Page 8...THE PEN...February, 1981
I COMMUNITY NEWS
Dr. Drew Leads The Way In
The Use Of Blood Plasma
By Ronald M. Kinsey
A Black scholar in Scientific
Research, brother Charles Richard
Drew, made a major contribution to
the field of surgery and to society.
He obtained A.B. degree at Amherst
College, 1926, D. Sc. (hon.), VA.
State College, 1945.
Brother Drew was captain of var
sity teams at both Amherst and
McGill; listed among top hurdlers in
the country and rated as one of foot
ball greats of his time; director ot
athletics, Morgan State College;
Baltimore, Md., 1926-28. He was an
instructor of Biology and Chemistry
at Morgan State College, 1926-28.
His intern, Gen. Hospital, Mon
treal, Canada, 1933-34; resident in
Med., 1934-35. He also was an in
structor of Pathology at Howard
University School of Medicine,
1925-26.
Dr. Drews surgical residence,
Freedmen’s Hospital, Washington,
D.C. 1936-37; assistant surgeon,
1937-38; Chief of Staff, 1942. His
resident in surgery, Presby Hospital
N.Y.C., 1938-40; direct medical
British blood plasma project. He
was the first to direct American Red
Cross Blood Bank supplying plasma
to U.S. forces; surgical consultant
for E.T.O., U.S. Army 1949.
Brother Drew was recognized in
ternationally.as a foremost authority
on preservation of blood plasma for
emergency transfusions. His work of
British blood bank projects served as
a guide for U.S. and allies. World
War II. He received the E.S. Jones
Award of the John A. Andrew
Memorial Clinic, Tuskegee, AL.,
1942; awarded Spingarn Medal by
. N.A.A.C.P.
In recognition of his blood plasma
work, 1944 and many other awards
for his work. Dr. Drew was an
author of seversil books on the study
of blood preservation. He devoted
his professional career to training
qualified black surgeons. This is on
ly one of many wonders put into
reality by, “Sons of Blood and
Thunder.” They say that brother
Charles R. Drew died after an auto
accident in North Carolina, April 1,
1950, but Ques never die we merely
just go away.
The North Carolina General
Assembly began its session this week
with the help of an undergraduate
from St. Augustine’s College.
Senior Kathy Harrison is one of
ten students accepted by the North
Carolina Legislative Internship Pro
gram. She is a sociology major.
Five of the student interns are
given assignments by the Lieutenant
Governor and five are assigned by
the Speaker of the House.
Harrison, of Hollister, N.C., will
be working with the House Commit
tee on Human Resources, which is
chaired by Representative Gus
Economos, D-Mecklenburg. She
will be doing research and serving as
a staff assistant.
Harrison will be in Raleigh until
May.
According to Abraham
Holtzman, director of the Internship
Program, “the purpose of the in
ternships is to provide students op
portunities to learn by doing and to
give assistance to legislators in carry
ing out their work.”
The program began in 1965 and
was sponsored by a national group
of political scientists. The North
Carolina Legislaturfr-began funding
student salaries in 1969.
The interns applied and were in
terviewed for the program in the
fall. The selection committee was
made up of political scientists and of
representatives from Lieutenant
Governor Jimmy Green and speaker
of the House Liston Ramsey,
D-Madison.
This year’s group of ten students
are from across the state. Seven
schools are represented by the
students. They are St. Augustine’s
College, University of North
Carolina at Wilmington, Atlantic
Christian College, Mars Hill, St.
Andrews Presbyterian College,
North Carolina State University,
and University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
EVALUATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The University of North Carolina
Department of City and Regional
Planning has recently completed a
three-year evaluation of the public
involvement component of the state
wide water quality planning pro
gram.
The evaluation research, which
this month’s column .'highlights, in
cluded the development of a process-
based model for the objective
evaluation of public participation,
and the application of this model to
the North Carolina program. David
Godschalk and Bruce Stiftel have
published the evaluation results, and
its findings are here discussed.
The North Carolina water quality
management planning program
(208), was a two-million doUar, two
and one-half year project, funded by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. As defined by the national
208 program, two major en
vironmental concerns are point and
non-point sources of pollution.
A point source is defined a
discrete conveyance, such as a pipe,
a ditch OT a container. These are the
easily recognized, tradition sources
of water pollution. Non-point
sources are more diffuse and harder
to recognize, such as urban 5torm-
water, agriculture runoff and ero
sion from mining, logging, and
development sites.
These non-point sources con
tribute largely to pollution pro
blems. Even though they are not
visible, the accumulation of
pollutants from such seepage and
percolation lend to the degradation
of surface and ground waters.
The researchers, of the Water
Resources Research Institute,
evaluated the public involvement
planning program by using a two-
phase mail survey, making field
observations of past activities obser
ving the events and recording them
through notes, as well as discussing
events with both staff and specific
publics.
Priot to North Carolina’s
statewide 208, there had been few at
tempts beyond formal pubHc hear
ings to involve publics in state water
resource planning in the state. The
program produced a useful result.
Interest in and knowledge about
non-point pollution control pro
grams were built among a large
number of individuals, many of
whom became committed par
ticipants. Staff broadened its
understanding of the many issues in
volved in nonpollution control
especially in the political, institu
tional and intergovernmental issues.
5 Participant comment caused
changes in many of the provisions of
the plan generally making it less str
ingent in terms ot the degree of con
trol required (particularly with
respect to on-site wastewater
disposal, construction or mining).
In other cases, such as agriculture,
participant comment reinforced
staff belief that non-regulatory plan
recommendations were most ap
propriate for North Carolina sup
port for implementation of the plan
will be greater because of the
changes, and because of the ex
posure given to the planning process
through participation.
However, in choosing to develop
the plan recommendation in typical
areas based upon sources of pollu
tion, the planners may have helped
to involve interest groups rather
than the general public.
Had the recommendations been
organized into counties, multi
county planning regions, or
geophsical areas of the state, the
general public might have seen a
more direct link between their par
ticipation in the planning program
and the resolution of their communi
ty problems.
Instead, the state was divided into
five geographic sections which were
hydrologicf sub-basins for their
potential for various non-point
pollution problems. These areas in
cluded the following counties; New
Hanover, Brunswick, Wayne-
Lenoir, Union-Anson, Forsyth-
Davidson, and Mitchell-Yancey-
Avery.
In the evolution, participants were
asked to rate the publicity of the 208
program from one (not well-
publicized) to five (well-publicized).
The program was rated 2.6, con
cluding that more effort should have
been made to inform persons of the
opportunities .to participate that
were available.
In an effort to determine how
widespread the program was, the
report identifies the program partici
pant, and compares that citizen with
the “average” NC citizen. Of ap
proximately 1,6(X) participants, 82
percent had family incomes of
$15,000 or more; 69 percent
reported occupations of either pro
fessional, technical, or managerial
and administrative categories; 86
percent were male, and 87 percent
were white.
The program focuses upon public
participation. The Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC) and the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) were
important components of the plann
ing process. Within the exchange
model implemented, these two
groups most effectively supported
the components of opportunity for
contact between planners and
public, the information flow bet
ween planners and publics, and the
evaluative response of the success or
failure of the program. In terms of
evaluation, PAC & TAC were the
best attended, and were the only sec
tions with written reports.
The report identifies the largest
failure of the program -as the inade
quately publicized participation
events. Recommendations for the
future-are: 1) Care should be taken
that groups are notified sufficiently
in advance of participation events to
failitiate their attendance. 2) Perma
nent lists of environmental organiza
tions and individuals interested in
environmental quality should be
maintained, and regular channels of
direct communication with these
groups and individuals should be
developed.
A speakers’ bureau would help ac
complish this, as would the im
plementation of a “State-of-the
State” environmental quality report.
The report also suggests that the
Division of Environmental Manage
ment should recognize its role as the
state government access point for
persons with environmental quality
interests.
Diane L. Cherry
Public Information Coordinator
North Carolina Dept, of
Jvlatural Resources and
Community Development