July 4, 2017 Genoeconomics looks for genetic ties to life outcomes and economic behavior. Credit: Janice Kun

When Daniel Benjamin was just beginning his PhD program in economics in 2001, he attended a conference with his graduate school advisers. They took in a presentation on neuroeconomics, a nascent field dealing with how the human brain goes about making decisions.

Afterward, as they took a stroll outside, they couldn't stop talking about what they had learned, how novel and intriguing it was. What would be next, they wondered. What would come after neuroeconomics?

"The human genome project had just been completed, and we decided that even more fundamental than the brain would be genes, and that someday this was going to matter a lot for social science," said Benjamin, associate professor (research) of economics at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Science's Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR). Indeed, his excitement that day was the foundation of a visionary academic path.

Fast forward to today. Genoeconomics is now an emerging area of social science that incorporates genetic data into the work that economists do. It's based on the idea that a person's particular combination of genes is related to economic behavior and life outcomes such as educational attainment, fertility, obesity and subjective well-being.

"There's this rich new source of data that has only become available recently," said Benjamin, also co-director of the Social Science Genetic Association Consortium, which brings about cooperation among medical researchers, geneticists and social scientists.

Collecting genetic data and creating the large data sets used by economists and other social scientists have become increasingly affordable, and new analytical methods are getting more and more powerful as these data sets continue to grow. The big challenge, he said, is figuring out how scientists can leverage this new data to address a host of important policy questions.

"We're ultimately interested in understanding how genes and environments interact to produce the kinds of outcomes people have in their lives, and then what kinds of policies can help people do better. That is really what economics is aboutand we're trying to use genetics to do even better economics."

The mission at hand

Only a handful of economists are working with genetics, but this brand of research is perfectly at home at CESR. The center, founded three years ago, was conceived as a place where visionary social science could thrive and where research could be done differently than in the past.

"Being in a place where that's the shared vision is pretty rare," said econometrician Arie Kapteyn, professor (research) of economics and CESR director. "There's no restriction on which way you want to go or what you want to do. It doesn't mean that there are no restrictions on resources, but it's the opportunity to think about your vision of what's really exciting in social science research. Then being able to actually implement it is absolutely fantastic."

The mission of CESR is discovering how people around the world live, think, interact, age and make important decisions. The center's researchers are dedicated to innovation and combining their analysis to deepen the understanding of human behavior in a variety of economic and social contexts.

"What we try to do is mold a disciplinary science in a very broad sense," Kapteyn said. "Because today's problems in society, they're really all multidisciplinary."

Case in point: Benjamin's work combining genetics and economics.

The flagship research effort for Benjamin's CESR research group deals with genes and education. In a 2016 study, the team identified variants in 74 genes that are associated with educational attainment. In other words, people who carry more of these variants, on average, complete more years of formal schooling.

Benjamin hopes to use this data in a holistic way to create a predictive tool.

"Rather than just identifying specific genes," he said, "we're also creating methods for combining the information in a person's entire genome into a single variable that can be used to partially predict how much education a person's going to get."

The young field of genoeconomics is still somewhat controversial, and Benjamin is careful to point out that individual genes don't determine behavior or outcome.

"The effect of any individual gene on behavior is extremely small," Benjamin explained, "but the effects of all the genes combined on almost any behavior we're interested in is much more substantial. It's the combined information of many genes that has predictive power, and that can be most useful for social scientists."

Learning about behavior

While the cohort of researchers actively using the available genome-wide data in this way is still somewhat limited, Benjamin says it is growing quickly.

"I think across the social sciences, researchers are seeing the potential for the data, and people are starting to use it in their work and getting excited about it, but right now it's still a small band of us trying to lay the foundations.

"We're putting together huge data sets of hundreds of thousands of peopleapproaching a million people in our ongoing work on educational attainmentbecause you need those really big sample sizes to accurately detect the genetic influences."

As CESR works to improve social welfare by informing and influencing decision-making in the public and private sectors, big data such as Benjamin's is a growing part of that process, according to Kapteyn.

"What big data reflects is the fact that nowadays there are so many other ways in which we can learn about behavior," he said. "As a result, I think we'll see many more breakthroughs and gain a much better understanding of what's going on in the world and in social science than in the past.

"I think we're really at the beginning of something pretty spectacular. What we are doing is really only scratching the surfacethere's so much more that can be done."

Explore further: Scientists find genes associated with educational attainment

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Read the rest here:
Can genetics play a role in education and well-being? - Medical Xpress

27 June 2017: Member States and stakeholders discussed behavioral insights and their applications for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 on climate change, during a training organized by the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). The workshop aimed to build participants understanding of defaults, social norms and steps necessary for tackling climate change.

Moderator Lori Foster Thompson, North Carolina State University, opened the course, titled Behavioural Insights towards the Implementation of Sustainable Develoment Goal (SDG) 13 (Climate Action), which took place at the UN Headquarters in New York, US, on 27 June 2017. She noted that sustainable consumption and production, which is key to achieving SDG 13, is essentially about human behavior, and thus incentives to promote changes in behavior are needed. Foster Thompson highlighted the value of using behavioral insights for designing evidence-based polices. She added that even though there are pockets focused on behavioral insights that operate in different UN agencies, an overarching structure focused on behavioral insights is yet to be formalized within the system.

Elke U. Weber, Princeton University, challenged the idea of Homo Economicus who makes decisions rationally, by explaining that Homo Sapiens is not primarily a creature of rational deliberation, but rather a creature of habit who learns best from personal experience and uses emotions, associations, rules and habits to guide action. She said humans have always too many goals, often conflicting. Weber added that policy makers and communicators therefore need to find ways to activate those goals that are more forward looking and more environment friendly. She noted that inaction is the current behavioral status-quo, which was formed in a period in which people were not facing climate change issues. Weber stressed that this behavioral status-quo is the current barrier to change.

She cautioned against using fear or guilt-based messaging, explaining that even though this type of messages attract attention, they do not retain peoples attention as they tend to dissociate from unpleasant emotions. She advised that in order to keep peoples attention, messaging should be focused on effective solutions and appeal to the moral sense of people doing the right/good thing. She stressed that policy makers should not allow for behavior preferences to influence policies, but policies need to be evidence-based because people will end up adopting them.

Filippo Cavassini, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), explained that the OECD conducted a world-wide mapping of the use of behavioral insights in public policy. He added that the mapping found that local governments have applied a lot in terms of behavioral insights because they are the interface with the public, and the use of behavioral insights is usually spearheaded by politicians. He gave the example of the UK, which currently has a world-wide known behavioral insights team. Cavassini explained that overall behavioral insights are applied across sectors, especially in the financial sector after the financial crisis because consumers need to be better educated about financial choices.

Cavassini noted that behavioral insights are currently mainly used in the implementation stage, while they could also be used in designing policies that are effective. He announced that the OECD will look at behavioral insights for complex policy issues, such as digital tools and how they can be used, for instance, to promote sustainable energy consumption. He concluded that, even though so far behavioral insights have been applied to individuals, there are opportunities to apply them to institutions.

Irina Feygina, Climate Central, underlined that most people do not care about climate change thus choices need to be framed through needs that are very stringent.

Mary MacLennan, London School of Economics (LSE), spoke about her experience in working with the government of Ontario, Canada. She highlighted that the use of behavioral insights builds skills across government with regards to knowledge and evidence-based policy. She said behavioral insights use in governance needs to be thought in terms of its added value for things such as cost-savings, balancing budgets or innovation. Underlining the importance of having a multidisciplinary approach to behavioral insights that brings together sociology, psychology and anthropology, MacLennan also noted challenges to work across departments and ministries. She recalled significant interest, enthusiasm and buy-in for the use of behavioral insights at the lower and highest levels of governments. She also pointed to problems and resistance with the middle management, stressing that it is much more risk-adverse.

Irina Feygina, Climate Central, underscored the importance of how choices are framed, noting that small changes to the framing of a policy or choice can improve its effectiveness. She explained that decision making is not cost-benefit but driven by needs and desires, and that attitudes and values interfere in the way we process information. She therefore called for putting peoples needs first when messaging (such as health, safety, children, capacity to strive, community safety) rather than speaking about climate change, underlining that most people do not care about climate change thus choices need to be framed through needs that are very stringent.

Feygina said people prefer narratives and stories than facts, because they have a hard time encoding facts. She added that facts are hard to feed the need to belong, which is the most stringent human need after the needs of food, shelter and safety. She stressed the need to give people very simple, attractive and simplified options, and to communicate to them that other people they admire are doing it.

In the ensuing discussion, participants underscored the need to: provide incentives and secure political courage; downgrade the scientific thinking to make it more accessible to the public at large; and look at the structural macro-systems in place, like the capitalist system built on continuous growth. They also discussed ways to design experiments with larger-systems interventions. [IISD Sources] [UNITAR Website]

Read the rest here:
UNITAR Workshop Looks at Behavioral Insights for SDG 13 - IISD Reporting Services

I know Im referring back to an incident that feels like it happened thousands of controversies ago, but its still worth a revisit. Remember when Mike Pence was crazy and strange for reportedly not wanting to eat dinner with a woman who wasnt his wife? Well, thanks to the New York Times, we now have data about the rest of America, and itturns out that vast numbers of men and women are wary of being alone with the opposite sex.

Heres Claire Cain Miller summing up the polling results:

Many men and women are wary of a range of one-on-one situations, the poll found. Around a quarter think private work meetings with colleagues of the opposite sex are inappropriate. Nearly two-thirds say people should take extra caution around members of the opposite sex at work. A majority of women, and nearly half of men, say its unacceptable to have dinner or drinks alone with someone of the opposite sex other than their spouse.

As one might expect, theres a sliding scale of acceptability, with most people endorsing private work meetings and most rejecting private dinners or drinks. Interestingly,for all the talk that discouraging one-on-onemeetings disadvantages women, they were more likely than men to disapprove of every category of private encounter.

As Millerstates, The results show the extent to which sex is an implicit part of our interactions. Yes indeed they do, but its not just because affairs, harassment, or other inappropriate conduct might occur. The resultsalso demonstratethe extent to which fear of rumors or of even potentially false claims colors human behavior. A single accusation can destroy a reputation and derail a career. Whynot keep your office door open? Why not conduct business more in professional settings than in the intimate confines of dinner or drinks?

In my twenty-plus years of job experience in multiple private-sector and public-sector contexts the influence of private dinners on professional advancement is vastly overstated. At the same time, Ive seen multiple sexual scandals derail the most promising of careers. Given this reality, caution isnt extremist or sexist. Its wise.

Read the original:
It Turns Out That Mike Pence Is Pretty Mainstream - National Review

President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement last month a decision I suspect the United States will quickly come to regret.

The Paris agreement reaffirmed a goal of limiting the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius and committed countries to develop plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and regularly report on their progress. The United States, under former President Barack Obama, was one of 195 countries signing on to the agreement. But President Trumps decision to withdraw will allow countries such as China and India to further shape a global agreement that will dramatically impact the United States regardless of its lack of participation.

The backlash to the presidents decision in much of the business community and at the state and local levels was swift and unmistakable. But there was a critical voice that was missing: the U.S. insurance sector.

Perhaps it is a fear of offending customers who reject either the very idea of climate change or the fact that human behavior is a significant contributor to global warming that has kept domestic insurers, and even the trade associations that normally speak for them on political issues, mostly on the sidelines.

But that silence works against them because they are abdicating an opportunity to play a constructive role in addressing a serious threat to their own profitability, as the natural catastrophes that they are financially responsible for will only get worse without timely intervention.

Their European reinsurance counterparts are not nearly as skittish, with officials from Munich Reinsurance America Inc. and Swiss Re Ltd. denouncing the presidents decision to withdraw. They should be commended for their willingness to publicly oppose an action they know will keep the United States from being a critical player in addressing what their own research tells them is a real threat to human life and property.

Insurers are going to have to deal with the climate issue some way or the other. California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones launched the Climate Risk Carbon Initiative in January 2016 to require insurers with $100 million in annual premiums doing business in California to disclose investments in fossil fuels and asked all insurers operating in the state to divest investments in thermal coal. He recently vowed to continue this initiative despite a threat of legal action by Republican officials in 13 states, predominantly those with major oil, gas and coal interests. As Mr. Jones stated in his response, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is real and should not be ignored.

The 2004 disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow depicted the consequences of failing to heed warnings on climate change, including devastating catastrophes in areas of the United States where they are least expected. While the movie significantly exaggerates the time frame of these events for dramatic purposes, two key elements ring true: that human behavior is contributing to a changing climate and that those in power who can act to prevent catastrophic climate change often ignore the scientific warnings until its too late.

President Trump has failed to heed these warnings. Its time for others to step up.

Original post:
View from Washington: Insurers silent on climate - Business Insurance

(TNS) -- We were gratified, if a little perplexed, to learn that local and state transportation planners apparently awoke from a deep sleep to discover congestion on Arapahoe Avenue east of the city and a bottleneck on U.S. 36 could be improved by gasp adding lanes to accommodate the traffic volume.

It is an article of ideological dogma in the governments of Boulder and Boulder County that building new roads or lanes doesn't relieve congestion a concept known as "induced demand." In the minds of some officials, this conviction appears to have morphed into the notion that no infrastructure improvements for auto travel are ever appropriate. But a basic rule of traffic engineering still applies: Capacity must be sufficient for the smooth flow of existing demand (unless, of course, you are trying purposefully to inconvenience motorists for other political purposes).

A review of existing demand on Arapahoe between Lafayette and Boulder reveals too many cars to move efficiently on a two-lane road. With population growth and housing development certain to continue in the east county, basic traffic engineering requires the infrastructure to keep up.

This goes against the ideological position of many local officials, who continue to believe that starving motorists of space will convince them to switch to bikes or buses. Unfortunately, actual human behavior indicates this is not true. Despite all sorts of well-meaning public pressure to do just that, the percentage of commuters that drive into Boulder roughly four out of five - hasn't changed in 25 years.

As we have observed before, this is not because motorists want to confound the ideological objectives of Boulder progressives. This is because cycling is not practical for many commuters and mass transit in these parts still presents enormous first-mile, last-mile problems that extend commute times dramatically.

Having finally acknowledged the problem, some local officials remain determined to steer commuters into the behaviors those officials prefer. Hence the enthusiasm to revamp Arapahoe not to accommodate the cars already there but to create dedicated lanes for a bus rapid transit system that does not yet exist.

Boulder City Councilman Aaron Brockett had the temerity some months ago to ask how often such buses would run. Nobody knows, of course. In part, that's because it would be up to the Regional Transportation District. In part, it's because nobody knows what the market demand might be. But it would not be surprising if ideologically-driven county officials devoted large portions of the roadway to a mode few people use at the expense of the mode most people use in yet another attempt at forced behavior modification.

Officials will respond that they are fighting climate change by trying to reduce auto emissions, a laudable goal. But it is far more likely that goal will be achieved by improvements in transportation technology electrification of the automobile fleet, for example than coercion. Political progressives have every right to try to persuade their constituents to behave differently, but purposefully making them miserable to force them to come around goes against the basic concept of public service.

The ramp from Foothills Parkway onto eastbound U.S. 36 was an even more egregious example, if that's possible. When U.S. 36 was rebuilt to add an express lane in each direction, the eastbound express lane made its initial appearance tantalizingly close to the Foothills ramp, but not close enough. That left two lanes of eastbound U.S. 36 and two lanes of Foothills Parkway to merge into . . . two lanes. Naturally, it became a bottleneck, with two lanes of cars backing up on each roadway and producing more emissions, not less.

The state Department of Transportation patted itself on the back for its innovative solution last week restriping the merge area to make room for three lanes which could have been the original configuration if the express lane had started a little earlier.

"This shows how, by thinking a little differently, we can improve operations despite constrained resources and constrained funding," CDOT Executive Director Shailen Bhatt said. "This relatively low-cost project will save 200 to 700 vehicle hours per day, according to our study."

We don't want to seem ungrateful, but anyone who works in transportation for a living and was surprised that the original configuration produced a daily traffic jam might be better off choosing another line of work.

The suspicion of many commuters whose views don't seem to matter much to Boulder transportation planners is that these apparent signs of incompetence are actually intentional coercive measures intended to change commuter behavior.

But they didn't. Traveling by car remains the fastest way for most commuters to get where they're going, even accounting for increasing congestion and some poor traffic engineering along the way. Until that changes, all the lectures in the world from well-meaning officials won't change the basic calculus for people trying to get to and from work as quickly as they can.

Given that fact of human behavior, it's probably best to go back to basic traffic engineering rules and make the system operate as efficiently as possible. That reduces emissions, too.

2017 the Daily Camera (Boulder, Colo.) Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read more:
Traffic Engineering Rules Must Be Followed Off the Bat (Opinion) - Government Technology