The Web's Largest Conversation About Breastfeeding

The mission of ScienceBlogs is to have the href="http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:u_aOpFk1_6IJ:www.seedmediagroup.com/press/releases/SMG_01.25.06.pdf+web+largest+conversation+about+science&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a">Web's
largest conversation about science.  I've been
posting here for a week.  During that time, I've been trying
to decipher the href="http://faculty.ircc.edu/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm">emics
and etics of the community and its conversation.  



It is apparent that, within this culture, it is important and
appropriate for members to read each others posts, and link to others
that are pertinent.  Before posting on a given subject, it is
a good idea to run a search to see what others have already said on the
topic.  It is also a good idea to watch for emerging themes,
and add to them if one has something to add.



There is an emerging theme now, pertaining to breastfeeding.
 Outside observers will note that this is a topic that
generates a lot of interest.  



Continue reading below the fold...

To illustrate, there was a recent href="http://www.blogsheroes.com/feed/ann_arbor_y_no_breastfeeding_near_the_pool_just_because">kerfuffle
in Ann Arbor about the issue of breastfeeding.  A person was
breastfeeding her infant in the pool at the local YMCA, and href="http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/6005947/detail.html">was
told to stop.  The rationale was that they have a
prohibition against food and beverages being consumed in the pool area.
 There was a big fuss.  The City Council got
involved.  A local blog, Ann Arbor is Overrated,
href="http://www.annarborisoverrated.com/2006/02/07/breastfeeding-ordinance-passes/">posted
on the subject, and got 100 comments.  Another, Pandagon,
href="http://pandagon.net/2006/01/12/michigan-y-no-breastfeeding-near-pool/">wrote
about it, and got 74 comments.  A couple of years
ago, there was a href="http://starbucksgossip.typepad.com/_/2004/08/moms_nurse_thei.html">similar
rumpus at Starbucks that attracted href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50610-2004Aug8.html">national
attention.  



The more recent conversation got started because of an href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/health/13brea.html?ex=1307851200&en=3cfe96e1b9b62c93&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss">NYT
article about a href="http://www.4women.gov/breastfeeding/index.cfm?page=519">government
ad campaign (video commercials here:  href="http://www.4woman.gov/breastfeeding/adcouncil/CNBA4130-E01NY.mpg">1
href="http://www.4woman.gov/breastfeeding/adcouncil/CNBA4230-E01NY.mpg">2)
to promote breastfeeding.  Janet, at Adventures in
Ethics and Science, posted about it twice ( href="http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2006/06/the_science_on_breastfeeding_a.php">1
href="http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2006/06/breastfeeding_and_suvdriving_w.php">2).
 Abel Pharmboy at Terra Sigillata href="http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2006/06/breast_milk_the_most_natural_o.php">added
to the conversation.   Janet focused on some interesting
ethical questions; Abel focused on some obscure science.  



Elsewhere, Sciencewoman (On Being a Scientist and a Woman)
posted on the subject twice ( href="http://sciencewoman.blogspot.com/2006/06/breast-feed-or-else-how-about-some.html">1
href="http://sciencewoman.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-breast-feeding.html">2).
 Aspazia href="http://melancholicfeminista.blogspot.com/2006/06/politics-of-breastfeeding.html">wrote
about it on Mad Melancholic Feminista.
 They focused on the politics of breastfeeding.



There is another political aspect to all of this, which is not so much
the politics of breastfeeding itself, but the politics of the DHHS
advertising campaign.  I href="http://trots.blogspot.com/2004/07/thursday-breast-bloggingpoliticians.html">wrote
about this in 2004, when the ad campaign was first conceived.
 Ironically, that 2004 post was inspired by something PZ Myers
href="http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/breasts_are_bad_unless_you_can_use_them_to_sell_something/">wrote
on the original Pharyngula.  



In my 2004 post, I pointed out how the Bush administration had watered
down the ad campaign in response to lobbying pressure from the makers
of infant formula.  I pointed out that the decision to tone
down the campaign might save the industry some money, but it would cost
the country much more, by increasing health care costs and decreasing
the health status of the citizenry.  Furthermore, the decision
was directly contrary to what they call "a culture of life."
 It also runs contrary to the goal of reducing obesity.
 Finally, it is contrary to the Christian Bible:

Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be
thou ravished always with her love.

-- Proverbs 9:15

My main point at the time, was that the politics of the ad campaign
provided several illustrations of the Republican War on Science.
 In making the decisions that they made, they ignored,
distorted, and misused scientific findings, all in the interest of
short-term economic gain for a single industry.  And as it
happens, the RWOS is one of the most frequent topics here at
ScienceBlogs.  



But don't take my word for it.  Head on over to href="http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/">Chris Mooney's
page.  He's the one who coined the phrase,
Republican War on Science.   Order a copy of his book.
 It is href="http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/06/paperback_preorders.php">coming
out in paperback soon.  



One thing I've learned about the web's largest conversation about
science, is that it is not linear.  It is shaped like, well, a
web.