02/09/04

Economists must set global priorities

We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:

You have to credit our authors.
You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.

For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

<div class="article-wrap">
<div id="article-introduction">
<h1>Economists must set global priorities</h1>
<h4></h4>
</div>
<br />
<br />

<div id="article-body">
<p><P>Last month, Jeffrey D. Sachs criticised the so-called Copenhagen Consensus — a process under which a group of economists were asked to prioritise a list of solutions to global challenges — because of the absence of natural scientists and public health specialists in such decisions. </P><br />
<P>In a letter of response to <em>Nature</em>, Bjørn<em> </em>Lomborg, professor at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, and the driving force behind the process, responds to Sachs’ comments and defends the dominance of economists at the meeting.</P><br />
<P>Lomborg claims that it is still important to set global priorities — for example, between battling global warming or communicable disease — and that this should be done by economists, not natural scientists. </P><br />
<P><a  href="http://www.nature.com/login/scidev_login.taf?ref=/nature/journal/v431/n7004/full/431017c_fs.html" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Link to full letter in <EM>Nature</EM></A></P>Reference: <em>Nature</em> 431, 17 (2004)</p>

</div>
<div class="quick-links-wrapper">
<h3>You might also like</h3>
[related-articles]
</div>
<p>This article was originally published on <a href="https://www.scidev.net" target="_blank">SciDev.Net</a>. Read the <a href="https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/economists-must-set-global-priorities/" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
(function(e,t,n,r,i,s,o){e["GoogleAnalyticsObject"]=i;e[i]=e[i]||function(){(e[i].q=e[i].q||[]).push(arguments)},e[i].l=1*new Date;s=t.createElement(n),o=t.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];s.async=1;s.src=r;o.parentNode.insertBefore(s,o)})(window,document,"script","//www.google-analytics.com/ga.js","ga");var _gaq=_gaq||[];var _gaq=_gaq||[];_gaq.push(["_setAccount","UA-3223906-8"],["_trackEvent","article interaction","republished","https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/economists-must-set-global-priorities/",null,true])
</script>
</div>

Last month, Jeffrey D. Sachs criticised the so-called Copenhagen Consensus — a process under which a group of economists were asked to prioritise a list of solutions to global challenges — because of the absence of natural scientists and public health specialists in such decisions.

In a letter of response to Nature, Bjørn Lomborg, professor at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, and the driving force behind the process, responds to Sachs’ comments and defends the dominance of economists at the meeting.

Lomborg claims that it is still important to set global priorities — for example, between battling global warming or communicable disease — and that this should be done by economists, not natural scientists.

Link to full letter in Nature

Reference: Nature 431, 17 (2004)