The Scientist

This is the third and final article In the series on microcomputer to mainframe links. The first article was "Linking Micros to Mainframes" (The Scientist, October 20, 1986, p. 14); the second was "How to Develop Link Networks" (The Scientist, December 15, 1986, p. 14). How do you develop an implementation plan for connecting micro-computers to mainframes? What are the important considerations? How do you select appropriate products? If you have only six personal computers in your organization,

0 Comments

In 1975, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) was remarkable more for its namesake, the legendary, ultra-reclusive billionaire, than for its $3 million research program. But Hughes' death in 1976, and the 1985 sale of the Hughes Aircraft Co. for $5 billion, have made the Institute remark-able to the tune of $200 million in biomedical grants last year alone. That figure is expected to climb to $300 million by 1990, making the Institute the largest private medical research organization in th

0 Comments

To biochemist Nitza Cintron, a member of what she describes as "the NASA family," the Challenger accident brought with it a great sense of loss. As chief of the 75-person Biomedical Laboratories at Johnson Space Center, Cintron believes the accident has had a greater impact on operational responsibilities—supporting shuttle flights—than on basic research. But there are lots of projects that can only be done in space which have been temporarily suspended. Some of Cintron's own researc

0 Comments

I hope that the article "Search for Animal Alternatives Faces Rough Road" by Tom Watkins (The Scientist, December 15, 1986, p. 6) does not portend that The Scientist will face a rough road through inaccurate reporting. In the article, Watkins states that I refused to respond to comments by Earle Brauer of Revlon. In fact, I gave Watkins a rather extended telephone interview. He called me back several weeks later with a series of questions, saying "Person A said this and person B said that, what

0 Comments

John Beatty informed me that you had cut much of his review of my book Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology (The Scientist, December 15, 1986, pp. 23-24) without consultation. This was dismaying news for obvious minor personal reasons and also for the major reason that The Scientist apparently does not wish to publish substantive book reviews. This, I think, is a big mistake. If you are going to review science books at all, then review them well and in depth. The idea of your newspaper is grea

0 Comments