Feud and fable: the Sherrington-Horsley polemic and the delayed publication

In the February and March 1894 pages of The Lancet and in private letters, Charles Sherrington and Victor Horsley exchanged angry accusations pertaining to primacy of research on the course of the pyramidal fiber tract as determined from studies in monkeys. The polemics appear not to have ended in a manner satisfactory to either one. Moreover, the dispute allegedly led to a remarkable delay in publication of one of Sherrington's major contributions, which pertained to the localization of the motor cortex in apes that was published in 1917. Here we examine the argument in detail including the comments of an intermediary, Professor Rubert Boyce. We also examine the evidence for the supposed delay in publication, and conclude that the account of the delay originated in John Fulton's 1952 obituary of Sherrington, and is not true. We suggest it has become a fable that should no longer be repeated.     

REVIEW

Jero Tapakan: Balinese Healer, An ethnographic film monograph. Revised edition. By Linda Connor, Patsy Asch, and Timothy Asch. Los Angeles, CA, Ethnographics Press, University of Southern California, 1996. Pp. xiv + 267; Price $A25.     

STATE COMPLIANCE WITH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 established the National Commission on State Workmen's Compensation Laws. The National Commission was directed to “undertake a comprehensive study and evaluation of State workmen's compensation laws in order to determine if such laws provide an adequate, prompt, and equitable system of compensation”. In 1972 the Commission issued its report, and “criticized many aspects of state workmen's compensation programs”. In its report the Commission made eighty–four recommendations for a “moder” workmen's compensation program and designated nineteen of these as “essential”. This research traces state progress in complying with each of these nineteen essential recommendations. Between 1972 and 1977 many states made significant improvements in their workmen's compensation programs and overall there was a 34 percent increase in compliance during this period. Higher levels of compliance were found to be related to two factors: changes in industrial diversification and the involvement and activity of vitally concerned interest groups.     

Vanuatu in Australia–China–Taiwan relations

Vanuatu became a major issue in Australia–China–Taiwan relations during Serge Vohor's turbulent prime ministership in 2004. Already engaged in a struggle with Australia over ‘good governance’, Vohor signed an agreement diplomatically recognising Taiwan. Chinese and Australian pressure led to Vohor's ouster, and a diplomatic setback for Taiwan. Although Australia and Taiwan viewed each other as side issues in this episode, with Australia focused on Vohor and Taiwan on China, their interests were directly opposed during the episode. As became evident in the aftermath of the post-election riot in Solomon Islands in April 2006, these divergent positions have had a lasting negative impact on each country's perception of the other. The key events of 2004 are examined here to demonstrate how this episode has affected the wider landscape of Australia–China–Taiwan relations.     

Policy Dilemmas of Post-Soviet Countries

I wonder what the West would think of us if Russia were to urge it to undertake reforms that would cost it half its gross domestic product, lake 10 years off its average life expectancy, and reduce its standard of living by two-thirds while throwing millions of people out of work, causing social anarchy, and displacing millions of specialists from positions in their fields to the very lowest rungs of society…. ¹     

Uneven Developments: From The Grundrisse To Capital

Abstract: Since its publication, Marxists have debated the relation between the Grundrisse and the first volume of Capital. This paper offers one entry point into this debate by comparing the way each text frames its “problematic of uneven development”, that is, the way that capitalism's inherently uneven development is thematized as a problem for explanation. In the Grundrisse the uneven nature of capitalism as development is explained by the emergence of capitalism from precapitalist relations. While this analysis is not entirely absent from Capital (cf the discussion of primitive accumulation), precapitalist formations are not treated as systematically in Capital. By contrast, uneven development enters Capital in the final section, particularly where Marx criticizes Wakefield. Reading these two texts together, I argue that the problematic of uneven development shifts from Grundrisse to Capital in a way that underscores Marx's growing stress on capital's imperial character. This shift has its roots in political events of the period when Marx rewrote Grundrisse into Capital.