‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’ 
 
 Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course. 
 
 “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course. 
 
 Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change. 
 
 “Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued. 
 
 “… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.” 
 
 The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states. 
 
 Professors Laroche, Skahill, and Haggren did not respond to email inquiries from The College Fix seeking further comment on their email or their stance on debate in their online class. 
 
 The University Communications Director Tom Hutton told The College Fix via email that “Humanities 3990 is a special topics course with multiple choices for students to take when fulfilling requirements.” 
 
 “By clearly stating the class focus,” he continued, “the faculty are allowing students to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative. Additionally, the faculty who are leading the course have offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or differing opinions.” 
 
 In addition to teaching man-made climate change, the course also delves into the “health effects of fracking,” according to its syllabus. 
 
 The reading assignments in the fracking section focus on only its negative impacts and fail to present the other side of the issue, namely the possible benefits of fracking. 
 
 Assigned readings includes: “4 States Struggling to Maintain Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies,” and “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affected People.’” 
 
 An activity assigned within that section instructs students to take a test to measure their own carbon footprint. The purpose, reads the syllabus, “is not to create guilt or shame, though those emotions are entirely common.” 
 
 MORE: Ore. school board prohibits climate change skepticism 
 
 MORE: Campus flyers ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ ripped up 
 
 MORE: Profs argue capitalism abuses minorities through pollution 
 
 Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter 
 
 IMAGE: Brett Tatman / Flickr ||||| ‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’ 
 
 Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course. 
 
 “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course. 
 
 Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change. 
 
 “Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued. 
 
 “… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.” 
 
 The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states. 
 
 Professors Laroche, Skahill, and Haggren did not respond to email inquiries from The College Fix seeking further comment on their email or their stance on debate in their online class. 
 
 The University Communications Director Tom Hutton told The College Fix via email that “Humanities 3990 is a special topics course with multiple choices for students to take when fulfilling requirements.” 
 
 “By clearly stating the class focus,” he continued, “the faculty are allowing students to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative. Additionally, the faculty who are leading the course have offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or differing opinions.” 
 
 In addition to teaching man-made climate change, the course also delves into the “health effects of fracking,” according to its syllabus. 
 
 The reading assignments in the fracking section focus on only its negative impacts and fail to present the other side of the issue, namely the possible benefits of fracking. 
 
 Assigned readings includes: “4 States Struggling to Maintain Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies,” and “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affected People.’” 
 
 An activity assigned within that section instructs students to take a test to measure their own carbon footprint. The purpose, reads the syllabus, “is not to create guilt or shame, though those emotions are entirely common.” 
 
 MORE: Ore. school board prohibits climate change skepticism 
 
 MORE: Campus flyers ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ ripped up 
 
 MORE: Profs argue capitalism abuses minorities through pollution 
 
 Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter 
 
 IMAGE: Brett Tatman / Flickr ||||| DENVER — The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs is coming under fire after three professors warned their class that there would be no debate on human-caused climate change and that any students who disagree should drop the course. 
 
 The professors, who are team-teaching the fall online course Medical Humanities in the Digital Age, issued the memo after some students expressed concerns about the first online lecture on climate change, according to the College Fix, which obtained a copy of the email. 
 
 “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring,” said the professors. “We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course.” 
 
 “Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a nondebate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” they added. 
 
 For those who disagree with the course’s premise, “we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.” 
 
 The report on Wednesday generated hundreds of comments critical of the professors’ decision on the College Fix website. 
 
 “If these professors feel they have such a case for man-made global warming, shouldn’t they be able to take all comers?” said Douglas J. Hale, an assistant professor at Jefferson College in Hillsboro, Missouri. “Perhaps they aren’t qualified to defend it and simply choose to eliminate the debate from their curriculum. How sad.” 
 
 University spokesman Tom Hutton said that the faculty had clearly stated the “class focus,” which allows students “to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative.” 
 
 “Additionally, the faculty who are leading the course have offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or differing opinions,” Mr. Hutton said. 
 
 An online reading list posted by the professors — Wendy Haggen, Rebecca Laroche and Eileen Skahill — shows that the course also plans to address the “health effects of fracking.” 
 
 The course’s reading includes articles by EcoWatch, Frack Free Colorado, and Physicians for Social Responsibility as part of a section on “how marginalized communities (in this case class disparities) disproportionately suffer in our energy consumptive society in the age of climate change.” 
 
 Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves injecting highly pressurized liquid deep into sedimentary rock formations to loosen oil and natural gas deposits. The process, which has propelled the U.S. industry to world dominance in natural gas production, is staunchly opposed by the environmental movement, which has accused fracking of fouling groundwater and causing minor earthquakes in some areas. 
 
 Even so, the EPA released a preliminary study last year showing “no widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water” from fracking. 
 
 Several Colorado communities have voted to ban fracking, but those decisions were later overturned in court. Environmentalists led by Food & Water Watch failed to gather enough signatures earlier this week to place two anti-fracking measures on the November ballot. ||||| COURSE INSTRUCTORS (in alphabetical order) Please note: When asking general course information, please contact the instructor of your section. Wendy Haggren, Section OL3, whaggren@uccs.edu, Centennial Hall, rm 218. Office hours Wednesday 3:00 – 4:40 and by appointment. Dr. Haggren’s research includes genetic engineering of yeast for the production of biofuels and chemical signaling among bacteria. Rebecca Laroche, Section OL1, rlaroche@uccs.edu, Columbine Hall 1051, Office hours. Tuesdays 12:30-1:30 and 4:30-6:30 (unless otherwise noted in Weekly Content Folder) and by appointment. Prof. Laroche is an English Professor who works in texts from the sixteenth- and seventeenth-centuries (the age of Shakespeare). Her research is in early modern recipe collections. Eileen Skahill, Section OL2, eskahill@uccs.edu, Academic Offices 429. Office hours: Wednesdays 12:00-1:00, online via email 11am-2pm daily and by appointment. Prof. Skahill’s area of inquiry is the Sociology of climate change with an emphasis on environmental and social justice movements and the importance of Indigenous ways of knowing the natural world. COURSE DESCRIPTION AND STRUCTURE: This Humanities course will be delivered in two instructional sections. Phase One (Weeks 1–9) Introduces students to the various approaches within the field of the Medical Humanities—Narrative Medicine, History of Medicine, and Medical Ethics—and the topics that arise around these approaches such as empathy, knowledge communities, and complementary care. Phase Two (Weeks 10–16) further spurs students to conceptualize, explore, and evaluate how the Medical Humanities are transforming in the 21st century. Specifically, students will study how the concepts and practices examined in Phase One are being reborn in the digital world and examines ethical dilemmas and practical challenges in this age. COURSE OBJECTIVES: Each student who successfully completes this class will be able to HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 1 
 
 1. Define the medical humanities discipline and its constitutive parts of narrative medicine, history of medicine, and medical ethics. 2. Apply the methodologies of inquiry in the medical humanities to the digital age. 3. Analyze the effects of the digital age on the methods, scholarship, and public understanding of the medical humanities. 4. Integrate their analyses with their experiences of the applied case studies introduced over various weeks. COURSE REQUIREMENTS: Readings The readings for this course will be available on the course Blackboard site as PDF documents and through the purchase of e-books. Technology Please see details about technology requirements for this online course in the Welcome Letter, e-mailed to students enrolled in this class and found on the course Blackboard site. Our course technologist is Kathryn Andrus who can help with specific elements of this course. Her email is kandrus@uccs.edu. COURSE GRADING SYSTEM This course’s grading system is based on a total of 1000 possible points. Please note that each week includes a significant percent of the course’s total points: Week 1 Self-introduction, Start Here, and Smarter Measure Assignment up to 40 points out of 1000 total for course Weeks 2–7, and 10, 12–14: each week of content contains assignments worth up to 40 points out of 1000 total for course. Combined, these 10 weeks are worth up to 400 points out of 1000 total for the course. These assignments include quizzes, short answer assignments, Wiki contributions, discussion boards, and the like. Week 8: Writing Workshop. Assignments in this week are worth up to 40 points out of the 1000 for the course. Week 9 Midterm Written Assignment (400–500 words): up to 150 points out of 1000 for the course. Week 11: Revision Week up to 120 out of 1000 total for the course. Week 16 Final Assignment (600–700 words): up to 250 points out of 1000 total for the course. Part of this assignment will be to incorporate a revision of the Midterm assignment into your argument. CLASS SCHEDULE FOR HUM 3990-OL — Fall 2016 The details and content for each week’s assignments are provided in the course Blackboard site’s “Weekly Course Content” folders for each week. Phase 1: Questions in Action: Introduction to the Medical Humanities Week 1 Start Here (August 22–28): Introduction and How this Course Works Meeting your instructors, introducing yourself, and overview of this course. 1. Watch the Video titled “MED HUM 3990 OL F16 Introduction to Course” 2. Read “How this course works” 3. Submit Smarter Measure PDF. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 2 
 
 4. Introduce yourself (100–150 words) to your classmates by posting to your group’s discussion board and an image that represents you at this moment in your career at UCCS. Due Sunday August 28th at 11:59 p.m. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total. Week 2 (August 29–September 4): The Art of Memory: Book History, Cyborgs, and Narrative Medicine – Dr. Laroche 1. Complete Reading: Chapter 2 from An Introduction to Book History by David Finkelstein, and Alastair McCleery, to be purchased as an e-book at Amazon.com or like supplier: http://amzn.to/1vydMbH ; and “Narrative Medicine Heals Bodies and Souls” from The Utne Reader, September-October 2009: http://www.utne.com/mind-and-body/narrative-medicine-heals-bodies-andsouls.aspx 2. Listen to Podcast Episode: “Our Computers, Ourselves,” Invisibilia, episode from February 12, 2015. http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilia (through minute 33). 3. Listen to 20-minute lecture: “Reading, Writing, Listening, Memory, and the origins of Narrative Medicine” in Week 2 folder. 4. Complete Short Written Assignment: 1. Have someone in your life read an article to you (newspaper, magazine, or blogpost, either from online or in print). 2. Have that someone read another to you as you read along silently. 3. Now read another separately and silently. 4. Write a 150-word record (including the names of the articles and the identification of your reader) of the differences among these three experiences in not only the knowledge you attain, but also in the experience of attaining that knowledge with others. Post this to the discussion board labeled in the weekly content folder. Students must post their content before they can enter the discussion. 5. Having thus reflected on these differences and posted them and drawing on this week’s materials (including one direct quote), then consider (in about 150 words) in your response to a peer’s post the implications for this assignment if the situation in which the “article” being read is a patient’s narrative of her/his illness. Due by 11:59 pm September 4. Worth up to 40 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 3 (September 5–September 11) “Every Man His Own Doctor”: Cheap Print, Recipe Circulation, and the History of Medicine in Early Modern England – Dr. Laroche 1. Read: Chapter 3 from An Introduction to Book History by David Finkelstein, and Alastair McCleery From The Book: A Global History, and Harold Love, “Manuscript After the Coming of Print” (PDF); Four entries from recipes.hypotheses.org (linked in the Weekly Content folder for Week 3); 2. Watch: Short “Prologue” and “Syrup of Violets" and 35-Minute Video Lecture, “Every Man His Own Doctor”: Cheap Print, Recipe Circulation, and Medical Authority in Early Modern England". 3. Take the QUIZ on reading/video lecture (by 11:59pm, September 11). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 3 
 
 4. Complete Written Assignment (by 11:59 p.m., September 11). Worth up to 20 points out of 100 for the course: Part 1. Recipe Wiki. Transcribe a recipe from your local community (family, library, church, school) into a word document. This does not have to be a medicinal recipe. In the title of your recipe provide person(s) who is the source and their place of origin. Let us also know if you have made the recipe (and what the results were). If you haven't made the recipe, record any testimonies to its quality. Now copy this entry into the collective section wiki linked in the sidebar under Wiki Recipes, then your section number. Do not create your own page, but rather edit the wiki content that exists (the history function shows us each person's additions). Consider how you will distinguish your entry from others and where you will place your recipe amongst the collective. Part 2. Comment on your own wiki entry and answer the following questions in a paragraph (150 words): How may your relationship to your source inform the experience of making the recipe and your faith in the outcome? How did you decide where to place your recipe in the collective recipe book? How might selfnarration enter the collecting, writing, and making of recipes? Where does authority lie in the collecting of recipes? Finally, including at least one quotation from this week’s reading, tell how your experience taught you something about the relationship between individual recipe collecting to Oral culture/Manuscript culture/Print Culture/Computer Culture or perhaps the transition from one to the other? Submit this assignment separately as a Word doc. in the Recipes Reflection assignment link below in the Weekly Content folder. Week 4 (September 12–18) Plague: Community Perceptions of the Disease, the Victims, and the Survivors — Wendy Haggren 1. Watch: Voiced over powerpoint lecture on an ancient plague and a modern plague (40 min.) Sonia Shah (p. 13): “… telling the stories of new pathogens through the lens of a historical pandemic…” 2. Read: Thucydides: The Jowett Translation. 2.47-2.54 (431 BCE). http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/thucydides/thucydidespassages.php?pleaseget=2.47-54,2.57-58,3.87&passageid=The%20Plague (I have copied sections 2.47 – 2.54 into a word.docx); An account of the plague written by a general who was also an historian (3 pp). This is a first person account of disease symptoms; the first known mention of immunity in literature; and observation of who nursed the stricken. 3. Read: Shah, Sonia. Pandemic: Tracking Contagions, from Cholera to Ebola and Beyond. New York, Sarah Crichton Books, FSG, 2016.Chapter 1, pp. 15 – 35. 4. Watch: a short video by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/video/health/100000003420384/the-path-of-the-ebolaoutbreak.html, (5 min 13 sec). A factual, visual account of the initial spread of the Ebola virus from patient “0” in the distant forest to the crowded capital city of Guinea (Conakry). You can see the cleared land around the village, note the false sense of security when the number of cases originally dropped, similar to historical outbreaks deep in the African forests, and see the difference between village life and the capital city. 5. Read: Craig Spencer, “Having and fighting Ebola—Public health lessons from a clinician turned patient,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 372:1089-1091, March 19, 2015 (about 2 pages). First person narrative of surviving Ebola and HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 4 
 
 finding out that he had been vilified by the local media for walking around town before the fever developed. 6. Take quiz on lecture and readings (by 11:59pm, September 18). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. 7. Complete short written assignment: (300–400 words) Three medical professionals have recently returned to Colorado Springs from Africa where they treated people with Ebola. One has developed the fever and symptoms of Ebola and is in quarantine in a local hospital. Your aunt is very upset that the other two individuals are still walking around Colorado Springs and that you are volunteering at the hospital where the ill person is being treated. Write a short dialogue between you and your aunt in which you explain to her the medical possibilities of an Ebola outbreak in Colorado Springs and of her contracting the disease. Be sure to include at least 3 questions or statements from her. You may take any viewpoint you wish, as long as you support it with two quotes from this week’s lecture and readings. Be aware of the language and tone you use with your aunt who has a high school education and reads the newspaper (by 11:59pm, September 18). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 5 (September 19–25) The Cultural Context of Medical Treatment and Healing — Wendy Haggren 1. Watch: Voiced over powerpoint lecture on the biology of the immune system (briefly) and how Ebola affects the human body; African community-healer treatments for Ebola; modern medical treatments for Ebola; and what we have learned by not considering the culture of a community undergoing an Ebola outbreak. (40 min) 2. Read: Thompson, Amy E., “The Immune System,” Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA Patient Page, 313(16): 1686, 2015. (1 page) 3. Watch: a short video by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/video/health/100000003416721/ebolas-patient-zero.html (5 min 38 sec) This is a personal account of the initial Ebola victims by the man who lost his famil. Note how many languages were involved in the making of this video. Relate the response of the village-healers to this first outbreak to what you will read in the Hewlett and Amola (2003) paper. 4. Read: Barry S. Hewlett and Richard P. Amola, “Cultural contexts of Ebola in northern Uganda,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 9(10):1242-1248, 2003. This article considers lessons on effective treatment by combining appropriate local beliefs with modern medical science 5. Quiz: Complete this short assignment in Medical Science, trace, label and briefly explain, given a human outline with specific body areas indicated, the course by which humans might develop protective antibodies to Ebola and suggest why this doesn’t always happen (by 11:59pm, September 25). Worth up to 10 points out of 1000 total for the course. 6. Complete 2 Written Assignments: 1. Create a new recipe wiki by selecting a recipe from your week 3 wiki and identify which ingredients will help boost immune response and explain your answer. Modify a different recipe by exchanging ingredients for one or more that will boost the immune system; again, HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 5 
 
 explain (by 11:59pm, September 25). Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. 2. Comment: Why or why not might a medical practice here in town be willing to distribute your immune-boosting recipes for free if you found a way to print hundreds of copies. What support or arguments do you think you might you receive from today’s medical professionals? (By 11:59pm, September 25). Worth up to 10 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 6 (September 26–October 2) Cultural Ways of Knowing Nature: Indigenous and 21st Century Perspectives On Our Relationship with the Natural World and Its Healing Power — Eileen Skahill *Watch: Brief Instructor video discussing the week’s content and explaining in detail the study of environmental sociology in the age of climate change, emphasizing the connections between society, ecology and the economy with the premise that the planet is a “shared commons”. *Read: 1. Wall-Kimmerer: Braiding Sweet Grass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants pgs: 1-38 BB 2. David Suzuki: “Interconnections” pgs. 1-11 BB 3. National Geographic: “This Is Your Brain on Nature” http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/call-to-wildtext?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm _content=link_fb20151223ngmcalltowild&utm_campaign=Content&sf17614328=1 *Written Assignment: Part 1 Watch 1. Numen (film trailer 5:46) https://vimeo.com/ondemand/numenfilm Part 2: Write (200-250 word count/ total): 2. Compare the perspectives of the village—healers in Dr. Haggren’s Week 5 content on Ebola with the Indigenous perspective in Wall— Kimmerer’s readings. How are their approaches similar or different? 3. Using the Numen video and the National Geographic article, answer the following questions considering the role of the whole of nature as a healing. a. What was your connection to nature when you were a child? Did you spend time outdoors and what did you do? b. What is your relationship with nature now as an adult? How has it changed? What role has technology played in the relationship you have with nature as an adult? c. Do you personally use nature (or realize that you do) as a “healing power” in managing stress in your life as the National Geographic article suggests HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 6 
 
 d. Do you personally use nature (or realize that you do) as a “healing power” in managing stress in your life? e. In what ways do you use herbal or medicinal plants as a form of health care and/or healing? Due by 11:59 pm October 2nd. Worth up to 40 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 7 (October 3–9): Fracking and Public Health: Narratives from the “Gas Patch” and the Medical Community Response to the Health Effects of Fracking -Eileen Skahill *Watch: Brief voiceover power point lecture on the history of energy development in the United States and how marginalized communities (in this case class disparities) disproportionally suffer in our energy consumptive society in the age of climate change. *Watch FILM: Split Estate *Read: 1. EcoWatch: “4 States Struggling to Manage Radioactive Fracking Waste http://www.ecowatch.com/4-states-struggling-to-manageradioactive-fracking-waste-1891181106.html 2. Frack Free Colorado: “Colorado’s Affected People” http://www.frackfreecolorado.com/cos-affected-people.html 3. Public News Service: “Fracking and Children”: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-05-23/climate-change-airquality/study-fracking-pollution-disproportionately-impactschildren/a52051-1 4. EcoWatch: “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies”: http://www.ecowatch.com/epa-­‐science-­‐advisory-­‐board-­‐fracking-­‐study-­‐ water-­‐contamination-­‐1968795058.html 5. Physician’s for Social Responsibility: “Position Statement” http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/psr-fracking-policy.pdf *Optional Reading: Concerned Health Professionals of New York- A Compendium: http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/ *Interactive Assignment: Take the My Ecological Footprint Quiz. (Go to: http://myfootprint.org/subscription.php and enter Professor Skahill’s UCCS address and password provided below.) This activity is meant to give you a sense of your personal carbon footprint and impact on the Earth and its resources (not to create guilt or shame, though those emotions are entirely common). Print or write out your results for use in the discussion forum assignment. HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 7 
 
 Use the following values when prompted to log in: E-mail: eskahill@uccs.edu Password: rAOELEWR *Discussion Forum: Part 1 & 2 (200–250 word count/ total) Part 1: 1. Post your Footprint result and the total amount of planets required for your lifestyle. Describe your reaction to your results. 2. Now think about your results in the context of the film Split Estate and the articles assigned for this week and answer the following question: • Knowing that our use of energy is derived primarily through the extraction of natural gas and oil, how do our carbon footprints, individually and collectively, affect the health and well being of people from both local and global communities? Due by 11:59 pm October 9th. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. Part 2: • • • • Apply your understanding of the Indigenous perspectives learned in Week 6 in answering the following question: Does our use of energy take into account the Indigenous perspective of the Earth and its resources? Do we see ourselves as having a relationship with the Earth where the balance of consumption and preservation are taken into account? Do we see that technological advances may benefit us as humans, but not always the planet? Is there really a separation of the two? (keep in mind Wall- Kimmerer, and Suzuki's idea of our interconnections with the natural world). You must thoughtfully comment on at least two (2) student posts. Due by 11:59 pm October 9th. Worth up to 20 points out of 1000 total for the course. Week 8 (October 10–16): Reflection and Writing Workshop – Haggren, Laroche, and Skahill 1. Complete the Writing Center Workshop, which will prepare you for writing your first long written assignment by watching the PowerPoint presentation in this folder. This workshop has two discussion tasks associated with it that you will find in the group discussion forum. The workshop activities are worth up to 40 HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 8 
 
 points out of 1000 points total for the course. Please see complete instructions in the appendix page for Writing Workshop assignments. In this week: • • • • Watch this week’s videos for an orientation to the week’s activities and to your written assignment. The activities due this week will also help you prepare for the final written assignment, which is due in Week 16. Read the description of the Written Assignment for this week and the longer assignment due for Week 9 (also found in the syllabus in the Appendix). Write sample paragraph and post in the Group Discussion forum called “Sample Paragraphs Peer Review.” Once you have done so, you will be able to respond to a post of a peer. (Due Sunday, October 16th, at 11:59 p.m.). This is worth 20 points out of 1000 points total for the course. Share your writing process in a post in the Group Discussion forum called "Sharing your writing process" in writing or by attaching a file/image. Once you have done so, you will be able to respond to a post of a peer. (Due Sunday, October 16th, at 11:59 p.m.) This is worth 20 points out of 1000 points total for the course. Phase 2: Rethinking Medical Practice in the Digital Age Week 9 (October 17–23): Upload the Midterm Essay to the Assignment link for the Midterm Essay. Documents uploaded to this link will be automatically checked for originality. The Midterm Essay is worth up to 150 points total out of 1000 for the course. Please see directions for this assignment below. Due Sunday, October 23, by 11:59 p.m. Week 10 (October 24–30): The Question of (Cyber)Empathy — Rebecca Laroche 1. Watch “Prologue” video and content video “The Question of CyberEmpathy” 2. Read Leslie Jamison, “The Empathy Exams,” from The Empathy Exams, PDF provided. 3. Listen to Podcast, “The Secret, Gruesome Internet for Doctors,” episode #2 of the series Reply All, November 24, 2014. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/2instagram-for-doctors/ 4. Look over the images from: http://hyperallergic.com/104337/grotesque-andgorgeous-100000-art-and-medicine-images-released-for-open-use/ 5. Write in a Word Document, a 100-150-word fictional scene from the first-person point-of-view of the patient (one that empathizes with that patient) in one of the images from the website or described in the podcast. Now in 200-250 words, engaging Leslie Jamison’s essay and the podcast directly, analyze the tension between creative empathy and diagnostic detachment. Submit both of these in one document into the assignment folder in the Weekly Content Folder. Worth 40 out of the 1000 points for the course (Due by 11:59, October 30). Week 11 (October 31–November 6): Revision. In this week students will be revising their midterm assignment based on the assessment they have received from their instructor. In completing this assignment, students must read closely the comments and feedback they have received from the instructor in the margins, in the grade comments, and in the rubric for the assignment. The revision will be assessed based on the extent HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 9 
 
 to which these comments were considered and the level of revision. Worth 120 points out of the 1000 points for the course. Week 12 (November 7–13): Self-Diagnosis in the Digital Age — Rebecca Laroche 1. Read Heidi Julavits, “Diagnose This: How to be your own best doctor” (Harper’s Magazine, April 2014); Finkelstein and McCleary, Chapter 7, “The Future of the Book,” from An Introduction to Book History, which you purchased at the beginning of the course. 2. Watch Video Lecture (20 minutes), “Self-Diagnosis in the Digital Age.” 3. Take Quiz. (By 11:59 p.m., November 13), 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the course. 4. Surf some websites that give medical advice and diagnosis (Not Isabel as I'll be talking about that a little in lecture. Avoid computer viruses). Choose one and begin a discussion thread by providing its name as the thread title. In post answer the following: 1) What is the web address? Is it a .com, .org, or .edu? What does the address tell you about its source? 2) How does the site create a sense of authority? Does the site instill confidence? If yes, how so? If not, how does it fail to do so? 3). How does the site approach the problem of diagnosis? That is, how would you describe its approach? 4). How might this site change the relationship between doctor and patient as discussed in the reading (citing at least one instance from the reading)? Engage a post of one of your peers. (11:59 p.m., October 23). 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the course. Week 13 (November 14–20): Historical and Digital Age Opposition to Vaccination — Wendy Haggren 1. Watch: Voiced over powerpoint lecture on the history of variolation, vaccination, and the violent early history of anti-vaccinationsts from the 1721 smallpox outbreak in Boston to the 1777 and George Washington’s push to variolate his troops without congressional approval. The ups and downs of vaccine design and production; modern anti-vaxxers. (40 min) 2. Read: Robert M. Wolfe and Lisa K. Sharp, “Anti-vaccinationists past and present,” British Medical Journal, 325:430-432, 2002. 3. Read: Stefan Blancke, et al., “Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition,” Trends in Plant Sciences, (5 pages), 2015. Just substitute the term “vaccination” for “GMO;” this describes a philosophical view of ways that human nature influences decision making. 4. Read: Jeanette B. Ruiz and Robert A. Bell, “Understanding vaccination resistance: Vaccine search term selection bias and the valance of retrieved information,” Vaccine, 32:5776-5780, 2014. 5. Quiz: over this week’s lecture and reading (By 11:59 p.m., November 20), 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the course. 6. Discussion Board: Without naming names or inserting your viewpoint, interview and report on the attitude and reasoning of two friends or family members with opposing views on vaccination (~100 words). Then comment on one post from another student in which you empathize with a view not your own, but you do not have to agree with it. Be professional and respectful. (By 11:59 p.m., November 20), 20 points out of the 1000 final points for the course. Week 14 (November 21–27): Thanksgiving Break HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 10 
 
 Week 15 (November 28–December 4): The Consequences of Controlling Nature: Ethics and the Importance of Cultivating Gratitude — Eileen Skahill • • • Watch: Brief Instructor video reorienting students after fall break. Tie together the semester concepts in this final week with an emphasis on the Indigenous idea of respect compassion and empathy for each other cultivating gratitude for the earth and what it provides; that working in union with each other and the earth, all will prosper. Watch: Youtube: “GMO’s: Myths and Truths https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ztZGbLEJ0 Read: 1. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring: “A Fable for Tomorrow” BB 2. EcoWatch: “Glyphosate Found in the Urine of 93% of Americans” http://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-found-in-urine-of-93-percent-ofamericans-tested-1891146755.html 3. Common Dreams: “Huge Victory for American Consumers, Senate Rejects DARK Act” http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/16/huge-victoryamerican-consumers-senate-rejects-dark-act 4. The Guardian: “Should We Wipe Mosquitos Off the Face of the Earth?” https://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/feb/10/should-wewipe-mosquitoes-off-the-face-of-the-earth 5. “FDA Approves Genetically Modified mosquitoes” http://www.nationofchange.org/2016/08/08/fda-approvesgenetically-modified-mosquitoes-combat-zika-florida/ 6. Collective Evolution: “Larvicide Manufactured By Sumitomo, Not Zika Virus, True Cause of Brazil’s Microcephaly Outbreak?” http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/06/29/larvicidemanufactured-by-sumitomo-not-zika-virus-true-cause-of-brazilsmicrocephalyoutbreak/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campai gn=Feed%3A+Collective-evolution+%28Collective+Evolution%29 7. Wall Kimmerer: “Allegiance to Gratitude” pgs. 105-117. BB * Written Assignment: Recipes for Healing and Cultivating Gratitude The assignment for this week ties together the ideas presented throughout the semester on narratives and history of medicine, empathy and ethics. In this assignment you will be required to watch the short video on Plant Spirit Medicine and briefly read through the written portions of the attached document “The Healing Power of Plants” placing special emphasis on Plant Spirit Medicinal recipes. Part 1: Watch: 1. “Walk the Talk Show:” Eliot Cowen Talks Plant Spirit Medicine” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWB-QYRiBFw Explore/Scan 2. “The Healing Power of Plants: A Guide” pdf. BB Part 2: HUM 3990 Syllabus p. 11
– Hundreds online are fuming after professors at the University of Colorado told students that man-made climate change wouldn't be open for debate in their online course. In an email to students who complained after an initial lecture for "Medical Humanities in the Digital Age," professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren, and Eileen Skahill explain the course is "based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the 'other side' of the climate change debate be taught or discussed," per the College Fix. "If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course." The email notes students won't be allowed to debate man-made climate change in class forums and must use research materials peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The course syllabus also suggests only the negative impacts of fracking will be taught. Many have expressed their support, but hundreds have also objected, calling the professors "hostile control freaks." "If these professors feel they have such a case for man-made global warming, shouldn't they be able to take all comers?" an assistant professor at Missouri's Jefferson College says, per the Washington Times. A university rep says the professors have offered to discuss the course with students "who have concerns or differing opinions."