AIBS BioScience Editorials 3

Broadening Biology

Those of us who once learned that genes are entities that propagate and manifest themselves within species may find their conceptual categories stretched beyond the breaking point if they dare read the overview of progress in metagenomics on page 102 by W. Ford Doolittle and Olga Zhaxybayeva. Together with the similarly challenging Feature by Karen Hopkin published in December (BioScience 59: 928-931), their article reminds us, if reminding were needed, that there is still a great deal still to be understood about how and where, exactly, natural selection acts on DNA. Critical analysis of new data makes clear that, among the bacteria and archaea that are Doolittle and Zhaxybayeva's focus, the concept of species may hamper the appreciation of more fundamental categories: communities of interacting genes. Moreover, as Hopkin explained, the functioning of genes is not as straightforward as it once appeared. At least in eukaryotes, it is becoming more difficult to define precisely what a "gene" is. And as if this iconoclasm were not enough, biologists are becoming more aware of the importance for evolution of processes that do not principally involve heritable variations in DNA sequences.

Advancing insights into the complexity of life processes do not take anything away from the truths that previous generations of biologists have established. The colors of crossed pea plants can still be predicted using the laws of segregation and independent assortment, and innumerable experiments have confirmed the value of principles of population genetics established a century ago. But Gregor Mendel, G. H. Hardy, and Wilhelm Weinberg considered carefully selected cases amenable to analysis with the tools they had available. It is unsurprising that today, with vastly more powerful tools, we can see realities they could scarcely have been aware of. A sort of selection process will doubtless determine how useful some older concepts will remain.

It's fascinating to consider the extent to which the biologists of the next century, or for that matter, of the coming decade, will rely on ideas familiar today. It would be arrogant to suppose that they will find them sufficient. It would likewise be arrogant to imagine that better understanding will make evolution in the real world predictable in detail. There are good reasons to believe that will remain impossible, which may be comforting to those who fear science's influence. Yet the most basic biological insight of all--that repeated, controlled experiments can elucidate comprehensible and general mechanisms that constitute life--has come through with flying colors. The understanding of life is deepening, not disintegrating, and explanation is not going out of style, despite the attempts of evolution-deniers to muddy the waters. People who want to see science contribute to solving escalating environmental problems can be grateful: the enlightenment is not repealed. The potential for biology to help has never been greater.

Timothy M. Beardsley
Editor in Chief

BioScience 60: 91
doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.2.1

Refining the Biologist's Sense of Identity

While the biological sciences cover a broad terrain of ideas and subjects, we who explore that terrain have always defined ourselves as biologists. We might include an adjective that clarifies the level at which we study (e.g., molecular biologist) or the methods with which we're most comfortable (e.g., mathematical biologist), but the noun has always been "biologist."

Over the years, the number of adjectives has grown—we now have, among others, computational biologists, structural biologists, and systems biologists—and the definition of "biologist" has become ever broader, as has the range of background and expertise applied to research in biology. This dynamism and the progress it has catalyzed have inspired a new report from the National Research Council titled A New Biology for the 21st Century. As was noted in this space last November (http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.1), the report calls for an increased effort to nurture collaborations among different types of scientists who study living systems, defining the "New Biology" as the "reintegration of the subdisciplines of biology and integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians."

The report will inspire a range of reactions among biologists. Some of us may be uneasy with the report's subtle urging of biology to become more like engineering. And some of us may roll our eyes, because the New Biology is already upon us in so many arenas, from collaborations at the various synthesis centers to the range of author expertise in a typical journal issue.

But we should set any such reservations aside and embrace this report. For one reason, the report supports the reintegration of our subdisciplines; if we believe in the noun, "biologist," we surely believe that integration of our adjectival knowledge is important. For another reason, to advance the New Biology, the report urges a set of life-science research missions that is catholic in its breadth and vital in its importance to society. We surely want to support a clarion call for a substantially increased investment in fundamental life science and its applications.

The report does test our sense of identity, because in the New Biology, almost anyone can be a biologist. This calls us to focus on what that noun means. In particular, it asks us to balance the noun and our many adjectives. In practical terms, the challenge in both research and training is balancing depth in a specialty—how much emphasis to give the adjective—against breadth of understanding—how solid to make the noun.

This challenge is not really new, and AIBS has long been immersed in helping biologists answer it (witness its pioneering role in helping to develop the National Ecological Observatory Network—a massive research and educational effort that exemplifies the New Biology). AIBS, through its member societies, includes a very wide range of biologists and is the organization best suited to help advance the New Biology. During this year, I hope to bolster this effort, keeping more focus on the noun and less on this "newest" adjective. After all, when it comes to a passion for studying living systems, we are all biologists.

Joseph Travis
President, AIBS

BioScience 60: 3
doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.1.1

Eradicating Ignorance

Sometimes scientists despair at the challenge of expanding the public's understanding of science. Progress, however, is tangible, and one telling example last summer revolved around arthropods. In July, at the request of the US Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS), the National Research Council (NRC), the operating arm of the National Academies, convened a committee charged with evaluating APHIS's response to two petitions filed by groups of citizens in California. The petitions opposed the agency's decision to classify the light brown apple moth (LBAM; Epiphyas postvittana), a species native to Australia, as a quarantine-significant pest.

The moth's presence in California was confirmed in 2007. In view of its reportedly broad host range—it infests numerous fruit crops, ornamentals, vegetables, and other economically important plants—APHIS classified the LBAM as "actionable" and "quarantine significant," and immediately initiated a program of quarantine and eradication. Petitioners contended that the LBAM is not demonstrably a pest of economic importance and is already too widespread to be eradicated, and thus should be declassified. They were unhappy with areawide spraying, even of pheromones, and argued for alternative management approaches. APHIS asked the NRC to provide a critical assessment of the science used to reach and defend its action.

Just as the NRC committee (which I chaired) was preparing its report, Making
Catfish Bait out of Government Boys: The Fight against Cattle Ticks and the Transformation of the Yeoman South (University of Georgia Press, 2009) was published. The book's author, Claire Strom, described another federal arthropod eradication campaign launched a century earlier. In 1906, the USDA's Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) implemented a program to eradicate the southern cattle tick from the United States in an effort to control babesiosis (Texas fever), a devastating protozoan disease of cattle vectored by the ticks. Then, as now, some citizens resented the program and questioned its feasibility. Although petitions were filed, these were mostly ignored. Some disgruntled citizens took another approach, dynamiting vats of cattle dip and, in the piney woods of Georgia, blowing away a 19-year-old BAI inspector with a shotgun blast.

Despite the violence, the program continued, and complete eradication (save for a small population in Florida) was proclaimed in 1943. The fate of the LBAM eradication effort is still undecided. However, the committee's report (www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12762) recommended that APHIS provide a more robust scientific basis for its actions and articulate its justification more effectively.

Today's citizens still have access to firearms, but they also have unprecedented
access to scientific information. It is to everyone's benefit that sound science be seen as the more persuasive tool, and the scientific community must ensure that information accessible to the public is also comprehensible. Effective communication is paramount in determining the outcome of any scientific dispute. As the Year of Public Understanding of Science draws to a close, the need for a well-informed, scientifically literate public has not diminished; let's hope that this is just the beginning of the Century of Public Understanding of Science.

May R. Berenbaum
President, AIBS

BioScience 59: 923
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.1

An Agenda for Our Science?

(Read "Refining the Biologist's Sense of Identity" -- a related editorial by AIBS President Joe Travis, January 2010.)

Biologists of all stripes may be grateful for the powerful support the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academies, has recently given to a new interagency biological research program. In its study A New Biology for the 21st Century (www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12764), the council concludes that biology has reached an inflection point that could allow rapid progress in multiple biological fields. The program it envisages would involve better coordination and integration of research, as well as substantial new financial support.

The "New Biology," the report says, has the potential to deliver "remarkable and far-reaching" benefits addressing critical challenges—notably, food production, protection of the environment, renewable energy, and improvement of human health. Solutions in these areas are "within reach" and will emerge from the growing capacity to understand, predict, and influence the responses and capabilities of complex biological systems. As an example, the report describes prospects for combining accelerated "genetically informed" plant breeding with research on plant development, systematics, and ecology. Such an integrated approach could yield improved crops capable of feeding a growing human population in the face of a rising sea level and changing temperatures and rainfall patterns. Individualized, more effective health care is also highlighted as an achievable benefit. However, the enabling technologies are not yet at hand in either case.

The sense that biology has enormous potential will not be new to those working in the discipline, but the council's assessment goes further than previous surveys in its willingness to link the solutions to urgent problems with improved research support and dissemination of results across the spectrum of biology. The group is also clear about the obstacles: insufficient resources, poor public recognition of the capabilities now emerging, and institutional barriers. Value is being lost, it says, because government-supported research efforts are not well integrated. Presenting the report at a press conference in September, Keith Yamamoto, chair of the National Research Council's Board on Life Sciences, said that the peer-review mechanisms funding agencies currently employ may be too constraining.

A New Biology for the 21st Century, which was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy, also points to barriers in the academic world that prevent innovators from receiving professional credit for work spanning traditional science and engineering departments. Priority should be given to new information technologies that will facilitate the sharing of often-heterogeneous data, the report says. The report also urges the development of interdisciplinary curricula. (BioScience, as it always has, welcomes manuscript submissions resulting from interdisciplinary research.)

The 10-year interagency effort in New Biology that the council proposes would build on existing efforts throughout the government. Although the group declines to put a price tag on the proposal, comparisons it discusses indicate that the cost would be more than a billion dollars annually. The White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy has been briefed.

The report will remind practicing biologists, as well as those who make decisions about research funding, of their responsibilities and their power. There may be an opportunity to make concrete plans: The report advises that "the time to move forward is now."

Timothy M. Beardsley
Editor in Chief

BioScience 59: 819
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.1

Genes for the Planet

Two articles in this issue of BioScience illustrate the power of new molecular techniques to give wings to very different types of biology. Both articles discuss, in part, how information from genetic sequences might guide urgently needed planetary ecological management.

In the article that begins on page 745, Christopher W. Dick and W. John Kress describe how DNA diagnostic tools can be used to achieve insights into the dynamics of tropical forests. The extraordinary biological diversity of tropical forests has become recognized in recent decades as one of the wonders of the world. The importance of the gargantuan amounts of carbon stored in these forests has also become more widely appreciated. Yet detailed scientific characterization of tropical forests has yet to be accomplished, largely because of the paucity of specimens from remote areas and a shortage of systematists.

Dick and Kress make a strong case for the value of plastid DNA barcodes to further the characterization of tropical forest diversity, knowledge that is essential for conserving such biological riches in the face of mounting pressures. Protocols for plant DNA barcoding are not as advanced as they are for animal barcoding, and Dick and Kress acknowledge that barcodes alone cannot fully inform the understanding needed for conservation. Yet although barcodes can identify only species that have already been described and named, they can speed progress by quickly yielding information to guide subsequent, more detailed study. In this way barcodes do help elucidate the diversity and relatedness of species in different regions, as well as the evolutionary processes that gave rise to them. Such insights can highlight priorities for protection.

In the article that begins on page 757, Anastasia Saade and Chris Bowler describe very different molecular tools that also are revealing evolutionary histories—in this case, of diatoms. That history is fascinating, and although these common algae are quadrillions of times smaller than a tree in a tropical forest, their collective importance in the global carbon cycle is comparable to that of tropical forests. Staggering numbers of diatoms in oceans and freshwater contribute more than 20 percent of global primary production, equivalent to the contribution of all terrestrial rainforests.

The studies Saade and Bowler describe are also revealing the details of diatoms' highly unusual metabolism, and their ability to nanoengineer silica-containing structures in a way that far surpasses the best efforts of human engineers. These characteristics suggest that diatoms may be able to teach scientists some valuable tricks. In particular, their photosynthetic efficiency and high lipid content make them a promising source of fuel oil. Several companies are developing ways to exploit diatoms in this way. Diatom-derived oil is still too expensive to compete with conventional hydrocarbon fuels, but work in progress might lower the cost of the manufactured product. At the same time, growing world demand for mined oil seems likely to drive its price upward in coming years, recessions notwithstanding. Studies of diatoms, then, may well help relieve some of the development pressure on tropical forests and ease humans' reliance on fossil fuels.

Studying genes can be consequential indeed.

Timothy M. Beardsley
Editor in Chief

BioScience 59: 731
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.1

Spreading the Words

In the Forum article that begins on page 699, Stephen R. Carpenter and 18 distinguished coauthors argue for a national program focusing on synthesis in environmental sciences. This influential group, representing an array of specialties, argues that ecologists and scientists in closely connected disciplines—the biological, computational, atmospheric, hydrological, geological, oceanic, and social sciences—can, by working together better, accelerate discovery and research in basic and applied environmental science. The article urges spreading the culture of synthesis more extensively to undergraduate and postgraduate education and toward management and governance.

BioScience is a hybrid biology magazine and journal that publishes mainly synthetic overview articles, so it should be no surprise that we endorse this call. By and large, science has proffered professional recognition for meritorious research regardless of how well the work unifies prior studies. Although the importance of interdisciplinary research and synthesis has become more widely recognized over the past decade, much remains to be done. The Internet has made it easier to find scientific articles, but specialized journals proliferate, making it an ever-steeper climb to keep up with even one field. Synthesis enables more people to understand and build on key insights, enhancing the capability of the scientific enterprise to inform policy. At the risk of sounding Machiavellian, synthesis increases power.

There are several notable examples of successful synthesis efforts in biology: As well as the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis discussed by Carpenter and colleagues, the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center comes to mind (see the article by Kevin Winker on page 657 for an insightful discussion of one cutting edge of evolutionary biology). The Long Term Ecological Research program has fostered cross-site synthesis for almost 30 years, and influential university departments have carried forward the message that researchers should look beyond their narrow specialties.

Still, synthesis often seems risky, and young academics feel professional pressure to generate publications in high-impact journals, as François Brischoux and Timothée R. Cook lament in their Viewpoint on page 638. Publishing data in a hot field might be an easier way to add a high-impact article to one's résumé than building bridges to scientists who work and think differently.

Comparing and combining findings from separate fields is indeed challenging, as articles published in BioScience have documented. Researchers from disparate communities are likely to employ unique terminology, and they may even have different understandings of supposedly shared concepts. Yet the effort to break down disciplinary barriers is vital. As Carpenter and his coauthors observe, efforts such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which have led to products useful to policymakers, are limited more by a shortage of experts trained in synthesis than by knowledge from the contributing disciplines.

Last October, a survey of BioScience readers found that our emphasis on articles that synthesize biological insights and explain them to a broad spectrum of readers is appreciated. Whatever changes we might make, our mission of improving communication among biologists generally—and so increasing their influence—will persist. Authors occasionally chafe at our limits on the length of articles, and they may be taken aback by our distaste for jargon. But the effort of writing for nonspecialists is the price of allowing synthetic conclusions to be widely understood.

Timothy M. Beardsley
Editor in Chief

BioScience 59: 635
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.1

Malawi as Microcosm

One talk at the AIBS meeting in May on sustainable agriculture stood out both for its immediacy and for the challenge it represents to established wisdom. Pedro A. Sanchez, recipient of the 2002 World Food Prize and director of the Tropical Agriculture and the Rural Environment Program at Columbia University's Earth Institute, told rapt attendees about the latest results from an initiative that is being called the "Malawi miracle."

Malawi, a landlocked country of poor farmers, faced a food crisis in 2005, the result of drought, floods, and a disastrous maize harvest. Huge amounts of food aid, costing more than $100 million, barely averted widespread starvation. President Bingu wa Mutharika, whom Sanchez advises, decided to ignore the consensus advice of the World Bank, the US Agency for International Development, and others. Rather than rely on incentives to boost market efficiencies, he provided smallholders with subsidized inorganic fertilizer (two 50-kilogram bags per household) and a few kilograms of subsidized seeds. Most farmers opted for hybrid seed.

The increase in national maize production was immediate: the country's maize deficit of a half-million metric tons turned into a maize surplus a year later. By 2007, production had tripled, and Malawi broke its maize harvest record. Production fell back in 2008, when drought struck again, but still met national requirements, and estimates are that this year's maize crop will beat the 2007 record. The cost of the program is less than half the cost of food aid in 2005.

A dozen African countries are now looking to replicate Malawi's success. International donors have pledged $2 billion euros toward similar schemes, and the "Washington Consensus" on development, which discouraged subsidies, is fading. Even the World Bank has reversed course. In his talk, Sanchez encouraged comparisons with the "green revolution" that multiplied yields of wheat, rice, and maize in Asia and Mexico during the second half of the 20th century.

Yet the Malawi program is not without critics. Proponents of traditional and organic farming fear that providing farmers with inorganic fertilizer will encourage dependency. It could also leave them vulnerable to increases in the price of natural gas, which is consumed in large amounts to make the component chemicals. Inorganic fertilizer promotes emissions of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, and it can encourage soil erosion. What's more, crops grown from hybrid seeds, which are supplied by corporations, may be less resilient than traditional landraces to pests and changes in rainfall patterns. For such reasons, the proliferation of look-alike schemes in Africa is not universally hailed as progress.

Sanchez acknowledges some drawbacks and cautions that reliance on inorganic fertilizer should be seen as a stopgap measure. But organic farming, in his view, is not suited to the nutrient-depleted soils common in Africa. The Malawi solution could buy time for vulnerable populations while infrastructure for more sustainable agriculture is developed.

Malawi is a parable for global development. Its story emphasizes, above all, that while scientists and politicians should stay informed about the quantitative insights science can offer, they should also stay open-minded. One-size policies will never fit all.

Timothy M. Beardsley
Editor in Chief

BioScience 59: 539
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.7.1

Beyond the Envelope

Biologists are familiar with studies that estimate the range of temperatures that must prevail for a species to survive and then examine where those temperatures might be found under various scenarios for the future climate. The approach, which allows a rough estimate of how a species' geographic range might change with global warming, has provided important insights: the expected shifts in the ranges of many organisms, animals and plants, seem drastic. In many cases, ranges seem likely to be smaller in the future as biota move toward the poles and higher up mountains (where that option exists).

Bioclimatic envelope modeling can be more sophisticated than this simplistic account suggests; precipitation and other variables may be included, for example. But organismal biologists know that the actual determinants of where a species thrives can be dauntingly complex and, moreover, can change as genes migrate. Animals, which may modify their behavior and diets opportunistically, present more of a challenge in this respect than do plants. But plants, which may be genetically more labile, are complicated enough, and the interdependencies of the members of the kingdoms mean that bioclimatic envelope monitoring could never supply a final answer.

In the article that begins on p. 489, Eric Post and his colleagues describe some ways that researchers have started to refine bioclimatic envelope modeling as they seek insights into the factors that limit species' distributions. They focus on the use of time-series data to examine correlations between climatic and population variables. Although this approach demands large amounts of data, it can highlight subtle yet important effects. A key revelation is that local populations of a species often vary dramatically in their responses to climate measures. The anomalies can flag important influences—for example, interactions of local populations with other species may ameliorate or exacerbate responses to abiotic factors. Post and colleagues take care not to propose the approaches they describe as replacements for other modes of analysis, but the fascinating findings they relate from work with just a few species indicate promising potential to uncover significant phenomena.

The importance of better understanding and analysis of linkages between organisms and their environment is, coincidentally or not, the principal message of five "grand challenges in organismal biology" recently highlighted in a statement issued by the Executive Committee of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. The document, available at www.sicb.org, could become a useful starting point for researchers lobbying to increase funding for organismal biology. But an important task remains beyond the starting point: the powerful but abstract ideas in the five challenges need to be fleshed out with real-world examples of the ways in which, for example, organisms respond to environmental changes. These real-world examples will drive home the importance of organismal biology to society. If a price tag can be attached to these examples, politicians will be more likely to pay attention, knowing that inaction could be costly; they cannot be counted on to act on the basis of abstract ideas. Cost issues are far from straightforward (see, for example, the letter from Mark Sagoff on p. 461 and the accompanying response from Gary Luck and colleagues). Ignoring them, however, is not an option.

Timothy M. Beardsley
Editor in Chief

BioScience 59: 459
doi:10.1525/bio/2009.59.6.1

Forward Steps for Science

The century of biology is almost a tenth complete, and its first decade seems to have delivered more pain than progress. Yet in March, biologists of all stripes were relieved when two scientists with impeccable credentials and broad experience in energy and marine policy—John P. Holdren and Jane Lubchenco—were confirmed as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Despite the national preoccupation with the country's economic woes, the Senate finally recognized the pettiness of further delay in approving these crucial appointments. Holdren and Lubchenco, together with Steven Chu, the previously sworn-in secretary of energy, should have excellent opportunities to effectively inform US policies in vital areas. The growing threats to ecosystems worldwide—climate change among them—will surely receive full weight in their decisions. Coming just a few days after President Obama had issued a memorandum directing the head of OSTP to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch, the confirmations reinforce the impression that science is being taken seriously by the new administration.

It is also encouraging that immediately after his confirmation, Holdren publicly praised the investments in innovation contained in the stimulus bill that Congress passed, including funding for research efforts in potentially large-payoff areas such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. Many big-picture thinkers hold that breakthroughs in these areas will be needed to mitigate the threats human population growth poses to health and world food supplies. Breakthroughs in biotechnology should also translate into progress against incapacitating and killing diseases, an outcome made more likely now that the president has removed Bush-era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Few people oppose medical progress, but critics nonetheless criticized Obama's decision on stem cells for seeming to give scientists a green light to ignore ethical sensitivities. That worry is understandable but seems overblown. Federal research on the cells will go forward only after intense scrutiny and deliberation by governmental advisory bodies. And the president stated that some projects, such as human cloning for reproductive purposes, will remain off-limits. Doubtless others will too.

Yet human embryos are hardly the only living things deserving attention. How the planet can supply food for the burgeoning human population—and do it sustainably and securely—is a question that scientists around the world must seek to answer. To support that search for answers, AIBS has made "Sustainable Agriculture: Greening the Global Food Supply" the topic of its 2009 annual meeting, to be held 18–19 May in Arlington, Virginia; see p. 448 for more information, or visit annual-meeting/annual_meeting_2009.html.

The biggest problems facing the world cannot be solved by any one country. Nor can they be solved without science. That this White House supports sound science is promising, as are the appointments of scientists who can inform sound policymaking. But another hurdle must be cleared: the public also must understand the nature of science and its value to society to ensure that the best policies are put in place. All biologists can help advance such understanding.

Timothy M. Beardsley
Editor in Chief

BioScience 59: 363
doi:10.1525/bio/2009.59.5.1

The Individual Benefits of Evolution

The 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, widely and properly celebrated last 12 February, was a gratifying event for biologists. The founding father of modern biology was feted in articles, broadcasts, and gatherings, and evolution was even a pictorial motif on Google's home page. The public recognition was a notable plus for biology's image, especially as 12 February was also the 200th birthday of another great benefactor of human freedom, Abraham Lincoln.

Charles Darwin a benefactor of freedom? Yes. Even aside from the case argued by Adrian Desmond and James Moore in Darwin's Sacred Cause (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009)—that hatred of slavery inspired the great man to argue for a single human origin—understanding natural selection in itself opens paths to freedom. Consider the multiple ways in which the principle informs vital applied research in a host of disciplines, most notably today in agriculture and medicine. The dramatic effects of artificial selection practiced by humans were a clue that alerted Darwin to the broader principle of natural selection. Now that researchers understand that principle, they can manipulate it to more easily develop disease-resistant crops and to improve various types of drug therapy. Thus Darwin's legacy daily enhances freedom from hunger and disease.

But as important as these and other practical benefits may be, Darwin's insights can lead to another sort of liberation—from the sense of powerlessness to address the world's problems. Although Darwin showed unequivocally that humans are zoologically animals, he was also impressed by our species' exceptional qualities, including our "god-like intellect" and our benevolence to even the "humblest living creature." A modern understanding of human evolution makes clear that Homo sapiens' ability to manipulate its physical environment and the reasoning that supports that ability have granted us influence over the whole globe.

It is a breathtaking story: a process relying on random mutations for its raw material spurred the emergence of creatures who debate legal and ethical codes and care about their future. The evolutionary tale reveals us as constrained in crucial ways by our animal heritage, but also individually unique and uniquely able to envisage possibilities and make collaborative plans in a changing world. Good ideas, as well as advantageous genes, tend to spread. Teachers might find that these evolutionary insights, as well as the practical benefits stemming from natural selection, are an energizing counter to the misapprehensions of students who arrive in class believing that Darwinism promotes only immorality.

Persistent untruths about natural selection that blame Darwin's conception for social ills will have a baleful effect unless knowledgeable scientists promote a more accurate view. Yes, it is undeniable that social movements have in the past abused "survival of the fittest" to defend grave injustices, but that's all the more reason for biologists to help make amends. November will see the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species, another opportunity to put that volume on a pedestal. Biologists will be serving society well if they remember that Darwin's insight not only delivers practical benefits but also affirms humans' power to work together toward hopeful futures.

Timothy M. Beardsley
Editor in Chief

BioScience 59: 275
doi:10.1525/bio/2009.59.4.1

Stimulating Conservation

It may be cold comfort to struggling alternative-energy entrepreneurs, but it is now close to a done deal that investment in wind and solar energy will increase dramatically in coming years. Although many sectors are clamoring for federal financial assistance in these troubled economic times, the administration and Congress seem agreed that low-carbon energy sources need boosts. Not only will these energy alternatives reduce US dependence on foreign oil, but they also promise to provide new jobs. Moreover, pressure for a federal carbon tax, or some similar measure, is likely to be ultimately successful in Congress, which points to a rosy long-term competitive outlook.

For these reasons, planning for high-voltage transmission lines, wind farms, and solar power stations is moving ahead apace. Together with other components of the economic stimulus package—repairs to roads and to water and sewerage systems, in particular—they could bring about the most rapid and far-reaching changes in the US landscape in several decades.

Few environmental scientists are likely to oppose moves toward a smaller carbon footprint, but nobody should be naïve about the difficult trade-offs that these huge changes will entail. Wind farms make noise and kill a lot of birds and bats. Solar power facilities disrupt the natural environment over large areas. The high-voltage transmission lines that will be needed to transport power across the continent to the mostly coastal areas where demand is highest are unsightly and can be barriers to the movement of wildlife. Disputes over priorities and values in conservation can be expected to reemerge with a vengeance.

The plaintive story Christin Pruett and her coauthors tell in the article that begins on p. 257 exemplifies the kind of dilemma that planners will face. Numbers of the lesser prairie-chicken have declined drastically as the bird's habitat in the southern Great Plains has become fragmented by long lines of windmills. The wind energy boom in the plains, current economic difficulties notwithstanding, is bad news for this bird, which graces this month's cover.

Put bluntly, within a few years, the lesser prairie-chicken may live only in zoos because the windmills disrupt the necessary connectivity between dwindling populations. Pruett and her colleagues propose a series of measures that could stave off the species' extinction in the wild. But whether the necessary measures can be implemented in time must be open to doubt. Pruett and colleagues suggest, among other things, that the whirlwind pace of wind-energy development be slowed. But that course of action would also incur ecological costs.

Biologists are by now reasonably well equipped with concepts that might shed light on such decisions, and the article by Gary Luck and colleagues, which starts on p. 223, gives examples of how economic arguments on behalf of species and ecologically functional groups can be marshaled. Such efforts can make a crucial contribution that can support legal protections. How much of the needed research can be done within a pressing timetable is another matter. There would seem to be work opportunities aplenty for biologists willing to enter the disputed fields.

Timothy M. Beardsley
Editor in Chief

BioScience 59: 195
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.3.1