Replicating and breaking models: good for you and good for ecology

There are two major limitations to the potential of computational models in ecology for producing general insights: their design is path‐dependent, reflecting different underlying questions, assumptions, and data, and there is too little robustness analysis exploring where the model mechanisms explaining certain observations break down. We here argue that both limitations could be overcome if modellers in ecology would more often replicate existing models, try to break the models, and explore modifications. Replication comprises the re‐implementation of an existing model and the replication of its results. Breaking models means to identify under what conditions the mechanisms represented in a model can no longer explain observed phenomena. The benefits of replication include less effort being spent to enter the iterative stage of model development and having more time for systematic robustness analysis. A culture of replication would lead to increased credibility, coherence and efficiency of computational modelling and thereby facilitate theory development.     

Development of the renal glomerulus: good neighbors and good fences

The glomerulus of the mammalian kidney is an intricate structure that contains an unusual filtration barrier that retains higher molecular weight proteins and blood cells in the circulation. Recent studies have changed our conception of the glomerulus from a relatively static structure to a dynamic one, whose integrity depends on signaling between the three major cell lineages: podocytes, endothelial and mesangial cells. Research into the signaling pathways that control glomerular development and then maintain glomerular integrity and function has recently identified several genes, such as the nephrin and Wilms' tumor 1 genes, that are mutated in human kidney disease.     

Individual good and common good: a communitarian approach to bioethics

The field of bioethics emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Among its early issues were the protection of human research subjects, the rights of patients, abortion, and reproductive issues. Partly as a reflection of the times, and of those issues, the field became focused on autonomy and individual rights, and liberal individualism came to be the dominant ideology in the 1980s and 1990s. Communitarianism, as an alternative ideology focused more on the common good and the public interest than on autonomy, was a neglected approach. But many bioethical issues can not reasonably be reduced to questions of individualism and choice only. Issues of genetics and reproduction will of necessity touch on the society as a whole, its values, and its social institutions. Serious ethical analysis must take the social implications seriously and not simply assume that they should be left to autonomous choices of individuals. Human beings are social animals and our nature is distorted if we think of ourselves only as co-existing social atoms. Various approaches to communitarianism are outlined, and the question of the relationship between individual good and common good is confronted.     

Tobacco wars: the bloody battle between good health and good politics

A battle to introduce new antitobacco legislation in Canada has caused political battles within the Liberal Party. While one side is worried about the need to protect people''s health, another is worried about the potential loss of jobs within the tobacco industry--many of which are located in politically volatile Quebec. Charlotte Gray writes about the machinations that led to the introduction of new smoking legislation in the House of Commons in November.     

Cooperation and the common good

In this paper, we draw the attention of biologists to a result from the economic literature, which suggests that when individuals are engaged in a communal activity of benefit to all, selection may favour cooperative sharing of resources even among non-relatives. Provided that group members all invest some resources in the public good, they should refrain from conflict over the division of these resources. The reason is that, given diminishing returns on investment in public and private goods, claiming (or ceding) a greater share of total resources only leads to the actor (or its competitors) investing more in the public good, such that the marginal costs and benefits of investment remain in balance. This cancels out any individual benefits of resource competition. We illustrate how this idea may be applied in the context of biparental care, using a sequential game in which parents first compete with one another over resources, and then choose how to allocate the resources they each obtain to care of their joint young (public good) versus their own survival and future reproductive success (private good). We show that when the two parents both invest in care to some extent, they should refrain from any conflict over the division of resources. The same effect can also support asymmetric outcomes in which one parent competes for resources and invests in care, whereas the other does not invest but refrains from competition. The fact that the caring parent gains higher fitness pay-offs at these equilibria suggests that abandoning a partner is not always to the latter''s detriment, when the potential for resource competition is taken into account, but may instead be of benefit to the ‘abandoned’ mate.     

What's good for the host is good for the bug

Tuberculosis, caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, kills approximately two million people each year. The infection is characterized by an inflammatory response culminating in the formation of a granuloma, a collection of immune cells that controls the infection. However, the granuloma can be the source of immunopathology that encourages transmission. Recent data support the idea that mycobacterial products can positively and negatively regulate the inflammatory response. Our contention is that induction of the immune response and subsequent granuloma formation is beneficial to the host for control of infection, and is also beneficial to the bacillus, as a place to hide and as a means for transmitting the infection to naive hosts.     

Autophagy: Not good OR bad,but good AND bad

Autophagy is a well-established mechanism to degrade intracellular components and provide a nutrient source to promote survival of cells in metabolic distress. Such stress can be caused by a lack of available nutrients or by insufficient rates of nutrient uptake. Indeed, growth factor deprivation leads to internalization and degradation of nutrient transporters, leaving cells with limited means to access extracellular nutrients even when plentiful. This loss of growth factor signaling and extracellular nutrients ultimately leads to apoptosis, but also activates autophagy, which may degrade intracellular components and provide fuel for mitochondrial bioenergetics. The precise metabolic role of autophagy and how it intersects with the apoptotic pathways in growth factor withdrawal, however, has been uncertain. Our recent findings in growth factor-deprived hematopoietic cells show that autophagy can simultaneously contribute to cell metabolism and initiate a pathway to sensitize cells to apoptotic death. This pathway may promote tissue homeostasis by ensuring that only cells with high resistance to apoptosis may utilize autophagy as a survival mechanism when growth factors are limiting and nutrient uptake decreases.     

Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit

Female choice for male ornamental traits is widely accepted as a mechanism by which females maximize their reproductive success and/or offspring quality. However, there is an increasing empirical literature that shows a fitness benefit of genetic diversity and a tendency for females to use genetic dissimilarity as a criterion for mate choice. This genetic compatibility hypothesis for female mate choice presents a paradox. How can females use both an absolute criterion, such as male ornamentation, and a relative criterion, such as genetic dissimilarity, to choose their mates? Here, we present potential solutions for this dilemma and the empirical evidence supporting them. The interplay between these two contrasting forms of female mate choice presents an exciting empirical and theoretical challenge for evolutionary ecologists.