Search

Stephen Collier is an Associate Professor of International Affairs at The New School in NYC. He has a Ph.D in Anthropology from U.C. Berkeley and has conducted research in Russia, Georgia, and the U.S. His expertise is in political systems (post-socialism and neoliberalism), infrastructure, social welfare, and contemporary security. His knowledge in infrastructure and politics gives him a more top-down perspective of emergency response; Collier can assist with creation of organizations and groups for large scale emergencies that would require international collaboration. 

Andrew Lakoff is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Southern California, and is an anthropologist of science and medicine. He research is in globalization processes, human science, and the implications of biomedical technology. He has a similar position in emergency response as Collier, where he sees global, political, and technological interactions that would effect how we prepare and respond to international emergencies. He's written essays and other books on emergency preparedness such as "The Risks of Preparedness: Mutant Bird Flu" and "Disaster & the Politics of Intervention".

Emergency response was addressed in IV. Global Health and Emergency Response. They discussed how organizations have different approaches to emergency response, either going for preparedness (WHO), immediate mitigation (humanitarian organizations), or management of global health threats (Gates Foundation). Short term solutions (emergency response) are much more common while preparedness-based solutions to prevent emergencies or minimize risks are often not funded and difficult to maintain due to the social/economic/ international issues that would need to be addressed.

On the ResearchGate website, the article was cited 28 times in other works; the top 3 studies/ articles were: "A Pre-Event Configuration for Biological Threats", "Airports, localities and disease", and "Repositioning the Front Lines?: Reflections on the Ethnography of African Stereotypes". 

The article cites other reports, experts in various fields, and notes historical events (previous epidemics, disease outbreaks, bioterrorism) to support its arguments for biosecurity. 

One major point outlined in the article is the way that disease outbreaks have been viewed and prepared for has changed over the past few centuries. It started out in the view of public health where social factors like sanitation and clean water were valued but then shifted towards preparedness after outbreaks of various influenza viruses seemed to not fit the paradigm of public health.

1. "as Richard Danzig has argued in the case of bioterrorism, despite the striking increase in funding for biodefense in the U.S., there is still no 'common conceptual framework' that might bring various efforts together and make it possible to assess their adequacy."

2. “Who should lead the fight against disease? Who should pay for it? And what are the best strategies and tactics to adopt?”

3. In contrast to classic public health, preparedness does not draw on statistical records of past events. Rather, it employs imaginative techniques of enactment such as scenarios, exercises, and analytical models to simulate uncertain future threats.

4. emergency response is acute, short-term, focused on alleviating what is conceived as a temporally circumscribed event; whereas “social” interventions—such as those associated with development policy—focus on transforming political-economic structures over the long term

The authors are Stephen J. Collier and Andrew Lakoff. They both have PhDs in anthropology and are professors are educational institutions. Collier is a professor of International Affairs at The New School and Lakoff is a professor of sociology at USC. They are professionally situated to discuss emergency response as they have done research in biosecurity and biothreats.

The main arguments in the article are that globalization has created new threats to the public health and security on a global scale, with biological threats the foremost concern. "Biosecurity" is the goal, which looks at public health preparedness at all levels (local, national, international, global) with four domains: "emerging infectious disease; bioterrorism; the cutting-edge life sciences; and food safety." Despite increasing defenses and plans for current threats, the article notes that we need to become better at predicting new threats and identifying risks to biosecurity while adapting to changing political, environmental and infrastructure factors that create difficult ethical decisions. 

1. Nobel Prize winner Joshua Lederberg noted the connections between global inequality and threats to U.S. health security: “World health is indivisible, [and] we cannot satisfy our most parochial needs without attending to the health conditions of all the globe.”

2.Erin Koch (chapter 5) describes the implementation of a TB-control program called DOTS (for “Directly-Observed Treatment, Short-Course”) in post-Soviet Georgia.

3. the problem of maintaining quality control over global food and drug production chains, as indicated by recent scandals over the regulation of ingredients for pet food, toothpaste, or blood thinner that are imported from China.