scholarly journals The social benefits of private infectious disease-risk mitigation

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin R. Morin ◽  
Charles Perrings ◽  
Ann Kinzig ◽  
Simon Levin
2017 ◽  
Vol 372 (1722) ◽  
pp. 20160126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tong Wu ◽  
Charles Perrings

There is growing evidence that wildlife conservation measures have mixed effects on the emergence and spread of zoonotic disease. Wildlife conservation has been found to have both positive (dilution) and negative (contagion) effects. In the case of avian influenza H5N1 in China, the focus has been on negative effects. Lakes and wetlands attracting migrating waterfowl have been argued to be disease hotspots. We consider the implications of waterfowl conservation for H5N1 infections in both poultry and humans between 2004 and 2012. We model both environmental and economic risk factors. Environmental risk factors comprise the conditions that structure interaction between wild and domesticated birds. Economic risk factors comprise the cost of disease, biosecurity measures and disease risk mitigation. We find that H5N1 outbreaks in poultry populations are indeed sensitive to the existence of wild-domesticated bird mixing zones, but not in the way we would expect from the literature. We find that risk is decreasing in protected migratory bird habitat. Since the number of human cases is increasing in the number of poultry outbreaks, as expected, the implication is that the protection of wetlands important for migratory birds offers unexpected human health benefits. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Conservation, biodiversity and infectious disease: scientific evidence and policy implications’.


Author(s):  
Martha Whitesmith

Belief, Bias and Intelligence outlines an approach for reducing the risk of cognitive biases impacting intelligence analysis that draws from experimental research in the social sciences. It critiques the reliance of Western intelligence agencies on the use of a method for intelligence analysis developed by the CIA in the 1990’s, the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH). The book shows that the theoretical basis of the ACH method is significantly flawed, and that there is no empirical basis for the use of ACH in mitigating cognitive biases. It puts ACH to the test in an experimental setting against two key cognitive biases with unique empirical research facilitated by UK’s Professional Heads of Intelligence Analysis unit at the Cabinet Office, includes meta-analysis into which analytical factors increase and reduce the risk of cognitive bias and recommends an alternative approach to risk mitigation for intelligence communities. Finally, it proposes alternative models for explaining the underlying causes of cognitive biases, challenging current leading theories in the social sciences.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
April Rose Panganiban ◽  
Gerald Matthews ◽  
Michael D. Long

Human–Machine teaming is a very near term standard for many occupational settings and still requires considerations for the design of autonomous teammates (ATs). Transparency of system processes is important for human–machine interaction and reliance but standards for its implementation are still being explored. Embedding social cues is a potential design approach, which may capture the social benefits of a team environment, yet vary with task setting. The current study examined the manipulation of transparency of benevolent intent from an AT within a piloting task requiring suppression of enemy defenses. Specifically, the benevolent AT maintained task communication as in a neutral condition, but included messages of support and awareness of errors. Benevolent communication reduced reported workload and increased reported team collaboration, indicating that this team intent was beneficial. In addition, trust and acceptance of the AT were rated higher by individuals tasked with depending on the system to protect them from missile threats. The need for information from ATs is beneficial, however may vary depending on team type.


2008 ◽  
Vol 98 (8) ◽  
pp. 1372-1381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison E. Aiello ◽  
Rebecca M. Coulborn ◽  
Vanessa Perez ◽  
Elaine L. Larson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document