-The weirdest claims made by “Designer Vagina” websites.
-Civil War underwear.
-Japanese-American internee letters found hidden in wall.
-The historian’s curse.
-New study shows disabled parents often lose custody of their children.
-Girls in juvenile detention face health care issues.
-Is neuroscience under attack?
-What age you begin menstruation may have future health implications.
-The not-so-happy history behind your Black Friday shopping tradition.
-Teenage boys and body image.
-The most awesome kitchen computer from 1969.
-10 NYC street corners – then and now.
-Stalin’s daughter and the FBI.
-Strangest modern-day menstruation myths.
-Is neuroscience helping vegetative patients communicate with their doctors?
-The history behing the father of the modern cigarette.
-Eugenics and Nikola Tesla.
-How not to run a secure archive.
-Recording of Lee Atwater’s infamous 1981 interview released for the first time.
-Is your illness named after a Nazi?
Genetic counseling, as the previous two posts in this series suggest, has a lot to offer for navigating the tricky decisions things like prenatal testing and preimplantation genetic diagnosis raise. Well, in this post I’d like to make things a little more complicated. Enter the sheer messiness of history. I still believe genetic counseling is the best approach we have right now for helping prospective parents with hard choices, but it has a complicated — and not so distant — past that continues to shape counselors’ ways of interacting with clients.
-Men looking for cat, find catacomb instead.
-10 historical (and awesome) facts about the Girl Scouts.
-Now boys are hitting puberty earlier too.
-Richard Burton’s very sexy diaries (and yes, a lot of it is about Liz).
-Very, very, very old socks.
-“Lilly of the Mohawks” officially becomes a Saint.
Vagina Week continues! With this post by Adam Turner on Naomi Wolf’s use of Science! in her new book, Vagina: A Biography. Naomi Wolf uses a whole lot of science in her new book, Vagina: A Biography (perhaps more accurately called an autobiography). She lectures at length about the nervous system, stress responses, brain chemistry, and how all of these things seem to have their center in powerful mind-altering (heterosexual, vaginal) sex. Taking her personal experiences as a jumping-off point (itself a dubious scientific technique) Wolf references a wide variety of studies to make her argument that the vagina, broadly defined, is a driving force in women’s lives, responsible for their happiness, successful relationships, creativity, and existential health.
It is officially “Vagina Week” here at Nursing Clio. Carrie Adkins, Adam Turner, Ashley Baggett, Rachel Epp Buller, and Cheryl Lemus will each post their thoughts about Naomi Wolf’s new book, Vagina: A Biography, and dissecting some of Wolf’s claims about vaginas, orgasms, and female sexuality. Please consider posting your own thoughts in the comments section!
Carrie Adkins kicks off “Vagina Week” with an overall analysis of Wolf’s book:
-The history of the fork is way more fascinating than you might think.
-The five most important places in history (according to one guy).
-Want to read Anne Frank’s Diary? There’s an app for that.
-Elderly are newest group to be plagued by eating disorders.
-The saddest letters you will ever read. Ever.
-Bioethicists raise concerns over personal genomes and privacy protections.
Surprisingly, I have been asked that question on more than one occasion. I have had students ask me during class and once after a conference presentation. The last time I was confronted with this question was in my summer class, when an earnest young student asked, “If you take the racial prejudice out, what’s wrong with eugenics?” The student continued to press his point: “What’s wrong with a program that has the goal of improving the human race and now that genetics is so advanced, surely we could make sure that people have the best genes and traits. Wouldn’t that make for a healthier, happier population?” Hmm. So much to think about here. A program that uses cutting edge science to improve the human race by ensuring that individuals have only the best genes or traits so that people will be healthy and happy? Indeed, what is so bad about that? Who can say, “NO” to having the best genes, being healthy, and being happy? This is precisely the reason why eugenics was fairly easy “to sell” in the early twentieth century. For the sake of brevity, let’s set aside the vast complexity of the science of genetics and pretend that we could just pluck out the “bad” genes and insert the “good” ones on DNA strands so that in a few generations we might have a utopian world filled with people swimming in the luxurious, healthy, and happy waters of the “best” gene pool. At this point, I have two questions. What determines which genes or traits are the “best,” and in this program of improving the human race, who makes the determination of which ones are the best? Me? You? Or what about a panel of experts? Afterall, we are talking about using science and a panel of objective scientific experts seems like an appropriate choice to make these important decisions. Or is it? While we ponder that for a moment, let’s take a look back.
Welcome to the second in a series of posts discussing genetics, prenatal testing, and genetic counseling. In this post we’ll be thinking about blame and birth atypicality. Earlier this month the New York Times and other news media reported on the findings of a recent study published in the journal Nature. In some cases, the study suggested, the increased genetic mutations found in older men’s sperm could make it more likely their offspring might develop autism or schizophrenia.
When our Patreon gets to $500/month, we’ll be able to compensate our writers. This has been a long-term goal of Nursing Clio; now you can help us reach it! If you enjoy our content, support us and our writers by becoming a member of our Patreon.