Negative Ethics: Taking the Bad with the Good. An Introduction

Ce numéro thématique envisage à nouveaux frais l’anthropologie de l’éthique à partir de son versant « négatif ». L’anthropologie fait souvent abstraction de l’immoralité dans son étude de l’éthique, privilégiant l’examen du « bien » et des pratiques positives d’expression de soi. Cette omission reflète une tendance plus large de la discipline à considérer la socialité comme intrinsèquement positive ou bienveillante. A contrario, nous réfléchissons ici à quoi ressemblerait la vie morale si nous l’analysions à partir de l’étude des actes répréhensibles, des mauvaises conduites, des infractions sociales et des angoisses que celles-ci suscitent. S’attacher aux aspects négatifs de la vie sociale montre que le jugement éthique comporte une forte dimension positionnelle : le fait qu’une chose paraisse bonne ou mauvaise est souvent une question de perspective. Une approche perspectiviste de la vie morale nous permet de considérer simultanément le bon et le mauvais à travers l’analyse de l’usage situé et réflexif des concepts éthiques par nos interlocuteurs. Contrairement à la position dominante dans la discipline, nous soutenons que l’action sociale négative et immorale ne corrode pas la vie sociale, mais en est plutôt génératrice : par la tentation, en provoquant l’indignation, en galvanisant l’action et en incitant l’innovation en matière de conventions éthiques. Nous identifions cinq modes d’activation de la vie sociale par le négatif : comme fondement de la socialité ; comme point focal de l’action sociale ; comme échec/incapacité à répondre aux attentes ; comme frisson illicite ; et comme expression glaciale des relations. Revenant sur la tendance anthropologique anglophone à conceptualiser le social comme implicitement bon, nous suggérons de se défaire d’une telle normativité au moyen d’une « misanthropologie » stratégique. En abordant les relations sociales par le biais de la méfiance et des inquiétudes morales de nos interlocuteurs à leur égard, nous pouvons réenvisager la vie humaine d’une manière qui oblige ensemble le mal et le bien.This special issue re-envisages the anthropology of ethics from the point of view of “the negative”. Anthropology often overlooks immorality in its study of ethics, privileging “the good” and people’s positive practices of self-cultivation. This elision reflects a broader tendency within the discipline towards viewing sociality as inherently positive or benign. What might moral life look like, we ask, if we begin our analyses with the study of wrongdoing, misconduct, social trespasses, and people’s anxieties about them? Attending to these negative aspects of social life highlights that there is a strong positional dimension to ethical evaluation: whether something appears good or bad is often a matter of perspective. A perspectival approach to moral life allows us to keep the bad and good in view simultaneously through the analysis of our interlocutors’ situated, reflexive use of ethical ideas as conceptual objects. Contrary to dominant disciplinary common sense, we argue that negative, immoral social action and evaluation does not undermine social life, but rather is generative of it: tempting people, provoking outrage, galvanising action, and prompting innovation around ethical conventions. We identify five patterns in how the negative sets social life in motion: as the foundation of sociality; as a focal point for social action; as failure/falling short; as illicit frisson; and as a frosty quality of relations. Returning to the Anglophone anthropological tendency to conceptualise the social as implicitly good, we suggest divesting such normativity through a strategic “misanthropology”. Approaching social relations from the perspective of our interlocutors’ distrust and moral anxieties about them allows us to re-envision human life in ways that take the bad with the good.

The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data

The FLUXNET2015 dataset provides ecosystem-scale data on CO2, water, and energy exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, and other meteorological and biological measurements, from 212 sites around the globe (over 1500 site-years, up to and including year 2014). These sites, independently managed and operated, voluntarily contributed their data to create global datasets. Data were quality controlled and processed using uniform methods, to improve consistency and intercomparability across sites. The dataset is already being used in a number of applications, including ecophysiology studies, remote sensing studies, and development of ecosystem and Earth system models. FLUXNET2015 includes derived-data products, such as gap-filled time series, ecosystem respiration and photosynthetic uptake estimates, estimation of uncertainties, and metadata about the measurements, presented for the first time in this paper. In addition, 206 of these sites are for the first time distributed under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) license. This paper details this enhanced dataset and the processing methods, now made available as open-source codes, making the dataset more accessible, transparent, and reproducible.Peer reviewe

Variants in GNAI1 cause a syndrome associated with variable features including developmental delay, seizures, and hypotonia

Purpose: Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) encompass a spectrum of genetically heterogeneous disorders with features that commonly include developmental delay, intellectual disability, and autism spectrum disorders. We sought to delineate the molecular and phenotypic spectrum of a novel neurodevelopmental disorder caused by variants in the GNAI1 gene. Methods: Through large cohort trio-based exome sequencing and international data-sharing, we identified 24 unrelated individuals with NDD phenotypes and a variant in GNAI1, which encodes the inhibitory Gαi1 subunit of heterotrimeric G-proteins. We collected detailed genotype and phenotype information for each affected individual. Results: We identified 16 unique variants in GNAI1 in 24 affected individuals; 23 occurred de novo and 1 was inherited from a mosaic parent. Most affected individuals have a severe neurodevelopmental disorder. Core features include global developmental delay, intellectual disability, hypotonia, and epilepsy. Conclusion: This collaboration establishes GNAI1 variants as a cause of NDDs. GNAI1-related NDD is most often characterized by severe to profound delays, hypotonia, epilepsy that ranges from self-limiting to intractable, behavior problems, and variable mild dysmorphic features

Climate control of terrestrial carbon exchange across biomes and continents

Peer reviewe

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Bad Binaries and Negative Strategies: A Brief Reply to Didier Fassin and Marilyn Strathern

We thank Didier Fassin and Marilyn Strathern for their generous and generative responses to the volume. Fassin and Strathern both identify the complexity of embarking on an anthropological study of “negative ethics”, and the productive limitations of disciplinary practices of representation, particularly as they pertain to ethical evaluation. Both authors raise important questions about how we make use of concepts to analyse moral life. In this reply, we address three of their helpful prompts..

Collaborating with health economists to advance implementation science: a qualitative study.

BackgroundImplementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations.MethodsA purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants' experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations.ResultsHealth economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research.ConclusionsHealth economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another's work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another's disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research