PART 0 THROUGHLINE
Throughline Summary:
A record number of Americans have died from opioid overdoses in recent years. But how did we get here? And is this the first time Americans have faced this crisis? The short answer: no. Three stories of opioids that have plagued Americans for more than 150 years.
A record number of Americans have died from opioid overdoses in recent years. But how did we get here? And is this the first time Americans have faced this crisis? The short answer: no. Three stories of opioids that have plagued Americans for more than 150 years.
Essential Question:
Where did the american opium epidemic come from and why does it continue to get worse?
Where did the american opium epidemic come from and why does it continue to get worse?
Timeline Outline:
Morphine
Early 1800s frederick Sertürner working with poppy how to separate the alcholoyed
Morphine named after god of dreams Morpheus
Named the soldier's disease
Majority of addicts were women
1889 Aspirin wasn't on the market
Heroin
Behr released and marketed heroin directly to consumers as a safe alternative
Despite all studies and medical reports saying it was addictive
1920 prohibition
1924 heroin becomes illegal
1940’s opioids become a problem again after world war II
1951 congress passes the boggs act sentencing people for possession
Oxycontin
1996 purdue pharma releases oxycontin
2007 Purdue pharma admits to miscommunication of addictiveness of oxycontin
Morphine
Early 1800s frederick Sertürner working with poppy how to separate the alcholoyed
Morphine named after god of dreams Morpheus
Named the soldier's disease
Majority of addicts were women
1889 Aspirin wasn't on the market
Heroin
Behr released and marketed heroin directly to consumers as a safe alternative
Despite all studies and medical reports saying it was addictive
1920 prohibition
1924 heroin becomes illegal
1940’s opioids become a problem again after world war II
1951 congress passes the boggs act sentencing people for possession
Oxycontin
1996 purdue pharma releases oxycontin
2007 Purdue pharma admits to miscommunication of addictiveness of oxycontin
Part 1 Research
Where do conflicts of interest lie within the medical industry?
“Concerns about conflicts of interest have a long history; and the responses to these conflicts have evolved as relationships with industry in medical research, education, and practice have grown more frequent and more complex. They have also evolved as different responses to such relationships have been tried and found to be in need of modification.
The following brief review indicates, first, that both government regulations and voluntary codes of conduct often follow the discovery of instances of questionable or inappropriate relationships and conduct. This is similar to the pattern in other areas, such as the oversight of research involving human participants.1 Second, government scrutiny of conflicts of interest may stimulate private, voluntary efforts by academic and other institutions to deal with problems and avoid regulation. Third, when these efforts are found to be wanting and government acts, legislators and administrators may still delegate to regulated institutions many of the details of policy development, implementation, and monitoring.”(Field, pg.33)
“Pharmaceutical companies also sponsor symposia and medical conventions, offering medical practitioners opportunities to extend their education. These events often include free travel and other benefits, making it difficult to be anything but favorably inclined towards the sponsoring firms that help subsidize them. In medical schools, preceptors, teachers, department chairs, and deans may sit on drug companies’ boards of directors. Money from Big Pharma also supports educational programming within many medical schools and teaching hospitals. Company reps can gain access to doctors in these settings and promote their wares. This serves to reinforce a drug-intensive style of practice.”(Sekerka)
How does big pharma affect treatment across the united states?
“With some presidential candidates laying out details of their health care platforms, the cost of prescription drugs remains at the top of the public’s health care priority list for the President and Congress, the October Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds.
Making sure that high-cost drugs for chronic conditions, such as HIV, hepatitis, mental illness and cancer, are affordable for those who need them is the top priority, picked by more than three quarters of the public (77%). It was the top priority of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, with at least seven in 10 of each group citing it.
The public ranks government action to lower prescription drug costs second, with 63 percent saying it is a top priority, including a majority of Republicans (56%). That’s similar to the share of Republicans who say repealing the entire Affordable Care Act is a top priority (58%).”(Prescription Drug Costs Remain)
What role does the FDA play in big pharma marketing?
“The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates voted this month in favor of a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and medical devices. Its officers argued that such advertising “inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.”Only two nations in the world, the United States and New Zealand, allow consumer drug ads.
A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation published in late October found that a whopping 89 percent of the public favors requiring the Food and Drug Administration to review prescription-drug ads for accuracy before they are broadcast. The F.D.A. currently does little to crack down on them, possibly fearing it would violate court rulings protecting commercial free-speech rights. It has never imposed civil fines on a company for a misleading ad or promotion.”(Prescription Drug Costs Remain)
Is big pharma helping or hurting physicians?
“Also troubling is that healthcare professionals are continuously encouraged to resolve patients’ concerns by prescribing medications. Given the pressure to see more patients in less time, the system pushes physicians to provide quick prescription-driven remedies. As a result of DTCPAs, consumers’ can be psychologically manipulated and there is a greater likelihood for doctors to inappropriately prescribe certain drugs.”(Sekerka)
Works Cited
Board, The Editorial. “Turn the Volume Down on Drug Ads.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Nov. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/opinion/turn-the-volume-down-on-drug-ads.html.
Published: Oct 28, 2015. “Prescription Drug Costs Remain Atop the Public's National Health Care Agenda, Well Ahead of Affordable Care Act Revisions and Repeal.” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 29 Oct. 2015, www.kff.org/health-costs/press-release/prescription-drug-costs-remain-atop-the-publics-national-health-care-agenda-well-ahead-of-affordable-care-act-revisions-and-repeal/.
Research, Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical, et al. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. National Academies Press, 2009.
Sekerka, Leslie E., and Lauren Benishek. “Thick as Thieves? Big Pharma Wields Its Power with the Help of Government Regulation: Emory University School of Law: Atlanta, GA.” Emory University School of Law, law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-5/issue-2/essays/thieves-pharma-power-help-government-regulation.html.
“Why Doctors Are Losing the Public's Trust.” Physician's Weekly, 27 Apr. 2018, www.physiciansweekly.com/doctors-losing-publics-trust/.
“Concerns about conflicts of interest have a long history; and the responses to these conflicts have evolved as relationships with industry in medical research, education, and practice have grown more frequent and more complex. They have also evolved as different responses to such relationships have been tried and found to be in need of modification.
The following brief review indicates, first, that both government regulations and voluntary codes of conduct often follow the discovery of instances of questionable or inappropriate relationships and conduct. This is similar to the pattern in other areas, such as the oversight of research involving human participants.1 Second, government scrutiny of conflicts of interest may stimulate private, voluntary efforts by academic and other institutions to deal with problems and avoid regulation. Third, when these efforts are found to be wanting and government acts, legislators and administrators may still delegate to regulated institutions many of the details of policy development, implementation, and monitoring.”(Field, pg.33)
“Pharmaceutical companies also sponsor symposia and medical conventions, offering medical practitioners opportunities to extend their education. These events often include free travel and other benefits, making it difficult to be anything but favorably inclined towards the sponsoring firms that help subsidize them. In medical schools, preceptors, teachers, department chairs, and deans may sit on drug companies’ boards of directors. Money from Big Pharma also supports educational programming within many medical schools and teaching hospitals. Company reps can gain access to doctors in these settings and promote their wares. This serves to reinforce a drug-intensive style of practice.”(Sekerka)
How does big pharma affect treatment across the united states?
“With some presidential candidates laying out details of their health care platforms, the cost of prescription drugs remains at the top of the public’s health care priority list for the President and Congress, the October Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds.
Making sure that high-cost drugs for chronic conditions, such as HIV, hepatitis, mental illness and cancer, are affordable for those who need them is the top priority, picked by more than three quarters of the public (77%). It was the top priority of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, with at least seven in 10 of each group citing it.
The public ranks government action to lower prescription drug costs second, with 63 percent saying it is a top priority, including a majority of Republicans (56%). That’s similar to the share of Republicans who say repealing the entire Affordable Care Act is a top priority (58%).”(Prescription Drug Costs Remain)
What role does the FDA play in big pharma marketing?
“The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates voted this month in favor of a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and medical devices. Its officers argued that such advertising “inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.”Only two nations in the world, the United States and New Zealand, allow consumer drug ads.
A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation published in late October found that a whopping 89 percent of the public favors requiring the Food and Drug Administration to review prescription-drug ads for accuracy before they are broadcast. The F.D.A. currently does little to crack down on them, possibly fearing it would violate court rulings protecting commercial free-speech rights. It has never imposed civil fines on a company for a misleading ad or promotion.”(Prescription Drug Costs Remain)
Is big pharma helping or hurting physicians?
“Also troubling is that healthcare professionals are continuously encouraged to resolve patients’ concerns by prescribing medications. Given the pressure to see more patients in less time, the system pushes physicians to provide quick prescription-driven remedies. As a result of DTCPAs, consumers’ can be psychologically manipulated and there is a greater likelihood for doctors to inappropriately prescribe certain drugs.”(Sekerka)
Works Cited
Board, The Editorial. “Turn the Volume Down on Drug Ads.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Nov. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/opinion/turn-the-volume-down-on-drug-ads.html.
Published: Oct 28, 2015. “Prescription Drug Costs Remain Atop the Public's National Health Care Agenda, Well Ahead of Affordable Care Act Revisions and Repeal.” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 29 Oct. 2015, www.kff.org/health-costs/press-release/prescription-drug-costs-remain-atop-the-publics-national-health-care-agenda-well-ahead-of-affordable-care-act-revisions-and-repeal/.
Research, Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical, et al. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. National Academies Press, 2009.
Sekerka, Leslie E., and Lauren Benishek. “Thick as Thieves? Big Pharma Wields Its Power with the Help of Government Regulation: Emory University School of Law: Atlanta, GA.” Emory University School of Law, law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-5/issue-2/essays/thieves-pharma-power-help-government-regulation.html.
“Why Doctors Are Losing the Public's Trust.” Physician's Weekly, 27 Apr. 2018, www.physiciansweekly.com/doctors-losing-publics-trust/.
Part 2 Cover Letter
Americans spent $535 billion dollars last year on prescription drugs. That is enough money to send 13,375,000 students to college at $40,000 a year. That’s 68% of the current students currently enrolled in college. Pharmaceutical companies do spend a lot of money up front $2.6 billion on average to develop new drugs, however they make back what they spent and thensome once the product releases.
The problem doesn’t lie with all the new products under development or recently released, but the drugs on the market. Current name brand drugs are rising on average 9% a year 4 times inflation. That's the interesting part about this problem is that prices are only rising with name brand drugs, the price of generic drugs is actually dropping. In a report from health systems tracker they report, “Among the most commonly used specialty drugs, prices for branded drugs have risen by 57% since 2014, while prices for generic drugs dropped by 35%.”
So why are we still paying for name brand drugs why don’t doctors prescribe generic drugs. This leads into the next problem with big pharma. Pharmaceutical companies receive a substantial tax break for marketing direct to consumers. According to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “From 1997 through 2016, medical marketing expanded substantially, and spending increased from $17.7 to $29.9 billion,1 with direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs and health services accounting for the most rapid growth, and pharmaceutical marketing to health professionals accounting for most promotional spending.” The report also found that from 1997 through 2016, “the number of advertisements … increased from 79,000 (including 72,000 television commercials) in 1997 to 4.6 million (663,000 television2 commercials) in 2016.” Leslie E. Sekerka and Lauren Benishek in an essay say, “When consumers go to see their physician, their requests for specific medications they have seen advertised are likely to be honored. Doctors do not want to lose patients, and they need to move quickly. Given expectations to see greater numbers of patients, it may be easier and faster to write a prescription than to discuss alternatives. Consumers have also started to expect easy, passive medication-based solutions to health concerns, becoming less interested in discussing other options (e.g., diet, lifestyle changes) that may be less convenient, but better for their long-term health. Between 1999-2012 there were significant increases in adult prescription drugs: from 51% in 1999-2000 to 59% in 2011-2012. During the same time, the prevalence of polypharmacy (use of multiple drugs to treat a single ailment/condition) also increased from 8.2% to 15%.”3
High prices are the number one priority within the health sector that americans want to see reform around, in a report by Craig Palosky he states, “Making sure that high-cost drugs for chronic conditions, such as HIV, hepatitis, mental illness and cancer, are affordable for those who need them is the top priority, picked by more than three quarters of the public (77%). It was the top priority of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, with at least seven in 10 of each group citing it.
The public ranks government action to lower prescription drug costs second, with 63 percent saying it is a top priority, including a majority of Republicans (56%). That’s similar to the share of Republicans who say repealing the entire Affordable Care Act is a top priority (58%).” The fact that a large majority of Americans want to see reform around this problem begs the question of why is it not being talked about. The answer to this problem undoubtedly needs to be looked at with a utilitarian approach. With 77% of people wanting reform, but only 24% struggling to pay for medication this is a problem. The majority respects the needs of the minority so in order to solve this you need a more utilitarian approach to promote a just healthcare distribution system.
The problem doesn’t lie with all the new products under development or recently released, but the drugs on the market. Current name brand drugs are rising on average 9% a year 4 times inflation. That's the interesting part about this problem is that prices are only rising with name brand drugs, the price of generic drugs is actually dropping. In a report from health systems tracker they report, “Among the most commonly used specialty drugs, prices for branded drugs have risen by 57% since 2014, while prices for generic drugs dropped by 35%.”
So why are we still paying for name brand drugs why don’t doctors prescribe generic drugs. This leads into the next problem with big pharma. Pharmaceutical companies receive a substantial tax break for marketing direct to consumers. According to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “From 1997 through 2016, medical marketing expanded substantially, and spending increased from $17.7 to $29.9 billion,1 with direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs and health services accounting for the most rapid growth, and pharmaceutical marketing to health professionals accounting for most promotional spending.” The report also found that from 1997 through 2016, “the number of advertisements … increased from 79,000 (including 72,000 television commercials) in 1997 to 4.6 million (663,000 television2 commercials) in 2016.” Leslie E. Sekerka and Lauren Benishek in an essay say, “When consumers go to see their physician, their requests for specific medications they have seen advertised are likely to be honored. Doctors do not want to lose patients, and they need to move quickly. Given expectations to see greater numbers of patients, it may be easier and faster to write a prescription than to discuss alternatives. Consumers have also started to expect easy, passive medication-based solutions to health concerns, becoming less interested in discussing other options (e.g., diet, lifestyle changes) that may be less convenient, but better for their long-term health. Between 1999-2012 there were significant increases in adult prescription drugs: from 51% in 1999-2000 to 59% in 2011-2012. During the same time, the prevalence of polypharmacy (use of multiple drugs to treat a single ailment/condition) also increased from 8.2% to 15%.”3
High prices are the number one priority within the health sector that americans want to see reform around, in a report by Craig Palosky he states, “Making sure that high-cost drugs for chronic conditions, such as HIV, hepatitis, mental illness and cancer, are affordable for those who need them is the top priority, picked by more than three quarters of the public (77%). It was the top priority of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, with at least seven in 10 of each group citing it.
The public ranks government action to lower prescription drug costs second, with 63 percent saying it is a top priority, including a majority of Republicans (56%). That’s similar to the share of Republicans who say repealing the entire Affordable Care Act is a top priority (58%).” The fact that a large majority of Americans want to see reform around this problem begs the question of why is it not being talked about. The answer to this problem undoubtedly needs to be looked at with a utilitarian approach. With 77% of people wanting reform, but only 24% struggling to pay for medication this is a problem. The majority respects the needs of the minority so in order to solve this you need a more utilitarian approach to promote a just healthcare distribution system.
Part 3 APPROACH ANALYSIS
The approach:
Sanders and Khanna Bill to significantly lower prescription drug prices for patients in the United States by ending government-granted monopolies for manufacturers who charge drug prices that are higher than the median prices at which the drugs are available in other countries.
Summary of Bill:
If this bill were to pass it would put in place the first universal policy to regulate pharmaceutical drug prices within the United States. This bill limits the price a company can charge for a drug based upon how much it costs in the rest of the world. It states that all “excessively priced” drugs be identified and placed on the annual list. In order to determine if a drug is “excessively priced” the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Currently Alex Azar former president of Eli Lilly a pharmaceutical company that makes the Big Pharma list) must consider the following factors, (1) The size of the affected patient population. (2) The value of the drug to patients, including whether the price impacts access to the drug. (3) The Federal Government subsidies and investments related to the drug. (4) The costs associated with developing the drug. (5) Whether the drug provided a significant improvement in health outcomes when approved. (6) The cumulative global revenues generated by the drug. (7) Whether the price of the drug increased during any annual quarter by more than CPI-U. (8) Other factors the Secretary determines appropriate. If a drug is determined to be “excessively priced” the company must change pricing accordingly or generic companies will then have the ability to make a more affordable version of the drug. If a generic company chooses to do this they must pay “reasonable” royalties to the initial developer. The Secretary of Health and Human Services must yearly compile a list of “excessively priced” drugs and report on the findings to be released to the public. Drug manufacturers must also annually report domestic and international pricing for each drug they manufacture.
Analysis:
I believe this bill is important and should be passed. Citizens of the United States pay substantially more for name brand drugs than any other country in the world despite being developed with taxpayer money. Name brand pharmaceutical companies make on average a 23% profit. I completely think these companies should make a profit on their initial investment however 23% is excessive when we are talking about a $535 billion yearly industry. This approach makes sure that companies are still able to make the money they deserve without taking advantage of the american people. This approach if enacted will be the most effective to date in the US. I appreciate that this solution takes a holistic approach and makes sure that everyone is being taken care of in a fair and just manoR
Sanders and Khanna Bill to significantly lower prescription drug prices for patients in the United States by ending government-granted monopolies for manufacturers who charge drug prices that are higher than the median prices at which the drugs are available in other countries.
Summary of Bill:
If this bill were to pass it would put in place the first universal policy to regulate pharmaceutical drug prices within the United States. This bill limits the price a company can charge for a drug based upon how much it costs in the rest of the world. It states that all “excessively priced” drugs be identified and placed on the annual list. In order to determine if a drug is “excessively priced” the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Currently Alex Azar former president of Eli Lilly a pharmaceutical company that makes the Big Pharma list) must consider the following factors, (1) The size of the affected patient population. (2) The value of the drug to patients, including whether the price impacts access to the drug. (3) The Federal Government subsidies and investments related to the drug. (4) The costs associated with developing the drug. (5) Whether the drug provided a significant improvement in health outcomes when approved. (6) The cumulative global revenues generated by the drug. (7) Whether the price of the drug increased during any annual quarter by more than CPI-U. (8) Other factors the Secretary determines appropriate. If a drug is determined to be “excessively priced” the company must change pricing accordingly or generic companies will then have the ability to make a more affordable version of the drug. If a generic company chooses to do this they must pay “reasonable” royalties to the initial developer. The Secretary of Health and Human Services must yearly compile a list of “excessively priced” drugs and report on the findings to be released to the public. Drug manufacturers must also annually report domestic and international pricing for each drug they manufacture.
Analysis:
I believe this bill is important and should be passed. Citizens of the United States pay substantially more for name brand drugs than any other country in the world despite being developed with taxpayer money. Name brand pharmaceutical companies make on average a 23% profit. I completely think these companies should make a profit on their initial investment however 23% is excessive when we are talking about a $535 billion yearly industry. This approach makes sure that companies are still able to make the money they deserve without taking advantage of the american people. This approach if enacted will be the most effective to date in the US. I appreciate that this solution takes a holistic approach and makes sure that everyone is being taken care of in a fair and just manoR
PART 4 APPROACH
Summary:
My proposal is to educate people and encourage them to voice their opinion on the bill presented by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to enact the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act at the start of the new Congress to significantly reduce prescription drug prices for Americans. I plan to educate through a social media campaign
Audience:
My audience is citizens of the United States. If this bill passes it will have an effect on the entire US health system affecting a majority of US consumers. The purpose of this campaign would be to encourage my audience to reach out to their congressional representatives who make the final decision on this project.
Proposal:
Prescription drug prices are becoming more of struggle each day for american citizens. According to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation they found that 79% of people think that prescription drug prices are unreasonable. A different study states that this is the top priority of the government in regards to health care, stating that 77% of people want to see reform and more fare prices. There is a bill set to be on the agenda for the next congress that if passed would put in place the first government policy to limit the price of prescription drugs in a fair and economical way. As a national community we need to set our differences and disagreements aside to make sure our representatives know we are in support of this bill and want to see change and cut out corruption within the pharmaceutical industry. I am proposing a provided petition that people in support of the bill can sign and then it will be shared with their state representatives before the vote on the bill.
My proposal is to educate people and encourage them to voice their opinion on the bill presented by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to enact the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act at the start of the new Congress to significantly reduce prescription drug prices for Americans. I plan to educate through a social media campaign
Audience:
My audience is citizens of the United States. If this bill passes it will have an effect on the entire US health system affecting a majority of US consumers. The purpose of this campaign would be to encourage my audience to reach out to their congressional representatives who make the final decision on this project.
Proposal:
Prescription drug prices are becoming more of struggle each day for american citizens. According to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation they found that 79% of people think that prescription drug prices are unreasonable. A different study states that this is the top priority of the government in regards to health care, stating that 77% of people want to see reform and more fare prices. There is a bill set to be on the agenda for the next congress that if passed would put in place the first government policy to limit the price of prescription drugs in a fair and economical way. As a national community we need to set our differences and disagreements aside to make sure our representatives know we are in support of this bill and want to see change and cut out corruption within the pharmaceutical industry. I am proposing a provided petition that people in support of the bill can sign and then it will be shared with their state representatives before the vote on the bill.
Part 5 Reflection
To what extent did I choose an issue that I genuinely care about?
I chose a topic I was and still am very interested in my project morphed slightly with each part of this project to learn more about the problem as a whole. I started by looking into what conflicts of interest were present within the medical field and how that affects patient care and ended by looking at public policy and understanding better how our government works. Each one of my sub topics added value to me as an active citizen within the world. This is the field that I want to go into for a career and feel that it is my duty to understand both the good and bad parts of this industry before dedicating my education to it.
How does my proposal align with my own strengths, interests, especially in light of what I’m thinking about doing for my action project for Senior Project?
My proposal looks into the bad parts of the industry I will be entering within the coming years and despite having an understanding of the biology and the capital gain potential my proposal allowed me to look into how the system affects everyone both positively and negatively. For my senior project I'll be looking into stem cell research specifically the science behind it and the ethics and public perception behind it. I didn’t look at exactly this topic but I learned about the industry as a whole.
What did I learn from this process that will help me with my senior project?
What was the most valuable/informative/interesting part of this assignment?
The most valuable part of this project for me was learning how the industry I want to go into isn’t as honorable as I initially thought. However this did not make me not want to go into this industry any more, but instead gave me a bigger passion to go in and make a difference within the industry. Now that I have an understanding of the problems I can avoid them and help create change from within the industry.
What is the one thing I could have done to improve this project the most?
For this project I think the biggest way I could have improved is refining my cover letter more. I feel as if it doesn’t really show my perspective because of how valuable I thought my quotes were while trying to stay under the word limit. However in retrospect I would have been happier going over the word count but making sure my own understanding and perspective was present. I kept this in mind for the last three parts and I am really proud of what I have done. In the past I really procrastinate my writing and would turn this entire project in beyond late however I was so intrigued by the topic that I wanted to and was excited to do the assignment.
I chose a topic I was and still am very interested in my project morphed slightly with each part of this project to learn more about the problem as a whole. I started by looking into what conflicts of interest were present within the medical field and how that affects patient care and ended by looking at public policy and understanding better how our government works. Each one of my sub topics added value to me as an active citizen within the world. This is the field that I want to go into for a career and feel that it is my duty to understand both the good and bad parts of this industry before dedicating my education to it.
How does my proposal align with my own strengths, interests, especially in light of what I’m thinking about doing for my action project for Senior Project?
My proposal looks into the bad parts of the industry I will be entering within the coming years and despite having an understanding of the biology and the capital gain potential my proposal allowed me to look into how the system affects everyone both positively and negatively. For my senior project I'll be looking into stem cell research specifically the science behind it and the ethics and public perception behind it. I didn’t look at exactly this topic but I learned about the industry as a whole.
What did I learn from this process that will help me with my senior project?
- Research skills?
- Ways of being effective in making an impact?
What was the most valuable/informative/interesting part of this assignment?
The most valuable part of this project for me was learning how the industry I want to go into isn’t as honorable as I initially thought. However this did not make me not want to go into this industry any more, but instead gave me a bigger passion to go in and make a difference within the industry. Now that I have an understanding of the problems I can avoid them and help create change from within the industry.
What is the one thing I could have done to improve this project the most?
For this project I think the biggest way I could have improved is refining my cover letter more. I feel as if it doesn’t really show my perspective because of how valuable I thought my quotes were while trying to stay under the word limit. However in retrospect I would have been happier going over the word count but making sure my own understanding and perspective was present. I kept this in mind for the last three parts and I am really proud of what I have done. In the past I really procrastinate my writing and would turn this entire project in beyond late however I was so intrigued by the topic that I wanted to and was excited to do the assignment.