Archive | war

Japanese scientists are leading a path to peace- and see dual use research as an obstacle.

Screenshot 2017 04 07 17 09 32

April 10, 2017

The Science Council of Japan (the equivalent of the National Academies of Science in the USA) has released a statement that calls for academic scientists to refuse funding for military research.

They have done this not for a political reason, but for a deeply ethical and philosophical one- to avoid war.

The Japanese scientists on the Science Council understand that they, as scientists, bear responsibility in the effort to avoid war. Scientists are very much part of the technological part of waging war, and must look to themselves as one of the forces that must police itself. But few scientists across the world are willing to risk they power they hold as advisors to the military, or the money they receive from the government, to speak against war.

Some scientists simply haven’t questioned the effectiveness or morality of war. This is particularly easy to do in the USA, which has not had a massive war in its borders since the civil war in the 1860’s, and which hides its huge and expensive militarism (with the largest military in the world) behind a facade of consumerism. Although WW2 was over half a century ago, the atomic bomb devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Tokyo and other large cities have left psychological scars that have helped support a culture of pacifism.

Not all people in Japan are determined not to go to war. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, citing concerns about North Korea and China (and supported in this by the United States ), has been trying to justify a polity of re-militarization. He has arrested activists still protesting the many military installations the US military has in Japan, particularly the ones in Okinawa . In 2015, Abe’s governing legislative coalition made changes to the pacifist post WW2 constitution to allow it to rearm and fight beside allies. Geochemist Morihisa Hamada has noted that these changes to the constitution also permit the manufacture and sale of weapons, sales that can bring lots of money into the country.

Abe  has tried to re-introduce military research on university campuses in Japan through funding for dual use projects. Curiously to Americans (who seldom question funding from the military), it was the concept of funding dual-use research in academia that caused such agitation among Japanese scientists. Dual use research is constantly being redefined: it originally meant research that brought benefit to both the military and to civilians , but has come to mean in the USA and Europe the hostile use of a biological agent that is usually used to promote health.  It is the first, pure definition- research that can benefit the military as well as civilians- that is the subject of the Japanese scientists’ proposed boycott.

So the funding for research that has military as well as civilian application has been offered since 2015 to scientists in Japan through the government’s Acquisition & Logistics Agency, and the money was increased dramatically this year. Each university must decide whether or not to accept funds: so far, 10 universities allow researchers to accept defense grants, and 15 do not allow it. The temptation to take the money will be strong, and so the Science Council of Japan has called upon academics to decide for themselves whether it is moral to accept the money, a step they believe will bring closer the likelihood  of war.

Imagine the National Academies of Science doing the same!

0

Not even the proposed FY2018 discretionary budget can induce scientists to talk about war.

In spite of the growing realization that the political is part of science, that scientists can be activists and that racism and climate change are suitable topics for activism, that protection of refugees is paramount, and that research will be defunded as over half the discretionary budget already goes to war, there is a shocking silence from scientists against militarism and war.

Why?

It wasn’t always so. During the war against Vietnam, for example, scientists protested, started food banks, and worked to stopped military funding on campuses. Linus Pauling, who was awarded not only the 1954 Nobel Prize in Chemistry but also the 1962 (awarded in 1963) Nobel Peace Prize, famously in 1962 held a sign about the test ban treaty outside the White House, before going in to dine with President Kennedy to celebrate his Chemistry Nobel Prize with other laureates. Science for the People was only one of many scientific organizations that openly opposed the war and militarism.

But  right now, the silence is deafening. Scientists have spoken out against individual wars: many were activists against the Iraq Wars. But they spoke as if that particular war, and that particular president, were aberrations. Many have spoken out against nuclear weapons, but without even mentioned the military mindset and the war that would lead to the use of those weapons.

And it isn’t as if the military hasn’t already been taking up a huge portion of discretionary funding. In the Bush years, in the Obama years, there has been a steady increase in military funding. (The blue part of the pie is the over 50% of discretionary funding proposed for war by Obama.) Scientists have remained passive.

Scientists are speaking out about racism and the plight of refugees, but don’t mention that any come from the bombs, drones, weapons, “advisors” the USA has sent to the middle east and northern Africa. Stopping the devastation we are causing would go a long way towards helping refugees. It is terrific that scientists are finally speaking against the Muslim ban, but they need to explore the problem more deeply to be effective…and scientific.

Our organizations do not speak against war. Now, as deep cuts to research in favor of funding the military are put forward, there is still no protest against war. The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB)  statement on Trump’s proposed budget spoke against the 6 billion dollar cut to the NIH and other cuts made in favor of defense, and also mentioned that basic science research had helped many soldiers: this almost reads like a defense of war. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) in its statement about Trump’s budget also justifies the needs of the military (“Who will the military turn to when they need information to support effective troop movements?”) as a reason to support basic research. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest scientific organization, has said nothing about the madness of an increased military budget  and in their graphic, they list the increase in budget for the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons, apparently as a bright point.

The National Priorities Project (NPP), a non-partisan organization that looks at funding, issued a statement on Trumps FY2018 budget proposal does mention that the USA military budget is already larger than the next 7 countries combined.  The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) does not mention the deflection of money to the military in a blog statement on the budget, but does in the action center in its letter to Congress for scientists :

“This budget calls for a $54 billion increase in defense spending, while making cuts in the same amount to non-defense programs from science research to diplomacy efforts. At the same time, President Trump has endorsed the idea of a nuclear spending spree, which would be dangerous and wasteful. The United States should be investing more in diplomacy and science–not new nuclear weapons.”

I take heart from this.

But the organizational responses may just be completely honest on one level: scientific research walks arm in arm with the military and with war. Scientists are funded by war, they work on war, they are needed for war. If we called it genocide instead of war, would scientists feel less that they don’t need to rationalize their complicity with the military? Genocide is not an aberration is war, nor is rape, hunger, or torture. Or the creation of millions of forces refugees. War is the mass murder of civilians: 90% of the deaths are civilian deaths.

Graphic “Trump’s Budget: Winners and Losers” from the Los Angeles Times .

0

Can climate survive adherence to war and partisanship? By David Swanson

Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?

By David Swanson
http://davidswanson.org/node/5448
For the past decade, the standard procedure for big coalition rallies and marches in Washington D.C. has been to gather together organizations representing labor, the environment, women’s rights, anti-racism, anti-bigotry of all sorts, and a wide array of liberal causes, including demands to fund this, that, and the other, and to halt the concentration of wealth.

At that point, some of us in the peace movement will generally begin lobbying the PEP (progressive except for peace) organizers to notice that the military is swallowing up enough money every month to fund all their wishes 100 times over for a year, that the biggest destroyer of the natural environment is the military, that war fuels and is fueled by racism while stripping our rights and militarizing our police and creating refugees.

When we give up on trying to explain the relevance of our society’s biggest project to the work of reforming our society, we generally point out that peace is popular, that it adds a mere 5 characters to a thousand-word laundry list of causes, and that we can mobilize peace groups to take part if peace is included.

Often this works. Several big coalition efforts have eventually conceded and included peace in some token way in their platforms. This success is most likely when the coalition’s organizing is most democratic (with a small d). So, Occupy, obviously, ended up including a demand for peace despite its primary focus on a certain type of war profiteers: bankers.

Other movements include a truly well informed analysis with no help from any lobbying that I’ve had to be part of. The Black Lives Matter platform is better on war and peace than most statements from the peace movement itself. Some advocates for refugees also seem to follow logic in opposing the wars that create more refugees.

Other big coalition actions simply will not include any preference for peace over war. This seems to be most likely to happen when the organizations involved are most Democratic (with a capital D). The Women’s March backs many other causes, but uses the word peace without suggesting any preference for peace: “We work peacefully while recognizing there is no true peace without justice and equity for all.” There is also, one might note, no justice or equity for anybody living under bombs.

Here’s a coalition currently trying to decide whether it dare say the word peace: https://peoplesclimate.org.

This group is planning a big march for the climate and many other unrelated causes, such as the right to organize unions, on April 29. Organizers claim some relationship among all the causes. But, of course, there isn’t really an obvious direct connection between protecting the climate and protecting gay rights or the rights of workers. They may all be good causes and all involve kindness and humility, but they can be won separately or together.

Peace is different. One cannot, in fact, protect the climate while allowing the military to drain away the funding needed for that task, dumping it into operations that consume more petroleum than any other and which lead the way in poisoning water, land, and air. Nor can a climate march credibly claim, as this one does, to be marching for “everything we love” and refuse to name peace, unless it loves war or is undecided between or uninterested in the benefits of mass murder versus those of nonviolent cooperation.

Here’s a petition you can sign to gently nudge the People’s Climate March in the right direction. Please do so soon, because they’re making a decision.

The struggle to save the climate faces other hurdles in addition to loyalty to militarism. I mean, beyond the mammoth greed and corruption and misinformation and laziness, there are other unnecessary handicaps put in place even by those who mean well. A big one is partisanship. When Republicans have finally proposed a carbon tax, many on the left simply won’t consider it, won’t even tackle the problem of making it actually work fairly and honestly and aggressively enough to succeed. Perhaps because some of the supporters seem untrustworthy. Or perhaps because some of the supporters likely don’t believe you need labor unions in order to tax carbon.

And which ones would you need, the ones advocating for more pipelines or the ones working in other fields?

Scientists, too, are planning to march on Washington. The scientific consensus on war has been around as long as that on climate change. But what about the popular acceptance? What about the appreciation among grant-writing foundations? What do the labor unions and big environmental groups feel about it? These are the important questions, I’m afraid, even for a scientists’ march.

But I appreciate the scientific method enough to hope my hypothesis is proven wrong.

David Swanson, who has already answered your concerns about impeaching Trump at http://firedonaldtrump.org, is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

Help support DavidSwanson.org, WarIsACrime.org, and TalkNationRadio.org by clicking here: http://davidswanson.org/donate.

0

Riyadh Lafta, scientist, doctor, activist finally got a US visa to speak at the University of Washington

Fullsizeoutput 6ff

When the US 2003 invasion of Iraq was underway, University of Washington (UW), Associate Professor of Global Health Amy Hagopian thought it would be a good idea to bring an academic from Iraq to explain what was actually happening to people in Iraq as a result of that invasion. She worked with other academics at UW, Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, and Johns Hopkins, as well as with community groups who worked with Iraq refugees and the anti-war movement. She spoke with politicians, and wrote letters, and in 2007, it almost seemed as if Lafta would be able to come. He was scheduled to give a talk at UW, but the USA still refused his visa. Canada agreed to give Lafta a visa, and he spoke at Simon Fraser University, with a crowd at UW in Seattle watching the lecture via the internet.

It is likely that one of the main reasons Lafta was denied an USA visa is his 2004  and 2006 Lancet papers  on the mortality of citizens in Iraq as a result of the US invasion. Doing rather dangerous door-to-door surveys, Lafta and colleagues found mortality to be far worse than that reported by the US, which downplayed the effects of war on civilians, and there was a hostile reaction to their papers.

Lafta continued to examine the effects of war on Iraq, and Hagopian continued to work with academic and community members to bring him over. After years of effort, Lafta was awarded a US visa in 2016. On October 27, Lafta gave a talk at the University of Washington.

Fullsizeoutput 6e8

There was no pretending in the auditorium that politics was unconnected to science and research: lives are not saved by science or medicine alone. Hagopian and Pramila Jayapal (who is running for Wa State Senator) spoke of politics and war and healthcare, and the possibilities of change. Lafta himself was very clear about the origin of the health problems in Iraq, and about how difficult it would be to improve life for Iraqis. Physicians fear for their lives and most leave the country. With no functioning government, the country is run by militias. He ended his talk with a short film that showed before and after footage of Iraq, once busy streets and markets reduced to rubble. There was a lively question and answer session, and perhaps the sadness and hopelessness of the situation was summed up by Lafta in response to a question about his exceptions of the election on Iraq policy.

He answered simply, “No American President has ever done anything beneficial for Iraq.”

Lafta’s talk has been scheduled for November 3 at Simon Fraser University  in Vancouver, Canada- but as of October 28, his visa application has been refused. He will be speaking at the American Public Health Association meeting in Denver this week.

fullsizeoutput_700

 

October 28, 2016

Riyadh Lafta’s talk can be viewed on YouTube.

0

Will scientists at Japanese universities again do military research? Article from The Japan Times about pending Science Council decision

The Japan Times: Science Council of Japan considers overturning long-held opposition to military research

The Japan Times

The nation’s largest and most powerful group of scientists has started discussing lifting its decades- old ban on defense-related research as the government seeks more collaboration with civilians in the development of weapons technology.

The move comes as the Defense Ministry, under the “proactive peace” policy of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is pushing for the development of dual-use technology by funding research that can be used for both civilian and military purposes.

It also comes on the heels of a report concluded this month by the national defense committee of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which recommended drastically increasing the ministry’s annual budget for dual-use grants to ¥10 billion from the current ¥600 million.

The Science Council of Japan, a group of some 2,000 scientists in fields ranging from engineering to the humanities to the natural sciences, announced last week it has set up a 15-member panel to discuss abandoning its long-held stance against military research.

Established in 1949 as a special organization under the jurisdiction of the prime minister but operating independently of the government, the SCJ has vowed “never to engage in scientific research to be used in war,” based on the bitter lessons of World War II, in which Japanese scientists contributed, directly or indirectly, to the ravages of war at home and abroad.

But in recent years, “it is becoming increasingly difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between technologies and knowledge for military and civilian uses,” Takashi Onishi, president of SCJ and the president of Toyohashi University of Technology in Aichi Prefecture, wrote in his May 20 proposition to create the panel. “It has also been widely shared that such deepening of ties between academia and defense could threaten the foundations of science.”

page1image20576 page1image20736 page1image20896 page1image21056 The panel, comprising Onishi and 14 other people, including former astronaut Chiaki Mukai and Kyoto University President Juichi Yamagiwa, will discuss whether to amend statements by the council in 1950 and 1967, in which it vowed “never to engage in military research.”

It will also discuss the burgeoning field of dual-use technology.

Known for having spawned such innovations as the Internet and GPS, dual-use technology is common in the West but has long remained low-profile in postwar, pacifist Japan, with many institutions banning such research for fear of re-militarization.

A big turning point came in December 2013, when Abe, after returning to power the year before, had his Cabinet adopt the new National Defense Program Guidelines, said Morihisa Hamada, a volcanologist working at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology and one of scores of scientists opposed to defense research.

The guidelines, in a marked departure from previous versions, spelled out the government’s plan to “actively utilize dual-use technologies in enhanced cooperation with universities and research institutes.”

In fiscal 2015, the Defense Ministry began seeking grant applications from civilian researchers for basic research in dual-use technology. The ¥300 million budget rose to ¥600 million this fiscal year.

Meanwhile, universities across the nation have faced a series of funding cuts from the central government, producing growing ranks of researchers starved for alternative funding.

Hamada said a range of universities and research institutes have conducted joint research with Defense Ministry-affiliated agencies in recent years.

For example, the Ground Systems Research Center, which conducts research on firearms, ammunition, ballistics and blast-resistant structures, vehicles and their fittings, and engineering equipment, has tied up with a range of academic institutions, including Kyushu University, Chiba Institute of Technology and Chiba University in such areas as explosives detection, robotics and engine simulation.

“The reason universities are now wavering is because research budgets have been slashed,” Hamada said.

He believes any research in the name of defense will end up aiding wars and urges concerned researchers to join an ongoing campaign led by Satoru Ikeuchi, an astrophysicist and professor emeritus at Nagoya University, to sign an online petition against military use of science.

While some scientists argue for lifting the research ban under certain conditions, such as using their technology only for defense, not offense, Hamada said such distinctions mean little.

“We should never forget the history of Japan, which waged a war under the name of self-defense,” he said. “All wars start with defense. To ban military research, the most nonconflicting stance to take is refuse any research funds from military institutions, be it the Defense Ministry or agencies tied to the U.S. military.”

The SCJ panel’s discussion will be open to the public, with the first meeting scheduled for June, an official with the group said.

The official added that it may take a year or so to reach a decision. 

——-

You can leave a comment on line at The Japan Times.
Please consider signing the Japanese anti-militarism declaration.

 

 

0

Military recruiting at the 2015 Experimental Biology convention

Photo

Military recruiting at the 2015 Experimental Biology convention.

Curiously placed among the “Publishers” in the Exhibition Hall at the 2015 Experimental Biology Convention in Boston was the Army Medical Recruiting table.

Military recruiters are ubiquitous in high schools (the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 section 9528 stated that military recruiters must be allowed in high schools and must be given student home contact information or the school could lose federal funding.) They are present in colleges and universities, where the targets’ brains are closer to maturity, and where  there is still occasionally protest about their presence.

During and for several decades after the Vietnam War, many scientists refused to take military money for research, but no dissent was shown at this conference. Most passing scientists didn’t seem to notice the table or the 2 soldiers staffing it. But really, how could they miss the incongruity of a gigantic photo of a soldier with gun among the books and journals?

The Army section that was recruiting was the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, in nearby Natick. Its mission is to “Provide solutions to optimize Warfighter health and performance through medical research,” and the vision is “Recognized by the Department of Defense as the trusted leader in medical research for Warfighter health and performance optimization.”

Many partners are listed, from military, universities, and companies. For some, helping with the US’s constant wars might be deliberate and idealogical, but money is probably the main motivator: over half of the discretionary US budget goes to war, even as the NIH and NSF budgets barely move. This ready money has blinded scientists to the implications of taking Department of Defense (DoD) money for their research.

15p R D Pie

 

There are 4 research divisions in USARIEM, and glossy pamphlets were available for each: Biophysics & Biomedical Modeling, Military Nutrition, Military Performance, and Thermal & Mountain Medicine. From traumatic brain injury to improving soldier’s running styles (!), the projects range from the mundane to the tragic, with a presumptive trickle-down benefit to civilians. Or not- do civilians even matter, these days?

We need to think more about war, and science’s (and our own) place in that war. We might have a range of opinions, but we need to be thoughtful and deliberate about participation in something as devastating and all-encompassing as war.

 

 

 

 

 

0

World Science Day for Peace and Development is November 10

Peace day

Today, November 10, is World Science Day for Peace and Development!   What a great idea, United Nations!

After World War II, the United Nation adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 27, the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, was declared to be one of those rights.

The 1999 World Conference on Science: Science for the for the Twenty-First Century was held in Budapest and committed itself to using science to benefit mankind. Since then, UNESCO (The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization) has affirmed that commitment to the role of science in bringing peace and safety to all on November 10 every year. In 2000, and in a  follow-up report in 2002, UNESCO has detailed what the issues are, and how peace and development can be furthered by science.

But why did the UN hedge on its description of peace? Can we meaningfully talk about quality of life for all people, the effects of climate change and poverty, the unforeseen effects, good and bad of technology to happiness of mankind- and not mention the effects of militarization and war? This is especial bizarre because of the role of science and technology in building and selling the weapons of war.

The main report put out by the 1999 conference is the “Declaration of Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge.”   The report itself acknowledges war, but doesnt come out to say that scientists could work towards ending it.

The Introduction  tiptoes around the issue of war:

“However, scientific and technological progress has also made possible the construction of sophisticated arms that have the potential to destroy life on the entire planet.” And so? There is no response in the report to its own statement.

The Introduction does quote Einstein. “Military applications of science have been of enormous consequence. Therefore, scientists can no longer claim today that their work has nothing to do with social issues. It is interesting to recall the plea made by Albert Einstein back in 1931: ‘concern for humankind itself and its fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavours. . . . Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations’.”  But then, this quote hangs alone, with no connection to the rest of the Introduction.

The follow-up report in 2002  “Harnessing science to society,” makes NO mention of the effects of war and the incompatibility of war with peace.

There is more overt mention in the earlier (1988) resolutions adopted on the reports of the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly:

“43/61. Science and peace

The General Assembly,

Considering also the political and economic decisions have a decisive effect on the direction of scientific research and the use of the results obtained thereby,

Recalling that scientific and technological achievements must be used to advance socio-economic progress and the effective enjoyment of human rights throughout the world,

Considering further that the arms race absorbs a substantial proportion of the scientific talent and financial resources used in related research and development, which, in a more peaceful and secure world, could be used to solve other pressing problems facing mankind…”

But even this needs to be stronger. Neither scientists or politicians should be shy about being absolutely overt about the need to prevent war, and the political and scientific will that will be needed to do this.

It would help to have our leading organizations and journals and professional groups spell it out- we will not have peace without war, and scientists can help bring that peace.

 

 

0

Caucus at your professional organization meetings: Don’t waste a chance to build community

     In 2009 the American Public Health Association approved the policy statement, “The Role of Public Health Practitioners, Academics, and Advocates in Relation to Armed Conflict and War.” Despite the known health effects of war, the development of competencies to prevent war has received little attention. Public health’s ethical principles of practice prioritize addressing the fundamen- tal causes of disease and adverse health outcomes. A working group grew out of the American Public Health Association’s Peace Caucus to build upon the 2009 policy by proposing competencies to understand and prevent the political, economic, social, and cultural determinants of war, particularly militarism. The working group recommends that schools of public health and public health organizations incorporate these competencies into professional preparation programs, research, and advocacy. (Am J Public Health. 2014;104:e34–e47. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301778) 

       Within every organization there are specific interests that are shared among smaller groups at meetings. Make that official- or make it unofficial- but gather together to vote, to talk, to suggest resolutions that  guide the organization, to plan projects together.

     The Peace Caucus of the American Public Health Association has been advocating against war and its effect on public health for years. Their latest newsletter is posted below. From that group arose the Primary Prevention of War group, which believes that war, like disease, is best avoided than treated, and has suggested curricula that School of Public Health can use to teach the primary prevention of war (The Role of Public Health in the Prevention of War: Rationale and Competencies. Wrist et al, AJPH 2014:104, e34-e47- for a copy of the paper, email me at kbarkerbtb@gmail.com.)

     

NEWSLETTER________________________________________________________________________________________

Peace Caucus in Official Relations with the American Public Health Association

PEACE CAUCUS

Newsletter • Fall 2014

Primary Prevention of War Group Needs Your Support !

The Public Health Working Group on Primary Prevention of War (PH-PPW) is growing in numbers – and is looking for your support! The group grew out of the APHA annual meeting in 2011, following a Peace Caucus session where
a paper was delivered documenting the general dearth
of coursework available on war and armed conflict within
Schools and Programs of Public Health (SPPHs). Based on a content analysis of curricular offerings of the top 20 SPPHs, the paper demonstrated that the narrow set of courses offered on war tend to be reactive, rather than advancing the concept of primary prevention. This tipped off the creation of this international, interdisciplinary Working Group of scholars and practitioners organizing to promote the primary prevention of war.

The PH-PPW Working Group meets every other month by conference call and has undertaken a number of activities, all aligned with APHA’s Policy Statement, The Role of Public Health Practitioners, Academics and Advocates in Relation to Armed Conflict and War (1). In 2013, the group published its findings on SPPH curriculum in Public Health Reports (2). In 2014, the group published a framework for public health prevention of war in AJPH, including a set of

continued on page 4

www.peacecaucus.org

2014 Victor W. Sidel and Barry Levy Award for Peace

Recipient – Nancy Stoller, PhD

Please join us in honoring Dr. Stoller for her tremendous contribution to peace and health for all Tuesday 6:30 PM
APHA Public Health Awards Reception and Ceremony (Session
322.o)

Film Festival: “Within the Eye of the Storm.” Monday at 6:30 and 8:30 PM

The Medical Care Section is sponsoring showings of “Within the Eye of the Storm” at 6:30 and 8:30 pm (session 3356.1) http://withineyeofstorm.com/. The film runs about 1 hour and tells the real-life story of two men – one Palestinian and one Israeli – each previously dedicated to fighting a faceless other, and each of whose daughters were killed in the conflict, who then committed to work to- gether to humanize the enemy and interrupt the vicious cycle of retaliation. Each showing of this inspiring film will be accompanied by a discussion to which the director, Shelley Hermon, has been invited. Check the program for the location.

Are you a member ?

Peace Caucus Program November 15 – 19, 2014 New Orleans, LA

MONDAY (3171.0) PUBLIC HEALTH, PEACE AND CONFLICT IN THE MIDDLE EAST

10:30 – 12:00 PM NANCY STOLLER, PhD, MODERATOR MCC, 220

10:30 AM — Exploring Social Justice Across Cultures and Professions
Jane Lipscomb, PhD, RN, Corey Shdaimah, PhD, Roni Strier, PhD, Susan Leviton, JD and Jody Olsen, PhD

10:45 AM — Voices Through Walls: How Walls Undermine Human Rights, Humanity, and Peace Steven Gilbert, PhD, DABT and Saherea Bleibleh, PhD

11:00 AM — Politics of Deteriorating Health in Palestine Dima Qato, PharmD, MPH, PhD

11:15 PM — Conflict, Peace, and Public Health in Syria: Addressing the Humanitarian Crisis Noah Gottschalk, Meredith Larson and Sarah Kalloch

11:30 AM — Academic researchers’ and publishers’ role in addressing health issues in Palestine Amy Hagopian, PhD, MPH

11:40 AM — Discussion

Endorsed by: LGBT Caucus of Public Health Professionals, Public Health Nursing, Socialist Caucus CE Credits: Medical (CME), Health Education (CHES), Nursing (CNE), Public Health (CPH) , Masters Certified Health Education Specialist (MCHES)

MONDAY (3272.0) RESISTANCE TO WAR AND BUILDING PEACE

page2image10960 page2image11384

12:30 -2:00 PM MCC, 220

12:30 PM — Health Care Access and Host-Refugee Relations in Uganda Joshua Rodd, MPH, MS, PhD (ABD)

ROBERT GOULD, MD, MODERATOR

12:42 PM — Afghan peace volunteers: Nonviolent resistance to war in Afghanistan Patrick Kennelly, MLS and Emily Malloy, RN, CNM

12:54 PM — From theory to practice: Public health practitioners, academics, and advocates in relation to armed conflict and war

Emily Malloy, RN, CNM, Geraldine Gorman, RN, PhD and Ellen Kennelly, BS, RN, FNP 1:06 PM — Health pathway across all levels after the Gulf War

Charles W. Cange, PhD, MSc 1:18 PM — Using music to create peace

Barry S. Levy, MD, MPH and Victor W. Sidel, MD 1:30pm Discussion

Endorsed by: Public Health Nursing, Socialist Caucus CE Credits: Medical (CME), Health Education (CHES), Nursing (CNE), Public Health (CPH)

TUESDAY (4253.0) Distinguishing health study findings from public policy goals promotes peace, justice and health

12:30 -2:00 PM MCC, 223

Discussants: Madeleine Scammell, D.Sc. and David Tuller, DrPH

MADELEINE SCAMMELL, D.Sc, MODERATOR

12:30 PM —Assessing the public health impacts of industrial farm animal production (IFAP) – Steve Wing, PhD
12:45 PM —Exposure to ionizing radiation from Fukushima: The collision of science and public policy – Robert Gould, MD 1:00pm — War, public health and institutional conflicts of interest – Shelley White, PhD, MPH and Wesley Epplin, MPH 1:15pm Discussion

Endorsed by: Socialist Caucus CE Credits: Medical (CME), Health Education (CHES), Nursing (CNE), Public Health (CPH) , Masters Certified Health Educa- tion Specialist (MCHES)

page2image27096 page2image27520

Page 2 APHA Peace Caucus Fall 2014

Peace Caucus Program

Patrice Sutton, MPH and Eleni Tolma, PhD, MPH Program Planners

TUESDAY (4352.1) Integrating competencies for the prevention of war into public health curricula: Primary prevention of war work group roundtable

2:30 PM-4:00 PM Moderators: Geraldine Gorman, RN, PhD and Neil Arya, MD MCC, 243

In 2009 the APHA adopted the policy “The Role of Public Health Practitioners, Academics, and Advocates in Relation to Armed conflict and War.” This was one of 35 related policies the APHA has adopted, including those advocating the banning of specific types of weapons, criticizing military budgets, and opposing military recruiting in public schools. Some of those policies, including the 2009 policy, have specifically recommended that schools of public health develop curricula on war and peace and prepare students to address the causes of war. However, research has shown that schools of public health include little about the prevention of war in their curricula. Therefore, in June of 2014 an article to initiate that curriculum development, written by the Working Group on the Primary Prevention of War, an outgrowth of the Peace Caucus of APHA, was published in the American Journal of Public Health. The article delineated 60 competencies in five domains (Militarism, International Peace Work, Peace Advocacy, and Peace Research) for use in developing courses, incorporation into existing courses and conducting workshops to prepare public health workers in the prevention of war. The Working Group disseminated information about the competencies to Deans of schools and programs of public health to help initiate adoption of the competencies and stimulate greater faculty involvement. In addition to the appendices to the AJPH article, the Working Group also has resources available on two Web sites to assist faculty in developing course content. Participants in this roundtable will discuss additional ways to foster the integration of the competencies into the public health education curriculum. Individuals from schools of medicine, nursing, allied health, and the behavioral and social sciences, in addition to faculty and students of schools and programs of public health, are encouraged to participate in the roundtable.

Session Objectives: To identify ways to foster the integration of the competencies about the prevention of war into the public health education curriculum.

Organized by: Peace Caucus Endorsed by: Socialist Caucus

TUESDAY (320.0) Peace Caucus Business MeetinG

6:00 – 7:00 PM MCC, 241

Please note: We will have a brief business meeting beginning at 6 PM and at 6:30 PM we will go to the APHA Awards ceremony in order to celebrate Nancy Stoller as the recipient of the Victor Sidel and Barry Levy Award for Peace.

WEDNESDAY (5133.0) PEACE TO END ALL WAR

10:30 PM-12:00 PM Ann Hirschman, RN-C, FNP, MPH, ModeratoR MCC, 223
10:30am Military events leading to the Christmas truce (July-December 1914): The start of a military revolution

Stephen Trynosky, JD, MPH, EMT, MMAS (cand.)
10:42am
Lasting Legacy of War – Susan Schnall, RN, FACHE
10:54am
Right to Heal – Maggie Martin, MA
11:06amCommunity Based Rehabilitation Model for Individuals with War-Related Disabilities: Could This Work in the United

States? – Carole Baraldi, Ed.D, RN 11:18amLegacy of War: What is it Good For?

Paul Cox, Civil Engineer, Vietnam Veteran, Board Chair Swords to Plowshares

Endorsed by: Public Health Nursing, Socialist Caucus CE Credits: Medical (CME), Health Education (CHES), Nursing (CNE), Public Health (CPH) , Masters Certified Health Education Specialist (MCHES)

page3image29040 page3image29464 page3image29624 page3image30048

Fall 2014 APHA Peace Caucus Page 3

2014 Health Activist Dinner! Sunday November 16, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m

Hoshun Restaurant 1601 St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans Buffet Dinner and Cash Bar
(1.2-mile walk or 5-minute taxi from New Orleans Convention Center)
The Health Activist Dinner is a 30+ year tradition that celebrates activism for social justice in the field of health with an event that brings together progressive physician leaders and health activists from across the country. Register at:
http://activistdinner.eventbrite.com $55 (Students: $35)
Registration at the door: $60 (Students: $45)

Sponsoring Organizations: American Medical Student Association, APHA Peace Caucus, APHA Socialist Caucus, Committee of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare, Doctors Council SEIU, Doctors for Global Health, Health- Begins.org, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, National Physicians Alliance, Physicians for a National Health Program, Physicians for Human Rights, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Project for Nuclear Awareness, and RxDemocracy.

page4image8216 page4image8976

continued from page 1

Tuesday November 18, 8 PM- 12 midnight Occupational Health Section Dance Party!

Fund Raising Social, Party, and Dance All welcome!!!!
Location: The Attic at Lucy’s

Primary Prevention of War Group Needs You!

teaching and learning competencies (3).

The group is also developing website content that will compile faculty resources for teaching on war and health (4). This year, the group has been doing ongoing advocacy targeting the IOM’s recent report “Preventing Psychological Disorders in Service Members and their Families,” which made no mention of preventing war itself. There will be a presentation at APHA on the IOM report, titled “War, public health and institutional conflicts of interest” (#4253, Tuesday 12:30).

The group has also recently reached out to Deans of SPPH to alert them to the group’s work and encourage expanded curricular offerings, as well as to recruit interested faculty to join the group’s efforts. At the upcoming APHA meeting, the PH-PPW will be holding a session “Integrating Competencies for the Prevention of War into Public Health Curricula” (#4352.1, Tuesday 2:30) that will focus on the competency framework recently published in AJPH. This working round table session will engage all attendees
in visioning expanded curricular offerings and academic strategies for promoting the primary prevention of war. We invite all to contribute! For those not attending and interested in learning more about this Working Group, please contact Shelley White at
mlwhite@bc.edu.

1. American Public Health Association. 2009, November 10. The Role of Public Health Practitioners, Academics and Advocates in Relation to Armed Conflict and War. Policy Number 20095. Available on-line at:http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1391 2. White, Shelley K.; Lown, Bernard; and Rohde, Jon E. 2013. “War or Health? Assessing Public Health Education and the Potential for Primary Prevention.” Public Health Reports 128(6). Available on-line at: http://www.publichealthreports.org/issueopen.cfm?articleID=3036
3. Wiist, William; Barker, Kathy; Arya, Neil; Rohde, Jon; Donohoe, Martin; White, Shelley; Lubens, Pauline; Gorman, Gerry; Hagopian, Amy. 2014. “The Role of Public Health in the Prevention of War: Rationale and Competencies.”American Journal of Public Health 104(6): e34-e47. Available on-line at: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301778
4. Faculty Resources for Teaching War and Public Health. Available at: http://phsj.org/war-and-peace/

Fall 2014 APHA Peace Caucus Page 4

page4image28456 page4image28880

0