<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><br></div><div>Dear colleagues,<br><br>I am happy to announce the release of the latest issue of the IEEE CIS Newsletter on Cognitive and Developmental Systems (open access).<br>This is a biannual newsletter addressing the sciences of developmental and cognitive processes in natural and artificial organisms, from humans to robots, at the crossroads of cognitive science, developmental psychology, machine intelligence and neuroscience. <br><br>It is available at: <a href="http://goo.gl/KBA9o6">http://goo.gl/KBA9o6</a><br><br>Featuring dialog:<br>=== "Moving Beyond Nature-Nurture: a Problem of Science or Communication?"<br>== Dialog initiated by John Spencer, Mark Blumberg and David Shenk</div><div>with responses from: <span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 19px; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Bob McMurray, Scott Robinson, Patrick Bateson, Eva Jablonka, Stephen Laurence and Eric Margolis, Bart de Boer, Gert Westermann, Peter Marshall, Vladimir Sloutsky, Dan Dediu, Jedebiah Allen and Mark Bickhard, Rick Dale and Anne Warlaumont and Michael Spivey.</span><br>== Topic: In spite of numerous scientific discoveries supporting the view of development as a complex multi-factored process, the discussions of development in several scientific fields and in the general public are still strongly organized around the nature/nurture distinction. Is this because there is not yet sufficient scientific evidence, or is this because the simplicity of the nature/nurture framework is much easier to communicate (or just better communicated by its supporters)? Responses show a very stimulating diversity of opinions, ranging from defending the utility of keeping the nature/nurture framing to arguing that biology has already shown its fundamental weaknesses for several decades.<br><br>Call for new dialog:<br>=== "What is Computational Reproducibility?"<br>== Dialog initiated by Olivia Guest and Nicolas Rougier<br>== This new dialog initiation explores questions and challenges related to openly sharing computational models, especially when they target to advance our understanding of natural phenomena in cognitive, biological or physical sciences: What is computational reproducibility? How shall codebases be distributed and included as a central element of mainstream publication venues? How to ensure computational models are well specified, reusable and understandable? Those of you interested in reacting to this dialog initiation are welcome to submit a response by November 10th, 2016. The length of each response must be between 600 and 800 words including references (contact <a href="mailto:pierre-yves.oudeyer@inria.fr">pierre-yves.oudeyer@inria.fr</a>).</div><div><br>Let me remind you that all issues of the newsletter are all open-access and available at: <a href="http://icdl-epirob.org/cdsnl">http://icdl-epirob.org/cdsnl</a><br><br>I wish you a stimulating reading!<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Pierre-Yves Oudeyer,<br><br>Editor of the IEEE CIS Newsletter on Cognitive and Developmental Systems<br>Chair of the IEEE CIS AMD Technical Committee on Cognitive and Developmental Systems<br>Research director, Inria<br>Head of Flower project-team<br>Inria and Ensta ParisTech, France<br><a href="http://www.pyoudeyer.com/">http://www.pyoudeyer.com</a><br><a href="https://flowers.inria.fr/">https://flowers.inria.fr</a><br><a href="http://www.poppy-project.org/">http://www.poppy-project.org</a></div><div>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/pyoudeyer">https://twitter.com/pyoudeyer</a></div><div><br></div></body></html>