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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe