This chapter describes how to continue to develop as a leader. Great leadership is not something you ever really attain, but something you are constantly striving toward. Innovation and creativity help nurture your leadership potential; resting on your laurels leads to complacency and stale leadership. As with all things, this does not come without some work and introspection. Introspection is the work, and most leaders fail to develop because they’re unwilling or unable to take the extra steps to examine themselves and their group deeply, find out what’s working and what’s not, and come up with fixes. We discuss the importance of getting evaluations and feedback on your performance as a leader, and how to incorporate that feedback in a healthy manner. We discuss the importance of availability and accessibility. We talk about the importance of leading by example, “walking the walk.” We go into the importance of clear, concise, and honest messaging, as well as embracing change and learning from your mistakes. We reemphasize the importance of diversity and conclude with some core principles and values.

In most societies, many groups and individuals rely on places beyond the scope of the household to live and enjoy their rights, including their rights to water and sanitation. These groups include persons in penal institutions and detention centres, health care professionals and patients who spend long periods in hospitals and health centres, students in boarding schools and workers who are required to spend considerable lengths of time in open workplaces. They also include people who reside in those spheres because of homelessness, people living in poverty who may lack access to water and sanitation in or near their homes and people who work formally or informally in the public spaces of urban areas. More broadly, they include the general public who commute daily.

The debate around the international framework for HRtWS is permeated by challenges and endorsements from United Nations member states and civil society. Such a debate has implications both as to what precisely the content of the rights are and what the nature of countries’ obligations related to such rights is, as well as how these should be concretely realized in practical terms.

This chapter discusses prospect theory at length, as a prime example of the ways fairly trivial changes in the presentation of a set of facts can dramatically alter public opinion. The chapter begins with an ancient idea, at least as old as Aristotle’s philosophy, that in a public debate over an issue, features quite peripheral to the facts of a case could be invoked, challenged, or described in order to maximize an argument’s persuasive power. The central idea behind the art of political rhetoric is what we call framing. The conviction that framing is a powerful persuasive tool for political elites in both democratic and non-democratic regimes is widely held and, in many ways, contradicts rational choice models of decision-making. Because frames do not change the underlying dimensions of a choice – the facts of the case – they should not affect our decisions, at least not according to a rational choice framework. Still, they often do.

Critical thinking in science and many other disciplines should encompass creative, analytical, practical, and wise thinking. Underlying it are both cognitive processes and dispositions–that is, what a person can do and what a person chooses to do. Critical thinking is both domain-general and domain-specific. The domain-specific elements of it cannot be well captured by general tests of critical thinking. We have found that critical thinking in STEM disciplines involves skills that are quite different from those involved in taking tests of cognitive and academic skills. Some of these skills are generating hypotheses, generating experiments, and drawing conclusions. In our tests of these skills, which we have administered to students at Cornell University, scores on the tests correlated not at all or even negatively with tests of academic preparation, such as the SAT and the ACT. Thus, universities that select future scientists and engineers on the basis of such standardized tests may be choosing the wrong people unless they can assure that those people are good scientific reasoners, not just good takers of analytically-oriented tests.

Behavioral paternalists often distinguish their views from harder forms of paternalism by emphasizing the moderate character of their proposals. Insights from the academic literature on slippery slopes suggest that behavioral paternalist policies are particularly vulnerable to expansion, which makes the claim to moderation unsustainable. This is true even if policymakers are rational (in the neoclassical sense), but the slippery-slope threat is even greater if policymakers share the behavioral and cognitive biases attributed to the people their policies are supposed to help. Rational slope mechanisms include altered incentive slopes, authority and simplification slopes, and expanding justification slopes. Behavioral slope mechanisms include action bias, overconfidence, confirmation bias, present bias, availability and salience effects, framing and extremeness aversion, and affect and prototype heuristics. The theoretical and empirical vagueness of behavioral paternalism creates gradients that encourage the gradual expansion of policies. Finally, the particular way in which leading behavioral paternalists have framed the issue of paternalism gives rise to an inherently expansionist dynamic, which we call the paternalism-generating framework.

Rational beliefs need not be truth-tracking nor adhere strictly to basic logical or statistical-inference principles. They must simply be appropriate to the attainment of the individual’s purposes in specific contexts. We analyze various “errors” that behavioral economists have supposedly discovered in belief formation. Specifically, we examine supposed errors related to imperfect logical deduction, the conjunction fallacy (including the famous “Linda problem”), availability bias, overconfidence bias, and distorted salience. In each case we show that the standard behavioral analysis is too simple and that many of their behaviors qualify as inclusively rational. The fundamental error of behavioral analysts is to expect that universal, abstract methods of belief formation will be appropriate for guiding all concrete choices.

Real-world policymakers face pressure to take action, to legislate, and to attempt to solve problems even in imperfect ways. What kind of paternalistic policies can we reasonably expect policymakers to create? We argue that public-choice pressures will tend to produce suboptimal paternalistic policies, even if we assume behavioral paternalists’ conclusions about human behavior are generally correct. Rational ignorance, bureaucratic self-interest, concentrated benefits and diffuse costs, the influence of rent-seekers and moralists, and other factors will tend to shape policy in undesirable ways. If policymakers are susceptible to biases such as those attributed to regular people, the results could be even worse. Biases with the potential to adversely affect policymaking include action bias, overconfidence, confirmation bias, availability and salience effects, affect and prototype heuristics, and present bias. Because the political sphere offers weak incentives for the self-correction of biases, we expect such biases to be more significant in the public than in the private sphere.

ART was pioneered in Africa in the 1980’s. Subsequently, ART centres emerged around the continent, mostly by specialists acquiring skills abroad. Despite this, ART activity remains scant in most African countries and absent in several others.

Historically, ART surveillance in Africa has been similarly scant and fragmented. Recently however, the African Network and Registry for ART (ANARA) has been established with the vision to reduce the high burden of infertility in Africa through ART; and its mission to bring together ART centres within and across countries and to collect data pertaining to availability, utilization, effectiveness and safety of ART. First registry data, collected from 40 centres in 13 countries, and will be published shortly. ANARA protects the anonymity of centres and patients and the ownership of data.

The successful establishment of ANARA is rooted in a collaborative spirit of engagement with ART centres and other stakeholders, developmental assistance from both the Latin American and World Registry, and the importance of data in reducing the burden of infertility in Africa.

Asia is composed of more than 40 countries where about 60% of the global population live. Since Asia is the largest and geographically variable continent, where cultural and social backgrounds are very diverse in every part of this area, it is almost impossible to describe the whole area in one chapter. Rapid decline of birth rates in multiple countries, particularly in eastern Asia, drew wide public attention and promoted the treatment and care for infertile couples. Particularly, assisted reproductive technology (ART) has significantly spread in many Asian countries and its growth is still ongoing. Although ART registries were established in several Asian countries many years ago, there is no Asian regional registry because of this diverse situation of this area.

Since 1999 surveillance of ART in Europe is carried out by the European IVF-monitoring (EIM) Consortium, founded in June 1999 by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). EIM is organized by the representatives of national registries of European countries offering ART. The high diversity of participating European countries pose a serious challenge for obtaining complete data and interpreting the results. Notwithstanding this challenge EIM has managed in 2014 to collect the data of 38 from 42 participating European countries (90.5%) and 1280 institutions (90.2% of all known in Europe). Annual meetings supported by ESHRE have created a spirit of mutual understanding and have contributed much to increase the level of participation. Every year, EIM published an annual report with cross-sectional data, typically made of more than 700'000 treatment cycles of ART. The first data set of 1997 was published in 2001 and was followed by 17 reports in the journal „Human Reproduction“.