Politik Press: Volume 14, Issue 6

the POLITIK PRESS 10/21/13

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

The Health and Science Issue

the

POLITIK PRESS

Volume XIV, Issue VI

Volume XIV, Issue VI 1

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

the

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

POLITIK PRESS A publication of

JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Alex Clearfield & Rachel Cohen MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Katie Botto Christine Server CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato MARKETING & PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David

HEAD WRITER Ari Schaffer MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts COPY EDITOR Peter Lee STAFF WRITERS Akshai Bhatnagar Mike Bodner Henry Chen Virgil Doyle Dylan Etzel Rosellen Grant Sarallah Salehi Geordan Williams Chris Winer

VOLUME XIV, ISSUE VI OCTOBER 21st, 2013 2

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

INSIDE THIS ISSUE WEEK IN REVIEW ....................................................................

Page 4

Rosellen Grant ’16

THE CASUALTIES OF OUR WAR ON BREAST CANCER .............. Page 5 Eliza Schultz ’15

THE MARYLAND DESK

From Poverty to Affluence in Six Miles: Investigating the Social Determinants of Health in Charm City

.........................

Page 6

Alyssa Perkinson ’14

POLITICAL DEVICES MORE TAXING THAN MEDICAL ONES ......

Page 7

Dylan Etzel ’17

JOHNS HOPKINS AND THE PRIMARY CARE CRISIS ...............

Page 8

Rachel Cohen ’14

THE POLITICS OF CLIMATE-CHANGE DENIAL .......................

Page 9

Adrian Carney ’14

WE CAN BUT WE WON’T:

DIAGNOSING ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

................................................

Page 10

Leslie Sibener ’16

3

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

WEEK IN REVIEW

By Rosellen Grant ’16, Staff Writer Sleep: The Brain’s Swiffer?

A new study published in Science demonstrates that sleep might serve as the brain’s “housekeeper” by quickly clearing out toxins. In their tests of mice, the authors found that channels between neurons expand during sleep, allowing for an increase in the flow of cerebrospinal fluid. This liquid flushes out waste products that harm brain cells, possibly explaining why most people don’t think as clearly after a late night. One specific waste product, beta amyloid, has been associated with plaque buildup inside cells that contribute to Alzheimer’s. Although the findings have not been demonstrated in humans, they could uncover a better approach to the disease’s treatment.

Technical Difficulties With Affordable Care Act Website In its debut month, the “Obamacare” exchange website has experienced severe technological problems. The site, healthcare.gov, requires users to “register” before allowing them to sign up for insurance. This information is then vetted by the Department of Health and Human Services to discern whether or not the potential applicant qualifies for subsidies. According to Forbes, this was done purposefully. If visitors were able to view the price of their policies immediately, they would abandon their effort to enroll in a healthcare plan. Despite some efforts to address the issue, many still criticize the site, and it is unclear what other solutions the Obama administration will offer. In the online marketplace’s first week, only 36,000, out of the 1.01 million that registered, successfully enrolled in healthcare,.

Prejudice In Pain Relief According to a new study published this month in Pediatrics, ethnic and racial discrimination has infiltrated the emergency room. The analysis, conducted using 2006-2009 national data, considered visits by patients under 22-years-old to ERs for abdominal pain. The authors found that black patients were less likely to receive pain-relieving medication than white patients, and more likely to have a prolonged length of stay in the emergency department. However, the study found no disparity in the documentation of pain score, use of diagnostic procedures by ER doctors, or hospital admissions, furthering an unsettling image of prejudice within hospitals. PP

4

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

THE CASUALTIES OF OUR WAR ON BREAST CANCER

by Eliza Schultz ’15, Contributing Writer

O

ctober is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and our professional football teams and buckets of fried chicken are dressed accordingly: in pink.

The pink ribbon is again ubiquitous, along with the shirts and bracelets reaffirming our national goal to “save second base.”

Breast cancer has not always garnered the attention that it does today. The name of the disease was seldom spoken in public until the high-profile diagnoses of the beloved Shirley Temple and Betty Ford in the early 1970s. Peggy Orenstein writes that even in the years following these cases, the disease remained stigmatized to the point that the American Cancer Society opposed establishing support groups for post-mastectomy patients. Awareness was strikingly low: in the early 1980s, fewer than twenty percent of eligible women received annual mammograms, and the first Race for the Cure had only 800 participants.

By the numbers, current campaigns against breast cancer have been unmitigated successes. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) spends over $600 million each year on breast cancer research. Seventy percent of women at high-risk ages receive mammograms, a testament to the success of awareness campaigns and pressure on health care providers. Concern is widespread: over a single year period, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation raised $365 million in donations. The Race for the Cure that in 1983 could not reach one thousand participants now boasts over 1.6 million.

But many campaigns that have supported early-stage detection and research for safer treatment have removed from breast cancer the real-life narratives of the afflicted, replacing them with images of an idealized pair of breasts and the message to “save the ta-tas.” A video sponsored by Rethink Breast Cancer focuses on the breasts of a bikiniclad woman and displays text encouraging watchers to “save the boobs,” with no information about screening services, the first step in that effort. The experience of breast cancer is by no means sexual, yet many of the most visible campaigns against it equate it with sexual pleasure. While these campaigns have contributed to life-saving efforts, they have trivialized the disease,

leading critics to wonder whom they really intend to save: the women or their breasts.

Beyond the experience of breast cancer, some marketing campaigns have undermined it with respect to its pathology. For awareness month, many cosmetics companies sell products whose proceeds are donated to breast cancer foundations. This is despite the fact that chemicals used in some of these products are linked to the disease. Some high-fat foods are similarly “pinkwashed,” though they too are associated with breast cancer.

As America “paints the world pink,” other forms of cancer have nearly fallen by the wayside in comparison.

While lung cancer claims about four times as many lives per year as breast cancer, in 2012 the NCI spent $314.6 million on lung cancer research and $602.7 million on breast cancer. Though prostate cancer slightly exceeds breast cancer in cases, in 2012 the NCI allotted to it only $265.1 million. In 2010, when the Susan G. Komen Foundation raised $365 million in donations, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society received about $60 million, and its fundraising walk this year anticipates only a few thousand participants. September, dedicated to prostate cancer and lymphoma, came and went largely unnoticed, and I anticipate the same for lung cancer in November. There are no catchy and fetishized campaigns against these cancers, leading me to suspect that they are therefore underfunded and less cared for (though we have been spared images of a sexy pancreas and, importantly, self-defeating tactics).

One in 200 breast cancer survivors will develop leukemia as a result of their treatment, most of whom, along with thousands of blood cancer patients, will need stem cell transplants. Not all will be able to receive one, as there are not enough names in the registry to find donors. I reckon that, if those who have proclaimed their love for “boobies” and “second base” championed this meaningful cause, a few more people would be given another chance at life. But it is much sexier to save the “ta-tas” than bone marrows, lungs and prostates.

Unfortunately, the cost is human life. PP

5

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

MARYLAND DESK

By Alyssa Perkinson ’14, Contributing Writer

From Poverty to Affluence in Six Miles: Investigating the Social Determinants of Health in Charm City

N

orth Charles Street stretches the length of the entire city of Baltimore. This long straight road is dotted by benches stamped with the city’s famous motto “Baltimore—Greatest City in America,” but this is the only similarity shared between the addresses along the street. North Charles Street acts as a veritable spectrum of life in Baltimore, running through the well-to-do neighborhoods as well as those that are struggling.

Baltimore has been down on its luck in recent times, facing elevated crime rates and a dwindling population. While there are numerous possible explanations, Nobel prize winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz’s piece for The New York Times “Inequality is a Choice” offers a candid idea: that the inequality dividing the United States is not inevitable, but rather a decision made on the behalf of policymakers.

Stiglitz argues that inequality is increasing on both the national and international levels. The United States, in particular, “has some of the worst disparities in incomes and opportunities.” Stiglitz sees this as an unfortunate trend, writing rather dramatically that “if others follow America’s example, it does not portend well for the future.” He makes the claim that these inequalities have “devastating macroeconomic consequences” and are hurting society. Having a high school diploma now means less than it ever did before, and the high costs of attending college act as a barrier to the necessary levels of higher education. For Stiglitz, it is particularly worrying that such a small percentage of the American population receives such a large slice of the income pie. In 2012, the top 1 percent of Americans took home 22 percent of the nation’s income. Glancing down North Charles Street, it is clear that Baltimore reflects these national trends.

On top of the growing income gap, there are also significant correlations between location and health consequences. The health implications associated with certain living conditions in Baltimore have attracted much attention in recent years. According to the World

Health Organization, social determinants of health are defined as “avoidable inequalities between groups of people.” These “social and economic conditions” have huge impacts on individuals’ lives. In Baltimore City, nearly two-thirds of children qualify for Medicaid. This is higher than the national average, which is hovering slightly below twenty-five percent of children living in poverty. A report published by the Johns Hopkins Urban Health Institute shows that the City also has a life expectancy gap of twenty years.

Despite the high school dropout rate falling nearly six percent since 2004, and major progress being made on children exposed to toxic levels of lead paint, Baltimore still has a long way to go. Taking a look at the Baltimore Sun’s homicide map is not exactly encouraging, with 181 homicides this year already - most due to shootings.

Children are particularly susceptible to this violence. The Health and Well Being of Baltimore’s Children, Youth, and Families Report produced by the Urban Health Institute shows wide gaps in the percentage of children who feel safe at school. Only half of the children in Hamilton feel safe at school, compared to eighty-six percent of children in Mount Washington. Similar trends are also observed with regards to commuting to school.

So how do we move forward? Baltimore City is certainly working hard to improve these disparities, and recent years have seen a good deal of progress. Local organizations have been very active in motivating the public to action and in setting the political agenda. Mayor Stephanie RawlingsBlake has also set a variety of housing goals for the city by 2022. While the current political environment puts Stiglitz’s appeals for “shared prosperity” in jeopardy, his reminder that “none of this is inevitable” is a valuable lesson.

The Social Determinants of Health Symposium will be held on April 28, 2014. The goal of the symposium is to look into how quality of life impacts health. Students who are interested in this topic should be sure to keep an eye out for more details in the following months. PP

6

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

POLITICAL DEVICES MORE TAXING THAN MEDICAL ONES

by Dylan Etzel ’17, Staff Writer

A

s the government reopens without repealing Obamacare, it is interesting to note that the Medical Device Excise Tax remains intact despite being debated for hours on end. The provision entails a 2.3% tax on medical devices deemed taxable by the FDA. Politicians argued that numerous (Speaker John Boehner said “tens of thousands”) jobs would be lost due to the need to cut back on employment opportunities. However, not only are many of the common conceptions about the tax factually inaccurate; the extreme benefits of the tax are both real and widespread, and though parts of the tax seem arbitrary, critics should turn their gaze to other untouched areas of the health industry in order to grasp the full picture.

First, the twelve major companies listed by the RNC as needing to lay off employees amounted to a loss of 8,725 jobs at most. Yet, many of these jobs are actually overseas. As of last year, five of the ten largest producers of medical devices in the world (Siemens AG, Fresenius Medical Care, Koninklijke, Covidien, Novartis) were located outside of the United States. The manufacturer or importer incurs the tax, according to the IRS, so device producers abroad will be paying the tax. 8,725 jobs do not mean 8,725 American jobs, but it still means that all of the money generated will go to the United States government. Large medical device producers, like Stryker Corp., have stated that not all downsizing will result directly from the tax. Generally, in post-recession economics, job reduction removes inefficiencies and returns companies to productive levels. Last year Stryker Corp. actually reported increases in employment due to the expansion of the profitability of the field.

Secondly, the revenue raised is going to pay for Obamacare, which will provide medical coverage to low income persons and families. Thus, it is feasible to assume that some measure of the revenue from the tax, that goes directly to Americans in need, will return to the importers that can be taxed (i.e. hospitals and private care facilities, and manufacturers). This is because hospitals will likely need to increase the supply of medical devices in order to meet a demand implied by the increased affordability

of medical care. Thus, a low-income person who needs emergency health services requiring a medical device will have the cost paid by Obamacare. The money will go to the hospital though it may originate from device producers indirectly. An influx of money will facilitate paying for new equipment, which they will presumably need.

Companies are not even sure of the effects that the tax will have on employers. According to AdvaMed, advocates of the medical device industry, 73% of these companies have 20 or fewer employees. It would certainly be difficult to make large-scale cuts for a company of 15. Whether hospitals or manufacturers will pay the majority of the tax is still unclear.

Interestingly, larger scale employers, like prescription drug companies, are not affected by the tax. The immense profits raised by drug companies have been criticized in recent years, so some public health policymakers are frustrated that the tax is so entirely focused on the medical device industry. Many prescription drugs are covered by Obamacare. Why aren’t they to be taxed as well? Perhaps the fear is that a tax on prescription drugs would wind up raising prices.

Nonetheless, taxing other byproducts of the medical industry, such as drugs, would be an interesting response to the “bipartisan” disapproval of the medical device excise tax. Though certain members of Congress seem to be at the mercy of large employers and device makers like Medtronic, the influence of prescription drug makers is probably stronger. Many large health care providers, like Johnson & Johnson, produce both devices and drugs, but there are fewer small businesses that produce prescription drugs. A legitimate critique of the medical device tax is that it will stress the ability of smaller device manufacturers to grow; it seems that transferring part of the tax to producers of drugs would have been an appropriate solution. However, the benefits of the tax still outweigh the negatives because it provides necessary aid and funding to Obamacare. PP

7

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

JOHNS HOPKINS AND THE PRIMARY CARE CRISIS

by Rachel Cohen ’14, Editor-in-Chief

B

Some argue that this is not an either/or fight. That it’s okay for institutions like Johns Hopkins and Massachusetts General Hospital to train more specialists than primary care doctors, because specialists also face projected shortages. But this logic has some holes.

Johns Hopkins, one of the most elite medical institutions in the world, has been dragging its feet to address this problem. Between 2006 and 2008, of the 1,148 residents who graduated from Hopkins’ residency programs, only 8.97 percent went into primary care. Only two graduates went on to practice in a Federally Qualified Health Center (an organization that provides primary and preventive care to persons of all ages, regardless of their ability to pay or health insurance status), and not one participated the National Health Service Corps, a program designed to encourage doctors to practice in underserved areas.

A prestigious institution like Johns Hopkins should be producing the type of doctor we need the most in this economy, and studies shows that primary health care saves money in the long term both for the individual and for the US taxpayer. For example, a study released by the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing looked at individuals who qualify for Medicaid, and found that those who sought primary care were one-third less likely to need emergency visits, inpatient hospitalizations or preventable hospital admissions than those who didn’t.

But nearly sixty million Americans live in regions designated by the federal government as primary care shortage areas, even though many of them have health insurance.

y 2020, the Association of American Medical Colleges projects that there will be a shortage of at least 45,000 primary care doctors in the United States. That number is expected to reach 65,000 by 2025, as the Baby Boomer generation continues to retire en masse. And the battle will start feeling even more acute as an additional 32 million Americans begin seeking health care under the Affordable Care Act.

In 2009, Hopkins’s residency programs, which receive subsidies from the US government, cost taxpayers $80.7 million. While that number is minute compared to the $2.8 trillion America spends on healthcare, it can certainly be argued that we’re not producing enough of the most needed kinds of doctors, which impacts the efficiency and strength of our healthcare system.

Of course, this problem is bigger than Johns Hopkins.

According to a study by Academic Medicine, of the 759 residency sponsoring institutions, 158 produced no primary care graduates at all. Overall, only a quarter of all graduates enter primary care, and yet just a much smaller fraction of those will move to work where care is most scarcely found.

Medical education is expensive; according to the American Medical Association, the average graduate owes $140,000 in student loans. It’s understandable why students would be incentivized to specialize, where the profits are much greater, and where the time-consuming bureaucratic aspects of patient care are much less.

Compare the average earnings for a pediatrician, $171,000, to the average earnings for a urologist, $401,000.

Dr. Steve Kravet, the President of Johns Hopkins Community Physicians (JHCP) told me, “We recognize that a commitment to primary care is a key component of our ability to continue to lead the advancement of medicine locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally.” He pointed to JHCP’s 35 primary care locations throughout Baltimore and Washington, and said JHU doctors care for over 200,000 patients in urban, suburban and rural areas of need.

He also cited The Johns Hopkins Consortium for the Advancement of Primary Care, formed just two years ago, as a place to improve societal primary care and health outcomes. He told me that at their first annual retreat this past February, the deans of the Schools of Medicine, Nursing, and Public Health, as well as President Daniels all “spoke passionately” about our institutional commitment to primary care.

I’m glad to see Johns Hopkins stepping up to really prioritize primary care. It’s a crucial responsibility for such an influential medical institution. But I can’t help but wonder, given that people have been predicting this problem since as early as the 1960s, why it’s taken us so long. PP

8

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

THE POLITICS OF CLIMATE-CHANGE DENIAL

by Adrian Carney ’14, Contributing Writer On September 7th, the British newspaper The Daily Mail published a sensational article on the ‘recovery’ of Arctic sea ice coverage, reporting a 29% increase from last year. However, the article strategically neglected to mention that this number grew from the lowest level on record to the 6th lowest on record. On September 27th, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its annual report on climate change, and a slew of articles from The Telegraph, Forbes, and Fox News appeared shortly after, attempting to discredit the report with cherry picked quotes, statistics and data points taken out of context, and personal attacks on prominent environmentalists.

It would be easy to ridicule these most egregious instances of cherry-picking and faulty journalism, but this is a far more systemic problem not just in the media, but also within Congress. Well over half of Congressional Republicans deny that climate change exists and is caused by human activity. Could this whole example simply be ascribed to extraordinary levels of scientific illiteracy and ignorance?

Perhaps, but not entirely. These climate-change deniers are only a small part of a broader and more pervasive apparatus. In order to gain a fuller comprehension of this troubling problem, we must also take into account the anti-environmental media complex, ‘think-tanks’ which produce superficially credible bunk about climate change, and the influence of corporate lobbying and PACs - especially from industries which are reliant upon fossil fuels, such as coal mining, oil refining, or fracking.

After the Citizens United Supreme Court case, it has become only too easy for private foundations and businesses to fund candidates who would be most supportive of their financial and legal interests by granting them tax breaks and easing regulations. In order to drum up the votes for these candidates, funding is directed to an ‘echo chamber’ of independent sources, politicians, blogs, and ‘astroturf’ movements that create the false appearance of skepticism over a scientific issue and therefore an imaginary mandate for political action.

A similar mechanism can be observed over the evolution ‘debate’ as an impetus for educational standards.

The purpose of these ideas is to sow the seeds of doubt about climate change. This goes far beyond the reasoned skepticism which is necessary for experimentation and advancement of science. To be fair, even those scientists who do agree on the cause and nature of climate change have considerable differences of opinion on the speed of its effects and consequences. This is a natural consequence of the complexity of the climate and weather systems in which we live. However, what the opposition offers is not an empirical alternative, but instead an aggressive and willful ignorance about the severity of the problem and its possible consequences.

It is a debate over whether the democratic nature of our political process could reconcile itself with the nature of financial influence on the one hand, and the nature of the scientific method on the other.

The issue of climate change is not solely an issue of Arctic ice or warm winters, an attempt by special interests to overturn the process of scientific research, or a competition between corporate and individual interests.

The possible effects of climate change are so widereaching, and so contingent upon the actions of every industrialized nation, that even the non-compliance of one major actor could have severe consequences. The effects are not limited to extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy, but range from increased incidence of insect-borne diseases to food shortages and famines and water shortages.

This phenomenon highlights a greater need for scientific communication and literacy – not just the restatement of facts, but better communication, and instructing people to better consider how environmental factors could affect their lives. The scientific community has reached a broad consensus not only on what is happening, but also the role of our actions in the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Let us not feign ignorance on the issue, but instead debate what is to be done. PP

9

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

WE CAN BUT WE WON’T: ON DIAGNOSING ALZHEIMER’S

by Leslie Sibener ’16, Contributing Writer

T

his past summer, the Alzheimer’s community waited impatiently to hear if insurance would cover a potentially life saving diagnostic tool: a PET scan that detects amyloid, a telling symptom of Alzheimer’s disease. On September 27th, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) delivered the final blow, crushing the hope of millions of people. In their final decision memorandum, CMS offered “Coverage with Evidence Development” (CED).

But what does this mean exactly? Hardly anything. With CED, only a fraction of the people who could benefit from this test will receive it. CMS’s policy is inadequate compared to the substantial change that full coverage would provide nationwide.

This past summer I interned at the Alzheimer’s Association - the largest non-profit organization dedicated towards improving care, support and research for Alzheimer’s disease worldwide. In July, CMS’s first decision memorandum was released as CED. Our job for the next two months was to change CMS’s decision from CED to Full Coverage. I observed and helped craft what the Association’s next move should be in order to push for Full Coverage of the PET scan. What that came down to was clarifying to the CMS that the Alzheimer’s community deserved full coverage.

Full Coverage for the PET scan was never suggested to be available for every American off the street. Coverage was only for a specified few that met criteria defined by the Alzheimer’s Association and the Society for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Generally, these were people who were already diagnosed with dementia.

Although the presence of amyloid in the brain does not guarantee that the patient has Alzheimer’s, it does greatly increase the risk. Differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s takes three main symptoms into consideration; a diagnosis of dementia, presence of amyloid, and presence of another abnormal protein, tau. If a patient already diagnosed with dementia were then handed a positive scan for amyloid, they would have two out of three determinants in diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease.

Sadly, our work did not come to fruition. Even after continually explaining the evidence from experts worldwide, CMS delivered the same decision in September as they had in July. Not only has CMS ignored the worldwide consensus that the PET scan is a beneficial and effective diagnostic tool, they are also in conflict with their own policies. By denying appropriate patient access to beneficial research and technology, CMS is contradicting the United States National Alzheimer’s Project Act. In 2011, the CMS helped create this plan with the goal of developing novel and cuttingedge ways to treat, support, and diagnose patients living with Alzheimer’s disease. However, now CMS is paradoxically battling against itself and questioning the value of the only FDA-approved technology in detecting amyloid in the brain. The FDA and the European Commission, in 2012 and 2013, approved the drug used to detect amyloid.

Alzheimer’s Disease is the sixth-leading cause of death.

By 2050, is it projected that over 13 million Americans of all ages will be living with AD, and aggregate costs of care will grow to a staggering $1.2 trillion. The social and economic affect on the United States, and the world at large, cannot be ignored. However, this is what it seems like CMS is doing. It’s decision for CED will only cover one PET scan per patient who is enrolled in a clinical study, in spite of the overwhelming evidence against this course of action.

An accurate diagnosis alters the management of Alzheimer’s disease by allowing physicians and caregivers to appropriately treat patients. The immeasurable value of knowing can take one, two, or even three years off of a delayed or incorrect diagnosis that would occur without the scan. I’m left wondering how a federal agency that holds people’s lives in hand can be so careless when assessing the importance of helping those with Alzheimer’s. PP

10

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 21st, 2013 Photo credit: www.guidonps.com

The Triple Helix and JHU Politik Present:

Alzheimer’s: Conversations on an Enigmatic and Devastating Disease Join The Triple Helix and JHU Politik in a unique endeavor to understand Alzheimer’s disease as a scientific and societal phenomenon. We present four speakers who have dedicated their careers to promote awareness and increase understanding of the disease. Food and refreshments will be provided.

What: When: Where: Time:

Discussion Panel October 29, 2013 Gilman Atrium 7pm-9pm

Speakers: Ms. Janet Blount, Alzheimer’s Caregiver Dr. Suzana Petanceskas, Program Director of Division of Neuroscience at National Institute of Aging Mr. Jeffrey Last, Associate Director of Federal Affairs at Alzheimer’s Association Mr. Jerome Davidovich, founder and chair of Young Professionals for Alzheimer’s Awareness

11

Volume XIV, Issue VI

the

POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 21st, 2013

WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS

Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division

The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins campus with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning.

We’re lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics.

We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, of the city of Baltimore, of the domestic landscape of the United States, and then of the international community as well.

While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.

If interested e-mail us at

JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at

jhupolitik.org 12