Our local Cool Toys Conversations group had asked to have a discussion of emerging technologies and Ebola, and “could we please have it before the holidays when everyone will be traveling?” I had tried to get this up early last week, but life happened, and so it is coming to you now.
When we started looking at this topic I was surprised to find so much! I probably shouldn’t have been — Ebola is big news. It seems as if everyone doing anything in tech and emerging tech is doing something interesting related to Ebola. Well, except Apple. And that surprised me, too. There were so many links, so many topics, I could have EASILY done a month of daily blogposts just on this topic. Once we started, we kept finding more. The collection of links was getting overblown, random, chaotic, confusing. I decided to organize them all in a mindmap, and doing that took a while. Mindmeister kept saying, “Too many topics at one level!” This is why it is broken down into 4 section, but don’t take those sections too seriously. They are more an artifact of the process than seriously meaningful. Each major topic probably has minor topics and links that could easily belong in another section. For that reason, I thought it might be helpful to give an alphabetic list here of what’s included in the mindmap (which is also where you’ll find all the actual links – hint? Click on the little arrows).
I have so many favorite projects and resources I can’t possibly highlight them all. If life and time permit, I’ll try to throw together a slideshow with screenshots of some of them. Just as teasers, here are just a … a smidgen, a teeny tiny sampling. Tim Unwin wrote a great overview of exciting ways in which emerging technologies are being used in the Ebola crisis. Biosensors, wearable tech, open everything, code repositories, data, genetics, DIYbio, mapping and tracking, apps (tons of them), reverse innovation, open source pharma, gaming, cryogenics, … the list goes on and on. You already know how completely enchanted I am with the maker movement right now, and this is no exception. Makers Against Ebola designed flash sensors and proximity alarms to help prevent contamination while working with patients, pull tabs and zipper extenders to make it easier to get in and out of the Personal Protective Environments (which you might recognize better as hazmat suits). The DIY Ebola Challenge came up with a great variety of open source hardware solutions for scientific equipment, in efforts to design a kit they couple bundle and share at point of need. So far they have centrifuges in all sizes, PCR thermocycler, gel electrophoresis, spectrometers, multichannel pipettes, and more. Other folk are using tools like the Raspberry Pi and Beaglebone Black to design inexpensive syringe pumps and diagnostics. And then there’s robots! Robots to decontaminate, robots to intercede between people and create a distance than may contain the disease (like a social firebreak). The ways in which people are using tech to highlight the personal aspect is also awe-inspiring. From citizen journalism to ebola MOOCs to the WAYout Ebola Song, with every social media tool you can name, someone is doing something to try to help share important stories and information. There is a lot more in the mindmap, with links for everything. There’s even a section on open access images about Ebola to use foe teaching, training, and education. Check it out — here’s an outline.
GENERAL
Articles
Collections
PEOPLE DRIVEN
Advocacy
Citizen Science
Citizen Journalism
Collaboration Tech
Communication (Challenges: Misinformation & Hype, Stigma, Weaponized; Solutions: Education & Training, Ebola Information, MOOCs, Information & Health Literacy, Wikipedia
Social Media
Research
Crowdfunding
Crowdsourcing (Challenges)
Makers & DIY
Open (Open Access, Open Images, Open Data, Open Government, Open IBM, Open Source Code Repositories, Open Source Pharma, Open Sources Wearables)
Reverse Innovation
SCIENCE DRIVEN
Arxiv/bioRxiv
Biohacking / DIYbio / SynBio
Data (Data modeling, Data visualization
Open Data
Diagnostics
Genetics
Mapping / Tracking
Nanosilver
NASA
TECH DRIVEN
3D Printing
Apps
Biosensors
Biotech
DARPA
Biocontainment
Cryogenics
Diagnosis
Gaming
Geolocation / Geotagging / GPS
Hackers
IBM
Mobile
Robotics (Asepsis, Telepresence)
Telemedicine
Wearable Tech (Biocontainment, Personal Protective Environments)
There are several more examples along these lines, many including hashtags that have been misappropriated by the audience. Evidently the audiences weren’t quite what was expected by the companies creating the hashtags for their marketing campaigns. The Cosby example was one of those, with #CosbyMeme. The Dr. Oz example is another. He used the hashtag #ozsinbox. Some folk read it as #OzsInbox, but others read it as #OzSinBox. Oops.
Since the HOTW series focuses on hashtags, I thought it would be appropriate to spend a little bit of time talking about how hashtags can go astray. At the same time, I don’t want to scare people away from using Twitter, so there will be a “part two” that talks more about how to use and choose Twitter hashtags to support your real goal. It does take a little advance thought and preparation, but done well, hashtags can be an amazingly powerful and useful way to get your message out and engage with people who are also passionate about it.
For now, just a few tips and thoughts about what happened with Dr. Oz.
TIP ONE: Do you REALLY want to do a Q&A?
The CDC routinely does Twitter chats with Q&As on emerging health topics. They did one recently on Ebola, for example. This is obviously a good thing, and a great way to let people say what worries them and then respond directly from experts with high quality authoritative health information. Don’t give up entirely on Q&As just because of this. But consider, there is a pattern of high profile people offering to do a Q&A and being targeted by those who don’t like them, who then take over the stream. I’ve done Twitter live interviews, but I’m not actually important or famous on the scale of either the CDC or Dr. Oz. So, before you offer to do a Q&A, think about reputation, context, and if you just want attention or actually have something of value to contribute. If you just want attention, are you alright with it not being good attention? Because that sometimes happens. People will tell you exactly what they really think of you, if that’s what you want.
TIP TWO: If doing a Q&A, try to imagine the kinds of questions you might get. Then ask a few friends. Then ask a few enemies. Then ask a half dozen teen age boys.
@DrOz@DrOz precautions against Deep Vein Thrombosis reoccurrence & precautions when travelling by air after DVT?#OzsInbox
There are a lot of doctors who gleefully tromped all over Dr. Oz, given this opportunity to do so. That set a kind of example. There were a few people who tried to say that they knew Dr. Oz before he was a media star, and that deep down there is a good doctor somewhere under all the hype. Those people were placing themselves at risk if they tried to defend him. Some media sources described the frenzy around the hashtag as being dominated by trolls.
Even if you completely believe that Dr. Oz is a horrible person who has lost his way in the maze of popular pseudoscience, if you entertain yourself by trashing him in a situation like this, how does that make YOU look? Is that the person you want to be? How does this make the profession appear? When doctors get snarky, does healthcare get a pie in the eye? It sets an example for the public when doctors trash each other. That might be a good thing, or it might not. I’m not sure yet. And remember, what you say can be misunderstood just as badly as anything said by anyone.
Dr. Pav Khaira has a background image on his page saying, “This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.” Obviously, he has a good heart, and means well, but is also willing to poke fun with the best of them.
Dr. Sunil K Sahai was fairly new to Twitter when this came up. He came to regret what was intended as a funny tweet, and blogged about what he should have said instead, and how.
.@DrOz#OzsInbox Why have you not been censured or fired from @ColumbiaSurgery for conduct unbecoming a physician, scientist, and gentlemen?
The Risk Bites video series is touching on many of my favorite emerging technologies topics. Every now and then, I’m hoping to take some of their topics and dig into the issues a little more. Today’s topic is e-cigs, which I’ve blogged about here before. Earlier this week, the e-cigarette panel discussion at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association (#APHA14) attracted a great deal of attention, including attendance from the current Surgeon General.
In addition, APHA endorsed a public call to the FDA to push forward on regulating electronic cigarettes.
20149 Regulation of electronic cigarettes — Calls on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to develop regulations that hold e-cigarettes to the same marketing and advertising standards as conventional tobacco cigarettes and calls for the federal funding of research on the short- and long-term health consequences of e-cigarette use. Urges the Consumer Product Safety Commission to require special packaging, including warning labels, on e-cigarette cartridges to help prevent childhood poisoning. Also calls on state and local official to restrict the sale of e-cigarettes to minors as well as the use of e-cigarettes in enclosed public areas and workplaces. APHA News Releases: New 2014 policy statements http://www.apha.org/news-and-media/news-releases/apha-news-releases/2014-policy-statements
This all makes this topic especially timely, and worthwhile of reviewing once more. Please note, I am NOT saying these are the reasons behind the APHA call for action, or even that there is research to support the points below. I am saying only that these are things I’ve noticed and found interesting. If there isn’t research, maybe there needs to be. If existing research doesn’t yet answer important safety questions, maybe we should act with caution until we do have those answers. It there is, then maybe I could share some in another post. I do believe that the issue of e-cigs is more nuanced than we might be led to believe by much of the public dialog around it — that there are both benefits and risks. So, with that caveat, here we go!
Primary public health perspectives mentioned in this video:
– What are the impacts of use by children?
– E-Cigs reduce toxins from smoke for regular smokers
– Are e-cigs simply an easier path to nicotine addiction?
– Aside from the intended nicotine, there may be impurities & contaminants from e-liquid solutions
– The FDA only has oversight over certain aspects of e-cigs, and there may be a lack of regulation for other potentially risky aspects of the device & liquids.
This is a truly excellent introduction in very few minutes to the most important considerations of e-cigarette use. The best quick overview I’ve seen. There are a few other issues to possibly address. See the following videos for a broader picture of public health aspects of e-cigarettes.
NUMBER NINE
There have been (few, but some) reports of e-cigarette devices that were flawed in manufacture and did nasty stuff like explode in someone’s face. This is another aspect for the attention of regulators. Some of the explosions have been when on charge (as in this video), or have been modified in some way by the user (“at your own risk” becomes a very meaningful phrase). There are reports of this happening while in use and damaging the user’s face. Because this is not a medical device, these events are not being recorded in a way that allows healthcare systems to document and define the level of risk. Without that, you are basically depending on the industry to self-police manufacturing standards and error rates.
We live in a MAKER world. People hack their medical devices, and people hack their home devices. Why should e-cigarettes be any different? According to this video people hack their e-cig devices to make them hotter, and to have less of a draw, so they can get more vapor with less effort. According to the scientists, this changes the risks associated with the chemicals. We need to ask not only what people are already doing to hack these devices, but what else they might do with them or their components. I’m sure we have yet to imagine everything that could be done with vape pens.
Vaping is a drug delivery mechanism. Nicotine is only one drug. There is talk about using vaping as a tool for delivering other medications that require inhalation, such as asthma meds. Of course, it needn’t be used solely for prescription meds, either. Vaping is also a tool for delivering street drugs, illegal drugs, and home made drugs. This, again, could be good or bad, depending on the circumstances.
Remember the phrase “gateway drugs”? There are recipes all over the Internet for how to make your own e-cig liquid, and those recipes include directions for how to make e-cig liquid to deliver illegal drugs. I think the genie is out of the bottle on that one, but it is certainly an issue to address in public health circles. Of course, also keep in mind that e-cigs may be a alternate way to provide medical marijuana to patients.
People have mentioned the issues of e-cig flavors that are clearly being marketed specifically to children, and how the devices are being marketed as cool/fun/sexy for young adults.
It really makes it look like fun, doesn’t it? That was actually the first thing that attracted my attention to e-cigarettes. I saw so many incredibly beautiful photos streaming thru the sites marketing the devices, it seemed like there was an awful lot of money and genius being poured into the campaigns. It made me wonder why.
NUMBER FOUR
Recent research from the CDC reveals that e-cig use among children and teens is skyrocketing. It may take time to learn the long term outcomes of this trend.
Research also seems to show that youth who start with e-cigs are more likely to convert to conventional cigarettes. This is, obviously, the reverse of using e-digs as a smoking cessation device.
This video seems to me to be intentionally designed to scare people, BUT, despite the hyperbole and drum rolls, the content is largely factual, just framed to be extra exciting. I’m including links to the source content so you can dig into it more, and don’t have to depend on the video.
CDC: Youth Tobacco Prevention: Electronic Cigarettes: Key Findings: Intentions to smoke cigarettes among never-smoking U.S. middle and high school electronic cigarette users, National Youth Tobacco Survey, 2011-2013 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/youth/e-cigarettes/
CDC Newsroom: New CDC study finds dramatic increase in e-cigarette-related calls to poison centers; Rapid rise highlights need to monitor nicotine exposure through e-cigarette liquid and prevent future poisonings http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0403-e-cigarette-poison.html
Among other issues, she points out that excessive regulation of vape pens and e-digs could lead to people making their own devices. The genie is out of the lamp — people know what these are and how they work. It isn’t going to be that hard to make your own, but it may create other kinds of risks and quality control issues. Right now, you can actually buy kits to make your own vape pen at home.
I LOVE RISK BITES!!! Ok, there you have it. I confess. Here is part of why I like them so much. You see, I don’t just love Risk Bites. I love a LOT of Youtube science education channels. But of the top science channels on Youtube, the ones with a huge fan base and almost aggressive vitality, most of them are either created by kids, young adults, and hobbyists, or they are from huge big money operations. (Please see the APPENDIX at the bottom of this post for more about “What do popular science channels look like?”) What’s missing? Academics and professionals.
And why not? Why shouldn’t there be popular science video channels from academics? WHY NOT?
Yes, universities have Youtube channels and make videos highlighting research by their faculty. Typically, they don’t go viral. Look at them, and you can tell why. They’re good, but dry. They are just not going to get the eyeballs in the same way. They aren’t, well, FUN! A lot of the reason why they aren’t fun is that they’re afraid. They’re afraid of not looking academic. They’re afraid of what their peers will say. They’re afraid of taking the risk, and maybe having someone misunderstand what they said. They’re afraid of looking silly.
Academics tend to judge other academics. They complain bitterly when the general public won’t listen to them, but on the flip side, God help any academic who does succeed in getting public attention for communicating science well. Typically, they are ridiculed and undermined by their academic peers. We, as academics, as institutions of learning, need to cut that out. When we belittle and criticize other academics for communicating effectively with the public, it makes all of us look bad. It undermines the credibility of all of science. It weakens our justification for funding, and the understanding the public has of what we do. If you have to criticize another scientist or researcher, stick to the science, and don’t blame them for “being popular.”
Risk Bites is brave. They take the risks that other academics are often afraid to take. They talk about important and sometimes controversial topics. They do so in an engaging and still accurate way, sticking to the good science, and providing more resources in the notes for people who want to explore or learn more. They engage in the conversation with people who comment. They even make videos responding to points brought up in conversation. They are building a community.
Risk Bites is the best example I know of an academic or professional voice that intentionally, purposefully, and responsibly positions itself in the space inhabited by FUN science education videos. Here is more about the background and thought behind what they are trying to do.
So, when I say I love Risk Bites, I am not just talking about the great videos, or the quality of the content, or the awesome and relevant timely selection of topics. I’m talking also about the vision, the mission, the willingness to take risks, the BRAVERY of what they are doing. And I passionately want others to notice, pay attention, and support this grand effort.
When I heard that Risk Bites has a subscription drive, I wanted to write this. I want you to stop and think about how academic science information in Youtube compares to the popular science channels. Check out Sixty Symbols, from the University of Nottingham. That is the only popular science channel I could find from an academic source. Think about why more of us aren’t there, why WE aren’t there, why YOU aren’t there.
And then I want you to do the right thing. I want you to help to get eyeballs on another strong academic science voice in Youtube. I want you to support the people who are brave enough to try. I want you to go to the Risk Bites channel, watch some of their videos, comment, ask questions, tell them what they can do better, and SUBSCRIBE!
Topics included Ebola, injections, infographics, informed consent, data security, emerging tech solutions for discharge followup, patient safety toolkits, and more! Here’s a few of the nuggets.
Last week, Mike Tyson, famous boxer and convicted rapist, opened up on talk radio to having been sexually assaulted as a child. The revelation is being taken as informing his earlier statements of how a drive to fight bullying informed his abilities as a boxer.
When asked, “Did you tell anyone?”, Tyson replied, “No, it’s nobody’s business to know.” And when asked, “Did you drastically change after that day?”, he answered, “I don’t know if I did or not.” Those are not unusual responses for victims of child sexual abuse, many of whom only touch on the topic openly much later in life (Tyson is 48). I thought this might be a good opportunity to share information about the Twitter hashtag #SexAbuseChat, where people do talk, share, and provide support on a weekly basis. Also, this makes a lovely introduction to “No More Shame” November, a month long focus on sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse awareness and advocacy.
(Kindly Retweet) Free, non-judgemental peer support for survivors of sexual abuse right here in 10 min.
Simply click here–> #SexAbuseChat
