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

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

Skeptic Tank!

THE SCIENTIST (CONTENTS PAGE & FULL ISSUE FOLLOW THIS SHORT MESSAGE) ****************************************************** Dear Reader: Many of you have been accessing THE SCIENTIST, free of charge, on the Internet for over a year. We thank you for your interest. Would you please take a moment to let us have your views, suggestions, and comments about THE SCIENTIST to enable us to better meet your needs? We would particularly like to know: 1. If you are working in an academic, commercial, or government organization? 2. After you ftp each issue of THE SCIENTIST, how many others do you share it with? 3. Do you usually ftp the file or prefer searching it via Gopher or WAIS? 4. If it can be arranged, would you prefer receiving each issue, automatically, in your electronic mail box? 5. Each issue is approximately 150k. Can you receive a file of this size in your mail box? 6. Finally, do you have any suggestions for ways of improving our file or format? Thanks and best wishes, Eugene Garfield Publisher THE SCIENTIST, 3600 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104,U.S.A. Phone :(215)243-2205 // Fax: (215)387-1266 E-mail:garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu ================= THE SCIENTIST VOLUME 8, No:19 OCTOBER 3, 1994 (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) =============================================================== Articles published in THE SCIENTIST reflect the views of their authors and not the official views of the publication, its editorial staff, or its ownership. =============================================================== *** THE NEXT ISSUE OF THE SCIENTIST WILL APPEAR ON *** *** OCTOBER 17, 1994 *** *** *** ******************************************************* Subscription rates for the printed edition are: In the United States: one year $58, two years $ 94 Canada : one year $82, two years $142 All other foreign : one year/air cargo $ 79 one year/ airmail $133 THE SCIENTIST (Page numbers correspond to printed edition of THE SCIENTIST) FOR SEARCHING PURPOSES: AU = author TI = title of article TY = type PG = page NXT = next article ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : CONTENTS PG : 3 ============================================================ NEWS ELSI's GROWING INFLUENCE: The branch of the human genome initiative that has been researching the ethical, legal, and social implications of the massive project is ready to begin reporting its findings--and thereby add to the growinginfluence this component of the genome effort has attained in national genetic-policy debates PAGE : 1 SCIENTIFIC SERVICE RECOGNIZED: For the first time, the National Medal of Sciencewill go to a sociologist, who joins seven natural scientists receiving the United States' highest scientific honor PAGE : 1 National Medal of Technology winners also named PAGE : 4 FEELING THE HEAT: As the U.S. moves toward managed health care, researchers at major pharmaceutical firms are feeling greater pressure than ever to direct their efforts toward speedy, results-oriented research PAGE : 1 HHMI SIDE EFFECTS: The Howard Hughes Medical Institute supports the research of a cadre of more than 250 distinguished and productive biomedical scientists within academic institutions across the U.S. But some researchers and governmentofficials warn that such special treatment has caused envy among non-HHMI colleagues and discrimination against Hughes investigators by funding agencies PAGE : 3 ACADEMIC SCIENCE'S FUTURE: While university administrators and researchers complain about increasing budgetary constraints, the financial future is likely to be brighter for academic science if universities are willing to share with industry in the effort to meet society's clear need for development of research-based technologies, says Penn State education professor Roger Geiger PAGE : 12 COMMENTARY: J. Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, acknowledges that the results of his research on race differences may be regarded scornfully by many observers. No matter how objectionable his findings, however, he maintains that he has a right to publishthem and that efforts to repress his writings represent a threatening violation of science's most valuable traditions PAGE : 13 HHMI's BEST: Over the past decade, HHMI scientists consistently have been among the 200 most-cited scientists in biomedicine, as reported by the newsletter Science Watch PAGE : 14 HOT PAPERS: Cell biologist Douglas Green discusses his article on cell growth; analytical chemist Robert J. Cotter reports on the structural analysis of proteins; immunologist Jan E. de Vries talks about the production of interleukin-10 PAGE : 16 SHARPER IMAGE: In the past 10 years, image-analysis systems have become popular tools for life scientists; and the next generation of equipment is even more powerful and easy to use PAGE : 17 PUBLISHING WITHOUT PERISHING: In the first of a three-part series of excerpts from his book A Ph.D. Is Not Enough!, Peter J. Feibelman, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, offers suggestions on the art of writing a successful research paper PAGE : 21 KATHLEEN G. MORGAN, a physiology professor at Harvard Medical School, has been named director of the Boston Biomedical Research Institute PAGE : 22 NOTEBOOK PAGE : 4 CARTOON PAGE : 4 LEADERS OF SCIENCE PAGE : 10 LETTERS PAGE :13 IMAGE ANALYSIS DIRECTORY PAGE : 19 NEW PRODUCTS PAGE : 20 CROSSWORD PAGE : 22 (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.3, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ----------------------------------------------------------- TI : Pharmaceutical Researchers Feel Pressure To Sharpen Their Focus AU : NEERAJA SANKARAN TY : NEWS PG : 1 As the United States moves toward managed health care, scientists at the nation's pharmaceutical firms are under increasing pressure to narrow the parameters of their work. More than ever before, they are being challenged to sharpen their focus on efficient, results-oriented research. "Novelty has a very high premium [now]," according to James Powell, director of the department of pharmacology in the Lawrenceville, N.J.-based laboratories of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., headquartered in New York City. "For a [new] drug to be truly successful and be accepted for health coverage, it needs to fulfill an imminent medical need, or provide a new approach to improve an existing therapy." Powell, who has been in the industry for 15 years, contends that pharmaceutical companies can no longer afford to spend either time or funds on refining and upgrading versions of existing drugs, as they used to in the past. "The days of the `me too'-type drugs are gone," he says. This push for innovation carries with it imperatives in terms of both time and objectives, pharmaceutical researchers say. "There is a tendency to focus on more immediate goals," observes Ann Berger, associate director of cell biology and inflammatory research at Upjohn Co. in Kalamazoo, Mich. Much of the current streamlining, scientists agree, stems from the budgetary constraints imposed by the movement of the health-care system toward managed care. According to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PRMA)- -a Washington, D.C., trade association of research-based pharmaceutical firms--this past fiscal year has seen the slowest rate of pharmaceutical research and development expenditures in almost 20 years. And, say scientists, the pinch is felt right down to individual laboratories. "All of sudden we have had to become budget-conscious," notes Steve Jordan, head of the crystallography section of Glaxo Inc. in Research Triangle Park, N.C. "Money was fairly open until this year. Before this we never really spent all that was given to us. Now we have to plan [for experiments and equipment] a little more." Companies are imposing more cost-containment measures now, agrees Francis Huger, research group manager in biochemistry and pharmacology at Somerville, N.J.-based Hoechst-Roussel Pharmaceuticals Inc. And if the rate of R&D growth seems slow, PRMA--whose membership includes about 100 of the leading U.S. pharmaceutical firms--points out that it is still three times the rate of increase in drug prices, which is also currently at its lowest rate in 17 years owing to price agreements with health insurance companies. This generates a kind of Catch-22 situation, whereby the controlled drug prices place an additional burden on research funding rather than generate revenue for it. "There were about 30,000 jobs cut in industry over the past two years, of which we estimate roughly 10 percent to have been in research," says Steve Berchem, spokesman for PRMA. Despite the seemingly large figure, Berchem maintains that "overall, employment in industry is still relatively stable." Moreover, PRMA estimates that its member companies have collectively spent about $14 billion on R&D in 1994, which, it points out, is considerably more than the annual budget of the National Institutes of Health. "NIH has less than $10 billion allocated for all biomedical research, of which less than $1 billion is in drug research," says Berchem. As a further measure of productivity, he observes that "industry holds more than 90 percent of the patents on new drugs." Visible Ends Scientists say that this productivity--the ability to see tangible results of their research--is one of the main features that attracted them to industry in the first place, and continues to hold them there to this day. "To see a drug you helped develop being used in humans, and feel that it might actually help someone, is one of the most exciting rewards of this job," says Laura Mendelsohn, senior researcher in the cancer division of Eli Lilly and Co. in Indianapolis. During her 15 years at the company, Mendelsohn has had occasion to feel rewarded, having worked on a variety of projects at different levels. She was involved in research on two products that the company is now testing in clinical trials: an insulin-like growth factor (IGF-2) for diabetic patients resistant to insulin therapy; and an oncolytic drug--with the generic name Lometrexol--against solid tumors, as in colon and breast cancers. Beginning in 1979 as a senior biochemist (an entry-level position at Lilly for a Ph.D. scientist), Mendelsohn--who obtained her doctorate from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, in 1974--worked her way up the ranks of the company, receiving two promotions in 10 years, as well as lateral transfers between departments and projects. On the research front, her interests evolved from biochemistry of the central nervous system during psychosis and analgesia to biochemical events in cellular development in such neurodegenerative disorders as Alzheimer's disease. As she moved further into studying the mechanisms of development, Mendelsohn says, "the research began to fit more with cancer-related studies." Today, she spends about half of her time as a bench scientist, heading her own research group of two master's-level associate scientists. Another aspect of a scientist's work at Lilly is involvement with drug-discovery teams, which are groups of scientists from different departments and disciplines working on a common project. Mendelsohn is the chairwoman of one such discovery team, directing strategic planning for the project--details of which she declines to discuss--as well as coordinating meetings and discussing progress with about 35 people on the team, eight of whom are Ph.D. scientists. In addition, she participates in meetings of other teams. "These teams are fertile ground for cross-disciplinary collaborations," Mendelsohn remarks. For instance, the same team will have "chemists who make the drugs and in vivo pharmacologists who test the drugs in animals"--people, she says, who would not otherwise get the chance to exchange information on their work. "This is a special opportunity which I think would be difficult to generate in an academic setting." Mixing And Matching Scientists in other firms also agree that industrial research is more interactive than at universities and private research institutions--"because of the nature of making drugs," says Gordon Moore, director of the molecular immunology department at Philadelphia-based SmithKline Beecham. "We emphasize teamwork," notes Berger at Upjohn. "Though the day-to-day work is not all that different, in industry we spend more time with a much larger group than we would in an academic lab." "It's very nice--one can get different ideas from people with different backgrounds," she adds. Another advantage of this collaborative situation, according to Moore, is "the easy access to technology outside your own area." Moore, who has served on the faculty of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, for four years (1980 to 1984), and thus been on both sides of the fence, says, "In academia you always have to give something, while in industry there often supporting facilities to provide things like monoclonal antibodies, peptides, or DNA sequences that one may need." For Moore, whose research is concerned with cloning and engineering antibodies for use in such conditions as respiratory syncitial virus (RSV) infections and rheumatoid arthritis, these services are immense time-savers. Researchers stress that, in addition to the advantages offered by service facilities, laboratory equipment in their firms is excellent and experiments are seldom held up because of malfunctioning machines. "Equipment is state-of-the-art," Mendelsohn says. "It is a good feeling to be able to do the science and use [my] intellectual capabilities to solve [science] problems rather than fixing mechanical ones." "There is a lot more access to equipment here," agrees Glaxo's Jordan. "We pretty much have one computer per person here--at a university, even at a higher level, one still needs to sign up to use a graphics machine, for example." Points Of Difference But, as many point out, the high degree of collaboration at these large companies carry certain drawbacks, as well--for instance, the "assembly line" nature of research: the inability to see projects through, and the necessity of handing them off to another group for further development. "The downside to industry is that one cannot build up a little empire like in academia," Moore comments. "Almost nothing is your own--you have to be psychologically prepared to share credit. Or blame." Even more frustrating than handing off projects is seeing them discontinued by the companies, these scientists say. "In general, we are more goal-oriented," Berger explains, "and meeting our real goal--to take a therapeutic successfully from concept through design, delivery, and safety studies to the final drug--is a tough thing to do." "Research never goes in a straight line; there are always alternate lines of investigation. Academia offers more opportunities to pursue these lines and succeed." "In academia very few ask why you are doing something," Moore concurs. "In industry you always have to justify your work on the basis of ultimate applicability--`It's interesting' is not an acceptable answer." Corporate Culture The difference between academic and industrial laboratories arises from a fundamental dichotomy in the motives driving the two, according to Moore: "In academia the main reason you do something is to learn, whereas in industry you are there to make money. But in order to make money, you have to learn." "There is a lot of excellent science going on in industry," says Berger, who feels that the differences between the two environments are continuing to narrow. "While there is less ability to follow wild ideas, this is probably paralleled in academic institutions, also." Huger at Hoechst agrees: "Universities are more like industries now--there are vigorous efforts under way to come out with patentable discoveries. And companies are becoming more aware of the importance of publication." The most obvious differences between the two settings, say scientists, is not so much in the way research is conducted as in other facets of the job. While most academic scientists are actually in the laboratory throughout their careers, many in industry find themselves spending less time at the bench. Bristol-Myers Squibb's Powell spends about half his time involved in scientific issues but no longer participates in hands-on research. "It's almost embarrassing," he says. "I do miss it--there is a great deal of satisfaction in conducting a series of experiments successfully." These days, much of his input is intellectual. For example, he communicates science to both upper management and subordinate employees in the company, assesses research programs, and reviews progress of individual projects. As management responsibilities increase, some firms encourage their scientist employees to learn administrative and interpersonal skills. Hoechst-Roussel, for example, has a tuition-reimbursement program, which Huger took advantage of to get an MBA from Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, N.J., nearly 20 years after his doctoral work. (He earned his Ph.D. from the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, in 1974.) Industrial researchers have little or no teaching responsibilities, a facet of work that Powell, who taught at Emory University in Atlanta, says he misses. "We do have a lot of impromptu, informal discussions here, but I miss the daily interaction with graduate and medical students," he laments. As more companies open their doors to postdoctoral fellows and undergraduate summer interns, the chance to interact with students is increasing slightly, observes Eli Lilly's Mendelsohn, who employed an intern this past summer and is expecting a postdoc to join her laboratory in January. Indeed, industrial scientists advise, taking on a postdoctoral fellowship at one of the firms is an excellent method for new Ph.D.'s to get a flavor for industrial research. "It's a good way to get your feet wet and learn first-hand what it's all about without a permanent commitment," says Mendelsohn. "I had very strange perceptions of what industry was about before I joined." Huger suggests that would-be industrial scientists "scan journals to gauge what kind of work they are doing and if you are interested in it. Look at the existing and emerging technologies, and see how they would be applicable to pharmaceutical research and development." Powell recommends that students at professional meetings make a special effort to attend talks given by researchers from the industry. "Take the opportunity to explore and learn--don't stereotype--keep an open mind," he says. Above all, these researchers concur, flexibility is important if one is to succeed. "If you have a burning question and answering it is your agenda for life, then going to academics is better," Mendelsohn cautions. Adaptability is also the key to coping with the rapidly shifting scenes in industry, says Moore. "There is a perception that small companies are less secure and large ones more so," he notes. "But there is no security-- nowadays, very few researchers stay with a single company through their entire career." (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.1, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Genome Project Ethics Office Is Achieving New Prominence In National Policy Debates With passage of time and increasing political relevance, HGP branch's influence is on the rise among decision-makers AU : FRANKLIN HOKE TY : NEWS PG : 1 Beginning this year, the component of the United States human genome initiative that has been sponsoring studies of the ethical, legal, and social implications of the massive genome effort's ground-breaking research will be reporting the first hard results of these investigations. Current and former administrators of this ethics branch, widely referred to as ELSI, anticipate that these reports will add to the group's growing influence in national genetics-policy debates--through, for example, a serendipitous intersection with health-care reform discussions. This is welcome news for some scientists, members of Congress, and others who have criticized the programUs general lack of effectiveness in the past, demanding more solid returns on ELSI spending--approximately $20 million, so far. ELSI has been part of the Human Genome Project (HGP) since Congress first appropriated money specifically for the research effort in fiscal year 1990. Like the scientific work of the overall genome project itself, the ELSI program resides in two agencies, administered and funded separately by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy. Current annual budgets for ELSI are approximately $5 million at NIH and $2 million at DOE, or about 5 percent and 3 percent, respectively, of total genome project funding. Conferences, workshops, and other projects sponsored by ELSI have helped to give shape to central questions about, for example, genetic privacy and discrimination, as well as to educate researchers and the public about ELSI issues generally. Also, the program has awarded extramural research grants for in-depth studies--the first of which are reaching completion this year (see accompanying table). Researchers funded by ELSI include psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, and philosophers, according to Elizabeth Thomson, acting chief of the NIH ELSI office. Later this fall, reports from several recently completed studies looking closely at the introduction of cystic fibrosis genetic testing into clinical settings will be presented at meetings. At the same time, a series of similar projects studying clinical testing for breast, colon, and ovarian cancer genes is being launched, with the help of supplemental funding from the National Cancer Institute and other NIH partners. In addition, the debate in Congress over health care has given issues concerning the appropriate uses of genetic information more immediate relevance, leading to inclusion of ELSI-informed language in some proposed legislative packages. A new national bioethics advisory commission being organized in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is expected to help promote policies based on the results of ELSI research, further increasing the program's impact. "This last year has really been the first in which the fruits of our efforts have come online," says Eric T. Juengst, who headed the NIH ELSI office from its inception until this summer. Juengst is now an associate professor of biomedical ethics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. A number of factors have contributed to this apparent progress in enhancing ELSI's influence, according to officials. One is a sharpening of research focus, prompted partly by criticism that ELSI's early attempts to define itself described an intellectual purview that was too broad to support useful inquiries. In response, the NIH and DOE components of the program elected to pursue different general categories of questions. The NIH office is emphasizing clinical issues, professional education, and basic research, while DOE's ELSI effort explores privacy issues and public education. Another factor in ELSI's new energy, according to genome project officials and observers, is the appointment in April 1993 of Francis Collins to direct the NIH arm of the genome initiative, the National Center for Human Genome Research. "With his arrival at the genome center," Juengst says, "Francis Collins brought a real sense of urgency about getting policy developed on a lot of these issues, since, as a clinician, he's experienced them directly." Collins helped oversee development of a new five-year plan for the overall human genome initiative, which is expected to take 15 years to complete (F. Collins, D. Galas, Science, 262:43-6, 1993), and has urged, for example, that a greater proportion of ELSI's work target the issues raised when genetic information is integrated into the clinic. "If you follow the kinds of projects we've been funding, it certainly is true that we're spending more today, and will be spending more in the coming year, on clinical types of studies," notes NIH ELSI acting chief Thomson, who is also a board-certified genetic counselor. These studies generally look at the administration of a particular genetic test, including the counseling and education programs associated with it. In 1992 hearings before the House Committee on Government Operations, ELSI was criticized as being ineffective at developing and promoting policy recommendations, partly because it had no effective link to the policy process--a view that contributed to plans for the new OSTP bioethics commission. Another reason ELSI may have had a limited impact on U.S. policy in its first few years is that it does not conceive of itself primarily as a policy office. "We see ELSI as a research program," says Daniel Drell, a biologist who heads the DOE ELSI effort. "We see questions that need to be defined, and we see questions that need to be answered. Ultimately, policy formulation is a political process, not a scientific one. Our best role is to act like scientists and answer defined questions." According to Jonathan Beckwith, a professor of microbiology and molecular genetics at Harvard Medical School in Boston and a member of the working group that advises both the NIH and DOE ELSI offices, some of the criticism of ELSIUs lack of effectiveness stems from a misunderstanding of the research process and, perhaps, impatience. For example, the first several research projects started in 1991 that are only now reaching completion, he says, progressed well through a predictable start-up and development period. Assessing Gene Testing "The [ELSI] program was handed a nice case study to deal with in its first year," says Juengst, "because that was also the year that the human-genetics community was debating within itself about how best to use the newly developed test for the most common mutation for cystic fibrosis." In response, ELSI funded a series of pilot studies beginning in 1991 to determine the clinical protocols that should govern cystic fibrosis testing. The investigations have offered the genetic testing in different ways to different groups, with different levels and types of pretest information offered. A number of these university-based studies concluded earlier this year and will be reporting results at meetings such as the American Society of Human Genetics gathering in Montreal this fall. Scientists contend that the tightly focused cystic fibrosis projects are precisely the kinds of research that ELSI should be supporting. Also, they anticipate ELSI will sponsor more of these studies with Collins at the NIH genome center's helm. Collins "is a physician, and heUs been a prominent spokesperson in presymptomatic genetic testing," observes Maynard Olson, a professor of molecular biotechnology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle. "He's very concerned about what the appropriate medical uses are of presymptomatic tests. That's a good example of something that the ELSI office should be involved in. It's a problem which is most specifically posed by these advances in genetic knowledge." In fact, ELSI is already building on the model of the cystic fibrosis project with studies of cancer gene testing to begin this month. A significant portion of the program's funding will be involved in these studies of tests for the genes implicated in breast, colon, and ovarian cancers. "The ethical, legal, and social implications of doing genetic testing for inherited cancer risks are important issues," says Thomson. "We set aside $1 million this year to fund studies in this area." In addition, other groups at NIH have contributed to this collection of studies, according to Thomson. The National Cancer Institute budgeted $1 million for the research, and the National Institute of Nursing Research set aside $200,000, as did the National Institute of Mental Health. Thomson notes that while such focused clinical studies are taking a more prominent place in the ELSI research portfolio--and garnering more funding--other more philosophical or theoretical inquiries are also receiving support and will continue to do so. ELSI adviser Beckwith observes that these, too, are important initiatives. "There are many projects in the research portfolio that you won't see the effect of for years," he says. Some studies not targeting specific, near-term questions are exploring philosophical issues concerning free will and genetics, for example, and the impact of genetics information on popular culture, he points out. "While a significant part of the portfolio is specifically designed to yield background information that would allow you to formulate policy, some of it has much longer-range implications." Advising The Reformers According to Beckwith, although there is an inherent tension between ELSI's role as a research organization and the role it might play if it were explicitly charged with creating policy, ELSI has served in an important advisory capacity in public policy debates. "For instance, we were able to get language into some of the congressional [health-care reform] bills that dealt with genetic issues," Beckwith says. "People in the [ELSI] group were able to move fairly effectively in interacting with congressional aides." Two areas of special concern, he notes, are the privacy of genetic information in medical records and the possibility of discrimination on the basis of genetic tests. "We were quite happy with the way the privacy part of the president's health-care reform legislation looked," says Juengst. "And, similarly, the health-care reform debate has done wonders for our efforts to develop public policy to prevent genetic discrimination, primarily by insurers and secondarily by employers." ELSI is likely to see its policy influence rise further when the OSTP's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, currently in the process of developing its charter, begins work this year or next. In draft, language for the commissionUs charter specifies as one of its broad areas of inquiry the management and use of genetic information. The commission, strongly supported by Collins and members of Congress-- including Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.)--is expected to rely on input from ELSI in addressing these concerns. "The commission is going to need the benefit of the research that's done through the ELSI program," says Rachel Levinson, assistant director for life sciences at OSTP. Levinson is charged with coordinating with relevant executive branch agencies and key congressional staff on the proposed charter for the commission. "That will provide it with a lot of very good raw material." ELSI officials and others in the government hope that the bioethics commission will be able to effectively promote policies reflecting research information generated by ELSI. "We welcome the OSTP effort," says DOE ELSI's Drell, "because it will involve the kinds of perspectives and communities that are really necessary to work towards policy formulation and which, quite frankly, we don't have in this office." But some scientists who are concerned about how genetics research may affect society remain skeptical about the likely impact of the new commission. "I'm not too impressed by [the record of] these high-level commissions getting things done," remarks Maynard Olson. "There's a risk of a lost opportunity here." Olson says he has been frustrated, over time, by a lack of persistent effort, whether by ELSI or other organizations, to promote genetic-privacy legislation. "A long time ago, looking at the situation from the standpoint of a basic scientist, I concluded that genetic privacy was the core issue," Olson declares. The baseline principal in genetic privacy, according to Olson, is that an individual has an unrestricted right to control access to or use of information about his or her own genotype, that no one--"not the government, not employers, not insurance agents"--has a right to information about an individual's genotype unless that information is voluntarily disclosed. As ELSI continues its evolution, the questions the program must answer shift and change dimensions as quickly as the genetic science that gives rise to those questions with its advances. ELSI's difficult assignment is to identify and address new issues as they emerge from the discoveries of a fast-moving scientific project. RSo often before, the technology got developed and after it was implemented somebody said, `I wonder if it makes a difference,' " says Thomson. "What an interesting idea, what a novel approach, to think that we could be studying these issues simultaneously. And that's what we're doing." "I'll be blunt," says Drell. "It's an experiment. It's never been done like this before. And I'd be less than honest if I didn't say that, to some degree, we're feeling our way in the dark." (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.1, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : ACTIVE AND RECENTLY COMPLETED NIH ELSI RESEARCH PROJECTS TY : NEWS PG : 6 Principal Investigator: David Asch Institution: University of Pennsylvania Project Title: How Much Information About the Risk of Cystic Fibrosis Do Couples Want? (two awards) Project Period: 9/30/91 to 8/31/95 Project Title: Prescriptive Decision Modeling for Cystic Fibrosis Screening Project Period: 9/30/91 to 8/31/94 Principal Investigator: David Blumenthal Institution: Medical Practices Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Project Title: Academic-Industry Relationships in Genetics Project Period: 2/1/93 to 7/31/95 Principal Investigator: Allen E. Buchanan Institution: University of Wisconsin, Madison Project Title: The Human Genome Initiative and Limits of Ethical Theory Project Period: 8/18/93 to 7/31/95 Principal Investigator: Alexander M. Capron Institution: University of Southern California Project Title: Genome Mapping: Implications for Health and Life Insurance Project Period: 7/15/92 to 12/30/94 Principal Investigator: Robert J. Desnick Institution: Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York Project Title: Genetic Testing in the Ashkenazi Jewish Population Project Period: 4/1/93 to 3/31/96 Principal Investigator: Joanna H. Fanos Institution: Medical Research Institute, San Francisco Project Title: Perception of Carrier Status by Cystic Fibrosis Siblings (two awards) Project Period: 9/30/91 to 8/31/94 and 5/1/93 to 8/31/95 Principal Investigator: Beth A. Fine Institution: Northwestern University Medical School Project Title: Genetic Counselors as Educators on Human Genome Issues Project Period: 7/1/91 to 6/30/94 Principal Investigator: Gail Geller Institution: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Project Title: Prenatal Genetic TestingQProvider-Patient Communication Project Period: 1/194 to 12/31/96 Principal Investigator: Stephen Hilgartner Institution: Columbia University Project Title: Organizing the Human Genome Initiative-- Social Impact and Technology Design Project Period: 6/14/91 to 5/31/95 Principal Investigator: Neil A. Holtzman Institution: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Project Title: Ethical and Policy Issues in Cystic Fibrosis Screening Project Period: 9/30/91 to 8/31/94 Principal Investigator: Albert R. Jonsen Institution: University of Washington, Seattle Project Title: Paradigm Approach to Ethical Problems in Genetics Project Period: 8/1/91 to 7/31/94 Principal Investigator: Lily E. Kay Institution: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Project Title: Information and the Transformation of Molecular Biology Project Period: 12/27/93 to 6/30/95 Principal Investigator: Cynthia A. Keleher Institution: Stanford University School of Medicine Project Title: Human Genome Project Education Outreach Project Period: 5/1/93 to 4/30/96 Principal Investigator: E. Virginia Lapham Institution: Georgetown University Project Title: Human Genome Education Model Project Project Period: 9/28/93 to 8/31/96 Principal Investigator: Ray E. Moseley Institution: University of Florida Project Title: Insurance Implications of a Complete Human Genome Map Project Period: 4/1/91 to 3/31/95 Principal Investigator: Thomas H. Murray Institution: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Project Title: The Human Genome Initiative and Access to Health Care Project Period: 9/30/91 to 8/31/94 Principal Investigator: Dorothy Nelkin Institution: New York University Project Title: Human Heredity in American Popular Culture Project Period: 8/1/91 to 7/31/95 Principal Investigator: Theodore F. Peters Institution: CTR/Theology and Natural Sciences, Berkeley, Calif. Project Title: Theological Questions Raised by the Human Genome Project Project Period: 9/30/91 to 8/31/94 Principal Investigator: John A. Phillips III Institution: Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. Project Title: Cystic Fibrosis Screening: An Alternative Paradigm Project Period: 9/30/91 to 6/30/95 Principal Investigator: John A. Robertson Institution: University of Texas, Austin Project Title: The Use of Genetic Information in Reproductive Decisions Project Period: 1/1/94 to 12/31/94 Principal Investigator: Mary Colleen Scanlon Institution: American Nurses Association, Washington, D.C. Project Title: Managing Genetic Information--Policies for U.S. Nurses Project Period: 1/15/93 to 12/31/94 Principal Investigator: David H. Smith Institution: Poynter Center, Bloomington, Ind. Project Title: Ethical Issues for Family Studies in Human Genetics Project Period: 9/1/93 to 8/31/96 Principal Investigator: James R. Sorenson Institution: University of North Carolina Project Title: An Evaluation of Testing and Counseling for Cystic Fibrosis Carriers Project Period: 9/30/91 to 8/31/94 Principal Investigator: Cardie Texter Institution: Massachusetts Corp. for Educational Television, Cambridge, Mass. Project Title: Human Genome Project: Human and Scientific Dimensions Project Period: 7/10/92 to 6/30/95 Principal Investigator: Robert Wachbroit Institution: University of Maryland Project Title: Reassessing Health, Normality, and Confidentiality Project Period: 4/1/92 to 3/31/95 Principal Investigator: Michael G. Walker Institution: Georgetown University Project Title: National Information Resource on Ethics and Human Genetics Project Period: 9/1/92 to 8/31/94 (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.6, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Eight To Receive National Medals Of Science Seven natural scientists and, for the first time ever, a sociologist are cited by U.S. president for their contributions AU : NEERAJA SANKARAN TY : NEWS PG : 1 For the first time since the National Medal of Science--the United States' highest scientific honor--was initially presented by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, a sociologist has been selected as one of the recipients. Robert K. Merton, University Professor Emeritus at Columbia University, New York City, and seven other luminaries were named as the winners of the 1994 medals at a news conference held on September 8 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The other medal recipients, representing such diverse disciplines as fundamental physics, photochemistry, insect biology, geophysics, and medical genetics, are: * Ray W. Clough, a structural engineer and retired professor from the University of California, Berkeley; * John Cocke, a retired computer scientist from IBM Corp.'s Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y.; * Thomas Eisner, an insect biologist and Jacob Gould Schurman Professor of Biology at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.; * George Hammond, currently a visiting professor at the Center for Photochemical Sciences, Bowling Green State University in Ohio; * Elizabeth Neufeld, chairwoman of the department of biological chemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles; * Albert W. Overhauser, a physicist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind.; and * Frank Press, a geophysicist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.'s Department of Terrestrial Magnetism. Medalists are selected every year by the president from a list of nominees recommended by the Committee on the National Medal of Science, administered by the National Science Foundation. Three hundred and twenty medals have been awarded since 1962. This year's nominating committee consisted of such distinguished scientific figures as NSF president Neal Lane, National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Bruce Alberts, and presidential science adviser John Gibbons. President Bill Clinton will present these medals along with the National Medals of Technology (see accompanying story) at ceremonies to be held at the White House later this month. A Prolific Contributor Merton, 84, is being recognized for founding the sociology of science, which he describes as an exploration of the "world of science--how it works and how it came to be." In a career that has spanned nearly 60 years, he has done work in many facets of theoretical sociology, with far-reaching influences across several disciplines. The citation for the medal also highlights the concepts of the self-fulfilling prophecy and the unintended consequences of social action, two of Merton's pioneering contributions to the study of social life. In the 1940s, he and his coworkers introduced the technique of the "focused interview" in social research, which is widely used--and, according to Merton, frequently misused-- as a research tool in politics and marketing. The technique involves interviews with groups of subjects--the focus group--to discern the "reasons for their reactions to film, print, television and radio texts," he explains. Merton, a prolific author of books and papers, has had his work referenced in a variety of sources--not only in his own field, but also in biology, medicine, information science, and the physical sciences. In an analysis conducted by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) of Philadelphia, he was the third most cited sociologist in the world, with more than 3,000 citations, over the period 1969-77. His book Social Theory and Social Structure (New York, The Free Press) was reprinted several times (1949, 1957, 1965, and 1968) and has been referenced in almost 5,000 publications, which places it among the 100 most cited works ever, out of a pool of more than 32 million publications. A native of Philadelphia, Merton studied at Temple University (B.A. 1931), before going to Harvard, where he received a Ph.D. in 1936. He has been at Columbia since 1941, and currently also serves as Foundation Scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation in New York City. Life Sciences Luminaries An ardent conservationist, Eisner, 65, says he is particularly pleased to be recognized by the Clinton administration because he feels "they are making genuine efforts towards conservation." He pioneered the study of chemical ecology and introduced the concept of chemical prospecting--the exploration of nature for new chemicals. He has also been a vocal champion of the cause of preserving biological diversity (T. Eisner, E.A. Beiring, Bioscience, 44:95-8, 1994), to which end he helped arrange an agreement between the international drug company Merck & Co. Inc., headquartered in Whitehouse Station, N.J., and a biological reserve in Costa Rica. "Nature is a vast, unexplored chemical treasury," says Eisner. "It is important to explore [nature] in order to save it, and I believe that the main beneficiaries of the chemicals of nature--the pharmaceutical, agrochemical, food, flavor, and fragrance industries--should all share in its custodianship." Eisner's principal area of research is the study of chemicals involved in insect communication and behavior. "I happen to love insects--have done so ever since I could walk--which makes me a bit weird to others," he remarks. Recently, Eisner discovered a novel chemical produced by millipedes, which these creatures use to paralyze spiders when attacked. "The chemical is similar to some known sedatives, which gives rise to the question of whether it can be used to protect against spiders," he explains. Eisner points to this find as an example of the unforeseen uses of tapping nature for chemicals, further stressing the importance of preserving biodiversity. The only other life scientist to be honored this year, Neufeld is receiving the medal in honor of her early research on a rare but deadly group of inherited diseases called mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS), which cause neurological deterioration in children. MPS are genetic disorders in which the lysosomes--intracellular structures that she says act as "garbage disposal systems'--have missing or defective enzymes. As a result of this deficiency, cells are unable to degrade their wastes properly, and begin to accumulate them, leading to harmful effects. In 1969, Neufeld's intramural research group at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., found that two different forms of the disease (that is, showing different inheritance patterns) were able to correct each other's defects, indicating that something was missing in either case. "The something turned out to be a missing enzyme along with a `go to lysosome' signal," explains Neufeld. An enzyme with such a signal could also go to other cells, which is why two genotypes were able to correct deficiencies in each other. This finding provided the basis for specific diagnostic tests for MPS and laid the groundwork for developing therapies. "Conceptually, it is feasible to produce lysosomal enzymes to treat patients," says Neufeld. "But there are still a lot of biological problems--like getting the enzymes to cross the blood-brain barrier--as well as technical problems to overcome." At UCLA since 1984, Neufeld, 66, continues to be funded as an extramural scientist by NIH for her work on lysosomal enzymes. Other Presidential Picks Clough 74, is being honored for his fundamental contributions to the field of structural analysis and design. He was the key figure in deriving the "finite element method" used in designing buildings, dams, and other large structures to withstand earthquakes. Cocke, 69, pioneered the development of technology called reduced instruction set computer (RISC) architecture, as well as optimizing compilers--computer software that translate programs to a format understood by computers. At IBM, he was involved in such technological developments as the Stretch computer, pipelining, and the engineering- verification engine. Hammond, 73, is being recognized for creating the field of organic photochemistry, the study of the interaction of light with matter. In the course of his career, Hammond has written more than 280 scientific papers, of which 12 have been very highly cited (100-450 times), according to ISI. His seminal paper entitled "A correlation of reaction rates" (Journal of the American Chemical Society, 77:334-38, 1955) has been referenced in more than 2,000 articles. Overhauser, 69, is being cited for his contributions to the understanding of the physics of solids. He is perhaps best known for having developed the theory of dynamic nuclear polarization, now a fundamental concept in physics. In addition, he is the namesake of the "Overhauser effect," which has been applied in such remote fields as structural biology (protein chemistry) and medical diagnostic imaging. Press, 69, is receiving the medal in honor of his contributions to both basic science and science policy. He served as science adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1980, and as the president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1981 to 1993. In the realm of geophysics, he has done important work in studying the Earth's interior and earthquake mechanisms. At the news conference at which the announcements were made, Press said that his being selected for this honor showed that "there can be life after life as the presidential science adviser." (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.4, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : THE TOPS IN TECHNOLOGY AU : NEERAJA SANKARAN TY : NEWS PG : 4 This year, two corporations and four individuals have been selected to receive the National Medal of Technology, the annual presidential awards that recognize achievements in technological innovation and economic competitiveness. The technology medals were mandated by Congress in 1980 and first awarded in 1985. They are administered by the United States Department of Commerce. Medalists are chosen by a process similar to that used for selecting recipients of the medals of science. A Nomination Evaluation Committee, consisting of representatives from the private sector, presents a list to the president for the final decision. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown announced the names of the winners on September 14; the medals will be presented at a White House ceremony later this month. This year'Us Medal of Technology recipients are: * Amgen Inc., a biotechnology firm based in Thousand Oaks, Calif., developing therapeutic products based on cell and molecular biology research. Two Amgen products are Epogen, a genetically engineered protein used in the treatment of anemia in kidney dialysis patients; and Neupogen, used in cancer patients to decrease the occurrence of infections during chemotherapy. * Corning Inc. of Corning, N.Y. The company is being cited for the inventions, products, and technologies it has spawned over its 125-year history. Pollution-control ceramics, telescope mirrors, spacecraft windows, and optical fiber components are all examples of the products of materials science research at this company, in addition to the more familiar housewares. * Joel S. Engel, vice president of technology, Ameritech Corp., Chicago, and Richard H. Frenkiel, retired research and development director, advanced wireless terminals, at AT&T Consumer Products, Parsippany, N.J., and now an independent consultant. Engel and Frenkiel are being honored together for conceptualizing, designing, and setting up mobile cellular communications systems. * H. Joseph Gerber, chairman and president of South Windsor, Conn.-based Gerber Scientific Inc. The medal celebrates his role in developing and promoting automation systems for a wide variety of industries--particularly the apparel industry--thereby increasing their efficiency and cost-effectiveness. * Irwin M. Jacobs, chairman of QUALCOMM Inc., a satellite communications research and manufacturing firm in San Diego. Jacobs is being recognized for his achievements in the field of digital wireless communications, particularly for his development of the Code Division Multiple Access technology for commercial use in telecommunications. --N.S. (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.4, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Hughes Biomedical Funding A Mixed Blessing, Some Say AU : KAREN YOUNG KREEGER TY : NEWS PG : 3 Over the years, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)-- the largest private philanthropic biomedical research organization in the United States--has had a major impact on American science. In 1993 alone, HHMI reportedly spent about $268 million in support of biomedical research in the nation, representing nearly one-fifth of the total amount doled out by nonprofit organizations. And the investment has paid off--as evidenced by, among other things, HHMI researchers' prolific and influential publication record: Last year, for example, nearly one- quarter of the 200 most cited biomedical publications by U.S. scientists were authored by HHMI-affiliated investigators (see story on page 14). But despite the institute'S imposing presence and glowing achievements, some researchers and agency officials contend that certain side-effects of the HHMI program are not in the best interests of the scientific research community or the scientists themselves. They claim, for example, that the program fosters a scientific elitism that is, as one of them puts it, "Unhealthy," especially in the current climate of stagnating or dwindling funding for biomedicine. Moreover, some HHMI appointees report that at times they have felt resentment from their colleagues--a result of what one Hughes investigator terms "the envy factor"--and, ironically, have been discriminated against when pursuing funding from other sources because of their hard-earned success. "One of HHMI's strengths is the massive volumes of money that they have and their ability to rapidly move into an area if they choose," says Donna Dean, chief of the biological sciences review section at the National Institutes of Health's division of research grants. HHMI currently supports a cadre of more than 250 biomedical scientists, who are employees of the Chevy Chase, Md.-based institute. In exchange for full financial support for themselves and their staffs, plus equipment funds, Hughes investigators agree to spend at least three-quarters of their time conducting research at their host universities and medical centers. But, Dean suggests, the large amount of financial support for institute investigators' research and the high degree of recognition obtained by these investigators can have a double-edged effect. There is a danger, she says, of "creating a situation of the haves vs. the have-nots." Ira Mellman, a professor of cell biology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., says that, indeed, the HHMI investigatorships have created an improper class system of research support. He calls the disparity in funds between Hughes and non-Hughes researchers in university departments a type of "scientific apartheid." "What it does is concentrate more and more resources in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The disparity is institutionalized," he contends. Although the Hughes investigators interviewed for this article say they interface well with their non-Hughes colleagues, some claim that they are aware of a feeling of inequality on the part of researchers not supported by the institute. "I think there is an envy factor. I've heard it from time to time," asserts Robert Lefkowitz, a professor of medicine at Duke University and a Hughes scientist since 1976. "I've been a Hughes investigator for so long I'm hardly aware of what it was like before," he says. "But I'm aware that there are some resentments, and they do surface." He adds, however, that these feelings have not stymied any of his professional relationships. Some observers say that HHMI's fiscal policies also can cause friction, adding to the perception of elitism. Mellman contends that at Yale, Hughes has "put up administrative roadblocks" that prevent institute investigators from "contributing back to the common good," such as helping to maintain centrally held pieces of equipment or hiring technicians to run such equipment. Discrimination At NIH Because renewal of a Hughes appointment is not guaranteed and the appointments do not support graduate students, HHMI encourages investigators to apply for outside money from such agencies as NIH to supplement their Hughes funding. Hughes investigators and NIH officials agree that there are informal obstacles experienced by HHMI investigators competing for NIH grants. When two equivalent grant applications--one from a Hughes scientist and one from a non-Hughes researcher--Are being reviewed, a prejudice against HHMI applicants may exist within the NIH study sections, say several participants in the review process. According to these individuals, Hughes investigators have been discriminated against because they are perceived by reviewers as being well taken care of professionally and therefore not in need of NIH money. "At the [NIH] study section level this is a philosophical point that does cause great difficulty, because if one is looking at a request to NIH for $150,000, for example, and one sees that a Hughes investigator has half a million dollars--again a hypothetical number--then people [on the study section] ask the question: `Why do they need an additional $150,000?' " NIH's Dean reports. Mellman, who chairs an NIH study section on cell biology, confirms that the support HHMI scientists receive is very much a factor coloring reviewers' deliberations. "In my study section-and I know many others, as well--one of the considerations, particularly at a time now when NIH dollars are more and more competitive to get, is: What has this personUs productivity been relative to the amount of money that that person has had?" Immunologist Philippa Marrack, an HHMI investigator at the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine in Denver, agrees that discrimination against Hughes investigators in the review process does occur. Although she says that she doesn't believe it has happened to her, she reports, "I've seen it happen to other grantees on study sections that I've sat on. I'm on the council of one of the NIH institutes, and this matter always comes up about discrimination against Hughes." Problem-Solving Most Hughes-supported scientists and institute officials concur that there are complications--of varying degree and impact--that go along with being an HHMI investigator. Purnell Choppin, president of HHMI, acknowledges that an "us vs. them" mentality may exist. "It is inevitable that when some people have certain titles or are involved in certain types of arrangements that not everybody is involved in, there may be some concern or envy about that situation," he says. "For our part, we are very concerned, and we try and do what we can to encourage our people to be good citizens of the university community. And I think in general that works." Hughes investigators are physically incorporated into their host universities and medical centers in one of two ways: within a Hughes unit, occupying wings or floors of buildings that HHMI helps to finance; or within the laboratories of established departments in host institutions. The Hughes investigators interviewed for this article maintain that in either arrangement they feel fully involved in university life. "Departmental lines at Penn don't mean very much, anyway," asserts Gideon Dreyfuss, a Hughes investigator and a professor in the biochemistry and biophysics department at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. "I think the [Hughes] unit really enriches everybody on campus," he adds, referring to the Hughes wing at Penn. Almost two years ago, Hughes investigators at Rockefeller University in New York moved into a building that HHMI partially financed. Gunter Blobel, an HHMI investigator and John D. Rockefeller Jr. Professor at the university, says, "We have a different mailbox" from colleagues in related fields, "but otherwise we are totally and utterly integrated into the university." And according to Phillip A. Sharp, chairman of the biology department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge--a department that has several Hughes investigators--the researchers there "pull their own weight because that's part of the culture." He says his department "tries very hard" to have Hughes investigators stay integrated. "We try to spread the benefits of the resources [of the department] around." Many Hughes people say that one way the institute tries to facilitate healthy interaction within university departments is by making Hughes-bought equipment available to non-Hughes staff. Hughes officials acknowledge that there is a problem in how the status of investigators is defined by other granting agencies. Choppin maintains that, because the nature of the relationship between investigators and the institute "is rather unique," misunderstandings occur on the part of some groups. "If all of the Hughes investigators were in one institution, it would be less of a problem explaining ourselves to a granting agency," says Choppin, because the bulk of HHMI funding goes to salaries, facilities, and other basic research support. The agencies might then perceive the researchers as essentially employees of the institute, much the same as any other grant applicant. He adds, "I think the natural tendency of any granting agency--whether it's the federal government or any other support--is to look at the Hughes support going to an investigator based at a university or medical school far removed from our headquarters as being a grant when in fact it is not a grant. I think this is where some of the tension and misunderstanding takes place." (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.3, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: NOTEBOOK ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Aid Against AIDS TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK) PG : 4 Six interdisciplinary teams of AIDS investigators received initial awards totaling more than $6 million last month in the launch of a novel effort sponsored by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The money represents the first of four years of funding the scientists will receive through the new Strategic Program for Innovative Research on AIDS Treatment (SPIRAT). SPIRAT will support an array of experimental strategies to counter HIV infection and restore immune response, including gene therapy and DNA-based therapeutic vaccines. The six principal investigators receiving grants are: Philip Greenberg, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle; Judy Lieberman, New England Medical Center, Boston; Thomas Merigan, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.; Gary Nabel, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Flossie Wong-Staal, University of California, San Diego; and David Weiner, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.4, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Wise Women Act TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK) PG : 4 Women in technical fields have historically had a more difficult time starting and then advancing their careers than their male counterparts. Now, a new program at Pennsylvania State University--the Women in the Sciences and Engineering (WISE) Institute--aims to provide help for women students, faculty, and researchers in these fields. What is novel about the program is its fusion of research and activism, according to WISE director Londa Schiebinger, who is also a professor of history and women's studies. "We believe that WISE is unique nationally," said Schiebinger in a statement. "The institute combines research about and intervention programs for women in the sciences and engineering. Many colleges and universities have one or the other or both such programs, but they are often working in isolation." (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, PG. 4, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Young Producers Awards TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK) PG : 4 This week, from October 3 to 7, the winning entries from the first Young Producers contest will be aired on an internationally syndicated science radio series called "Earth & Sky." The series, which is funded in part by the National Science Foundation, held the contest in conjunction with NSF's National Science & Technology Week this past April. The five winning broadcasts were chosen after a nationwide competition in which students in grades 1-12 submitted two-minute, self-produced science radio spots. Listeners will learn about such topics as the life of jaguars in the rainforest and alternative sources for paper products. For information, contact Margo Shaw of "Earth & Sky" at (512) 477- 4441. "Earth & Sky" daily radio scripts--including the winning spots--are available on the Internet via Gopher and World Wide Web. To access, type gopher tpoint.net. (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.4, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Germ Bank Deposits TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK) PG : 4 Two botanists from Oregon State University in Corvallis--Larry Moore and Joe Hanus--are looking for other scientists to make deposits and withdrawals from their plant "germ bank." The bank--officially titled the Microbial Germplasm Database-- already contains more than 60,000 individual strains of germplasm. "Germplasm is the good guys and the bad guys among plant fungi, bacteria, nematodes, protozoa, and viruses--and the genetic makeup of all of the above," explained Moore, a professor of botany and plant pathology, in a statement. For more information, contact Moore or Hanus at (503) 757-8637. E-mail: moorel@bcc.orst.edu or hanusj@bcc.orst.edu. (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg. 4, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Visual Competition TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK) PG : 4 The Arlington, Va.-based National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and Japanese electronics manufacturer Toshiba Corp. have kicked off the third annual Toshiba/NSTA ExploraVision Awards. The national science competition asks students in grades K-12 to work in teams to predict what a form of technology will look like in 20 years. The teams create a storyboard that conveys their ideas in visual and written form. Regional competition winners make a video about their innovation. Twelve teams--four first-place teams and eight second-place teams--are selected as national winners. Each student on the first-place teams wins a $10,000 U.S. savings bond; second-place finishers receive $5,000 bonds. Deadline for entries is February 1. For more information, contact Toshiba/NSTA ExploraVision Awards, NSTA, 1840 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22201; (800) EXPLOR- 9. (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, PG. 4, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : All-Purpose Paper TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK) PG : 4 A North Carolina State University, Raleigh, graduate student and her adviser have developed a new method for making paper. Using chitosan--a material derived from shellfish-industry waste--doctoral student Sonja Salmon and textile chemist Samuel Hudson have come up with a way to produce a material with dozens of potential uses. Applications of chitosan- based products, unlike those of conventional cellulose-based papers, could include wound dressings, filters for air or water purification, and biodegradable packaging. (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, PG. 4, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : THE LEADERS OF SCIENCE THE READERS OF SCIENCE PG : 10 RODNEY W. NICHOLS Chief Executive Officer New York Academy of Sciences New York City "I rely upon THE SCIENTIST's lively reporting of hot scientific trends and complex issues raised by the changing R&D environment. THE SCIENTIST covers unconventional angles that shorter reports in daily newspapers and science weeklies don't reveal." As head of the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS), Rodney Nichols dedicates his time to advancing research and analyzing how science and technology can best serve society. An applied physicist and policy analyst, Nichols says: "My colleagues and I work to develop a balanced view of the scientific community's needs and responsibilities and to promote wise and effective applications of research. We aim to ensure the strenght of the scientific and engineering enterprise for the next generation." Founded in 1817 and the United States' third oldest scientific organizaiton, NYAS serves scientists, engineers, and physicians worldwide by offering aobut 15 conferences per year, mainly on key research fields and occasionally on policy-oriented topics such as health care reform. With 40 percent of its 40,000 members based outside the U.S., NYAS has become a global center for fulfilling goals in communications, human rights, and science-led economic development. The academy also brings together professionals from the New York region to discuss current research in 20 fields, improve math and science eudcation in schools, assess sicence policy, and expand opportunities for women in science. NYAS publishes the 170-year-old Annals, a series of about 30 monographs each year, and The Sciences, a widely admired general science magazine. Given this diverse range of activities, Nichols says: "I rely on THE SCIENTIST's lively reporting of hot scientific trends and complex issues raised by the chaging R&D environment. THE SCIENTIST covers unconventional angles that shorter reports in daily newspapers and science weeklies don't reveal. With the same fresh insight it brings to crucial issues in science and technology, THE SCIENTIST also covers the academic, corporate, and governmental leaders who make the news." (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg. 10, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: OPINION ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Academic Research: Where Do We Go From Here? AU : ROGER GEIGER TY : OPINION PG : 12 These are troubling times for academic scientists. The uncertainties of post-Cold War restructuring of research have yet to be resolved. Federal science policy appears in disarray. Young scientists face the most dismal career prospects in two decades. And the public face of science has been besmirched by widely publicized cases of misconduct. The immediate future looks gloomy indeed for academic science and, thus, for basic research, as well. But even if conditions prove constraining in the short run, a long-run view of American science should provide some cause for hope. However, finding a path out of the predicament in which the basic research community currently finds itself will not be easy, nor will the results be inevitable. Rather, it is likely to depend on decisions being made right now by university leaders. It also may depend to a great extent on the influence exerted by academic scientists involved in basic research. Prompted in part by the current pessimism, I attempted to take a long-run view of the prospects for academic science in a paper for last winter's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A simple question had for some time been in the back of my mind: In a society largely based on science and technology, will an increasing proportion of social resources be devoted to scientific research? Growth Pattern Surprisingly, existing literature offered little guidance on so fundamental an issue. The most concrete hypothesis was suggested more than three decades ago by science historian Derek de Solla Price. In his 1963 book Little Science, Big Science (New York, Columbia University Press), he offered evidence that modern science--measured in practitioners and publications--had doubled every 15 years since its inception in the 17th century. However, Price warned that such exponential growth was inherently un-sustainable; indeed, he suggested that it had started to slow in his own day. He was too pessimistic, it turns out. When measured by constant-dollar na-tional expenditures for academic research, science turns out to have doubled in the 15 years from the time Price wrote--and to have doubled again from 1977 to 1992. These figures, of course, might be variously interpreted, since they encompass the post-Sputnik boom (when research grew far more rapidly) and some of the stagnant 1970s (when there was no growth at all). But the performance of the second 15-year period is not only more impressive, but also more germane to our current predicament. From 1962 to 1977, research in the United States doubled against a backdrop of 67 percent real growth in gross domestic product (GDP), so that basic research outpaced the economy by just 50 percent; but from 1977 to 1992, research doubled, while GDP growth was only 40 percent. Three aspects of the expanded investment in basic research deserve emphasis. First, this exponential growth reflects an underlying social demand for basic research. By comparison, applied research grew more slowly from 1977 to 1992, increasing just over 75 percent; and spending for development grew even more slowly (60 percent). Moreover, three-fifths of the growth of basic research came from nonfederal sources, particularly industry. Thus, despite the persistent clamor for usable technology, our economy had a growing appetite above all for basic science. Second, since there is no reason to think that the exponential growth of scientific activity has ceased, the academic communityUs long-range planning should be predicated on expansion of basic research rather than yielding to the prevailing threat of contraction. Third, about half of basic research is performed in universities. Although applied research has grown significantly, it still constitutes about one-third of academic R&D. Conducting basic research remains the foremost role of universities in the national research economy. Major Transformation To grasp the future prospects for academic science, we need to understand how academic research over the last 15 years managed to grow faster than GDP, applied re-search, or development. Here I can only suggest the essence of the situation. At the end of the 1970s, universities were severely criticized for failing to contribute to the competitiveness of the nation by creating and transferring technology to the productive economy. Universities gradually embraced this mission in the 1980s, encouraged by public subsidies for cooperative research and by abundant support for programmatic researchQthat is, research focused on the needs of patrons. A myriad of partnerships between industry and universities were created. These developments were seldom forced; rather, they reflected opportunities on the research frontier. Some of the most dynamic fields involved what former National Academy of Sciences president Frank Press called "research- based technologies"--areas in which challenging basic research yields economically valuable technology, and where technological advancement, in turn, stimulates further basic research. Biotechnology was the paradigmatic case, one that by itself did much to change university attitudes. But the same conditions emerged in optoelectronics, supercon- ductors, sensor technology, advanced materials research, and a host of other fields. By the late 1980s, research universities had essentially made the transition that had been demanded of them: They not only incorporated these emerging technologies into their research portfolios, but also eagerly sought chances to convey findings to the commercial realm. That university research had become more relevant to the economy was strikingly corroborated by gains in the proportion of total basic and applied research performed. More than $2 billion of the $19 billion universities spent on research in 1992 represented their increased proportion of total basic and applied research over the previous five years. Universities are seldom given credit for the transformation that has taken place. Yet, in just a half-generation, largely through differential growth, much of academic science became oriented toward research-based technologies. But, as with any revolution, there have been costs as well as benefits. While there is little compelling evidence that the academic core of the university has been diminished by this revolution, the most palpable changes have occurred on the academic periphery. For example, with the possible exception of engineering, most of the growth associated with programmatic research has occurred in areas with few students, and almost no undergraduates, such as microelectronics. This is especially true for research institutes dedicated to university-industry cooperation. In fact, many research-based technologies require multidisciplinary teams, which operate best in institute settings. One consequence of this has been that the numbers of postdocs and full-time researchers increased far more rapidly than graduate students or faculty. Another consideration is the fact that major institutional initiatives are generally required to establish a presence in new and burgeoning fields. On campuses I have visited, people spoke of these new fields as they pointed to new buildings. These new facilities usually represented a sustained effort that combined public subsidies, private gifts, and commitments of university funds. The question we face today is: Do universities have the will and the capability to sustain such initiatives in order to keep abreast of the opportunities in these dynamic scientific fields? Contracted Vision Here, fiscal conditions present one discouragement. Both public and private universities foresee difficulties in maintaining, let alone expanding, current levels of revenue. Talk of retrenchment rather than new initiatives predominates. Still, the major research universities are billion-dollar, multipurpose organizations with some degree of internal discretion over how they use their resources; priorities may be a more important factor for the future of academic research than their apparent poverty. What is particularly discouraging here is that university leaders have become timid and defensive. They complain that their institutions have become overextended, that they can no longer hope to cover the gamut of scientific fields. While selectivity would seem inevitable, their natural proclivity is to contract toward the academic core, the traditional disciplines. Their vision seems to have contracted, as well, toward managerial gimmicks rather than scientific goals. In addition, universities feel exceedingly vulnerable on the issue of undergraduate instruction. Although responsible administrators argue that excellence in teaching and research are both possible, students, the public, and all too many faculty assume that what is good for research will be detrimental to teaching. In sum, universities in the last few years have been reluctant to pursue aggressively the research strategies that proved so successful in the recent past. The 1994-95 academic year could thus be critical for the future trajectory of academic research. In macroscopic terms, the question is: Given the likely persistence of scientific expansion, will universities continue to perform half of the nation's basic research? For them to do so will depend not on federal largess, but rather on the continued encouragement of programmatic re-search for interested sponsors, predominantly in research-based technologies. Should universities choose instead to focus on their academic core, such research will migrate on balance to nonacademic settings. Universities might then become purer, but at the expense of participating in research and teaching in some of the critical technologies of the 21st century. While the decisions of university leaders will largely determine which of these scenarios universities follow, much may also depend on the actions of individual scientists. The recent revolution in academic research was created, above all, by scientists pursuing not only support for their investigations, but also opportunities to do exciting science. The lesson for today should be clear: Scientists should regard the current gloom with detachment, and pursue instead the challenges emerging from the new technologies and their underlying scientific fields. The universities are unlikely to turn their backs to such research or to the new knowledge it promises. And besides, if science is going to double again in the next 15 years, history is on the side of academic science. Roger Geiger is a professor of higher education at Penn State University, University Park, Pa. He is the author of Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II (New York, Oxford University Press, 1993). (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, PG. 12, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: COMMENTARY ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : `One-Party Science' Poses Threat To Scientists' Intellectual Freedom AU : J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON TY : OPINION (COMMENTARY) PG : 12 For the past decade or so, as many people are aware, my research has focused on assessing racial differences as manifested in brain size and intelligence. Startling and, I have come to understand, alarming to many people is my challenge to the prevailing view that if all people were treated the same, most race differences would disappear. I have found, for example, that Asians and Africans average at opposite ends of a continuum ranging over 60 anatomical and social variables, with Europeans intermediate. Based on my studies, I have proposed a gene-based evolutionary theory of racial patterns. I can understand why, for nonscientists, some of my findings have become an object of scorn; indeed, some critics believe that my research should be banned. And this is disturbing to me, of course. But of real concern is the behavior of many in the scientific community, who repress publication of my admittedly controversial ideas. I am not alone in being victimized, and what profoundly worries me is the threat posed to the sacred traditions of science--traditions that foster progress through honest intellectual investigation and the free publication of results. The political fallout from my work has been intense. After my findings became public at the 1989 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the premier of Ontario called for my dismissal. A six-month investigation of whether I had contravened "hate laws" was pursued by the Ontario attorney general's office. I was excoriated in the media. And disruptions at the university culminated in my being forced by the administration to teach classes by videotape. The repression of my work continues to this day. Recently, the publisher of a neuroscience journal returned to me as unprintable a study showing race differences in brain size. This rejection came despite a protest by an editor, who had completed an elaborate peer-review process that lasted several months. The editor told me there was nothing he could do, because, as he said, "they" own the journal. (Fortunately, the paper--after another lengthy review process--is now scheduled for December publication in the journal Intelligence.) This was not an isolated incident. Indeed, I could fill a volume with instances of such harassment. During the last two years, for example, one major scientific society has flagged my conference abstracts and demanded word changes on the grounds that my material was too "sensitive." (In the title of one abstract, I was requested to change cranial "capacity" to cranial "size," even though the former is the usual scientific term.) Even such bastions of scientific scholarship as Science and Nature have repeatedly shut me out. The sorry truth is that, irrespective of religious background or political affiliation, virtually all American intellectuals adhere to what Johns Hopkins University sociologist Robert Gordon calls "one-party science." A prime example is that only politically correct hypotheses, centering on cultural disadvantages, are now acceptably postulated to explain differential representation of minorities in science. Analyses of aptitude test scores and behavioral genetics are taboo. Of course, it could be worse. In many countries, people are jailed and/or executed for voicing unacceptable scholarly opinions. Let us hope that this never happens in North America (although in Canada and Western Europe, so-called hate laws already allow for imprisonment). If more scientists expressed openly their findings and opinions that, out of intimidation, they now voice only in private, our scientific community would become not only a safer place, but also a more enlightened one. Even researchers who find my conclusions beyond the pale should realize that they too could be victimized if the projects they work on happen to be at variance with common wisdom, offensive to public morality, in violation of political correctness, or threatening to previously hallowed scientific conclusions. J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. His latest book, Race, Evolution and Behavior, was recently released by Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J. Rushton's E-mail address is rushton@vaxr.sscl.uwo.ca. (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg. 13, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: LETTERS ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Science In The Court AU : ANATOLY BEZKOROVAINY TY : OPINION (LETTERS) PG : 13 It was gratifying to see Franklin HokeUs article on the interaction of the scientific and legal communities, published in the June 27, 1994, issue of The Scientist [page 1]. There is a great need to build bridges between the two cultures so we can understand each other's goals, methodologies, and expectations. I am pleased to inform your readers that this need was recognized some years ago in the graduate division of biochemistry at Rush University in Chicago. As a result, we initiated a course, "Science and the Law," as an elective for our graduate (Ph.D.) students. It is now a two-hour, one-quarter course (22 contact hours), covering the areas of negligence (including malpractice and product liability); scientific evidence; intellectual property (including trade secrets, copyrights, and patents); and food, drug, and medical device cases. Our experience with this course has been published (A. Bezkorovainy, Biochemical Education, 20:228-9, 1992). The course director is both a scientist and a member of the Illinois bar. We would be interested to learn if other institutions are offering courses in science and the law for their science graduate students. Anatoly Bezkorovainy Professor of Biochemistry Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center 1653 W. Congress Pkwy. Chicago, Ill. 60612-3864 (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, PG. 13, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Peer Review And Anonymity AU : ALEXANDER A. BEREZIN TY : OPINION (LETTERS) PG : 13 According to Dana W. Aswad (Letters, The Scientist, July 11, 1994, page 13), "revealing a reviewer's identity is a good way to dilute or eliminate valuable and often valid criticism." Yet if you, as a reviewer, are confident in your opinion, then why should you hide your name? Could it be that anonymous peer review (APR) is grounded in fear of looking foolish in case you (the reviewer) turn to be wrong? But to face the risk of being wrong is an inherent part of the vow we all implicitly take in choosing an academic career in the first place. I see no ethical base for peer-review anonymity. Most newspapers (including The Scientist) will not publish anonymous letters. In most other creative areas (music, poetry, visual and performing arts, architecture, and so forth), criticism--even the most harsh--is invariably open. Only science, by some strange twist (perhaps a hidden inferiority complex) has developed APR. To my knowledge, the legality of APR was never clearly established. If contested, it will likely run into conflict-of-interest trouble. (Peer reviewers and the authors are competitors by definition.) Those who glorify APR as a quality-control filter should be asked to provide convincing examples of a major discovery that can be legitimately credited to the "inspiring role" of APR. Aswad admits that we are aware of APR's limitations and have learned to "work around them." Sure, most of us have learned some tricks. But there is not much honor to our noble guild if we are reduced to using intellectual crookery to get published or get funded. If peer review becomes open, it can lead to a constructive (rather then destructive) open dialogue. Abolishing APR may stimulate a genuine win-win game of unique individual talents instead of the present "competition" for a journal page or a research grant buck. Alexander A. Berezin Department of Engineering Physics McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario Canada L8S 4L7 E-mail: berezin@mcmaster.ca (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg 13, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: WHERE TO WRITE: Letters to the Editor The Scientist 3501 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Fax:(215)387-7542 E-mail: Bitnet: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com ===================================== NXT: RESEARCH ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Hughes Investigators Now Field One In Four Top Papers TY : RESEARCH PG : 14 ***** Editor's Note: The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which supports more than 250 investigators and their staffs at 63 United States universities and medical centers, has become a leader in biomedical research in the last decade. In an effort to assess the impact that Hughes investigators have had compared to other researchers in the biomedical community, the newsletter Science Watch compiled data on the instituteUs share of the 200 most-cited biomedical papers in each of the last nine years. The newsletter also produced a list of the premier Hughes investigators in terms of their total citations. Science Watch-- published by the Philadelphia-based Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)--used the ISI Science Indicators Database to track the rise in HHMI's publishing contribution to biomedicine. The following article is reprinted from the May 1994 issue of Science Watch, with permission of the newsletter and ISI. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), established in 1953 and now headquartered in Chevy Chase, Md., is significantly increasing its presence in biomedical research in the United States. With assets of $7.8 billion and support for research at the level of some $268 million last year, it represents a major force among private, nonprofit benefactors of biomedical research in the nation. But its presence--and, more to the point, its influence--may actually be considerably greater and more far-reaching than most observers recognize. In 1985, the institute embarked on a major program of expansion, which has entailed the appointment of additional Howard Hughes investigators; the introduction of a range of programs to sustain and improve science education from the elementary through graduate levels; and more recently, support for top biomedical scientists abroad. One measure of growth during the last decade can be seen in the number of appointed investigators, who are employees of the institute but who do their work at more than 60 universities and hospitals across the U.S. As the table at right indicates, the number of Hughes investigators grew from 96 in 1985 to 222 in 1993. (Last April, an additional 49 scientists were named Hughes investigators.) A group of fewer than 300 scientists is but a tiny fraction of the total population of biomedical scientists at work around the world today. But by selecting only the very best researchers as Hughes investigators, the institute has leveraged its resources tremendously, as Science Watch has recently discovered. Science Watch decided to survey the 200 most-cited biomedical papers of each year from 1985 through 1993 (citations were counted from the year of publication through 1993) and to determine how many of these studies carried the name of a Hughes investigator. In 1985, eight of the top 200 papers, or 4 percent, were by Hughes investigators. Last year--less than a decade later--Hughes investigators published 48 of the most-cited papers in the biomedical sciences, or 24 percent of the total. Put another way, Hughes investigators now field nearly one in every four of the top papers. While the number of Hughes investigators grew during this period by 131 percent, the number of HHMI papers in the top 200 for biomedicine grew much faster--500 percent. In fact, the influence of HHMI papers as a group has been increasing dramatically. Science Watch compared the citations-per-paper scores of HHMI papers for each year since 1985 with the average of U.S. papers in the fields that HHMI supports--neuroscience, genetics, cell biology and regulation, immunology, and structural biology. Both sets of scores tend to decline with time since recent papers have had fewer years to be cited than older reports. In 1985, Hughes papers received 138 percent more citations per paper than the U.S. average for papers in the five HHMI-sponsored fields. By 1993, HHMI papers pulled in 227 percent more citations, on average, than U.S. papers in the same fields. Superstar researchers are, of course, the foundation of HHMI's stellar performance. The 10 most-cited HHMI investigators during three periods are listed in the table on page 15. (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.14, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : HHMI'S SHARE OF THE 200 MOST-CITED BIOMEDICAL PAPERS TY : RESEARCH PG : 14 Number of HHMI papers in top 200 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 8 8 26 30 34 36 53 47 48 Number of HHMI investigators 96 132 161 176 192 211 223 222 222 Number of HHMI papers 475 504 894 1,207 1,289 1,397 1,748 1,789 2,131 Number of papers per HHMI investigator 5.0 3.8 5.6 6.9 6.7 6.6 7.8 8.1 9.6 U.S. biomedical papers: citations per paper 23.78 20.08 19.61 18.33 16.50 12.52 8.62 4.02 0.51 HHMI papers: citations per paper 56.65 52.91 59.90 53.60 46.70 39.04 25.15 12.10 1.67 HHMI citations: percent of citations per paper compared with U.S. average +138 +163 +205 +192 +183 +212 +192 +201 +227 Source: ISI's Science Indicators Database, 1985-93 (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg. 14, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : TOTAL CITATIONS TO WORK BY THE 10 MOST CITED HUGHEST INVESTIGATORS TY : RESEARCH PG : 15 1985-87 Papers 1 Robert J. Lefkowitz 6,878 Duke University, Durham, N.C. 2 Marc G. Caron 6,059 Duke University, Durham, N.C. 3 Ronald M. Evans 5,714 Salk Institute for Biological Studies La Jolla, Calif. 4 Richard D. Palmiter 4,480 University of Washington, Seattle 5 Raymond L. White 4,086 University of California, San Diego 6 Edwin G. Krebs 4,032 University of Washington, Seattle 7 Arthur Weiss 3,960 University of California, San Francisco 8 John H. Exton 3,649 Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 9 Michael G. Rosenfeld 3,477 University of Chicago 10 Ralph Snyderman 3,158 Duke University, Durham, N.C. 1988-90 Papers 1. Robert Tjian 6,412 University of California, Berkeley 2. Ronald M. Evans 6,268 Salk Institute for Biological Studies La Jolla, Calif. 3. John W. Kappler, Philippa C. Marrack 6,109 National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Denver 4. Raymond L. White 5,276 University of Utah, Salt Lake City 5 Marc G. Caron 5,467 Duke University, Durham, N.C. 6. Robert J. Lefkowitz 4,842 Duke University, Durham, N.C. 7. Michael G. Rosenfeld 3,718 University of California, Berkeley 8. Francis S. Collins 3,815 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 9. Graeme I. Bell 3,629 University of Chicago 10 Lewis T. Williams 2,980 University of California, San Francisco 1991-93 Papers 1 Ronald M. Evans 1,578 Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Calif. 2. Marc G. Caron 1,335 Duke University, Durham, N.C. 3. Ronald J. Lefkowitz 1,186 Duke University, Durham, N.C. 4. Michael J. Welsh 1,154 University of Iowa, Iowa City 5. Michael G. Rosenfeld 1,123 University of California, San Diego 6. Robert Tjian 1,095 University of California, Berkeley 7. Joseph R. Nevins 1,011 Duke University, Durham, N.C. 8. Philippa C. Marrack 1,991 National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Denver 9. John W. Kappler 1,987 National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Denver 10. C. Thomas Caskey 1,986 Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.15, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: HOT PAPERS ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : CELL BIOLOGY TY : RESEARCH (HOT PAPERS) PG : 16 R.P. Bissonnette, F. Escheverri, A. Mahboubi, D.R. Green, "Apoptotic cell-death induced by c-myc is inhibited by bcl-2,S Nature, 359:552-54, 1992. Douglas Green (La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, California): "A fundamental paradox of multicellular life is that while cell proliferation is necessary for development, it is also one of the most potentially dangerous challenges to the integrity of the individual. That is, a single cell proliferating in an unregulated fashion can be fatal, which is in striking contrast to the effects of loss of other critical functions at the single-cell level, such as differentiation, adhesion, and locomotion. The solutions to this problem include the maintenance of barriers between cells, as seen in plants, and the restriction of the number of cell divisions during the life span, as seen in nematodes. Clearly, neither of these is applicable in such organisms as humans. "Another way to resolve this paradox and still sustain multicellular animal life is for the process of cell proliferation to be tightly linked with a mechanism of cell death. Thus, in the absence of other influences, a cell that departs from `rest'--that is, a nonproliferating state--will either divide or die with roughly equal probability. Extrinsic signals such as growth factors have the ability to influence this `decision' and thus promote the growth of tissues. We have called this simple idea the `Two Signal: Death/Survival Model.' "This model has obvious implications for our understanding of cell proliferation in cancer. It predicts that at least two signals must cooperate in cell transformation--one that drives cells out of rest toward either cell proliferation or cell death and one that blocks cell death. The observation by several groups--including ours--that c-myc, a gene known to be involved in cell proliferation, can participate in apoptosis (active cell death) gave insight into the nature of the first of these signals (D.S. Askew et al., Oncogene, 6:1915-22, 1991; G.I. Evan et al., Cell, 6:119-28, 1992; Y. Shi et al., Science, 257:212-4, 1992). The observations described in our paper and a companion paper (A. Fanidi et al., Nature, 359:554-6, 1992) showed that a protein called bcl-2, which was known to cooperate with c-myc in cell transformation, blocked c-myc-induced apoptosis. "Thus, cells that are activated to proliferate via constitutive expression of c-myc will not necessarily increase in number in the body, unless they also express an anti-apoptotic signal such as that provided by bcl-2. If this signal is sufficiently powerful, the cells will resist not only the apoptosis induced as a consequence of departing from rest, but also apoptosis induced by therapeutic agents. One implication for therapy is the suggestion that effective treatment should target such anti-apoptotic signals, rather than pro-apoptotic signals like c-myc, which also promote cell proliferation. Recently, we demonstrated that a cell line expressing the bcr-abl oncogenic protein resists multiple forms of apoptosis. Upon downregulation of this protein via an antisense strategy, the cells became exquisitely sensitive to the induction of apoptosis (A. McGahon et al., Blood, 83:1179-87, 1994). The interactions suggested by the Two Signal: Death/Survival model, though simple, have given us a new perspective on cell proliferation, apoptosis, and transformation. Many further examples of the application of this idea continue to be described." (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.16, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY TY : RESEARCH (HOT PAPERS) PG : 16 R.J. Cotter, "Time-of-Flight mass-spectrometry for the structural analysis of biological molecules," Analytical Chemistry, 64:1027-39, 1992. Robert J. Cotter (Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore): "As mass spectrometry continues to play an increasing role in the solution of structural biology problems, the time-of-flight (TOF) mass analyzer is receiving particular attention. The method is highly sensitive and theoretically has an unlimited mass range. Scientists are able to use TOF mass spectrometry, coupled with ionization methods such as plasma desorption (PD) and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ ionization (MALDI), for rapid measuring of protein molecular weight; mass-mapping of enzymatic digests; and locating disulfide bonds, post- translational cleavages, and phosphorylation and glycosylation sites in proteins. Moreover, strategies that combine molecular weight measurements with enzyme reactions- -such as the `ladder' sequencing of peptides using amino and carboxypeptidases--have considerable appeal for those data confounded by the complex fragmentation patterns that have characterized spectra obtained from expensive, high- performance in-struments. Interest has been further enhanced by the recent availability of inexpensive, commercial instruments, including `desktop' versions of spectrometers and instruments that incorporate capabilities for comparing peptide maps with protein databases. "TOF mass spectrometry is being used by our group to investigate the structural processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and b-amyloid peptides implicated in Alzheimer's disease. Recently, we established that the insoluble 42-amino-acid amyloid peptides that form extracellular deposits (plaques) in the brain are also found in cerebral blood vessels (A.E. Roher et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90:10836-40, 1993). Additionally, amyloid peptides from plaques show considerable isomerization of L-Asp to D-Asp and iso-Asp, suggesting that these peptides are `older' and may be derived from those found in the vascular region (A.E. Roher et al., Journal of Biological Chemistry, 268:3072-83, 1993). And, in other work, amino and carboxypeptidase ladder sequencing has been used to identify a TAP-dependent peptide that is recognized by alloreactive T cells specific for a Class IB antigen (C.J. Aldrich et al., Cell, in press). "TOF mass resolution is improved by reflectrons, which compensate for kinetic energy differences in the ions being analyzed. Currently, there is considerable interest in the use of `reflectron voltage scanning' to reveal amino acid sequence fragments formed while the ions are in motion. Our latest instrumental development--the curved-field reflectron--refocuses sequence fragment ions simultaneously (T.J. Cornish et al., Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 8:781-5, 1994). By eliminating the need for scanning, it should become possible to obtain the amino acid sequences of peptides at the sub-picomolar level." (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.16, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : IMMUNOLOGY TY : RESEARCH (HOT PAPERS) PG : 16 H. Yssel, R.D.W. Malefyt,M-G. Roncarolo, J.S. Abrams, R. Lahesmaa, H. Spits, J.E. de Vries, "IL-10 is produced by subsets of human CD4+ T-cell clones and peripheral blood T cells," Journal of Immunology, 149:2378-84, 1992. Jan E. de Vries (DNAX Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.): "This paper characterizes the production of the cytokine interleukin-10 (IL-10) by human T lymphocytes and T-cell clones. "Following antigenic stimulation, T lymphocytes are able to produce cytokines. Cytokines are pleiotropic `hormones' of the immune system that regulate proliferation, differentiation, and function of T lymphocytes, B lymphocytes, natural killer (NK) cells, and monocytes/macrophages. In both mice and humans, CD4+ T lymphocytes can be divided into subsets based on the production of different cytokines, whose production patterns correlate with T-cell functions. "While studying cytokine production in humans, we observed that IL-10 was produced by several different subsets of T cells in addition to the CD4+ clones belonging to the Th2 subset. "This preliminary observation prompted a detailed analysis of IL-10 production by a panel of human T-cell subsets. Although the levels of IL-10 varied in individual clones, they were in the same range. Therefore, human IL-10 cannot simply be considered a typical Th2-derived cytokine that cross-regulates Th1 T-cell activities. "We observed that, relative to such other cytokines as IL-4 and IFN-g, IL-10 production occurred late after activation, indicating that it may be involved in dampening immune responses. It is important to note that monocytes and macrophages are also potent producers of IL-10, and that IL- 10 production by these cells also occurs late after activation (R.D.W. Malefyt et al., J. Exp. Med., 174:1209- 20, 1991). Previous studies (R.D.W. Malefyt et al., J. Exp. Med., 174:915-24, 1991) have indicated that IL-10 indirectly prevents the specific activation of human Th0, Th1, and Th2 clones by antigens and antigen-presenting cells by inhibiting the antigen-presenting and/or accessory-cell function of these cells. "In addition, interactions of IL-10 with IL-10 receptors on activated T cells and T-cell clones were found to directly prevent proliferation of these cells by inhibiting IL-2 production. The general inhibitory effects on T-helper cell subset activation may contribute to the immunosuppressive activities of human IL-10 and could play a role in antigen- specific nonresponsiveness, transplantation tolerance, and prevention of graft-versus-host disease." (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.16, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Hardware, Software Advances Brighten Image-Analysis Systems Picture AU : LARRY KRUMENAKER TY : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY PG : 17 The computerized conversion of images into data for analysis, quantification, and presentation has promised to become a widely used--even necessary--tool in the life sciences laboratory. But over the past decade, certain technical limitations have proved to be a barrier to market growth. These include deficiencies in computer processing speed and memory capacity on the hardware side, and ease of use and multiple applications on the software side. However, recent advances in computer hardware and software are lowering, if not removing, the barriers to wider acceptance of image-analysis systems by life scientists. The cutting edge of this technology is in the area of volumetric, three-dimensional (3-D) image analysis. These useful, highly detailed graphics currently come at the cost of millions of bytes of data and tens of thousands of dollars for state-of-the-art hardware and software. According to industry experts in image-analysis technology, the trend over the next few years appears to be that personal computers (PCs) and UNIX workstations will develop into more powerful, easier-to-use systems whose capabilities will be nearly indistinguishable from each other. Industry insiders point to improvements in the four basic components of this technology. The first is an image-acquisition device, often a charge- coupled device (CCD) camera or a video camera, which sends out analog signals like regular household camcorders. However, improvements have enabled these devices to now transmit digital signals instead. The range of cameras being employed in this technology can cost from $200 to more than $20,000. The price depends on a number of features: camera resolution; color capability; geometric correction; and the number of data bits per pixel of the image. Other imaging devices include hand-held scanners, desktop or flatbed scanners, proprietary interface devices for customized capabilities, and various specialized instruments. The second component of image-analysis systems is the device that transmits the image from the camera to the computer. This has been a frame grabber board. Prices for frame grabbers range from $200 to $8,000. But many new digital cameras now interface directly with the computer. Scanners also directly transmit their signals. The third component is the computer, and current imaging systems require at least a 386-level PC. But for optimal performance, the much-faster 486 or Pentium microprocessors or a UNIX-based workstation are essential for the next generation of image-analysis systems. The final component is software, because it's all meaningless numbers unless users have the software to make measurements of the biological sample or object being analyzed and export these data into a useful form, such as a report or a graphic. The software also controls the camera or scanner acquiring the image and does any image enhancement necessary to correct for problems in image acquisition. Often the user also wants to perform statistical analyses, and this capability must be built into the program. In many applications, the user will eventually want to automate the process so that it can be accomplished, more or less, at the touch of a button rather than by a laborious series of manual steps each time. Current image- analysis programs are still cumbersome to use, and few offer a wide selection of applications in a single package. The trend in software will be toward ease of use and multiple applications in an integrated package. Image-analysis software can cost from $500 to tens of thousands of dollars, though most fall in the range of $4,000 to $8,000. The Optimas software is Bob Hart's flagship product. The Edmonds, Wash.-based company, of which he is president and chief executive officer, recently changed its name to the Optimas Corp. from BioScan Inc. because customers kept calling them "the Optimas people." Like most PC-based image- analysis software, Optimas runs under Windows 3.1. Using a graphical user interface (GUI) such as Windows yields what its manufacturer, Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft Corp., calls a "docucentric world," in which the user is focused on the work being done rather than the application he or she is using. "I don't have to worry about whether I am in Optimas or Excel, or how I'm going to do Word,S Hart explains. "They have become a single operating environment within my computer." "Before it was an application-centric situation--I'm working in my spreadsheet program. Now I'm working in my word- processing program. Well, today, I'm working in my image- analysis program and I'm going to export files to my other programs. This is a tremendous boost to productivity." Ease Of Use Nice idea, Jandel Scientific's Craig Rappaport says, but most users arenUt in the docucentric world yet. "There is a real lack of understanding of the image-processing side of the application among the masses of scientists and engineering and technical specialists out there," the senior market manager at the San Rafael, Calif.-based company says. "Most scientists don't have a problem with quantifying their data, knowing what they want to measure. Their obstacle is the image processing, understanding what the digital image is. "I've been pushing for ease-of-use, image-processing `wizards,' to coin a phrase--some sort of artificial intelligence [that will make it easier for users to operate the systems]. That's what will make the image-analysis market grow. People have been saying this market would grow way back in the early '80s. And it never has. "The reason is, we have these basic obstacles. The technology is cheap enough now to afford it if you wanted it. So why are we still in the range of only 5,000 units sold per year by all the companies out there?" Rappaport quotes 1990 United States Bureau of the Census figures showing about 800,000 scientists and 1.5 million engineers in the U.S. "Either these numbers are a big puff of smoke or there is a real barrier to adoption," he states. He figures the barrier to more widespread adoption of image- analysis systems is due partly to the history of the industry and partly to the value-added resellers (VARs). These VARs, he feels, are doing a good job at keeping the industry going in terms of sales. But they are still following the lead of the early adopters of the technology-- the most sophisticated and knowledgeable users for whom ease of use is not necessarily a prerequisite for purchasing image-analysis systems. "The VARs have a vested interest in selling to those who have the most knowledge about imaging and want the most out of the applications," Rappaport explains. "The VARs then don't go out to the mainstream scientists and say, `Hey, I have an application that doesn't require any programming. You just sit down and do the work.' They don't want those people because it doesn't allow them to add value to the product." Rappaport concludes that this situation has led to very powerful but not very easy-to-use software packages. Also, these programs tend not to feature a comprehensive choice of applications in a single, integrated package. "Someone's work may require eight hours a week tracing graphs, but your application doesn't have a module in it for tracing graphs," he says. "It's too general. There's a lot of that, so customers are requesting specific applications within the program." Bill Strum, president of Media Cybernetics, Silver Spring, Md., agrees: "The greatest obstacle to the acceptance of electronic imaging is perceived ease of use. That's the key- -in bold italics." "Five years from now the typical system will look like a toaster. Every computer sold today already is image-enabled- -that's a fact. You will order the software you want, your PC will be plug-and-play compatible with devices that you use to capture the images. It will be easy to use. There will be suites of software--targeted for use in genetics, metallurgy, polymer science, forensics--and specialty suites within them. There will be an Internet full of custom modules to use." Ted Inoue, president of West Chester, Pa.-based Universal Imaging Corp., explains what those custom modules and application softwares are going to do: RThe field is evolving the way 2-D imagery did a decade ago. Initially people were interested in acquiring images, making pretty pictures, seeing details better, bringing out features that might not otherwise be seen. In 2-D, scientists were simply counting the number of cells in the field of view, and measuring their areas. "That's kind of the state you have now in 3-D imaging. But in 3-D, people are wanting to do this over the entire volume. They might look at a slice of rat brain and want to count the neurons, or they might want to examine the branching structure in these neurons. Now, the next step is making measurements and extracting quantitative data from these images." Data Compression While the demand for 3-D and 4-D, or time-series, imaging systems will grow, manufacturers must address some problems, mainly that these graphic datasets are huge and require enormous amounts of computer memory. The rat brain specimen may involve taking 50 to 100 slices of image data, and the entire three-dimensional picture would require at least 25 megabytes of storage. The past state of the art for storing these images involved using laser disks, a video medium with limited resolution. The key for the future is to store data in a compressed format using mathematical algorithms that can achieve high resolution. "The data-compression field is really exploding," Inoue says, "and many of the methods used in multimedia are directly applicable to the scientific-imaging field, as well. You are probably getting from 10- to 20-to-1 data compression by using these algorithms. The problem still is the resolution quality of these images with high-compression techniques." Assistant anatomy professor David Dean of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, is so convinced that current PC hardware and software are a problem that he won't use them. His research in morphometrics, the biostatistical study of shapes--particularly human anatomy--is performed on a Silicon Graphics Inc. (SGI) workstation, using his own software routines. Much of his work revolves around neuro- and craniofacial surgery patient diagnosis, surgical simulation, and postoperative follow-up. But some recent research has included reconstructing the skulls of ancient Moroccans using fossil fragments, in collaboration with Alan Kalvin of the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., and Jean-Jacques Hublin, Musee de l'Homme, Paris. Dean explains: "To move those volumetric images around in real time so you can see different parts requires an SGI. It involves matrix multiplication of tremendous amounts of data. PCs and Macs are just not punchy enough to do those kinds of things. SGI machines have graphics engines in them, powerful chips dedicated to graphics software." The software for the fossil reconstruction work is a Computer-Aided Anthropology system developed by Dean and Kalvin using the IBM Visualization Data Explorer (VDE). The VDE is a graphics visualization toolkit that runs on workstations from IBM Corp.; Hewlett-Packard Co., Palo Alto, Calif.; SUN Micro Inc., Palo Alto; Data General Corp.,Westboro, Mass., and Silicon Graphics, Mountain View, Calif. Redrawing volumetric images as they are rotated or otherwise moved on the screen is measured in polygons per second. A midrange SGI workstation redraws on the order of 100,000 polygons per second, which is an order of magnitude greater than that of PCs. The state of the art in the UNIX world is a minimum 32- megabyte memory and a 1-gigabyte hard disk, says Doug Benson of Inovision, a Durham, N.C.-based custom programming/hardware integration company. UNIX workstations use 64-bit buses. This means the computer throws 64 bits of data through the bus to the monitor from the hard disk, from a data-capture device all around the machine at each cycle of the main computer's central processing unit (CPU). PCs, until recently, have used 8- and 16-bit buses, but are becoming 32-bit bus systems. Thus, PCs are now approaching the power of the low-end workstations. Benson predicts, "In five years, my expectation is that Windows-based machines are going to run X Windows [the UNIX- based Windows style interface] and X-based machines will be able to run Windows. The users are going to have a switch to select which interface they want." Resolving The Image One reason for the near equality of UNIX and PC systems are the upgrades of Windows--Windows 4.0 and Windows NT--from Microsoft. "Microsoft realizes that the things UNIX does well are good things to do, and they are going to do them as well," Benson observes. "The intention is for Windows NT to make the gap between PCs and workstations go away. I don't know if that is a fair statement. Until that is tried and proven I have no intention of being a guinea pig for Microsoft." To Jerry Fife, product manager at Photometrics Ltd., Tucson, Ariz., all the software and PC improvements are meaningless if users can't get a quality image. Photometrics specializes in high-resolution CCD cameras for digital image capture. High resolution not only can mean resolving the close separation of features, but also refers to the level of gray or number of colors that can be distinguished in each pixel. Though Photometrics was begun by a Kitt Peak National Observatory astronomer, much of its business comes from firms working on the Human Genome Project. "CCDs are being advanced in a number of different ways," Fife says. "A lot of things are happening in the areas of application specifics. For example, CCDs are taking on different formats as opposed to your standard 3 x 4 aspect ratio. A typical example would be spectroscopy chips, which are very rectangular, 4- or 8-to-1." Spatial resolution, the actual number of pixels, is very important because it determines the amount and detail of information captured in the image for display, analysis, and quantification. The highest available is up to 5,000 x 5,000 pixels. Typical video resolutions are only 700 x 500. Fife predicts, "I expect to see higher-resolution video cameras combined with some kind of frame grabber. The video connection will be built directly into computers so that frame grabbers will become more specialized. As the electronics shrink, more of the electronics will be involved in the camera head and less in separate controller boxes." He sees the greatest progress today in better-cooled CCD cameras, even though the price is keeping them out of the hands of many users. Cooling lowers the thermal "noise" in the signal, providing a cleaner and sharper image. Near-Term Trends The manufacturers' consensus is that the 1999 systems will be even faster than todayUs Pentium 90 Mhz models, with gigabytes of hard-disk space and at least a gigabyte of RAM memory. Image-capture de-vices will be tinier cameras, with higher resolution spatially, and in terms of digital data per pixel, chilled for greater thermal responsiveness. The digital output of the camera or other image-acquisition device will head directly into the PC by more powerful frame grabbers, some incorporated into the camera itself. All the hardware will be "plug and play," like an office stereo system. Data compression will ease some of the storage crunch. Software will come with a larger repertoire of application- specific modules, and the gap between PCs and workstations will disappear because of various windowing applications in both of these major operating systems. The gap will also close as a result of improvements in chip technologies, unless the workstation manufacturers can really boost performance much further than PCs. With all these potential changes, it remains to be seen who will be around to continue to provide products and services. Acquisitions and business failures within the image-analysis industry can make for a volatile marketplace. According to Optimas' Hart, "We're in what is still, surprisingly, a fairly emergent business. It's really just starting to consolidate. I think you're going to see an accelerating change over the next couple of years. I think there will be a lot of consolidation, a lot of shake-out. "We are entering that next phase of a maturing market where we start with hundreds of little players and end with a relative handful of dominant companies." Larry Krumenaker is a freelance science writer based in Hillsdale, N.J. (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg 17, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : SCIENTIFIC IMAGE-ANALYSIS SOFTWARE SUPPLIERS TY : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY PG : 18 ADMAX Computer Inc. Nashua, NH Circle No. 212 on Reader Service Card Advanced Visual Systems Waltham, MA Circle No. 213 on Reader Service Card Aldus Consumer Division San Diego, CA Circle No. 214 on Reader Service Card Analogic Corp. Wakefield, MA Circle No. 215 on Reader Service Card Ambis Inc. San Diego, CA Circle No. 216 on Reader Service Card Amtec Engineering Inc. Bellevue, WA Circle No. 217 on Reader Service Card Applied Biosystems Foster City, CA Circle No. 218 on Reader Service Card BioCAD Corp. Mountain View, CA Circle No. 219 on Reader Service Card Bio-Rad Laboratories Hercules, CA Circle No. 220 on Reader Service Card BIOSYM Technologies Inc. San Diego, CA Circle No. 221 on Reader Service Card B/T Scientific Technologies La Costa, CA Circle No. 222 on Reader Service Card Cognex Corp. Needham, MA Circle No. 223 on Reader Service Card CoHort Software Minneapolis, MN Circle No. 224 on Reader Service Card Compix Inc. Mars, PA Circle No. 225 on Reader Service Card Data Translation Inc. Marlboro, MA Circle No. 226 on Reader Service Card DNA ProScan Inc. Nashville, TN Circle No. 227 on Reader Service Card DSP Development Corp. Cambridge, MA Circle No. 228 on Reader Service Card Dynacomp Inc. Webster, NY Circle No. 229 on Reader Service Card EG&G Instruments Princeton, NJ Circle No. 230 on Reader Service Card Epix Inc. Northbrook, IL Circle No. 1 on Reader Service Card Europa Scientific Software Corp. Hollis, MN Circle No. 2 on Reader Service Card Famous Engineer Brand Software Richmond, VA Circle No. 3 on Reader Service Card Golden Software Inc. Golden, CO Circle No. 4 on Reader Service Card Graftek Imaging Mystic, CT Circle No. 5 on Reader Service Card Hyperception Inc. Dallas, TX Circle No. 6 on Reader Service Card Imaging Automation Merrimack, NH Circle No. 7 on Reader Service Card Imagination Systems Inc. Virginia Beach, VA Circle No. 8 on Reader Service Card Imaging Technology Inc. Bedford, MA Circle No. 9 on Reader Service Card IMSL Inc. Sugarland, TX Circle No. 10 on Reader Service Card Infometrix Inc. Seattle, WA Circle No. 11 on Reader Service Card Innovative Imaging Inc. Wayne, PA Circle No. 12 on Reader Service Card Inovision Corp. Durham, NC Circle No. 13 on Reader Service Card Integrated Separation Systems Natick, MA Circle No. 14 on Reader Service Card Integrated Systems Inc. Santa Clara, CA Circle No. 15 on Reader Service Card IntelliGenetics Inc. Mountain View, CA Circle No. 16 on Reader Service Card Jandel Scientific San Rafael, CA Circle No. 17 on Reader Service Card Keithley Data Acquisition Division Taunton, MA Circle No. 18 on Reader Service Card Liant Software Corp. San Diego, CA Circle No. 19 on Reader Service Card The MathWorks Inc. Natick, MA Circle No. 20 on Reader Service Card Medica Cybernetics Silver Spring, MD Circle No. 21 on Reader Service Card Metric Systems Round Rock, TX Circle No. 22 on Reader Service Card Micro Data Base Systems Inc. Lafayette, IN Circle No. 23 on Reader Service Card MicroDisc Inc. Pennsauken, NJ Circle No. 24 on Reader Service Card Micromath Scientific Software Salt Lake City, UT Circle No. 25 on Reader Service Card Molecular Dynamics Inc. Sunnyvale, CA Circle No. 26 on Reader Service Card Molecular Simulations Sunnyvale, CA Circle No. 27 on Reader Service Card National Instruments Austin, TX Circle No. 28 on Reader Service Card Nicolet Instrument Corp. Madison, WI Circle No. 29 on Reader Service Card Nikon Electronic Imaging Melville, NY Circle No. 30 on Reader Service Card Noesis Vision Inc. Montreal, Quebec Circle No. 31 on Reader Service Card Optimas Edmonds, WA Circle No. 32 on Reader Service Card OTC Beaverton, OR Circle No. 33 on Reader Service Card Perkin-Elmer Corp. Norwalk, CT Circle No. 34 on Reader Service Card Pharmacia Biotech Inc. Piscataway, NJ Circle No. 35 on Reader Service Card Precision Visuals Boulder, CO Circle No. 36 on Reader Service Card Preston Scientific Inc. Anaheim, CA Circle No. 37 on Reader Service Card Quantitative Technology Corp. Beaverton, OR Circle No. 38 on Reader Service Card Research Systems Inc. Boulder, CO Circle No. 39 on Reader Service Card Resolution Technology Inc. Columbus, OH Circle No. 40 on Reader Service Card SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC Circle No. 41 on Reader Service Card Scientific Endeavors Corp. Kingston, TN Circle No. 42 on Reader Service Card Signal Analytics Corp. Vienna, VA Circle No. 43 on Reader Service Card Signal Technology Inc. Goleta, CA Circle No. 44 on Reader Service Card Spectral Innovations San Jose, CA Circle No. 45 on Reader Service Card StatSci Inc. Seattle, WA Circle No. 46 on Reader Service Card StatSoft Inc. Tulsa, OK Circle No. 47 on Reader Service Card Tripos Associates Inc. St. Louis, MO Circle No. 48 on Reader Service Card United States Biochemical Corp. Cleveland, OH Circle No. 49 on Reader Service Card Universal Imaging Corp. West Chester, PA Circle No. 50 on Reader Service Card Univision Technologies Inc. Burlington, MA Circle No. 51 on Reader Service Card UVP Inc. Upland, CA Circle No. 52 on Reader Service Card Videologic Inc. Cambridge, MA Circle No. 53 on Reader Service Card Viewpoint Software Solutions Rochester, NY Circle No. 54 on Reader Service Card Visual Numerics Inc. Sugarland, TX Circle No. 55 on Reader Service Card Wolfram Research Champaign, IL Circle No. 56 on Reader Service Card (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.18, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : NEW PRODUCTS TY : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY PG : 24 Molecular Bio-Products Releases Turbo Assay System Molecular Bio-Products' Turbo Assay System is a membrane and manifold system for a wide variety of qualitative and quantitative assays. The system provides a format for colorimetric and radiometric assays and is said to reduce total assay time to as little as 15 minutes. The disposable 8-well assay strips ensure no cross-talk between samples. The incorporated membrane has a high protein binding capacity and absorbs or entraps the primary reagent. Washes and other reagents may be added in the volume, sequence, and time necessary for the assay. A combination of columns and caps is used with the portable vacuum system. Molecular Bio-Products Inc., San Diego, CA Circle No. 71 on Reader Service Card ----- Enzyme Immunoassay Kits TiterScreen "sandwich" enzyme immunoassay kits are now available for the qualitative determination of multiple human cytokines in serum, plasma, or tissue culture supernatants. TiterScreen I, Code #8-6651, is for the measurement of IL-1b, IL-6, and TNFa. TiterScreen II, Code #8-6652, is for the detection of IL-2, IFNg, and TNFa. TiterScreen III, Code #8-6653, is for the determination of IL-4, IL-10, and TNFa. Each assay contains a detachable 96- well plate and stable reagents for the qualitative evaluation of three different cytokines using a horseradish peroxidase enzyme conjugate and TMB substrate for detection at 450 nm. Results reportedly are determined in less than three hours and require 100ml of sample. The color-coded wells for each cytokine provide 32 tests per analyte, including standard curve values. Perseptive Diagnostics Inc., Cambridge, MA Circle No. 70 on Reader Service Card ----- Software Modules For Developers MathEdge is a suite of component software modules that allows application developers to integrate symbolic and graphic computation into new products. The technology is said to enable developers to shorten the time to market and reduce costs. The technology is directly embedded into applications for engineering, physics, financial analysis, and education. Waterloo Maple Software, Waterloo, ON Circle No. 69 on Reader Service Card ----- Database Searching Programs Available Intelligenetics Inc. and MasPar Computer Corp. announce the release of the MPSRCH 2.0 suite of database-searching programs for the MasPar family of scalable, high-performance computers. MPSRCH contains database-searching tools for determining familial and functional relationships among primary sequence data. The programs are designed for rigorous database searching in a sustainable, high- throughput production environment. MPSRCH uses the full Smith-Waterman algorithm with improved statistical analysis methods and enables users to retrieve sequences from the databases using a cDNA query. The software can be used to identify related family members or to characterize novel sequences. Intelligenetics Inc., Mountain View, CA Circle No. 68 on Reader Service Card ----- Hitachi Offers GENE BRIGHT GENE BRIGHT is a similarity search board that incorporates the rigorous Smith-Waterman primary sequence search algorithm along with custom-designed LSI chip technology. GENE BRIGHT enables researchers to use their personal computers to search against the major databanks and to identify remote evolutionary relationships and functional structures of DNA and protein sequences. Hitachi Software Engineering America Ltd., San Bruno, CA Circle No. 72 on Reader Service Card ----- Recombinant Screening Kit From Stratagene The ScreenTest recombinant screening kit enables researchers to perform three-hour, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based recombinant insert analysis directly from transformed colonies. Overnight inoculations, DNA minipreparations, and restriction enzyme digestions are not required. The kit's primers contain highly conserved complementary sequences designed to be asymmetrical to the multiple cloning sites in plasmids. This allows users to determine insert presence and orientation by agarose gel analysis of the PCR-generated products. When combined with a user-defined, insert-specific primer, characteristic banding patterns verify insert orientation. Stratagene, La Jolla, CA Circle No. 58 on Reader Service Card ----- Hyperion Announces New Line Of Shakers The Infinity Shaker Model I is the first in a series of new shakers for biotechnology and pharmaceutical research. The motion of the shaker platform is independently controlled in each Cartesian direction to create a figure-eight pattern, rather than simple circular or translational motion. The sense of motion is repeatedly reversed between clockwise and counterclockwise, resulting in more effective mixing with higher turbulence and higher oxygen-transfer rates. Hyperion Research Corp., Upper Montclair, N.J. Circle No. 59 on Reader Service Card ----- IN/US's Online Radioactivity Quantitation Unit The b-RAM is an online radioactivity quantitation system of 3H, 14C, 32P, 35S, and other beta or soft gamma emitters for high-performance liquid chromatography techniques. The system, housed in a compact, stackable unit, includes data- acquisition/data-processing software that follows GLP guidelines; two independent radio channels; three analog inputs for mass detectors; four analog outputs for chart recording and chromatography systems; remote-control ports for automatic sample processing; programmable scintillator pump; high-precision mixer; front-panel liquid connections; solid or liquid scintillant cell types; and detector shielding. Sample data can be sent in real time or stored for post-run processing. IN/US Systems Inc., Tampa, FL Circle No. 60 on Reader Service Card ----- Poly Software Offers Upgrade To PSI-Plot PSI-Plot Version 3.0, a technical plotting and data- processing software package, now includes a number of new features and capabilities, such as: ordinary differential equation solvers; customized desktop color control; on- screen rulers; EMS and XMS usage control; and new plot types, such as pie chart and ternary plot. The programUs data sheet performs complete statistical analyses, data transformation, digital signal processing, nonlinear parameter fitting, and model development. PSI-Plot 3.0 also offers many 2-D and 3-D plot types. Poly Software International, Salt Lake City, UT Circle No. 61 on Reader Service Card ----- Markson's MicroCam SLR The Markson Science MicroCam SLR converts any microscope slide to a photo document. The unit is said to easily adapt to any microscope, facilitating documentation of experimental results. It enables users to view results multiple times without going back to the microscope. Markson, Hillsboro, OR Circle No. 67 on Reader Service Card ----- National Instruments Introduces Interface Kit The general-purpose interface bus (GPIB) kit is designed for controlling graphics peripherals or test equipment with Silicon Graphics' Indigo2 or Indy workstations running on the IRIX 5.2 operating system. The GPIB-SG-S kit features a GPIB-SCSI-A controller, NI-488M multitasking software, and SCSI cable, enabling graphics application developers and users to interface with all GPIB-based graphics peripherals, including film recorders, scanners, and color copiers. National Instruments, Austin, TX Circle No. 62 on Reader Service Card ----- New Electronic Dispensing Device The Eppendorf EDOS can be programmed to operate in six different modes: standard pipetting, repetitive dispensing of single or multiple volumes, titration, serial dilution, sample mixing, or manual mode for customized sample dispensing. The calibration can be readjusted in each routine for more accurate pipetting of viscous samples. The software self-calibrates the system to reduce operator error and interassay variation. It also supports an RS232C interface to connect the EDOS system to personal computers. Brinkmann Instruments Inc., Westbury, NY Circle No. 63 on Reader Service Card ----- Medical Systems' OxySpot Makes Debut The instrument, which measures dissolved free oxygen noninvasively, determines oxygen concentration by phosphorescence quenching of nontoxic probe molecules, based on phosphorimetric technology. Oxygen levels from saturation down to less than 0.01 Torr (10-8 M) can be measured. The technique has been used for in vitro metabolic assays of cell organelles, cells, and perfused organs as well as in vivo research and is nearing Food and Drug Administration approval for clinical applications. Medical Systems Corp., Greenvale, NY Circle No. 64 on Reader Service Card ----- Perkin-Elmer Releases Genotyping Software The Genotyper software package takes polymerase chain reaction-based DNA fragment data generated by the company's Automated Genotyping System and automatically transforms it into genotype. It identifies and scores alleles, equates peak ratios, and determines peak statistics. The software can also help locate genotyping errors or misinheritance through its error-identification features, such as the Mendelian Inheritance checker. It offers user-definable templates for customized analysis of DNA sizing, quantitation, and data pattern comparison. Perkin-Elmer Corp., Norwalk, CT Circle No. 65 on Reader Service Card ----- Ultra-Lum Unveils New FP100 System The new FP 1000 Visualization System provides electronic instant photography for visualization and documentation and is intended to replace traditional photographic cameras. The system reportedly cuts electrophoresis gel documentation costs by 90 percent. Stains of any type, wet gels, or audioradiagrams are said to be photographed in just seconds. The FP 1000 incorporates a high-resolution CCD camera with a 600 nm filter, a 256 gray scale thermal printer, a monochrome 9-inch monitor, and a low-profile darkroom with a viewing port. Ultra-Lum Inc., Carson, CA Circle No. 66 on Reader Service Card ----- Genosys Releases New DNA Isolator Reagent The DNA Isolator is a ready-to-use reagent that enables extraction of RNA-free, high-molecular-weight genomic DNA up to 100 Kb from a variety of tissue and cell culture samples. It is provided as a chaotropic cocktail that contains no phenol. The reagent lyses and solubilizes DNA and RNA in one step. By adding chloroform and mixing, the researcher creates a biphasic solution, in which DNA is partitioned in the aqueous phase while RNA and proteins remain in the organic phase. Genosys Biotechnologies Inc., The Woodlands, TX Circle No. 208 on Reader Service Card ----- Genzyme Introduces GM-CSF ELISA Kit The Predicta GM-CSF ELISA kit may be used to measure granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in human serum, plasma, and tissue culture fluid specimens. It features precoated breakaway wells on a microtiter plate, TMB substrate, and all reagents needed to perform multiple runs. Genzyme Corp., Cambridge, MA Circle No.200 on Reader Service Card ----- New Histone Probe From DAKO The Histone H3 mRNA Probe is an S-phase-specific, hapten- labeled device that can be used as a cytoplasmic marker of proliferating cells in routinely processed tissue with in situ hybridization. The long, single-stranded probe design is suitable for mRNA hybridization and signal generation. As a cytoplasmic marker, it is also appropriate for double- staining procedures with nuclear antigens. DAKO Corp., Carpinteria, CA Circle No. 201 on Reader Service Card ----- Bio Image Unveils Two Image-Analysis Programs Intelligent Quantifier Image Analysis Software is a self- installing, self-tutoring program that supports whole-band one-dimensional analysis, two-dimensional electrophoresis, blot analysis, and colony/plaque counting. Researchers can annotate and compare images and prepare reports by using Microsoft Excel and Word, Lotus 1-2-3, and WordPerfect. Bio Image's 2-D Analysis Software program is designed to acquire sample images, locate and automatically quantify spots, build image databases, and identify key proteins on one sample and compare them with any others in the customized database. The software determines a precise boundary for each spot and uses the results to calculate location, size, spot intensity, and percent intensity. Bio Image, Ann Arbor, MI Circle No. 202 on Reader Service Card ----- New Immunoprobe Available From Nanoprobes FluoroNanogold combines fluorescence and gold into a single immunoprobe for immunocytochemistry at both the light- and electron-microscope levels. The product has applications in cell biology, immunology, and biomedical and clinical research. Nanoprobes Inc., Stony Brook, NY Circle No. 203 on Reader Service Card ----- Millipore's Filter Unit Bulk Packs Sterivex Syringe-Operated Filter Units are available in 50- per-pack bulk packages. The filter units provide 10 cm2 of filtration area and can process up to 1,000 ml of aqueous biologicals. Sterivex-GV (0.22 mm) and Sterivex-HV (0.45 mm) units incorporate low-protein-binding Durapore membranes for filtration of tissue culture media, media additives, and other solutions. Sterivex-GS (0.22 mm) units incorporate membranes of mixed cellulose esters for filtration of dyes, stains, and buffers. Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA Circle No. 204 on Reader Service Card ----- Epicentre's DNA Sequencing Kit The IsoTherm DNA Sequencing Kit includes IsoTherm DNA Polymerase, the product of the cloned DNA pol I gene of the thermophilic bacterium Bacillus stearthermophilus (Bst), modified to remove 5+-3+ exonuclease activity. With a high optimum temperature (65!C), the kit can sequence through regions of secondary structure or high GC content. Epicentre Technologies, Madison, WI Circle No. 205 on Reader Service Card ----- UVP's Benchtop Transilluminator The 3UV Benchtop Ultraviolet Transilluminator is designed for researchers requiring multiple wavelengths for gel viewing. It provides long (365 nm), midrange (302 nm), and short (254 nm) ultraviolet wavelengths. Two filter sizes are available--21 x 26cm and 20 x 20cm. UVP Inc., Upland, CA Circle No. 206 on Reader Service Card ----- Elkay Expands Filter Pipette Tip Line The ProGard Filter pipette tip line now includes Mini and Ultra Micro Thin tips, specifically designed for use with Pipetman P-2 and P-10 pipettors and with Eppendorf UltraMicro pipettors, respectively. A hydrophobic, inert filter material in the pipette tip is said to prevent aerosols from entering the tip cone of air-displacement pipettors. Ultra Micro pipette tips with ProGard filters are available in presterilized hinged, covered, autoclavable 8 x 12 formatted racks. Elkay Products Inc., Shrewsbury, MA Circle No. 207 on Reader Service Card ----- Jandel's SigmaSuite For Windows Debuts SigmaSuite for Windows is an integrated software package that includes SigmaPlot, SigmaStat, and SigmaScan/Image, which function together on the same data worksheet and eliminate the need to convert data from one format to another. Using a common worksheet (16,000 columns by 65,000 rows) and data transform language, users can measure images with SigmaScan/Image, analyze the data with SigmaStat, and graph research results with SigmaPlot. Jandel Scientific Software, San Rafael, CA Circle No. 199 on Reader Service Card ----- Leica Offers Image Processing And Analysis System The Quantimet 600 system for automatic analysis of microscope images can handle up to 4,096 x 4,096 pixels per image and features a morphological processor to enhance images, discard unwanted detail, and speed gray-scale processing. It is operated from a graphical user interface with QWin interactive image-analysis software. The system offers a variety of dedicated solutions to meet the needs of users in the pharmaceutical, food-processing, environmental- monitoring, and other industries. Leica Inc., Deerfield, IL Circle No. 209 on Reader Service Card ----- Sterilized Petri Dishes From Gelman Gelman Sciences' Sterilized Petri Dishes are designed to allow one-hand opening and provide a tight seal to lock in humidity. Sterilized by gamma radiation, the dishes are intended for use with a 47 mm membrane filter, absorbent pad, and microbiological media to culture microorganisms. They are available with or without preloaded absorbent pads. Gelman Sciences Inc., Ann Arbor, MI Circle No. 210 on Reader Service Card ----- (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, Pg. 24, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: PEOPLE ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : Harvard Researcher Named As BBRI Director AU : NEERAJA SANKARAN TY : NEWS (PEOPLE) PG : 22 Kathleen G. Morgan, a professor of physiology in medicine at Harvard Medical School's cardiovascular division at Beth Israel Hospital, Boston, has been named the new director of the Boston Biomedical Research Institute (BBRI), effective Jan. 1, 1995. BBRI is an independent, nonprofit institute whose mission is to learn more about the natural world through basic biological research. The 25-year-old organization has about 20 principal investigators, funded by competitive grants from the National Institutes of Health and other agencies and organizations. The staff includes senior scientists Chih-Lueh A. Wang, working on a $6 million NIH program project grant to study smooth muscle regulation, and Sherwin S. Lehrer, who has a $1.5 million NIH research grant to investigate muscle biochemistry. In addition, there is a support staff of technicians, postdoctoral fellows, and students. BBRI "is one of the best-kept secrets in Boston," says Morgan, adding that her priority as director will be to "improve its visibility." in the area. One way she plans to achieve this goal is by increasing "the collaborative interaction with Boston's medical community." Morgan also hopes to enhance the research in BBRI's main areas of interest: muscle contraction, cell communication, and cell growth. Her own interest, she says, is studying smooth muscle (for example, the involuntary muscles that line the digestive tract) function at the subcellular level. This a particularly fascinating problem, she says, since "no one really knows how these muscles actually contract." Morgan, 53, graduated with a B.S. in chemistry from the College of Mount St. Joseph in Cincinnati in 1962, and a doctoral degree in pharmacology from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in 1976. She has been at Harvard since 1983, and will maintain her current position during her five-year directorship. In addition to the directorship, Morgan was appointed to the position of Amelia Peabody Senior Scientist at BBRI, which is the equivalent of an endowed chair at the institute. --Neeraja Sankaran (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.22, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: ------------------------------------------------------------ TI : New Science Chief Takes Over NASA's `Mission To Planet Earth' Project AU : NEERAJA SANKARAN TY : NEWS (PEOPLE) PG : 22 Robert Harriss, a professor of earth sciences from the University of New Hampshire, Durham, has been appointed head of the science division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Mission to Planet Earth in Washington, D.C. He began his term September 1. With a current budget of about $7.25 billion for its first four years, Mission to Planet Earth is the world's largest nonmilitary scientific project. The aim of the initiative is to increase science's understanding of the global changes occurring in the Earth's life-support systems by monitoring such indicators as climate change and vegetation around the globe. A major component of the mission is NASA's Earth Observation System (EOS), which Harriss describes as "a long-term program to develop and launch a family of satellites to observe [global] climate change and its consequences on the biosphere." EOS, currently in the planning phase, is expected to send up more than 17 satellites over the course of 15 years. The first one, called the Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) satellite, will be launched in 1997, followed by three more in 1998. In addition to EOS, the Mission to Planet Earth consists of a research and analysis program, which funds studies at various universities, and currently supports about 1,500 grants chosen by a peer-reviewed proposal process. "[This program] is the means by which we take the data and know what it means," says Harriss, who considers this component as the Rintellectual capital" for the program. "The projects include all aspects of earth systems science--not only climate and ecosystem studies, but also solid earth studies like biogeochemistry and geodynamics." As the new head of the science division, Harriss wants to emphasize the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to studying earth systems, and to highlight the relevance of the environment as a security issue. "The security of this planet depends on environmental stability and economic improvement for all its people," he says. "Unless we understand Earth as an integrated system we cannot do that." "I believe that [this] program can be a solution to the efficient use of our global resource base," he adds. Another priority for Harriss will be to diversify the demographic mix of earth scientists supported by NASA and enhance opportunities for women and minorities in the earth sciences. "Right now I am studying [National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health] programs with similar objectives," he says. "Eventually, I hope to have a special program--peer-reviewed, as all of our programs are-- to attract young women and minority investigators." Harriss, 53, received a Ph.D. in geochemistry from Houston's Rice University in 1965. In a varied career spanning more than 25 years he has taught geochemistry, oceanography, and resource management at several institutions in the United States. He served as a senior scientist at the atmospheric science division of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., for more than 10 years. From 1988 until his current appointment he had been at the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at New Hampshire, where he helped develop a program on global research stressing environmental-policy implications. --Neeraja Sankaran (The Scientist, Vol:8, #19, pg.22, October 3, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. --------

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank