In the latter part of the 1960s, the ethologically derived idea of territoriality as an explanation for human aggression became widely debated among social scientists. The instinctual basis of human territorial aggression was promoted by so-called popular ethologists and consequently embraced by lay audiences. The article examines how the emerging field of environmental psychology adopted the notion of human territoriality from ethology and made it into a part of their own research agenda. It shows how environmental psychologists were inspired by the fashion around the claimed relevance of human territoriality for the large-scale social problems, such as aggression, war and population growth. Despite of the obvious influences and comparisons between animal and human behavior, many environmental psychologists wanted to contest not only the 'territorial aggression thesis' but also the relevance of animal studies for the analysis of human behavior.

FM Annukka Sailon tieteiden ja aatteiden historian alaan kuuluva väitöskirja "Hierarchies, population control, war: Debating territorial aggression in behavioral sciences (1965–75)" tarkastettiin Oulun yliopistossa 30.10.2020. Vastaväittäjänä toimi professori Erika Milam (Princetonin yliopisto) ja kustoksena professori Petteri Pietikäinen (Oulun yliopisto). Tilaisuus oli englanninkielinen ja järjestettiin etäyhteyksin.

From early 2020, epidemiological research has been in the public eye like never before, thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic. Epidemiology has been instrumental in recognizing and framing the pandemic, assessing its scale, and shaping the global response. Much to their surprise, epidemiologists have also been drawn into the highly politicized disputes around the pandemic response. But both pandemics and epidemiologists have been around for centuries or, depending on definitions, even for millenia. Apart from shortly outlining the contents of the book, the introductory chapter charts the boundaries of epidemiology with reference to adjacent fields of inquiry, reviews the widely varied views on its emergence as a disipline, and discusses the historiography of epidemiology—which, much like its subject, is extensive but somewhat nebulous.