To evaluate early embryo development, 248 good to excellent bovine morulae were cultured in Ham's F-10 medium, supplemented with 10% steer serum, uterine flushings from Days 6, 10 or 15 following estrus (0.01, 0.1, 1.0 and 10% protein; 64 mg protein/ml), and 1.0% uterine flushings and 10% steer serum. Final development scores for embryos in steer serum were significantly higher (range across experiments was: 4.06 to 4.37) than for embryos cultured in uterine flushings alone (-0.23 to 0.52). Treatment means were not different (P >0.05) when 10% steer serum was added to 1.0% uterine flushings. A higher percentage of embryos in 10% steer serum (92%) than in 10% steer serum plus 1.0% uterine flushing from Day 6 (33%), Day 10 (45%) and Day 15 (50%) developed to hatched blastocysts. Embryos cultured in 1.0% Day 6 uterine flushings plus 10% steer serum required more time to attain the early blastocyst and blastocyst stages, while embryos in 1.0% Day 15 uterine flushings and 10% steer serum developed at the same rate as controls to the expanded blastocyst stage, but hatched sooner (72.8 vs 96.5 h). These results suggest substance(s) in uterine secretions can have inhibitory and stimulatory influences on early bovine embryo development.

This paper reviews the extant empirical studies of financial innovation. Adopting broad criteria, the authors found just two dozen studies, over half of which (fourteen) had been conducted since 2000. Since some financial innovations are examined by more than one study, only fourteen distinct phenomena have been covered. Especially striking is the fact that only two studies are directed at the hypotheses advanced in many broad descriptive articles concerning the environmental conditions (e.g., regulation, taxes, unstable macroeconomic conditions, and ripe technologies) spurring financial innovation. The authors offer some tentative conjectures as to why empirical studies of financial innovation are comparatively rare. Among their suggested culprits is an absence of accessible data. The authors urge financial regulators to undertake more surveys of financial innovation and to make the survey data more available to researchers.

This paper reviews the extant empirical studies of financial innovation. Adopting broad criteria and spanning a long time horizon, we found surprisingly few studies (39), with most (23) having been conducted since 1998. Especially striking is that only two studies test hypotheses advanced in many descriptive articles as to the economic/environmental conditions that encourage financial innovation. We offer conjectures as to why empirical studies of financial innovation are comparatively rare, including as a culprit the absence of accessible data. We urge financial regulators to undertake more surveys of financial innovation and to make the resulting data available to researchers.

Experimental economists are leaving the reservation. They are recruiting subjects in the field rather than in the classroom, using field goods rather than induced valuations, and using field context rather than abstract terminology in instructions. We argue that there is something methodologically fundamental behind this trend. Field experiments differ from laboratory experiments in many ways. Although it is tempting to view field experiments as simply less controlled variants of laboratory experiments, we argue that to do so would be to seriously mischaracterize them. What passes for “control” in laboratory experiments might in fact be precisely the opposite if it is artificial to the subject or context of the task. We propose six factors that can be used to determine the field context of an experiment: the nature of the subject pool, the nature of the information that the subjects bring to the task, the nature of the commodity, the nature of the task or trading rules applied, the nature of the stakes, and the environment that subjects operate in.