AIBS BioScience Editorials 3

An Edit Too Far

The article on the overlooked terrestrial impacts of mountaintop mining that appears on p. 335 of this issue provides a valuable overview of research on this destructive and polluting practice. The authors, James Wickham of the US Environmental Protection Agency's National Exposure Research Laboratory, Petra Bohall Wood of the US Geological Survey's (USGS) West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and eight others, draw attention to the dearth of research on terrestrial—as distinct from aquatic—effects of this mining technique. But readers of the article should know that, after it went through peer review, revision, approval by a BioScience editorial board member, formal acceptance, editing by BioScience staff, and approval of the edits by the authors, Wickham and Wood wrote BioScience to say that the USGS required a change before the article could be published.

The change that the USGS required was small, but it is worth describing. The authors had written in their discussion section that "Reliance on the framework established by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the law that established the requirement for an environmental assessment or an EIS [environmental impact statement] for actions proposed by US federal agencies that have the potential to affect the natural environment (CEQ 2007), seems to be appropriate for addressing the potential terrestrial impacts of mountaintop mining." That judgment was too much for the USGS: In the published version of the article, "seems to be appropriate" in the quoted sentence has been changed to "could be an appropriate option." The justification for the late change was a statement included in the (peer-reviewed, revised) version of the manuscript that it was "not yet approved for publication by the US Geological Survey." The inclusion of that statement in submitted articles, which gives the agency the right to demand post-peer-review changes such as this one, represents a change in the USGS's practice: The statement has not appeared on other manuscripts submitted by USGS authors.

The edit is irrelevant to scientific integrity, some might argue, since it affects a judgment about policy, rather than a strictly scientific conclusion. If the USGS had required censorship of or a change to a scientific conclusion, BioScience would not have published the article: AIBS has long championed scientific integrity policies at scientific federal agencies (see, e.g., www.aibs.org/position-statements/20100929_interior_scientific_integrity.html). In any case, according to one school of thought, policy preferences should not be expressed in scientific articles. On that view, we should thank the USGS for saving us from laxity.

Yet, it is hard for authors to discuss policies without revealing more or less directly which ones they favor (and most people would not want to read articles that revealed no such judgments). So, from an academic and editorial perspective, it is problematic for agencies to require the option of making changes after peer review. Some cases may be more difficult than this one to adjudicate. The policy says, in effect, that the agency does not trust its own scientists to maintain the integrity of a manuscript after submission. BioScience reserves the option to disallow any changes requested after a manuscript has been accepted, as it always has. Moreover, BioScience will in the future not accept revised manuscripts marked as subject to subsequent agency review.

TIMOTHY M. BEARDSLEY
Editor in Chief

BioScience 63: 315
doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.5.1

Talk About Biology—Online

Neuroscience researchers in the United States and Germany share a lack of enthusiasm for using social media and blogs to learn "information about scientific issues," according to the study reported by Joachim Allgaier and his colleagues on p. 284 of this issue. By a large margin, it appears that they prefer traditional media such as newspapers and radio to keep up to date. Yet, although few of those who responded to an online questionnaire used blogs and social media accounts themselves, a larger proportion nonetheless saw those sources as having a significant influence on public opinion and on political decisionmaking. In the United States, a majority of responding neuroscience researchers thought that blogs were significant in both arenas and that social networks significantly influenced public opinion. German researchers were somewhat more guarded in their assessments of the influence of new media, but even so, more of the German researchers thought that the new media had significant influence than were willing to make use of such media themselves.

A caveat is needed right away. Only about one in four researchers polled responded, after several solicitations, so there is plenty of room for selection bias to be skewing the results: Those who did not respond might have a lower opinion of or might be making more use of new media than those who did respond. But this seems unlikely, given that the solicitation was made through an e-mail message directing those interested to an online questionnaire. And the difference between estimation of influence and personal use of new media among the responders has to be explained in any case.

There is no particular reason to think that neuroscientists are exceptional among biologists in their opinions and use of social media and blogs. It seems likely that a similar pattern holds in other fields of biology and perhaps in science more broadly (although new data to confirm that would be welcome). And if someone is not using blogs and social media, he or she is probably not contributing to them either. Can biologists' disinclination to use such media, if that is what it is, be a good thing? Why so shy?

Our guess is that many researchers would say that they simply do not have the time to be active in informal online forums, given the importance of publishing peer-reviewed articles for professional advancement. And there are some venues where considered, fact-based opinions are likely to be drowned out by trolls. Yet, for all that, biologists would benefit their profession and their personal influence if they made the effort at least some of the time and selectively, rather than ceding the ground to blatantly antiscientific forces.

It is in this spirit that AIBS has launched a forum in which members can comment on selected articles published in BioScience, including that of Allgaier and colleagues, reachable by going to www.access.aibs.org. Moreover, AIBS has a Facebook page, and various members of staff tweet at twitter.com: @AIBSbiology, @AIBS_Policy, @tbeardsley. We hope that others interested in seeing biology contribute to informed decisionmaking will join in the online conversations.

TIMOTHY M. BEARDSLEY
Editor in Chief

BioScience 63: 239
doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.1

Just Act Normal

How can governments persuade their publics to participate in protecting the environment for the common good, even though the needed measures may be economically painful? In the article that begins on page 164, Ann P. Kinzig and a distinguished group of coauthors make a provocative proposal. They call for more study of the way people's identities are influenced by their behavior and the behavior of those around them. Governments, they suggest, should actively manage long-term changes in social and personal norms so as to promote responsible individual choices—and not only with traditional tools such as regulation.

Norms of cooperation are typically much stronger than proenvironment norms are, they note, so simple proenvironment messages are not likely to be the only or even the best way to change behavior. The authors remind readers that active norm management can be more subtle, as with the use of opt-out schemes to encourage participation in some socially desirable activity; making public revealing information (for example, ensuring that energy meters in apartment buildings are visible to all); and taxing (or subsidizing) specific choices. Kinzig and her colleagues assert, however, that little is known about the factors that lead to success in campaigns to affect behavior and point out that some efforts have been ineffective or have backfired (Prohibition is exhibit A). Academics should engage more with policymakers to devise strategies for long-term norm management, they argue, helpfully providing an agenda for life scientists.

It is often thought that attempts to influence norms should be restricted to policies that are already widely accepted. But the authors note that leadership may sometimes mean going beyond people's comfort zones (as President Lincoln did in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation), in the hope that norms will follow. And that boldness may make some readers feel queasy.

It is not hard to imagine how the ability to manage long-term norms effectively, if it is achievable, could be abused. It could suggest measures that would be undemocratic and lead to some groups being unfairly penalized. Some citizens might not (at first?) understand why and how certain choices were being encouraged with government sanction. Yet, Kinzig and her colleagues, acknowledging that apprehension, write that they "feel strongly" that their recommendations can be carried out in a way that abides by the principles of representative democracy, including transparency, fairness, and accountability.

For sure, governments already blatantly, if crudely, influence norms—for example, with campaigns to improve energy efficiency. And in doing so, they don't do anything that not-for-profit organizations, as well as corporations and charities, don't do. Just as the fear of possible harms from genetically modified organisms should not prevent careful development and testing of products, worries about possible abuses should not stop researchers from pursuing the proposal of Kinzig and her coauthors that academics pursue active norm management. Transparency will help avoid the most obvious dangers. The pressing need to improve environmental stewardship—not to mention other imperatives—demands nothing less. Their article should spur readers in many fields to think hard about how they might contribute.

AIBS members may log on to a discussion forum about the article at www.access.aibs.org by clicking on the link under "Join the Discussion."

TIMOTHY M. BEARDSLEY
Editor in Chief

BioScience 63: 151
doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.3.1

Building a Better Biology

A wise colleague once told me that colleges are permanent construction zones. He meant it literally—he said this as we were sidestepping a crane on a walk across campus—but also intended it figuratively. University communities are always building something, from new courses in our curricula to new knowledge in our laboratories. So it should be; there are always new students to teach, new ideas to test, and new discoveries to make.

The same dynamism characterizes the best scientific agencies, in or out of government, as well as the best professional associations and scientific societies. For these organizations, there are always new constituents to serve, new issues to confront, and new ways to communicate, inwardly and outwardly. And of course, the best agencies, associations, and societies are also permanent construction zones, because they adapt themselves to the needs of new constituents, the demands of new issues, and new opportunities for fulfilling their missions.

AIBS has been just such a construction zone for the last three years, as numerous reports and articles in BioScience have reported. We have rearticulated our mission and rejuvenated our commitment to that mission, particularly our commitment to listening to the community that we serve. We have modified our constitution and our bylaws and made changes in the ways in which officers and members of the Board are selected. We have embarked on new projects, experimented with new formats and themes for our annual meeting, and analyzed every facet of our operation in light of how it fulfills our mission and serves the community. Most important, we have developed a process for outcome-based decisions about our activities so that we will constantly be assessing everything we do in light of our mission and our commitments to the life-sciences community. This process ensures that AIBS will now be a permanent construction zone.

However, our goal is not to be a permanent construction zone for ourselves but to be a permanent construction zone for the life-sciences community. We want to improve the environment for the practice and teaching of the life sciences—no small goal these days. This will require as much hard work next year as it did in each of the last three years and as much hard work five years from now as next year. We also recognize that to be effective, we will need the same dynamism that characterizes the best universities, scientific agencies, and professional organizations. We must always be embracing new constituents, new issues, and new innovations in how we serve. And we will.

This year is the first in which AIBS will operate under its new governance structure. Our staff is invigorated, our board members are excited, and I am delighted to return for a two-year term as president. We have built a better AIBS, to be sure, and now we want AIBS to help the community build a better biology.

JOSEPH TRAVIS
President, AIBS

BioScience 63: 67
doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.2.1

Defending the Faith

For researchers of all stripes, the meat-cleaver approach to tackling the United States' unsustainable deficit that has been at the center of political wrangling in Washington, DC, represents an obvious threat. Unprecedented pressure to avert fallout from spending cuts, tax rises, and other measures that will result from awkward compromises forced by the so-called fiscal cliff means that research budgets will be pushed toward the chopping block despite President Obama's stated commitment to "doubling funding for key research agencies to support scientists and entrepreneurs." Critics argue, as presidential candidate Mitt Romney did last fall, that much innovation can be fostered at lower cost by forgoing increases in government support for research and instead removing barriers to investment by private industry, protecting intellectual property, removing regulatory burdens, and expanding job-training programs. Basic research does not translate directly into the desired economic growth, the skeptics note. And it is undeniably true that there are many more potent variables influencing economic growth in the short term. So those with a longer-term view about the importance of research ought to be ready with their arguments.

It is also true that the private sector accounts for the majority of research and development performed in the United States—71 percent in 2009, according the National Science Board's Research and Development, Innovation, and the Science and Engineering Workforce 2012 report. Yet, this is hardly a dependable or sufficient basis for supporting a national research agenda. For one thing, private sector investments in research and development (R&D) may decrease during times of economic distress. Indeed, the federal government increased its own R&D investments during the last two economic downturns and thus partially offset industry declines. And the private sector is unlikely to sufficiently support much basic research precisely because of the uncertainty about the economic potential of any one research project and because of the long lead time from research to innovation.

Consequently, the government has a key role in providing a knowledge base of transformative ideas. The Human Genome Project was a very visible exemplar of the power of a government-funded project, albeit with private sector competition, to spur the development of new technologies. Second-generation sequencing is now in turn transforming biology. Researchers should not miss opportunities to remind legislators and the public at large how their efforts underlie and encourage multiple ways of improving and protecting operations vital to the economy—the production of food, fuel, fiber, and medicines being just the most obvious ones. Yet, research will only be able to sustain its vital contributions if the institutions where it is practiced are allowed to thrive.

The National Science Board's report spells out how it is that public funding is essential to sustaining the excellence of public research institutions and how federally funded academic R&D is instrumental in creating and sustaining a world-class higher education system. The "knowledge-linking activities" fostered by universities cannot be individually and quickly switched on; they represent a developmental process that must be fostered over the long term. And, crucially, their importance is not adequately measured by economic returns alone. The verified knowledge that they can at their best assemble represents a long-term strategic benefit for humanity at large. The case for defending research even during hard times is therefore ethical as well as economic. Biologists would do well to summon all of the good reasons at their disposal to defend their vital contributions.

TIMOTHY M. BEARDSLEY
Editor in Chief

BioScience 63: 3
doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.1

Science n.0

The new millennium ushered in Web 2.0: a game changer. Virtual sharing, connecting, communicating, and collaborating change the way we connect as people in a global community and are profoundly changing the way we practice our science. The field and its professionals are evolving: embracing collaborative and social opportunities; diving into increasingly accessible volumes of data; adopting new technological tools that increase efficiency and make data more visual and revealing; building relationships no longer separated by geographic or political boundaries; engaging citizens across the nation and the world to contribute in the collection and analysis of information, in policy, and in collective action. Far past Science 2.0, we are evolving quickly toward the science of tomorrow and of future tomorrows—one of unforeseen possibilities—Science n.0.

Although technology is advancing us toward a future of great possibility, our nation struggles with bridging an ever-widening chasm between political ideologies, and science finds itself curiously caught in the middle. The irony is that with ubiquitous communication and technology that enables unsurpassed levels of connectedness, our political leaders have great difficulty finding common ground. Economic policy debates and aggressive political battles fought today will determine the course for our nation and our science for many years—if not decades—to come. Arbitrary cuts to federal research programs will slow innovation, hinder economic growth, and limit the creation of skilled jobs in the future. New economic opportunities are born from investments in science and research.

Not surprisingly, various constituencies are working in our nation's capital to ensure that lawmakers understand the impact of their decisions on different trades and professions. I am pleased to say that AIBS is working aggressively to protect and promote the interests of the biological sciences. We must not allow informed decisionmaking to become a lost art.

AIBS is responding to the changing technological, sociological, and political forces that are pushing and pulling at the edges of our field. This year, the organization launched a new strategic plan that redefines the role and mission of AIBS while still hewing to its original purpose. The plan, which launched in October of this year, speaks to many of the changes we have undergone in recent years to strengthen our position as an influencer on behalf of the field, to redefine our success, and to imagine a stronger biology bolstered by a collaborative community.

It is clear that the challenges ahead for biology are not ones that we can address in isolation. My call to action for biology in the coming years is that we, as a body of professionals, think big and be bold about the imperative for a stronger, more adaptable, and more responsive field for tomorrow. We must seize the opportunities offered us by the latest technologies to advance the practice of science as it is emerging (Science n.0) while simultaneously thriving in and embracing this emerging scientific landscape with its open, collaborative, and enabling nature.

It has been a great privilege to serve as president of AIBS during this dynamic period.

SUSAN G. STAFFORD
President, AIBS

BioScience 62: 1007
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.12.1

Seeing the Big Picture

Even before the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was published some seven years ago, forward-thinking governments and scientists recognized the importance of worldwide monitoring of ecosystem services. Yet, the MA served as an important wake-up call, because its global scope and clearly reported results made evident to governments of all stripes that degradation of the planet's ability to provide many key services was real and widespread. At the same time, the MA demonstrated that on many essential topics, the available data were insufficient for a complete understanding of the trends and their likely implications.

Despite its importance, the MA was a one-off effort—a snapshot of a complex process with many unknowns. As soon as its results became known, questions about what could follow it became hard to ignore. The complexities of international negotiations involving a plethora of organizations with an interest in environmental issues, not to mention the different perspectives of developing and developed nations, meant that progress has been slow. Yet, structures to coordinate scientific observations have been created, one of the most important being the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). GEOSS is a multipart entity that will develop data services for disasters, health, energy, climate, water, weather, ecosystems, and biodiversity. It is being designed by the Group on Earth Observations, an organization founded a decade ago that now includes about 90 governments.

A key network established under GEOSS is the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), some of whose activities were described in BioScience last year (see Ferrier 2011; doi:10.1525/ bio.2011.61.2.2). It has the principal goal of integrating satellite-derived and in situ biodiversity observations. GEO BON in turn consists of multiple working groups, one of which will focus on ecosystem services.

In the article that starts on p. 977 of this issue, Heather Tallis and her colleagues lay out an ambitious scheme for a global, multiscale effort to monitor ecosystem service change that will operate under the auspices of GEO BON. The vision is uplifting—some might say "breathtaking"—but the article usefully identifies key distinctions that must be observed in trying to analyze ecosystem services. It also points out some of the crucial gaps in available data and difficulties in combining them. If it cannot indicate solutions to the many difficulties that can be anticipated, it serves a useful purpose in laying out what they (now) appear to be. There are enough to occupy more than a few productive careers.

The difficulties will not all be technical. Questions about priorities will inevitably arise, and in order to earn continuing support from international sponsors, the initiative will have to play nicely with other international efforts that sit in the same space. Notable among these is the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), established earlier this year. IPBES, which compares itself to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and will have its first plenary meeting in Bonn next year, may have its own ideas about priorities. Still, Tallis and her coauthors indicate a readiness to collaborate with IPBES and other programs, as well as with the scientific community in general. There is hope that a fuller understanding of trends in ecosystem services will emerge and start to answer the burning questions that the MA raised.

TIMOTHY M. BEARDSLEY
Editor in Chief

BioScience 62: 935
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.1

Biofuels Reassessed

It is understandable that biologists would hope to see their field put to use creating new sources of energy. The idea of fuels created by living organisms—while they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere!—has appeal. But thoughtful critics have pointed to a raft of problems that quickly arise, mainly because it takes a lot of land, a lot of water, and a lot of energy to produce biofuel crops and convert them into usable fuels. The displacement of food crops by biofuels has already increased food prices, and many have argued that such effects will put limits on the biofuel enterprise. Yet, enthusiasts hold out the hope that improved crop varieties and management techniques will allow for a major expansion of biofuels without the whole world having to be plowed over.

The enthusiasts are right that improvements are possible; few human endeavors cannot be made more efficient, and the seriousness of the looming energy crisis—only partly ameliorated, at substantial environmental cost, by fracking—argues for the continuation of such efforts. Still, viewing the world through rose-tinted glasses can obscure threats as well as improve mood. It is important to understand biofuels' limitations.

The study by W. Kolby Smith and his colleagues that starts on p. 911 provides some important answers. Smith and his coauthors address the question of how much biofuel can be produced globally. They avoid, however, following in the tracks of studies in which production rates were extrapolated from specific areas. Rather, they use satellite derived net primary productivity data, together with some additional access and landuse constraints, to establish an upper limit of what might be possible under a variety of scenarios.

The results are, as a tabloid might put it, a shocker. The authors estimate maximum primary bioenergy potential to range from 35 percent to 108 percent of 2009 global primary energy consumption. But realistically, only a third of that is achievable, which means a bottom line roughly four times lower than several previously published estimates. All these numbers exclude losses due to manufacturing the fuel.

The chief source of the difference was that previous authors assumed generally improving biofuel yields and management practices (including an increased use of fertilizer and irrigation), but Smith and his colleagues argue persuasively that such improvements must be restricted to small, intensively farmed areas. Actual current global primary productivity suggests strongly that biofuels have less promise than many had thought.

It gets worse. According to an article published by James Hansen and two coauthors in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in August (doi:10.1073/pnas.1205276109), recent heat waves and extreme summers are increasing in frequency and area, most likely because of global warming. Given the devastation such events inflict on crop yields in the world's major bread baskets, it seems that even the sobering estimates of Smith and colleagues might be overoptimistic. Yields could fall from current levels, not increase, if the frequency of extreme weather events continues to grow.

Some new biofuels may yet alleviate the human predicament, but nobody should be under any illusions about the constraints that nature—ultimately, through the laws of thermodynamics—has put in the way.

TIMOTHY M. BEARDSLEY
Editor in Chief

BioScience 62: 855
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.10.1

Quarantine the Caves

The fungal disease that has killed millions of bats in the United States since its discovery 6 years ago, white-nose syndrome, continues its destructive spread and threatens the extinction of some species. Originally identified in a cave in northern New York, the disease has moved across much of the eastern half of the country and into eastern Canada. The parallels to the worldwide spread of chytridiomycosis in amphibians are hard to ignore. That fungal infection likewise infects multiple species, has a very high mortality rate, and may also come to be identified as the principal cause of some extinctions. Both may yet also be blamed as the cause of disappearing ecosystem services—pollination and insectivory, mainly, in the case of white-nose syndrome, water quality in the case of chytridiomycosis.

The identification in recent years of specific fungal species responsible for both conditions, at least in most cases, is a scientific triumph. But broader questions about the causation of the two diseases remain frustrating mysteries. "Why now?" is the obvious inquiry. And for both diseases, there are as yet no clear answers.

Key parts of these sad stories are still missing. For example, it would be tempting to jump to the conclusion that Geomyces destructans (the white-nose agent) and Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (implicated in chytridiomycosis) are invasive species, but firm evidence of that is lacking. In fact, the pathogens seem to have been present in regions without disease—or possibly with low, unnoticed levels of disease—for decades; G. destructans is certainly found widely in Europe, and there was no evidence of associated disease until recently. In any event, the invasive label would only push back the mystery, not solve it. The question would then be, "Why have these fungi suddenly become invasive?"

It is tempting to turn to climate change as a possible culprit, but the simplest form of that explanation—more warmth leads to more fungal spread—must reckon with the fact that both pathogens are adapted to cold conditions. More specific effects of warming, including increased humidity or warmth at critical points, are, however, not so easily excluded. The recent appearance of a more virulent strain, perhaps through a mutation, is likewise plausible.

Research on white-nose syndrome is yielding insights into how the disease is spreading. Recently, close contact between hibernating bats has been implicated as an avenue for the spread of white-nose syndrome (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248. 2012.01829.x). Given the social nature of many bats, this is hardly good news, although, encouragingly, one species seems to be adapting by becoming less social.

The Overview of Geomyces fungi by Mark Hayes that appears on p. 819 provides valuable background: The genus is widespread on land, in the sea, and in the air. Notably, its spores appear to be spread easily by humans. The potential of humans to spread white-nose syndrome is now widely recognized, and measures are being taken to quarantine some caves. Testing of more heroic interventions should continue, but until and if it is ruled out as a contributing factor, preventing human contamination of vulnerable environments should now be a priority.

TIMOTHY M. BEARDSLEY
Editor in Chief

BioScience 62: 783
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.1

Increasing Access to Biological Collections

For years, many scientists and scientific organizations have argued—often in the pages of BioScience—that the nation's natural science collections are critically important pillars of our scientific research and education infrastructure. Moreover, these resources, whether they are held in a university biology department, a natural history museum, a botanic garden, or a government laboratory, contain irreplaceable specimens and associated data that explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. Because of this, these scientific collections provide the basis for answering many of the most complex twenty-first century problems confronting science and society. Unfortunately, it is often the case that scientists and collection managers are unaware of what is contained in the thousands of natural science collections across the county. Part of the solution, argue many scientists, is a national campaign to digitize natural science collections.

In recent years, a number of workshops have explored the scientific and technical barriers to and opportunities in digitizing the nation's natural science collections. These discussions led to the development of A Strategic Plan for a Network Integrated Biocollections Alliance (http://digbiocol.wordpress.com/brochure).

As was reported in the Feature article in the September 2011 issue of BioScience (61: 657–662), the National Science Foundation (NSF) appears to have heard the communities' call. Through the Advancing Digitization of Biological Collections program, the NSF has launched an effort that would spend $100 million over 10 years to make the images and data from all US biological collections available in an integrated, shared form on the Web; to develop and launch new Web-based tools that improve data mining, image analysis, and georeferencing processes; and to digitize the existing backlog of collections and keep that process up to date.

About 130 institutions are already participating in this digitization initiative through one of several thematic collection networks—groups organized around specific research or geographic questions.

Although the current and planned support from the NSF is critically important to the ultimate success of this effort, there are other aspects of the Strategic Plan that must also be considered. Therefore, with support from the NSF, AIBS will convene a workshop next month to develop an implementation plan for the Network Integrated Biocollections Alliance. This workshop, coorganized by James Hanken and Lucinda McDade, will bring together a cross-section of experts in digitization to identify milestones, targets, and other issues that must be addressed in the next 10 years in order to realize the potential of the Alliance. In the coming months, the workshop organizers will seek community comment on the draft report that results from the September workshop. The opportunity to provide comments will be broadly announced. This is an important opportunity for members of the natural sciences collections and biodiversity science communities to help inform a national initiative.

ROBERT E. GROPP
Director of Public Policy, AIBS

BioScience 62: 703
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.1

Evidence for Biodiversity Action

The imperative to protect species from extinction is one that to most readers of BioScience will hardly seem to need justification. Yet in the broader battle of ideas over how government should interact with citizens and deploy its resources, robust and up-to-date arguments about the importance of protecting the biosphere are essential. The value of individual species is not apparent to everyone.

In recent decades, the notion of ecosystem services has done much to bring home the importance of natural capital to a broader public. And despite the objections of thinkers who maintain that putting dollar values on such services misrepresents humans' relationship with nature, the potential importance of this idea for justifying conservation in policymaking seems beyond dispute.

A recent study published in Nature provides important quantitative support for the general importance of biodiversity in key ecosystem processes that, in turn, govern the provision of ecosystem services. David U. Hooper and his coauthors (doi:10.1038/nature11118) combined previous meta-analyses, a new assessment of 192 studies of the effects of species richness on ecosystem processes, and 16 published experimental studies in which plant species richness and an environmental variable were factorially manipulated. The specific measures that Hooper and colleagues examined were primary productivity and decomposition, which profoundly affect ecosystem function almost everywhere. They then compared the magnitude of the effects of species richness with those of other environmental influences.

The results, in a nutshell, showed that both productivity and decomposition—particularly productivity—will be strongly affected by credible levels of biodiversity loss in the coming decades. Depending on the proportion of species lost, the effects on these measures were comparable in magnitude to acidification, increased ultraviolet light, warming, excessive nutrients, and increased carbon dioxide. Moreover, Peter B. Reich and his colleagues (doi:10.1126/science.1217909) demonstrate that in two long-term studies, the effects of biodiversity on productivity became more linear—and therefore important—over time.

These studies are significant steps toward understanding the importance of biodiversity for ecosystem functioning in quantitative terms, although much remains to be done. Ecosystems vary, for one thing. Understanding thoroughly how their functions typically translate into services valuable to humans will be more work still. However, the new work solidifies the case for effective government action as a default mode to conserve species.

In principle, such action is already mandated in the United States, chiefly by the Endangered Species Act, but the complexities and weaknesses of implementation of the act are legion. Some of them are illustrated by Maile C. Neel and her colleagues in their study of delisting decisions in this issue of BioScience (p. 646). The same might be said of the examination of specific conservation actions by D. Noah Greenwald and his coauthors (p. 686); peer review by scientists is, it seems, often given short shrift in actual decisions. Such scrutiny of the effectiveness of government action in conserving biodiversity in particular cases is as vital as big-picture evaluations of biodiversity's relevance. Combining the two approaches will be essential to winning in the battle of ideas.

TIMOTHY M. BEARDSLEY
Editor in Chief

BioScience 62: 619
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.1