All entries for Thursday 09 March 2006
March 09, 2006
With this piece of study titled 'HIV/AIDS and Security: fact, fiction and evidence' conducted by two LSE researchers I came across about such starry-eyed deduction on vectors of HIV/AIDS for the first time, though its main purpose is to protest against such proposition.
Is HIV/AIDS carried and spreaded by certain groups of people? There are always people kin to create myths, followed by supporter to mist it even more and protesters trying to clear the mess but nevertheless aroused the public curiosity hence the blame, hence the panic. Thus myths become even more mystified, and tabloids start to intervene – that's how we get to the chaotic point we are in now.
What I was trying to say was, as I believe I must not have made it clear, neither the previous studies proved HIV is spreaded by a certain group of people, nor has the new study proved they are wrong – not as much as I can see in the linked text. (Well, it can simply be because that was such a bad book review.)
I had several points before I tried to phrase them, such as
- It is pointless to focus on who carries it thus it seems there are people whom the public can blame. More effort should be made on how to develop medcines and how to make people aware of ways to protect themselves.
- Both arguments seem to bear too much hidden agendas between the lines. (Anti-international army force, pro-international military intervention)
But then, there are always things to argue against them, such as:
- Efficient protection for infections includes sorting out how to deal with the high risk groups.
- Even in the bio-chem labs, there must be leading ideologies that would affect the result. (Or is there?)
Bloody hell, social science = social chaos :S
The thing is, social scientists can never be 100% confident to ensure 100% efficient social policy.
Well, you can see how f**ked up I am with my current studies…