Qualitative Analysis of College Students' Ideas about the Earth: Interviews and Open-Ended Questionnaires

NOTE: This is a large file, 165.8 mb in size! This article describes a study in which students' conceptual understanding about the Earth was examined. In the study, students enrolled in introductory science courses at four institutions, completed open-ended questionnaires, and participated in interviews. The institutions consisted of a small private university, two large state schools, and one small public liberal arts college. Students were probed on a variety of topics related to the Earth's crust and interior, and to geologic time. Analysis of questionnaire and interview responses indicates that students hold a number of non-scientific ideas about the Earth. Additionally, students apply a range of ontological categories to geologic phenomena, with significant implications for teaching geosciences from a systems perspective. Educational levels: Graduate or professional, Graduate or professional

If the University Is in the Computer, Where Does That Leave the Library? MOOCs Discovered

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are disrupting the traditional view of learning and the academy. Using technology, high-quality courses taught by some of the brightest minds are now available to unprecedented numbers of students. The university now has the potential to be in the computer. If the university is truly in the computer, what does that mean for the library? In this plenary session, Meredith Schwartz from Library Journal shares highlights from her article “Massive Open Opportunity: Supporting MOOCs in Public and Academic Libraries,” with an emphasis on academic communities. Key topics include definitions, current and future trends, and the potential impact of MOOCs on the library’s role, financials, policies, and collections. From this paper, learn more about this growing phenomenon and how your library can be involved

Migratory Species and Health: A Review of Migration and Wildlife Disease Dynamics, and the Health of Migratory Species, within the Context of One Health

A desire for good health unites us all. Still in a time of COVID-19 and with the looming threat of future pandemics, we are reminded of the fragility of our collective health. Now more than ever, we understand that human health is inexorably linked to the health of the environment in which we live and the species, be they wild or domestic, on which we depend. As we threaten and change our climate, transform natural landscapes, intensify our agricultureactivities, unsustainably exploit resources, and pollute our air, land and water, the pressures on the environment and on migratory species have never been greater. All of these actions in turn drive the emergence of diseases and increase our fragility. I have lived through a time when diseases of wildlife may have been only of scientific interest to some. Now we see the wider and significant consequences of the emergence of both infectious and non-infectious diseases and the growing threat they pose to the very survival of species.Bringing UNEP into the health Quadripartite to work alongside the World HealthOrganization, UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Animal Health Organization is a clear sign that, as a society, if we are to tackle global human ill-health we need to pay significant attention to One Health, taking a holistic approach to disease issues at the global level. Yet within One Health the environment and wildlife health are too often the ‘poor relation.’ There remains too little understanding of disease dynamics and scant consideration of wildlife health when making decisions on food production, trade, land planning, energy production and infrastructure development. Due to the now obvious interconnectivity of health, we know that what is bad for wildlife health, is ultimately bad for us.Too often we overlook the value of wildlife health, only opening our eyes when we feel the negative consequence for human ill-health. For example, when we are confronted with the appalling sights of acute outbreaks of diseases like highly pathogenic avian influenza, or when wildlife diseases spill into livestock or zoonotic infections affect people and present pandemic risks. There is a need to turn the adage of ‘no prizes in prevention’ into applauded actions to maintain the integrity and resilience of ecosystems to stop disease emergence at its source. Developing cost-effective ways to prevent disease emergence that also benefit ecosystems is surely a key challenge for the future.This Report, authored and reviewed by a world leading team of wildlife health specialists, led by the University of Edinburgh, contributes to the growing body of work which highlights the needs for interdisciplinary action to protect the health of us all. Instead of viewing issues through the single anthropocentric lens of human health, it takes the perspective of the wider environment and of the species within, helping to rebalance and improve our thinking aboutOne Health.The Report is a seminal contribution to the work of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) on the issue of wildlife health and will guide the work of the CMS Working Group on Migratory Species and Health. It adds to the CMS work on One Health issues such as the poisoning of species, and highly pathogenic avian influenza, which has helped guide Parties and other stakeholders dealing with the negative health consequences of human activities.The Report examines our current understanding of the determinants of health and considers the gains to be made from taking One Health approaches. With a frequent perception of migratory species as vectors of disease it reviews the complexities of their disease dynamics and considers both the benefits and dis-benefits that migration brings for health in all sectors. Importantly, the report provides the findings from a global expert consultation of key health threats for CMS-listed species. Despite the diversity of species considered, from insects to elephants, and their diverse health threats, there is remarkable similarity in theunderlying drivers of their health threats, namely the human induced pressures outlined above.The key recommendations1 outline the frameworks required to deliver One Health, and how to reduce risks at wildlife interfaces, tackle non-infectious diseases, improve disease prevention and preparedness, fill knowledge gaps, and improve wildlife health reporting and information sharing. These actions will not only improve the conservation status of migratory species, but they will also reduce the health risks to people and livestock.In a climate changing world with an interlinked global biodiversity crisis where the consequences of the current Covid pandemic still playing out, we need no more warnings, we now know now what we have to do to act for the health of us all

Zoonoses and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population: A One Health scoping review

With limited access to animal health services, and high disease burdens among domesticated animals, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia face higher risk of disease including zoonoses. However, we lack understanding of the contribution of often preventable zoonoses to the health of these communities, which would enable us to enhance public health strategies and improve health outcomes. We conducted a scoping review to identify the current state of evidence on zoonoses in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. We examined the size, scope and characteristics of the evidence base and analysed the zoonoses detected in the studies within a One Health framework. We identified 18 studies that detected 22 zoonotic pathogens in animals, people, and the environment, with most studies detecting pathogens in a single One Health sector and no studies investigating pathogens in all three sectors. Findings indicate that despite the strong conceptual foundations of One Health throughout the evidence base, evidence is lacking in application of this concept. There is a need to undertake further research that prioritises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership, considers the contribution of human, animal and environmental health factors, and investigates the prevalence and impact of zoonoses in communities through a One Health approach

Persistence among Deep Rural Communities in the Northern Plains, Revisited

This research note revisits the question of rural persistence, which was first brought to light in this journal by Redlin et al. (2010). We follow Redlin et al’s example by employing county-level data and seek to identify small towns that are surviving to explain their persistence. Our effort to replicate their results begins with the collection of the data anew, but we also include two additional states and incorporate a time dimension. By using Census data from 2000 only, Redlin et al. applied a static approach to test their hypothesis. In this study, we collect data from 1990 as well as 2000 to explore the time dimension of rural persistence. Our findings indicate that rural persistence is a dynamic rather than a static process. First, human capital systematically affects rural persistence. Second, changes in human capital affect rural persistence much more significantly than a stock of each measure at an earlier point in time. This result is encouraging; it suggests that no matter a community’s starting point in human capital, efforts towards community survival can be successful. Increases in any of our independent variables affect small town persistence more than the initial stock of any of them. Moreover, our results produce differences among the states, specifically Montana and Wyoming from the Dakotas, which indicate that future research efforts in rural persistence should explore political structure. Secondly, we suggest a grounded theory approach which develops data from a focused effort on a handful of rural communities

Data Analysis of Zoonoses Notifications in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations in Australia 1996-2021: Implications for One Health

Introduction: Zoonoses are a health concern for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia that face elevated risk of disease related to the environment and animals. Internationally, One Health is encouraged to effectively manage zoonoses by taking integrated approaches involving animal, human, and environmental health sectors to improve health outcomes. However, Australia’s health systems manage zoonotic diseases in animals and people separately which does not support a One Health approach. For the effective management of zoonoses, a strong evidence base and database regarding the epidemiology of zoonotic pathogens is needed. However, we currently lack this evidence limiting our understanding of the impact of zoonoses on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations.Methods: As a first step towards building the evidence base, we undertook a descriptive analysis of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander zoonotic notifications in Australia from 1996 to 2021. We presented notifications as annual notification rates per 100,000 population, and percentages of notifications by state, remoteness, sex, and age group.Results: Salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis were the most notified zoonoses with the highest annual notification rates of 99.75 and 87.46 per 100,000 population, respectively. The north of Australia (Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia), remote and outer regional areas, and young children (0–4 years of age) had the highest percentages of notifications.Discussion: To our knowledge, these findings are the first national presentation of the epidemiology of zoonoses within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. A greater understanding of transmission, prevalence and impact of zoonoses on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (including animal and environmental health factors) is required to inform their effective management through a One Health approach

One Health in Indigenous Communities:a critical review of the evidence

Indigenous populations around the world face disproportionately high rates of disease related to the environment and animals. One Health is a concept that has been used effectively to understand and address these health risks. One Health refers to the relationships and interdependencies between animal, human, and environmental health and is an emerging research field that aligns with indigenous views of health. To understand the applicability of One Health in indigenous communities, a critical review was undertaken to investigate evidence of One Health research in indigenous communities internationally, assess the strength of evidence, and understand what gaps are present. This review included the appraisal of twenty-four studies based in five regions: Canada, Africa, Australia, South America, and Central America. The review found that there is a need for studies of high strength, with rigorous methods, local leadership, and active involvement of indigenous viewpoints, to be undertaken in indigenous communities internationally that focus on One Health. It highlights the need to further consider indigenous viewpoints in research to reduce limitations, increase effectiveness of findings, consider appropriateness of recommendations, and benefit communities