The Scientist - Home

A number of new biotechnology companies are developing pigs with human genes that will partially mask the foreignness of their organs to allow them to be transplanted into humans. Others, however, are closely studying the immune-system biochemistries of pigs and humans to find more classical, drug-based approaches to effective xenotransplantation. The first aim in both cases is the same -- to defeat the devastating and nearly immediate hyperacute rejection of pig organs by the human immune sys

Following is contact information for selected publishers of journals related to the life sciences that have CD-ROM products available. Academic Press (Methods in Enzymology, NeuroImage, Virology): (800) 321-5068. American Chemical Society (Biochemistry, Journal of the American Chemical Society, and, soon, Journal of Organic Chemistry): (800) 753-4227. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (Journal of Biological Chemistry): (301) 530-7145. American Society for Microbiology

Recipients of scientific awards generally give fairly predictable acceptance speeches, expressing gratitude to their families, their institutions, their colleagues, and their funding agencies. But at the Albert Lasker Medical Research Awards luncheon in New York on September 29 (see story on page 1), some honorees departed from the usual format to add a personal note. Basic research award corecipient Jack Strominger, perhaps alluding to the New York City Board of Education's difficulty in hiri

Resolutionon Nondefense R&D for the years 1995 to 2002 (millions of dollars budget authority) Constant Dollars R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D Change AGENCY fy 1995 fy 1996 fy 1997 fy 2002 fy 2002 95-02 est. est. est. est. Total Non- 34,164 29,911 29,261 28,487 22,939 -32.9% Defense R&D Total HHS R&D 11,589 11,342 11,125 11,125 8,958 -22.7% Total NASA R&D 9,875 8,747 8,523 7,863 6,331 -35.9% Total DOE 3,969 3,113 2,874 2,590 2,086 -47.4% Non-Defense R&D Total NSF R&D 2,544 2,320 2,381 2,588 2,084 -18.1% T

Echoing the centuries-old debate among scientists over how to organize and name Earth's species, authors of National Research Council (NRC) reports rating research-doctorate programs have also struggled over the "taxonomy" of disciplines within the biosciences. Allan Cartter, in his 1966 report An Assessment of Quality In Graduate Education (Washington, D.C., American Council on Education), observed that grouping programs within the biological sciences represented a challenge, owing to the vari

Fans, Critics Author: Karen Young Kreeger SIDEBAR: Bioscience Make-Over Top Five Institutions in Biological Sciences Doctorate Program In the last couple of weeks, university public relations departments have been issuing press releases and campus newspapers have been publishing front-page articles extolling how well their graduate programs fared in a long-awaited National Research Council (NRC) report rating doctoral research programs. Scientists, higher-education observers, and university

Programs Author: Karen Young Kreeger (Ranked by scores on a survey of scholarly quality of program faculty among peers. Scores on a scale of 0 to 5*") Rank Institution Score Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 1 University of California, San Francisco 4.84 2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.83 Stanford University 4.83 3 University of California, Berkeley 4.81 4 Harvard University 4.80 5 Yale University 4.59 Cell and Developmental Biology 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.86 2 Ro

Candidates For Nobel Author: NEERAJA SANKARAN Sidebar: Highly Referenced Scientists As one of the oldest and richest awards for intellectual achievement, the Nobel Prize is also perhaps the most coveted prize in the world. With nearly $1 million allocated to winners in the categories of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and economics, and a long selection process shrouded in secrecy, it is also one of the most prestigious. It's only natural then, in the weeks of tense

Sidebar: The Rule of Law The past few decades have seen the ascendancy of a new class of science gadfly-the professional bioethicist. During this time, researchers have sometimes found themselves in a warring stance with these largely unbidden critics of biomedicine-and skirmishes between them are not unheard of, even yet. Today, however, the two professions are working hard to build a constructive relationship within which to address the important issues being raised by research advances in

American Society of Plant Physiologists 15501 Monona Dr., Rockville, Md. 20855-2768 (301) 251-0560 Fax: (301) 279-2996 E-mail: skelly@aspp.org 5,400 members Executive director: Kenneth M. Beam Journal: Plant Physiology Agriculture Network Information Center: http://www.agnic.org BioTechnology Permits Home Page: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/BBEP/BP/ General Agbiotech Information Library: http://www.lights.com/gaba/library.html National Agricultural Library

Following is a list of a dozen life scientists whose papers published during the period 1981-94 were the most cited during that period, according to the Philadelphia-based Institute for Scientific Information. Previous Nobelists have been excluded. (For a list of the most-cited scientists for the period 1981-90, see E. Garfield, A.W. Dorof, Theoretical Medicine, 13:117-35,1992.) Will any of them be honored with the Nobel this year? 1981-94 NAME ARTICLES CITATIONS Robert G. Gallo 808 52,489 Ber

Competition Author: HENRY I. MILLER America learned long ago that what's good for General Motors isn't necessarily good for the country. This axiom applies to the biotechnology industry, as well. The biotech industry's major trade group-the monolithic, Washington, D.C.-based Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)-has been part of the problem, rather than the solution, on a variety of regulatory issues during the past decade. They were at it again in a big way in July. In fact, the organiz