Search results

Metaphysical terms like science, matter, nature, and reality have always been in limbo in critical theory; scholars have deconstructed and problematized and critiqued them, yet they still will not go away. Debates over science's relationship to discourse and knowledge particularly revolve around the extent to which science's objects are "real" or, put more formally, to what extent objects of human inquiry exist outside their investigation. This essay critiques two important interlocutors in the debate—Butler and Latour—to argue that this is the wrong question to ask. Resisting the temptation to make the poststructuralist move of positing culture as the origin of nature, which would grant culture the primary status that nature has historically held, Kirby bypasses arguments over whether matter is out in the world or a product of language by expanding what counts as language. Rather than claim that nature in its prerepresentational form is impossible to experience, she argues that nature itself consists of representations, and not just human-made ones. This essay, and, in its own way, each essay in the special issue it responds to, shows how the binaries operating in science were never really binaries. Nature and culture, body and mind, and subject and object are not opposing terms that need to be brought together but always already related terms whose relatedness must be—and, throughout the issue of differences in which it appears, will be—unveiled.

AbstractWe present details of the design and implementation of the 2020–2021 JobKeeper program and review the literature on its impacts. JobKeeper stimulated the macroeconomy and restrained job loss in the downturn. But because the program was not narrowly targeted, the cost per job saved was high and the impact most likely regressive. However, it would not have been possible to devise and implement a more targeted program in the available time, and as it was, JobKeeper was arguably implemented later than needed for maximum effectiveness. We therefore recommend that Australia consider establishing a short‐time work program for use in future recessions.

Even though the opinion polling before the British referendum on membership of the European Union showed a narrow gap between the two sides, the actual result-a vote to leave-on the morning of 24 June 2016 came as a surprise to many. Yet in truth both the referendum and its outcome had deep roots in British politics. In this article we cast an eye over the history of Britain's relationship with the EU, which has long been marked by a mixture of awkwardness and successful influence. We trace the origins of the referendum in long-run tensions between, and within, the political parties, and in the lukewarm public support for European integration. We also examine more contingent, short-term factors relating to the referendum campaign itself. We conclude by commenting on the divisions exposed by the vote along lines of geography, education, class and wealth, and suggest that reconciling these with the continuing tensions in the party landscape make a clean and speedy exit from the EU unlikely. (International Affairs (Oxford) / SWP)

Current international and national treatment guidelines such as EACS, BHIVA, DHHS or IAS update regularly recommendations on the choice of initial combination antiretroviral treatment (cART) regimens. Preferred cART regimens include a backbone with two nucleoside (nucleotide) reverse transcriptase inhibitors combined either with one non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or one ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor or more recently one integrase inhibitor. Response rates according to viral load measurements increased in recent years, in particular due to better tolerability. The choice of initial therapy is flexible and influenced by several factors such as height of viral load, genotypic resistance testing, CD4 cell count, co‐morbidities, interactions, potential adverse events, (potential for) pregnancy, convenience, adherence, costs as well as physician's and patient's preferences. Diverse highly potent initial cART regimens exist. Following the many possibilities, the choice of a regimen is based on a mixture of evidence‐informed data and individualized concepts, some of the latter only partly supported by strong evidence. For example, different perceptions and personal experiences exist about boosted protease inhibitors compared to non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or integrase inhibitors and vice versa which may influence the initial choice. This lecture will discuss choices of initial cART in view of international guidelines and the evidence for individualization of initial HIV therapy.