Surely, like any mathematical or statistical method, meta-analysis is as good
as the data processed - garbage in, garbage out... And surely it is not
rational to be opposed to mata-analysis or even critical of meta-analysis as
such (like questioning algebra or correlation studies might not make sense) -
as long as the method is used as intended, and claims not supported by the
method are avoided.

Cheers,

Leif Edward

>===== Original Message From Ralph L Holloway <rlh2@...> =====
>I'm the guilty party, not Irwin Silverman, who thinks that meta-analysis
>ought to be very carefully examined, and that yes, I do think some of the
>m-a analyses I've seen are a "crock". But I never intended to mean they
>should be ignored.
>
>Ralph L. Holloway
>Dept. Anthropology
>Columbia University
>NY, NY 10027
>212-854-4570
>Fax= 212-854-7347
>Web Page www.columbia.edu/~rlh2

I tend to think objective ministries is a joke. At the bottom of the page it
says something along the lines of, support christanity by visiting one of
our christian business links. This link was to www. lustpleasure. com. I'm
no expert on christianity, but this doesn't sound too christian.

Cheers
Matt Watson



_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

> Yes, that is one of the babies in the bath water being tossed out, i.e.,
> gene expression and development, even gene-environment interaction.
>
> Ralph L. Holloway


Indeed, if the human "baby"  be expressions of genes + development + the
environmental "bath water," these environmental extremists would define us as
ONLY the "bath water."

Leon Albert

New Statesman

Why psychiatry has failed
Peter Watson
Monday 1st July 2002

We can fly to the moon and tap genetic secrets, but human beings are as badly
behaved and as miserable as ever. Is it because shrinks rely too much on words?
By Peter Watson

One hundred years ago, in The Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Freud unveiled
the unconscious, and "the psychological century" was born. It has turned out to
be a huge disappointment. The gene and the quantum were conceived at the same
time as Freud conceived the unconscious; yet, although they have led to
sophisticated technologies, psychology and psychiatry, by most standards, are
failures. More people than ever are on anti-depressants; drug abuse is rampant;
psychotherapies don't work; our jails are fuller than ever.

What happened? Where did it all go wrong? Jerome Kagan, a professor of
psychology at Harvard, thinks he has an answer. In his newly published book,
Surprise, Uncertainty and Mental Structures, he argues that we have been
ignoring what goes on inside our heads.

Consider the following experiments:

Full text
http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/200207010018.htm

Surprise, Uncertainty, and Mental Structures
by Jerome Kagan
Hardcover: 256 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.01 x 8.50 x 5.74
Publisher: Harvard Univ Pr; ISBN: 0674007352; (April 2002)
AMAZON - US
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674007352/darwinanddarwini/
AMAZON - UK
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674007352/humannaturecom/
AMAZON - CA
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674007352/humannaturere-20/

Book Description
When we are startled by the new, confronted with discrepancies, our knowing
gives way to uncertainty--and changes. In the distinctive manner that has made
him one of the most influential forces in developmental psychology, Jerome
Kagan challenges scientific commonplaces about mental processes, pointing in
particular to the significant but undervalued role of surprise and uncertainty
in shaping behavior, emotion, and thought. Drawing on research in both animal
and human subjects, Kagan presents a strong case for making qualitative
distinctions among four different types of mental representation--perceptual
schemata, visceral schemata, sensorimotor structures, and semantic
networks--and describes how each is susceptible to the experience of
discrepancy and the feeling of surprise or uncertainty. The implications of
these findings are far-reaching, challenging current ideas about the cognitive
understandings of infants and revealing the bankruptcy of contemporary
questionnaire-based personality theory. More broadly, Kagan's daring,
thoroughly informed, and keenly reasoned book demonstrates the risks of making
generalizations about human behavior, in which culture, context, and past
experience play such paramount and unpredictable roles.

About the Author
Jerome Kagan is Daniel and Amy Starch Professor of Psychology at Harvard
University.
http://www.necsi.org/faculty/kagan.html

Table of Contents

Introduction
1. Discrepancy and Schemata
2. Inconsistency and Semantic Networks
3. Event-related Potentials
4. Implications for Development
5. Implications for Creativity and Personality
Epilogue
Notes
Acknowledgments
Index

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Ken Jacobson wrote:

> Hi, on this wonderful summer's day in New England, I submit for the
> list's information that in my recently completed study of ADHD, I was
> lucky enough to have a pair of MZ girls, age 11, living together. One
> was labeled ADHD, her twin was not. I spent considerable time with them,
> their family etc., and can report that I felt that they they had reacted
> differently to very interesting and difficult environmental conditions.
> It turned out that one twin had sufficient achievement problems in
> school to justify diagnosis while the other was just sufficiently
> "average" not to justify diagnosis. There was little difference in their
> in class behavior. One case clearly is not sufficient to contradict a
> literature. However, I will state that I believe that their school
> achievement relates to their reactions to their environment and that
> they were treated/percieved as different people by key elements in that
> environment. Those differences seem to correlate to their achievement,
> with the more highly regarded twin being the higher achiever.
> Cheers...Ken

Ken
	 Interesting scenario - There are a sprinkling of studies from
the Minnesota project where correlations for MZ twins raised apart are
significantly stronger than counterparts raised together - which may be
attributable in part to competition between members of the pair in the
latter situation - Seems like this might bear on your case.

Irwin

At 03:09 -0700 30.06.2002, Stan Franklin wrote:
>Maurizio Tirassa writes:
>  > ....
>  > thermostats are situated nowhere, sense nothing, and do not act. To
>>  think otherwise is just animism. One may well accept animism, of
>>  course, but that's unlikely to impress as a good piece of science.
>
>A thermostat is situated (in a tiny niche) in the same world as you and I.
>It senses the temperature and occasionally acts, autonomously, to change it.
>Where's the animism?

Precisly in the idea that thermostats somehow are agents. Being
situated (sensing, acting, etc.) does not only mean to exist. It
means to have a mind. What's the point of asserting that everything
has a mind? (Of course, one can do  that for religious purposes, for
the sake of the metaphor, or for the philosopher's entertainment, but
that way one simply goes nowhere fast).

Agency cannot be defined as a matter of external descriptions,
because then a) everything is an agent under some description, b)
therefore, nothing is an agent in an interesting sense, and c) one
ends up saying that thermostats, rivers, and computers are
intelligent. Furthermore, if agency is defined by movement, then an
animal which is completely still (eg because it's waiting for prey)
is not an agent.

On the contrary, any interesting (useful, "true", etc.) definition of
agency has to refer to having a mind. Agency is therefore a matter of
descriptions "from the inside". Agents are those entities that have a
mind. (Minds are, in their turn, biological properties of healthy
brains in living bodies).

Of course, since we have no psychoscope available, this leaves open
the question of who has a mind. If we ever meet ET, we can expect
heated discussions on the topic. In the meantime, we can safely think
that animals (at least vertebrates) do have a mind, while
thermostats, washing machines, and rocks do not.

>  > If one thinks that a thermostat senses, acts, is situated, has "an
>>  agenda" etc., why refuse the idea that a screwdriver, a hammer ... does?
>
>Precisely because neither of these decides autonomously to act.

Nor do thermostats, rocks, computers, and washing machines. It takes
a mind to "decide autonomously to act".

>  > consciousness is necessary for
>  > intentional action.
>
>This is precisely the issue I'm concerned with. How do we know this?

Because the rest is just the turning on and off of a thermostat, or
the downward falling of water that constitutes the flowing of a
river, and so on. The universe is full of "events", but, to repeat
what I said in my previous posting, events are not actions (or,
better: actions are very particular types of events).

Regards,

							 - MT

--

Maurizio Tirassa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, General Psychology

Universitą di Torino            phone  +39.011.6703037
Centro di Scienza Cognitiva     fax    +39.011.8159039
via Po, 14                      mailto:tirassa@...
10123 Torino (Italy)            http://www.psych.unito.it/

I believe the answer to why psychiatry failed to be an answer to a false
question. Neither psychology nor psychiatry has failed. And brain states and
words important - but Kagan's perspective is also interesting.

The problem is not that psychotherapies do not work - they do. But some do not
work for certain disorders, and some work wonders for specific disorders. And
that is the major problem: Too many psychologists and psychiatrists forget to
base their practice on science and base it on tradition, common sense and
psycho-folk-lore.

The reason clinical psychology and psychiatry seemed as though they were going
to fail was that they used half a century turning into real empirical science!
(And had an uphill battle against the traditions and power bases in
psycho-folk-lore after that.)

This is changing. And thus this piece on the failure of psychiatry and
psychology ends up being based on false premises.

Cheers,

Leif Edward


> One hundred years ago, in The Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Freud unveiled
> the unconscious, and "the psychological century" was born. It has turned out
to
> be a huge disappointment. The gene and the quantum were conceived at the same
> time as Freud conceived the unconscious; yet, although they have led to
> sophisticated technologies, psychology and psychiatry, by most standards, are
> failures. More people than ever are on anti-depressants; drug abuse is
rampant;
> psychotherapies don't work; our jails are fuller than ever.
>
> What happened? Where did it all go wrong? Jerome Kagan, a professor of
> psychology at Harvard, thinks he has an answer. In his newly published book,
> Surprise, Uncertainty and Mental Structures, he argues that we have been
> ignoring what goes on inside our heads.

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Timo Jarvilehto wrote:
>
> Operational definitions are powerful only if the operations are
> backed up by a theory which shows in which way the selected
> operations are relevant from the point of view of the studied
> phenomenon. In twin studies, however, (and in most behavioral
> genetics) there is no theory of environment, and the concept of
> environment is used just in the common sense way. Therefore,
> there is no *scientific* basis for such statements as "rared in
> different environments" or "fostered in the same environment". From
> my point of view, it is completely wrong to operationalize the
> environment on the basis of the fostering family, for example,
> because a family is not really an "environment", but a set of social
> relations.


I think the latter part of your statement is too strong a
characterization. The statements are truly imperfect, but they are
beginnings, and it should be the task of those who wish to operationalize
"environment" to come up with the distinguishing parameters that
differentiate in most cases fostering from nonfostering, or what
environmental perquisites a family, whether foster or not provides. But to
say it is "completely wrong", or there is no *scientific* basis for
viewing the environment in the beginning operational terms seems too
strict a dictum to me. The end result is to simply throw up one's hands
and
say these questions are simply unanswerable and cannot be studied, and
therefore, must, by all scientific logic, be completely ignored.
By-in-large, foster families perhaps lack the same committment that true
biological parents do have in terms in parental interaction with the
child, or in fact, some might have even more. The child itself, if it has
knowledge of itself as in a different family, may create its own internal
environment that cannot be penetrated by surveys, questionaires,
interviews, etc,etc, but shouldn't someone start someplace? Again, I ask,
why throw out the babies with the bath water?

Ralph L. Holloway
Dept. Anthropology
Columbia University
NY, NY 10027
212-854-4570
Fax= 212-854-7347
Web Page www.columbia.edu/~rlh2

At 20:16 +0200 01.07.2002, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair wrote:
>I believe the answer to why psychiatry failed to be an answer to a
>false question. Neither psychology nor psychiatry has failed.....
>
>....that is the major problem: Too many psychologists and
>psychiatrists forget to base their practice on science and base it
>on tradition, common sense and psycho-folk-lore.
>
>The reason clinical psychology and psychiatry seemed as though they
>were going to fail was that they used half a century turning into
>real empirical science!

I agree that clinical psychology and psychiatry are not bankrupt, but
I see a big problem in the lack of a coherent theoretical foundation
and a bigger one in the lack of a nosography based on such
theoratical foundation. The DSM is just a collection of "tradition,
common sense and psycho-folk-lore". Maybe it's my degree in Medicine
speaking here, but when I think back to those clear-cut taxonomies of
"bodily" (as -- incorrectly -- kept distinct from "mental")
diseases, I definitely tend to become envious....

Of course, part of the problem with the DSM (ie, with clinical
psychology and psychiatry) depends on the attempt to keep together
disparate "paradigms", ranging from Freudian orthodoxy to cognitive
psychology to various sorts of eliminativism to constructivism and so
on. On the other hand, precisely this situation is one symptom of the
problem with theoretical foundations which I mentioned earlier.

Regards,

							 - MT

--

Maurizio Tirassa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, General Psychology

Universitą di Torino            phone  +39.011.6703037
Centro di Scienza Cognitiva     fax    +39.011.8159039
via Po, 14                      mailto:tirassa@...
10123 Torino (Italy)            http://www.psych.unito.it/

At 15:36 -0700 01.07.2002, Stan Franklin wrote:
>Maurizio Tirassa writes:
>
>>  Agents are those entities that have a
>>  mind. (Minds are, in their turn, biological properties of healthy
>>  brains in living bodies).
>
>Since this discussion revolves around to question of consciousness, I
>presume you're equating having a mind with being conscious. If this is
>correct, you, like many others, claim that only biological entities can be
>conscious. What I'm questioning is the basis for this belief. What is the
>evidence? What are the arguments?


It is correct that I equate having a mind with being conscious. Any
other definition of both "mind" and "consciousness" (like definitions
"from the outside") is a nonstarter.

It is correct that I think that only biological entities are
conscious; however, it is incorrect that I claim that only biological
entities *can in principle be* conscious.

Everything we know points to the evidence that consciousness is
related to something in brain functioning. If we take brain-altering
molecules (alcohol, drugs, dope, whatever), or if we have some brain
disease, etc., our consciousness changes significantly. Similar
changes in activity are related to changes in electroencephalographic
recordings, to patterns in neuroimaging, etc. Therefore, we can
safely think that every animal with a functioning brain is conscious.

The reverse problem (ie, that nonbiological entities are not
conscious) is nor edifficult. The problem is that we have no cue as
to what aspects of brain functioning are relevant for consciousness.
If we did and if we were able to duplicate them, then we might be
able to create conscious (ie, intelligent) artifacts, or to discover
consciousness in existing nonbiological entities. In the meantime, I
see no reason to think that rocks and thermostats are conscious.

Furthermore, this seems to more a matter of a starting point than of
a pseudo-syllogistic conclusion: put simply, the only way to not get
stuck in insurmountable scientific, ethical, legal, etc. problems is
to exclude that rocks and thermostats are conscious.

There is no ultimate argument or evidence possible here, at least
until we invent the psychoscope. To do theoretical psychology is, in
this sense, real *blade running* and, as I said, we will fully (and
painfully) realize this if and when we meet extraterrestrial entities
that *might be* intelligent. On the other hand, to ask a cognitive
scientist what the mind is is somehow like asking a physicist what
matter is, or to ask a biologist what life is. Matter, life, and the
mind are, in this sense, starting points for research.

Regards,

							 - Maurizio
--

Maurizio Tirassa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, General Psychology

Universitą di Torino            phone  +39.011.6703037
Centro di Scienza Cognitiva     fax    +39.011.8159039
via Po, 14                      mailto:tirassa@...
10123 Torino (Italy)            http://www.psych.unito.it/

Pain and Negative Emotion: Towards an Interdisciplinary Synthesis

Background:
A new understanding of pain has emerged from recent progress in the neurophysiology of pain, functional brain imaging studies of persons experiencing pain, and advances in theory.  Pain has an affective dimension as well a sensory aspect.  Its affective dimension stems from the neural substrates for emotion, and the natural expression of pain is predominantly emotional.  It is becoming increasingly clear that pain and emotional disturbance are interdependent problems and that the clinical solution to one sometimes requires the assessment and treatment of the other.

The field of emotion research has made important recent advances in elucidating central mechanisms for the production and perception of emotions.  However, salient findings from emotion research have had little or no influence on pain research because of limited communication between these fields.  Conversely, pain research is potentially of great importance to the study of emotion because clinical patients with pain typically exhibit many affective problems, but few emotion researchers realize that pain is a viable domain for the study of emotion.  Increased and sustained communication between these separate domains of inquiry should prove mutually beneficial.  This satellite meeting will bring together basic science and clinical researchers from the pain and emotion fields.  Participants will present state-of-the-art reports that cultivate interdisciplinary collaborations and foster translational interactions between researchers and clinicians.  The meeting will highlight several themes that cut across the two fields.  Invited speakers will deliver their presentations in 30 minutes, leaving ample time for interactive discussion.

Educational Objectives:
After attending this satellite meeting, participants will:
1.    understand the physiological basis of emotion associated with pain;
2.    be able to discuss objective and subjective methods for quantifying emotion;
3.    appreciate the importance of affective factors in clinical pain management; and
4.    better understand how to manage the affective dimension of pain.

Location:
The meeting will take place at Solitude Ski Resort (http://www.skisolitude.com/summer/index.cfm), a scenic mountain resort in Big Cottonwood Canyon, a short distance from Salt Lake City.


Program Schedule:

August 11
Keynote Evening Presentation
The Metaphysics of Research in Pain and Emotion: Enduring Category Errors in Neurobiology
Walter J. Freeman, M.D.

August 12
Basic Science Perspectives on Pain and Emotion
A) Neuroanatomy and Neurophysiology of Pain and Emotion

1) The Neurobiology of Sensory and Affective Dimensions of Pain: An Overview
Donald D. Price, Ph.D.

2) The Neural Bases of Emotion: An Overview
Jean-Marc Fellous, Ph.D.

3) Neuropsychology of Emotion
Alfred W. Kaszniak, Ph.D.

B) Pain and Emotion: Perspectives from Functional Brain Imaging Studies

4) Neural Substrates of the Experience and Anticipation of Pain and Aversive Emotion
Richard Lane, M.D. Ph.D.

5) Neurophenomenology of Pain and Pain Modulation
Pierre Rainville, Ph.D.

C) Psychophysiology of Pain and Negative Emotion

6) Multivariate Psychophysiology of the Defense Response: A Latent Variable Approach
C. Richard Chapman, Ph.D.

7) Psychophysiology of Threat Processing
Wolfgang Miltner, Ph.D.

D) Developmental Perspectives on Pain and Emotion

8) Awareness of Injury, Threat, and Pain in Children
Patricia McGrath, Ph.D.

9) Development of Self and Emotion in Early Infancy
Alan Fogel, Ph.D.

August 13
Clinical Perspectives on the Affective Dimension of Pain
E) Somatic Awareness, Self, and Social Interaction

10) The Role of Body in Somatic Awareness: An Enactive Constructivist Approach to Pain
Yoshio Nakamura, Ph.D.

11) Neurobiology of Social Cognition
Ralph Adolphs, Ph.D.

F) Pain and Affective Disorders in Clinical Patients

12) Negative Emotion and Mood in Patients with Chronic Pain
Akiko Okifuji, Ph.D.

13) Pain Pharmacotherapy: Pharmacology and Psychopharmacology
Arthur Lipman, Ph.D.

G) Pain and Affective Disorder:  Independent or Interdependent?

14) Managing Affective Disorders in Chronic Pain
Mark Sullivan, M.D. Ph.D.

15) Affective Disturbance and Pain at End of Life
Sharon Weinstein, M.D.

H) Towards an Interdisciplinary Synthesis

16) Natural Selection and the Regulation of Aversive Emotions
Randolph M. Nesse, M.D.

17) The Intentional Nature of Consciousness: Pain and Emotion
Walter J. Freeman, M.D.

Registration:
To download the registration form as a pdf file for printing:  
http://www.painresearch.utah.edu/activities/registration.pdf

Please send us the first page of the registration form by mail to:  
Pain Research Center
615 Arapeen Drive Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
Attention:  Pain Conference                           

or by FAX:  (801) 585-7694

Call 1-801-585-7690 or visit
http://www.painresearch.utah.edu/activities/solitude.htm
for more information.

July 2002 Vol 3 No 7  HIGHLIGHTS

Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3, 491 (2002)

FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING
The mind of a child

Rachel Jones

A fundamental difficulty in using functional brain imaging to compare how
children and adults perform a task is that both anatomy and performance on many
tasks change with age. Schlaggar et al. have overcome these problems and find
that, even when performance differences are compensated for, children and
adults show different patterns of neural activation when doing simple verbal
tasks.

The study involved adults and 7-10-year-old children who carried out
word-generation tasks; for example, they might be asked to respond with a word
that means the opposite of a cue word. Although the adults generally performed
better and responded faster, there was sufficient overlap in performance to
allow two 'matched' groups - one of children and one of adults - to be
separated out for comparison.

Full text
http://www.nature.com/nrnlink/v3/n7/full/nrn882_fs.html

Nature Reviews Genetics 3, 495 (2002)

COMPARATIVE GENOMICS
Mice and men measure up

Tanita Casci

Mice have long been a favourite model for understanding human genetics and
disease. But just how similar are mice and humans? Now that the genome
sequences of both species are almost complete, the comparative genomics
approach looks like being the most propitious means to answer this age-old
question. Mural et al., from Celera, Inc., have been the first to try it out on
a large scale. By comparing the structure and protein-coding potential of mouse
chromosome (MMU) 16 with human genome sequence, they have shown that large
blocks of MMU 16 are shared between these two mammals. In addition, 95% of
annotated genes on MMU 16 are also present in humans, some of which are
homologues of human disease genes. We now have a good idea of how similar the
mouse and human genomes are, and how evolution has shaped them in the 100
million years since they diverged.

Full text
http://www.nature.com/nrglink/v3/n7/full/nrg851_fs.html

Nature Reviews Genetics 3, 493 (2002)

BEHAVIOURAL GENETICS
An old lesson in behaviour

Tanita Casci

Picking up someone else's project is rarely top of a researcher's wish list,
especially if it has been around for more than four decades. But if the project
happens to be that of Jerry Hirsch, then perhaps the idea is worth
reconsidering. In the 1950s and 1960s, this 'drosophilist' sought to analyse
the genetic basis of behaviour by artificially selecting lines of Drosophila
that had an extreme preference for moving towards or against gravity in a
vertical maze. Although he was able to establish, for the first time, that this
so-called geotaxic behaviour - indeed any behaviour - has a genetic basis,
getting to the underlying genes just wasn't possible at that time. However, by
applying cDNA microarray experiments and mutant analysis to the original lines
generated by Hirsch, Daniel Toma, along with Ralph Greenspan, Kevin White and
Jerry Hirsch himself, have now partly realized the original researcher's aim by
identifying three genes involved in fly geotaxic behaviour. The genetic basis
of any selected phenotype is rather impenetrable, even today, making this work
all the more remarkable.

Full text
http://www.nature.com/nrglink/v3/n7/full/nrg825_fs.html

Erwin Chargaff
Disillusioned biochemist who pioneered our understanding of DNA

Pearce Wright
Guardian

Tuesday July 2, 2002

Erwin Chargaff, who has died aged 96, was one of the giants of the world of
biochemistry. He did pioneering work in several fields; hence, his absence from
the roll of Nobel prizewinners remained something of an enigma.

He was best known for his work in genetics, involving research into the
chemical composition of DNA. Chargaff's data, along with that of Rosalind
Franklin's X-ray diffraction pictures of DNA, provided the groundwork for the
greatest discovery of 20th-century biology, by James Watson and Francis Crick,
when they solved the riddle of heredity and showed how genetic inheritance
could pass from one generation to the next through the double-helix structure
of DNA.

Chargaff 's crucial finding was to detect the regularity with which the four
chemical units of DNA, called bases and known by the letters A, C, G and T,
occurred in pairs. The full significance of the finding, in pointing to a
coding system in the hereditary material of living organisms, escaped him - a
failure that Watson and Crick repaired when they studied the structure of DNA.

Full text
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4452500,00.html

Monday, 1 July, 2002, 14:55 GMT 15:55 UK
Scientists estimate 30 billion Earths
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

Astronomers say there could be billions of Earths in our galaxy, the Milky Way.

Their assessment comes after the discovery of the 100th exoplanet - a planet
that circles a star other than our own.

The latest find is a gas giant, just like all the other exoplanets so far
detected, and orbits a Sun-like star 293 light-years away.

Scientists say they are now in a position to try to estimate how many planets
may exist in the galaxy and speculate on just how many could be like the Earth.
The answer in both cases is billions.

Virtually all the stars out to about 100 light-years distant have been
surveyed. Of these 1,000 or so stars, about 10% have been found to possess
planetary systems.

So, with about 300 billion stars in our galaxy, there could be about 30 billion
planetary systems in the Milky Way alone; and a great many of these systems are
very likely to include Earth-like worlds, say researchers.

Full text
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2078000/2078507.stm

BBC News Online
English and Welsh are races apart

Gene scientists claim to have found proof that the Welsh are the "true"
Britons.

The research supports the idea that Celtic Britain underwent a form of ethnic
cleansing by Anglo-Saxons invaders following the Roman withdrawal in the fifth
century.

It suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was
to become England was wiped out, with Offa's Dyke acting as a "genetic barrier"
protecting those on the Welsh side.

And the upheaval can be traced to this day through genetic differences between
the English and the Welsh.

Academics at University College in London comparing a sample of men from the UK
with those from an area of the Netherlands where the Anglo-Saxons are thought
to have originated found the English subjects had genes that were almost
identical.

Full text
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_2076000/2076470.stm

Public release date: 1-Jul-2002
Contact: Tony Stephenson at.stephenson@...
44-20-7594-6712
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
http://www.ic.ac.uk/

The human immune system may limit future evolution

Scientists from Imperial College London have suggested why the human genome may
possess far fewer genes than previously estimated before the human genome
project was begun.

Research published in the July issue of Trends in Immunology, shows how a more
advanced immune system in humans could explain why the human genome may have
only a slightly greater number of genes than the plant Arabidopsis thaliana,
and probably less than rice, Oryza sativa.

Dr Andrew George, from Imperial College London and based at the Hammersmith
Hospital comments: "Although humans are normally thought to be considerably
more complex than organisms, such as plants, rice, yeast and earthworms, this
is not reflected in their number of genes, with humans having less genes than
other supposedly less complex organisms."

Dr George suggests that the limited number of functional genes in the human
genome may be a result of the presence of a more advanced immune system. The
immune system is designed to protect us from disease, but it is important that
the cells of the immune system do not recognise our own tissues or cells, as
this would lead autoimmune disease.

Autoimmune disease is avoided by killing off any immune cells that recognise
molecules produced by the body (self-molecules). This means that the larger the
genome, the more self-molecules the immune system needs to tolerate.

As a result, the immune system has to kill more immune cells. If there are too
many genes then this results in the vast majority of immune cells dying,
paralysing the immune system, and leaving the body unable to fight off disease
or infection.

Dr George adds: "The limited size of the human genome could make further
evolution for humans difficult. Fortunately, the human genome has been able to
create genes which have multiple uses, thus making the best use of a limited
number of genes."


###
For more information, please contact:

Tony Stephenson
Imperial College Press Office
Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 6712
Mobile: +44 07753 739766
E-mail: at.stephenson@...

Notes to editors:

Is the number of genes we possess limited by the presence of an adaptive immune
system? - Trends in Immunology, Vol.23, No.7, July 2002.

Consistently rated in the top three UK university institutions, Imperial
College London is a world leading science-based university whose reputation for
excellence in teaching and research attracts students (10,000) and staff
(5,000) of the highest international quality. Innovative research at the
College explores the interface between science, medicine, engineering and
management and delivers practical solutions that enhance the quality of life
and the environment - underpinned by a dynamic enterprise culture. Website:
http://www.ic.ac.uk.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-07/icos-thi070102.php

Nature Science Update
Small word network
English words are connected by just three degrees of separation.
2 July 2002
PHILIP BALL

Word association can link just about any two common words in the English
language using an average of three steps, says a team of scientists in Arizona.

The semantic links between English words make the thesaurus a 'small world',
much as the network of human social interactions connect us all by six degrees
of separation, find Adilson Motter and colleagues at Arizona State University
in Tempe1. The researchers expect languages other than English to have the same
properties, even if their syntactic structure is very different.

The researchers traced the links between 30,000 English words in an online
thesaurus. For example, the word 'actor' can be connected to 'universe' through
two intermediaries. The thesaurus lists 'character' as a synonym for 'actor';
'character' is also equated with 'nature'; and 'nature' with 'universe'.

Full text
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020701/020701-2.html

References
Motter, A. E., de Moura, A. P. S., Lai, Y.-C. & Dasgupta, P. Topology of the
conceptual network of language. Physical Review E, 65, 065102, (2002).
http://publish.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v65/e065102/

Nature Science Update
Whole better than parts
Faulty components can make almost perfect device.
2 July 2002
PHILIP BALL

Two physicists have figured out how to make the best of a bad job. They have
shown that a device made of faulty components, such as a computer circuit made
from error-prone transistors, can still function, as long as the components are
combined in the right way.

Computers are increasingly having to manage with imperfect components, as their
power and complexity increases. One costly solution is simply to double up - to
have a back-up system for every one that might fail.

Alternatively, one can find a combination of components that works just about
as well as one containing no defects at all, say Damien Challet and Neil
Johnson of Oxford University. Parts do not necessarily have to be duplicated,
discarded or bypassed just because they are imperfect1.

Full text
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020701/020701-1.html

References
Challet, D. & Johnson, N. F. Optimal combinations of imperfect objects.
Physical Review Letters, 89, 028701, (2002).
http://dx.doi.org/0.1103/PhysRevLett.89.028701
Heath, J. R., Kuekes, P. J., Snider, G. S. & Williams, R. S. A defect-tolerant
computer architecture: opportunities for nanotechnology. Science, 280, 1716 -
1721, (1998).
http://www.sciencemag.org/

New York Times
How did we evolve to the point where we spend almost a third of our lives being
small, vulnerable and unable to do what evolution wants: reproduce?

Why Childhood Lasts, and Lasts and Lasts
By NATALIE ANGIER

On the isle of Mer, a rugged landspit in the Torres Straits near Australia that
could fit easily inside Central Park, some 430 traditional foragers called the
Meriam subsist by grace of the sea.

At low tide, young and old alike rush out to the reef. Women hurriedly gather
up shellfish like conchs, clams and cowries, breaking open the shells to
extract the meat and so keep their burdens bearable. Men aim bamboo spears
tipped with iron to lance up snappers, sea perch, cod and squid; or they toss
out baited hand lines to yank in needlefish, perch, tuna and mackerel. Boys and
girls - some of them barely old enough to walk - gather, spear and fish by hand
with equal zeal.

Shellfish collecting is a physically demanding but relatively simple task, and
the surest way to guarantee a meal. Spearfishing and hand-line casting, by
contrast, are high-skill enterprises, which require detailed knowledge of the
nature and behavior of each type of prey, robust powers of concentration and
great dexterity in casting and jabbing. The best and most admired spearfisher
on the island, the Meriam concur, is a 48-year-old man named Walter Cowley, who
impales his quarry maybe half the time.

Yet as Dr. Douglas Bird and Dr. Rebecca Bliege Bird, anthropologists at the
University of Maine in Orono, discovered in their studies of Meriam life, the
proudest spearmen on the island are just barely better than . . . the children.

In a detailed analysis of the productivity and fishing success rates of the
people of Mer, the anthropologists were startled to find that children of
crayon age were already dazzling with their spears and lines, and fully
cognizant of the nuances of their marine ecosystem, bringing to mind an old
Groucho Marx line: "A child of 5 could understand this. Fetch me a child of 5."

Full text
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/02/science/social/02CHIL.html

Maurizio,

I cannot disagree with what you write - but parts of the DSM or ICD systems do
work - notably those based mostly on functional and comparative research: the
anxiety disorders... I believe the combination of the two current lists may
solve the problem in the end. And of course - not being perfect yet, and
having failed are two different things. No science of genetics is perfect,
neither physics, so the two sciences presented as models are in no way
finished collecting the relevant data and building the best theories possible.
I think the research in treatment of anxiety disorders is almost as good as
most genetic research, but for other disorders - due to the lack of good
empirical work we have further to go... but, I repeat, that is not failure.

Cheers,

Leif Edward

>===== Original Message From Maurizio Tirassa <tirassa@...> =====
>At 20:16 +0200 01.07.2002, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair wrote:
>>I believe the answer to why psychiatry failed to be an answer to a
>>false question. Neither psychology nor psychiatry has failed.....
>>
>>....that is the major problem: Too many psychologists and
>>psychiatrists forget to base their practice on science and base it
>>on tradition, common sense and psycho-folk-lore.
>>
>>The reason clinical psychology and psychiatry seemed as though they
>>were going to fail was that they used half a century turning into
>>real empirical science!
>
>I agree that clinical psychology and psychiatry are not bankrupt, but
>I see a big problem in the lack of a coherent theoretical foundation
>and a bigger one in the lack of a nosography based on such
>theoratical foundation. The DSM is just a collection of "tradition,
>common sense and psycho-folk-lore". Maybe it's my degree in Medicine
>speaking here, but when I think back to those clear-cut taxonomies of
>"bodily" (as -- incorrectly -- kept distinct from "mental")
>diseases, I definitely tend to become envious....
>
>Of course, part of the problem with the DSM (ie, with clinical
>psychology and psychiatry) depends on the attempt to keep together
>disparate "paradigms", ranging from Freudian orthodoxy to cognitive
>psychology to various sorts of eliminativism to constructivism and so
>on. On the other hand, precisely this situation is one symptom of the
>problem with theoretical foundations which I mentioned earlier.
>
>Regards,
>
> 					 - MT
>
>--
>
>Maurizio Tirassa, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor, General Psychology
>
>Universitą di Torino            phone  +39.011.6703037
>Centro di Scienza Cognitiva     fax    +39.011.8159039
>via Po, 14                      mailto:tirassa@...
>10123 Torino (Italy)            http://www.psych.unito.it/

BBC Newsnight
with Jeremy Paxman

Creationists

And the creationists are on the march again. The latest attempt to supplant the
theory of evolution in schools is called Intelligent Design. The argument goes
that life shows evidence of an informing hand behind it. Despite being
rubbished by mainstream scientists, at least one school board in the United
States is considering inserting Intelligent Design into the science curriculum.

Video - Begins at 34:12 - Link only active today (July 02)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/latest.ram

________


End of History

He was responsible for the most telling thesis of the post war period - the End
of History. But Professor Francis Fukuyama found that his grand idea was left
wanting after September the 11th.

In the eighties he saw the collapse of the Soviet Union coming, thought big,
and argued that liberal democracy had won out.

After September the 11th, he stuck to his theory, saying some countries were
still 'in history.'

But is America spreading democracy, or doing something less benign?

Jeremy Vine spoke to Francis Fukuyama.

Video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/item2.ram

______

The Sceptical Environmentalist

A quarter of the world's mammal species wiped out, half the world's human
population faced with water shortages. The forecast from the United Nations
were apocalyptic.

They're intended to prepare the ground for the World Summit on Sustainable
Development to be held this September in Johannesburg.

Global warming has become more-or-less received wisdom. But at least one
environmentalist begs to differ. Nothing more than a voice in the wilderness?

Jeremy Paxman interviewed Bjorn Lomborg.

Video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/item4.ram

Final Report of the AAA El Dorado Task Force
http://www.aaanet.org/edtf/index.htm

Preface for El Dorado Task Force Papers

At its February meeting, 2001, the Executive Board of the AAA established a
five-member Task Force, with AAA Past President Jane Hill serving as chair, to
conduct an inquiry into the allegations contained in Darkness in El Dorado by
Patrick Tierney. The Task Force considered allegations concerning (1) the
fieldwork practices of anthropologists, (2) representations and portrayals of
the Yanomami that may have had a negative impact, (3) efforts to create
organizations to represent the interests of Yanomami or efforts to contribute
to Yanomami welfare that may have actually undermined their well-being, (4)
activities that may have resulted in personal gain to scientists,
anthropologists, and journalists while contributing harm to the Yanomami; and
(5) activities by anthropologists, scientists, and journalists that may have
contributed to malnutrition, disease, and disorganization.

The El Dorado Task Force Report is now available on the AAA website. It is
critical to note several features of this Report.

First, readers should be aware that the papers, documents, and interviews
included in this Report reflect a very wide range of perspectives, histories,
and interpretations. The Task Force has taken care to identify the sources and
circumstances of the included materials, and they should be read with equal
care. In some cases, the collected materials bear consistent witness, making it
possible to determine the truth or falsity of allegations with reasonable
certainty. In other cases, agreement can be reached about the actions of
certain anthropologists, but there is disagreement as to the moral standing of
these actions. In still other cases, there is no agreement even as to past
actions. In some cases, discordant accounts are included because they are
worthy of reflection in their own right, rather than as evidence that certain
events did or did not occur.

Second, earlier versions of the report were made available through the AAA
website for member commentary; the final section of the report includes
commentary submitted prior to April 19, 2002 and judged by the Task Force as
making a substantive contribution to issues within the scope of its charge.
These comments reflect the views of individuals and not of the AAA or of the El
Dorado Task Force.

Substantive conclusions of the Report include the following:

First, it is clear that the Yanomami are currently in a position of great
danger, with exceptionally high rates of infant mortality, African River
Blindness, and malaria. Their land, livelihood, and lives are imperiled.
Central to the Task Force's concerns is the future of the Yanomami and the ways
through which AAA and other concerned individuals and groups might be able to
help ameliorate a desperate situation.

Second, The AAA believes that the greatest value of this Report is not to find
fault with or to defend the past actions of specific anthropologists, but to
provide opportunities for all anthropologists to consider the ethics of several
dimensions of the anthropological enterprise.

Third, Darkness in El Dorado calls attention to the dire plight of the Yanomami
and other indigenous people of the Amazon and has caused anthropologists to
reflect deeply upon the ways in which they conduct research. However, the book
contains numerous unfounded, misrepresented, and sensationalistic accusations
about the conduct of anthropology among the Yanomami. These misrepresentations
fail to live up to the ethics of responsible journalism even as they pretend to
question the ethical conduct of anthropology.

In response to the Report, the Executive Board has taken the following actions:

1) The Board has accepted the Report with thanks.

2) The Report with accompanying documents has been posted on the AAA website.

3) In the interests of disseminating the Report to Spanish and
Portuguese-speaking readers, the Board has directed the Executive Director of
the AAA to obtain estimates for translation of the substantive sections of the
Report. The AAA will also make these materials available to Yanomami groups.

4) The Board calls upon appropriate bodies within the AAA to continue to
consider those issues raised in the El Dorado Task Force Report relating to the
current and future conditions of the Yanomami and other indigenous communities
in South America, and to devise appropriate responses in collaboration with
appropriate indigenous communities and South American colleagues. We look to
the newly named AAA Commission on the Status of Indigenous Peoples in South
America to lead these efforts.

5) The Board calls upon the membership of AAA to explore the implications of
the El Dorado Task Force Report for anthropological research, practice, and
training in the 21st century. We look to the Committee on Ethics to be central
in these efforts.

6) The Board encourages the development of programs at the Annual Meetings of
the AAA, Section meetings, and other fora to continue discussion of the major
issues for anthropological theory, methods, and practice raised by the Report:
collaborative research; representation of research findings; the complex
relation between anthropological representations and the uses of anthropology
outside the profession; the moral responsibilities inherent in accusation;
health issues of vulnerable populations; the complex questions of who speaks
for whom on indigenous issues; informed consent and human subject review
procedures; anthropology's role and responsibilities in the field of global
structures of inequality.

7) AAA will take the initiative in facilitating discussion between the Yanomami
and the scientists who hold their blood or other bodily samples as to the
disposition of those materials.

The Board expresses its deep appreciation to Janet Chernela, Fernando Coronil,
Ray Hames, Trudy Turner, and Joe Watkins for their participation on the Task
Force, to Kim Guthrie for providing staff support for the Task Force, to all
those who participated in the inquiry and subsequent conversations, and,
particularly, to Jane H. Hill for her extraordinary service as Task Force
Chair.
http://www.aaanet.org/edtf/final/preface.htm

El Dorado Task Force Papers - Volume One (pdf - 500kb)
http://www.aaanet.org/edtf/final/vol_one.pdf

El Dorado Task Force Papers - Volume Two (pdf - 726kb)
http://www.aaanet.org/edtf/final/vol_two.pdf

All PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader.
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html

Ralph, as a scientist I agree with your premise that degree of
difficulty should not deter research. However, as a qualitative
researcher, I do have several fundamental problems with data based on
scattered  and unrelated sites (as opposed to community/village/school
based data). I think anthropologist have consistently show that cultural
patterns do emerge from professionally collected qualitative data,
especially participant observation data gathered from definable groups
of individuals. Yet, we are not in this case looking for cultural
patterns, but rather for idiosyncratic family child rearing practices
(although cultural patterns might emerge). Absent reliance on
surveys/questionnaires, those kinds of data are difficult and expensive
to collect. With respect to the twins in my study, many hours of
participant observation led me, I believe, to a reasonable good
understanding of the nuances of the ways in which the girls had been
raised. Accordingly, until a relatively large scale qualitative study of
twins raised both together and apart is completed, I think it prudent to
heavily discount genetic claims that are made based on twin studies.
Cheers...Ken
Ralph L Holloway wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Timo Jarvilehto wrote:
> >
> > Operational definitions are powerful only if the operations are
> > backed up by a theory which shows in which way the selected
> > operations are relevant from the point of view of the studied
> > phenomenon. In twin studies, however, (and in most behavioral
> > genetics) there is no theory of environment, and the concept of
> > environment is used just in the common sense way. Therefore,
> > there is no *scientific* basis for such statements as "rared in
> > different environments" or "fostered in the same environment". From
> > my point of view, it is completely wrong to operationalize the
> > environment on the basis of the fostering family, for example,
> > because a family is not really an "environment", but a set of social
> > relations.
>
> I think the latter part of your statement is too strong a
> characterization. The statements are truly imperfect, but they are
> beginnings, and it should be the task of those who wish to operationalize
> "environment" to come up with the distinguishing parameters that
> differentiate in most cases fostering from nonfostering, or what
> environmental perquisites a family, whether foster or not provides. But to
> say it is "completely wrong", or there is no *scientific* basis for
> viewing the environment in the beginning operational terms seems too
> strict a dictum to me. The end result is to simply throw up one's hands
> and
> say these questions are simply unanswerable and cannot be studied, and
> therefore, must, by all scientific logic, be completely ignored.
> By-in-large, foster families perhaps lack the same committment that true
> biological parents do have in terms in parental interaction with the
> child, or in fact, some might have even more. The child itself, if it has
> knowledge of itself as in a different family, may create its own internal
> environment that cannot be penetrated by surveys, questionaires,
> interviews, etc,etc, but shouldn't someone start someplace? Again, I ask,
> why throw out the babies with the bath water?
>
> Ralph L. Holloway
> Dept. Anthropology
> Columbia University
> NY, NY 10027
> 212-854-4570
> Fax= 212-854-7347
> Web Page www.columbia.edu/~rlh2

Ok, I'll chip in my two cents. I think psychologists and psychiatrists would
practice from science if there was a solid science from which to practice.

Instead of faulting just the clinicians who champion science but practice
philsophy, let's take the research end to task, too. Many studies are so
specific they are difficult to translate to practice and most researchers do
not consider translational studies to be a priority;  Broader studies often
wind up concluding that the result is indefinite - and, of course we all know
duplication studies won't be published; the research field of
psychology/psychiatry is chronically underfunded and understaffed (due
largely to a lack of results), especially when considering the subject is the
most complex thing on the planet; and, the leading solution to date,
neuropharmocology, requires neurobiochemical degrees in addition to
traditional psychological backgrounds - as things are now, that would be a
degree program lasting a decade.

Psychology is more a loose collection of over-specialized, territorial
individuals working at cross purposes, than an organized body working at a
unified mission. I believe the members have adequate intellectual talent and
motiviation, but our efforts (including training and education) lack
effective priority and direction.  And, I think the rest of the world is
figuring this out and our credibility is sinking fast. People expect us to
provide answers, not just perspectives, to human problems and we simply are
not doing it.

Kathy W. Keith
University of North Texas

On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, ken jacobson wrote:

> Ralph, as a scientist I agree with your premise that degree of
> difficulty should not deter research. However, as a qualitative
> researcher, I do have several fundamental problems with data based on
> scattered  and unrelated sites (as opposed to community/village/school
> based data). I think anthropologist have consistently show that cultural
> patterns do emerge from professionally collected qualitative data,
> especially participant observation data gathered from definable groups
> of individuals. Yet, we are not in this case looking for cultural
> patterns, but rather for idiosyncratic family child rearing practices
> (although cultural patterns might emerge). Absent reliance on
> surveys/questionnaires, those kinds of data are difficult and expensive
> to collect. With respect to the twins in my study, many hours of
> participant observation led me, I believe, to a reasonable good
> understanding of the nuances of the ways in which the girls had been
> raised. Accordingly, until a relatively large scale qualitative study of
> twins raised both together and apart is completed, I think it prudent to
> heavily discount genetic claims that are made based on twin studies.

I can onlyagree and await such studies, but I remain as skeptical of
claims that genetics has nothing to do with behavior as I do that twin
studies proves its all genetics, which, is what the problem gets boiled
down to when genetic twin studies are simply labeled as "psuedoscience". I
say save those labels for politics, and get on with trying to improve the
discernment with which both genetic and environments interact, which
clearly means refiniong our measures of the "environment", and even that
may never be perfect because every girl, child, whatever, you study is
already a complex interactive resultant of both genetics and environmental
impingement. Twin studies are a methodology that has shown promise of
teasing apart PARTS of the developmental interaction, but I doubt anyone
in their right mind would claim twin studies could possibly answer all our
questions regarding what is the enormous complexity of develoment, and the
phenotypic manifestation that we call behavior. Just wait until fMRI's are
available in your local Wal-Marts...

Cheers,

Ralph L. Holloway
Dept. Anthropology
Columbia University
NY, NY 10027
212-854-4570
Fax= 212-854-7347
Web Page www.columbia.edu/~rlh2

On Tue,  2 Jul 2002 16:18, Ian Pitchford quoted:

> Dr George suggests that the limited number of functional genes in the
> human genome may be a result of the presence of a more advanced
> immune system. The immune system is designed to protect us from
> disease, but it is important that the cells of the immune system do
> not recognise our own tissues or cells, as this would lead autoimmune
> disease.
>
> Autoimmune disease is avoided by killing off any immune cells that
> recognise molecules produced by the body (self-molecules). This means
> that the larger the genome, the more self-molecules the immune system
> needs to tolerate.
>
> As a result, the immune system has to kill more immune cells. If
> there are too many genes then this results in the vast majority of
> immune cells dying, paralysing the immune system, and leaving the
> body unable to fight off disease or infection.

This does not follow, since it ignores the fact that there isn't a
fixed number of immune cells in the body, nor do all they all have to
be produced at once.

Effectively the immune system can be considered (in part) a production
line for producing a certain number of immune cells. Immune cells that
recognise self-molecules are rejects, immune cells that don't are
successes.

While efficiency is important, you can still produce a healthy immune
system with a 50% reject rate, or even 99% or higher. It will just take
longer and be more wasteful. Since the immune system does not produce
cells entirely at random, it isn't clear to me that a high failure rate
would even be significantly more wasteful.

There is a good test of Dr George's hypothesis. Are there any species
with functioning immune systems with significantly more genes than we
have?



--
Steven D'Aprano