Psychologists aiding the U.S. government in counterterrorism operations may be the most controversial topic in the history of the healing professions and applied psychology. Absent much contention, operationally-minded psychologists have long provided assessment and selection procedures, resilience-building interventions for operators, and consultations to leadership in furtherance of team building, resource optimization, and cohesiveness throughout the national security establishment. Of much greater concern to their critics, the peace psychologists, operationally-minded psychologists have also provided consultations, training, and subject matter expertise in relation to assessing, detaining, and interrogating accused terrorists with lesser legal protections and external oversight. Related subjects of debate have spanned from the late 19th century through the aftermath of 9/11, honed in on the relationship between the American Psychological Association (APA) and federal government agencies, and led to reforms in law, Department of Defense (DoD)/Department of War (DoW) policy, and psychology ethics and practice. From this narrative emerges unanswered questions and lessons learned in regards to the Global War on Terror (GWOT) detainees still housed at the military detention facility at Guantánamo Bay Cuba (GTMO), whether reforms have led to widespread changes in practice, and psychology’s role and responsibilities in an ever-evolving threat landscape.
Recent research has suggested a link between greater support for radical movements and greater support for conspiracy theories, as well as between experiences of social exclusion and a propensity for engagement with radical groups. Less well studied in this triptych of radicalism, social exclusion and conspiracy is the link between conspiracy theories and articulations of social exclusion. This paper looks at the development of conspiracy theories to analyse how they interact with experiences of social exclusion on an individual and community level. It does this to consider the role that conspiracy theories play not just as an adaptive response to social exclusion, but as a potential means of developing social resilience as a response against patterns of inequality and social exclusion. As part of the European Commission's DRIVE project, this paper draws on 49 interviews conducted in Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, with individuals expressing overt support for conspiracy theories and beliefs. It explores engagement with conspiracy theories through various lenses of social exclusion, including economic and other material inequalities, perceived deprivation, political exclusion and individual isolation. Many interviewees framed engagement with conspiracy narratives as providing means for responding to powerlessness caused by perceived or real exclusion and inequality. Such an approach not only challenges our understanding of the role of conspiracy theories in patterns of extremism, but also questions how we think about societal resilience at a time of great political polarisation and upheaval within liberal democracies.
Strong whole-of-government biosecurity systems, including national legislative and regulatory frameworks, are essential components of a state’s ability to prevent, detect, and respond to biological events that have the potential to harm human, animal, plant, and environmental health. These frameworks support biosecurity systems by ensuring successful implementation, sustainability, and alignment of diverse treaties and regulations that span the health security spectrum, encompassing all forms of threats. However, the extent to which countries have met their legislative obligations to these frameworks varies. Legislative assessments, therefore, provide an opportunity to assess and support compliance efforts, and can help prioritize the development and/or amendment of new legislation, regulations, and/or policies to improve compliance and in turn, strengthen biosecurity systems. While assessments on health security legislation and policies have been conducted, none have specifically focused on biosecurity legislation and regulatory frameworks from a One Health approach. Our team developed a tool to map existing national public, animal, plant, and environmental health biosecurity legislation, capacities and gaps to enable targeted efforts to strengthen national biosecurity systems. This paper describes the development of the tool and summarizes key observations and findings from its pilot implementation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in collaboration with in-country health and legal experts.
This study aims to examine the procedures and implementation strategies of the Jordanian experience in combating the coronavirus pandemic. It employs analytical-descriptive, decision-making, and content analysis approaches to address its research questions and test its assumptions. The findings reveal that, despite its limited resources, Jordan successfully managed to contain the spread of COVID-19, recording relatively low infection and mortality rates. This achievement is attributed to the wisdom of the country's leadership and the solidarity of the Jordanian people, who demonstrated strong belief in their nation and trust in their leadership. Jordan's crisis management model has been recognised as exemplary, with calls from various quarters urging other countries to adopt similar approaches. The study recommends that policymakers should continuously evaluate the implemented measures and build upon the achievements to ensure full preparedness for any potential future crisis facing Jordan.
This paper investigates the strategic importance of sovereignty in health innovation for defence within the European Union, addressing vulnerabilities exposed by recent pandemics and geopolitical tensions. It traces the evolution of technological sovereignty and emphasises the imperative for autonomous capabilities in military-medical technologies amid global shifts, including China's industrial policies and U.S. protectionism. The study proposes a technological sovereignty index (TSI) for evaluating sovereignty across multiple dimensions: research intensity, patent ownership, domestic production and supply chain resilience. The TSI provides decision-makers with actionable intelligence to identify capability gaps and guide targeted investments. Embedding technological sovereignty in EU health innovation governance strengthens strategic autonomy and security, establishing a structural pillar of European resilience in an increasingly contested geopolitical environment.
