New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Too Contagious to Fail: Why Bankers Should Think More Like Epidemiologists

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What could the study of infectious disease teach us about the 2008 financial crisis? Plenty, argue University of Oxford ecologist Robert M. May and Andrew G. Haldane, the Bank of England’s executive director for financial stability. In a recent paper they compared big banks such as Lehman Brothers with what epidemiologists call “superspreaders”—infected people or organisms who endanger entire networks through their web of connections. 

To prevent another meltdown, financial regulators may need to focus on the health of networks, not just individual banks, May notes. In focusing on interconnections, bankers would be following the lead of designers of personal computers and utility grids; all have worked to make their systems modular, creating firewalls to prevent infection of the whole network by a single element in it. Says Philip H. Dybvig, an economist at Washington University in St. Louis: “What they’re proposing is really a version of Glass-Steagall,” an act that separated investment banks from commercial ones, revoked in 1999. Are bankers listening? May cites the U.S.’s recently proposed Volcker rule—which suggested quarantining risky hedge fund and private equity activity from other banking activities—as a sign that they may be thinking more like epidemiologists.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 304 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Too Contagious to Fail: Why Bankers Should Think More Like Epidemiologists” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 304 No. 4 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican042011-6H7xSXG1e3McnhQ2SeYSqs

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe