On systems thinking, systems biology and the in Silico Plant

The recent summary report of a Department of Energy Workshop on Plant Systems Biology (P.V. Minorsky [2003] Plant Physiol 132: 404-409) offered a welcomed advocacy for systems analysis as essential in understanding plant development, growth, and production. The goal of the Workshop was to consider methods for relating the results of molecular research to real-world challenges in plant production for increased food supplies, alternative energy sources, and environmental improvement. The rather surprising feature of this report, however, was that the Workshop largely overlooked the rich history of plant systems analysis extending over nearly 40 years (Sinclair and Seligman, 1996) that has considered exactly those challenges targeted by the Workshop. Past systems research has explored and incorporated biochemical and physiological knowledge into plant simulation models from a number of perspectives. The research has resulted in considerable understanding and insight about how to simulate plant systems and the relative contribution of various factors in influencing plant production. These past activities have contributed directly to research focused on solving the problems of increasing biomass production and crop yields. These modeling approaches are also now providing an avenue to enhance integration of molecular genetic technologies in plant improvement (Hammer et al., 2002).

Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations

There is a growing need for innovative methods of dealing with complex, social problems. New types of collaborative efforts have emerged as a result of the inability of more traditional bureaucratic hierarchical arrangements such as departmental program, to resolve these problems. Network structures are one such arrangement that Is at the forefront of this movement. Although collaboration through network structures establishes an innovative response to dealing with social issues, there remains an expectation that outcomes and processes are based on traditional ways of working. It is necessary for practitioners and policy makers alike to begin to understand the realities of what can be expected from network structures in order to maximize the benefits of these unique mechanisms.

Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal- article publication

In this conversation, Kevin K. Kumashiro shares his reflections on challenges to publishing anti-oppressive research in educational journals. He then invites eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals - William F. Pinar, Elizabeth Graue, Carl A. Grant, Maenette K. P. Benham, Ronald H. Heck, James Joseph Scheurich, Allan Luke, and Carmen Luke - to critique and expand on his analysis. Kumashiro begins the conversation by describing his own experiences submitting manuscripts to educational research journals and receiving comments by anonymous reviewers and journal editors. He suggests three ways to rethink the collaborative potential of the peer-review process: as constructive, as multilensed, and as situated. The eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals then critique and expand Kumashiro's analysis. Kumashiro concludes the conversation with additional reflections on barriers and contradictions involved in advancing anti-oppressive educational research in educational journals. Copyright © by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Do socially responsible fund managers really invest differently?

To date, research into socially responsible investment (SRI), and in particular the socially responsible investment funds industry, has focused on whether investing in SRI assets has any differential impact on investor returns. Prior findings generally suggest that, on a risk-adjusted basis, there is no difference in performance between SRI and conventional funds. This result has led to questions about whether SRI funds are really any different from conventional funds. This paper examines whether the portfolio allocation across industry sectors and the stock-picking ability of SRI managers are different when compared to conventional fund managers. The study finds that SRI funds exhibit different industry betas consistent with different portfolio positions, but that these differences vary from year to year. It is also found that there is little difference in stock-picking ability between the two groups of fund managers.