“Pharmacognosy”! What’s that? you spell it how?

In this autobiographical sketch, the author discusses the development of his interest in the biological sciences, crediting his father, his first employer, his high school science teacher, and his college pharmacognosy professor with initially shaping his career. His early work on ergot alkaloid biosynthesis and subsequently, together with students and colleagues, on the toxic constituents of basidiomycetes is detailed. This is followed by comments on his developing interest in the therapeutic utility of herbs and phytomedicinals. A concern with the beneficial use of such products stemmed largely from observations made during sabbatical leaves and frequent travel in Germany. The importance of such botanicals (not currently recognized as drugs in the United States) in our developing health-care system is emphasized. The author concludes his comments by thanking his wife, his teachers, his students, and his many colleagues and friends for their unstinting assistance and support during his entire career.     

Reading George Spindler

George Spindler is often acknowledged as a founder of the anthropology of education, but ties between Spindler, the new field, and their roots in the culture and personality school of U.S. anthropology are rarely explored. This article and the one that follows ("Using Visual Stimuli in Ethnography," Spindler 2008) highlight theoretical concerns shaping the goals and methods of Spindler's work. McDermott offers background and then Spindler summarizes his 60 years of fieldwork and findings on the relations among culture, personality, and education.  [origins of the field, culture and personality, field techniques]     

An interview with Olivia Gude about connecting school and community arts practice

ABSTRACT

Olivia Gude has a long and distinguished career as both a public artist and an art educator. She is currently the Angela Gregory Paterakis Professor and Chair of Art Education at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC), where she works with graduate and undergraduate students to prepare for working as artist educators in school and community settings. Her scholarly work includes a number of articles and book chapters about art education and community art. Prof. Gude has worked as a community public artist for many years and has created over 30 large-scale mural and mosaic projects, working with intergenerational groups, teens, elders, and children. I interviewed Prof. Gude at the SAIC building in downtown Chicago to discuss how her school, university, and community art engagement as well as her work with the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards, might offer suggestions for transforming arts education for the twenty-first century and provide authentic connections between school and community. Prof. Gude discusses important enduring understandings and big ideas from the new Visual Arts National Core Arts Standards, the Spiral Workshop youth art and research project she created while at University of Illinois at Chicago, and how her experience as a community artist informs her work with students in classroom settings.     

Significance of Games Involving a Plot and Role-Playing for the Development of Moral Behavior

Games involving a plot and role-playing are the dominant activity of preschool-age children; they "are responsible for fundamental changes in mental processes and in the psychological characteristics of the child's personality" (Leont'ev, 1959. P. 412). As has been demonstrated by L. S. Vygotsky (1966), D. B. El'konin (1978), A. V. Zaporozhets (1965), and others, in play children assimilate information and skills to the extent that social situations and typical relationships are modeled in their play. In the view of these authors, however, the most essential point is that games involving a plot and role-playing have a general developmental effect. In a number of studies by Zaporozhets (1948), Z. M. Istomina (1948), Z. V. Manuilenko (1948), T. V. Endovitskaya (1948), and others, the importance of play for the development of voluntary memory, voluntary maintenance of a pose, sensory processes, etc., has been demonstrated empirically.     

H.J. Muller's contributions to mutation research

H. J. Muller is best known for his Nobel Prize work on the induction of mutations by ionizing radiation. Geneticists are less familiar with his contributions to mutation and how he related the process of mutagenesis to the gene and distinguished gene mutations from other genetic and epigenetic events such as polyploidy, chromosome rearrangements, and position effects. The hallmark of Muller's contributions is his design of genetic stocks to solve genetic problems and allow experimentation to reveal new phenomena. In this review I relate Muller's personality to his teaching and research and present a history of Muller's ideas on mutation from his first days in Morgan's fly lab to his final thoughts on what became called “Muller's ratchet”, a term he did not get to enjoy because it was coined seven years after his death.     

大学生人格特征与社交焦虑的相关研究

目的:探讨大学生人格特征与社交焦虑的关系,为高校大学生心理教育工作提供理论依据.方法:采用分层整群抽样的方法,对1600名大学生进行心理测评,测评工具包括社交焦虑量表(IAS)和艾森克人格问卷(EPQ).结果:本研究发现,高社交焦虑的大学生为370人,占总体被试的25.6%;女大学生社交焦虑水平高于男大学生,农村、矿区的学生其社交焦虑水平高于城镇学生;逐步多元回归结果发现,内外向、神经质为社交焦虑的有效预测因素,联合解释变异量为23.7%.结论:高社交焦虑的大学生占总体调查人数的25.6%;人格特征、性别、家庭住址是社交焦虑的影响因素;应加强大学生健康个性的培养及社交焦虑的相关干预.     

Walking between academia and industry to find successful solutions to biomedical challenges: an interview with Geoffrey Smith

Geoffrey W. Smith is currently the Managing Director of Mars Ventures. He actually started his studies with a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Doctorate in Law but then, in part by chance and in part by following in his family footsteps, he stepped into the healthcare and biotech field. Since then, he has successfully contributed to the birth of a number of healthcare companies and has also held academic positions at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and at The Rockefeller University in New York, teaching about the interface between science and business. During 2014 he served as Senior Editor on Disease Models & Mechanisms, bringing to the editorial team his valuable experience in drug development and discovery. In this interview, Geoff talks to Ross Cagan, Editor-in-Chief of Disease Models & Mechanisms, about how he developed his incredibly varied career, sharing his views about industry, academia and science publishing, and discussing how academia and industry can fruitfully meet to advance bioscience, train the scientists and stakeholders of the future, and drive the successful discovery of new therapeutics to treat human disease.Geoffrey W. Smith was born in 1965. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from Williams College in Williamstown, MA. After a stint as a Research Associate at Harvard Business School, he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Following a federal court clerkship and first job experiences in law, he joined a healthcare services start-up named Advanced Health as one of its first employees. Geoff then co-founded various healthcare and technology companies, including Interbind and Ascent Biomedical Ventures, and is still a Managing Partner at the latter. In 2012, he joined the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, first as Professor in the Department of Population Health Science And Policy, and then as Director and co-founder of the Design, Technology, and Entrepreneurship PhD program. Until December 2014, he was a Senior Editor at Disease Models & Mechanisms. Geoff is now Managing Director of Mars Ventures.Let''s start with your background. You have a Bachelor of Arts degree and a law degree. How is it exactly that you ended up working in biotech and pharma?My career path has been anything other than linear. I was actually pursuing my legal career when two entrepreneurs turned up at the law firm I was working for with an idea for a new technology-based company focused on more effectively managing healthcare services. I was a new associate without much to do, so I got assigned to work with the start-up and after about a year they asked me to come and join the company, Advanced Health. I had grown up in a very medically oriented family – my father was a medical school professor, my older sister was a PhD, and my younger sister is a medical doctor – and so to a certain extent joining a start-up in the healthcare space was a bit like joining the family business.We had a fair amount of success with that company. A little less than 2 years after I joined it, we had a successful initial public offering, and that started me down the road of participating in the start-up environment around healthcare.It sounds like it was not a surprising path for you. Which key people influenced you?Actually, it is somewhat surprising in that I had really prepared for and expected a career in law. Certainly, the work I did in law school and the first jobs I had after that started me on a different career. I was really focused on international relations and international law. The twist was that I got brought back into the healthcare arena, and ultimately the biotech arena, by a serendipitous connection – one of the entrepreneurs who started Advanced Health had trained at Brigham Women''s Hospital where my father was the Chief of Cardiology. It was through this connection that I became more than just an associate drafting legal documents and really began to build a close relationship with the founders, which ultimately led to me joining that business. This taught me that you can spend much of your time preparing, and thinking that your schooling is going to take you in one direction, but individual relationships can change your path and take you somewhere else altogether. In my case, these particular relationships stemmed from my father, who clearly had an enormous influence on me. He was both a practising clinician and a basic researcher, studying basic biology related to the function of sodium and potassium in the heart, but he also did applied research. He helped develop a radioimmunoassay test to measure digitalis levels in the blood and ultimately was involved in developing a drug called Digibind, an antidote to digitalis toxicity, which was one of the first drugs to use antigen-binding fragments [Fab] as the basis for a drug. Watching him manage these different activities in his career had a big influence on me.

“This taught me that you can spend much of your time preparing, and thinking that your schooling is going to take you in one direction, but individual relationships can change your path and take you somewhere else altogether”

I think that each of my sisters – as I said, one of whom went down a PhD route and one of whom went down a medical training route – had a big influence on me, as well. Watching the challenges that they had to face in those areas in some ways pushed me to go off towards law school and take a different path. It also brought me back to one of the aspects that I think is the most rewarding in the bioscience field, which is that you can have a profound impact on a large number of people through your efforts, whether they be purely research-based, academic-based or commercially-based.One of the things I was constantly impressed by is that you always seem to have a good feel for the health field and the biology field. Is this because it is something of a family business?I think so. Growing up at my dinner table, I was just privileged to get to meet and interact with a lot of incredibly successful clinicians and researchers. For me those were comfortable conversations: these were friends and so there was a comfort level being involved in that environment. I didn''t feel a lot of intimidation from it, which I think sometimes people who come from the outside do.One of the aspects I really like about the bioscience field is the impact of ideas. Success is really about one''s ideas and ability to execute them, and that was very appealing to me. It wasn''t about how much money you had or where you went to school, it was really about the ability to think deeply about a problem or a potential advancement and figure out a way to find a way forward. It is also a very people-driven process because it is not only about thinking deeply yourself but also about thinking deeply with those in your field or adjacent to your field. Lots of different personality types can succeed in this field, but I think it is certainly easier for people who have an affinity for sitting with people and thinking about a common area of interest.To that point, you actually have walked between business and scientists. What do you see is the difference? Some of the priorities are obvious, but what are the differences in terms of what motivates people in the two? Are the personalities that you come across different between the basic science world, the translating science world and the business world?I don''t think the personalities are particularly different. I think you find introverts and extroverts and everything in between in each of these areas. I am not sure that personality is necessarily a good predictor of success. I think it''s a question of what toolset you are most comfortable using to get at a problem, and where in the lifespan of a problem you''re interested in working.For example, scientists in academia very often are interested in working at an early stage of a problem. They understand something fairly basic about a process or something earlier in the understanding of a field. People who gravitate towards industry, instead, are more excited about working on the later part of a process, so, rather than trying to understand what the fundamental working mechanism is, they want to understand how to work that mechanism in a way that is predictable and repeatable.Obviously people in the commercial realm are often highly influenced by money, but even that I don''t think is really particularly the differentiator. There are plenty of academics who are driven by money as well. I really think it has much more to do with where on the spectrum of understanding one is interested in working. Industry is geared to solving practical problems and, if a lot is understood about a problem, to getting down to the ability to repeatedly and safely intervene, whereas academia really lends itself more towards understanding the front end of a problem or of an unknown mechanism to understand it first and at a more basic level.What about working in teams versus individually? Do you see a difference there?I think that has changed over time. I think it is very hard in academia today to be the brilliant solo investigator. I''m not saying it''s impossible but, considering the increasing size of the data sets one is working with, the statistical methods one has to use, the complexity of different fields overlapping with each other, it''s just very hard to handle all the necessary aspects of modern science as an individual. Increasingly, working in teams isn''t a choice: I think it''s a necessity in order to be effective. The difference may be that, in academia, often the teams are teams of collaborators (meaning they have influence but not necessarily power over all people participating in the team) who may work for different institutions, whereas, more commonly in industry, teams are working within a single corporate structure. In industry more often there are hierarchical relationships, which may allow for more directive behavior. Again, I''m not sure I would draw as much distinction between team or not team and between industry and academia, but I might draw somewhat of a distinction between how those teams function and how one manages a team. I think they are a bit different between the two realms.

“Increasingly, working in teams isn''t a choice: I think it''s a necessity in order to be effective”

Let''s turn to Disease Models & Mechanisms [DMM], where you have been a Senior Editor. What did your experience at DMM teach you about science publishing that perhaps you hadn''t thought about, and has it made you think more deeply about what goes into a good scientific piece of work? What were some of the surprises?Watching the detailed process that is necessary to take a piece from an initial submission through to a published article gave me comfort and respect for the level of diligence and the level of attention that the reviewers brought to the vast majority of the pieces. It gave me a good feeling that the science community can be a strong self-reinforcing organization that takes its responsibility to heart and only publishes the best of the work available. I think that was very reassuring.An interesting question for me was: is there a different function that the publication process could play in helping to galvanize new ideas or new interactions among different fields? That seemed to be challenging because people don''t want to rush out there without their ideas and data being fully thought-out and fully vetted. But still, somewhere in my mind is this notion that there should be an option in the publishing world to play a little bit earlier in the generation of new ideas.Do you mean journals having an earlier relationship – earlier in the experimental process with a laboratory – to work with them to provide advice?I don''t know if it''s to provide advice. One of the things I was struck by at DMM is that there are these different siloed research communities – for example, the fly and the fish communities – in which interactions and relationships in the individual fields are so well established and routinized. And the outcome from a publishing standpoint is still the canonical academic paper that has been relatively unchanged over a long period of time. Yet, we have had these tremendous changes in information and communication technology such that the manner of knowledge production and the methods of communicating in other parts of society have changed dramatically. It feels like there hasn''t been nearly as big a concomitant communication change in the biomedical sciences, and so the silos and the standard paper remain the way things are done.The publication process, because of its preciseness, can take quite a long time, so the musing here is whether there is a way that the publishing industry could facilitate an earlier, more speculative communication of interesting results in a way that would positively impact the field by turning over new information sooner. If you look at an area like maths, for example, and their pre-print servers, there is more of a notion of putting ideas out in the community that acts as a kind of peer-review process and a way to get the community interacting on new ideas early. That doesn''t seem to get a lot of attention in the life sciences area. It seems to me that even journals like the PLOS journals that are pushing towards a more open world of communication are still ending up being pulled back into the canonical paper form to communicate.

“…the musing here is whether there is a way that the publishing industry could facilitate an earlier, more speculative communication of interesting results in a way that would positively impact the field by turning over new information sooner”

I guess one of the issues on the biology side is that there is a real emphasis on trying to get your paper into the most prestigious journal, so people don''t want to drop that paper until it is as far along as possible to aim at high-impact journals.That of course becomes a self-reinforcing system. If the yardstick used in the life sciences industry is publication in high-impact-rated journals, then you are going to get that behavior. But if you''re interested in the generation of new knowledge and in moving your field forwards, it is at least plausible that publishing in a quicker fashion or with at least some outlet to move more creative ideas ahead would be attractive.There are clearly challenges to that. But I do think it''s remarkable that if you look at almost every other media area there has been a huge amount of change since the advent of the internet era, but there really has been very limited change around life sciences publishing. It''s been surprisingly conservative to me. I am wishing there would be more experimentation to find other ways to communicate information sooner and in a way that could spur more creativity.Of course, when you tie publishing back to industry, for competitive and intellectual property protection reasons, industry tends to not really want to get out in the front with its most interesting work too early. I think that a lot of things being published out of industry are not the most interesting stuff that is happening. But again it seems to me that another area that science publishing should be thinking about is how they could come up with other solutions that might provide for a more creative interaction between publishing and industry.Talking about old models versus new models, let''s move to issues of training. Another area that you''ve been impressive at is the training of scientists. You''ve had your hand in creating a new PhD track at Mount Sinai called Design, Technology, and Entrepreneurship [DTE]. What is your view about how we train scientists, what we''re doing better these days and what you would like to see being done better to train them?It seemed to me that there was a remarkably small amount of experimentation in academia around thinking about how to train biomedical PhDs, and that academia had missed the opportunity to provide a better set of tools to PhDs to allow them to be effective across a wider range of potential career outcomes. The majority of biomedical PhDs are not ending up in tenure-track faculty positions but rather in the ‘alternative career track’. It seemed to be disingenuous to train them solely for the academic track if in reality the majority were going to some other career track.So what I was really excited about in putting together the DTE program was trying new ways to train PhDs to be effective askers of questions and proposers of solutions, and to create an environment where they could gain experience in how to solve a variety of problems effectively.

“…what I was really excited about in putting together the DTE program was trying new ways to train PhDs to be effective askers of questions and proposers of solutions, and to create an environment where they could gain experience in how to solve a variety of problems effectively”

This meant that our students had to be rigorously trained as scientists, but this was an ‘and’ opportunity and not an ‘or’ opportunity. In addition to being trained as excellent basics scientists, we wanted to give them some training in how engineers think about problems, how designers approach issues, what tools those people use and how that impacts how they try to solve a problem. Hopefully over time this would produce students that are better suited for interacting and influencing other parts of society – be it industry, government or policy – and better positioned to compete in what is a very competitive job market.What were some of the things you did in the DTE training to get at this?We really tried to teach theory in the context of real problems. Virtually all the classes of the DTE curriculum were problem-driven. We created a class that we called ‘The Q.E.D. Project’ that followed along from efforts at Stanford and elsewhere to teach students how to identify an unmet need. We then asked them to form a team to address the unmet need, and then helped them understand how to build a prototype to address that need. Along the way, we also talked about what kind of roles people in their team need to play. Should your team be very diverse or very deep in a given area? How do we integrate people who have different cultural backgrounds or how do we integrate medical students with PhD students? We brought in a lot of people out of the non-academic environment who were practitioners and experts in their various areas and we tried to get students to think about the full range of stakeholders they would have to engage with to bring a solution to bear.We did not want to spend a lot of time lecturing the students in a purely didactic way. We wanted to engage them in a process where they were solving important problems as part of the class. Whether that was a class on modelling or an engineering-focused class, or how to think about scientific problems, the core of DTE was built around getting the students to grapple with a real world problem and let all the learning hang off that.How did the students respond to that? Do you think you were successful?Based on the number of students signing up to take the courses and the student evaluations after the classes were over, I think we really struck a chord. I wouldn''t say it was necessarily the right answer for every student but I think there is clearly a group of students for whom this is a really effective and motivating approach.Let''s now move to drug discovery and development – the focus of the new online Special Collection from DMM. What would you say are some of the most urgent challenges in drug development that you have seen?I think one of the most urgent challenges is to begin to break free of some of our ‘old’ ways of thinking and take advantage of new scientific insights. For example, if you look at the traditional organization in a medical school environment, they are centered around departments devoted to organs (liver, heart, kidney). I think our increasing scientific understanding is that there are disease processes that may impact multiple organ systems but ultimately it is understanding the process, and drugging the process, that becomes important and not drugging the organ.I think that moving towards a process-oriented understanding of what common mechanisms are implicated in a given disease state or therapeutic challenge will help us be a little more creative and a little bit more interdisciplinary in how we think about these challenges.One of the difficulties with those new approaches is that pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions have not had a great track record of working together. Do you think that''s true? And why do you think it''s been so difficult to move ideas from the bench to the clinics?I think this is complicated. If you take the academic researchers'' point of view, their early identification of a problem and early identification of a potential solution feels like they have moved the ball very far forward towards the end solution. If you take industry''s point of view, the identification of the target or even the identification of a potential chemical compound is really just barely beginning to get to the starting line; the bulk of the time and the bulk of the dollars that will ultimately be needed to create a product come after the academic work and these will be spent by industry. I think that this differing point of view around where and how value is created has a lot to do with many of the challenges that arise when academia and industry are speaking to each other.Is it important to bridge this gap or is everybody playing their role?I think there''s an opportunity for academia to continue in its current role but to carry the potential solution further. I think in certain areas the access to tools and to patients allows academics to maybe carry projects further and closer to ‘proof of concept’ than they did historically, and that will continue to add value to the academic institution. That would ultimately help to bridge this gap because if you''ve taken something closer to proof of concept while still within the academic institution, you have created more value, you are able to engage with industry differently, and maybe the value perception gap is closed somewhat.What industry is really good at is organizing and managing late-stage research and clinical trials in an effective manner, and what academia is really good at is understanding basic questions, finding targets and sometimes finding early chemical compounds. Again, I think that the perception in academia of where value has been created is in part related to the fact that many academics haven''t been given the exposure or the training to actually understand the full breadth of the drug-development process. While they may have a general sense of it – we have all seen the same diagrams showing the steps and the funnel narrowing down from a million compounds to something getting onto the market – only those with real exposure to the work in industry understand it at a visceral or experiential level. One of the opportunities for academia is to find better ways to have some cross-talk, whether that''s internships for graduate students to get some experience in industry or other ways to get the students really exposed to the industrial side of drug development. Obviously, all the trained scientists on the industry side have been through academia because they had to go through it to get their PhDs, and thus they understand the academic side of the house pretty well. I really think the challenge is getting to people who have spent their whole career in academia to have a better understanding of what the drivers are on the industry side.

“One of the opportunities for academia is to find better ways to have some cross-talk, whether that''s internships for graduate students to get some experience in industry or other ways to get the students really exposed to the industrial side of drug development”

Between target identification and clinical trials of course there is another piece. At what point does the researcher in academia put down his pipette, walk out and start a biotech company? Should that happen?That''s a fraught question because I think it is an enormous undertaking to start a biotechnology company. Fundraising, intellectual property, regulatory affairs, company management – there are a whole number of disciplines that biotech companies have to take on. It is very rare that an academic scientist is going to have the training, the time and the motivation to do all of those things while also continuing to pursue their academic career in a very challenging funding environment. I think it comes back to this point that we were talking about with teams. I think it is really important for a scientist who is excited about their work and thinks it may be the basis of a company to go out and begin to form a team that is going to increase the likelihood of success. They have to accept the fact that science is a critical component, but it is just a component, and many different disciplines along with many different people are needed to make a successful company. If a scientist can bring that sort of collaborative view point and is open to working closely with an intellectual property attorney, with a business development person and with whomever their funding source is, that will increase their likelihood of success. They have to do it with a certain amount of humility, which is to say that it isn''t just going to be the science that drives the success: all the given pieces have to come together to be successful.You''ve watched a lot of technology coming through, including at your new position at Mars. Which technology excites you?We all have to pay a lot of attention to CRISPR and the gene-editing technologies. There is certainly a number of intellectual property issues that have to get sorted out but that''s clearly an area that will have a huge impact not just on human health but on animal health and plant health as well.The other area I''ve been thinking a lot about lately is the microbiome. As sequencing technology has altered in cost and time, we have begun to be able to explore the microbiome in a way that historically was not possible. And it feels like we are moving towards a tipping point where the explosion of understanding is going to open up a lot of interesting opportunities for us to intervene. Whether that''s through traditional drug modalities or through altered nutrition or through changing the microbial community in soil to produce crops that have higher nutrient value or other approaches, I think that''s another broad area that seems poised to begin to offer really interesting results.Were you surprised that a company like Mars, which has not been a basic research company at all, is now giving you an opportunity to build something that is much more research-orientated?The reality of Mars is that they have actually had a very deep fundamental research program for a number of years. They got involved in the sequencing of the cacao genome and contributed it to the public domain, and they are now also involved in the sequencing of the genomes of a large number of orphan crops in Africa. So they have been very active in their research both in the company and in collaboration with academic scientists around the world. The nature of the company has meant that the work is perhaps not as obvious as others, but it is a remarkably science-driven company in much of what it does.You have done a myriad of things. What are the one or two things that you are most proud of?I am most proud of my efforts to keep a hand in both the commercial and the academic world. It certainly has not been easy but I have received enormous satisfaction from the opportunity to work with bright students at each of the schools I have had the opportunity to teach at. I am not sure there is anything more satisfying than the opportunity to work with students and feel you have helped them towards their goals.At the same time, I think I''ve been effective in doing that because I have managed to keep an active role in the applied world. In some ways, my greatest achievement has been finding a way to balance those two interests in a way that seems to have worked for the various organizations I''ve been affiliated with.How do you relax away from work? Do you have a family?I am married. My wife is a securities litigator so has a very active career of her own. We have two children, one in high school and one in middle school. I''ve had the privilege to coach both of them on their various soccer teams since they were each about 4 years old so that''s been a lot of fun.The other thing that many people will not find relaxing – but for some reason my family does – has been taking backcountry ski trips annually for a number of years. Worrying about navigating through the snow and finding shelter before darkness falls has a way of clearing the mind.     

L.S. Vygotsky and the Theater

The article presents the analysis of L.S. Vygotsky's works dedicated to the theater arts and is organized according Vygotsky's different life and work stages. Meanwhile special attention is paid to the Gomel period during which a large number of reviews were written by Vygotsky and published in “Nash ponedel'nik” and “Polesskaia pravda” newspapers. Biographical facts are widely used in this analysis and help to clarify Vygotsky's interest in art. It is shown that even at the beginning of his oeuvre, he was interested not only in a range of problems in art, but also psychological problems related to art perception and creativeness. Vygotsky's usage of structural concept ideas about the peculiar properties of literary text composition are also explored. Vygotsky analyzes the socio-psychological mechanisms of theatrical art effect. Furthermore, those areas which are widely used by Vygotsky in determining the characteristics of cast reincarnation are examined. Special emphasis is placed on the different elements of the actor techniques (speech, movement, emotional expression, acting personality and etc.). Materials are widely used in this study and help identify the socio-cultural context that defined Vygotsky's values at different stages of his work, related to his drama criticism and his formation as a professional psychologist.     

History of ichnology

The diagenetic and/or tectogenetic origins of stylolites now are universally accepted. However, when stylolites were first described and named by Karl Friedrich Kloden in 1828 and 1834, their origin was mysterious. K. F. Kloden, who investigated samples from the Mark Brandenburg, Germany, interpreted stylolites to be of biogenic origin and suggested numerous genetic possibilities.

K. F. Kloden's writings contain not only the first scientific accounts of stylolites but also provide, along with a recent article by W. Remus about Kloden, fascinating insights into the personality of this remarkable man and how he, as well as other geologists of his time, approached the study of sedimentary rocks. K. F. Kloden had a long and distinguished career as a teacher, scientist, and geologist. He is credited with several important geological discoveries, published numerous books and scientific papers, was director of a famous trade school in Berlin, and received a number of honors.

Stylolites are common features in sedimentary rocks, especially in carbonates, from all continents and geologic ages. Stylolites result from pressure solution during burial compaction and/or tectogenetic compression. Through measurements of their orientations and amplitudes, stylolites can be used to determine the directions of com‐pressive stresses and the amounts of rock lost by pressure solution.     

Prison became second home for psychiatrist (George Scott).

Retired prison psychiatrist George Scott recalls his career working in Canada''s penal system, including his peacemaking role in a hostage-taking incident and his work with Steven Truscott. Life "inside" is dangerous for guards, inmates, staff and psychiatrists, he says, but he never regretted his decision to devote his career to studying criminal behaviour.     

Jay Bailey as mentor--the students' perspective

Professor James E. Bailey was not only a world-renowned leader and pioneer in biochemical engineering but also a mentor to the many graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in his group. To provide non-"Bailey-ites" with an impression of Jay as a mentor, we begin with a brief review of his career, focusing on the dynamics of the research group. Typical student experiences of being part of the Bailey group are then discussed, including the recognition of a particular research style and Jay's expectations for hard work. Finally, we provide some thoughts on Jay's mentoring style, which was marked by an ability to foster independence, a sense of quality, and passion for research. Jay's contributions as a mentor can perhaps be recognized as being as significant as his research achievements.     

The bacteriophage, its role in immunology: how Macfarlane Burnet's phage research shaped his scientific style

The Australian scientist Frank Macfarlane Burnet-winner of the Nobel Prize in 1960 for his contributions to the understanding of immunological tolerance-is perhaps best recognized as one of the formulators of the clonal selection theory of antibody production, widely regarded as the 'central dogma' of modern immunology. His work in studies in animal virology, particularly the influenza virus, and rickettsial diseases is also well known. Somewhat less known and publicized is Burnet's research on bacteriophages, which he conducted in the first decade of his research career, immediately after completing medical school. For his part, Burnet made valuable contributions to the understanding of the nature of bacteriophages, a matter of considerable debate at the time he began his work. Reciprocally, it was while working on the phages that Burnet developed the scientific styles, the habits of mind and laboratory techniques and practices that characterized him for the rest of his career. Using evidence from Burnet's published work, as well as personal papers from the period he worked on the phages, this paper demonstrates the direct impact that his experiments with phages had on the development of his characteristic scientific style and approaches, which manifested themselves in his later career and theories, and especially in his thinking regarding various immunological problems.     

Psychophysiological factors of readiness children of 6 years to education at school

Research was spent according to principles of biomedical ethics. Healthy children of 6 years have taken part in him (n = 120). In the course of research the psychophysiological factors defining readiness of children of 6 years to education at school are identified: "selectivity of voluntary attention" (the factor I); "the general working capacity" (the factor II); "a physiological maturity" (the factor III); "sensorimotor coordination of voluntary movement" (the factor IV). Factors I, II, IV correspond with activity of three blocks of the brain allocated with A.R. Lurija within the limits of structurally functional model of work of a brain as a substratum of mental activity. The carried out research has revealed interrelation of some indicators of readiness for education at school with parametres of physical working capacity.     

Psychometric comparison of students in medicine and other faculties: social factors and psychologic symptoms

Few studies have investigated personality and psychopathological profiles associated to the choice of university education. Our study examined students from four faculties of Turin University, in Turin, Italy (Medicine, Engineering, Education, Law), comparing sociodemographic features, personality characteristics and psychiatric symptoms. A heterogeneous group of 1,323 students were assessed using a semistructured interview, the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised (PDQ-R), and the Symptoms Checklist 90 (SCL-90). Statistical analysis included four logistic regression models, each fitted for one faculty, considering the other three as a control group. Associations were found in Medical and Engineering students concerning type of high school, school final score, and father?s socioeducational level. Factors associated with students of Law and Education included socioeducational characteristics, but stronger correlations were seen with PDQ-R personality scales and SCL-90 symptom clusters. In conclusion, four different profiles were identified. Medicine was not significantly related to personality and psychiatric factors. Engineering was related to male gender, choice of technical high school and father?s social level. Law was related to female gender and narcissistic personality profile. These data may be useful for counseling activities addressed to high school and university students.     

Artist and Educator

Policy can be a useful tool for effecting change, but policy analysis, which shapes policy development, has been underused in music education research. This paper demonstrates how Bardach's (2000) Eightfold Path can be used to develop solutions to problems in music education. Some have argued that school music programs do not prepare students to engage musically in today's society. To develop alternative solutions and project their outcomes, I analyze several current and past efforts to redefine music education and secure its place in the curriculum. Several alternatives, which include revising the National Standards, developing a national curriculum, improving professional development, and reconceiving advocacy, are evaluated, and policy recommendations are made that will enable the profession to redefine music education to better serve today's students.     

Ukhtomski? and the nature of the human "ego"]

A. Ukhtomski? is one of those Russian naturalists of the beginning of the 20th century (K. Tsiolkovski?, V. Vernadski?, K. Timiriazev, I. Pavlov), whose scientific work is characterized by a combination of the valuable contribution to a specific field of science and deep philosophical conceptualizations. Ukhtomski? enriched modern neurophysiology by the ideas on dominant--a stable focus of enhanced excitability, determining the organism reactions to the environmental stimuli. Unlike artificial experimental models, natural dominant--vector of the goal-directed behaviour--represents the needs of immediate satisfaction, dominating at the present moment. Formation of needs hierarchy, characteristic of the given personality, occurs during the process of people communication. Namely, another man serves to the subject a mirror, looking into which he realizes himself as a human being (K. Marx). By his teaching on the dominant, Ukhtomski? has revealed the dual nature of the personality's self-consciousness in the process of its perception of the surrounding people. He showed that involuntary projection of its dominating vital and social needs (motives, intentions) to the image of another man makes the latter only the "double" of the observer, which does not promote the development and enrichment of personality. Actually productive is only the perception which is motivated by the ideal need of learning another personality, sincere interest in him, what makes another person a "well-deserved colocutor", a source of new knowledge about people and himself. The ideas of Ukhtomski? on the nature of human "self" are close to ideological searchings of L. Tolsto? and F. Dostoevski?.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

The complete amino acid sequence of the low molecular weight cytosolic acid phosphatase

This paper presents the complete amino acid sequence of the low molecular weight acid phosphatase from bovine liver. This isoenzyme of the acid phosphatase family is located in the cytosol, is not inhibited by L-(+)-tartrate and fluoride ions, but is inhibited by sulfhydryl reagents. The enzyme consists of 157 amino acid residues, has an acetylated NH2 terminus, and has arginine as the COOH-terminal residue. All 8 half-cystine residues are in the free thiol form. The molecular weight calculated from the sequence is 17,953. The sequence was determined by characterizing the peptides purified by reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography from tryptic, thermolytic, peptic, Staphylococcus aureus protease, and chymotryptic digests of the carboxymethylated protein. No sequence homologies were found with the two known acylphosphatase isoenzymes or the metalloproteins porcine uteroferrin and purple acid phosphatase from bovine spleen (both of which have acid phosphatase activity). Two half-cystines at or near the active site were identified through the reaction of the enzyme with [14C] iodoacetate in the presence or in the absence of a competitive inhibitor (i.e. inorganic phosphate). Ac-A E Q V T K S V L F V C L G N I C R S P I A E A V F R K L V T D Q N I S D N W V I D S G A V S D W N V G R S P N P R A V S C L R N H G I N T A H K A R Q V T K E D F V T F D Y I L C M D E S N L R D L N R K S N Q V K N C R A K I E L L G S Y D P Q K Q L I I E D P Y Y G N D A D F E T V Y Q Q C V R C C R A F L E K V R-OH.     

It's a Wonderful Life: A Career as an Academic Scientist

Many years of training are required to obtain a job as an academic scientist. Is this investment of time and effort worthwhile? My answer is a resounding “yes.” Academic scientists enjoy tremendous freedom in choosing their research and career path, experience unusual camaraderie in their lab, school, and international community, and can contribute to and enjoy being part of this historical era of biological discovery. In this essay, I further elaborate by listing my top ten reasons why an academic job is a desirable career for young people who are interested in the life sciences.Students are attracted to careers in academic science because of their interest in the subject rather than for financial reward. But then they hear messages that make them think twice about this career choice. It is difficult to find a job: “Hear about Joe? Three publications as a postdoc and still no job offers.” The NIH pay line is low: “Poor Patricia, she is now on her third submission of her first NIH grant.” Publishing is painful: “Felix''s grad school thesis work has been rejected by three journals!” Academic jobs are demanding: “Cathy has spent her last three weekends writing grants rather than being with her family.”Such scenarios do take place, but if you think that this is what a career in academic science is about, then you need to hear the other side of the story. And this is the purpose of this article—a chance to reflect on the many good things about the academic profession. In the classic movie It''s a Wonderful Life, George Bailey is at the point of despair but regains his confidence through the wisdom and perspective of a guardian angel, Clarence. Doubt and setbacks also are bound to happen in science (as is true of other careers), but pessimism should not rule the day. It is a great profession and there are many happy endings. I would like to share my top ten reasons of why being an academic professor is a “wonderful life,” one that bright and motivated young people should continue to aspire to pursue.     

Mutants of phosphorylase a altered in recognition by protein phosphatase-1

To develop our knowledge of specificity determinants for protein phosphatase-1, mutants of phosphorylase b have been converted to phosphorylase a and examined for their efficacy as substrates for protein phosphatase-1. Mutants focused on the N-terminal primary sequence surrounding the phosphoserine (R16A, R16E, and I13G) and at a site that interacts with the phosphoserine in phosphorylase a, (R69K and R69E). The success achieved studying protein kinase substrate specificity with peptide substrates has not extended to protein phosphatases. Protein phosphatases are believed to recognize higher order structure in substrates in addition to the primary sequence surrounding the phosphoserine or threonine. Peptide studies with protein phosphatase-1 have revealed a preference for basic residues N-terminal to the phosphoserine. Arginine 16 in phosphorylase a may be a positive determinant. In this work, protein phosphatase-1 preferred the positive charge on arginine 16. R16A exhibited a similar K(m) but reduced V(max), and R16E had an increased K(m) and a decreased V(max) when compared to phosphorylase. I13G had a similar K(m) but an increased V(max). The R69 mutants were also dephosphorylated preferentially over phosphorylase a. The K(m) for R69K was unchanged but had a higher V(max). R69E exhibited the most changes, with a 4-fold increase in K(m) and a 10-fold increase in V(max). These results suggest that proper presentation of the phosphoserine can greatly affect the rate of dephosphorylation.