In these times of fear and uncertainty, many of us face daily decisions regarding the right thing to do. An ethicist offers guidance on how to think through them.
COVID-19 has brought to the fore the interdependency of business and society. It’s time for amendments to the social contract that underlies societal support for business.
Wändi Bruine de Bruin, University of Southern California; Anya Samek, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, and Daniel Bennett, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Using a survey taken from March 10 – March 16, social scientists tried to untangle the complicated connection between feelings of vulnerability and behavior change in response to the coronavirus.
Humans tend to downplay their own susceptibility to being harmed – an attitude of ‘it won’t happen to me’ that could be hindering the collective response to the pandemic.
It’s hard to adopt a set of hard and fast rules with the advice changing so quickly. So it’s important you have a set of evidence-based principles to guide your decision-making about social contact.
Behavioral economists explain how widespread use of face masks, hand sanitizer and other preventive measures could counterintuitively encourage riskier behaviors around coronavirus.
New research shows that when companies do things like give to charity or reduce their carbon footprint, consumers perceive their products as less risky.
In catastrophic fire conditions, leaving early is the only safe option. But in other conditions, one thing that’s often overlooked in decisions to stay or go is how mentally tough you need to be.
Organs from gay men or injecting drug users, often rejected for transplants, could safely be used, so long as donors test negative for infections such as HIV, and hepatitis B and C.
Clinical trials are used to establish that medicines work. But these don’t take into account the genetic differences between us that can mean very different outcomes for different patients.
South Australia has lifted its moratorium on GM crops, while Tasmania has extended its ban. But the question should no longer be a simple binary of being “for” or “against” GM technology.