An interesting theme that has come across my radar in a variety of contexts recently is the threshold between emergency response and longer-term engagements with a field. Peter Redfield’s paper at the biosecurity workshop touched on this question in humanitarian work, looking at how the exigency of HIV/AIDS treatment regimes — which are long-term — have raised questions about Doctors’ Without Borders tool kit, which is oriented to medical emergencies. A student of mine, Caroline Nichols, is examining how emergency relief organizations like the International Crisis Group are reorienting their activities now that the Russian Government has declared that the “war” in Chechnya is over and the period of reconstruction has begun. This issue also comes up in interesting ways in an article in today’s New York Times about reconstruction in New Orleans, and the efforts of a former Dean of the Milano School at the New School who has become a key player in reconstruction. He has been involved in the post-”event” recovery in New York (after 9.11), in Oakland, California (after Loma Prieta), and now in post-deluvian New Orleans (check out his bio at the Center for Sustainable Suburban Development). There is a particular universe of expertise in post-disaster reconstruction just as there is one (emerging) in post-conflict reconstruction. The question is: what are the norms, forms, and styles of reasoning in this domain?