The elements of well-being

This essay contends that the constitutive elements of well-being are plural, partly objective, and separable. The essay argues that these elements are pleasure, friendship, significant achievement, important knowledge, and autonomy, but not either the appreciation of beauty or the living of a morally good life. The essay goes on to attack the view that elements of well-being must be combined in order for well-being to be enhanced. The final section argues against the view that, because anything important to say about well-being could be reduced to assertions about these separable elements, the concept of well-being or personal good is ultimately unimportant.

Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation

There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25–50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.

From the Hill

Q&A: Tashia Bradley on Kentucky, Tortola, The Pugh Center mission, and the mild winter she brought with her to Maine Weather Report: Senior speaks at meteorological meeting, challenges historians' take on the history of forecasting Finding Community: Projects for Peace documentary explores a different, and for many, more rewarding way of life Literary Peaks: At Whitefish Review, Colby trio (plus one) gives art and literature a mountain home Sadoff Invites Us To Love Life Despite Hardship and Injustice (Review) Marketing Experts Say Plain Talk Beats Social Media Considering Life's Stepping Stones: For Debra Spark's characters, it's the journey, not the destination (Review) Finding Home Amid Myth and Mystery (Review) Recent Releases Concussion Impact: Colby-based project helps Maine schools reduce sports injuries Quiet Powerhouse: Rachael Mack ends career with 1,241 points, leads team turnaround Sports Shorts The Nation's Fastest: Dominique Kone '13 wins NCAA DIII 60-meter dash, coming back from 2011 injury

International Recommendations for Training Future Toxicologic Pathologists Participating in Regulatory-Type, Nonclinical Toxicity Studies

The International Federation of Societies of Toxicologic Pathologists (IFSTP) proposes a common global framework for training future toxicologic pathologists who will support regulatory-type nonclinical toxicology studies. Trainees optimally should undertake a scientific curriculum of at least 5 years at an accredited institution leading to a clinical degree (veterinary medicine or medicine). Trainees should then obtain 4 or more years of intensive pathology practice during a residency and/or on-the-job "apprenticeship," at least 2 years of which must be focused on regulatory-type toxicologic pathology topics. Possession of a recognized pathology qualification (i.e., certification) is highly recommended. A non-clinical pathway (e.g., a graduate degree in medical biology or pathology) may be possible if medically trained pathologists are scarce, but this option is not optimal. Regular, lifelong continuing education (peer review of nonclinical studies, professional meetings, reading, short courses) will be necessary to maintain and enhance one's understanding of current toxicologic pathology knowledge, skills, and tools. This framework should provide a rigorous yet flexible way to reliably train future toxicologic pathologists to generate, interpret, integrate, and communicate data in regulatory-type, nonclinical toxicology studies. (J Toxicol Pathol 2010; 23: 171-181)