Pasteur and the Germ Theory of Disease and Jenner and the Smallpox Vaccine’
Pasteur and the Germ Theory of Disease and Jenner and the Smallpox Vaccine’
Pasteur and the Germ Theory of Disease and Jenner and the Smallpox Vaccine’
https://topnursingpapers.com/pasteur-and-the-germ-theory-of-disease-and-jenner-and-the-smallpox-vaccine/
Weekly response 1 & 2
Please view the Lecture by Dr. Frank Snowden, Yale University available at: http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-234/lecture-14#transcript
and the film The Story of Louis Pasteur; Part 1 available on youtube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MITdWhKWAek) and a better quality version is at: http://vdownload.eu/watch/2440994-the-story-of-louis-pasteur-1936.html
Pasteur and the Germ Theory of Disease and Jenner and the Smallpox Vaccine’
And read:https://topnursingpapers.com/pasteur-and-the-germ-theory-of-disease-and-jenner-and-the-smallpox-vaccine/
– William Bynum, History of Medicine: A Very Short Introduction (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008); Available as an E-book in the Hagerty Library catalogue at: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/drexel/detail.action?docID=10464218. ***Read Chapter 5, “Medicine in the Laboratory” pp. 91-117 for the background to the story.
and
– Louis Pasteur, “The Germ Theory and its Application to Medicine and Surgery,” in Charles W. Eliot, ed., Scientific Papers: Physiology, Medicine, Surgery, Geology (New York: Collier, [c1910].1910). ***Read pages 382-389. Available as an E-Book in the HagertyLibrary Catalogue at: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000029593309;view=1up;seq=9
Then discuss: Use the materials assigned to discuss how Pasteur’s version of the germ theory of disease contributed to, or changed medical practice.
Please read:
– Tim Fulford and Debbie Lee, “The Jenneration of Disease: Vaccination, Romanticism, and Revolution,” Studies in Romanticism, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Spring, 2000) , pp. 139-163; Available in the Readings Folder and on JSTOR at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25601434 and,
– Edward Jenner, “An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccinae etc, 1798,” in Charles Nicoll Bancker Camac, Classics of Medicine and Surgery (New York: Dover Publications, 1909), pp. 213-240; Available as an E-Book in the Hagerty Librarycatalogue at: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015000861594;view=1up;seq=11
Then discuss: Read Fulford and Lee for the background of the campaign for vaccination, and then read Jenner’s essay (especially his introduction and Cases XVI and XVII, and his explanation of ‘experiment’ (pp. 230-231), and his conclusions. Then discuss what was so controversial and how Jenner and his allies and critics resolved the debate.
– Tim Fulford and Debbie Lee, “The Jenneration of Disease: Vaccination, Romanticism, and Revolution,” Studies in Romanticism, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Spring, 2000) , pp. 139-163; Available in the Readings Folder and on JSTOR at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25601434 and,
– Edward Jenner, “An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccinae etc, 1798,” in Charles Nicoll Bancker Camac, Classics of Medicine and Surgery (New York: Dover Publications, 1909), pp. 213-240; Available as an E-Book in the Hagerty Librarycatalogue at: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015000861594;view=1up;seq=11
Then discuss: Read Fulford and Lee for the background of the campaign for vaccination, and then read Jenner’s essay (especially his introduction and Cases XVI and XVII, and his explanation of ‘experiment’ (pp. 230-231), and his conclusions. Then discuss what was so controversial and how Jenner and his allies and critics resolved the debate.
<
Looking for nursing papers writing help? Top Nursing Papers Writing Service Online is here. A team of professional nursing essay writers ready to help. Relieve academic stress! With you all through your education course. There is no nursing subject we cannot handle.
Name: Discussion Rubric
| Excellent 90–100 |
Good 80–89 |
Fair 70–79 |
Poor 0–69 |
|||
| Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. |
31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. |
0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. |
||
| Main Posting: Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
||
| Main Posting: Timely and full participation |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. |
||
| First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| First Response: Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%) is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%) is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
| First Response: Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| Second Response: Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%) is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%) is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
| Second Response: Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Name: Discussion Rubric
24/7 Nursing Homework Help
Stuck on a nursing assignment question? From easy essays to complicated dissertations, our accredited writers can answer all questions!
