ADE and the Association of Departments of En glish are trademarks owned by the Modern Language Association.

Investigations of maternal behavior of mothers fed a low-protein diet indicated deficits in retrieval and in the rate of nest-building. In addition, they indicated a concomitant increase in time spent with young when assessed during periods not associated with the retrieval/nest-building test session. The adrenalectomized mother, another case that produces growth-stunted progeny, was compared with both low-protein and control mothers for maternal behavior. Unlike the low-protein mother, the adrenalectomized mother did not exhibit retrieval or nest-building deficits; however, the adrenalectomized mother did display an increase in time spent with young. These data suggest that although deficits in retrieval and nest-building can be attributed to the nutritional condition of the mother, the stimulus characteristics of the malnourished pup are important in eliciting the increased time spent with the litter.

No abstract

Parkinson's disease (PD) researchers have pioneered the use of cell-based therapies (CBTs) in the central nervous system. CBTs for PD were originally envisioned as a way to replace the dopaminergic nigral neurons lost with the disease. Several sources of catecholaminergic cells, including autografts of adrenal medulla and allografts or xenografts of mesencephalic fetal tissue, were successfully assessed in animal models, but their clinical translation has yielded poor results and much controversy. Recent breakthroughs on cell biology are helping to develop novel cell lines that could be used for regenerative medicine. Their future successful clinical application depends on identifying and solving the problems encountered in previous CBTs trials. In this review, we critically analyze past CBTs' clinical translation, the impact of the host in graft survival, and the role of preclinical studies and emerging new cell lines. We propose that the prediction of clinical results from preclinical studies requires experimental designs that allow blind data acquisition and statistical analysis, assessment of the therapy in models that parallel clinical conditions, looking for sources of complications or side effects, and limiting optimism bias when reporting outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

The last talk I gave at MLA 2012 was a keynote for the Council of Editors of Learned Journals, the text of which is below. I'd love any feedback you might have to offer.-Giving It Away: Sharing and the Future of Scholarly Communication As you might guess from my title, this presentation focuses in large part on questions of open access as they might affect our thinking about the future of scholarly communication. "Open access," I'm sure I don't need to tell you, is a fraught concept among both scholars and publishers, one beset by a lot of misunderstandings, both intentional and unintentional. Arguments circulate out there saying, for instance, that open access will open the floodgates to a lot of bad scholarship, when in fact open access publishing is perfectly compatible with peer review, and there are many OA journals that are more selective than their closed-access counterparts. There are folks who argue that open access is financially unsustainable, or even, as has been suggested by the recent proposal of the Research Works Act in Congress, an unreasonable infringement on publisher income, when in fact a range of new models for open access publishing are coming into being, and several of the major commercial journal publishers have recently announced new OA ventures, which they of course would never do if they hadn't found a business model in it somewhere. On the other hand, there are equally misguided convictions out there that open access publishing is free; clearly that's not so. What I am hoping to do in this talk, however, is to shift our thinking about open access, for the moment, from a focus on costs to a focus on values, though without entirely leaving behind the overwhelming and at times quite grim economic realities by which we're surrounded. To begin, a bit of background: discussions of the possibilities for new open publishing models began online in the early 1990s, as a number of scientists and librarians recognized that the growth of the Internet made possible the free and open reproduction of scholarly literature. This is not to

originally invited me to contribute to this cluster of essays on the evaluation of digital scholarship for tenure and promotion, I was a faculty member. I'd just undergone a successful review for promotion to full professor on the basis of an all-digital dossier, and Laura and Susan hoped that I'd write about some of the benefits that I enjoyed and challenges that I faced in the process.In the meantime, I have moved into a new role, director of scholarly communication for the MLA, whose charge is to assist the organization and its members in thinking through the ways that new digital publishing paradigms and platforms are changing scholars' work today. I've written extensively about these changes in my forthcoming book, Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy, in which I focus specifically on the degree to which scholars, reviewers, and administrators will all need to shift their perspectives and expectations as digital texts and objects become increasingly central to scholarly communication.These transformations will not come easily. In my own promotion review, despite the fact that I was a scholar whose work took new digital modes of communication as its explicit focus, questions were raised about the relative status of online and print publications. Among these questions, not surprisingly, was the status of my digital work with respect to peer review. New York University Press had submitted my book manuscriptThe author is director of scholarly communication at the MLA.