Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MILITARY SCIENCE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 631 records · Page 35Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

The revolution in military affairs debate and non-lethal weapons.

This article introduces a discussion on developments in political and strategic thinking on the use of existing and emerging weapons (including Non-lethal Weapons) and their doctrinal operational implications in the context of present trends in international relations. It asserts the need to address both the strategic assumptions and the political implications of choosing military-led solutions to trends in international social conflict. The so-called Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) must be considered in the light of the current debate on the military application of non-lethal weapons (NLWs) to present or future conflict. The issue is introduced from a politico-strategic perspective, with a critique of the RMA debate as a starting point for discussion of the role of NLWs in conflict. Questions are set out for the politicians and strategists who are asked to formulate policy based on technology to be used in new political/social conflicts. The danger of neglecting other important dimensions of politics and strategy vis-à-vis present conflict is noted.

Conflict, Psychological↗
PubMed2006

Towards evidence-based critical thinking medicine? Uses of best evidence in flawless argumentations.

Uses of informal logic and critical thinking methodology are increasingly taught, learnt and advantageously applied in such diverse domains as law, the military, business, and education. Health sciences are also following this trend. However, production and critical appraisal of evidence as already practiced in Evidence-Based Medicine must be coupled with equally rigorous uses in order to ensure appropriate health problem understanding and decision-making. Making most proposals and decisions in medicine is the conclusion of an argumentation process that lies behind any communication between health professionals working with patients, performing research or sharing ideas about health problems, their interpretations and solutions with numerous stakeholders in public life. Modern critical thinking and decision making in medicine is not instantly mastered, but is instead a learnt experience as anything else in professional and social interactions. The modern argument as outlined, illustrated and applied to health problems in this essay is an extension of a previously established way of thinking in Evidence-Based Medicine. Ideally, health professionals, their patients and all other stakeholders should speak the same language and it is up to us to make this possible. Evidence and critical thinking - based medicine might be a solution. As modern critical thinkers, we are at the forefront and we must see to it that patients and professional and general communities benefit from this more so even than from other remarkable historical and current contributions to the well-being of those under our care.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2006

The dual-use dilemma for the life sciences: perspectives, conundrums, and global solutions.

The term "dual-use" traditionally has been used to describe technologies that could have both civilian and military usage, but this term has at least three different dimensions that pose a dilemma for modern biology and its possible misuse for hostile purposes: (1) ostensibly civilian facilities that are in fact intended for military or terrorist bioweapons development and production; (2) equipment and agents that could be misappropriated and misused for biological weapons development and production; and (3) the generation and dissemination of scientific knowledge that could be misapplied for biological weapons development and production. These three different aspects of the "dual-use dilemma" are frequently confused--each demands a distinct approach within a "web of prevention" in order to reduce the future risk of bioterrorism and biowarfare. This article discusses the nature of the different perspectives and divergent approaches as a contribution to finding a scientifically acceptable global solution to the problem posed by the dual-use dilemma. We propose that: (1) facilities that are intended for bioweapons development and production should be primarily prevented by a strengthened Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) effectively implemented in all nation states, one that includes provisions for adequate transparency to improve confidence and a mechanism for thorough inspections when there is sufficient cause, and enhanced law enforcement activities involving international cooperation and sharing of critical intelligence information; (2) potentially dual-use equipment and agents should be available to legitimate users for peaceful purposes, but strengthened national biosafety and physical and personnel biosecurity controls in all nations together with effective export controls should be implemented to limit the potential for the misappropriation of such equipment and materials; and (3) information should be openly accessible by the global scientific community, but a culture of responsible conduct involving the breadth of the international life sciences communities should be adopted to protect the ongoing revolution in the life sciences from being hijacked for hostile misuse of the knowledge generated and communicated by life scientists.

Access to Information↗
PubMed1992

Pharmacoepidemiology and military medical automation: opportunity for excellence.

Fielding of the Composite Health Care System (CHCS) brings an unparalleled opportunity for medical research. This sophisticated automated medical record system promises pharmacoepidemiologic research of a quality and quantity never before possible. Pharmacoepidemiology provides answers about the validity of beneficial and adverse drug events and aids in individualizing drug therapy. When CHCS eventually encompasses an estimated 9.1 million patients at 166 military hospitals and 588 clinics around the world, it will provide a database capable of supporting sophisticated automated research. In addition to the unprecedented size of this resource, advantages of pharmacoepidemiology performed with the CHCS database include integration of inpatient and outpatient care records, the completeness of prescription and medical records, and the wide socioeconomic spectrum covered in a defined population. Limitations and potential biases of such a database include separate drug formularies at each medical treatment facility, only limited information about nonprescription drug use and single-dose drug orders in clinics, and the mobility of military service members and their families. Pharmacoepidemiology is a tool that will benefit individual members of the military family, as well as advancing the sciences of pharmacy and medicine. Using the CHCS database for this form of research is in the best tradition of military medical research.

Attitude to Health↗