High art as tourist art,tourist art as high art: Comparing the New Guinea Sculpture Garden at Stanford University and Sepik River tourist art

This paper compares two contemporary aesthetic expressions: tourist art from the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea and the New Guinea Sculpture Garden at Stanford University. Both aesthetic expressions undermine the conventional categories that classify art. Sepik River tourist art is motivated not by the drive to lend individual, subjective experience a material expression but by monetary desire. The New Guinea Sculpture Garden was expressly created so that Sepik artisans could expand beyond the confines of village traditions and create unfettered aesthetic expressions. But seemingly inauthentic Tourist Art actually represents many of the ideals normally ascribed to Western masterpieces, or High Art. Conversely, the High Art of the Sculpture Garden in many respects resembles inauthentic reproductions and the tenacity of traditional forms. Both tourist art and the sculpture Garden, however, have one key quality in common: they rupture conventional artistic cattegories.     

The dilemma of the honest researcher

Most agree that without honest and trustworthy practitioners, research has no value. Yet high standards present a dilemma for honest researchers, because successful practices often clash with ethically impeccable behaviour.The honesty and trustworthiness of researchers is increasingly scrutinized as high-profile stories of research misconduct become public. Researchers, politicians and funders agree that dishonest and untrustworthy research has no value. However, the standards for judging integrity and the core values to which researchers should adhere are less clear.To help efforts to promote research integrity around the world, the second World Conference on Research Integrity in Singapore developed a statement as a checklist for researchers to assess their own behaviour, and to provide a framework for developing national and organizational guides, codes of conduct and research-integrity policies (World Conferences on Research Integrity, 2010).Yet standards for responsible behaviour in research pose a dilemma for the honest researcher, because many commonly accepted practices are at odds with ‘ideal'' behaviour. Although outright dishonesty is not the norm and for the most part not tolerated, less-than-honest behaviour is, and might even be necessary in today''s competitive research environment.To be funded, research must be innovative and important. The need to ‘sell'' a grant proposal can encourage overselling of the significance of data or the importance of likely outcomes. Support for basic research to decode the human genome was gained on the basis of claims of benefits to human health that many now regard as overly optimistic and unrealistic (Marshall, 2011). Clinical trials are often inconclusive, owing to overestimation of the effects of treatment (Djulbegovic et al, 2010). However, an honest researcher who makes modest claims or honestly describes likely obstacles might not be as competitive as one who provides the most-generous estimates of long-term benefits.The many rules that define best practice can seem to be counter-productive and burdensome. Securing funding requires the provision of compelling preliminary data, but research agencies often do not fund mere data collection. Is it therefore acceptable to collect preliminary data for the next project with funds awarded for the current project? If an institutional review board or research ethics committee places seemingly burdensome requirements on research with human subjects, is it acceptable to bend the rules to complete the project? Studies have shown that a significant number of researchers use this excuse for minor violations of requirements for human subjects (Keith-Spiegel & Koocher, 2005).Ideally, research should be collaborative. Public interest should take precedence over self interest, once intellectual and property interests have been protected. Nonetheless, researchers sometimes do not share information—a practice that has been shown to slow progress (Blumenthal, 2006). It is also alleged, but has not been confirmed empirically, that researchers sometimes provide insufficient or misleading information to slow the work of competitors. On the receiving end, researchers have been known to take unfair advantage of privileged information from peer review.Honesty in research is particularly strained during formal publication. Less-than-honest practices include adding honorary names to the author list; failing to include the names of individuals who made significant contributions, such as industry ghostwriters; misrepresenting findings in abstracts; dividing one project into several publications to enhance a resume; failing to list conflicts of interest; and publishing the same work more than once without adequate notification. Research publications are sliced, diced and wrapped in many ways. When these practices come to be common, it is difficult for the honest researcher not to fall in line.However, before falling into line too quickly, there are two consequences that scientists ought to consider. All questionable practices could, under particular circumstances, be classed as misconduct, particularly if they are engaged in widely and often. One small compromise might not be important, but several larger ones could be. Moreover, acting less than honestly can be a first step down a slippery slope towards misconduct. When researchers engage in common, but not necessarily proper, practices, they need to be aware of what they are doing and the possible consequences. Right and wrong can be too easily confused.Misconduct in research was not new when it first received public attention in the 1970s and 1980s. The fact that it had been either ignored or tolerated by researchers and research institutions led governments around the world to implement regulations. Much the same scenario has followed in relation to conflicts of interest, dual-use research, and other areas in which integrity and the professional conduct of researchers have been questioned. Researchers need to face up to the conflict between professed commitments to high standards for research integrity and widespread tolerance of practices that fall short of these standards. Doing so is essential to preserving public confidence in research and to reducing, if not eliminating, the dilemma faced by the honest researcher.     

Ecological image databases: From the webcam to the researcher

Imagery of ecological systems can be used to observe organisms, to observe rare events and to document long-term changes in ecological systems. Here we describe two systems used for archiving and sharing imagery with ecological researchers in the United States and Taiwan, discuss the database design and interface issues and how they were resolved and present some examples of their use. The Shan-Ping Bee Camera System monitors a bee colony at the Shan-Ping Forest Ecological Garden in south-central Taiwan. The Virginia Ecocam System uses wirelessly-connected web cameras to capture imagery from remote barrier islands of the Virginia Coast Reserve. Both systems provide multiple tools to retrieve and display images for research use using a relational database to store and query image metadata, but store the images in either a file system or using a Storage Resource Broker (SRB).     

The behavioral researcher and the zoological park

Ethologists and psychologists have traditionally taken different approaches to the study of animal behavior. Recently, there has been something of a rapprochement between these two schools of the study of behavior. The range of animals and the number of groups available in the zoo for comparison provide a wealth of topics for study by the behavioralist. At the same time, the new behavioralist is perfectly equipped to make important contributions to solving the problems that the zoo faces on a daily basis. Evidence provided by limited associations to date argues convincingly that more frequent and formal cooperation between the zoo and the behavioralist promises substantial mutual benefit.     

Ingested type I interferon: state of the art as treatment for autoimmunity

We have proposed a unifying hypothesis of the etiopathogenesis of autoimmunity that defines autoimmunity as a type I interferon (IFN) immunodeficiency syndrome. We have examined toxicity and potential efficacy in three phase I (type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis) and one phase II clinical trials in multiple sclerosis. In a phase I open-label trial in type 1 diabetes, ingested IFN-alpha preserved residual beta-cell function in recent onset patients. In a second phase I trial, treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with ingested IFN-alpha reduced the secretion of interleukin (IL)-1, a pro-inflammatory cytokine. In a third phase I trial in multiple sclerosis, there was a significant decrease in peripheral blood mononuclear cell IL-2 and IFN-gamma production after ingesting IFN-alpha. In a phase II randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in multiple sclerosis, 10,000 IU ingested IFN-alpha significantly decreased gadolinium enhancements compared with the placebo group at month 5. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha and IFN-gamma cytokine secretion in the 10,000 IU group at month 5 showed a significant decrease that corresponded with the effect of ingested IFN-alpha on decreasing gadolinium enhancements. Ingested IFN-alpha was not toxic in any of these clinical trials. These studies suggest that ingested IFN-alpha may have a potential role in the treatment of autoimmunity.     

Cultural criminology and its practices: a dialog between the theorist and the street researcher

This paper sets out to explain to a sociological/criminological audience the theory and practice of what has become known as cultural criminology. The authors have approached this task as a dialog, a conversation, that brings together the critiques and abstractions of the theorist (Jock Young), with his 30-year involvement in the deviance field and the empirical data and experiences of the urban street researcher (David Brotherton) who has spent much of the last 12 years studying and working with gang members. Our aim is to show how this approach to the study of deviance is more appropriate in this period of late modernity than that which currently dominates the field, a positivistic fundamentalism bent on rendering human action into the predictable, the quantifiable, and the mundane.     

Pidotimod: the state of art

Despite the use of antibiotics and vaccines, the frequency of respiratory tract infections is still high and these infections interest a wide range of patients, from children to aged people, including in particular these extreme categories because of the deficiency of their immune system, due to immaturity in the former case and to “immunosenescence” in the latter. For that reason immunostimulant drugs are getting more important to prevent and to attenuate infections. Pidotimod (3-L-pyroglutamyl-L-thiazolidine-4carboxylic acid) is a synthetic dipeptide with immunomodulatory properties. We reviewed studies conducted on different categories of patients, with particular attention on children and senile patients suffering from recurrent respiratory tract infections, associated, or not, with asthma or COPD. The outcomes considered are both clinical and laboratory parameters. The common end-point of these studies is that Pidotimod has an immunomodulatory activity which is able both to improve the clinical conditions of patients and to enhance and stimulate their immunity cells (lymphocytes but not only) functions acting on adaptive and innate immunity. Pidotimod is also able to increase the concentration of salivary IgA directed against bacteria; furthermore, it can modulate airway epithelial cells functions up-regulating the expression of toll-like receptors and acting on adhesion molecules. According to studies conducted on patients with atopic asthma, it seems that Pidotimod could affect T-lymphocytes balance with a possible addictional anti-allergic activity. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated an improvement of FEV1 and PEF in asthmatic patients treated with Pidotimod. Main clinical outcomes are the reduction of the number of infectious episodes, lesser severity of signs and symptoms and, consequently, a reduction in use of antibiotics and symptomatic drugs, less working and school days lost, less mortality and morbidity. The studies considered give positive results, confirming Pidotimod’s efficacy. Furthermore, many studies show a good safety profile of the drug, without recording serious adverse events and mutagenic potential, and a very low incidence of side effects. Pidotimod is also a more safe solution in patients subjected to vaccination, if compared to lyophilized polibacterial, which can’t be administered for thirty days before vaccination.