Broad cross-national public support for accelerated COVID-19 vaccine trial designs.

A vaccine for COVID-19 is urgently needed. Several vaccine trial designs may significantly accelerate vaccine testing and approval, but also increase risks to human subjects. Concerns about whether the public would see such designs as ethical represent an important roadblock to their implementation; accordingly, both the World Health Organization and numerous scholars have called for consulting the public regarding them. We answered these calls by conducting a cross-national survey (n = 5920) in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The survey explained key differences between traditional vaccine trials and two accelerated designs: a challenge trial or a trial integrating a Phase II safety and immunogenicity trial into a larger Phase III efficacy trial. Respondents' answers to comprehension questions indicate that they largely understood the key differences and ethical trade-offs between the designs from our descriptions. We asked respondents whether they would prefer scientists to conduct traditional trials or one of these two accelerated designs. We found broad majorities prefer for scientists to conduct challenge trials (75%) and integrated trials (63%) over standard trials. Even as respondents acknowledged the risks, they perceived both accelerated trials as similarly ethical to standard trial designs. This high support is consistent across every geography and demographic subgroup we examined, including vulnerable populations. These findings may help assuage some of the concerns surrounding accelerated designs

The Frequency of Pathogenic Variation in the All of Us Cohort Reveals Ancestry-Driven Disparities

Disparities in data underlying clinical genomic interpretation is an acknowledged problem, but there is a paucity of data demonstrating it. The All of Us Research Program is collecting data including whole-genome sequences, health records, and surveys for at least a million participants with diverse ancestry and access to healthcare, representing one of the largest biomedical research repositories of its kind. Here, we examine pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants that were identified in the All of Us cohort. The European ancestry subgroup showed the highest overall rate of pathogenic variation, with 2.26% of participants having a pathogenic variant. Other ancestry groups had lower rates of pathogenic variation, including 1.62% for the African ancestry group and 1.32% in the Latino/Admixed American ancestry group. Pathogenic variants were most frequently observed in genes related to Breast/Ovarian Cancer or Hypercholesterolemia. Variant frequencies in many genes were consistent with the data from the public gnomAD database, with some notable exceptions resolved using gnomAD subsets. Differences in pathogenic variant frequency observed between ancestral groups generally indicate biases of ascertainment of knowledge about those variants, but some deviations may be indicative of differences in disease prevalence. This work will allow targeted precision medicine efforts at revealed disparities

Replication Data for: The Ties that Double Bind: Social Roles and Women's Underrepresentation in Politics

This paper theorizes three forms of bias that might limit women's representation: outright hostility, double standards, and a double bind whereby desired traits present bigger burdens for women than men. We examine these forms of bias using conjoint experiments derived from several original surveys - a population survey of American voters and two rounds of surveys of American public officials. We find no evidence of outright discrimination, or double standards. All else equal, most groups of respondents prefer female candidates, and evaluate men and women with identical profiles similarly. But on closer inspection, all is not equal. Across the board, elites and voters prefer candidates with traditional household profiles such as being married and having children. These preferences amount to a double bind. So long as social expectations about women's familial commitments cut against the demands of a full time political career, women are likely to remain underrepresented in politics

Understanding and Reducing Bias among Political and Social Elites

This dissertation considers the biases that exist in the American political system. The first chapter presents a field experiment on the under-representation of women and people of color in American politics, finding that politicians may condition responsiveness and helpfulness on the ethnicity of their constituents, but not the gender of their constituents. The second chapter conducts a field experiment to study whether state legislators are responsive to public opinion and finds that most state legislators do not care about learning public opinion and therefore mis-perceive what their constituents believe. The final chapter then studies pediatricians and whether their incentives may explain low vaccination rates

Understanding and Reducing Bias among Political and Social Elites

This dissertation considers the biases that exist in the American political system. The first chapter presents a field experiment on the under-representation of women and people of color in American politics, finding that politicians may condition responsiveness and helpfulness on the ethnicity of their constituents, but not the gender of their constituents. The second chapter conducts a field experiment to study whether state legislators are responsive to public opinion and finds that most state legislators do not care about learning public opinion and therefore mis-perceive what their constituents believe. The final chapter then studies pediatricians and whether their incentives may explain low vaccination rates

Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing.

Existing research depicts intergroup prejudices as deeply ingrained, requiring intense intervention to lastingly reduce. Here, we show that a single approximately 10-minute conversation encouraging actively taking the perspective of others can markedly reduce prejudice for at least 3 months. We illustrate this potential with a door-to-door canvassing intervention in South Florida targeting antitransgender prejudice. Despite declines in homophobia, transphobia remains pervasive. For the intervention, 56 canvassers went door to door encouraging active perspective-taking with 501 voters at voters' doorsteps. A randomized trial found that these conversations substantially reduced transphobia, with decreases greater than Americans' average decrease in homophobia from 1998 to 2012. These effects persisted for 3 months, and both transgender and nontransgender canvassers were effective. The intervention also increased support for a nondiscrimination law, even after exposing voters to counterarguments