Sermon notes and manuscript communities

Any reader of manuscript catalogues knows how common the unhelpfully vague entry “sermon notes, 17th-century” can be. This essay explores whether we can find in sermon notes the kinds of textual communities that have been found through the reconstruction of other routes of manuscript circulation. It will unpick what those laconic catalogue entries mean, and distinguish the different kinds of sermon notes found in our archival collections (some derived from the original preacher, some from hearers, some from readers of manuscript and printed copies). The physical forms of different sorts of “sermon notes” alerts us to the different types of authors who created these manuscripts, and the different purposes involved in preserving an oration in textual form, purposes which included fostering the creation and maintenance of communal identities among the self-consciously godly or Catholic recusants.

Why high seed densities within buried mesh bags may overestimate depletion rates of soil seed banks

1. Estimates of seed bank depletion rates are essential for modelling and management of plant populations. The seed bag burial method is often used to measure seed mortality in the soil. However, the density of seeds within seed bags is higher than densities in natural seed banks, which may elevate levels of pathogens and influence seed mortality. The aim of this study was to quantify the effects of fungi and seed density within buried mesh bags on the mortality of seeds. Striga hermonthica was chosen as the study species because it has been widely studied but different methods for measuring seed mortality in the soil have yielded contradictory estimates. 2. Seed bags were buried in soil and exhumed at regular time intervals to monitor mortality of the seeds in three field experiments during two rainy seasons. The effect of fungal activity on seed mortality was evaluated in a fungi exclusion experiment. Differences in seed-to-seed interaction were obtained by using two and four densities within the seed bags in consecutive years. Densities were created by mixing 1000 seeds with 0, 10, 100 or 1000 g of coarse sand. 3. The mortality rate was significantly lower when fungi were excluded, indicating the possible role of pathogenic fungi. 4. Decreasing the density of seeds in bags significantly reduced seed mortality, most probably because of decreased seed-to-seed contamination by pathogenic fungi. 5. Synthesis and applications. Models of plant populations in general and annual weeds in particular often use values from the literature for seed bank depletion rates. These depletion rates have often been estimated by the seed bag burial method, yet seed density within seed bags may be unrealistically high. Consequently, estimates of seed mortality rates may be too high because of an overestimation of the effects of soil or seed-borne pathogens. Species that have been classified from such studies as having short-lived seed banks may need to be re-assessed using realistic densities either within seed bags or otherwise. Similarly, models of seed bank dynamics based on such overestimated depletion rates may lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the seed banks and, perhaps, the management of weeds and rare species.

Insight overview: natural selection 150 years on

The theory of evolution by natural selection has prospered in its first 150 years and provides a consistent account of species as highly adapted and rare survivors in the struggle for existence. It now faces the challenge of finding order in the evolution of complex systems, including human society.

Primary teachers as readers

In the context of the continued pressure and politicisation of the teaching of reading in England, the United Kingdom Literacy Association (UKLA) sought to ascertain patterns in primary teachers' reading, both personally and professionally. The project, undertaken in 11 Local Authorities in England, explored 1200 primary teachers' personal reading habits and preferences, investigated their knowledge of children's literature, and documented their reported use of texts in the classroom through a questionnaire. In addition, it sought to establish the extent of the teachers' involvement with and use of local area/school library services. This paper reports on the findings with reference to the teachers' personal reading, the frequency of this reading and the sources they use to select their reading material. It also considers the teachers' favourite childhood texts and the books they identified as highly significant to them, as well as their perceptions of the importance of literature. Connections are made to the data gathered about their knowledge of children's literature, and how primary teachers decide which literature to work with in the classroom.

Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines

Objective: To determine whether the use of verbal descriptors suggested by the European Union (EU) such as "common" (1-10% frequency) and "rare" (0.01-0.1%) effectively conveys the level of risk of side effects to people taking a medicine. Design: Randomised controlled study with unconcealed allocation. Participants: 120 adults taking simvastatin or atorvastatin after cardiac surgery or myocardial infarction. Setting: Cardiac rehabilitation clinics at two hospitals in Leeds, UK. Intervention: A written statement about one of the side effects of the medicine (either constipation or pancreatitis). Within each side effect condition half the patients were given the information in verbal form and half in numerical form (for constipation, "common" or 2.5%; for pancreatitis, "rare" or 0.04%). Main outcome measure: The estimated likelihood of the side effect occurring. Other outcome measures related to the perceived severity of the side effect, its risk to health, and its effect on decisions about whether to take the medicine. Results: The mean likelihood estimate given for the constipation side effect was 34.2% in the verbal group and 8.1% in the numerical group; for pancreatitis it was 18% in the verbal group and 2.1% in the numerical group. The verbal descriptors were associated with more negative perceptions of the medicine than their equivalent numerical descriptors. Conclusions: Patients want and need understandable information about medicines and their risks and benefits. This is essential if they are to become partners in medicine taking. The use of verbal descriptors to improve the level of information about side effect risk leads to overestimation of the level of harm and may lead patients to make inappropriate decisions about whether or not they take the medicine.

Communicating risk of medication side effects: an empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology

Two experiments compared people's interpretation of verbal and numerical descriptions of the risk of medication side effects occurring. The verbal descriptors were selected from those recommended for use by the European Union (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). Both experiments used a controlled empirical methodology, in which nearly 500 members of the general population were presented with a fictitious (but realistic) scenario about visiting the doctor and being prescribed medication, together with information about the medicine's side effects and their probability of occurrence. Experiment 1 found that, in all three age groups tested (18 - 40, 41 - 60 and over 60), participants given a verbal descriptor (very common) estimated side effect risk to be considerably higher than those given a comparable numerical description. Furthermore, the differences in interpretation were reflected in their judgements of side effect severity, risk to health, and intention to comply. Experiment 2 confirmed these findings using two different verbal descriptors (common and rare) and in scenarios which described either relatively severe or relatively mild side effects. Strikingly, only 7 out of 180 participants in this study gave a probability estimate which fell within the EU assigned numerical range. Thus, large scale use of the descriptors could have serious negative consequences for individual and public health. We therefore recommend that the EU and National authorities suspend their recommendations regarding these descriptors until a more substantial evidence base is available to support their appropriate use.