| Vol.
7 No. 1
September 2004
The
Present Past
The
science and art of memory
Memories
of emotional events, especially aversive ones, tend to attach themselves
to anything around them.
Kerry
Ressler Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Center for Behavioral
Neuroscience
Trauma
in a weird way is about the future. . . . It's the sense that it's
probably going to happen again.
Angelika
Bammer, Associate Professor, Graduate Institute of the Liberal Arts
Upon
My Return to the Chair
Identity and academic sacred
space in Middle Eastern and South Asian studies
Gordon D. Newby, Professor and Chair, Middle Eastern and South
Asian Studies
Neuroscience
for Bird Brains
An unconventioal frontier
for understanding social behavior
Donna Maney, Assistant Professor of Psychology
The
Politics of Advice
Biased scientific information
in government agencies
Mike Kuhar, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Neuropharmacology
Crossing
Boundaries
How intellectual initiatives
form and flourish
Paul Jean, Associate Director of New Research Initiatives, Emory
College Office of Research, and Daniel Teodorescu, Director of Institutional
Research, Office of the Provost
Endnotes
Return
to Contents
|
Copywrong?
There’s a broad march toward expanding copyright to cover
anything that anyone considers creative, and soon we will have nailed
everything down to the point where we won’t be able to use
anything without a license. If you own a copyrighted work, you have
the exclusive right to engage in certain kinds of acts, including
reproduction. This means that, with a few exceptions, you are the
only one who can make copies of your work; that is, you have the
right to keep others from copying it. In addition, you have the
exclusive right to distribute copies of the work you created, and
you are the only one who can adapt the work. You also are the only
one who can perform your work or display your work, as appropriate.
If anyone else does any of these things without falling within one
of the few (and limited) exceptions in the copyright law, he or
she engages in copyright infringement. It’s that simple. We
don’t say, Well, is this use valuable to society? Is it something
we should encourage? The infringement question is fairly straightforward.
Neither intent nor social value is part of the calculus. So if you
want to argue social value, you move on to the lovely “fair
use” defense, which means anything that the judge thinks it
means.
—Sara Stadler Nelson, Assistant Professor of Law, from
the “Copyright and Permissions” panel discussion, co-sponsored
by the Provost’s Manuscript Development Program and the Academic
Exchange, April 15, 2004
The business of biotechnology
Lots of people are speculating about biotechnology; billions of
dollars are invested in the stock market. Getting a product out,
certified, and onto the market is not a cheap process. I simply
have very great doubts that the products of biotechnology are suddenly
going to be given free to the people who need the products in agriculture
the most. James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, tells us
that about 1.3 billion people in the world live on 1 dollar or less
a day, that 3 billion people live on 2 dollars or less a day. Those
are the people who need food. They are not going to be able to pay
for biotech food. Are we now suddenly going to be overcome with
compassion and give this food to the starving masses? I don’t
find that to be a credible claim. So let’s get rid of this
whole hoax that biotechnology is needed to feed the starving masses
of the world. It’s just not true.
—David Suzuki, environmentalist, geneticist, and broadcaster,
from the symposium “Genetically Modified Organisms: Our Genes,
Our Future,” sponsored by the Program in Science and Society,
April 9, 2004
|