No abstract

Twin studies have revealed political ideology to be partially heritable. Neurological research has shown that ideological differences are reflected in brain structure and response, suggesting a direct genotype-phenotype link. Social and informational environments, however, also demonstrably affect brain structure and response. This leads to a ''chicken-and-egg'' question: do genes produce brains with ideological predispositions, causing the preferential absorption of consonant information and thereby forming an ideology, or do social and informational environments do most of the heavy lifting, with genetic evidence the spurious artifact of outdated methodology? Or are both inextricably intertwined contributors? This article investigates the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to ideological development using a role-play experiment investigating the development of opinions on a novel political issue. The results support the view that the process is bidirectional, suggesting that, like most traits, political ideology is produced by the complex interplay of genetic and (social/informational) environmental influences.

The Portuguese courts sentenced convicts to penal transportation, which was an integral part of Brazil's early settlement. After independence, Brazil devised different punishments for slave and free convicts despite its liberal constitution and penal code. Brazil's emperor Pedro II brought about a de facto end to the death penalty in 1876 followed by a de jure abolition of capital punishment in 1890. In the late twentieth century new criminal organizations emerged from Brazil's overcrowded prisons where guerrilla insurgents influenced common criminals to form new more highly organized criminal organizations. The rapid growth of Brazil's prisons sped the growth of these organizations that have members in and outside prisons.

KEY SPEECHFederalism presented an attractive model for young Australia. Preserving the autonomy of colonies through the retention of state governments and the establishment of a bicameral Commonwealth parliament with a 'states' house' helped to counter the suspicion of central government. But as a system of government, federalism requires coordination and cooperation between the layers of government. In the history of Australia's federation there are examples that show times of strong cooperation and coordination between the states and the Commonwealth. However more and more, our federation does not enjoy cooperation or coordination on issues of vital importance to all Australians. I believe it is time to look at the way our system of federalism works. We require a mechanism to facilitate coordination and cooperation between the layers of government.

No abstract