This paper suggests that certain characteristics of resourcerelated conflict reveal areas of contemporary Just War Theory that are insufficiently rigorous or robust in their current form. Water security in particular, reveals ambiguity in the Just War framework’s treatment of the jus ad bellum criteria of ‘just cause,’ which in turn challenges the credibility of the entire system. The insufficiency that is exposed has consequences for the effectiveness and cogency of the bodies of international law and global community, which are fundamentally (...) based, and function according to, this predominantly Western moral framework. Key problem areas relating to flexible notions of ‘aggression,’ coincide with a persistent dilemma of simultaneously advocating responsibility to a global community while maintaining sovereign rights and security. Focusing on the ‘just cause’ criteria, justification for acts of war over certain resources is evaluated. Worryingly, the same powerful strategic reasons that might motivate a state to engage in what would otherwise be labelled a ‘realist’ war over certain resources, appear to gain moral merit through interpretation of the jus ad bellum in the specific case of water security, while argument against military action appears increasingly absolutist and impractical. The aim here then is to show the vulnerability of a dangerous prescriptive void in the Just War framework itself. Central to this is the question of the moral weight and significance, if any, of vital resources, as defined by strategic and humanitarian necessity. (shrink)

Working memory--the ability to keep important information in mind while comprehending, thinking, and acting--varies considerably from person to person and changes dramatically during each person's life. Understanding such individual and developmental differences is crucial because working memory is a major contributor to general intellectual functioning. This volume offers a state-of-the-art, integrative, and comprehensive approach to understanding variation in working memory by presenting explicit, detailed comparisons of the leading theories. It incorporates views from the different research groups that operate on each (...) side of the Atlantic, and covers working-memory research on a wide variety of populations, including healthy adults, children with and without learning difficulties, older adults, and adults and children with neurological disorders. A particular strength of this volume is that each research group explicitly addresses the same set of theoretical questions, from the perspective of both their own theoretical and experimental work and from the perspective of relevant alternative approaches. Through these questions, each research group considers their overarching theory of working memory, specifies the critical sources of working memory variation according to their theory, reflects on the compatibility of their approach with other approaches, and assesses their contribution to general working memory theory. This shared focus across chapters unifies the volume and highlights the similarities and differences among the various theories. Each chapter includes both a summary of research positions and a detailed discussion of each position. Variation in Working Memory achieves coherence across its chapters, while presenting the entire range of current theoretical and experimental approaches to variation in working memory. (shrink)

In Genesis 27 Jacob is depicted as lying to Isaac. Jacob, however, was held in Christian tradition to be both a moral exemplar and to be speaking prophetically in this episode with his father. This raises the question of how Doctors of the Church such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were able reconcile these interpretive commitments with their stance on the intrinsically disordered nature of lying. In examining their resolution of this tension, we discover an important exegetical distinction (...) for interpreting troubling words as nevertheless being divinely inspired. Yet, it is only in light of another interpretive distinction, recently highlighted by Nicholas Lombardo OP, that we can both hold to the inspired nature of Jacob's words and also a natural reading of the account in Genesis 27. The detailed examination of Genesis 27 by both Augustine and Aquinas is an important case study for understanding how we can interpret troubling language as still being the word of God. This undertaking, spanning centuries between Augustine and Aquinas, is now taken one step further thanks to the exegetical proposal of Fr. Lombardo. (shrink)

The early evolution of metazoans is a major focus of biological attention, but is the historical record revealed in the Cambrian “explosion” an accurate reflection of original events? The key questions concern the nature of the earliest animals and when they originated. One widely-mooted suggestion is that planktotrophic larvae, typified by the annelidan trochophore and echinoid pluteus, existed long before the metazoan radiations evident in the Cambrian fossil record. This idea could be consistent for recent evidence of divergence times, based (...) on molecular “clocks,” of phyla appearing well before the Cambrian. Now a surprising new discovery of eggs with blastomeres and embryos with well-defined anatomy from the Cambrian (c.530 Myr ago) of China and Siberia promises to extend the arena of debate. In one case a convincing ontogeny can be traced from eggs to adult tube-dwelling cnidarians. In the other example a possible protostome, unhatched and wrapped around the egg, shows segmentation and possibly nascent sclerites. In both, these cases development is direct, i.e., there is no evidence for any planktotrophic larval stage. The implications for our perceptions of both the Cambrian ‘explosion’ and metazoan phylogeny could be considerable. BioEssays 20:676–682, 1998.© 1998 John Wiley & Sons Inc. (shrink)

In recent years, two schools of thought have emerged with regard to the Cambrian “explosion”. One argues that it was very quick, with phyla tumbling into existence in a virtual geological instant. The other view has a more relaxed temporal perspective. It looks to slow aeons of cryptic metazoan history, which led to a final breakthrough in the Cambrian, not in evolution but of fossilization potential. Yet both views have serious difficulties. Now, in a recent issue of Biological Reviews, Graham (...) Budd and Sören Jensen(1) argue for a third way. In an intriguing blend of functional morphology, the fossil record and cladistic thinking, they suggest that the assembly of metazoan bodyplans took place in a surprisingly straightforward manner. BioEssays 22:1053–1056, 2000. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Spirituality in Nursing PracticeRegina Conway–PhillipsPersonally, I am a Christian and follow the principles of Unity, a new thought community that espouses that each individual creates their own reality and that God’s presence is within each individual. I am a spiritual being and I am sustained by my faith.Professionally, I have been a nurse for over 38 years in various capacities including clinical, administrative and academic. When I worked (...) at the bedside in the clinical capacity, I always believed that a person’s spirituality was most evident when dealing with an illness. In practice, I frequently prayed with and for patients that I was caring for regardless of their religion.In my administrative capacity I always encouraged my staff to feel free to incorporate their faith and belief into their practice. As an administrator I felt it important to be an example to my staff and allow them to see a professional practice in a spiritually faith–based capacity.Now, in my role as an academician, I stress to each of my students that it is important for them to get to know themselves. I challenge my students to know and understand what they believe about themselves and others, what they value and why. I encourage them to really reflect and be very honest with themselves about their worldview and what influences has shaped this worldview, their faith, beliefs and values. I explain that it is important for them to know themselves before they can help others. In the health care field it is important for my students to feel comfortable when they encounter a patient in need of spiritual support.Religion and spirituality are terms that are often used interchangeably in the health care setting. Although related, these terms have different meanings to health care practitioners, administrators, academicians and patients. Religion, religiousness, or religiosity is often referred to as membership and participation in the organizational structures, beliefs, rituals and dogma of religious faiths such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. While spirituality has been defined as believing in a Higher Power that guides ones life and is a source of unconditional love, peace and strength; as a result, one is able to cope with life’s situations and maintain a positive attitude and assurance that all is well.When presented with the opportunity to submit a story about how I, as a health care provider integrated faith into my practice, I jumped at the opportunity because I think it is an important factor in the care of others, be they patients, peers, students or oneself. One of the concepts I explored in my dissertation research was spirituality. I have always operated from a spiritual faith–based perspective both in my personal and professional life as a nurse and more recently as an academician. Personally, [End Page E3] I define myself as a spiritual being, governed by spiritual laws, guided by spiritual principles, living a human experience. I am a Christian and a beloved child of God, placed on this earth at this time to fulfill the divine potential and purpose I was sent to serve. I believe that every human being on the face of this earth is a spiritual being whether they acknowledge, believe it or accept it themselves. As such I believe we are all one with God and one with each other and I believe that everything in our lives happen for a reason and in due time. My faith and beliefs were never more clear to me than my experience in loosing my 84–year–old mother on January 18, 2013 after a four year battle with lung cancer.Professionally, I have been a nurse for over 38 years in various capacities including clinical, administrative and academic. When I worked at the bedside in the clinical capacity, I always believed that a person’s spirituality was most evident when dealing with an illness. In practice, I frequently prayed with and for patients that I was caring for regardless of their religion. I always felt it was a privilege to witness others resilience and faith. But it was as a cancer nurse navigator that I got to truly develop as a spiritual care... (shrink)

The almost simultaneous and overlapping discoveries of Mendel's forgotten work by Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and Erik von Tschermak gave rise to an intense rivalry, some jealousy, and more than a little illfeeling. De Vries, the first to announce the discovery, has been subjected to the charge that he wished to conceal his discovery and to obtain for himself the credit for having discovered what we now call Mendelism. This charge involves the statement that de Vries gave credit to (...) Mendel only after he had found that others had also read Mendel's papers. The evidence on which this charge is based is sketchy, and we can now show that at least that portion of it that is based on supposed alteration in the proof of de Vries' paper in the Berichte is without foundation. Unfortunately, de Vries gave three different accounts of how he was led to Mendel's work. Two of these involve Liberty Hyde Bailey.Bailey had listed Mendel's papers in a bibliography that he published in 1892 in The Rural Library. Bailey did not include this bibliography in the first edition (1895) of Plant Breeding or in its reprinting in 1896 and 1897. He did include the bibliography in the second edition (1902), but this was after de Vries and others had called attention to Mendel. In 1899, both Bailey and de Vries gave papers at the Hybrid Conference held at Chiswick, England, but we have no record of their having discussed Mendel. What evidence we have indicates that, at this time, neither of them had read Mendel's papers.De Vries wrote to Bailey that it was Bailey's listing of Mendel in the bibliography published in The Rural Library that led to his discovery of Mendel. Later, de Vries wrote to H. F. Roberts that he had first found a reference to Mendel in Bailey's Plant Breeding of 1895, where the bibliographic reference to Mendel's papers was not published. Finally, de Vries told Th. J. Stomps, who succeeded him at the University of Amsterdam, that he had first learned of Mendel early in 1900 from a reprint of Mendel's paper sent him by his friend Professor M. W. Beyerinck. Our present evidence favors Stomp's account as it shows that de Vries had not read Mendel's papers in 1899 but had early in 1900.Attempts to pinpoint de Vries' discovery of Mendel are aided in part, and in part confused, by the fact that he published five relevant papers in 1900. These papers were in press simultaneously, and some of them were altered in proof. Further confusion is due to the fact that at least three of them were published in the reverse order of their acceptance for publication. Unfortunately we do not have the crucial dates for all of the papers.J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 24: 69–75. A definitely pre-Mendelian paper given on 11 July 1899, and published in 1900 (possibly in April). The evidence for an alteration in proof after de Vries had read Mendel is shown by the fact that de Vries described a ratio of 99 to 54 as a 3 to 1 ratio.Rev. gén. botan. 12: 129–137. A Mendelian paper, giving the 3 to 1 ratio in the F2 generation of a cross between starchy and sugary corn. The paper is not dated by de Vries but it was published in the volume, 128 pages ahead of a paper de Vries dated 19 March. In a footnote, de Vries cites a paper by Correns that was published on 25 January, so we can tell that it was written or corrected in proof after this date. Here Correns showed de Vries that he had already read Mendel's paper. Any attempt by de Vries to ignore Mendel or get credit for Mendelism after 25 January would have been senseless. This date was nearly two months before de Vries' Berichte paper was submitted for publication.Ber. deut. botan. Ges. 18: 83–90. Accepted for publication 14 march, published 25 April. This paper gives Mendel full credit and stimulated the publications of Correns and von Tschermak. As de Vries was aware that Correns already knew of Mendel when the paper was first submitted, there was no occasion to alter it in proof.Rev. gén. botan. 12: 257–271. Dated by de Vries 19 March, but the proof was read after June. De Vries cites von Tschermak's paper in the Berichte that was published in June. The Revue paper is a Mendelian paper, and Mendel is cited on the last page.C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) 130: 845–847. Accepted for publication 26 March 1900. Reprint received by Correns 21 April. Mendel is not mentioned but de Vries' use of terms told Correns that de Vries had read Mendel's paper. First of the papers to be published, it caused Correns to assume that de Vries wanted the credit that was due Mendel.The three discoverers of Mendel did not form a mutual admiration society. (shrink)

e live on a wonderful planet that not only teems with life but shows a marvellous exuberance of form and variety. In comparison with the size of the Earth its living skin (the so-called biosphere) may be thin, but it is by no means negligible. From high in the atmosphere, where ballooning spiders wafted aloft on their silk-strings have been trapped at heights of more than 4500 m and birds such as condors cross tropical storms at altitudes well above 6000 (...) in, via the oceans and the green continents, to deep within the Earth's crust where bacteria are known to live at depths of at least several kilometres, life is pervasive. (shrink)