The Ghana–Togo border separates the Ewe people from their ritual spaces and objects. In Nyive, a border town divided into Ghana Nyive and Togo Nyive, these ritual spaces and objects are in Togo Nyive. The liminal space of the border complicates ritual practice by preventing community members from moving the ritual drum Aɖaʋatram (madness has led me astray) across the river and the international border. Nonetheless, communities in Nyive use ritual archives to maintain their identities in the context of colonial separation. They remake their identities through the symbolism, origin narrative, handling, and use of the drum Aɖaʋatram.

People with disabilities in the US are now a health disparities population. Though 25% of US adults have a disability, only 5% of medical research grants are disability related. Knowledge about researchers’ perceived barriers to including people with disabilities in research has focused on a single disability/condition and thus has limited translational science applications. Our CTSA’s Disability as Difference: Reducing Researcher Roadblocks (D2/R3) project examined such roadblocks towards inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). I/DDs are broad, heterogeneous conditions that originate in childhood, have varying impact and function, and persist throughout the lifespan. Strategies that mitigate their under-representation in research will likely have general applicability to all disabilities. In D2/R3’s first phase we conducted semi-structured interviews with translational science and I/DD program leaders at ten US institutions about perceived barriers and facilitators to including people with I/DD in research. Interviews were held with 25 individuals from partnering Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Centers, University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, and Clinical and Translational Science Award programs. Collaborative thematic coding identified key themes as: attitudinal barriers (e.g., assumptions about consent capacity), logistical barriers (e.g., accommodation costs), health disparities, and generalizability concerns. Findings informed development of a survey based on Prosci’s ADKAR® model of change management’s five components: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement. Exclusion appears to stem from researchers’ lack of awareness, misconceptions, and knowledge gaps rather than insurmountable obstacles.

Orthodox contractualists and rule consequentialists think that, for any action, the consequences of everyone performing that action determine whether that action is permissible. For them, “what if everyone did that?” is the fundamental moral question. By making “what if everyone did that?” the fundamental question of good moral reasoning, these moral theories can easily justify prohibitions on free-riding. But it also makes them face the ideal world problem. I argue that it was a mistake for moral theorists to generalize from an objection appropriate to cases of free-riding to all of morality. In short, we should understand the question “what if everyone did that?” to give expression to one, and only one, kind of objection to one’s action—namely, that, by performing that action, one would be making an exception of oneself. If we limit the scope of “what if everyone did that?” in this way, we can justify prohibitions on free-riding while avoiding the ideal world problem.

Silvennoinen (2025) analyzes the stored sequence going forward as an adverb that inherits adverb-class morphosyntax. This reply challenges that categorization on empirical grounds. The construction fails the key distributional test for adverbs: it cannot occur in integrated-medial position between subject and verb (*We going forward will prioritize replication), the diagnostic slot for core adverbs (We certainly will prioritize replication). Analysis of Silvennoinen’s corpus (n = 1,517) confirms this restriction – apparent ‘medial’ tokens prove either to be NP-internal modifiers or parenthetical supplements, never integrated clausal constituents. Instead, going forward patterns with PP adjuncts, occurring clause-initially, clause-finally, or as supplements. Internally, deverbal going heads the construction and licenses a directional complement forward(s), parallel to established deverbal prepositions like according [to …] and depending [on …]. The construction thus projects PP, not AdvP, aligning with The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’s flexible-complement analysis of prepositions. This case demonstrates that storage and semantic specialization do not force categorical reanalysis.