Search

While "front line" emergency response is not directly addressed in the article, it does discuss the motivation and sociopolitical background for emergency response from the public health perpsective at great length. The article looks at nationalism and the self interest of countries in epidemic scenarios and other international public health crises, and discusses how emergency response to a public health crisis and eradicating diseases within the borders of one country is not the best plan of action, but is the one most friequently taken under current international protocols.

Much of the data for this paper was drawn from historical examples of response to major disease outbreaks such as AIDS and the policies created by organization such as the World Health Organization, like the smallpox caccination program, to cope with them. This data, the timeline it presents, and the results illustrate the ever changing nature of international health security.

I researched more into the use of vaccination to protect first responders, existing response structures implimented by the WHO, and the history of biological warfare. 

The citations found in this article's bibliography tell us that the information presented was drawn from various research articles about past responses to large disease outbreaks, and public health policies regarding topics such as food safety and bioweapons. This article is an interpertation of existing information, and does not seem to provide any new research.

The arguments of this article are supported by the following discussions:

1. The authors discuss changes in response and preparation policies for both public health and private organizations, domestically and internationally.
2. The authors discuss the importance of innovation in scientific research and development and how they have affected the way response and preparation to health crises are conducted
3. The authors provide specific aspects of international health emergencies and cite ways in which countries or organizations have dealt with them in the past and in what ways they succeeded and failed. 

Based on available resources, it does not appear that this paper has been discussed or cited in any publically available research or forums. While it is widely published and is readily available, this is a relitively new text, which could contribute to this.

1. “A series of factors – demographic changes, economic development, global travel and commerce, and conflict – ‘have heightened the risk of disease outbreaks,’ ranging from emerging infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and drug resistant tuberculosis to food borne pathogens and bioterrorist attacks.”

2. “Although there is a great sense of urgency to address contemporary biosecurity problems— and while impressive resources have been mobilized to do so — there is no consensus about how to conceptualize these threats, nor about what the most appropriate measures are to deal with them.”

3. “There is no such thing as being “too secure.” Living with risk, by contrast, acknowledges a more complex calculus. It requires new forms of political and ethical reasoning that take into account questions that are often only implicit in discussions of biosecurity interventions.” 

The authors of the article are Andrew Lakoff and Stephen Collier, both of whom are anthropologists. Andrew Lakoff works at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and Stephen Collier works at The New School in New York City. The two focus a large ammount of their studies on international studies and biopolitics, and have collaborated on a number of papers pertaining to these topics. One of Lakoff's most current works is a book called Disaster and the Politics of Intervention, which may be relivant ot the the DSTS network.

The main arguement of this article is that a large number of factors, such as demographic changes, economic development, gobal travel and commerce and conflict have heightened the risk of international disease outbreaks and international organizations like the WHO and national public health organizations are struggling to develop and adopt new and innovative protocols to cope with new threats.