bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
Imatinib Mesylate (Gleevec)
Authors: Li Jie Jack
Published: November 2020

Great strides had been made in the war against cancer with chemotherapy even before the emergence of protein kinase inhibitors. For instance, prior to vinblastine (1, Velban) became available in 1964 for the treatment of lymphoma, the diagnosis of Hodgkin’s disease (a cancer of the lymph nodes) was virtually a death sentence. Today there is a 90% chance of survival with the treatment by vinca alkaloids such as 1 and other chemotherapies. Similarly, when Sidney Farber discovered the effects of methotrexate (2, Trexall) on leukemia, it marked the beginning of the triumph over childhood leukemia. Following Barnett Rosenberg’s discovery of cisplatin (3, Platinol)’s effects on tumor cells in 1967, cisplatin and its analogs such as carboplatin (4, Paraplatin) and oxaliplatin (5, Eloxatin) contributed significantly in boosting the survival rate of patients with metastatic testicular cancer, ovarian tumors, and bladder cancer. Most significantly, breast cancer, a malady striking one in eight women, has been effectively managed via a plethora of treatments including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapies. The arsenal of chemotherapeutics for treating breast cancer includes SERMs such as tamoxifen (6) and raloxifene (7, Evista). Type I, II, and III aromatase inhibitors have now also been widely prescribed to combat breast cancers (more details may be found in chap. 4). Today, breast cancer is sometimes viewed as a chronic disease that can be managed, rather than a lethal disease. Despite the efficacy of the aforementioned chemotherapeutics, they kill cancer cells and normal cells with equal ferocity. (Some have compared chemotherapy to a “carpet bombing” strategy.) However, the reason these chemotherapies are effective is that cancer cells divide at much faster rate than normal cells; therefore, chemotherapies kill more malignant cells than healthy cells. Chemotherapies invariably come with significant side effects rooted. For example, hair follicle cells have a physiologically high mitosis rate; therefore, chemotherapies kill them faster than other healthy cells. In the same vein, other common side effects of chemotherapy include diarrhea (because ephithelial renewal is inhibited), bone marrow suppression (because granulopoiesis, thrombopoiesis, cytopoiesis, and erythropoiesis are inhibited), and lymph node damage (because of lymphocyte multiplication inhibition causes immune weakness).
Loath This Growth: Sources of Sustainability in the Early Modern World
Authors: Caradonna Jeremy L.
Published: November 2020

This chapter begins in the period that historians of Europe and the Atlantic world call “early modernity” (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries). It could have begun in the Middle Ages, with the hunting reserves and protected forests established by European rulers in Venice and elsewhere. It could start with an analysis of indigenous societies, from Easter Island to the Maya, that failed to live sustainably and eventually collapsed. It could even begin in antiquity, with Pliny the Elder and his encyclopedic Natural History that tells us so much about Roman conceptions of the natural world. But we begin in the early modern period because of the clear linkages between the modern sustainability movement of the twenty-first century and the consciousness and practices that developed in early modernity. After all, the concept of “sustainability” was given a name in the early eighteenth century by a Saxon bureaucrat who coined the term “Nachhaltigkeit” to describe the practice of harvesting timber continuously from the same forest. Indeed, sustained yield forestry took shape at this time not only in Western Europe but also in Japan, around other parts of Asia, and on colonial islands in both the West and East Indies. The practice of exploiting forests sustainably was but one indication of an incipient awareness about the value of living within biophysical limits and the need to counteract resource overconsumption. Many documents that survive from this period demonstrate that it was possible to have at least a rudimentary idea about the complex relationship between social well-being, the economy, and the natural world. That is, the “systems thinking” of sustainability—the method of studying complex, interrelated systems—clearly has roots that stretch back to this largely pre-industrialized world. In 1700, the global population of homo sapiens was somewhere between 600 million and 650 million. Beijing might have approached a population of 1 million, which would have constituted a megacity at the time, but most “cities” had fewer than 50,000 inhabitants.
Eco-Warriors: The Environmental Movement and the Growth of Ecological Wisdom, 1960s–1970s
Authors: Caradonna Jeremy L.
Published: November 2020

One of the marks that distinguishes sustainability from classic environmentalism is the former’s cheery optimism. Indeed, reading side by side the 2005 guidebook Green Living—a fairly typical how-to for sustainable living—with, say, Paul Ehrlich’s doleful Population Bomb (1968) offers a case study in contrast. Green Living is constructive and buoyant whereas Population Bomb is frenzied and cynical. Yet it’s striking how much Green Living takes its inspiration not only from Ehrlich but from other titans of mid-century environmentalism—albeit with a noticeable shift in tone. Paul and Anne Ehrlich are cited approvingly in the opening pages of the book. The epigraph comes from the still-very-active David Suzuki. There are also references to the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, which, of course, is named after the esteemed Aldo Leopold. But gone is the gloomy tone, replaced instead by a heartening “You can do it!” attitude. This brief observation illustrates how much the modern sustainability movement owes to the critics, intellectuals, and protestors of the 1960s and 1970s who raised awareness about environmental problems, advocated for social justice, and defended the rights of the oppressed. While the three Es of sustainability were rarely paired in the 1960s and 1970s, many of the basic concepts that shaped sustainability were clearly articulated before the 1980s. This chapter should not be taken as a comprehensive look at the environmental movement, about which there is reams more to say. Instead, it will examine in general terms some of the disparate sources that contributed to the holism of sustainability. Particular emphasis will be laid on the key ideas, associations, and scholars who developed the environmental movement and the success that environmentalists had in getting politicians, economists, and the public at large to think in ecological terms—a singular achievement that continues to inform the world of sustainability. It is important to note that the reason that this book jumps from the late nineteenth century to the 1960s is not because the era of the two world wars has nothing to do with the history of sustainability.
Sustainability Today: 2000–Present
Authors: Caradonna Jeremy L.
Published: November 2020

We might not live in a sustainable age, but we’re living in the age of sustainability. The movement has gained a level of prominence in recent years that is difficult to dispute. The scholarly fields associated with sustainability have expanded dramatically; new tools and methods have appeared that help define, measure, and assess sustainability; and a broad range of organizations and communities have embraced the principles of sustainable living. Sustainability, in fact, has gone from marginal ecological idea to mainstream movement in a surprisingly short amount of time. We now see sustainability publicized at the supermarket, on university campuses, at the aquarium, in corporate headquarters, in government ministries, and in countless other places. A growing number of universities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and corporations in the Western world possess an “office of sustainability”— replete with sustainability plans and guidebooks—but none have an “office of green radicalism” or an “office of the status quo.” In a sense, this environmental discourse has won out over rival conceptions of humanity’s relationship to the natural world. This chapter is an attempt to sketch out the different ways in which sustainability has gained a foothold in contemporary society. It is not meant to suggest that our world is sustainable. On the contrary, many barriers and entrenched interests have kept our world rather unsustainable, and Mathis Wackernagel has even argued that, since the 1990s, we have exceeded the Earth’s capacity to sustain us; we are now living in a state of global overshoot. The goal here, rather, is to show the ways in which our society has constructively responded to our ecological crisis—to demonstrate the growth and elaboration of the sustainability movement and describe some of the successes it has achieved in counteracting our bad habits. As the philosophy of sustainability has developed, so too has it expanded its scope. If we recall from earlier chapters, the concept of sustainability began in the eighteenth century as a method of managing forests, and by the 1960s and 1970s it had become a reaction to industrialism and the trend toward ecological overshoot.
The Future: 10 Challenges for Sustainability
Authors: Caradonna Jeremy L.
Published: November 2020

Growing concerns about climate-change pollutants, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, resource shortages, and the world’s gamut of ecological problems have placed new pressures on sustainists. Creating a sustainable society that thrives within its biophysical limits is no longer seen as a distant and utopian objective; it’s now an urgent matter that, if neglected or mismanaged, will bring devastating consequences for the planet and the human economy that lives off of it. The increased political attention, institutional support, and financial commitment to the cause of sustainability means heightened expectations for immediate, tangible results. The public doesn’t want idle chatter; it wants workable solutions to very real problems. Can sustainists seize the moment and lead the transition to the sustainable future? The quest to create a sustainable society faces a host of obstacles, and many pressing questions remain unanswered: How can the entrenched political and corporate interests that perpetuate unsustainability be overcome? How can society willingly transform itself? Where will the money and political will come from to coordinate the transition? Will this sustainable society be “industrialized” or “post-industrial,” “globalized” or “localized”? Will the changes be top–down, bottom–up, or both? By charting the growth and development of sustainability since 1700, this book has not meant to imply that ecotopia is an inevitable end point. Even optimists concede that it’s quite possible that the task is too tall, that industrial society could drive itself straight into the ground, that collapse is a real threat, and that the Industrial Revolution was the first phase of humanity’s protracted extinction event. If sustainability does succeed in undoing the many harms that have caused our ecological predicament, it will only do so with the broad support of the public and through a cooperative effort to adapt and transform. At the risk of bombast, it will have to change the course of human history, and that’s no easy task. This book ends with a discussion of 10 challenges faced by the sustainability movement.
Reflections on Long-Term Ecological Research from National Science Foundation Program Directors’ Perspectives
Authors: Gholz Henry L. , Marinelli Roberta
Published: November 2020

Evolution of the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program has required highly motivated leadership in both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the science community. It has also benefited from inspired leaders in other agencies. Core research areas enable comparative study across highly diverse field sites. The LTER program promotes integrative ecological research and is an important model for other environmental research programs. New observational capabilities and emerging networks will change the operating environment for the LTER program in unforeseen ways. The conceptualization and implementation of the LTER program that began in the mid-1970s have depended on the dedicated guidance and input from a large number of individuals within NSF management, within other agencies (particularly the US Forest Service), and in the science and education communities that they serve. The authors served as NSF program directors for the LTER program, respectively, for 10, 8, and 14 years between 1997 and 2011, in the Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO), Office of Polar Programs (OPP), and the Geosciences Directorate (GEO). From that context, we offer our perspectives on this remarkable program. Several central issues have dominated the development of the LTER program since its inception in 1980. These issues are the designation of core thematic research areas, the establishment of new sites and the expansion of NSF program involvement, the evolution of comparative and synthetic science across multiple LTER sites, the dynamics of top-down (NSF-driven) and bottom-up (principal investigator–driven) efforts that have coalesced to produce the present-day network, and the development of new environmental observing capabilities that should enhance the future scientific impact of the LTER program. The specification and emphasis on five core research areas (Waide, Chapter 2) as elements of the LTER program, which served as part of the initial rationale for the formation of the program, have varied over time and with changes in program management at NSF. Our consensus is that core research themes provide a major vehicle for integrative research, both comparative and synthetic, and additionally, serve as a strong guide for programmatic review.
Beneficiary of a Changed Paradigm: Perspectives of a “Next-Generation” Scientist
Authors: Borer Elizabeth T.
Published: November 2020

As a scientist, the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program has deeply influenced my approach to scientific inquiry by creating an environment of effective collaboration and long-term evaluations of ecosystems. The increasing emphasis on data management and sharing has shaped both the philosophy and implementation of my scientific projects. I have become a highly collaborative scientist because of my experiences with the effectiveness of collaborative inquiry, put in place by initiatives including the LTER program and institutes such as National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). I have been involved in the LTER program since I began my first faculty position at Oregon State University in 2004. Although my primary site affiliation is now Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve (CDR), I have ongoing experiments and collaborations spanning nine LTER sites (Borer et al. 2014b). I am a community ecologist with work that bridges into ecosystems. My research focuses on quantifying the consequences of global changes (e.g., nitrogen deposition, species invasions and extinctions) for interactions among species, including host–pathogen, plant–herbivore, and plant–plant interactions, and the resulting consequences for ecosystem functions. Since 2007, I have been the lead principal investigator of the Nutrient Network (NutNet; www.nutnet.org), a global scientific cooperative of more than 100 scientists performing identically replicated experiments at more than 75 sites in 17 countries on 6 continents to examine the interactive effects of herbivory and multiple nutrients on controlling critical processes and functions in the world’s grasslands (Borer et al. 2014a). I am currently an associate professor in the Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Department at the University of Minnesota and serve as senior personnel on the ongoing National Science Foundation (NSF) grant supporting CDR. My LTER site affiliation is not entirely clear in my own mind, even though I am listed as a scientist at CDR. Although I have ongoing projects at LTER sites, primarily at CDR, I do not consider myself a site-based researcher in the LTER program.
Collaboration and Broadening Our Scope: Relevance of Long-Term Ecological Research to the Global Community
Authors: Troxler Tiffany G.
Published: November 2020

As part of my long-term ecological research experience, I have come to recognize that individual success is not necessarily the hallmark of an effective or successful scientist. To achieve problem-oriented solutions to the grand challenges of society, service and collaboration can have more impact on ecology and society than singular scientific achievements. Because of my experiences with the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program, I promote the idea that collaborative research is essential training for ecosystem scientists. The LTER program promoted the increasing importance of effective science communication at a time when it was not widely appreciated. The LTER program demonstrated to me that engendering a spirit of collaboration was the key to building a network of scientists that could address grand challenge questions. After studying anthropology as an undergraduate in Louisiana, I moved to Florida to work with Daniel Childers in the field of ecology. During my PhD work with him at Florida International University (FIU), I became involved in the Florida Coastal Everglades site (FCE) of the LTER program. During graduate school, I participated as cochair of the LTER graduate student committee. Currently, I am a research assistant professor with appointments at the Southeast Environmental Research Center and the Department of Biological Sciences at FIU. My research focuses on long-term ecosystem responses to hydrologic restoration, carbon cycling, and plant–soil interactions along environmental gradients in the Everglades. I collaborate with researchers at FCE and other LTER sites, as well as with colleagues in the International LTER (ILTER) to broaden the scope and integration of site-based, long-term research. Ecosystem approaches are a hallmark of science in the LTER program, and long-term manipulations at the ecosystem-scale are numerous within the LTER network. Simple ecosystem modeling allows for the integration of responses into a few synthetic variables (e.g., soil nutrient concentrations or carbon accumulation rates). My research in the LTER program strives to identify data gaps posed by such modeling and looks for creative and robust ways to develop data sets that contain a comprehensive suite of input parameters.
Tales from a “Lifer” in the Long-Term Ecological Research Program
Authors: Peters Debra P. C.
Published: November 2020

As a long-time member of the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) network, first as a graduate student and scientist at the Shortgrass Steppe (SGS) site (1984–1997), then as a scientist at the Sevilleta (SEV) site (1996–present) and now as principal investigator at the Jornada Basin (JRN) site (2003–present), my professional career has been shaped almost entirely by my LTER experiences. My experiences in the LTER program directly contributed to my individual-based approach to ecosystem dynamics combined with the knowledge that the dominant ecological processes can change as the spatial extent increases, and that long-term data are critical to disentangle how these pattern–process relationships change across scales. The LTER program has provided me with international experience and exposure that are valuable to my career. My opportunity to travel overseas has led to bonding experiences and new insights into other ecosystems. My appreciation for the value of K–12 education and the amount of work that is involved in “doing it right” has been shaped by my experiences with the Jornada Schoolyard LTER Program. One of the key challenges that I face in working at an LTER site is the tension between continuing to collect long-term observations with the need and desire to test new ideas that often result from the long-term data but then compete for resources with the collection of those data. Another challenge is in mentoring young scientists to become principal investigators, and in cultivating new relationships with potential co–principal investigators. Currently, I am the principal investigator at the JRN LTER program at New Mexico State University (NMSU) in Las Cruces, New Mexico. I am also a collaborating scientist at the SEV LTER program at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I received my BS in biology at Iowa State University in 1981 and my MS in biology from San Diego State University (SDSU) in 1983. My LTER experiences began as a PhD student at Colorado State University (CSU) through the SGS LTER program in 1984, and these continued while I was a postdoctoral fellow (1988–1989).
Growing Up with the Konza Prairie Long-Term Ecological Research Program
Authors: Knapp Alan K.
Published: November 2020

As someone who began working at a Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site prior to beginning his PhD studies, there is little doubt that the LTER program has been a major influence on all aspects of my scientific career. Working within the LTER program has provided me with great appreciation for the power of collaboration, large-scale and long-term experiments, and cross-disciplinary interactions. Scientists within the LTER network are among the most successful and influential in the world, and thus associating with them has many positive professional and personal consequences. Among the most valuable professional benefits are opportunities for exposure to ideas well beyond what a scientist experiences in a more typical research environment and the opportunity to collaborate and publish with scientists who are leaders in fields other than his or her own. My experience with the LTER program began in January 1982 with my employment at the Konza Prairie site (KNZ) in northeastern Kansas. I had recently completed an MS (in botany with a focus on subalpine plant ecophysiology) at the University of Wyoming, and I knew nothing about the new (at the time) LTER program. But at the urging of a fellow graduate student, Don Young (who eventually took a position at Virginia Commonwealth University and has long been involved with the Virginia Coast Reserve site), I applied for a research assistant position advertised in Science. This position description specifically highlighted that skills and experience were needed in abiotic measurements (i.e., installing a weather station and precipitation gauge networks and taking charge of monitoring climatic variables); these were tasks with which I had familiarity as part of my graduate program. As a lifelong resident of the western third of the United States and a fan of the mountains (often openly speaking negatively about grasslands!), I was not keen to even consider a position in eastern Kansas. But Don Young was an effective advocate and stressed the importance of keeping an open mind, something I try to stress with my students today. After presenting my research at the meeting of the Ecological Society of America in 1981, Don and I and a few other graduate students stopped in Manhattan, Kansas, as we drove cross-country from Bloomingt on, Indiana, to Laramie, Wyoming.
Learning from a Frozen Ocean: The Changing Face of Antarctic Ocean Ecology
Authors: Ducklow Hugh W.
Published: November 2020

The temporal perspective provided by the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program places individual, limited, short-term observations and experiments in a valuable context. Proper interpretation of short-term results may be incomplete without a longer-term perspective. This often makes me skeptical of individual studies. The remote location and harsh environment of Antarctica place special demands and constraints on research, collaboration, and education. Meeting these challenges is one of the most exhilarating aspects of our LTER project. Keeping the proper balance between maintaining continuity of observations and keeping the research program new and innovative is another key challenge for research in the LTER program. But rather than constraining them, the ongoing nature of the LTER program facilitates and enhances creative observations and innovation. In 2001, I joined the LTER network as lead principal investigator for the Palmer LTER project (PAL), one of two pelagic marine sites in the LTER network. That was my first formal exposure to the LTER program, about midway through my scientific career. After majoring in the history of science in college, I received my PhD in environmental engineering from Harvard in 1977. I was originally trained as an environmental microbiologist and gradually evolved into a biological oceanographer and ocean biogeochemist. Prior to joining PAL, I worked in other large, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary ocean science programs. In addition to leading PAL, I study the roles of ocean microbes in the biogeochemical cycling of carbon and other elements in the ice-influenced ocean surrounding Antarctica. As a principal investigator, I participate in planning and guiding the LTER network. Network participation has significantly broadened my perspective on my own personal scientific work. This participation has been one of my more interesting and fulfilling experiences as a scientist. Over the past 20 years, research has shown that the western Antarctic Peninsula is one of the most rapidly warming regions on earth, and we are gradually beginning to understand how the ecosystem is responding to this unprecedented rate of change. Joining PAL changed my life. (Actually, going to Antarctica for the first time changed my life, but the LTER program gave me the opportunity to go there every year.)
Perspectives on a 30-Year Career of Salt Marsh Research
Authors: Morris James T.
Published: November 2020

A hallmark of my career has been the development of a model of the responses of salt marsh vascular plants to changes in sea level. This discovery would not have been possible without long-term support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) and Long-Term Research in Environmental Biology (LTREB) programs. The LTER and LTREB programs have provided platforms for student research that would have been difficult or impossible to duplicate. Most of my students have benefited from the background of data, which stimulate a never-ending source of thesis topics and from the logistical support. My communication skills have been improved by LTER-sponsored workshops with journalists. I also have had an opportunity to share my enthusiasm for fieldwork with primary school students and teachers. Many of my numerous collaborations are consequences of novel, long-term data that emerged from research supported by the LTER and LTREB programs. There are important environmental trends that develop slowly in response to climate or that reveal themselves infrequently, such as disturbance responses, thresholds, and tipping points. These require long-term, place-based observation of the kind that the LTER and LTREB programs are designed to facilitate. My history with the LTER program began in the late 1970s. As a Yale graduate student working at The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) at Woods Hole, I participated in a workshop organized by Dan Botkin to develop a rationale for a longterm ecological monitoring program (Botkin 1978). After a 2-year postdoctoral fellowship, I moved in 1981 to the University of South Carolina (USC), which had sponsored one of the first LTER sites, North Inlet (NIN). North Inlet was the perfect place for starting a research program in salt marsh ecology, and my research there eventually was supported by the NSF LTREB program. I owe a great deal to NSF for that. My early career benefited enormously from infrastructure at USC’s field laboratory and support by the NIN LTER program, which I did not fully appreciate at the time.
Long-Term Ecological Research and Lessons from Networked Lives
Authors: Moore John C.
Published: November 2020

The Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program has affected how I conduct and evaluate ecological research. Working with the LTER program has given me a greater appreciation for the complexity of the natural world and has provided a framework to study it. The LTER program has provided the best possible venue to connect ecological research with classroom instruction, mentoring, and professional development. Translating our science to the public is a challenge. My experiences in the LTER program have provided multiple opportunities to work with the public, K–12 and college or university students, and professionals in different fields. This process has honed my communication skills. The ideas that emerge from true collaborative science cannot be understated. The work at an LTER site and within the LTER network works best when we collaborate. I received my undergraduate training in ecology at the University of California (UC) Santa Barbara. At UC Santa Barbara in the 1970s, the ecology program focused largely on populations and communities. Field observations, laboratory studies, manipulative field studies, and equation-based modeling were the norm. I recall the first set of litter and soil samples of arthropods that I sorted were extracted using Tullgren funnels and thought at the time that a person would have to be insane to pursue this type of work as a career. Two years later, I was in the graduate program at Michigan State University working with Dr. Richard Snider where I studied the impacts of herbicides on soil arthropods in no- till corn. At Michigan State, I learned the importance of species life histories, behaviors, and tolerances to environmental variation. My first exposure with the LTER program started in 1979, during my first year of graduate school at Michigan State University. A National Science Foundation (NSF) program officer was visiting the university to promote the concept of the LTER program and the first round of competition. Being 22 years old at the time, it was difficult for me to appreciate discussions about a program that would potentially operate over several decades. As a graduate student, it was a lesson in the planning, extended time frame, and other programmatic logistics of collaborative science.
Sharing Information: Many Hands Make Light Work
Authors: Porter John H.
Published: November 2020

The Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program has shaped almost every aspect of my scientific career. It has enabled me to pursue ecoinformatics, a new and growing field, while allowing me to build on my training as an environmental scientist within the context of an intelligent, vibrant, and dedicated team of researchers and collaborators. Skills that I learned initially as part of workshops sponsored by the LTER program—on Geographical Information Systems (GIS), ecological information management, and wireless sensor networks—are now the skills I teach to others in a variety of formal and informal educational settings, including graduate and undergraduate classes. As a leader in sharing scientific data, the LTER program provides a strong positive and dynamic example of how data can be shared to enable new scientific syntheses. I communicate widely within the LTER network and with the larger community regarding the ethics, techniques, and values of data sharing. Collaboration, with researchers and other information managers, is a critical aspect of successfully promoting the sharing of ecological data and the important new discoveries that arise from such sharing. I started my work with the Virginia Coast Reserve (VCR) project in the LTER program at its inception in 1987. I started work at VCR site immediately after completing graduate school, as a postdoctoral fellow (1988– 1991), then subsequently as a co–principal investigator and eventually as principal investigator. Although my primary contribution to the project has been as an information manager, I also engage in a variety of landscape, environmental sensing, and population-related research. Also, I briefly served as principal investigator (1997–1998), when the former and subsequent principal investigator (Bruce Hayden) did a rotation at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Within the LTER network, I have been very active in the Information Management (IM) committee and served on the LTER Executive Committee (1997–2002) and as a cochair of the Network Information System Advisory Committee. In addition, I served as a part-time program director in Biological Databases at NSF (1993–1994). Academically, I am a research associate professor at the University of Virginia, where in addition to my research, I teach courses on GIS.
The Axial Skeletons of Sunghir 1, 2, and 3
Authors: Trinkaus Erik , Buzhilova Alexandra P. , Mednikova Maria B. , Dobrovolskaya Maria V.
Published: November 2020

Given their burial positions, on their backs with the trunks and limbs extended, the Sunghir 1 to 3 individuals should have retained major portions of their axial skeletons. This is the case for Sunghir 2 and 3, both of whom retain all of the cervical vertebrae, most of their thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and major portions of their sacra. Sunghir 2 preserves portions of 23 of the 24 ribs, and Sunghir 3 retains at least a small piece of each of her 24 ribs. Moreover her left fifth and sixth ribs lack only their costal cartilage surfaces. Only Sunghir 3 preserves any elements of the sternum, two partial and separated sternebral segments. In contrast, despite the apparent presence of major portions of the axial skeleton in situ, little remains of the Sunghir 1 vertebrae, ribs, or sternum. The cervical vertebrae are absent, unless pieces of them are mixed with the collection of what appear to be thoracic and lumbar fragments. Only two vertebrae remain reasonably intact, the T1 and T2. There are eight pieces of vertebral bodies, one of which has a pathological growth (chapter 17). The ribs consist of small pieces, except for a largely intact left first rib. Although evident in the in situ photographs, nothing remains of the manubrium. There is also a piece of distal middle rib, which is of use for the age-at-death assessment. Some of the vertebral and rib pieces have been sacrificed over the years for direct radiocarbon dating (e.g., Kuzmin et al. 2004). Others pieces, heavily fissured and hence probably descending into fragments during excavation, were only partially retained. There are nonetheless a few aspects of the Sunghir axial skeletons, beyond age assessments (chapter 6), the pathological lesions on the Sunghir 1 vertebrae (chapter 17), use of the sacra in the pelves (chapter 14), and body length scaling for Sunghir 2 and 3 (chapter 11), that are of interest.
The Leg Remains from Sunghir 1 to 4
Authors: Trinkaus Erik , Buzhilova Alexandra P. , Mednikova Maria B. , Dobrovolskaya Maria V.
Published: November 2020

Sunghir 1 to 3 retain substantial portions of their femora, patellae, tibiae, and fibulae, providing overall lengths, diaphyseal dimensions, and varying degrees of epiphyseal morphology. They are joined by the partial femoral diaphysis of Sunghir 4, which principally provides cross-sectional properties. There is also an isolated patella which may derive from Sunghir (chapter 4). The Sunghir 1 epiphyses are variably complete (despite extensive restorations in wax), and the distal half of his right femur was crushed anteroposteriorly. The Sunghir 2 leg bones are in better condition, as are the Sunghir 3 femora and tibiae. However, the Sunghir 3 femora are pathological and do not provide normal comparative data (see chapter 17). Quantitative and discrete data are provided for the Sunghir 3 femora here, as are some assessments of her femoral epiphyseal/metaphyseal morphology, but more detailed considerations of her femoral diaphyseal configurations are provided in chapter 17. As noted (chapter 4), the right femur of Sunghir 1 was crushed in situ, and the left one was sawed at midshaft (Figs. 15.1 and 15.2). It is not clear how much bone was removed from the left femur; if a piece similar to the one preserved for Sunghir 4 was removed, it was ~10 mm to 12 mm thick. The two halves of the Sunghir 1 left femur do not fit closely together, suggesting that they should be separated, possibly by more than the thickness of the saw blade. As a result, the bicondylar length provided here for the right femur (~496 mm) is close to one of Debetz (1967) (495 mm), but one measured on the left femur in its current state (~497 mm) is shorter than the bicondy­lar length provided by Debetz (500 mm). The bicondylar length of Debetz is therefore employed, and the biomechanical length has been increased 3 mm from its measured dimension. Given these measurements, the Sunghir 1 femur was probably only sawed and a small posterolateral piece of bone removed for histological analysis, whereas a piece (subsequently recovered) was removed from the Sunghir 4 femur.
An Overview of Oxide Structures and Compositions
Authors: Bunker Bruce C. , Casey William H.
Published: November 2020

This entire book is devoted to exploring the chemistry of compounds that contain one simple anion: the O2− ion. Except under high-vacuum conditions (see Chapter 6), the species in oxides that interact with water and other environmental chemicals are O2− ions, because the charge-compensating cations are invariably buried beneath an oxide surface layer. One might wonder how we can fill an entire volume discussing the chemical interactions between this single anion and a single chemical: the water molecule. The single most important concept that must be appreciated to understand the contents of this book is that the chemistry and properties of O2− anions are critically dependent on all the cations to which the O2− ions are bound. Each bound cation modifies the electron distributions around the O2− site, changing its local charge, local bonding configurations, acid–base chemistry, ion exchange chemistry, electrochemical properties, chemical stability, and electrical and optical properties. None of these changes are subtle, and in fact most oxide properties are staggering in their diversity. Before considering the chemistry of oxides, it is important to gain an appreciation of just how diverse the structures of oxide materials really are. As this introduction makes clear, there is no such thing as a single, simple O2− ion. There are a myriad of different O2− sites found in the oxides that we encounter often in our daily lives, each of which exhibits its own unique properties. The purpose of this book is to provide a framework that can be used to predict, rationalize, and exploit the rich chemistry associated with those sites. The number of different structures and compositions that can be generated for oxides is almost limitless. The O2− ion forms compounds with more than 90 elements in the Periodic Table that are capable of losing electrons to form cations. The oxide anion combines with cations with charges that range from +1 to +7. Many elements exhibit more than one stable oxidation state, pushing the total number of chemically distinct cations with which O2− can interact to well more than 120.
The nursing care of an adult in crisis with mental health problems
Authors: Steeves Simon , Smith Chris
Published: November 2020

In this chapter we will look at the issues arising from an acute crisis in two people’s lives. Two differing crises with separate needs and outcomes but similarities in risk assessment and planning of care will be discussed. First you will meet Joyce, a mature family woman who has a history of mental health crises. You will also meet Andrew, a young man who is very troubled by his current circumstances, which have led to a significant mental health crisis. Dictionary.com defines crisis in many ways, and there are two useful definitions here: • A stage in a sequence of events at which the trend for all future events, especially for better or for worse, is determined; turning point • The point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or death So we will examine the nature of a crisis, what must be done about it, and what we need to do in the future to either prevent recurrence or minimize its impact. We will pay special attention to the risks included in both definitions to ensure our outcomes are for better not worse and lead to recovery not death. In mental health nursing there is, historically, difficulty in accepting death, whereas in all other branches of nursing it is accepted that a percentage of clients will die. For example in oncology, surgery, and neonatal care it is accepted that death may occur, but in our branch of nursing it causes angst, blame, and fear. In light of this we will discuss risk assessment and planning in some depth. Joyce is a 57-year-old woman, now divorced, with three children who are all now grown up and leading their own careers. The eldest is a highly respected solicitor. Joyce has a long history of bipolar affective disorder. She has, when in low mood, attempted suicide on several occasions. Some have been very serious attempts, one requiring the administration of acetycysteine (Parvalex) to redress her symptoms. For the last 18 months she has been living in Cedar Lodge, a rehab and recovery unit, following her most recent relapse. Her progress appeared to be successful until about six or seven weeks ago. She had formed a relationship with a younger man, Mark, whom many of the staff distrusted. Recently she had exhibited changes in behaviour.
When did We Start to Change Things?
Authors: Sherratt Thomas N. , Wilkinson David M.
Published: November 2020

As we wrote the first draft of this chapter (during early summer 2007), the potential dangers of ‘global warming’ had moved up the news agenda to a point where most major politicians were starting to take the problem seriously. Our opening quotation comes from a book published in early 2006, which seemed to coincide with the growth of this wider concern with global warming. Lovelock was not alone in trying to raise awareness of the problem; around the same time another book on climate change by the zoologist and palaeontologist Tim Flannery also attracted global attention to this issue, as did the lecture tours (and Oscar-winning film) of Al Gore—the former US presidential candidate and campaigner on the dangers of climate change. Indeed, in his role as a climate campaigner Gore won a share in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. It is possible that future historians will see the period 2005–2007 as the start of a crucial wider engagement with these problems. Things may not be as bad as James Lovelock suggests—in his book he deliberately emphasized the most worrying scenarios coming from computer models, and other evidence, in an attempt to draw attention to the critical nature of the problem. However, all these worst case scenarios were drawn from within the range of results that most climate scientists believed could plausibly happen—not extreme cases with little current evidence to support them. That one of the major environmental scientists of the second half of the twentieth century could write such prose as science—rather than science fiction—is clearly a case for concern about future climate change. It also raises another important question, relating to the history of human influence on our planet: when in our history did we start to have major environmental impacts on Earth as a whole? This is clearly an important issue from a historical perspective, but the answers may also have implications for some of our attempts to rectify the damage. Our discussion of this question comes with various caveats. Many of the arguments we consider in this chapter are still the subject of academic disagreement.
Style
Authors: Issever Cigdem , Peach Ken
Published: November 2020

The style of the talk should be chosen such that it supports the message, the occasion and your personality. The guiding rule should always be that the chosen style should not make the slides hard to read or distract the attention of the audience from the message. For example having an animation on the slide which runs all the time will most certainly catch the eye of the audience, because our eyes are programmed to look at moving objects. But this will make it impossible for the listener to follow your discussion on the rest of your slide while this animation is running. You can have different styles for different occasions. Figure 5.1 shows an example of a slide style for a working group meeting and in Fig. 5.2 for an invited seminar talk on the same topic. Style features which are important are the font style, the slide background and border, colours, plots, tables, pictures and animation. We will cover each of these in the sections below. The choice of the font should be a conscious decision and should not be just guided by your aesthetic feelings or the system default. There are several choices to be made under the font banner, and all are important. • Style: Serif or Sans Serif, • Appearance: normal, bold, italic, underlined or combined, • Size: small (8 pt), medium (12 pt), large (16 pt), huge (20 pt), vast (24 pt), • Colour: foreground (text) and background. Colour theory is quite complex, and beyond the scope of this book. However, a few simple ideas should help avoid most problems. The colour of the font and the colour of the background need to be considered together; it is better to choose colours that are readily distinguishable, with high contrast. A yellow (black) text on a white (dark) background is nearly invisible. Remember that your presentation may be printed on a black and white printer and colour-coded information may be lost if there is low contrast, and that between 5% and 8% of males and less than 1% of females are colour blind.
Introduction: Writing Histories of Archaeology
Authors: Murray Tim , Evans Christopher
Published: November 2020

Any one of several organic analogies, particularly that of the Tree of Knowledge, might usefully serve as the leitmotif of this volume, and to help justify our choice of the plural in its title—‘Histories of Archaeology’, as opposed to the singular case prefaced with The or A. ‘Trees of Knowledge’ and/or ‘Development’ were widely used to portray nineteenth- and early twentieth-century knowledge systems, be they in architecture, languages, or race, and Pitt Rivers, for example, was especially fond of them. Trees can also symbolize the growth of disciplines. Archaeology had its roots in antiquarianism, history, philology, ethnology, geology, and natural history generally. From this grew the trunk that eventually branched out into various sub-disciplines (e.g. biblical, Roman, medieval, scientific, and ‘new’ archaeology). The great meta-narratives of the history of archaeology have followed this approach, with ‘archaeological thought’ or ‘archaeological ideas’ having a common inheritance or ancestry in nineteenth- century positivist European science. From this main rootstock, it eventually branched into subdivisions and out into the world at large, fostering offspring archaeologies differentiated by geography, tradition, subfield, or time period (Daniel 1975; Trigger 1989). Our aim in this volume, and that of much of recent archaeological historiography, is to challenge this meta-narrative and to demonstrate that there has been a great deal more variability of thought and practice in the Weld than has been acknowledged. In this context we think that Kroeber’s ‘Tree of Life/Culture’ (1948) is a more accurate visualization of the growth of archaeology. Instead of just branching ‘naturally’, Kroeber’s branches have the capacity to grow back on themselves and coalesce in the way that ‘thought’, ‘subjects’, and/or ‘institutions’/‘networks’ do. Yet Kroeber’s model still relies on a single main trunk. If applied to the history of archaeology it would not distinguish, for example, that antiquarianism did not conveniently die out with the advent of archaeology as a discipline, and that its history and development has always involved multiple strands—in essence the existence of other possibilities and practices. We intend this volume to stimulate the exploration of these other possible archaeologies, past, present, and future, and to help us acknowledge that the creation of world archaeologies, and the multiplication of interests and objectives among both the producers and consumers of archaeological knowledge, will drive the creation of still further variability.