Pharmalittle: Azar promises more action on drug costs; Trump flubs explanation of ‘gag clause’ law

first_img Tags Donald Trumpdrug pricingpharmalittleSTAT+ What is it? Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. [email protected] Good morning, everyone, and how are you today? We are doing just fine, thank you. Despite the gray skies hovering over the Pharmalot campus, our spirits remain sunny. And why not? Once again, we will trot out some advice from the Morning Mayor: Every brand new day should be unwrapped like a precious gift. While you stop to take that in, we will brew another cup of stimulation and prepare ourselves for another day of foraging for interesting items. On that note, here are some tidbits. Hope your day goes well and, of course, do keep in touch …The Trump administration promises that more steps will be taken to tackle high drug costs, Axios writes. “In the weeks and months ahead, there is a lot of action — regulatory action that we are working on,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar says. “We still view ourselves as at the advanced stage of beginning at this effort” to lower drug prices, and that “everything is on the table if it helps deliver a solution. … There’s no one single step that solves all of those issues around drug pricing. We’re chipping away at them.” Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the pharma industry — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Log In | Learn More @Pharmalot Alex Hogan/STATcenter_img Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. Pharmalittle: Azar promises more action on drug costs; Trump flubs explanation of ‘gag clause’ law Ed Silverman What’s included? GET STARTED About the Author Reprints Pharmalot By Ed Silverman Oct. 11, 2018 Reprintslast_img read more

Bristol Myers Squibb to buy MyoKardia for $13 billion

first_imgBiotech What’s included? GET STARTED About the Author Reprints Log In | Learn More Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED Senior Writer, Medicine, Editorial Director of Events Matthew covers medical innovation — both its promise and its perils. [email protected] Matthew Herper Bristol Myers Squibb said that it will purchase MyoKardia, an 8-year-old developer of an experimental heart drug, for $13.1 billion in cash.The deal price, at $225 per MyoKardia share, represents a 61% premium to the closing price of MyoKardia shares on Friday. By Matthew Herper Oct. 5, 2020 Reprints Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. @matthewherper Bristol Myers Squibb to buy MyoKardia for $13 billion STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. What is it? Tags biotechnologycardiologyfinanceSTAT+last_img read more

SEC issues unauthorized trading alert

The warning notes that changes in trading patterns, a high volume of trade cancellations or corrections, manual trade adjustments, or unexplained profits for a particular trader or client may warrant additional scrutiny. And, it suggests compliance measures that firms might want to use to protect themselves and their clients from unauthorized trading, such as stress testing and independent trading reviews. “One critical element in mitigating the risks posed by unauthorized trading is to have independent and mutually reinforcing controls. Toward this end, firms may want to consider actively engaging such control functions as operational risk, audit, legal and compliance to work closely with management in performing an independent identification of risks and practices that could permit unauthorized trading,” it says. The alert says that a firm’s supervisory structure, both on the trading desk and across the firm, is its most important control. “Strong and effective business line supervision at all levels is essential both to promote an overall culture of compliance and to detect and prevent unauthorized trading,” it says. “Unauthorized trading is not a new problem, and the risks it poses should be a perennial concern to financial firms as well as to regulators,” said Carlo di Florio, director of OCIE. “We hope that the observations shared in the risk alert will be helpful for firms as they review their compliance and supervisory controls to detect and deter unauthorized trading.” The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued an alert to brokerage firms designed to help them prevent and detect unauthorized trading in client accounts. The alert, which was issued by the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, warns that unauthorized trading can include rogue trades in customer, client, or proprietary accounts or trades that exceed firm limits on position exposures, risk tolerances, and losses. And, it says this sort of unauthorized trading can be carried out by traders, assistants on trading desks, portfolio managers, brokers, risk managers, or other personnel, including those in administrative positions in a firm’s back office. Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Share this article and your comments with peers on social media Companies Securities and Exchange Commission James Langton read more

Bentley’s upcoming EV won’t use the Porsche Taycan platform

first_img The vehicle is targeted for release before 2025, according to CEO Adrian Hallmark, although production has not yet been confirmed. Bentley will make a decision on whether to build the car or not by next year. Trending Videos The Bentley Bentayga super-luxe SUV has gone hybridA concept Bentley with an electric drivetrain was shown at the Geneva Motor Show this year, called the EXP 12 Speed 6e, but the new model is unlikely to be a two-seat sports car like the concept, and more likely to be a coupe or a sedan. advertisement Buy It! Princess Diana’s humble little 1981 Ford Escort is up for auction An engagement gift from Prince Charles, the car is being sold by a Princess Di “superfan” RELATED TAGSBentleyLuxuryLuxury VehiclesNew Vehicles Trending in Canada COMMENTSSHARE YOUR THOUGHTS We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles using Facebook commenting Visit our FAQ page for more information.center_img The Rolls-Royce Boat Tail may be the most expensive new car ever See More Videos A rumoured upcoming Bentley electric vehicle will not be sharing the J1 platform that underpins the new Porsche Taycan; instead, it’s liable to use the PPE platform Porsche’s developed in partnership with Audi.The PPE platform is set for production in 2021, and will be used underneath a new generation of performance electric cars.The partnership between Audi and Porsche to develop the platform has resulted in a 30-percent-cheaper development cost. Bentley is planning to build an EV model to help lower its carbon footprint, according to Automotive News, as the company relies mostly on the sales of large luxury sedans and SUVs, which use giant, awesome (but highly polluting) engines.An electric drivetrain would allow Bentley to sell vehicles in markets that have much more stringent emissions regulations, not to mention provide a quieter driving experience for the opulent occupant.RELATED Created with Raphaël 2.1.2Created with Raphaël 2.1.2 Bentley EXP 12 Speed 6e (2017) PlayThe Rolls-Royce Boat Tail may be the most expensive new car everPlay3 common new car problems (and how to prevent them) | Maintenance Advice | Driving.caPlayFinal 5 Minivan Contenders | Driving.caPlay2021 Volvo XC90 Recharge | Ministry of Interior Affairs | Driving.caPlayThe 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning is a new take on Canada’s fave truck | Driving.caPlayBuying a used Toyota Tundra? Check these 5 things first | Used Truck Advice | Driving.caPlayCanada’s most efficient trucks in 2021 | Driving.caPlay3 ways to make night driving safer and more comfortable | Advice | Driving.caPlayDriving into the Future: Sustainability and Innovation in tomorrow’s cars | Driving.ca virtual panelPlayThese spy shots get us an early glimpse of some future models | Driving.ca ‹ Previous Next ›last_img read more

Mercedes-Benz unveils its smallest seven-seater at Shanghai Auto Show

first_imgMercedes-Benz The concept uses a 224-horsepower gasoline engine with eight-speed dual-clutch transmission, and has 4Matic all-wheel drive.It’s not the first time Mercedes-Benz has sent out a concept for its world debut in China. In April of 2013, it introduced the Concept GLA at the Shanghai show, and started delivering the production model to customers by the following March. We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles using Facebook commenting Visit our FAQ page for more information. Automakers are hitting every possible slot in the SUV market, which might explain Mercedes-Benz’s latest unveiling, the Concept GLB.Thought built on the company’s compact-car platform, it’s designed to hold up to seven people.It’s being called a “concept,” but the model that rolled out onstage at the Shanghai Auto Show looks closer-than-close to production. advertisement Created with Raphaël 2.1.2Created with Raphaël 2.1.2 Mercedes-Benz Concept GLB 2019  Mercedes-Benz RELATED TAGSGLBMercedes-BenzSUVLuxuryShanghaiLuxury VehiclesNew VehiclesShanghai Auto Show The third-row seats, a first for a Mercedes-Benz compact model, fold flat for extra cargo space, and offer “comfortable seating for two medium-sized occupants,” the company said. The second row can be slid ahead or back to maximize legroom as needed. It’s essentially a boxier, more rugged-looking version of the current GLA.“We asked ourselves whether there is still space between the GLA and GLC in our successful SUV range,” said Britta Seeger, responsible for Mercedes-Benz Car Sales. “The Concept GLB is the answer to this question. With it, we are demonstrating the creative ideas we have for this segment too.”No wonder it’s being demonstrated: SUVs are currently the top-selling bracket for the company, with more than 820,000 sold globally in 2018.The concept’s interior is tricked out more than a production model would be, with leather-wrapped dash and specially-stitched seats, but it’s unmistakably the CLA/GLA under all the bling.Created with Raphaël 2.1.2Created with Raphaël 2.1.2Mercedes-Benz Concept GLB 2019 Trending in Canada COMMENTSSHARE YOUR THOUGHTS Buy It! Princess Diana’s humble little 1981 Ford Escort is up for auction An engagement gift from Prince Charles, the car is being sold by a Princess Di “superfan” ‹ Previous Next ›last_img read more

Latinx Heritage Month and the Afro-Latinx experience topic of CU virtual talk Oct. 21

first_imgShare Share via TwitterShare via FacebookShare via LinkedInShare via E-mail Published: Oct. 7, 2020 Julissa Calderon, actor, activist and star of the Netflix hit series Gentefied, and Gadiel Del Orbe, former Buzzfeed content creator for Pero Like and guest star on the YouTube/Buzzfeed pilot series Unfortunatly Ashly, will give a virtual talk to the CU community on Wednesday, Oct. 21. During the event, Calderon and Del Orbe will discuss their careers, personal perspectives and reactions to current events from the Afro-Latinx perspective. Julissa Calderon Calderon and Del Orbe are being hosted by CU Boulder’s student-run Cultural Events Board (CEB), a student-fee funded entity of CU Student Government (CUSG). The free event will take place on Zoom at 6 p.m. (MDT) and is open only to CU Boulder students (undergraduate and graduate), staff and faculty. Virtual attendees will be admitted on a first-come, first-served basis and are asked to sign up for a link to the event and to submit a question.“Gadiel Del Orbe and Julissa Calderon are both incredibly talented, and we are so excited to be hosting them,” said Anuja Gore, chair of the Cultural Events Board. “The board always strives to bring relevant and fresh perspectives to the CU Boulder community. Del Orbe and Calderon are innovators redefining American television and popular media. We are looking forward to discussing the challenges and triumphs of that endeavor with them.”About the speakersPassionate about Afro-Latino representation and challenging Latino stereotypes, Calderon is an Afro-Latinx actress, writer, producer and director from Miami. She plays the dynamic role of Yessika Castillo, a strong-willed, heart-driven activist in Gentified. She recently appeared on the series WTF Baron Davis. Prior to that, she appeared in ABC’s Revenge, starred in the ABC Diversity Showcase and completed a two-year talent residency at Buzzfeed’s Pero Like channel.Del Orbe is a Dominican-American comedian, actor, writer/director/producer and military veteran from New York. He recently created content on Buzzfeed’s Pero Like channel, where his videos have garnered over 30 million views. He also guest starred on the YouTube/Buzzfeed pilot series Unfortunatly Ashly.Past speakers on campusPast CEB speakers have included South African-born comedian and commentator Trevor Noah, who spoke to the CU Boulder community last month; founders of the Black Lives Matter movement; comedian and commentator Hasan Minhaj; former Ohio Governor John Kasich; Olympic gymnast and author Aly Raisman; and Academy Award winner Viola Davis.Categories:Lectures & PresentationsEvents & Exhibits Gadiel Del Orbelast_img read more

Dates Set for Rosé Today: The 2017 Competition

first_imgLinkedin Email TAGSBob EckerRosé TodayWilson Artisan Wineries Pinterest Previous articleGloria Ferrer’s 2012 Pinot/Chardonnay Sparkling Wine Named Rosé Today 2016 Competition Best of ShowNext articleThe Montefalco Consortium Announces Important Changes in Winemaking Regulations Press Release Twitter AdvertisementCompetition to be held March 22, 2017Hosted by Wilson Artisan Wineries at Soda Rock Winery, HealdsburgHealdsburg, CA – Thursday, June 16, 2016 — Directly after announcing the results of its 2016 Competition, Rosé Today Wine Director Bob Ecker has announced the date for Rosé Today: The 2017 Competition, to be held Wednesday, March 22, 2017, again hosted by Wilson Artisan Wineries at the Soda Rock Winery, Healdsburg, CA.“Not the sweet swill of yesteryear,” said Ecker, “today Rosé is zesty, alive and ready for its spotlight, as the tantalizing array of entries in this year’s Competition so vividly demonstrated. We know next year’s Competition, with its entry categories of domestic, international and sparkling, will certainly reflect this vitality and burgeoning popularity even more.”Competition Producer Craig Palmer acknowledged the continuing commitment of Wilson Artisan Wineries to Rosé Today as its Presenting Sponsor. “We are so grateful to Ken and Diane Wilson and the Wilson Artisan Wineries family for everyone’s generous and enthusiastic support of Rosé Today,” said Palmer. “We so appreciate Wilson Artisan Wineries’ distinctive signature celebrating the diverse experiences the wonderful world of wine offers.”Complete details on The 2017 Competition will be announced in early Fall, explained Ecker. For full information immediately as it becomes available, producers are invited to log on to the Rosé Today website, www.rosewinetoday.com. For information, call Bob Ecker at (707) 421-1701 or email [email protected] Ecker, Wine Director: Based in Napa, California, Bob Ecker is a longtime wine writer and wine judge providing domestic as well as international magazines, newspapers and websites with compelling wine coverage, wine travel content, destination travel, culinary, and feature content. His work has been published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, South China Morning Post, Toronto Globe & Mail, Dallas Morning News, Decanter, Wine Business Monthly and Wine Enthusiast among other publications. Ecker has been judging wines for many years at The San Francisco Chronicle Wine Competition, Lake County Wine Competition and Amador County Wine Competition among others, and created the inaugural Rose Competition in 2013, the very first dedicated Rose Wine Competition in the United States.The Rosé Competition: After judging in numerous wine competitions, in 2013 Bob Ecker created the very first ever Rosé Wine Competition in the United States. Held at Napa’s Meritage Resort & Spa, he invited rosé producers from California and received 89 entries. In 2015 he produced a larger Rosé Competition inviting rosé wine producers from across the United States. There were two categories, “Dry” and “A Little Sweet.” Although the majority of submitted wines were from California, entries came in from 20 different states. In 2016, The Competition was renamed Rosé Today and was hosted by Wilson Artisan Wineries at Soda Rock Winery in Healdsburg, California. Entry categories were expanded to include domestic, international and sparkling, with entries coming from international producers in Canada, France, and Chile and half a dozen states. Prominent wine judges for The 2016 Competition included: Sean Brosnihan, Jordan Winery; Debra Del Fiorentino, Director of Wine Competitions for Vineyard and Winery Management; Rick Fraga, Wine Educator for Wilson Winery; Denise Gill, Alexander Valley Vineyards; Teejay Lowe, winegrower; Sara Preiser, The Preiser Key; Christopher Sawyer, internationally heralded sommelier; Bill Smart, Lambert Bridge Winery; Victoria Wilson, Matrix Winery; Deborah Parker Wong, The Tasting Panel.Wilson Artisan Wineries: Diane and Ken are devoted to things they value most—family and friends—and are committed to the stewardship and sustainable farming of their 600 plus vineyard acres. Diane, a native Californian, cherishes her high-energy lifestyle that includes raising children, making wine at the Wilson Artisan Wineries and taking an active role in the community. Ken, born and raised in Ontario, Canada, is robust and passionate about his vineyards and wineries. It was Ken’s wisdom and vision that created the diversity of vineyard sources over the years. These vineyards provide the premium quality fruit that has brought notable recognition to the Wilson Artisan Wineries. Diane and Ken also own Healdsburg’s historic Grape Leaf Inn and Calderwood Inn in addition to their ten wine brands: Wilson Winery, Mazzocco Winery, deLorimier Winery, Soda Rock Winery, Matrix Winery, Jaxon Keys Winery & Distillery, Pezzi King Vineyards, Mosaic Winery, St. Anne’s Crossing Winery and Greenwood Ridge Vineyards.Advertisement Facebook Share ReddIt Home Industry News Releases Dates Set for Rosé Today: The 2017 CompetitionIndustry News ReleasesWine BusinessDates Set for Rosé Today: The 2017 CompetitionBy Press Release – June 17, 2016 43 0 last_img read more

Biology Journal: Evolutionary Psychology Is “Impossible”

first_imgEvolutionary psychologists argue that behaviors in the present are caused by cognitive systems that operate today as they did in the past. In their view, each module was selected for because of its specific fitness-enhancing effects in the EEA [environment of evolutionary adaptedness], and each of them is domain-specific — that is, responsive only to the kinds of inputs for which they are adaptations.Evolutionary psychological inferences are secure only if it is possible to determine that particular kinds of behavior are underwritten by particular structures. Further, these must have the evolved function of producing behaviors of just these kinds. Not that any of this will have any effect on EP at all — that’s a field that relies more on an emotional belief that they can study the past entirely by imposing their desired conclusions on weak data. Smith, on the other hand, has a strong understanding of logic and recognizes where these Evolutionary Psychologists have made a huge leap beyond what the data entails. Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Swinging from the Abstract A skeptical reader might be thinking at this point, “Fine, but let’s give evo psych a break! Brains and behaviors don’t fossilize, so it isn’t fair to expect researchers to demonstrate the existence of ancient behaviors, much less to show that we have modules that existed in our ancestors.”Smith is ready for this objection. If the data aren’t available, that doesn’t give you the right to engage in data-free speculation:  In this article I argue that evolutionary psychological strategies for making inferences about present-day human psychology are methodologically unsound. Evolutionary psychology is committed to the view that the mind has an architecture that has been conserved since the Pleistocene, and that our psychology can be fruitfully understood in terms of the original, fitness-enhancing functions of these conserved psychological mechanisms. But for evolutionary psychological explanations to succeed, practitioners must be able to show that contemporary cognitive mechanisms correspond to those that were selected for in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, that these present-day cognitive mechanisms are descended from the corresponding ancestral mechanisms, and that they have retained the functions of the ancestral mechanisms from which they are descended. I refer to the problem of demonstrating that these conditions obtain as “the matching problem,” argue that evolutionary psychology does not have the resources to address it, and conclude that evolutionary psychology, as it is currently understood, is therefore impossible. TagsartbehaviorbiasBiological Theorycircular reasoningcognitive structurescollege studentscuckoldryenvironment of evolutionary adaptednessevo psychevolutionevolutionary psychologyGizmodohominidshuman mindhuman originsideologymusicP. Z. MyersPleistocenepsychologysexual fidelitySubrena E. SmithThe Evolution InstituteUniversity of New Hampshire,Trending Necessarily Fruitless Give Them a Break Unless the challenge can be overcome, evolutionary psychological explanations fail. Put more strongly, if the matching problem cannot be solved, evolutionary psychology is impossible. Might Not Be Enough Ancestral and present-day psychological structures have to match in the way that is needed for evolutionary psychological inferences to succeed. For this, three conditions must be met. First, determine that the function of some contemporary mechanism is the one that an ancestral mechanism was selected for performing. Next, determine that the contemporary mechanism has the same function as the ancestral one because of its being descended from the ancestral mechanism. Finally, determine which ancestral mechanisms are related to which contemporary ones in this way.It’s not sufficient to assume that the required identities are obvious. They need to be demonstrated. Solving the matching problem requires knowing about the psychological architecture of our prehistoric ancestors. But it is difficult to see how this knowledge can possibly be acquired. We do not, and very probably cannot, know much about the prehistoric human mind. Evolutionary psychology cannot solve what she terms the “matching problem.” That means “evolutionary psychological claims fail unless practitioners can show that mental structures underpinning present-day behaviors are structures that evolved in the EEA for the performance of adaptive tasks that it is still their function to perform.” To solve the matching problem, as Smith explains in a blog post at The Evolution Institute, three criteria must be met: It might be thought that I am unfairly holding evolutionary psychology to a much higher epistemic and methodological standard than is normally used in evolutionary biology. But this is not the case. Evolutionary psychological inferences commonly fail to satisfy reasonable epistemic criteria. When making evolutionary inferences about paradigmatically biological traits, biologists use experimental manipulations, comparative methods, the fossil record, and optimality models to determine that selection has taken place and that the items under consideration have retained their selected-for functions.Evolutionary psychologists are impeded by the fact that these methods are unavailable to them. … evolutionary psychological hypotheses turn on inferences about hypothetical cognitive structures — the mental modules — for which there is a dearth of empirical support … and there is no evidence that the minds of our prehistoric ancestors possessed this sort of cognitive architecture. Yet even meeting such basic standards might not be enough to demonstrate the claims of evo psych. As Smith continues: Image: Pleistocene humans stalk a Glyptodon, by Heinrich Harder (1858-1935) / Public domain. In other words, it’s not sufficient for evolutionary psychologists to speculate about the advantage that some modern-day behavior might have yielded in our Pleistocene ancestors in the environment that shaped our brains (what she calls the “EEA”). They need to demonstrate that the contemporary behavior would be similar to the ancient one, and that our ancestors had the same genetically related cognitive machinery producing their trait as we have producing ours. This sounds reasonable, too. Human Origins Biology Journal: Evolutionary Psychology Is “Impossible”Casey LuskinMay 21, 2020, 5:41 AM Smith maintains that some evo psych explanations entail traits that were acquired too recently to be the product of natural selection. Thus, attempts to explain them in evo psych terms must be fruitless: Billions of Missing Links: Mysteries Evolution Can’t Explain Her argument is well reasoned and compelling. She says we simply lack the data to establish the veracity of many evo psych claims.  She argues that proponents of evo psych ought to be held to basic standards of evidence. For example: If that sounds a little far-fetched, you’ll find some agreement from a new paper in the journal Biological Theory. Philosopher Subrena E. Smith at the University of New Hampshire asks, “Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?”  Smith comes out swinging from the abstract:  Faced with evidence that 21st-century male American college students are more doubtful of the future sexual fidelity of their mates than their female counterparts are, the authors make two assumptions. The first is that male college students’ skepticism is caused by a hardwired, domain-specific cognitive module. The second is that this module existed in Pleistocene males, and produced behaviors of the same sort as the contemporary behavior. These assumptions are supposed to underwrite the conclusion that the sexual suspiciousness of contemporary males is caused by a cognitive mechanism with the evolutionary function of enhancing their fitness by preventing cuckoldry.Goetz and Causey do not provide support for their claim that the psychological mechanism driving contemporary male sexual skepticism is a strong vertical homolog of the mechanism that drove (hypothesized) prehistoric anti-cuckoldry behavior. Consequently, their inferences about the evolutionary origin of the male students’ attitudes is unjustified.  How About Some Standards? Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Smith also charges that evo psych engages in “circular” reasoning when “individuating” behaviors. Individuating means identifying specific behaviors based upon their specific effects, functions, or causes. To individuate a behavior based on its effects, “one needs to establish that the contemporary and ancestral causes of the behavior (structures) are strong vertical homologs,” but she explains that evo psych has no mechanism for doing this. To individuate a behavior based on its function entails “circularity,” because it “illegitimately supposes that a behavior was selected for and then uses this supposition as evidence that the behavior was selected for.” To individuate a behavior based on its causes falls into the same trap, because “it relies on the principle that cognitive mechanisms are individuated by the behaviors that they bring about while these behaviors are individuated by the mechanisms that supposedly cause them.” Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis In its typical fashion, evo psych feels little need to meet these basic standards of proof. Why? Because “There seems to be a tacit assumption amongst evolutionary psychologists that the needed identities between contemporary psychological mechanisms and ancestral ones are so obvious that they do not need to be established.” Smith argues in her paper: The matching problem is really the core issue that evolutionary psychologists have to show that they can meet: that there is really a match between our modules and the modules of the prehistoric ancestors; that they’re working the same way then as now; and that these modules are working the same way because they are descended from the same functional lineage or causal lineage. But I don’t see any way that these charges can be answered. It’s remarkable and encouraging to see such clear thinking in a mainstream scientific journal. Even evolutionary biologist P. Z. Myers jumped on this bandwagon, writing about the field of evo psych, “None of their prior claims are valid, and they don’t fit with what we do know about evolution and the brain!” But will these criticisms have any effect on the field itself? Myers concludes that evo psych is too insular for that: The evolutionary psychologists I engage with are not silly people. They are thoughtful and philosophical about these matters. However, the attractiveness of evolutionary theory coupled with peoples’ ideological biases forces them to not be as careful as they might be otherwise. I think that the consequences for our world when we misappropriate evolutionary accounts are really serious. People are saying that people of color have smaller brains, which is not true, or that women aren’t as great as men, which is not true… I think we have a special responsibility, when we say evolution made us that way, to recognize that people will read “innate” or “hardwired” as synonymous with evolution. We should be especially careful to not be making claims like these, which can have consequences.If you say evolution made us so, then governments can rightly say you don’t have the capacity to do something, so we won’t use our resources to make you do stuff you can’t do. This is about the science and politics — making sure that we’re not misappropriating the science to underwrite our politics in a way to suit interests, be they my interests or their interests. If I have interests inconsistent with what the science says, I don’t think I should be given a pass. But my view is that I don’t see the framework of evolutionary psychology as-is providing us with an explanation of human behavior that we can get behind. She gives an example of an evo psych study about attitudes toward sexual fidelity. The research surveyed college students to purportedly show that males are more concerned about the fidelity of their female partner than females are about that of their male partner. Smith notes that such a study could never solve the matching problem: Casey LuskinAssociate Director, Center for Science and CultureCasey Luskin is a geologist and an attorney with graduate degrees in science and law, giving him expertise in both the scientific and legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. He earned his PhD in Geology from the University of Johannesburg, and BS and MS degrees in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, where he studied evolution extensively at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. His law degree is from the University of San Diego, where he focused his studies on First Amendment law, education law, and environmental law.Follow CaseyProfileWebsite Share If present-day human behaviors are caused by special-purpose cognitive structures, and that was also true of our stone age ancestors, and if there is a high degree of concordance between the structures populating the modern mind and those that populated the minds of our prehistoric ancestors, this would still fall short of securing evolutionary psychological inferences. This is because it might be the case that the similarities between prehistoric and modern cognitive architectures are due to ontogenetic processes — similar experiences producing similar functional differentiation in the brain. For a contemporary trait to be a strong vertical homolog of an ancestral trait, the contemporary trait must be of the same kind as the ancestral one. It must also have the same function as the ancestral one, and must be related by descent to that ancestral trait as part of a continuous reproductive lineage extending back to the EEA. Additionally, it must be the case that the contemporary trait and the ancestral trait are of the same kind and have the same function because the present-day trait is descended from the ancestral trait. In principle, it might be that a present-day trait and an ancestral trait are of the same kind and have the same function without one being descended from the other. If this is the case, then the architecture of the minds of present-day humans would resemble that of early humans without it being the case that this architecture was selected for and genetically transmitted through the generations. Just to be clear: Smith is not anti-evolution. As she writes at The Evolution Institute, she believes “The human mind was fashioned by evolutionary forces in ways that allowed our ancestors to be successful.” But as for evo psych’s ability to demonstrate specific hypotheses about how that happened? There, she argues, great skepticism is warranted. In light of these difficulties, Smith asks: “Is evolutionary psychology possible?” The answer is no. She concludes: “Evolutionary psychologists simply do not have the methodological resources to justify the claim that the psychological causes of contemporary behaviors are strong vertical homologs of the psychological causes of corresponding behaviors in the EEA.” “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide The field of evolutionary psychology (“evo psych”) claims that virtually all of human behavior can be explained by past selection pressures shaping our brains. This means that not only did everything below your neck evolve, but so did everything above it. That includes not just base behaviors like your desire to eat an orange or cuddle with your significant other, but even your higher activities, like appreciating music, creating art, and worshipping God. If evo psych’s insights are correct, then all of your higher behaviors are no more than the result of selection on your Pleistocene hominid ancestors. At Gizmodo, however, Smith attributes the resistance to criticism among evo psych practitioners to their “ideological biases.” She warns of potential consequences of their unwillingness to listen: Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour If the idea that mental structure can be acquired ontogenetically seems dubious, consider the area of the brain called “the visual word-form area” that is specialized for reading (it is a “reading module”). Written language emerged only around 3500 years ago, so it is too recent for reading to have been selected for. This shows that cognitive mechanisms can be acquired by learning. [Citations omitted.] If you claim that a particular modern behavior is caused by a particular psychological structure that arose due to particular selection pressures, then you need to show that a particular structure causes that behavior and that it was in fact selected to produce that behavior. Her argument is so reasonable, and so obvious, it’s a bit concerning that she needed to say this at all. Did evolutionary scientists not understand these things already? Ideology and Consequences In an interview with Gizmodo, “This Philosopher Is Challenging All of Evolutionary Psychology,” Smith further boils the problem down: Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Circular Reasoning Recommended A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to Alllast_img read more

31-year-old man dies in hospital after being hit by a lorry in Derry

first_imgNews Pinterest Twitter Facebook Pinterest Google+ Previous articleFarmers in Tyrone and Derry to be left out of financial aid packageNext articleSpain’s Princess suspect in corruption case News Highland Facebook A 31-year-old man has died after he was hit by a lorry in Derry.The incident happened on the Crescent Link near Caw roundabout in the city.The man was struck at around 2 o clock yesterday.He died in hospital in the early hours of this morning. LUH still not ready to restore IT systems Pregnant women can receive Covid vaccine at LYIT’s vaccination centre Further drop in people receiving PUP in Donegal center_img 31-year-old man dies in hospital after being hit by a lorry in Derry WhatsApp Lárionad Acmhainní Nádúrtha CTR to take part in new research project By News Highland – April 3, 2013 Twitter Google+ Gardai continue to investigate Kilmacrennan fire 75 positive cases of Covid confirmed in North WhatsApp RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHORlast_img read more

News / China’s port operator swoops on Brazilian JV operating container facilities at Paranagua

first_img CMPort, the port-operating subsidiary of state-owned China Merchants Holdings has made its first investment in Latin America, announcing this morning that it is to buy a 90% stake in the Brazilian joint-venture that operates the container facilities in the port of Paranagua.The shareholders of TCP Participações (TCP) – 50% owned by Advent International and 50% by a consortium comprising Galigrain, Grup Maritim TCB (now part of APM Terminals), Pattac, Soifer and TUC Participações Portuárias – this morning announced the signing of a binding agreement whereby CMPort will acquire 90% of TCP’s shares for approximately R$2.9bn ($925m).TCP manages the Terminal de Contêineres de Paranaguá, one of the largest container terminals in South America, and logistics company TCP Log. Under the terms of the deal, Advent, Galigrain and TCB will sell their shares in TCP, while Pattac, Soifer and TUC will together retain a 10% stake in the company.The deal remains subject to regulatory approval, including from Brazil’s antitrust authority, but is expected to be completed by the end of 2017. By Gavin van Marle 04/09/2017 The facility has a capacity of 1.5m teu but an expansion project to take that up to 2.4m teu is underway, due to be completed in 2019. It represented a hugely attractive asset for the acquisition-hungry CMPort, according to Neil Davidson, senior analyst of the ports and terminals sector at Drewry Maritime Advisors.“TCP is an attractive asset. It’s very profitable, with an EBITDA margin in excess of 60%, and it has a strong market in gateway traffic, including specialised reefer traffic. There is competition from neighbouring ports up and down the coast but also has a significant degree of captive traffic.“It’s also got significant scope to grow, because the capacity is already in place and that’s a bonus in Brazil where it can be hard to get permissions to expand.”Drewry estimates that the terminal handled around 740,000 teu in 2016, which means it has significant room to grow, given current capacity of 1.5m teu.“Given the high profitability of the business, its scale and its potential for growth, it was always going to be a substantial price tag, but the EV/EBITDA multiple will I think be largely in line with most recent M&A deals,” Mr Davidson added.CMPort managing director Bai Jingtao said: “China Merchants Port has rapidly expanded its overseas presence and understands that the entry into Latin America, especially Brazil, is crucial for the global expansion of its terminal network.“TCP is not only China Merchants’ cornerstone to enter Brazil, but also the future hub of the rising commodity and goods trade flow between Brazil and China.“China Merchants Port will also leverage its international port operation experience and local connectivity to help TCP continue its success story as one of the leading ports in Brazil and Latin America.”In its recent Annual Review of Global Container Terminal Operators, authored by Mr Davidson, Drewry notes that the big investment trend is that “the Chinese are coming”, and he said today that other Latin American firms were likely to find themselves on Chinese operators’ radar.“I’m sure Latin America will be a focus area for expansion by Chinese players – Brazil has to be high on the list given its scale, but may be some of the privately owned groups like Ultramar and SAAM Puertos will attract the attention of Chinese investors. Also, Central America should be kept in mind – for example the very large greenfield terminal in Colon backed by Chinese investors,” he explained.Ownership of TCP is also expected to provide a significant fillip to CMPort’s international volumes. Last week it announced its half-year results, which showed a slim 0.5% growth in international volumes, largely due to Terminal Link – the CMA CGM terminal operating subsidiary in which it has significant stake – selling its Xiamen facility.The group’s overall volumes for the first six months of the year hit 50.9m teu, representing 8.9% year-on-year growth, and it posted a half-year EBITDA of HK$5.9bn (US$753m), a 9.2% year-on-year increase.The deal will also see APM Terminals exit the port, although given that its stake, through its TCB acquisition, was limited to just 5%, it was more a financial interest than strategic and TCP’s throughput was not separately reported in APM Terminals’ latest figures.last_img read more