Santayana's Axiom: The South Dakota State Medical Association and Medical Practice Legislation in 1929 and 2017.

In 1928 members of the South Dakota State Medical Association (SDSMA or the Association) held a special meeting in Huron to consider a basic science bill that conformed "…in its entirety to the conditions existing in our state." Their draft bill proposed a standardized examination for all practitioners of the healing arts. A legislative committee, with its attorney, "…was in Pierre during the early part of the 1929 legislative session to make sure the bill was properly launched and in effective channels." Shortly after its introduction, the bill was withdrawn due to opposition from one SDSMA district whose legislative representatives were among the most influential in the legislature. A similar bill promoted by the SDSMA in 1933 also failed. It would be another six years before a basic science bill was enacted by the legislature. Eighty-nine years later, a bill governing the practice of certified nurse practitioners (NP) and certified nurse midwives (NM), including a board independent of the South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners, was considered (Senate Bill 61). Introduced by a senator who characterized herself as representing the "House of Nursing," the bill challenged "…the overarching role that medicine thinks and perceives that they may have regarding advanced practice nursing practice." SB 61 passed in the senate and house and was signed by the governor. For this legislation in the 1930s and in 2017, the SDSMA's interest was defining and maintaining control of medical practice under the twin rubrics of quality and patient welfare. In both circumstances, legislators and other health care professional organizations contested not only the SDSMA's motivations, but also the evidence supporting their efforts. Our research explored (1) whether the collective viewpoints and conduct of the legislature, the SDSMA, and non-physician medical professionals are comparable in the two circumstances; and (2) if the circumstances are comparable, can we derive a useful concept or theme that could help guide the SDSMA in the future?

Games as Tools to Address Conservation Conflicts.

Conservation conflicts represent complex multilayered problems that are challenging to study. We explore the utility of theoretical, experimental, and constructivist approaches to games to help to understand and manage these challenges. We show how these approaches can help to develop theory, understand patterns in conflict, and highlight potentially effective management solutions. The choice of approach should be guided by the research question and by whether the focus is on testing hypotheses, predicting behaviour, or engaging stakeholders. Games provide an exciting opportunity to help to unravel the complexity in conflicts, while researchers need an awareness of the limitations and ethical constraints involved. Given the opportunities, this field will benefit from greater investment and development.