PubMed · 9130853
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M A Sandquist. 1996. Do not go gently.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9130853/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In considering the phenomena of reciprocal altruism few would dispute that there are differences in individual quality-in particular, that for some individuals, at least on occasion, the cost of doing favors will exceed the potential of future benefits. That is, at any given time, a typical population is heterogeneous with respect to the affordability of reciprocal altruism. However, methodological limitations of the traditional analytical framework-Single Type (symmetric) Evolutionary Game Theory-have restricted previous analytical efforts to addressing populations idealized in terms of their averages. Here we use the methods of Multitype Evolutionary Game Theory to analyse the role of individual differences in direct reciprocity interactions. Multitype analysis shows that non-idealized populations possess an ESS profile wherein individuals who cannot afford reciprocity (low-quality) defect, while individuals who derive net benefits from reciprocity (high-quality) cooperate. Furthermore, this cooperation is implemented via unmodified tit-for-tat (TfT) strategy. Hence, our results may help resolve a long-standing problem concerning the evolutionary stability of TfT in direct reciprocal altruism. Finally, this difference between idealized and real populations is not restricted to direct reciprocal cooperation. Previously (Lotem et al., 1999) we have demonstrated evolutionarily stable indirect reciprocal cooperation among high-quality individuals in heterogeneous populations.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
With application of new technologies and licensing of new vaccines, vaccines will soon be better by several orders of magnitude. Yet barriers impede the introduction and wide use of new vaccines. Most of the diseases for which we will have vaccines in the future have not evoked enthusiasm from public health professionals, but not consumer demand, despite ongoing high rates of disease and death. Furthermore, the public's attention turns from the now rarely occurring vaccine-preventable diseases to reports of fears and confirmed adverse events associated with the same vaccines that so effectively continue to prevent disease. New vaccines will be held to a much higher standard; thus we will need more capacity for disease studies, vaccine trials, and surveillance systems. Vaccines and immunization programs contribute to the societal fabric and are an expression of social responsibility. Vaccine research and implementation programs must have the foundation and capacity to keep pace with evolving scientific and societal realities so that their broad benefits can be fully realized.