大流行性流感:古老的疾病,人类的灾难

300年来,有10次全球性流感大流行。流感大流行有一定的周期性、不可预见性、灾害性、持久性,至今人类依然没有找到准确预见、避免一场新的流感大流行的良策。2003年末以来,高致病性H5N1禽流感呈现前所未有的暴发,席卷整个亚洲、部分欧洲国家,尽管人类采取积极的控制措施,但H5N1在亚洲已经顽固地存在下来,成为地方病,并且病毒不断进化(宿主范围扩大、病毒致病性增强、环境中耐受力增强)、人类病例不断出现,已使世界比1968年以来任何时刻都更加靠近一场流感大流行。因此,人类紧迫地需要通力合作、全力准备、从容应对,延缓、减弱或避免这场大浩劫。     

流感大流行引发的伦理思考

甲型H1N1流感大流行虽然已经过去,但却留下许多问题值得深思,如流行的严重程度远低于以往大流行,大流行的定义发生了变更、世界卫生组织与药厂是否存在利益关联。在流感大流行过程中,仍存在着资源分配不合理、疫情监测侵犯个人隐私、强制隔离剥夺人身自由等尚未解决的公共卫生伦理学问题,信息共享也尚需进一步加强。     

流感大流行引发的伦理思考

甲型H1N1流感大流行虽然已经过去,但却留下许多问题值得深思,如流行的严重程度远低于以往大流行,大流行的定义发生了变更、世界卫生组织与药厂是否存在利益关联.在流感大流行过程中,仍存在着资源分配不合理、疫情监测侵犯个人隐私、强制隔离剥夺人身自由等尚未解决的公共卫生伦理学问题,信息共享也尚需进一步加强.     

甲型H1N1流感大流行2周年记

2009年4月,墨西哥暴发甲型H1N1流感疫情,并迅速蔓延至全球。2009年6月11日,世界卫生组织宣布进入流感大流行,直到2010年8月10日世卫组织宣布世界步入流感大流行后期。自流感暴发已经2年过去了,回顾整个过程我们从中可以学到许多经验和教训,并随时准备应对将来可能发生的新的流感疫情。     

审时度势科学应对——谈新甲型H1N1流感的应对

面对新甲型H1N1的流行,我国在早期采取了严格的防控措施.而随着疫情的不断发展,将其防控策略进行了调整.这在各界引起了诸多的争论.由于流感为呼吸道传染病,完全切断传播途径非常困难.而且新甲型H1N1传播迅速、人群普遍易感、控制传染源困难等原因,无法完全避免新甲型H1N1流感的流行.因此现阶段应将防控目标定位在压峰缓疫,医疗的重点应放在危重患者的救治上,降低病死率,尽可能减少疾病流行对全社会各方面的影响.     

审时度势 科学应对——谈新甲型H1N1流感的应对

面对新甲型H1N1的流行,我国在早期采取了严格的防控措施。而随着疫情的不断发展,将其防控策略进行了调整。这在各界引起了诸多的争论。由于流感为呼吸道传染病,完全切断传播途径非常困难。而且新甲型H1N1传播迅速、人群普遍易感、控制传染源困难等原因,无法完全避免新甲型H1N1流感的流行。因此现阶段应将防控目标定位在压峰缓疫,医疗的重点应放在危重患者的救治上,降低病死率,尽可能减少疾病流行对全社会各方面的影响。     

全球流感大流行与共建和谐社会

科学家预测:新一轮流感大流行不可避免。通过总结历史教训,分析目前可能引起流感大流行的原因,展开预防流感大流行与共建和谐社会关系的讨论。     

全球流感大流行与共建和谐社会

科学家预测:新一轮流感大流行不可避免.通过总结历史教训,分析目前可能引起流感大流行的原因,展开预防流感大流行与共建和谐社会关系的讨论.     

关于甲型H1N1流感未来流行趋势的几点分析

2009年3月以来出现的甲型H1N1流感是一种全新的流感病毒,目前已在全球大流行.从半年的疫情监测结果判断,轻症患者居多,病毒似乎还没有产生明显的变异.但随着北半球冬季的到来,患者数目必然急剧增多.由于现有的疫苗不能充分满足需要,医疗和防疫部门仍需承担相当艰巨的任务.     

关于甲型H1N1流感未来流行趋势的几点分析

2009年3月以来出现的甲型H1N1流感是一种全新的流感病毒,目前已在全球大流行.从半年的疫情监测结果判断,轻症患者居多,病毒似乎还没有产生明显的变异。但随着北半球冬季的到来,患者数目必然急剧增多。由于现有的疫苗不能充分满足需要,医疗和防疫部门仍需承担相当艰巨的任务。     

A Pandemic of Terror and Terror of a Pandemic: American Cultural Responses to HIV/AIDS and Bioterrorism

Abstract. The cultural construction of American societal responses to the HIV/AIDS pandemic and terrorism is addressed. The use of metaphors of war, survival, extinction, and of those related to God in public narratives is analyzed. Issues of gender, sexuality, money, and power are also discussed within the context of the religion‐science dialogue. Suggestions are made about a possibility for a global ethic of survival based on an ethic of care.     

Rushton: The great theoretician and his contribution to personality

J. Philippe Rushton has been described as one of the greatest theorists in the field of personality and individual differences and social psychology. His life history theory (Differential K Theory) was said to bring unification to the scientific study of racial differences as Einstein’s theory of relativity unified the field of physics. It was maintained that Rushton’s General Factor of Personality (GFP) meshes with both general intelligence and his Differential K Theory. The present author presented a two-pillar theory of adaptive functioning that has a heavy concentration on Rushton conceptualization.     

Scientific naturalism: a great truth that got distorted

Scientific naturalism in the generic sense is the doctrine that there can be no supernatural interruptions of the world’s causal processes. This idea, which emerged in Greece in the 6th century BCE, was formulated most adequately in Plato’s theistic version. However, in appropriating Greek philosophy, Christian thinkers first modified and then rejected its naturalism. Scientific naturalism emerged again in the 18th and 19th centuries, but because of ideas retained from the supernaturalistic mechanism that became associated with science in the 17th century, naturalism appeared in a distorted version, one that is inadequate for science itself as well as incompatible with Christian faith or any other significantly religious view. The great truth of scientific naturalism needs to be rescued from this distorted version of it.     

We almost had a great future behind us: The contribution of non-linear dynamics to developmental-science-in-the-making

Classical developmental theories, like those of Piaget, Werner and Vygotsky, were on the verge of developmental science, the study of phenomena from the point of view of development. Methodological and theoretical shifts in the 1960s changed the original goals and questions and turned developmental psychology into a discipline that is, on the whole, more like a subservient than a leading branch of psychology. Dynamic systems theory, which has its roots in mathematics and physics, can help developmental theory out of its current blind alley by providing the general theoretical frameworks and methods for bringing the dynamic aspects of change back to the fore. By doing so, it will help turn the scientific course back in the direction of developmental science.