Ought we to sentence people to psychiatric treatment?

In principle, there seem to be three main ways in which society can react when people commit crimes under influence of mental illness. (1) The standard model. We excuse them. If they are dangerous they are detained in the interest of safety of the rest of the citizens. (2) The Swedish model. We hold them responsible for their criminal offence, we convict them, but we do not sentence them to jail. Instead, we sentence them to psychiatric treatment. (3) My model. We sentence them to jail, but offer them (voluntary) psychiatric treatment. The advantages of my model are obvious. We get a clear delineation of roles. We allow the psychiatrist to be just a doctor, not a warden. We liberate psychiatry of the objective of deciding whether people who were mentally ill when they committed criminal offences 'could have acted otherwise' -- a hopeless task. We allow that psychiatrists live up to their professional ethical code (The Hawaii Declaration). We treat psychically ill persons as 'normal', we allow them to repent their crimes, which renders easier their recovery. However, two objections to my model come to mind. First of all, is it not unfair to sentence people to jail who could not help doing what they did? And, secondly, the question of fairness set to one side, is it not inhumane to sentence mentally ill persons to jail? Is it not inhumane to the mentally ill persons themselves, and does it not mean that they will be a burden to other prisoners? In my paper I show that, if our system of criminal punishment takes a civilised form, neither of these objections carries any weight.     

What do we need to know about speciation?

Speciation has been a major focus of evolutionary biology research in recent years, with many important advances. However, some of the traditional organising principles of the subject area no longer provide a satisfactory framework, such as the classification of speciation mechanisms by geographical context into allopatric, parapatric and sympatry classes. Therefore, we have asked where speciation research should be directed in the coming years. Here, we present a distillation of questions about the mechanisms of speciation, the genetic basis of speciation and the relationship between speciation and diversity. Our list of topics is not exhaustive; rather we aim to promote discussion on research priorities and on the common themes that underlie disparate speciation processes.     

Gynodioecy to dioecy: are we there yet?

Background

The ‘gynodioecy–dioecy pathway’ is considered to be one of the most important evolutionary routes from hermaphroditism to separate sexes (dioecy). Despite a large accumulation of evidence for female seed fertility advantages in gynodioecious species (females and hermaphrodites coexist) in support of the first step in the gynodioecy–dioecy pathway, we still have very little evidence for the second step, i.e. the transition from gynodioecy to dioecy.

Scope

We review the literature to evaluate whether basic predictions by theory are supported. To establish whether females'' seed fertility advantage and frequencies are sufficient to favour the invasion of males, we review these for species along the gynodioecy–dioecy pathway published in the last 5 years. We then review the empirical evidence for predictions deriving from the second step, i.e. hermaphrodites'' male fertility increases with female frequency, selection favours greater male fertility in hermaphrodites in gynodioecious species, and, where males and hermaphrodites coexist with females (subdioecy), males have greater male fertility than hermaphrodites. We review how genetic control and certain ecological features (pollen limitation, selfing, plasticity in sex expression and antagonists) influence the trajectory of a population along the gynodioecy–dioecy pathway.

Conclusions

Females tend to have greater seed fertility advantages over hermaphrodites where the two coexist, and this advantage is positively correlated with female frequency across species, as predicted by theory. A limited number of studies in subdioecious species have demonstrated that males have an advantage over hermaphrodites, as also predicted by theory. However, less evidence exists for phenotypic selection to increase male traits of hermaphrodites or for increasing male function of hermaphrodites in populations with high female frequency. A few key case studies underline the importance of examining multiple components of male fertility and the roles of pollen limitation, selfing and plasticity, when evaluating advantages. We conclude that we do not yet have a full understanding of the transition from gynodioecy to dioecy.     

Appetite control： why we fail to stop eating even when we are full？

We often eat more than our body needs. We live in an environment where high calorie food is abundant and physical activities are limited. Living in this environment, maintaining healthy bodyweight becomes challenging and obesity becomes a social burden. Why do we continue to eat even after the metabolic needs are satisfied？ Feeding is an ancient behavior essential to survive. Thus the mechanisms to regulate appetite, energy expenditure, and energy storage are well conserved throughout animals. Based on this conservation, we study why we fail to control appetite using a simple genetic model system C. elegans. We have discovered certain genetic components that when misregulated have animals eat more and store more fat. In this review we discuss how these genes work in the appetite control circuit to ultimately understand overall appetite control behavior. We will also briefly discuss how social influence affects feeding regardless of the metabolic status of an animal.     

Do we know enough about controlling sediment to mitigate damage to stream ecosystems?

Stream and river ecosystems have suffered extensive degradation, and billions are expended annually on restoration efforts. However, few of these projects are monitored, and restoration effectiveness is often unknown. Consequently, there is a poor scientific foundation for restoration designs. Since many stream restoration efforts are at least partially targeted at controlling erosion of channel banks and beds, the effects of a large-scale, long-term stream erosion control effort in six Mississippi watersheds was assessed using 10–16 years of suspended sediment and water discharge records. Flow-adjusted suspended sediment concentrations showed no trends in five of the watersheds and a slight downward trend in one watershed, which was treated with small reservoirs as well as bed and bank erosion protection. Results indicate the inability of orthodox stream management structures (weirs and bank protection) to reduce watershed sediment yield and the need for a stronger scientific basis for stream restoration.     

Plant adaptation to climate change—Where are we?

Climate change poses critical challenges for population persistence in natural communities, for agriculture and environmental sustainability, and for food security. In this review, we discuss recent progress in climatic adaptation in plants. We evaluate whether climate change exerts novel selection and disrupts local adaptation, whether gene flow can facilitate adaptive responses to climate change, and whether adaptive phenotypic plasticity could sustain populations in the short term. Furthermore, we discuss how climate change influences species interactions. Through a more in‐depth understanding of these eco‐evolutionary dynamics, we will increase our capacity to predict the adaptive potential of plants under climate change. In addition, we review studies that dissect the genetic basis of plant adaptation to climate change. Finally, we highlight key research gaps, ranging from validating gene function to elucidating molecular mechanisms, expanding research systems from model species to other natural species, testing the fitness consequences of alleles in natural environments, and designing multifactorial studies that more closely reflect the complex and interactive effects of multiple climate change factors. By leveraging interdisciplinary tools (e.g., cutting‐edge omics toolkits, novel ecological strategies, newly developed genome editing technology), researchers can more accurately predict the probability that species can persist through this rapid and intense period of environmental change, as well as cultivate crops to withstand climate change, and conserve biodiversity in natural systems.     

Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behaviour?

We expect that natural selection should result in behavioural rules which perform well; however, animals (including humans) sometimes make bad decisions. Researchers account for these with a variety of explanations; we concentrate on two of them. One explanation is that the outcome is a side effect; what matters is how a rule performs (in terms of reproductive success). Several rules may perform well in the environment in which they have evolved, but their performance may differ in a 'new' environment (e.g. the laboratory). Some rules may perform very badly in this environment. We use the debate about whether animals follow the matching law rather than maximizing their gains as an illustration. Another possibility is that we were wrong about what is optimal. Here, the general idea is that the setting in which optimal decisions are investigated is too simple and may not include elements that add extra degrees of freedom to the situation.