Social genomics: genomic inventions in society. The nature of what's to come

This paper identifies several kinds of intellectual mistakes that proponents of genetic engineering make, in defending their views and characterizing the views of their opponents. Results from research in the social sciences and humanities illuminate the nature of these mistakes. The mistakes themselves play a role in allowing proponents to gather support from other protagonists in the social controversies involving science and technology. Understanding the controversies requires understanding that innovations are components of complex and ill-structured social problems; the "right answer" does not follow from scientific or technological breakthroughs. If the problems are identified correctly, issues of non-economic or non-market values and political and individual rights will need to be addressed.     

Property rights and genetic engineering: Developing nations at risk

Eighty percent of (commercial) genetically engineered seeds (GES) are designed only to resist herbicides. Letting farmers use more chemicals, they cut labor costs. But developing nations say GES cause food shortages, unemployment, resistant weeds, and extinction of native cultivars when “volunteers” drift nearby. While GES patents are reasonable, this paper argues many patent policies are not. The paper surveys GE technology, outlines John Locke’s classic account of property rights, and argues that current patent policies must be revised to take account of Lockean ethical constraints. After answering a key objection, it provides concrete suggestions for implementing its ethical conclusions.     

The debate over food biotechnology in the United States: is a societal consensus achievable?

Unless the public comes to agree that the benefits of food biotechnology are desirable and the associated risks are acceptable, our society may fail to realize much of the potential benefits. Three historical cases of major technological innovations whose benefits and risks were the subject of heated public controversy are examined, in search of lessons that may suggest a path toward consensus in the biotechnology debate. In each of the cases—water fluoridation, nuclear power and pesticides—proponents of the technology gathered scientific evidence that they believed established that the innovations were safe. In each case, the federal government was heavily involved in oversight, safety regulation, and in the first two cases, active promotion of the technology. Supporters of the technologies employed a variety of communications strategies, ranging from massive “educational” campaigns (e.g. “Our Friend The Atom”) to vituperative ad hominem attacks on leading opponents. None of these strategies succeeded in achieving broad societal acceptance of the technologies. Fluoridation today is opposed as vigorously by activist groups as it was when first introduced around 1950; it has not been universally adopted even in the U.S., and it has been rejected in most other countries. The American nuclear power industry is moribund, and the public has essentially rejected the technology. The pesticide industry is thriving, with new generations of products succeeding older more hazardous chemicals in a constant cycle. However, strong regulation has failed to prevent adverse health and ecological effects, which have been empirically associated with pesticide uses after the chemicals were dispersed in the environment. Debate over whether risks of such effects are acceptable has been heated for four decades, with scientists and the public divided. None of these cases offers an ideal model for the biotechnology revolution, though they do reveal many strategies that have not worked. The biotechnology debate is also taking place at a time when our concepts of risk communication have improved, and when many consumers are more actively concerned with buying products perceived to be less likely to harm the environment. Based on the three case histories and more recent trends, some characteristics of a process for seeking a societal consensus are described. They include explicitly defining the subjects for consensus; including all stakeholders in a respectful dialogue; confronting value issues, such as acceptability of risks and ethical perceptions; listening to others’ perspectives, and being willing to change one’s own point of view. If activists on all sides of the food biotechnology debate are willing to commit to such a consensus-building process, there is hope that the U.S. national debate can be resolved in a manner satisfactory to essentially all parties.     

Hunger and love: Schiller and the origin of drive dualism in Freud's work1

The interpretation of dreams was the fi rst text in which Freud referred to the system of two drives (drive of self‐preservation and the sexual drive). In order to understand how this question was at work in Freud's mind, one has to go back to 1898, when Freud began to write the third chapter of The interpretation of dreams. One can then see, in contrast with Sulloway's assertions, how Freud was inspired by Schiller, whose shadow haunted his dreams between April and December 1898. The analysis of these dreams emphasizes how the references to Schiller's works and to the drive of self‐preservation cover sexual impulses, in particular, those connected with the relationship to the father. The food drive or drive of self‐preservation also enabled Freud to construct a heroic romance. He was thereby able to bury an internal criticism which was at odds with his persistence in describing the father as a seducer, and to conceal scenes in which he was defeated and sexually subdued by another boy.     

European starlings are capable of discriminating subtle size asymmetries in paired stimuli

Small deviations from bilateral symmetry (fluctuating asymmetries) are cues to fitness differences in some animals. Therefore, researchers have considered whether animals use these small asymmetries as visual cues to determine appropriate behavioral responses (e.g., mate preferences). However, there have been few systematic studies of animals' abilities to visually discriminate such minor asymmetries. If the asymmetries cannot be discriminated, fluctuating asymmetry can not be a visual cue. Here, we report an investigation of European starlings' (Sturnus vulgaris) abilities to discriminate small size asymmetries. We trained starlings, through operant conditioning in a free-flight aviary, to discriminate achromatic, symmetric paired stimuli from size-matched asymmetric stimuli. By starting the learning process with a large asymmetry and progressing through sequential trials of decreasing asymmetry, we elucidated a behavioral limit to asymmetry discrimination. We found that starlings are capable of discriminating a 10% size asymmetry. There was weaker evidence for discrimination of 5% asymmetry but no evidence for signal discrimination at 2.5% size asymmetry. This level of asymmetry discrimination suggests that many size asymmetry cues in nature can be discriminated by birds. At each level of asymmetry discrimination, we also tested whether starlings could generalize their learned symmetry preference to unreinforced novel images. Consistent with previous findings, we found that starlings could generalize their symmetry preferences.     

WHY WE NEED RELIGION TO SOLVE THE WORLD FOOD CRISIS

Scholars and practitioners addressing the global food crisis have rarely incorporated perspectives from the world's religious traditions. This lacuna appears in multiple dimensions: until recently, environmentalists have tended to ignore food and agriculture; food justice advocates have focused on food quantities, rather than its method of production; and few scholars of religion have considered agriculture. Faith‐based perspectives typically emphasize the dignity and sanctity of creation and offer holistic frameworks that integrate equity, economic, and environmental concerns, often called the three legs of sustainability. Faith‐based perspectives can provide new paradigms through which to assess food, consumption, and production and the attendant social relations; assess our scientific, economic, and social approaches; and acknowledge the moral and religious dimensions of the world food crisis.     

The development of Japanese mother–infant feeding interactions during the weaning period

During the weaning period, infants are not skilled at self-feeding and caregivers play a prominent role in feeding. Solid feeding is therefore an inherently collaborative and interactive process between infants and caregivers. The present study examined how caregivers and infants coordinate their solid feeding interactions, based on naturalistic longitudinal observations of three Japanese mother–infant dyads. The main results were as follows. Four or five months after weaning (about 10–11 months of age), children's mouth movements and mothers’ arm movements became more synchronized, and the success or failure of coordinated feeding became independent on children's gaze behavior. During this same period, both mothers’ and children's body movements accelerated. Specifically, children's food-intake motions and mothers’ food-carrying movements became faster together, although before 10–11 months fluctuations of these motions were not as correlated. Finally, at 9–11 months of age rhythmic body movements became frequent. From the first day of weaning, all three mothers swayed their bodies rhythmically while feeding, and about 2–3 months later their children also began to sway as they ate, at first infectiously but later spontaneously. These observations indicate how specific behavioral development contributes to mother–infant coordination in feeding.