THE SCIENTIST (CONTENTS PAGE + FULL ISSUE FOLLOW THIS SHORT MESSAGE) *********************

 
 
 
                      THE SCIENTIST 
     (CONTENTS PAGE & FULL ISSUE FOLLOW THIS SHORT MESSAGE) 
     ******************************************************  
 
Dear Reader: 
 
Many of you have been accessing THE SCIENTIST, free of  
charge, on the Internet for over a year.  We thank you for  
your interest. 
 
Would you please take a moment to let us have your views,  
suggestions, and comments about THE SCIENTIST to enable us  
to better meet your needs? 
 
We would particularly like to know: 
 
1. If you are working in an academic, commercial, or  
   government organization? 
 
2. After you ftp each issue of THE SCIENTIST, how many  
   others do you share it with? 
 
3. Do you usually ftp the file or prefer searching it via  
   Gopher or WAIS? 
 
4. If it can be arranged, would you prefer receiving each  
   issue, automatically, in your electronic mail box? 
 
5. Finally, do you have any suggestions for ways of  
   improving our file or format? 
 
 
Thanks and best wishes, 
 
Eugene Garfield 
Publisher 
THE SCIENTIST, 3600 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104,U.S.A. 
Phone :(215)243-2205 // Fax: (215)387-1266  
 
E-mail:garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
 
                     ================= 
 
 
                          THE SCIENTIST 
 
 
VOLUME 8, No:11                                     MAY 30, 1994 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
 
=============================================================== 
Articles published in THE SCIENTIST reflect the views of their  
authors and not the official views of the publication,          
its editorial staff, or its ownership.                          
=============================================================== 
 
    *** THE NEXT ISSUE OF THE SCIENTIST WILL APPEAR ON  *** 
    ***                   JUNE 13, 1994                 *** 
    ***                                                 *** 
    ******************************************************* 
 
Subscription rates for the printed edition are: 
 
In the United States: one year $58, two years $ 94 
Canada              : one year $82, two years $142 
All other foreign   : one year/air cargo $ 79 
                      one year/ airmail  $133 
 
 
THE SCIENTIST  
(Page numbers correspond to printed edition of  
THE SCIENTIST) 
 
FOR SEARCHING PURPOSES:   
AU   = author 
TI   = title of article 
TY   = type 
PG   = page 
NEXT = next article 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI :                      CONTENTS 
PG : 3  
============================================================ 
 
                              NEWS 
 
 
REPORT ON NIH INTRAMURAL SCIENCE: The National  
Institutes of Health intramural research program, while  
still strong, has been declining in quality and is due for  
rejuvenation, according to critics within the program and in  
the extramural community. A recent citation-impact study  
also supports this view of NIH research as fading. Now,  
scientists and NIH administrators are hopeful that a new  
external report suggesting specific changes will prove  
effective in strengthening the program   
PG   : 1 
 
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH STATEMENT: Supporters of a "consensus  
statement" presented to Congress, advocating increased  
biomedical research funding and endorsed by 156  
institutions, associations, and companies, say the document  
carries added impact because of the diverse sectors of the  
research community represented. Some critics, however,  
contend its influence will be mitigated by the individual  
interests represented in the text, while others feel the  
statement's recommendations are not in the public interest   
PG   : 1 
 
ANIMAL REPORT REACTION: A Tufts University report that  
examines the controversy over the use of animals in research  
and attempts to find a "middle ground" and promote dialogue  
between animal-research advocates and the animal-protection  
community is evoking mixed reactions from various  
constituencies within both camps    
PG   : 3 
 
HHMI's EXPANDING INFLUENCE: The recently released list of  
new Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigators--more than  
double the usual number of annual appointments--reflects  
both an expansion of the institute's cadre of research  
institutions and greater commitment to involving more women  
and minorities in science   
PG   : 6 
 
 
                             OPINION 
 
CAMPAIGN CREDO: The full text of the statement on biomedical  
research support, "Medical Research: Progress and Promise  
for the Patient," is presented. The document was endorsed  
by, and prepared with input from, 156 academic,  
institutional, and corporate entities    
PG   : 12 
 
COMMENTARY: Leon E. Rosenberg, president of the Bristol- 
Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute in Princeton,  
N.J., urges his colleagues in the United States biomedical  
research community to put full energy into distributing,  
publicizing, and promoting the Research!America-sponsored  
consensus statement that is presented on page 12 of this  
issue   
PG   : 13 
 
 
                            RESEARCH 
 
 
HEAT-LOVING MICROBES: Scientists are warming up to Archaea,  
thermophilic microbes they feel may hold the answer to  
numerous basic research questions--including clues to  
Earth's origins--and may have substantial environmental and  
commercial applications   
PG   : 14 
 
HOT PAPERS: Medical researcher Kenneth W. Culver expands on  
his lab's gene-transfer method; chemist Thomas W. Ebbesen  
discusses his paper on large-scale synthesis of carbon  
nanotubes; physicist Robert J. Cava comments on his paper's  
role in the understanding of the cause of high-Tc  
superconductivity   
PG   : 16 
 
                        TOOLS & TRAINING 
 
GRANT SOFTWARE: New computer software and electronic aids  
are making the task of finding, applying for, and managing  
grants easier for researchers and administrators   
PG   : 17 
 
 
                           PROFESSION 
 
PEER REVIEW CRITIQUE: The time-honored practice of peer  
review of articles submitted for publication is coming under  
fire from authors--and even journal editors--who claim many  
reviewers are either ignorant of the work they critique or  
competitors in the same field; some are calling for an  
examination of the process   
PG   : 1 
 
PETER S. KIM, an associate biology professor at the  
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Howard Hughes  
Medical Institute associate investigator, has received  
awards from two national professional societies   
PG   : 22 
 
 
                           SHORT TAKES 
 
NOTEBOOK    PG : 4 
 
LETTERS     PG : 13 
 
DIRECTORY OF COMPUTER AIDS FOR FINDING, PREPARING, AND  
MANAGING GRANTS     PG  : 19 
 
NEW PRODUCTS        PG  : 20 
 
OBITUARY            PG  : 22 
 
CROSSWORD           PG  : 22 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.3, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Landmark `Consensus Statement' On Biomedical Research  
       Support Is Greeted By Mixed Reactions 
 
Some  observers regard the plea to Congress, signed  by  156  
organizations,  as an urgently needed document,  but  others  
see flaws in it 
 
AU   : BARBARA SPECTOR 
 
TY   : NEWS 
 
PG   : 1 
 
A   "consensus  statement"  advocating   increased   medical  
research  funding by the United States  government--endorsed  
by  156  institutions,  associations, and  companies  and  
presented  to  Congress  earlier  this  month  --will  be  a  
significant  addition  to  the  national  health-care-reform  
debate,  say  those  who  have  signed  the  document.   The  
signatories  say its message will be particularly  effective  
because such declarations are rarely made jointly by diverse  
sectors of the research community. 
 
Some health-policy specialists agree with this assessment of  
the statement's importance, predicting that its language  
will likely appeal to President Clinton. But as the  
declaration was being delivered to members of Congress,  
objections to it were coming from several quarters. 
 
A number of long-time health-policy watchers, for example,  
believe that the individual concerns of the signatories are  
too blatantly heralded in the statement and foresee a  
backlash from politicians inundated with pleas from special- 
interest groups. Others say the document does not make its  
case in a novel way and thus is likely to be ignored. 
 
Yet some critics disagree with these  predictions,  saying   
that the statement is liable to be welcomed by government  
officials--but they contend that lawmakers would be  
misguided in heeding its recommendations, which they say are  
not in the public interest. 
 
The declaration grew out of a March 9 forum held at the  
Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C., and attended by  
officials from scientific societies; voluntary health  
associations; biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies;  
medical, dental, and nursing schools; and hospitals. The  
meeting was organized by Research!America, an Alexandria,  
Va.-based research-advocacy organization, and chaired by  
Leon Rosenberg, president of the Bristol-Myers Squibb  
Pharmaceutical Research Institute in Princeton, N.J. (see  
Commentary, page 13). The statement was hand-delivered to  
every member of Congress on May 3; subsequently, it was  
given to staffers in the Clinton administration and various  
federal agencies. 
 
 
The Message 
Asserting that "too many Americans are suffering and dying  
needlessly because, as a nation, we don't invest enough in  
medical research," the statement notes that such research  
"provides high-quality, long-term employment for more than a  
million people." 
 
The document cites a poll conducted for Research!America by  
New York-based Louis Harris & Associates that found "a  
majority of Americans want the nation to invest more heavily  
in medical research." It concludes with recommendations,  
including calls to "incorporate the promotion of medical  
research as an integral element of health-care reform" and  
"encourage, do not obstruct, the discovery and develop- ment  
of innovative and effective pharmaceuticals, devices and  
reagents, by private industry." (For the full text, see  
Opinion, page 12.) 
 
Research!America president Mary Woolley says the message of  
the statement is twofold: to explain effectively "how health  
research can help the public interest"; and to counter "a  
perception out there that the research community fights  
within itself and doesn't agree on a whole range of issues." 
 
The document, she says, will aid advocates of research as  
they make their individual cases to Congress, the Clinton  
administration, and others working on health-care reform  
policy: "They now have words to use that they know are  
shared by members of the diverse research community." 
 
The signatories' ultimate objective, Woolley says, is  
"getting past the year-to-year, crisis mentality" that she  
says has characterized research funding over the past  
decade. "If we are successful, bench scientists will be  
allowed to pursue science based on scientific opportunities,  
secure that what they're doing is supported by the public,  
and everybody will win," she says. 
 
Robert C. Young, president of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in  
Philadelphia, which endorsed the statement, points out that  
the need for basic scientific investigation is "not self- 
evident to many people in this country, and it's nave to  
expect that it is." It's no longer realistic for scientists  
to "expect that they can qui-etly work and people will  
respect the importance [of research]," Young says.  
 
"Basically, we are not joiners, but we will do anything to  
support research," says Constance Lieber, president of Great  
Neck, N.Y.-based NARSAD, or the National Alliance for  
Research on Schizophrenia and Depression, of her group,  
another signatory. "I think it's a great achievement to have  
one organization--Research!America--get these organizations  
together. They all have their own private agendas but can  
agree on one central issue." 
 
An Interest Group? 
But some observers worry that the statement may subvert its  
own objective. "I'm in general agreement with the goals of  
this action--to raise awareness of the need for greater  
public investment in research," says Denis J. Prager,  
director of health programs at the Chicago-based John D. and  
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. "But I'm skeptical about  
the effectiveness of this particular document, in which the  
recommendations are transparent reflections of the concerns  
and fears of the signatories. 
 
"I'm concerned that, because of the transparency of the  
interests which it represents, it may actually have the  
opposite effect from what is intended." 
 
However, Carl Feldbaum, president of the Washington, D.C.- 
based Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), which  
endorsed the statement, does not fear being viewed as  
representing a special interest. "We're all interest groups  
in the eyes of the administration and Congress," he says. 
 
It was no easy task to produce a document to which 156  
organizations were willing to add their imprimatur, say  
those involved in the effort. Woolley says it took about  
four weeks to revise the statement according to the  
signatories' comments on a series of drafts--a process she  
originally expected to take 10 days. 
 
"I wouldn't say it was easy," says Feldbaum. "It got down to  
the single-word level of wordsmithing." 
 
One issue that is not mentioned specifically in the document  
is the use of animals in research, although, according to  
Gregory Maas, chief executive officer of Incurably Ill for  
Animal Research (iiFAR) in Lansing, Mich., general support  
for it is alluded to in references to "... the need to  
comply with state and federal regulations" (including  
animal-care regulations) and "persistent lack of  
understanding among the general public ... of the  
interconnectedness of medical research and quality health  
care" (which refers in part to public support for animal- 
rights causes). "It would have been more to our liking to  
have something a little stronger in the statement, but it's  
[just] one issue," says Maas. "When you're trying to come up  
with a consensus statement that diverse groups can agree on,  
there's some give and take that has to occur." 
 
Maas says that although he does not believe the public is  
sufficiently informed about the benefits of animal research,  
iiFAR is "trying to bridge that gap. We need to show the  
connection between biomedical research and health care. For  
the public to be more involved, they need to have a better  
understanding of the research-funding process." 
 
 
Alternative Views 
Not all of Research!America's member organizations are happy  
with the text of the statement--with the nature of the  
criticisms reflecting the umbrella group's diverse  
constituency. Richard De-Schutter, president of Chicago-  
based Searle & Co., says that although his company considers  
itself a signatory because it is a member of the Washington,  
D.C.- based Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, which  
endorsed the document, "I told Mary [Woolley] I was  
disappointed that the statement doesn't go further in  
underlining the importance of free-market pricing as a  
mechanism of innovation in the development of drugs." 
 
Also critical of the statement, but taking an opposing view  
to DeSchutter's premise, is Abbey Meyers, president of the  
New Fairfield, Conn.-based National Organization for Rare  
Disorders, which declined to sign the statement. "The  
wording in the draft seemed to be so against health reform  
altogether; it wasn't simply addressing medical research,"  
says Meyers. "Our interest is to protect patients, and it's  
not in patients' best interest to come out with a statement  
that's anti-reform and pro-industry. No matter what miracles  
[researchers] come up with, it won't do the patients any  
good if they can't afford them. 
 
"It's important to keep scientists in biomedical research,  
but there are other ways of doing it than to come out with a  
document that essentially complains about change," Meyers  
says.  
 
Woolley says that the document's drafters "came down, we  
believe, in the middle" of the viewpoints expressed by  
DeSchutter and Meyers. Drafters of the document made a  
concerted effort to "avoid polarizing statements," which is  
why the statement does not take a position on issues such as  
the role of market forces in drug pricing, she says. 
 
The Research!America president says she believes that the  
fact that objections to the statement have come from a drug  
company executive as well as a patient advocate is a tribute  
to the integrity of the consensus-building process. 
 
"As it was going on, it was suggested that Research!America  
was being manipulated by one segment or the other," Woolley  
says. "I think we did achieve a balance." 
 
However, some observers outside of the Research!America fold  
do not see such a balance in the statement. Sidney Wolfe, a  
physician and director of the Washington, D.C.-based Public  
Citizen Health Research Group, which advocates controls on  
the delivery of health care, says the document reflects  
unhealthy ties between pharmaceutical firms and the public  
sector. "[The National Institutes of Health] is doing some  
clinical trials that either shouldn't be done or should be  
done by drug companies; medical schools have become closer  
and closer to industry," says Wolfe. The statement is  
"evidence of this close relationship," he says. 
 
"I'd be happy if funding for academia were increased so they  
weren't as dependent as they are now on industry," he says.  
"This is not the agenda that [drug companies] have in mind." 
 
Robert Bell, a professor of economics at Brooklyn College,  
City University of New York, and author of Impure Science:  
Fraud, Compromise, and Political Influence in Scientific  
Research (New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1992), is  
fearful of the statement's recommendations. "What it comes  
down to is more subsidy and less regulation for medical  
research--like the deregulation of the savings and loans,"  
he says. "We should be moving in the direction of much  
greater checks and balances. To my mind, it's a scam to get  
American taxpayers to support the multinational activities  
of drug companies. 
 
"If all of these recommendations were implemented, it would  
turn what's left of peer-review science into an enormous  
pork feeding ground," Bell says. 
 
He adds that even the goal of more funding for medical  
research may not be a desirable one: "More money doesn't  
necessarily make for better research. More money means huge  
organizations, big construction, big contractors. Who are  
the big contractors going to be? The drug companies. They'll  
be the Pentagon contractors of medical research." 
 
Despite the dangers inherent in the recommendations, Bell  
predicts, "What's discussed in this consensus statement is  
going to get a lot of support from the White House; I would  
be surprised if it didn't."  
 
Yet some observers who strongly agree with the statement's  
call for more funding for medical research have doubts about  
the way its message is expressed. "There's absolutely  
nothing new here," says one experienced Washington lobbyist,  
speaking on condition of anonymity. "This has been the  
medical-research agenda for a couple of decades. It's the  
same old way of doing business--and the straits medical  
research is in speaks for itself about how effective it's  
been." 
 
Counters BIO's Feldbaum: "The message is not as new as the  
spectrum of messengers who are delivering it. If we continue  
working together, we will have political impact. Coalitions  
are the best way to take action."  
 
Peter Feinstein--a founder and a member of the board of  
directors of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council and  
president of Feinstein Partners, a consulting firm for the  
biotech industry based in Cambridge, Mass.--although not a  
part of the consensus statement coalition, agrees with  
Feldbaum that the diverse alliance is significant. "A  
parallel may be the War on Cancer put together during the  
Nixon administration," Feinstein says. "They managed to get  
$100 million put into the NIH budget. The key thing is the  
combination of the academic and clinical Ph.D. and M.D.  
community. This is not a coalition that [ordinarily joins]  
together. The fact that it is together has some  
significance." 
 
Feinstein also predicts that the signatories' message will  
not fall on deaf ears in Washington: "This is the kind of  
thing that Clinton is liable to like. This is a nice thing  
to add to [the health-care] debate, and this is a good time  
to bring it up." 
 
The Next Step 
One longtime advocate for medical research says the key to  
the effort's success will be what happens next. "This is a  
laudable effort by a lot of groups, but, as usual, the proof  
is in the follow-up," says Terry Lierman of Washington-based  
Capitol Associates, a government-relations firm. "I would  
hope that these groups would spend an equal amount of time  
getting their members and colleagues outside [Washington]  
involved with decision-makers-- that's where the impact will  
really be felt. A lot more steps have to be taken with  
consumers before they're ready to get involved with Congress  
and policymakers to support innovation in health-care  
reform." 
 
Feldbaum, himself an old Washington hand--he was formerly an  
aide to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)--agrees. "These arguments  
have to be made in a very strenuous and calculated way," he  
says. "Human beings afflicted with certain diseases have to  
testify. Members of Congress are human--they respond to  
human approaches, not to dry, abstract approaches." The  
effectiveness of the statement, he says, "depends on who  
delivers it and how the statement is delivered." 
 
Whether the statement ends up making waves or being a  
washout on Capitol Hill (at press time, none of the senators  
or representatives contacted by The Scientist had had a  
chance to review the document), it is bound to be quoted  
repeatedly in a variety of contexts; only time will tell  
whether the effort is ultimately viewed as a success. 
 
In politics, "change is inevitable; this is one way of  
dealing with it," says Daryl Chubin, division director for  
research, evaluation, and dissemination at the National  
Science Foundation's education and human resources  
directorate. "You inject this into the political arena, and  
it kind of swishes around in there--people bring it to their  
representatives, use it in testimony. By being out there, it  
creates an opportunity for a kind of experiment." 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.1, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : NIH Insiders Hopeful That New Measures Will Improve  
       Intramural Research Efforts 
 
Influence of the agency's scientific directors will ebb if  
NIH adopts revised methods of reviewing quality, approving  
tenure 
 
AU   : FRANKLIN HOKE 
 
TY   : NEWS 
 
PG   : 1 
 
Scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of  
Health are optimistic that changes suggested by an external  
advisory committee in a recent report will prove effective  
in strengthening the agency's intramural research program. 
 
The program, seen by various observers to be slipping in  
quality in recent years, involves some 6,000 NIH scientists  
and postdoctoral trainees, with support of their efforts  
accounting for about 11 percent of NIH's $11 billion budget. 
 
By contrast, about 80 percent of the agency's money goes to  
its extramural program, in which tens of thousands of  
scientists in university laboratories and other research  
settings across the United States compete for comparatively  
scarce support. 
 
Increasingly, extramural research proposals judged by peer  
review to be "very good" or even "excellent" have failed to  
receive grant support, bringing the intramural program-- 
perceived by many extramural scientists as being less  
competitive --under closer scrutiny. Critics in and outside  
NIH say that the intramural research program, while still  
strong, has been declining compared to the extramural  
investigations and that the program is due for rejuvenation. 
 
Support for the report's recommendations is visible at the  
highest levels at the institutes. At least one prominent  
former extramural scientist--Nobelist Harold E. Varmus, the  
current NIH director--is enthusiastic about the suggestions.  
Even some NIH officials implicitly criticized in the report- 
-for example, the scientific directors--are supportive of  
its aims, although they disagree with aspects of the  
reasoning underlying the critique. 
 
A recent study produced by the Institute for Scientific  
Information (ISI) in Philadelphia tends to confirm that the  
intramural program needs shoring up. The study, which  
compared the actual number of citations to papers by NIH  
scientists against the expected number for all papers of the  
same vintage and in the same journals, supports the view  
that NIH intramural research has been fading during the past  
several years (see chart on page 8). 
 
Meanwhile, the external advisory committee's report makes a  
number of specific recommendations aimed at confronting  
concerns about quality and accountability in the intramural  
program. The report, for example, seeks to secure the  
independence of the external boards of scientific counselors  
that review each institute's intramural research program.  
The document also suggests the creation of a committee  
composed of the chairpersons of these boards to encourage  
more uniformity across NIH in the review process. Another  
recommendation is to create a new NIH-wide tenure committee  
of senior scientists to approve tenure decisions,  
introducing a new emphasis on peer evaluation into that  
process. 
 
Overall, the report's suggestions would help to reward the  
most productive scientists and to make room at the  
institutes for younger investigators, NIH officials and the  
report's authors say. The proposals would also reduce the  
powers of the scientific directors of each institute and  
make them more accountable for the scientific performance of  
their programs. 
 
Some NIH scientists say the report's recommendations target  
central problems at the institutes and, if implemented,  
could significantly recharge the intramural program. 
 
"There's too much power in the scientific directors," says  
Hynda K. Kleinman, a research chemist and section chief at  
the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR). "And there  
is no uniformity among the institutes in the way they hire,  
fire, promote, or distribute lab funds and space." 
 
Kleinman says the changes could help to more closely tie an  
individual's career trajectory to the quality of his or her  
science. 
 
"Too much of it now is based on your relationship with your  
boss, rather than your scientific merit," Kleinman says. 
 
Despite the potential reduction in their influence, a number  
of the directors, most of whom are also senior NIH  
scientists with ongoing research projects, are cautiously  
supportive of the report's goals, if not all of its  
recommendations. Senior NIH administrators, often  
accomplished intramural scientists themselves, are backing  
the plan. 
 
"The bottom line is, we need to improve the quality of the  
review of the research at NIH," said Michael M. Gottesman at  
a news conference earlier this month at which the report was  
released. Gottesman is acting deputy director for intramural  
research and a laboratory chief at the National Cancer  
Institute. "We wish to revitalize this program. We want to  
begin to bring in young people who can establish their own  
research programs and be the future generation of NIH  
scientists. That's a strong commitment." 
 
One set of recommendations in the report calls for ensuring  
the independence of the external boards of scientific  
counselors who review each institute's intramural research  
program, assessing, for example, which projects and  
investigators deserve greater resources and which less.  
Currently, the scientific directors select the members of  
the boards of scientific counselors that review their  
programs.  
 
The report suggests that, instead, new members of each board  
of scientific counselors be recommended by a vote of the  
current members, although nominations might come from the  
scientific director, the deputy director for intramural  
research, and others. The actual invitation to join the  
board would come jointly from the deputy director and the  
chairperson of the board and no longer from the scientific  
director. 
 
In addition to reviewing the science program at a given  
institute, the more-independent board of scientific  
counselors would also review the performance of the  
scientific director every four years and vote on whether to  
recommend that person for a new four-year term. A major  
criterion for evaluation of the scientific director, the  
report states, would be the extent to which he or she  
considered or implemented the recommendations of the board  
of scientific counselors with regard to resource allocation  
to individual scientists. The review results would be sent  
to the deputy director for intramural research, who would  
then make a recommendation to the institute director  
overseeing the scientific director. 
 
"One of the criticisms that we've had over the past several  
years," NIH director Varmus said at the news conference, "is  
that the boards of scientific counselors may be too closely  
wedded to the very groups they're being asked to review.  
And, while this advisory function has worked well in many  
cases, there is the general belief that it may not be as  
stringent as the extramural peer-review process in which  
there is, perhaps, less fraternalism." 
 
Consolidating Oversight 
The report also suggests the creation of a new committee,  
composed of the chairpersons of these strengthened boards  
and chaired by the deputy director for intramural research.  
The aim of the committee would be to encourage more  
uniformity across NIH in the scientific-review process.  
According to the report, the intramural program has a  
fragmented federated structure with inadequate processes for  
oversight. While one result of this structure has been  
diversity and vitality, it has also led to unevenness in  
quality, quality control, and productivity. 
 
"One of the things that the [external advisory] committee  
was concerned about is that the NIH has become overly  
Balkanized," said committee cochairman Paul A. Marks, also  
president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New  
York. "In that sense, it's lost the ability to have quality  
as a primary basis for decision-making with regard to  
appointments, promotions, and program support." 
 
Another recommendation is to create a new NIH-wide tenure  
committee of 12 to 16 senior scientists to approve tenure  
appointments, introducing a new emphasis on peer evaluation  
into that process. The present procedure is for a board of  
the scientific directors to approve tenure decisions. 
 
Other suggestions in the report include: encouraging  
intramural program trainees to leave NIH after their two- to  
four-year programs to continuously provide space for new  
trainees; limiting the overall intramural budget in the  
future to its current level of about 11.3 percent of the  
total NIH budget; and reducing the NIH clinical center  
hospital from 450 beds to 250. 
 
Administrative response to the report's suggestions has been  
positive. On June 2, the standing advisory committee to NIH  
director Varmus, of which the external advisory committee  
was a subcommittee, will meet and, likely, formally approve  
the report. Already, Varmus said, he and Gottesman were  
meeting with institute directors and scientific directors to  
lay the groundwork for putting the recommendations into  
effect. 
 
The changes in the tenure system, for example, have already  
been approved by the necessary NIH officials, Gottesman  
said, although approval from NIH's parent organization, the  
Public Health Service (PHS), required for personnel policy  
changes, is pending. 
 
"We have a certain sense of optimism," said Marks, "that  
these recommendations--some of which have been on the books  
for a number of years--may be implemented this time around."  
The committee's feeling, Marks said, stemmed from the  
"explicit support" voiced not only by Varmus, Gottesman, and  
other top NIH administrators, but also by Department of  
Health and Human Services assistant secretary Philip R. Lee,  
who oversees PHS, and department secretary Donna E. Shalala. 
 
Reading The Signs 
"There has been, at least in some quarters, the perception  
that perhaps there's been some slippage in quality of the  
intramural program," Varmus told reporters when the report  
was released, acknowledging widespread concerns about the  
program (see, for example, J. Cohen, Science, 261:1120-7,  
1993). 
 
Indeed, while a recent study of citations to scientific  
papers published by NIH researchers shows the intramural  
program commanding about 30 percent more citations than  
expected for comparable papers, it also shows a gradual  
overall decline in citation impact beginning in the late  
1980s. Significant drops can be seen at specific institutes,  
such as the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the  
National Eye Institute. A few institutes appear to be  
growing stronger in recent years, such as the National  
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the  
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study,  
produced by ISI (ScienceWatch, 5[3]:1, March 1994), compared  
actual citations to NIH papers against the expected number  
for papers of the same type (such as article, review, or  
note) published in the same journal and year. 
 
Scientific directors say there are different ways to  
interpret these data trends, although most accept that they  
are not artifacts and that there are problems that need to  
be addressed. 
 
Arthur S. Levine, scientific director at the National  
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, for  
example, says the problems at NIH are "structural" in  
nature. 
 
"The NIH and its intramural program are no longer  
experiencing the geometric, if not exponential, growth that  
they had in their previous history," Levine says. "At the  
same time, because senior scientists at the NIH,  
essentially, have lifetime positions, the work force is  
beginning to gray. So, the resources are now saturated. We  
are not adding new buildings by the day, and we are not  
adding new positions by the day. The money is staying flat.  
We have a closed box, and the people in it are not  
experiencing a great deal of turnover at the senior level.  
That is a situation that, structurally, invites the  
possibility of slippage." 
 
One remedy, Levine says, is to help NIH to grow again, but  
this does not seem likely in the current economic climate. 
 
"The second remedy is to make sure that our senior  
scientists are very rigorously peer-reviewed and that we  
don't hesitate to move resources from less productive to  
more productive scientists," Levine says, agreeing with the  
aims of the report. "That's a way of bringing in a continual  
supply of young investigators and of giving them a chance to  
grow and realize their full potentials." 
 
Levine cautions against overreacting to indicators such as  
the citation study. 
 
"The intramural program continues to be quite vital now, but  
it won't be quite vital 10 years from now if these  
structural remedies are not developed," he says. "I don't  
think the intramural program is in deep trouble at the  
moment, but we see the early warning signs." 
 
Starting New Projects 
George R. Martin is scientific director at NIA, a post he  
took in late 1988 after a number of years as a lab chief at  
NIDR. NIA is one of the institutes whose citations have  
declined most noticeably since the mid-1980s. Martin says  
that significant, long-term improvements in NIA's scientific  
programs have been put in place since then and that these  
will take time to develop to the point at which they attract  
notice and citations, reversing the apparent downward trend. 
 
This is especially true, he says, for a number of talented  
young investigators recruited to NIA in recent years to  
study the basic biology of aging. New areas of research  
include studies of DNA repair in individual genes and work  
on mitochondrial DNA deletion, as well as fundamental  
research on the vascular system, osteoporosis, and  
Alzheimer's disease. These researchers have their most  
productive years still ahead of them, he says. 
 
"We've developed 10 or 12 major new projects of this sort  
over the last half-dozen years, where we think the work is  
very important to the area of aging," Martin says. "The  
downside of this, when you bring in these younger people, is  
that those programs take three, five, seven years to mature,  
until they start to produce the types of results--and  
citations--that you expect. I can tell you, as a manager,  
I'm happy with the state of things and not so concerned  
about the citations index, because those will come along." 
 
Echoing Levine, Martin says that some of the intramural  
program's current problems have specific historical  
underpinnings. For example, he says, many of the best  
scientists now at NIH came to the institutes as young  
medical researchers during the Vietnam War era, because they  
could legally avoid war duties by doing so. 
 
"They could do research instead of being stuck in some hell  
hole where they'd be doing physical exams," Martin says. 
 
"The NIH could compete better for people who had clinical  
training and were also interested in research careers.  
Nowadays, they don't have access to those types of people,  
because the NIH underpays, as does the government  
generally." 
 
Gail H. Cassell, chairwoman of the department of  
microbiology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, and  
cochairwoman with Marks of the external committee that  
produced the advisory committee report, says it is important  
to remember that the overall intramural program remains  
quite strong. 
 
"Yes, there has been a decline with some few institutes,  
[and] ones that have declined markedly," she acknowledges. 
 
"But the thing that is phenomenal is that many of them are  
still way above the average in what one might expect." 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.1, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Critics Sharpen Assault On Peer Review 
 
Some even recommend abolishing the traditional process  used  
by science journal editors to evaluate submitted manuscripts 
 
AU   : PAUL MCCARTHY 
 
TY   : NEWS 
 
PG   : 1 
 
During the past several years, the practice of peer review  
of article submissions--accepted unquestioningly by some  
authors--has come under increasingly harsh scrutiny by  
others. Many of these authors--joined, in some cases, by the  
editors of the very publications they are criticizing--are  
demanding change: Some are suggesting that reviewers'  
identities be revealed to the author; some, indeed, want to  
see the traditional peer-review system abolished altogether. 
 
Advocates of such changes fear that reviewers either are  
competitors of the authors whose research they are  
critiquing--and thus may have a vested interest in delaying  
the publication of their rivals' work--or are immersed in a  
subdiscipline at such a distance from the papers they are  
ostensibly reviewing that they may know nothing about the  
subject. Some also worry that, because publishing is  
essentially a buyers' market, there is no accountability on  
the part of editors. 
 
Editors themselves have their share of complaints about the  
system and reviewers, including their own. Among them:  
reviewers are not prompt, may be biased, or do not address  
the major arguments of the papers they are critiquing (see  
story on page 21). 
 
One of the most visible manifestations of concern is a call  
by some biomedical scientists for research into the peer- 
review process, which they say is central to all scientific  
communication, and yet poorly understood. Encouragement has  
come from the American Medical Association (AMA), which has  
provided staff support and funding for the First and Second  
International Congresses on Peer Review in Biomedical  
Publication, held in Chicago in 1989 and 1993. The first  
attracted 50 abstracts and the second more than 100, giving  
impetus to a third congress, planned for 1997. 
 
The increasing interest in the subject is hardly surprising,  
since it seems that almost every scientist can recall a  
horror story stemming from an experience with a reviewer.  
The abundance of such tales notwithstanding, it is difficult  
to get a spurned author to name the journal in question; for  
fear of harming their future publication prospects, most  
prefer to keep their experiences off the record. 
 
Take Loren Pankratz. His run-in with reviewers happened more  
than 15 years ago, but for Pankratz, a professor in the  
department of medical psychology and psychiatry at Oregon  
Health Sciences University in Portland, it seems like  
yesterday. Pankratz was a coauthor of a study that described  
the successful--and surreptitious--reduction of a narcotic  
administered to a chronic pain patient. He says that when  
his paper came out--in a journal he declines to name--to his  
surprise, it was accompanied by four critical commentaries,  
"some of which were horrified by what we had done [adjusting  
the dosage without the patient's consent]." The journal  
subsequently changed its editorial policy, and Pankratz was  
never allowed to pen a response. "So we thought we had used  
these wonderful strategies to help this guy cut down his  
narcotic abuse," says Pankratz, "but instead we got reamed  
out and we were left looking like manipulative guys." 
 
How often do situations like this occur? No one knows,  
because few studies of the peer-review process have been  
conducted. To confuse things further, peer review means  
different things at different publications. Some journals  
give reviewers explicit instructions, for example, and some  
don't. Others have statistical consultants, while most  
don't. And some hide the authors' identities from their  
reviewers, while others don't make the effort. So it's  
little wonder that anecdotal complaints abound from both  
editors and authors. But only in the past five years has  
biomedicine been encouraged to apply the scientific method  
to an examination of peer review. 
 
 Such self-examination is a good thing, according to  
Drummond Rennie, West Coast editor of JAMA (Journal of the  
American Medical Association). Rennie, who has presided over  
the congresses, says he is pleased that AMA has recognized  
the importance of peer review to the quality of basic  
science and ultimately to patient care. "Scientific work  
doesn't exist," he says, "until it is peer reviewed and  
published." 
 
 
 
Need For Study 
 
Given his recent experiences and interest in the subject,  
Rennie probably knows more about peer review than anyone  
else in biomedicine. But, emphasizing his concern, he says  
that in a scientific sense he doesn't know much at all,  
because there hasn't been enough research into the peer- 
review process. Rennie, who is a professor of medicine at  
the University of California, San Francisco, Institute for  
Health Policy Studies, has heard all the anecdotes about  
peer-review abuse. Yet, absent systematic studies to confirm  
them, he says he would no more place stock in such tales  
than he would in unsupported claims made in any other area  
of science. 
 
How reliable is peer review? Do the oft-mentioned problems  
with the system affect the quality of papers that are  
published? "We don't really know," says Erica Frank, a  
professor of family and preventive medicine at Emory  
University and associate editor of Preventive Medicine,  
"because we haven't done the research." 
 
Stephen Lock, editor emeritus of the British Medical  
Journal, feels that part of the reason is that people were  
more frightened of editors in the past and didn't want to  
get on their bad side by criticizing their choice of  
reviewers. "Perhaps, too," he says, "there wasn't this  
culture of challenging things." He explains that  
particularly in the United States, as the competition for  
funding has increased and the emphasis in tenure and  
promotion decisions has shifted to the sheer weight of  
published articles, scientists have recognized that they  
have a larger stake in questioning the process when it  
doesn't go their way. 
 
In more relaxed times, argues Lock, since most papers  
eventually got published somewhere, "it was a bit of a  
lottery. A delay didn't matter too much, so you shrugged  
your shoulders; it was part of the fun." 
 
Frank has seen the problems as a researcher and editor. She  
thinks it's ironic and a bit embarrassing "that editors hold  
scientists to all sorts of stringent criteria, and yet we as  
editors have not held ourselves to any sort of criteria at  
all." 
 
She still steams over an instance in which she feels  
uninformed reviewers and an arrogant editor--of a journal  
she prefers not to name--rejected an article that she  
eventually published elsewhere. Her work was torpedoed, she  
says, by reviewers who didn't know the subject. Later, she  
says, when she spoke to the editor, he said, "I don't think  
we've ever made much of a mistake. I've never regretted  
having rejected a paper." 
 
One of the problems, says Frank, is that editors are usually  
chosen for their research and not their editorial decision- 
making skills. Another is that, generally, journal  
publishers have the upper hand in the author-journal  
relationship, and if something does go wrong, researchers  
"don't want to risk offending the editors, because they have  
to submit to that journal in the future." 
 
If It Ain't Broke... 
Taking the opposite view is Marcia Angell, executive editor  
of the New England Journal of Medicine. She thinks peer  
review works well as it currently exists. She says that it's  
the responsibility of good editors to keep the process  
running smoothly: The editor must choose reviewers who know  
what they are doing and ride herd on them to ensure that  
they don't subvert the process--for example, by sitting on  
papers. Angell says editors also have to read reviewers'  
comments closely to ensure they are not too subjective. And  
in the final analysis, the editor has to make the decision  
on whether to publish and not be totally influenced by  
reviewers' comments. 
 
Angell believes the journal marketplace already works well.  
The quality demands made by editors serve to direct papers  
to the publications where they belong. If a journal uses  
statistical consultants, for example, it will reject papers  
that contain statistical flaws and they will be published in  
less-selective journals, says Angell. She likes the fact  
that the process doesn't favor much innovation, too, because  
she thinks medicine should be conservative. But, she  
acknowledges, "there is nothing that an editor likes more  
than a breakthrough manuscript." 
 
David Horrobin, editor of Medical Hypotheses, has provided  
just such a home for a lot of ideas that he says would  
otherwise not have found one. The journal, which is peer  
reviewed, "will publish ideas or criticisms of ideas from  
any person, irrespective of whether any experimental testing  
of the ideas is then performed by the writer," it notes on  
its inside front cover. 
 
Horrobin thinks most peer review is concerned too much with  
quality control and not enough with nurturing innovative  
ideas. Says Horrobin, who heads the Efamol Research  
Institute in Kentville, Nova Scotia, Canada: "I think we're  
killing a lot of interesting ideas at birth." 
 
The scientific community is also making a mistake, says  
Horrobin, by fostering the illusion that scientists all  
review each other's work fairly. "Scientists are just the  
same as everybody else," he says, "particularly in today's  
competitive environment." For this reason, he doesn't think  
much of anonymous reviews. "In any situation other than  
science," he says, "anonymous communications are regarded as  
worthless." 
 
A number of solutions have been proposed to the perceived  
difficulties with peer review, but as far as Rennie is  
concerned the only solution is research. He says he'd be  
willing to shuck peer review completely if research showed  
that there was a better way of doing science. "Just because  
it has been done before," he says, "doesn't mean it should  
continue to be done." 
 
That is not self-evident to Angell, who fears that research  
on peer review may lead to regimentation. She says each  
journal uses peer review differently and that is the way it  
should be. Angell thinks that in an attempt to study peer  
review--which is a subjective, qualitative process-- 
researchers will use trivial, quantitative measures. "This  
will tell you almost nothing about the quality of the peer- 
review process," she says, "but it's the kind of busy work  
that makes you feel that you are looking at something." 
 
Once this research is done, she suspects, the findings will  
be used to regiment journals--to get them all to do things  
the same way. She fears that research could lead to a  
leveling, in which poor journals become better as good ones  
become worse. 
 
Rennie is particularly puzzled by Angell's concern about  
regimentation. He says all that peer-review researchers want  
to do is find out what works best. If shielding reviewers'  
identities from authors, for example, is shown to produce  
better reviews, maybe more journals will adopt it, says  
Rennie, but there won't be any rules that require such  
blinding. "Journals can do what they damn well please," he  
says. 
 
Lock is hopeful. He says that many editors are dissatisfied  
with the present system and are enthusiastic about improving  
it. "I think we will get somewhere," says Lock, "but it will  
take time."  
 
At the moment there are a lot of strong feelings, with  
scientists taking positions for and against such things as  
anonymous reviewing and grievance mechanisms for authors.  
"Still, editors are an inherently opinionated lot," says  
Frank, "but opinion doesn't cut it on this. What we really  
need is more data." 
 
 
Paul McCarthy is a freelance science writer based in Honolulu. 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.1, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Both Sides Criticize Aspects Of New Report On Animal  
       Research Debate 
 
AU   : NEERAJA SANKARAN 
 
TY   : NEWS 
 
PG   : 3 
 
A preliminary report on the results of an extensive  
exploration of issues involving animal research, conducted  
by Tufts University's Center for Animals & Public Policy, is  
drawing both favorable and unfavorable reactions from  
various constituencies within the animal-research and  
animal-protection communities. 
 
Andrew Rowan, the director of the Tufts center and the  
principal author of the report, entitled "The Animal  
Research Controversy," released a limited number of copies  
to members of the press and several interested groups two  
months ago. Coauthored by Franklin Loew, the dean of the  
North Grafton, Mass., based-Tufts University School of  
Veterinary Medicine, and Joan Weer, program coordinator at  
the center, the 186-page report, plus a few additional  
chapters, is due to be published as a book later this year. 
 
The major aims of the study, according to Rowan, were to  
explore the middle ground between animal-research advocates  
and animal-protection groups, and to stimulate constructive  
dialogue to address the issues separating the two camps. 
 
"The two [sides] are actually after the same thing--neither  
wants animals to suffer needlessly," Rowan says. "Where they  
differ is in their timetable and in deciding how much effort  
to put into searching for ways to limit animal use." 
 
"Our values are not mutually exclusive," agrees Michael W.  
Fox, vice president for the Farm Animals and Bioethics  
section of the Humane Society of the United States, one of  
the largest national animal welfare organizations,  
headquartered in Washington, D.C. "I don't believe that all  
experimenters like making animals suffer, or that animal  
rights people put animals above people." 
 
The Tufts center report is the result  of what Rowan  
describes as "detailed, long-term journalism," drawing on  
almost 20 years of his own and Loew's experience, as well as  
other studies in the field of laboratory animal research and  
care. In addition, the report includes discussion from two  
recent workshops on issues of animal use in education and  
the value of animal-based biomedical research, sponsored by  
the Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts, which also  
funded the preparation of the report. Following an analysis  
of key points of the research-vs.-rights controversy, the  
authors have made some suggestions for developing public  
policy. Their recommendations include: 
 
 
* the formation of "an officially sanctioned forum,"  
consisting of representatives from both groups as well as  
independent analysts, which would discuss issues and make  
policy suggestions; 
 
* more extensive recording by the United States Department  
of Agriculture (USDA) of animal use;  
 
* more studies into animal suffering;  
 
* the increased development and use of alternative methods  
such as cell- and tissue-based experiments, human-centered  
clinical studies for testing drugs, and computer modeling,  
so as to accomplish the "three Rs" of animal research-- 
replacing and reducing animal use in experiments and  
refining existing methods to minimize pain;  
 
* laying the foundation for a consensus between the two  
groups, whereby protection advocates formally accept the  
value of animal research and researchers recognize and start  
establishing programs to minimize animal death and distress. 
 
"We've just attempted to identify certain reasonable,  
practical goals," says Rowan. 
 
But, while various individuals from both sides of the fence  
laud the Tufts group's efforts to present a fair picture and  
emphasize the common ground, they are not ready to accept  
all the report's recommendations, many citing their own  
specific concerns. 
 
"We represent the middle ground already," says J.R. Haywood,  
a professor of pharmacology at the University of Texas  
Health Sciences Center at San Antonio and chairman of the  
animal care and experimentation committee of the American  
Physiological Society. "As scientists, we know that the  
quality of our data is directly proportional to animal  
health and happiness," says Haywood, who uses animals in his  
research. 
 
"In looking at animal pain, psychological suffering has to  
be considered," says John McArdle, scientific adviser to the  
American Anti-Vivisection Society, headquartered  in   
Jenkintown,  Pa.,  who trained in anatomy and now does   
research in the field of paleobiology.  
 
"How can you assess that?" counters Roger Maickel, the  
chairman of the Committee on the Care and Use of Research  
Animals of the American Society for Pharmacology and  
Experimental Therapeutics, and the head of the Laboratory  
Animal Program at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind.  
"It may sound trite, but the only way to do that would be to  
`talk to the animals' like Doctor Doolittle." 
 
 Opinions are also divided on the issue of record keeping.  
Animal protection groups see more extensive reporting of  
animal use by research laboratories to USDA as an important  
means to monitoring animal research and feel that the  
current paperwork filed by laboratories is not detailed  
enough. 
 
"There is a major need to adopt a system like the British  
system that tracks laboratory animals from the point they  
enter the lab to their exit," says McArdle. "In the past two  
years there have been fairly accurate records for regulated  
animals, though we still don't know what precisely is  
happening to them." 
 
"More bureaucracy will not help ensure animal welfare," says  
Adrian R. Morrison, an anatomy professor at the University  
of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine in  
Philadelphia and the director of the Washington, D.C.-based  
Program for Animal Research Issues of the National Institute  
of Mental Health. In an unpublished commentary on the Tufts  
Center's report, Morrison echoed the opinion of many  
concerned  researchers  that  increased record-keeping would  
put a further burden on their already strained budgets: 
 
"It will improve laboratory animal welfare no more than my  
now paying $200 for a cat rather than the $50 I paid five  
years ago, or spending $20,000 to install a ventilating  
system in one of my sleep recording rooms so that I can meet  
USDA standards for providing the requisite number of hourly  
air changes to house animals outside the regular quarters  
for more than 12 hours. (Meanwhile, my lazy pet cat, who  
won't go outdoors in the winter, endures, with us, few air  
changes.)"  
 
Alternatives--methods that try to address the same questions  
as animal-based experiments using non-animal methods--while  
recognized by all sides as useful and important, have  
different implications for the two camps. 
 
"They are very viable means of achieving the three Rs," says  
Purdue researcher Maickel, "but using them does not mean  
zero animal use."  
 
"The ultimate goal is to replace animals with other methods,  
since we believe it is immoral and unethical to use  
animals," says McArdle. "Alternatives will drive  
clinical/medical research to being more human-centered and  
promote the use of in vitro techniques and computer modeling  
in basic research." 
 
"It's important to realize that these [alternative] methods,  
too, are developed by scientists," Haywood points out. 
 
"In dealing with the animal rights issue, we should not  
focus exclusively on ethics, but also on the scientific  
validity of the experiments," says Fox. "I think we need a  
committee at the federal level to address all the issues,"  
he adds, advocating the report's recommendation for a  
government-sanctioned forum for that purpose. 
 
Some, however, harbor mixed feelings about this suggestion,  
as well. 
 
"[The report] is kind of hazy on what [the forum's] function  
precisely is," says McArdle. "Also a major concern to  
[animal protection groups] is who the parent body would be.  
We do not trust NIH [the National Institutes of Health]." 
 
"[The forum] would be just another government agency," says  
Maickel. "Organizations like NIH, the USDA, and ILAR [the  
Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources in Washington,  
D.C.] already have these [policy-influencing] capabilities." 
 
"When reasonable people sit down to discuss issues there is  
always something to be gained," says Haywood. "I am a very,  
very strong advocate of animal research but am willing to  
discuss issues such as alternatives so long as the other  
side is willing to accept that biomedical research promotes  
both animal and human health." 
 
For more information on the report or planned book, contact  
the  Center for Animals & Public Policy, Tufts University  
School of Veterinary Medicine, 200 Westboro Rd., North  
Grafton, Mass. 01536; (508) 839-7991. Fax: (508) 839-2953.  
E-mail: dpease@opal.tufts.edu. 
 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.3, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
                            NOTEBOOK 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI  :    Risky Business 
 
TY  :    NEWS (NOTEBOOK) 
 
PG  :    4 
 
A new Department of Energy (DOE) database available over the  
Internet   catalogs  about  175  current  research   studies  
involving  human  subjects either funded by  the  agency  or  
conducted at its facilities. In at least 41 of the projects,  
people are exposed to radiation, most for imaging,  
diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. In a statement, the  
agency reports that "DOE does not support any projects in  
which the effect of radiation upon humans per se is the  
object of the study." 
 
The database fulfills a promise made by DOE Secretary Hazel  
O'Leary to Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) in January, in  
connection with hearings into several past DOE human-subject  
experiments perceived by some to involve unethical levels of  
risk to inadequately informed participants. Federal  
regulations, applicable to all agencies, now require  
informed consent of human research subjects. The new DOE 
database provides a title, a brief abstract, the funding 
level, the name of the research institution conducting the  
work, and the name of the funding agency for each project.  
There are several ways to access the database residing at  
the Johns Hopkins University Welch Laboratory of Applied  
Bioinformatics in Baltimore. One is by using the gopher  
command to reach the gopher.gdb.org server and then  
selecting the following sequence of menu items: "NIH, NSF,  
DOE, and Other Funding Agencies"; "DOE--Department of  
Energy"; and then "The DOE Human Subjects Database." 
 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.4, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Biotech Futures  
 
TY   : NEWS (NOTEBOOK) 
PG   : 4 
 
The Biotechnology Industry Organizaion (BIO) Washington, DC  
has announced eight winners of college scholarships in its  
1994 Biotechnology High School Essay Contest.  The winning  
500 word essays - on the theme of "How will biotechnology  
affect the lives of individuals in the 21st century?"--were  
chosen from among 130 submissions from students at 29 high  
schools in 17 states.  The eight winners, all seniors, of  
the $1,500 scholarships  were: Marshall Camp and Minming Wu  
of Douglas Freeman High School in Richmond, Va.; Shayne  
Campbell of Monterey High School and Antonio Gonzalez of  
Coronado High School, both in Lubbock, Texas; Tracy Kinsey,  
Evans High School, Evans, Ga.; Miriam Rosenberg of Winston  
Churchill High School in Potomac, Md.; Daniel Ryklin, Adlai  
E. Stevenson High School, Lincolnshire, Ill.; and Melinda  
Shaw of Lake Braddock High School in Burke, Va. Copies of  
the winning essays are available through BIO, 1625 K St.,  
N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20006; (202) 857-0244.  
Fax: (202) 857-0237. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.4, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   :  Oncology Fellowships 
 
TY   :  NEWS (NOTEBOOK) 
 
PG   :  4 
 
The American Cancer Society is accepting applications for  
its 1995 Clinical Oncology Fellowships, intended to "support  
a multidisciplinary training experience for physicians and  
dentists preparing for a leadership career in academic  
oncology," according to the society. The program may include  
training in cancer research, control, prevention, detection,  
diagnosis, therapy, and rehabilitation. Applications for the  
one-year, $10,000 stipend are due July 1. For information,  
contact Virginia Krawiec, Clinical Awards Program, American  
Cancer Society Inc., 1599 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, Ga. 
30329-4251; (404) 329-5734. Fax: (404) 325-2548. 
 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.4, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Micro Manipulation 
 
TY   : NEWS (NOTEBOOK) 
 
PG   : 4 
 
Physicists at Stanford University are gaining 
physical properties of polymers by using a recently  
developed tool called "optical tweezers," which allows  
researchers to directly manipulate individual molecules.  
Developed from low-temperature laser  technology, the  
optical tweezers are capable of moving strands of viral DNA  
attached to tiny plastic spheres one-25,000th of an inch in 
diameter. "It's like a video game. We move the beam around  
with a joystick," says Thomas T. Perkins, a graduate student  
in the physics lab of Steven Chu at Stanford. The spheres  
and their attached polymers are visible through an optical  
microscope. Using the tweezers, the researchers move the  
spheres along complicated paths while the DNA 
strand unravels behind. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.4, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Environmental Achievement 
 
TY   : NEWS (NOTEBOOK) 
 
PG   : 4 
 
Nominations are being accepted for the 1995 Tyler Prize for 
Environmental Achievement, funded by the Alice C. Tyler  
Trust through the University of Southern California. The  
$150,000 prize is awarded for "the protection, maintenance,  
improvement, or understanding of ecological and  
environmental conditions anywhere in the world; or the  
discovery, further development, improvement, or  
understanding of known or new sources of energy."  
Nominations should include a description of the nominee,  
which may be an individual or individuals or an institution,  
corporation, or organization; a summary of accomplishment; a  
detailed description of contributions; and references. The  
deadline for nominations is October 1. For information,  
contact Jerome B. Walker, Executive Director, The Tyler 
Prize, Office of the Provost, University of Southern  
California, Los Angeles, Calif. 90089-4019; (213) 740-6559.  
Fax: (213) 740-1313. E-mail: walker@adm-1.usc.edu. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.4, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Exercises In Ethics 
 
TY   : NEWS (NOTEBOOK) 
 
PG   : 4 
 
The Research Triangle Park Club of Sigma Xi in North  
Carolina recently announced that it has produced a video of  
its November 1991 forum, "Ethical Issues in Scientific  
Research." The one-hour video--with the same title as the  
forum--shows scientists and profess and wrong, but to  
present several views. The issues covered are authorship,  
peer review, data handling, social responsibility in 
research, scientific fraud, and reporting research to the  
public. The club suggests that the video may be useful for  
courses in scientific ethics. For information, call Harvey  
Krasney at (919) 967-4517. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.4, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   :  Report Card 
 
TY   :  NEWS (NOTEBOOK) 
 
PG   :  4 
 
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National  
Center for Improving Science Education (NCISE) in  
Washington, D.C., have joined forces to prepare a report,  
entitled "What College Students Abroad Are Expected to Know  
About Biology," to make general audiences in the United  
States aware of the difference in educational standards in 
biology between the U.S. and other developed countries, such  
as Germany, Japan, and France. The report is the first  
volume in a series by AFT called "Defining World Class  
Standards," designed to aid educators developing  
internationally competitive education standards, the  
centerpiece of the federal government's Goal 2000: Educate  
America Act. Independently, NCISE is preparing similar  
reports on the subjects of physics, chemistry, and math. For  
information, contact Matthew Gandal, AFT, Educational Issues  
Department, 555 New Jersey Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.  
20001; (202) 879-4458. Fax: (202) 879-4556. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.4, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : New Hughes Appointees Considered A Boon By Biomedical  
       Community 
 
AU   : KAREN YOUNG KREEGER 
 
TY   : NEWS 
 
PG   : 6 
 
 
As Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) officials had  
indicated several months ago, the final list of United  
States researchers selected as HHMI investigators reflects  
both an expansion of the institute's cadre of research  
institutions and its commitment to elevating the role of  
women and minorities in science. 
 
HHMI, which traditionally appoints fewer than 20 new  
investigators annually, named 44 of them this year.  
Scientists both inside and outside HHMI agree that this  
unusually large expansion portends a major boost for the  
field of biomedicine. 
 
The Chevy Chase, Md.-based institute--the U.S.'s largest  
private philanthropy--announced in February that this round  
of nominations was evidence of a concerted effort to recruit  
more women and minorities (K.Y. Kreeger, The Scientist,  
April 4, 1994, page 3). The 44 new researchers and the 10  
new institutions represented among them are being added to  
the existing Hughes network, currently consisting of 225  
investigators at 53 U.S. universities and medical centers.  
HHMI appointed 16 researchers at the assistant level, 16 at  
the associate rank, and 12 full investigators (see list on  
page 7). The 10 new research facilities will have Hughes  
laboratories associated with them, accompanied by benefits  
such as HHMI-supported overhead and administrative staff.  
 
 "A lot of great scientists are going to be supported with  
the ever-growing Hughes endowment," says Phillip A. Sharp,  
head of the biology department at the Massachusetts  
Institute of Technology in Cambridge, referring to an  
increase of $780 million in HHMI's endowment during 1993.  
Sharp adds that HHMI is making a difference in biomedicine  
by selecting strong leaders in the field and by providing  
them with additional resources, independence, and  
connections they may not have had had they not been  
appointed.  
 
Ann M. Stock, an assistant professor at the University of  
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson  
Medical School in Piscataway, echoes the opinions expressed  
by many of the new investigators in saying that becoming a  
Hughes appointee will give her more leeway to pursue new  
research paths. 
 
Stock is among the 20 women nominees named by HHMI, which   
nearly doubles the current total of 25 female Hughes  
investigators. The six minority scientists appointed will  
triple the current number from three to nine.  
 
Noting the institute's philosophy of advancing the free- 
thinking aspects of scientific inquiry, Purnell Choppin,  
president of HHMI, says, "We tend to support individual  
careers rather than individual projects, so we are  
constantly moving into new areas of research." Hughes  
investigators perform basic research in five broad fields:  
cell biology and regulation, genetics, immunology,  
neuroscience, and structural biology. 
 
When accepting a position to become a Hughes investigator,  
scientists become employees of HHMI and receive full funding  
for salary, staff, and equipment in renewable terms of  
three, five, or seven years. While retaining their  
institutional appointments, investigators spend 75 percent  
of their time doing research and 25 percent devoted to  
activities such as teaching. Researchers also participate in  
HHMI-sponsored meetings that attract, the scientists say,  
leaders in biomedicine. 
 
 
Investigators' Reactions 
A greater degree of autonomy is the primary benefit to being  
named a Hughes investigator, researchers say, but they also  
cite many other advantages. For example, M. Celeste Simon,  
an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Pritzker  
School of Medicine, says her Hughes appointment will make a  
"huge impact" on her career for two main reasons. 
 
First, it will give her "enormous freedom" to perform  
innovative experiments that she has occasionally been  
reluctant to do because of budget constraints. Simon is a  
geneticist who works on the mechanisms of normal development  
in an effort to understand abnormal development, such as in  
cancer-causing genes.  
 
She explains that in the past she has had to prioritize her  
"very expensive" research based on affordability. However,  
now she will be able to do research with "a potentially  
higher benefit-to-cost payoff," in terms of furthering basic  
biomedical knowledge and developing possible cures for human  
health problems. 
 
Stock, too, says that now she "will not be obligated to  
pursue any one research direction." She studies protein- 
protein interactions in signal transduction of bacterial  
chemotaxis and finds this independence beneficial because  
for her "the real thrill of science is stumbling on the  
unknown." 
 
Simon says that another benefit of HHMI affiliation of  
almost equal importance for her is the more frequent  
interaction she will get with leading colleagues in her  
field at Hughes-sponsored meetings and workshops. 
 
Carlos J. Bustamante, a biophysicist and member of the  
University of Oregon's Institute of Molecular Biology in  
Eugene, says that the appointment is "wonderful" in the  
sense of "pushing [his] research methods to new frontiers." 
 
His work entails using atomic-force microscopy, also called  
scanning-force microscopy, to visualize the structural  
aspects of cellular growth and differentiation, specifically  
with transcription complexes. 
 
Bustamante describes the approaches he uses as "somewhat off  
the mainstream," and therefore a risky investment for  
traditional funding agencies. He says that becoming a Hughes  
investigator "could not have come at a better time for my  
lab," because although he is reasonably well funded, "there  
were a number of routes that were the appropriate ones for  
us to take, but we had to let them pass because it was  
outside our financial capabilities."  
 
In addition to expanding into research areas that are  
perhaps a bit of a gamble, Juanita Merchant, an assistant  
professor in the department of internal medicine at the  
University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, says she  
will be able to take on longer-term projects and upgrade her  
research program. Merchant--who studies the regulation of  
gastrointestinal-tract cell growth and differentiation and  
its implications for gastric and colon cancers--says that,  
although she does have other funding, the appointment will  
allow her to hire more technical assistance, purchase state- 
of-the-art equipment, and attend more than one professional  
meeting a year. 
 
Appointed at the assistant level, Stephen Mayo, a structural  
biologist at the California Institute of Technology,  
Pasadena, is in the midst of setting up a cutting-edge  
protein-design lab. At Caltech for less than two years, his  
group intends to develop computer programs to understand the  
relationship between protein structure and function. Mayo's  
team aims to get a better grasp of the relationship between  
the amino acid sequence of proteins and how they fold into  
complex, three-dimensional structures. 
 
The supplies and equipment he needs are "exceedingly  
expensive," according to Mayo. So, one of the major benefits  
for him is "the willingness of HHMI to fund labs that do  
this kind of work." With this, Mayo says, "We should be able  
to focus on actually trying to get things done as opposed to  
spending significant amounts of time writing grants."  
 
 
 
Selection Process 
Sharp applauds HHMI's nomination process, noting that it has  
widened its scope to include more institutions than in  
previous solicitations. HHMI invited input from more than  
200 major medical centers in this go-around. 
 
As a result of the expanded process, N. Maxwell Cowan, vice  
president and chief scientific officer at HHMI, says: "The  
overwhelming majority of those nominated are among the best  
scientists in their respective fields around  the country."  
 
According to Cowan, the procedure was "scrupulously fair."  
The new investigators were chosen by a panel of eminent  
researchers in biomedicine, including three Nobel laureates  
and more than 20 members of the National Academy of  
Sciences. 
 
Each nominee was judged by someone in his or her field of  
expertise, and each was critically evaluated by three  
reviewers at two different stages. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.6, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : THE NEW HUGHES INVESTIGATORS 
 
AU   : KAREN YOUNG KREEGER 
 
TY   : NEWS 
 
PG   : 7 
 
Full Investigators 
* Carlos J. Bustamante, professor of chemistry, University  
of Oregon, Eugene 
* Michael R. Green, professor of molecular medicine,  
University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester 
* Wimhelmus G.J. Hol, professor of biological structure,  
University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle 
* Judith Kimble, professor of biochemistry and molecular  
biology, University of Wisconsin, Madison 
* Sharon R. Long, professor of biological sciences, Stanford  
University, Calif. 
* Douglas A. Melton, professor of biochemistry and molecular  
biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
* Paul L. Modrich, professor of biochemistry, Duke  
University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. 
* John J. Monaco, Jr., professor of molecular genetics,  
biochemistry, and microbiology, University of Cincinnati  
Medical Center 
* Danny F. Reinburg, professor of biochemistry, University  
of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson  
Medical School, Piscataway 
* Stuart L. Schreiber, professor of chemistry, Harvard  
University 
* Peter G. Schultz, professor of chemistry, University of  
California, Berkeley 
* Carla J. Shatz, professor of neurobiology, University of  
California, Berkeley 
 
Associate Investigators 
* Susan G. Amara, neuroscientist, Vollum Institute for  
Advanced Biomedical Research, Portland, Ore. 
* Mark F. Bear, associate professor of neuroscience, Brown  
University School of Medicine, Providence, R.I. 
* Robert E. Boswell, associate professor of molecular,  
cellular, and developmental biology, University of Colorado,  
Boulder 
* Constance Cepko, associate professor of genetics, Harvard  
Medical School, Boston 
* Susan Ferro-Novick, associate professor of cellular  
biology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven,  
Conn. 
* Paula J. Grabowski, associate professor of biological  
sciences, University of Pittsburgh 
* Iva S. Greenwald, associate professor of biochemistry and  
molecular biophysics, Columbia University College of  
Physicians & Surgeons, New York 
* F. Ulrich Hartl, member, cellular biochemistry and  
biophysics program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute, New  
York 
* Nouria Hernandez, senior staff scientist in genetics, Cold  
Spring Harbor Laboratory, N.Y. 
* James R. Priess, associate member, department of basic  
sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle 
* Tamar Schlick, associate professor of chemistry, New York  
University, N.Y. 
* Gertrud M. Schupbach, associate professor of molecular  
biology, Princeton University, N.J. 
* Thomas W. Sturgill, associate professor of internal  
medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine,  
Charlottesville 
* Michael F. Summers, associate professor of biochemistry,  
University of Maryland, Baltimore County 
* Ronald D. Vale, associate professor of pharmacology,  
University of California, San Francisco 
* Wayne M. Yokoyama, associate professor of medicine, Mount  
Sinai Medical Center, New York 
 
Assistant Investigators 
* Natalie G. Ahn, assistant professor of chemistry and  
biochemistry, University of Colorado 
* Tania A. Baker, assistant professor of biology,  
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 
* Brenda L. Bass, assistant professor of biochemistry,  
University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City 
* Linda Buck, assistant professor of neurobiology, Harvard  
Medical School 
* Chris Q. Doe, assistant professor of cell and structural  
biology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 
* William G. Dunphy, assistant professor of biology,  
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena 
* Daniel E. Goldberg, assistant professor of molecular  
microbiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St.  
Louis. 
* Kathleen L. Gould, assistant professor of cell biology,  
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn. 
* Tyler Jacks, assistant professor of biology, Massachusetts  
Institute of Technology  
* Stephen L. Mayo, assistant professor of biology,  
California Institute of Technology 
* Juanita L. Merchant, assistant professor of internal  
medicine and physiology, University of Michigan Medical  
School, Ann Arbor 
* Roy Parker, assistant professor of molecular and cellular  
biology, University of Arizona, Tucson 
* M. Celeste Simon, assistant professor of medicine, and  
molecular genetics and cell biology, University of Chicago  
Pritzker School of Medicine 
* Ann M. Stock, assistant professor of biochemistry, UMDNJ- 
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School 
* Marc Tessier-Lavigne, assistant professor of anatomy,  
University of California, San Francisco 
* Cynthia Wolberger, assistant professor of biophysics and  
biophysical chemistry, Johns Hopkins University School of  
Medicine, Baltimore 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.7, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   :  CLARIFICATION 
 
PG   : 7 
 
 
The caption on a photograph accompanying the article  
"Scientists Predict Internet Will Revolutionize Research"  
(F. Hoke, The Scientist, May 2, 1994, page 1) misstated the  
pictured researcher's views. The caption, on page 9, should  
have read, "Cornell's Bruce Lewenstein studied the messages  
exchanged by a cold fusion electronic newsgroup and found a  
very low `signal-to-noise ratio.'" 
 
Also, several readers contacted The Scientist to request  
further information about accessing "A Biologist's Guide to  
Internet Resources," written by Una Smith at Yale  
University. The guide may be retrieved via the Internet in  
several ways, including by following these instructions:  
Using gopher, go to sunsite.unc.edu and choose this sequence  
of menu items: "Worlds of SunSITE--by Subject," then  
"Ecology and Evolution." The guide is stored there in two  
ways: as a file for easy retrieval of the entire guide, and  
as a menu for browsing and retrieving key sections. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.7, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
NEXT: 
                          OPINION 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Research!America Leads Campaign For Biomedical  
       Research Funding 
 
TY   : OPINION 
 
PG   : 12 
 
 
----- 
Editor's Note: Following is the text of Research!America's  
consensus statement on biomedical research support (see  
story on page 1). The document, signed by 156 academic,  
scientific, and corporate supporters, was delivered to  
members of Congress on May 3. 
------ 
 
 
MEDICAL RESEARCH: PROGRESS AND PROMISE FOR THE PATIENT 
Research!America Forum Consensus Statement 
 
Too many Americans are suffering and dying needlessly  
because, as a nation, we don't invest enough in [basic and  
all other forms of] medical research. Just one discovery can  
save millions of lives and billions of dollars. As the  
United States endeavors to reform its health-care delivery  
system by seeking to improve quality, increase availability,  
emphasize prevention, and control costs, we must rededicate  
ourselves to the principle that better health and cost- 
effective health care require a larger societal investment  
in medical research. 
 
World Leadership 
The United States has a medical research enterprise that is  
the unquestioned world leader--envied by many nations but  
equaled by none. This enterprise, comprising a unique  
collaboration among government, academia, industry,  
voluntary health agencies, and private philanthropy, is  
preeminent in: 
 
* the leadership that American scientists have provided in  
such frontier fields as cell and molecular biology,  
genetics, immunology, and neuroscience; 
 
* the application of knowledge gained in these and other  
fields to the development of vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and  
technologies for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, or  
cure of scores of diseases including AIDS, Alzheimer's  
dementia, birth defects, cancer, dental caries, coronary  
artery disease, diabetes, meningitis, mental illness, polio,  
stroke, and tuberculosis; 
 
* the training of the next generation of medical  
researchers. 
 
Economic Value 
Remarkably, all of this achievement has come at a relatively  
low cost. In 1993, the United States spent less than 3  
percent of its total health-care bill on research. Put  
another way, we spent less on medical research in the entire  
year than we did on health care in 10 days. Beyond the value  
that medical research contributes to the health of the  
public, the enterprise is also a major contributor to the  
economy through research and development dollars spent by  
both the private industry and the taxpayer-supported public  
sector. 
 
Medical research provides high-quality, long-term employment  
for more than a million people--administrators, behavioral  
scientists, doctoral-level scientists, epidemiologists,  
maintenance personnel, nurses, technicians, and other  
employees in universities, small and large businesses,  
hospitals, government laboratories, and independent research  
institutions. In the period 1985 to 1992, private-sector  
investment in the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry  
alone created more than 200,000 new jobs. 
 
Promise Of Research 
But our treasured medical research enterprise is much more  
than a source of quality care, national pride, and economic  
strength. Its promise for the future vastly exceeds its  
progress to date. We are: 
 
* within reach of decoding the entire human genome and, by  
so doing, identifying thousands of genes that, when  
defective, cause or contribute to diseases; 
 
* poised to use biotechnology products and pharmaceutical  
therapies to address a host of unmet medical needs; 
 
* moving closer to promoting health and preventing illness  
by employing more widely the knowledge generated by fields  
such as nutrition, environmental sciences, and epidemiology; 
 
* understanding more about the importance of psychological  
and social factors in preventing or modulating the course of  
disease and the effectiveness of treatment; 
 
* expanding the horizons of research to consider the cost- 
effectiveness and impact on quality of life of  
pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and technologies hitherto  
tested only for safety and efficacy; 
 
* committed to the principle that participation in, and  
reward from, medical research must be shared equally by  
people of all ages, races, and ethnicities. 
 
Research And Health-Care Reform 
Despite all this progress and promise, the research  
partnership and citizens throughout the U.S. share deep  
concerns for the insufficient attention that has been paid  
to the central importance of medical research in improving  
health and lowering health-care costs. Research, the driving  
force behind the unmatched quality of America's health care,  
has been largely ignored as the nation grapples with  
formidable issues--economic, social, and political--raised  
by the debate over how to reform the health-care system.  
Reform proposals that threaten any research entity--be it  
academic, industrial, governmental, or voluntary--in turn  
threaten the future value and quality of health care  
available to all Americans. 
 
Challenges 
The most formidable challenges to medical research are  
economic, and they include: 
 
 
* constrained federal support for the National Institutes of  
Health, the National Science Foundation, the Veterans  
Administration (VA), the Centers for Disease Control and  
Prevention (CDC), and the Agency for Health Care Policy and  
Research (AHCPR)--the major sponsors of medical research in  
academia; 
 
* inadequate public and private support for renovation of  
aging research facilities; 
 
* decelerating investment in medical research and  
development in the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry due  
to a shrinking capital base, reduced earnings prospects  
resulting from increasing competition, managed care-driven  
business climate, and fear of more intrusive governmental  
regulatory policies; 
 
* downward pressures on revenues from clinical services in  
academic health centers because of the shift from fee-for- 
service medicine to managed care--clinical revenues  
currently contribute substantially to the support of medical  
research and its infrastructure in these institutions; 
 
* the inherent complexity of modern technology and the need  
to comply with state and federal regulations, both of which  
have increased the costs of conducting medical research. 
 
Other challenges concern the work force needed to conduct  
quality medical research as well as communication among that  
work force, the general public, and policymakers. They  
include: 
 
* reduced incentives for the best and brightest people of  
all races and ethnicities to enter careers in medical  
research--including the increased cost of research training,  
uncertainty about prospects for employment, and inadequate  
stipends for predoctoral and postdoctoral fellows; 
 
* inadequate incentives for physicians to pursue training  
for clinical research and insufficient support of physician  
and nurse trainees to conduct health-services research; 
 
* persistent lack of understanding among the general public,  
health-care providers, and policymakers of the  
interconnectedness of medical research and quality health  
care; 
 
* insufficient attention to complex ethical issues and anti- 
science biases. 
 
Public Opinion 
Public opinion polls clearly indicate that a majority of  
Americans want the nation to invest more heavily in medical  
research. Over 90 percent believe this country should spend  
more on medical research to better diagnose, prevent, and  
treat disease and disability. Over 70 percent are even  
willing to pay more for an increased investment. To fulfill  
this public mandate, health-care reform must promote an  
environment conducive to medical research. 
 
Recommendations 
Now, more than ever, the medical research enterprise must be  
encouraged to realize its humane promise in the public  
interest. To accomplish this goal, the organizations  
[signing this document] make the following recommendations  
to our nation's public policymakers: 
 
* Incorporate the promotion of medical research as an  
integral element of health-care reform. 
 
* Increase the capacity of NIH, NSF, VA, CDC, and AHCPR to  
support medical research. 
 
* Ensure that our health-delivery system makes the fruits of  
medical research available and accessible to all patients in  
need. 
 
* Promote the integration of patients, their families, and  
their caregivers more meaningfully into the medical-research  
process to focus on quality-of-life considerations. 
 
* Include support for the education of medical scientists as  
a vital part of health-care reform. 
 
* Encourage, do not obstruct, the discovery and development  
of innovative and effective pharmaceuticals, devices, and  
reagents by private industry. 
 
* Provide adequate resources and mechanisms to accelerate  
the translation of fundamental research from the laboratory  
to clinical care via development in the private sector. 
 
* Ensure stable revenue streams to academic health centers  
for medical research and education of medical scientists.  
Provide these centers with incentives for heightened  
interaction with industry, voluntary health agencies, and  
other private-sector sources of medical-research support. 
 
* Strengthen the medical-research work force by provision of  
increased support for the recruitment, training, and  
retention of medical scientists as well as provision of  
special incentives to attract underrepresented populations  
such as women and minorities to careers in medical research. 
 
The [signers of this document]--academic institutions,  
health-delivery organizations, private companies,  
professional societies, philanthropic organizations, and  
voluntary health organizations--which represent a combined  
work force and membership of more than 1.5 million  
Americans, plus a volunteer base of more than 5 million,  
assert that medical research can help our nation's people  
live longer, healthier, and more productive lives while  
reducing the costs of doing so. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.12, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
                         COMMENTARY 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Sustaining Medical Research: Consensus Is Just The  
       Beginning 
 
AU   : Leon E. Rosenberg 
 
TY   : OPINION (COMMENTARY) 
 
PG   : 13 
 
 
Throughout my 35-year career, I have joyfully observed the  
dramatic growth of medical research and biotechnology. I've  
had the good fortune, over time, to witness this evolution  
as a participant in each of the medical-research  
enterprise's three sponsoring environments: government,  
academia, and industry. 
 
More than anything else, this diverse experience has  
instilled in me a powerful belief that any improvement in  
the health and well-being of people, any progress toward  
humankind's fundamental desire to live longer, healthier  
lives, depends on the contributions of medical research-- 
whether basic or applied, whether centered in the laboratory  
or clinic, whether nurtured by government, academia, or  
industry. 
 
This experience also has shaped my perspective that science  
has only begun to realize its vast potential to prevent,  
diagnose, treat, and cure disease. Today, we are on the  
brink of uncovering the basic mechanisms responsible for  
such diseases as cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. We're  
tracking down human genes at a rate of more than one a day.  
In the past year, we've located the genes for Huntington's  
and Lou Gehrig's diseases, a major form of ataxia, and  
common forms of colon and breast cancer. And the  
extraordinary promise of biotechnology may yet revolutionize  
health care by unlocking the deepest molecular secrets of  
human disease. 
 
Yet, at a time when all of us involved in this dynamic  
enterprise should be confidently and optimistically  
preparing for our most productive period ever, I am  
decidedly anxious. I am concerned that the current debate  
about reforming the health-care delivery system is paying  
insufficient attention to the central importance of medical  
research in improving the quality of health care. And I am  
alarmed that some of the reforms proposed will affect  
adversely the medical-research enterprise precisely when it  
has the most to offer the public. 
 
My concerns are shared by members of the medical community  
throughout the United States. Recently I had the honor of  
serving as chairman of a forum sponsored by the medical- 
research advocacy organization Research!America--an event  
attended by individuals representing more than 100  
organizations of the medical-research community. Despite the  
remarkable diversity of the organizations represented,  
attendees concurred that medical research and health-care  
reform are not only totally compatible but also absolutely  
interdependent, and that this message must be delivered  
loudly and clearly to the American public and its  
policymakers. 
 
In the weeks following the forum, input from the full range  
of these groups was incorporated into a consensus statement,  
"Medical Research: Progress and Promise for the Patient"  
[see page 12]. The statement emphasizes that research has  
been largely ignored as the nation grapples with formidable  
economic, social, and political issues raised by the debate  
over reforming the health-care system. 
 
The statement--signed by an unprecedented breadth of  
sponsors from academia, industry, and voluntary health  
agencies--offers policymakers nine recommendations to  
promote an environment conducive to medical research. 
 
None of us, acting alone, can convert these recommendations  
into action; but everyone can and should do something about  
them. We can communicate with public officials about the  
recommendations. We can remind the Clinton administration  
and Congress that the best way to improve the quality of  
care and reduce costs is to encourage more medical research.  
We can talk to our families, friends, colleagues, and  
patients about medical research and what it offers the  
public. 
 
We can go still further in our efforts. We can take the  
statement to our local newspapers and TV stations,  
distribute it in our local medical communities, give  
speeches to civic groups, write letters to editors--even  
request  editorial  board  meetings  to  make  sure  the   
message  gets around. 
 
The actions we choose to take must reflect our individual  
beliefs, but we are each obligated to take a role in shaping  
the future of medical research. The outcome of health-care  
reform will affect everyone--from the bench scientist to the  
patient. All scientists must join in communicating this  
message. 
 
As the consensus statement makes clear, the research  
community can ill afford to stay silent while issues vital  
to saving lives--and vital to our life's work--are debated  
in the halls of government. 
 
                            --- 
 
Leon Rosenberg is president of Bristol-Myers Squibb  
Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Princeton, N.J., and a  
member of Research!America's board of directors. For more  
information on the consensus statement, contact  
Research!America at (703) 739-2577 or, via E-mail, at  
resamer@cap.gwu.edu. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.13, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
                          LETTERS 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Strategic Basic Research 
 
AU   : ADRIAN L. MELOTT 
 
TY   : OPINION (LETTERS) 
 
PG   : 13 
 
National Science Foundation director Neal Lane's pursuit of  
"strategic basic research" was outlined in the interview in  
the January 10 issue of The Scientist [page 11]. 
 
It is difficult to defend the needs of science against the  
demands of a panicky Congress. The pressure generated by  
Sen. Barbara Mikulski's (D-Md.) subcommittee is particularly  
dangerous to our country's future, for it may cause us to  
reduce funding for that which will bring truly new  
technologies. 
 
If we look back to the 19th century, we can identify strains  
that led to important modern technology. To cite one  
example, the electromagnetic research led by Michael Faraday  
and James Clerk Maxwell gave us now-familiar devices such as  
the electric light, telephone, electric motor, radio, and  
TV. All this work was of no obvious social value at the  
time.  
 
To give another example, astronomers seeking to understand  
light coming from the stars built a database of spectra,  
which led to quantum mechanics and our understanding of  
atoms, making modern chemistry possible. This theory is also  
at the basis of most present "new technology" based on  
lasers, miniaturized electronics, and so forth. 
 
And a monk, Gregor Mendel, curious about why and how pea  
plants inherited flower color and other characteristics,  
laid the foundation for modern genetics. 
 
What would have constituted "strategic basic research" in  
the society of 1880? Any scientist whose basic work had  
anything to do with the formation of boiler scale in steam  
engines would have an edge. 
 
Factory power was usually belt-driven, so anything in  
mechanics relating to belt-drive efficiency would be big.  
The telegraph was clearly important, so a major effort would  
be mounted to get telegraph stations in every village,  
perhaps a set in every house. 
 
Any coding work offering a new, more efficiently tapped-out  
replacement for Morse code would be targeted as strategic.  
This would be called "The Information Super-Riverboat." 
 
Studies in buoyancy (and in producing hydrogen) would be  
extremely important, to prepare for the great 20th-century  
travel mode of balloons/dirigibles lying ahead. (Helium, the  
gas used for safety reasons in many balloons that do fly, is  
another discovery made in astronomy.) 
 
We can never know what is strategic more than a few short  
years ahead, which also happens to coincide with the next  
election. 
 
We therefore are likely to waste our money on strategic  
research, as the society of 1880 would have done, for the  
most part. 
 
On the other hand, the return on basic research is high--28  
percent interest, according to a Congressional Budget Office  
report. 
 
We can do no less than take on the task of explaining the  
value of basic research, which provides the possibility of  
learning truly new things, and of defending the role of NSF,  
the only agency whose primary mission is to support 
it. 
 
I urge readers to write their senators and representatives,  
asking them to send copies of the correspondence to  
Mikulski. 
 
ADRIAN L. MELOTT 
Department of Physics 
and Astronomy 
University of Kansas 
Lawrence, Kans. 66045-2151 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.13, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
 
 
WHERE TO WRITE: 
Letters to the Editor 
The Scientist 
3501 Market Street 
Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
Fax:(215)387-7542 
E-mail: 
Bitnet: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
              ===================================== 
 
 
NEXT: 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Hot-Vent Microbes: Looking Backward In Evolution For  
       Future Uses 
 
AU   : MYRNA E. WATANABE 
 
TY   : RESEARCH 
 
PG   : 14 
 
They live--thrive, even--in boiling water! They feed on  
sulfur or hydrogen. They could be from one of the moons of  
Jupiter. In fact, their existence here on Earth has led  
scientists to realize that planets they hitherto assumed to  
be lifeless might support life. These thermophilic, or heat- 
loving, microbes--Archaea--are attracting a small but  
growing cadre of researchers and serious research funding  
from the United States government. 
 
The federal government is so interested in the thermophiles  
that the Department of Energy (DOE) recently established the   
Microbial Genome Initiative to fund genomic sequencing and  
mapping of microorganisms--including Archaea, also known as  
archaebacteria (see accompanying story)--that may have  
applications in environmental cleanup, pollution prevention,  
or energy production. The awarding of one major and possibly  
two or three supplemental grants to finance the initiative  
may be announced in August, say observers. 
 
The excitement among researchers in this growing field and  
their desire to recruit more scientists to it are based on  
the numerous basic research opportunities presented by these  
ancient, primitive organisms, along with the potential  
commercial applications of products derived from them. Even  
DOE's Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois--operated by  
the University of Chicago--is exploring their commer- cial  
possibilities. 
 
"Argonne wants to be at least among the many laboratories  
that are going to have a hand in that level of  
biotechnology," says Jonathon Trent, referring to future  
opportunities in archaeal products. Trent, a molecular  
microbiologist at Argonne, recently established its  
department of molecular biology and biotechnology of  
hyperthermophilic organisms. 
 
 
Forerunners 
Thermophilic microbes live at temperatures above 50<198>C,  
and extreme thermophiles, or hyperther-mophiles, at  
temperatures greater than 80C. Archaea are found in  
volcanic hot springs such as those in Yellowstone National  
Park and volcanic hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean.  
Researchers sometimes refer to Archaea as "archaes"  
(pronounced "are-keys").  
 
Some archaeal species grow at temperatures as high as 113oC,  
and scientists are trying to identify species that grow at  
even higher temperatures. These species are anaerobic, not  
using oxygen for respiration, but rather such normally non- 
life-supporting molecules as sulfur, or hydrogen and carbon  
dioxide. Methanogens--a group of Archaea species that  
includes both thermophiles and hyperthermophiles--use carbon  
dioxide and hydrogen to produce methane. 
 
Some scientists believe that they will find organisms most  
like the precursor of all life among Archaea--a primitive  
group that appears to have more in common with eukaryotes  
(life-forms with distinct nuclei) than with bacteria. 
 
Archaeal researchers say that the heat and geochemical  
conditions in hot vents may be similar to conditions that  
existed on the young, water-covered, cooling Earth. 
 
Explains microbiologist Carl Woese of the University of  
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: "The object is to try to find  
the genetic complement of the forerunner of all life." 
 
A Woese collaborator is Norman Pace, a microbiologist at  
Indiana University in Bloomington. Pace's graduate student  
Susan Barns recently sequenced ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes  
from Archaea within sediment samples from a hot spring in  
Yellowstone National Park (S.M. Barns et al., Proceedings of  
the National Academy of Sciences, 91:1609-13, 1994). In this  
research, sediment samples were scanned using the polymerase  
chain reaction (PCR) for archaeal and bacterial rRNA genes.  
 
Pace, who believes that researchers know little about the  
vast microbial world, hopes to increase knowledge of  
microorganisms by scanning the environment to identify the  
presence of diverse microbes (M.E. Watanabe, The Scientist,  
Sept. 6, 1993, page 17). He is using similar techniques on  
samples from deep-sea hydrothermal vents in hopes of finding  
the upper-temperature limits for life and the ancestral  
organism for all life. He believes that the ther- 
moacidophilic Crenarchaeota, one of the kingdoms of Archaea,  
contains "the modern organisms that are most closely related  
to the ancestor of all life." 
 
Woese also views his work with Archaea from an ecological  
perspective: "The three Ps," he says, "population, power  
usage, pollution --that's society's problem right now." He  
believes that his investigations on Archaea, particularly  
the methanogens, will help find a solution to the problems  
of power usage and pollution. 
 
Other investigators  are carrying out basic research with  
Archaea because the organisms are structurally unique. Eddie  
Chang, a research scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory  
(NRL) in Washington, D.C., is studying the thermal stability  
of the lipid membranes in Archaea. He found that the lipid-- 
a monomolecular membrane with two polar head groups attached  
at either end of the molecule, rather than a bilayer as in  
other known cells--can form thermally stable liposomes. 
 
Chang explains: "These vesicles are stable up to 100oC and,  
furthermore, they are resistant to lipase and detergent  
lytic actions such as biological disrupters. These archae  
vesicles have the stability attractive for delivery of drugs  
and transporting other molecules." 
 
Argonne's Trent studied the thermophile equivalent of heat- 
shock proteins. All cells produce these in response to  
stress, such as high temperature; however, their function is  
unknown. He hypothesized that Archaea adapted to live at  
high temperatures would produce a heat-shock protein that  
would allow them to adapt to even higher temperatures. Trent  
found that the thermophile Sulfolobus shibatae produces a  
protein that appears to be related to a well-studied protein  
of unknown function found in yeast, mouse, and human cells.  
He further found that this heat-shock protein also works as  
a molecular chaperone, which aids in protein folding. This  
would explain the increased production of functional protein  
that occurs in a stressed cell, because new protein is being  
formed--and needs to be folded--and denatured protein needs  
to be repaired, says Trent.  
 
 
Hot Prospects 
The first Archaea-related products were DNA polymerases for  
the research market. For example, New England Biolabs, a  
Beverly, Mass.-based biotechnology company, sells Vent and  
Deep Vent polymerases, used in DNA sequencing and PCR. These  
enzymes originally were isolated from hyperthermophiles  
associated with oceanic hydrothermal vents. 
 
Argonne biotechnology adviser Oskar Zaborsky, who previously  
managed the National Science Foundation's enzyme technology  
program, says that these polymerases are among the first  
enzymes commercially available from the Archaea. He says  
that "the next stage of enzymes from marine organisms"-- 
which probably will be from hyperthermophiles--"will be  
biocatalysts that are going to be used as industrial  
enzymes, in particular, lipases and hydrolases for cleaning  
aids in detergents and for fine chemical preparation." 
 
The most lucrative application area is for conducting  
unusual reactions. One would be dehalogenation of  
chlorinated and brominated environmental pollutants, such as  
trichloroethylene and polychlorinated biphenyls, he says. 
 
"These enzymes could also possibly serve a pivotal role, not  
only for environmental restoration, but also pollution  
prevention by being used as alternative catalysts in the  
manufacture of industrial chemicals," Zaborsky says. 
 
"We are just beginning," he says, "but applications for  
these enzymes will cover the full spectrum of uses." 
 
Microbiologist Frank Robb of the Center of Marine  
Biotechnology at the University of Maryland Biotechnology  
Institute in Baltimore is also working on commercially  
useful enzymes from Archaea. Among these are glutamate  
dehydrogenase and DNA-modifying enzymes. This dehydrogenase,  
according to Robb, is "frozen" at room temperature. It  
assembles into active enzyme molecules in the presence of  
heat. Enzymes like this dehydrogenase are extremely stable  
at room temperature and, Robb says, "offer tremendously  
extended shelf lives" in commercial use. 
 
Other laboratories are also pursuing possible  
commercialization of archaeal products. John Reeve, chairman  
of the department of microbiology at Ohio State University  
in Columbus, studies the archaeal methanogens. Methanogens  
are of great commercial interest for detoxification of  
wastes and environmental remediation, yielding what Reeve  
calls "a commercially competitive energy product--biogas  
[methane]." Reeve is comparing the molecular biology of four  
different methanogens whose optimum growth temperatures are  
37oC, 65oC, 83oC, and more than 100oC. He would like to  
discover how DNA is stabilized in the hyperthermophilic  
species and also how they make methane. 
 
Robert Kelly, a professor of chemical engineering at North  
Carolina State University in Raleigh, is looking at ways to  
use the organisms' stress response in potential commercial  
applications. In addition, Kelly has been collaborating with  
several companies to explore food-processing and biomedical  
uses of some of the high-temperature stable archaeal  
enzymes. 
 
First identified in the early 1980s by Karl Stetter of the  
University of Regensburg in Germany, the hyperthermophiles  
are currently considered scientifically as well as thermally  
hot. 
 
Many researchers envision a range of medically,  
industrially, and environmentally useful compounds derived  
from the hyperthermophilic Archaea. Biomolecules from these  
organisms are active at temperatures that generally degrade  
normal cellular molecules, such as enzymes, lipids, and  
nucleic acids. 
 
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) in Arlington, Va., has  
been funding studies on thermophiles. ONR has been  
"interested in exploring the fundamental properties  
necessary for producing" thermostable biosensors, according  
to NRL's Chang. Biosensors use biologically derived  
molecules that respond to changes in the environment in  
which they are placed.  
 
DOE also has a great interest in these organisms, owing to  
the need to promote production of clean energy. With its  
recent announcement of the Microbial Genome Initiative-- 
expected to be funded at approximately $3 million for one to  
four grants--DOE will probably become the largest U.S.  
sponsor of archaeal research. D. Jay Grimes, the program's  
manager, expects that "as many as 25 people may be  
supported" by the initiative. Scientists also have received  
grants from NSF, the National Aeronautics and Space  
Administration, and corporate and private sources. 
 
 
Myrna E. Watanabe is a biotechnology consultant based in  
Yonkers, N.Y. 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.14, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : THE ARCHAEAL DOMAIN 
 
AU   : MYRNA E. WATANABE 
 
TY   : RESEARCH 
 
PG   : 15 
 
The discovery in the 1970s--and subsequent molecular  
studies--of Archaea (also known as archaebacteria) led  
University of Illinois microbiologist Carl Woese and  
colleagues to propose a total overhaul of how organisms  
should be classified (C.R. Woese et al., Proceedings of the  
National Academy of Sciences, 87:4576-9, 1990). 
 
The archaebacteria were found, on a molecular level, to be  
at least as different from bacteria as they are from  
eukaryotes (life-forms with distinct nuclei). Furthermore,  
the differences between the archaebacteria and other groups  
were greater than the differences between taxonomic  
kingdoms. 
 
Thus, Woese and colleagues proposed that organisms be  
divided into three domains: Bacteria, comprising the  
organisms currently considered to be bacteria; Archaea,  
composed of two kingdoms--Crenarchaeota, made up only of  
thermophiles (heat-loving organisms), and Euryarchaeota,  
with a few thermophiles and all the methanogens (methane- 
producing microbes); and Eucarya, encompassing all the  
current eukaryotes. Kingdoms would be subdivisions of  
domains. They also proposed that the term archaebacteria be  
dropped, as Archaea are not bacteria, nor are they close  
bacterial relatives. 
 
Indiana University microbiologist Norman Pace, who advocates  
using this phylogenetic system, says that the new divisions  
are not yet generally accepted. 
 
Other researchers insist that Woese's work is solid, so it  
may be a matter of familiarizing people with the new  
terminology. Even researchers in the field occasionally use  
the word "archaebacteria," but for the record, according to  
Pace, these  organisms  belong  to Archaea. 
 
Pace points out that little is known about Archaea, and even  
the current archaeal kingdoms may be thrown into disarray. A  
case in point: Recently researchers, according to Pace, have  
found a group of Crenarchaeota living 100 meters below the  
ocean's surface in the cold waters of Antarctica. 
 
According to archaeal researchers, some of the most  
controversial ongoing arguments in the classification and  
evolution of Archaea may be found on the Usenet group  
bionet.molbio.evolution. 
 
--M.E.W. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #14, pg.14, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   :  WARMING TO A HOT TOPIC 
 
TY   :  RESEARCH 
 
PG   :  14 
 
 
For more information on Archaea research, contact: 
 
American Society for Microbiology 
1325 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20005-4171 
Phone: (202) 737-3600 
Fax: (202) 942-9340 
 
(For the appropriate E-mail 
address, call the above number.) 
 
* Michael Goldberg,  
     executive director 
* Gail Cassell, president 
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 
9650 Rockville Pike 
Bethesda, Md. 20814 
Phone: (301) 530-7145 
Fax: (301) 571-1824 
E-mail: asbmb@asbmb.faseb.org 
 
* Charles Hancock,  
     executive officer 
* Martin Gellert, president 
 
Biologists working with deep-sea or hydrothermal-vent  
organisms also communicate via the DEEP-SEA listserver.  
Contact Andrew McArthur at amcarth@uvvm.uvic.ca  for more  
information. 
 
For ongoing discussion of Archaea research, contact the  
Usenet group: bionet.molbio.evolution. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.15, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
                          RESEARCH 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : GENETIC MEDICINE 
 
TY   : RESEARCH (HOT PAPERS) 
 
PG   : 16 
 
K.W. Culver, Z. Ram, S. Wallbridge, H. Ishii, E.H. Oldfield,  
R.M. Blaese, "In vivo gene transfer with retroviral vector  
producer cells for treatment of experimental brain tumors,"  
Science, 256:1550-2, 1992. 
 
Kenneth W. Culver (Human Gene Therapy Research Institute,  
Iowa Methodist Medical Center, Des Moines): "The first  
observation in our study was that murine retroviral vectors  
(MRV) could efficiently transfer genes into tumor cells in  
vivo. MRV appeared to selectively deliver genes into tumor  
cells, since MRV require proliferating target cells. Our  
subsequent studies have confirmed this selectivity in the  
central nervous system (Z. Ram et al., Cancer Research,  
53:83-8, 1993; Z. Ram et al., Journal of Neurosurgery,  
79:400-7, 1993). This high-efficiency, selective gene- 
transfer method holds promise for gene therapies of a  
variety of solid tumors, since most normal tissues are not  
rapidly dividing. 
 
"We also identified a `bystander tumor killing effect.'  
Current evidence suggests that the transfer of the herpes  
simplex-thymidine kinase (HS-tk) gene followed by  
administration of the anti-herpes drug ganciclovir results  
in death of the HS-tk (+) cells and neighboring HS-tk (-)  
cells. The mechanism is thought to relate to the transfer of  
toxic phosphorylated derivatives of ganciclovir by gap  
junctions into adjacent tumor cells (W.L. Bi et al., Human  
Gene Therapy, 4:725-32, 1993). Since no gene-transfer system  
is 100 percent efficient, the bystander killing effect may  
allow the possibility for complete tumor eradication with as  
few as 10 percent of the cells containing the HS-tk gene. 
 
"Preliminary data are available on the first eight patients  
treated with this technique at the National Institutes of  
Health. These studies have demonstrated no apparent toxicity  
related to the intra-tumoral injection of xenogeneic murine  
vector producer cells. Second, treatment with ganciclovir  
has resulted in changes in the size and radiological  
appearance of the tumor in five patients. The potential  
clinical usefulness of the system will depend upon the  
efficiency of gene delivery throughout the tumor mass. 
 
"As a result of these early encouraging phase I findings,  
Genetic Therapy Inc. of Gaithersburg, Md., will sponsor  
three additional clinical trials to attempt to further  
optimize gene delivery into recurrent brain tumors in  
children and adults. This will include a trial to combine  
surgical resection of the tumor with the direct injection of  
vector producer cells into the surrounding, unresectable,  
infiltrating tumor (K.W. Cul-ver et al., Human Gene Therapy,  
5:343-77, 1993). It is hoped that these applications will  
determine if this gene-therapy approach will have the  
potential to improve the grave prognosis for these recurrent  
tumors." 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.16, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   :  SUPERCONDUCTIVITY 
 
TY   : RESEARCH (HOT PAPERS) 
 
PG   : 16 
 
H. Takagi, R.J. Cava, M. Marezio, B. Batlogg, J.J.  
Krajewski, W.F. Peck, Jr., P. Bordet, D.E. Cox,  
"Disappearance of superconductivity in overdoped La2- 
xSrxCuO4 at a structural phase boundary," Physical Review  
Letters, 68:3777-80, 1992. 
 
Robert J. Cava (AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, N.J.):  
"One of the obstacles to understanding the still-elusive  
underlying cause of high-Tc superconductivity is the finding  
of a `model system' in which the physical properties are  
clear-cut, well-characterized, and undisputed. Although more  
than 30 distinct copper oxide ceramics are now known to be  
superconducting at high temperatures, virtually all are so  
complex--either chemically or electron- ically--that they  
are useless for providing the kinds of fundamental  
information that theorists need as an anchor for their  
thinking. Strontium-doped La2CuO4, one of the first copper  
oxide-based superconductors discovered, and the subject of  
our publication, is widely considered to be the simplest  
high-Tc superconductor known. 
 
"La2CuO4 itself is an electronic insulator with copper  
magnetic moments ordered antiferromagnetically at low  
temperatures. As each Sr replaces an La in La2-xSrxCuO4, one  
positively charged current carrier (a `hole') is inserted  
into the system, and one copper magnetic moment is canceled  
out. At a critical concentration of holes, the  
antiferromagnetic ordering goes away, the material becomes a  
metallic conductor, and superconductivity appears--only to  
disappear again at higher hole concentrations. 
 
"Exactly how all this happens is critical, as it is a direct  
measure of nature's delicate balance of magnetism,  
electrical conductivity, and crystal structure in the copper  
oxide superconductors. 
 
"There has been controversy since 1987 surrounding the  
details of what really happens in La2-xSrxCuO4 . We have  
been in the thick of it. In this paper we described the  
results of experiments that we attempted to design and  
execute so unambiguously that it would put an end to the  
controversy. We hope that neutral or objective readers were  
swayed by our arguments. 
 
"Some holding alternative views did not, however, lie down  
and play dead after reading this paper: A number of the  
citations probably reflect disagreement with our  
interpretation of the way this `simple' model system  
behaves. We would have been happier, of course, if our paper  
had put an end to the matter, but we realize that the  
process of point and counterpoint is the way in which the  
difficult problems in science are ultimately solved." 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.16, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : CHEMISTRY 
 
TY   : RESEARCH (HOT PAPERS) 
 
PG   : 16 
 
 
T.W. Ebbesen, P.M. Ajayan, "Large-scale synthesis of carbon  
nanotubes," Nature, 358:220-2, 1992. 
 
Thomas W. Ebbesen (Fundamental Research Laboratories, NEC  
Corp., Tsukuba, Japan): "Carbon nanotubes are very small,  
hollow graphitic tubes (nanometer in diameter, micrometer  
long) that generated a lot of excitement when they were  
first observed. They were seen both as elongated fullerenes  
and as the ultimate fiber, since the hexagonal network of  
carbon atoms was perfect. Exciting properties were predicted  
for the nanotubes, but there was no way to verify them  
because the nanotubes were available in only minute  
quantities in a mixture of soot. That is probably why our  
paper on the large-scale synthesis of nanotubes has had a  
large impact. It opened the possibility for everyone to do  
experiments on nanotubes and verify their properties. 
 
"It was while we were trying to make fullerene derivatives  
that we found that we had made large quantities of carbon  
nanotubes. We determined what the critical parameters were.  
This technique could then be reproduced around the world.  
The research activity on nanotubes has been increasing ever  
since, and now has reached a significant level, which I  
expect will continue for some time until a number of  
important properties are measured. In this regard, the  
purity of the samples is important to do accurate evaluation  
of the material. 
 
"Recently we succeeded in finding a purification method  
(T.W. Ebbesen et al., Nature, 367:519, 1994), which we  
believe will also contribute significantly to research on  
nanotubes. 
 
"Once the nanotubes have been properly characterized, we  
will be in a position to predict more accurately their  
importance for future science and technology, new materials,  
and so forth." 
 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.16, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
                     TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Computer Aids Help Find And Manage Research Grants 
 
AU   : FRANKLIN HOKE 
 
TY   : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY 
 
PG   : 17 
 
Biological researchers scrambling for grant support once had  
to pore over small-print listings in the library and spend  
hours making query calls to public and private organizations  
in order to locate agencies amenable to funding their  
projects. But now, with the advent of the computer age, they  
can search for potential funders while sitting at their  
desks--even at 3:00 A.M., if it suits them. Moreover,  
the tasks of preparing proposals for those funders, once  
identified, and of managing the money, once won, have also  
been eased by computers. 
 
 
Powerful electronic tools have been enlisted in each of  
these areas, helping to streamline the grants process from  
front to back. Online and CD-ROM databases of funders,  
computerized grant-proposal forms for various government  
agencies, and research grant-accounting software are among  
the new computer aids now available. 
 
One of the fastest-growing uses of computers in the grants  
process, for example, is in identifying likely sources of  
research support. 
 
"We are definitely seeing an increase in the number of  
scientists using computer resources to locate possible grant  
funding," says Martha Verchot, education coordinator at the  
Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences, University of  
Alabama, Birmingham. 
 
Administrators at Alabama and other universities have  
encouraged this development in just the past few years by  
placing commercial databases on campus-wide networks,  
Verchot says, so that researchers and other end users can  
access grant information directly. One of the more useful of  
these databases, she says, is the Sponsored Programs  
Information Network (SPIN), produced by InfoEd Inc., Albany,  
N.Y., although several others are also available (see story  
on page 18). 
 
Verchot cautions, however, that scientists accustomed to  
bibliographic searches sometimes have to readjust their  
search strategies when hunting for potential grant funding.  
At her institution, the librarians conduct training classes  
on the available databases and will also perform librarian- 
mediated searches. 
 
"The end goal of funding searching differs from  
bibliographic searching," Verchot says. "Too many faculty  
and researchers approach grant searching expecting to input  
five to 10 [specific] keywords and find a single perfect  
match, rather than entering three to four broader keywords  
and finding the 10 or so possibilities they might want to  
pursue further. In their quest for that one perfect match  
they frequently get zero and become discouraged." 
 
Another stage of the grants cycle for which computers are  
becoming invaluable is keeping precise track of expenses,  
once the hard-won money is in hand. The need to budget  
carefully is greater today than ever before, given the fact  
of tighter research funds in almost every area of science.  
 
"Researchers want to get on with doing research and don't  
want to have to spend time with accounting problems," says  
Kendric C. Smith, a retired professor of radiation oncology  
at Stanford University in California and president of KCS  
Software, also in Stanford. "But you need to know where  
you're at on your commitments and balances." 
 
As a professor, Smith developed a research grant-accounting  
program called Grant Tracker, now marketed through his  
company, to keep closer track of his department's grant  
money. Most universities provide their researchers with  
budgetary statements on a monthly basis, he says, but this  
is often inadequate, especially toward the end of the grant  
cycle. 
 
"If you don't know where you're at, you can underspend by  
$100,000 or overspend by $100,000," Smith says. "If you  
underspend, it means you're probably not getting all the  
work done that you should be getting done toward your grant,  
and therefore you lose some competitive edge with other  
people. And, of course, overspending is a disaster." 
 
Funders Online And More 
Helping to efficiently identify potential funders is the  
goal of several growing grant-information databases.  
InfoEd's SPIN database, for example, now lists more than  
6,000 funding opportunities, and offers the database in  
several formats, depending on client preference.  
 
One important component of the SPIN database, says Sandra  
Carrk, manager of funding information services at InfoEd, is  
its carefully developed set of keywords. SPIN incorporates a  
standardized keyword thesaurus that is also used by agencies  
of the federal government, Carrk says, including the  
National Institutes of Health, the National Science  
Foundation, and the Department of Energy (DOE). 
 
"We use that thesaurus, but have modified it," Carrk says.  
"We've added our own terms to it, also. Right now, the  
thesaurus has over 2,800 terms, and we're always adding to  
it as new disciplines come up." 
 
SPIN is available online with two subscription options,  
either $500 per year plus $10 per search or $3,500 per year  
for unlimited searches. The database is also available as a  
diskette subscription to be run on the user's local  
microcomputer system, with three options. The cost of  
quarterly updates is $1,195 per year, monthly updates are  
$1,995, and biweekly updates are $2,995. In addition,  
diskette subscribers are able to search the online version  
of the database for $10 per search, when needed. According  
to Carrk, about 75 percent of SPIN users are monthly  
diskette subscribers. 
 
InfoEd also offers the Sponsored Programs Administrative  
System (SPAS) with several components useful in the grants  
process. One maintains profiles of faculty members, for  
example. Carrk says that, when SPIN and SPAS are used  
together, available funding opportunities can be proactively  
matched to faculty interests. 
 
"You can also find scientists who may want to collaborate  
with each other, because they have the same interests,"  
Carrk says. 
 
Dialog Information Services of Palo Alto, Calif., also  
provides a pair of online databases useful for locating  
potential funding opportunities. One is the Foundation  
Directory (Dialog File 26), and the other is the Foundation  
Grants Index (Dialog File 27), both produced by the  
Foundation Center, New York. The Foundation Directory  
contains in- formation about more than 27,000 United States  
private foundations and 250 community foundations--the most  
complete such list available, according to Phyllis M.  
Andrews, formerly manager of Dialog services for the center  
and now an independent information professional. Andrews  
details how to develop effective search strategies for these  
databases in her article "Grant information online"  
(Database, 16[2]:38-44, April 1993). 
 
The Chronicle Guide to Grants is a new database of more than  
10,000 foundation and corporate grant listings produced by  
the staffs of the Chronicle of Philanthropy and the  
Chronicle of Higher Education, both published in Washington,  
D.C. The database is available in either diskette or CD-ROM  
format, with updates shipped every other month. An annual  
subscription costs $295 for the diskette version and $395  
for the CD-ROM version. 
 
Computerized grant forms, in both word-processor and spread- 
sheet formats, have been developed to speed the task of  
preparing proposals to the government. Specific forms for  
proposal submissions to the Public Health Service (including  
NIH), NSF, and DOE are among those available on diskettes.  
Two providers of such forms are Envisage Inc. of  
Jacksonville, Fla., and the Thayer School of Engineering at  
Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H. 
 
 
 
Keeping The Books 
The basic reason that researchers or their staffers need to  
use research grant-accounting software, according to KCS  
Software's Kendric Smith, is that university accounting  
reports always lag well behind actual spending. Researchers  
who expect these university reports to keep them up to date  
on their grants spending are making a mistake, Smith says. 
 
"It would be comparable to running your own personal  
checking account without ever keeping track of the checks  
that you write," Smith says, "and just trying to rely on the  
statement that the bank sends you." 
 
Smith says that programs such as his Grant Tracker are  
designed specifically to meet the needs of grant accounting.  
The researcher or responsible staff member begins by  
entering the amount of the award and such fixed-cost  
information as salary data on project personnel. Expected  
raises and cost-of-living increases can be programmed to  
take effect at future dates. Then, as the work goes forward,  
expenditures for supplies and equipment are recorded. 
 
"It automatically calculates your commitments and balances,"  
Smith says. "And you can subdivide your expenses by various  
categories, so that you know how you're spending your money,  
whether it's on petri dishes, chemicals, or tissue-culture  
media. That can help you plan your budget for next year." 
 
Version 5.0 of Grant Tracker, released this month, is  
available for Windows, DOS, and Macintosh for $399. 
 
Although business accounting programs such as Lotus 1-2-3  
from Lotus Development Corp., Cambridge, Mass., and Excel  
from Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Wash., are capable of many of  
the same functions, they must be specially programmed to do  
so, Smith says, which can be a very time-consuming process. 
 
Julie Bond, an office administrator in the division of  
clinical pharmacology at Stanford, agrees that the business- 
oriented software can be unnecessarily difficult to use when  
compared with programs specifically written to keep track of  
research grants. For about eight years, she has used a  
program called Grant Manager from Niles & Associates,  
Berkeley, Calif., to account for more than $3 million in  
about 40 different gift and grant funds. These range from  
relatively small and simple gift accounts to several large,  
complex NIH grants for AIDS-related research. 
 
Bond uses Grant Manager in conjunction with another program  
from Niles called Personnel Manager. The two programs work  
together to track and forecast equipment, supplies, and  
personnel expenditures, she says. Among other uses, Grant  
Manager speeds reordering of supplies, because it keeps a  
catalog of previous orders for reference. 
 
"It will also track indirect costs, which are becoming more  
of an issue now," Bond says, referring to institutional  
overhead expenses reimbursed by the federal government on  
grants they award. "Basically, you're given a set amount in  
indirect costs. If you go over, you're not going to get any  
more, but if you go under, you can convert those to direct  
dollars--although those direct dollars will then accrue  
indirect costs, also, so you have to be careful of what  
you're doing." 
 
The one complaint that Bond has with Grant Manager is its  
inability to interface with the Stanford University network.  
The company has assured her that it is hard at work on a  
Windows version, which it expects to release sometime this  
year. A Windows version of Grant Manager would allow her to  
move information back and forth between her records and the  
Stanford system without rekeying. 
 
"Once they get it into Windows," Bond says, "that will make  
it an even more useful and effective tool than it is now." 
 
Grant Manager costs $425 and is currently available for  
either DOS or Macintosh. Personnel Manager also costs $425,  
but is available only for DOS. The two may be purchased  
together--for DOS only--for $750.  
 
Another grant-accounting package, called Grant Accountant,  
is available from Research Information Systems in Carlsbad,  
Calif. Grant Accountant costs $495 and is available for DOS  
only. Like its competitors, Grant Accountant helps  
researchers fill the gap between actual expenditures,  
including salaries, and the monthly statements provided by  
the university. 
 
As the money available to support research becomes tighter,  
Bond says, the importance of such grant- accounting programs  
also grows. 
 
"In this day of funding crunch, you need to be able to track  
every single penny," Bond says. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.17, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : DATABASES TO HELP FIND RESEARCH FUNDING 
 
AU   : FRANKLIN HOKE 
 
TY   : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY 
 
PG   : 18 
 
According to Martha Verchot, education coordinator at the  
Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences, University of  
Alabama, Birmingham, a number of databases and other  
resources can help in identifying potential funders. Some of  
these are available over the Internet free of charge, and  
some are commercial products provided in different formats.  
Among these are the following: 
 
* The Sponsored Programs Information Network (SPIN) is a  
database of funding sources in both CD-ROM and online  
formats available from InfoEd Inc., Albany, N.Y. A companion  
software system called Sponsored Programs Administrative  
System (SPAS) includes several grant-tracking functions. For  
information, call (800) 727-6427. 
 
* The Illinois Researcher Information System (IRIS) is a  
funding-opportunities database developed by the Research  
Services Office of the University of Illinois, Urbana- 
Champaign. It is available by subscription and searchable  
online, with a one-month trial subscription available. For  
information, call (217) 333-0284. 
 
* Dialog Information Services Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.,  
provides several online databases to aid in locating grants,  
including Foundation Directory (Dialog File 26) and  
Foundation Grants Index (Dialog File 27). For information,  
call Dialog at (800) 334-2564 or the Foundation Center at  
(800) 424-9836. 
 
* BRS Colleague, from BRS Information Technologies in  
McLean, Va., offers several grant-information databases that  
give descriptions of current and past research funding by  
the Public Health Service. For information, call (800) 289- 
4277. 
 
* The National Institutes of Health and the National Science  
Foundation provide free information about their grants  
programs directly via the Internet. The NIH server includes  
the file "NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts," and the NSF  
server includes a collection of project abstracts, funding  
bulletins, and requests for proposals. Use the gopher  
command to reach nih.edu and stis.nsf.gov, respectively. 
 
* FEDIX, a free online service from Federal Information  
Exchange Inc. (FIE), Gaithersburg, Md., includes information  
from a number of federal agencies, including the Department  
of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space  
Administration (NASA), the Office of Naval Research, and the  
Air Force Office of Scientific Research. FEDIX is accessible  
via the Internet by using the gopher command to reach  
fedix.fie.com (port 70) or the telnet command to reach  
fedix.fie.com. To request user guides, call FIE at (301)  
975-0103. 
 
--F.H. 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.18, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : SUPPLIERS OF COMPUTER AIDS FOR FINDING, PREPARING,  
       AND MANAGING GRANTS 
 
TY   : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY 
 
PG   : 19 
 
The following companies and institutions offer computer  
products to help with different aspects of the research  
grants process. Please contact the organizations directly or  
use our Reader Service Card for more information concerning  
specific products. 
 
 
Academic Research Information Systems 
2940 16th St. 
Suite 314 
San Francisco, Calif. 94103 
(415) 558-8133 
Fax: (415) 558-8135 
 
Circle No. 146 on Reader Service Card 
 
Blackbaud 
4401 Belle Oaks Dr. 
Charleston, S.C. 29405-8530 
(800) 443-9441 
Fax: (803) 740-5410 
 
Circle No. 147 on Reader Service Card 
 
Dialog Information Services 
3460 Hillview Ave. 
Palo Alto, Calif. 94304 
(415) 858-2700 
Fax: (415) 858-7069 
 
Circle No. 148 on Reader Service Card 
 
Envisage Inc. 
5111-6 Baymeadows Rd. 
Suite 315 
Jacksonville, Fla. 32217 
(904) 739-0060 
Fax: (904) 731-1993 
 
Circle No. 149 on Reader Service Card 
 
The Fund Raising School 
550 W. North St. 
Suite 301 
Indianapolis, Ind. 46202 
(800) 962-6692 
Fax: (317) 684-8900 
 
Circle No. 150 on Reader Service Card 
 
Illinois Research 
Information System 
Research Services Office 
128 Observatory 
University of Illinois 
Urbana-Champaign, Ill. 61801 
(217) 333-0284 
Fax: (217) 333-7011 
 
Circle No. 151 on Reader Service Card 
 
InfoEd Inc. 
453 New Karner Rd. 
Albany, N.Y. 12205 
(518) 464-0691 
Fax: (518) 464-0695 
 
Circle No. 152 on Reader Service Card 
 
Integrated Solutions 
1761 Steward Ave. 
New Hyde Park, N.Y. 11040 
(516) 437-2456 
Fax: (516) 358-9474 
 
Circle No. 153 on Reader Service Card 
 
Legi-Slate Inc. 
777 N. Capitol St. 
Washington, D.C. 20002 
(202) 898-2311 
Fax: (202) 898-3030 
 
Circle No. 154 on Reader Service Card 
 
KCS Software 
927 Mears Court 
Stanford, Calif. 94305-1041 
(415) 493-7210 
Fax: (415) 493-7210 
 
Circle No. 124 on Reader Service Card 
 
MBS-Fame 
6680 Beta Dr. 
Cleveland, Ohio 44143 
(800) 682-2479 
Fax: (216) 461-7038 
 
Circle No. 155 on Reader Service Card 
 
Niles & Associates Inc. 
2000 Hearst St. 
Berkeley, Calif. 94709 
(510) 655-6666 
Fax: (510) 649-8179 
 
Circle No. 139 on Reader Service Card 
 
The Oryx Press 
4041 North Central Rd. 
Phoenix, Ariz. 85012 
(602) 265-2651 
Fax: (602) 265-6250 
 
Circle No. 156 on Reader Service Card 
 
RAMS Inc. 
555 Quince Orchard Rd. 
Suite 200 
Gaithersburg, Md. 20878 
(301) 963-5226 
Fax: (301) 975-0109 
 
Circle No. 157 on Reader Service Card 
 
Research 
Information 
Systems Inc. 
Camino Corporate Center 
2355 Camino Vida Roble 
Carlsbad, Calif. 92009-1572 
(619) 438-5526 
Fax: (619) 438-5573 
 
Circle No. 158 on Reader Service Card 
 
Thayer School 
of Engineering 
Dartmouth College 
8000 Cummings Hall 
Hanover, N.H. 03755 
(603) 646-2455 
Fax: (603) 646-3856 
 
Circle No. 159 on Reader Service Card 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.19, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
                        NEW PRODUCTS 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Heto Introduces DNA Plus System 
 
TY   : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY (NEW PRODUCTS) 
 
PG   : 20 
 
 
The DNA Plus System, now available from Heto AS of Denmark,  
is a compact, complete vacuum-concentration system de-  
signed for drying and concentrating RNA and DNA  
precipitates.  
 
The DNA Plus System is an all-in-one unit, consisting of a  
vacuum rotator-mini centrifuge, a Teflon- coated membrane  
vacuum pump, a cooling trap that can handle temperatures as  
low as -60o C, and a built-in controller for completely  
automatic operation. The system is situated on a compact,  
mobile cart. 
 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.20, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Individual Monitoring Systems' Physical Activity Monitor 
 
TY   : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY (NEW PRODUCTS) 
 
PG   : 20 
 
Individual Monitoring Systems of Baltimore has introduced  
the PAM2 Physical Activity Monitor, a research and  
evaluation system for recording and analyzing body movement  
in animals and humans.  The miniaturized, portable device  
weighs 32 grams. With a sensitivity of 0.1 g acceleration,  
the unit accumulates activity data in one-minute intervals  
and can store this information for hours, days, or weeks. 
 
For animal research, it can be used for measuring the  
effects of drugs, toxic substances, and environment on motor  
activity and behavior. In humans, the PAM2 monitors motor  
events for activity-related studies, such as investigations  
of sleep/wake cycles, circadian rhythms, exercise,  
hyperactivity, and ergonomics. 
 
According to the company, the PAM2 method requires no  
complicated set-up or field adjustment. Activity data from  
the PAM2 are downloaded to a computer for presentation and  
analysis. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.20, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Millipore Releases Glass-Fiber Filter Plates 
 
TY   : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY (NEW PRODUCTS) 
 
PG   : 20 
 
Millipore Corp. of Bedford, Mass., has developed new  
MultiScreen glass-fiber filter plates for filtration assays.  
These plates, used in conjunction with the MultiScreen  
bioassay system, are designed to replace conventional  
techniques for cell harvesting and receptor-binding assays.  
According to the manufacturer, when compared with  
traditional methods, the MultiScreen glass-fiber filter  
plates significantly enhance the throughput of multiple  
samples. They also are said to reduce the amount of  
expensive radioactive waste generated from such studies by  
up to 99 percent. 
 
Each MultiScreen plate is fitted with a glass-fiber filter  
recommended for bioassay (American Society for Testing and  
Materials designation Type B or Type C). An open-pore  
membrane below the glass-fiber media permits incubation as  
well as filtration of liquids in the upper wells of the  
plate. Each step of a typical bioassay--sample  
immobilization, incubation, washing, and detection--can be  
carried out within the same filter plate, eliminating the  
need for sample transfers from one reaction vessel to  
another. 
 
Once the assay is completed, the individual filters on the  
plate are designed to be easily punched out and transferred  
into scintillation vials, or counted directly in the plate  
with microplate counters. The user can also retain the  
filtrate for further analysis by placing a standard,  
plastic, 96-well plate below the MultiScreen plate and  
applying vacuum. 
 
MultiScreen glass-fiber filter plates can be used for a  
variety of techniques, including receptor-binding assays,  
thymidine-uptake studies, and assays on neural receptors. 
 
MultiScreen plates are also available with other membranes  
fitted to the 96-well plate. Researchers can choose from  
Immobilon membranes, low-binding PVDF membranes, and  
cellulosic filters such as nitrocellulose, depending on the  
application. Plates are available in both sterile and non- 
sterile formats, and in materials compatible with direct  
scintillation counting on the plate.  
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.20, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   :  Coreco's Oculus-F/64 Image-Acquisition And  
        Processing Boards Make Debut 
 
TY   :  TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY (NEW PRODUCTS) 
 
PG   : 20 
 
Montreal, Quebec-based Coreco Inc. offers the Oculus-F/64  
series, high-performance image-acquisition and processing  
boards for the ISA bus targeted to applications such as  
industrial inspection, scientific analysis, and medical  
imaging. The Oculus-F/64 series offers acquisition up to 40  
MHz over 250 MOPS of processing power and high-bandwidth  
communications. 
 
The Oculus-F/64 series incorporates high-speed processing  
hardware including Texas Instruments' TMS 34020 GSP and TMS  
320C40 DSP. The unit also features a histogram processor and  
Coreco's IP-Engine, which combine to perform real-time  
arithmetic operations. The Oculus-F/64 series relies on all  
four processors and an 80 MByte/second high-speed memory bus  
to provide simultaneous image acquisition and processing. 
 
The Oculus-F/64 series was designed to acquire data from  
virtually any source and to simplify data acquisition  
through an interactive software program that allows users to  
adjust all video parameters. Up to 48 MBytes of field- 
upgradable memory can be added to provide additional storage  
of images, accommodate 16-bit images, or store high- 
resolution images (up to 4K o 4K). The Oculus-F/64 series  
supports either single-screen or dual-screen operation and  
is compatible with Windows 3.1 and Windows NT. To view very-  
high-resolution images, select Oculus-F/64 products support  
display resolutions up to 1600 o1200. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.20, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : New Biomolecule Separation Technology From Cohesive  
       Biotechnologies Inc. 
 
TY   : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY (NEW PRODUCTS) 
 
PG   : 20 
 
Acton, Mass.-based Cohesive Biotechnologies Inc.'s patented  
Wave Chemistry will be used to design and develop  
purification media to separate and purify biomolecules. This  
technology was first developed and utilized at Polaroid  
Corp. of Cambridge, Mass., and is now licensed and patented  
by Cohesive Biotechnologies. According to the company, it is  
applying this chemistry for the first time in the  
separations industry. Cohesive Biotechnologies has been  
awarded three application patents based on applying the  
chemistry to chromatographic media.  
 
The chemistry's infrastructure allows protein to be analyzed  
and purified at the lab level and then scaled up into  
production. This scale-up process is designed to enable  
biopharmaceutical companies to accelerate the purification  
of biomolecules. Cohesive Biotechnologies is applying this  
chemistry to a series of separation products that will be  
released later this year.   
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.20, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
NEXT: 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Noesis' One-Dimensional Electrophoresis Gel Image- 
       Analysis Software 
 
TY   : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY (NEW PRODUCTS) 
 
PG   : 20 
 
Noesis Vision Inc. of Montreal, Quebec, has introduced a  
fully automated electrophoresis one-dimensional image- 
analysis software package. The system is Unix-based and runs  
on all major workstations from Sun Microsystems Inc.,  
Silicon Graphics Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Co. 
 
Among the functions that can be performed by the package are  
detection and quantification of lanes and bands. In  
addition, interactive tools are provided for controlling  
image-display parameters. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.20, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
 
                           PEOPLE 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   : Structural Biology Researcher Wins Awards From Two  
       National Societies 
 
AU   : NEERAJA SANKARAN 
 
TY   : PROFESSION (PEOPLE) 
 
PG   : 22 
 
Peter S. Kim, an associate professor of biology at the  
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge who also  
holds appointments as a member of the Whitehead Institute  
for Biomedical Research and an associate investigator of the  
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, has recently been named the  
recipient of awards from two national professional  
societies. 
 
The American Chemical Society will honor Kim with the 1994  
Eli Lilly Award in Biological Chemistry, to be presented at  
its fall meeting in Washington, D.C., where he will also be  
chairing a session on "Protein Folding, Function, and  
Design." On July 12, Kim, 36, will receive the DuPont Merck  
Young Investigator Award at the Eighth Symposium of the  
Protein Society in San Diego and will deliver a lecture  
titled "Protein Dissection." 
 
 Kim's research focuses on the flow of information in  
biological systems. "We know about DNA--and in some cases  
RNA--storing genetic information, being transcribed into  
RNA, which in turn is translated into proteins," he says.  
"But until we know how we get folded, functional protein  
structures from their linear amino acid chains, we cannot  
really understand the basis for their function and  
activity." 
 
Working to dissect the process of protein folding, Kim's  
laboratory introduced the technique of using protein  
fragments (peptides) to construct models of the protein at  
various stages of folding. He also did experiments to help  
solve a 40-year-old puzzle about the interaction of  
proteins. Originally, two strands of some fibrous proteins,  
like keratin, were believed to interact by a zipper-like  
mechanism with interlocking units of the amino acid leucine  
on each strand. An alternative mechanism suggested by noted  
researchers like Francis Crick and Linus Pauling was that  
the strands twisted around each other to form "coiled  
coils." Kim and his collaborators were able to verify these  
latter predictions by making crystals of certain interacting  
proteins (E.K. O'Shea, J.D. Klemm, P.S. Kim, T. Alber, "X- 
ray structure of the GCN4 leucine zipper, a two-stranded,  
parallel coiled coil," Science, 254:539-44, 1991). 
 
This research on the structural basis of molecular  
interactions led to the discovery of the mechanism of  
infection of the influenza virus, and shed light on the  
interaction between certain transcription factors and the  
oncoproteins fos and jun, as well. These findings have  
potential uses in the design of drugs to block protein  
interactions responsible for infection. 
 
Kim earned a bachelor's degree in chemistry from Cornell  
University, Ithaca, N.Y., in 1979, and did doctoral studies  
in biochemistry at Stanford University. He is the co-  
founder of a new biotechnology firm, ScripTech  
Pharmaceuticals Inc. in Boston. Last year, he received the  
National Academy of Sciences Award in Molecular Biology. 
 
--Neeraja Sankaran 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.22, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
 
                       PEOPLE BRIEFS 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   :  SAMUEL THIER 
 
TY   : PROFESSION (PEOPLE BRIEFS) 
 
PG   : 22 
 
Samuel Thier, sixth president of Brandeis University, has  
taken the post of president of the Massachusetts General  
Hospital (MGH) in Boston, one of five teaching hospitals  
affiliated with Harvard Medical School. He began in his new  
job on May 23. 
 
As president of MGH, Thier will direct the General Hospital  
Corp., a parent company that currently oversees seven  
affiliates, including the McLean Hospital, Spaulding  
Rehabilitation Hospital, the MGH Institute of Health  
Professions, MGH Home Health Services Corp., and the MGH  
Professional Services Corp. 
 
Thier came to Brandeis in 1991, after serving for six years  
as president of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute of  
Medicine (IoM), an affiliate of the National Academy of  
Sciences. There, he began a revitalization of the  
institution, tripling its budget, quadrupling its staff, and  
increasing the visibility of IoM in national policy debates.  
(J. Mervis, The Scientist, June 24, 1991, page 3).  
Previously, Thier had been chairman of the department of  
internal medicine at Yale University School of Medicine from  
1975 to 1985. 
 
In the time he has spent as president of Brandeis, Thier has  
presided over a number of academic, financial, and  
structural achievements. Chief among these are the  
development of a new curriculum and new graduate programs,  
acquisition of the Andrei Sakharov archives, completion of  
the Benjamin and Mae Volen National Center for Complex  
Systems, and a significant increase in private donations to  
the university. 
 
Thier will be succeeded by Jehuda Reinharz, provost and  
senior vice president at Brandeis. 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.22, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          -------- 
NEXT: 
 
 
 
                          OBITUARY 
 
------------------------------------------------------------ 
TI   :  ROGER WOLCOTT SPERRY 
 
TY   : OBITUARY 
 
PG   : 22 
 
Roger Wolcott Sperry, a prominent brain researcher and a  
1981 Nobelist in physiology, died April 17 of a heart attack  
following degenerative neuromuscular disease in Pasadena,  
Calif. He was 80 years old. 
 
Sperry was perhaps best known for his research on "split  
brain" patients, demonstrating how the two halves of the  
brain functioned. He was responsible for overturning the  
widespread belief that the left brain is dominant by showing  
that several cognitive abilities were localized in the right  
brain. It was for this work that Sperry shared the Nobel  
with David H. Hubel and Torsten N. Wiesel. He also provided  
experimental proof for the specificity of the reconnection  
of regenerating severed neurons in newts, which later led to  
new theories on how neurons grow. After 1965, his work  
turned more to psychology and philosophy. 
 
Sperry was the Board of Trustees Professor, Emeritus, of  
Psychobiology at the California Institute of Technology,  
where he served for almost 40 years. Born in Hartford,  
Conn., he obtained a bachelor's degree in English literature  
in 1935, and a master's degree in psychology in 1937, from  
Oberlin College in Ohio, followed by a doctorate in zoology  
from the University of Chicago in 1941. He performed  
military service in the Office of Scientific Research and  
Development Medical Research Project on Nerve Injuries. 
 
 
 
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #11, pg.22, May 30, 1994) 
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) 
   
                         ---------- 
 
WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT   
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE   
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 
 
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 
71764.2561@compuserve.com 
 
The Scientist, 
3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia,  PA 19104 
U.S.A. 
 
                          --------