My First Blog Post

Hello and welcome to my blog.  As the title suggest, this is my first blog entry. As such, let me give you a brief introduction. My name is Charlie Viturawong.  I was born in the US and went to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where I earned my bachelor's in biological sciences, followed by my M.D.  Now normally, after one finishes medical school, they go into residency and begin practice, but that was not my path.  Instead, I wound up in South Korea, working and travelling Asia. I joined Enzaim last year as an international communication consultant, and I have been here since.

Outside of work, my interests include computers, photography, reading and trying to find the best Thai restaurant in Seoul (any tips?). Currently, my plan is to blog about topics/news related to health, communication, and the environment. In my first post, I'm hoping to touch a bit on each of these subjects.

The environment is a popular topic - hardly a day goes by without something in the news about it, whether it be climate change, food shortages, or invasive species (interesting side note: the seaweed that is used in 미역국 was listed as one of 100 worst invasive species in the world by the Global Invasive Species Database). The common denominator here is humans.  Often, in the struggle between human interests and nature, nature loses.

Such is the case in South Africa where farmers and leopards have come into conflict.  The leopards prey upon livestock, and in response, some farmers kill them.  Of course, killing leopards is illegal in South Africa and carries stiff penalties, but when given a choice between following the law and protecting the your livelihood and that of your family, I can understand the transgression. Conservationists have been trying to more clearly understand how many farmers are doing this, with the hope of tailoring better incentives for these people to reduce the killings.  The problem is, how do you get people to tell you about illegal behavior?  There aren't many reasons to tell the truth, and plenty of reasons to lie (jail, fines, etc.).  The New Scientist has a story about a solution found by researchers at Bangor University in the UK.

The researchers used a technique called the random response technique (RRT) to get more truthful answers.  Originally proposed in 1965, RRT allows respondents to answer questions while maintaining confidentiality. The survey respondents were asked if they killed leopards and then told to roll a six-sided die, with the result hidden from the researcher. On a 1, respondents always answered "no," and on a 6, they always answered "yes."  Any other result and they answered truthfully. Since the researchers did not see the result of the roll, they had no way of knowing if a respondent was telling the truth or being forced to answer "yes" or "no." This confidentiality gave respondents more incentive to answer truthfully.  A little math allowed for the calculation of the true proportion of people who killed leopards. Unfortunately in this case, 19% of respondents had killed a leopard within the last 12 months.

As with the environment, topics in healthcare are often sensitive, and getting truthful answers can be difficult.  Examples of this include illegal drug use, sexual activity, and abortions.  In these cases, RRT may be helpful when gathering data to decide upon an approach. Is the technique perfect?  No. Because it relies on randomness, large numbers of participants are required to increase accuracy.  Also, while the technique has been shown to increase levels of honesty, respondents can still lie if they want to. Personally, I've never had an opportunity to use RRT, but perhaps one day, a situation will arise where its use is warranted.