html
  32. Overhage, L., Hailu, R., Busch, A. B., Mehrotra, A., Michelson, K. A., & Huskamp, H. A. (2023). Trends in acute care use for mental health conditions among youth during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Psychiatry, 80(9), 924-932. DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.2195
  33. Penfold, R. (2021). Addressing the crisis of youth suicide in America. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute. https://www.kpwashingtonresearch.org/news-and-events/blog/2021/addressing-crisis-youth-suicide-america 
  34. Richesson, D., Magas, I., Brown, S., Hoenig, J. M., Cooper, P. M., Gyawali, S., Smith, T., & Yen, J. (2022). Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt39443/2021NSDUHFFRRev010323.pdf 
  35. Richtel, M. & Flanagan, A. (2022). Hundreds of suicidal teens sleep in emergency rooms. Every night. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/08/health/emergency-rooms-teen-mental-health.html 
  36. Roubein, R. & Beard, M. (2022). Congress is working on legislation to address children’s mental health crisis. The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/01/congress-is-working-legislation-address-children-mental-health-crisis/ 
  37. Stone, D. M., Mack, K. A., & Qualters, J. (2023). Notes from the field: Recent changes in suicide rates, by race and ethnicity and age group — United States, 2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(6), 160-162. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7206a4 
  38. Warner, J. & Zhang, J. (2022). ‘We have essentially turned a blind eye to our own children for decades’: Why we need to stop politicizing children’s mental health. The Washington Post Magazine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/03/21/childrens-mental-health-crisis-politicization/ 
  39. Yard, E., Radhakrishnan, L., Ballesteros, M. F., Sheppard, M., Gates, A., Stein, Z., Hartnett, K., Kite-Powell, A., Rodgers, L., Adjemian, J., Ehlman, D. C., Holland, K., Idaikkadar, N., Ivey-Stephenson, A., Martinez, P., Law, R., & Stone, D. M. (2021). Emergency department visits for suspected suicide attempts among persons aged 12–25 years before and during the COVID-19 pandemic — United States, January 2019–May 2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(24), 888-894. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7024e1 

Facebook and Machine Learning: Powerful or Dangerous?

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Grace Sargent, April 9, 2024

The intertwined relationship between social media platforms and the technologies they rely on is often overlooked by its users, despite their relevance. Within the past decade, social media usage has increased immensely, and it has become second nature for many people. We have grown accustomed to logging onto our favorite websites and immediately being greeted with content that is tailored to our hobbies and interests, without truly questioning the work that led up to that satisfying experience. Thus, I would like to delve into the evolution behind Facebook and its machine learning—namely, its algorithms. I will then expand on the implications of this relation regarding both Facebook’s users and the development of the platform itself, exploring the question of its greater impact.

Though the two were not always intimately connected, the current, continued success of Facebook is largely due to the advancement of its machine learning; in other words, the two have become inextricably linked. At their inception, many social media platforms were created with pleasurability and collaboration in mind. Indeed, their significance has simply been an extension of the main purpose of where they are typically housed (our phones): to bring us together. When we think of our phones, we think of how we are afforded the opportunity “to stay connected with loved ones and friends no matter where they are” (Liberty). Facebook’s creation was then seen as an innovative way to do exactly that—to stay in touch. After launching in February 2004, the platform allowed users to view their profile page and make posts as they pleased. To check in on your friends, you were required to manually search their profiles. It wasn’t until 2006 when “News Feed” was introduced that users could enjoy a homepage that included the updates and pictures posted by their friends (Wallaroo). Facebook’s true incorporation of machine learning, however, was in November of 2007 when users were able to “like” posts, resulting in a News Feed that was more likely to display content the user would interact with (Wallaroo). Machine learning is defined as “a subset of artificial intelligence (AI) that focuses on the development of computer algorithms that improve automatically through experience and by the use of data” (Crabtree). From there, the power of Facebook’s algorithms took off, and so did how the platform facilitated engagement from its users. 

Machine learning and the algorithms it employs have advanced alongside the social media platforms that use them, allowing their accuracy to improve tenfold. As aforementioned, the preliminary stages of Facebook’s algorithms were solely dependent on the content a user would “like” or “dislike.” Currently, however, its algorithms consider multiple factors to formulate content that is tailored to the interests of each specific user. Not only do the algorithms take note of what users “like,” but also how frequently they will interact with certain types of accounts, and even at what times they do so (Zote). Furthermore, it takes into account large amounts of data that span more than individual incidents; it will take note of your overall behavior, and predict whether you would enjoy seeing content that is similar to what you have already expressed an interest in (Adisa). It is nearly impossible for users to regularly use Facebook without inadvertently creating a space for themselves where they are exposed to a specific genre of content. Thus, as its algorithms (machine learning) widened its capabilities to take in multiple variables (such as what type of content they engage with, which accounts they check frequently, etc.), Facebook’s curation has also become more accurate. This is beneficial to Facebook itself as it increases the likelihood of satisfied users who will return to their platform and further its notoriety, though it is not entirely positive for users in the long run. 

Facebook has evolved past being a website for friendly connections and has established itself as a space for the widespread sharing of important information that can educate the masses. This was seen prominently during the beginning stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when there was an urgent need for medical knowledge. When the world was experiencing unprecedented times, knowing how to take necessary precautions was incredibly important, and many people turned to Facebook as their source. In 2021, Facebook even partnered with the World Health Organization (WHO) to provide vulnerable communities with the means of accessing important health information. Facebook implemented their Discover mobile web, as well as Free Basics, which gave people “health information, job sites, communication tools, education resources, and local government information without data charges” (World Health Organization). This demonstrates how Facebook has managed to merge pleasure with practicality for its users who are navigating challenges while depending on their online platforms. 

Another way users have utilized Facebook is its ability to provide people with the opportunity for advocacy. Many people consider Facebook to be “pivotal for the innovation of online social networking platforms as the limitless functions of these platforms contribute to the construction of social change” (Kennedy). One of the best ways Facebook allows social activism to thrive is through its “Groups” function. Groups are where people gather with similar interests or ideas, and it allows them to unite, communicate, and collaborate promptly. Those same ideas can then be brought to larger audiences on the site, where they can gain further traction and attention to fulfill their ultimate goals of bringing about change. In other words, this social media site is often viewed—and used—as a legitimate means of mass communication.

Taking these purposes into account, it is interesting to then consider how some of Facebook’s demographics have changed over the years. Years ago, in 2012, Facebook was said to be especially appealing to women who were aged 18-29 (Duggan and Brenner). A reported 57% of its users were female, making 43% of them male (Alexander). Statistics for 2023, however, illustrate a change that has occurred over time. Across all age groups except for 65 and older, there are more male users than female users (Dixon). Additionally, the largest audience group was found to be men ranging from 25-34 years old (Dixon). Therefore, the kinds of users that Facebook attracts have changed along with its general purposes. Facebook is typically not regarded as a go-to social media site for younger audiences looking for pure entertainment—rather, platforms like Instagram and TikTok are most appealing. 

When considering the information that has been gathered and analyzed, I think it’s important to recognize the ongoing trends Facebook has experienced. As I previously explained, Facebook was first and most popular among college-aged adults, and it was used very casually. People enjoyed sharing small parts of their lives such as what they were up to or who they were dating. Since then, however, it has shifted away from serving purely entertainment purposes and instead become a popular place to share news and pressing information. While I have laid out how this has been beneficial to educating large audiences, I think it is also worth noting the potential downsides; namely, the phenomenon of filter bubbles. I established that Facebook’s algorithms are greatly developed to put content on your feed that you are likely to enjoy, however, their ability to prevent you from seeing a diverse range of posts can create these filter bubbles. A filter bubble effectively isolates users from information and perspectives they haven’t yet expressed an interest in, cutting them off from information that could be important (GCF Global). The most dangerous aspect of a filter bubble is that the user will often not realize they are in one, and then not take any action to broaden their perspective since they feel they are being adequately informed in the first place. 

In other words, I am cautious about saying Facebook should be prioritized as a place for information. Rather, I would argue that the site will continue to foster digital spaces that isolate groups of people which could potentially further divide our society. This is largely due to the complex machine learning (algorithms) employed by Facebook—as they become more advanced and consequently adept at curating feeds that are guaranteed to satisfy audiences, users will have a harder time breaking free from the restraints they set. If individuals of the general public each remain in their filter bubble, how will we become properly exposed to a variety of topics and information? Given this, I think a good practice users should keep in mind is to actively seek out opinions that differ from their own to ensure they understand all sides of an issue. It is also important for users to be aware of the limitations of a singular social media site like Facebook; it is always best to get information from multiple sources. 

Works Cited

Adisa, Dorcas. “How to Rise above Social Media Algorithms.” Sprout Social, 30 Oct. 2023, sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-algorithms/. 

Alexander, Anson. “Facebook User Statistics 2012 [Infographic].” AnsonAlex.Com, 31 Dec. 2020, ansonalex.com/infographics/facebook-user-statistics-2012-infographic/#:~:text=57%25%20of%20Facebook%20user%20are,on%20the%20site%20per%20visit. 

Crabtree, Matt. “What Is Machine Learning? Definition, Types, Tools & More.” DataCamp, DataCamp, 19 July 2023, www.datacamp.com/blog/what-is-machine-learning. 

“Digital Media Literacy: How Filter Bubbles Isolate You.” GCFGlobal.Org, GCFGlobal Learning, edu.gcfglobal.org/en/digital-media-literacy/how-filter-bubbles-isolate-you/1/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2024. 

Dixon, Stacy Jo. “Global Facebook User Age & Gender Distribution 2023.” Statista, 29 Aug. 2023, www.statista.com/statistics/376128/facebook-global-user-age-distribution/. 

Duggan, Maeve. “The Demographics of Social Media Users – 2012.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, Pew Research Center, 14 Feb. 2013, www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/02/14/the-demographics-of-social-media-users-2012/. 

“Facebook News Feed Algorithm History: 2023 Update.” Wallaroo Media, 9 Mar. 2023, wallaroomedia.com/facebook-newsfeed-algorithm-history/. 

“How Mobile Phones Are Making Our Lives Convenient.” Liberty Title, 6 Mar. 2023, libtitle.com/how-mobile-phones-are-making-our-lives-convenient/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20biggest%20benefits,to%20anyone%20in%20the%20world. 

Kennedy, Che-Anne. “Facebook as a Construct of Social Change and Collaboration for Activists., Debating Communities and Networks XII.” Debating Communities and Networks XII, 27 Apr. 2021, networkconference.netstudies.org/2021/2021/04/27/facebook-as-a-construct-of-social-change-and-collaboration-for-activists/. 

“Who, Facebook and Praekelt.Org Provide Critical Mobile Access to COVID-19 Information for Vulnerable Communities.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 11 Aug. 2021, www.who.int/news/item/11-08-2021-who-facebook-and-praekelt.org-provide-critical-mobile-access-to-covid-19-information-for-vulnerable-communities. 

Zote, Jacqueline. “How the Facebook Algorithm Works and Ways Your Brand Can Outsmart It.” Sprout Social, 10 Jan. 2024, sproutsocial.com/insights/facebook-algorithm/. 

Plato’s Unloving Lover

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

By Aviram Nessim, March 9, 2024

Plato’s masterpiece, Phaedrus, contains two rather intricate definitions of love. On one hand, the concept of love is tainted by the prominent Athenian orator, Lysias, during his dialogue with Phaedrus, a young, impressionable student of rhetoric. As we will see, Lysias’ declamation places the “non-lover” on a pedestal while regarding the lover as inferior, thereby jeopardizing Phaedrus’ growth by portraying love in a damaging light. On the other hand, Socrates delivers a speech disagreeing with the words of Lysias by attempting to redefine love, and, in turn, emphasize the emancipation of Phaedrus’ soul. In this essay, my objectives are threefold. First, I will explain how Lysias’ speech was inherently destructive through its attempts to denounce the very essence of love. Second, I will explore how such a speech jeopardized both Phaedrus’ philosophical and divine potential, specifically through its attempts to hinder both. Lastly, I will explain how Socrates’ amendment of the definition of love attempts to redeem Phaedrus from the ruinous nature of Lysias’ words.

Lysias turns the concept of love into a denunciation by vehemently suggesting that it is best to avoid it altogether. However, he believes that the “non-lover” can still derive pleasurable benefits, proposing that “favors should be granted to a man who is not in love rather than one who is” (Plato, 3). Favors, in this circumstance, are a euphemism for intercourse. Lysias asserts that sexual pleasures can only be reserved for those who disregard any devotion they might have for one another. Yet, such an opinion is rooted in Lysias’ belief that those in love continuously experience negative emotions such as remorse for having engaged in a relationship; according to Lysias, for this very reason, the “non-lover” must not affiliate themself with such emotions. Moreover, Lysias claims that those in love “think they have long since given return enough to the objects of their love; whereas those unloved cannot allege neglect of their own interests because of it, nor reckon up their past labours” (Plato, 7). Here, the narrative of love is perceived with a negative connotation, illustrating how lovers continuously display regret after separating from their partner (whereas their counterparts are unable to associate themselves with any sentiment). Moreover, this quote illustrates Lysias’ perception of love as an exchange of favors while denying its inherently selfless and giving nature. Thus, the theme of entering into relationships as a “non-lover” while still indulging in romantic circumstances is the overarching theme of Lysias’ argument. In his efforts to reinforce it, Lysias repeatedly condemns the longing of love, asserting that it results in intolerable emotional repercussions.

The degree to which Phaedrus embraces Lysias’ speech is, simply put, concerning. This is because, immediately following Lysias’ speech, Phaedrus eagerly reports to Socrates about how “extraordinarily well done” and well-formulated Lysias’ speech was (Plato, 11). Socrates calmly and promptly acknowledges that a vulnerability is present in Phaedrus’ novel perception of love and, as a reply, delivers his own definition of love. Socrates begins his proclamation by insisting that throughout time “there were two kinds of madness, the one caused by sickness of a human sort, and the other coming about from a divinely caused reversal of our customary ways of behaving…and belonging to Aphrodite and Love” (Plato, 49). Socrates interprets such “madness” as a phenomenon occurring on both a human and divine level. According to him, “madness” on a divine level originates from the gods and influences both the lover and the beloved with the intention of shaping their behavior and emotions in romantic relationships. Socrates’ explanation is crucial in surmounting the harmful words of Lysias to allow the growth of Phaedrus’ soul. Ultimately, it is Socrates’ portrayal of love as a purposeful, spiritual “madness” that allows Phaedrus to embrace Socrates’ concept fully while recognizing the illegitimacy of Lysias’ argument.  

Additionally, Socrates posits that a soul situated within the human body on Earth will dramatically grow its wings upon encountering beauty. Specifically, the soul will “become winged, fluttering with an eagerness to fly upwards”; it is this very occurrence that transforms one’s soul into “a lover” (Plato, 30). Socrates reiterates, explaining that the innocent soul of Phaedrus can do the same – observe beauty and soar upwards. The speech of Lysias only succumbs itself to the human benefits of what is seen to be an objectively non-loving relationship. According to Socrates’ speech, love stems from divinity, containing something far more innate and spiritually significant than casual pleasure-generating relationships. Therefore, the arguments of Lysias bitterly drag down Phaedrus, keeping his soul confined to Earth by stunting the growth of his “wings” and limiting his ability to admire the divine beauty that love can offer on both a human and divine level. Ultimately, upon Phaedrus observing this far more authentic interpretation of love, he spares his physical body of lackluster relationships, and, more importantly, his soul from withering away.

Today’s world holds many contemporary viewpoints for approaching love. One may even see a dichotomy between viewing love as merely a human emotion and having its roots in divinity and spiritual significance, which are akin to the aforementioned beliefs held by Lysias and Socrates. In this same context, however, there are many people who resemble Phaedrus: lost yet voraciously searching for a sense of direction. Hearing the wise words of astute philosophers may help them find their way.

Works Cited

Plato (2005). Phaedrus. Penguin Books.

The Possible Anti-depressant Effects of Magic Mushrooms

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

By Maisha Pathan, March 9, 2024

Depression is a debilitating condition that affects up to 17.8% of American adults as of
2023 (Witters). Although there are countless treatment options in the form of antidepressants,
and therapy, sometimes, these treatments may still not be enough to provide relief for those
suffering from depression. Shrooms, also known as magic mushrooms may be an emerging
answer to those seeking an alternative. This unorthodox form of treatment called
psilocybin-assisted therapy (PAT) is gaining popularity, and the results are significant enough to
be brought to the public’s attention. In PAT, the patient is given a dose of the psychedelic
psilocybin, also known as magic mushrooms, in a controlled setting while their assigned
therapist stands by to monitor the experience. Despite its low toxicity and even being safer than
nicotine and aspirin, the stigma surrounding psychedelics causes people to hesitate even
considering this as an option, on top of which it’s still a controlled substance by the government
(Lowe et al. 20). However, research obtained from clinical trials shows that in a controlled
environment and administered by a trusted professional psilocybin has a powerful impact on
depressive symptoms, and many participants report improvement in their condition after their
sessions. For the people struggling with treatment-resistant depression, severe depression, or
anyone who finds that medication and therapy aren’t helping them: psilocybin-assisted therapy
could be a viable option for treating depression and should be offered alongside therapy and
medication.


Historically, psilocybin mushrooms have been in use for centuries, prominently in the
Aztec empire around the 15th century. The substance was referred to as “god’s flesh” in Nahuatl
and used in religious and healing rituals (Nichols 679). However, it wasn’t until 1957, when
Albert Hoffman a chemist who (also created LSD) isolated psilocybin from a Mesoamerican
psilocybin mushroom, and published its effects, that magic mushrooms entered modern
American society (Nichols 680) . Although the substance was then used in psychedelic therapy,
it became popularized for its recreational use during the 60’s aided by the hippie movement,
until the USA passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970,
which marked it as an illicit drug along with LSD and other psychedelics. Despite these
restrictions, psilocybin continued to be used recreationally by citizens and has been gaining
more traction in media.


Major depressive disorder is a serious depressive disorder that can have a lasting impact
on the brain. This damage essentially rewires the brain which can keep the person in their
depressive state for a prolonged amount of time. The compounds that makeup psilocybin can
sometimes reverse, or rewire, the damage depression does to the brain. According to an article
published by Healthline, a medical information website, depression can shrink regions of the
brain governing memory (hippocampus), emotion (amygdala), and cognitive functions
(prefrontal cortices). As a result of shrinking, function in these brain regions such as emotional
regulation and interest, memory, and concentration are also diminished (“5 Ways Depression
Can Physically Affect the Brain”). Psilocybin, specifically psilocin comes into play here due to
its role as a subtype of serotonin receptor. It activates a serotonin receptor called the 5-HT2A
which increases serotonin levels similar to SSRIs (2-Minute Neuroscience: Psilocybin, 0:16). In
a study conducted by researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine, an fMRI was used to show how the
activation of the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor by psilocin affected the brain landscape. The results showed that on psilocin, the brain lowered energy barriers between different regional
connections in the brain which allowed regions of the brain that were typically not stimulated to
be activated. Due to the flattening of the brain’s energy landscape, new connections could be
made between different brain regions, enabling neuroplasticity and promoting neurogenesis,
which is generation of new neurons. This opens up space that allows the brain to rewire itself,
and if the psilocybin is taken in a clinical setting such as in a PAT session, old patterns of
thinking can be replaced with new, expansive thought patterns which can reverse the effects of
depression on the brain by fostering new connections (Kuceyeski).


The structure of PAT is what makes it so successful and extremely safe in treating
depression. It’s is controlled by doctors and therapists in a clinical setting and is spread
throughout three stages: a preparatory stage, an administration stage, and an integration stage
(Schuitmaker 2). Each stage of PAT plays a significant role in how effective the treatment will
be for the patient while maintaining the environment in a controlled setting.


In the preparatory stage, participants attend several psychotherapy sessions to set their
goals and intentions for their experience. This creates the set and setting. Although individuals’
experiences on psilocybin vary from person to person an important factor to the experience is set
and setting. An article analyzing PAT in medicine by Cureus, a peer-reviewed medical journal,
explains that set refers to a patient’s goals and intentions for their psilocybin experience and is
discussed with their therapist so that it could be used to guide the individual and keep them on
track. The setting refers to the patient’s mental, physical, and emotional state prior to and during
the treatment. Attending these preparatory therapy sessions helps the therapist assess when and
where treatment should take place (Ziff et al. 7).


Once the patient is prepared, the next stage is “administration” which the Yale Manual for
Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy of Depression details. Typically, on the day of administration, the
patient is taken to a homey, welcoming room, where they lie down on the couch, put on
headphones, run a musical playlist, and wear a blindfold. The dose of psilocybin provided can
vary but typically is less than 1 gram and based on what the participant can handle. The music,
lying down, and blindfold work together to create a relaxing environment where the patient can
feel safe. They know that if they need any support they have their therapist right there next to
them. These measures create a controlled environment for the patient, minimizing possible
adverse reactions like anxiety or paranoia which can lead to nausea or vomiting. Once the patient
is settled and has consumed their psilocybin dose, the drug slowly takes effect, guiding them on a
journey into the depths of their mind. The therapist only guides the patient when needed based on
the goals and intentions set in the preparatory sessions, and otherwise does not interfere with the
psilocybin trip (Guss et al. 45-50).


The day after administration takes us to the third stage, “integration.” Integration
consists of several sessions through the following weeks during which the therapist asks the
patient about their experience, what they saw, felt, learned, what they’d like to take away from
their experience, and how to integrate that into their lives (Guss et al. 51-60). Although all three
stages of psilocybin-assisted therapy are equally as important, integration ensures that the
positive experiences are incorporated into the patient’s life and have a lasting effect while the
negative experiences if any are worked through. This structuring makes the therapeutic
administration of psilocybin safe and maximizes the benefits the substance can provide a
patient.

The effectiveness of psilocybin-assisted therapy as a treatment is evident in a number of studies.
In an article published by Johns Hopkins Medicine, the efficiency of using psilocybin to treat
major depression is explored through two studies conducted under their Psychiatry and
Behavioral Sciences department. The results found from both studies showed that using
psychedelic therapy by giving each participant a dose of psilocybin followed by psychotherapy
significantly reduced the symptoms of depression in both studies. Half of the participants in the
first study entered remission from depression at the end of the four-week follow-up. In the
second study, participants with a long history of depression on antidepressants were provided two
doses of psilocybin in a few weeks. They took a GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale before
and after. The results showed that 67% of the participants showed a reduction in their symptoms
after a week, and four weeks after treatment, 54% of participants in the study were in remission
(“Psychedelic Treatment with Psilocybin Relieves Major Depression, Study Shows”). In another
study conducted by the Psychiatric University Hospital of Zurich, 52 participants suffering from
major depressive disorder were treated with psilocybin-assisted therapy. Half of them were given
psilocybin while the other half, 26 individuals were given a placebo. The results showed that
psilocybin significantly decreased depressive symptoms in those who had it, more than those
who received a placebo along with their therapy sessions. By the end of the study 14 out of 26,
met the criteria for remission from depression on the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating
scale. In comparison to the placebo group in which the treatment was technically seven required
therapy sessions, 4 out of 26 met the criteria for remission demonstrating that psilocybin was the
driving force for the symptom reductions (Rotz 7-10).


In one clinical PAT trial conducted by NYU School of Medicine, the participants were four
cancer patients struggling with depression and anxiety. At the end of their participation which
spanned 26 weeks, each patient demonstrated a significant reduction in their depressive
symptoms which resulted from the experiences they had during their trips.
Many people suffering from depression who participated in psilocybin-assisted therapy
clinical studies report having positive experiences that aided in reducing their depressive
symptoms. Chrissy, a 50-year-old female with stage 4 breast cancer stated “[The psilocybin
experience] brought my beliefs to life, made them real, something tangible and true – it made my
beliefs more than something to think about, really something to lean on and look forward to,”
(Malone et a. 4). Although Chrissy knew that she was still going to pass, she was able to accept
and even look forward to the time she had left. In a separate trial by the Faculty of Medicine at
Al-Hikma University, ten participants struggling with depression were treated their with
psilocybin-assisted therapy. During an integration session with their therapist, a young adult
known as Participant 1 stated, “My whole thought pattern changed. I was so relieved. My head
had never been clearer. I was so happy the day after cried to my trip buddy about how I could see
again…. I was on three different anti-depressants, valium, and sleeping pills. This stopped within
2 weeks of my first dose,” (Hisham et al. 3). Many other participants from the same study
reported the experience was mind-expanding, and gave them a more positive outlook in life. The
experiences of the participants in this particular study are consistent with the neuroplasticity
effect psilocybin can have on the brain which allows it to create new connections and eradicate
old, negative thought patterns.


Psilocybin-assisted therapy has proven to be a worthwhile treatment venture for many of the
patients who participated in treatment for their depressive disorders. It’s important to note that psilocybin in this case is being used for treatment, not for recreation or self-exploration and
because it is being used for treatment by entrusted clinics it poses a relatively low risk, if at all to
those who receive it. However, that is not to say that this should be an option for everyone.
Studies have shown that people who are genetically predisposed to psychotic disorders such as
Schizophrenia can be triggered if exposed to any psychedelic substances such as psilocybin, in
the case where if they hadn’t been exposed to the substance they would not have developed any
form of psychosis (Ziff et al. 8). This is however, managed under psilocybin-assisted therapy as
before being able to receive it, all patients must undergo medical health screening to ensure it
will be an appropriate option for them. Many of the clinical studies on PAT usually begin with a
large pool of participants, which is slowly trickled down to a very small number via medical
health screening. The doses of psilocybin provided by these clinics are also quite moderate, and
typically less than even 1 gram which is the starting dose for recreational users. Years of research
and studies have gone on to show that psilocybin-assisted therapy can bring profound
improvement to depressive symptoms, especially for those who have exhausted all other options
such as medications and therapy. Age, health, and environment are all factors to consider when it
comes to PAT and it should be offered based on a mutual decision between the patient and their
mental healthcare provider. Although psilocybin-assisted therapy is not currently offered as an
official treatment and can only be accessed by participating in clinical trials, this may change
soon. In 2018, the FDA granted psilocybin-assisted therapy “break-through therapy” status
which means they will prioritize reviewing it soon for approval meaning it could soon be widely
offered for treatment (Coleman). For those struggling with depression who haven’t found relief
from any of the current treatment options, or are interested in trying psilocybin-assisted therapy,
this may be good news. Still, as in all cases, it’s important to do your own research to determine
whether this is the right option for you.

Bibliography

  1. Alshaikhli, Hisham, et al. “Effectiveness of Psilocybin on Depression: A Qualitative Study.”
    Electronic Journal of General Medicine, vol. 18, no. 3, Apr. 2021, p. em296,
    https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/10862.
  2. Coleman, Theara, and The Week US last updated. “The Legal State of Psychedelic Therapy in
    the US.” The week, 25 June 2023,
    theweek.com/drugs/1024449/the-state-of-psychedelic-therapy-in-the-us. Accessed 26
    Oct. 2023.
  3. Guss, Jeffrey, et al. “The Yale Manual for Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy of Depression (Using
    Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as a Therapeutic Frame).” Yale Manual for
    Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy of Depression , Aug. 2020,
    https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u6v9y. Accessed 4 Nov. 2021.
  4. Kuceyeski, Dr. Amy. “Psychedelic Drugs Flatten the Brain’s Dynamic Landscape.” WCM
    Newsroom, Weill Cornell Medicine, 2022,
    news.weill.cornell.edu/news/2022/10/psychedelic-drugs-flatten-the-brain%E2%80%99s
    dynamic-landscape    .
  5. Lowe, Henry, et al. “The Therapeutic Potential of Psilocybin.” Molecules, vol. 26, no. 10, Jan. 2021, p. 2948, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26102948.
  6. Malone, Tara C., et al. “Individual Experiences in Four Cancer Patients Following Psilocybin-Assisted Psychotherapy.” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 9, 2018, p. 335252, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00256. Accessed 26 Oct. 2023.
  7. Nichols, David E. “Psilocybin: From Ancient Magic to Modern Medicine.” The Journal of Antibiotics, vol. 73, no. 10, May 2020, pp. 679–86, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41429-020-0311-8.
  8. Neuroscientifically Challenged. “2-Minute Neuroscience: Psilocybin.” YouTube, YouTube Video, 5 May 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBEas8MGzd0.
  9. Rotz, Robin, et al. “Single-Dose Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy in Major Depressive Disorder: A Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomised Clinical Trial.” EClinicalMedicine, vol. 56, Feb. 2023, p. 101809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101809.
  10. Schuitmaker, Nicole. “Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy: A Scoping Review of Participants’ and Facilitators’ Experiences in Qualitative Studies.” Research, Society and Development, vol. 12, no. 9, Sept. 2023, p. e12312943308–e12312943308, https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v12i9.43308. Accessed 26 Oct. 2023.
  11. Witters, Dan. “U.S. Depression Rates Reach New Highs.” Gallup.com, 17 May 2023, news.gallup.com/poll/505745/depression-rates-reach-new-highs.aspx#:~:text=In%202023%2C%2029.0%25%20of%20Americans. Accessed 19 Aug. 2023.
  12. Ziff, Shawn, et al. “Analysis of Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy in Medicine: A Narrative Review.” Cureus, vol. 14, no. 2, Feb. 2022, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21944.
  13. “Psychedelic Treatment with Psilocybin Relieves Major Depression, Study Shows.” Www.hopkinsmedicine.org, 4 Nov. 2020, www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/2020/11/psychedelic-treatment-with-psilocybin-relieves-major-depression-study-shows#:~:text=In%20a%20small%20study%20of. Accessed 26 Oct. 2023.
  14. “5 Ways Depression Can Physically Affect the Brain.” Healthline, 24 Oct. 2018, www.healthline.com/health/depression-physical-effects-on-the-brain#reversing-the-effects. Accessed 26 Oct. 2023.

Healthcare’s Youngest Victims: Inequality in Pediatric Healthcare and How We Can Fix It

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

 by Cameron Takmil, February 24, 2024

Millions of children visit the emergency room every year with cuts, bruises, and a myriad of other diagnoses. Many are turned away from necessary treatments for seemingly nothing except one thing – race. While seemingly trivial, disparities across racial and ethnic lines persist, underscoring a critical need for systemic reform. Recent research spearheaded by experts at Northwestern revealed that healthcare inequities are widespread, affecting non-white minorities profoundly in pediatric care. 

The most concerning disparity was in pain management. When comparing kids of color to their white counterparts, they were not given proper medication at the same rate (Godoy 2024). 

These disparities manifest in other ways, including but not limited to diagnostic imaging, surgical complications, emergency care wait times, and treatment for developmental disabilities. Children of color often get the short end of the stick in these circumstances, receiving less than optimal care. UCLA researchers determined that white pediatric patients were more likely to receive sepsis treatment, compared to their black counterparts who also were less likely to be given full diagnostic testing through automated sepsis-alert systems (Li et. al 2022).

Premature infants of color tend to have increased rates of morbidities with regard to bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular hemorrhage, and necrotizing enterocolitis (Fanta et. al 2021). Those same infants generally had a lower birth weight, were born more prematurely, and had a higher mortality rate compared to white infants.

Differences lie not only in physical health, as mental health has seen its fair share of disparities amongst pediatric patients. Post-diagnosis, Latino and Black children receive medication and treatment at a lesser rate than White children (Fanta et. al 2021). Underdiagnosed and undertreated, patients of color were less likely to be evaluated on evidence-based mental health care and be given the correct medication all in all.

These inequalities persist despite the families having insurance, pointing towards the idea that these disparities are caused by other factors (Godoy 2024). Nevertheless, Hispanic and Black populations were much less likely to be uninsured, which is another hindrance in access to ubiquitous healthcare (Zhang et. al 2019).

The source of these inequalities stems from decades-long structural racism. Race-based residential segregation, institutional racism, and concentrated poverty have led and in many cases today, continues to worsen quality of housing, safety, and healthcare access and quality. A Harvard study found that in nearly all of the largest urban areas in the United States, two-thirds of non-Hispanic Black children and more than half of Hispanic children lived in areas graded as low- or very low opportunity (Slopen, Heard-Garris 2021). On the other hand, fewer than 1 in 5 Asian or White children live in low- or very low opportunity neighborhoods, clearly more affluent than their minority counterparts.

Government programs that have kept many afloat are slowly falling to the wayside, exposing vulnerable populations to even worse conditions. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, served nearly half of the U.S’s infant population, and over six million children overall (Center for Health Journalism 2024). WIC has been able to improve birth metrics such as birth weight, preterm birth, and infant mortality rates. Despite being seemingly essential, the refusal by Congress to adjust its budget has put close to a million Americans at risk of losing their benefits.

These disadvantages extend into overall health as “toxic stress” – a term used by researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute – leads to negative consequences in physical and psychological health. Their study discovered that adversity during childhood was associated with poorer neurocognitive, neonatal, and cardiovascular health (Umaretiya et. al 2022). Due to red-lining – residential segregation policy in the 20th century – environmental risk is increased in more impoverished areas, posing a risk of safety and exposure to its residents (Samuelson 2024). Pediatric patients of color who live in these areas with higher density of housing code violations are more likely to be admitted and return to the ED due to asthma and related complications  (Fanta et. al 2021). 

If that was not enough to overcome, this prejudice has been baked into society with false, harmful, and misleading stereotypes, which many internalize, whether consciously or subconsciously. Minority parents, especially Hispanic parents, frequently report that healthcare providers do not dedicate sufficient time to understand their child’s needs, respect their parenting expertise, or align with their child-rearing preferences (Flores 2005). These same populations also reported that topics such as community violence, household smoking, alcohol usage, issues paying for the child’s basic needs, and spouse/partner support were discussed more frequently than white parents.

These sentiments extend far beyond healthcare, as anti-minority beliefs have come to the forefront in the past years. According to a recent national survey, “51% of whites think that blacks are prone to violence, whereas only 16% of whites think that whites are prone to violence” (Flores 2005). In the doctor’s office, we see much of the same, as the prevalence in which community violence was discussed quadrupled and tripled for Hispanic and Black patients respectively. Similar trends were found with regard to substance use, even in families where average income exceeded $75,000 (Flores 2005). 

This gap in communication and understanding only exacerbates the feeling of marginalization and can lead to decreased satisfaction with care and impaired patient-provider communication. These same minority populations have been reported to have higher levels of distrust of their provider, mainly due to implicit and explicit discrimination (Umaretiya et. al 2022). Such interactions might not only perpetuate discrimination but also detract from providers’ ability to educate, inform, and aid these patients.

It is not all hopeless, though, as there is a pathway for solutions to reduce the gap between patients of color and white patients. Addressing and solving disparities in pediatric healthcare is a multifaceted challenge that demands an in-depth and multidisciplinary approach. The strategies to promote health equity in pediatrics can be categorized into three levels: individual, institutional, and structural as demonstrated in research (Fanta et. al 2021). 

At the individual level, healthcare professionals can make up ground by engaging in continuous professional development focused on understanding and mitigating the impact of interpersonal racism, discrimination, and bias on pediatric health inequities (Fanta et. al 2021). It is crucial to educate providers on not only their explicit biases, but more importantly their implicit biases that they might not be aware of. Through this, a mindset of cultural humility and openness, being other-oriented, and recognizing the impact of power dynamics on building trusting relationships with patients and their families can be cultivated. 

These shortcomings of healthcare are not only the responsibility of the providers to ameliorate, as the onus is on institutions to invoke change themselves. Diversifying the workforce can enhance the relatability and effectiveness of the patient-provider relationship (Fanta et. al 2021). This could help patients feel more comfortable with providers who might be more apt to understand their plight. 

In a broader sense, addressing structural disparities requires moving outside of the healthcare system and advocating for policy reform aimed at eliminating inequities in critical social determinants of health. These determinants include healthcare access and quality, economic stability, education, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context (Fanta et. al 2021). A study from Dana-Farber notes that adopting universal and systematic social determinants of health – coined as SDOH in their paper – screening within pediatric care can identify key areas where interventions can be most effective (Umaretiya et. al 2022). Identifying the specific root causes on a patient-to-patient basis will allow for much more optimized solutions.

Something as simple as integrating SDOH screens into each visit, within national pediatric protocols, can help identify mechanisms driving disparities and opportunities for intervention (Jindal et. al 2024). Developing multilevel health equity interventions that address identified pathways, such as access to care, patient-health-care-system interaction, and the impact of toxic stress, is crucial (Umaretiya et. al 2022).

It will be imperative to focus on improving the various systems that lead to poorer healthcare outcomes for pediatric patients of color. Efforts to dismantle the underlying racism that perpetuates pediatric racial and ethnic health inequities must focus on policies within multiple interdependent systems. This includes challenging housing policies that sustain poor housing, limiting access to resources like high-quality education and healthcare, and increasing exposure to environmental risk factors (Jindal et. al 2024). Enhancing family resilience through evidence-based psychosocial interventions can also play a role in mitigating the effects of toxic stress (Umaretiya et. al 2022).

To effectively reduce and solve disparities in pediatric healthcare, a concerted effort from all stakeholders—healthcare providers, institutions, policymakers, and communities—is required. This involves addressing not only the immediate healthcare needs of children but also the broader structural and social determinants of health that contribute to disparities. By implementing these strategies at the individual, institutional, and structural levels, we can move closer to achieving health equity in pediatrics, ensuring that all children have the opportunity to thrive and reach their full health potential.

Bibliography

  1. Godoy, M. (2024, January 18). Kids of color get worse health care across the board in the U.S., research finds. NPR. https://www.Godoy.org/sections/health-shots/2024/01/18/1225270442/health-inequities-pediatrics-kids-of-color-disparities
  2. Li, E., Ng, A. P., Williamson, C. G., Tran, Z., Federman, M. D., & Benharash, P. (2022). Assessment of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Outcomes of Pediatric Hospitalizations for sepsis Across the United States. JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4396 
  3. Fanta, M., Ladzekpo, D., & Unaka, N. (2021). Racism and pediatric health outcomes. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 51(10), 101087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2021.101087 
  4. Zhang, X., Carabello, M., Hill, T., He, K., Friese, C. R., & Mahajan, P. (2019). Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Emergency Department Care and Health Outcomes Among Children in the United States. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00525 
  5. Slopen, N., & Heard-Garris, N. (2021). Structural Racism and Pediatric Health—A Call for Research to Confront the Origins of Racial Disparities in Health. JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.3594 
  6. The Health Divide: Pediatric care is worse for kids of color; federal nutrition program faces worrying shortfall | USC Center for Health Journalism. (n.d.). Centerforhealthjournalism.org. Retrieved February 10, 2024, from https://centerforhealthjournalism.org/our-work/insights/health-divide-pediatric-care-worse-kids-color-federal-nutrition-program-faces 
  7. Puja J. Umaretiya, Robert J. Vinci, Kira Bona; A Structural Racism Framework to Guide Health Equity Interventions in Pediatric Oncology. Pediatrics May 2022; 149 (5): e2021054634. 10.1542/peds.2021-054634, https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/149/5/e2021054634/186711/A-Structural-Racism-Framework-to-Guide-Health
  8. Pediatric care for non-white children is universally worse across U.S. (n.d.). News.northwestern.edu. Retrieved February 10, 2024, from https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2024/01/pediatric-care-for-non-white-children-is-universally-worse-across-u-s/ 
  9. Glenn Flores, Lynn Olson, Sandra C. Tomany-Korman; Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Early Childhood Health and Health Care. Pediatrics February 2005; 115 (2): e183–e193. 10.1542/peds.2004-1474 https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/115/2/e183/67379/Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparities-in-Early-Childhood 
  10. Jindal, M., Barnert, E., Chomilo, N., Gilpin Clark, S., Cohen, A., Crookes, D. M., Kershaw, K. N., Kozhimannil, K. B., Mistry, K. B., Shlafer, R. J., Slopen, N., Suglia, S. F., Nguemeni Tiako, M. J., & Heard-Garris, N. (2024). Policy solutions to eliminate racial and ethnic child health disparities in the USA. The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health, 8(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(23)00262-6 

Exploring the Roots of the Controversies Arising from the Fukushima Incident – Particularly from the Perspective of Pluralistic Public Attitudes Toward Government Decision-making

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

   by Zijun Zhou, February 20, 2024

With the rapid development of technology, mankind has been able to obtain energy in many ways. From the early days of relying on coal to drive thermal power plants, to the gradual recognition of the importance of clean energy, people began to use wind turbines to generate electricity and to obtain tidal energy from the rising and falling of the tides. The emergence of nuclear power plants has made it seem as if we have an endless supply of energy, and technological advances have brought many conveniences to our lives.

In 1986, when the Chernobyl accident occurred, people were reveling in the convenience of nuclear power plants and the great success of clean energy. Twenty-five years later, the Fukushima Daiichi earthquake and tsunami in Tohoku, Japan, and the nuclear leak at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have again raised the alarm and prompted a re-examination of the use of nuclear power plants.

Moreover, accidents at nuclear power plants are not the only issues that have caused widespread concern. After the Fukushima accident, Tokyo Electric Power Company was faced with the challenge of dealing with large amounts of contaminated water. This water, which contained radioactive substances, posed a potential threat to the environment and ecosystem. Tokyo Electric Power Company decided to discharge the treated contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean, a practice that immediately drew widespread international attention and controversy. The practice has also caused much controversy.

This article will examine the controversy over the disposal of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant and possible solutions.

On March 11, 2011, the most serious nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The accident was initially rated as a Level 5 by the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) and was later upgraded to a Level 7, ranking it as the most serious nuclear accident alongside Chernobyl. The Fukushima nuclear accident was primarily caused by the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami.

At the time of the earthquake, the active reactors at the plant automatically shut down their normal fission power generation reactions. Its emergency diesel generators were automatically started to remove residual decay heat. The seismic design basis for the six units at Fukushima ranges from 0.42 g to 0.46 g. The plant experienced no damage to critical parts of the reactors when ground acceleration reached 0.125 g for 30 seconds after the 1978 Miyagi earthquake, which is an indication that the plant is sufficiently earthquake-resistant (Brady 1980). However, the ensuing tsunami flooded the lower portion of the reactor building for Units 1-4, resulting in the loss of power to the emergency generators and circulation pumps and disrupting all AC power to Units 1-4 (Fackler 2011). Due to the lack of cooling water, reactors 1, 2, and 3 suffered meltdowns. Reactors 5 and 6 were offline at the time of the earthquake.

Approximately 110,000 residents were evacuated in the days following the accident. The accident released a large amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere, 80% of which was deposited in the ocean. In addition, a portion of the radioactive material was released directly into the ocean. About 18,000 TBq of radioactive cesium-137 was released into the Pacific Ocean during the accident, and as of 2013, about 30 GBq of cesium-137 was still flowing into the ocean every day (Fackler and Hiroko 2013).

Although some nuclear radiation experts say cancer-related deaths may not increase, a monitoring system operated by the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization tracks radioactive dispersion globally. Within just one month, by day 15, traces of radioactivity could be detected throughout the northern hemisphere (CTPTO 2011). This rapid rate of spread has raised concerns about TEPCO’s decision to discharge nuclear wastewater.

To prevent groundwater from flowing into the buildings of the three damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the Japanese government invested 3.4 billion yen to build a frozen underground barrier (Fackler 2016). Although the barrier succeeded in reducing the flow of groundwater from about 260 tons per day to about 500 tons per day, at Fukushima Daiichi, cooled molten nuclear fuel mixed with groundwater flowing into the reactor buildings, producing contaminated water. In particular, the wastewater from Unit 2 has a high level of radioactivity.

To securely store this wastewater, TEPCO decided to transfer it to a centralized radiation waste treatment facility. Currently, nuclear wastewater is increasing at a rate of about 1 ton per day. TEPCO treats this wastewater using equipment such as the multinucleated removal system (ALPS) and storing it in tanks. By 2020, this wastewater has accumulated to about 1.2 million tons. According to TEPCO’s projections, the tanks will be filled by the summer of 2022 under the current tank expansion plan.

Construction of the equipment needed for treatment and review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to take two years, so it is thought that this summer will be the deadline for a decision. Previously, about 10,000 tons of low-level radioactive wastewater and groundwater have been stored in the drainage pits of Units 5 and 6 and are scheduled to be discharged into the sea. The total discharge of radioactive substances is about 1.5×10¹¹ becquerels.

According to TEPCO’s assessment, even if an adult person consumes fish and seaweed from the adjacent sea every day, the effective radioactive dose absorbed is only 0.6 mSv per year, a figure that is only a quarter of the annual radioactive dose (2.4 mSv) received by the public from the natural environment. Complementing this assessment, Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, successfully persuaded an organization to collect water samples for testing up and down the west coast of North America. The test results showed that the samples contained a maximum of only 8 becquerels of radiation per cubic meter, with less than 2 becquerels originating from Fukushima’s cesium-134 and the rest coming primarily from strontium-90 and cesium-137. This is consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s guidelines for drinking water, which allow for a maximum of 7,400 becquerels of radioactivity per cubic meter of water (Sherwood 2014). These provide support for TEPCO’s view.

In February 2023, a committee of experts from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) submitted a proposal stating that discharging wastewater into the ocean or atmosphere is a “realistic option” and that ocean discharge is a method that can be “reliably implemented. Since April, the Japanese government has held numerous consultations with local governments, the agriculture, forestry, and fishery sectors, economic organizations, and other stakeholders, and cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), eventually gaining the support of the IAEA.

On April 13, 2021, the Japanese Cabinet meeting officially decided that the nuclear wastewater (NW) stored in TEPCO’s FDNPP, or treated water as it is called in Japan, will be discharged into the ocean through the construction of port tunnels. Some experts point to the World Health Organization’s drinking water standard for tritium of 10,000 becquerels (Bq) per liter. This is several times higher than the planned concentration of water discharged from Fukushima.

The Asahi Shimbun, Yomiuri Shimbun, and other mainstream Japanese media provided in-depth coverage and analysis immediately after the Cabinet meeting announced the decision to discharge Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the sea. The decision sparked widespread discussion and enthusiastic reactions in Japanese society. According to a nationwide public opinion poll conducted by the Asahi Shimbun, public support and opposition to the discharge of nuclear wastewater were almost evenly divided, which fully reflects the complexity and dilemma of the issue (Ishimoto 2023).

Following the announcement of the government resolution, a large number of protesters gathered outside TEPCO headquarters, where they demanded that the company take responsibility for the 2011 core meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and provide adequate compensation to the victims. Meanwhile, the protesters strongly demanded the cancellation of plans to send nuclear wastewater into the sea. Activists warned that tritium, a radioactive substance that is readily soluble in water, could enter the human body through the food chain once it is discharged into the ocean, potentially causing long-term contamination of marine life, especially fish and seaweed, and possibly serious public health effects. These concerns have sparked serious public concern about marine pollution in Japan and around the world.

Although TEPCO insists that treated and diluted nuclear wastewater is safe, this claim has been widely questioned and challenged. After the government lifted the evacuation order for all areas of Fukushima Prefecture in August 2021, only a small number of residents chose to return to their hometowns, no doubt reflecting the deep public concern about the safety of the Fukushima area.

In addition, the fishermen’s groups most affected by the decision have launched large-scale protests (Rikimaru 2023). Since the Fukushima nuclear accident, seafood from Fukushima and the nearby Chiba region has been widely rejected by consumers, which has led to serious damage to the reputation of seafood from these areas (Takagi 2021). To preserve their livelihoods and the economic interests of the region, fishermen have launched fierce protests.

As mentioned earlier, the decision to discharge nuclear wastewater from Fukushima sparked widespread controversy in Japanese society. Although two years have passed, a large number of Japanese people still question and disagree with the government’s decision, and they are disappointed with the government’s failure to adequately explain and convince the public to accept the decision (Motoyama 2023). In response, large numbers of people protested outside the Japanese Diet and TEPCO headquarters to express their discontent and concern. They criticized the government’s lack of transparency in the decision-making process and the public’s failure to fully participate in and understand the process. They believe that the government needs to pay more attention to environmental protection and public participation to ensure the fairness of decision-making and the rights of the public.

The Japanese cabinet government’s decision on the discharge of nuclear waste water from Fukushima has also provoked strong reactions internationally. Environmental groups, neighboring countries, and Pacific Island countries, among others, have expressed strong dissatisfaction.

Greenpeace International released a report called Stemming the Tide 2020: The Reality of the Fukushima Radioactive Water Crisis, which refutes the claims of the Japanese government and TEPCO in detail (Burnie 2020). The report states that the three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant contained 520 petabytes of strontium-90 in their radioactive cores before the meltdown, of which about 1 to 3 percent has been released into the Pacific Ocean, causing massive water contamination. The report warns that this huge amount of strontium must be stopped from entering the environment.

The Japanese government and TEPCO have adopted the ALPS system designed by Purolite USA and Hitachi General Electric Nuclear Energy Ltd (HGNE) to reduce the concentration of radioactive materials. However, in the process of building and operating the ALPS based on Purolite’s ion exchange technology, the contract was transferred to Toshiba and then to HGNE, and Purolite was excluded. This is particularly significant because Purolite has decades of experience in water treatment ion exchange, while Toshiba and HGNE have little experience in this area. TEPCO’s plans to stop such practices in the next few years are not credible under the current circumstances.

The report further notes that the half-lives of tritium and strontium-90 are 12.3 and 28.8 years, respectively, and that even considering only these radionuclides, the radiation risk would last 125 to 290 years (the risk period is usually considered to be 10 half-lives). Because strontium-90 is similarly absorbed by the body to calcium, it poses a significant health risk and may increase the risk of leukemia. In addition, while TEPCO claims to have addressed the risk of tritium, they may be ignoring the effects of organically bound tritium (OBT) on the human body and the possible conversion of tritium water (HTO) to organically bound tritium in the event of a steam release.

The report also emphasizes that, Unlike the oceanic behavior of tritium, large amounts of radioisotopes are more likely to be absorbed into marine communities or deposited on the seafloor. For example, the bioconcentration factor of carbon-14 in fish is 50,000 times higher than that of tritium. In addition, isotopes such as cobalt-60 may be associated with seafloor sediments by as much as 300,000 times. As these radioactive materials are released from nuclear power plants into the marine environment, the exposure of marine organisms to radioactivity will inevitably increase. The specific exposure levels are influenced by many factors, and the concentrations in these biomes are directly related to humans because people may consume these contaminated marine organisms.

TEPCO made a bad decision by focusing on tritium monitoring and ignoring other radioactive materials that could have an impact on humans. Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, strongly criticized this approach. She said, “It is unacceptable that in the 21st century when our planet and especially the global oceans face so many challenges and threats, the Japanese government and TEPCO should justify the deliberate dumping of nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean. This decision is a violation of Japan’s legal obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and will be strongly opposed in the months ahead.”

The decision by the Japanese government and TEPCO to begin discharging treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean in the summer has caused widespread concern in its neighboring countries. Sun Xiaobo, director general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Arms Control Department, publicly criticized the decision and said at a press conference in Beijing that “Japan’s unilateral decision to discharge treated water into the ocean is an extremely irresponsible act.” Sun stressed that he would work with neighboring countries to oppose the decision (Paid Article 2023). The Chinese government has long expressed strong concern about such actions and opposes any discharge of treated water into the ocean. Sun also said that if Japan decides to force the discharge of wastewater into the ocean, he will join with neighboring countries such as Russia and South Pacific countries in protest (Hayashi 2023).

On March 24, 2023, China and Russia issued a joint statement expressing once again their serious concern over the Japanese government’s decision to discharge nuclear wastewater into the ocean (Tomina 2023). Meanwhile, South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s office announced that South Korea would file a lawsuit with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea over Japan’s resolution to dispose of the water discharge and that interim measures might be taken (Toyoura 2021). Although South Korea’s foreign minister later said that his government would not object to Japan’s decision if it met International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards (Tateishi 2021), a survey by the University of Tokyo showed that about 90 percent of South Koreans and Chinese believe that food produced in Fukushima Prefecture could be affected by the planned spring and summer discharges of nuclear wastewater into the ocean from TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, and would therefore be potentially risk. The findings further underscore the serious concerns of Japan’s neighbors about the country’s discharge of nuclear wastewater (Fukuchi 2023).

In exploring the opposition of Japan’s neighbors to Japan’s nuclear wastewater discharge decisions, we must consider a variety of possible influences. First, the historical context and the long-standing relationship between Japan and its neighbors may be a source of these opposing voices. International political issues in recent years may also have had an impact on the relationship between Japan and its neighbors, which in turn may have generated opposition to this decision.

Environmental groups’ opposition to Japan’s decision is likely based on deep environmental concerns. They are concerned that the discharge of treated nuclear wastewater into the ocean could have serious negative effects on the ecosystem, which in turn could threaten human health and life.

The public’s opposition attitude has also drawn our attention. We need to recognize the complexity of forming people’s attitudes toward government decisions, where people’s approval or disapproval of government decisions is not always based on rational judgments based on in-depth knowledge and comparison of various expert opinions. In this regard, Robert C. Solomon has argued that in many (if not most) trust relationships, trust itself is invisible or transparent.

The environment in which we are raised, both culturally and socially, has a profound effect on our attitudes toward government decisions. Even when we are not aware of it, these environmental factors are shaping our views. For example, we may have a natural affinity for a certain viewpoint, perhaps because of our nationality, our beliefs, or the environment in which we were raised.

Jennifer A. Reich makes a similar point in her work, Calling A Shot: Why Parents Reject Vaccines. She points out that people may trust or reject a certain point of view due to a variety of factors such as religious beliefs, educational background, and nationality (Reich 2016). This phenomenon is evidence that our opinions and attitudes are not always based on rational analysis and judgment, but are influenced by our beliefs and environment.

In addition, our interests can also influence our attitudes toward government decisions. When a decision may harm our interests or position, we may choose to oppose the decision. This is why in some cases, even if expert opinions support government decisions, people may still be opposed to them because their interests may be harmed as a result.

Therefore, we must note that people’s attitudes toward government decisions are not based on rational analysis and judgment of experts’ views alone, but may also be influenced by their beliefs, circumstances, and personal interests.

On the other hand, the public is informed by a variety of sources, including government announcements, news media, environmental organizations, scientific experts, and social media. These sources may provide different or even conflicting information, leading to differences in the public’s understanding and perception of a particular decision.

In addition, the public’s level of trust in other countries and organizations may also influence their attitudes toward Japan’s nuclear wastewater discharge decisions. For example, if the International Atomic Energy Agency supports Japan’s decision, then some members of the public may take this to mean that the discharge of wastewater was fully evaluated and deemed safe. However, if other countries and organizations like neighboring governments or international environmental organizations express opposition, the public may be skeptical and concerned about the Japanese government’s decision as a result.

In the decision-making process of discharging nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, we see the involvement of a large number of experts from the IAEA and the Japanese government to representatives of neighboring countries, international organizations, and environmental groups who have a significant impact on the decision-making process. These experts play different roles in Pielke’s “honest broker” theory, including pure scientist, science arbiter, issue advocate, and honest broker (Pielke 2007).

The role of the pure scientist is primarily to provide scientific information, and they are not concerned with how that information is used to make decisions. Similarly, science arbiters answer questions about science but do not try to influence the outcome of decisions. However, in the case of the Fukushima nuclear wastewater discharge, we find that many experts are closer to the role of issue advocate. They not only provide information but also try to persuade people to accept their views by limiting the scope of the information.

Although the role of an honest broker is to provide people with all the information and help them make decisions based on their preferences, it may be difficult to find a truly honest broker on this issue. because all parties have their interests and positions, which makes it possible for them to provide information while trying to influence people’s decisions.

However, it is important to recognize that people’s trust in a particular idea is not constant and that every trust relationship undergoes a dynamic process of change. No matter how much people trust a certain idea in the initial stage, this trust relationship will always change with time and the emergence of new information.

The decision-making process for the treatment and discharge of nuclear wastewater from Fukushima demonstrates how a policy issue of great public concern has generated widespread and in-depth debate worldwide. The Japanese government’s announcement of its decision provoked widespread concern and alarm from people around the world. Professionals from all sides with different positions actively participated in the public discussion, using their expertise and insight to express their views, which had a significant impact on the public’s understanding and thinking on the issue.

In particular, Japan’s neighbors, including China, Russia, and South Korea, have expressed strong opposition to the decision. They criticized the Japanese government for its lack of transparency and irresponsibility in its decision-making process. South Korea even summoned the Japanese ambassador to South Korea to voice its opposition.

Greenpeace, an internationally influential environmental organization that has been both a promoter of several international agreements, such as the Kyoto Agreement, and a persuasive opponent of the proposal, has led to questions about whether the Japanese government’s decision was problematic and publicly released its criticism of Japan’s policy. Other influential experts have also published condemnations of Japanese policies on important academic platforms. These public criticisms have led to a serious split in Japanese society’s position on the policy, creating a clear polarization, i.e., a clear balance of public support and opposition to the policy. At the same time, these persuasive opponents have led to increasing skepticism about the Japanese government’s decisions. Indeed, Japan’s decision-making process does lack transparency, which increases suspicion of its decisions.

To solve the problem, the Japanese government chose to invite experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency to participate in the development and evaluation of the solution, and the solution was made public to the international community. This has increased the scientific nature of the Japanese government’s decision-making to some extent and has also restored some of the people’s trust in it.

On the other hand, the actions and stance of Greenpeace, an international environmental organization that has long been an active advocate of reducing carbon emissions, have been the focus of public attention, but its senior leadership’s frequent commuting by air has been a stark contrast to its environmental advocacy, raising questions about its consistent stance (Webster 2014). In addition, Greenpeace has taken some extreme actions in its environmental fight that could lead to permanent environmental damage around certain well-known geographic landmarks (Kozak 2014).

More controversially, Greenpeace seems to have taken too much of a political stance on some environmental issues at the expense of the scientific basis. For example, they strongly oppose the use of diisononyl phthalate (DINP), even though DINP has been confirmed as safe by multiple government agencies and independent evaluators. Greenpeace’s credibility took a serious hit when DINP was again scientifically evaluated and confirmed to be harmless to human health (Moore 2008).

This incident led to a re-examination of the accuracy of Greenpeace’s views in opposition to the Japanese government’s decision in question, as well as their true motives. As time went on, public attitudes began to shift and more and more people began to lean in favor of the Japanese government’s decision (Ishimoto 2023).

This example again illustrates that the public’s views are not static, but change with the environment, information, and time. The role of experts and the way they convey information have a significant impact on the public’s decision-making. At the same time, it reveals why the resolution of nuclear wastewater treatment at the Fukushima nuclear power plant was so controversial and the complexity of people’s attitudes toward it. Advances in technology have been accompanied by diverse perspectives, making it more difficult to clarify the facts.

This article explains why the issue of the Fukushima nuclear power plant is controversial in terms of the changing attitudes of the public. Both the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents are among the worst nuclear disasters in history, and they have sparked a deep global rethinking of the safety of nuclear energy. People have different understandings and perspectives on these events from their backgrounds and positions, and this has led to controversies over such events.

In evaluating the veracity of different viewpoints, we need to fully understand that each person’s position and background will influence their perspective. One position may focus on one side of the issue and ignore the other. Therefore, we need to synthesize various viewpoints to get a more comprehensive understanding.

In the context of the contemporary knowledge society, openness and transparency of information play a decisive role in resolving complex disputes and issues. Taking the Japanese government’s response strategy as an example, the progression from its initial state of information asymmetry to inviting the participation of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency can be viewed as a significant increase in the awareness of openness to information and professional collaboration. Such an information strategy not only allows the public to understand the factual details more systematically and in-depth but also creates a platform for consensus and collaboration among multiple stakeholders to discuss and develop effective solutions. However, for a complex event like Fukushima, relying on information transparency alone cannot fully satisfy the entire process of problem-solving. More critically, based on this information, parties can engage in continuous, in-depth, and constructive exchanges to ensure that the optimal solution path is identified and implemented in a synergistic manner.

Bibliography

“90% in China and Korea Consider Fukushima Food Products Dangerous: University of Tokyo Survey on Treated Water Release.” Yomiuri Shimbun, 14 Feb. 2023.

https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/science/20230214-OYT1T50119/

Rikimaru, Shoko. “The Imminent Release of Treated Water into the Ocean: Associate Professor Hayashi of Fukushima University Calls for ‘National-Led Decision Making’.” Asahi Shimbun, 15 Apr. 2023. https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR4G73J9R2NUGTB00G.html?iref=pc_ss_date_article

Paid Article. “Opposition to Treated Water Release: ‘Collaborate with Neighboring Countries’ – China Emphasizes Stance.” Asahi Shimbun, 17 Mar. 2023.

https://www.asahi.com/articles/DA3S15583427.html?iref=pc_ss_date_article

Hayashi, Nozomu. “China Intensifies Opposition to Ocean Discharge of Nuclear Plant Treated Water: Also Poised to Collaborate with Affected Countries.” Asahi Shimbun, 16 Mar. 2023.

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR3J6FXJR3JUHBI02Z.html?iref=pc_ss_date_article

Takagi, Kiyoshi, et al. “Fishing Industry Stakeholders in Chiba Express Concern Over Treated Water Discharge.” Asahi Shimbun, 14 Apr. 2021.

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASP4F7F0RP4FUDCB00Q.html?iref=pc_ss_date_article

Tomina, Takashi. “China-Russia Joint Statement Makes Opposition to the U.S. Clear: Expresses ‘Concern’ Over Fukushima Nuclear Plant Treated Water Issue.” Asahi Shimbun, 22 Mar. 2023. 

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR3Q5R8VR3QUHBI015.html?iref=pc_ss_date_article

Imaizumi, Kanade. “80% in South Korea ‘Not Purchasing’ Fukushima Products: Survey on Rumors Regarding Nuclear Plant Treated Water.” Asahi Shimbun, 27 Apr. 2022.

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASQ4V6WB6Q4VULFA03H.html?iref=pc_ss_date_article

Rikimaru, Shoko, and Fukuchi Keitaro. “Two Years Since the Decision to Discharge Treated Water into the Ocean: Tunnel Construction Progresses Amid Opposition.” Asahi Shimbun, 14 Apr. 2023.

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR4F6R9GR4DUGTB009.html?iref=pc_ss_date_article

Tateishi, Tsuyoshi. “U.S. Negative on Intervening: South Korean Foreign Minister Reverses Stance, ‘Not Opposed to Treated Water Discharge Under Conditions’.” Yomiuri Shimbun, 20 Apr. 2021. https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/world/20210419-OYT1T50238/

Toyoura, Junichi, and Nakagawa Takayuki. “China and South Korea in Step Over ‘Treated Water’: Hold Video Conference to Express ‘Strong Dissatisfaction’.” Yomiuri Shimbun, 15 Apr. 2021. https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/world/20210414-OYT1T50182/

Webster, Ben. “Greenpeace Chief Travels to the Office by Aircraft.” The Times, 24 Jun. 2014. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/greenpeace-chief-travels-to-the-office-by-aircraft-r8lmdpvtjgc

Moore, Patrick. “Why I Left Greenpeace.” Wall Street Journal, 22 Apr. 2008. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Currie, Duncan E. J., and Shaun Burnie. “Japan’s Plan for Radioactive Water Defies International Law.” The Korea Times, 9 Mar. 2020. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/07/371_285553.html

“Radiation & Decontamination.” Tokyo Electric Power Company, 11 Jul. 2018, http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110626e1.pdf.

“Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Treated Water to be Released into the Ocean: Government in Final Stages of Coordination.” Asahi Shimbun, 16 Oct. 2020. https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASNBJ3PW9NBJULBJ003.html

“CTBTO Tracks Fukushima’s Radioactive Release.” Youtube, uploaded by CTBTO, 12 Mar. 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b7PwKraaek.

Fackler, Martin, and Hiroko Tabuchi. “With a Plant’s Tainted Water Still Flowing, No End to Environmental Fears.” The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/world/asia/with-a-plants-tainted-water-still-flowing-no-end-to-environmental-fears.html

Brady, A. Gerald. An investigation of the Miyagi-ken-oki, Japan, earthquake of June 12, 1978. Vol. 13. US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 1980.

Fackler, Martin. “Report Finds Japan Underestimated Tsunami Danger.” The New York Times, 1 Jun. 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/asia/02japan.html

“Great East Japan Earthquake.” Reconstruction Agency, http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/english/topics/GEJE/.

Fackler, Martin. “Japan’s $320 Million Gamble at Fukushima: An Underground Ice Wall.” The New York Times, 29 Aug. 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/science/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant-cleanup-ice-wall.html

“Contaminated Water Treatment.” Tokyo Electric Power Company, http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommision/planaction/alps/index-e.html.

“Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident.” International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident.

Sherwood, Courtney. “Fukushima Radiation Nears California Coast, Judged Harmless.” Science, 11 Nov. 2014. https://www.science.org/content/article/fukushima-radiation-nears-california-coast-judged-harmless

“IAEA Ready to Support Japan on Fukushima Water Disposal, Director General Grossi Says.” International Atomic Energy Agency, 26 Apr. 2021, http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-ready-to-support-japan-on-fukushima-water-disposal-director-general-grossi-says.

Ishimoto, Toshio. “Survey: 51% Support Releasing Treated Nuclear Water into Ocean.” The Asahi Shimbun, 20 Mar. 2023. https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14865588

Motoyama, Hideki. “Two Years Since the Decision to Discharge Treated Water into the Ocean, Actions Against Continue: ‘Goodbye Nuclear Power’ Executive Committee.” Asahi Shimbun, 13 Apr. 2023.https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR4F622WR4FUTIL013.html?iref=pc_ss_date_article

Rikimaru, Shoko. ” 「Not understanding why it was discharged」fishermen appeal to the Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry over treated water.” Asahi Shimbun, 26 Feb. 2023. https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR2T7442R2TUGTB001.html?iref=pc_ss_date_article

Burnie, Shaun. “Stemming the Tide 2020 The Reality of the Fukushima Radioactive Water Crisis.” Greenpeace Germany, Oct. 2020.www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-japan-stateless/2020/10/5e303093-greenpeace_stemmingthetide2020_fukushima_radioactive_water_crisis_en_final.pdf.

“The Japanese Government’s Decision to Discharge Fukushima Contaminated Water Ignores Human Rights and International Maritime.” Greenpeace, 13 Apr. 2021, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/47207/the-japanese-governments-decision-to-discharge-fukushima-contaminated-water-ignores-human-rights-and-international-maritime-law/.

Fukuchi, Keitaro. “Concerns Over the Safety of Prefectural Products Due to Treated Water, Survey of Awareness in Europe, America, and Asia.” Asahi Shimbun, 14 Feb. 2023. http://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR2904B1R28UGTB002.html.

Pielke Jr, Roger A. The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Reich, Jennifer A. “Calling the shots.” Calling the Shots. New York University Press, 2016.

Kozak, Robert. “Peru Says Greenpeace Permanently Damaged Nazca Lines.” The Wall Street Journal, 15 Dec. 2014, web.archive.org/web/20141221182041/https://www.wsj.com/articles/peru-says-greenpeace-permanently-damaged-nazca-lines-1418681478.

The End…Of What?: Considering the English Major 

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Grace Sargent, October 22, 2023

For an event surrounding the supposed diminishing nature of the English major, the Special Collections Seminar Room was lively as audience members rushed to snag the few remaining seats and library staff scrambled to produce more seating options for the line outside the door. 

On February 23, 2023, “The End of the English Major” was published by Nathan Heller in the New Yorker, and it took the humanities sphere by storm. Less than two months later, a panel discussion, “Reflecting On ‘The End of the English Major,’” was held on the Stony Brook University campus. Moderated by the Dean of Libraries Karim Boughida, five English professors presented their response to the article, as well as to the more prominent, ongoing theme regarding the displacement of humanities studies in college. 

Kenneth Lindblom, English professor and Arts and Sciences Senate President, immediately stated he is “not too worried about the English major.” Instead, he suggested the misconception about it dying stems from the inability of the English field to adequately communicate its practicality. Lindblom argued that the major fundamentally challenges long standing societal traditions through its discussion of feminist theory, marxist theory, queer theory, gender studies and postcolonial theory, among others. Consequently, the English major is deemed controversial in its attempt to “problematize tradition” and is given a great deal of pushback from a large population. 

Lindblom said, “To me, ‘The End of the English Major’ is a sign of desperation of those who understand the power of the English major.” 

Celia Marshik, English professor and Interim Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education and Interim Dean of the Graduate School, highlighted the fact that “all English departments are not created equal, nor are the curriculums,” which pushes a great deal of responsibility onto teachers themselves. The struggle, then, is their ability to teach English in a way that is both exciting and engaging. Thrown up against high standards, these teachers often take the fall for the major’s perceived shortcomings. 

Marshik also provided some eye-opening statistics about the English major itself. Firstly, at Stony Brook, English is the largest humanities program. Secondly, despite Stony Brook remaining a university widely recognized for its sciences, the number of Chemistry and English majors remains about the same. In a room full of English students and professors, this statistic earned some gasps, as many of them whispered they would have never guessed their numbers would rival that of a STEM major. 

Another point Marshik made was how the skills taught in the English major are versatile, so much so, it is often perceived as “weak” because it does not point to one specific career option. Lindblom built off of this by addressing the misconception that English majors are unable to find jobs post-graduation. He emphasized that “it’s not that you won’t get a job, it’s that you won’t get a job you’re thinking about right away.” In other words, many students want or expect a clear cut job, but he stressed that English is often not that simple. “English will get you there, it will just take a bit,” Lindblom said.

As visualized in the pie chart above, data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics demonstrate the wide range of occupations in which English majors are employed (US Bureau). There are also many not included. Some individuals with English degrees take up legal occupations like lawyers and paralegals, or other positions like a translator or research analyst. 

Given the recent rise of ChatGPT, the speakers were sure to bring it into discussion. Despite the fear that the artificial intelligence chatbot has the ability to erase the need for English majors and individuals with strong writing skills, the panelists made clear ChatGPT’s often overlooked shortcomings. For example, one of the biggest tasks it cannot complete is literary analysis and interpretation. Furthermore, as they explained, it cannot begin research on a topic; it can only report on information already published by other sources on the internet. As a result, the value of a human with an English major remains superior, even to something as advanced as an AI chatbot. 

When the time for the panel eventually ran out and the panelists rushed to fit in their passionate ideas, some concluding remarks were made. According to Eric Wertheimer, English and American Studies Professor, establishing this as an annual event has been discussed. One thing is clear, they said, as evident from Heller’s title: this article was essentially an attempt to provoke English majors. Moreover, as Andrew Newman, Chair of the English Department, said, “Look at how much we have to say.”

Works Cited

“Field of Degree: English : Occupational Outlook Handbook.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 6 Sept. 2023.


Heller, Nathan. “The End of the English Major.” The New Yorker, 27 Feb. 2023.

Writing Centers and Tutoring ESL Students: The Search for an Appropriate Approach

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Grace Sargent, March 26, 2023

Introduction

There is a vast amount of literature regarding the operation of writing centers and how to handle the different student demographics they encounter. Given the multitude of perspectives presented, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the different approaches suggested by knowledgeable figures. Jane Cogie, the Director of the Writing Center at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, suggests a handful of strategies for writing center tutors to utilize when tutoring ESL students and explains the value behind each of them. Sharon Myers, the Director of Academic ESL Program at Texas Tech University, responds to Cogie by pointing out the severe weaknesses of her methods, and offers alternative approaches to tutoring ESL students. 

Why is ESL Tutoring Different?

Although writing centers at American universities are helping students with English, there must be an awareness on behalf of writing center staff regarding the second language barriers that many students face. Native English speakers responding well to a certain tutoring strategy does not necessarily determine that an ESL student will react similarly, effectively introducing the concern of an appropriate approach to tutoring ESL students. Although it may seem like a negligible factor, Cogie has found that nearly 40 percent of her writing center clients are ESL students—proving that there is indeed a need present (Cogie 7).

Furthermore, one factor that has played a large role in encouraging a different approach for tutoring ESL students is the tendency for writing centers to encourage non-directive tutoring. Non-directive tutoring is a strategy used by many tutors that allows tutees to remain in control of the session and therefore their work, and strengthen their ability to problem solve with minimal assistance. Another characteristic of this method involves the tutor asking multiple questions that aim to guide the student as opposed to leading them. However, Cogie clarifies that the “inadequacy of non-directive tutoring” for ESL students lies largely in the fact that they “often lack the knowledge to engage in the question-and-answer approach to problem-solving used in most writing centers” (Cogie 7).

Cogie’s Ideas

After establishing how ESL students are commonly tutored ineffectively, Cogie claims the main question left unanswered was then, “How can we help students…function more independently as writers?” (Cogie 9). She proceeds to answer this question by proposing several strategies and detailing their value. They include using a learner’s dictionary, minimal marking, and error logs, which all “involve error awareness, identification, and self-correction” (Cogie 11). 

Cogie goes on to state that each of the strategies she advocates for are all “essential to the acquisition of a language,” which is arguably the biggest obstacle for ESL students and their writing (Cogie 11). Minimal marking involves the tutor using the margins of a paper to simply put check marks next to sentences that have unaddressed issues. The amount of issues is indicated by the number of check marks; three check marks signaling three points of concern. This is designed to accelerate the process of finding the problem itself, without immediately providing an answer for the student, and effectively prompts them to figure it out themselves.

Next is a learner’s dictionary, which is of great value for an ESL student due to its extensive instruction on “grammatical and syntactic information” (Cogie 14). Dictionaries for native speakers unfortunately lack this kind of content and are therefore rendered less effective in helping ESL students on their self-editing journey. As the tutor and the student are reading through a paper, they can easily turn to the learner’s dictionary as a means of properly explaining the path to correction. 

While introducing each of these strategies, Cogie is sure to emphasize their relationship with moderation; she asserts that they are best when used in moderation. This is especially apparent with the next strategy: error logs. These logs allow students to write down errors they frequently come across in their writing, and give them space to note how they should fix it in the future. They cannot—or should not be advised to—simply write down every error they find in a piece of their writing, as they won’t be able to properly retain it. Instead, their focus should be on the more common or glaring errors. A major appeal of the error log is its ability to be personalized to each individual student and tailored to their level of language understanding and development.

Myers’ Response

Following Cogie’s entire argument, Myers comes in with her own perspective. She counters that Cogie’s methods place far too much emphasis on ESL student errors instead of focusing on the value behind learning and acquiring more language. As Myers progresses through Cogie’s strategies, she highlights their weaknesses.

In regards to the learner’s dictionary, Myers first concedes that it isn’t entirely unreliable. Since they are indeed aimed toward ESL students, their lexical grammatical information can be of great help. Additionally, they may contain specific vocabulary for definitions that are intended to be easier for ESL students to read and comprehend. Despite these strengths, a major flaw within the learner’s dictionary is its inability to communicate to the student what exactly they need to be looking for. In other words, if a student is aware that one of their sentences contains an error, but they do not know how that error is categorized—for example, perhaps there is an issue with verb transitiveness—it becomes impossible for the student to edit their paper without searching the entire dictionary. Myers expresses a similar sentiment when discussing her disagreement with minimal marking. As she puts it, “I think we owe it to the student to at least identify the nature of errors and notjust to enumerate them” (Myers 59). 

Perhaps Myers’ biggest concern deals with the error logs, or, as she puts them, error log bogs. She believes that this strategy bogs ESL students down and unnecessarily prioritizes their attention to the “nature and analysis of wrong use of language” (Myers 60). Instead of dedicating a study session to a great search for errors, the student would benefit more from making an effort to learn the language.

Where to Locate Our Focus

Following Myers’ comprehensive counterargument to Cogie, it becomes increasingly clear that Cogie’s methods were grounded in native language naivety, rather than the reality of second language experience. Consequently, Myers encourages us to consider the latter more thoughtfully, which includes accentuating the importance of learning the language holistically. Overall, instead of taking the language level ESL students are currently at and remaining there by continuously searching for errors within it, tutors should be “giving the students more and more language from which to make choices, [and] establishing more and more links for them from the language they have to new language they need” (Cogie 64).

The Adequate Approach

Myers ends off her essay with possible strategies for tutors to use when encountering ESL students. One example aims to provide those students with a wider range of terminology when writing, and is done by having the tutor list a few alternative phrases to something the student wrote. Myers calls attention to the fact that “we use, and learn, much of language in words and word ‘chunks,’ not in abstract rules” (Myers 65). In other words, native speakers didn’t learn English by being introduced to each and every grammar rule individually, but rather by being exposed to more of the language and its correct forms, which allowed them to improve their own language to match what they learned over time.

Referring back to a point made earlier regarding writing centers and non-directive tutoring, there also needs to be an improvement made there. Many tutors are taught this idea that “giving second language students the language they need is ‘unethical’ or ‘immoral,’” however, this only helps them continue their language acquisition (Myers 66). Furthermore, resistance on behalf of the tutor to repeat certain ideas or rules to the ESL student needs to be lost as “repetition plays an important role in language learning” (Myers 66).  

Works Cited

Cogie, Jane. “Avoiding the Proofreading Trap: The Value of the Error Correction Process.” Writing Center Journal, 1999.

Myers, Sharon. “Reassessing the ‘Proofreading Trap’: ESL Tutoring and Writing Instruction.” Writing Center Journal, 2003.

Struggles of Organ Donation: Microcosm of American Healthcare

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Cameron Takmil, December 2, 2023

In the last year alone, over 42,000 transplants were performed. Yet, 17 people a day of the 100,000 people on the national transplant waiting list die without the transplant they so desperately hope for (HRSA). Those who are fortunate to survive on life-sustaining treatments will likely find themselves without a transplant due to the shortcomings of the process as a whole.

Inequalities in organ transplantation can be sourced back to the frequency in which certain populations require new transplants altogether. African Americans and Hispanics disproportionately suffer kidney failure as well as organ failure as a whole — both over one and half times more likely compared to whites. This disproportionate rate of organ failure can be attributed to increased rates of general comorbidities that stem from poor healthcare access and health education (Harvard Health). 

Dr. Jessica Kendrick, a kidney specialist and researcher at University of California, outlined the two main factors that affect African Americans (UC Health)). “The two most common factors are diabetes and hypertension,” both of which also affect African Americans disproportionately, Kendrick said. She cited socioeconomic barriers as the underlying cause for these disparities in not only African Americans but disadvantaged minority populations as a whole. Organ failure is a culmination of poor health and is much more treatable if one is well-educated on their health and has consistent primary care access — something that many cannot say they have.

Geography plays a role as well, as those who are situated in more impoverished areas will have to battle food insecurity and poor quality of diet (NPR). In turn, they are more likely to develop fatty liver and have a need for a liver transplant. But, in rural and low-affluence areas, completing the rigorous testing necessary to land on a donor list becomes a tall order. The first steps in the transplant process is often one that many fail to even reach or surpass. The extensive work-up and evaluations necessary to get on the waiting list bogs down the many who are already struggling to get their routine check-ups. In 2023, over 1,500 Americans were omitted from the transplant list due to being too sick to receive a transplant, adding on the already 50,000 that die from liver disease every year (NPR).

Costs are not limited only to the surgery itself, as post-operative care and medication can be a toll on the already struggling. Dr. Mary Simmerling, an assistant professor at Cornell University with a PhD in bioethics, highlights this in one of her pieces regarding the implications of organ transplantation. “Even if there were a sufficient supply of suitable organs for transplantation, the reality is that the uninsured, underinsured and the poor do not currently have an equal opportunity to fully realize the benefits of organ transplantation because they do not have equal access to very expensive and necessary post-transplant immunosuppressant medications,” Simmerling states. 

Even those with Medicare are not safe from these expenses as coverage for these post-transplant medications and services only lasts three years – at 80 percent (Centers for Medicare Services). With the cost of nearly 2,000 dollars a month and close to 400 dollars after Medicare, those living off minimum wage salary can expect this to eat a sizable portion of their monthly income and even eclipsing their income if they are unable to obtain coverage (Simmerling 2007).

Recently, in 2022, Medicare introduced a “Part B Immunosuppressive Drug Benefit”, which is an extension of the partial coverage that allows for one to be covered continuously. While a step in the right direction, the caveat is that this only covers the exact medication for immunosuppressants but not additional medication that help treat possible complications arising from the immunosuppressant drug regimen or from surgery (i.e. organ rejection). This is simply not enough to ensure patients won’t be run up with charges if any complications come about post-surgery. 

Sentiments around donating organs have not helped either, as many are hesitant to donate due to a myriad of reasons. A study done by a group of Case Western researchers found that African-Americans’ tendency to donate was related to their lack of trust in the healthcare system. 38.6% of the African-American participants agreed with the statement that “if doctors know I am an organ donor, they won’t try to save my life”, a sentiment that is rooted in historically poor healthcare access and education (Siminoff 2006).

Lack of access can also be attributed to poor procurement by organizations responsible for retrieving and regulating donor organs. Organ procurement organizations, OPOs, facilitate the organ donation and procurement process, making organs available for transplant. Across the board, black families that were potentially interested in donating received less information than their white counterparts, a factor that makes minority families reluctant to donate (Forbes).

Today, there are 56 OPOs, all responsible for handling their respective donor service area (Scienceline). Only until recently have OPOs been responsible for being more transparent about their efficacy and process of procurement. Some estimate that almost 30,000 organs are not correctly retrieved due to inefficiencies and shortcomings of the current systems. These same estimates project that 25,000 additional lives could be saved. Dorry Segev, a professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins, brought up the point that “some OPOs are prioritizing their organs-procured-per-donor rate, ignoring potential donors where only one organ can be procured”. This limits the amount of organs procured, limiting the access down the line for all (Scienceline).

In the words of Elizabeth Warren, “Right now, [United Network for Organ Sharing] is 15 times more likely to lose or damage an organ in transit as an airline is to lose or damage your luggage,” said the Massachusetts’ senator. “That is a pretty terrible record,” (NPR).

Under the Biden administration, promises have been made to double the budget for OPOs and organ procurement programs as a whole, but it will take time to see if that will come to fruition (USA Today).

Plenty of solutions have been proposed, ranging from organs generated stem cells to compensating donors for their donation. Unfortunately, stem cells research is decades away from providing safe and effective generated organs that can replicate the function of human organs. Small scale studies have been successful in creating “miniature” organs, but are still far from creating human-scaled organs (Mayo Clinic).

Some have brought up the potential of allowing the sale of organs, which in theory would increase the available organs for transplantation. A study done at Stanford in 2018 explored the possible implications of allowing the sale of organs, specifically kidneys. The researchers estimated that a donated kidney would equate to $75,000 and the overall value being $1.3 million when considering the extension of lifespan. According to the study, “The study’s calculations showed a positive net benefit, in monetary terms, of $12.4 billion for low-income people overall. The researchers also calculated that the number of transplants per year would increase from 17,500 to 31,000 — enough to supply kidneys for yearly additions to the waitlist.” The proportion of transplant receipts who were considered non-affluent would go from a mere six percent to 30, a fivefold increase (Scope). Nevertheless, while promising, this experiment would be difficult to translate into the real world, due to the reluctance of legislators.

The dilemmas of organ transplantation reflect the greater issues of society today, as a multitude of problems today have coalesced to create the obstacles we face today. In a country that boasts the largest GDP in the world, there should be no reason anyone has to die waiting for their new chance at life.

Bibliography

  1. organdonor.gov, H. R. S. A. (2023). Organ Donation Statistics. Figures of Organ Donation. https://www.organdonor.gov/learn/organ-donation-statistics
  2. J. Kevin Tucker, M. (2021, February 3). What’s behind racial disparities in kidney disease? Harvard Health. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/whats-behind-racial-disparities-in-kidney-disease-2021020321842  
  3. Smith, T. (2023a, June 23). Why is chronic kidney disease risk higher for black people?. UCHealth Today. https://www.uchealth.org/today/why-chronic-kidney-disease-risk-higher-for-black-people 
  4. NPR.org. (2023, May 24). One man left Kansas for a lifesaving liver transplant, but the problems run deeper. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/24/1177589739/one-man-left-kansas-for-a-lifesaving-liver-transplant-but-the-problems-run-deeper 
  5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (n.d.). Part B – Provider. https://www.cms.gov/partbid-provider 
  6. Journal of Ethics | American Medical Association. (2007, June). Beyond scarcity: Poverty as a contraindication for organ transplantation. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/beyond-scarcity-poverty-contraindication-organ-transplantation/2007-06 
  7. National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2007). The ethics of organ transplantation: How comprehensive the ethical framework needs to be. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1831604/ 
  8. Awan, O. (2023, February 22). Disparities of organ donations in America and how to rectify them. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/omerawan/2023/02/22/disparities-of-organ-donations-in-america-and-how-to-rectify-them/?sh=49f5d8904692 
  9. Scienceline. (2020, January). Organ donation in the US is broken, and we know who is to blame. https://scienceline.org/2020/01/organ-donation-in-the-us-is-broken-and-we-know-who-is-to-blame/ 
  10. NPR.org. (2022, August 17). Damaged and diseased organs: The agency overseeing transplants faces intense scrutiny. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/17/1118009567/damaged-and-diseased-organs-the-agency-overseeing-transplants-faces-intense-scru 
  11. USA Today. (2023, March 26). Organ transplant system overhaul: UNOS. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/03/26/organ-transplant-system-overhaul-unos/11522346002/ 
  12. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. (2011). The Ethics of Organ Donation by Living Donors. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)61602-9/fulltext 
  13. Scope Blog | Stanford Medicine. (2018, November 28). Compensation for kidneys would help the poor, study finds.  https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2018/11/28/compensation-for-kidneys-would-help-the-poor-study-finds/ 

Why Genetically Modified Foods are Nothing to Fear and Should be Explored to the Full Extent

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Ramizah Tayiba, October 21, 2023

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that over 795 million people are malnourished globally, 98% of whom are from developing countries. With the global population expected to rise to 9.7 billion by 2050 (UN), it will be challenging to produce enough food for the current population, let alone the expected growth in population (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 

It is also worth mentioning that food production has become increasingly complicated with the decrease in arable land and crop yield. The FAO found that the amount of arable land available for food production per person is expected to decrease from 0.242 hectares to 0.18 hectares. Furthermore, a 2016 study found that the current rate of increase in crop yield is 1.7% when it needs to be 2.4% to meet the demands of population growth (Oliver.) 

With such damming numbers, it is clear that agriculture and food production need to develop in order to meet expected demands and make up for losses due to climate change-induced disasters and a decrease in soil fertility. Several promising technologies have been developed in order to remedy the situation but none are perhaps more controversial than genetically modified organisms. 

Genetically modified foods, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are organisms whose genetic material is engineered in a laboratory to express a certain trait obtained and transferred from another organism. An example of this is when antifreeze protein genes found in winter flounder fish are transferred to tomato crops to increase the plant’s frost tolerance.

With such control over the outcome of crop yields, GM foods certainly have great potential. Genetically modified foods hit the market in 1994 and their ethics and safety have been fiercely debated ever since. Opinions about GMOs range from believing such technology is the cure to world hunger, malnourishment, and the impending threat of climate change to believing such technology can lead to long-term health consequences. 

Interestingly, according to a Pew Research study, the debate on GMOs seems to have a wider gap between the public and scientific sentiment than any other controversial topics such as vaccines and nuclear power. Surprisingly, only 37% of the American public are of the opinion that GMOs are safe to eat compared to 88% of AAAS scientists who think GMOs are safe to eat (Pew Research Center). Such a range of opinions demonstrates the conversation surrounding this technology is distorted and misleading. 

Despite the fact that genetically modified foods are not the silver bullet to all of the world’s food problems, the research and the application of this technology are incredibly important as it has the potential to aid in the very necessary fight to revolutionize farming, aid in the fight to end malnutrition, and contrary to popular belief, there is sufficient research stating it is not dangerous to humans health and harbors no long term consequences. 

The biggest objections to GM foods stem from the fear of their long-term health effects. The process of genetically modifying foods can seem mystifying and even sinister to some as the technique is thought to be playing against nature and the natural order. Anti-GMO advocates have voiced their fears of potential long-term diseases for humans and animals from GMOs. 

Such a lack of awareness regarding the biological techniques involved in genetic engineering breeds uncertainty and fear in this technology which is then reflected in polls. The Pew Research Center found that Americans who believe that GM crops are safe for consumption are in the minority (37%). Fears surrounding the health effects of GM foods exist in large amounts and extend beyond the United States. A 2016 survey conducted in China found that 47% of respondents viewed GM foods as a form of bioterrorism and a threat to safety. Furthermore, an overwhelming 60% of survey respondents in Poland opposed the production and distribution of genetically modified foods (Evanega et al). 

It is understandable that new technology will be questioned due to concerns regarding health, however, research conducted over the past decades has confirmed that genetically modified foods pose no more health risks than their non-GM counterparts. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which subjects all foodstuffs through rigorous safety inspections, has officially stated that a genetically modified crop poses the same level of health threats as any traditionally grown crop (Rudolph). 

GM crops can also be engineered to be more nutritious. One promising project developed by Swiss and German researchers, “Golden Rice,” involves transferring specific genes from corn and harmless bacteria to increase the amount of beta carotene, a key ingredient to make vitamin A in the human body, in rice crops. Such a crop would be greatly beneficial in a world where, according to the World Health Organization, a vitamin A deficiency causes a quarter to half a million cases of childhood blindness, especially in Southeast Asia and Africa. This GM product which has been made available, partly due to Biotech companies waiving the patent rights, is economically effective and efficient for mass distribution as it enhances the specific nutrients lacking in the consumer, resulting in more nutrients in less volume (Jamil). “Golden Rice” is one of several GM foods that are in development that have the potential to enhance the nutritional value of food without increasing the quantity, further demonstrating the usefulness of this technology and supporting the belief that research and investments in this field should continue. 

Another advantage of genetically modifying crops in a laboratory is having the capability to engineer the crop to be repellent to certain pests eliminating the need for pesticide use. According to a study published by the National Library of Medicine, GM foods and biotechnological techniques have reduced the use of chemical pesticides by 37% (Klümper et al). Research has shown that some pesticides have negative health effects on humans with a greater effect on farmers and pesticide applicators due to greater exposure. Short-term effects of pesticides can include rashes, blisters, nausea, dizziness, and diarrhea. Long-term or chronic effects can include cancer, birth defects, neurological and development toxicity, and reproductive harm (Californians for Pesticide Reform). Additionally, the pesticide has adverse effects on the environment as its use can contaminate surrounding bodies of water, soil, and vegetation while also posing a threat to non-target wildlife and plants such as fish, birds, and insects, that are crucial for a functioning ecosystem (Aktar et al). While pesticides do repel pests from crops, it is still imperative that an alternative method of crop protection is adopted to protect consumers from the health effects of pesticides. GM foods provide such a solution as biotechnological techniques can engineer crops to repel incoming pests without the use of pesticides. 

One such widespread example is the utilization of BT, or Bacillus thuringiensis. These crops include the common corn, cotton, potato, and tobacco. Such crops are engineered to carry the genes of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis which is found in soil and is toxic to certain harmful insects, specifically, insects from the Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Diptera, and Nematoda order upon ingestion. The genetic modification of crops to include the BT bacteria within its DNA sequence eliminates the need for pesticide use, minimizing pesticide exposure to farmers (Abbas). Such success stories demonstrate the great potential of GM foods, which help to ameliorate fears and further strengthen the argument that such technology should be explored to the full extent. 

It is also worth noting that more realistic voices from the fight to end world hunger correctly point out that global malnutrition is not necessarily caused by a lack of food, but rather not being able to afford food. Most of the world’s malnourished reside in developing countries with unstable or weak economies where being able to afford nutritious food is beyond the economic capabilities of most. Such a problem requires an economic solution not agro-technical As mentioned, the world doesn’t suffer from a lack of food. In fact, global grain production alone can provide 4.3 pounds of food per person, per day (Jamil). While this food exists, it does not mean that it is secure. The decrease in nutrient-rich soil and the constant threat of climate change have led to farming irregularities, disrupting food production in many parts of the world. 

According to the UN Environment Programme, 23 hectares of arable land is lost to drought or desertification, not including the land lost to urbanization. In Georgia for example, 60% of the nation’s arable land has been rated as low or middle quality for food production, while 35% is rated as too degraded to produce food (UNEP.) In addition to losing land for agriculture, food production is also threatened by climate change. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, climate change threatens global agricultural productivity as it causes irregular precipitation patterns, warmer temperatures, and water shortages which complicates farming (US EPA). 

While it is important to acknowledge that poverty is the main cause of world hunger and not lack of food, it is equally important to acknowledge the current food supply is under threat by climate change, desertification, and urbanization, and therefore new methods of farming need to be adopted to withstand climate change induced consequences and to maximize crop yields in smaller farming areas. GM foods can be a promising tool to ameliorate some of these problems. 

According to a study published by the National Library of Medicine, GM technology has increased crop yields by 22%, with most of its concentration based in developing countries (Klümper et al). Another study that lists the agricultural benefits of GM foods, states that between 1992-2012, there was an increase of more than 370 million tons of crops in the United States, one-seventh of which has been attributed to genetically modified foods. The study goes on to state that between 1996-2013, an estimated additional 138 million tons of soybeans, 274 million tons of corn, 21.7 million tons of cotton lint, and 8 million canola have been produced through biotechnology. To produce equivalent amounts of this food without the use of biotechnology would require an increase of 11% of arable land, further demonstrating the efficiency of GM foods (Zhang et al). This example demonstrates that GM technology has the potential to withstand the threat of arable land loss as it can produce larger crop yields in a smaller farming area without adding additional stress to the environment. 

In addition to being engineered to produce larger crop yields, GM technology can also create drought-resistant plants. Droughts have become increasingly prevalent due to climate change which threatens current and future agricultural productivity. Genetically engineering crops to be more resistant to water shortage and drought can protect crop yields from dry seasons. Researchers have developed a method of creating drought-resistant crops that involves inserting genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus Subtillis, which activates a protein that alleviates the damaging effects of drought into crop DNA. These genetically modified crops are more tolerant to water shortages than non-GM foods which ensures their ability to grow despite potential threats of droughts (USDA). 

Given the immense possibilities of genetically modified foods, it is imperative that research and application of this technology continue to overcome the challenges surrounding the food supply and world hunger. All technology has limitations. In the case of GM food, it is by far not the quick fix to all the world’s food problems and cannot alleviate the economic obstacles that exist between people and food. Despite its limitations, GM foods still remain an invaluable tool in the very necessary fight to revolutionize farming and agriculture as it results in more nutritional foods in smaller quantities. It is unfortunate that GM technology is still viewed by the public as unsafe despite the fact that the overwhelming scientific consensus not only agrees on its safety but champions its widespread use. Given the plethora of benefits that this technology provides, it is important that acceptance and development of GM become commonplace and that it is paired with other new and sustainable practices to protect the world’s current and future food stock.

Bibliography 

1. Klümper, Wilhelm, and Qaim, Matin. “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops.” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 11, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629. 

2. Zhang, Chen, et al. “Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems.” Food Science and Human Wellness, vol. 5, no. 3, 2016, pp. 116-123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2016.04.002. 

3. Aktar, Md., et al. “Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards.” Interdisciplinary Toxicology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7. 

4. Abbas, Mohamed. “Genetically engineered (modified) crops (Bacillus thuringiensis crops) and the world controversy on their safety.” Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control, vol. 28, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-018-0051-2. 

5. Klümper, Wilhelm, and Qaim, Matin. “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops.” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 11, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629. 

6. Russell, A. “GMOs and their contexts: A comparison of the potential and actual performance of GM crops in a local agricultural setting.” Geoforum, vol. 39, no. 1, 2008, pp. 213-222, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.04.001. 

7. Evanega, Sarah, et al. “The state of the ‘GMO’ debate – toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?” GM Crops & Food, vol. 13, no. 1, 2021, pp. 38-49, https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243.

8. Jamil, Kaiser. “Biotechnology – A Solution to Hunger?” UN Chronicle, https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/biotechnology-solution-hunger. 9. Rudolph, Cameron. “Are GMOs Safe?” Michigan State University, 15 Aug. 2018, https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/are-gmos-safe. 

10. “World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, and 11.2 Billion in 2100.” Department of Economic and Social Affairs, https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-b illion-2100. 

11. Bent, Elizabeth. “Not All GMO Plants Are Created Equally: It’s the Trait, Not the Method, That’s Important.” Phys Org, https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gmo-equally-trait-method-important.html#:~:text=The%2 0so%2Dcalled%20%22fish%20tomato,present%20in%20the%20fish%20genome. 

12. “Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food supply#:~:text=Climate%20change%20can%20disrupt%20food,result%20in%20reduced %20agricultural%20productivity. 

13. “Every Minute, We Lose 23 Hectares of Arable Land Worldwide to Drought and Desertification.” UN Environmental Programme, 12 Feb. 2018, 

14. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/fridayfact-every-minute-we-lose-23-hectare s-arable-land-worldwide-drought. 

15. Oliver MJ. Why we need GMO crops in agriculture. Mo Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;111(6):492-507. PMID: 25665234; PMCID: PMC6173531. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173531/

16. “Pesticides and Human Health.” Californians for Pesticide Reform, https://www.pesticidereform.org/pesticides-human-health/#:~:text=Examples%20of%20a cute%20health%20effects,disruption%20of%20the%20endocrine%20system. 

17. “Public Opinion about Genetically Modified Foods and Trust in Scientists Connected with These Foods.” Pew Research Center, 1 Dec. 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/12/01/public-opinion-about-genetically-modif ied-foods-and-trust-in-scientists-connected-with-these-foods/. 

18. Mcfadden, Johnathan. “Drought-Tolerant Corn in the United States: Research, Commercialization, and Related Crop Production Practices.” Economic Research Service U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 13 Mar. 2019, https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/march/drought-tolerant-corn-in-the-united-s tates-research-commercialization-and-related-crop-production-practices/.