Social dilemmas among unequals

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Research via the DOI in this record.Direct reciprocity is a powerful mechanism for evolution of cooperation, based on repeated interactions. It requires that interacting individuals are sufficiently equal, such that everyone faces similar consequences when they cooperate or defect. Yet inequality is ubiquitous among humansand is generally considered to undermine cooperation and welfar. Most previous models of reciprocity neglect inequality. They assume that individuals are the same in all relevant aspects. Here we introduce a general framework to study direct reciprocity among unequals. Our model allows for multiple sources of inequality. Subjects can differ in their endowments, their productivities, and in how much they benefit from public goods. We find that extreme inequality prevents cooperation. But if subjects differ in productivity, some endowment inequality can be necessary for cooperation to prevail. Our mathematical predictions are supported by a behavioral experiment where we vary the subjects’ endowments and their productivities. We observe that overall welfare is maximized when the two sources of heterogeneity are aligned, such that more productive individuals receive higher endowments. In contrast, when endowments and productivities are misaligned, cooperation quickly breaks down. Our findings have implications for policy-makers concerned with equity, efficiency, and public goods provisioning.European Research Council Start GrantGraph GamesAustrian Science Fund (FWF)Office of Naval ResearchJohn Templeton FoundationISTFELLOW program

The organisation and delivery of health improvement in general practice and primary care: a scoping study

Background This project examines the organisation and delivery of health improvement activities by and within general practice and the primary health-care team. The project was designed to examine who delivers these interventions, where they are located, what approaches are developed in practices, how individual practices and the primary health-care team organise such public health activities, and how these contribute to health improvement. Our focus was on health promotion and ill-health prevention activities. Aims The aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the current extent of knowledge about the health improvement activities in general practice and the wider primary health-care team. The key objectives were to provide an overview of the range and type of health improvement activities, identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further empirical research. Our specific research objectives were to map the range and type of health improvement activity undertaken by general practice staff and the primary health-care team based within general practice; to scope the literature on health improvement in general practice or undertaken by health-care staff based in general practice and identify gaps in the evidence base; to synthesise the literature and identify effective approaches to the delivery and organisation of health improvement interventions in a general practice setting; and to identify the priority areas for research as defined by those working in general practice. Methods We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature. We followed a staged selection process involving reviews of titles and abstracts. This resulted in the identification of 1140 papers for data extraction, with 658 of these papers selected for inclusion in the review, of which 347 were included in the evidence synthesis. We also undertook 45 individual and two group interviews with primary health-care staff. Findings Many of the research studies reviewed had some details about the type, process or location, or who provided the intervention. Generally, however, little attention is paid in the literature to examining the impact of the organisational context on the way services are delivered or how this affects the effectiveness of health improvement interventions in general practice. We found that the focus of attention is mainly on individual prevention approaches, with practices engaging in both primary and secondary prevention. The range of activities suggests that general practitioners do not take a population approach but focus on individual patients. However, it is clear that many general practitioners see health promotion as an integral part of practice, whether as individual approaches to primary or secondary health improvement or as a practice-based approach to improving the health of their patients. Our key conclusion is that there is currently insufficient good evidence to support many of the health improvement interventions undertaken in general practice and primary care more widely. Future Research Future research on health improvement in general practice and by the primary health-care team needs to move beyond clinical research to include delivery systems and be conducted in a primary care setting. More research needs to examine areas where there are chronic disease burdens – cancer, dementia and other disabilities of old age. Reviews should be commissioned that examine the whole prevention pathway for health problems that are managed within primary care drawing together research from general practice, pharmacy, community engagement, etc

Degree and site of chromosomal instability define its oncogenic potential

Most human cancers are aneuploid, due to a chromosomal instability (CIN) phenotype. Despite being hallmarks of cancer, however, the roles of CIN and aneuploidy in tumor formation have not unequivocally emerged from animal studies and are thus still unclear. Using a conditional mouse model for diverse degrees of CIN, we find that a particular range is sufficient to drive very early onset spontaneous adenoma formation in the intestine. In mice predisposed to intestinal cancer (ApcMin/+), moderate CIN causes a remarkable increase in adenoma burden in the entire intestinal tract and especially in the distal colon, which resembles human disease. Strikingly, a higher level of CIN promotes adenoma formation in the distal colon even more than moderate CIN does, but has no effect in the small intestine. Our results thus show that CIN can be potently oncogenic, but that certain levels of CIN can have contrasting effects in distinct tissues