The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing restrictions/lockdowns have caused significant physical and psychological consequences for people with cognitive impairment who are heavily dependent on their care-givers. However, little is known about the impact on care-givers, the factors that exacerbate their situation and what supports they need. The aims of this paper are threefold: (a) to examine the impact of COVID-19 physical restrictions on both formal and informal care-givers of people with cognitive impairment; (b) to identify attributing factors influencing this impact; and (c) to recognise their support needs. Further, this paper informs future research, policy and practice. Guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute framework, a systematic review was conducted using a mixed-methods convergent integrated approach. Eight databases were searched using keywords related to COVID-19 restriction, dementia care-givers, impacts and care settings, followed by a manual search. The study was limited to primary research published in English between January 2020 and December 2021. Of the 840 records identified, 30 met the inclusion criteria. Service withdrawal and social distancing has effectively led to the reprivatisation of care to the family, particularly women. Care-givers experienced negative impacts including reduced psychological wellbeing and physical health, increased care burden and financial difficulties. A number of clinical attributes and socio-demographic factors influenced the COVID-19 impact on care-givers. Consequently, counselling services, assistance with care and financial support were identified as support needs. Implementation of new support and the strengthening of existing services are recommended to enhance resilience, build capacity to support care-givers in any given situation and mitigate the effects of future outbreaks.

Whereas there has been considerable debate about the social context of Darwin's theory of natural selection, much less focus has been placed upon Alfred Russel Wallace. This article looks at Wallace's socialism and, in particular, the influence upon his thought of the early nineteenth-century socialist Robert Owen. It argues that a case can be made for seeing Wallace's thought about nature and natural selection in the years up to 1858 in the context of Owenism. Three aspects of his thought are singled out for examination. These are, first, Wallace's views on the role of instinct in animal and human behaviour; second, the idea of colonization in human society and in nature; and third, a re-examination of the role of Malthus in Wallace's thought, emphasizing the influence upon him of the early nineteenth-century socialist critique of Malthusianism.

Malthus, Medicine and Morality is a collection of essays marking the bicentenary of the publication of Thomas Robert Malthus's Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. They vary considerably in subject matter, as is inevitable given the nature of Malthus's work. The Essay managed to be both a scientific investigation into demographic history and an intervention into the political debates on the French Revolution. It built its argument on a particular theory of mind and human behavior. Because it linked wealth and poverty to population, the Essay became part of the political economy of the time. Malthus gave his name, though not his imprimatur, to the birth-control movement in the nineteenth century. Not only were the Essay's arguments widely and approvingly quoted at the time, they also provoked a resolutely anti-Malthusian current of thought. Though the Essay's argument is apparently simple, this obscures a wealth of ambiguity and dense argumentation in the text, made more so by the constant revisions Malthus carried out for subsequent editions. What this collection does is to begin to deconstruct Malthus and unravel all the various elements that make up the phenomenon of “Malthusianism.”

In 1913 part of the enormous fortune of the American millionaire John D. Rockefeller was put aside for philanthropic and charitable purposes under the direction of the Rockefeller Foundation. Throughout the twentieth century the Rockefeller Foundation disbursed money to a wide range of economic, scientific and artistic projects. Among its interests were health and medical research, and Rockefeller invested funds in public health programmes throughout the world for the eradication of particular diseases or to strengthen the effectiveness of existing public health structures.

The Rockefeller Foundation was also interested in providing aid for the reorganisation and modernisation of medical education. It was, however, loath to part with any of its monies unless it was assured of the political and social stability of a country, and also of the competence, honesty and good intentions of those to whom it entrusted funds. In order to assess this, the officers of the Rockefeller Foundation visited potential recipients. They reported back to the New York headquarters of the Foundation on the political and social background of the countries to which assistance might be given and also on the feasibility of the programmes of assistance devised to help them.

In 1927 a classic textbook of human genetics made the following remark:

This view was typical of a large constituency of opinion-formers, policy-makers and scientists in the period from the late nineteenth until the middle of the twentieth century. Anxiety about the social effects of bad heredity led to the formation of eugenics societies in a considerable number of countries. These included the Eugenics Education Society of London in 1907, the German Society for Race Hygiene in 1905, the American Eugenics Society in 1912, and, in the same year, the French Eugenics Society. By the 1920s eugenics societies could be found in the Soviet Union (a legacy from Tsarist times), Mexico, Scandinavia, Brazil, Japan, and many other countries.