Abstract The global biosecurity framework faces a potential critical transition driven by synthetic biology advancements and declining population-level immunity. This review evaluates smallpox as a central case study for contemporary pathogen governance and biopolitical preparedness. We analyze the convergence of two primary risks: the technical feasibility of de novo orthopoxvirus synthesis and the expanding immunity gap following the cessation of routine vaccination. The 2022 mpox resurgence is assessed as a sentinel event revealing strategic vulnerabilities in cross-protective immunity. Ultimately, this perspective argues that smallpox reemergence risk is not merely a technological byproduct, but a fundamental global governance crisis. To mitigate these threats, we propose a multidimensional framework integrated with One Health principles and transnational coordination. Maintaining strategic vigilance and institutional memory is presented as a critical political capacity for post-eradication health security.
The redefinition of gender roles in modern societies has created unprecedented opportunities for women while contributing to the decreased successful outcomes of certain male populations (i.e., "male marginalization"). In Part One, we explore women's adjustment to changes in men's gender roles. We investigate the implications for women, analyzing how some men's marginalization affects female reproductive choices and decision-making. We examine how these changes burden women with responsibilities of professional success and caregiving while providing autonomy for personal fulfillment. In Part Two, we address how perceived scarcity of the men who are desirable intensifies intrasexual competition, manifesting through both direct and indirect competitive strategies that strain female friendships and social networks. Despite these challenges, women also demonstrate cooperative behaviors and alliance formation, reflecting adaptations that facilitated survival. We conclude that while women's empowerment represents progress toward gender equality, the marginalization of some men creates situations that call for thoughtful, new solutions.
In many countries, a large portion of animal studies serve publicly funded research purposes, yet a transition beyond animal research is politically desired. This article argues that a gradual transition is obstructed by three commitments of traditional science policy: (1) the state should provide resources for research; (2) it should leave the direction of research to the scientific community; and (3) it should set side constraints for research. This framework severely restricts public influence on the amount and kind of animal research conducted with public funds. The public can allocate some extra resources to the innovation of alternatives to animal models or tighten legal side constraints, but neither approach is likely to significantly decrease reliance on animal research overall. A gradual transition away from publicly funded animal research toward new approaches is feasible only if the second commitment is reconsidered, allowing the public greater influence over the research agenda.
Research on psychology and foreign policy offers compelling evidence that leaders' predispositions to aggression influence their decisions to initiate military conflicts. However, most indicators of leader proclivities are limited both spatially and temporally, reducing their generalizability. To mitigate these issues, this study employs the facial width-to-height ratio (FWHR), a measure of aggression drawn from theories of evolutionary psychology, and available for most leaders in the post-World War II era. FWHR not only provides broad coverage but it also taps into a dimension of leader characteristics overlooked in most international conflict research. Empirical analysis of over 1,700 leaders across 174 countries during 1947-2010 reveals that higher-FWHR leaders are significantly more likely than their lower-FWHR counterparts to initiate conflict. The results are particularly strong early in a leader's tenure.
Genomic biobanks are increasingly embedded in the United States' criminal justice system and scientific research institutions. Yet, we do not clearly understand how much the public supports these societal uses, why they do (or do not), and whether public perspectives are even meaningful given minimal familiarity with biobanks. Few studies have queried representative samples of the U.S. public, and almost all address only one moment in time and one of the two uses. In contrast, we draw on original survey data that (1) address scientific and forensic biobanks, (2) are representative of the U.S. public, (3) include re-interviews several years later, and (4) mix qualitative and quantitative measures of opinion. We find a public using value-based reasoning to express a mix of optimism and caution. We conclude that well-constructed surveys enable policymakers and experts to consider lay views as they craft policy relevant to genomics.
