THE SCIENTIST VOLUME 7, No:1 January 11, 1993 (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) Articles pu

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

THE SCIENTIST VOLUME 7, No:1 January 11, 1993 (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 *** *** JANUARY 25, 1993 *** THE SCIENTIST CONTENTS PAGE (Page numbers correspond to printed edition of THE SCIENTIST) CONTENTS NEWS: BIOTECH'S NEW YEAR: Though 1992 was fraught with economic bad news for the biotechnology industry--such as patent fights and FDA rejection of major biotherapeutics--enough good things happened to cause industry watchers to predict expanded financial, employment, and scientific opportunities in the field in 1993. Page #1 BIOMEDICAL BLUES: Job opportunities for researchers in the biomedical arena are in decline, a reflection of industry caution and a general recessionary climate, according to research directors and employment managers; but an informal poll of numerous biomedical institutions indicates that average salaries for established positions are going up. Page #1 CHASING SHADOWS: Cryptozoology, the search for previously unknown species of animals, has a less-than-stellar reputation in mainstream science, but a hearty band of researchers is keeping the pursuit of these often-legendary creatures--including the much-ridiculed investigations of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster--alive, often at great personal expense and risk to their careers. Page #1 Cryptozoological expeditions. Page # 5 of printed newspaper. TO RUSSIA WITH MONEY: Investment broker George Soros is putting his wealth into Russian science, with a $100 million donation to support researchers in the former Soviet Union through an International Science Foundation, which has attracted the plaudits and backing of prominent scientists. Page #3 THE SCIENTIST can now be accessed on NSFnet. Page #3 OPINION: SCIENCE OR POLITICS AT NASA? In an interview with The Scientist, National Aeronautics and Space Administration administrator Daniel Goldin responds to space scientists' criticisms of his controversial changes in the agency's management structure and personnel, and ponders his own future under the new presidential administration. Page #11 COMMENTARY: The new year brings a sense of promise with the election of a new president and the expectation of science policy changes in the federal government; but scientists should not get their hopes up too high, given a continuing poor economy, international crises, and the tight budget these factors will engender, says Eugene Garfield. Page #12 RESEARCH: HEADY SUCCESS: The 30-year-old field of cognitive science is now making significant headway in its attempt to understand thought and mind's functioning, thanks to a convergence of disciplines and a florescence of collaborations, as evidenced by citation data from the Philadelphia-based Institute for Scientific Information. Page #15 HOT PAPERS: An oncologist discusses his study of the transmissible factor contributing to the development of cervical cancer. Page 16 TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY: BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE BUTTON: New computer software is available to tackle one of the last, but, some say, the "nastiest," chores involved in writing a scientific paper--generating a bibliography Page 18 Major bibliographic database software suppliers. Page 19 PROFESSION: LAYOFF SURVIVAL: With proper planning and by paying attention, scientists can take steps to avoid layoffs, or, at the very least, get back on the career path as quickly and painlessly as possible. Page 20 POOR FUNDING ENVIRONMENT: Research support from the Environmental Protection Agency has been difficult to obtain, EPA managers acknowledge, mainly because of underfunding in the budget; but money is available, if scientists know where to look. Page 21 NED D. HEINDEL, a Lehigh University chemistry professor, has been voted president-elect of the American Chemical Society. Heindel will serve in this position for one year before taking over the presidency in 1994 for a two-year term. Page 23 SHORT TAKES: CARTOON. Page 4 of newspaper. NOTEBOOK Page 4 of newspaper. LETTERS Page 12 of newspaper. CROSSWORD Page 13 of newspaper. OBITUARIES Page 23 of newspaper. ===================================== THE SCIENTIST GOES ELECTRONIC The Scientist is now available on-line via NSFnet, as files of about 3,000 lines in length. To gain electronic access to this valuable biweekly information source, follow these instructions: Type: ftp nnsc.nsf.net Use the login "anonymous" Use your username@bitnet address as password Type: cd the-scientist Files will be added every two weeks, with file names corresponding to date of publication. To access the Nov. 9, 1992, issue, for example, type: get the-scientist-921109 or, to access the Nov. 23, 1992, issue: get the-scientist-921123 Jan. 11, 1993, is available as: the-scientist-930111; Jan. 25, 1993, will be available as: the-scientist-930125. For a full listing of The Scientist issues in the NSFnet directory, type: ls *or type: get index-the-scientist (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ============================================= Biomedical Career Horizon On Cloudy Side For 1993 (Page #1 of newspaper) While salaries are on the upswing, the number of job opportunities is predicted to decline BY MARCIA CLEMMITT The coming of a new year, the establishment of a new presidential administration, and some encouraging signs of an economic upturn may yield professional gain for some in the science community. Nevertheless, research directors and human resource managers at United States biomedical research institutions say their approach to the hiring of scientists will remain cautious in 1993. Many add, however, that though the number of job opportunities in the biomedical field is likely to remain low--as it has been for the past two years--salaries should continue on an upward course. In addition, they point out that scientists in a few specialties- -particularly those combining biology and mathematics--are commanding significantly higher-than-average pay. "The field as a whole seems relatively flat in terms of hiring and opportunity," says Ames Putnam, vice chairman of the department of education and research at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. "Funding is tight. For our part, we're concentrating sole-ly on particular areas of need." The biomedical research field includes any life science-related research applicable to understanding human biology or the cause and treatment of disease. As Roger Hewitt, a molecular genetics professor at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, writes, this includes "more medically oriented disciplines," such as physiology, toxicology, neurobiology, and virology, as well as "more basic, biomedical science" fields, such as biochemistry, molecular biology, biophysics, and biomathematics (Peterson's Guide to Graduate Programs in the Biological and Agricultural Sciences 1992, Princeton, N.J., Peterson's Guides). Hewitt adds, however, that "research in any of these disciplines is rarely conducted in isolation.... The interdisciplinary nature of most biomedical research has made its assignment to disciplinary categories very difficult, if not meaningless in some cases.... The area of biomedical science has evolved an identity as a field that transcends the disciplines it subsumes." As a basis for this article, The Scientist interviewed research directors and human resource managers at more than 30 biomedical research institutions across the U.S. Included in the informal survey were officials at public and private universities, private and state- or federal-government-supported research centers, public and private research and teaching hospitals, and industry laboratories. No purely biotechnology-based companies were included in the industry group. New Hires At many of the institutions contacted, managers report that already-established departments and research groups are increasing in size only slightly or not at all, with the bulk of new hires in most areas replacing scientists who have retired or moved to other positions. Some facilities report no new hiring at all in some traditional disciplines, such as physiology. Others, however, relate that they have recently initiated or are about to initiate programs in some new research areas, and are hiring staff for the new programs. Fields in which programs are being set up include immunology, neuroscience, and molecular genetics, as well as some interdisciplinary areas involving the application of physics, chemistry, and computer science to the study of biological molecules. At institutions that are beefing up already-established departments, scientists who combine molecular and cell biology techniques with some other area of expertise seem to be most in demand, with some facilities also making special efforts to hire more clinical researchers than basic researchers. "We're placing a premium on those whose discipline is preceded by the word `molecular,' " says James Karr, chief scientific administrator of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, operated by the New York State Department of Health in Buffalo. Many administrators characterize the current outlook for biomedical investigators as essentially a hirers' market, with enough good scientists available to give employers their choice. Researchers at the postdoctoral level are the single exception to this rule, officials say. Many would like to fill postdoctoral positions with top-notch young candidates from the United States, but claim that there are not enough to go around. Resistance To Change Probably because of a slow economy, caution in making changes is the rule among both employers and investigators, many of the administrators interviewed say. They note that it's become an especially tough task to entice scientists to change their current positions for jobs in another part of the U.S. or in another kind of institution. Meanwhile, employers from all biomedical sectors report another possible hiring trend, which indicates their own caution: hiring more staffers with somewhat more experience (at the associate professor level in a university, for example) and fewer of the very youngest, most inexperienced scientists. "There's a bit of an assumption at the moment that you may get a greater dividend by recruiting scientists who've already demonstrated the skills to go beyond the competitive renewal of their first award," Karr says. Salaries Rising While most of the administrators surveyed say that biomedical research salaries can vary widely among disciplines and from position to position, they say the general trend has been slowly upward. That's been the case, even in the recent sluggish economy, many say, because institutions of all kinds have been competing for the best candidates in a few currently booming fields of study. In general, these administrators say, industry labs offer the highest salaries--at all levels of experience--with private universities and research institutions second, and government- sponsored research institutions last. Although there are more postdoc positions than top-flight candidates to fill them, postdoctoral stipends have remained relatively flat, administrators say. According to salary figures cited by the officials interviewed for this article, the range of those stipends is wide, from the low $20,000s to the mid- $30,000s. Some administrators say that postdoctoral pay may have increased most at very specialized institutions that must compete nationally for a narrower pool of candidates. Scientists without job experience face an even wider range of salaries, from the low $30,000s to $70,000, depending on the type of institution and the scientist's specialty. In some public universities, beginning assistant professors' salaries still linger in the low $30,000s, particularly in nonmolecular disciplines. However, most of the universities surveyed as well as other research institutions report beginning salaries ranging from the $40,000 level through the low $50,000s in the biomedical disciplines in which they are now hiring. Several administrators contacted by The Scientist in connection with this article note that mathematically oriented biomedical specialists, including biostatisticians, biometricians, and epidemiologists, are in especially short supply. These shortages, they say, have created an employees' market in these areas, with young scientists routinely commanding salaries ranging from $50,000 to $60,000. "In biomathematics disciplines, we're finding that offers in the $40,000-$50,000 range don't bring candidates back for a second interview," says one official at a government-funded research center. In industry labs, beginning scientists with molecular biology specialties can expect to be offered around $50,000, some industry managers say. Beginning clinical researchers in private research hospitals command salaries of around $70,000. Many administrators point out that average starting salaries, in particular, have risen by as much as $10,000 or even $20,000 over the past two to three years. Clinicians' salaries, especially, seem to be on the rise. Bench scientists with experience who do not hold top management jobs are currently receiving salaries ranging from the high $40,000s to the mid-$90,000s, research officials say. Surprisingly, private universities, hospitals, and research centers contacted by The Scientist cited slightly higher average salaries for this large group of scientists than did industry labs. Many administrators contacted said that while salaries for this mid-level group of scientists have risen recently, they have risen less than beginning salaries. At this level, too, several managers report that biostatisticians and other biomedical scientists with mathematical specialties are in short supply and seem to be able to command higher salaries. A salary range of $90,000 to $110,000 seems to be available to investigators who are also top managers at many institutions, while highly experienced clinical researchers can receive salaries of well over $100,000. Evolving Employment Picture Economic factors make the hiring picture different at different kinds of institutions, research managers say. Currently, officials at privately owned universities, hospitals, and research centers--as opposed to government-backed facilities--say they have opened or are opening new research departments or programs in 1992 and 1993. That reflects the current economy, in which publicly funded institutions are at the mercy of salary caps, hiring freezes, and other state and federal government cutbacks, scientists say. However, administrators at private institutions say that despite the renewed activity in their facilities, there's no real guarantee that this situation will last. Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C., is expanding its research facilities and substantially beefing up programs in neuroscience and molecular and cell biology, according to university officials. Says Kenneth Dretchen, the medical center's associate dean for research, "We're doing pretty well because we're not under salary caps and don't have a state budget to deal with. There are definitely times when it's better to be private, and this is one of them. But the pendulum will probably swing back to favoring publicly funded institutions sooner or later." University and government investigators say that industrial research laboratories are probably the fastest-growing market for biomedical scientists, but some industry mangers disagree. They contend that the big push for industry expansion into biotechnology and other biomedical studies came during the late 1980s. Now, they say, biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and chemical companies are starting only a few new research groups, primarily in the same areas being pursued by universities and other institutions. John Bussen, manager of human resources for Monsanto Corporate Research (a division of St. Louis-based Monsanto Co.), echoes other industry managers when he says, "We had a significant growth for five to six years as we developed a biotech focus. Since then, however, we've slowed our growth. Currently, we're slightly increasing our hiring in some new areas of major focus, such as immunology and natural products chemistry. Otherwise, we're mainly hiring to replace normal attrition in the molecular and cell biology areas." Other Considerations Besides salary, scientists should consider the differences in institutional styles and structures and how those fit with their own career goals and personal styles as they conduct job searches, administrators say. Officials at government-sponsored research centers, for example, urge potential employees to consider that government scientists are less dependent on obtaining their own grants and can usually count on continued funding for equipment and for staff. Managers of privately run research centers stress the ability of their scientists to undertake more risky and more controversial areas of research, while managers of hospital-connected research institutions point out that their investigators have easy access to materials such as human tumor cells, for which scientists in other types of institutions must often beg. Administrators in industry labs point to the variety of career tracks in their firms as an important factor for potential hires to consider. That variety, they say, means industry jobs offer scientists more options for specializing in bench science or management or combining the two as their careers progress. But while managers in all biomedical arenas urge potential employees to consider factors other than salary when deciding what job to take, it's money that makes some of them nervous about the future. Many administrators, especially those in private universities and research centers, say they fear that insufficient grant funds to carry out increasingly expensive biomedical research protocols may ultimately shrink the pool of young scientists available to them. "Right now there are lots of outstanding junior faculty," says Allan Granoff, director of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn. "But many of us worry that the future supply may be greatly affected by the necessity to compete fiercely for insufficient extramural funding. If pursuing the funding an independent research career requires becomes too difficult, people may say, `Why should I go to all that trouble?' " Marcia Clemmitt is a freelance science writer based in Washington, D.C. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ============================================== Undaunted By Skittish 1992, Biotech Experts Express Optimism About New Year's Potential (Page #1 of newspaper) Executives and analysts see industry perking up, thanks to increases in product flow and supportive legislation BY SUSAN L-J DICKINSON The past year was a tumultuous one for the biotechnology industry, according to corporate executives and industry analysts. During 1992, the unprecedented level of financing that had been available in 1990 and 1991 virtually disappeared. Public biotech companies saw their stock lose nearly half its value from highs in January to lows at midyear. Landmark legislative decisions in favor of the agricultural sector were balanced by major product setbacks on the diagnostic and therapeutic side of the technology. But 1992 also witnessed significant advancements in both the laboratory and the clinical testing process. And although neither analysts nor company insiders agree on how the financial community will react to the biotech sector in the coming year, they express certainty that 1993 will see the industry dramatically step up delivery of products to the marketplace. According to the New York-based accounting firm Ernst & Young's annual report on the biotech industry, "Biotech '93: Accelerating Commercialization," at year's end the biotech sector consisted of more than 1,200 companies employing about 79,000 people, spending an annual $5 billion on research and development, and realizing almost $6 billion in sales world- wide. There currently are 20 biotechnology therapeutics and more than 600 diagnostic products on the market. And with more than 150 biotech products now in clinical testing, an estimated 2,400 product license applications pending at the Food and Drug Ad- ministration's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Review, and some 10,000 biotech patents filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office annually, biotechnology is being viewed by experts as one of the most promising emerging growth sectors of the U.S.'s economy. But the young companies that make up this industry have learned that the path from lab bench to market is often rocky. Perhaps the most noteworthy event in 1992 was the collapse in the equity shares of virtually every public biotech company. Between January and May, the Dow Jones Biotech Index lost 36 percent of its value, while the Dow Jones Industrial Index stayed relatively constant. The drop came as a special shock to biotech entrepreneurs after the boom years of 1990 and 1991, when, during one 18-month period, 56 companies went public and the industry as a whole raised $5 billion. Financing for the industry has always come in cycles, and many analysts say that in 1992 biotech firms were "due" for a down year. But there are a few key events that helped to push the dip in stock prices even lower. Much-publicized litigation between Centocor Inc. of Malvern, Pa., and Berkeley, Calif.-based Xoma Corp. resulted in a ruling that Centocor had infringed on Xoma's pat-ent for monoclonal antibody therapy for gram-negative septic shock--this despite a broad patent that Centocor itself owned, thus bringing that patent into question. Analysts say such a ruling makes investors skittish toward the whole industry, as some feel it calls into question the validity of virtually every biotech patent. Shortly after this, FDA returned three high-profile products-- Centocor's Centoxin and E5 from Xoma, for the treatment of sepsis; and Ethyol, a cancer therapy adjunct developed by U.S. Bioscience Inc. of West Conshohocken, Pa.--to their companies, requiring more evidence of efficacy in each case. The financial result: Centocor's market valuation dropped 41 percent, U.S. Bioscience's dropped 44 percent, and the bottom seemed to drop out of the market for the entire biotech sector as investor confidence in the industry's ability to get products through FDA approval was shaken. The Xoma-Centocor dispute underlined several other issues critical to these young companies, analysts say. The first is just how essential patents are to a technology-based firm. Young biotech firms are all using virtually the same technology to tackle the same clinical challenges. If ownership of technologies is questioned in one situation, it makes investors wary of backing other biotech companies, analysts say. And patent disputes are likely to continue for biotechs. Some industry insiders point to a potential dispute brewing in the neuroscience area between Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Tarrytown, N.Y., and Synergen Inc., Boulder, Colo., over ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF)--a biotherapeutic agent used to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)--as the next big patent test. "You need to assess your position very carefully," says Larry Soll, chief executive officer for Synergen. And though he says he is confident of his company's patent position for CNTF, companies in general "may want to consider that energy may be better devoted to drug development than to legal skirmishes." George Ebright, chairman and CEO at Princeton, N.J.-based Cytogen Corp., adds that any group of new companies needs to go through a natural evolution of learning how to work together and resolve disputes, and that 1992 was just an especially painful period in this process for biotechs. Ebright, who was an executive in the pharmaceutical industry for 26 years before retiring as CEO of Philadelphia-based SmithKline Beckman (now Smith-Kline Beecham) in 1989, predicts that the biotechs will soon arrive at a solution similar to that of the pharmaceutical industry, in which cross-licensing and payment of royalties are virtual standard operating procedures. Just as important as the setting of precedents within the new industry, however, is the need for government to develop a history with these issues. "I like to call it a necessary clearing away of the legal underbrush," says Richard Godown, president of the Industrial Biotechnology Association (IBA). "It is essential that the patent rights are precisely defined, and sometimes the only way that can happen is to go through the courts." James McCamant, editor of the Berkeley, Calif.-based Medical Technology Stock Letter, observes that the courts are becoming "more predictable and more rational" in dealing with biotechnology, and that the patent office is doing a good job of rewarding the people who make discoveries by awarding fairly, but not overly, broad patents. In 1993, FDA will come under intense scrutiny from the biotech industry, experts say. Many company executives and financial analysts are uncomfortable with what they characterize as FDA's unpredictability and irrationality with regard to drug approvals. (FDA's denial for Centoxin, they cite as an example, came despite its own advisory committee's recommendation for approval.) "We want some rationality and more responsiveness from the agency," says Synergen's Soll, adding that perhaps the companies could get involved earlier in the approval process, so as not to get caught by surprise again. But FDA itself is tackling these shortcomings, including the tremendous backlog and delay in its review of applications. With the advent of congressionally authorized company user fees and the arrival of the first of 600 additional reviewers the fees will finance, 1993 should witness the beginning of positive change at FDA, industry analysts and corporate officials say (Susan L-J Dickinson, The Scientist, Dec. 7, 1992, page 3). If there is a single occurrence that analysts expect to set the tone for biotech in 1993, it is the completion of phase III clinical trials on Synergen's sepsis product, Antril. (Synergen hopes to submit a product license application to FDA by midyear.) Peter Drake, executive vice president of Chicago-based Vector Securities, for one, calls this a "huge event," and Soll concurs that Antril's success could be as important to the industry this year as the demise of E5 and Centoxin was in 1992. "It would confirm that Amgen [Inc. of Thousand Oaks, Calif.] is not the only integrated company [one that researches, produces, and markets its own products] to come out of biotech," Soll says. "It would validate the whole [biotechnology industry], and would lead to increased levels of interest and investment for other companies." But biotech companies are not waiting for Synergen's success, and though 1992 was not a stellar year financially for the industry, it did witness several scientific achievements, most notably in the area of product advancements. South San Francisco, Calif.-based Genentech Inc. completed phase III clinical trials of DNAse for the treatment of cystic fibrosis; Amgen's chemotherapy adjunct and chronic neutropinia treatment Neupogen brought in more than $260 million during its first year on the market; Chiron Corp. of Emeryville, Calif., submitted a premarket approval application to FDA for beta interferon in the treatment of multiple sclerosis; and Cambridge, Mass.-based Biogen Inc. entered into multicenter phase III testing of its novel anticoagulant, Hirulog. As a sample group, Drake says, these compounds illustrate biotech-nology's power and flexibility: cancer; chronic pulmonary ailments; and infectious, autoimmune, and cardiovascular diseases are addressed by these four products alone. At the same time, while observers generally expect 1993 to be exciting for biotech firms in the health care sector, they foresee it as being a landmark year for agricultural biotech-- which should see its first product reach the market. Last year, FDA declared that genetically engineered food products require no special regulation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's plant and health inspection service ruled that field tests of transgenic plants do not require prior approval--a decision that, according to IBA's Godown, eradicated 85 percent of the permits required for ag-bio field tests. According to the Ernst & Young report, the odds-on favorite for the first product to receive approval from FDA is Davis, Calif.-based Calgene Inc.'s Flavr Savr tomato, with bovine somatotropin and three or four other products close behind. While R&D and product ownership continue to be the most valuable assets of the biotech industry, other aspects of business are coming to the fore for these maturing companies. Capital raised during 1990 and 1991 and the increasing number of products approaching the market combine to make it possible and necessary for companies to tackle marketing, manufacturing, sales, and distribution for the first time. These companies are engaging in a wide range of strategic alliances--from mergers and acquisitions to various forms of licensing, product swapping, and international agreements--to speed their products to market (Franklin Hoke, The Scientist, Nov. 9, 1992, page 1). In Vivo, a publication produced in Norwalk, Conn., reports that biotech acquisitions rose from 23 in 1990 to 31 in 1991, and 24 as of November 1992. And predictions call for 1993 to be a year of further consolidation throughout the industry. Larger biotechs will continue looking for alliances that will speed their products to market and prove to a community of increasingly discerning investors that they have not just the scientific but also the business know-how to survive on the market, insiders say. The pharmaceutical firms, they predict, will be looking for something even more basic. "The old-line pharmaceuticals: the SmithKlines, the Lillys, and the Mercks, are cash-rich and infrastructure-rich--they have great manufacturing capability, great sales forces and distribution networks, but they are product-bankrupt," Ebright observes. On the other side, many of the biotech companies present an exact complement to the pharmaceutical firms: With stock prices down, acquisition of biotechs is a tempting way for the pharmaceuticals to fill up their pipelines. And industry analysts and company executives alike predict that in 1993 there will be biotech companies for sale. If biotech stock prices continue to slump, all biotechs--large and small-- will represent a real bargain. Drake's favorite for a high- profile takeover target is Seattle-based Immunex Corp., because of its broad product line, much of it in advanced clinical testing. Ebright predicts financial difficulties for many of the young companies brought public during 1990 and 1991. "Some of them had not demonstrated their technology even to proof of principle, much less in the clinic," he says. "Nevertheless, there was a fever for the stocks, so they went public." Since then, however, a recessionary economy and increasing familiarity with the biotech sector have combined to create savvier investors, who want to back products close to commercialization, rather than just a concept. As many young companies did not take in sufficient funds to get their technology to that point, Ebright predicts that 1993 will be the year they sell out. Also of concern to biotech CEOs during the coming year will be a number of pending legislative issues. Companies continue to push for permanent R&D tax credits and relief for investors from capital gains taxes, but remain wary of efforts to revise the federal orphan drug law, which provides economic incentives for companies to develop drugs targeted to a small patient population. And no statutory issue has industry insiders more nervous than the prospect of price controls on drugs, being championed by Sen. David Pryor (D-Ark.). "Any kind of price control in any guise is wrong," asserts Godown, whose IBA plans to take an active part in any such discussion on Capitol Hill. "The inevitable result would be fewer dollars left for R&D, which means fewer drugs reaching the public. So everybody has a big stake in this, and it is the patient population which has the biggest stake of all." Another potential effect of capping drug prices, analysts say, would be a further drop in both biotech and pharmaceutical stocks, as decreased sales and earnings are reflected in decreased value. This could have a long-term impact not only on R&D investment, but also in terms of U.S. corporate ownership. "If the government is overly onerous and stock prices reflect that," says Vector Securities' Drake, "you will see a lot of mergers and acquisitions and there will be a lot of people in the pharmaceutical industry working for the Swiss, the Germans, the English, and the Japanese." But few are willing to speculate as to which side of the pricing issue--or any other political issue relevant to the biotech sector--the new Democratic administration will come down on. And industry insiders seem to be banking on President-elect Bill Clinton's recognizing the value of biotechnology. "In the last 15 years [biotechnology] has grown from early concepts of products to an industry that generates nearly $6 billion in sales. By the next century, we could be generating $40 to $50 billion in sales," notes Robert Beckman, CEO of Purchase, N.Y.-based Intergen Co. Susan L-J Dickinson is a freelance science writer based in Philadelphia. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ============================================ Cryptozoologists: An Endangered Species (Page 1 of newspaper) Researchers who stalk rare or fantastic creatures must endure the scorn of colleagues and funding agencies BY PAUL MC CARTHY Physical anthropologist Grover Krantz sometimes fantasizes about flying his ultra-light aircraft over the Pacific Northwest on a warm spring day. Controls in one hand and an infrared heat detector in the other, Krantz scans the thawing ground-cover in search of the telltale heat of a rotting Bigfoot carcass. Bagging a body would be the ultimate evidence in a decades-old quest that has left the Washington State University professor an authority on Bigfoot, thought by some to be a surviving Pleistocene ape, Gigantopithecus blacki. Krantz is a member of a small band of scientists called cryptozoologists, who stalk previously undescribed--and, some would say, nonexistent--animals. This includes new species of lizards, monkeys, and other ho-hum creatures, but also beasts of mythic proportion: Consider the Loch Ness Monster, a giant octopus with tentacles more than 100 feet long; or Mokele-Mbembe, a dinosaur-like critter and purported denizen of a 50,000-square- mile swamp in the People's Republic of the Congo. The term "cryptozoology" was coined in the late 1950s by French zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans to describe the study of unverified animals. The purpose of the field, says J. Richard Greenwell, secretary of the Tucson, Ariz.-based International Society of Cryptozoology (ISC), is to determine if certain reported species exist and, if so, to "add them to our zoological inventories." Cryptozoologists obtain their leads from sighting reports, explorers' accounts, old manuscripts, archeological artifacts, artwork, and folklore, says Greenwell. Some society members have actually found previously undescribed creatures (see story on page 5). Zoology was once essentially cryptozoology, Greenwell says; scientists in the colonies sent novel animals back to London and Paris. By the 19th century, some zoologists believed there was little of significance left to discover and turned to studying what was known. This attitude continues, Greenwell says, with cryptozoology viewed as almost a Victorian pursuit, even though new species are discovered all the time. Is there a difference between zoology and its crypto counterpart? The primary one, says Greenwell, is that cryptozoologists target a specific animal, while zoologists tend to inventory a geographical area and catalog a new animal if it turns up. "Zoology throws a net," says Greenwell, "while cryptozoology throws a spear." There are no academic departments of cryptozoology, and Greenwell sees no need for them, since the discipline draws specialists from existing fields as varied as biology, anthropology, and oceanography. Papers are published in Cryptozoology, the society's annual journal, a refereed publication edited by Greenwell. Cryptozoologists are themselves an endangered species, with only several dozen active investigators, supported by several hundred more who follow their exploits. They more closely resemble the field biologists and zoologists of the 19th century, scientists who slogged through jungles to snare their quarry, than they do their largely lab-bound colleagues of today. They like their science down and dirty, and though they never bring back Bigfoot, they do bring back big tales. To formalize their activities, in 1982 Greenwell--a Britisher who appears more at home in a bush jacket than a lab coat--along with Roy Mackal, now a professor, emeritus, of biochemistry at the University of Chicago, and several others, formed ISC. This transpired at a meeting hosted by the department of vertebrate zoology at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution. ISC, with more than 800 members worldwide, is the glue that holds cryptozoology together. Greenwell functions as its secretary and says, "I do whatever needs to be done." And he means it. During a 1981 Mokele-Mbembe hunt in the Congo's Likouala swamps, the dry season was setting in, the water level was dropping, and ISC's Ph.D.-filled dugout canoe was hung up on submerged tree trunks, vines, and foliage, says Greenwell. Would they get out? While others pondered, Greenwell went over the side and dislodged the craft, on the first of many dips into the black, snake-infested waters. He got them out, but not before the swamp's exotic microorganisms got him. "I peed blood for a week," he says. Now that's cryptozoology. But since finds are few and far between, the field is virtually unfunded. Greenwell says there is no government or corporate largess, so support must be raised from private sources. Krantz, for example, coughed up $10,000 of his own money for the infrared heat detector and another $3,000 for his ultra-light aircraft kit. He estimates, "I've spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000 on Bigfoot over the years." It exacts other costs, too. Since many scientists sneer at cryptozoology, it can sidetrack an academic career, making tenure and promotion almost as difficult to bag as the Loch Ness monster. Moreover, it can cast a pall over a scientist's more mainstream work. This reduces an investigator's credibility and isolates him or her from academic rewards. According to Krantz, his first attempt to obtain tenure was adversely affected by his Bigfoot research, and even with the backing of his department head he has failed to become a full professor. Why would anyone risk it? "Because it's exciting to find a new species and trek to a place where no one has gone before," says Mackal. A biochemist by trade and a research biologist by appointment, Mackal first dived into Loch Ness Monster research in 1965, after visiting the loch as a skeptic. He wrote The Monsters of Loch Ness (Chicago, Swallow Press, 1976) and served as scientific director of the Scotland- based Loch Ness Investigation Bureau from 1965 until its demise in 1975, due to the loss of the lease to the land on which its headquarters stood. The bureau was formed in the early 1960s by naturalist Sir Peter Scott (who also founded the World Wildlife Fund), naturalist Richard Fitter, and British Parliament member David James. It sponsored summer projects in which volunteers functioned as lookouts and photographers. One of Mackal's contributions was to raise the technological ante of the hunt by introducing sonar and mini-subs. Mackal also has tracked other unknown animals and in 1987 penned A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe (Leiden, The Netherlands, E.J. Brill). Based on local reports, Mackal believes some species of dinosaur may have survived more than 60 million years in Central Africa. "All we got were footprints, though," says Mackal, who made two journeys in quest of this legendary animal. Instead of plowing his book royalties into pool payments, however, Mackal used them to seed expeditions, such as his 1988 trek to Namibia in search of "flying snakes," or pterasaurs. "It was nothing but anecdotes," he says. "Still, there's an excitement to cryptozoology if you love animals, and I wouldn't have missed it for the world." But he's paid a price. Mackal has been laughed at by colleagues, has received antagonistic mail, and has been scorned in newspapers. In the late 1960s the National Science Foundation politely refused to fund his Loch Ness research. His University of Chicago credentials got him in the NSF door for this work, he says, but the fear of a "Golden Fleece Award" quickly got him ushered out. And he might not fare any better today. James Edwards, acting director of NSF's Division of Environmental Biology, hadn't heard of cryptozoology, but says that proposals geared toward going after a specific animal "would be a hard sell in the Survey and Inventory Program." NSF is interested in a more systemic approach, he says, "not just the spiders of Chile, but also their interactions with predators and prey." Maybe NSF would be interested in Mackal's peers. "I was also eventually kicked out of the biology department at the University of Chicago," says Mackal, although he was able to fall back on a position as director of the Office of Energy, Management, and Conservation in the office of university president George Beadle. A former colleague at Chicago, paleontologist Leigh Van Valen, says that he tried unsuccessfully to persuade the department to keep Mackal. "It was purely and simply a matter of them not liking his work in cryptozoology," says Van Valen. Even so, says Mackal, "I loved the conflict, but you have to have a certain personality for it." Perhaps because her involvement has been less extensive, Christine Janis, a Brown University paleomammologist who confesses to having a fascination with fringe science, has had fewer problems. Janis is an ISC member because she has a genuine interest in the subject and feels "that's reward enough--you do things because they amuse you." In that vein, she recently wrote a paper for Cryptozoology defending the hypothesis that a breeding population of dinosaurs could still exist in Central Africa. Although Janis took some flak from colleagues, she says, "while it [a breeding population of dinosaurs] would be unlikely, we don't know that it's untrue." Cryptozoologists seem to be drawn to such long shots. In 1989 Greenwell accompanied Ohio State University physical anthropologist Frank Poirier to China in an attempt to track down the "Wildman." Like Bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest, the Wildman is periodically sighted in the outback, but never captured or shot. True to form, they didn't bag a Wildman, but the reports they collected, says Greenwell, are consistent with the hypothesis of a surviving population of giant Pleistocene orangutans, thought to be extinct for thousands of years. Poirier has done fieldwork in Africa and Asia and has found reports of animals by indigenous peoples to be of great value in his conventional research. He feels that the dismissal of indigenous reports of undescribed animals "is nothing other than racism--you know, comments like `What would this native know?' " He points out that when gorillas were first reported in Africa, Europeans "just totally dismissed those reports." And this keeps him looking. A full professor, Poirier says he's beyond academic reprisals, but would advise a graduate student not to get involved in cryptozoology. Although he says his colleagues have told him they find his work fascinating, "people have talked a lot behind my back." Less controversial is the research of Villanova University herpetologist Aaron Bauer, discoverer of the giant gecko, a New Zealand lizard and true cryptozoological find. Although this research is unfunded, Bauer's mainstream interest in lizards allows him to "piggyback" his cryptozoological work. Intellectual curiosity keeps him plugging. Since there isn't much material reward in academia, says Bauer, "you might as well branch off into something that interests you." His colleagues view his work as eccentric, he says, but, unlike Krantz, he hasn't experienced any career setbacks. Krantz, who has been an associate professor of physical anthropology since 1972, says his first attempt to obtain tenure was adversely affected by his Bigfoot research and that he will never become a full professor "because my work is too controversial." What keeps him going? "I can't, in clear conscience, drop it," he says. And then there is always the tantalizing possibility that some hunter will bring down a Bigfoot. "Bingo, I'm vindicated," says Krantz. Paul McCarthy is a freelance writer based in Honolulu, Hawaii. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ============================================== Noted Researchers Laud Donation To Russian Science (Page 3 of newspaper) BY BILLY GOODMAN George Soros, a Hungarian-born investor active in promoting free and open societies in Central and Eastern Europe through his philanthropy, has announced a $100 million donation to support scientific research in the countries of the former Soviet Union. His donation will establish an International Science Foundation for the Former Soviet Union. Although details about the foundation's staff and procedures remained sketchy when Soros announced the donation at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., on December 9, he made it clear that he envisions a grant-making body loosely modeled on the United States' National Science Foundation. It would leapfrog the hierarchical structure of science that existed in the former Soviet Union, in which senior scientists got money to disburse to more junior colleagues. Instead, the new foundation plans to make grants to individual scientists based on merit. "I very much hope the foundation will work to the transformation of what used to be Soviet science and make it science in the spirit of open society, which is my ideal," Soros said at a news conference announcing the donation. "I believe only Western assistance can help the former Soviet Union from slipping into a black hole," Soros said. Life for researchers in Russia and the other newly independent states is truly bleak, according to reports of Russian scientists present for the announcement and U.S. scientists recently returned from Russia. Lev Okun, a physicist with the Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said at the news conference, "There are no funds for real work--only salaries, heating, and electricity--in many institutes." Furthermore, government salaries have sunk so low that some scientists make just $6 a month, according to accounts from Russian scientists. As a result, scientists rank with "old-age pensioners and invalids" as the three most disadvantaged groups in Russia, Soros said. Nina Fedoroff, a molecular biologist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C., recently returned from a National Academy of Sciences trip to Russia, where she visited the Komarov Botanical Institute in St. Petersburg. U.S. engineers who went on the trip found greenhouses falling apart and "wiring so old they had never seen any of that kind," says Fedoroff, who is one of a number of scientists asked to advise Soros on his foundation. Plans for the International Science Foundation call for emergency grants during the first months of 1993 totaling $6 million or more, mostly for salaries. Two emergency projects are intended to help libraries and improve telecommunications, says Alex Goldfarb, a Russian migr biochemist at New York's Public Health Research Institute. Goldfarb has been asked by Soros to coordinate the foundation until a permanent director is named. The foundation will temporarily be headquartered with Soros's other foundations in New York City. Its permanent home, says Goldfarb, will be in the West, possibly in the U.S. or Switzerland. The foundation will ultimately have a permanent staff, though how many and where they will be based is "a hard question," says Goldfarb. "This is a big experiment, trying to set up a grant award and management system in a foreign country in the middle of an economic crisis." There will also be review panels in the various disciplines. For the time being, at least, the panels are likely to be largely ad hoc, drawn from pools of reviewers from other foundations and with help from scientific societies, Goldfarb says. Most of Soros's donation will go toward peer-reviewed fellowships and grants to principal investigators, with overhead to their institutions. Peer review has never been a part of Soviet science, notes Joshua Leder-berg, University Professor at Rockefeller University in New York, who, along with Fedoroff, was asked to serve on the foundation's international advisory council. The International Science Foundation can have lasting influence by helping to establish a fair and effective peer review system, Lederberg says. The $100 million is not an endowment, said Soros at the news conference, but money to be spent during the next two years. He left open the option of giving more money to the foundation and said that he hopes governments and other private foundations will support it. The 62-year-old Soros is the founder and manager of the multibillion-dollar group of Quantum investment funds in New York. According to news reports, the funds earned nearly $1 billion last fall from currency trading. "My personal wealth has doubled in the last few years," Soros acknowledges. "The amount I can devote to philanthropy has taken a quantum leap." Since 1979, Soros's foundations in central and eastern Europe have funded many educational and social initiatives that help advance his goal of independent, open, market-oriented societies. This is his first large-scale funding of the natural sciences, which, he notes, always received money under communist regimes. But, speaking of Soviet science, he says, "Something that is of unique importance for the world is in the process of disintegrating." In the last year or two, says Okun, 10 percent to 15 percent of the best scientists in many institutes have gone abroad. Others have forsaken science to become entrepreneurs. At an inaugural meeting of the advisory council, "the room was full of [American] Nobel Prize winners [and others] whose mouths were open with admiration," says John Bahcall, professor of astrophysics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. At the meeting, a Russian scientist stood up, Bahcall recounts, and said, "For us this document is a dream." Billy Goodman is a freelance science writer based in Upper Montclair, N.J. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ============================================ NOTEBOOK (Page 4 of newspaper) Burning Up The Track The feasibility of solar-powered cars will be on display when Sunrayce 93 takes place this summer. Starting in Texas on June 20 and going to Minnesota, the 1,000-mile, seven-day race is expected to draw hundreds of college students from 36 North American universities to determine who has designed the fastest and most efficient solar-powered vehicle. The race is sponsored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colo., and seven other industry and government groups. For information, contact Sunrayce 93 Headquarters in Washington, D.C. at (202) 484-8172. Scientists Say The Darndest Things "Why does an anteater never get sick? Because its stomach is full of antibodies." This is one of more than 150 pages of scientific jokes, limericks, and riddles appearing in the newly published Absolute Zero Gravity (New York, Fireside Books/Simon & Schuster). The paperback book, by Betsy Devine, editor of the newsletter of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and Joel E. Cohen, a mathematical biologist at Rockefeller University in New York, also includes amusing anecdotes about scientific luminaries. For example, it tells a story of Albert Einstein reposing, lost in thought, on a Princeton sidewalk, prompting a mathematician to observe: "He sits on the concrete to think about the abstract." Sunshine Science The incoming Clinton administration should move quickly to reduce excessive government secrecy, says Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Secrecy & Government of the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists (FAS). In the December issue of the project's Secrecy & Government Bulletin, Aftergood says that executive orders by four presidents--Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and Carter--to accelerate declassification of government secrets were effectively ignored by the national security bureaucracy. Under President Reagan, the goal itself of reducing secrecy was abolished, he says. Aftergood suggests that Clinton introduce authority and enforcement mechanisms to prevent excessive classification of government science. He adds that scientists have a special stake in reducing unnecessary secrecy. "In science and technology," he writes (Issues in Science and Technology, 8[4]:81-8, 1992), "the need for openness is axiomatic. Without free and open communication, the cross-fertilization of ideas that is essential to progress is inhibited and the peer-review process is crippled." Clinical Training The American Cancer Society has announced its Clinical Awards for 1994. Clinical Oncology Fellowships provide a stipend of $10,000 to support multidisciplinary training for physicians and dentists in cancer control, prevention, detection, diagnosis, therapy, and research. Clinical Oncology Career Development Awards are three- year, $90,000 stipends to develop the skills and expertise of doctors who will pursue academic careers in clinical oncology. The two-year, $55,000 Cancer Control Career Development Award for Primary Care Physicians is aimed at developing academic leaders in primary care specialties emphasizing cancer control. For more information, contact Virginia Krawiec, Professional Education Department, American Cancer Society Inc., 1599 Clifton Rd. N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30329-4251; (404) 329-5734. Prized Quarry The Paleontology Society recently awarded its Presidential Citation to the Waukesha Lime & Stone Co., a quarry operator near Milwaukee, Wis. Paleontologists Donald Mikulic of the Illinois State Geological Survey and Joanne Kluessendorf of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, pressed vigorously for the unusual honor out of gratitude for the company's help in preserving an important fossil find. One day in 1977, when the two researchers were graduate students, they noticed that quarry workers had blasted into a new geological formation. Closer study of fossils found there revealed early worms, leeches, and other animals that existed on the floor of a shallow sea 435 million years ago. Only this past July, when the team finally secured National Science Foundation funding, were they able to excavate and collect the fossils. "[The company] put a road over the area and quarried around it," Kluessendorf says. "For 15 years, they preserved the site, knowing its uniqueness and its importance to science." Comparing Notes The American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL) has published a guide to help laboratory managers evaluate their firms' financial performance. The 1992 Laboratory Financial Management Survey Report contains comparative financial data, based on fiscal year 1991-92 reports from 141 participating laboratories. It includes figures on average revenue growth, operating income ratios, revenues per associate, and return on investment. For more information, contact ACIL, 1629 K St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006; (202) 887-5872. Beltway Fellows Applications are due February 1 for the Congressional Science Fellowship programs of the American Physical Society (APS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). The one-year fellowships provide a stipend of $40,000 a year for a physicist to lend technical expertise to a member of Congress or a congressional committee. Applicants are required to send copies of a letter of intent, a sum, and three letters of recommendation to both APS and AIP. For information, contact APS/AIP Congressional Science Fellowship Programs, 529 14th St., N.W., Suite 1050, Washington, D.C. 20045; (202) 662-8700. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ============================================= CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL QUESTS (Page #5 of newspaper) J. Richard Greenwell, secretary of the International Society of Cryptozoology (ISC), is a busy guy. In addition to going on expeditions, he is writing a book, Animals Without Heritage: The Cryptozoological Story, which has been accepted for publication by HarperCollins. On top of that, he is developing a list of significant species discovered and rediscovered in the past decade and is up to 28. Some have been found by society members. For example, herpetologist Wolfgang Bohme of the Alexander Koenig Zoological Research Institute and Museum in Bonn, Germany, was slogging through a TV documentary on Yemen when he spotted what he thought was an uncataloged species of monitor lizard. Two expeditions to Yemen later, his associates came upon a colony of the four-foot reptiles, Haplodactylus delcourti, "but we call it the TV monitor," says Greenwell. Then there is the Peruvian-beaked whale, Mesoplodon peruvianus, discovered by ISC member James Mead, who is director of the Marine Mammal Program of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian. And recently Greenwell and Troy Best, an Auburn University mammologist, investigated a rarely seen, puma- like cat called an Onza. They obtained a specimen of the animal from Mexico that will soon undergo biochemical analysis to determine if it is an unknown species. Ironically, this iconoclastic field is spawning a conservative wing. It consists of younger zoologists, says Greenwell, who feel that the discipline can do with fewer Nessies, Bigfeet, and Mokele Mbembes. Proponents of this "microcryptozoology," he says, believe there are plenty of small, unidentified animals to pursue, "without the need for monsters." For more information, contact ISC, Box 43070, Tucson, Ariz. 85733. --P.M. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ============================================= NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin Explains Timing, Purpose Of Big Changes At Agency Editor's Note: Daniel Goldin, administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, was named to his $14 billion agency's top post seven months ago, having come from a position as vice president of TRW Inc.'s Space & Technology Group in Redondo Beach, Calif. In October, he initiated a series of major changes in the structure of NASA's space sciences research program. For example, Goldin has separated Mission to Planet Earth, the agency's Earth-observation satellite program, from the rest of the space sciences and created a separate division for this program that reports directly to him. He also has split life and microgravity sciences from other physical sciences and from exploration. Also, Goldin has dismantled the Office of Space Science and Applications, where the bulk of NASA's science programs resided, and moved the highly regarded head of OSSA, Lennard Fisk, to a newly created position as chief scientist for NASA. This new job, in which he functions as an adviser to Goldin, removes Fisk from direct responsibility for science budgets--a fact that alarms some space scientists, since Fisk, an astrophysicist, was a strong advocate of their needs as OSSA chief. Moreover, many space scientists outside of NASA are distressed by the changes, fearing that space and life sciences will have less clout than ever under the new arrangement. Scientists also question the timing of these changes--during the lull between the Bush and Clinton administrations--especially given the uncertainty of whether Goldin will be retained as NASA head under the new administration. In fact, some observers feel that Goldin is "running for office," that is, making a show of action and decisiveness in a bid for visibility with the new administration in order to hang on to his position as head of the space agency. Associate Editor Scott Veggeberg recently met with Goldin in his Washington, D.C., office, where the following interview took place. Q You were appointed to the post of NASA administrator by President Bush at a time when Vice President Quayle was in charge of the National Space Council. This could be viewed as a liability regarding your chances for retaining your position as head of the agency under Bill Clinton. On the other hand, Vice President-elect Al Gore, as a senator, sat on the panel that confirmed your appointment, and he dubbed you a person with "backbone." And you are also a registered Democrat. Given all of this, what kind of a read do you have on whether you will be asked to step down or stay on as NASA administrator under Clinton? A My position is this: (a) I have no read, and (b) President Clinton fought very hard to win this election, and he won it based on change and strengthening the economy and real-ly working the technology issue very, very hard. He has got to decide which people he wants to carry out his programs. I hope he views the space program, independent of the administrator, as crucial to the future of our country. I will do everything humanly possible to support President Clinton in transitioning NASA, and who he chooses to be the administrator is really important to him because he has to have the person that he believes would best carry out his policy. But no matter what happens, I'm going to be supportive of the space program. I think everyone knows who I am and what I am. It's not that I'm a deep, dark secret. And the key to it is what does the new president want, and I will support whatever decision he makes. Q But if you're not sure whether you will be staying or leaving NASA, why choose this time, just after the election and before Clinton takes office, to implement the space science reorganization? A There's never a right time to do a reorganization. And we've got to move forward. Let me give you an analogy. I'm in a room. There's a time bomb in the room, and there's a door here and a door there. You can't stay in the room, but you know if you go over to one of those doors there will be safety and if you go over to the other door there'll be a problem. Just sticking with the status quo does not save science at NASA. The NASA budget has been flat for the last few years; the science research and analysis is just dying on the vine. Right now, the NASA community is at too high a level of comfort and resistant to change. And change is absolutely required because I'm terribly concerned about the basic balance of programs at NASA. Our science program has been suffering. Our missions have taken longer and longer. They're costing more and more money and, as a result, we're not involving a central core of the science community. Q What do you think NASA should be doing to correct the deficiencies in its current exploration program? A What we have to be doing at NASA is not launch a planetary mission every decade, or an astrophysics mission every decade. What NASA ought to be doing is launching a satellite every month. And what we have to do is transition from what I call a state of increasing entropy to a state of stable equilibrium. Under the present structure, the NASA budget was 20 percent for science, and I don't know if that's right or wrong. But let me tell you, with a flat budget the science is getting eaten up by inflation. The research and analysis budget--which is the heart and soul of our support for the university science community--in real terms has been declining over the last years. I've been terribly concerned about that. We also have large programs--like Mission to Planet Earth, with tens of billions of dollars [in their budgets]--that didn't even report to the administrator. There's a fundamental rule of industry that when you have a program above a critical threshold [budgetary] level, you have it report right to the top to get visibility. It's crucial. These are some of the factors that led to the reorganization. Q How will the reorganization make science more of a priority at NASA and involve what you call "the central core" of the science community in correcting problems at NASA? A There needs to be more of a diversity of scientific opinion, and we are working with the scientific community. The objective is to strengthen science to bring it to the focal point and not to have science confined to the Office of Space Science and Applications. I come back to my basic thesis--NASA is science and exploration, not infrastructure and bureaucracy. And I was terribly concerned there wasn't a connectivity of science across the board. There isn't even uniformity of peer review. Q Could you be more specific about how breaking "the scientists" out of their own narrow sector and into other divisions will make NASA a more scientific organization? A In the Office of Space Science and Applications there was a rigorous peer-review process that took place, and as a result people had to be able to stand on their own two feet. But in our commercial office, 94 percent of the commercial payloads for the shuttle were accepted. Do you think that was a [rigorous] peer- review process? There wasn't a uniformity of scientific peer review. If you ran a project through the commercial office, you almost got accepted right off the bat. So again, if all the scientists in NASA are clumped in one portion, and we say, "Okay, we'll give you your 20 percent [of the NASA budget]; now go away and do good science," I'm worried that in the big picture we're not getting good science at NASA. Q Lennard Fisk moved over from head of OSSA, which no longer exists, to this newly created chief scientist position. How is this move going to help the science culture break out of the confines of OSSA? A There's been no ability to reach across NASA and have requirements in science--and not engineering and technology-- dominate what we do. And that's why I've formed the office of the chief scientist. I wanted the administrator in the front office of NASA to have the ability of some of the best scientific minds in the world, and that's why I asked Dr. Len Fisk to come forward. I'm looking upon him as the glue that will cause science to propagate across the NASA programs and not have it just confined to one small area where we throw it a slab of meat called 20 percent of the budget and say, "Go off and do good science." Q Where do you see space science going in terms of number of researchers, of grants, or of jobs? A NASA's not a jobs program for scientists. NASA is science and exploration. NASA is offering the younger generation inspiration and hope. NASA is educating our population. You know, hundreds of years ago, they funded scientists, not as a jobs program, but they funded scientists to understand the heavens. So, NASA does not exist to fund scientists. NASA exists for inspiration and hope and a basic understanding of science. Q You talk a lot about smaller, faster, cheaper space programs, which implies that things have not been small, fast, or cheap enough in the past. Just what is the problem with NASA missions? A Here's the sickness. You have a program and, let's say, it's going to be $4 billion and it's going to get launched in 10 years. You're a scientist, and what you say is, "Aha, I better get an experiment on that spacecraft or else I'm not going to fly a planetary program in my career." So everyone puts everything they can on that spacecraft and then the spacecraft gets bigger. Then it needs a bigger launch vehicle. Then it needs more dollars. And because it needs more dollars, it's not just a priority of the laboratory that it's being built at, it's not just a priority of NASA, it's a national priority and prestige item. Then paralysis sets in: "Oh my God, I can't make a mistake." What's the next thing that happens? "Aha, we can't use advanced technology on this, it's too risky." By now, I have a $4 billion program. If I have a failure on that program I can't do it; so what I'll do is take 10-year-old technology that's proven, and I won't take any risks. But what kind of science program doesn't take risks? Now think of the alternate possibility. I launch a small discovery satellite every year. So I lose one. But I'm now on the cutting edge of technology. I'm taking risks; it's a three-year program instead of a two-decade program. Q How could this benefit scientists in the academic environment? A People could earn their Ph.D.'s. They could actually build the spacecraft, get the science, and earn a Ph.D. And I contend that we are out of sync with the university community by having programs that take decades and cost billions. We're now into big politics and jobs for universities, and we're not into funding professors and graduate students. Q You say you're going to launch a spacecraft every couple of months. But isn't the shuttle already doing exactly that? A The shuttle should only be used for missions where humans are required. The shuttle should not be an access vehicle to space, where you don't need humans. You need humans to get up to the space station, and that's what the shuttle is for. The plan when I came here was to have the shuttle fly about 12 or 13 flights a year; we're getting it down to six. And we're going to take some of that money we're saving and put it into science. Q Space station Freedom comes under attack by Congress now and again, principally because of its high price tag. What's the current state of your support for this laboratory in space? A Unwavering. Let me tell you something. We as a human species should be not so arrogant as to think we're not going to be living and working in space. Near-earth asteroids have tremendous potential. It takes less energy to get to a near-earth asteroid than the moon. Planet Mars had tectonic activity, volcanic activity, copious quantities of flowing surface water. There's a strong possibility that we have concentrated mineral resources on Mars. So we have got to press forward, and we have to understand the effect of zero gravity. We are going to be building the first international laboratory in space that could give us an opportunity to study human physiology, cell physiology, to study life sciences and biotechnology in zero gravity and do a comparative analysis with one G [the gravitational force at the Earth's surface]. Now it's not going to cure world hunger. It's not going to cure cancer. And people have mistakenly said that. What it's going to do is lead to the storehouse of scientific knowledge and on the space station, which is big science, we're going to have hundreds and thousands of small-science experiments. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ COMMENTARY by Eugene Garfield As We Launch Into The New Year, Reality Must Temper Expectations As the The Scientist publishes its first issue of 1993, Bill Clinton stands ready for his presidential inauguration. As a candidate focused on "change," he enjoyed the strong backing of scientists. But it is not unreasonable, given his promise, to suggest that the scientific community may harbor some heightened expectations that should be tempered with reality. For example, expectations that Clinton will magically relieve agonizing budget constraints on basic research must be softened by the understanding that humanitarian aid in Somalia and elsewhere, which most of us applaud, can't help aggravating the fiscal problems we face. As the year unfolds, addressing other trouble spots around the world--such as Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe--may require additional sacrifices so that the United States' moral imperatives abroad are honored. In my opinion, these moral imperatives require that we not abandon Russian researchers facing mass unemployment--even though we are struggling to solve our own job-shortage problems. Many Russian scientists are being exploited for less than $100 per month; some of the lucky ones, enjoying the "munificence" of U.S. firms, may make as much as $400. Today, American scientists often earn well over $50,000 a year. Why shouldn't thousands of our best scientific colleagues in the former Soviet Union--and the Third World as well--earn at least a tenth of that each year? In this new year, I suggest that we are duty bound to seek ways to see this happen. Especially gratifying in this connection is the recent donation of George Soros (see story on page 3). Unless we find a way to temporarily subsidize the Russian science intelligentsia, researchers there inevitably will migrate to this and other Western countries. The wisest course for us, economically as well as morally, is to support them in their homelands and enable them--through institutional and corporate subsidy--to publish their research in peer-reviewed international journals. Concerning domestic unemployment woes in science, recent economic indicators give us hope that the U.S. recession may be easing. But again, heightened expectations must be balanced by a realistic view. Since underemployment in research continues, there is an urgent need for all scientists to become even more vocal in lobbying for the support of both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. We must convince the new Congress that it is in America's short- and long-term interest to increase the number of first-time grants so that more young scientists can put their talents to work rather than remain jobless or underemployed. The public has repeatedly demonstrated its support for biomedical research, and I am sure that the public will support the expanded funding this research requires. (Incidentally--while this may not rest well with diehard Democrats--I feel that our new president would be wise to tap the talents of Bush appointees Walter Massey at NSF and Bernadine Healy at NIH, both of whom are committed to expanded basic research.) As 1993 moves along, we will be discussing these and many other urgent matters in the pages of The Scientist: the growing role of women and minorities, science education, ethical issues, and so on. The flow of reliable information is needed to keep the science community's expectations in perspective. In keeping with this conviction, we will be working to dramatically extend our audience, both in print and electronically. Already, we have been working closely with several professional societies to ensure that this voice of the scientific community reaches their members at the lowest cost. We also have just launched an experiment whereby The Scientist is available free of charge on NSFnet (see notice on page 3). And we have conveyed to academic department heads that we are prepared to mail The Scientist gratis to any Ph.D. candidate or postdoc, including those currently unemployed. For information on this program, contact Craig Montesano, Circulation Assistant, at (800) 258-6008, Ext. 1576. And this is only a start. Best wishes for the New Year. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ======================================================= LETTERS Journal Standards This letter is meant to bring two common complaints, one petty and one not so petty, formally to the attention of the scientific public. First, as documented in Science (L. Roberts, "The rush to publish," Science, 251:260-3, 1991), there is great inequity in the peer review process of manuscripts. These irregularities can have consequences for the investigator on funding, job opportunities, and scientific priority. I would make a simple proposal that journals have a standard reply time, for example, 30 days; that is, a contributor would be notified 30 days after receipt of the manuscript (whether the manuscript was reviewed in one day or 29 days) of the suitability of the manuscript for publication. This would avoid delays caused by lazy or malicious reviewers. If an editor did not receive the review in a timely fashion, it would be the editor's responsibility to review it himself or herself or to find someone else who would do so, which, in turn, would no doubt ensure that editors send manuscripts to reviewers who respond within the required time. All in all, such a system would help to standardize the review process and remove many of its inequalities. Second, I would suggest that all journals and granting agencies adopt one of two standardized formats, either with or without titles. It seems that the most simple and consistent formats would be as follows (using one of my own references as an example): 1. Capobianco AJ, Chang D, Mosialos G & Gilmore TD (1992) p105, the NF-kB p50 precursor protein, is one of the cellular proteins complexed with the v-Rel oncoprotein in transformed chicken spleen cells. J Virol 66 3758-3767 or 1. Capobianco AJ, Chang D, Mosialos G & Gilmore TD (1992) J Virol 66 3758-3767 These reference styles avoid most punctuation and might simplify editors' and publishers' jobs. In addition, in this era of word processing, using one of these styles would simplify the preparation of manuscripts and grants by investigators. Finally, it might decrease the number of errors currently found in most reference lists. It is likely that these proposals are either too nave or too rational for adoption; nevertheless, I would appreciate readers' comments on the feasibility of these proposals. THOMAS D. GILMORE Biological Science Center Boston University (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ====== A `Scientific Foremother' I was deeply disturbed by the entry on Beatrix Potter in the "Notebook" section of The Scientist on Oct. 26, 1992 [page 4]. The article used words like "gruesome" and "bizarre" to describe Potter's childhood interest in science, while giving no indication that Potter was an important scientist in her era. Her work on the symbiotic nature of lichen--the first to be published in the British isles--was read before the Linnaean Society of London by her uncle. She could neither deliver the work herself nor attend the meeting at which it was discussed because women were unwelcome. Her presence as a researcher in the British Museum was also unwelcome, and eventually she threw in the towel and wrote children's books. This did not prevent her from cataloging the fungi of the British isles; many of her exquisite drawings are still today the type drawings used for taxonomic purposes. In her later years she became a sheep farmer and contributed significant work on the genetics of sheep breeding. Thus, despite the obstacles, she maintained a lifelong interest in science and scientific investigation. If a young male child who later went on to become an important figure had shown an early interest in science by assembling and drawing animal skeletons, we would write of his early signs of genius. Instead, the author of this "news" item describes Potter as a bit abnormal. When will mainstream science publications begin honoring our scientific foremothers just as our scientific forefathers are honored? ANNE FAUSTO-STERLING Professor of Medical Science Brown University Providence, R.I. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ========= WHERE TO WRITE: Letters to the editor The Scientist 3501 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Fax:(215)387-7542 Bitnet:garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu ==================================== RESEARCH Convergence Of Disciplines Propels Cognitive Science (Page 15 of newspaper) BY SCOTT VEGGEBERG The mind is a difficult thing to understand. And to get a handle on how it works requires not just a biological, but also a psychological and philosophical approach, say those in the field of cognitive science, a 30-year-old discipline that now seems to be making headway in its quest to understand thought and the mind's function. "The bottom line is, we're a bunch of blind men searching for a black cat in a dark room. You grab at anything you can get," says Jonathan D. Cohen, a cognitive neuroscientist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "We are trying very hard to make the best of the tools we have in order to make headway on a very complex and challenging problem." To understand human consciousness, researchers in formerly disparate fields have to effectively communicate with each other. "The real key is the interaction of disciplines," Cohen says. Cohen works with neural networks, currently a hot topic in cognitive science. Neural networks are mathematical models of how a group of neurons responds to an input. Neural networks are considered successful descriptions of how the brain functions--at least at an elementary level--when they can reproduce the correct output. These neural networks, although conceived of on a mathematical and theoretical level, are translated into computer programs. The assumption underlying neural network studies is that the brain is, in essence, a sophisticated computing device. Traditionally, cognitive scientists thought it possible to understand what a computer program does and how it operates without knowing anything about the machine it runs on, whether it be the brain or a PC, says Cohen. But over the past decade, a growing number of researchers have seen the necessity of understanding the type of machine these brain "programs" run on, he says, and the convergence of those who describe the mind at the behavioral and conceptual level and those who study it at the neuronal level is heating up, Cohen says. As he writes in a 1992 article, "Convergences among these disciplines are beginning to emerge in a number of different areas and in a variety of forms. Neuropsychology, behavioral neurology, computational neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience are all areas in which active integration of the behavioral and neurosciences is now being pursued" (J.D. Cohen, D. Servan- Schreiber, Psychiatric Annals, 22[3]:113-8, 1992). "Much of the recent progress in these areas can be attributed to new methods for simultaneously studying brain function and behavior," Cohen writes. "These include neuroimaging techniques (such as PET and MRI) and electrophysiological techniques (such as event-related potentials) that can be used in humans, as well as more detailed methods that can be used in animal studies (such as single-cell recording and microdialysis). "However, empirical tools alone are not sufficient to define a new area of science. These must be accompanied by a theoretical framework within which findings and ideas can be organized and communicated. In the case of the interface between the cognitive and neurosciences, the framework must be broad enough to be able to capture the details of computations underlying cognition as they are being carried out in the brain." Martha Farah, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, agrees that biological and psychological experimentalists are discovering an increasing need to find common ground. "There's been a skepticism within cognitive psychology that the kind of descriptions neuroscientists have of the mind's function will ever meet up--that it will be decades or centuries before they meet up. But they are starting to meet up now," she says. A review of scientific literature bears out both Cohen and Farah's assertions that the fields are beginning to develop significant cross-linkages. For instance, just five years ago, several journals in the field, such as Neural Computation and the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, had not even appeared. That itself is the mark of a field at once coalescing and rapidly developing. Individual researchers certainly know their own area of expertise: the key people, leading labs, current problems, and general trends. But in a field as variegated as cognitive neuroscience, there are many activities that can escape the attention of even the most wide-ranging researcher. To obtain a global perspective on the broadening shape and scope of cognitive neuroscience, The Scientist drew on the data resources of the Philadelphia-based Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). ISI maintains a database of how often articles in one journal cite articles in another and obtains summary statistics on the frequency or intensity of two-way links between individual journals. The strength of the two-way links is calculated by taking the percentage of all citations of papers in journal A by papers appearing in journal B and the percentage of all citations of journal B's papers by those appearing in journal A, and then calculating the average of the two figures to obtain a measure of re- latedness between journals A and B. Using ISI's program, SCI-MAP, a graphical representation was generated (see accompanying illustration) that represents the interrelationships of journals in the field of cognitive neuroscience. By examining groups of journals that are related to other groups of journals, interconnections between and among fields emerge. In the map, a line between two journals denotes a significant two-way flow of citations; the shorter the line, the stronger the connection. To initiate the map, which has been simplified somewhat here, a few significant journals in the field of cognitive science were chosen, such as Cognition, Cognitive Science, and Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Beginning with one journal, the program then located the journal to which it was most closely linked, and then the next closest linked journal, and so on. Multiple maps were created by cutting off the growth of the map in one direction, which "forced" connections at lower thresholds in other directions. In the end, multiple maps, illustrating various multidisciplinary links, were compiled to obtain this bird's-eye view of the field. Henry Shaffer, a psychologist at the University of Exeter, England, recently called cognitive neuroscience "a meeting place of ideas from computer scientists, psychologists, linguists, philosophers, engineers, neuroscientists, and others interested in the design of intelligent machines" (L.H. Shaffer, Nature, 351:282, 1992). And the accompanying map confirms this perspective. The one missing element from Shaffer's list is philosophy, but only because the database used is restricted to journals in the physical, life, and social sciences. Philosophy journals are covered in ISI's Arts and Humanities Citation Index. The other disciplines are included in ISI's Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index. The size of the circle representing each publication roughly reflects the number of citations in a given period--in this case, 1989. It, thus, is a depiction of the aggregate influence of a particular journal. In the map, Behavioral and Brain Sciences collects about as many total citations as Cognition, but both are much smaller than Brain Research, Neuroscience, and the Journal of Comparative Neurology. From the journals Cognition, Cognitive Science, and Behavioral and Brain Sciences, one can see several main offshoots: anthropology and sociobiology; artificial intelligence and cybernetics; language, speech, and hearing (and, through these, acoustics); and neurophysiology and neuropsychology. A significant feature of this type of map is that it has no orientation: There is no real significance to a journal or group of journals appearing at the top or bottom, to the right or left. The map is merely a representation of the degrees of relationship among them, and it can be viewed, as it were, from any angle. As cognitive science continues its cross-disciplinary development, it should provide an interesting case study for historians of science. Successive maps of following eras could, in a sense, provide a time-lapse-photography-style snapshot of the field's changing and growing shape. ISI research analyst David Pendlebury provided technical assistance with this article. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ RESEARCH HOT PAPERS IMMUNOLOGY (Page 16 of newspaper) C.J. McMahan, J.L. Slack, B. Mosley, D. Cosman, et al., "A novel IL-1 receptor, cloned from B-cells by mammalian expression, is expressed in many cell types," The EMBO Journal, 10:2821-32, 1991. John E. Sims (Immunex Research and Development Corp., Seattle): "Interleukin-1 is a central mediator of inflammatory responses, and it has significant immune and hematopoietic effects, as well. For these reasons, it is highly desirable to understand its mechanisms of action and, hopefully, to discover ways of regulating its activity. With this aim, several years ago we cloned an interleukin-1 receptor, now known as the type I receptor. At the time, that was the only IL-1 receptor known, but the subsequent availability of cDNA probes and antibodies to the type I receptor revealed the existence of a second IL-1 receptor, which we called the type II receptor; it is described in this paper. "I think the work reported has been important because, along with the cloning of the IL-1b converting enzyme (D.P. Cerretti, et al., Science, 256:97, 1992; N.A. Thorn-berry, et al., Nature, 356:768, 1992), it completed the cloning of all known components of the IL-1 system, thus enabling studies of their physiological roles. Subsequent work, by others as well as by us, has resulted in several surprising findings about the type II receptor. It appears as if the type II receptor is not a signaling receptor. It neither associates with the type I receptor to form a heteromeric complex nor delivers a biological signal on its own. Rather, its role seems to be as a precursor for a shed form or soluble receptor, which remains capable of binding IL-1 and, potentially, of regulating its activity. The IL-1 system, therefore, has almost as many antagonists, in the form of shed type II receptor and of IL-Ira, as it does agonistic molecules (IL-1a, IL-1b, and type I receptor). "Finally, this paper describes a significantly improved version of an expression cloning strategy, which was first used to clone the type I IL-1 receptor and has subsequently been used in many laboratories to clone a number of other cytokine receptor molecules." (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ===== TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY Bibliography-Building Software Eases A `Cruel' Task (Page 18 of newspaper) BY FRANKLIN HOKE "One of the biggest nasty chores in writing a scientific paper is putting together the bibliography," says Walter Alvarez, a professor of geology at the University of California, Berkeley. "It's just always been a big nuisance." To help scientists cope with this chore, software packages to manage and produce bibliographies began to appear in the early 1980s. Now more powerful, more user-friendly, and more numerous than ever before, these programs offer the capability not only to automatically generate bibliographies, but also to do so in the appropriate formats for dozens of leading scientific journals. Scientists are also using these programs as research tools, creating bibliographic databases, specific to their study areas, that are searchable by, for example, user-created key words. "The thrust of these programs is on building your own database," says Sue Stigleman, a former librarian at the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and author of a recent review of bibliography-formatting software (DATABASE, 15:15-27, February 1992). "Different people do different things [with that database]. A lot of people do writing that requires bibliographies, like grant proposals and journal articles. Other people just have a bibliography that they can search." While more than 40 such software products are available, there are leaders in the field, according to Stigleman. These are EndNote Plus ($249) from Niles & Associates, Berkeley, Calif.; Pro-Cite ($395) from Personal Bibliographic Software Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich.; and Reference Manager ($299, with journal formats $59 additional) from Research Information Systems Inc., Carlsbad, Calif. Stigleman says that some other programs also have substantial followings, including PAPYRUS ($99) from Research Software Design, Portland, Ore. The Favored Feature Michael Hahn, a plant biochemist at the University of Georgia in Athens, like Alvarez, sees the ability to generate bibliographies for publication as the most useful feature of the bibliographic database programs. "I once did a collaborative grant with two colleagues," Hahn says. "I literally spent 24 hours putting the bibliography together for that grant, and that's the very last time I ever did that." Now, Hahn uses Reference Manager to format bibliographies drawn from his 13,530-reference database. "When I get ready to send out a grant application," he says, "the very last thing I do, usually about an hour before the thing gets photocopied, is to generate the bibliography. And that takes about 15 minutes. I haven't typed a bibliography in five years now." Alvarez, who uses EndNote Plus to manage his 4,020-reference database, notes that scientific journals often have unique reference styles and require that references accompanying a paper submitted for publication adhere to that style. "Nearly every journal has its own format for references," he says. "So, if you submit papers to a variety of journals--and most of us do--then you've got to have a different format for each one." Because of this situation, Alvarez adds, the resubmission of papers to different journals can mean significant extra work for an author not using a bibliographic database program like his. "Sometimes, you'll send a paper to a particular journal, and they'll say, `Well, this is too specialized for us; you should send it to a different journal,' " he says. "Then, if you don't have something like EndNote, you have to retype the whole business. With EndNote, you just push the mouse around two or three times, and it prints it out in a different format." Generally, these programs ask that an author use in-text reference markers when writing a paper for which the program will later be required to generate a bibliography. These markers will usually include a unique number assigned to the reference in the database. Then, when asked to do so, the bibliographic database program will use the markers to compile a bibliography in the journal format selected by the user. The program will also replace the in-text markers with the appropriate in-text reference for the journal selected. "You put the number in the manuscript, in brackets," explains Robert Roach, a research physiologist at the Lovelace Medical Foundation, Albuquerque, N.Mex., who uses Pro-Cite to maintain the 3,000-plus records in the Bibliography of High-Altitude Medicine, which he publishes and distributes worldwide in a variety of computer formats. "Then you take your [document] file to Pro-Cite. It goes through and looks at each of those numbers, pulls those records out of your database, and puts them in a word processing file that you can just pull into your document. Then, when you write it to the [document] file, it asks you what format you want it in." EndNote Plus creates bibliographies in a similar way. "I simply insert temporary citations that are codes to EndNote into my word processing document," says Barry Henderson, a biochemist and National Institutes of Health postdoctoral research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has about 1,000 records in his database. "Then, when I finish the document, I open EndNote and format the document. EndNote goes in and pulls out those temporary citations and replaces them with the appropriate in-text citation for the target journal. And then it also builds the corresponding bibliography." In order for a user to take advantage of the bibliography- generating features of these programs, the bibliographic database program must be compatible with the word processing program being used, according to Stigleman. Microsoft Word and WordPerfect are commonly supported, as are a number of others, but users should check for this compatibility before investing in new bibliographic software. In support of their second most popular use, as research tools, the bibliographic database programs offer many ways to search and sort a database. Most will search by author, title, journal, date, and key word. Key word searches include full-text scans of abstracts, in many cases. And there are other special features offered. PAPYRUS, for example, allows the user to do a search, complicated or otherwise, and then assign a key word to the set of references that results from that search. "You can do a search, or several different searches, and then assign a key word to that group," says Jeff Breiwick, a fisheries biologist at the National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle. "Then, in the future, you can select all those references just by asking for the references using the key word." Breiwick maintains two data-bases, one for himself of more than 4,500 references and one for the International Whaling Commission of about the same size. Additional features may include the ability to check for duplicate records. EndNote and PAPYRUS also allow the user to add notes to the record, similar in purpose to the 3" X 5" note cards familiar to many researchers. These programs are capable of building bibliographic databases of differing, but substantial, maximum record numbers. EndNote supports databases of up to 32,000 rec-ords, Reference Manager up to 65,000, Pro-Cite up to 100,000, and PAPYRUS up to 2 million. Because few individual users are likely to approach these numbers, these limits should not represent a constraint in most cases. For institutional users, the maximums may become relevant. Online, CD, Or Diskette? The bibliographic references used to build a database are often gathered through a broad and various network of personal contacts, colleagues whose contributions are then simply typed into the database, say researchers. High-altitude physiologist Roach, for example, estimates that 50 percent of his bibliographic database entries come from personal contacts. But, increasingly, scientists are turning to an expanding selection of online, CD-ROM, and diskette databases as sources for their bibliographic references. With most of these programs, a scientist interested in importing data from these sources will need to purchase an additional piece of software to help translate the downloaded data into a form acceptable to the database. For that purpose, EndNote Plus markets EndLink ($99), Pro-Cite sells Biblio-Links ($295), and Reference Manager offers Capture ($99). PAPYRUS, on the other hand, includes format translation programming as part of its main package. There are hundreds of databases available in online, CD-ROM, and diskette formats from different vendors. However, for the biomedical researcher, certain of these databases and sources are more prominent than others, say librarians and other information specialists. According to Nancy Roderer, director of the Cushing/Whitney Medical Library at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., important databases include Medline from the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md.; EMBASE from the Excerpta Medica/EMBASE Publishing Group, Amsterdam, Netherlands; BIOSIS from Phila- delphia-based BIOSIS; and Sci-Search and Current Contents from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), also of Philadelphia. Biochemist Henderson uses the Scientific & Technical Network International, or STN, from Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio. "Most academic campuses these days also provide some array of database access," Roderer adds. She suggests that researchers with ties to academic institutions should turn first to their institutions for access to databases. She points out, however, that local versions of national databases may be offered in slightly different formats, which can complicate data importation. Roderer asks: "If I'm downloading records from my own local version of a database, will the [bibliographic database] software work?" Perhaps not, she suggests. Vendors offering online access to the major databases and hundreds of additional specialized databases include BRS Colleague from BRS Information Technologies, McLean, Va., and Dialog from Dialog Information Services, Palo Alto, Calif., Roderer says. Many databases, such as Med-line, are available as CD-ROM and diskette products, with updates sent to subscribers at regular intervals. CD-ROM products that provide access to multiple databases include Compact Cambridge from Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Bethesda, Md.; SilverPlatter from SilverPlatter Information Inc., Norwood, Mass.; and CD-Plus from CD-Plus Inc., New York, according to Charles Greenberg, media services librarian at the Columbia University Health Sciences Library in New York. Another well-known database that is available to researchers as a CD-ROM product is Science Citation Index from ISI. Diskette database sources include Current Contents on Diskette from ISI and Reference Update from Research Information Systems Inc. Scientists importing data from either online or CD-ROM sources should prepare themselves for some level of difficulty in the process, according to Stigleman. She suggests that a researcher who expects to import references regularly from the same database should run a test with the bibliographic database program he or she would like to use, to see what works and what doesn't. "But someone who imports from a variety of different databases is likely to have problems," she says, "regardless of which program they choose." The underlying problem, she says, is that database vendors use differing formats--even reformat-ting familiar databases like Medline, for example--so that each version of a database presents, potentially, a unique translation problem for the bibliographic database programs. "The real solution would be some kind of standardized downloading format," says Stigleman. "But none of the vendors want to do that, of course, because it's not in their best interests to encourage wholesale downloading and reuse of their material." According to Stigleman, none of the leading programs provides a true, active online or CD-ROM link. Instead, they offer methods to filter or translate data that has been captured to disk during a search session, so that it can then be imported into a program's data-base. She adds: "It's kind of a snake pit. The whole issue of downloading and importing is just not very clean." Users of these bibliographic software packages find that they have powerful new research capabilities in the databases they create, and they are generally delighted at being relieved of the burden of creating bibliographies for papers. But, even so, most have an additional feature or two they'd like to see in their program. Wish List Columbia's Greenberg would like to see network versions of these programs, for use on university networks. He says he has talked with the software manufacturers about the possibility, but does not expect to see such a product soon. "Typically, they make most of their money selling a lot of individual copies," he says, "so there's some reticence or reluctance to talk about whether a network version of this software should be produced. But it would be ideal for our situation." A limited network version of Pro-Cite was released on December 16. Multiple users may read or copy a database, but may not edit that database. "I'd like to see them systematically provide filters for downloading from existing databases, like Geo-Ref," says EndNote Plus-user Alvarez. "I'd like conversion programs that would let me do that." PAPYRUS does give instructions for attempting to import references from GeoRef, a Silver-Platter database, but notes that GeoRef is among the most difficult sources to work with, largely because it is not internally consistent in its formatting. Many researchers would like to see more input and output formats. Some would like to see full Windows versions of these programs-- currently, some are able to paste citations through the Windows clipboard into the word processor. And quite a few wish for standard database formats that would ease the task of downloading references or of sharing databases between users of different programs. Among existing and hoped-for features, however, it is the ability to generate bibliographies in almost any journal format and to reformat that bibliography as necessary that remains the central feature of these programs, the one most appreciated by researchers. "That ability basically takes a cruelty out of the life of practicing scholars," says geologist Walter Alvarez. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================= MAJOR SUPPLIERS IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE SOFTWARE MARKET (Page 19 of newspaper) BIOSIS 2100 Arch St. Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 (800) 523-4806 Fax: (215) 587-2016 BRS Information Technologies 8000 Westpark Dr. Mclean, Va. 22102 (800) 289-4277 Fax: (703) 893-4632 CD-Plus Inc. 333 Seventh Ave., Sixth Floor New York, N.Y. 10001 (800) 950-2035 Fax: (212) 563-3784 Chemical Abstracts Service/STN International 2540 Olentangy River Rd. Columbus, Ohio 43210 (614) 447-3600 Fax: (614) 447-3713 Compact Cambridge Division of Cambridge Scientific Abstracts 7200 Wisconsin Ave. Bethesda, Md. 20814 (800) 843-7751 Fax: (301) 961-6720 Dialog Information Services Inc. 3460 Hillview Ave. Palo Alto, Calif. 94304 (800) 334-2564 Fax: (415) 858-7069 Excerpta Medica/EMBASE Publishing Group Molenwerf 1 P.O. Box 1527 NL-1000 BM Amsterdam, Netherlands 020 5803911 Fax: 020 5803439 Institute for Scientific Information 3501 Market St. hiladelphia, Pa. 19104 (800) 336-4474 Fax: (215) 386-6362 Niles and Associates Inc. 2000 Hearst Ave. Suite 200 Berkeley, Calif. 94709 (510) 649-8176 Fax: (510) 649-8179 Personal Bibliographic Software Inc. 525 Avis Dr. Suite 10 Ann Arbor, Mich. 48108 (313) 996-1580 Fax: (313) 996-4672 Research Information Systems Inc. 2355 Camino Vida Roble Carlsbad, Calif. 92009 (800) 722-1277 Fax: (619) 438-5573 Research Software Design 2718 S.W. Kelly St., Suite 181 Portland, Ore. 97201 (503) 796-1368 Fax: (503) 241-4260 SilverPlatter Information Inc. 100 River Ridge Rd. Norwood, Mass. 02072 (800) 343-0064 Fax: (512) 472-8527 U.S. National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, Md. 20894 (800) 638-8480 (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================= PROFESSION Advance Planning Is The Key To Avoiding And Surviving Layoffs, Career Experts Say BY RICKI LEWIS A survey of 836 United States companies released in September by the New York-based American Management Association found that one in four of them planned layoffs by June of this year. In government, the news is also grim. When President Bush proposed increasing 1993 science spending by 6.5 percent, Congress slashed it to a paltry 2.3 percent, paralyzing budgets at many agencies. And President-elect Bill Clinton's focus on technologies that meet social needs more immediately than does basic research will affect academia in the form of altered funding priorities. To a scientist, a layoff may seem to come out of the blue. Still, researchers can plan ahead to avoid this fate, or to deal with it and get back on the career track as quickly and painlessly as possible, job-placement experts agree. First, The Good News Even though layoffs are sometimes inevitable, retaining scientists is a very high priority at even the most financially strapped institutions. "I think scientists, especially those on core projects, are the most valuable resource a company has, and would be almost the last to go," says Greg Johnson, managing general partner at St. Louis-based Gateway Associates, L.P., a venture capital firm investing in health-care projects. "Companies chip away at the periphery of the company, while retaining the core," Johnson says. He adds that often, promising projects that are not necessarily the backbone of a company--and the scientists working on these proj-ects--are "spun off" into subsidiaries, as happened with the newly founded PHYTO Pharmaceuticals, a progeny of ESCAgenetics Corp., both of San Carlos, Calif. PHYTO was created to develop drugs from interesting natural products. Preserving the scientific core seems to be a priority at large as well as small firms. Debra Allison, manager of corporate licensing information at Merck & Co. Inc. of Rahway, N.J., says that while Merck is tightening its belt, "staff is not being cut- -that would be a last resort." Reasons For The Job Crunch But even the best and brightest scientists are not immune to the effects of downsizing and streamlining, mergers and acquisitions. "With very large companies, job security is a myth," says Marc Andelman, president of Biosource Inc. of Holliston, Mass., a recruitment consulting firm. The market for U.S. technology "is collapsing with competition in world trade, which translates into people moving around more in the job, being on the ball, and providing their own job security." Many companies are facing the new global marketplace by merging or forming strategic alliances. This spells positions lost. British Petroleum plans to merge its engineering and research groups, located in Warrensville, Ohio, and Sunbury, England, in early 1993, letting go 1,500 to 1,700 employees. Sometimes layoffs become inevitable when a drug that was promising in the lab hits snags in clinical trials. At Xoma Corp. of Berkeley, Calif., hopes were high for its E5 product, a monoclonal antibody treatment for septic shock. But two clinical trials did not show a reduction in death, delaying Food and Drug Administration approval indefinitely. Along came a new CEO and president, and 85 people lost their jobs. On the academic front, scientists in their career prime forced to seek a new position may run up against a trend seen in many fields--people fresh out of school getting available academic jobs because their salaries are lower. "The problem in many academic institutions is that they are looking at the [entry- level] assistant professors who are right off of their postdocs," says Larry Bopp, an assistant professor at the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg. "Most companies want entry- level people, too," says Bopp, who has recently survived a layoff (see story on page 22). Tips For Avoiding A Layoff Although many layoffs are unavoidable and nobody's fault, career- placement experts point to measures that can make this possibility less likely. Be Aware: An animal avoids becoming prey by developing an acute awareness of the surroundings. The same should be true for the scientist, but often isn't, experts say. "There is a tendency among scientists to be very involved in their research and not so attentive to what's happening on the business side," says James Iannoni, president of James E. Iannoni and Associates Biotech Search and Placement Consultants of Hampton, Conn. This means seeing your project as others see it. "If you think your project will be cut because you don't think it will succeed, or you know that another company is farther ahead, try to get out. Do market research, and go by your intuition. It's helpful to pick a winner," says Phil Nachman, president of Nachman Biomedical, a Cambridge, Mass.-based life sciences executive search firm. "But it can be hard to get out," he adds. "If you've worked on solar energy technology for 10 years, your personality and ego have gotten woven into it, and it's hard to be dispassionate." Diversify: As in evolution, the key to survival is diversification, say scientists who have expanded their skills beyond what they did as grad students and postdocs. The more approaches to a problem an industrial scientist can take, the more projects an academic researcher can propose to granting agencies, and the more courses a part-time instructor can teach, the more likely employment will be steady. Chet Bisbee, a biotechnology specialist with a Detroit law firm who has a Ph.D. in molecular physiology and a new law degree, cites as an example a company whose researchers are all working on a protein, X, but then learns that protein X is not the phenomenal discovery the firm had hoped for. "They cut all the people on protein X. But if someone is also working on protein Y, he or she will survive," says Bisbee. He suggests that an industrial scientist get involved in different stages of research and development, such as inventing, scale-up, and production. And academic scientists can expand their career horizons by establishing ties with companies. Another avenue for scientific diversification is management, although this may require giving up bench science. "A scientist who is good at managing has a better chance if there are cutbacks," says Bisbee. Expanding skills takes a conscious effort, and may not even be possible in some situations. "In some companies, people find themselves in boxes, as opposed to a position requiring wearing different hats," says Iannoni. But a scientist can sometimes build on existing skills and interests to create a new expertise, as was so for Debra Allison. "My experience in chemical information systems led to opportunities in licensing," she says. Toot Your Own Horn: "The most important thing a scientist can do is to add value to their career by doing the very best science," says Andelman. "If you are working with a good team, producing, with lots of discoveries, substantial work, that's your job security." But higher-ups must know of your accomplishments, says Nachman. "Make sure that, in a nonobnoxious way, you get credit for what you have done," says Nachman. "The big boss should know that your hand did project X and not your supervisor's--without the supervisor knowing it." A foolproof way to get credit is to establish a track record, says Andelman. And this means piling up the two Ps--patents and publications. "The more patents you have applied for and received, the more valuable you are," says Nachman. "Keep publishing, if your company lets you, to show productivity and work of high quality as judged in peer-reviewed journals." Patents and publications can add objectivity to performance appraisals by a scientist's managers, says Andelman, but he cautions that one should truly be making contributions, not just getting his or her name on a lot of papers. Tips For Surviving A Layoff After the initial shock and anger of losing a job, it's important to plow ahead with a job search as well as to keep up on your field, says Bopp, who even did research without a salary for a time to stay current. Job-search experts suggest the following actions. Vent Your Feelings: The first step in recovery is to share feelings with loved ones who will listen and provide support, according to information provided by the American Chemical Society to unemployed members. The second step is to look at the big picture, and realize that you may not be at fault. "I've talked to people out of work six to eight months, and they say, `I have all this educational background and experience, and no one is interested in me. There must be something wrong with me.' That is not the case," says Iannoni. "The climate out there is not conducive [to getting a job], but it is easy to internalize that." If anger or depression becomes overwhelming, a psychologist or counselor can help to focus on goals, both for health reasons and because negative feelings tend to surface just when you don't want them to--on job interviews. Psychologists Stefanie P. Spera of Dallas-based Drake Beam Morin Inc. and Eric D. Buhrfeind and James N. Pennebaker, both from nearby Southern Methodist University, have found that simply writing in a daily journal about feelings over job loss siphons off some of the frustration, hastening finding a new position. Once the shock and anger wear off, it is therapeutic to put the bulk of your energy into the job search. "You need to look at the attempt to find a job as a job, something to be done from 9 to 5 each day," says Iannoni. Network: Counselors in all fields say that this is the time to make lists--of people met at conferences, contacts in companies, alumni associations, anyone linked to your field. Call professional organizations that you belong to--many have job- search services. ACS, for example, offers a year-round professional data bank through its Office of Employment Services. This computerized data bank makes available information on individuals seeking jobs to employers who request assistance from ACS for their recruiting needs. ACS also runs a workshop on conducting an effective job search at all national and some regional meetings. Also, National Employment Clearing Houses at national and regional meetings give job applicants the opportunity to interview with employer representatives. Mock interview sessions, offered at all national meetings, give chemists the opportunity to videotape a practice interview and receive feedback on improving their interview skills. Explore Other Options: Part-time work as a consultant or teaching at the university level is a good way to stay in the field while searching for full-time employment, but it won't help much in paying bills. Part-time faculty are generally treated as second- class scientific citizens, as Philip Edward Kaldon, a physicist who teaches at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo and at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, can attest. He is very involved with the Young Scientists Network, an electronic mail- based organization of more than 1,200 scientists concerned with the difficulty in ascending from postdoc life to a "real" job in science. "I'm underemployed," Kaldon says. "I teach two part-time courses on one campus, and a night course on another, for a total of $5,000 a semester. What I'm doing is really a full-time teaching load, [and] it would be nice to be paid for full-time work." Part-time teaching positions provide no benefits or guarantee of reappointment at semester's end. Faculty surveys conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics and analyzed by the American Association of University Professors in November indicate that 38 percent of all college faculty are in part-time positions, although this figure drops to about 17 percent in science departments at universities where research is a priority. Typical salaries are $900 to $3,000 a course. If a perfect job doesn't materialize soon, you can consider related areas, but don't assume that an advanced degree in a science qualifies you to enter a field for which others have been specifically trained, say those who have tried to make a switch. A geneticist who has never spoken to a person with an inherited disease, for example, can hardly become a genetic counselor overnight (Ricki Lewis, The Scientist, Aug. 31, 1992, page 1). The same is true for teaching at the secondary or elementary school levels, and for switching from writing technical papers to science journalism. Happy Endings Sometimes losing a job can be a blessing in disguise by forcing a researcher to consider alternative career pathways. This was the case for lawyer Chet Bisbee, who "saw an unending trail of postdocs" and decided to change fields. After doing postdocs in government, academia, and business, he pursued a growing interest in licensing and patents by going to law school. As FDA opens up to biotech products, he is finding himself with a very valuable combination of degrees. What Bisbee, Allison, and others with solid careers have done-- build on their expertise and seek new niches--seems to be the best way to deal with a scientific marketplace whose job requirements do not always fit into neat categories. Says Allison: "These are hard times. But training in other areas is never lost, even if you stay at your present job. You can always apply new skills and knowledge." Ricki Lewis is a freelance science writer based in Scotia, N.Y. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ============================================= EPA Seeks Greater Interaction With Research Community (Page 21 of newspaper) BY BILLY GOODMAN One issue that Environmental Protection Agency director-designate Carol Browner will be assessing is the dual nature of the agency's mission. It is a regulatory agency, but through its Office of Exploratory Research (OER), within the Office of Research and Development (ORD), it also funds some basic research. This double focus has made EPA a difficult research partner for environmental scientists, several top EPA managers acknowledge. Unfortunately, EPA's grants program for investigator-initiated research is woefully underfunded, say scientists both inside and outside EPA. During the last few years, OER has funded about $20 million worth of grants. Attempts to get the congressional allocation increased by $7 million a few years ago were unsuccessful, says Robert Menzer, acting director of OER. The budget increase wasn't fought for by the administration, Congress, or the academic community. Investigator-Initiated Grants In fiscal year 1991, 229 applications, out of 603 received, were approved for funding by peer review panels. But only 84 grants were ultimately awarded, a success ratio of about 14 percent. Menzer cites funding problems as the main reason that scientists have been discouraged by EPA's grants program. "We fund between 11 percent and 23 percent of proposals," he says. "When you get down to 11 percent, people begin to think it's not worth competing. That diminishes the quality of the proposals--you don't get the best proposals because the best people know they can get money more easily elsewhere." Menzer says that when OER was created in the mid-1980s, it had a goal to devote 15 percent of EPA's research and development funds to exploratory grants. So far, less than half that figure has actually gone to the grants program. Also, Menzer says, there have been years when EPA had commitments to grantees that it wasn't able to meet, and reduced some grants and ended funding for others early--though, he notes, this hasn't happened in the last three or four years. Several scientists interviewed for this article say they have experienced difficulties and delays in obtaining funding from EPA. Robert Howarth and David Rudnick of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., received a two-year, $220,000 grant from OER in 1991 for a study entitled "Controls of Dimethylsulfide Production in Marine Ecosystems." But they had to sweat it out, says Rudnick, a senior research associate in the microbiology department. "We submitted a proposal," he says, and "it was well-reviewed and accepted for funding. But EPA ran out of money--they had to fund grants approved for funding in previous years but not funded, which were in a sort of queue. We were told to wait, and waited at least six months. Then we were told that EPA didn't have enough money that year and was changing its system so that approved grants were no longer queued up." Rudnick and Howarth resubmitted their proposal, were again highly ranked, and eventually received their grant. Since that time, they have had no problems with OER, Howarth and Rudnick say. Despite the difficulty, says Howarth, a professor of ecology and systematics, in the end "it was worth having diversity in one's funding sources. It makes you less vulnerable" to cuts by one source. EPA Labs The exploratory grants program consumes just a tiny fraction of EPA's research and development funds. Far more money is available to outside scientists through EPA's 12 laboratories scattered around the United States. These labs (see accompanying table) have their own scientific staffs and perform mission-oriented research, trying to make EPA's regulations more soundly based in science. The laboratories have two main funding mechanisms: cooperative agreements and contracts. In contrast to grants--in which the government gives a researcher money and has little further contact with the scientist beyond regular reports--cooperative agreements require greater interaction between the outside scientists and EPA. Jay Messer, deputy director of one of the EPA labs, the Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, N.C., says that in a cooperative agreement, EPA might furnish use of expensive facilities to graduate students or professors, or might provide chemical analysis of samples. Cooperative agreements are usually initiated by requests for proposals (RFPs) from the laboratory offering the money. Sometimes, these RFPs are advertised in specialty journals or through direct mail to scientists on EPA mailing lists. By law, the RFPs must be published in the Federal Register and the Commerce Business Daily. In many respects, cooperative agreements work like grants, usually lasting two or three years--if rapidly shifting EPA policy doesn't redirect funds to a different research area--and providing $50,000 to $100,000 or so in direct funding a year. EPA and its laboratories use contracts for some research services, such as chemical analyses or animal-care facilities. These contracts have often been of a sort known as "level-of- effort" contracts, in which EPA essentially buys a technician's or scientist's time. Such contracts have occasionally led to poor research management, says Messer, who notes that their use is being reduced in favor of cooperative agreements. That is partly a result of recommendations made to EPA administrator William Reilly last March by an advisory panel on science at EPA. The panel urged the agency to involve the outside scientific community more closely to give its environmental regulations a firmer footing. Scientists Hold The Key The key to better collaboration with the outside scientific community, according to Lawrence Reiter, director of EPA's Health Effects Research Lab in Research Triangle Park, is greater support for the grants program. There is backing for a revitalized grants program within ORD, he says, and it is up to university scientists to demonstrate their concerns to Congress. In fiscal year 1993, Congress loaded EPA's research and development budget with $22 million worth of earmarked items--a greater amount than the exploratory grants program budget. Of that total, $9.8 million went to New York University for equipment and facilities to support the university's neural science research program. Information about 1993 Exploratory Research grants can be obtained by calling OER's automated hotline, (202) 260-7474. OER seeks proposals in biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and socioeconomics. Deadlines for applications are February 1 and August 2. Billy Goodman is a freelance science writer based in Upper Montclair, N.J. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ EPA LABORATORIES (Page 21 of newspaper) Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory P.O. Box 93478 Las Vegas, Nev. 89193-3478 (702) 798-2525 Wayne Marchant, director Expertise: desert ecology, remote sensing and geographic information systems, exposure monitoring of pollutants and radiation Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory P.O. Box 1198 Ada, Okla. 74820 (405) 332-8800 Clinton Hall, director Expertise: groundwaterresearch Environmental Research Laboratory--Gulf Breeze Sabine Island Gulf Breeze, Fla. 32561-5299 (904) 934-9208 Robert Menzer, director Expertise: marine and estuarine ecology and risk assessment Environmental Research Laboratory--Duluth 6201 Congdon Blvd. Duluth, Minn. 55804 (218) 720-5550 John Puzak, acting director Expertise: aquatic toxicology and freshwater ecology Environmental Research Laboratory--Athens College Station Road Athens, Ga. 30613-0801 (706) 546-3134 Rosemarie Russo, director Expertise: predictive ecology and risk assessment Environmental Research Laboratory--Narragansett 27 Tarzwell Dr. Narragansett, R.I. 02882-1198 (401) 782-6001 Norbert Jaworski, director Expertise: marine and sediment ecology and risk assessment Environmental Research Laboratory--Corvallis 200 S.W. 35th St. Corvallis, Ore. 97333 (503) 754-4601 Thomas Murphy, director Expertise: terrestrial ecology and risk assessment Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory Mailcode 60 Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 (919) 541-2821 Frank Princiotta, director Expertise: controlling air pollution from stationary sources Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr. Mailcode 235 Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 (513) 569-7418 Timothy Oppelt, director Expertise: engineering solutions for the prevention or reduction of risks from pollutants Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory Mailcode 75 Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 (919) 541-2106 Gary Foley, director Expertise: atmospheric pollution and risk assessment Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory--Cincinnati 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr. Mailcode 591 Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 (513) 569-7301 Thomas Clark, director Expertise: exposure monitoring and risk assessment, microbiology Health Effects Research Laboratory Mailcode 51 Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 (919) 541-2281 Lawrence Reiter, director Expertise: human health effects of exposure to pollutants (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ VETERANS OF THE JOB CRUNCH When microbiologist Larry Bopp left his job at the Schenectady, N.Y., Corporate Research and Development Center of General Electric Corp. in 1987 because of dissatisfaction with his particular situation, he moved right along to a job at the New York State Department of Health, thanks to contacts he had made along the way. But he was totally unprepared for what happened in September 1990--he was given two weeks' notice that his position was drying up. What followed was a nearly year-long job search that spawned a few offers, and a great deal of frustration. "When I got the news [of the layoff], I couldn't just sit still, so I went on staff as a nonsalaried employee in the research department of the Veterans Administration hospital, working on the cytotoxin gene in Pseudomonas," Bopp says. This hiatus, although not putting dollars in the bank, kept questionable blank spaces from cropping up on Bopp's c.v. And it was quite an impressive c.v., for Bopp had been instrumental at GE in discovering microbes that biodegrade PCBs, chemicals that pollute the nearby Hudson River. But his solid reputation didn't seem to matter. "I spent a good deal of time over the next six to eight months sending out c.v.'s by the hundreds," Bopp says. "It was the same problem over and over. Everyone wanted to hire someone fresh off a postdoc," because of the lower salary levels for less-experienced researchers. "I knew this was no reflection on my abilities as a scientist, but that didn't make it any easier." "We're seeing more older scientists being laid off," says Philip Edward Kaldon, who teaches physics at Western Michigan University. "The traditional way the system worked was that you start at entry level, stay a long time, and are rewarded with more salary and benefits. But as money tightens, if you start cutting back on older people, you can save a lot of money by rehiring at lower levels, particularly postdocs." But even finding entry-level positions isn't easy in today's recessionary times. When Kaldon was finishing grad school in 1988, he quickly found that the six to eight letters inquiring about positions his thesis adviser had recommended he send out was a laughable underestimate. "I sent out 150 letters in a two- year period," he says. "I would get back letters saying there were 200 to 300 applicants for jobs in college departments." Some, especially in computer science, get as many as 1,000 applicants, he says. Although Bopp and Kaldon are now employed, they, understandably, remain bitter about their job searches. "Somehow we have to make ourselves invaluable, but even that doesn't cut it when the economy is bad and money is tight," says Kaldon. --R.L. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================= PEOPLE (Page 23 of newspaper) Lehigh Professor Is Named Chemical Society's President-Elect Ned D. Heindel, a chemistry professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., was voted president-elect of the American Chemical Society (ACS) by the society's membership through a mail ballot. He will serve as president-elect for one year before taking over the full presidency for two years, beginning in January 1994. Heindel, whose field of study is medicinal and pharmaceutical chemistry, says he wants to make the 144,000-member, 116-year-old organization more member-friendly. The focus of the society, according to Heindel, should be jobs. "The interest of chemists today, young and old, is jobs. It's what got [President-elect Bill] Clinton elected--jobs, jobs, jobs," Heindel says. "In the sciences there appears to be less emphasis on `R' and more emphasis on `D' in the R&D equation. The shifting needs for scientists are a major concern for young folk coming out of the pipeline as well as for mid-career people changing jobs. "I think one of the ways to address all this is by putting the focus of our efforts into those areas of the molecular sciences where the research and development is, such as in the life sciences and material sciences." He says his first action will be to get ACS more involved with organizations of scientists who work on the periphery of chemistry, such as professional associations in clinical science, neurobiology, and materials science. "I've long felt that ACS is a superumbrella organization that embraces many disciplines," he says. "There are now other emerging areas in which chemists are involved, but ACS has very little identity as an organization." To start down this path, Heindel would like ACS to work in conjunction with other societies to cosponsor technical meetings and, possibly, to share in the creation of an intersociety employment match-up service for scientists. Besides making practical changes to benefit ACS members, Heindel says, he would like to engage in some public relations work to stress the importance of chemistry in modern society. "Though right now I'm not sure how, I would like to make the opinion- creating public more aware of how important chemistry is in their lives," he says. "I'm convinced that the science writers, the investment bankers, the congressional staffers, and other opinion makers throughout society don't realize how much of the creature comforts they enjoy are due to chemistry," he adds. "They don't realize that the pill that they pop to control their high blood pressure, the freeze-dried food that they take on camping trips, and the very fabric that warms their backs aren't the creation of some amorphous manufacturing enclave, but of chemical entrepreneurship and inventorship over the last century." In addition to his post at Lehigh, Heindel is on the faculty of Hahnemann University in Philadelphia. He received his bachelor's degree from Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pa., in 1959 and his master's degree (1961) and Ph.D. (1963) in chemistry from the University of Delaware. --Ron Kaufman (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ City Of Philadelphia Presents John Scott Awards To Honor Two `Ingenious' Researchers' `Useful Inventions' (Page 23 of newspaper) Kary B. Mullis, director of research at Atomic Tags Inc., La Jolla, Calif., and Britton Chance, University Professor, emeritus, at the University of Pennsylvania, have received the John Scott Award, presented by the Board of Directors of City Trusts of the city of Philadelphia. The award, which honors "ingenious men or women who make useful inventions, was presented November 20. The award was established through an 1816 bequest by John Scott, a druggist in the city of Edinburgh, Scotland, who set up a fund providing for the city to give a copper medal, a certificate, and a cash award to inventors who have contributed to the "comfort, welfare and happiness of mankind. It is not known why Scott chose Philadelphia to administer the award, although it is believed that he was an admirer of Benjamin Franklin and took an interest in America. Mullis was honored for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a method of rapid amplification of DNA sequences. Chance was cited for developing novel medical diagnostic procedures and for pioneering clinical applications for noninvasive study of disease, including magnetic resonance spectroscopy and photon migration imaging, used to monitor tissue blood flow. At the award ceremony, Mullis noted that Franklin once compared his hot-air balloon invention to a newborn baby. By contrast, Mullis said, PCR, which has "spread like a plague all over the planet, is analogous to "my 15-year-old boy, who has matured to the point that "I now feel no responsibility. Atomic Tags, Mullis's newly formed company, focuses on developing applications for scanning tunneling microscopy and scanning probe microscopy, adapting the instruments to do clinical chemical analysis. Eventually, Mullis says, these devices "will become the workhorses of clinical chemistry. Mullis says he envisions a time when a physician will be able to perform "500 different clinical tests on a patient at a cost of about $100. "This information would become the basis of medicine, rather than a doctor's subjective opinion, he says. "The `chemicalization' of medicine is inevitable. Chance's current work centers on using light scattering to noninvasively detect brain aneurysms and tumors as well as small, impalpable breast tumors. "Light travels through the body in waves that are very distinctive, he says. Studying the movement of light waves through the body enables one to "detect small objects, such as tumors, he says. "This is a safe, economical, rapid method that doesn't use mammography. The first John Scott Awards, given in 1834, carried a cash prize of $20; today, the amount has been raised to $10,000. Nominations are made by an advisory committee of Philadelphians of which Robin M. Hochstrasser, Donner Professor of Physical Science at the University of Pennsylvania, is secretary. --Barbara Spector (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) =================================== OBITUARIES (Page 23 of newspaper) Jan H. Oort died November 5 in Leiden, the Netherlands. He was 92 years old. As an astronomer at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, Oort was well known for his determination of the mechanisms surrounding the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy and where it sits in the universe. Oort also performed pioneering work on the origins and trajectories of comets. One origin, a reservoir of icy pre-comet material on the outskirts of the solar system, was named the Oort Cloud. His review "The Galactic Center" (Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15:295, 1977) has been cited in 250 subsequent papers. A chapter he wrote in the book Nuclei of Galaxies (D.J.K. O'Connell, ed., Amerstam, North Holland Publishing Co., 1971) has been cited in 500 papers. === Leo H. Criep, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh for 60 years, died November 19 at his home in Pittsburgh. He was 96 years old. During the 1920s and 1930s, Criep performed some of the first clinical studies of allergies and asthmatic conditions. His books included Essentials of Allergy (Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott Co., 1945) and Clinical Immunology and Allergy (San Diego, Grune & Stratton Inc., 1962). Born in Romania, Criep received his medical degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1920. === Elias E. Maneulidis, a professor of neuropathology and neurology at Yale University for 38 years and an expert on Alzheimer's disease and polio, died November 11 in New Haven, Conn. He was 74 years old. In 1959, Maneulidis conducted the first long-term studies of tissue cultures of human brain tumors. He received his medical degree from the University of Munich in 1942 and from 1946 to 1949 was director of anatomical pathology at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich. Maneulidis joined the faculty of Yale in 1951. === Charles W. Charny, a pioneer in the understanding of natural male infertility, died November 10 in Philadelphia. He was 90 years old. In 1962, Charny became the first scientist from the United States to perform a testicle biopsy to determine how deficiencies in semen cause infertility. Charny received his medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1926. He became the senior attending urologic surgeon at the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia in 1956 and reached emeritus status 12 years later. He retired in 1983. === (The Scientist, Vol:7, #1, January 11, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank