Paul Thompson

Through socio-cultural analysis of the discourse of bullying, the present article aims to show that moral learning is less about teaching children the difference between right and wrong and more about making available to them what Tappan and Wertsch describe as the mediational means to engage in their own moral learning. Bullying is explained in Bakhtinian terms as a form of ‘authoritative discourse’. Both moral education and manipulative adolescent bullying are presented as, in a broad sense, forms of political practice. The same 13-year-old girl was recorded as she talked with peer ‘counsellors’ about her own bullying and then a fortnight later in the course of directing and featuring in a tutor-group video which aimed to introduce younger pupils to their new school. Through the inter-animation of social voices, new moral ideas are appropriated by the participants. In a succession of ‘zones of proximal development’, students support and ‘scaffold’ each other’s thinking in their progression towards changed levels of moral awareness.

This article explores how time-related metaphors frame advanced cryopreservation technologies in environmental conservation. Cryopreservation “stops” or “freezes” biological time and “buys time” desperately needed to preserve species and ecosystems. We advance a framing of these technologies as logistical, highlighting how they create opportunities to shift materials, knowledge, and decision-making power through space and time. As logistical technologies, advanced cryopreservation techniques require active planning in the present rather than deferring responsibility and accountability to the future.

The term ‘posthumanism’ has not been promoted by many environmental philosophers, and it is not clear how the figures I discuss would react to be being characterized as posthumanist. It is more typical for advocates of the perspectives I discuss to characterize them with labels such as ‘non-anthropocentric,’ ‘ecocentric’, or ‘deep ecology.’ Yet, as I will argue, the ideas that have emerged in these lines of thought reflect philosophical commitments that could aptly be characterized as posthumanist

Histone post‐translational modifications (PTMs) alter the chromatin architecture, generating “open” and “closed” states, and these structural changes can modulate gene expression under specific cellular conditions. While methylation and acetylation are the best‐characterized histone PTMs, citrullination by the protein arginine deiminases (PADs) represents another important player in this process. In addition to “fine tuning” chromatin structure at specific loci, histone citrullination can also promote rapid global chromatin decondensation during the formation of extracellular traps (ETs) in immune cells. Recent studies now show that PAD4‐mediated citrullination of histone H1 at promoter elements can also promote localized chromatin decondensation in stem cells, thus regulating the pluripotent state. These observations suggest that PAD‐mediated histone deimination profoundly affects chromatin structure, possibly above and beyond that of other PTMs. Additionally, these recent findings further enhance our understanding of PAD biology and the important contributions that these enzymes play in development, health, and disease.

Information about sustainability in the sense of resource sufficiency is important for planning, but not in a way that adds anything to the traditional statement of utilitarian philosophy. The “paradox of sustainability” arises because substantive, research-based approaches to sustainability may be too complex to effectively motivate appropriate social responses, especially in a culture where science is presumed to be “value free.” Assessing sustainability in such terms presumes that the farmer is outside the system—not outside in the sense that the farmer's actions have no impact on the system, but in the sense that this way of understanding sustainability presumes that there will always be a farmer present to manage inputs.

We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into a history of the last quarter century of the field, and provide some insights into where it has come from, where it is now, and where it might go.