Request: the-scientist Topic: the-scientist-930308 Subject: The March 8, 1993 issue of THE

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

Skeptic Tank!

Request: the-scientist Topic: the-scientist-930308 Subject: The March 8, 1993 issue of THE SCIENTIST Newspaper Date: 4 March 1993 THE SCIENTIST VOLUME 7, No:5 March 8, 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 *** *** MARCH 22, 1993 *** *** *** THE SCIENTIST CONTENTS PAGE (Page numbers correspond to printed edition of THE SCIENTIST) CONTENTS (Page 3 of Newspaper) RESEARCH MECCAS: When top research universities in the U.S. are compared according to total R&D expenditures, citations per paper in three fields, and Nobel Prizes in science won by their faculty, a picture of their various strengths emerges. Some are the familiar, tested names in American university-based research, but others are the younger, smaller institutions rising to new prominence. But administrators offer cautions about the potential pitfalls of such institutional rankings Page 1 of printed edition REDUNDANT PUBLISHING: As the pressure on scientists to publish grows, scientific journal editors are encountering more instances of researchers peddling the same articles--or, in some cases, pieces of articles--to more than one journal. Even editors in disciplines in which such redundant publishing has been rare are now developing policies and prevention methods to stem the tide Page 1 of printed edition ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: President Clinton's plan for restructuring the environmental agencies and advisory groups in the White House--including the elimination of some, the addition of others, and the raising of the Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level status--presents the prospect of radical changes in research approaches and priorities on the part of government scientists and grant recipients Page 1 of printed edition SEEKING SCIENTISTS: While FDA officials were pleased with congressional authorization of 600 new drug reviewers to help speed up the evaluation of promising new therapeutics, they are finding the challenge of searching for and hiring the highly qualified physicians and scientists to fill the new positions a daunting one Page 3 of printed edition NECESSARY FAILURE: Looking back over his long career as researcher, instructor, inventor, and corporate leader, 92-year- old Arnold Beckman--the venerable founder of Beckman Instruments Inc.--concludes that researchers must see occasional failure as a necessary component in their creative lives, a message originally offered in a speech given recently upon his acceptance of the prestigious Bower Award at Philadelphia's Franklin Institute Page 11 of printed edition COMMENTARY: Forty teenage finalists in this year's Westinghouse Science Talent Search have been announced, an occasion that should, according to Eugene Garfield, remind established members of the research community of the real and potential value of young minds and the need, for the next generation's sake, to support and encourage budding science skill wherever it appears Page 12 of printed edition RISK ASSESSMENT: Toxicologists and biochemists are raising questions about the validity of cancer risk assessment methods that challenge long-held assumptions Page 14 of printed edition HOT PAPERS: An environmental scientist discusses the sexual habits of female adders Page 15 of printed edition HPLC ADVANCES: Gains in the ability of high-performance liquid chromatography to precisely separate and quantify biological molecules have been tied to continued improvements in the various instruments used in the technique and the computer data-analysis systems that record and interpret their readings. (Also see Separation Products and Services Directory on page 31) Page 18 of printed edition TEAM PLAYERS: Successful scientific collaborations and group research projects are not just the product of promising research topics, but also rely heavily on the ability of a group to work well together--generally the result of enlightened leadership and researchers who sublimate their individualistic natures for a common goal Page 20 of printed edition TOXICOLOGY SALARIES: A survey reports that toxicologists' pay has been rising, prompted by increased hiring--but women researchers in the field are earning far less than their male counterparts Page 21 of printed edition FRANK PRESS, outgoing president of the National Academy of Sciences, and chemist Kary B. Mullis have been selected as winners of the 1993 Japan Prize Page 23 of printed edition NOTEBOOK Page 4 of printed edition CARTOON Page 4 of printed edition LETTERS Page 12 of printed edition CROSSWORD Page 13 of printed edition SEPARATION PRODUCTS AND SERVICES DIRECTORY Page 23 of printed edition (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ Top Academic Research Centers Boast Variety Of Strengths, Strategies (Page 1 of Newspaper) Targeted alliances and sharply focused planning as well as financial clout are factors in their high achievement BY FRANKLIN HOKE Which are the top research universities in the United States? And what makes them the best? Not surprisingly, there are no hard and fast answers to these questions. But when several indicators are compared--such as total research-and-development spending, citations per published paper, and the number of science Nobelists coming from their respective campuses--some general conclusions can be drawn, according to research administrators. One salient, if predictable, conclusion points to the strong tie between an institution's research achievement record and its financial strength and overall resources: The better-funded schools tend to rank highly in citations per paper and in the number of Nobel Prize winners who were on campus when they received their awards. Although significant correlations among high rankings according to the various criteria (see tables on pages 8 and 9) are frequently observable, certain dramatic anomalies defy the identification of absolute causal links. University officials interviewed for this article point out, for example, the high level of return possible, in terms of research excellence, from strategically focusing an academic institution's scientific efforts. Such tactics can include forming targeted alliances with neighboring research facilities or actively encouraging collaborative work between specific scientific disciplines. The University of California, Santa Cruz, is a perfect example. That institution does not appear on the list of top 100 universities when total spending for R&D is the ranking factor, according to 1991 National Science Foundation data. And it has nothing to show as far as producing Nobel-winning scientists. But when citations per paper in recent years are the consideration, as measured by the Philadelphia-based Institute for Scientific Information, it becomes clear that the institution is doing something right. By that measure, UC-Santa Cruz placed first in physical sciences and 12th in biological sciences. Many university administrators have mixed views about efforts to rank schools according to strictly quantifiable--some would say reductionist--criteria. Many see such rankings as useful indicators of research activity, but, at the same time, they warn of the ways a ranking can mask or distort important information about an institution. "You can't just rack up dollars, Nobel Prizes, and so on [to assess institutions]," says Arden Albee, dean of graduate studies at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. "But, by the same token, ratings are either done that way or by doing polls of reputation. Each is clearly subject to errors." For example, he says, a school's reputation--or a department's reputation, often the more meaningful organizational level at which to gauge an institution--can lag behind current reality significantly. "If a department has gotten lots of good new people--or lost some of its key people," Albee says, "it takes a while before the reputation catches up." Whatever the measure, Caltech's reputation is among the strongest of all U.S. research centers. The university ranked only 49th in total spending, but, in citations per paper, it ranked first in chemistry, second in biological sciences, and eighth in physical sciences. And only two other schools better Caltech's count of 11 Nobel Prizes in science. The two schools with a greater number of science Nobel Prizes than Caltech are Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.--the prohibitive leader with 24--and Rockefeller University in New York City, with 13. Interestingly, of the roughly 170 U.S. Nobel Prizes in science, 97--well over half the total--have gone to just 10 universities. But the importance of a university researcher who brings home the Nobel Prize is open to differing interpretations, too, Albee cautions. "If you look at our Nobel Prizes, for example," he says, "most of them were for work done before the person came here. To a certain extent, it means we're providing a research environment that attracts those kinds of people." It may also mean that Caltech has a good ability to identify future Nobel winners, he says. Albee says that as long as one doesn't believe that an institution that ranks No. 1 in a given ranking scheme is actually the best--if, for example, one looks instead at more general groupings, say, the first or second 10 schools--then the rankings can be instructive. Another longtime research powerhouse is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Cambridge. Fifth in overall expenditures, in citations per paper MIT ranks third in biological sciences, fifth in chemistry, and 13th in physical sciences. MIT researchers have also won seven science Nobels-- only five other universities have taken more. "Citations and Nobel Prizes are probably pretty good indicators for peer-reviewed research, which is basic in nature," says J. David Litster, vice president and dean for research at MIT. "They're not as relevant for applied research. For example, there are no Nobel Prizes in engineering. And total funding, of course, is also a useful indicator." Litster notes, however, that the share of an institution's funding that comes from federal earmarking rather than from competitive grants is an example of important information sometimes buried in a ranking. He says that such "pork barrel" funding, now totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars, hurts the research process, at both the institutional and national levels. "We try very hard not to accept funding that comes by that route," Litster says. "It's not in the country's best interests to spend its [research] money that way, and MIT probably wouldn't do as well if funds were allocated that way rather than on the basis of the quality of the research." One government official familiar with federal research spending, speaking on condition of anonymity, notes that it can be important to consider the level of Defense Department spending at a given university. "Defense funding, in general, does not lead to as many papers as civilian funding," this official says, citing the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, as examples of schools with high levels of defense funding for research. Thomas Linney, vice president of the Council of Graduate Schools in Washington, D.C., like Caltech's Albee, says that whole- institution rankings can obscure relevant organizational factors. "It occurs to me to ask whether the medical units are part of the [data]," Linney says. "In the case of the University of Maryland, for example, the medical unit [in Baltimore] is separate from the rest of the university [in College Park]. Whereas, at most private campuses, like Stanford [University in California], the medical units are indistinguishable from the graduate school." The place of medical school data in the rankings is especially important, he says, because so much current research funding is biomedical in nature. Linney also notes that campuses often have one or two specialized areas of research. Whether a particular data set does or does not include that specialty will have a significant impact on the rankings outcome. "It's a real thicket," Linney says of the effort to rank research universities, "and I don't know any good way out of it once you get into it." Even with the caveats in mind, comparisons among the indicators of total R&D spending, citation impacts in different areas, and number of Nobel Prize winners do point to the research strengths of many universities. Some are the familiar, tested names in American university-based research, but others are the younger, smaller institutions rising to new prominence. Special Strengths One of these younger, smaller research institutions apparently performing beyond its financial resources is UC-Santa Cruz. Although failing to appear in the top 100 spenders for R&D, the school ranked first in physical sciences citation impact and 12th in biological sciences. According to David Kliger, dean of natural sciences, one reason for the small university's research success is, in fact, its youth. Founded in 1965, the school still has a relatively young, active faculty, Kliger says. But also contributing to the success, he says, is a series of alliances the university formed early on with top-notch scientific facilities nearby, to establish research capacity and credibility from the start. "When the campus was formed," Kliger says, "we incorporated Lick Observatory, so they formed the core of our astronomy department. Now, we have what most people regard as one of the best astronomy departments in the world. And that's where a large number of the citations are." Astronomer James Lick formed the observatory on California's Mount Hamilton in the last century. Recently, Lick Observatory built a 10-meter optical telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, the largest such telescope in the world. UC-Santa Cruz is also strong in the area of high-energy physics research, says Kliger. "We concentrated on high-energy physics because of our proximity to SLAC [Stanford Linear Accelerator Center], so that we could take advantage of a large research facility that was close by," Kliger says. "We built up a first-string high-energy physics program, which you might not expect at a relatively small school." Similarly, UC-Santa Cruz turned its location in earthquake-prone California to advantage by creating a tectonics institute, leading to highly cited research in the earth sciences. The University of Oregon in Eugene is also not among the top 100 R&D spenders. Yet citations of papers by the university's researchers placed Oregon 10th in biological sciences and 25th in physical sciences. John T. Moseley, vice president for research at the University of Oregon, says the school's relatively small size, the high quality of its faculty, and its long-term commitment to the sciences go a long way toward explaining its research successes. But he also notes that the university's efforts to encourage cross-disciplinary interactions have led to increased research productivity. These efforts began with the Institute for Molecular Biology, now 30 years old, which he calls the school's strongest single research area. That institute occupies the third floor of the physics, chemistry, and two biology buildings, Moseley says, which are interconnected by bridges and walkways. The upshot of the arrangement is that the institute is horizontally organized, while the departments are vertically organized. Other institutes on campus have been built on the same model. "We have consciously set up a series of interdisciplinary institutes that are tightly interwoven with the departments," Moseley says. "We think it is important not to take these high- level [institute] researchers and locate them in their own building so that they're not participants in the departmental activities. And that has worked for us. It's fostered a lot of collaborations." Moseley emphasizes that construction of the buildings, the last of which was occupied in 1990, post-dates most of the high- citation research. "We didn't get the citations by building those buildings," he says. "The buildings are more a manifestation of the spirit that already existed here." Rice University in Houston ranked 13th in chemistry citations per paper, while not appearing in the top R&D spenders. Dean of graduate studies Graham Glass says the explanation tracks to a single, developed research strength. "It's buckyballs, I'm sure," Glass says. "I would tell you we've had a more productive [chemistry] department than the national funding [data] would suggest anyway, but what probably dominates the citations index would be citations in that area." Discovered by Rice researcher Richard Smalley and colleagues a half-dozen years ago, buckyballs--60-atom icosahedral molecules of carbon--have sparked enormous research interest, says Glass. "It's a very active field," he says. "And since we were in on the initial discovery, we have several groups working on more broadly based chemistry relating to it." Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., is not among the top R&D spenders, yet ranks 16th in biological sciences citations and 24th in chemistry citations. Arthur Reis is associate provost responsible for all research activities at Brandeis. He says the school's research success is partly tied to its being primarily focused on a few areas--for example, structural biology, neurobiology, and genetics and molecular biology in the biological sciences. These areas, in turn, have received solid resource commitments from the administration to back them up. Reis says Brandeis also maintains stringent standards, at the departmental level, in hiring and retaining faculty. "Sometimes we have delayed a search if we couldn't find someone we really wanted," Reis says. "And not everyone that is brought in, even though they come out first on a national search, makes it through the tenure process here." Reis suggests there are different ways to view the total R&D budget at an institution that might serve as better research indicators. "Many times, you see the national rankings based on overall dollars brought in from the federal government," Reis says. This favors the largest institutions, he says. "But if you start normalizing it, then you get a place like Brandeis, which is fairly small, has a high-quality faculty, and brings in a significant amount of research dollars per faculty member." His calculations show an R&D income of about $230,000 per faculty member, for example. "That's a lot of money, normalized over everyone, and it includes people with just a teaching appointment." ============ TOP 10 UNIVERSITIES: TOTAL R&D EXPENDITURES (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, 1991) RANK INSTITUTION AMOUNT 1 Johns Hopkins U. $710,095* 2 U. Michigan 363,582 3 U. Minnesota 331,471 4 U. Wisconsin, Madison 326,489 5 MIT 318,901** 6 Stanford U. 310,429 7 Cornell U. 309,535** 8 Texas A&M U. 288,005 9 U. Washington 274,423 10 U. California, San Francisco 268,700 * Includes Applied Physics Laboratory, with $439 million in total R&D expenditures. ** Does not include R&D expenditures at university-associated federally funded R&D centers. Source: National Science Foundation (NSF 92-329) (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) -------- TOP 10 UNIVERSITIES: BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES (CITATION ANALYSIS, SEPT. 1987-AUG. 1990) RANK INSTITUTION NUMBER TOTAL CITATIONS OF PAPERS CITATIONS PER PAPER 1 Rockefeller U. 1,646 13,094 7.96 2 Caltech 837 6,450 7.71 3 MIT 2,025 14,246 7.04 4 Stanford U. 3,962 24,539 6.19 5 Princeton U. 612 3,713 6.07 6 U. California, Berkeley 2,353 14,025 5.96 7 Harvard U. 10,610 59,557 5.61 8 U. California, San Francisco 5,908 29,838 5.05 9 U. California, San Diego 3,824 17,566 4.59 10 U. Oregon 378 1,731 4.58 Source: ScienceWatch, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ------------ TOP 10 UNIVERSITIES: CHEMISTRY (CITATION ANALYSIS, 1984-91) RANK INSTITUTION NUMBER TOTAL CITATIONS OF PAPERS CITATIONS PER PAPER 1 Caltech 873 16, 101 18.44 2 Harvard U. 856 15, 035 17.56 3 U. Chicago 729 11, 709 16.06 4 U. California, Santa Barbara 691 10, 519 15.22 5 MIT 1,415 21, 405 15.13 6 U. Colorado, Boulder 698 10,373 14.86 7 Yale U. 732 10,809 14.77 8 Stanford U. 952 14,049 14.76 9 U. N.Carolina, Chapel Hill 722 10, 648 14.75 10 Northwestern U. 871 12, 328 14.15 Source: ScienceWatch, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ----------- TOP 10 UNIVERSITIES: PHYSICAL SCIENCES (CITATION ANALYSIS, Sept. 1987-Aug. 1990) RANK INSTITUTION NUMBER TOTAL CITATIONS OF PAPERS CITATIONS PER PAPER 1 U. California, Santa Cruz 547 2,495 4.56 2 Harvard U. 2,253 9,479 4.21 3 Princeton U. 1,933 7,273 3.76 4 U. Chicago 1,327 4,959 3.74 5 U. California, Santa Barbara 1,522 5,438 3.57 6 Yale U. 1,177 3,940 3.35 7 Boston U. 561 1,848 3.29 8 Caltech 3,121 10,224 3.28 9 Stanford U. 2,887 9,445 3.27 10 U. Houston 892 2,757 3.09 Source: ScienceWatch, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ------------ TOP 10 UNIVERSITIES: U.S. NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS (IN RESIDENCE AT TIME OF AWARD) RANK INSTITUTION NUMBER OF LAUREATES 1 Harvard U. 24 2 Rockefeller U. 13 3 Caltech 11 4 U. California, Berkeley 10 5 Stanford U. 9 6 Columbia U. 7 - MIT 7 7 Cornell U. 6 - U. Chicago 6 8 Princeton U. 4 Source: ScienceWatch, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ Vigilant Science Journal Editors Fight Redundancy (Page 1 of Newspaper) They strive to ward off authors who rehash findings in order to rack up lengthy lists of publishing credits BY PAUL MC CARTHY In today's competitive job market, some scientists may be tempted to add heft to their c.v.'s by stretching their research a little, engaging in practices referred to by journal editors as redundant publication. Redundancy--attempts to get two or more articles out of the research for one--has always existed in some form or other, editors say. But, spurred by speculation that the pressure to publish is causing the problem to escalate, they are becoming more adept at spotting redundancy, and they are calling investigators on the carpet when they uncover it. Yet what constitutes a transgression is not always clear, so one editor's redundancy may be another's acceptable article. This suggests to some authors that redundancy is in the eye of the beholder, which makes it tempting to submit suspect papers for publication, in the hope that they may be deemed acceptable by the editor in question. "Anyone who is a serious scientist complains about this problem," says Jiri Janata, associate director of the Molecular Science Research Center at the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Richland, Wash. Journal editors say redundancy comes in various forms. The most blatant is duplicate publication, sometimes called self- plagiarism, which is word-for-word publishing of an article for the second time. Slight variations on that theme include changing the text but not the tables; changing the first author and title but not the remainder of the paper; and, in the view of some editors, publishing findings in a letter to the editor prior to publishing essentially the same findings in a paper. Then there are scientists who want to publish the same paper twice but in journals aimed at different disciplines, arguing that the disparate audiences need the information, but don't read across specialties. Most editors frown on this practice. There is also a phenomenon that editors call "salami science." This refers to cases in which scientists slice and dice the same data for multiple publications. In such instances, judgment calls as to what's acceptable occur on both the editors' and researchers' sides of the editorial desk. Editors find themselves asking: Is this a contribution to the literature, or should two or more slices be combined into a more satisfying piece? For example, Jerold Lucey, editor of Pediatrics, describes how a researcher might try to turn one paper into three. "You report on how many babies survived, then how many survived one month, and then you write up the long-term results," he says. Another judgment call is whether a large enough piece of salami has appeared elsewhere that further publication would result in overlapping papers. But even if the slice is not redundant, it often carries a negative connotation in editors' minds, because it implies that the investigator has merely done just enough work to warrant publication. The same can often be said of the least publishable unit (LPU), the smallest piece of research a scientist can prevail upon an editor to accept. Such a paper may or may not be considered redundant or a piece of salami. The size of an LPU is a fuzzy concept--it's certainly smaller than a monograph, but larger than whatever an editor thinks is too small. Its size varies from field to field and journal to journal, so that editorial acceptability will depend on both tradition and the extent to which it is viewed as a contribution. "There are people who have made their careers writing two-paragraph papers," says Robert Malina, editor of the American Journal of Biology. With that said, no one knows how much redundancy is out there. Some editors feel there is a lot, and they editorialize about it periodically. On the other hand, editors in other disciplines say they don't see that much, and, judging from the results of computer searches of the literature, they don't write about it, either. Even so, ask any editor about redundancy and he or she will tell you it's a bad thing. Why? Editor P.W. Hodge at the Astronomical Journal says that with the explosion of scientific knowledge has come a tremendous financial pressure on professional publications. More papers are submitted, he says, at the same time as the monetary investment in reviewers, editors, and production has sky- rocketed. "We just can't afford the resources, the time, and the cost of redundancy," says Hodge. At the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), deputy editor Drummond Rennie notes that scientists sign over their copyrights to journals when they publish, so if they publish twice in two different journals, there's a legal problem. Redundant work also displaces original work from other researchers, which Rennie says irks him. What's more, redundancy distorts the literature and the reward system of science, essentially allowing a researcher to claim authorship of multiple papers when only one set of work has been done, says Marcia Angell, associate editor at the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Redundancy not only erodes the significance of a long publication list, says Angell, but also "can lead a reader to undervalue work if it's fragmented into many small pieces." The extent of the problem hasn't been studied in depth. But Battelle's Janata has come up with some findings that disturb him. He first stumbled on redundancy several years ago when writing a review of the literature in his field, chemical sensors, and says it's becoming a more frequent occurrence. A number of research groups, says Janata, "would publish the same article five times in different journals in only a slightly modified form." Of the 15 papers NEJM considers for publication every Thursday, usually two are redundant, Angell says. And chemist Sharon Boot, chairwoman of the editorial policy committee at the Council of Biology Editors in Chicago, says that when she worked at the American Chemical Society the problem came up often. Physics isn't immune, either. At the Journal of Applied Physics, editor Steven Rothman says, "A lot more gets by than we catch." On the other hand, Bernard Shiffman at the American Journal of Mathematics considers it a minor problem and says that's probably because a mathematician "can publish one paper a year and be the top person in his field." Nels Lersten, editor of the American Journal of Botany, doesn't see much redundancy, either, while Hodge at the Astronomical Journal says, "We occasionally have cases." Biomedical editors appear to see more redundancy and give it more attention (see story on page 7). The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, for example, which represents more than 400 journals and has its secretariat at the Annals of Internal Medicine in Philadelphia, has publicly opposed redundancy. And since 1990 the National Library of Medicine has used a separate subject heading, "duplicate publication," to index articles that discuss redundancy, while in 1991 seven pediatric journal editors formed a consortium to trade information about it. Editors' means of identifying and rectifying the problem vary. At Analytical Chemistry, editor Royce Murray is sensitive to the issue, and relies mainly on his reviewers to spot it. "The system strives to be perfect," he says, "but is humanly imperfect." Lersten of the American Journal of Botany says, "To be on top of it you have to be following the work of a specific investigator." Henry Cowell, who edits the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), has some ideas about prevention. Redundancy is an important concern for him and his 400 peer reviewers. So each of the 1,000 or so manuscripts that come in annually is first scanned by an editorial assistant, who looks for similarities with anything already published by JBJS. Then peer reviewers are told to comment on whether the paper "is even close to something that has been published before," says Cowell. Finally, during the editorial process, the manuscript is checked against various reference sources. Still, "we don't catch it [redundancy] 100 percent of the time," says Cowell. Even when they do catch it, editors deal with it differently. Malina, at the American Journal of Biology, just went through two months of haggling with lawyers, publishers, and authors to settle an ordeal in which "virtually the same paper" published by his journal was published at Maturitas. Although the authors claimed oversight, they "had to write a letter to the other journal retracting the article," says Malina. At the Journal of Applied Physics, on the other hand, Rothman says the strongest thing he does is write a letter saying, "Don't do this anymore." When a duplicate recently surfaced in an electronics letters journal, he asked for an apology from the author, "and we published [the apology]," says Rothman. Miscreants can expect some fatherly advice at Analytical Chemistry. Murray will write "a special letter," but he tends to view the problem more as part of the learning process for young academics and will tell them that redundancy enhances neither their own reputation nor the journal's, "and I hope I never see this again," he says. More hard-nosed editors will refuse future submissions from past transgressors, or at least look on them with a jaundiced eye. Cowell at JBJS won't spurn submissions, but in the case of self- plagiarism will tell the researcher to discuss it with his or her department head and have the head contact him. "I'll write him [the department head], if he doesn't call me," says Cowell. Angell favors exploring all the circumstances. She will call the scientist and check with the other journal's editor. If NEJM has intentionally been burnt, "we want to make our readers aware of it," she says. She will write a tough editorial and permit the researchers to give their side in the "Letters" column. And they do, because redundancy often has two sides. Take the LPU. Many scientists argue that slicing and dicing of a database is just science. William Benditt, a cardiac surgeon at the University of Minnesota Medical School, would go even further. He says that the LPU is a nebulous term and if editors don't want them submitted, they will have to better define what they do want. Benditt says that it's easier to define an LPU retrospectively than prospectively and that most researchers just publish at the point when they have found something interesting. He can look back over five years, he says, and say a particular paper shouldn't have been published, but he can't see that at the time. "There are no sign posts in research," says Benditt, "to tell you how far you've come." Psychologist Roberto Refinetti of the Williamsburg, Va.-based College of William and Mary, writing in the FASEB Journal, says he is also unsure about how the LPU is defined. He praises it because it provides rapid dissemination of findings, aids in data management, stimulates integration of findings, and furnishes a measure of a scientist's productivity. Even so, he acknowledges that he's never thought about how long or short his ideal LPU should be. "I go entirely by tradition," he says. Although editorial hackles usually rise when discussing the LPU, unlikely support for it comes from Analytical Chemistry's Murray. His own metaphor, born of editorial license, defines it as "sort of intellectual bite sizes that should go into papers," he says. As fuzzy as the LPU may be, so is the cause of redundancy itself. There is no shortage of editors who point to the publish-or- perish dictum, but there are other factors, as well. Battelle's Janata indicts publishers themselves. They put on conferences, he says, inviting people who have published important papers. The same papers are then published again as proceedings or in special journal issues, he says. Max Hecht, editor of Evolutionary Biology, also blames the publishers. As the number of journals increases, he argues, researchers are pushed toward redundancy. "They want to be noticed," he says, "and there is so much out there, the only way is to repeat it." At JAMA, Rennie is less charitable. "I think people are just slack. They want to inflate their bibliographies," he says. The proposed remedies are as varied as the causes. Janata has suggested that a computer subject-and-author search should be done for every manuscript. When violators are discovered, their names should be publicized. NEJM's Angell, along with several other editors, supports limiting the number of publications a scientist can use for promotion, tenure, and funding. This guideline exists at Harvard University, but so far has no teeth in it, she says. Janata suggests that publishers stop issuing redundant proceedings from conferences, or attach the disclaimer "that they have not been refereed." Hecht, however, thinks the situation will resolve itself. Much redundancy, he argues, is due to the proliferation of journals, but university libraries, their main subscribers, can no longer afford them and are canceling their subscriptions. He expects many journals to fold, which will eliminate much of the temptation to publish redundantly. "The market should solve the problem," says Hecht, "in three to four years." Paul McCarthy is a freelance writer based in Honolulu, Hawaii. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ REDUNDANCY IN BIOMEDICINE (Page 7 of Newspaper) Biomedical editors appear to have taken more steps to combat redundancy, are more vociferous in their denunciations of it, and, not surprisingly, seem to write more about it than their counterparts in other fields. So is there something different about biomedical research that contributes to the problem of redundancy? Max Hecht, editor of Evolutionary Biology, thinks so. He says there is a lot more money involved in biomedicine than in biology and it's "an industry, not a science." He feels it's more competitive than biology and that researchers can't get funded by the National Institutes of Health "unless they are out there writing." This increases redundancy, he says. The impressions of Robert Malina, editor of the American Journal of Biology, and P.W. Hodge, editor of the Astronomical Journal, support Hecht's. They view their own fields as more relaxed, less money-driven, and having fewer publishing demands than biomedical research. Malina points to a cycle in which biomedical scientists continually scramble for larger amounts of money and publish more papers than do their counterparts in other fields. They have to publish to get funded, to report on their funded research, and to get future funding as they go from one grant to the next, Malina says. Hodge adds that the amount of money in astronomy is small in comparison to biomedicine and "the pressure to publish is less onerous." Another ingredient in the mix is financial gain, says Jiri Janata, associate director of the Molecular Science Research Center at the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Richland, Wash. Speaking from the perspective of his specialty, chemical sensors, Janata argues that redundancy is linked to the degree to which an area of research has direct application. He thinks much of biomedical research has this monetary incentive, in which procedures and products can go quickly to the marketplace, unlike "the more basic sciences." Chemist Sharon Boot of the Council of Biology Editors (CBE) says that in a survey done by CBE in 1991, "redundant publication was identified most often as a problem editors faced." But she says that at the American Chemical Society (ACS), where she worked for four years, "although they had a comprehensive set of guidelines, they felt that redundancy was not as much of a burning issue in the physical sciences as in the biomedical arena." Charlie Bertsch, head of the journals department at ACS, says that the society is indeed cognizant of the problem: "Our editors would be concerned if they were aware of it and wouldn't publish [a redundant paper]." Boot feels that since most ACS editors don't write editorials, they don't have an opportunity to air the problem on a regular basis in their own publication. She adds, however, that it does come up at CBE meetings, but when CBE opened up its membership to virtually all scientific disciplines in the 1980s, few editors from the physical sciences joined, thus isolating themselves from such discussions. As for only biomedicine being an industry, Boot says that when she was finishing her Ph.D. in chemistry at Stanford University, the No. 1 goal was getting research grants to support students. "I don't see [chemistry] as any different from biomedicine," says Boot. Coming to the defense of biomedicine is David Benditt of the University of Minnesota Medical School. Although he agrees biomedicine is more of an industry than some disciplines, he's never felt pressured to publish and says that the people he knows "just like to publish." They enjoy being on the cutting edge, he says, and contributing to the field. If biomedical scientists stand out in any way, speculates Benditt, it may be that the health sciences attract people who are more outgoing, "so getting things out there is more akin to our personalities." --P.M. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ CLARIFICATION (Page 7 of Newspaper) The article "Underfunded Canadian Scientists Migrating Southward" (The Scientist, Jan. 25, 1993, page 14) stated that John Polanyi is "one of Canada's two Nobelists." In actuality, Polanyi is one of the two living Canadian Nobelists. Another Nobel Prize, this one in physiology or medicine, was awarded in 1923 to Sir Frederick Grant Banting and John McLeod of Toronto University, both of whom are now deceased, for the discovery of insulin. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ Clinton Plan Could Have Major Impact On Environmental Research Priorities (Page 1 of Newspaper) BY RON KAUFMAN Policy watchers say President Bill Clinton's proposed restructuring of the environmental advisory groups within the White House and other proposed changes could alter not only the arrangement of how the government oversees environmental research and development, but also the thematic approaches to this type of R&D. They say researchers may find themselves working with a whole new set of priorities. During the presidential campaign, candidate Clinton spoke of a "new covenant for environmental progress," emphasizing a commitment to enacting strong environmental protection programs. Last month, the president declared he was taking his first steps toward that goal by dismantling the 24-year old Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), establishing a new White House Office on Environmental Policy (OEP), and announcing a dedication to elevating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Cabinet. Clinton's commitment to putting EPA into the Cabinet suggests he may support, instead, the creation of a Department of the Environment (USDE). Legislation for such a move, which the Senate passed last year but was then stalled in a House committee, was reintroduced last month by Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio). The bill (S.171) would construct a new Cabinet-level department and also includes plans for a Bureau of Environmental Statistics, a United States-sponsored international energy conference, and a Commission on Improving Environmental Protection. "I think the Glenn bill is a logical first step in what will be an evolving new department," says Douglas Costle, former staff director for the Ash Council, which drafted the organizational plans and lobbied for the creation of the EPA in 1969-70. "This is the first step to creating significant changes in the intellectual focus of our mission. Researchers could be influenced with newly redefined priorities and reshaped future agendas," he says. "When you change the institution, you change the institutional perspective." Costle says the time has come to redesign the government's environmental institutional base. "EPA was originally formed to principally deal with pollution," he says, "but command and control regulation is a limited tool. You need to be engaged in the longer-term strategic planning. Our new mission should be to influence the nature of technology in the next century so it embodies environmental awareness." During Clinton's February 8 reorganization announcement, the president characterized the changes as "moving in a new direction" and "streamlining" the government. "We face urgent environmental and economic challenges that demand a new way of thinking and a new way of organizing our efforts," he said. Clinton's announcement closely followed the release of two reports advocating a reorganization of the federal agencies responsible for environmental R&D. The reports were published by the New York-based Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government and the National Commission on the Environment, a division of the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) of Washington, D.C. Members of both commissions say the two reports have received a respectable amount of "quiet approval" in Congress. Along with supporting all the components of the Glenn EPA elevation bill, the studies suggest that the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) be taken out of their respective agencies, the Department of Commerce and Department of Interior, and combined into one monitoring bureau in USDE. Also, the reports propose the creation of advisory panels to establish broad-based, national policy objectives concerning the direction of environmental R&D research, called the Office of En- vironmental Quality in the Carnegie report and the National Environmental Strategy by WWF. "A restructuring of this sort will affect researchers in at least two ways," says Gilbert White, a member of the task force that produced the Carnegie report, entitled "Environmental Research and Development: Strengthening the Federal Infrastructure." "First," says White, a professor, emeritus, at the Institute of Behavioral Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, "it would mean that researchers working for the government or receiving federal funds would have a much more comprehensive set of priorities guiding their research activities. And second, this would be a way of facilitating greater cooperation between branches of the government." Mark Schaefer, senior staff associate of the Carnegie task force, says a federal reorganization would have its largest impact on government researchers. "I think, regardless of what department or agency an individual works in," he says, "if these recommendations were implemented and greater efforts were made from the White House to clearly articulate the directions our R&D programs are to be moving, then scientists in the field will be given a much better idea as to the purpose of their research and have an opportunity to direct their work towards some well-defined, long-term objectives." Schaefer says the report proposes tying the various elements of the federal R&D system together, in contrast to the current method, which he describes as "a bunch of discrete parts that operate independent of each other." Clinton's announcement of the elimination of CEQ and the creation of OEP--15 staffers who will coordinate the administration's environmental policy--was applauded by some environmentalists in the popular press, but lambasted by others. The influence of CEQ, organized by Congress in 1969 to advise the president and implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), has diminished in recent years. Former President Ronald Reagan cut CEQ's staff from 60 to 16, and the Bush administration virtually ignored the group, instead heeding Vice President Dan Quayle's Council on Economic Competitiveness. Roger McManus, a botanist and president of the Washington, D.C.- based Center for Marine Conservation, says if Congress agrees to abolish CEQ, the Clinton administration would have no mechanism to enforce NEPA regulations, which require federal agencies to compile environmental impact statements for public release. "I think this decision [to eliminate CEQ] was made on the fly," McManus says. "NEPA helps ensure that the government is honest. Many scientists and researchers who have connections with public policy have been able to review the govern-ment's actions [through the environmental impact statements] in some detail and critically examine both the policy issues involved and the science that's behind it. Without an effective NEPA, scientists would have no legal basis for providing comments." (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ FDA Launches Difficult Search For Recently Authorized Drug Reviewers (Page 3 of Newspaper) BY RENEE TWOMBLY United States Food and Drug Administration officials were, understandably, pleased late last year when Congress authorized the agency to hire 600 new drug reviewers. Additional staff, FDA officials contended at the time, would be bound to reduce-- perhaps by as much as half--the time required for pharmaceuticals to move through the agency's review process and, thus, make great inroads in relieving FDA's long-criticized "biotech bottleneck." Now, however, the edge of optimism among the officials has been dulled a bit, as they realize that they may have some trouble finding and hiring the right scientists to fill those 600 open positions. Attracting the new reviewers, who will be financed through user fees levied on pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, will be difficult, they say. For one thing, no new employment incentives are being offered. In addition, there are the usual drawbacks of goverment and FDA employment: the bureaucratic red tape involved in getting a federal job, the enormous load of paperwork reviewers must deal with, and the low pay offered to qualified candidates. Nonetheless, FDA officials say, they are aggressively scouring academia, medical research facilities, and industry in search of scientists and physicians with the necessary credentials, including a less-tangible qualification--a commitment to public service. "You visit universities, you contact people, you network," says Gerald Meyer, deputy director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), which will employ half the new reviewers. "You be as aggressive as you can, and you tell them public service is worth the sacrifice." Many of those people are self-selecting, adds Mary Jo Veverka, FDA's senior adviser for management and systems. "Everyone knows that FDA is buried in paper, but there is a real sense of mission and commitment and value that is being given to the patient," she says. "It's an exciting time to be at the agency, but you wouldn't stay without that commitment." The new reviewers will be phased in over a three-year period after a statute is passed this spring that allows FDA to collect user fees from pharmaceutical companies to review their drug applications. The enabling legislation, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, a joint effort of FDA and the drug industry, was approved last fall; only a minor statute that details the way the funds are collected remains to be approved early in this congressional year. The statute is regarded by FDA as housekeeping, sure to win passage. The estimated $330 million that will then be collected over five years from the fees will help FDA speed up the drug review process; in fact, agency officials have promised by 1997 to cut review time from an average 23 months to 11 months. Higher- priority drugs will take half that time. That is, of course, if the FDA can attract the staff it needs. The job description calls for reviewers to have experience in a variety of medical and scientific disciplines and to be familiar with the conduct of scientific research and procedures in the medical community. All will be charged with reviewing clinical and laboratory data and rendering expert judgment on the safety and efficacy of new pharmaceuticals. They will be almost equally split between CDER and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the agency's two reviewing arms, both in Gaithersburg, Md. The needs for CDER and CBER have recently been defined, based on the agency's current backlog and its present and future application load. CDER, which already has more than 1,400 reviewers, wants to hire 40 physicians, 22 pharmacologists, three pharmacists, 25 consumer safety officers, 36 chemists, 11 statisticians, and numerous technical and administrative support personnel. CBER is smaller, but it is growing faster than CDER, and so it needs just as many new reviewers of about the same mix. Hardest to find will be physicians, who are often highly paid in the private sector, and chemists, who often make $20,000 more a year in industry, says CDER deputy director Meyer. But FDA's tough work also is its drawing card, he says. "I find we appeal because we offer the best training in the world. Reviewing potential drugs can be one of the most extraordinary, demanding jobs these people can have," says Meyer. Agency officials say they expect to find these people among the ranks of the newer doctoral graduates, hungry for an interesting job, and older professionals, who seek new challenges. As an example of the latter, FDA officials point to physician- scientists like Roger Williams. An M.D. and a professor of pharmacology and medicine, Williams left the University of California at San Francisco in October 1990 to come to suburban Maryland and work for FDA. He was 50, and he took a sizable slice in pay. But he says he has never been happier. "I really have loved every minute," says Williams, director of FDA's generic drugs division. "I was financially secure and felt it was time to give something back. My reward has been a tremendous feeling of challenge and accomplishment." Renee Twombly is freelance writer based in Durham, N.C. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ NOTEBOOK (Page 4 of Newspaper) ALL FOR ONE The Industrial Biotechnology Association, meeting in Naples, Fla., last week, voted unanimously to merge with the Association of Biotechnology Companies to form a new group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization. According to Carl Feldbaum, the newly appointed president of BIO (Barbara Spector, The Scientist, Feb. 22, 1993, page 1), IBA's board first voted unanimously for the merger. Later in the meeting, ABC's board, also meeting in Naples, voted unanimously in favor of merging, as well. The "ayes" had it again--unanimously--when IBA's membership voted on the issue. What remains is a vote by ABC's membership, which will take place at the group's annual meeting next month. "I, frankly, didn't expect [a unanimous vote]," says Feldbaum, a former aide to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) "I've gone through many votes in my life, and very few were unanimous." THE LATEST CONTROVERSIAL PUBLICATION In other biotechnology news, Vol. II, Issue 1 of Your World, Our World, the Pennsylvania Biotechnology Association's magazine for junior high school students, is generating some controversy in Catholic schools because of its last page, which discusses genetic counseling and its consequences. A sentence on the page, in a section intended to stimulate discussion, reads: "If you knew you were pregnant with an afflicted child, would you want to have the baby?" Says association executive director Jeff Davidson, "We've had comments from some schools that yes, this is a helpful way to get the discussion going, but some Catholic- school teachers have said, `I had to rip off the back page.' We're not trying to be controversial; [the intent was] to ask open-ended questions and just raise the issue." Some students have responded quite positively to the magazine, Davidson says: "We got a letter from a ninth-grader who said she wanted to be a genetic counselor." THE EARS HAVE IT The Deafness Research Foundation is taking applications for 1994 grant support of up to $15,000 for research projects directed to any aspect of the ear, including investigation of function, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, or pathology. The one-year grants, limited to tax-exempt institutions in the United States or Canada, can be competitively renewed for one or two additional years. First-year applications are due July 15; renewal applications must be postmarked by August 15. For more information, contact Wesley H. Bradley, Medical Director, The Deafness Foundation, 9 E. 38th St., New York, N.Y. 10016; (212) 684-6556, Fax: (212) 779-2125. DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM While hardly advocating violent overthrow of the current regime, a group of Houston-based volunteers calling themselves Space Station Freedom Fighters say they are determined to save the space station from the budget-cutting clutches of unfriendly members of Congress. Begun with a small rally in Houston last summer, the grass-roots effort claims to have collected more than 10,000 signatures from 48 states on a petition aimed at convincing Congress to continue funding for the orbiting laboratory. The group has no formal organization or network, and the volunteers are from all walks of life--although a number of the organizers are part of the space station team. "I'm a Freedom fighter because I want my four children to have something to look forward to," says Dave Majchrowicz, an aerospace engineer with one of the Freedom contractors. "I'm doing this mainly for children because they will gain the most from space station Freedom in the next century." Blank copies of the petition can be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to Space Station Freedom Fighters, 16582 Space Center Blvd., Houston, Texas 77058. CONSTELLATION CONVENTION Stargazers of all sorts will converge on San Diego this summer for Universe '93, a national astronomy exposition and fair to be held July 10 and 11 in the Aztec Center at San Diego State University. Jointly sponsored by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and ASTRONOMY magazine, the program will include nontechnical talks by noted professional and amateur astronomers, including astronaut Sally Ride; panels and workshops for beginners; an interactive solar system walk; and exhibits showcasing the latest in astronomical books, telescopes, computer software, and more. For information, write Summer Expo, ASP, 390 Ashton Ave., San Francisco, Calif. 94112; or call (415) 337-1100. Fax: (415) 337-5205. SCIENCE PREDICTORS As of February 1, at least 14,000 pairs of eyes have been peering into the future, according to the Washington, D.C.-based National Science Teachers Association. The beginning of last month was the entry deadline for the Toshiba/NSTA ExploraVision Awards program, the association's largest science competition. According to NSTA, approximately 14,000 students in grades K-12, working in teams of four with a teacher adviser, submitted nearly 3,500 entries in the competition to predict technologies that could exist 20 years from now. The students have put their visions of the future on storyboards, with an accompanying script. By mid-March, judging panels will select 48 regional winning teams, who will each be given $500 to videotape a presentation based on their storyboards. Based on the videos, 12 national finalist teams will be selected in early May. Four of the finalist teams will be declared national winners at an awards ceremony in Washington in June, and each student on those teams will receive a $10,000 savings bond. Each student on the eight runner-up teams will receive a $5,000 savings bond. All participants will receive certificates and gifts. For more information, contact ExploraVision program manager Pamela Riley at (202) 328-5800. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ OPINION Scientific Progress Requires Risk-Taking And Failure (Page 11 of Newspaper) Editor's Note: World-renowned instrument maker Arnold Beckman, born in 1900, received his master's degree in physical chemistry from the University of Illinois--his home state--in 1923, after which he joined what was then Bell Electric Engineering (now AT&T Bell Laboratories). After two years, he left that company and, with his young wife, traveled to Pasadena, Calif., to take his Ph.D. in photochemistry at the California Institute of Technology and, afterward, a faculty spot at that institution. His long career in instrumentation development was launched in 1934, when he discovered principles leading to his invention of the first precise and sensitive pH meter. That invention, along with his subsequent creation of the spectrophotometer, revolutionized the research environment of the 20th- century chemical laboratory. Today, more than 50 years after the creation of his company-- Beckman Instruments Inc., based in Fullerton, Calif.--he enjoys an international reputation not only as the master innovator in the world of instrumentation, but also as a philanthropist of extraordinary vision and largess. Among the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation's many donations: $50 million to Caltech for interdisciplinary research in biology and chemistry, and $40 million to his other alma mater, the University of Illinois, to study the relationship between computers and the human brain. This past January, the 92-year-old Beckman was on hand at Philadelphia's Franklin Institute to receive the Bower Award for Business Leadership, presented by the institute to honor Benjamin Franklin's scientific, entrepreneurial, and humanitarian genius. At the award presentation, Beckman was cited "for combining scientific discovery, innovation, and business leadership, and for his philanthropies to ensure the future of privately supported scientific R&D." Following is an edited version of his remarks upon accepting the award. BY ARNOLD O. BECKMAN This citation mentions creative business leadership and philanthropic support of research. These items should be viewed in proper perspective. Philanthropic support of research does not necessarily connote praiseworthy generosity on my part. If the funds I spend on philanthropy were not so spent, the IRS would grab them and they would ultimately be spent by the government. Well, I am conceited enough to think that I can do a better job. The item of industrial leadership is a bit more complicated. One can conceive a business leader as a boss who prepares an organization chart and puts his name at the top. The big boss issues orders that trickle down finally to the persons who actually do the jobs. Well, I am not that kind of leader. I recall the story of an army general who became separated from his troops in unfamiliar territory. He was lost, and asked a native if he knew of any troops in the area. "I need to find out where they are so I can catch up with them," he said. "That is important, for I am their leader." That, in a way, typifies my leadership style, if indeed I have one. My management efforts are directed mainly at finding the best available recruits, persons who are not only well qualified by education and experience, but who also have demonstrated high levels of innovation and enthusiasm. Once they are aboard, after discussion of the company's goals and objectives, I back away, allowing the individual to do his job his way. A bit of advice occasionally, of course, and a pat on the back from time to time, to bolster enthusiasm, especially after a failure. Leaders who have the vision to recognize a possibly worthwhile new idea and have the courage to pursue it must expect to encounter failures. Until Beckman Instruments became so large as to make the practice impractical, I used to talk to the employees, urging them to take risks and not be afraid of making mistakes. "If you're not making mistakes, you probably aren't accomplishing very much," I would say. The Franklin Institute is special to me because Ben Franklin and I have something in common: We both liked to fly kites. Franklin's famous kite-flying episode was hardly a stunt. It was a serious piece of research that contributed to man's knowledge of electricity. It led to Franklin's invention of the lightning rod and to his subsequent election as a member of the prestigious Royal Society of Sciences of London. He was one of America's earliest scientists--a one-man R&D department. I found that launching a business or new product is a lot like flying a kite: Your idea is held together by a flimsy framework. You put it out at the end of a string of hope, while you run like hell. Tattered rags hang on to your tail. And only when the wind is blowing just right do you experience the thrill of flight and success. I have experienced the distress of failure many times and survived. Failures can provide valuable lessons. By taking risks one makes progress. I was never averse to taking risks. As an assistant professor at Caltech, I faced a collective sponge of bright young student minds--an exhilarating experience. I shared my knowledge with them, but I got back something quite unexpected--a career in the instrument business. As some of you may know, a classmate, Glen Joseph, working for a local fruit growers association, approached me at Caltech for help in measuring the acidity of lemon juice that had been heavily dosed with sulfur dioxide. My chemistry background and the smattering of electronic knowledge acquired at Bell Labs led to the invention of the Beckman glass electrode pH meter. With it Dr. Joseph processed his lemon juice, and I launched what became a billion-dollar-a-year business. These and other experiences taught me a lesson: Take risks, cross-train--and when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Active research and development programs leading to new discoveries are essential for the growth and continuing visibility of any company that hopes to remain competitive in today's global economy. Unfortunately, scientific discovery, once the pride of our nation, is now relegated to the back pages of the dailies. R&D is a line item of suspect and minor interest in many company financial statements. How do we rekindle the flame of discovery? First, our government must encourage private-sector R&D. Look at Japan. There, government aids business. Here in the United States, government apathy is greatly responsible for holding us back. As a group, scientists must ask President Clinton's administration to not allow social concepts to inhibit broad- scale research. Give today's scientists the nutrients and the nurturing and they will grow a crop of advancements to rival the seven wonders of the world. Public opinion establishes public policy. If people understood more about science and how it can solve many of our problems, they would have a greater interest in supporting it. We need to get the public excited about the potential of science. But what is most important is introducing fresh young minds to the excitement of science. The U.S. needs to nurture early scientific education. Let elementary and secondary schoolchildren experience the thrills of experimentation. Today's children need fewer electronic games and more eclectic imagination. In other words, less Nintendo and more Newton. Ben Franklin stated in the 1746 Poor Richard's Almanac: "Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time; for that's the stuff life is made of." What am I doing with my time, personally? Well, I keep flying kites, testing the scientific winds by way of the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation. Through the foundation, I am supporting research at top institutions throughout the world. The money gathered in my lifetime is going to help others fly kites. If you want to encourage R&D in your organizations, take a tip from old Ben Franklin: Tell everyone to go fly a kite. The results may very well be spectacular. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ COMMENTARY by Eugene Garfield (Page 12 of Newspaper) A Pat On The Back For Westinghouse Finalists--And For The Talent Search Sponsors, As Well As this issue was going to press, 40 remarkable American teenagers--finalists in the 52nd annual Westinghouse Science Talent Search--were on their way to Washington, D.C., to find out who among them was to be declared winner of this year's competition. All of the finalists, of course, are winners in a sense: Their research projects were selected as especially meritorious among 1,600 entries submitted from throughout the United States--and all finalists will share in the $204,000 college scholarship funds distributed by Westinghouse Electric Corp. in partnership with Science Service, publisher of Science News. For a number of personal reasons, I eagerly look forward each year to scanning the list of finalists. For one, I've been tracking the activities of Science Service--and have been a reader of Science News--for more than 40 years, ever since I first met Watson Davis, a pioneer in the field of scientific documentation and the founder of Science Service. Also, a certain amount of academic chauvinism heightens my interest in the list: This year, I was pleased to see that two of the finalists--Martin Fisch and Erwin Lin--are students at New York City's Stuyvesant High School, a school I attended as a teenager. Over the years, youngsters from Stuyvesant have frequently been among the finalists--and I've always felt pride in that. (Incidentally, Martin's Westinghouse project addresses "Undocumented Complex Social Relations in Captive Theropithecus gelada," while Erwin's project is titled "Loop Two Amino Acids Important for Ability of P-glycoprotein to Confer Multidrug Resistance." Not bad for 17-year-olds!) Moreover, I take particular pleasure as a parent in being reminded of the Westinghouse competition's durability over time. My eight-year-old son, Alexander, like thousands of other second- graders around the U.S., is already studying science in his classroom. It's gratifying for me to know that my child's intellect and imagination are being sensitized at this early age to the great beauty and mysteries of nature. As time passes, Alexander's fascination with science may well deepen; in a few years, he could find himself harboring, as I did as a teenager, professional aspirations toward the world of research. The Westinghouse program's very existence stands as a clear sign for our inspired youngsters--my son and other boys and girls, as well--that the U.S. science establishment does indeed value their fledgling endeavors and has the wherewithal to feed their hunger for encouragement. In a previous essay (The Scientist, Jan. 11, 1993, page 12), I remarked that all of us in the science community owe the future generation of scientists our commitment to mentor and counsel them and to provide wherever possible as much material support as we can. And in the Opinion section of this issue (page 11), the eminent inventor, businessman, and philanthropist Arnold Beckman expresses the view, consistent with my own, that a helping hand here, a pat on the back there, can do wonders to fan the flame of young genius. A few weeks ago, after receiving the roster of this year's Westinghouse finalists, I directed our circulation department to put all of these budding researchers on the publication's complimentary subscription list. I like to think of this as my way not only of rewarding them for their fine work, but also of reinforcing their sense of legitimate membership in the science community. I hope that reading The Scientist--and discussing it with their classmates, teachers, and families--will enrich their understanding of how research professionals really lead their lives. I trust that the publication will help alert these young people to the wide variety of issues that will surely continue to shape the research environment as they move forward in their careers. And so, I congratulate the finalists, while once again offering my pat on the back to Science Service and Westinghouse Electric for a job well done. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ LETTERS (Page 12 of the Newspaper) Giving Back By Mentoring "Science's Golden Rule: Give Back To The Community" (Liane Reif- Lehrer, The Scientist, Dec. 7, 1992, page 21) conveys an important message to scientists about their responsibility to the younger generation. While mentoring has traditionally been a one- on-one relationship, the concept is evolving beyond this classic model. Recently, professional societies have begun to take up the challenge of supporting mentoring activities in an organized fashion. An example is the Association for Women in Science (AWIS), which is administering a three-year, $400,000 grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to support mentoring activities for undergraduate and graduate women around the United States. Through regional chapters across the U.S., AWIS provides a matching service enabling both young and established women in science who are interested in becoming mentors to share their experience with women seeking specialized advice and guidance. Other outreach activities include workshops at which young professionals can develop or refine their skills in such areas as grant writing, public speaking, negotiating, obtaining letters of recommendation, and balancing career and family. In early 1993, AWIS will publish a resource book on mentoring: A Hand Up: Women Mentoring Women in Science. For more information, contact AWIS at (800) 886-AWIS. STEPHANIE J. BIRD Past President and Mentoring Coordinator Association for Women in Science Washington, D.C. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ Anthropocentricity? Following months of fruitless search on Loch Ness, our two inveterate cryptozoologists suddenly explode into action. "Look! There's Nessie! Quick! Shoot her!" I found Paul McCarthy's article on cryptozoology and its adherents (The Scientist, Jan. 11, 1993, page 1) fascinating-- until the final sentences: "And then there is always the possibility that some hunter will bring down a Bigfoot. `Bingo, I'm vindicated,' says [cryptozoologist Grover] Krantz." Does Bigfoot (or Nessie or Mokele-Mbembe) have absolutely no inherent value beyond the vindication of cryptozoologists? Incipient anthropocentricity seems the sour note in McCarthy's symphony of curiosity. Will history find Krantz's full professorship an adequate justification for Bigfoot's demise? Why not drain Loch Ness or defoliate the ". . . 50,000-square- mile swamp in the People's Republic of the Congo"? DONALD J. BARNES Director National Anti-Vivisection Society Washington, D.C. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ Scientific Graphics I found Caren D. Potter's article in the Tools & Technology section of the Dec. 7, 1992, issue of The Scientist [page 18] to be an informative introduction to the principal advantages and disadvantages of the various hard-copy output devices available for scientific graphics reproduction. However, the piece failed to mention a major printing modality that is rapidly becoming a cost-effective and efficient means of producing high-definition color output. Dye-sublimation printers create near photographic- quality paper prints and transparencies. We use a Phaser II SD printer from Tektronix Inc. of Wilsonville, Ore., to reproduce nuclear medicine images either in small quantities for internal distribution or as master copies, in place of traditional "glossies," for delivery to printing services for halftone duplication. Although this particular model handles only standard 8.5 x 11 inch and legal-size papers (and doesn't fully utilize the available surface areas), the results are exceptional. Tektronix included the necessary system-level device drivers for both the Apple Macintosh and PC-based Windows environments. The printer also comes with a broad range of standard hardware interfaces attached, including parallel, serial, Apple LocalTalk, and Ethernet connections. By the way, I haven't any financial interest in promoting this particular brand. I merely think that anyone in the market for a hard-copy device in this size range should consider dye- sublimation printers as well as the alternatives. JOHN G. WOLODZKO Manager, Medical Imaging Cytogen Corp. Princeton, N.J. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ WHERE TO WRITE: Letters to the Editor THE SCIENTIST 3501 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Fax:(215)387-7542 E-Mail: THE SCIENTIST welcomes letters from its readers. Anonymous letters will not be considered for publication. Please include a daytime telephone number for verification purposes. ================ RESEARCH (Page 14 of Newspaper) Pushing For A Paradigm Shift In Cancer Risk Assessment BY SARA BRUDNOY Recent studies are raising serious questions among toxicology researchers about the validity of cancer risk assessment methods as practiced today. Based on these findings, a growing number of scientists are calling for a thorough reevaluation of the criteria used to identify human carcinogens. "Twenty years ago, the assumptions that were made were appropriate, and the decisions made on those bases were appropriate because that's what we knew," says Samuel Cohen, a pathologist at the Epply Institute for Cancer Research at the University of Nebraska. "I think now that we've seen that there are examples that point a different way, that those have to be incorporated into the way we evaluate risk." But while many of the thousands of toxicologists, cell biologists, biochemists, and cancer researchers are struggling to establish a new paradigm for determining chemical risk, environmentalists are fighting to maintain the status quo. Being called into question are the standard bioassay protocols currently enlisted to evaluate cancer-causing chemicals in animal model systems. These protocols incorporate two basic assumptions: (1) a chemical that causes cancer in rats and mice has a high probability of causing cancer in humans (interspecies extrapolation); (2) chemicals that cause cancer when administered at high doses will also cause cancer when administered at low doses (dose extrapolation). Animal models long accepted as predictors of cancer in humans have, in some cases, been shown to be completely off the mark with results that are not transferable from species to species, toxicology researchers say. In other cases, it has been shown that threshold levels must be reached before a substance becomes tumorigenic, making dose extrapolation inappropriate. Moreover, some researchers believe that the danger from naturally occurring carcinogens far exceeds that from synthetic sources, leading them to conclude that estimates of human cancer risk from synthetic chemicals have been greatly exaggerated. On the basis of all the evidence, researchers believe that the time has come to reconsider public policy on cancer risk assessment. Cohen thrust the issue of risk assessment into the limelight with a 1990 paper (S.M. Cohen, et al., Science, 249:1007,1990) that called for the inclusion of mechanistic information in determining the relevance of animal test results for human exposure. Although a strong advocate of change, he insists that he is not against animal bioassays. Rather, he claims, he is "trying to encourage people to interpret them a little bit more carefully and specifically, when extrapolating to humans." In the case of saccharin, which causes bladder tumors in male rats when administered at high doses, Cohen says the tumors are linked to the presence of a protein in urine (au-globulin) to which saccharin binds. The tumors occur as a regenerative effect following erosion of the superficial bladder epithelial cells. The erosion is attributed to a precipitate in the urine generated when saccharin binds to the protein. However, a2u-globulin is specific to male rats and is not present in female rats, mice, or humans. In a recent paper, Cohen concludes, "On the basis of mechanistic considerations alone, humans are unlikely to develop bladder cancer as a consequence to exposure of saccharin, even if humans consumed levels as high as those consumed by the rat" (S.M. Cohen, et al., Chemical Research in Toxicology, 5:742, 1992). Nevertheless, because of the way that regulatory laws are written, saccharin cannot be used as a food additive, but by special legislative exemption it can be used as an artificial sweetener with an accompanying warning as to its carcinogenicity in animals. "There are still a lot of people who will not abandon the two assumptions of species extrapolation and dose extrapolation," says Cohen. "If you continue to [make these assumptions], we are going to get into some major difficulty, and vitamin C is a kind of point at issue. The sodium salt of vitamin C behaves very similarly to sodium saccharin in the male rat. If the same kind of extrapolation that the Environmental Protection Agency does currently for saccharin is done for vitamin C, you end up having a maximum allowable dose of vitamin C in the diet that is less than what you have to have to avoid scurvy." In addition, evidence suggests that the dose extrapolation assumption of the rodent bioassay may also be inappropriate for saccharin. When it is administered in the male rat, Cohen reports that "a threshold response appears to be involved. No effects are seen in the bladder epithelium at doses below 1 percent, while effects are observed when the chemical is administered at doses of 2.5 percent or higher." It is the effects of nongenotoxic agents such as saccharin that may be the most difficult to reconcile with the bioassay assumptions, he says. Genotoxic agents cause cancer by interacting with DNA and affecting the rate of genetic damage. Nongenotoxic agents cause cell proliferation, increasing the risk of cancer because with each cell DNA replication cycle there is a small but nonzero risk of genetic damage. Therefore, Cohen calls particularly for a new way of evaluating these nongenotoxics. Bruce Ames, the University of California, Berkeley, biochemist whose Ames test is used to evaluate numerous known human and animal carcinogens, is a well-known critic of current methods in cancer risk assessment. "In chronic tests at the maximum tolerated dose [MTD], more than half of all chemicals tested [both natural and synthetic] are carcinogenic in rats, and a high percentage of these carcinogens are not mutagens," he says. Since proliferation can be caused by toxicity of chemicals at high doses (cells are killed and then replaced), ignoring this contribution, Ames contends, "greatly exaggerates a risk factor for cancer that may be limited to high doses." In order to understand what causes tumors, Ames asserts, "The case is absolutely convincing that, in animal cancer tests, you need to measure two things. You want to measure both DNA damage and cell division. Animal cancer tests don't measure cell division, so they can't do risk assessment if they are leaving out one central thing. They do linear extrapolations from the high dose to the low dose. In the fine print EPA tells you that the risk could be zero, but they never say that in the press releases, and it never gets into the newspapers." Of even greater concern, perhaps, than the question of exaggerated risk is the possibility that, in some cases, linear extrapolation and interspecies extrapolation may lead to an understatement of actual risk to humans. In a major review of their own work and that of others, Miriam Poirier, a biochemist at the National Cancer Institute, and organic chemist Frederick Beland of the National Center for Toxicological Research examined the relationship between rodent tumor incidence induced by chronic carcinogen exposure and DNA adduct formation (M.C. Poirier, Chem. Res. Toxicol., 5:749, 1992). One study looks at the levels of dG-C8-ABP, the major DNA adduct produced by an aromatic amine found in cigarette smoke, 4-aminobiphenyl (4-ABP), and the concomitant bladder tumor incidences in male mice, compared with the DNA adducts measured in the bladders of human cigarette smokers and the increased risk of bladder cancer in male cigarette smokers. The comparison shows that a 50 percent bladder tumor incidence in mice is associated with levels of dG- C8-ABP that are nearly 200 times higher than those projected for a 50 percent bladder tumor incidence in humans. Poirier and Beland suggest that interspecies extrapolations for complex mixtures such as cigarette smoke may provide less accurate correlations than those for a single agent. "Low DNA adduct levels in tissues should not be considered to be evidence of low tumorigenic risk, as they sometimes are in rodents." Poirier says that the risk is only partially the result of the adducts from a suspected carcinogen. "If you think about it logically," she explains, "obviously there are lots of other compounds being taken in cigarette smoke and some of them are initiators and some of them are promoters. The risk is presumably a composite of the genotoxic effects of all these different things, plus whatever promoting influences happen to occur." In addition, "because humans have such a long life span as compared to rodents," says Poirier, "this allows for other tumorigenic events to occur, whether they be self-immune, genotoxic-immune, or promotional events. The application is not simple." For James Swenberg, a toxicologist at the University of North Carolina, part of the concern about current methods of risk assessment is their impact on the allocation of available resources. According to Swenberg, understanding how to do risk assessment better will allow for better strategies for cleaning up hazardous waste sites. "I'm familiar with research on one Superfund site, where the projected cleanup costs are $100 million," he says. "If the risk assessment is reduced by a factor of four through better science, the cost that is saved is $50 million, and the cost of doing that research is under $1 million. So it's a tremendous payback for the investment in research. Somehow that kind of information has not gotten through to the people who are making the funding decisions." And Ames believes that risk assessment that targets only synthetic or industrial chemicals diverts resources from important to unimportant things. "There is an imbalance in both the data and the perception of chemical carcinogens because little attention has been given to natural chemicals ... half of which have been shown to be carcinogenic at the MTD," he says. Signs Of Change Poirier believes that "eventually what we are doing is going to change risk assessment, but it is a kind of grass-roots effort." This field, once the realm of theoreticians and epidemiologists, now includes a generation of scientists trained in carcinogenesis and toxicology who are bringing new insights into what really constitutes risk, she says. These are the people who will push the hardest for a reevaluation of the risk assessment status quo. Another sign of scientific schism is the rift that developed within a National Research Council committee over the use of MTD in cancer risk assessment. In Issues in Risk Assessment (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1993), the majority of the committee continued to uphold the standard of using MTD testing as an initial trial test of possible carcinogens. "MTD testing should not be replaced with a dramatically new approach until there are more data to support such a change," says Bernard Goldstein, director of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Piscataway. But about one-third of the committee dissented, advocating a testing approach based on under- standing the mechanisms by which moderate doses of a chemical affect animal physiology and health. "The scientific data from hundreds of tests have come in," says Richard Reitz, a committee member and an associate scientist with Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich., adding that these data indicate a need to shift away from the use of MTD. "However, some [on the committee] are willing to be led there more rapidly than others." And, says Swenberg: "There are people who don't want to accept something. I think they have public health foremost in their minds, but they want absolute guarantees that that is the mechanism by which a chemical works. It's my feeling that if we require that degree of rigor, we will never move forward." In The Public Eye This hotly debated research topic has also broken into the public arena, with EPA's release in early February of a list of 35 pesticides that will be banned or restricted because laboratory tests involving the aforementioned MTD methodology indicate they may cause cancer in humans. EPA had been technically violating federal statutes by allowing trace amounts of these pesticides to appear in food because it believed that such levels are safe. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in 1992 in favor of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and ordered EPA to come into compliance with the letter of the law. In this case, the law is the Delaney Clause, a 35-year-old section of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits even the slightest trace of pesiticides or additives in food if laboratory tests indicate potential carcinogenicity. But even the very environmental group that is forcing the EPA to strictly enforce the Delaney clause is apparently softening its position on carcinogenic risk. "The philosophy of the Delaney clause was we don't know enough about carcinogens that we should simply allow them in the food supply," Al Meyerhoff, a senior attorney with NRDC, told the New York Times (K. Schneider, Feb. 1, 1993, page E6). "We are prepared to work toward legislation that replaces Delaney with a comprehensive reform that accomplishes real protections. Delaney is not sacrosanct." Sara Brudnoy teaches organic chemistry at Sage Junior College, Albany, N.Y. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ NOTABLE PAPERS ON CHEMICAL RISK (Page 14 of Newspaper) R.K. Ross, et al., "Urinary aflatoxin biomarkers and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma," Lancet, 339:943-6, 1992. J.A. Swenberg, et al., "Mechanistic and statistical insight into the large carcinogenesis bioassays on N-nitrosodiethylamine and N-nitroso-dimethylamine," Cancer Research, 51:6409-14, 1991. S.M. Cohen, L.B. Ellwein, "Genetic errors, cell proliferation and carcinogenesis," Cancer Res., 51:6493-505, 1991. S.M. Cohen, L.B. Ellwein, "Proliferative and genotoxic effects in 2-acetylaminofluorene bladder and liver carcinogenesis; biological modeling of the EDO1 study," Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 104:79-93, 1990. L.S. Gold, "Rodent Carcinogens--Setting Priorities," Science, 258:261, 1992. R.E. Greenfield, L.B. Ellwein, S.M. Cohen, "A general probabilistic model of carcinogenesis: analysis of experimental urinary bladder cancer," Carcinogenesis, 5:437-45, 1984. S.H. Moolgavkar, A.G. Knudson Jr., "Mutation and cancer: a model for human carcinogenesis," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 66:1037-52, 1981. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ HOT PAPERS (Page 15 of Newspaper) *** The articles listed here, all less than two years old, have received a substantially greater number of citations than others of the same type and vintage, according to data from the _Science Citation Index_ of the Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia. Why have these research reports become such standouts? A comment following each reference, supplied to THE SCIENTIST by one of the authors attempts to provide an answer. OCEANOGRAPHY G. Jacques, M. Panouse, "Biomass and composition of size fractionated phytoplankton in the Weddell-Scotia Confluence area," Polar Biology, 11:315-28, 1991. Guy Jacques (Observatoire Ocean-ologique, Banyuls-sur-Mer, France): "One of the most debated questions among oceanographers today revolves around the determination of whether the Southern Ocean was, is, and will be a source or a sink for CO2--a very important question for those trying to understand our climate. Surprisingly, an answer may come from physiological and biochemical studies of the microscopic plankton living in the upper layer of the ocean. Atmospheric CO2 is `pumped' by this plankton to be transformed into organic carbon, the fate of which is closely related to the size of the organisms. "Our study in the Weddell Sea has shown that, in a few hours, an ecosystem dominated by large, productive diatoms (10 to 100 microns in size) was able to switch toward a system dominated by smaller (less than 5 microns) and less productive nanoplankton. When diatoms-dominated systems ensure a strong export of carbon toward the abysses, this `microbial' food web involves a very fast recycling of the carbon and does not allow the ocean to store CO2 for a long time; its importance elsewhere in the Southern Ocean still remains to be determined. "These changes also concern the silica cycle in the Southern Ocean (which is a major silica reservoir of the world ocean) because, unlike the nanoplankton, the diatoms have an external, silica-rich `skeleton.' In this paper, we have also pointed out the problems of scientists who draw conclusions about the Southern Ocean using data from a too-limited number of areas that are often as non-typical as the Weddell Sea. "Now, two years after this paper appeared, the international Southern Ocean-JGOFS keeps as a main goal the study of the size structures in the food web, using techniques such as flow cytometry and high-performance liquid chromatography, which are more refined than the ones we used earlier." (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ HOT PAPERS (Page 15 of Newspaper) NEUROSCIENCE L. Chen, L.-Y. M. Huang, "Sustained potentiation of NMDA receptor-mediated glutamate responses through activation of protein kinase C by a m opioid," Neuron, 7:319-26, 1991. Li-Yen Mae Huang (University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas): "Opiates such as morphine have been used as analgesia for thousands of years. The mechanism of opioid action is of great interest because the information can help us understand the regulation of pain transmission and provide us with the possibility of developing new analgesics free of addictive effects. In addition, endogenous opioids and specific membrane receptors for opioids are widely distributed in different regions of the brain. The information may also be useful in elucidating the functions of opioids, aside from pain modulation. "The direct effect of opioids on neurons is often inhibitory. For instance, opioids were found to decrease transmitter release and to reduce the excitability of neurons by decreasing Ca2+ conductance and increasing K+ conductance of the membrane. It was unclear whether opioids inhibited the responses to major excitatory amino acids such as glutamate and aspartate. We examined the effect of a m-opioid receptor agonist D-Ala2-MePhe4- gly-ol5-enkephalin (DAGO) on glutamate responses in neurons located in the trigeminal nucleus, a major center for processing nociceptive information of the face and oral cavity. "To our surprise, we found that DAGO increases glutamate responses by acting on the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) subtype of glutamate receptors. What is even more intriguing is that this enhancing effect of DAGO persisted up to 60 minutes after DAGO was washed out. To further understand how this came about, we investigated the possible involvement of second messengers. Our results show that DAGO increases NMDA responses by activating the protein kinase C in our cells. We later found that protein kinase C increases NMDA responses by reducing the Mg ions' blockage of NMDA receptor channels (L. Chen and L.-Y. M. Huang, Nature, 356:521-3, 1992). "Our results suggest that opioids can exert direct excitatory actions on sensory neurons and raise many questions. For example, how do opioids decrease pain transmission while they increase the neuronal responses to excitatory amino acids? Under what condition does this excitatory action of opioids become dominant? Does this action of opioids play any role in chronic pain? Since opioids are found in abundance in the hippocampus, a region of the brain important for learning and memory, and protein kinase C appears to be essential for inducing long-term potentiation of synaptic transmission in that system, our results also suggest that opioids may play a key role in neuronal plasticity in the central nervous systems." (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ HOT PAPERS (Page 15 of Newspaper) EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY T. Madsen, R. Shine, J. Loman, T. Hakansson, "Why do female adders copulate so frequently?" Nature, 355:440-1, 1992. Richard Shine (University of Sydney, Australia): "According to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, individual organisms should behave in ways that maximize their reproductive output. This simple notion makes an immediate prediction about sexual behavior, at least for species in which males don't take care of their offspring. We would expect that males in such species would be very willing to mate with many different females, because any additional matings would enhance the male's evolutionary fitness. However, a female seems less likely to benefit (in evolutionary terms) from such `promiscuity.' Because mating with more than one mate will not increase the number of offspring a female can produce, we might expect that females would generally be reluctant to mate with more than one male. But observations of many species falsify this prediction: Often, females mate many times with many different males. Why? "Our work on Swedish snakes provides the first evidence of an evolutionary advantage to multiple copulations in females, and suggests that this advantage lies not in the number of offspring that a female produces, but in their genetic quality. The snakes that we studied were adders (Vipera berus), living in a small isolated population in southern Sweden. Thomas Madsen has recorded all matings and all births in this population for several years. As is common in small, inbred populations, many of the offspring are stillborn. Female adders typically mate more than once during the brief mating season each spring, and usually select a different male to mate with each time. We found a clear relationship between a female's sexual behavior and the viability of her offspring. Females that copulated with more males produced a lower proportion of stillborn offspring. Also, some males typically fathered litters of mostly stillborn offspring, whereas other males fathered mostly live young. When a female adder mates with more than one male, the sperm mixes within her reproductive tract, and apparently the `best' sperm tend to win the race to fertilize her eggs. That is, a female that mates more often increases the opportunity for sperm from different males to compete for fertilizations, and thereby increases the chance that her offspring will be fathered by genetically superior males. "The significance of the paper lies in the possibility that this type of phenomenon (enhancement of offspring viability through sperm competition) offers a general explanation for the so-called female promiscuity seen in many types of animals, which has been one of the enduring puzzles of sociobiology." (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5 March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY Recent Advances Increase HPLC Use In Life Sciences (Page 18 Of Newspaper) BY FRANKLIN HOKE The use of high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in life sciences laboratories surged in the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to many researchers, as the technique's ability to precisely separate and quantify biological molecules grew. Advances in the columns--the central instrument components in which the separations actually occur--are credited with much of this progress, but improvements in pumps, injectors, detectors, and computer data- analysis systems also played their parts. Since then, incremental changes in each area have continued to push HPLC forward, the scientists say, increasing its usefulness to researchers working with such molecules as proteins, peptides, and nucleic acids, as well as drugs. Recent advances, in both instrumentation and technique, will be on display March 7 to 12 in Atlanta at the 44th annual Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy (PITTCON '93). Many manufacturers take advantage of the well- attended yearly meeting to showcase their newest products. In addition, researchers will be presenting dozens of papers on HPLC applications in at least eight different technical sessions (see accompanying story). Karen M. Gooding, president of SynChrom Inc., Lafayette, Ind., a maker of HPLC columns and the solid supports with which they are packed, confirms that recent HPLC advances have been less dramatic than those of previous decades, but says that important improvements continue. "HPLC just blossomed in the late '70s and early '80s," says Gooding, who is a coeditor with Fred E. Regnier, a professor of chemistry at Purdue University, of HPLC of Biological Macromolecules: Methods and Applications (New York, Marcel Dekker Inc., 1991). "Advances are more subtle now, like learning more about methodology. "As in many fields, you have that big boom and then the focus shifts to making everything better." Gooding says HPLC has become prominent in biologically oriented labs because it's a fast, accurate, and quantitative separation technique for working with a broad array of molecules--and it has some unique advantages. "Proteins maintain their biological activity and enzymes their enzymatic activity when they're separated by HPLC, so it's a very good method for that work," she says. "Reversed-phase chromatography has proven to be an unexcelled technique for peptide analysis. And HPLC is also used in the pharmaceutical industry for small molecules like drugs and vitamins." Main forms of HPLC analysis for the life sciences include reversed-phase, ion-exchange, hydrophobic-interaction, and size- exclusion separations. These depend on differences in column characteristics. Generally, an HPLC system will incorporate an injector and a pump to deliver the sample and solvent, called the mobile phase, to the column. The column is usually a tube-like piece of equipment tightly packed with 3-, 5-, or 10-micron silica- or polymer-based spherical beads, known as the solid support. These beads are porous, with the pore openings ranging from 80 to 4,000 angstroms, and they are usually coated, inside and out, with a reactive layer called the stationary phase. Molecules of interest in the sample initially bind to the stationary phase as the mobile phase flows through the column. The composition of the mobile phase is then gradually altered-- the percentage of organic solvent is increased, for example--so that the different molecules bound to the stationary phase begin to release again, flowing from the column. "During the time when the mobile phase changes," Gooding explains, "the molecules will elute preferentially, depending on how strongly they're bound to the support. That's why you get separation in liquid chromatography." As the mobile phase exits the column, it passes through a detector, crossing a flow cell. The most common detectors read absorbance of ultraviolet and visible light in the mobile phase as a measure of the presence of different molecules, although there are also fluorescence, electrochemical, and radiochemical detectors. Readings from the detector are then passed to a recorder or, more often now, a computer data- analysis system. The information is converted to a graph showing differently sized peaks along a time axis, usually running from a few minutes to perhaps 10 minutes. The peaks are used to identify and quantitate the molecules eluting from the column. In the case of reversed-phase separations, nonpolar molecules in the mobile phase are bound to the hydrophobic stationary phase. Hydrophobic-interaction columns also differentiate by hydrophobicity. Ion-exchange columns selectively hold molecules on the basis of ionic charge. Size-exclusion columns, unlike the other columns, are chemically neutral and take advantage of solid support pore size to differentially separate molecules by size. "There are even affinity columns that have an immobilized ligand attached to the stationary phase," says Annette Scierka, a toxicological researcher in the anesthesiology department of Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. "If you're working with proteins or enzymes, you can purify them based on those ligands." While the main HPLC separation methods take advantage of different characteristics of a target molecule, they are not necessarily exclusive to each other, according to Bruce Wilson, senior support specialist for Waters Chromatography, a subsidiary of Milli- pore Corp. in Milford, Mass. "A protein researcher might begin with blood," Wilson says. "They might do size exclusion first, then reversed phase, and then ion exchange. Each one specifies a little bit more." Scierka, who will be presiding over the "HPLC: Biomedical Applications" technical session at PITTCON, uses HPLC in her research with different injectable anesthetics and muscle relaxants. Often, she is required to separate and quantitate these compounds from body fluids, such as blood or urine. HPLC, she says, is both a simple and a sensitive analysis method. Robert W. Handy, a chemist with the Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C., also works with drugs in the body. He will be presenting a paper at PITTCON detailing a recently developed HPLC method for measuring minute blood plasma levels of AZT and methadone. Handy says the effort was aimed at optimizing methods already reported in the literature--"tweaking" these methods to achieve the highest sensitivity possible. He adds that getting rid of blood-product interferences, which can limit detection sensitivity, was a major challenge. "These are the proteins that normally exist in blood plasma," Handy explains. "If they happen to elute where your chemical of interest does [on the graph], you're just blown out of the water." All areas of HPLC are experiencing changes and improvements, according to researchers. Scierka says that new columns based on specific applications are under constant development by manufacturers. And Scierka and Gooding both note the increasing use of microbore columns to analyze very small samples. Photo-diode array detectors, which provide sensitivity across a broad absorbance spectrum, are now available from several manufacturers. Waters Chromatography, for example, offers a detector that reads at wavelengths from 190 to 800 nanometers-- from ultraviolet nearly to infrared, according to Bruce Wilson. Data systems are an area that HPLC suppliers are focusing on more and more. Increasingly, according to Evett Kruka, a marketing specialist with Perkin-Elmer Corp., Norwalk, Conn., scientists are more interested in the data, handling features offered by an HPLC system than in its hardware. "It's almost become [the case that] a pump is a pump is a pump, vendor to vendor," Kruka says. "Where we're differentiating ourselves is in data handling." Perkin-Elmer will be highlighting enhancements to the company's 1020 LC Plus Controller data handling system at PITTCON, Kruka says. Similarly, Wilson says, Waters will be displaying its Millennium 2010 Chromatography Manager data system at the trade show. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ AT A GLANCE (Page 18 of Newspaper) HPLC GETS ITS SHARE OF ATTENTION AT PITTCON The 44th annual Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy (PITTCON '93) is being held at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta from March 7-12. PITTCON '93 will feature the presentation of more than 1,800 technical papers and symposia, and more than 900 companies will display their latest products at nearly 2,900 booths. High-performance liquid chromatography will be the subject of several meetings, as witness the following list. HPLC At PITTCON '93 Monday, March 8: 8:30 A.M.--HPLC: Methods and Models, Room 361. 8:30 A.M.--HPLC: Pre- & Post- Column Derivatization/Mobile Phases, Room 362. Tuesday, March 9: 8:30 A.M.--HPLC: Applications & Methods I, Room 267. 1:30 P.M.--HPLC: Detectors, Room 361. Wednesday, March 10: 8:30 A.M.--HPLC: Size Exclusion Chromatography and Hyphenated Techniques, Room 361. 1:30 P.M.--HPLC: Biomedical Applications, Room 364. 1:30 P.M.--Short course in HPLC Method Validation with Computer- Aided Diode Array Detection, Room 309. 3:00 P.M.--Poster session for Liquid Chromatography, Thermal & Column Studies, Room 313B. Thursday, March 11: 3:25 P.M.--HPLC: Chiral Stationary Phases, Room 262. Friday, March 12: 8:30 A.M.--HPLC: Applications and Methods II, Room 260. Also: A Wide Variety Of Short Courses Monday, March 8: 8:30 A.M.--The R sum: A Report Card for Position Seeking, Room 309. 8:30 A.M.--Public Speaking for Scientists, Room 308. Tuesday, March 9: 8:30 A.M.--Effective and Practical Presentation Strategies for Scientists, Room 308. Friday, March 12: 8:30 A.M.--Setting up, Maintaining, and Troubleshooting Gas Chromatography, Room 307. 8:30 A.M.--Concepts and Calculations in Analytical Chemistry: A Spreadsheet Approach, Room 263. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ (Page 19 of Newspaper) MAJOR SUPPLIERS OF HPLC INSTRUMENTS AND PRODUCTS: BECKMAN~INSTRUMENTS INC. 2500 Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, Calif. 92634 (800) 742-2345 Fax: (714) 773-8898 ISCO INC. P.O. Box 5347 Lincoln, Neb. 68505 (800) 228-4250 Fax: (402) 464-0318 MILLIPORE CORP. Waters Chromatography 34 Maple St. Milford, Mass. 01757 (508) 478-2000 Fax: (508) 872-1990 PERKIN-ELMER CORP. 761 Main Ave. Norwalk, Conn. 06859 (800) 762-4000 Fax: (203) 762-6000 SYNCHROM INC. P.O. Box 5868 Lafayette, Ind. 47903 (800) 283-4752 Fax: (317) 742-2721 (See also the Separation Products and Services Directory on page 31.) (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ PROFESSION Teamwork Is Key To Solving Complex Research Problems (Page 20 of Newspaper) BY ELIZABETH CULOTTA In the 1970s, climatologist John Kutzbach of the University of Wisconsin and colleague Thompson Webb III of Brown University had a bold idea. To help understand Earth's climate, they would gather an interdisciplinary group of scientists and use a supercomputer to model the climate of the last ice age. The team included geologists, paleoecologists, marine scientists, glaciologists, and climate modelers and was called COHMAP, for Cooperative Holocene Mapping Project. Together, the researchers tested the computer model against data from the geologic record, and they found some areas of striking agreement. Their results, including a 1988 Science paper with 33 authors (COHMAP Members, 241:1043), are widely regarded as a seminal contribution to the field. The secret to their success? Interdisciplinary teamwork, says Kutzbach. The team had access to different lines of independent evidence of past climatic conditions. "When you found someone in another discipline singing the same song, it was really nice," he says. "And even if there was disagreement, that told us where there were problems." Indeed, researchers in many fields now recognize that no single person is able to contribute all the necessary expertise to solve increasingly complex problems. And so, from universities to corporate labs, scientists are signing on to teams. But group dynamics among scientists are not always smooth. Scientists are trained to nurture an individual vision, and it's not always easy for them to harness their efforts to a team. How can managers and team members help make it work? Research teams need a shared mission, a good organizational structure, and plenty of attention to interpersonal interactions, say Kutzbach and other experienced team leaders. And though few scientists get formal training in teamwork, successful teams offer lessons in collaboration. For example, COHMAP served as a classroom for Jonathan Overpeck, now a paleoclimatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo. Overpeck got his Ph.D. in 1985 while working on a piece of the COHMAP project. "I'm a COHMAP kid," he says. "I remember those annual meetings--in Madison, [Wis.] in the summer--as the best I've ever been to. Since then, I've been working my collaborations along the same lines as I saw at COHMAP." One lesson Overpeck learned: the importance of social interactions. At COHMAP meetings, he talked with scientists from all over the world while sharing beers; today he finds that collaborations "with an element of fun" are most productive. The social aspects of teamwork are even more important when the team is multinational, team leaders say. "I've seen it again and again at meetings in Europe: We'll socialize in the evening, and the next morning you go to the meeting and people are more friendly, more open--and more gets done," says Overpeck. Overpeck has identified one of the key elements in successful teamwork--and one that scientific teams sometimes don't appreciate, says Lawerenceville, N.J.-based management consultant Glenn Parker. Different cultural backgrounds can create working problems unless people take the time to get to know each other, says Parker. For example, he was called in to resolve conflict in a team that included an Asian-born chemist who was something of a loner. Parker asked team members to tell their life stories. The Asian chemist related how she had been brought up by her grandmother to be self-reliant, and how she had come, alone, to the United States for graduate study, and then stayed on. Knowing her history helped her colleagues understand and respect her independent style, says Parker. Getting acquainted in the beginning may be good strategy, since the early stages of a collaboration--when the overall goal is defined and responsibilities assigned--may be especially tricky, team leaders say. For example, computer scientist James Coggins of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, is part of a working group of the National Cancer Institute. The team's goal is to design new software to plan radiation therapy. Team members are scattered around the U.S. in three sites, on the East and West coasts and in the Midwest. The initial plan for dividing up the job was for each site to write a version of software, and send it on to the next site. The receiving site would then manipulate the existing program. But that arrangement was ripe for conflict among sites, so Coggins stepped in with a different plan. All sites agreed on a minimal supporting software platform, and each site was responsible for writing programs to work with that platform. Naturally, the team spent a long time thrashing out the platform--but potential conflicts were settled early in the collaboration, rather than at the end, says Coggins. Working with scientists hundreds of miles away, as Coggins's group does, creates its own problems and often changes the nature of the interaction, team leaders say. "Even if you're one building away, it makes a difference," says Alistair Glass, director of passive components research at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, N.J. "We have two facilities 35 miles apart, and it's very clear that it's much harder [to collaborate]. Even within hallways, geography makes a difference. It's important whose lab you're next to." Physicist John Madey, director of the free-electron laser group at Duke University, agrees that "physical proximity is very important"--and he designed the new laser building at Duke to ensure such proximity. Physicists' offices in the new building are clustered in a group, so no one is left isolated. Of course, scientists often have no choice: They must work with colleagues across town or even across the ocean. Such collaborations rely on E-mail, phone, fax, and, perhaps, video conferences. But the technology is still no substitute for face- to-face meetings. Successful long-distance collaborations, therefore, tend to have a very focused goal. Specific tasks are parceled out among far- flung team members, each of whom tends to act as what Parker calls a "contributor" (see story on page 20). For example, an interdisciplinary group led by Lisa Cannon-Albright at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City recently narrowed the search for the gene for familial malignant melanoma, pinning the gene to a region on chromosome 9. The high-profile paper last November (L. Cannon-Albright, et al., Science, 258:1148, 1992) had 16 coauthors from all over the U.S.--but the closest collaborations occurred within a tight core of researchers at Utah, says Cannon-Albright. "Most of the collaborators did different pieces and were added in the last four weeks or so. They gave us information, and we took over from there." The whole team didn't meet together until after the paper was accepted. So even in this larger team, the day-to-day experience of each scientist was that of working in a small group. That's true for classic "big science" projects, too, says Gene Fisk, deputy spokesman for the D-zero project at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill. The D-zero experiment involves about 350 physicists who seek to understand the basic constituents of matter by studying the particles produced when protons and antiprotons crash together. The researchers are organized into groups. Still, subgroups must rely on each other--and that can sometimes lead to conflict. For example, physicists who analyze data depend on the software that processes and manages data files. Fisk recalls one Saturday morning computer users' meeting, at which one physicist complained that he wasn't getting help from the computer division. Fisk had to serve as the liaison between the dissatisfied physicist and the computer specialists. He and others make sure that there are organizational structures--such as the computer users' meeting--to deal with such frustration. Of course, it's possible to have too many meetings. If the only purpose of a meeting is to keep everyone informed, there may be a more efficient way to convey the information, says Parker. "We urge people to remember the cost of meetings. If you add up the time of everyone involved, they're quite expensive." Working in a team does demand extra attention to administration, logistics, and personal concerns. But most experienced team researchers wouldn't even consider returning to a solitary mode of doing science. "We paid some overhead, in terms of time spent educating each other," says Kutzbach of the interdisciplinary COHMAP project. "But the payoffs at the end were magnificent." Elizabeth Culotta is a science writer based in Durham, N.C. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ ROLE-PLAYING FOR SUCCESS (Page 20 of Newspaper) Every team needs members who fill four basic roles, according to management consultant Glenn Parker, author of Team Players and Teamwork (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc., 1990). One person can play more than one role, but most researchers interviewed by The Scientist agree that in successful teams, someone fills each of these niches. The contributor: Contributors work on a piece of the project and deliver their expertise to solve problems. The majority of scientists fall into this category, says Parker. For example, in teams that model climate, a contributor might supply crucial temperature data. "They might not say much, but they'll contribute that one key piece of data, and that's what you need," says Jonathan Overpeck, a paleoclimatologist at the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration in Boulder, Colo. The communicator: This person keeps track of social interactions, heals conflict, and keeps various team members informed. Communicators are sometimes scarce on scientific teams, and so may be especially valuable, says Parker. For example, computer scientist James Coggins of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, is collaborating with ophthalmologists, physicists, and mathematicians on a new way to mathematically describe the shape of the cornea. One member, a research associate in ophthalmology, serves as the glue that keeps the group together. "She's the communications hub," says Coggins. "I go and tell her what I'm doing, and she'll tell the ophthalmologist, and she'll tell me what the physicist and mathematician are doing." The challenger: This is the skeptic, who questions others' ideas and results. In Coggins's vision project, "the ophthalmologist is our challenger. The others are learning that even if their idea is a great mathematical idea, it's of no use if ophthalmologists can't understand how to use it." Perhaps reflecting the nature of the scientific method, scientific teams usually have no shortage of challengers, says Parker. That can lead to an overload of conflict. "There are lots of good questions being asked, but there's a tendency to perhaps enjoy the fight instead of what they're fighting for," says Parker. The collaborator: This person articulates a shared vision for a project and pitches in wherever needed. Having a shared mission is crucial, scientists agree. "If the goal's not clear, then people may work very hard--in opposite directions," says Stephen Evola, a research director at Ciba Seeds Agricultural Biotechnology Unit in Research Triangle Park, N.C. For example, he helped lead an 18-member team that recently succeeded in creating a corn plant resistant to a troublesome pest, the corn borer. Researchers had to develop new technology to insert genes into corn--a tough problem that easily might have become a goal in its own right. Evola helped make sure everyone kept the larger team goal in mind. All these roles are important, team experts say, but the most valuable team members are those who can identify what roles a team is missing--and pitch in to play that character. E.C. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ Survey: Female Toxicologists Earn Less (Page 21 of Newspaper) BY EDWARD R. SILVERMAN The average salary for most toxicologists has been rising, prompted by increased hiring, according to a recently released survey. Demand for toxicologists in 1991 was strongest at consulting firms, at contract laboratories (independent labs that conduct research for companies or government), and in industry, particularly at pharmaceutical and consumer products companies, accord- ing to Shayne Gad, who compiled the data for the Bethesda, Md.-based American College of Toxicology. The survey's most striking finding, Gad says, was the difference in average pay between men and women--which ranged from 12 percent to 32 percent, depending upon the amount of experience, the degree held, the geographic region, and the type of employer. For instance, women with bachelor's degrees and three to five years' experience who worked at contract labs were paid an average salary of $24,700. By contrast, men with similar credentials working in contract labs earned an average of $40,000, the survey found. At pharmaceutical companies, women with three to five years' experience and doctoral degrees were paid an average salary of $55,900, which was 9.4 percent less than the average $61,700 salary earned by their male counterparts. "If you look at the percentage distribution of female representation and cross that with what salaries are like," says Gad, "you tend to have women in employment sectors that don't pay quite as well." A total of 4,233 toxicologists responded to the survey, the second of its kind commissioned by the American College of Toxicology. Questionnaires were sent to researchers in the United States and Canada who belong to the Teratology Society, the American Board of Toxicology, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Analytical Chemistry, and the Association of Government Toxicologists, among other groups. The survey report contrasted average salaries paid in 1991 with comparable figures for 1989, the year of the first toxicology salary survey. Overall, the study found that pay has been climbing. In 1991, "the general trend, across the board, was to keep up with inflation," says Gad, director of medical affairs at Becton Dickinson Research Center in Research Triangle Park, N.C. "But there were more jobs than people to fill them." Government and academia lagged in hiring, however, because of budget constraints that, toxicology professionals say, made it difficult to compete with salary levels and recruiting efforts in industry and consulting firms. Commenting on another survey finding, Gad notes that a trend seems to be taking hold in which toxicologists with managerial experience are increasingly in demand and salaries for such people are rising. For example, toxicologists with one to three years' managerial experience, holding a doctoral degree, and supervising between seven and 15 people were paid an average salary of $49,100, a 28 percent rise from 1989. "There are a lot of softer issues that industry looks for-- maturity, polish, communication skills," says Denise DeMan, president of Bench International, a Los Angeles research toxicology search firm. "They [industry and contract laboratory employers] really need someone who is politically adept," she says, referring to scientists who are office diplomats. "That's a lot more than someone who's used to doing rat studies. It used to be lab- driven. Now, it's a different kind of person who's needed." Experts say that in general, demand has risen because of several factors, notably increased interest in the environment and consumer safety. In turn, this has generated jobs in consulting and industry, not just traditional spots in government or academia. "The field has broadened," says Robert Diener, senior adviser for safety assessment at Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals in Summit, N.J., who points to toxic waste cleanup and experimental pharmaceuticals as two areas in which growth has occurred. "There are many more job opportunities now," he says. "And experienced people are still fairly hard to get." However, he cautions that the sluggish economy might still keep a lid on some hiring, especially among universities and government. "There's no question about demand," says Sidney Green, director of the Food & Drug Administration's division of toxicological research in Laurel, Md. "Data is more complex. More products must be cleared by the agency. "But it's not being translated into funds for hiring, because of monetary constraints. I've not seen any concerted effort to improve salaries for three to five years. So, government has had an extremely difficult time hiring [toxicologists]." But DeMan is heartened by the change in the White House, which she believes will result in a renewed emphasis on environmental concerns and, therefore, drive demand for toxicologists who are able to analyze data, identify problems, and find new solutions. "Over the next three years, you'll see relatively steady growth for well-trained, sophisticated toxicologists," she says. "Presumably, [the Clinton administration] will maximize existing staff [in federal agencies], but should also issue more contracts for review and assessment." Areas that are expected to show strong demand include companies or firms that test for safety in food, drugs, cosmetics, household cleaners, pesticides, landfills, and medical devices, toxicologists say. Edward R. Silverman is a freelance writer based in Hoboken, N.J. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ PEOPLE (Page 23 of Newspaper) Two Americans Win 1993 Japan Prizes Frank Press, outgoing president of the National Academy of Sciences, and chemist Kary B. Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), have been selected as winners of the 1993 Japan Prize. Press and Mullis will each receive 50 million yen (about $385,000), a gold medal, and a certificate from the Science and Technology Foundation of Japan during a ceremony to be held at the National Theatre in Tokyo on April 28. The award has been given since 1985 in two categories that change annually. Press, a geophysicist, is receiving the award in the category of Safety Engineering and Disaster Mitigation. He is regarded by the presenters as one of the pioneers in modern earthquake seismology for using the surface wave motion and ruptures of the Earth's crust and upper mantle as predictors of quakes. In 1957, Press was instrumental in creating the International Geophysical Year, a decade-long effort that mapped and measured geophysical phenomena. Press received his B.S. from the City College of New York in 1944 and his Ph.D. in geophysics in 1949 from Columbia University. He has held professorships in geophysics at Columbia (1945-55) and the California Institute of Technology (1955-65) and is currently an emeritus professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In four months, Press, 67, will leave his post at NAS after serving two consecutive six-year terms. Prior to serving at NAS, Press was the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and science adviser to President Jimmy Carter. He says future plans include coauthoring with Harvard geophysicist Raymond Siever a new introduction to their 1982 book, Earth (W.H. Freeman & Co., New York). The new volume, which will be published by W.H. Freeman & Co. later this year under the title Introduction to Earth, will include a heavy concentration on environmental concerns. "The environmental sciences could be just hot air or it could be firmly grounded in some of the basic disciplines, like chemistry and geology," Press says. Mullis, 47, was awarded the Japan Prize in the category of Molecular and Cellular Technology in Medicine for his 1984 invention of PCR. The technique enables researchers to produce specified DNA sequences quickly and without cloning. PCR is sensitive enough to detect a single DNA molecule in nearly any type of sample, living or dead. Mullis, who lives in La Jolla, Calif., is vice president for research at Atomic Tags Inc. in La Jolla, a small startup that began in July and is working with scanning probe microscopy. "I am of the opinion that we can work out methods using scanning probe microscopy in clinical chemistry," he says. "I can see a time not too long from now when a small sample of blood taken in a clinical diagnostic test would be routinely tested for 200 to 300 things--looking at various things like proteins and hormones- -rather than just one thing." Mullis's other project is Stargene Inc., based in San Rafael, Calif. He identifies this as a "hobby business" he began this past year with two friends to make interesting DNA sequences available to the public. "We're creating sort of a baseball card made of plastic that would contain a description, picture, and amplified DNA of some hero or rock star. So, for example, you could compare the mitochondrial DNA sequences of Jerry Garcia to those of Mick Jagger," he says. Mullis received his B.S. in chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1966 and his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1972. From 1979 to 1986, he was a research scientist at Cetus Corp. in Emeryville, Calif. --Ron Kaufman (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ Astronomical Society Honors Young Researcher (Page 23 of Newspaper) John F. Hawley, an astronomer at the University of Virginia haas been selected as the 1993 recipient of the Helen B. Warner Award, given by the American Astronomical Society (AAS). Hawley will become the 42nd person to receive the award at the January 1994 AAS meeting in Washington, D.C. The honor is bestowed annually by AAS for significant contributions to observational or theoretical astronomy by an investigator under 36 years of age living in North America. Former winners include Princeton astrophysicist John N. Bahcall (1970) and University of California, Los Angeles, astronomer Ben Zuckerman(1975). Hawley, 34, was cited for his innovation in using supercom-puters to facilitate magneto-hydrodynamic simulations of the behavior of accretion disks, the hot plasma that orbits black holes and neutron stars. These disks, however, do not simply orbit these high-density objects, like Saturn's rings, but turbulently spiral downward. "These disks are hot enough to be a plasma rather than solid water or gas...often producing X-rays or jets of matter," he explains. "You can't see the black hole itself, but this hot gas around the black hole will give off lots of light and high-energy radiation, so that's what you would detect." Using the Cray supercomputer at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, Hawley, along with colleague Steven Balbus, determined that the reason for this spiraling activity is the presence of weak magnetic fields, which astronomers previously assumed were inconsequential to the disk's activity (S.A. Balbus and J.F. Hawley, "A powerful local shear instability in weakly magnetized disks," Astrophysical Journal, 376:214-33, 1991). "The tendency has been to put aside the magnetic fields and concentrate on the fluid dynamics under the idea that you would understand the simplest things first and start adding more complexity," he says. This turbulence, in turn, is responsible for the viscosity that permits angular momentum to be transported outward so material can flow in. "But what we found was that even a very weak magnetic field, whose strength was traditionally thought to be ignorable, in these disks produces the instability which leads to the disks being turbulent." Hawley received his B.S. in physics and astronomy from Haverford College in Haverford, Pa., in 1980 and his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Illinois, Urbana, in 1984. He joined the faculty of Virginia in 1987 and is currently an assistant professor of astronomy. --Ron Kaufman (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================ RESEARCHERS SHARE ENVIRONMENT PRIZE (Page 23 of Newspaper) This year, the $260,000 Volvo Environment Prize, created to promote and support scientific and technical innovation in environmental research, will be shared by Norman Myers, a zoology professor at Oxford University, and Peter H. Raven, a botany professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Myers, author of the book Primary Source: Tropical Forests & Our Future (New York, W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., 1984), was one of the first scientists to warn of the possible extinction of animals as a result of tropical deforestation. A native of Yorkshire, England, Myers received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1973. In addition to his professorship at Washington University, Raven has been director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis for 21 years. He was one of the first to advance the notion that there is a correlation between rainforest deforestation and global warming. Raven received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1960. The Volvo Prize was created in 1988 by the Volvo North America Corp. of New York City. (The Scientist, Vol:7, #5, March 8, 1993) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ================================


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank