Here’s just a bit of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hardly a heretical or inflammatory source) says about climate change:
“Changes occurring in the world’s climate are affecting our health and wellbeing, and will have even greater impacts in the future. Although scientific understanding of the effects of climate change is still emerging, there is a pressing need to prepare for potential health risks. A wide variety of organizations (federal, state, local, multilateral, private and nongovernmental) is working to address the implications of global climate change.
“Climate change affects us by:
- Increasing deaths and illnesses from heat stress as temperatures rise.
- Increasing risk of injuries and illnesses due to extreme weather events, such as storms and floods.
- Increasing respiratory and cardiovascular illness and deaths caused by smoke from heat-related and drought-related wildfires, as well as changes in air pollution, particularly ozone smog.
- Increasing cases of allergic disease brought about by elevated levels of pollens caused by more vigorous weed growth and longer pollen seasons.
- Changing the rates and ranges of infectious diseases carried by insects or in food and water.
- Threatening the safety and availability of food and water supplies.
- Inducing greater levels of mental and emotional stress in response to climate change and extreme weather-related emergencies.
“The most vulnerable among us—children, elderly people, those living in poverty, people with underlying health conditions, people living in certain geographic areas—are at increased health risk from climate change….”
Now, given the frightening prospect of severely negative health impacts related to climate change, shouldn’t we be getting our collective rear in gear to halt the behaviors most contributing to climate change? Which is to say, simply, that we must radically scale back carbon emissions, reversing the current trajectory. And we must do so without delay – as in right now, immediately, today – not in some hazy future when “the economy improves enough,” or new technology delivers us (anyone have the blueprint for a carbon vacuum cleaner that operates on a global scale, in their desk drawer, perhaps?) from ourselves.
Time is running out on our ability even to mitigate the worst effects of climate change on the health of homo sapiens - not to mention the 150-200 daily victims of species death already underway.
Years ago in one of my doctoral classes the professor introduced a video entitled “Education from a Sparrow’s Point of View.” The class was quickly mesmerized by the speaker, Dr. John Powers, and profoundly affected by the moving portrait of a human “sparrow” that he masterfully created. Dr. Powers used the metaphor to passionately and effectively share his belief that all students have potential. He cautioned, however, that students often need support in order for latent potential to be fully realized. His message remains a timely one.
I am privileged to work with colleagues in the College of Education and Psychology (CoEP) that model Dr. Powers’ beliefs. It is what we do. We invest time, energy, and expertise in the lives of our students, and as a result, students’ life stories are dramatically altered and improved. As one example, data from a program offered fall semester in connection with the CoEP Student Advisement and Support Center revealed that students benefitted from weekly opportunities to interact with faculty and focus on major-specific success strategies. In fact, 67% of student participants improved both semester and overall GPA scores. Kudos to the faculty for their participation and support and to the students for taking full advantage of the program. I believe Dr. Powers would be pleased.
After an extended process of listening, debate, and deliberation, President Bennett made a tough – and I’m convinced, correct – call on the university’s organization of its Gulf Coast operations. Pending final approval by the IHL (Mississippi’s higher education governing body), Southern Miss will soon be working with a unified, “one university” administrative structure. Roles and responsibilities of a number of personnel will adjust to align with the new arrangements.
While some colleagues on the coast pushing for greater local autonomy are no doubt disappointed with this outcome, academic chairs and college deans strongly advocated the unified approach, believing it the most resource efficient, most clear in establishing lines of authority and accountability, and most likely to ensure sustained enrollment growth. With this long-lingering uncertainty resolved, the university is free to move forward on another critical task – strategic planning.
I have been reading with interest in past Chronicles of Higher Education articles pertaining to changes that are occurring in institutions of higher education, such as changes in student financial aid, decreased instructional budgets, perceptions of value of a college degree, student’s non-linear progress through the degree plan, and a plethora of technology being used in educational instruction. Authors have labeled these changes as disruptive innovation.
Disruptive innovation in nursing education is not new as the College of Nursing and nursing programs throughout the nation have been continually updating curricula and changing pedagogy to address changes in the standards of nursing practice that require the need for graduates to be better skilled in clinical decision-making. The introduction of clinical simulation is a great example of innovation in teaching.
But the pace of change has accelerated in the last few years as a result of several significant reports and events. In January 2010, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching released a report calling for a “radical transformation” in nursing education. In March of that same year, President Obama signed into law unprecedented reforms to the U.S. health care system. In October of 2010, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a groundbreaking report about the future of nursing that discusses innovation in nursing education. In November 2010, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in collaboration with the Institute of Medicine launched an initiative to advance comprehensive change in the nation’s health care system and in nursing practice and education.
As the College of Nursing contemplates our response to innovative disruption, we can reflect on the words of T.S. Eliot, “For last year’s words belong to last year’s language and next year’s words await another voice. And to make an end is to make a beginning”.
The good news is that Mississippi is unlikely to long remain the only state in the nation without a youth athlete concussion policy. Under leadership of Public Health Committee chairman Sam Mims, House Bill 48 sailed through the House, and should do likewise in the Senate, where health leader Brice Wiggins has pushed for concussion legislation in the past. One less black eye for Mississippi on the health front.
The news would be better still if the legislation incorporated ongoing educational and research efforts. Getting a policy in place is a good first step, but as we move forward we’ll need comprehensive training based on current knowledge for those responsible for concussion prevention, mitigation, and intervention, coupled with a centralized capacity to track and report the incidence of concussion in youth athletics. The College of Health, and specifically colleagues in the School of Human Performance and Recreation with specialized knowledge of brain injury, is in an excellent position to offer the state these resources.
Concussion is a critical and widespread public health concern. The more we understand it and its long-term consequences, the more we realize how serious it is. The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine estimates that nearly four million concussion injuries occur annually in the U.S., with as many as half going unreported. We can’t move too quickly to address the need for training and incident tracking in this area. Until we do, our young athletes will remain at an unnecessarily high level of risk.