Resource entitlements of indigenous minorities, their poverty and conservation of nature: Status of Australian Aborigines, comparisons with India's tribals, theory and changing policies globally

Considers the relevance of A.K. Sen’s theory of entitlements to the situation facing indigenous tribal people, its relationship to institutionalism, and to theories of property rights. Changing world views about the resource entitlements that should be given to local communities are outlined concentrating on the views expressed by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). These changing views have relevance for the resource entitlements of indigenous tribal communities and are reflected in differences in the policy approaches inherent in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the more recent Convention on Biological Diversity. The latter embodies the view that provision of greater resource entitlements to local communities can provide economic incentives for nature conservation. There is a case for Indigenous Australians to be given greater rights to market the natural produce from their lands. Despite progress with land rights, they are not entitled to market much of the natural produce from their land. The socioeconomic status of Australian Aborigines is outlined. Their standard of living and their life expectancy are low by world standards and in comparison to other Australians. This is partly a result of historical events that have restricted their rights. These events are outlined briefly. Views differ about the appropriate development paths for Indigenous Australians and these are assessed. Concern on environmental and economic grounds is expressed about the view that the economic development of Australian Aboriginal communities would be accelerated by replacing their communal land titles by private land titles and encouraging Western-style agriculture and commercial development of their lands. Some comparisons are also made with the situation of India’s Tribals.

The mechanism of protection of molten magnesium by cover gas mixtures containing sulphur hexafluoride

Experimental studies have been undertaken, involving in situ observations of the interaction between cover gas mixtures and molten magnesium. It has been shown that, in the presence of sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), the contact angle between solid MgO and molten magnesium is reduced, resulting in the wetting of MgO by magnesium metal. In contrast, it was observed that the absence of SF6 results in a large contact angle, poor wetting of the MgO by magnesium metal and a non-adherent surface film. It is proposed that the formation of an adherent, protective surface film under a cover gas mixture containing SF6 is due to capillary forces acting within the film.

Protection of mice from group A streptococcal infection by intranasal immunisation with a peptide vaccine that contains a conserved M protein B cell epitope and lacks a T cell autoepitope

Infection with group A streptococci (GAS) can lead to rheumatic fever (RF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) which are a major health concern particularly in indigenous populations worldwide, and especially in Australian Aboriginals. A primary route of GAS infection is via the upper respiratory tract, and therefore, a major goal of research is the development of a mucosal-based GAS vaccine, The majority of the research to date has focused on the GAS M protein since immunity to GAS is mediated by M protein type-specific opsonic antibodies. There are two major impediments to the development of a vaccine-the variability in M proteins and the potential for the induction of an autoimmune response. To develop a safe and broad-based vaccine, we have therefore focused on the GAS M protein conserved C-region, and have identified peptides, J8 and the closely related J8 peptide (J14), which may be important in protective immunity to GAS infection. Using a mucosal animal model system, our data have shown a high degree of throat GAS colonisation in B10.BR mice 24 h following intranasal immunisation with the mucosal adjuvant, cholera toxin B subunit (CTB), and/or diptheria toxoid (dT) carrier, or PBS alone, and challenge with the M1 GAS strain. However, GAS colonisation of the throat was significantly reduced following intranasal immunisation of mice with the vaccine candidate J8 conjugated to dT or J14-dT when administered with CTB. Moreover, J8-dT/CTB and J14-dT/CTB-immunised mice had a significantly higher survival when compared to CTB and PBS-immunised control mice. These data indicate that immunity to GAS infection can be evoked by intranasal immunisation with a GAS M protein C-region peptide vaccine that contains a protective B cell epitope and lacks a T cell autoepitope. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Laws of nature and laws of ecology

We address the question of whether there are laws in ecology. Although there has been a great deal of recent interest in this topic, much of the relevant debate has been conducted under some common misconceptions about what laws of nature are. Once these misconceptions are cleared up, the case for ecology having laws is much stronger. Indeed, we suggest that the case for laws in ecology is no better or worse than the case for laws in physics.

Supreme Emergencies and the protection of non-combatants in war

Is it ever justifiable to target non-combatants deliberately? This article assesses Michael Walzer's claim that the deliberate targeting of non-combatants may be justifiable during 'supreme emergencies', a view that has received some support but that has elicited little debate. It argues that the supreme emergencies exception to the prohibition on targeting non-combatants is problematic for at least four reasons. First, its utilitarianism contradicts Walzer's wider ethics of war based on a conception of human rights. Second, the exception may undermine the principle of non-combatant immunity. Third, it is based on a historical fallacy. Finally, it is predicated on a strategic fallacy-the idea that killing noncombatants can win wars. The case for rejecting the exception, however, has been opposed by those who persuasively argue that it is wrong to tie leaders' hands when they confront supreme emergencies. The final part of the article addresses this question and suggests that the principle of proportionality may give political leaders room for manoeuvre in supreme emergencies without permitting them deliberately to target non-combatants.