Person:
Wikler, Daniel

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Wikler

First Name

Daniel

Name

Wikler, Daniel
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.878be518-df50-4178-91b2-4b1265357b40

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    HIV Treatment-as-Prevention Research at a Crossroads
    (Public Library of Science, 2014) Bärnighausen, Till; Eyal, Nir; Wikler, Daniel
    In light of changing WHO guidelines for HIV treatment, Till Bärnighausen and colleagues consider how large-scale HIV treatment-as-prevention trials can be adapted so that they can remain viable. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Three Case Studies in Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage
    (Harvard University Press, 2016) Voorhoeve, Alex; Edejer, Tessa T.T.; Kapiriri, Lydia; Norheim, Ole F.; Snowden, James; Basenya, Olivier; Bayarsaikhan, Dorjsuren; Chentaf, Ikram; Eyal, Nir; Folsom, Amanda; Tun Hussein, Rozita Halina; Morales, Cristian; Ostmann, Florian; Ottersen, Trygve; Prakongsai, Phusit; Saenz, Carla; Saleh, Karima; Sommanustweechai, Angkana; Wikler, Daniel; Zakariah, Afisah
    Abstract The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC, the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Variation in the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) is associated with differences in moral judgment
    (Oxford University Press, 2016) Bernhard, Regan; Chaponis, Jonathan; Siburian, Richie; Gallagher, Patience; Ransohoff, Katherine; Wikler, Daniel; Perlis, Roy H.; Greene, Joshua
    Moral judgments are produced through the coordinated interaction of multiple neural systems, each of which relies on a characteristic set of neurotransmitters. Genes that produce or regulate these neurotransmitters may have distinctive influences on moral judgment. Two studies examined potential genetic influences on moral judgment using dilemmas that reliably elicit competing automatic and controlled responses, generated by dissociable neural systems. Study 1 (N = 228) examined 49 common variants (SNPs) within 10 candidate genes and identified a nominal association between a polymorphism (rs237889) of the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) and variation in deontological vs utilitarian moral judgment (that is, judgments favoring individual rights vs the greater good). An association was likewise observed for rs1042615 of the arginine vasopressin receptor gene (AVPR1A). Study 2 (N = 322) aimed to replicate these findings using the aforementioned dilemmas as well as a new set of structurally similar medical dilemmas. Study 2 failed to replicate the association with AVPR1A, but replicated the OXTR finding using both the original and new dilemmas. Together, these findings suggest that moral judgment is influenced by variation in the oxytocin receptor gene and, more generally, that single genetic polymorphisms can have a detectable effect on complex decision processes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Why Prioritize When There Isn't Enough Money?
    (BioMed Central, 2003) Wikler, Daniel
    In an informal address to the 4th International Conference on Priorities in Health (Oslo, 23 September 2002), Professor Jeffrey Sachs--Chairperson of the WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health--maintained that the real causes of the inability of the world's poorest people to receive help for the lethal diseases that burden them did not include the "usual suspects" (corruption, mismanagement, and wrong priorities). Rather, the root cause was argued to be an inherent lack of money, indicating that the burden of disease would be lifted only if rich countries gave more money to poor ones. Without taking exception to anything that Sachs said in his address, there nevertheless remain a number of justifications for efforts to improve priority setting in the face of severely shortages of resources, including the following three defenses: prioritization is needed if we are to know that prioritization is insufficient; prioritization is most important when there is little money; prioritization can itself increase resources.