Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, once said, “… I know of no enemy in war more insidious or vicious than AIDS. Will history record a fateful moment in our time, on our watch, when action came too late?” Many people echo Powell’s concern. The AIDS pandemic reaches overseas as easily as it reaches our own front doors.
In an October, 2006 Nature editorial, one contributor discusses his or her opinion that publicity gives the illusion that the private sector is on the forefront of the fight against AIDS, though it is not doing enough in the fight the disease and progression of research. I found this argument close-minded and poorly referenced. Though it is an editorial piece, any amount of background research would have immediately challenged the idea. By presenting an opposing argument to the two statements within the editorial, I seek your consideration of my opinion: publicity is a tool used by the private sector to draw attention to the fight against AIDS, and that publicity is in fact a notable contribution.
The editorial says that though publicity around the fund and awareness raiser, (PRODUCT)red, “may convey the impression that large global corporations are at the forefront of the fight against AIDS. But a closer look at the situation reveals that this is rarely the case” (Nature). At the risk of sounding presumptuous, publicity does not imply that businesses are on the forefront of the fight or research. Publicity implies that campaign managers are doing their job in selling a product. However, companies associated with (PRODUCT)red are using their platform and access to the public to raise awareness and money simultaneously. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, adults (ages 18 and older) watched the equivalent of 70 days of television programming in 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau). The total average time a household watched television during the 2005-2006 television year was 8 hours and 14 minutes per day, a 3-minute increase from the 2004-2005 season and a record high (Nielsen). The average amount of television watched by an individual viewer increased 3 minutes per day to 4 hours and 35 minutes—another record (Nielsen).
So why would I label the focusing public attention on the issue as a notable contribution by the private sector? By alerting and prompting the public, individuals and organizations alike will be motivated to do what they can to help fight the pandemic. Citizens can lobby to but pressure on government to fund more extensive research. By getting in touch with a younger audience, some may even be influenced to pursue a career path focused on relieving on of humanity’s greatest afflictions. Granted, campaign managers and CEO’s in the private sector are not actively participating in research. However, minus the white lab coat, these professionals are employing their power in the media. They can reach a nation controlled by the media. In this sense, the private sector is making a significant contribution.
The second statement I have chosen to refute from the editorial reads as follows: “Yet there is a nagging concern among AIDS officials that global attention may be drifting away from the pandemic, at a time when the need to confront it aggressively has never been greater” (Nature). In my opinion, this is the exact concern the private sector is addressing by drawing attention to the pandemic. With an estimated 39.5 million people living with AIDS worldwide in 2006, anything that calls people’s attention to the pandemic is helpful (Worldwide AIDS and HIV Statistics Including Deaths). By using the media to focus public attention on the pandemic, it becomes more of a priority to the public. Let’s look over some basic statistical information.
Two popular items from the (PRODUCT)red campaign are GAP Clothing’s t-shirts and Apple’s red iPod Nanos. With the purchase of one GAP t-shirt, you can provide single-does of nevirapine. This treatment is administered to prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child (RED). Part of the money spent on a Red iPod Nano goes to purchase anti-retroviral (ARV) treatment for one month to a person living with HIV (RED). “Antiretroviral treatment for HIV infection consists of drugs which work against HIV infection itself by slowing down the replication of HIV in the body” (Intro to HIV and AIDS Treatment).
So how much is this particular product campaign contributing to the fight against HIV and AIDS? With the help of consumers, in May of 2006, $1.25 million of the first (RED) money received by the Global Fund flowed to Rwanda. During the week of September 11, 2006, $4 million flowed to Swaziland. On September 19, a further $5 million was disbursed to Rwanda (RED).
What has all of this money done in the fight against and research of the disease? According to joinred.com:
544,000 people have been provided with treatment for HIV and AIDS.
5.7 million people received voluntary HIV testing.
1.43 million people were treated for tuberculosis.
7.3 million people were treated for malaria.
11.3 million families were provided with insecticide treated mosquito nets.
Do these figures reflect an unaddressed “nagging concern” of drifting attention? (Nature) Clearly, the answer is no.
In conclusion, I ask you to review the facts set before you and once again consider the editorial’s opinion that publicity, particularly in the case of (PRODUCT)red, gives the illusion that the private sector is not doing enough in the fight the disease and progression of research. Though the private sector may not have representatives in the lab, I believe it is inarguably clear that it is making a considerable contribution in the research, treatment, and prevention of HIV and AIDS worldwide.
“AIDS and the private sector.” Nature 443.7113 (19 October 2006): 723. E-Journal Finder. UNC University Libraries. Chapel Hill. 6 February 2007.
< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7113/pdf/443723a.pdf>
Global AIDS Alliance. 2007. Global AIDS Alliance. 6 February 2007.
<http://www.globalaidsalliance.org/quotes.cfm>
Holmes, Gary. “Nielsen Media Research Reports Television's Popularity Is Still Growing.” Nielsen Media Research. 2007. 7 February 2008.
<http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=4156527aacccd010VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD>
Introduction to HIV and AIDS Treatment. 22 January 2007. AVERT. 8 February 2007.
<http://www.avert.org/introtrt.htm>
RED. 2006. Product RED. 6 February 2007. < http://www.joinred.com/>
United States. Census Bureau. “50th Anniversary of ‘Wonderful World of Color’ TV. U.S. Census Bureau. 11 March 2004. 7 February 2007.
<http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm>
In an October, 2006 Nature editorial, one contributor discusses his or her opinion that publicity gives the illusion that the private sector is on the forefront of the fight against AIDS, though it is not doing enough in the fight the disease and progression of research. I found this argument close-minded and poorly referenced. Though it is an editorial piece, any amount of background research would have immediately challenged the idea. By presenting an opposing argument to the two statements within the editorial, I seek your consideration of my opinion: publicity is a tool used by the private sector to draw attention to the fight against AIDS, and that publicity is in fact a notable contribution.
The editorial says that though publicity around the fund and awareness raiser, (PRODUCT)red, “may convey the impression that large global corporations are at the forefront of the fight against AIDS. But a closer look at the situation reveals that this is rarely the case” (Nature). At the risk of sounding presumptuous, publicity does not imply that businesses are on the forefront of the fight or research. Publicity implies that campaign managers are doing their job in selling a product. However, companies associated with (PRODUCT)red are using their platform and access to the public to raise awareness and money simultaneously. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, adults (ages 18 and older) watched the equivalent of 70 days of television programming in 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau). The total average time a household watched television during the 2005-2006 television year was 8 hours and 14 minutes per day, a 3-minute increase from the 2004-2005 season and a record high (Nielsen). The average amount of television watched by an individual viewer increased 3 minutes per day to 4 hours and 35 minutes—another record (Nielsen).
So why would I label the focusing public attention on the issue as a notable contribution by the private sector? By alerting and prompting the public, individuals and organizations alike will be motivated to do what they can to help fight the pandemic. Citizens can lobby to but pressure on government to fund more extensive research. By getting in touch with a younger audience, some may even be influenced to pursue a career path focused on relieving on of humanity’s greatest afflictions. Granted, campaign managers and CEO’s in the private sector are not actively participating in research. However, minus the white lab coat, these professionals are employing their power in the media. They can reach a nation controlled by the media. In this sense, the private sector is making a significant contribution.
The second statement I have chosen to refute from the editorial reads as follows: “Yet there is a nagging concern among AIDS officials that global attention may be drifting away from the pandemic, at a time when the need to confront it aggressively has never been greater” (Nature). In my opinion, this is the exact concern the private sector is addressing by drawing attention to the pandemic. With an estimated 39.5 million people living with AIDS worldwide in 2006, anything that calls people’s attention to the pandemic is helpful (Worldwide AIDS and HIV Statistics Including Deaths). By using the media to focus public attention on the pandemic, it becomes more of a priority to the public. Let’s look over some basic statistical information.
Two popular items from the (PRODUCT)red campaign are GAP Clothing’s t-shirts and Apple’s red iPod Nanos. With the purchase of one GAP t-shirt, you can provide single-does of nevirapine. This treatment is administered to prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child (RED). Part of the money spent on a Red iPod Nano goes to purchase anti-retroviral (ARV) treatment for one month to a person living with HIV (RED). “Antiretroviral treatment for HIV infection consists of drugs which work against HIV infection itself by slowing down the replication of HIV in the body” (Intro to HIV and AIDS Treatment).
So how much is this particular product campaign contributing to the fight against HIV and AIDS? With the help of consumers, in May of 2006, $1.25 million of the first (RED) money received by the Global Fund flowed to Rwanda. During the week of September 11, 2006, $4 million flowed to Swaziland. On September 19, a further $5 million was disbursed to Rwanda (RED).
What has all of this money done in the fight against and research of the disease? According to joinred.com:
544,000 people have been provided with treatment for HIV and AIDS.
5.7 million people received voluntary HIV testing.
1.43 million people were treated for tuberculosis.
7.3 million people were treated for malaria.
11.3 million families were provided with insecticide treated mosquito nets.
Do these figures reflect an unaddressed “nagging concern” of drifting attention? (Nature) Clearly, the answer is no.
In conclusion, I ask you to review the facts set before you and once again consider the editorial’s opinion that publicity, particularly in the case of (PRODUCT)red, gives the illusion that the private sector is not doing enough in the fight the disease and progression of research. Though the private sector may not have representatives in the lab, I believe it is inarguably clear that it is making a considerable contribution in the research, treatment, and prevention of HIV and AIDS worldwide.
“AIDS and the private sector.” Nature 443.7113 (19 October 2006): 723. E-Journal Finder. UNC University Libraries. Chapel Hill. 6 February 2007.
< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7113/pdf/443723a.pdf>
Global AIDS Alliance. 2007. Global AIDS Alliance. 6 February 2007.
<http://www.globalaidsalliance.org/quotes.cfm>
Holmes, Gary. “Nielsen Media Research Reports Television's Popularity Is Still Growing.” Nielsen Media Research. 2007. 7 February 2008.
<http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=4156527aacccd010VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD>
Introduction to HIV and AIDS Treatment. 22 January 2007. AVERT. 8 February 2007.
<http://www.avert.org/introtrt.htm>
RED. 2006. Product RED. 6 February 2007. < http://www.joinred.com/>
United States. Census Bureau. “50th Anniversary of ‘Wonderful World of Color’ TV. U.S. Census Bureau. 11 March 2004. 7 February 2007.
<http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm>
No comments:
Post a Comment