Real Science

Reorganization revisited: STEMM (Science Technology Engineering Math and Medicine) has become the new buzz word in higher education. It's where we're told the money is, and of course the name of the game is inevitably attracting new sources of revenue rather than actually educating students. Students of course, are and will remain our #1 source of revenue--never mind that educating the is supposed to be our primary mission.

So now we're in a perverse situation in which all units on campus attempt to fit themselves in the STEMM mold. And if we define "science" and "medicine" broadly, then I think we're talking about a large and diverse collection of programs that could fit under that very broad umbrella. But if we're all STEMM, then it ceases to be special (and specialized).

The question I keep coming to is whether we can truly build the large, diverse, and interconnected group of programs and faculty members needed to really build the kind of STEMM program that reflects the true and inclusive definitions of "science" and "health." Whose programs don't involve science at all? Or math? Or health? If the tent expands as it should, then the "specialities" will no longer feel so special. The "hard sciences" will lose their current place in the university hierarchy. The culture of the university has shown itself time and time again to be resistant to change, and those with status are always hesitant to give it up.

Let us not forget that sexism works into this in insidious ways. Those programs, like Human Ecology/FCS, tend to be viewed as traditionally feminine and are certainly female dominated. It is difficult for the "real scientists" to see themselves as having anything to gain from having us join their exclusive club. But time and time again, we learn how badly our perspective is needed. Healthcare cannot be delivered optimally without a comprehensive view of health that includes physical, mental, and spiritual health. We cannot deliver it only with specialists who do not understand the person as a whole functioning human being, but as a set of physical systems that house a disease. We can't ensure that we have healthy individuals without ensuring families are also functional. Workplaces must be less stressful. Consumers' interests must be understood and served. Nutrition and food safety are essential as well; in order to get the nutrition into people, we need to go shopping, go home, prepare food, serve it, and eat it together (we hope). This "feminine" orientation comes as natural to us as breathing, but comes as a revelation to those who consider themselves real scientists. The reality is that they need us much more than we need them.

Health

Human Ecology units are often combined or somehow reorganized with Education or Health. Either combination has the potential to work, depending on the cultures of the units involved and the leadership's commitment to making the new configuration work. Often it makes no practical difference at all. Different dean, same programs, life goes on.

As we talk about how we fit into health focused colleges, which I am not in principle opposed to (and which I think is consistent with the overall philosophy of our discipline), we need to be actively engaged in the process. If we are to fit into some new transdisciplinary concept of health, it helps to have a good definition of health to guide our leadership as they determine what fits with what. I suggest WHO's definition:
WHO definition of Health
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The correct bibliographic citation for the definition is:
Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.
The Definition has not been amended since 1948.
http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html.