tisiwoota

A new article from NewScientist about studies of conflict resolution among animals.

“As our understanding of natural conflict resolution grows, it is tempting to hope that we can apply what we have learned to improve human relations. The cost-benefit approach certainly looks like a step in the right direction, but we will need much more detailed work on non-humans before we can develop general predictions that might apply to us. The possibilities are tantalising, though.

Take the study of rhesus and stumptail monkeys done by de Waal and colleague Denise Johanowicz over a decade ago. Rhesus monkeys are aggressive and rarely opt for reconciliation; stumptails on the other hand have a talent for making up. The researchers wanted to see what would happen if they reared juveniles of the two species together. They found that the young stumptails exerted a benign influence over the slightly younger rhesus monkeys, whose behaviour towards other group members gradually became more and more conciliatory. The idea that natural conflict resolution can be taught by observation means that there is some hope for Homo sapiens.”

Not really surprising that environment can make a difference, considering a similar effect was shown in a cross-raising study, in which vole pups from a promiscuous species become a bit more caring partners and parents than the norm for their type when reared with a monogamous species. Nonetheless, the conflict resolution research is useful to gain a better handle on specific mechanisms/strategies that facilitate reconciliation and peaceful interactions.

1. There is an adage from usenet culture called Godwin’s law which states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Once a Hitler comparison is made, it is a sign that the intellectual content of a debate has degenerated to the point where exaggerated emotional hysteria reigns, dooming all subsequent discussion to meaningless bickering. Further, the side that introduces Hitler is deemed to be the “loser” of the argument, since resorting to such a tactic is a telling sign that the conclusion isn’t backed up by reasoning that’s compelling enough to stand on its own merits.
(more…)

In an earlier post I shared an article which addressed one of the provisions of CAFTA that would be a big setback to access to essential medicines. Today the IP-health listserv featured a “Dear Colleague” letter authored by three members of Congress, which provides a very readable overview of a number of important related provisions of the agreement.

All are far more strict than is reasonable, and all would act as a major impairment to the ability of signatory countries to protect public health.

Indeed, I’m actually shocked: many of the measures being forced on the developing countries of Central America are _even harsher_ than equivalent standards in US law.

When an “agreement” goes far beyond the requirements not only of TRIPS but of the already-strict requirements of the world’s leading technological superpower, you know this isn’t about improving the economies or standards of living of anyone but pharma reps.

>>
THINK PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES ARE TOO LOW?
CAFTA CAN HELP.
(more…)

Yep, it’s not just an internet term. As this overview of current efforts to reform the US patent system attests, the inadequacy and inefficiency of the old rules has led to patent trolls who buy, trade, sell and enforce patents against companies “not to compete in their businesses” but simply “to extract cash”. (So perhaps a better analogy would be patent vultures… Although I suppose nuisance lawsuits are the real-world equivalent of flamewars?)