To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
We prove various iteration theorems for forcing classes related to subproper and subcomplete forcing, introduced by Jensen. In the first part, we use revised countable support iterations, and show that 1) the class of subproper, ${}^\omega \omega $-bounding forcing notions, 2) the class of subproper, T-preserving forcing notions (where T is a fixed Souslin tree) and 3) the class of subproper, $[T]$-preserving forcing notions (where T is an $\omega _1$-tree) are iterable with revised countable support. In the second part, we adopt Miyamoto’s theory of nice iterations, rather than revised countable support. We show that this approach allows us to drop a technical condition in the definitions of subcompleteness and subproperness, still resulting in forcing classes that are iterable in this way, preserve $\omega _1$, and, in the case of subcompleteness, don’t add reals. Further, we show that the analogs of the iteration theorems proved in the first part for RCS iterations hold for nice iterations as well.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s religious rhetoric and policies stand in sharp contrast to his predecessors during the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Front (EPRDF) period, who carefully and deliberately kept the political discourse free of any religious references. Many were taken by surprise by his pronounced Pentecostal faith. This surprise is arguably a reflection of how scholars and observers have ignored developments within Ethiopia’s Protestant community – and religious dynamics in general – that Abiy is a product of. This paper examines how religious developments within Ethiopia’s Protestant community produced and shaped Abiy as a Pentecostal politician. The paper also seeks to understand some of the main characteristics of the prime minister’s religious ideas and the possible impacts they may have had on his political decisions. My discussion centres on two major aspects. Countering the claims that Abiy aims to ‘Pentecostalize’ Ethiopian politics, I examine what possible implications he might have for Ethiopia’s secular framework and demonstrate how he uses religion in an inclusive way, viewing it as a resource to bring prosperity to Ethiopia. Secondly, to understand the actual content of the prime minister’s religious worldview, I analyse the affective affinities between the so-called prosperity gospel and positive thinking teachings.
The federal government has a long history of trying to find the right balance in supporting scientific and medical research while protecting the public and other researchers from potential harms. To date, this balance has been generally calibrated differently across contexts – including in clinical care, human subjects research, and research integrity. New challenges continue to face this disparate model of regulation, including novel Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools. Because of potential increases in unintentional fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism using GenAI – and challenges establishing both these errors and intentionality in retrospect – this article argues that we should instead move toward a system that sets accepted community standards for the use of GenAI in research as prospective requirements.
Communities and individuals globally continue to suffer the violent impacts of colonialism and racism, in a global system of governance that remains rooted in unequal and hierarchical power imbalances. The interpersonal, societal, and structural violence that persists around the world exists in violation of human rights, and is evidence of a persistent lack of political will to effectively invest in human rights, including the right to health, as a true priority.
The demand on States and non-State actors to fulfil the human right to health is imperative. Attacks on civilians during times of conflict and catastrophe, as seen in the latest escalation and display of imperial aggression by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, demonstrate the consistent uneven application of human rights and commitment to fulfilling them.
Protecting human rights, and specifically the realization of the right to health, is fundamental as it has significant consequences for the realisation of other human rights. Eliminating discrimination requires paying sufficient attention to groups of individuals that suffer historical or persistent prejudice. Fulfilling a commitment to health equity and justice demands creating opportunity and conducive conditions for the dignity for all people.
Our national scientific enterprise has a crisis of reproducibility. While this phenomenon has many contributors, one is the proliferation of data manipulation. Data manipulation may range from seemingly innocuous to brazen to the point of verging on criminal. This latter category has recently received more attention, stimulating a debate about the handling of such unpleasant matters. We co-authors have instigated and interacted with numerous research integrity investigations and believe the current model of handling potential violations of research integrity standards is deeply flawed. Institution-led investigations are fundamentally conflicted because of the potential for institutional reputational damage and financial harm from a finding of research misconduct. Concerns are often handled with secrecy, lethargy, and limited technical analysis. Integrity lapses are frequently handled with a lack of openness, accountability and proportional consequences, which have weakened public trust in the scientific enterprise.
We propose that research integrity violations of substantial scale should be independently investigated by appropriately resourced specialists. Such investigations should be completed within a time frame that facilitates meaningful corrective action when required or exoneration of the accused party when appropriate; completion of an investigation should rarely extend beyond one year and the results of the investigation should be made public.
Just before World War I, the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) geographically expanded its trade in the Canadian Arctic to derive profits from Arctic fox fur and secure its position in a global value chain (GVC) delivering fur to metropolitan consumers. The “problem of nature” challenged the company’s business venture. Furthermore, “nature” was made and remade by the HBC’s own capital investments. The fox trade itself changed human ecology. Technology transfers to Inuit modified their hunting regimes to increase the company’s returns of polar bear skins. Though these skins had high potential market value, modes of production introduced by the HBC to the Arctic precluded the company from sending high-quality products to metropolitan dressers. Within a changing Arctic human ecology, the HBC produced one highly valued commodity for the market while producing another from which it could derive only modest profit. The HBC’s fox and polar bear trade at the onset of the last century suggests ways that business empires can set off complex and unanticipated changes in human ecologies and, therefore, the dynamics of nature and business at their very peripheries.
The United States is one of the largest consumers of meat globally. The traditional production of meat contributes substantially to climate change due to the levels of greenhouse gases emitted and the amount of land, water, feed, and other natural resources required to raise animals used for meat. Conventional meat production is also a major source for the emergence of zoonotic diseases and antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. Nevertheless, Americans consume more meat now than at any time in the nation’s history.
Advocates for policy change aimed at addressing the risks currently associated with meat production have typically focused on reducing meat consumption, alternatives to meat, or improving the standards of conventional meat production. These are laudable goals, but an emerging technology now promises meat production that may avoid these risks entirely. Enter “lab-grown meat” — meat cultivated in an efficient and controlled laboratory environment without the need for fields, feed, or even animals.
The technology has been in development for over 100 years but has seen exponential growth in the past five years. What was previously considered a science fiction fantasy became a reality in the United States in 2023, when UPSIDE Foods and GOOD Meat received approval from USDA for sale of their cultivated chicken to U.S. consumers.
This article highlights the benefits and drawbacks associated with lab-grown meat, assesses the existing regulatory framework, and offers considerations for policy reform as regulators address the emergence and scale-up of this important technology.