
                      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.

                          --------
