Besides vaccine certificates, research suggests leaders also need to trigger society’s intrinsic motivation to help in order to achieve lasting and equitable solutions.

A high capacity for visual perception distinguishes Homo sapiens from other primates. This human ability to detect social cues and retain visual records of social networks has been tested mostly with static facial images in laboratory settings. However, media consumption has become closely entangled with the way social life is navigated. Therefore, the study reported here tested demographic differences (gender and education) in visual information processing of social and nonsocial objects featured in audiovisual news content. Women recognized (accuracy) and recalled (salience) social images better than men. On the other hand, men were more skilled at recognizing, but not recalling, nonsocial images. Participants with lower educational levels recognized and recalled fewer images than individuals with higher educational levels. Interactions between demographic variables and time suggest that memory records for social images are more stable than those for nonsocial images. Memory may have survival-relevant importance, serving navigational functions that vary across environmental demands, resulting in differences across demographic groups.

Chemical developments during the past one hundred years have filled domestic medicine cabinets as well as pharmacies. The widespread availability of medications has clearly transformed life and living in the twentieth century, with the healing benefits of antibiotics and chemotherapy countered by the destructive effects of addictive drugs both old and new. Even those medications prescribed and supervised by physicians are but one of hundreds of factors which may influence human behavior, decision making, and even international affairs. Half-way through this century even a relatively harmless drug was the scapegoat in an American book, The Aspirin Age (Leighton, 1949), whose contributors reviewed the “utterly fantastic news events of the gaudy and chaotic years that separated Versailles and Pearl Harbor.”

Peter Barss makes a compelling case both for the value of epidemiology in investigating suspected use of chemical, biological, or toxin warfare (CBTW), and for consistency in epidemiologic procedures. Since John Snow in the nineteenth century, “armed only with [his] five senses and [his] notebook,” carried out his pioneering epidemiologic investigations to determine the source of the cholera epidemic then raging in London, the value of epidemiology for analyzing incidents of unexpected illness or death, in whatever context they occur, has been demonstrated many times over. Despite this, as Barss convincingly shows, the routine practice of field epidemiology is still often not fully or properly utilized in investigating alleged CBTW.

My thanks to the commentators for their thoughtful analyses. I will respond to their comments below. I should point out that under the format for this roundtable discussion, I have not yet seen Frank Sulloway's response to my article. Any reply I might have to his response will therefore have to come later.

Science-based biotechnology is now introducing fundamental changes in the status of life on earth which have major implications for human society, yet the social sciences are largely failing to address these changes. Biotechnology offers immense opportunities for advancing the quality of human life, holding promise for overcoming numerous and heretofore intractable causes of suffering and impoverishment. Moreover, it may enable mankind to enjoy the benefits of science without degradation of the biosphere. But to obtain these advantages biotechnology must be guided by wise and timely public policies. Even the most beneficent innovation may create problems that, unless anticipated and prevented, may offset or cancel out social gains.

This paper uses a Darwinian perspective to examine the nuclear arms race in the context of “arms races” in evolution and throughout human history. The rise of human “arms races,” or escalatory intergroup competition, is traced to a variety of environmental triggers initiated during the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene. These triggers removed extraspecific environmental constraints to escalatory intergroup competition in some areas of the world, making it reproductively advantageous for individuals to live in increasingly larger and more competitive groups. This process is linked to the development of social complexity and the intensification of intergroup competition, warfare, and arms production, culminating in the nuclear arms race. Historically, escalatory intergroup competition has been reproductively advantageous to elites because it enables them to acquire a disproportionately large share of resources. It is argued that the continuation of the nuclear arms race past a level of mutual assured destruction results from the benefits it provides to elites as well as a variety of evolved behavioral mechanisms that encourage in-group affiliations, out-group hostilities, and obedience to authority.

Since the anthrax attacks of 2001 in the United States, annual U.S. government spending on biodefense programs has increased enormously. U.S. biodefense was once exclusively the domain of military agencies and was aimed principally at protecting battlefield troops against the products of state-run biological warfare programs. Today, it is engaged in and promoted by a variety of government agencies contemplating “bioterrorism,” and it is aimed principally at protecting the American civilian population. I ask if certain U.S. biodefense policies, pointedly those funding “threat assessment” projects, make biological attacks paradoxically more likely by undermining international norms against deliberately causing disease. I conclude that they do and consider the ramifications of this answer.

In an on-demand media environment, the 2016 presidential primary debates provided a ratings and economic boost to host networks surpassing all prior primary debates and even major sporting events in viewership. In turn, millions of viewers were exposed to and subtly influenced by the ways in which these candidates were visually presented. We analyze how the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates were presented in their initial two debates (Fox News and CNN; CNN and CBS, respectively). Candidates are considered in terms of visual priming through aggregate camera time and average camera fixation time and how contenders were visually framed through the proportion of different camera shot types used (solo, split screen, side by side, multiple candidate, and audience reaction). Findings suggest that while the front-runners from both political parties benefited from preferential visual coverage, Donald Trump stood out in terms of the visual priming and framing that presented him as a serious contender.