Science's Compass Research Articles

Orienteering strategies for a signaling maze.

Orienteering strategies for a signaling maze.

McClintock and Marriage

After reading Nathaniel C. Comfort's letter about Barbara McClintock ( Science 's Compass, 18 Jan., p. [440][1]), I feel duty bound to McClintock to relay a story that she told me in 1992 while I was researching her biography for my book Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles and

Aristotle's View of a Creator

In his essay on Galen (“Logic, Learning, and Experimental Medicine,” Science 's Compass, 1 Feb., p. [800][1]), Vivian Nutton writes that “[Galen] was convinced, like Aristotle, that the body had been carefully designed by a provident and purposeful creator.” I find this statement misleading. Regardless of what Galen's views were, Aristotle did not believe in a provident and purposeful creator. Because for him the world had existed from eternity in the same basic form, there was no role for a creator. The God depicted in Book 12 of the Metaphysics spends his time happily thinking his own thoughts with no concern for the sublunary realm. Aristotle did believe that the body was organized to achieve certain functional goals, but for him this was a matter of the course of nature and not of conscious design. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1066244

Moral Issues of Human Embryo Research

In his essay “morals and primordials,” Louis M. Guenin's thesis is that the use of embryos in research is morally acceptable “not because experiment and derivation are distinguishable, but because both are permissible” ( Science's Compass, 1 Jun., p. [1659][1]). With regard to the position of the Catholic Church on this issue, however, Guenin does not follow the logic of his own argument. As he states, the Catholic Church does not hold in vitro fertilization, cryopreservation of embryos, or destruction of embryos to be morally permissible. Therefore, by his own logic, the Church should hold research on these embryos to be wrong—which it does. Guenin's counterargument, that because “in vitro fertilizations nonetheless occur” we are therefore morally justified in using the resulting embryos, is specious. This same argument—akin to “I didn't personally do it, and somebody else was going to do it anyway, so it's all right for me to benefit from it”—has been advanced to justify buying clothing made by sweatshop labor and to defend downloading child pornography from the Internet. The argument doesn't work in those cases, either. If it is wrong to create the “product” in the first place, then it's wrong to receive it and wrong to benefit from it. # Response {#article-title-2} Munn takes me to neglect complicity in wrongdoing. The putative wrong is in vitro fertilization (IVF). First, I observe that when it is wrong to effect x , it is not always wrong to benefit from x . The Catholic Church does not condemn research on donated abortal tissue if the investigator has in no way induced the abortion ([1][2]). Complicity is a function of the nexus between wrongdoer and accomplice. Consumers of the products of slavery and child pornography are complicit in such practices, if they are, because demand coaxes supply. But, for example, we do not regard parents as complicitous in all wrongdoing by their offspring. Stem cell science neither motivates nor facilitates IVF. On the other hand, stem cell investigation induces embryo destruction. After drawing attention to the moral nexus between immunosurgery to obtain blastomeres and the subsequent study of derived stem cells, I defend such immunosurgery as morally superior to what would otherwise occur. I urge that we not plunge epidosembryos ([2][3]) into autoclaves when, at the behest of epidosembryo donors, we can aid others by deriving stem cells. Second, one could reply that fertility patients effect no wrongdoing in which to be complicit. Catholic teaching disapproves of IVF on the grounds that it is nonconjugal and could lead to eugenics. Consider then a married woman who conceives nonconjugally with no thought of eugenics. Can anyone know that God disapproves? Alternatively, it may be objected that IVF is immoral precisely because it invariably orphans some embryos. That objection lacks force because clinicians either transfer or freeze IVF embryos before the 14 days of development needed to establish individuation, a necessary condition of personhood. Nor do possible persons correspond to embryos that will never enter a womb. Lastly, we have the case of creating embryos solely for use in research or therapy in aid of others. In this case no illicit reproduction occurs. Still, may it obtain that to every cell type corresponds a purpose, and that it is wrong to hijack gametes for a nonreproductive purpose? Aristotelian teleology has lost its former hold on our thought. We welcome instances in which cells prove beneficially adaptable. For gametes, we may find new medical uses. When consumed on day 5 in research or therapy, the products of combined gametes—and the products of somatic cell nuclear transfer—have not become persons. Esteem for life furnishes a compelling moral reason to create, donate, and use unenabled, unidividuated embryos in beneficent research and therapy. 1. [↵][4]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae (Vatican City, 1987). 2. [↵][5]As I defined it in my Essay, an epidosembryo is a human embryo that “(i) was created in vitro in an assisted reproduction procedure, (ii) remained in storage after completion of all intrauterine transfers requested by the mother, and (iii) has departed parental control according to instructions to the attending physician that the embryo shall be given to research….”. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1062513 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text

The Scope of Medieval Warming

Hemispheric mean temperatures that have been reconstructed with a wide range of climate proxies indicate that temperatures were warmer in Medieval times than during the subsequent “Little Ice Age” (∼1550 to 1850) ([1][1]). However, all studies of large-scale climate variations reveal some regions that do not follow the global or hemispheric trend [for example, ([2][2])], so selecting a few data points, as W. S. Broecker does in his Perspective ( Science 's Compass, 23 Feb., p. [1497][3]), adds little to resolving the title question he poses: “Was the Medieval Warm Period global.” Furthermore, Broecker's statement that only borehole temperatures and snowlines can reconstruct temperatures to within 0.5_C is not supported in the literature. Reconstructing global temperature requires a geographically extensive network of data. Studies that have analyzed data from a wider range of instruments than Broecker mentions ([1][1], [3][4]) conclude that 20th century warming is unprecedented, in both rate and magnitude, compared with warming during the past 1000 years. Medieval climate was clearly unusual in some areas ([4][5]), and further regional studies are needed. These might help determine if Broecker's hypothesis of a change in thermohaline circulation holds water. 1. [↵][6]1. P. D. Jones 2. et al ., Holocene 8, 455 (1998); 1. M. E. Mann, 2. R. S. Bradley, 3. M. K. Hughes , Geophys. Res. Lett. 26. 2. [↵][7]1. T. J. Crowley, 2. T. S. Lowery , Ambio 29, 1999 (2000) 759;51. 3. [↵][8]1. P. D. Jones , et al., Rev. Geophys. 37, 173 (1999). 4. [↵][9]1. M. K. Hughes, 2. H. F. Diaz , Clim. Change 26, 109 (1996); 1. K. R. Briffa 2. et al ., J. Geophys. Res. 106D, 2929 (2001). 5. 1. A.S. Issar, 2. N. Brown 1. S. Stine , in Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic Change, A.S. Issar, N. Brown, Eds. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1998), pp. 43-67; 1. M. K. Hughes, 2. G. Funkhauser , in The Impacts of Climate Variability on Forests, M. Beniston, J.L. Innes, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998, pp. 99–107; 1. C. Pfister 2. et al ., Holocene 8, 535 (1998); 1. V. C. LaMarche , Science 183, 1043 (1974); 1. D. Dahl-Jenssen 2. et al ., Science 282, 268 (1998). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.291.5508.1497 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [9]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text

The Growing Family of NIH Institutes

Harold Varmus suggests that too many institutes exist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and that this problem might be solved by consolidating the institutes and independent centers into six units of about equal size ( Science 's Compass, Policy Forum, “Proliferation of National

Ecology. Tropical forest diversity--the plot thickens.

Also see the archival list of Science's Compass: Enhanced Perspectives ECOLOGY:Enhanced: Tropical Forest Diversity--The Plot Thickens David F. R. P. Burslem, Nancy C. Garwood, Sean C. Thomas Ecologists have long pondered why tropical forests contain such a huge number of species and what factors might be responsible for maintaining this diversity. In a Perspective, Burslem and colleagues discuss unique data sets from the forest dynamics plots (FDP) network, which shed light on the factors responsible for tropical forest diversity. D. F. R. P. Burslem is in the Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UU, UK. E-mail: d.burslem@abdn.ac.uk. N. C. Garwood is in the Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, UK. E-mail: ncg@nhm.ac.uk. S. C. Thomas is in the Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 3B3, Canada. E-mail: sc.thomas@utoronto.ca

Eurasian Air Pollution Reaches Eastern North America

Pollutants of Eurasian origin cross the Pacific Ocean via the westerly winds and affect the west coast of North America, as Kenneth E. Wilkening, Leonard A. Barrie, and Marilyn Engle discuss in their Perspective ( Science 's Compass, 6 Oct., p. 65). However, neither anthropogenic pollutants nor

Microorganisms Should Be High on DNA Preservation List

The Policy Forum “DNA banks for endangered animal species,” by Oliver A. Ryder and colleagues ( Science 's Compass, 14 Apr., p. [275][1]) generated comment from Phillip A. Morin with response from the authors concerning the need to preserve cells and DNA from threatened and endangered species (

Relation Between Diversity and Stability, in the Real World

Peter Taylor, commenting on a 25 August News Focus article by Jocelyn Kaiser, criticizes her for repeating “the conventional wisdom that Robert May's theoretical work in the 1970s showed that diversity works against stability” ( Science 's Compass, Letters, 6 Oct., p. [51][1]). Taylor then sets out his own sensible views, which differ from this. Although this may be the interpretation currently attributed to my 1973 book ([1][2]), it is not what I actually wrote. In 1973, there was a widely cited belief that more complex or diverse ecosystems—more species, richer webs of interrelationship—were thereby better able to resist disturbance. I showed that there was no such arbitrarily general rule. Quite the contrary: randomly constructed complex ecosystems are more likely to lose species after disturbance than are simple ones. But, I emphasized, “the balance of evidence would seem to suggest that, in the real world, increased complexity is usually associated with greater stability. There is no paradox here…. The real world is no general system. Nature represents a small and special part of parameter space [shaped ultimately by evolutionary forces acting on individuals]” ([1][2], p. 75). In short, the 1973 book expresses exactly Taylor's sensible argument that real ecosytems “develop” by adding, and losing, species over time, not by randomly sampling ecological possibilities. 1. [↵][3]1. R. M. May , Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1973)To be reprinted, with an extensive new introduction, in the series Landmarks in Biology (Princeton Univ. Press), in press. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.290.5489.51b [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text

Missing Martian Meteorites

In his Perspective entitled “The latest news from Mars” ( Science 's Compass, 3 Mar., p. [1601][1]), David W. Mittlefehldt discusses the data on the global surface composition of Mars obtained by the Mars Global Surveyor Spacecraft, which was reported by Bandfield et al . in the same issue (

Aiding African Agriculture

As Conway and Sechler state in their Editorial “Helping Africa feed itself” ( Science 's Compass, 8 Sept., p. [1685][1]), “Now is the time for the Western scientific community to apply its knowledge, in genuine partnerships with African scientists, to help Africa escape the tyranny of hunger.” One such partnership began in the 1980s with the creation of a worldwide consortium of scientists focused on development of a safe strain of the grass pea ( Lathyrus sativus ). This is an environmentally tolerant plant with a high protein content that is cultivated by poor farmers without tillage or inputs in the Greater Horn of Africa ([1][2]) where famine has been a recurrent phenomenon, a topic discussed by Broad and Agrawala in the same issue in their Policy Forum, “The Ethiopia food crisis—uses and limits of climate forecasts” (p. [1693][3]). These efforts culminated in the development of grass pea strains with low concentrations of a neurotoxic excitant amino acid (b- N -oxalylamino-L-alanine) that can cause a crippling disease (lathyrism) in poor communities where grass pea is heavily consumed ([2][4], [3][5]). Studies conducted by African scientists of various disciplines, working with Western colleagues, played a key role in the grass pea research effort. This model of international and cross-disciplinary collaboration should now be applied to cassava ( Manihot esculenta ), a drought-resistant root crop that feeds at least 200 million people in sub-Saharan Africa. This, too, is an indispensable and environmentally tolerant food plant for Africa and elsewhere, but the tuber is protein-poor and contains cyanogenic glucosides that yield significant concentrations of cyanide in the consumer ([4][6]). Although the effects of this diet on development are not understood, dietary dependence on cassava may result in an irreversible spastic paraparesis in children and adults that is clinically comparable to lathyrism ([2][4]). In sum, therefore, research for the long-term relief of hunger in Africa must contemporaneously address issues of toxicology as well as those of plant science and nutrition. 1. [↵][7]1. A. K. Kaul, 2. D. Combes , Lathyrus and Lathyrism Third World Medical Research Foundation, New York, (1986)P. S. Spencer, The Grass Pea: Threat and Promise (Third World Medical Research Foundation, New York, 1989). 2. [↵][8]1. P. S. Spencer , Drug Metab. Rev. 31, 561 (1999). [OpenUrl][9][CrossRef][10][PubMed][11][Web of Science][12] 3. [↵][13]1. J. Raloff , Sci. News 158, 75 (2000). [OpenUrl][14] 4. [↵][15]1. M. Bokanga 2. et al. , Acta Horticult. 375, 1 (1994). [OpenUrl][16] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.289.5485.1685 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.289.5485.1693 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #ref-3 [6]: #ref-4 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DDrug%2Bmetabolism%2Breviews%26rft.stitle%253DDrug%2BMetab%2BRev%26rft.aulast%253DSpencer%26rft.auinit1%253DP.%2BS.%26rft.volume%253D31%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D561%26rft.epage%253D587%26rft.atitle%253DFood%2Btoxins%252C%2Bampa%2Breceptors%252C%2Band%2Bmotor%2Bneuron%2Bdiseases.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1081%252FDMR-100101936%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10461541%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1081/DMR-100101936&link_type=DOI [11]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10461541&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F289%2F5488%2F2281.2.atom [12]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000082178200001&link_type=ISI [13]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [14]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DSci.%2BNews%26rft.volume%253D158%26rft.spage%253D75%26rft.atitle%253DSCI%2BNEWS%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [15]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [16]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DActa%2BHorticult.%26rft.volume%253D375%26rft.spage%253D1%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx

China's New Forest Policy

China's New Forest Policy

Academia and Industry Need A New Marriage Contract

In his Editorial “Science and secrecy” ( Science 's Compass, 4 Aug., p. [724][1]), Donald Kennedy convincingly discusses the importance of scientific disclosure and some reasons why academic science is on a collision course over secrecy with national security values and the industrial sectors. There is, however, a dimension to the cross-links between academia and the industrial sectors that Kennedy does not discuss that deserves mention. Traditionally, connections between industry and academia have been through individual faculty members who had mutual scientific interests with their industry counterparts. Collaborations would be arranged, and it was proper for faculty and the university administration to define what arrangements were consistent with the values of the university ([1][2]). In recent years, however, research universities themselves have been developing direct relationships with industry. Positions with impressive titles such as “counsel for industry relations” or “associate dean for industry relations” have appeared on many campuses. These new functionaries are expected to foster ties with industry for many different academic fields, and to a large extent they are succeeding, except for a worrisome aspect. If faculty are placed under the umbrella of university-industry agreements, the interests of the faculty become displaced. By taking the “technology transfer” business away from the faculty, universities are not only becoming overly commercial, but they are sending out the wrong signal to their faculties—that the marketing of their research is an academic mission. It was fine when universities were content to use patent, conflict-of-interest, and antisecrecy rules to maintain their balance on the slippery slope of faculty-industry collaborations. But not any more. As Kennedy implies, the wedding between industry and academia isn't new, but it is time that the marriage contract be updated. 1. [↵][3]1. S. Andreopoulos , Stanford Med. 12, 4 ((Summer 1995)). [OpenUrl][4] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.289.5480.724 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [4]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DStanford%2BMed.%26rft.volume%253D12%26rft.spage%253D4%26rft.atitle%253DSTANFORD%2BMED%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx

Nuclear Power and Climate Without Proliferation

The analysis in the Policy Forum “A nuclear solution to climate change?” by W. C. Sailor, D. Bodansky, C. Braun, S. Fetter, and B. van der Zwaan ( Science 's Compass, 19 May, p. [1177][1]) is diminished by inclusion of the myth—popular in the United States—that efficient use of nuclear resources is a proliferation threat. Quite the contrary, destruction of weapons materials in spent nuclear fuel by their use for production of electricity in fast, so-called breeder reactors is an essential component of good nonproliferation practice. Depleted uranium at U.S. enrichment plants, which was used by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) to produce plutonium for weapons, would also be destroyed in fast reactors. The electricity produced from existing nuclear by-products would be equivalent to that needed by the United States, at present use rates, for hundreds of years. The nuclear solution presented by Sailor et al. would recover less than 1% of the energy from uranium. Spent fuel would be disposed of in a geologic repository. Depleted uranium—millions of tons of weapons source material—would accumulate indefinitely. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards are required for plutonium-239 in spent fuel deposited in a geologic repository. However, virtually no one accepts the IAEA contention that planned satellite surveillance can be reasonably assured for 10,000 years. Moreover, the time required for significant decay of plutonium-239 is not 10,000 but 240,000 years. Since safeguards for these periods of time are not credible, spent fuel must be reprocessed to permit permanent disposal of unwanted fission products, i.e., high-level radioactive waste. Disposal of this waste is essential for viability of nuclear power and is a requirement of virtually all nations. Reprocessing only in well-designed, well-managed, and safeguarded facilities operated by nations with large nuclear power programs, and immediate fabrication of weapons materials into fuel assemblies for their destruction through production of electricity, provide the greatest assurance against a proliferation threat from nuclear power. The du Pont company completed designs for such facilities in 1978, based on its experience in reprocessing at the DOE Savannah River Plant and on the experience of others. Among many important features of these designs was the elimination of accumulations of separated plutonium. Unfortunately, these designs were rejected by leaders of the DOE in order to support national laboratory reprocessing concepts that had led to earlier problems (failures and proliferation) and poorly focused research on “proliferation-resistant” fuel cycles. During this same time period, political decisions were made that led ultimately to cancellation of U.S. fast reactor development. U.S. nuclear policies based on best science and best applications of science will result in nuclear power being used as the solution for climate change and other energy and environmental problems. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.288.5469.1177

Keeping Editors in Line

It is rare to find a truly linear phenomenon. However, based on the data presented in Science 's Compass (Editorial, “Welcome Don Kennedy,” 26 May, p. [1341][1]), the years of service by Editors-in-Chief of Science fit a remarkably linear trend. The accompanying figure plots (as solid dots) the

Looking Behind the Stars

In his Perspective “An infrared look behind stars” ( Science 's Compass, 14 Apr., p. [281][1]), Craig J. Hogan discusses recent developments ([1][2], [2][3]) in measuring the total cosmic emission at near infrared wavelengths, based on data from the Diffuse Infrared Background Experiment (DIRBE

Welcome Don Kennedy

I n a few days, it will be time to hand over the responsibilities of Editor-in-Chief of Science to Professor Don Kennedy of Stanford University. Time, as they say, flies when you are having fun, so the realization that this Editor-in-Chief has held the job for more than 5 years still seems hard to swallow. As Phil Abelson, Science 's Editor-in-Chief from 1962 to 1984, said to Dan Koshland (Editor-in-Chief from 1985 to 1995), and Dan said to me, this has to be one of the best jobs in the scientific world. Science receives a constant stream of high-quality research papers and has published some of the most exciting and important scientific discoveries and ideas of our time. It has the wisdom of experts available around the world to help evaluate these results and explain them to our readers. And Science has a highly motivated and experienced staff of editors to help sift through the frequently polarized views of authors and reviewers. This job is a constantly moving dynamo daring to be contained. As a former neuroscientist and an active environmental policy mover, the new Editor-in-Chief will certainly take pride in the original research content in the back of Science. It is because of this segment of Science that the AAAS has long believed that the Editor-in-Chief should be a prominent active scientist. Our new Editor-in-Chief certainly qualifies. Other scientists will recognize him as someone who can analyze complicated situations and make logical and, at the same time, fair decisions. A “real” scientist at the top of the editorial masthead gives readers and authors the assurance that someone who understands the peer-review process from the inside out can keep it in tune. Of course, with rejection rates that often exceed 90%, Science Editors-in-chief have a particularly challenging task balancing referee reports across fields, retaining rigor of decisiveness, and sensing when it is time to take a chance with a new finding. But the weekly issues of Science are far more than a sterling series of outstanding original research papers. For many readers, each weekly issue is a window on the news of the world of science. Science covers the policy issues, personnel changes, academic moves, and other noteworthy discoveries announced elsewhere in the literature or at scientific meetings. Situated between the News sections and the original research papers, Science 's Compass offers opinions from scientists and policy analysts who put the original research and the policy issues into perspective. It will not have escaped the new Editor-in-Chief's notice that the Science of 2000 has evolved a fair distance from its precursor of half a decade ago. Not only will the new Editor-in-Chief carry responsibility for the weekly print publication, he will also have four strongly complementary companion products within the Science family of publications: Science OnLine, Science 's Next Wave, Science News on the Web, and Science 's Signal Transduction Knowledge Environment. Next week, we will take a look back at some of the changes that seem to have captured the strongest followings. But none of the changes and none of new products sprung fully formed from the mind of the Editor-in-Chief. They grew from readers' complaints, editors' concerns, and production pitfalls. The changes emerged from a constant effort to achieve the goal of serving the scientific community with the most accurate, timely, and comprehensive information needed to do their jobs optimally. Putting all of these new ideas into practice while accelerating the decision-making and workflow into print and online was only possible because of our highly effective art and production colleagues. Finally, then, there is the Editorial column. This Editor-in-Chief's scientific career experiences benefited from limitless open-mindedness, a stance that readily accepts novel findings but seriously constrains critical editorial assertions and calls to action. For policy-wonk wannabes who aspire to greater wisdom, reticence is a virtue. But many issues have indeed inflamed us over the past 5 years, and our archives reflect the positions taken. Readers who look forward to new opinions will appreciate the in-depth profile of the new Editor-in-Chief by his Stanford faculty colleague Professor Paul Ehrlich, which appears on page 1349 of this issue. For now we say, welcome Don and fare well.

Carbon Cost of Applying Nitrogen Fertilizer

Carbon Cost of Applying Nitrogen Fertilizer

Surveying the SBIR Program

In his Policy Forum “The problematic venture capitalist” ( Science 's Compass, 11 Feb., p. [977][1]), Josh Lerner raises several issues to challenge the supporters of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and to ensure that those managing and funding the program remain focused on