Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

The use of race variables in genetic studies of complex traits and the goal of reducing health disparities: a transdisciplinary perspective.

Abstract: The use of racial variables in genetic studies has become a matter of intense public debate, with implications for research design and translation into practice. Using research on smoking as a springboard, the authors examine the history of racial categories, current research practices, and arguments for and against using race variables in genetic analyses. The authors argue that the sociopolitical constructs appropriate for monitoring health disparities are not appropriate for use in genetic studies investigating the etiology of complex diseases. More powerful methods for addressing population structure exist, and race variables are unacceptable as gross proxies for numerous social/environmental factors that disproportionately affect minority populations. The authors conclude with recommendations for genetic researchers and policymakers, aimed at facilitating better science and producing new knowledge useful for reducing health disparities.

The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices

Abstract: We use data on insurance deductible choices to estimate a structural model of risky choice that incorporates 'standard' risk aversion (diminishing marginal utility for wealth) and probability distortions. We find that probability distortions - characterized by substantial overweighting of small probabilities and only mild insensitivity to probability changes - play an important role in explaining the aversion to risk manifested in deductible choices. This finding is robust to allowing for observed and unobserved heterogeneity in preferences. We demonstrate that neither Kőszegi-Rabin loss aversion alone nor Gul disappointment aversion alone can explain our estimated probability distortions, signifying a key role for probability weighting.

Hesitant or Not? The Association of Age, Gender, and Education with Potential Acceptance of a COVID-19 Vaccine: A Country-level Analysis.

Abstract: In December 2020, the first COVID-19 vaccines were approved. Despite more than 85 million reported cases and 1.8 million known deaths, millions worldwide say they may not accept it. This study assesses the associations of age, gender, and level of education with vaccine acceptance, from a random sample of 13,426 participants selected from 19 high-COVID-19 burden countries in June 2020. Based on univariable and multivariable logistic regression, several noteworthy trends emerged: women in France, Germany, Russia, and Sweden were significantly more likely to accept a vaccine than men in these countries. Older (≥50) people in Canada, Poland, France, Germany, Sweden, and the UK were significantly more favorably disposed to vaccination than younger respondents, but the reverse trend held in China. Highly educated individuals in Ecuador, France, Germany, India, and the US reported that they will accept a vaccine, but higher education levels were associated with lower vaccination acceptance in Canada, Spain, and the UK. Heterogeneity by demographic factors in the respondents' willingness to accept a vaccine if recommended by employers were substantial when comparing responses from Brazil, Ecuador, France, India, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, and the US. This information should help public health authorities target vaccine promotion messages more effectively.

The new International Health Regulations: an historic development for international law and public health.

Abstract: The World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted the new International Health Regulations (IHR) on May 23, 2005. The new IHR represent the culmination of a decade-long revision process and an historic development for international law and public health. The new IHR appear at a moment when public health, security, and democracy have become intertwined, addressed at the highest levels of government. The United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Kofi Annan, for example, identified IHR revision as a priority for moving humanity toward “larger freedom.” This article analyzes the new IHR and their implications for global health and security in the 21st century. The WHA instructed the WHO Director-General (DG) to revise the IHR in 1995 because the Regulations did not provide an effective framework for addressing the international spread of disease. Doubts about the IHR's effectiveness had, however, been present long before 1995. The critiques identified the narrow scope of the regulations (applying only to a small number of infectious diseases), the lack of compliance by states, and the absence of a strategy for responding to rapid changes in public health's global economic and technological environments.