In this paper, I outline the drawbacks with the two main behavioral approaches to animal behavior problems and argue that each alone is insufficient to underpin a field of clinical animal behavior. Applied ethology offers an interest in an animal’s spontaneous behavior in natural contexts, understood within an ecological and evolutionary context, but lacks an awareness of mechanisms that can be manipulated to modify the behavior of individual animals. Behaviorism in the form of Applied Behavior Analysis offers a toolkit of techniques for modifying the behavior of individual animals, but has seldom been applied to non-human species, and often overlooks phylogenetic aspects of behavior. Notwithstanding the historical animosities between the two fields of animal behavior they are philosophically highly compatible – both being empiricist schools stemming ultimately from Darwin’s insights. Though each individually is incomplete, I argue that an integrated approach that synthesizes the strengths of each holds great promise in helping the many animals who need our assistance to survive and thrive in human-dominated environments.

The relative importance of adaptation and individual ontogenetic experience in dogs' high levels of behavioral compatibility with humans has been a topic of intense scientific attention over the past two decades. Salomons et al. Current Biology, 31, 3137-3144, (2021) recently presented a particularly rich data set of observations on both wolf and dog puppies that has the potential to contribute substantially to this debate. In their study subjecting wolf and dog puppies to batteries of tests, including the ability to follow human pointing gestures, Salomons et al. (2021) reported that dogs, but not wolves, have a specialized innate capacity for cooperation with humans. However, upon reanalyzing this data set, we reach a different conclusion-namely, that when controlling adequately for various environmental factors, wolves and dogs perform similarly in their cooperation with humans.

Bob Francis grew up in Yuma, Arizona and graduated from ASU. After spending a year teaching high school in Yuma, he returned to ASU in 1970, starting in the Alumni Association. After a few years, he moved to the Office of Undergraduate Admissions where he spent most of his career. He retired in 2002.

Important / interesting parts of the interview include:
• The beginning of the Office of Undergraduate Admissions in Part 2
• The changing attitude about the role of the University in marketing itself to students and parents in Part 3
• The role of the Devils’ Advocates played in selling the University in Part 4
• The role Don Dotts and Christine Kajikawa Wilkinson played in Bob’s career in Part 6

To address the dearth of knowledge about person-based and trip-level exposure, we developed the Icarus model. Icarus uses mesoscale traffic model—activity-based model—to analyze the heat exposure of regions of interest at an individual level. The goal with Icarus was to design accurate, granular models of population and temperature behavior for a target region, which could be transformed into a heat exposure model by means of simulation and spatial-temporal joining. By combining and implementing the most robust software and data available, Icarus was able to capture person-based exposure with unparalleled detail. Here we describe the model methodology. We use the metropolitan region of Phoenix, Arizona, USA to carry out a case study using Icarus.