Explore the vast range of titles available.

Lists of species underpin many fields of human endeavour, but there are currently no universally accepted principles for deciding which biological species should be accepted when there are alternative taxonomic treatments (and, by extension, which scientific names should be applied to those species). As improvements in information technology make it easier to communicate, access, and aggregate biodiversity information, there is a need for a framework that helps taxonomists and the users of taxonomy decide which taxa and names should be used by society whilst continuing to encourage taxonomic research that leads to new species discoveries, new knowledge of species relationships, and the refinement of existing species concepts. Here, we present 10 principles that can underpin such a governance framework, namely (i) the species list must be based on science and free from nontaxonomic considerations and interference, (ii) governance of the species list must aim for community support and use, (iii) all decisions about list composition must be transparent, (iv) the governance of validated lists of species is separate from the governance of the names of taxa, (v) governance of lists of accepted species must not constrain academic freedom, (vi) the set of criteria considered sufficient to recognise species boundaries may appropriately vary between different taxonomic groups but should be consistent when possible, (vii) a global list must balance conflicting needs for currency and stability by having archived versions, (viii) contributors need appropriate recognition, (ix) list content should be traceable, and (x) a global listing process needs both to encompass global diversity and to accommodate local knowledge of that diversity. We conclude by outlining issues that must be resolved if such a system of taxonomic list governance and a unified list of accepted scientific names generated are to be universally adopted.

Ethical decision-making is central to the practice of construction management. This is no more evident than in the twenty-first century, when the construction industry must function in very diverse organizational contexts. Whilst construction companies pursue projects in international markets, many investors are buying or forming joint ventures with domestic companies. New and varied professional attitudes have recently arrived in western markets because construction companies are increasingly employing managers from developing nations to undertake commercial and infrastructure engineering projects. The construction industry, in both developing and developed countries, is vulnerable to unethical behavior or corruption – vulnerability in part because of differences in culture and managerial systems across countries; and this diversity is manifest in the different perspectives of professional ethics and professional practice. On the other hand, the incorporation of sustainability principles in natural resources, environmental management, the economy and adoption of a “reduce, reuse & recycle” philosophy in construction and constructed facilities are clear imperatives. Our contention is that construction management students must fully cognizant of these imperatives. However ethics education for most construction management students currently lacks global components and sustainability – further, curricula only require “micro-inserts” of ethics teaching without any systematic or standalone course for professional education. This is contrast to engineering programs, such as civil, environmental and computer engineering. This paper discusses the nature of the construction industry, globalized trends, sustainable development and confirms the necessity for integrating ethics education into the curriculum – in anticipation that this will ensure the highest level of professionalism when construction management students graduate.