Search

Opioid users experience increased incidence of infection, which may be partially attributable to both direct opiate-immune interactions and conditioned immune responses. Previous studies have investigated the neural circuitry governing opioid conditioned immune responses, but work remains to elucidate the mechanisms mediating this effect. Our laboratory has previously shown that hippocampal IL-1 signaling, specifically, is required for the expression of heroin conditioned immunosuppression following learning. The current studies were designed to further characterize the role of hippocampal IL-1 in this phenomenon by manipulating IL-1 during learning. Experiment 1 tested whether hippocampal IL-1 is also required for the acquisition of heroin conditioned immunosuppression, while Experiment 2 tested whether hippocampal IL-1 is required for the expression of unconditioned heroin immunosuppression. We found that blocking IL-1 signaling in the dorsal hippocampus with IL-1RA during each conditioning session, but not on interspersed non-conditioning days, significantly attenuated the acquisition of heroin conditioned immunosuppression. Strikingly, we found that the same IL-1RA treatment did not alter unconditioned immunosuppression to a single dose of heroin. Thus, IL-1 signaling is not a critical component of the response to heroin but rather may play a role in the formation of the association between heroin and the context. Collectively, these studies suggest that IL-1 signaling, in addition to being involved in the expression of a heroin conditioned immune response, is also involved in the acquisition of this effect. Importantly, this effect is likely not due to blocking the response to the unconditioned stimulus since IL-1RA did not affect heroin’s immunosuppressive effects.

The European-funded Framework Programme 7 project, Joint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture (JOLISAA), assessed agricultural innovation experiences focused on smallholders in Benin, Kenya, and South Africa. Fifty-six cases were characterized through review of grey literature and interviews with resource persons, according to a common analytical framework inspired by the innovation systems (IS) perspective. Thirteen of the cases were assessed in greater depth through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and multistakeholder workshops. The cases covered a wide diversity of experiences in terms of types, domains, scales, timelines, initiators of innovation and stakeholders involved. Findings revealed multiple triggers and drivers of innovation. For external stakeholders, key triggers included likelihood of offering a technological fix to an existing problem and availability of funding. For local people, access to input and output markets was a powerful trigger and driver. Market types and dynamics varied greatly. Developing functional value chains and accessing markets proved particularly challenging, especially for poorer and weakly organized farmers. Over long periods, determinants of innovation changed dynamically and often unpredictably, including motivations of key stakeholders, triggers, drivers and stakeholder arrangements. The direction of innovation evolved, often moving from a technology entry point to more organizational or institutional issues. A recurring challenge for fostering innovation is whether and how to build on local initiatives and knowledge, and how to sustain externally driven innovation processes beyond the project time frame. A major conclusion from JOLISAA is that innovation has to be seen as a continuously evolving process of ‘innovation bundles’ (a combination of different types of innovation) of various kinds, rather than as a pre-planned, and usually, narrowly-defined technical intervention. Consequently, open-ended, flexible approaches to innovation are needed with the potential to engage meaningfully over a long time with local stakeholders and bearers of local innovation dynamics, so that they take full charge of the innovation process and direction.

Through a European Union funded project called JOLISAA (Joint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture), the nature of smallholder oriented innovation systems have been explored in terms of partnerships, triggers that have given rise to them and the nature of the innovations themselves. The main objective was to analyse a broad diversity of multi-stakeholder agricultural innovation processes involving smallholders. The analysis of 11 cases documented comprises innovation bundles composed of technical, organisational and institutional innovations. The eleven cases documented showed that six exhibited non-technical innovation processes frequently related to market access as well as to inputs and services. Triggers that drive smallholders and other stakeholders to initiate innovation processes include environment stress, introduction of new technologies, identification of market change as well as policy or regulatory changes. The cases that have been documented show a variation of stakeholders responsible for initiating the process. In some cases it was smallholders approaching other stakeholders for assistance with addressing a challenge, while in other cases it was researchers or extensionists who undertook to develop an innovation to address a challenge that they had encountered through their interaction with smallholders. All documented cases have involved the contribution of ideas, knowledge and skills by at least three different types of stakeholders and the role of local knowledge has been acknowledge through the study. Out of the eleven cases three cases have been selected for a collaborative case assessment which strives to assess further key issues such as actual roles and contributions of various role-players, the dynamics of the innovation process and outcome. Several opportunities arise for joint learning with small scale farmers.

Within the context of the European-funded JOLISAA FP7 project (JOint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture), several agricultural innovation experiences focused on smallholders were assessed in Benin, Kenya and South Africa. Fifty-six cases were characterised through review of grey literature and interviews with resource persons according to a common analytical framework inspired by the innovation systems perspective. Of these, 13 were assessed in greater depth through semistructured interviews, focus-group discussions and multistakeholder workshops. The cases cover a wide diversity of experiences in terms of types, domains, scales, timelines, initiators of innovation and stakeholders involved. Findings indicate that innovation triggers and drivers were multiple. For external stakeholders, likelihood of offering a technological fix to an existing problem and availability of funding were key triggers. For local people, access to input and output markets was a powerful trigger and driver. Market types and dynamics varied greatly. Developing functional value chains and accessing (often erratic) markets proved challenging especially for poorer and weakly organised farmers. Over long periods, many determinants of innovation change dynamically and often unpredictably during the process, including motivations of key stakeholders, triggers, drivers and stakeholder arrangements. The direction of innovation evolves, usually moving from a technology entry point to more organisational or institutional innovation. A recurring challenge for making interventions is whether and how these build on local initiatives and knowledge before engaging in innovation development. Another challenge lies in sustaining innovation processes that have been externally initiated and conducted within a protected environment, once the project stops. The conclusion is that innovation has to be seen as a continuously evolving bundle of innovations of various kinds, rather than as a pre-planned and usually narrowly defined intervention. Consequently, open-ended, flexible approaches to innovation development are needed with the potential to engage meaningfully over a long time with local stakeholders, so that they take full charge of the innovation process and direction.

Farmer-led Documentation (FLD) is a farmer driven process that enables farmers to share experiences and issues with others. The FLD process was tested to determine its effectiveness in projects where farmers, extension and research need to collaborate closely when farmers experiment while adapting technologies. Training on FLD, camera maintenance and taking photographs was done during a workshop, and further supported during follow-up visits through the season. The final feedback workshop enabled farmers to share the content of their photographs, as well as their experiences with FLD and photography. Farmers discussed activities they had undertaken and the results of their research, experiences with traditional leafy vegetables, management systems, crop experiences, and ways of handling pests and diseases. Farmers stated that they learnt new production methods from the sharing process and were exposed to methods used by people from different areas. FLD, when actively supported by local stakeholders, could enable farmers to share their knowledge with each other and discuss relevant issues with decision makers in their regions.