It takes two to tango: NAD+ and sirtuins in aging/longevity control

AbstractThe coupling of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) breakdown and protein deacylation is a unique feature of the family of proteins called ‘sirtuins.’ This intimate connection between NAD+ and sirtuins has an ancient origin and provides a mechanistic foundation that translates the regulation of energy metabolism into aging and longevity control in diverse organisms. Although the field of sirtuin research went through intensive controversies, an increasing number of recent studies have put those controversies to rest and fully established the significance of sirtuins as an evolutionarily conserved aging/longevity regulator. The tight connection between NAD+ and sirtuins is regulated at several different levels, adding further complexity to their coordination in metabolic and aging/longevity control. Interestingly, it has been demonstrated that NAD+ availability decreases over age, reducing sirtuin activities and affecting the communication between the nucleus and mitochondria at a cellular level and also between the hypothalamus and adipose tissue at a systemic level. These dynamic cellular and systemic processes likely contribute to the development of age-associated functional decline and the pathogenesis of diseases of aging. To mitigate these age-associated problems, supplementation of key NAD+ intermediates is currently drawing significant attention. In this review article, we will summarize these important aspects of the intimate connection between NAD+ and sirtuins in aging/longevity control.</jats:p

The Structure of the Indian Act: Accountability in Governance

There is a paradox in the Chief and Council governance scheme laid out in Canada\u27s Indian Act. This paper describes the paradox and suggests a way out utilizing self-governance initiatives. The Indian Act has been criticized for giving the Chief and Council too little power to make their own decisions. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples counted nearly 90 provisions that give the Minister of Indian Affairs powers over the Band and Band Council. But the Indian Act has also been criticized for giving the Chief and Council too much power to make decisions. Some people point out that Chief and Council do not have enough accountability to members of the community. In sum, the Indian Act is criticized for giving Chief and Council too little authority and with giving Chief and Council too much authority

Indigenous Self-Determination and the State

The right of indigenous self-determination is now accepted at both the national and international level, but the exercise of the right to self-determination does not connote any specific institutional arrangement. This chapter, from the forthcoming book, Indigenous Peoples and the Law: Comparative and Critical Perspectives (Hart Publishing, Oxford), describes a variety of arrangements in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Indigenous people have the greatest political autonomy in the sovereignty/self-government model found in the United States and in the latest self government agreements from Canada. The self- administration/self-management model provides for indigenous entities to deliver social services and educational services to their own communities. The co-management/joint management model provides for indigenous participation in the management of lands and resources. Finally, there are arrangements that provide for participation in public government. An example would be the guaranteed Maori seats in the legislature in Aotearoa/New Zealand

Sound Science, Careful Policy Analysis, and Ongoing Relationships: Integrating Litigation and Negotiation in Aboriginal Lands and Resources Disputes

Until recently, both courts and dispute resolvers have viewed negotiation and adjudication as two separate processes. What occurred in one process was considered largely irrelevant to what went on in the other. Recently, however, there has been a growing recognition that both processes must work together to resolve disputes over Aboriginal lands and resources. This paper weaves together the emerging trends in court decisions with the new thinking on dispute system design to set out a framework that maximizes the strengths of each process. In this framework, the courts are responsible not only for adjudicating on the substance of Aboriginal and treaty rights, but also for establishing standards for the negotiation process itself, thereby increasing the likelihood of a fair and durable resolution

Sound Science, Careful Policy Analysis, and Ongoing Relationships: Integrating Litigation and Negotiation in Aboriginal Lands and Resources Disputes

Until recently, both courts and dispute resolvers have viewed negotiation and adjudication as two separate processes. What occurred in one process was considered largely irrelevant to what went on in the other. Recently, however, there has been a growing recognition that both processes must work together to resolve disputes over Aboriginal lands and resources. This paper weaves together the emerging trends in court decisions with the new thinking on dispute system design to set out a framework that maximizes the strengths of each process. In this framework, the courts are responsible not only for adjudicating on the substance of Aboriginal and treaty rights, but also for establishing standards for the negotiation process itself, thereby increasing the likelihood of a fair and durable resolution

The Structure of the Indian Act: Accountability in Governance

There is a paradox in the Chief and Council governance scheme laid out in Canada\u27s Indian Act. This paper describes the paradox and suggests a way out utilizing self-governance initiatives. The Indian Act has been criticized for giving the Chief and Council too little power to make their own decisions. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples counted nearly 90 provisions that give the Minister of Indian Affairs powers over the Band and Band Council. But the Indian Act has also been criticized for giving the Chief and Council too much power to make decisions. Some people point out that Chief and Council do not have enough accountability to members of the community. In sum, the Indian Act is criticized for giving Chief and Council too little authority and with giving Chief and Council too much authority

Creating Disincentives to Negotiate: Mitchell v. M.N.R.\u27S Potential Effect on Dispute Resolution

The Supreme Court of Canada has often encouraged the Crown and Aboriginal parties to find negotiated solutions to their disputes. The complex social, political, economic and legal interests which are embedded in many sectors of the Canadian population are not best resolved in the context of legal proceedings. Courts should, however, do more than lament the lack of negotiations - they should make decisions that create incentives for high quality, effective dispute resolution processes. This article describes the framework for negotiation set out in R. v. Sparrow (on Aboriginal rights to fish), Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (on Aboriginal title to lands) and Marshall v. Canada (on treaty rights to fish). Those cases would provide incentives for the parties to negotiate. By contrast, in the case of Mitchell v. M.N.R. (exemption from duty on border crossing), the two judgments of the Supreme Court turn on the interpretation of history and the incompatibility with Canadian sovereignty. While it is not inappropriate to take those factors into account, the Court sets those up as threshold issues that need to be resolved before the Court would consider how to balance Aboriginal rights with Crown infringements. Unfortunately, the approach used in Mitchell will provide disincentives to negotiate workable accommodations for contemporary problems

The Adjudication of Historical Evidence: A Comment and and Elaboration on a Proposal by Justice Lebel

The appropriate forum and procedures for deciding whether Aboriginal and treaty rights exists has been troubling for courts. In the early years after the enactment of section 35, and today, in a significant number of cases, the issue was decided in criminal proceedings. Often charges were laid for hunting or fishing without a license, or out of season. Such was the case in R. v. Marshall and R. v. Bernard when the Supreme Court of Canada was required to consider an appeal of a conviction for a provincial offence related to logging. Justice LeBel mused about the appropriateness of criminal proceedings to determine matters that had wide spread consequences on people who were not parties to the proceedings. This article looks at the alternative of using civil proceedings to address these matters, and tentatively concludes that it would be feasible if supports, such as adequate funding, were put in place. However, the article raises a larger concern with the approach the Supreme Court of Canada takes on history. In this case, and in others, the Court is attempting to read history in order to make a determination on the contemporary balance between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal access to resources. This approach necessarily distorts history and sometimes results in puzzling conclusions. The article ends by contemplating a future process that could give full recognition to historical realities in order to inform contemporary rights

Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada: Signed by Eighty-Six Proffesors Calling For Independent Investigation of Allegations Against Mining Companies

As part of Prof. Imai\u27s push to encourage the government to establish an ombudsperson for the extractive sector