The study investigated unconscious biases in physicians regarding conflicts in developing care plans for patients related to religious restrictions in medicine. Fourteen physicians were interviewed to discuss their experiences with these patients and find patterns and factors that could lead to more negative attitudes from the physicians in the patient’s care. It was found that the gender, religious background, and location of residency had various impacts on the attitude of the physician regarding a religious concern; however, there was no outstanding demographic that led to a comparatively negative attitude. Additionally, the type of reasoning a patient used related to a religious concern had an impact on the attitude of the physician, and this was due to the logic and duration of the concern as well as the attitude of the patient. These factors and patient cases were thoroughly analyzed and discussed throughout the paper to shed light on possible factors that could negatively affect the patient’s care.

In vitro embryogenesis is a revolutionary technology were researchers are able to culture stem cells, currently from mice, and differentiate the culture into an embryo showing key developmental characteristics. This technology has extensive medical benefits through creating a collection of genetically identical tissues and organs from which patients can receive treatment options. However, there are significant ethical objections to growing an embryo simply to destroy it and take its tissues and organs. Using ethical discussions of in vitro fertilization and abortion ethics, I was able to develop a framework to begin to solve these ethical discussions by identifying several physiologic reductions, which instead make a reservoir of tissue rather than a rational being.

COVID-19 misinformation covers a wide range of topics such as fatality rate, mask effectiveness, potential cures, vaccine development, and the idea of a "plandemic". The spread of this misinformation happens at a rapid speed with the help of social media and powerful influencers, including major political figures. This thesis is a focused case study on hydroxychloroquine, and builds a timeline of the misinformation surrounding the drug. From poorly conducted studies to the use of false experts, this study reveals how politicized misinformation garners more public attention than the actual science.

This thesis responds to the question, "Can Science Make Sense of Life?" through a structural lens of the Human Germline Genetic Editing debate. I explore who is absent from the table, and how the ways of thinking that dominate marginalize and exclude alternative frameworks and considerations. This analysis is centered around an examination of several perspectives from the disability community and an in-depth study of how the Orthodox Jewish community contends with genetic disease. These perspectives illuminate several lessons that prove to bring insight not merely to questions of permissibility on genetic editing, but also offer reflections on the larger relationship between science, technology, and society. I then return to the mainstream genetic editing debate to show how the culture it is born out of and the structures it has ingrained prevent lessons such as these from impacting the conversation. In light of such structures that continuously reproduce the assertion that it is science, not humanity, that is able to make sense of life, my final argument is that though science tends to gatekeep questions of emerging technologies by centering conversations on highly advanced and methodological considerations, public individuals need not feel as if they are irrelevant or unessential. Though science may offer one solution, it is the individuals and communities, not results from a lab, that are equipped to determine if it is the best solution.

There is a lot of variation in health outcomes when it comes to individual states in America. Some states, such as Hawaii, have the life expectancy equivalent to that of developed countries, whereas states like Mississippi have the life expectancy equivalent to that of third world countries. This raised the questions of which states are doing well in health and why, and if their health has to do with their performance in the primary, secondary, tertiary, and/or quaternary prevention levels. The purpose of this research was to investigate if there is a correlation between performance in any of the prevention levels and the overall health status of a state, and if there is, which prevention level would be most beneficial for states to prioritize. The hypothesis of this research was: states that prioritized primary and secondary levels of prevention would have better health than states that prioritized tertiary and quaternary levels of prevention, since basic health measures contribute more to health outcomes than advanced medicine. To investigate this question, indicators were chosen to derive the ranking of each state in health and each of the four prevention levels. Six states were then chosen to represent the high, average, and low health statuses respectively. The six states were ranked for all indicators, and the data was analyzed and compared to determine a potential relationship between the prevention level rankings and the overarching health ranking. It was found that there is a correlation between performance in the primary and secondary prevention levels and a state’s overall health status, whereas there was no such correlation for the tertiary and quaternary levels. A model for health was proposed for states looking to improve their health status, which was to invest in primary prevention, followed by secondary, tertiary, then quaternary prevention and only moving to the next prevention level once the previous level reached a satisfactory threshold.