Olvement with the National Political Union, Place described him as a `rogue’ and as `physically and morally a coward’. See D. J. Rowe (ed.), London Radicalism 1830 ?843: A Selection of the Papers of Francis Place (London, 1970), 48 ?64. 118Burney, `Making room at the public bar’, op. cit.117In 116Sprigge,of the Select Committee on Anatomy (London, 1828). For Wakley’s testimony, see 112?7. 120 R. Richardson, Death, Dissection and the Destitute (London, 1987), part 2. 121ibid., 219?8. 122 A Penny Paper by a Poor Man’s Advocate, 15 September 1832, 3.119ReportMayThe Lancet, libel and English medicine[H]ow can the poor people LM22A-4MedChemExpress LM22A-4 believe that those persons who support the corn laws, which prevent the labouring classes from possessing cheap bread ?how can they believe in the sincerity and disinterestedness of those very individuals, when they affect to support the science of anatomy, because it may confer great benefits on the poor? The people, we repeat, are not blind, stupid or mad . . . why is science forced upon that Torin 1MedChemExpress Torin 1 community while food is as strongly withheld? . . . Simply, because the laws relating to the members of the medical profession, as well as the laws affecting the poorer members of the community, have been enacted and enforced during the last forty years, by a series of boroughmongering governments, and their offsets in corruption ?a monopolising batch of boroughmongering medical corporations.123 Rarely had he sounded more like Cobbett.University of Roehampton123TheLancet, 17:435 (31 December 1831), 480.
Animals frequently use social information in making decisions [1?], but how does information transfer between group members? Although a human group might set up a highly structured voting procedure to allow for preference-pooling [5], animals must typically rely on behavioural cues to gain information about the decisions and actions of others. Theoretical and experimental studies of animal groups have shown that information transfer can be explained as the result of many simple local interactions between close neighbours [6?0]. In theory, such neighbour-following behaviour can explain collective decision-making [11,12]. Despite the fact that simulation models can reproduce many global-level aspects of the outcome of decision-making experiments, this does not imply that we know the underlying cues used by individual animals [13]. For example, quorum models have been applied in modelling the decisions of fish about whether to move to the left or right in a Y-maze [14 ?6]. In these models, the proportion of fish committing to move left is a sharply increasing nonlinear function of the number which have already committed to this choice [17]. A convincing theory supporting quorum-like responses has been developed based on a Bayesian analysis of what an individual within the group should believe based on the actions of others [18,19]. However, quorumAuthor for correspondence: R. P. Mann e-mail: [email protected] authors contributed equally to this study. Electronic supplementary material is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0794 or via http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org.2013 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionLicense http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org J. R. Soc. Interface 11:Figure 1. Image of the experimental arena showing the loc.Olvement with the National Political Union, Place described him as a `rogue’ and as `physically and morally a coward’. See D. J. Rowe (ed.), London Radicalism 1830 ?843: A Selection of the Papers of Francis Place (London, 1970), 48 ?64. 118Burney, `Making room at the public bar’, op. cit.117In 116Sprigge,of the Select Committee on Anatomy (London, 1828). For Wakley’s testimony, see 112?7. 120 R. Richardson, Death, Dissection and the Destitute (London, 1987), part 2. 121ibid., 219?8. 122 A Penny Paper by a Poor Man’s Advocate, 15 September 1832, 3.119ReportMayThe Lancet, libel and English medicine[H]ow can the poor people believe that those persons who support the corn laws, which prevent the labouring classes from possessing cheap bread ?how can they believe in the sincerity and disinterestedness of those very individuals, when they affect to support the science of anatomy, because it may confer great benefits on the poor? The people, we repeat, are not blind, stupid or mad . . . why is science forced upon that community while food is as strongly withheld? . . . Simply, because the laws relating to the members of the medical profession, as well as the laws affecting the poorer members of the community, have been enacted and enforced during the last forty years, by a series of boroughmongering governments, and their offsets in corruption ?a monopolising batch of boroughmongering medical corporations.123 Rarely had he sounded more like Cobbett.University of Roehampton123TheLancet, 17:435 (31 December 1831), 480.
Animals frequently use social information in making decisions [1?], but how does information transfer between group members? Although a human group might set up a highly structured voting procedure to allow for preference-pooling [5], animals must typically rely on behavioural cues to gain information about the decisions and actions of others. Theoretical and experimental studies of animal groups have shown that information transfer can be explained as the result of many simple local interactions between close neighbours [6?0]. In theory, such neighbour-following behaviour can explain collective decision-making [11,12]. Despite the fact that simulation models can reproduce many global-level aspects of the outcome of decision-making experiments, this does not imply that we know the underlying cues used by individual animals [13]. For example, quorum models have been applied in modelling the decisions of fish about whether to move to the left or right in a Y-maze [14 ?6]. In these models, the proportion of fish committing to move left is a sharply increasing nonlinear function of the number which have already committed to this choice [17]. A convincing theory supporting quorum-like responses has been developed based on a Bayesian analysis of what an individual within the group should believe based on the actions of others [18,19]. However, quorumAuthor for correspondence: R. P. Mann e-mail: [email protected] authors contributed equally to this study. Electronic supplementary material is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0794 or via http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org.2013 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionLicense http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org J. R. Soc. Interface 11:Figure 1. Image of the experimental arena showing the loc.