↓ Skip to main content

Existential Risk and Cost-Effective Biosecurity

Overview of attention for article published in Health Security, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 679)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
12 X users
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Existential Risk and Cost-Effective Biosecurity
Published in
Health Security, August 2017
DOI 10.1089/hs.2017.0028
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In the decades to come, advanced bioweapons could threaten human existence. Although the probability of human extinction from bioweapons may be low, the expected value of reducing the risk could still be large, since such risks jeopardize the existence of all future generations. We provide an overview of biotechnological extinction risk, make some rough initial estimates for how severe the risks might be, and compare the cost-effectiveness of reducing these extinction-level risks with existing biosecurity work. We find that reducing human extinction risk can be more cost-effective than reducing smaller-scale risks, even when using conservative estimates. This suggests that the risks are not low enough to ignore and that more ought to be done to prevent the worst-case scenarios.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Other 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 25 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 9%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Engineering 6 6%
Other 35 36%
Unknown 29 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2026.
All research outputs
#625,097
of 34,358,242 outputs
Outputs from Health Security
#22
of 679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,851
of 357,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Security
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,358,242 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 357,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.