Led by field observations of Collias and Southwick (1952), the innovative thinking of Alexander (1974) and Freeland (1976; Capitanio 2012), and today supported by evidence from multiple disciplines, the significance of social behavior in the transmission of disease in nature and the development of society-level and population-wide immunity have long been recognized. Basic research on diverse model systems has integrated ethological, ecological, evolutionary, genetic, immunological, psychological, sociological, theoretical, and epidemiological approaches to understand the risks posed by pathogens and parasites, host responses to infection and infestation, and the consequences of disease to fitness (Brown and Brown 1986; John and Samuel 2000; Schmid-Hempel 2005; Nunn and Altizer 2006; Fefferman and Traniello 2009; Kappeler et al. 2015; McCabe et al. 2015; Perez-Saez et al. 2017; Rosengaus et al. 2017; Cremer 2019; Samson et al. 2019; Sanz et al. 2019; Silk et al. 2019; Korn et al. 2020; Pull and McMahon 2020; Wilson et al. 2020). The studies cited above represent a minute fraction of published work documenting the impacts of group living and movement in relation to contagion. In sum, they demonstrate that social behavior has dual roles, serving to spread disease through contact among individuals living together, particularly in large groups and at high densities, but also enabling the collective control of infection. A broad socioecoimmunological foundation promotes an understanding of how human social behavior may lower infection risk and control future outbreaks. This strong interdisciplinary and broad phylogenetic perspective can be applied to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Van Bayel et al. (2020) offer important insights from social and natural science research to “help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts.” Lopes (2020) questions if social distancing is “natural” to humans and notes that diseased vampire bats, mice, and eusocial insects voluntarily isolate themselves from uninfected group members. Human actions in response to expert public health guidance for reducing coronavirus infection, in contrast, appear to be influenced by age-associated risk tolerance, selfish independence, and parochialism. Simple prophylactic measures that have little personal cost and are empirically known to provide great benefit in managing the spread of disease have been difficult to implement with consistency. Some of these measures, moreover, have become polarizing “green beard” markers of group affiliation (Hamilton 1964; Dawkins 1976) that decrease compliance with authoritative advisories. Physical distancing has proven problematic, although it is still possible to maintain a high degree of social connectedness through multiple channels of communication and readily accessible technologies. Human behavior during the pandemic has been frequently contrary to evidence-based recommendations for intervention practices that maximize public health benefits, and interest in the common good has often been subordinate to personal, economic, and political gain. Core elements of human sociality that may constrain the expression of flexible and adaptive cooperative behavior at the level of the family, society, and international community appear to be exerting their influence. At this unprecedented time of global crisis and in a persistently disturbing and frustrating culture of denialism within which evidence-based findings have been and continue to be marginalized, suppressed, and devalued, our understanding of the behavioral biology of disease causes us to again emphasize the significance and necessity of science in post-truth society (Traniello and Bakker 2017). As researchers who have examined the behavior, ecology, and evolution of disease and immune response and as Editors-in-Chief of Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology who regularly publish articles concerning social behavior, infection, and immunocompetence and * James F.A. Traniello jfat@bu.edu

中文翻译：

---

社会行为和疾病：大流行期间支持科学

在 Collias 和 Southwick (1952) 的实地观察、Alexander (1974) 和 Freeland (1976; Capitanio 2012) 的创新思维的引领下，今天得到多学科证据的支持，社会行为在自然疾病传播中的重要性社会层面和人群免疫的发展早已得到认可。对不同模型系统的基础研究整合了行为学、生态学、进化学、遗传学、免疫学、心理学、社会学、理论和流行病学方法，以了解病原体和寄生虫带来的风险、宿主对感染和侵染的反应以及疾病对健身（Brown 和 Brown 1986；John 和 Samuel 2000；Schmid-Hempel 2005；Nunn 和 Altizer 2006；Fefferman 和 Traniello 2009；Kappeler 等人 2015；McCabe 等人。2015；佩雷斯-赛兹等人。2017；罗森高斯等人。2017；克里默 2019；萨姆森等人。2019; 桑兹等人。2019; 丝绸等。2019; 科恩等人。2020；拉和麦克马洪 2020；威尔逊等人。2020）。上面引用的研究代表了已发表的工作的一小部分，这些工作记录了群体生活和运动对传染病的影响。总之，他们证明了社会行为具有双重作用，通过共同生活的个体之间的接触传播疾病，特别是在大群体和高密度人群中，但也有助于集体控制感染。广泛的社会生态学基础促进了对人类社会行为如何降低感染风险和控制未来爆发的理解。这种强大的跨学科和广泛的系统发育观点可以应用于当前的 COVID-19 大流行。范巴耶尔等人。(2020) 提供了社会和自然科学研究的重要见解，以“帮助将人类行为与流行病学家和公共卫生专家的建议保持一致”。Lopes (2020) 质疑社交距离对人类来说是否“自然”，并指出患病的吸血蝙蝠、老鼠和群居昆虫会自愿将自己与未感染的群体成员隔离开来。相比之下，人类响应减少冠状病毒感染的公共卫生专家指导的行为似乎受到与年龄相关的风险承受能力、自私独立和狭隘主义的影响。个人成本低且凭经验已知可在控制疾病传播方面提供巨大益处的简单预防措施难以始终如一地实施。此外，其中一些措施，已成为群体归属的两极分化“绿胡子”标志（Hamilton 1964; Dawkins 1976），降低了对权威建议的遵守。物理距离已被证明是有问题的，尽管通过多种沟通渠道和易于访问的技术仍然可以保持高度的社会联系。大流行期间的人类行为经常违背以证据为基础的干预实践建议，以最大限度地提高公共卫生利益，对公共利益的兴趣往往从属于个人、经济和政治利益。可能限制家庭、社会和国际社会层面灵活和适应性合作行为表达的人类社会性核心要素似乎正在发挥其影响。在这个前所未有的全球危机时期，在持续令人不安和令人沮丧的否认主义文化中，基于证据的发现已经并将继续被边缘化、压制和贬值，我们对疾病行为生物学的理解使我们再次强调科学在后真相社会中的重要性和必要性（Traniello and Bakker 2017）。作为研究疾病和免疫反应的行为、生态学和进化的研究人员，以及定期发表有关社会行为、感染和免疫能力的文章的行为生态学和社会生物学的主编和 * James FA Traniello jfat@bu。教育 我们对疾病行为生物学的理解使我们再次强调科学在后真相社会中的重要性和必要性（Traniello and Bakker 2017）。作为研究疾病和免疫反应的行为、生态学和进化的研究人员，以及定期发表有关社会行为、感染和免疫能力的文章的行为生态学和社会生物学的主编和 * James FA Traniello jfat@bu。教育 我们对疾病行为生物学的理解使我们再次强调科学在后真相社会中的重要性和必要性（Traniello and Bakker 2017）。作为研究疾病和免疫反应的行为、生态学和进化的研究人员，以及定期发表有关社会行为、感染和免疫能力的文章的行为生态学和社会生物学的主编和 * James FA Traniello jfat@bu。教育