Geographic variability of Escherichia coli ribotypes from animals in Idaho and Georgia

Several genotypic methods have been developed for determining the host origin of fecal bacteria in contaminated waters. Some of these methods rely on a host origin database to identify environmental isolates. It is not well understood to what degree these host origin isolates are geographically variable (i.e., cosmopolitan or endemic). This is important because a geographically limited host origin database may or may not be universally applicable. The objective of our study was to use one genotypic method, ribotyping, to determine the geographic variability of the fecal bacterium, Escherichia coli, from one location in Idaho and three locations in Georgia for cattle (Bos taurus), horse (Equus caballus), swine (Sus scrofa), and chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus). A total of 568 fecal E. coli isolates from Kimberly, ID (125 isolates), Athens, GA (210 isolates), Brunswick, GA (102 isolates), and Tifton, GA (131 isolates), yielded 213 ribotypes. The percentage of ribotype sharing within an animal species increased with decreased distance between geographic locations for cattle and horses, but not for swine and chicken. When the E. coli ribotypes among the four host species were compared at one location, the percent of unshared ribotypes was 86, 89, 81, and 79% for Kimberly, Athens, Brunswick, and Tifton, respectively. These data suggest that there is good ribotype separation among host animal species at each location. The ability to match environmental isolates to a host origin database may depend on a large number of environmental and host origin isolates that ideally are not geographically separated.     

Two Concepts of Dignity for Humans and Non-Human Organisms in the Context of Genetic Engineering

The 1992 incorporation of an article by referendum in the SwissConstitution mandating that the federal government issue regulations onthe use of genetic material that take into account the dignity ofnonhuman organism raises philosophical questions about how we shouldunderstand what is meant by ``the dignity of nonhuman animals,' andabout what sort of moral demands arise from recognizing this dignitywith respect to their genetic engineering. The first step in determiningwhat is meant is to clarify the difference between dignity when appliedto humans and when applied to nonhumans. Several conceptions of humandignity should be rejected in favor of a fourth conception: the rightnot to be degraded. This right implies that those who have it have thecognitive capacities that are prerequisite for self-respect. In the caseof nonhuman organisms that lack this capacity, respecting their dignityrequires the recognition that their inherent value, which is tied totheir abilities to pursue their own good, be respected. This value isnot absolute, as it is in the case of humans, so it does not prohibitbreeding manipulations that make organisms more useful to humans. But itdoes restrict morally how sentient animals can be used. In regard togenetic engineering, this conception requires that animals be allowedthe uninhibited development of species specific functions, a positionshared by Holland and Attfield, as opposed to the Original Purposeconception proposed by Fox and the Integrity of the Genetic Make-upposition proposed by Rolston. The inherent value conception of dignity,as here defended, is what is meant in the Swiss Constitution article.     

Understanding and predicting ecological dynamics: are major surprises inevitable?

Ecological surprises, substantial and unanticipated changes in the abundance of one or more species that result from previously unsuspected processes, are a common outcome of both experiments and observations in community and population ecology. Here, we give examples of such surprises along with the results of a survey of well-established field ecologists, most of whom have encountered one or more surprises over the course of their careers. Truly surprising results are common enough to require their consideration in any reasonable effort to characterize nature and manage natural resources. We classify surprises as dynamic-, pattern-, or intervention-based, and we speculate on the common processes that cause ecological systems to so often surprise us. A long-standing and still growing concern in the ecological literature is how best to make predictions of future population and community dynamics. Although most work on this subject involves statistical aspects of data analysis and modeling, the frequency and nature of ecological surprises imply that uncertainty cannot be easily tamed through improved analytical procedures, and that prudent management of both exploited and conserved communities will require precautionary and adaptive management approaches.