|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
180321
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As we write at the end of December 2020, reflecting now on almost a year of living with the SARS-Cov-2 virus, we are heartened by the emergency authorization of several vaccines in the United States, the European Union, Great Britain, China, and Russia. The first of these vaccines is notable not only for the speed, but also the international collaboration which has facilitated its development. It was developed in a small scientific lab in Germany, BioNTech. Its founders are a husband-and-wife team, Uğur Şahi and Özlem Türeci. One was born in Turkey and immigrated to Germany at the age of four; the other is the daughter of Turkish immigrants. In February 2020, they partnered with the U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, which had the infrastructure, scale, and logistical capacity to conduct large-scale trials and manage the eventual manufacture and distribution of the vaccine. While the company Pfizer is U.S.-based, its CEO is not. Albert Burla is a Greek national who grew up and received his education in Thessaloniki. He has lived and worked in several countries for the past quarter century. Even as the pandemic has prompted many countries to close borders and prioritize the nation, these biographies tell an important story about the global production of knowledge, global trade, and global cultural networks. The past year has felt dominated by a retreat into smaller and smaller spaces, as we have been denied travel across borders, across town, and even out of our apartments and houses. In the midst of these closures, the global persists, not only in the constantly traveling virus, but also in the scientific research conducted to fight against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
183944
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Confronted by a host of policy challenges in the summer of 1977, the new Jimmy Carter administration set about articulating its approach to U.S. drug control. Carter inherited from prior administrations, and would continue, a slate of policies centered on reducing heroin production in Asia and Latin America, particularly Mexico. Washington’s Mexico program posed a number of contradictions for the environmentalist and human-rights president. Abuses by Mexican soldiers and police during drug-control sweeps and Mexico’s use of herbicides to destroy marijuana generated controversy, but domestic drug policy likewise presented dilemmas. Between 1973 and 1976, seven states had decriminalized marijuana possession and candidate Carter’s remarks about reforming marijuana laws led supporters to soon expect a reversal of the country’s punitive approach to marijuana use. Carter’s main drug policy advisor, Peter G. Bourne, pushed for unequivocal federal-level decriminalization, but Carter and other advisors were concerned that Bourne was too dismissive of harm from marijuana. When the policy paper was finally released, many of Bourne’s draft statements, describing the harm from marijuana as “minimal” and marijuana prohibition as an “unhappy and misguided chapter” in U.S. history, were cut. Ultimately, Carter did not want the White House to be seen as advocating marijuana use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
174156
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article provides an analysis of US-Lebanese relations and it concentrates on the US intervention in Lebanon in the late 1950s and again in the early 1980s. It makes the following arguments: (a). despite its role as a shelter-providing country the US had little regard for Lebanon’s security or economic welfare. Its policy was on most occasions based on considerations, which usually affected the entire Middle East region and not only Lebanon. (b). The US government never considered nor discussed the need to perpetuate Christian rule in Lebanon. Its spokesmen have often made statements which were misinterpreted by the Lebanese, particularly the Maronites among them who believed that they were nothing less than commitments to guarantee that they remain at the helm. (c.) Despite the impression that one obtains from the cordial statements made by both sides the bilateral ties had been often marred by numerous occasions of tension and discontent. (d). Lebanon’s quest for a shelter-providing power entailed major sacrifices and concessions that its leaders had to make in order to continue receiving the benefits which the US could provide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
179069
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 1964, the Stanford linguist Robert Politzer made a surprising claim in the pages of the Modern Language Journal. American linguists were then attaining unprecedented influence in the field of foreign-language teaching, promising dramatically improved results if teachers adhered to their methods and shaping classroom practices and materials from primary to postsecondary contexts. Politzer concluded that the reason for linguists’ influence was not, however, due to the merit of their ideas alone. “[Linguistic] theory by itself is perhaps not sufficient to shape pedagogical procedure,” he wrote. “[Above] all, our general attitude toward international communication [is] decisive.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|