Democracy and conflict: evidence from the New York Times

Presidential Power, the Panay Incident, and the Defeat of the Ludlow Amendment

Containing Conflicts of Interest

Mentorship in the 21st Century: Celebrating Uptake or Lamenting Lost Meaning?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Nathan Godfried, Fellow traveler of the air: Rod Holmgren and leftist radio news commentary in America's Cold War, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 24 (2004), 245. 2. Ellen Schrecker, introduction to Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Princeton, 1998), ix. 3. Any review of the historical literature on mainstream radio should begin with Erik Barnouw, A History of Broadcasting in the United States: a tower in Babel (New York, 1966) and A History of Broadcasting in the United States: the golden web (New York, 1968); John Dunning, On the Air: the encyclopedia of old-time radio (New York, 1998); Llewellyn White, The American Radio: a report on the broadcasting industry in the United States from the Commission on the Freedom of the Press (Chicago, 1947). Any historical review on broadcast journalists should begin with Stanley Cloud and Lynne Olson, The Murrow Boys: pioneers on the front lines of broadcast journalism (Boston, 1996), David Halberstam, The Powers That Be (New York, 1979), Lewis J. Paper, William S. Paley and the Making of CBS (New York, 1987), Alexander Kendrick, Prime Time: the life of Edward R. Murrow (Boston, 1969), A. M. Sperber, Murrow: his life and times (New York, 1986), Joseph E. Persico, Edward R. Murrow: an American original (New York, 1988). Studies exploring McCarthyism's effect on journalism include John Cogley, Report on Blacklisting: II Radio and television (n.p., 1956), Karen Sue Foley, The Political Blacklist in the Broadcast Industry: the decade of the 1950's (New York, 1979), David Everitt, A Shadow of Red: communism and the blacklist in radio and television (Chicago, 2007). 4. Schrecker, introduction to Many are the Crimes, xii. 5. Herbert Mitgang, William L. Shirer, New York Times, December 29, 1993, http://www.proquest.com. 6. William L. Shirer, 20th Century Journey: the start 1904–1930 (New York, 1976), 17. 7. Shirer, The Start, 60–62. 8. William L. Shirer, Berlin Diary: the journal of a foreign correspondent 1934–1941 (Tess Press, 2004), 64. 9. Shirer, Berlin Diary, 395, 474. 10. Publisher's Weekly, Best Sellers of 1941, January 17, 1942, 174. 11. John Dunning, On the Air, 506. 12. John L. Hess, William Shirer: A Matter of Character, New York Times, July 24, 1977, http://www.proquest.com. 13. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports Consumer Income, February 7, 1949, http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-005.pdf. 14. David Halberstam, The Powers That Be (New York, 1979), 133–4; William Shirer, 20th Century Journey: a native's return 1945–1988 (Boston, 1990), 93. 15. Halberstam, The Powers That Be, 134. 16. Harsch Will Succeed Shirer On CBS Time, New York Times, March 25, 1947, http://www.proquest.com. 17. Shirer is Dropped From CBS Program, New York Times, March 24, 1947, http://www.proquest.com. 18. Seymour Peck, William Shirer, Liberal Commentator, Gets Axe, PM, March 24, 1947, 19. 19. Evidently the Sponsor is Still the Boss, The Nation, March 29, 1947, 347. 20. Major Bowes’ Amateur Hour to Be Revived, Chicago Tribune, March 27, 1947, http://www.proquest.com. 21. Shirer Broadcast Wins Radio Honors, New York Times, April 18, 1947. http://www.proquest.com. 22. Jack Gould, Peabody Awards, New York Times, April 20, 1947. http://www.proquest.com. 23. A.M. Sperber, Murrow: His Life and Times, (New York, 1986) 280. 24. Sperber, Murrow: His Life and Times, 284–285, 289. 25. Sperber, Murrow: His Life and Times, 289. 26. Alexander Kendrick, Prime Time, 296–297. 27. Halberstam, The Powers That Be, 133. 28. Shirer, A Native's Return, 93–94. 29. Shirer, A Native's Return, 109. 30. Edward Bliss Jr., Now the News (New York, 1991), 204. 31. Shirer Broadcast Wins Radio Honors, New York Times, April 18, 1947, http://www.proquest.com. 32. Walter Goodman, The Committee (New York, 1968), 174. 33. Hits ‘Anti-Fascist’ Body, New York Times, December 21, 1945, http://www.proquest.com. 34. Anonymous to J. Edgar Hoover, March 17, 1942, Letter contained in FBI file of William Shirer. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Section File: 100-32853. 35. Anonymous to J. Edgar Hoover, July 28, 1943, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 36. J. Edgar Hoover to Unknown, August 10, 1943, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 37. William L. Shirer, Undated. Article contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 38. Shirer, Undated, Undated. Article contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 39. Shirer, Undated, Undated. Article contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 40. Anonymous, April 1945. Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 41. Accused Groups Deny disloyalty, New York Times, December 5, 1947, http://www.proquest.com. 42. Accused Groups Deny disloyalty, New York Times, December 5, 1947, http://www.proquest.com. 43. Hits ‘Anti-Fascist’ Body, New York Times, December 21, 1945, http://www.proquest.com. 44. Goodman, The Committee, 177–178. 45. Briton Likely to Ask Caution in U.N. on Meddling in Spain, New York Times, June 17, 1946, http://www.proquest.com. 46. Anonymous, April 1945, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 47. Eric Foner, American Freedom in a Global Age, The American Historical Review 106 (2001), 1–16. 48. L. B. Nichols to Mr. Tolson, October 21, 1946, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 49. Nichols to Tolson, October 21, 1946, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 50. Anonymous, October 25, 1946, Memo contained in the FBI file of William Shirer. 51. Anonymous, October 25, 1946, Memo contained in the FBI file of William Shirer. 52. Anonymous, March 17, 1947, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 53. Anonymous, March 25, 1947, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 54. Anonymous, April 12, 1947, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 55. Anonymous, December 22, 1952, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 56. Memorandum by J. Edgar Hoover, January 27, 1961, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 57. Anonymous, April 17, 1961, Memo contained in FBI file of William Shirer. 58. Merle Miller, The Judges and the Judged (Garden City, NY, 1952), 81–82. 59. David Everitt, A Shadow of Red (Chicago, 2007), 18. 60. American Business Consultants Inc., Red Channels: the report of communist influence in radio and television (New York, 1950), 6. 61. American Business Consultants Inc., Red Channels, 5. 62. American Business Consultants Inc., Red Channels, 7. 63. American Business Consultants Inc., Red Channels, 135–136. 64. Shirer, A Native's Return, 61. 65. Protest Radio Oustings, New York Times, May 9, 1947, http://www.proquest.com. 66. American Business Consultants Inc., Red Channels, 207. 67. Shirer, A Native's Return, 162. 68. American Business Consultants Inc., Red Channels, 136. 69. Members of the Hollywood Ten were: Alvah Bessie, a screenwriter, Herbert J. Biberman, a screenwriter and film director, Lester Cole, a screenwriter, Edward Dmytryk, a film director, Ring Lardner Jr., a screenwriter, John Howard Lawson, a writer, Albert Maltz, a screenwriter, Samuel Ornitz, a screenwriter, Adrian Scott, a screenwriter and producer, and Dalton Trumbo, a screenwriter. 70. Shirer, A Native's Return, 162–163. 71. Shirer, A Native's Return, 159. 72. Joan Cook, Harriet Pilpel, 79, Lawyer, Dies; An Advocate of Women's Rights, New York Times, April 24, 1991, http://www.proquest.com. 73. William L. Shirer to Harriet Pilpel, April 23, 1951, Shirer Papers, George T. Henry College Archives, Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 74. Shirer to Pilpel, April 23, 1951, Shirer Papers. 75. Shirer to Pilpel, October 18, 1951, Shirer Papers. 76. Shrecker, Many Are the Crimes, 219. 77. Shirer, A Native's Return, 167. 78. Harrison E. Salisbury, The Strange Correspondence of Morris Ernst and John Edgar Hoover 1939–1964, The Nation, December 1, 1984, 576. 79. Memorandum by William Shirer, September 20, 1951, Shirer Papers. 80. William L. Shirer to Davidson Taylor, January 28, 1952, Shirer Papers. 81. Taylor to Shirer, January 30, 1952, Shirer Papers. 82. William L. Shirer, Stranger Come Home, (Boston, 1954), 322. 83. Robert M. Hutchins, Zechariah Chafee Jr., John M. Clark, John Dickinson, William E. Hocking, Harold D. Lasswell, Archibald Macleish, Charles E. Merriam, Reinhold Niebuhr, Robert Redfield, Arthur M. Schlesinger, George Shuster, introduction to The American Radio, v. 84. Introduction to The American Radio, viii. 85. Shrecker, Many Are the Crimes, 243. 86. Herbert Mitgang, William L. Shirer, New York Times, December 29, 1993, http://www.proquest.com. 87. Big and Best-Selling, Newsweek, January 23, 1961, 85. 88. Alan Brinkley, In the Grip of the Nazi Past, New York Times, January 21, 1990, http://www.proquest.com and Herbert Mitgang, Books of the Times: The Rise of Hitler and What Rose With Him, New York Times, April 24, 1989, http://www.proquest.com. 89. John L. Hess, William Shirer: A Matter of Character, New York Times, July 24, 1977, http://www.proquest.com. 90. Hess, William Shirer: A Matter of Character. 91. Sperber, Murrow: His Life and Times, 292. 92. C. A. Waldron to CBS, March 26, 1947, Shirer Papers.

Public Diplomacy in the U.S. Supreme Court: The Warren Years—Part II Theodore M. Vestal (bio) Theodore M. Vestal Theodore M. Vestal is a professor of political science and teaches at the School of International Studies at Oklahoma State University. ENDNOTES 1. Leo Katcher, Earl Warren: A Political Biography (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), pp. 356, 405. The Warrens traveled to Canada for a two-week wedding trip in 1925. They stayed in “the grand old Empress Hotel in Victoria,” British Columbia. “The island, with its flowers and shrubbery, was beautiful, but the weather was atrocious.” There was a constant downpour for several days. The newlyweds entertained themselves by attending “a British trial.” Earl Warren, The Memoirs of Chief Justice Earl Warren (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1977), pp. 65–66. 2. Carey McWilliams, “The Education of Earl Warren,” The Nation, 12 October 1974, p. 326, quoted in Bernard Schwartz, Super Chief, Earl Warren and His Supreme Court (New York: New York University Press, 1983), p. 489. 3. Katcher, pp. 263–64; Christine L. Compston, Earl Warren: Justice for All (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 145. 4. Ed Cray, Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), p. 219. 5. Warren, Memoirs, pp. 262–63; John D. Weaver, Warren: The Man, The Court, The Era (Boston: Little Brown, 1967), p. 187; Cray, p. 248. Warren sat in a choir seat at Westminster Abbey and noticed Prime Minister Nehru sitting opposite him. 6. Warren, Memoirs, pp. 265–69; Cray, p. 249; Schwartz, pp. 1–7; Katcher, p. 301. 7. Consul General Ben Franklin Dixon, oral history interview, Foreign Affairs Oral History Collection of the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, American Memory, Library of Congress (CD-ROM, 2000) (hereafter Foreign Affairs Oral History Collection). 8. W.H. Lawrence, “Churchill Urges Patience in Coping with Red Dangers,” New York Times, June 27, 1954, p. 1. 9. “Warren on Vacation,” New York Times, June 15, 1955, p. 2. 10. “Finnish Press Spurns Red Peace Assembly,” New York Times, June 24, 1955, p. 9; “Warren Arrives in Norway,” New York Times, June 28, 1955, p. 7; Box 796, Address, Swedish-American celebration, Stockholm, Sweden, July 5, 1955, Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (hereafter EWPLC). 11. “Adenauer Entertains Warren,” New York Times, July 15, 1955, p. 2. 12. “C.J. Warren in Berlin,” New York Times, July 17, 1955, p. 3; “Warren Back from Europe,” New York Times, August 8, 1955, p. 8. 13. “San Juan Opens Courts Building,” New York Times, February 5, 1956, p. 79. 14. “Puerto Rico U. Gives Degree to Warren,” New York Times, February 6, 1956, p. 13. 15. Box 797, Address, dedication of U.S. Supreme Court law building, San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 4, 1956, EWPLC. See also Box 808, Address, first general session, Round Table Conference on Administration of Justice, Supreme Court Building, San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 5, 1962. 16. “San Juan Opens Courts Building,” New York Times, February 5, 1956, p. 79. 17. Warren, Memoirs, pp. 321–31; Box 801, Address, Law Society dinner, Guildhall, London, England, July 31, 1957, EWPLC. As a condition for his attending the ABA meeting, Warren succeeded in getting Vice President Richard Nixon “disinvited.” Cray. p. 340. 18. “Warren Honored in Visit to Dublin,” New York Times, August 2, 1957, p. 7; Cray, pp. 339–41. De Valera would be the guest of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington in 1964. 19. Did international travel and exposure to other ways of approaching legal questions effect Warren’s writing of opinions on the Court? According to Viki C. Jackson, “[s]ensitivity to international democratic norms was a marked feature in the Warren Court’s jurisprudence.” Viki C. Jackson, “The Early Hours of the Post-World War II Model of Constitutional Federalism: The Warren Court and the World,” in Harry N. Scheiber, ed., Earl Warren and the Warren Court: The Legacy in American and Foreign Law (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), p. 186; see Schwartz, pp. 313–19. 20. Richard Amper, “Warren Pleads for Moral Unity,” New York Times, September 16, 1957, p. 22; Schwartz, pp. 287–88. 21...

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Victoria Looseleaf, “A Female Force,” Dance Magazine, vol. 85, no. 3 (March 2011): 26–28, 30, 32. 2. Barbara Crockett, “Regional Dance America: Our Regional Heritage,” Dance Teacher Now, vol. 20, no. 6 (1998): 34, 36. 3. Victoria Morgan, “Deep Background: Theater and Dance Unite: A Voice Is Heard,” Dance/USA Journal, vol. 17, no. 1 (Summer 1999): 10–11, 13. 4. Lea Marshall, “‘Ballet Is Woman’? Not in the Artistic Director's Office,” Dance Magazine, May 4, 2010, http://www.dancemagazine.com/blogs/guest-blog/3349 (accessed December 7, 2011). 5. Judith Mackrell, “The ladies vanish,” The Guardian, May 12, 2009, 24, http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/may/13/dance-sadlers-wells-southbank?INTCMP=SRCH (accessed December 7, 2011). 6. John Martin, “The Dance: Events Ahead,” New York Times, September 27, 1942, X8; Anna Kisselgoff, “Bronislava Nijinska Is Dead at 81,” New York Times, February 23, 1972, 44; Jennifer Dunning, “Harlem Dancers and Diaghilev Days,” New York Times, January 28, 1983, C3; Anna Kisselgoff, “Nijinska, in Her Time, Was a Ballet Avant-Gardist,” New York Times, May 11, 1986, H9. 7. Jennifer Dunning, “Dance,” New York Times, April 4, 1982, TG3; Anna Kisselgoff, “Ballet: Pennsylvanians Open Season,” New York Times, April 7, 1982, C17. 8. Jennifer Dunning, “A Pennsylvanian Night of Dances by Women,” New York Times, April 9, 1982, C4. 9. Jennifer Dunning, “The Emphasis Is on the Avant-Garde,” New York Times, August 30, 1981, 72; Anna Kisselgoff, “Dance That Startles and Challenges Is Coming from Abroad,” New York Times, October 13, 1985, H1. 10. Jennifer Dunning, “Making Ballets, Just the Way Men Do,” New York Times, May 15, 1994, H8. 11. Robin Lakes, “The Messages behind the Methods: The Authoritarian Pedagogical Legacy in Western Concert Dance Technique Training and Rehearsals,” Arts Education Policy Review, vol. 106, no. 5 (2005): 3–18; see also, Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Random House, 1979), 135–69. 12. Alastair Macaulay, “For Ballet, Plots Thicken Or Just Stick?” New York Times, August 8, 2010, AR4. 13. Ibid.; see also, Alexandra Tomalonis, “Did Mrs. Harkness Win?” DanceView, vol. 24, no. 1 (2007): 19–25. 14. See Mindy Aloff, Preface, Agnes de Mille, Leaps in the Dark: Art and the World, ed. Mindy Aloff (Gainsville, Fl.: University Press of Florida, 2011), xiii–xIv. 15. See, for example, Joellen A. Meglin, “Blurring the Boundaries of Genre, Gender, and Geopolitics: Ruth Page and Harald Kreutzberg's Transatlantic Collaboration in the 1930s,” Dance Research Journal, vol. 41, no. 2 (2009): 52–75; Ann Barzel, “A Portrait of Catherine and Dorothie Littlefield,” in Dancing Female: Lives and Issues of Women in Contemporary Dance, ed. Sharon E. Friedler and Susan B. Glazer (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997): 23–44; Frank W. D. Ries, “Albertina Rasch: The Concert Career and the Concept of the American Ballet,” Dance Chronicle, vol. 7, no. 2 (1984): 159–97.

As warships from a dozen nations patrol the waters off Somalia, trying to stem the piratical tide, the international community is once again trying to rebuild a centralized government in Mogadishu ...

The Need for Physician Leadership in Creating a Culture of Safety

Since 2021, as countries around the world continue to understand the novel coronavirus, tracing the source of the novel coronavirus, developing vaccines, and improving epidemic prevention policies have become the top priority, as well as an important means to curb the continuous spread of the novel coronavirus. However, with the continuous coverage of COVID-19, The New York Times and other English-language media tried to attach a political attribute to a global plague by shifting the topic and distorting the facts, which is also an important reason for this paper to study the bias of The New York Times in its coverage of China's COVID-19 in 2021. Based on The New York Times’ news coverage of COVID-19 in China in 2021, this paper highlights the bias of New York Times from four aspects: the origin of COVID-19, the effectiveness of China-made vaccines, China's epidemic prevention policies, and China's COVID-19 data. This paper adopts the text analysis method to summarize the reporting tendency of The New York Times by selecting the news reports that are in line with the time and subject scope, analyzing the core of their reporting content and internal context meaning. Finally, this paper concludes that when it comes to the COVID-19 epidemic in China, The New York Times tends to bring most of the news events into the political framework by misleading the interviewees, avoiding the important points, and ignoring the reasons for questioning, and distorting China's international image.

Burying Culpability: The Killing Fields (1984), Us Foreign Policy, and the Political Limits of Film-Making in Reagan-Era America

The next American president's foreign policy will be conducted in the face of two main challenges. One is the legacy of George W. Bush: Iraq in particular, and a substantially weakened US strategic...

This article conducts a qualitative textual analysis of the New York Times’ 360-degree news reports that focus on international human rights issues, posing the following research questions: (1) How do the form and content of the New York Times’ 360-degree videos potentially help to construct the vividness and interactivity that virtual reality scholars say will contribute to a greater sense of telepresence? (2) In what ways do the form and content of the New York Times’ 360-degree video news reports reflect the tension between traditional notions of journalistic authority on the one hand, and the need to engage—on both ethical and economic levels—with news audiences on the other hand? The article will show that the news industry’s deep ambivalence toward giving up control of the journalistic narrative in the digital age is coded into the visual and aural structures of the videos, raising questions about the celebratory discourse on agency and interpersonal engagement with distant suffering.

In September 1954 the People's Republic of China began to bombard the offshore islands of Jinmen (Quemoy) and Mazu (Matsu) with artillery shells. China's action raised the spectre of a Chinese comm...

Bibliography

Photo by Adam Nieścioruk on Unsplash ABSTRACT Antibiotics are useful to stave off infection, though their misuse can be detrimental by creating drug-resistant infections. It is essential that we closely examine the leading causes of antibiotic resistance and consider the serious clinical and ethical ramifications around the issue. This paper will aim to achieve these goals, as well as to propose practical solutions directed towards combating this looming crisis. INTRODUCTION As drug companies race to develop vaccines and treatments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, other impending public health threats may easily be forgotten and tucked away for another day. Experts are warning that “the same governmental inaction that helped foster the rapid, worldwide spread of the coronavirus may spur an even deadlier epidemic of drug-resistant infection…”[1] Dr. Jeffrey R. Strich, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center remarked, “If there’s anything that this COVID-19 pandemic has taught the world, it is that being prepared is more cost-effective in the long run.”[2] Antibiotic resistant infections cause an estimated 700,000 annual deaths globally.[3] According to the Centers for Disease Control, in the United States alone, drug resistant infections sicken 2.8 million people annually and are responsible for at least 35,000 deaths each year.[4] The United Nations has suggested that, if the problem is not soon addressed, antibiotic resistant infections could kill up to 10 million people by 2050.[5] The genesis of antibiotic resistance is complex and multifaceted. Successfully combating antibiotic resistance will require a global response. This paper will closely examine the leading causes of antibiotic resistance. It will also devote discussion to the clinical and ethical ramifications of antibiotic use and misuse. Lastly, the paper will propose practical measures that countries, such as the US, should be taking now to help stem this ever-evolving public health emergency. I. Antibiotic misuse Antibiotic resistance develops when bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, and propelled by the forces of evolutionary selection, mutate over time to adapt to the antibiotics.[6] This process is greatly accelerated when bacteria are overexposed to antibiotics.[7] Overexposure occurs in two primary ways – the first is through overuse/misuse of antibiotics in humans and the second is misuse/overuse in animals. A. In humans According to studies, treatment decisions involving antibiotics, including whether to use an antibiotic, which antibiotic to use, and the appropriate duration of such use, are incorrect in 30 percent to 50 percent of cases.[8] Antibiotics may be overprescribed in cases where they are not truly needed, or the wrong type or dosage of antibiotic can be prescribed. These issues can contribute to the problem of antibiotic resistance.[9] In many cases, faulty clinical determinations can be attributed to the lack of available microbial testing. Consequently, healthcare providers are unable to properly identify and classify bacteria, thus impairing their ability to make clinically sound treatment decisions. In one US study involving hospitalized patients suffering from community acquired pneumonia, for example, a pathogen was identified in only 7.6% of cases.[10] There is existing technology, specifically polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and semiquantitative PCR, that accurately identifies pathogens in approximately 89 percent of cases.[11] However, this technology is not widely used. When healthcare providers do use testing, they often rely upon culture testing, which is not rapid response and can delay proper treatment assessments.[12] As a result, providers may substitute inappropriate antibiotics in the interim. Another type of antibiotic misuse among humans occurs when patients stop their antibiotic regimens prematurely, thereby allowing harmless bacteria, not fully eradicated due to the abbreviated treatment, to acquire resistance. This resistance is then genetically transferred to dangerous bacteria.[13] Antibiotic resistance is also an unfortunate, frequent occurrence in developing countries where antibiotics are often available without a prescription and can be accessed through unregulated supply chains.[14] Developing nations also frequently suffer from a dearth of standard antibiotic treatment guidelines, which further precipitates antibiotic overprescribing.[15] B. In animals Approximately half of the world’s consumption of antibiotics is for agricultural purposes.[16] In the US, only 20 percent of antibiotic sales are intended for human use, while the remaining 80 percent is for use in livestock.[17] Despite this gross disparity, only 10 percent of publications discussing antibiotic resistance address the role that misuse of antibiotics in animals plays.[18] Antibiotic misuse in animals contributes to antibiotic resistance. Farmers and agribusinesses widely distribute antibiotics, through feed or water, to healthy animal populations for non-therapeutic purposes -- including for growth promotion and disease prevention.[19] The need for antibiotic use for disease prevention arises when animals’ living quarters are cramped and prone to disease.[20] Low concentrations of antibiotics have routinely been observed in the gastrointestinal tracts of livestock.[21] The presence of sub-therapeutic levels of these drugs fosters the growth of resistant bacteria and antibiotic resistance genes in the animals’ guts.[22] When the animals that have developed these resistant bacteria and genes are used as sources of food, both the bacteria and genes are passed along to the food supply, contaminating milk, meat, and eggs.[23] Because the antibiotics used in animals are those that have critically important human applications, the resistant bacteria and genes that develop in response to these drugs can destroy the prospect of their use as effective treatment options in both animals and humans.[24] According to the Environmental Working Group, supermarket meat and poultry contain extremely high levels of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Specifically, ground turkey was found to contain 79 percent resistant bacteria, pork 71 percent, ground beef 62 percent, and chicken 36 percent.[25] While antibiotic resistant bacteria may be killed with proper levels of heat (from cooking, for instance), antibiotic resistance DNA that accompanies the bacteria is not always eradicated. This resistance can then be transferred to the humans who consume it, conferring resistance upon otherwise benign bacteria in their digestive systems.[26] Resistant bacteria and genes contained in animal waste can also enter the environment as pollutants, settling in the ground, air, and water systems.[27] This further increases the transmissibility of antibiotic resistance from animals to humans and, ultimately, from human to human when a person acquires an antibiotic resistant infection from food and/or the environment and passes it along to others.[28] Another unintended adverse consequence of antibiotic use in animals is that foods like meat, milk, and eggs often contain antibiotic residues.[29] Since up to 90 percent of antibiotics are excreted through an animal’s waste, the drugs may also pollute the ground and groundwater.[30] Unnecessarily prolonged exposure to antibiotics increases the risk of acquiring bacterial resistance and/or an antibiotic resistant infection. The constant exposure to antibiotics can have other adverse health effects, ranging from drug hypersensitivity to carcinogenic effects.[31] II. Ethical considerations and obligations of stakeholders A. Tackling antibiotic resistance created through the healthcare sector First, with respect to antibiotic misuse in humans, there needs to be vastly scaled-up pathogenic testing. This will help ensure that treatment decisions involving antibiotics are made with empirical data, rather than being an exercise in supposition. Increased testing would lead to a reduction in unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions and scripts for the wrong antibiotic. PCR technology should be made widely available, at least until more effective testing is developed. At the most basic level, physicians should seek out this testing to make it available in their practices and hospitals. Third-party payors should be poised to approve the costs associated with these tests, since they may expedite improvements in patients’ health, thereby resulting in an overall cost savings. The pharmaceutical industry should also develop accurate, rapid testing technology. Rapid testing could abbreviate patients’ immediate illnesses, because knowledge provided by testing can help physicians quickly determine proper diagnoses. This will allow them to immediately prescribe the correct antibiotics. Finally, on a global level, countries that lack regulations around antibiotic access and use must implement sufficient restrictions. Addressing antibiotic resistance on a global level is imperative. Like with COVID-19, from a pragmatic and ethical perspective, we must create global solutions to antibiotic resistance to prevent resistant bacteria from spreading.[32] B. Ethical considerations around antibiotic prescriptions for human use Some ethicists have argued that antibiotics are a public good, and their overuse can result in a sort of “tragedy of the commons.”[33] In order to ensure the equitable distribution of antibiotics for all patients, society must create disincentives around antibiotic use. One such proposal involves taxing patients who use antibiotics for “minor and self-limiting” infections.[34] However, patients should not be punished for following their physicians’ recommendations. Things like taxing schemes unjustifiably interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and can result in adverse clinical consequences for patients. Others have asserted that physicians owe a duty of care to both present and future patients. Pursuant to this argument, physicians are ethically justified in increasing the risk of harm to present patients by a “small” amount by denying them antibiotics, if, in doing so, they are decreasing a significant risk of harm to future patients.[35] As per the Hippocratic Oath, physicians have an obligation first and foremost, to their current patients. This duty includes the obligation to act for the good of the patient (with beneficence) and to prevent harm from befalling the patient (non-maleficence). Nowhere in the Oath does it say that “a little” harm is acceptable. Failing to provide a patient with an antibiotic when it is warranted in order to “preserve” the drug for use by future patients is a violation of the physicians’ bioethical obligations to the patient. There are cases where it may be in patients’ best interests to avoid antibiotics, thus decreasing their own risk of antibiotic resistance from superfluous use. However, physicians must make these determinations on a case-by-case basis, relying on clinical evidence, rather than an impermissible ethical imperative to future patients. It is also a breach of the patient’s right of autonomy if the patient believes the physician is acting strictly in his or her best interest and relies on the physician’s treatment recommendations due to this belief. From a clinical perspective, a “small” amount of harm could easily become a “large” amount of harm, depending upon the patient and the infection at issue. A physician could also misjudge the level of risk involved in depriving a patient of an antibiotic, thereby creating an increased risk of morbidity or mortality for the patient. This is not to imply that the physician is never justified in proposing a reasonable waiting period before prescribing an antibiotic in order to determine if the illness is self-limiting and begins to improve on its own. However, again, this decision should be driven strictly by clinical criteria and the best interest of the present patient. In addition, proposals that seek to disincentivize antibiotic use can be clinically and ethically dangerous. Although prudence around antibiotic use is necessary, physicians should not be dissuaded from prescribing them when, in the physicians’ clinical judgements, they are necessary. Without antibiotics, seemingly benign infections can quickly turn deadly. Untreated bronchitis can rapidly progress to pneumonia. Untreated strep throat can lead to heart damage. A lingering urinary tract infection can induce sepsis.[1] III. Combating antibiotic resistance created by the agricultural sector As one scholar aptly observed, “[t]he current debate on the ethics of [antimicrobial resistance] is heavily and disproportionately focused on the use of antibiotics in humans…this focus reflects the traditional discourse in medical ethics…”[36] It seems relevant to note the seeming irrationality of ethicists advocating for withholding antibiotics from people while failing to consider the widespread, indiscriminate, unregulated use of antibiotics in the agricultural sector. The bottom line is that the focus on antibiotic use in humans, while important, cannot overshadow the substantial role that antibiotic use in animals has played in the antibiotic resistance crisis. There are several key stakeholders that are under an ethical obligation to take immediate action. The FDA should create a rule immediately banning the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in healthy animals. The FDA took a small step in 2017 towards limiting antibiotic use in healthy animals when it finally restricted farms from using medically important drugs as growth promotion agents for animals.[37] This move, however, has been described as grossly insufficient. For one, antibiotics can still be used in healthy animals for purposes other than growth promotion, such as for “preventive health” purposes or in “times of stress,” which the FDA never clearly defines.[38] Therefore, the newly imposed restriction is easy to circumvent. Farms simply can purchase antibiotics for use as a “preventive health” measure rather than for growth promotion purposes.[39] To complicate matters further, at least 30 percent of antibiotics intended for animals have labels that lack any parameters around duration of use, meaning they can be used indefinitely throughout animals’ lives.[40] Farms and pharmaceutical companies are still promoting “growth” as an ancillary benefit of antibiotics, encouraging their unbridled use.[41] The next measure that the FDA must implement is the elimination of crowded, inhumane animal conditions in farms which create the need to administer “preventive” antibiotics. It is well established that “[a]ntibiotics are used at subtherapeutic levels to promote growth and to prevent disease in the extremely crowded conditions that food animals are raised in.”[42] The conditions present in many livestock farms has been compared to crowded hospitals “where everyone is given antibiotics, patients lie in unchanged beds, hygiene is nonexistent, infections and re-infections are rife, waste is thrown out the window, and visitors enter and leave at will.”[43] Eliminating crowded conditions will greatly reduce the need for preventive antibiotics. Finally, the FDA must establish a surveillance and enforcement mechanism to ensure proper compliance with limiting antibiotic use in healthy animals and addressing crowded conditions. Surprisingly, and notwithstanding the documented link between antibiotic use in animals and adverse human health effects, the FDA lacks any means of monitoring farms’ use of antibiotics in animals. The only measure it uses to assess possible antibiotic use is the sale of antibiotics to farms.[44] The pharmaceutical and chemical companies that manufacture the antibiotics are required to provide this information to the FDA.[45] Although reports have indicated that around 80 percent of antibiotics are sold for agricultural purposes, the FDA contends that it cannot discern actual use from these numbers. At the same time, the FDA has failed to create any other rules that would establish an alternative means of monitoring use.[46] As a New York Times investigation revealed, public health investigators are often unable to access the most basic information regarding a farm’s practices.[47] The agricultural industry constructs roadblocks so that the government’s access to farms, and how they are using antibiotics in animals, is hindered.[48] Further complicating the matter are conflicts of interest where livestock industry executives hold high positions on advisory committees for government agencies, such as the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).[49] The USDA does have a monitoring system that studies antibiotic use in the agricultural sector.[50] However, as an expert in a recent Washington Post article opined, “[t]he USDA’s oversight is laissez-faire. They test such a small fraction it can’t even be taken seriously…and they rotate the drugs they are testing for, because they can’t afford to test for all of them. They just don’t have the funds to do it. We raise 9 billion animals, and they test hundreds of cattle, not even thousands.”[51] The USDA’s antibiotic surveillance system also relies upon agricultural industry self-reporting, using voluntary questionnaires,[52] which calls into question the completeness and veracity of the data. In addition to the US government, the pharmaceutical industry must also help reign in imprudent antibiotic use in the agricultural sector. In 2007, legislation was introduced that would have required drug manufacturers to phase out use of antibiotics for healthy animals.[53] The meat and poultry industries, and several major pharmaceutical companies opposed the legislation.[54] It is ethically incumbent upon the pharmaceutical industry to support the fight against antibiotic resistance. The industry creates the products, doing a great deal of good, so some may argue they should not be tasked with overseeing poor uses of their products. But the pharmaceutical industry should encourage measures that ensure the responsible use of their products. It should also refrain from touting the “ancillary benefits” of antibiotics, such as “growth promotion,” which encourages their injudicious and illegal use. Consumers pay the ethical price of all three industries’ actions. People eating animal products have no opportunity to consent to the use of antibiotics. Although they may choose antibiotic-free meat and dairy, or choose not to consume animal products, people do not have the opportunity to consent to the presence of antibiotic residues, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and resistance genes in their food supply, and they may not be aware of the risks. Consumers bear the burden while industries profit. While there are animal food products designated “organic,” and their producers allege that no antibiotics were used in their production use, these foods tend to be significantly more expensive than food that is not organic. Therefore, those in lower socio-economic brackets are forced to buy foods that are detrimental to their health, while those in higher brackets can afford healthier food products. This is a violation of the ethical principle of distributive justice. Industry must work to find innovative ways to level the playing field and make all food safe for consumers, regardless of economic disposition. Simply put, no consumer should have to worry about antibiotics, antibiotic resistant bacteria, or resistance genes in their food supply. IV. Creating incentives around antibiotic development Addressing antibiotic resistance by chipping away at its causes is an important approach, though it is not sufficient to truly win the antibiotic resistance war. Since, even with mitigation of causal factors, resistance is inevitable on some level. Therefore, we must also address the crisis from the tail-end. This involves ensuring that, when resistance does occur, we are prepared for it. In order to do this, new classes of antibiotics that have the potential to treat resistant pathogens must be developed. The current landscape for antibiotic research and development is a barren one. Pharmaceutical companies have largely bailed on this area and biotechnology startups are going bankrupt pursuing this venture. As a recent New York Times piece noted, “[i]n the 1980s, there were 18 major pharmaceutical companies developing new antibiotics; today there are three.”[55] Pharmaceutical companies prefer to focus on the development of drugs for chronic diseases, which ensure long term, continuous profits.[56] Antibiotics, on the other hand, tend to be prescribed on a short-term basis for acute infections. This limits their inherent capacity to generate profits.[57] Finally, physicians tend to be reluctant to use new antibiotics, further limiting companies from recouping their investments.[58] Bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has suggested using for new classes of antibiotics, that “[t]he and of created by such a would make an in research pharmaceutical companies are their and using it to biotechnology companies to developing antibiotics in with the Health The companies that they are creating a billion for The the will be short-term intended to provide an a antibiotics The will to approximately companies on Although the are they are not new antibiotic can cost billion to The of to the research and development of new antibiotics may be a more As an article in the New of in to generate continuous growth to up – high of over There is also to drug Some such as the and the for have to contribute to antibiotic the for will be to raise pharmaceutical such as the with government could be directed antibiotic development Antibiotic resistance is a for everyone around the and the problem focused As the Health has observed, the antibiotic resistance crisis may and compared to the COVID-19 resistance needs more and As one public health expert has all of need an antibiotic. A in which antibiotics no work is that should As an schemes on antibiotics may also antibiotic development by the pharmaceutical industry or biotechnology for on antibiotics, as further will only the A. Antibiotics in the The New York A. to the from Resistant to the of the United Health at Antibiotic The Centers for Disease A. Antibiotics in the The New York and Antibiotic and – Health Antibiotic and of an Ethical in Health use in Agriculture and in Environmental Health – Health Ethical of Health Health resistance genes from livestock and resistance genes from livestock and resistance genes from livestock and resistance genes from livestock and use in Agriculture and in Environmental Health resistance genes from livestock and use in Agriculture and in Environmental Health on Antibiotic in The Environmental Working at in the A of Environmental and resistance genes from livestock and use in Agriculture and in Environmental Health use in Agriculture and in Environmental Health Antibiotic and use in Agriculture and in Environmental Health Addressing antibiotic resistance from a global will developing nations in and developing rules and enforcement around antibiotic use in humans and animals. The of this and its inherent a Ethical of Health A. resistance as a of the ethical for a on antibiotic use in in antibiotic of Ethical of Health Ethical of Health – and The Centers for Disease of the FDA Antibiotic in for The and FDA Antibiotics of The of the FDA Antibiotic in of the FDA Antibiotic in Antibiotics of The of the FDA Antibiotic in of One to The New York to Ethical of and Environmental and on or for in The and Consumers and an The New York FDA and on or for in FDA Consumers and an The New York USDA beef without for antibiotics in Washington USDA and on Health A. in Antibiotics as The New York to Ethical of and Environmental Ethical of Health A. in Antibiotics as The New York to New The New York A. to Antibiotic The New York A. in Antibiotics as The New York and of Antibiotics – a the The New of A. to Antibiotic The New York Dr. at the Health A. Dr. Health at the of