Migrations and gradations : reappraising the health profile of immigrants to Canada

New immigrants to Canada typically have a more favourable health profile than the non-immigrant population. This phenomenon, known as the 'healthy immigrant effect', has been attributed to both the socioeconomic advantage (ie. educational attainment, occupational opportunity) of non-refugee immigrants and existing screening protocols that admit only the healthiest of persons to Canada. It has been suggested that this health advantage diminishes as the time of residence in Canada increases, due in part to the adoption of health-risk behaviours such as alcohol and cigarette use, an increase in excess body weight, and declining rates of physical activity. However, the majority of health research concerning immigrants to Canada has been limited to cross-sectional studies (Dunn & Dyck, 2000; Newbold & Danforth, 2003), which may mask an immigrant-specific cohort effect. Furthermore, the practice of aggregating foreign-bom persons by geographical regions or treating all immigrants as a homogeneous group may also obfuscate intra-immigrant differences in health. Accordingly, this study uses the Canadian National Population Health Surveys (NPHS) and data from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to prospectively evaluate factors that predict health status among immigrants to Canada. Each immigrant in the NPHS was linked to the UNDP Human Development Index of their country of birth, which uses a combined measure of health, education, and per capita income of the populace. The six-year change in health function, psychological distress, and self-rated health were considered from a population health perspective (Evans, 1994), using generalized-estimating equations (GEE) to examine the compounding effect of past and recent predictors of health. Demographic

"Re-huminization": the role of human-animal similarity in predicting prejudice towards immigrants and non-human animals

Research implies that there ~ay be an association between attitudes toward margil1alized human outgroups and non-human animals. Very few studies, however, have specifically tested this relation empirically. The general purpose of the present research was to determine if such a relation exists and if perceptions of human-animal similarity avail as a common predictor of both types of attitudes. Ideological orientations associated with prejudiced attitudes (Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Universal Orientation) were also examined as individual differences in predicting perceptions of human-animal similarity. As predicted, people who endorsed prejudiced attitudes toward human outgroups (Study 1) and immigrants in particular (Studies 2 and 3), were more likely to endorse prejudiced attitudes toward non-human animals. In Study 2, perceptions that humans are superior (versus similar) to other animals directly predicted higher levels of prejudice toward non-human animals, whereas the effect of human superiority beliefs on immigrant prejudice was mediated by dehumanization. In other words, greater perceptions of humans as superior (versus similar) to other animals "allowed for" greater dehumanization of immigrants, which in turn resulted in heightened immigrant prejudice. Furthermore, people higher in Social Dominance Orientation or Right-Wing Authoritarianism were particularly likely to perceive humans as superior (versus similar) to other animals, whereas people characterized by a greater Universal Orientation were more likely to perceive humans and non-human animals as similar. Study 3 examined whether inducing perceptions of human-animal similarity through experimental manipulation would lead to more favourable attitudes toward non-human animals and immigrants. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four 11 editorials designed to highlight either the similarities or differences between humans and other animals (i.e., animals are similar to humans; humans are similar to animals;~~nimals are inferior to humans; humans are superior to animals) or to a neutral control condition. Encouragingly, when animals were described as similar to humans, prejudice towards non-human animals and immigrants was significantly lower, and to some extent this finding was also true for people naturally high in prejudice (i.e., high in Social Dominance Orientation or Right-Wing Authoritarianism). Inducing perceptions that nonhuman animals are similar to humans was particularly effective at reducing the tendency to dehumanize immigrants ("re-humanization"), lowering feelings of personal threat regarding one's animal-nature, and at increasing inclusive intergroup representations and empathy, all of which uniquely accounted for the significant decreases in prejudiced attitudes. Implications for research, theory and prejudice interventions are considered.

Intellectual property rights and the campaign for access to essential medicines : the advocacy role assumed by Médecins Sans Frontières

Non-governmental organizations and transnational networks have been increasingly successful a t gaining influence within issue areas traditionally controlled by the state. In many instances, non-state actors have been instrumental in forcing issues onto the global agenda, have aided in the development or transformation of global regimes, and have participated in securing state compliance for the adoption of new international norms. This paper argues that, consistent with social constructivist theory, ideas are important in influencing state preferences and change may be possible when certain factors are present. I f non-state actors can influence states, it is meaningful to understand how this happens. This paper focuses on a campaign led by Medecins Sans Frontieres that began in the late 1990s to acquire affordable medicines for patients in developing states that could not afford patented drugs. The campaign reached a measure of success in that member states of the World Trade Organization re-negotiated contested terms and meanings within the trade agreement for intellectual property rights and allowed concessions that would benefit lower income states. What factors contributed to the success of the campaign? And what were the most important factors - the issue, the actors or the mechanisms used?