Rat i tolerancija

Within what theoretical framework - the primordialist versus the instrumentalist orientation - can ethnic mobilization and conflict best be explained? Having in mind the debates in connection with the dissolution of Yugoslavia, in our paper we address the question did an increase in ethnic tensions and subsequent armed conflict between the parties follow the increase in ethnic intolerance? Or, did ethnic intolerance increase as a consequence of the conflict itself. The first result would be more in accordance with the primordialist view. The second is what would be expected from the instrumentalist one. In order to answer the question we used three sets of survey data collected in Croatia in 1985, 1989 and 1996. The period between the first two surveys was one of rising tensions; the “explosion” and open armed conflict followed (1991-1995). The third survey was done in the inital period of peace. Our conclusion is that intolerance did not precede but rather followed the outbursts of war and the atrocities connected with it. Therefore we argue that our findings are more in accordance with instrumentalist than with piimordialist theories. Nevertheless, our analysis serves only to discredit primordialism rather than providing instrumentalism to be the best explanatory theory for the Balkans\u27 conflicts.Kojim se to teorijskim okvirom - a riječ je o primordijalističkom nasuprot instrumentalističkomu - ponajbolje objašnjava etnička mobilizacija i sukob? Uzevši u obzir rasprave u vezi s raspadom Jugoslavije, članak je usredotočen na pitanje: je li sve veća etnička netolerancija prethodila sve većim etničkim napetostima i, susljedno tome, oružanom sukobu između različitih grupa? Odnosno, je li povećana etnička netolerancija bila posljedicom samog sukoba? Prvi bi rezultat bio u skladu s primordijalističkim okvirom objašnjenja. Drugi bi se rezultat očekivao na osnovu instrumentalističkog teorijskog okvira. U nalaženju odgovora na ta pitanja poslužili smo se trima skupovima podataka iz Hrvatske - anketnim istraživanjima iz 1985, 1989. i 1996. godine. Razdoblje između prva dva istraživanja označeno je povećanjem napetosti, slijedilo je razdoblje oružanog sukoba (1991-1995). Treće je istraživanje izvršeno na početku mirnog razdoblja. Naš je zaključak taj da je do netolerancije došlo nakon izbijanja rata i zločina povezanih s tim. Stoga smatramo da su naši nalazi bliže instrumentalističkom negoli primordijalističkom teorijskom okviru. Ipak, naša analiza nije namijenjena promoviranju instrumentalizma kao najboljeg objašnjenja sukoba na Balkanu: prije će biti da je njen cilj bio da diskreditira primordijalističko objašnjenje

Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake

Genetics and Pathogenesis of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) are phenotypically and genetically heterogeneous. Gene-expression profiling has identified subgroups of DLBCL (activated B-cell-like [ABC], germinal-center B-cell-like [GCB], and unclassified) according to cell of origin that are associated with a differential response to chemotherapy and targeted agents. We sought to extend these findings by identifying genetic subtypes of DLBCL based on shared genomic abnormalities and to uncover therapeutic vulnerabilities based on tumor genetics. METHODS: We studied 574 DLBCL biopsy samples using exome and transcriptome sequencing, array-based DNA copy-number analysis, and targeted amplicon resequencing of 372 genes to identify genes with recurrent aberrations. We developed and implemented an algorithm to discover genetic subtypes based on the co-occurrence of genetic alterations. RESULTS: We identified four prominent genetic subtypes in DLBCL, termed MCD (based on the co-occurrence of MYD88L265P and CD79B mutations), BN2 (based on BCL6 fusions and NOTCH2 mutations), N1 (based on NOTCH1 mutations), and EZB (based on EZH2 mutations and BCL2 translocations). Genetic aberrations in multiple genes distinguished each genetic subtype from other DLBCLs. These subtypes differed phenotypically, as judged by differences in gene-expression signatures and responses to immunochemotherapy, with favorable survival in the BN2 and EZB subtypes and inferior outcomes in the MCD and N1 subtypes. Analysis of genetic pathways suggested that MCD and BN2 DLBCLs rely on "chronic active" B-cell receptor signaling that is amenable to therapeutic inhibition. CONCLUSIONS: We uncovered genetic subtypes of DLBCL with distinct genotypic, epigenetic, and clinical characteristics, providing a potential nosology for precision-medicine strategies in DLBCL. (Funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and others.).This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute and by a National Cancer Institute Strategic Partnering to Evaluate Cancer Signatures (SPECS II) grant (5U01CA157581-05). R.S. was supported by the Dr Mildred Scheel Stiftung für Krebsforschung (Deutsche Krebshilfe). D.J.H. was a Kay Kendall Leukaemia Fund Intermediate research fellow. M.K. was supported by the National Institutes of Health Oxford-Cambridge Scholars Program and the Washington University in St. Louis Medical Scientist Training Progra