Individuals with clefts present considerably more dental anomalies than do individuals without clefts. We used dental development to subphenotype clefts with the goal of identifying cleft subgroups that could have specific genetic contributions. We examined 1000 individuals, 500 with clefts and 500 without. We used several clinical features, such as cleft completeness or incompleteness, laterality, and the presence of dental anomalies to assess each individual's cleft status. We performed chi-square and Fisher's exact tests to compare the frequencies of observed anomalies between individuals with and individuals without clefts, and among individuals with different cleft subphenotypes. Agenesis of the lateral incisor on the non-cleft side was the most remarkable observation, and may suggest that such cases could be considered incomplete forms of bilateral clefts of the lip.

/pdf/defining-subphenotypes-for-oral-clefts-based-on-dental-1edzngqfww.pdf

Defining Subphenotypes for Oral Clefts Based on Dental Development

Donald Davidson opens ‘Actions, Reasons, and Causes’ by asking, ‘What is the relation between a reason and an action when the reason explains the action by giving the agent's reason for doing what he did?’ His answer has generated some confusion about reasons for action and made for some difficulty in understanding the place for the agent's own reasons for acting, in the explanation of an action. I offer here a different account of the explanation of action, one that, though minimal and formal, preserves the proper role for the agent's own reasons for acting.

/pdf/xiv-reasons-for-action-21b7oktwuc.pdf

XIV—Reasons for Action

Davidson claims that nothing can count as a reason for a belief except another belief. This claim is challenged by McDowell, who holds that perceptual experiences can count as reasons for beliefs. I argue that McDowell fails to take account of a distinction between two different senses in which something can count as a reason for belief. While a non-doxastic experience can count as a reason for belief in one of the two senses, this is not the sense which is presupposed in Davidson’s claim. While I focus on McDowell’s view, the argument generalizes to other views which take experiences as reasons for belief.

Reasons for Belief

Children with oral clefts show a wide range of dental anomalies, adding complexity to understanding the phenotypic spectrum of orofacial clefting. The evidence is mixed, however, on whether the prevalence of dental anomalies is elevated in unaffected relatives and is mostly based on small samples. In the largest international cohort to date of children with nonsyndromic clefts, their relatives, and controls, this study characterizes the spectrum of cleft-related dental anomalies and evaluates whether families with clefting have a significantly higher risk for such anomalies compared with the general population. A total of 3,811 individuals were included: 660 cases with clefts, 1,922 unaffected relatives, and 1,229 controls. Dental anomalies were identified from in-person dental exams or intraoral photographs, and case-control differences were tested using χ2 statistics. Cases had higher rates of dental anomalies in the maxillary arch than did controls for primary (21% vs. 4%, P = 3 × 10−8) and permanent d...

/pdf/spectrum-of-dental-phenotypes-in-nonsyndromic-orofacial-4omcvd75qk.pdf

Spectrum of Dental Phenotypes in Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefting

Annual regrowth and edible biomass of two species of Atriplex and of Cassia sturtii after browsing

Reasons and reason

Background and justification

We recently addressed the following statement and questions on the strength and nature of anti-Semitism in the 1990s to a number of Jews and non-Jews throughout the world:

Talk of a ‘revival’ or ‘resurgence’ of anti-Semitism is now commonplace. This seems to be the result of developments in the former USSR and in Eastern and Central Europe since 1989, but also of increasing reports of anti-Semitic incidents taking place throughout Western Europe and similar problems emerging in North America, South America, Australia and South Africa.
1)	How serious is the recent ‘resurgence’ of anti-Semitism? Is this in any sense a global phenomenon? Is talk of a ‘revival of antisemitism’ justified?
2)	What are in your view the most important contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism? Should anti-Semitism still mainly be seen as a phenomenon of extreme right- and left-wing politics and ideology, or is contemporary anti-Semitism more seriously present in popular culture, within political and social elites, in the school playground?
3)	What role, if any, do you think the conflict between Israel and the Arab world is playing in fostering anti-Jewish sentiment? How important is the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism in this context? To what extent is anti-Semitism today taking the guise of anti-Zionism?
4)	Finally, if there is indeed an upsurge in antiswemitism, what do you think are its major causes? What part is nationalism, particularly in the Commonwealth of Independent States and in Eastern and Central Europe, playing in causing or exacerbating contemporary anti-Semitism? Do you agree that there was until recently a post-Holocaust taboo on anti-Semitism that has now been lifted?

Antisemitism in the 1990s: A Symposium

Process and history

German historians who relativize the Holocaust by claiming it is a ‘copy’ of Soviet atrocities demonstrate deep conceptual confusion. They ignore the concept of the singularity of historical events, draw inappropriate analogies between race and class and postulate a cause and effect relationship which does not exist. These arguments are unmistakably intended as apologetic; they falsely deprive Nazism and the Final Solution of their primary character.

Nathan Rotenstreich

Papers

Reasons and reason

Background and justification

Antisemitism in the 1990s: A Symposium

Process and history

The holocaust as a unique historical event