Cumulative trauma,emotion reactivity and salivary cytokine levels following acute stress in healthy women

Background and Objectives: To better understand how trauma leads to poor health, this study examined whether cumulative trauma and emotion reactivity contribute to pro- (IL-1β) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) salivary cytokine levels after stress.

Design: Seventy-three women, screened to be physically and mentally healthy, completed an acute stress paradigm and measures of lifetime trauma exposure.

Method: Saliva was collected 10?min before (i.e., baseline) and 35?min after the onset of a 10-min stressor. State negative and positive emotion were measured at baseline and post-stress.

Results: Most participants reported exposure to at least one trauma, with a mean of five. Cumulative trauma was associated with higher post-stress IL-1β and IL-1β/IL-10, but not with IL-10 or changes in emotion. Declines in positive emotion correlated with greater post-stress IL-1β.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that both cumulative trauma exposure and positive emotion have implications for salivary cytokine responses to acute stress. The inclusion of healthy women strengthens internal validity, and increases confidence that observed associations between trauma and salivary cytokine responses can be attributed to trauma, rather than to confounding health problems. This study adds to the growing literature examining how trauma may connect to cytokines, and ultimately, poor health.     

The Ethics of Citizen Selection of Refugees for Admission and Resettlement

The global space is in need of creative solutions to the challenges posed by those seeking, and deserving of, asylum. In some democratic states, experiments in permitting citizens to have a greater role in selecting refugees for admission are underway; in this article, I consider the conditions that must apply to any citizen-selection scheme, in order for such a scheme to be morally acceptable. I begin with an account of the way in which citizen-selection schemes – usually called ‘sponsorship programs’ – operate presently. I then offer a justification for engaging citizens in refugee resettlement in general, as well as in selecting specific refugees for admission in particular, and then identify several conditions that must attend any permissible citizen-selection scheme. I defend this account from two objections: (1) that states should be the primary, and indeed only, agent that selects refugees for admission and (2) that citizens will inevitably use problematic criteria in selecting refugees for admission, so they should be denied the right to do so. I conclude with some proposals for how a citizen-selection scheme can be crafted to respond to this latter worry, including an outline of an exception clause that permits citizens to make the case that some refugees ought to be resettled, even if not specially selected by the UNHCR for resettlement priority, including especially family members and friends.