A methodology for the restoration and cleanup of existing subsurface contaminated sites and for the containment of pollutants is developed. The remediation problem is posed as an optimization model where the rates and locations of pumping and injections are to be determined given the characteristics and extent of the contamination plume. The solution of the remediation problem is based on the econometric method of feedback control coupled with ground water flow and transport simulations. For site characterization and monitoring of the contaminant distribution and extent, an optimal sampling methodology is presented. The sampling design is based on geostatistical methods and yields optimal estimation of the subsurface parameters and pollutant concentrations, therefore providing informed decision-making for ground water remediation and contaminant removal. The remediation plan is optimized so as to lower the contamination level to a pre-specified level by the end of the remediation period while minimizing the cost of pumping and treatment The objective function of the optimal feedback control model consists of a successive minimization of a weighted sum of squared deviations of the achieved cleanup level at each stage from the desired target level of ground water quality.

Within the broad domain of neuroscience there is a divergence between those journals that focus on human clinical topics and those that take a decidedly comparative evolutionary and nonhuman approach. This distinction reflects a deeper separation between two branches of neuroscience: the human neuropsychological and the comparative neuroscience fields. I argue that this divergence is a reflection of scala naturae thinking and that greater strides in scientific thinking can be gained by overcoming this bias in favor of deep continuity across the human and nonhuman subdomains of neuroscience.

Over the past 55-60 million years cetacean (dolphin, whale, and porpoise) brains have become hyperexpanded so that modern cetacean encephalization levels are second only to modern humans. At the same time, brain expansion proceeded along very different lines than in other large-brained mammals so that substantial differences between modern cetacean brains and other mammalian brains exist at every level of brain organization. Perhaps the most profound difference between cetacean and other mammalian brains is in the architecture of the neocortex. Cetaceans possess a unique underlying neocortical organizational scheme that is particularly intriguing in light of the fact that cetaceans exhibit cognitive and behavioral complexity at least on a par with our closest phylogenetic relatives, the great apes. The neurobiological complexity underlying these cognitive capacities may involve the extreme multiplication of vertical structural units in the cetacean neocortex.

This article reviews the Italian reception of the French historian Fernand Braudel (1902-1985) and his scholarly work. Beginning with the effusive encomia published in Italian newspapers on his death, it examines the reality behind these hyperbolic claims by asking three questions: 1) What were Braudel’s contributions to the study of history in general and Italian history in particular? 2) How did Braudel’s relationship with Italian scholars and Italian history create such a reputation that an academic historian had become a legend in his own time? 3) What remains of Braudel’s work and method over the past twenty-five years in Italy and beyond? A summary of Braudel’s theses and evaluations by leading historians suggest that while Braudel’s book La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II may have as many errors as insights, it remains alive as a source of inspiration for the history of early modern Italy, prior to the establishment of the nation state. By subordinating political history to all aspects of life through the investigative methodology of the social sciences and by changing the way we think about time, space, and subject matter in history, Braudel’s vision provides a point of departure both to look back at the historiographical tradition before the volume was first published in 1949 and again at its second edition in 1966, as well as to scan forward to the historiography it has spawned.