Attitudes Toward Catastrophe

In light of climate change and other global threats, policy commentators sometimes urge that society should be more concerned about catastrophes. This paper reflects on what society’s attitude toward low-probability, high-impact events is, or should be. We first argue that catastrophe risk can be conceived of as a spread in the distribution of losses. Based on this conception, we review studies from decision sciences, psychology, and behavioral economics that elicit people’s attitudes toward various social risks. We find more evidence against than in favor of catastrophe aversion—the preference for a mean-preserving contraction of the loss distribution—and discuss a number of possible behavioral explanations. Next, we turn to social choice theory and examine how various social welfare functions handle catastrophe risk. We explain why catastrophe aversion may be in conflict with equity concerns and other-regarding preferences. Finally, we discuss current approaches to evaluate and regulate catastrophe risk

Survival rates according to STC1 or STC2 expression in LSCC patients.

<p>The overall survival rate according to STC1 (A) or STC2 (B) expression was plotted by the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences among the three groups (negative, low, or high expression of STC1 or STC2) were evaluated by the log-rank test. Patients with high STC2 expression in tumor tissues had significantly poorer overall survival rates than that of patients with negative or low STC2 expression in tumors.</p

Results of univariate and multivariate survival analyses for overall survival by the Cox proportional hazard model (n = 90).

<p>Results of univariate and multivariate survival analyses for overall survival by the Cox proportional hazard model (n = 90).</p

Circulating <i>STC1</i> and <i>STC2</i> mRNA levels and clinical characteristics (n = 62).

<p>Circulating <i>STC1</i> or <i>STC2</i> mRNA levels are expressed as a median and range.</p

STC1 and STC2 mRNA in peripheral blood from LSCC patients (n = 62) and healthy volunteers (n = 30).

<p>Circulating STC1 (A) and STC2 (B) mRNA levels were significantly higher in LSCC patients than those of healthy volunteers as determined by quantitative real-time PCR (both <i>P</i><0.05, Mann-Whitney test). The heavy, black, horizontal line in each box represents the median value.</p

Immunohistochemical and Western blot analysis of HIF-1α and VEGF expression in OVA-challenged mice.

<p>(A and B) Immunostaining for HIF-1α and VEGF in nasal mucosa following the last challenge. Positive HIF-1α signals are brown and are predominantly nuclear and VEGF is predominantly cytoplasmic (magnification 400×, scale bar = 20 µm). (C and D) Representative Western blot analysis showing HIF-1α and VEGF (with β-actin as a loading control) expression in the nasal mucosa 24 h after the last challenge. All densitometric analyses are presented as the relative ratio of each molecule to β-actin and the ratio in negative control mice was set to 100. Values represent means±SEM (n = 6 mice). *Significantly different from negative control, p<0.05; ^#significantly different from positive control, p<0.05.</p

Real-time RT-PCR analysis of HIF-1α and VEGF mRNA expression in nasal mucosa.

<p>Real-time RT-PCR was performed to detect HIF-1α (A) and VEGF (B) mRNA in nasal mucosa. Relative target gene expression was normalized to GADPH, an internal control. Values represent the ratios of various treatments to the negative control group. Values represent means±SEM of four mice in each group. *Significantly different from negative control, p<0.05; ^#significantly different from positive control, p<0.05.</p

Experimental protocol.

<p>BALB/c mice were sensitized with 0.05% OVA and 2% aluminum hydroxide (Alum) solution by intraperitoneal injection on days 1, 8, and 15. Mice were challenged with a 4% OVA solution by daily intranasal instillation from day 22 to day 29. With sensitization and challenge, 2ME2, CoCl₂ or vehicle (DMSO) solution was given by intraperitoneal injection 2 hours before each intranasal challenge. SAL, saline; VEH, vehicle; IP, intraperitoneal injection; IN, intranasal instillation.</p

Effects of 2ME2 and CoCl₂ on expression of IL-4 and IL-5 in NLF and OVA-specific IgE in sera.

<p>Sampling was performed 24 h after the last challenge in saline/OVA-treated mice administered with either vehicle (DMSO), 2ME2, or CoCl₂. Levels of IL-4 (A) and IL-5 (B) in NLF and OVA-Specific IgE (C) in sera were analyzed using ELISAs (n = 10 mice). Values represent means±SEM. *Significantly different from negative control, p<0.05; ^#significantly different from positive control, p<0.05.</p

Histology of nasal mucosa and eosinophil infiltration.

<p>(A) Histological findings of the nasal mucosa in each group (magnification 400×, scale bar = 20 µm). (B) Eosinophil counts in the nasal mucosa were significantly reduced by treatment with 2ME2 and increased by treatment with CoCl₂ compared to the positive control group. *Significantly different from negative control, p<0.05; ^#significantly different from positive control, p<0.05.</p