A SYSTEMIC CONCEPT OF THE GENE

The univocal correspondence between one gene and one polypeptide has been challenged by many examples of ambiguities. A rapidly expanding list of one-to-many or many-to-one correspondences includes: genomic rearrangements, alternative processing of transcripts, overlapping translation frames, RNA editing, alternative translation modes, and polyprotein cleavage.The genomic message requires interpretation through decoding by a sophisticated information retrieval system which should also carry some kind of information. The full meaning of the whole cell, as a unit, is emphasized.The gene is a combination of (one or more) nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) sequences, defined by the system (the whole cell, interacting with the environment, or the environment alone, in subcellular or pre-cellular systems), that gives origin to a product (RNA or polypeptide).

Hierarchical clustering of the genetic connectivity matrix reveals the network topology of gene action on brain microstructure: An N=531 twin study

Genetic correlation (rg) analysis determines how much of the correlation between two measures is due to common genetic influences. In an analysis of 4 Tesla diffusion tensor images (DTI) from 531 healthy young adult twins and their siblings, we generalized the concept of genetic correlation to determine common genetic influences on white matter integrity, measured by fractional anisotropy (FA), at all points of the brain, yielding an NxN genetic correlation matrix rg(x,y) between FA values at all pairs of voxels in the brain. With hierarchical clustering, we identified brain regions with relatively homogeneous genetic determinants, to boost the power to identify causal single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). We applied genome-wide association (GWA) to assess associations between 529,497 SNPs and FA in clusters defined by hubs of the clustered genetic correlation matrix. We identified a network of genes, with a scale-free topology, that influences white matter integrity over multiple brain regions.

Decolonising the concept of knowledge

Controlling the definition of what was essentially a subjugated culture, the colonisers reserve the power to distinguish authentic aspects of the living traditions of the colonised. If the colonised argue political demands by reference to their culture, the colonisers are quick to adjudicate what is genuine in such claims. (Fannon, 1967) Since colonial invasions, Australia’s Indigenous people have weathered rapid change. While the origins of Australia’s Indigenous peoples continues to be an archaeological interest for many, how Indigenous cultures have survived, transformed and retained a sense of ‘difference’ is fundamental to understanding the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures within this continent as both contemporaneous and historical. It is important that teachers, students and researchers within Indigenous studies remind themselves that much of the literature on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders can be ideologically traced back to the emergence of ‘knowledge’ about native peoples in the context of European imperialism and expansion from the fifteenth century. Care must therefore be taken in not conveying ‘scientific’ rational knowledge as perhaps the hidden agenda or notion of assumptions of European ‘superiority’ and non-European inferiority. The recognition by the High Court of Australia (1992) abandoned the legal myth of terra nullius which based the dispossession of Indigenous land on the basis of it being considered an empty land. It could also be argued that this decision recognised that distinct customs and traditions continue to exist within the social and cultural ‘knowledge’ of Indigenous peoples of Australia. General issues and concerns relating to research design, methodology and articulation within QUT are not just confined to this university and the research project presented as a case study but are important in dealing with how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and academics participate or are employed within the university. We feel that the design and methodology of research that either covertly or overtly focuses on Indigenous Australians can no longer presume that all research will naturally follow protocols that are culturally appropriate as this appropriateness is usually defined by the institution. By no means do we feel that research should be debilitated as a result of raising these issues, but that collaborative approaches within the ‘process’ of research will address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities as much as the intended outcomes of research itself.

The concept of vulnerability and the protection of human subjects of research

This article provides an overview of the concept of vulnerability through the lens of the U.S. federal regulations for the protection of human subjects of research. General issues that emerge for nurse researchers working with regulated vulnerable populations are identified. Points of current controversy in the application of the regulations and current discourse about vulnerable groups are highlighted. Suggestions for negotiating the tension between federally regulated human subject requirements and the realities of research with vulnerable subjects are given. The limitations of the designation of vulnerable as a protection for human subjects will also be discussed.