Seventy years of sex education in Health Education Journal: a critical review

This paper examines key debates and perspectives on sex education in Health Education Journal (HEJ), from the date of the journal’s first publication in March 1943 to the present day. Matters relating to sexuality and sexual health are revealed to be integral to HEJ’s history. First published as Health and Empire (1921 – 1942), a key purpose of the journal since its inception has been to share information on venereal disease and its prevention within the UK and across the former British Empire. From 1943 to the present day, discussions on sex education in the newly-christened HEJ both reflect and respond to evolving socio-cultural attitudes towards sexuality in the UK. Changing definitions of sex education across the decades are examined, from the prevention of venereal disease and moral decline in war-time Britain in the 1940s, to a range of responses to sexual liberation in the 1960s and 1970s; from a focus on preventing sexually-transmitted infections, teenage pregnancy and HIV in the 1980s, to the provision of sexual health services alongside sex education in the 2000s. Over the past 70 years, a shift from prevention of pre-marital sexual activity to the management of its outcomes is apparent; however, while these changes over time are notable, perhaps the most striking findings of this review are the continuities in arguments for and against the discussion of sexual issues. After more than 70 years of debate, it would seem that there is little consensus concerning motivations for and the content of sex education

Clinical Genetics in Britain: Origins and development

Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 23 September 2008. Introduction by Professor Sir John Bell, Uiversity of Oxford.First published by the Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL, 2010.©The Trustee of the Wellcome Trust, London, 2010.All volumes are freely available online at: www.history.qmul.ac.uk/research/modbiomed/wellcome_witnesses/Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 23 September 2008. Introduction by Professor Sir John Bell, Uiversity of Oxford.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 23 September 2008. Introduction by Professor Sir John Bell, Uiversity of Oxford.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 23 September 2008. Introduction by Professor Sir John Bell, Uiversity of Oxford.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 23 September 2008. Introduction by Professor Sir John Bell, Uiversity of Oxford.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 23 September 2008. Introduction by Professor Sir John Bell, Uiversity of Oxford.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 23 September 2008. Introduction by Professor Sir John Bell, Uiversity of Oxford.Clinical genetics has become a major medical specialty in Britain since its beginnings with Lionel Penrose’s work on mental handicap and phenylketonuria (PKU) and John Fraser Robert’s first genetic clinic in 1946. Subsequent advances in diagnosis and prediction have had key impacts on families with inherited disorders and prospective parents concerned about their unborn children. The Witness Seminar focused on the beginnings of British clinical genetics in London, Oxford, Liverpool and Manchester, the development of subspecialties, such as dysmorphology, and also the roles of the Royal College of Physicians, the Clinical Genetics Society and the Department of Health in the establishment of clinical genetics as a specialty in 1980. Specialist non-medical genetic counsellors, initially from the fields of nursing and social work, progressively became a more significant part of genetic services, while lay societies also developed an important influence on services. Prenatal diagnosis became possible with the introduction of new genetic tools in regional centres to identify fetal anomalies and chromosomal disorders. This volume complements the 2001 Witness Seminar on genetic testing which emphasizes laboratory aspects of medical genetics, with limited coverage of clinical genetics. Participants include: Ms Chris Barnes, Dr Caroline Berry, Professor Martin Bobrow (chair), Professor Sir John Burn, Dr Ian Lister Cheese, Professor Angus Clarke, Dr Clare Davison, Professor Joy Delhanty, Dr Nick Dennis, Professor Dian Donnai, Professor Alan Emery, Professor George Fraser, Mrs Margaret Fraser Roberts, Professor Peter Harper, Dr Hilary Harris, Professor Rodney Harris, Professor Shirley Hodgson, Dr Alan Johnston, Mrs Ann Kershaw, Mrs Lauren Kerzin-Storrar, Professor Michael Laurence, Professor Ursula Mittwoch, Professor Michael Modell, Professor Marcus Pembrey, Professor Sue Povey, Professor Heather Skirton, Professor Sir David Weatherall. Harper P A, Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2010) Clinical genetics in Britain: Origins and development. Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 39. London: The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL.The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL is funded by the Wellcome Trust, which is a registered charity, no. 210183

Special Libraries, Winter 1986

Volume 77, Issue 1https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/sla_sl_1986/1000/thumbnail.jp

Aneides hardii

Number of pages=23Geological SciencesIntegrative Biolog

Index to Library Trends Volume 33

published or submitted for publicatio

Clinical Pharmacology in the UK, c.1950-2000: Industry and Regulation

Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 25 September 2007. Introduction by Professor Parveen Kumar, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of London.First published by the Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL, 2008. ©The Trustee of the Wellcome Trust, London, 2008.All volumes are freely available online at: www.history.qmul.ac.uk/research/modbiomed/wellcome_witnesses/Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 25 September 2007. Introduction by Professor Parveen Kumar, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of London.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 25 September 2007. Introduction by Professor Parveen Kumar, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of London.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 25 September 2007. Introduction by Professor Parveen Kumar, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of London.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 25 September 2007. Introduction by Professor Parveen Kumar, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of London.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 25 September 2007. Introduction by Professor Parveen Kumar, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of London.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 25 September 2007. Introduction by Professor Parveen Kumar, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of London.Clinical pharmacology in the UK in the 1950s and 1960s was an exciting profession. Many important new drugs were developed and brought to market and a more systematic knowledge of drug effects in humans was needed, as well as ensuring the safety and efficacy of new and existing drugs, especially following the unexpected problems arising from the use of thalidomide. This Witness Seminar followed an earlier meeting on the history of the general development of clinical pharmacology and focuses on the development of clinical pharmacology in pharmaceutical companies and drug regulation. Professor Rod Flower chaired the meeting of clinical pharmacologists and others who shaped the discipline, which discussed the main centres of influence; the attraction to clinical pharmacologists of working in industry; whether the decline in the number of academic clinical pharmacologists was paralleled in drug companies; what drove drug regulation; and the relationships between companies and regulatory authorities. Participants included Dr Jeffrey Aronson, Professor Nigel Baber, Sir Alasdair Breckenridge, Sir Iain Chalmers, Professor Joe Collier, Professor Donald Davies, Dr Peter Fletcher, Dr Arthur Fowle, Professor Sir Charles George, Professor David Grahame-Smith, Professor John Griffin, Dr Andrew Herxheimer, Professor Ray Hill, Dr Peter Lewis, Dr Tim Mant, Professor Denis McDevitt, Professor Michael Orme, Dr Anthony Peck, Professor Brian Prichard, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, Professor John Reid, Professor Philip Routledge, Dr Julian Shelley, Dr Robert Smith, Professor Cameron Swift, Professor Tilli Tansey, Dr Duncan Vere, and the late Professor Owen Wade. Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2008) Clinical pharmacology in the UK, c. 1950–2000: Industry and regulation. Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 34. London: The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL.The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL is funded by the Wellcome Trust, which is a registered charity, no. 210183

Ideology and disease identity : the politics of rickets, 1929-1982

How can we assess the reciprocal impacts of politics and medicine in the contemporary period? Using the example of rickets in twentieth century Britain, I will explore the ways in which a preventable, curable non-infectious disease came to have enormous political significance, first as a symbol of socioeconomic inequality, then as evidence of racial and ethnic health disparities. Between the 1920s and 1980s, clinicians, researchers, health workers, members of Parliament and later Britain's growing South Asian ethnic communities repeatedly confronted the British state with evidence of persistent nutritional deficiency among the British poor and British Asians. Drawing on bitter memories of the ‘Hungry Thirties’, postwar rickets—so often described as a ‘Victorian’ disease—became a high-profile sign of what was variously constructed as a failure of the Welfare State; or of the political parties charged with its protection; or of ethnically Asian migrants and their descendants to adapt to British life and norms. Here I will argue that rickets prompted such consternation not because of its severity, the cost of its treatment, or even its prevalence; but because of the ease with which it was politicised. I will explore the ways in which this condition was envisioned, defined and addressed as Britain moved from the postwar consensus to Thatcherism, and as Britain's diverse South Asian communities developed from migrant enclaves to settled multigenerational ethnic communities

The Development of Sports Medicine in Twentieth-century Britain

Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 29 June 2007. Introduction by Dr John Lloyd Parry, Institute of Sports and Exercise Medicine. First published by the Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL, 2009. ©The Trustee of the Wellcome Trust, London, 2009. All volumes are freely available online at: www.history.qmul.ac.uk/research/modbiomed/wellcome_witnesses/Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 29 June 2007. Introduction by Dr John Lloyd Parry, Institute of Sports and Exercise Medicine.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 29 June 2007. Introduction by Dr John Lloyd Parry, Institute of Sports and Exercise Medicine.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 29 June 2007. Introduction by Dr John Lloyd Parry, Institute of Sports and Exercise Medicine.Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar held on 29 June 2007. Introduction by Dr John Lloyd Parry, Institute of Sports and Exercise Medicine.Sports medicine has grown in importance and visibility in recent years, yet as a discipline it struggled to gain broad recognition within the medical profession from c.1952 until specialty status was granted in 2005. It has also been neglected by historians: we have little beyond the image of a coach with his ‘magic sponge’ as a cure for all injuries, although the late twentieth-century picture is of new specialists developing high-tech interventions for elite athletes. This Witness Seminar arose from the Wellcome Trust-funded project on ‘Sport and Medicine in Britain, 1920–2000’ at the University of Manchester and examined the establishment of a recognizably modern specialty. Chaired by Professor Domhnall MacAuley, topics addressed included the importance of the 1948 London Olympics; the first 4-minute mile; training and altitude physiology; the postwar institutionalization of sports medicine; the relationship between the different main bodies involved in sport and their aims; the changing practice of professionals including physiotherapists, etc.; the relationship of NHS and private sports medicine practitioners and insurance companies; and the key debates within the sports medicine community over the period. Contributors include: Sir Roger Bannister, Dr Malcolm Bottomley, Dr Ian Burney, Professor John Elfed Davies, Professor Charles Galasko, Dr Robin Harland, Dr Vanessa Heggie, Mr Barry Hill, Professor Michael Hobsley, Dr Michael Hutson, Professor Monty Losowsky, Professor Domhnall Macauley (chair), Mrs Rose Macdonald, Professor Donald Macleod, Professor Moira O’Brien, Dr Malcolm Read, Professor Peter Sperryn, Professor Harry Thomason, Dr Dan Tunstall Pedoe and Mrs Sally Williams. Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2009) The development of sports medicine in twentieth century Britain. Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 36. London: The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL. ISBN 978 085484 1219The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL is funded by the Wellcome Trust, which is a registered charity, no. 210183

For-Profit Education in the United States: A Primer

Higher education during the twentieth century underwent drastic changes as reformers forcefully argued education was the business of the state, and society could be improved by strong, publicly backed schools (Coulson 1999). Often proponents of state-sponsored education on the left argued the government should use education as a way to shape the minds of the nation's citizens, who were not responsible enough to take care of their own education properly (Coulson 1999). On the right, similar arguments were used as special interest groups saw the government as a means to influence what went on in the classroom. Consequently, the government stepped into the higher education arena, in part, by arguing people were not competent enough to oversee their own education. While the data for this period are scarce, it is safe to say for the period 1890 -- 1972, for-profit colleges were increasingly marginalized by the growth of highly subsidized public institutions (Breneman et al. 2006; Kinser 2006; Ruch 2001).Starting in the mid-1970s and accelerating through the 1980s and 1990s, for-profit education underwent a renaissance, due in large part to the 1972 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which increased the amount of government student aid available to for-profit schools (Kinser 2006; Turner 2006). During this era, the broadened scope of Pell Grants gave rise to an increasing number of for-profit universities offering associates, bachelors, and graduate degrees (Turner 2006). Since 1976, for-profit enrollment has grown at an annualized growth rate of about 11 percent, increasing by a factor of nearly twenty-three. For-profits'market share of higher education has gone from 0.4 percent to nearly 6 percent (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2006a). The robust resurgence of for-profit schools suggests America's nonprofit colleges are failing to meet fully the people's needs. As a result, for-profits are stepping in to meet market demands their highly subsidized counterparts have chronically failed to satisfy. These recent and rapid developments have once again brought for-profit education national visibility