Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have great potential to help address societal challenges that are both collective in nature and present at national or transnational scale. Pressing challenges in healthcare, finance, infrastructure and sustainability, for instance, might all be productively addressed by leveraging and amplifying AI for national-scale collective intelligence. The development and deployment of this kind of AI faces distinctive challenges, both technical and socio-technical. Here, a research strategy for mobilising inter-disciplinary research to address these challenges is detailed and some of the key issues that must be faced are outlined.

Soper's ‘pain and brain’ evolutionary theory of suicide has significant explanatory power and deserves wider consideration and scrutiny in the mainstream psychiatric literature. It provides a novel framework for thinking about the problem of suicide and could have an important impact on research as well as clinical practice. However, we raise questions and concerns regarding the prediction the theory makes regarding common mental disorders being anti-suicide adaptations.

The conservation sector increasingly values reflexivity, in which professionals critically reflect on the social, institutional and political aspects of their work. Reflexivity offers diverse benefits, from enhancing individual performance to driving institutional transformation. However, integrating reflexivity into conservation practice remains challenging and is often confined to informal reflections with limited impact. To overcome this challenge, we introduce co-reflexivity, offering an alternative to the binary distinction between social science on or for conservation, which respectively produce critical outsider accounts of conservation or provide social science instruments for achieving conservation objectives. Instead, co-reflexivity is a form of social science with conservation, in which conservation professionals and social scientists jointly develop critical yet constructive perspectives on and approaches to conservation. We demonstrate the value of co-reflexivity by presenting a set of reflections on the project model, the dominant framework for conservation funding, which organizes conservation activity into distinct, target-oriented and temporally bounded units that can be funded, implemented and evaluated separately. Co-reflexivity helps reveal the diverse challenges that the project model creates for conservation practice, including for the adoption of reflexivity itself. Putting insights from social science research in dialogue with reflections from conservation professionals, we co-produce a critique of project-based conservation with both theoretical and practical implications. These cross-disciplinary conversations provide a case study of how co-reflexivity can enhance the conservation–social science relationship.

‘Biological’ and ‘social’ perspectives in psychiatry have exchanged dominance at different times in the history of our field and are sometimes erroneously viewed as being contrasting and mutually exclusive paradigms. We argue that the arbitrary ‘biological/social’ divide in psychiatry is misleading, unhelpful, and ultimately a false one. We propose that the evolutionary perspective provides a necessary framework and metatheory that can bridge this apparent schism in psychiatric thinking, providing novel and useful insights into how we can better assess, diagnose, and treat our patients.

The biopsychosocial model remains a key paradigm for healthcare, despite widely recognised scientific and philosophical shortcomings. Here we report on recent updates integrating evolutionary theory with the biopsychosocial model to provide a more comprehensive and scientifically complete approach to understanding the multiple relevant levels of causation of medical and psychiatric problems.