A Closer look at Sexual Harassment in STEM Fields

http://www.dashtaki.com/lawyer-attorney-discrimination/sexual-harassment/

Imagine being denied medication for a severe illness or being told to “find the electric fences first.” While these seem like overly harsh reactions to being rejected this is exactly what happened to archaeologist Maureen Meyers when she was sexually harassed by her superiors. This may seem like an isolate, one-of-a-kind type situation but this happens to many people in research positions all over the county. Sexual harassment is a large issue in the United States. Sexual harassment can defined as harassment, typically of a woman, in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks (Sexual Harassment). Sexual harassment can include but are not limited to acts such as leering, obscene phone-calls, stalking, indecent exposure, or pressure for dates (Sexual Harassment). This is different from sexual assault. Sexual assault is defined as any forcible sexual contact (Sexual Assault). is defined as A study Cosmopolitan Magazine published in February of 2015 surveyed 2,235 women and found that 1 out of every 3 women had been sexual harassed at work. This number is not including the 16% of women surveyed who said they had not been sexually harassed but did report workplace interactions that meets the definition of sexual harassment. When the same study was broken down by the career of the surveyees 31% of women who worked in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields reported being sexually harassed (Survey). Sexual harassment can happen anywhere, but there has recently been a large amount of research put into sexual harassment specifically in science and research fields. Another online survey of field scientists recently reported that uncovered a range of negative experiences; nearly two-thirds of the 666 respondents, who were mostly women, reported being sexually harassed at a field site, and one-fifth said that they had been sexually assaulted (Gewin). Reports also show that until recently this has not been a known issue due to universities ignoring and hiding these issues and women not coming forward in fear of losing their jobs (Harassment Victims). However, more victims are coming out with their stories bringing this issue into public view. A stronger system for reporting and investigating sexual harassment needs to be instilled in university systems. There needs to be an easier reporting system, stronger follow through in investigation of reports, and actual consequences for people found to be sexually harassing others.

For there to be positive change in this process, there first needs to be a less intimidating reporting process for sexual harassment. While sexual harassment is not limited to North Carolina State University and is present in every university system, for ease and clarity this paper will focus on the reporting procedures at NCSU. The webpage that had the form to report harassment was a little difficult to find. This could be made more prominent on the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity’s (the campus department that handles these reports) website. While looking at NCSU’s reporting procedures, I found that there are generally extensive interviews involved with reporting sexual harassment. This can be highly traumatic for someone who has been repeatedly harassed. This could be eased by having a counselor from the counseling center on hand for the interviews.

After the victim or witness reports the harassment, there needs to be a serious attempt to find out all aspects of the incident(s). In the media, there are often stories of someone reporting sexual harassment to superiors who then hide all allegations. This can make the victims feel even more inferior and give the harasser the feeling of having more power in the situation. NCSU has a fairly good process for investigating sexual harassment and is a good template for other universities. First, a complaint is filed, then the complaint is processed and referred elsewhere (i.e. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) if applicable, then there is a preliminary review to see if the investigation even needs to occur, an investigation, a verdict, then notification to all applicable parties of the verdict. While this is a good system some victims problems go unreported and unresolved.

Finally, if the reported party is found to have sexually harassed the victim there needs to be legitimate consequences for that party. These could include having to take an informational class on sexual harassment, pay docks, revocation of honors, or being reported to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is the federal office in charge of criminal charges for federally-funded institutions (Title IX designation). There have been many reports of people getting promotions, honors, and other designations after multiple sexual harassment reports being filed against them. This, just like with investigating the reports, if not handled correctly can make the victim feel insignificant and undermined while giving the harasser a sense of invincibility and the feeling that this is an okay thing to do.

The sexual harassment reporting system is a large issue full of problems. The way harassment is reported, the investigative process, and the consequences are all problematic. Major changes in the way people report, the way it is investigated, and the consequences of guilty parties need to be implemented to make this an easier solution for a terrible issue. Counselors should be present in initial interviews, investigations should be more thorough, and there should be real consequences if parties are found guilty. This is a problem that needs every involved party to work on improving because it can happen to anyone and it is certainly not just going to go away on its own.

“I am not your dog that you whistle for; I’m not a stray animal you call over, and I am not, I never have been, nor will I ever be, your “baby

―Joy Jennings


http://www.tamuc.edu/research/


Works Cited

Feminist Majority Foundation. "Sexual Harassment - Fact Sheet." Feminist Majority Foundation
Feminist Majority Foundation, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Gewin, Virginia. "Social Behaviour: Indecent Advances." Nature 519 (n.d.): 251-53. Nature. 11
Mar. 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

"Harassment Victims Deserve Better." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group.
19 Feb. 2016.

"Survey: 1 in 3 Women Has Been Sexually Harassed at Work."Cosmopolitan. N.p., 16 Feb.
2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

"Sexual Assault." Department of Justice. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

A Closer Look into Banning the Microbead

http://www.unep.org/gpa/gpml/BeattheMicrobeadProject.asp

Many face and body washes feature microbeads that gently exfoliate the skin to leave it smooth and healthy. These beads may be good for the skin, but they are a threat to the Great Lakes, marine life, and potentially our health. This every scientist and journalist agrees with, and many say that the polyethylene plastic that the beads are made out of, is the cause of the pollution. It is true that the beads are creating extra pollutant, however, it is not the beads themselves that are causing the poisoning of marine life. It is the fact that the beads absorb toxic chemicals that already reside in the water. Therefor, when they are ingested they poison the organism that eats them (Elkin). In summary, the plastic beads do pollute the lakes, but they solely do not harm marine life or humans. However, something still must me done about the poisoning of organisms and pollution of the Great Lakes, which is why society has targeted the microbeads. It is the easiest and fastest way to keep the aquatic organisms from being poisoned.

The Great Lakes are an important landmark of the United States. They are marveled at for their beauty and mass size. Sadly, the microbeads are working on altering the lakes forever. Plastic has been an issue with pollution for a long time. It does not break down very well or fast, and when it does is releases harmful chemicals. So since these microbeads are made of plastic, it is only obvious that they are polluting these gorgeous lakes. The microbeads do even more damage than a milk jug or a plastic bag. This is because they are so small, that they get past the water treatment plants. And unlike a milk jug or plastic bag, you can not easily come across a less than 5 millimeters size microbead in a lake and remove it from the water, much less most or even all of them (Beat the Microbead). That makes their potential to harm the environment even greater than anything else. So, since the plastic is what is harming the lakes, the scientists and journalists have it right. The microbeads themselves are what is harming the Great Lakes.

Litter in the environment is a big cause of death in animals, especially marine animals. Plastic bags resemble jellyfish when they are in the water, which causes sea turtles to mistake the bag for their common food choice, ultimately causing death. The ringed plastic used to hold together sport drinks are just big enough so a bird can fit its head through, and just small enough so that it chokes to death while trying to free itself from it. All of these deaths are direct causes of the plastic. Many scientists say that the polyethylene beads have the same effect when organisms mistake them for fish eggs, and ingest them. However this has been found false. The reason why the microbeads are so toxic is because while they are in the water, they absorb all of the toxic chemicals that already reside in the water (Elkin). This being said, the microbeads only aid in poisoning whatever eats them. Unlike the plastic bag and ringed plastic, the microbeads are not the direct cause for harming marine life, instead it is the chemicals that are ultimately the cause for the poisoning.

Humans consume an average of 4.833 billion pounds of fish a year. If the fish that have been feeding on the microbeads are among the billions that we are consuming, the effect on our bodies could be just as worse as those on fish, maybe worse. However, this has not been confirmed. Environmentalists are quick to jump to the conclusion that the chemicals are transferred from organism to organism through the food chain poisoning every predator that consumed prey that has been feeding on the microbeads, including humans. Research is still being done to determine if the transfer of the chemicals reigns true, and also if the effects are maximized or minimized as it moves up. So even though our health may not be affected by the microbeads, some of our everyday activities may be. A fisherman’s income may be affected if the fish die from being poisoned, which would affect restaurant owners that sell fish. The fish would become more expensive if they are becoming scarce because of the poisoning. So, even if research shows that humans are not directly harmed from consuming fish that have ingesting polyethylene beads, we are still affected in other ways.

Environmentalists, journalists, and scientists have put all of the blame on the polyethylene microbeads that are in face, body, and handwashes. However, it is not the beads that are causing the damage. It is easier to put the responsibility on their products rather than the real cause, chemical pollution. There would be faster results from pressuring cosmetic companies to ban their ingredients because of pollution as opposed to pressuring power plants to reduce their wastes and car companies to only make electric vehicles. This is unfair to the cosmetic companies. They add microbeads to their products because they exfoliate the skin, leaving it soft and clean. The reason why these beads are made of polyethylene is because it is cheap, and can be made quickly and in large quantities (Adams). Even though the beads are not causing the fatal blows to the environment, they are slowly being forced to remove them from their products.

I believe that the ultimate solution to this problem, would be to eliminate chemical pollution all together, but it is nearly impossible to make this happen. So, sadly the easiest and fastest way to keep the marine life, the Great Lakes, and humans healthy, is to keep polyethylene microbeads out of the environment. This can only be done by the cosmetic companies no longer having microbeads as an ingredient, or the government creating a law that prohibits the use of polyethylene microbeads in beauty products. From how things are progressing, both of these may be put into effect (Beat the Microbead). 

http://saferchemicals.org/get-the-facts/hazardous-100-chemicals-detected-in-the-great-lakes/

Works Cited:

Elkin, Alison. "Plastic Microbeads From Body Wash Are Contaminating Lakes." Vice News. N.p., 31 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2016. <https://news.vice.com/article/plastic-microbeads-from-body-wash-are-contaminating-the-great-lakes>.

Worland, Justin. “The face wash ingredient in your fish.” Time. TIME.com, 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

Adams, Rebecca. “How Your Face Wash Could Be Poisoning Our Water.” Huffington PostThe Huffington Post, 20 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

"INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST MICROBEADS IN COSMETICS." Beat the Microbead. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2016. <http://www.beatthemicrobead.org/en/>.

A Closer Look at Vaccine Safety & Regulation

Arguably one of the most successful modern medical programs, vaccinations fell prey to faulty research publication almost twenty years ago that has since left doubts in people’s minds regarding their safety and efficacy. In 1998, British doctor Andrew Wakefield published research that linked the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccination with autism. Since this publication release, scientists 

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

have conducted numerous studies in an effort to refute Wakefield’s claims. The findings could not be more concrete: scientists cannot establish any link between the MMR vaccine and the development of autism (Novella). Digging deeper into Wakefield’s work uncovered that he stood to gain financially from the faulty findings he published, and his work has since been discredited. Unfortunately, this refutal did not erased the seeds of doubt and confusion that entered people’s minds. The general topic of vaccinations has become confusing over the past few years–personally, communally, and governmentally–due to faulty studies being published and loose correlations linking vaccinations to autism and other disorders being accepted as causations. The discussion surrounding vaccinations needs to be simplified, starting by providing parents with a better knowledge of vaccinations in the pediatrician's office, unifying vaccine requirements across the country, and finding a more effective solution to raising vaccination rates rather than through government mandate.

The Nature journal editorial “Spot the Difference” highlights the current ineffectiveness of vaccination rules. This topic came to many people’s attention after the 2015 measles outbreak that occurred in Disneyland. The author of the Nature article says, “Fortunately for the public’s health, attention around the outbreak has come down in favour of vaccination and against the myths about its dangers” (Spot). The positive support for vaccines due to this outbreak is a win for the medical community. The author also points out that, in relation to other parts of the world, the current outbreaks the US are seemingly unnoteworthy. In 2014, the Philippines saw more than 50,000 cases of measles reported. In comparison, the US only saw 121 cases reported. Yes, the US number is seemingly small, but I disagree with his stance that these numbers are “unremarkable”. With convenient vaccination access in the US, our disease outbreak numbers should be negligible. Although the issue of vaccinations is a growing problem in the US, we are not yet near any benchmark for public despair. In conjunction with that, there is also no need for resistance to vaccines.

Before the development of vaccinations, almost all children contracted measles at some point in their lives. In the US, it is estimated that about 3 to 4 million people were infected, and around 48,000 were hospitalized (Measles). Roughly 450 deaths occurred each year–450 deaths that are now fully preventable by the vaccination.

A look at the current number of measles cases:

Chart courtesy of the CDC website

The responsibility to regulate this has fallen upon the individual state governments, but families must recognize that the state government is not a medical authority. Many parents see the vaccine requirement laws as just another way the government is exercising authority over citizens. They look over the fact that the law exists to ensure their family’s safety and well-being. Different states hold different vaccination requirements for children entering into the public schooling system. All 50 states and the District of Columbia require DPT, Polio, Measles, and Rubella vaccinations (State). Beyond this, some states require Chickenpox, Hepatitis B, Hib, PCV, Flu, Hepatitis A, Mumps, and Meningitis. Montana has the fewest regulations, only requiring three. These varying regulations add to parent’s confusion about whether or not their child needs all of these vaccines.

For parents of school-age children, the decision to vaccinate their children comes early, with many vaccinations administered under the age of six. The administration of the two measles shots are recommended around age one and then again around age five (Measles). If parents are slow in deciding whether or not to vaccinate their child, the child will miss many of these recommended time frames, delaying the child’s shot routine, potentially affecting their school attendance. For families constantly on the move, this is a hard regulation system to stay on top of. The confusion and differences that are so evident regarding vaccines turns many parents against them all together. That coupled with the ever-circulating online articles that claim links between vaccines and autism development, it is no wonder that there is a modern day anti-vaccine movement. A practicing pediatrician Dr. John Snyder says, “While it does take a lot of effort and a lot of time, which a lot of pediatricians don’t have, I can actually explain the rationale behind why [not vaccinating] is not a good idea,” he said, “and often I’m able to change their mind” (Brown). If more pediatricians would take the time to educate their patients, resistance to vaccinations would likely decrease. Uninformed parents equate to fearful parents. It is the medical staff’s role to provide this needed information.

https://youtu.be/2LXaT8N-F50

This CNN newscast video supports the argument for better education in the pediatrician's office and also examines a specific child’s bad reaction to the MMR vaccine and the thought to be associated permanent damage that occurred.

The current regulation of vaccination is not the most effective of routes available. Many citizens today are not afraid of questioning authority. Oftentimes, government mandates produce the opposite of what they desire. A true authority figure needs to emerge on this issue. If the US desires to see any lasting disease control, the medical community will need to assume authority and take over vaccine regulation and distribution. This begins by providing better education on the topic to children’s parents early on. Ideally, this occurs in the pediatrician’s office. The next step needs to be a simplification and unification of vaccine rules and regulations across the country. It is at this level that the government may need to step back and allow the medical and wellness communities a chance to assume authority. The medical authorities should then seek legislative help for implementation, but only after making it clear to the public that ample research has been conducted to validate these rules. This most practically means requiring vaccination for public school attendance, but hopefully with less leeway for personal exemptions beyond medical reasons.



Works Cited

Brown, Karen D. “Parents Refusing Vaccines.” The Boston Globe 11 Nov. 2013: n.               pag. Print.

“Measles.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . N.p., 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 3            Mar. 2016.

Novella, Steven. “The Anti-Vaccination Movement.” The Committee for Skeptical               Inquiry 31.6 (2007): n. pag. Print.

“Spot the Difference.” Nature 518.7538 (2015): 137–138. Print.

“State-by-State: Vaccinations Required for Public School Kindergarten.” ProCon.org.           N.p., 3 Sept. 2014. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.

Stakeholder Analysis: Sexual Harassment in STEM Fields

Sexual harassment is a large issue in the United States. Sexual harassment can defined as harassment, typically of a woman, in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks (Sexual Harassment). Sexual harassment can include but are not limited to acts such as leering, obscene phone-calls, stalking, indecent exposure, or pressure for dates (Sexual Harassment). A study that Cosmopolitan Magazine published in February of 2015 surveyed 2,235 women and found that 1 out of every 3 women had been sexual harassed at work. This number is not including the 16% of women surveyed who said they had not been sexually harassed but did report workplace interactions that meets the definition of sexual harassment. When the same study was broken down by the career of the surveyees 31% of women who worked in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields reported being sexually harassed (Survey). Sexual harassment can happen anywhere, but there has recently been a large amount of research put into sexual harassment specifically in science and research fields. Another online survey of field scientists recently reported that uncovered a range of negative experiences; nearly two-thirds of the 666 respondents, who were mostly women, reported being sexually harassed at a field site, and one-fifth said that they had been sexually assaulted (Gewin). Reports also show that until recently this has not been a known issue due to universities sweeping these issues under the rug and women not coming forward in fear of losing their jobs (Harassment Victims). However, more victims are coming out with their stories bringing this issue into public view.

The first main stakeholder in this issue are the victims. A victim of sexual harassment is defined as any person, generally female but not always, who has been sexually harassed. Many victims of sexual harassment do not report their perpetrator for fear of losing their job, being excluded from career advancing activities, or having the harassment getting worse. A survey showed that 71% of women who were harassed at work reported the harassment and out of the 29% who did report only 15% them felt that the report was handled fairly (Survey). This is a common problem in the United States and is better illustrated in rape cases. In many rape cases women report being harassed, taunted, being told the rape was their fault, and not believed after reporting their rape. This creates a culture that is not conducive for victims to report their harassment and further burying the issue.

On the other end of the issue and the second main stakeholder are the perpetrators. There are many cases of men in positions of power such as professors, senior researchers, and even so-called rising stars in academics, having sexual harassment reports filed against them and not only having no repercussions, but being promoted, receiving honors, and receiving tenure (Zevallos). Sexual harassment is believed to not be about sexual gratification but about control and power. A psychologist from the University of Washington named Dr. John Gottman explained sexual harassment like this: “Sexual harassment is a subtle rape, and rape is more about fear than sex. Harassment is a way for a man to make a woman vulnerable." Sexual harassment conducted by people in power is often viewed as a way for people to induce fear, shame, and self-blame in victims (Goleman). This is all assuming the accused are actually guilty. While reported far less often, there are reports of victims falsely accusing men to win settlements or try to gain power.

Universities are another large stakeholder Universities are institutions of higher learning where a student receives specialized education to receive a degree. A large part of many universities is research. Research can be a part of any academic discipline but is mainly associated with S.T.E.M fields. Researchers are generally, but not always, undergraduate or graduate students who are generally aged 18 to 25. This also falls into the most commonly harassed age group of 19-24 (Survey). College education also correlates with sexual harassment as shown in a survey with 45% of surveyees having a bachelor's degree, 29% of surveyees having some college education, and 19% of surveyees having a graduate degree (Survey). Universities may not appear to be an important stakeholder but the University’s entire reputation can be ruined by a sexual harassment scandal. This can cause many universities to have less than helpful responses to reports of sexual harassment. No one knows exactly how many cases of sexual harassment are reported to universities each year due to universities not being open about this issue (Harassment Victims). The universities have the job of taking these claims, which could harm the university’s reputation if the report is true or false, and figure out how to handle it.

The last stakeholder is the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Overview) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex, including pregnancy, national origin, age, 40 or older, disability or genetic information (EEOC). The EEOC has the job of figuring out if sexual harassment reports brought before their attention is just slightly inappropriate teasing (which is not illegal), sexual harassment (which is illegal), or even a false report (EEOC-Sexual Harassment). As the oversight committee for sexual harassment for universities that receive funding through Title IX this places them as a large stake holder for sexual harassment in universities.

Sexual harassment, specifically in academic and research situations is a largely underrepresented issue in the United States that is just recently coming to light. The four main stakeholders in the issue of sexual assault in the scientific research field primarily in universities are: the victim, the perpetrator, the university, and the EEOC. All of these groups have different motives and responses to this issue but all are important and without any one of these groups there would be no issue. Every time the topic of sexual harassment is discussed the academic realm should be brought into consideration along with offices.

Works Cited

EEOC. "Overview." About the EEOC:. USA.gov, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

EEOC. "Sexual Harassment." Sexual Harassment. USA.gov, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Feminist Majority Foundation. "Sexual Harassment - Fact Sheet." Feminist Majority Foundation

Feminist Majority Foundation, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Gewin, Virginia. "Social Behaviour: Indecent Advances." Nature 519 (n.d.): 251-53. Nature. 11

Mar. 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Goleman, Daniel. "Sexual Harassment: It's About Power, Not Lust." The New York Times.

The New York Times, 21 Oct. 1991. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

"Harassment Victims Deserve Better." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Web.

19 Feb. 2016.

"Sexual Harassment." TheFreeDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

"Survey: 1 in 3 Women Has Been Sexually Harassed at Work."Cosmopolitan. N.p., 16 Feb.

2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Zevallos, Zuleyka. "How To Stop The Sexual Harassment Of Women In Science: Reboot The

System." The Conversation. 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

Stakeholders in Microbead Pollution

Many face washes and toothpastes contain microbeads that claim to exfoliate and renew your skin, and clean your teeth. In fact, the face wash that I use from Mary Kay contains the tiny beads as well as my toothpaste. Aveeno’s positively radiant skin brightening daily scrub also has them (“In the Name of Beauty”). Even though Aveeno puts so much emphasis on how natural their products are, the microbeads in the wash are tiny balls of plastic. When constructing this wash, the producers had the customers’ skin in mind. However, no one thought about how these microbeads could affect the environment after you wash them down the sink. The microbeads are made of polyethylene, which is the most common plastic in the world. It is used to make shampoo bottles, plastic bags, water bottles, and more. The author of Nature claims that these polyethylene beads are being mistaken for food by marine life, which in return poisons them. Even if you are not an animal lover or a humane rights activist, this should be something that concerns everyone, especially if you eat fish. If the fish are consuming the polyethylene beads, which are poisoning them, then when humans eat the fish they too are eating the toxic chemicals from the polyethylene. That being said, the tiny plastic beads may be good for your face, but they are bad for the environment, and they could also potentially create severe health problems in the future. So, in order to keep polyethylene beads out of our environment, we as consumers must first stop buying the products that contain them.

One stakeholder group in this issue would be marine life. This is for obvious reasons. The animals who ingest these microbeads are being directly affected. The lakes, rivers, and oceans are already littered with too many plastic bottles, trash bags, and wrappers, now that we have added the polyethylene beads, it not only adds to the pollution, but makes it even worse. The beads look just like fish eggs which animals mistake for food, and the animals get full on the beads and do not want to eat any of the nutritious things that they need, which makes them not grow as big (Freinkel). The fish that eat the beads are not the only ones affected that live in the water. The larger animals that eat the contaminated fish will also be affected.

Another stakeholder group is humans. Just like the marine life, humans could be directly affected. Not only by eating the fish that are contaminated, but by the beads getting into our water sources. Testing is still being done to establish how much if any of the toxic chemicals in polyethylene that is being transferred from organism to organism to human (Schwartz). However, the same plastic is used to make water bottles, and it has been proven if you drink from a water bottle that has been sitting in a hot car, then you are drinking the toxins given off by the plastic. This is because the plastic releases the toxins when it is heated, therefore it would not be far fetched to say that the toxins are being released inside of the warm bellies of the fish.The Great Lakes is a main stakeholder group in the issue. Scientists have proven that a large amount of the microbeads have been emptied into the Great Lakes, with the most amount of the plastic residing in Lake Erie and Ontario. The beads are so tiny, that they can pass through water treatment plants. It has been estimated that there could be as much as 1.1 billion pieces of the microbeads per square mile in these lakes. This is concerning considering that 65 million pounds of fish are caught in the Great Lakes each year, which are then fed to humans (Schwartz). It is impossible to remove all of the microbeads, first because there would not be a way to find and remove every single bead that is a fraction of a millimeter in diameter from a lake that holds billions of gallons of water (Freinkel). Second, because when you drag the bottom of the lake for the beads, you will also bring up plankton that is essential for the survival of all marine animals, thus killing the lake population.

Cosmetic companies are without a doubt a stakeholder group for many reasons. One reason being that the environmentalists customers will not be very likely to buy the washes that contain the polyethylene beads, costing the companies in sales. The companies that do decide to remove the plastic beads from their products, like Johnson and Johnson, Avon, and Crest, will have to get creative a find something else to put into their face washes and toothpastes that will be just as efficient for exfoliating and cleaning, yet inexpensive (“International Campaign Against Microbeads in Cosmetics”). The whole purpose of using the microbeads in the first place is because they are cheap. If a company decides to replace the plastic beads with something else, it could potentially raise the price of the product. St. Ives uses ground walnut shells as their exfoliant, and Burt’s Bees uses biodegradable jojoba beads, which are made from a plant (Schwartz). So, it is possible to remove the beads it is just a question of what companies will find the safety of the environment important enough to change their products.

In conclusion, the microbeads propose a threat to the environment. This is a fact. There are ways to remove these polyethylene beads from all cosmetic products, but some companies are slow take action since the process of completely changing a product that is well liked is risky and more costly. Since many of the well known, well credited brands have put forth the effort, hopefully many others will follow. It is impossible to remove these plastics from our oceans and lakes, so there is only one way to solve this problem, and that is to stop giving the beads potential to reach the oceans and lakes, and it starts with us consumers. We must stop buying the products that contain the beads, which will force all cosmetic companies to remove them from their products. In return, we will have healthier fish to eat, and cleaner water to swim in on summer vacation.


Works Cited:

Pardes, Arielle. "Microbeads In Beauty Are Doing More Harm Than You Think." Into The Gloss. N.p., 11 Dec. 2015. Web. 23 Feb. 2016. <https://intothegloss.com/2015/12/microbeads-in-beauty-products/>.

Schwartz, John. "Scientists Turn Their Gaze Toward Tiny Threats to Great Lakes." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Dec. 2013. Web. 23 Feb. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/scientists-turn-their-gaze-toward-tiny-threats-to-great-lakes.html?_r=0>.

Freinkel, Susan. "Microbeads and Marine Pollution: You May Be Dirtying Our Waters Every Time You Clean Your Face." Mother Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2016. <http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/microbeads-cleanser-ocean-pollution>.

"INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST MICROBEADS IN COSMETICS." Beat the Microbead. Plastic Soup Foundation, n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2016. <http://www.beatthemicrobead.org/en/>.

"In the Name of Beauty." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2016. <http://www.nature.com/news/in-the-name-of-beauty-1.18398>.

Stakeholders' Views on the Vaccination Debate

Before the development of many modern medical treatments, infectious diseases spread uncontrollably among communities and claimed the lives of countless victims. In the US alone, there have been many epidemics: the 1793 yellow fever outbreak, the 1902 smallpox epidemic in Boston, the 1918 flu pandemic, the 1950s polio outbreak, and since its diagnosis in the 1980s, AIDS, which has taken the lives of about 25 million people (The 10). Within the past 50 years, many vaccinations have become available, greatly reducing the amount of epidemics experienced in the US. Writer Steven Novella says, “Vaccines are one of the most successful programs in modern health care, reducing, and in some cases even eliminating, serious infectious diseases” (Novella). These vaccinations are enforced at a state, not federal, level. These rules are established to protect the American community at large. If enough of the population is vaccinated, then the chance of an outbreak occurring is very slim. This benchmark is called “herd immunity” (Community). In the chance a disease is contracted by someone in the population, the spread will be greatly contained; however, this immunity is being threatened by some who are a part of the modern anti-vaccine movement. The enforcement of vaccination is a current topic of discussion nationally due to the 2015 measles outbreak that occurred in Disneyland. Measles is a very contagious disease, spreadable through contact and through the air, and it is the leading cause of death among children (Measles). The difficulty and uniqueness of regulating vaccinations stems from it being a personal health and a communal wellness issue, as well as a governmental concern.

The parents of school-age children hold a strong voice within this debate. For children to be enrolled in public school, they must have the specified vaccinations for that particular state. Parents are allowed to forgo vaccinations for their children on the basis of health-related objections, religious objections, and philosophical objections. But the observance of these objections varies from state to state. Many parents have taken to conducting their own online research about vaccines because of the concerns they have heard regarding their safety. From the articles they read, parents formulate their views, wanting to provide what’s best for their specific child. The only downfall is that many popular articles on the internet do not provide a very comprehensive overview of the pros and cons regarding vaccinations. The parents cannot find a true authority to reference in this debate, for the vaccines come from medical doctors, yet they are enforced by the government.

Each state holds their own community’s wellness at stake within this argument. Individual state legislatures may vote to uphold all three categories of vaccine objections, or they may vote to only uphold a select one or two. Currently, three states, Mississippi, West Virginia, and California, hold the strictest laws regarding vaccination. They only allow exemptions for health-related reasons.

photo courtesy of the National Conference of State Legislatures

California just recently adopted this strength of the law, as an effort to combat the declining rates of vaccinations that is presumed to have led to the 2015 measles outbreak in Disneyland (Lenhoff). An article published in the journal Nature says the following: “Fortunately for the public’s health, attention around the outbreak has come down in favour of vaccination and against the myths about its dangers” (Spot). There are supporters for both sides of this argument among politicians. Their task is to decide whether individual rights or community wellness should take precedence. For many state governments, they cannot seem to win this debate. Either they hold less-stringent laws, placing their community at larger risk, or they enforce harsh laws, offending many on the basis of religion and personal rights.

A recent anti-vaccination movement has been sparked across the country. Pediatrician Richard Pan says, "They [those opposed to vaccines] hang out in pockets” (Herd). Because of these pockets of objectors, diseases once thought to be permanently eradicated are slowly resurfacing. In a feature article Steven Novella writes, “4,800 claims [have been] made over the past eight years for compensation for injuries allegedly due to childhood vaccines” (Novella). This turn against vaccines stems from the research of Dr. Andrew Wakefield in 1998 linking vaccines to the development of autism among children (Novella). These claims continue to be made, although the scientific community has ample support against their validity. “A study of more than 95,000 children in the US has supported what almost two decades of scientific research has already been telling us – the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) is safe and effective and is in no way associated with a heightened risk of developing autism spectrum disorders (ASD)” (Study). Even with this research, the pockets of anti-vaccine supporters hold fast to their dislike of vaccines, fighting for less-restrictive governmental laws.

Arguably, the group placed at the highest risk when vaccine rates are low are those who medically cannot receive vaccines. This group includes young infants not yet old enough for some vaccinations, pregnant women, those with a medical condition prohibiting their use of vaccines, and the elderly. For anyone in this group, decreased regulation of vaccines is a frightening thought. They rely on the immunity of others to protect themselves. The needed herd immunity percentage of 92% is what keeps this stakeholder group healthy. This clearly shows the communal aspect of vaccinations. It takes the immunity of most to protect this very vulnerable group of citizens.

The upcoming generation may not be as fearful of a disease outbreak because they have never witnessed one. Parents would rather take their chances with a disease like measles than voluntarily put their child at risk for something through a vaccination shot. States struggle with protecting their community while also protecting the individual rights of its citizens. Anti-vaccination supporters are making their voices heard, yet it seems that they are misinformed to the drawbacks of vaccines. All of these stakeholders combine to give us the complexity of this issue today. It is a very likely possibility that those large outbreaks from years ago could reoccur again if vaccinations stop being required.




Works Cited

“Community Immunity (‘Herd Immunity’).” vaccine.gov. N.p., 16 Apr. 2015. Web. 22       Feb. 2016.

"Herd at Risk; Vaccination Rates." The Economist May 05 2012: 33. ProQuest. Web.         19 Feb. 2016.

Lenhoff, Alan. "California Vaccination Law Stirs Controversy." Medical Laboratory             Observer 47.8 (2015): 2. ProQuest. Web. 19 Feb. 2016

“Measles.” World Health Organization. N.p., Nov. 2015. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

Novella, Steven. “The Anti-Vaccination Movement.” The Committee for Skeptical            Inquiry 31.6 (2007): n. pag. Print.

“Study of 95,000 Children Finds No Link between MMR Vaccines and Autism.”                  Personal Health Records. N.p., 15 Feb. 2016. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

“Spot the Difference.” Nature 518.7538 (2015): 137–138. Print.

“The 10 Deadliest Epidemics in History.” Healthcare Business & Technology . N.p., 6         Apr. 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.