Jon Christensen's article reports on "a growing chorus of scientists" cautioning that directing a disproportionate amount of conservation efforts toward hot spots "may be a recipe for major losses in the future." His analogy is a balanced portfolio for investors and avoiding "putting all of their eggs in one basket" for conservationists. Hot spots "do not include many rare species and major animal groups that live in less biologically rich regions ('cold spots')," he writes. "And the hot-spot concept does not factor in the importance of some ecosystems to human beings," for instance the important water filtration and flood control services provided by wetlands. He quotes two experts as fearing that "the hot-spot concept has grown so popular in recent years within the larger conservation community that it now risks eclipsing all other approaches ... [some] have been seduced by the simplicity of the hot spot idea." Stanford University's Paul Ehrlich says, "focusing all of our attention on hot spots is just nuts," and explains that it was a valuable concept initially but one now carried to an extreme. While cautioning against overreacting against a hot-spots emphasis, a World Bank specialist says, "Put it this way, when we're trying to justify aproject, if it's a hot spot, basically it's a shoo-in." A word that creeps into the discussion, and into Christensen's article is balance -- avoiding tilting too far toward or away from a hot-spots emphasis. (See: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20817FF3E5E0C728CDDAE0894DB404482)