The role of ethics and ideology in our contribution to global health The topic of this article has vividly interested the author for many years. It is fascinating to him that the issues at stake have not changed for the last 30 years or so. As proof of this – and on purpose – references quoted are both those published before 1985 and after 1995 (Table 1). Considerable material on this topic was already available from the mid 1970s on. The end result has been the (re)construction of a scenario that has been stubborn to change and that looks into most of the, still highly relevant, burning questions of then and now on the issues pertaining to the title of this contribution for debate. It will be of interest to the reader to see how we often need to be reminded of the things our peers had evidence of and wrote about long before us – as the examples of Dr. Virchov and of the Alma Ata Declaration, for instance, show.

What drives public health professionals in their daily work? Presumably it is the appeal of working, either locally or globally, to alleviate the suffering caused by (preventable) ill-health. This article explores the political awareness of health professionals, the political implications of their daily activities and suggests an enhanced role for them in the battle against preventable ill-health worldwide. The starting point for this article is the motivating principles behind these professionals as individuals. It challenges established paradigms in health, medicine, development and academia with a focus on health professionals' political, ethical and ideological motivations and awareness plus the implications of their actions in the realm of global health in the future. It further has implications for the everyday practice of health care providers, public health practitioners, epidemiologists and social scientists in academia

Adapting the boundaries in primary physical education: an account of my learning, my educational influence and improved practice

In this paper I explore how I have come to theorise my work as a critical emancipatory practice as a lecturer in primary physical education (PE). I give an account of what I understand to be the epistemological foundations and practices of practitioner research and my potential educational influence in my own and other practitioner-researchers’ learning. I explain how I have generated my living educational theory of practice and discuss the changes in my learning from a propositional approach towards a dynamic epistemology of practice that is grounded in inclusional and dialogical ways of knowing. Within my paper I position myself as a professional educator and researcher, and share the exciting and transformational experiences of teaching and learning in evolving action research cycles of practice. I view my learning to date as an active act, working with the novice teachers I support to offer improvement and change in our future practice. I celebrate my reconceptualised view of education as a learner from within my practice and explain my move from knowledge transfer to knowledge co-creation. I make an original contribution to educational knowledge by explaining how I try to inspire others to research their practice and contribute to a new scholarship of educational enquiry

An Alternative Paradigm for Food Production, Distribution, and Consumption: A Noneconomist’s Perspective

The Industrial Food and Agricultural (IFA) industry has become increasingly excoriated by proponents of the Naturalization Food and Agricultural (NFA) paradigm over the past decade. Thought leaders of this alternative movement have been calling for economic and policy overhauls of the food system - touching upon human health, labor rights, the environment, climate change, and animal welfare. Although the majority of these thought leaders are not economists or scientists, their arguments are structured to shape consumer choices and farmers' production decisions, influence food and agricultural policy, and ultimately affect the economics of the industry. In this article, we survey publications at the forefront of the NFA paradigm, touching upon the work of Pollan, Schlosser, Petrini, Bittman, Nestle, and Kremen, among others, as well as the earlier contributions of Carson, Sinclair, Steinbeck, Buck, and even Jefferson. Their solutions, although short on quantitative analysis and long on prescriptions, address the real concerns of the general public and lay the foundation for economists to advance public discourse through analytical research on the NFA paradigm