Aspects épistémologiques et méthodologiques de la psychodynamique du travail

Ce texte contient une proposition de discussion concernant l’évolution des concepts en PDT , portant plus spécialement sur des aspects épistémologiques et des propositions d’action dans son domaine. En partant des questions traitées par la psychopathologie du travail, l’intention est de discuter des différentes étapes de l’évolution du champ en mettant en évidence des inflexions de la pensée de Dejours. Summary, p. 44. Resumen, p. 4

Questioning Reality: The Progressive Development of Modern Physics

Humanity has a tendency to divide time. The past is distinct from the present which is entirely separate from the future. In supposedly 20-20 vision history is neatly divided into different sections, distinct eras with sharp lines between them. What is present and in the future is always modern. What is past is something else with another name. Yet time is not divided so neatly. We know this living through it: years and decades blend into one another in a non-uniform progression. To divide human history into separate eras is a necessary simplification, as it helps to ascribe order onto otherwise chaotic chronology. It is still, however, a simplification, and gives incorrect significance to the people and events used to mark beginnings and ends. Rather, the view of history as a constant and uneven progression is more correct. In a simple definition, modern is “of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past.” To be modern is to be in current times, meaning that which is pre-modern is necessarily in the past. If, then, modernity is also defined by the characteristics of the immediate past, what caused that dividing line to fall down between the pre-modern and current eras, so different between one another? What makes modernity? The field of physics exhibits a sharp divide between modern and classical branches, defined by different theories, each true in different ways. The modern era of physics is commonly defined as beginning in the 20th century, with the classical era, having begun with the works of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton in the 16th and 17th centuries respectively, preceding it. “The beginnings of anything like a corrected history of the science which is now called physics may be placed with considerable definiteness about the beginning of the 17th century and associated with the great name of Galileo,” as Henry Andrews Bumstead writes. 1905, the so-called miracle year of Albert Einstein, in which he published revolutionary papers on mass-energy equivalence, brownian motion, and, most importantly, the photoelectric effect and special relativity, is most often used as the sharp dividing line between physics’ past and present. “Modern physics is the physics of the 20th century…” since “the main building blocks, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, were developed early in that century.” Einstein’s breaking down of absolute time and space in his theory of special relativity, a commonly held assumption for millenia beforehand, is what would distinguish the modern from the classical. The aftermath of special relativity is quantum theory, in which strict causality and infinitely divisible space in physics (assumptions from Newton) were also broken down to show that these concepts did not entirely apply at an extremely small scale, namely the atomic and subatomic realms. This concept was also preceded by Einstein’s work, building on that of Max Planck. Alternatively to a dividing line, physics can also be viewed as a gradual development in which assumptions are constantly broken down and reshaped, a position I will argue for here. Newton demolished the prime mover theory of Aristotle, James Clerk Maxwell reshaped Newtonian concepts with the addition of fields and statistical mechanics, Einstein the absoluteness of space and time, and the great quantum physicists of Planck, Niels Bohr, Erwin Shrodinger, and Werner Heisenberg, along with others, determinism, infinitely divisible space, and orderly mechanics with the discovery of the absolute strangeness of quantum mechanics. Instead of seeing two eras as completely separate and distinct from one another, with a point in time or event dividing the two, I will argue in this paper that scientific development in physics is always preceded by previous discoveries by looking at the development of modern physics out of the classical. Nothing comes about independently, as some sort of scientific isolate, as I will show in part I. All advances in physics are built upon the shoulders of giants, and mostly come about as a result of developments within the field itself. In part II, I will also focus on how the great revolutions which created what is now commonly referred to as modern physics were the effects of a larger, sociological questioning of authority occurring throughout the Western world at this time. Modern physics’ emergence is notable for occurring at a time and place in human history, the western world at the turn of the 20th century, which was rife with intense social and intellectual upheaval.https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/stemshowcase/1096/thumbnail.jp

Questioning Reality: The Progressive Development of Modern Physics

Humanity has a tendency to divide time. The past is distinct from the present which is entirely separate from the future. In supposedly 20-20 vision history is neatly divided into different sections, distinct eras with sharp lines between them. What is present and in the future is always modern. What is past is something else with another name. Yet time is not divided so neatly. We know this living through it: years and decades blend into one another in a non-uniform progression. To divide human history into separate eras is a necessary simplification, as it helps to ascribe order onto otherwise chaotic chronology. It is still, however, a simplification, and gives incorrect significance to the people and events used to mark beginnings and ends. Rather, the view of history as a constant and uneven progression is more correct. In a simple definition, modern is “of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past.” To be modern is to be in current times, meaning that which is pre-modern is necessarily in the past. If, then, modernity is also defined by the characteristics of the immediate past, what caused that dividing line to fall down between the pre-modern and current eras, so different between one another? What makes modernity? The field of physics exhibits a sharp divide between modern and classical branches, defined by different theories, each true in different ways. The modern era of physics is commonly defined as beginning in the 20th century, with the classical era, having begun with the works of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton in the 16th and 17th centuries respectively, preceding it. “The beginnings of anything like a corrected history of the science which is now called physics may be placed with considerable definiteness about the beginning of the 17th century and associated with the great name of Galileo,” as Henry Andrews Bumstead writes. 1905, the so-called miracle year of Albert Einstein, in which he published revolutionary papers on mass-energy equivalence, brownian motion, and, most importantly, the photoelectric effect and special relativity, is most often used as the sharp dividing line between physics’ past and present. “Modern physics is the physics of the 20th century…” since “the main building blocks, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, were developed early in that century.” Einstein’s breaking down of absolute time and space in his theory of special relativity, a commonly held assumption for millenia beforehand, is what would distinguish the modern from the classical. The aftermath of special relativity is quantum theory, in which strict causality and infinitely divisible space in physics (assumptions from Newton) were also broken down to show that these concepts did not entirely apply at an extremely small scale, namely the atomic and subatomic realms. This concept was also preceded by Einstein’s work, building on that of Max Planck. Alternatively to a dividing line, physics can also be viewed as a gradual development in which assumptions are constantly broken down and reshaped, a position I will argue for here. Newton demolished the prime mover theory of Aristotle, James Clerk Maxwell reshaped Newtonian concepts with the addition of fields and statistical mechanics, Einstein the absoluteness of space and time, and the great quantum physicists of Planck, Niels Bohr, Erwin Shrodinger, and Werner Heisenberg, along with others, determinism, infinitely divisible space, and orderly mechanics with the discovery of the absolute strangeness of quantum mechanics. Instead of seeing two eras as completely separate and distinct from one another, with a point in time or event dividing the two, I will argue in this paper that scientific development in physics is always preceded by previous discoveries by looking at the development of modern physics out of the classical. Nothing comes about independently, as some sort of scientific isolate, as I will show in part I. All advances in physics are built upon the shoulders of giants, and mostly come about as a result of developments within the field itself. In part II, I will also focus on how the great revolutions which created what is now commonly referred to as modern physics were the effects of a larger, sociological questioning of authority occurring throughout the Western world at this time. Modern physics’ emergence is notable for occurring at a time and place in human history, the western world at the turn of the 20th century, which was rife with intense social and intellectual upheaval

Targeting Nuclear Export Proteins in Multiple Myeloma Therapy.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable malignancy of plasma cells with a clinical course characterized by multiple relapses and treatment refractoriness. While recent treatment advancements have extended overall survival (OS), refractory MM has a poor prognosis, with a median OS of between 4 and 6 months. Nuclear export inhibition, specifically inhibition of CRM1/XPO1, is an emerging novel treatment modality that has shown promise in treatment-refractory MM. Initially discovered in yeast in 1983, early clinical applications were met with significant toxicities that limited their utility. The creation of small molecule inhibitors of nuclear export (SINE) has improved on toxicity limitations and has led to investigation in a number of malignancies at the preclinical and clinical stages. Preclinical studies of SINEs in MM have shown that these molecules are cytotoxic to myeloma cells, play a role in therapy resensitization, and suggest a role in limiting bone disease progression. In July 2019, selinexor became the first nuclear export inhibitor approved for use in relapsed/refractory MM based on the STORM trial. As of May 2020, there were eight ongoing trials combining selinexor with standard treatment regimens in relapsed/refractory MM. Eltanexor, a second-generation SINE, is also under investigation and has shown preliminary signs of efficacy in an early clinical trial while potentially having an improved toxicity profile compared with selinexor. Results in ongoing trials will help further define the role of SINEs in MM

Bispecific antibodies in the treatment of multiple myeloma.

The treatment paradigm in myeloma is constantly changing. Upfront use of monoclonal antibodies like daratumumab along with proteasome inhibitors (PI)s, and immune modulators (IMiD)s have significantly improved survival and outcomes, but also cause unique challenges at the time of relapse. Engaging immune T cells for tumour cell kill with chimeric antigenic T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and bispecific antibodies have become important therapeutic options in relapsed multiple myeloma. Bispecific antibodies are dual antigen targeting constructs that engage the T cells to plasma cells through various target antigens like B-cell membrane antigen (BCMA), G-protein-coupled receptor family C group 5 member D (GPRC5D), and Fc receptor-homolog 5 (FcRH5). These agents have proven to induce deep and durable responses in heavily pre-treated myeloma patients with a predictable safety profile and the ease of off-the-shelf availability. Significant research is ongoing to overcome resistance mechanisms like T cell exhaustion, target antigen mutation or loss and high disease burden. Various trials are also studying these agents as first line options in the newly diagnosed setting. These agents play an important role in the relapsed setting, and efforts are underway to optimize their sequencing in the myeloma treatment algorithm

Bispecifics, trispecifics, and other novel immune treatments in myeloma.

Despite recent advances in treatment, relapses in multiple myeloma (MM) are inevitable. Off-the-shelf immunotherapeutics represent a promising avenue for research, with various classes of agents under development and several demonstrating deep and durable responses in patients who have exhausted all available therapies. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) seek to improve on naked monoclonal antibodies by delivering a cytotoxic payload directly to tumor cells while largely limiting systemic effects. Belantamab mafodotin, a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted ADC, has shown response rates >30% in a phase 2 trial of highly refractory patients and is being investigated in a variety of settings and combinations. Several other ADCs are in earlier stages of development that target cell surface antigens that are internalized, including BCMA, CD38, CD46, CD56, CD74, and CD138. Bispecifics are designed to bring cytotoxic immune effector cells into proximity with tumor cells, and several agents have shown high response rates in early trials. Current targets include BCMA, CD38, GPRC5d, and FCRH5, and all of these seek to engage T cells through CD3. Bispecifics targeting natural killer (NK) cells through CD16 are still in preclinical development. Trispecific antibodies may represent an advance over bispecifics by providing a T-cell costimulatory signal such as CD28, or alternatively, dual MM antigens to increase specificity of NK or T-cell targeting. This is an area of active preclinical research at this time. Lastly, designed ankyrin repeat proteins, which are small antibody-mimetic proteins with high target-binding affinity, have the potential to block multiple pathways at once and provide stimulatory signals to the immune system

Utilización de la responsabilidad social empresaria en argentina como herramienta de creación de valor en las empresas multinacionales industriales

Fil: Lancman, Darío. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Buenos Aires, Argentina

A transposição de livros para exposições e uma educação para o leitor-fruidor

O presente artigo analisa duas exposições realizadas nos últimos anos em espaços culturais da cidade de São Paulo, que possuem em comum o fato de serem adaptações de livros: A Biblioteca à Noite, inspirada em obra de Alberto Manguel, e Grande Sertão: Veredas, transposição do romance de Guimarães Rosa. Tendo como ponto de partida a comparação entre as duas exposições, considerando as diferenças fundamentais entre as obras literárias – uma canônica e a outra não – as escolhas curatoriais no processo de transposição do texto em elementos visuais e sensíveis, discutiremos as exposições como recurso pedagógico. Para tanto, buscamos na Base Nacional Comum Curricular o conceito de leitor-fruidor, verificando de que maneira a educação brasileira propõe formar esse sujeito e, dessa forma, fazer uma leitura crítica das exposições analisadas

Pensando a écfrase na contemporaneidade / Thinking about ekphrasis in contemporaneity

O presente artigo busca apresentar e justificar duas tendências notadas na écfrase contemporânea, a rigor, a écfrase que se dispõe a transpor para o texto literário, em especial narrativo, obras de arte contemporânea. Essas tendências são: a forte presença do curador como figura criativa e de procedimentos curatoriais adotados por artistas como elemento fundamental em suas obras; o destaque para a experiência na obra, ou seja, concepção de instalações ou outras peças cuja compreensão não se dá por meio da apreciação estética, e sim pela experiência compartilhada. Foram analisadas passagens ecfrásticas nas seguintes obras literárias: O Museu da Inocência, de Orhan Pamuk, Não há Lugar Para a Lógica em Kassel, de Enrique Vila-Matas, e O Que Deu Para Fazer em Matéria de História de Amor, de Elvira Vigna. A análise de textos em que se notam essas tendências levam à conclusão de que tanto há novas possibilidades da écfrase a serem exploradas, como a sua relação com o fazer literário na contemporaneidade, quanto uma retomada da enargeia como valor fundante da écfrase em uma nova leitura