Evaluation of group electronegativities and hardness (softness) of group 14 elements and containing functional groups through density functional theory and correlation with NMR spectra data

Quantum Chemical calculations for group 14 elements of Periodic Table (C, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb) and their functional groups have been carried out using Density Functional Theory (DFT) based reactivity descriptors such as group electronegativities, hardness and softness. DFT calculations were performed for a large series of tetracoordinated Sn compounds of the CH3SnRR'X type, where X is a halogen and R and R' are alkyl, halogenated alkyl, alkoxy, or alkyl thio groups. The results were interpreted in terms of calculated electronegativity and hardness of the SnRR'X groups, applying a methodology previously developed by Geerlings and coworkers (J. Phys. Chem. 1993, 97, 1826). These calculations allowed to see the regularities concerning the influence of the nature of organic groups RR' and inorganic group X on electronegativities and hardness of the SnRR'X groups; in this case, it was found a very good correlation between the electronegativity of the fragment and experimental 119Sn chemical shifts, a property that sensitively reflects the change in the valence electronic structure of molecules. This work was complemented with the study of some compounds of the EX and ER types, where E= C, Si, Ge, Sn and R= CH3, H, which was performed to study the influence that the central atom has on the electronegativity and hardness of molecules, or whether these properties are mainly affected for the type of ligand bound to the central atom. All these calculations were performed using the B3PW91 functional together with the 6-311++G** basis set level for H, C, Si, Ge, F, Cl and Br atoms and the 3-21G for Sn and I atoms.

Conflicting genomes, the demic theory & biodiversity

Organismic-centered Darwinism, in order to use direct phenotypes to measure natural selection's effect, necessitates genome's harmony and uniform coherence plus large population sizes. However, modern gene-centered Darwinism has found new interpretations to data that speak of genomic incoherence and disharmony. As a result of these two conflicting positions a conceptual crisis in Biology has arisen. My position is that the presence of small, even pocket-size, demes is instrumental in generating divergence and phenotypic crisis. Moreover, the presence of parasitic genomes as in acanthocephalan worms, which even manipulate suicidal behavior in their hosts; segregation distorters that change meiosis and Mendelian ratios; selfish genes and selfish whole chromosomes, such as the case of B-chromosomes in grasshoppers; P-elements in Drosophila; driving Y-chromosomes that manipulate sex ratios making males more frequent, as in Hamilton's X-linked drive; male strategists and outlaw genes, are eloquent examples of the presence of real conflicting genomes and of a non-uniform phenotypic coherence and genome harmony. Thus, we are proposing that overall incoherence and disharmony generate disorder but also more biodiversity and creativeness. Finally, if genes can manipulate natural selection, they can multiply mutations or undesirable characteristics and even lethal or detrimental ones, hence the accumulation of genetic loads. Outlaw genes can change what is adaptively convenient even in the direction of the trait that is away from the optimum. The optimum can be "negotiated" among the variants, not only because pleiotropic effects demand it, but also, in some cases, because selfish, outlaw, P-elements or extended phenotypic manipulation require it. With organismic Darwinism the genome in the population and in the individual was thought to act harmoniously without conflicts, and genotypes were thought to march towards greater adaptability. Modern Darwinism has a gene-centered vision in which genes, as natural selection's objects can move in dissonance in the direction which benefits their multiplication. Thus, we have greater opportunities for genomes in permanent conflict.

Exploring the interplay between Framing and Securitization theory: the case of the Arab Spring protests in Bahrain

This article advances the theoretical integration between securitization theory and the framing approach, resulting in a set of criteria hereby called security framing. It seeks to make a twofold contribution: to sharpen the study of the ideational elements that underlie the construction of threats, and to advance towards a greater assessment of the audience's preferences. The case study under examination is the 2011 military intervention of the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Bahrain. The security framing of this case will help illuminate the dynamics at play in one of the most important recent events in Gulf politics.