Medieval Philology and Nationalism: The British and German Editors of Thomas of Erceldoune

The reception of the late fourteenth-century romance/lay/ballad Thomas of Erceldoune by romantic enthusiasts, antiquarians, modernist philologists, and twentieth-century medievalists reveals the dangerous indebtedness of a quasi-scientific medieval philology to competing national paradigmatic constructions (German, English, Scottish) on the one hand and the ongoing foundational value of philological work for current medieval textual scholarship on the other. Thus, while debunking the disinterestedness claimed by modernist philology, the essay attests to the enduring success of philological editorial practice regarding this specific late medieval poem

Introduction

In the spring semester of 2007, I offered a graduate seminar investigating the The Arthurian Legend in English Literature and Culture at the University of Northern Iowa. In order to extend the scope of the class beyond the area of English studies and to provide participants with a chance to showcase their scholarship to a wider audience than themselves and their instructor, I organized a conference, entitled Culture and the Medieval King, which invited contributions from graduate students and advanced undergraduate students to present papers on all cultural manifestations of King Arthur and Arthuriana in the Middle Ages as well as in postmedieval times. The cluster of essays in this Forum section makes available Dr. Kay Harris\u27s fascinating plenary speech as well as four excellent student contributions

Pilot study of the safety and effect of adalimumab on pain, physical function, and musculoskeletal disease in mucopolysaccharidosis types I and II.

Mucopolysaccharidosis I and II are lysosomal storage disorders that, despite treatment with hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and/or enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), continue to cause significant skeletal abnormalities leading to pain, stiffness, physical dysfunction, and short stature. Tumor necrosis factor - alpha (TNF-α) is elevated in individuals with MPS I and II and associated with pain and physical dysfunction. Therefore, we evaluated the safety and effects of the TNF-α inhibitor adalimumab in patients with MPS I and II in a 32-week, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of adalimumab at a dose of 20 mg (weight 15-<30 kg) or 40 mg (weight ≥ 30 kg) administered subcutaneously every other week or saline placebo for 16 weeks. Participants were evaluated at baseline, week 16, and week 32 with the Children's Health Questionnaire - Parent Form 50 (CHQ-PF50), the Pediatric Pain Questionnaire (PPQ), range-of-motion (ROM) measurements, anthropometry, six-minute walk test (6MWT), hand dynamometer, and laboratory evaluations for safety. The primary outcome was safety and primary efficacy outcome was bodily pain (BP) measured by the CHQ-PF50. Two subjects, one with MPS I and one with MPS II, completed the study. Adalimumab was well tolerated and there were no serious adverse events. Standardized BP scores for age and gender were higher (i.e. less pain) at the end of the treatment versus placebo phase for both subjects. Subject #1 became unblinded during treatment due to skin erythema. Behavior measured by both CHQ-PF50 and parental report improved during treatment compared to placebo in both subjects. ROM improved by > 5° in seven of eight joints in Subject #1 and five of eight joints in Subject #2 (range 7.0° to 52.8°). There was no change in the PPQ, 6MWT, or hand dynamometer. Data from this small pilot study suggest that treatment with adalimumab is safe, tolerable, and may improve ROM, physical function, and possibly pain, in children with MPS I or II. However, additional clinical trials are needed before this therapy should be recommended as part of clinical care

When grassroots innovation movements encounter mainstream institutions: implications for models of inclusive innovation

Grassroots innovation movements (GIMs) can be regarded as initiators or advocates of alternative pathways of innovation. Sometimes these movements engage with more established science, technology and innovation (STI) institutions and development agencies in pursuit of their goals. In this paper, we argue that an important aspect to encounters between GIMs and mainstream STI institutions is the negotiation of different framings of grassroots innovation and development of policy models for inclusive innovation. These encounters can result in two different modes of engagement by GIMs; what we call insertion and mobilization. We illustrate and discuss these interrelated notions of framings and modes of engagement by drawing on three case studies of GIMs: the Social Technologies Network in Brazil, and the Honey Bee Network and People's Science Movements in India. The cases highlight that inclusion in the context of GIMs is not an unproblematic, smooth endeavour, and involves diverse interpretations and framings, which shape what and who gets included or excluded. Within the context of increasing policy interest, the analysis of encounters between GIMs and STI institutions can offer important lessons for the design of models of inclusive innovation and development