We commend Redish et al. for the progress they have made in bringing a measure of theoretical order to the processes that underlie drug addiction. However, incorporating information about situations in which drug users do not exhibit faulty decision-making into the theory would greatly enhance its generality and practical value. This commentary draws attention to the relevant human substance abuse literature.

Pickering & Garrod's (P&G's) mechanistic theory of dialogue attempts to detail the psychological processes involved in communication that are lacking in Clark's theory. By relying on automatic priming and alignment processes, however, the theory falters when it comes to explaining much of dialogic interaction. We argue for the inclusion of less automatic, though not completely conscious and deliberate, processes to explain such phenomena.

Cellular mechanisms whereby quiescent stem cells sense tissue injury and transition to an activated state are largely unknown. Quiescent skeletal muscle stem cells (MuSCs, also called satellite cells) have elaborate, heterogeneous projections that rapidly retract in response to muscle injury. They may therefore act as direct sensors of their niche environment. Retraction is driven by a Rac‐to‐Rho GTPase activity switch that promotes downstream MuSC activation events. These and other observations lead to several hypotheses: (1) projections are morphologically dynamic at quiescence, (...) providing a surveillance function for muscle damage; (2) quiescent projection dynamics are regulated by the relative balance of Rac and Rho activities promoted by niche‐derived cues; (3) projections, particularly their associated filopodia, sense tissue damage via changes to the biomechanical properties of the niche and/or detection of signaling cues released by damaged myofibers; and (4) the dynamic nature of projections results in a population of MuSCs with heterogeneous functional properties. These concepts may extend to other types of quiescent stem cells, as well as prove useful in translational research settings. (shrink)

Joseph Beuys, Andy Warhol, Yves Klein, and Marcel Duchamp form an unlikely quartet, but they each played a singular role in shaping a new avant-garde for the 1960s and beyond. Each of them staged brash, even shocking, events and produced works that challenged the way the mainstream art world operated and thought about itself. Distinguished philosopher Thierry de Duve binds these artists through another connection: the mapping of the aesthetic field onto political economy. Karl Marx provides the red thread tying (...) together these four beautifully written essays in which de Duve treats each artist as a distinct, characteristic figure in that mapping. He sees in Beuys, who imagined a new economic system where creativity, not money, was the true capital, the incarnation of the last of the proletarians; he carries forward Warhol’s desire to be a machine of mass production and draws the consequences for aesthetic theory; he calls Klein, who staked a claim on pictorial space as if it were a commodity, “The dead dealer”; and he reads Duchamp as the witty financier who holds the secret of artistic exchange value. Throughout, de Duve expresses his view that the mapping of the aesthetic field onto political economy is a phenomenon that should be seen as central to modernity in art. Even more, de Duve shows that Marx—though perhaps no longer the “Marxist” Marx of yore—can still help us resist the current disenchantment with modernity’s many unmet promises. An intriguing look at these four influential artists, _Sewn in the Sweatshops of Marx_ is an absorbing investigation into the many intertwined relationships between the economic and artistic realms. (shrink)

Washed away -- On the road -- The knight's move.