The concept of hyphen-ethics is most relevant in the field of bioethics where health care issues are inextricably linked with the market and the perceived needs of the health industry (medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, fund-raising organizations such as cancer research fund-raisers) to enjoy economic health. It is not just about caring for the human need for well-being or even a freedom from suffering although this is the subject of current debates on universal health care. Who will decide what is a human need and what is a want in terms of defining basic, adequate, essential and/or discretional health care access. When and where do health resources end? What are the ends of medicine? What is the nature of medicine? What are the limits to imposed regulations and health care?

The calm witness in the debate on universal health care, a man married to a long-term cancer survivor, is concerned that proposed federal regulations, would deprive him of the current level of health care services his family needs. In a closer reading of his family’s story, his wife’s free access to a $60,000 treatment was through an act of philanthropy on the part of the treatment providers. Would this be affected by providing access to others who are lacking insurance or who have inadequate insurance? Her other medical bills were paid through his work plan. But what if he, like so many others today, suddenly no longer had an employer who provided a health plan? Perhaps what he is really expressing is gratitude for what he was able to receive and hope that others will be as fortunate when faced with a family health crisis.

In 1981 philosopher Amy Gutmann published an article entitled, “For and Against Equal Access to Health Care” in the Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. When the article was reprinted in 1999, the editors described how, “The Gutmann piece was written long before the failure of the Clinton plan but it still remains a classic argument for a national or universal health care system. A principal feature of her argument is that a one-class health care system, one for the rich, the middle classes and poor alike, promotes a health care system that caters to the needs of the better off as well as the poor, and this will strengthen the overall system level of benefits. Gutmann for practical political reasons acknowledges that a one-class system could not go so far as to forbid the rich from purchasing more health care outside the system, spending out of-pocket (Beauchamp; Steinbock 1999:253).”

“I suspect that no philosophical argument can provide us with a cogent principle by which we can draw a line within the enormous group of goods that can improve health or extend life prospects of individuals . . . The remaining question of establishing a precise level of priorities among health care and other goods is appropriately left to democratic decision-making (Gutmann 1981: 542-60)

Because of his close advisory position with President Obama on health care issues, Ezekiel J. Emanuel’s opinions are being scrutinized. In his article (1996-11/12) entitled “Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet,” seems to misinterpret Gutmann’s arguments as extremely dangerous moral skepticism. Emanuel assumed that she concluded, that there can be no principled mechanism to define basic health care services and, therefore, that the efforts to ensure universal access will always founder on the fear that guaranteeing any health care to all citizens means guaranteeing all available services. It suggests we should just give up on a just allocation of health care resources because we can never succeed (Emanuel 1996:13).” Emanuel misread her carefully worded debate in which she succinctly summarizes various perspectives on access to health care in the pre-Clinton health care debate period. In one scenario she traces the unintended consequences of imposed universal access in an imperfect world and goes on to suggest a pragmatic solution. In fact Gutmann concludes, “I began by arguing that a principle of equal access to health care was at best an ideal toward which our society might strive. I shall end by qualifying that statement. A sufficiently high level of public provision of health care for all citizens and a sufficiently elastic supply of health care would significantly reduce the threat to universal provision of quality health care of a private market in extra health care goods, just as a very high level of police protection and education reduces the inequalities of opportunity resulting from purchase of private bodyguards or of private school education by the rich. In the best of all imaginable worlds of egalitarian justice, the equal access principle would be sufficiently supported by other egalitarian social and economic institutions that a market in health care would complement rather than undercut the goals of equal respect and opportunity. But philosophers ought to resist basing their political recommendations solely upon a model of the best of all imaginable worlds (Gutmann 1999 [1981:253]).”

Emanuel (1996:13)

suggests that, “Regardless, a refined view has emerged that begins to overlap between liberalism and communitarianism. This overlap inspires hope for making progress on the just allocation of health care resources. This refined view distinguishes issues within the political sphere into four types: (1) issues related to constitutional rights and liberties; (2) issues related to opportunities, including health care and education; (3) issues related to the distribution of wealth such as tax policies; and (4) other political matters that may not be matters of justice but are matters of common good, such as environmental policies and defense politicies. While there still may be disagreement about the need for a neutral justification for rights and liberties, there is consensus between communitarians and liberals that policies regarding opportunities, wealth, and matters of the common good can only be justified by appeal to a particular conception of the good. As Rawls has put it:

Public reason does not apply to all political questions but only to those involving what we may call “constitutional essentials.”^{3 (Emanuel 1996:13).”}

TBC

1960s the dominant social issue of the 1960s and 1970s was that of justice and equality. Given that context, it was hardly surprising that the field of bioethics saw a great surge of writing and debate on issues of justice and health care.(Daniels, Emanuel and Jennings 1996).

1970s the dominant social issue of the 1960s and 1970s was that of justice and equality. Given that context, it was hardly surprising that the field of bioethics saw a great surge of writing and debate on issues of justice and health care.(Daniels, Emanuel and Jennings 1996).

1972 John Rawls’ 1972 study A Theory of Justice “was not only a powerful work in its own right but perfectly in step with the times. Given that context, it was hardly surprising that the field of bioethics saw a great surge of writing and debate on issues of justice and health care. That was, and still is, a central topic. Far less important for many years was any serious discussion of the ends of medicine. To be sure, there was and is a field known as the philosophy of medicine that has given considerable attention to the nature of medicine. But the discussion in that field – which was often technical and historical in any case, self-consciously academic and scholarly – proceeded independently of the interest in health care equality. And vice-versa. In retrospect, that seems an odd bifurcation. How is it possible to have a full examination of a field as dynamic and fast-changing as health care without – simultaneous – asking some basic questions about what health care is supposed to give us and do for us? Norman Daniels, in his fine work on justice and health care, has come as close as anyone to attempting to find the specific link between the ends of health care and fair access to it. By his use of the concept of species-typical functioning as the goal of medicine he has sought to (Daniels, Emanuel and Jennings 1996).

1981 Philosopher Amy Gutmann published an article entitled, “For and Against Equal Access to Health Care” in the  Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. “The Gutmann piece was written long before the failure of the Clinton plan but it still remains a classic argument for a national or universal health care system. A principal feature of her argument is that a one-class health care system, one for the rich, the middle classes and poor alike, promotes a health care system that caters to the needs of the better off as well as the poor, and this will strengthen the overall system level of benefits. Gutmann for practical political reasons acknowledges that a one-class system could not go so far as to forbid the rich from purchasing more health care outside the system, spending out of-pocket (Beauchamp; Steinbock 1999:253).”

“I suspect that no philosophical argument can provide us with a cogent principle by which we can draw a line within the enormous group of goods that can improve health or extend life prospects of individuals . . . The remaining question of establishing a precise level of priorities among health care and other goods is appropriately left to democratic decision-making (Gutmann 1981: 542-60)

1996 Norman Daniels, Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Bruce Jennings co-authored the Hastings Center Report entitled “Is Justice Enough? Ends and Means in Bioethics. “There call be little doubt that the dominant social issue of the 1960s and 1970s was that of justice and equality. It inspired the development of many fresh welfare policies and was a potent motivating force in the advent of Medicare and Medicaid, both thought (mistakenly as it turned out) to be the forerunners of universal health care. John Rawls’ 1972 study A Theory of Justice was not only a powerful work in its own right but perfectly in step with the times. Given that context, it was hardly surprising that the field of bioethics saw a great surge of writing and debate on issues of justice and health care. That was, and still is, a central topic. Far less important for many years was any serious discussion of the ends of medicine. To be sure, there was and is a field known as the philosophy of medicine that has given considerable attention to the nature of medicine. But the discussion in that field – which was often technical and historical in any case, self-consciously academic and scholarly – proceeded independently of the interest in health care equality. And vice-versa. In retrospect, that seems an odd bifurcation. How is it possible to have a full examination of a field as dynamic and fast-changing as health care without – simultaneous – asking some basic questions about what health care is supposed to give us and do for us? Norman Daniels, in his fine work on justice and health care, has come as close as anyone to attempting to find the specific link between the ends of health care and fair access to it. By his use of the concept of species-typical functioning as the goal of medicine he has sought to (Daniels, Emanuel and Jennings 1996).

1996-11/12 Ezekiel J. Emanuel’s article entitled “Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet,” cautioned that Gutmann and Daniels’ moral skepticism was extremely dangerous. [I]t suggests that there can be no principled mechanism to define basic health care services and, therefore, that the efforts to ensure universal access will always founder on the fear that guaranteeing any health care to all citizens means guaranteeing all available services. It suggests we should just give up on a just allocation of health care resources because we can never succeed (Emanuel 1996:13).”

1999 “Most books about ethics and health focus on issues arising from individual patients and their relationships with doctors and other health professionals. More and more, however, ethical issues are challenges that face entire communities, not just individual patients. This book is an edited collection of readings that addresses these public health challenges. Many of the issues considered, such as policy for alcohol and other drugs, newly emergent epidemics, and violence prevention, are public health concerns beyond the purview of traditional bioethics. Others, such as access to health care, managed care, reproductive technologies, and genetic testing, are covered in bioethics texts, but here they are approached from the distinct viewpoint of public health. The book makes explicit the community perspective of public health, as well as the field’s emphasis on prevention. It examines the conceptual issues raised by the public health perspective (i.e., what is meant by community, the common good, and individual autonomy) as well as the policies that can be developed when health problems are approached in population-based, preventive terms.” Amazon abstract of: Beauchamp, Dan E.; Steinbock, Bonnie. 1999. New Ethics for the Public’s Health. Oxford University Press. This book includes the

Limited preview – 1999 – 382 pages

2001 In his controversial article entitled “Terminating Life-Sustaining Treatment of the Demented,” Dan Callahan (Callahan 2001:93) claimed that euthanasia is necessary for patients suffering from terminal illness. Opponents claim that euthanasia is immoral and violates reason.

2009-07-17 Senator Edward Kennedy (1932-2009): “We will end the disgrace of America as the only major industrialized nation in the world that doesn’t guarantee health care for all of its people (Kennedy Newsweek).”

“Is there a relationship between defects in our medical ethics and the reason the United States has repeatedly failed to enact universal health coverage? I will begin to suggest an answer to this question by clarifying the locus of allocating decisions. The allocation of health care resources can occur on three levels. The social or, in the economist’s language, the macro level entails the proportion of the gross national product (GNP) allocated to health care. The patient, or micro, level entails determining which individual patients will receive specific medical services; that is, whether Mrs. White should receive this available liver for transplantation. Finally, there is an intermediate level called the service or medical level that entails determining what health care services will be guaranteed to each citizen. These socially guaranteed services have been called “basic” or “essential” medical services or what the President’s Commission designated as ”adequate health care.” Clearly, these three levels are connected. A larger proportion of the GNP going to health permits coverage of more services. Similarly, as demonstrated by the end-stage renal disease program, providing specific services to a wider range of patients causes upward pressure on the proportion of the GNP going to health care and/or reduces the range of services covered as part of basic medical services. Despite these connections, these three levels are conceptually distinct.(Emanuel 1996:12)”

“The fundamental challenge to theories of distributive justice for health care is to develop a principled mechanism for defining what fragment of the vast universe of technically available, effective medical care services is basic and will be guaranteed socially and what services are discretionary and will not be guaranteed socially. Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system- some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and discretionary health services. Within the discretionary tier, some citizens will receive few discretionary services, and other richer citizens will receive almost all available services, creating a multiple-tiered system (Emanuel 1996:12).”

“Underlying the repeated failure of attempts to provide universal health care coverage in the United States is the failure to develop a principled mechanism for characterizing basic health services. Americans fear that is society guarantees certain services as “basic,” the range of services guaranteed will expand to include all-or almost all- available services (except for cosmetic surgery and therapies that have not been proven effective or proven ineffective). So rather than risk the bankruptcy of having nearly every medical service socially guaranteed to all citizens, Americans have been willing to tolerate a system in which the well insured receive a wide range of medical services with some apparently basic services uncovered; Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic uncovered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services (Emanuel 1996:12).”

“On this view, the reason the United States has failed to enact universal health coverage is not primarily political or economic; the real reason is ethical- it is a failure to provide a philosophically defensible and practical mechanism to distinguish basic from discretionary health care services. What is the reason for this failure of medical ethics?(Emanuel 1996:12).”

“There are two opposing explanations. One explanation points to the inherent limits of ethics. Some philosophers, such as Amy Gutmann and Norman Daniels, argue that we lack sufficiently detailed ethical intuitions and principles to establish priorities among the vast array of health care services. Every time we try to define basic services our intuition “runs out.” As Gutmann once wrote:

I suspect that no philosophical argument can provide us with a cogent principle by which we can draw a line within the enormous group of goods that can improve health or extend life prospects of individuals . . . The remaining question of establishing a precise level of priorities among health care and other goods is appropriately left to democratic decision-making¹

(Emanuel 1996:12).”

“Taken at face value, this moral skepticism is extremely dangerous; it suggests that there can be no principled mechanism to define basic health care services and, therefore, that the efforts to ensure universal access will always founder on the fear that guaranteeing any health care to all citizens means guaranteeing all available services. It suggests we should just give up on a just allocation of health care resources because we can never succeed (Emanuel 1996:13).”

“The second explanation holds the problem with definining basic health care services is not a general lapse of ethics, but a specific lapse of liberal political philosophy that informs our political discourse, including the allocation of health care resources. The problem is that priorities among health care services can be established only by invoking a conception of the good, but this is not possible within the framework of liberal political philosophy. Liberalism divides moral issues into three spheres: the political, social, and domestic. It then holds that within the political sphere, laws and policies cannot be justified by appeals to the good. To jusify laws by appealing to the good would violate the principle of neutrality and be coercive, imposing one conception of the good on citizens who do not necessarily affirm that conception of the good. But without appealing to a conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorites among health care services and define basic medical services. This is Dan Callahan’s view with which I agree:²

. . . there can be no full discussion of equality in health care without an equally full discussion on the substantive goods and goals that medicine and health care should pursue . . . [U]nless there can be a discussion of the goals of medicine in the future as rich as that of justice and health has been, the latter problem will simply not admit of any meaningful solution (Emanuel 1996:13).”

[In his controversial article entitled "Terminating Life-Sustaining Treatment of the Demented," Dan Callahan (Callahan 2001:93) claimed that euthanasia is necessary for patients suffering from terminal illness. Opponents claim that euthanasia is immoral and violates reason.]

“Fortunately, many including many liberals, have come to view as mistaken a liberalism with such a strong principle of neutrality and avoidance of the public good. Some think the change a result of the critique provided by communitarianism; others see it as a clarification of basic liberal philosophy. Regardless, a refined view has emerged that begins to overlap between liberalism and communitarianism. This overlap inspires hope for making progress on the just allocation of health care resources. This refined view distinguishes issues within the political sphere into four types: (1) issues related to constitutional rights and liberties; (2) issues related to opportunities, including health care and education; (3) issues related to the distribution of wealth such as tax policies; and (4) other political matters that may not be matters of justice but are matters of common good, such as environmental policies and defense politicies. While there still may be disagreement about the need for a neutral justification for rights and liberties, there is consensus between communitarians and liberals that policies regarding opportunities, wealth, and matters of the common good can only be justified by appeal to a particular conception of the good. As Rawls has put it:

Public reason does not apply to all political questions but only to those involving what we may call “constitutional essentials.”^{3 (Emanuel 1996:13).”}

More expansively, Brian Barry has written:

Examples of issues that fall outside [the principle of neutrality include] two distinct kinds of items. One set of items (tax and property laws) contains matters that are in principle within the realm of “justice as fairness” but are subject to reasonable disagreement about the implications of justice . . . The other set . . . contains issues that in the nature of the case cannot be resolved without giving priority to one conception of the good over others . . . There is no room for a complaint of discrimination simply on the ground that the policy by its nature suits those with one conception of the good more than it suits those with some different one. This is unavoidable.^{4 (Emanuel 1996:13).”}

“Thus it seems there is a growing agreement between liberals, communitarians, and others that many political matters, including matters of justice- and specifically, the just allocation of health care resources- can be addressed only by invoking a particular conception of the good (Emanuel 1996:13).”

“We may go even further. Without overstating it (and without fully defending it) not only is there a consensus about the need for a conception of the good, there may even be a consensus about the particular conception of the good that should inform policies on these nonconstitutional political issues. Communitarians endorse civic republicanism and a growing number of liberals endorse some version of deliberate democracy. Both envision a need for citizens who are independent and responsible and for public forums that present citizens with opportunities to enter into public deliberations on social policies (Emanuel 1996:13).”

“This civic republican deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity- those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations- are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, servuces provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia [13] [In his controversial article entitled "Terminating Life-Sustaining Treatment of the Demented," Dan Callahan (Callahan 2001:93) claimed that euthanasia is necessary for patients suffering from terminal illness. Opponents claim that euthanasia is immoral and violates reason]. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropyschological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason (Emanuel 1996:14).”

“Clearly, more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services. Perhaps using this progress in political philosophy we can address Dan’s challenge, begin to discuss the goods and goals of medicine (Emanuel 1996:14).”

References

Callahan, Dan. 2001. “Terminating Life-Sustaining Treatment of the Demented.” Bioethics Ed. John Harris. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 93.

Gutman, Amy. 1981. “For and Against Equal Access to Health Care.” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. 59:542-60.

Emanuel, Ezekiel J. 1991. The Ends of Human Life. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Chapter 4.

Norman Daniels , Ezekiel J. Emanuel , Bruce Jennings. 1996. “Is Justice Enough? Ends and Means in Bioethics.” The Hastings Center Report. 26.

Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 214.

Barry, Brian. 1995. Justice as Impartiality. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 144-145.

Emanuel, Ezekiel J. 1996-11/12. “Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet.” Hastings Centre Report. November-December.

Beauchamp, Dan E.; Steinbock, Bonnie. 1999. New Ethics for the Public’s Health. Oxford University Press.

My Web 2.0 and Digital Lifelong Learning Tools

I work with so many Web 2.0 applications I forget them so this post as an update on what I am still finding useful after 4 years of uploading, posting, tagging, linking, etc, using digital technologies including proprietorial (EndNote, Adobe Creative Suite, Windows) and open source (WordPress, Flickr, Delicious, Slideshare, Picassa and a myriad of Google products). Although my resources are meant to be shared, these technologies help me to trace how a my own cartography of mind organically evolves. They also serve as a mnemonic devices, a virtual memory palace.

Endnote¹ is still my preferred entry point for new reference material and the easiest to search. I’ve created a library just for 2009 but this can be easily integrated into my entire library. I would like to add all of my timeline entries into Endnote as I did with Inuit Social History, Museology, etc. I need to have precise ethnoclassification first so I can find them.

Notes

1. I had hoped to replace this proprietorial software with another open source but I have been using EndNote since the early 1990s. My post Zotero versus Endnote is still one of my most visited.

Webliography and Bibliography

Shortlink for this post http://wp.me/p1TTs-im

Mapping Dan Brown’s Deception Point (2001)

In his novel entitled Deception Point (2001) Dan Brown links scientific publications based on results from NASA, etc to offer fictional scenarios using consultants with various forms of expertise to enhance believability and to pull readers into his imaginary worlds of knowledge and power, corruption and politics and leading edge technological and scientific research.

Using My Google Maps app I am mapping the adventures of Rachel Sexton, daughter of US Presidential candidate, Senator Sedgewick Sexton. Rachel Sexton works for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Fairfax, Virginia, as a gister, “gisting or data reduction required analyzing complex reports and distilling their essence or gist into concise, single page briefs (Brown 2001-21).”

View Larger Map

Selected Timeline

1951-06-19 The parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on 4 April, 1949, agreed to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement in 1951 allowing members to have forces of one Party may be sent, by arrangement, to serve in the territory of another Party; Bearing in mind that the decision to send them and the conditions under which they will be sent, in so far as such conditions are not laid down by the present Agreement, will continue to be the subject of separate arrangements between the Parties concerned. Under that agreement the RAF Menwith Hill is made available to the US Department of Defense (DoD). RAF Menwith Hill is situated off the A59 Skipton Road, approximately nine miles west of Harrogate in North Yorkshire and occupies about one square mile of moorland. Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) is entitled to possession of the site and retains control over its use and its facilities, though the administration of the base is the responsibility of the US authorities. The base comprises family housing, community facilities and high-technology installations and structures set on the southern edge of the Yorkshire Dales, just outside the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. RAF Menwith Hill works closely with local and national authorities on all matters relating to planning, conservation and the environment. wiki+

1950s Echelon, a global surveillance network, “was set up in Cold War days to provide the US goverment with intelligence data about Russia. One of the main contractors is Raytheon. Lockheed Martin has been involved in writing software for it. Since then it has expanded into a general listening facility, an electronic vacuum cleaner, sucking up the world’s telephone conversations. Information about it’s existence has been reluctantly revealed, prompted by scandals such as the recordings of Princess Diana’s telephone calls by the NSA (Mellor 2004-10-15).” In 1966 the National Security Agency took on responsibility for the U.S. operation of the site, expanding the capabilities to monitor international leased line communications transiting through Britain. The site was then one of the earliest to receive sophisticated early IBM computers, with which NSA automated the labour-intensive watch-list scrutiny of intercepted but unenciphered telex messages. The site is alleged to be part of the ECHELON system, monitoring civilian communications satellites. During the early 1970s Menwith Hill appears to have been made capable of intercepting the downlink of civilian communication satellites, landed over northern Europe, when the first of more than eight large satellite communications dishes were installed.” Brown refers to the NRO/NSA listening post in Menwith Hill as part of the technology that saves the lives of his heroine Rachel and the scientists adrift on ice that has just calved off the Milne Ice Shelf. Rachel thuds out a low tech Morse code using her ice pick hoping the NRO’s Classic Wizard Global Surveillance System and the Cray computers would decipher her pounding and locate them.

mid-1970s SNC meteorites consisting of 12 meteorites led to speculation that the SNC meteorites may have originated from a planet-sized “parent body” in the inner solar system. Since it was first suggested in the mid-1970’s that this parent body may have been the planet Mars, intensive study has not only upheld this radical theory, but also provided a convincing foundation of evidence to support it. Careful study of the nakhlite group of meteorites conducted in the early- and mid-1970s by such workers as Papanastassiou and Wasserburg (1974) demonstrated that the nakhlite meteorites exhibited an anomalously young isochron crystallization age of 1.37 billion years, as determined by the rubidium-strontium [Rb-Sr] dating methodWeisstein 1996-2007.”

1975-1982 “NASA’s Viking Mission to Mars was composed of two spacecraft, Viking 1 and Viking 2, each consisting of an orbiter and a lander. The primary mission objectives were to obtain high resolution images of the Martian surface, characterize the structure and composition of the atmosphere and surface, and search for evidence of life. Viking 1 was launched on August 20, 1975 and arrived at Mars on June 19, 1976. The first month of orbit was devoted to imaging the surface to find appropriate landing sites for the Viking Landers. On July 20, 1976 the Viking 1 Lander separated from the Orbiter and touched down at Chryse Planitia (22.48° N, 49.97° W planetographic, 1.5 km below the datum (6.1 mbar) elevation). Viking 2 was launched September 9, 1975 and entered Mars orbit on August 7, 1976. The Viking 2 Lander touched down at Utopia Planitia (47.97° N, 225.74° W, 3 km below the datum elevation) on September 3, 1976. The Orbiters imaged the entire surface of Mars at a resolution of 150 to 300 meters, and selected areas at 8 meters. The lowest periapsis altitude for both Orbiters was 300 km. The Viking 2 Orbiter was powered down on July 25, 1978 after 706 orbits, and the Viking 1 Orbiter on August 17, 1980, after over 1400 orbits. The Orbiter images are available from NSSDC on CD-ROM and as photographic products. These images have been converted to digital image mosaics and maps , and these are also available from NSSDC on CD-ROM. An index giving the latitude and longitude of each Viking Orbiter image is available at the Viking FTP site. The Viking Landers transmitted images of the surface, took surface samples and analyzed them for composition and signs of life, studied atmospheric composition and meteorology, and deployed seismometers. The Viking 2 Lander ended communications on April 11, 1980, and the Viking 1 Lander on November 13, 1982, after transmitting over 1400 images of the two sites. Many of these images are also available from NSSDC online and as photographic products. Further information on the spacecraft, experiments, and data returned from the Viking missions can be found in the September 30, 1977 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research, “Scientific Results of the Viking Project”, vol. 82, no. 28 (Williams 2005).”

1986 “Hydrothermal plumes are created and sustained by the heat of volcanic processes along the Mid-Ocean Ridge system that circles the globe. Hydrothermal systems consists of circulation zones where seawater interacts with rock, thereby changing chemical and physical characteristics of both the seawater and the rock. The altered seawater, called hydrothermal fluid, is injected back into the ocean at hydrothermal vent fields and forms hydrothermal plumes. These plumes are often black or white with the color coming from mineral particles that precipitate rapidly as hot hydrothermal fluids (with temperatures as high as 340oC) mix with cold seawater (usually about 1-2oC) at or just below the vent orifice. “http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/PlumeStudies/plumes-whatis.html NOAA PMEL Vents Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce. “What is a hydrothermal plume?“

1989 Squidgygate refers to the pre-1990 telephone conversations between Diana, Princess of Wales and a close friend, James Gilbey, and to the controversy surrounding how those conversations were recorded. A tape recording of a conversation purporting to have taken place between the Princess of Wales and James Gilbey on New Year’s Eve 1989 was submitted by a UK newspaper for technical analysis. Mr Gilbey was supposed to have been using a cellular telephone, and the Princess of Wales to have been on a normal telephone line at Sandringham.

1992 The Sun newspaper publicly revealed the tapes’ existence in an article entitled “Squidgygate”, which is a cultural reference to the American Watergate scandal of the early 1970s.

1984-12-27 ALH 84001, the first meteorite found by a research team of US meteorite hunters from the ANSMET project in the research season of 1984-12-27 in the Allan Hills (-76° 55′ 13.00″, +156° 46′ 25.00″) an especially meteorite-rich area in the Trans-Antarctic Mountains lm of US meteorite hunters from the ANSMET project. In 1996-08 when NASA scientists announced that ALH 84001 might contain evidence for microscopic fossils of Martian bacteria it became a mass media sensation. See also wiki.The meteorite, ALH84001, was discovered in 1984 in the Allan Hills region of Antarctica  http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html Its research name indicates that it was the first meteorite found during the 1984 research season in the Allan Hills ALH.

1996 “A group of scientists led by David McKay of NASA’s Johnson Space Center published an article in the 16 August 1996 issue of Science magazine announcing the discovery of evidence for primitive bacterial life on Mars. An examination of a meteorite found in Antarctica and believed to be from Mars shows: 1) hydrocarbons which are the same as breakdown products of dead micro-organisms on Earth, 2) mineral phases consistent with by-products of bacterial activity, and 3) tiny carbonate globules which may be microfossils of the primitive bacteria, all within a few hundred-thousandths of an inch of each other. Based on age dating of the meteorite, the following scenario has been proposed: The original igneous rock solidified within Mars about 4.5 billion years ago, about 100 million years after the formation of the planet. (Based on isotope ages of the igneous component of the meteorite); Between 3.6 and 4 billion years ago the rock was fractured, presumably by meteorite impacts. Water then permeated the cracks, depositing carbonate minerals and allowing primitive bacteria to live in the fractures; About 3.6 billion years ago, the bacteria and their by-products became fossilized in the fractures. (Based on isotope ages of the minerals in the fractures); 16 million years ago, a large meteorite struck Mars, dislodging a large chunk of this rock and ejecting it into space. (Based on the cosmic ray exposure age of the meteorite); 13,000 years ago, the meteorite landed in Antarctica (Williams 2005).” See also “Using scanning electron microscopy and laser mass spectroscopy, a team led by David S. McKay identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the meteorite, as well as globules of carbonate and the minerals magnetite and iron sulfide. The carbonate globules are small elongated features resembling similar ones found on Earth which are believed to have formed in association with bacteria. McKay et al. (1996) determined their age to be approximately 3.6 billion years. All the unusual compounds found in the meteorite are associated with bacterial activity on Earth, PAHs with decay products of microorganisms and magnetite and iron sulfide with anaerobic bacteria. However, the presence of these compounds is not necessarily diagnostic for the presence of bacteria. McKay and his coworkers appear to have excluded the possibility that any of their discoveries represent terrestrial contamination, so the constituents they describe presumably must have formed while the meteorite was still on the surface (or shallow subsurface) of Mars. While the reported discoveries are intriguing and consistent with formation through biological activity (especially when taken together), this conclusion requires additional confirmation. It should be recalled that initial experiments on soil samples from one of the Viking landers were heralded as clear evidence of organic material, whereas subsequent laboratory work showed that the observed results could be reproduced with entirely inorganic soil constituents. While the presence of past life on Mars would be a scientific discovery of epic proportions and warrants the closest possible scrutiny, it is premature at this juncture to state that the existence of life on Mars, past or present, has been conclusively demonstrated Weisstein 1996-2007.”

1996 President Clinton and his science and technology adviser, Dr. Jack Gibbons, commented on the announcement by NASA. “This is the product of years of exploration and months of intensive study by some of the world’s most distinguished scientists. Like all discoveries, this one will and should continue to be reviewed, examined and scrutinized. It must be confirmed by other scientists. But clearly, the fact that something of this magnitude is being explored is another vindication of America’s space program and our continuing support for it, even in these tough financial times. I am determined that the American space program will put it’s full intellectual power and technological prowess behind the search for further evidence of life on Mars. First, I have asked Administrator Goldin to ensure that this finding is subject to a methodical process of further peer review and validation. Second, I have asked the Vice President to convene at the White House before the end of the year a bipartisan space summit on the future of America’s space program. A significant purpose of this summit will be to discuss how America should pursue answers to the scientific questions raised by this finding. Third, we are committed to the aggressive plan we have put in place for robotic exploration of Mars. America’s next unmanned mission to Mars is scheduled to lift off from the Kennedy Space Center in November. It will be followed by a second mission in December. I should tell you that the first mission is scheduled to land on Mars on July the 4th, 1997 — Independence Day. It is well worth contemplating how we reached this moment of discovery. More than 4 billion years ago this piece of rock was formed as a part of the original crust of Mars. After billions of years it broke from the surface and began a 16 million year journey through space that would end here on Earth. It arrived in a meteor shower 13,000 years ago. And in 1984 an American scientist on an annual U.S. government mission to search for meteors on Antarctica picked it up and took it to be studied. Appropriately, it was the first rock to be picked up that year — rock number 84001. Today, rock 84001 speaks to us across all those billions of years and millions of miles. It speaks of the possibility of life. If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can be imagined. Even as it promises answers to some of our oldest questions, it poses still others even more fundamental. We will continue to listen closely to what it has to say as we continue the search for answers and for knowledge that is as old as humanity itself but essential to our people’s future (Clinton 1996).”

2000-07-05 The European Parliament created a Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System and laid down its mandate as outlined in Chapter 1, 1.3. With a view to fulfilling that mandate, at its constituent meeting of 9 July 2000 the Temporary Committee appointed Gerhard Schmid rapporteur. They acknowledged that the “existence of a global system for intercepting communications, operating by means of cooperation proportionate to their capabilities among the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand under the UKUSA Agreement, [was] no longer in doubt; whereas it seems likely, in view of the evidence and the consistent pattern of statements from a very wide range of individuals and organisations, including American sources, that its name is in fact ECHELON, [and that] the purpose of the system is to intercept, at the very least, private and commercial communications, and not military communications, although the analysis carried out in the report has revealed that the technical capabilities of the system are probably not nearly as extensive as some sections of the media had assumed. [They also were both surprised and worried] that many senior Community figures, including European Commissioners, who gave evidence to the Temporary Committee claimed to be unaware of this phenomenon (EU).”

Notes

1. “The SNC meteorites, so named for the shergottite, nakhlite, and chassigny classes which comprise this group of petrologically similar specimens, consist of 12 meteorites that share a set of similar properties that are highly anomalous compared to other meteoritic samples. The investigation of these characteristic properties has led to speculation that the SNC meteorites may have originated from a planet-sized “parent body” in the inner solar system. Since it was first suggested in the mid-1970’s that this parent body may have been the planet Mars, intensive study has not only upheld this radical theory, but also provided a convincing foundation of evidence to support it. Careful study of the nakhlite group of meteorites conducted in the early- and mid-1970s by such workers as Papanastassiou and Wasserburg (1974) demonstrated that the nakhlite meteorites exhibited an anomalously young isochron crystallization age of 1.37 billion years, as determined by the rubidium-strontium [Rb-Sr] dating method. (At least one SNC meteorite, ALH84001, is much older, with an age of 4.5 billion years.) Weisstein 1996-2007.”

Viking Landers Gas bubbles trapped in one meteorite, EETA79001, have a composition which matches the current martian atmosphere as measured by the Viking Landers, compelling evidence that this meteorite and by association the others, including ALH84001, came from Mars.  

ALH84001 discovered in 1984 in the Allan Hills region of Antarctica, is the oldest Martian meteorite. “The original igneous rock solidified within Mars about 4.5 billion years ago, about 100 million years after the formation of the planet. (Based on isotope ages of the igneous component of the meteorite) (MaKay et al 1996). The ALH84001 is distinct from the SNC classification. Various articles in Science magazine reported signs of organic wormy-looking relics, Magnetotactic bacteria were present in Martian meteorite  ALH84001. The Martian meteorite stayed for 2 years stay in the Caltech …

Selected Bibliography and Webliography

Clinton, Bill. 1996-08-07. “President Clinton Statement Regarding Mars Meteorite Discovery“. NASA. Retrieved 2006-08-07.

Crenson, Matt. 2006-08-06. “After 10 years, few believe life on Mars.” AP.

http://diversitas.org http://www.uia.be/sites/uia.be/db/db/x.php

Handwerk, Brian. 2005-12-12. “Hydrothermal “Megaplume” Found in Indian Ocean.” National Geographic News.

McKay, David S. Gibson Jr, Everett. K.  Thomas-Keprta. 1996-08-16. ”Search for past life on Mars: possible relic biogenic activity in Martian meteorite ALH84001“. Science. sciencemag.org

Mellor, Chris. 2004-10-15. “Want to know the hardware behind Echelon? Uncle Sam using Texas’ SAM.” Techworld.

Weisstein, Eric W. 1996-2007. “SNC Meteors.” Wolfram Science World.

Williams, David R. 2005. “Evidence of Ancient Martian Life in Meteorite ALH84001?” National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC).

An ethics of happiness

“Les humains doivent se reconnaître dans leur humanité commune, en même temps que reconnaître leur diversité tant individuelle que culturelle (Edgar Morin).”

Le Mouvement Humanisation considère le sous-développement humain comme De plus en plus de personnes s’inquiètent de l’état actuel de l’humanité et de la planète.
http://mouvementhumanisation.org/

Timeline
2001-12-11 le Mouvement Humanisation fut légalement reconnu par le Gouvernement du Québec comme un organisme sans but lucratif. http://www.mouvementhumanisation.org/mouvement/historique/

Series of lectures on Shaw Tv August 2009L’éthique du bonheur:

“Une conférence dans laquelle Gaston Marcotte (professeur associé, Faculté des sciences de l’éducation, Université Laval et président fondateur du Mouvement Humanisation) propose une éthique du bonheur susceptible d’unir les humains dans un projet commun capable de transcender les différences culturelles.” canal savoir Shaw

418 656-3202 ou 1 877 785-2825, poste 3202

http://www.distance.ulaval.ca

distance@bfad.ulaval.ca
contact: Jean-Benoît Caron

l’horaire : 514 987-6633 ou 1 888 640-2626