The exaptive excellence of spandrels as a term and prototype

In 1979, Lewontin and I borrowed the architectural term “spandrel” (using the pendentives of San Marco in Venice as an example) to designate the class of forms and spaces that arise as necessary byproducts of another decision in design, and not as adaptations for direct utility in themselves. This proposal has generated a large literature featuring two critiques: (i) the terminological claim that the spandrels of San Marco are not true spandrels at all and (ii) the conceptual claim that they are adaptations and not byproducts. The features of the San Marco pendentives that we explicitly defined as spandrel-properties—their necessary number (four) and shape (roughly triangular)—are inevitable architectural byproducts, whatever the structural attributes of the pendentives themselves. The term spandrel may be extended from its particular architectural use for two-dimensional byproducts to the generality of “spaces left over,” a definition that properly includes the San Marco pendentives. Evolutionary biology needs such an explicit term for features arising as byproducts, rather than adaptations, whatever their subsequent exaptive utility. The concept of biological spandrels—including the examples here given of masculinized genitalia in female hyenas, exaptive use of an umbilicus as a brooding chamber by snails, the shoulder hump of the giant Irish deer, and several key features of human mentality—anchors the critique of overreliance upon adaptive scenarios in evolutionary explanation. Causes of historical origin must always be separated from current utilities; their conflation has seriously hampered the evolutionary analysis of form in the history of life.

Circulation of core collection monographs in an academic medical library

Academic medical librarians responsible for monograph acquisition face a challenging task. From the plethora of medical monographs published each year, academic medical librarians must select those most useful to their patrons. Unfortunately, none of the selection tools available to medical librarians are specifically intended to assist academic librarians with medical monograph selection. The few short core collection lists that are available are intended for use in the small hospital or internal medicine department library. As these are the only selection tools available, however, many academic medical librarians spend considerable time reviewing these collection lists and place heavy emphasis on the acquisition of listed books. The study reported here was initiated to determine whether the circulation of listed books in an academic library justified the emphasis placed on the acquisition of these books. Circulation statistics for “listed” and “nonlisted” books in the hematology (WH) section of Indiana University School of Medicine's Ruth Lilly Medical Library were studied. The average circulation figures for listed books were nearly two times as high as the corresponding figures for the WH books in general. These data support the policies of those academic medical libraries that place a high priority on collection of listed books.

Assessment of Customer Service in Academic Health Care Libraries (ACSAHL): an instrument for measuring customer service*†

Objectives: In a pilot study, the library had good results using SERVQUAL, a respected and often-used instrument for measuring customer satisfaction. The SERVQUAL instrument itself, however, received some serious and well-founded criticism from the respondents to our survey. The purpose of this study was to test the comparability of the results of SERVQUAL with a revised and shortened instrument modeled on SERVQUAL. The revised instrument, the Assessment of Customer Service in Academic Health Care Libraries (ACSAHL), was designed to better assess customer service in academic health care libraries.

Providing health information to the general public: a survey of current practices in academic health sciences libraries*

A questionnaire was mailed to 148 publicly and privately supported academic health sciences libraries affiliated with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)–accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada to determine level of access and services provided to the general public. For purposes of this study, “general public” was defined as nonaffiliated students or health care professionals, attorneys and other nonhealth-related professionals, patients from affiliated or other hospitals or clinics, and general consumers. One hundred five (71%) libraries responded. Results showed 98% of publicly supported libraries and 88% of privately supported libraries provided access to some or all of the general public. Publicly supported libraries saw greater numbers of public patrons, often provided more services, and were more likely to circulate materials from their collections than were privately supported libraries. A significant number of academic health sciences libraries housed a collection of consumer-oriented materials and many provided some level of document delivery service, usually for a fee. Most allowed the public to use some or all library computers. Results of this study indicated that academic health sciences libraries played a significant role in serving the information-seeking public and suggested a need to develop written policies or guidelines covering the services that will be provided to minimize the impact of this service on primary clientele.

Monograph use at an academic health sciences library: the first three years of shelf life

Objective: To study the circulation of monographs during the first three years of shelf life at an academic health sciences library.