executive summaryWord count requirement: up to 600 words. Include a word count at the end of your assignment in parentheses [i.e. (598 words)]. Any assignment longer than what I ask for or that is missing the word count will be significantly marked down. For this assignment I am asking you to analyze The Executive Summary from the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. The complete document that this executive summary precedes can be found at https://archive.org/details/advisorycommitte00unit (Links to an external site.) but for your analysis I ask that you only report on what I have cut and pasted and present below in this module. In your analysis it is important that you show me that you are using the parts of our text that I have asked you to read for this week Chapter 8: “Technical Reports.” Please cite page numbers from this chapter of our text when you are using it to make your points. If you would like to use ideas from any of the other chapters we have read in our text you can do so but if you do you need to cite from these chapters. I suggest that you use up to the 600-word limit; the more you can say about this document as it relates to this part of the course the higher probability you will have of getting a strong grade. However quantity is not everything. Make sure that all the points you make are clearly stated and supported by the text. For your report I think it is best that you start out by describing the audience and its purpose. Both are tied closely together. What is the purpose of this document? Is it making an outright statement that might influence policymakers (politicians) citizens students educators company executives or members of nonprofit groups or political parties? If you believe that there is any group that might find a significant use of this document be specific about the group. For example say more than it can be used by citizens. What kinds of citizens? What uses might be made by this specific group of citizens? Explain the reasons for why you feel that the audience(s) you designate are in fact the target of this report. Following this look at the manner in which the document was written. Describe how the theory in the chapters that I asked you to read informs your response and cite the page numbers in Dragga/Tebeaux where you find ideas that best describe just how they informed your thinking. These chapters are basically about how information in technical documents is organized. How does the content come across to the reader because of the way it is organized? I am looking here to see how well you explain the “because” part of this question. Why rhetorically is the of elements important? For example why isnt the historical context first (make sure you discuss all the sections not just this one)? You have to understand the content of this piece to understand why the works effectively. How is the information ed? How is it broken down and presented? What is said in the report is important but also its arrangement and emphasis on certain things are also important. While you can show how this document works well I think you can also find much room for improvement in this document. If you were to rewrite this document how would you do it differently? Would you rearrange it? Could you make the main emphases any clearer? Would you decide to diminish some of the content while amplifying other kinds of content in The Executive Summary from the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments ? If you believe this is appropriate please explain why you would do this. If there are any ideas from chapters in Dragga/Tebeaux that we have read before this unit that you feel would also help you make your points about The Executive Summary from the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments please feel free to include them. If you do include information from these other chapters please cite the pages where you found the information. Again please cite page numbers from the text to show me that you have read carefully and can apply ideas from these chapters to this project. You can use parentheses for citing. For example if you take an idea from Dragga/Tebeaux that is on page 163 you would put (163) at the end of the sentence that you wrote in your organization report that pertains to this idea. This is standard MLA format. You do not have to include a works cited citation for Dragga/Tebeaux because I know what book you are citing from for this assignment. Please write your name the date my name and Organization Report at the top of the attached file that you send to me via the Assignments tool by the assigned due date. Publication Information The Creation of the Advisory Committee The Presidents Charge The Committees Approach The Historical Context Key Findings Key Recommendations Whats Next: The Advisory Committees Legacy PUBLICATION INFORMATION The Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (stock number 061-000-00-848-9) the supplemental volumes to the Final Report (stock numbers 061-000-00850-1 061-000-00851-9 and 061-000-00852-7) and additional copies of this Executive Summary (stock number 061-000-00849-7) may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office. All telephone s should be directed to: Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington D.C. 20402(202) 512-1800FAX (202) 512-22508 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern time M-F All mail s should be directed to: U.S. Government Printing OfficeP.O. Box 37l954Pittsburgh PA 15250-7954An Internet site containing ACHRE information (replicating the Advisory Committees original gopher) will be available at George Washington University. The site contains complete records of Advisory Committee actions as approved; complete descriptions of the primary research materials discovered and analyzed; complete descriptions of the print and non-print secondary resources used by the Advisory Committee; a copy of the Interim Report of October 21 1994 and other information. Printed in the United States of America On January 15 1994 President Clinton appointed the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. The President created the Committee to investigate reports of possibly unethical experiments funded by the government decades ago.The members of the Advisory Committee were fourteen private citizens from around the country: a representative of the general public and thirteen experts in bioethics radiation oncology and biology nuclear medicine epidemiology and biostatistics public health history of science and medicine and law. President Clinton asked us to deliver our recommendations to a Cabinet-level group the Human Radiation Interagency Working Group whose members are the Secretaries of Defense Energy Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs; the Attorney General; the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Director of Central Intelligence; and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Some of the experiments the Committee was asked to investigate and particularly a series that included the injection of plutonium into unsuspecting hospital patients were of special concern to Secretary of Energy Hazel OLeary. Her department had its origins in the federal agencies that had sponsored the plutonium experiments. These agencies were responsible for the development of nuclear weapons and during the Cold War their activities had been shrouded in secrecy. But now the Cold War was over.The controversy surrounding the plutonium experiments and others like them brought basic questions to the fore: How many experiments were conducted or sponsored by the government and why? How many were secret? Was anyone harmed? What was disclosed to those subjected to risk and what opportunity did they have for consent? By what rules should the past be judged? What remedies are due those who were wronged or harmed by the government in the past? How well do federal rules that today govern human experimentation work? What lessons can be learned for application to the future? Our Final Report provides the details of the Committees answers to these questions. This Executive Summary presents an overview of the work done by the Commit tee our findings and recommendations and the contents of the Final Report. The President directed the Advisory Committee to uncover the history of human radiation experiments during the period 1944 through 1974. It was in 1944 that the first known human radiation experiment of interest was planned and in 1974 that the Department of Health Education and Welfare adopted regulations governing the conduct of human research a watershed event in the history of federal protections for human subjects.In addition to asking us to investigate human radiation experiments the President directed us to examine cases in which the government had intentionally released radiation into the environ ment for research purposes. He further charged us with identifying the ethical and scientific standards for evaluating these events and with making recommendations to ensure that whatever wrongdoing may have occurred in the past cannot be repeated. We were asked to address human experiments and intentional releases that involved radiation. The ethical issues we addressed and the moral framework we developed are however applicable to all research involving human subjects.The breadth of the Committees charge was remarkable. We were called on to review government programs that spanned administrations from Franklin Roosevelt to Gerald Ford. As an independent advisory committee we were free to pursue our charge as we saw fit. The decisions we reached regarding the course of our inquiry and the nature of our findings and recommendations were entirely our own. At our first meeting we immediately realized that we were embarking on an intense and challenging investigation of an important aspect of our nations past and present a task that required new insights and difficult judgments about ethical questions that persist even today. Between April 1994 and July 1995 the Advisory Committee held sixteen public meetings most in Washington D.C. In addition subsets of Committee members presided over public forums in cities throughout the country. The Committee heard from more than 200 witnesses and interviewed dozens of professionals who were familiar with experiments involving radiation. A special effort called the Ethics Oral History Project was under taken to learn from eminent physicians about how research with human subjects was conducted in the l940s and 1950s.We were granted unprecedented access to government documents. The President directed all the federal agencies involved to make available to the Committee any documents that might further our inquiry wherever they might be located and whether or not they were still secret. As we began our search into the past we quickly discovered that it was going to be extremely difficult to piece together a coherent picture. Many critical documents had long since been forgotten and were stored in obscure locations throughout the country. Often they were buried in collections that bore no obvious connection to human radiation experiments. There was no easy way to identify how many experiments had been conducted where they took place and which government agencies had sponsored them. Nor was there a quick way to learn what rules applied to these experiments for the period prior to the mid-1960s. With the assistance of hundreds of federal officials and agency staff the Committee retrieved and reviewed hundreds of thousands of government documents. Some of the most important documents were secret and were declassified at our request. Even after this extraordinary effort the historical record remains incomplete. Some potentially important collections could not be located and were evidently lost or destroyed years ago. Nevertheless the documents that were recovered enabled us to identify nearly 4000 human radiation experiments sponsored by the federal government between 1944 and 1974. In the great majority of cases only fragmentary data was locatable; the identity of subjects and the specific radiation exposures involved were typically unavailable. Given the constraints of information even more so than time it was impossible for the Committee to review all these experiments nor could we evaluate the experiences of countless individual subjects. We thus decided to focus our investigation on representative case studies reflecting eight different categories of experiments that together addressed our charge and priorities. These case studies included: In addition to assessing the ethics of human radiation experiments conducted decades ago it was also important to explore the current conduct of human radiation research. Insofar as wrongdoing may have occurred in the past we needed to examine the likelihood that such things could happen today. We therefore undertook three projects: Since its discovery 100 years ago radioactivity has been a basic tool of medical research and diagnosis. In addition to the many uses of the x ray it was soon discovered that radiation could be used to treat cancer and that the introduction of “tracer” amounts of radioisotopes into the human body could help to diagnose disease and understand bodily processes. At the same time the perils of overexposure to radiation were becoming apparent. During World War II the new field of radiation science was at the center of one of the most ambitious and secret research efforts the world has known–the Manhattan Project. Human radiation experiments were undertaken in secret to help under stand radiation risks to workers engaged in the development of the atomic bomb.Following the war the new Atomic Energy Commission used facilities built to make the atomic bomb to produce radioisotopes for medical research and other peacetime uses. This highly publicized program provided the radioisotopes that were used in thousands of human experiments conducted in research facilities throughout the country and the world. This research in turn was part of a larger postwar transformation of biomedical research through the infusion of substantial government monies and technical support.The intersection of government and biomedical research brought with it new roles and new ethical questions for medical researchers. Many of these researchers were also physicians who operated within a tradition of medical ethics that enjoined them to put the interests of their patients first. When the doctor also was a researcher however the potential for conflict emerged between the advancement of science and the advancement of the patients wellbeing. Other ethical issues were posed as medical researchers were called on by government officials to play new roles in the development and testing of nuclear weapons. For example as advisers they were asked to provide human research data that could reassure officials about the effects of radiation but as scientists they were not always convinced that human research could provide scientifically useful data. Similarly as scientists they came from a tradition in which research results were freely debated. In their capacity as advisers to and officials of the government however these researchers found that the openness of science now needed to be constrained. None of these tensions were unique to radiation research. Radiation represents just one of several examples of the exploration of the weapons potential of new scientific discoveries during and after World War II. Similarly the tensions between clinical research and the treatment of patients were emerging throughout medical science and were not found only in research involving radiation. Not only were these issues not unique to radiation but they were not unique to the 1940s and 1950s. Today society still struggles with conflicts between the openness of science and the preservation of national security as well as with conflicts between the advancement of medical science and the rights and interests of patients. Human Radiation Experiments Intentional Releases Uranium Miners Secrecy and the Public Trust Contemporary Human Subjects Research Current Regulations on Secrecy in Human Research and Environmental Releases Other Findings The Committees complete findings including findings regarding experiments conducted in conjunction with atmospheric atomic testing and other population exposures appear in chapter 17 of the Final Report. Apologies and Compensation The government should deliver a personal individualized apology and provide financial compensation to those subjects of human radiation experiments or their next of kin in cases where: Uranium Miners Improved Protection for Human Subjects Secrecy: Balancing National Security and the Public Trust Current policies do not adequately safeguard against the recurrence of the kinds of events we studied that fostered distrust. The Advisory Committee concludes that there may be special circumstances in which it may be necessary to conduct human research or intentional releases in secret. However to the extent that the government conducts such activities with elements of secrecy special protections of the rights and interests of individuals and the public are needed. Research involving human subjects. The Advisory Committee recommends the adoption of federal policies requiring: Environmental releases. There must be independent review to assure that the action is needed that risk is minimized and that records will be kept to assure a proper accounting to the public at the earliest date consistent with legitimate national security con cerns. Specifically the Committee recommends that: Other Recommendations The Committees complete recommendations including recommendations regarding experiments conducted in conjunction with atmospheric atomic testing and other population exposures appear in chapter 18 of the Final Report. Interagency Working Group Review The Interagency Working Group will review our findings and recommendations and determine the next steps to be taken. Continued Public Right To Know The complete records assembled by the Committee are available to the public through the National Archives. Citizens wishing to know about experiments in which they or family members may have taken part will have continued access to the Committees database of 4000 experiments as well as the hundreds of thousands of further documents assembled by the Committee. The Final Report contains “A Citizens Guide to the Nations Archives: Where the Records Are and How to Find Them.” This guide explains how to find federal records how to obtain information and services from the member agencies of the Interagency Working Group and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission how to locate personal medical records and how to use the Advisory Committees collection.Supplemental volumes to the Final Report contain supporting documents and background material as well as an exhaustive index to sources and documentation. These volumes should prove useful to citizens scholars and others interested in pursuing the many dimensions of this history that we could not fully explore. Word count requirements: at least 800 words. Include a word count at the end of your assignment in parentheses [i.e. (1093 words)]. Any assignment shorter than what I ask for or that is missing the word count will be significantly marked down. This assignment should be submitted in memorandum format. Make sure to check the book for proper formatting. After taking a quiz on Chapter 9 in our text you will write a proposal using the Farnsworth case study as the basis for this assignment. You will be the “You” that Sol Weidman addresses in this PDF file and thus you will be representing Farnsworth. Remember when writing that you are not writing as an individual but rather as a representative of the company so while it is ok to use first person make sure it is in plural so this has the voice of a group rather than just yourself. Remember that a proposal is not a letter so there is no need to include a salutation (e.g. Dear Mr. Fenkel). In this proposal you need to carefully read from this PDF file so you can produce all of the information in your proposal. Of course you will write the proposal in your own words and use no quotes. Although your proposal is to be directed to certain people in the imagined community such as Vern Fenkel of the DNR make sure that I can also understand what you are writing. Consider the concern of Sol Weidman of Farnsworth Paperworks regarding proposals: “Keep the writing simple” . . . .”Those DNR people shuffle through a lot of paper and we want them to get the message fast” (153). Make sure your prose is accurate and readable. In Chapter 9 in our text there are a number of proposals that while different suggest the proper writing style for your proposal. Again make your proposal understandable to someone who might not quite understand all of the technical issues like you do but also make sure you dont make it too informal. On pages 221-231 in our text there are some good descriptions of the basic elements in a proposal. Your proposal should contain at minimum the following labeled sections: Summary This summary will be a short abstract of your overall proposal no longer than 75 words. I would suggest that you write the other sections of your proposal first then write your summary. Even though you are writing your summary last it will be the first element in your proposal. I know you know what an abstract is. Introduction If you want to break your introduction down into sections such as “Background” where you explain the history of the disposal situation in the region and “Problems with the Present Situation” where you detail your concerns this is fine. If you want to write a general introduction without these headings and just call it “Introduction” this is fine. What is key is that you make the issue you are writing about important to your readers. Proposed Solution Make sure that your solution addresses the problem in your Introduction and provide specific details. Your solution needs to sound plausible and like it is the most reasonable solution. A careful reading of the PDF file that I have linked to should provide enough information for this solution. Method As opposed to your Solution which is the overarching plan here you need to provide the kinds of activities you will use to accomplish this plan. Schedule Provide a realistic Schedule for accomplishing this task. This can be done in a simple list with dates that show how you have broken your Method down into steps. If you want you can make a simple table like either of the ones in our textbook on page 241 or 247. However I dont think you need to take 24-weeks to do the project like the project in our text; it should take less time.