Search results

This chapter provides a historical contextualisation of health tracking and public health communication from the post-World War Two development of the welfare state, through the birth of neoliberalism, until today’s individualising practices of digital health tracking and quantification of bodies. Through an examination of these three phases of public health quantification of bodies, encompassing the socio-economic, cultural and political shifts since 1948, combined with the development and wide adoption of digital health and self-quantifying technologies, this chapter traces the changing landscape and the dramatic implications this has had for shifting who is responsible for maintaining ‘good’ health. This chapter illustrates how neoliberal free market principles have reigned over UK public health discourse for many decades, seeing health as no longer binary to illness, but as a practice of individual self-quantification and self-care. In turn, the chapter explores how the quantification and health tracking of bodies has become a dominant discourse in public health promotion, as well as individual citizenship and patient practices. This discourse still exists pervasively as we move into the digital society of the 2020s, through the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond; with public health strategies internationally promoting the use of digital health tools in our everyday, further positioning citizens as entrepreneurial subjects, adopting extensive technological measures in an attempt to measure and ‘optimise’ health, normalising the everyday quantification of bodies.

With respect to university technology transfer, the purpose of this paper is to examine the literature focused on the relationship between university research faculty and technology transfer office staff. We attempt to provide greater understanding of how research faculty’s personal values and research universities’ organization values may differ and why. Faculty researchers and tech transfer office (TTO) staff are perceived to be virtuous agents. When both are meeting each other’s needs, a “love” relationship exists. However, when these needs are not met, a “hate” relationship exists that is replete with doubt and uncertainty. This doubt and uncertainty creates tension and subsequent conflicts. There are many accounts where faculty researchers have not followed university policies and expectations, often violating policy and ethical standards. Likewise, faculty report numerous examples of how TTO staff members’ negligence in servicing their attempts to be good institutional citizens have failed them. This paper explores this love/hate relationship and reveals numerous conflicts that call into question ethical concerns. It also provides a set of recommendations for reducing and potentially alleviating these concerns. Literature review. Results from a thorough review of the literature on the relationship between faculty and university TTOs reveals that perceived job insecurity is the primary reason that some research faculty members as well as some TTO staff, unethically violate their university policy to disclose invention disclosures and select to not provide full services, respectively. One way to alleviate the conflict between faculty’s personal values regarding their inventions and university’s organizational values is to enact measures that build trust and reduce insecurity among faculty members and TTO staff. In this paper, we not only examine this faculty/TTO staff ethical conflicts, but we offer a set of recommendations that we believe will reduce the likelihood of unethical behavior while encouraging greater institutional commitment and trust.