Green Diabetes Summit 2021

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110498
Author(s):  
Kevin T. Nguyen ◽  
Nicole Y. Xu ◽  
Jennifer Y. Zhang ◽  
Trisha Shang ◽  
Ashley Y. DuBord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Home Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Life Cycle Stages ◽  
Diabetes Technology ◽  
Proper Disposal

On July 21, 2021, Diabetes Technology Society convened the virtual Green Diabetes Summit. The event consisted of 23 representatives from key stakeholder groups based in both the United States and Europe. The purposes of the summit were to (1) provide background on the complexity of addressing sustainability-related issues, including waste management, of diabetes devices from many different perspectives along the products’ life cycle stages, and (2) determine the feasibility and role of a coalition of stakeholders to find solutions, particularly in the design, use, and proper disposal of diabetes devices used in home care that no one stakeholder can resolve on their own.

Can Finance Change the World?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Jones
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
Solar Energy ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
Role Of Government ◽  
Global Center ◽  
The World

The chapter examines the role of government in green industries from 1980 to the present, using the examples of waste management and wind and solar energy. In waste, privatization and more stringent regulation encouraged the growth of global waste management companies, with huge differences in outcomes. The United States remained a laggard in recycling compared to Germany. In energy, the state of California virtually created the modern wind and solar industries in the 1980s; European governments, especially Denmark and Germany, made Europe the global center for renewable energy in the 1990s; the Chinese government made China and Chinese companies dominant in renewable energy from the 2000s. In all three cases there were significant inefficiencies in outcomes.

The Role of Gender and Sensation Seeking in Film Choice

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 97-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Smita C. Banerjee ◽  
Kathryn Greene ◽  
Marina Krcmar ◽  
Zhanna Bagdasarov ◽  
Dovile Ruginyte
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Sensation Seeking ◽  
Negative Mood ◽  
Positive Mood ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Arousal ◽  
Subject Design ◽  
Happy Mood

This study demonstrates the significance of individual difference factors, particularly gender and sensation seeking, in predicting media choice (examined through hypothetical descriptions of films that participants anticipated they would view). This study used a 2 (Positive mood/negative mood) × 2 (High arousal/low arousal) within-subject design with 544 undergraduate students recruited from a large northeastern university in the United States. Results showed that happy films and high arousal films were preferred over sad films and low-arousal films, respectively. In terms of gender differences, female viewers reported a greater preference than male viewers for happy-mood films. Also, male viewers reported a greater preference for high-arousal films compared to female viewers, and female viewers reported a greater preference for low-arousal films compared to male viewers. Finally, high sensation seekers reported a preference for high-arousal films. Implications for research design and importance of exploring media characteristics are discussed.

The link between coronavirus, anxiety, and religious beliefs in the United States and United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Rigoli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Stressful Event ◽  
Cultural Implications ◽  
The Impact

Research has shown that stress impacts on people’s religious beliefs. However, several aspects of this effect remain poorly understood, for example regarding the role of prior religiosity and stress-induced anxiety. This paper explores these aspects in the context of the recent coronavirus emergency. The latter has impacted dramatically on many people’s well-being; hence it can be considered a highly stressful event. Through online questionnaires administered to UK and USA citizens professing either Christian faith or no religion, this paper examines the impact of the coronavirus crisis upon common people’s religious beliefs. We found that, following the coronavirus emergency, strong believers reported higher confidence in their religious beliefs while non-believers reported increased scepticism towards religion. Moreover, for strong believers, higher anxiety elicited by the coronavirus threat was associated with increased strengthening of religious beliefs. Conversely, for non-believers, higher anxiety elicited by the coronavirus thereat was associated with increased scepticism towards religious beliefs. These observations are consistent with the notion that stress-induced anxiety enhances support for the ideology already embraced before a stressful event occurs. This study sheds light on the psychological and cultural implications of the coronavirus crisis, which represents one of the most serious health emergencies in recent times.

‘Does Law Matter to Anthropology?’

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-91
Author(s):  
Sally Engle Merry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Anthropology ◽  
American Anthropological Association ◽  
Law Schools ◽  
Relevant Question ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
Legal Training

This provocative question became the basis for a spirited discussion at the 2017 meeting of the American Anthropological Association. My first reaction, on hearing the question, was to ask, does anthropology care whether it matters to law? As a discipline, anthropology and the anthropology of law are producing excellent scholarship and have an active scholarly life. But in response to this forum’s provocation article, which clearly outlines the lack of courses on law and anthropology in law schools, I decided that the relevant question was, why doesn’t anthropology matter more to law than it does? The particular, most serious concern appears to be, why are there not more law and anthropology courses being offered in law schools? It is increasingly common for law faculty in the United States to have PhDs as well as JDs, so why are there so few anthropology/law PhD/JD faculty? Moreover, as there is growing consensus that law schools instil a certain way of thinking but lack preparation for the practice of law in reality and there is an explosion of interest in clinical legal training, why does this educational turn fail to provide a new role of legal anthropology, which focuses on the practice of law, in clinical legal training?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document