Honor Society Sigma Xi Strives To Bolster Image And Membership

Under new leadership, the huge science organization hopes to overcome inertia and lay claim to status as the `voice' of science During his 19-year tenure at the helm of Brooklyn, N.Y.'s Polytechnic University, engineer George Buglia-rello took an ailing institution and made it a contender in the scientific community. Last week, when Bugliarello assumed a one-year term as president of Sigma Xi, the 101,600-member scientific honor society, he said he hopes to accomplish much the same goal in a fraction of the time. In saying that, Bugliarello acknowledged what the administration of Sigma Xi realized four years ago, when the society turned 100 years old: Because Sigma Xi is barely visible on the radar screen of most national science policymakers, it has become dispensable to many new- generation members. That point is evidenced by the downsizing of the society in recent times. In the last decade, Sigma Xi has lost about 18,000 members, 10,000 of that total in the past three years alone. The venerable society, long known as an organization that honored hard work and brought a mix of scientists together to hold lectures, discussions, and fraternal gatherings, has not positioned itself well in today's fast- paced and stressed research environment. As the society's executive director, John Ahearne, puts it, "When the squeeze is on, as it is today, we are an interdisciplinary society that would not be viewed by scientists as absolutely necessary to their research careers." To shore up its stature, Sigma Xi is trying to re-create itself as the "voice" of scientists. It is attempting to forge new strength out of its very heterogeneity as a grass- roots collection of scientists from all disciplines. No other organization, with the exception of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, represents as many scientific fields. As George Bugliarello sits amid the fruit of his successful effort to build a high-technology corporate park around the university he almost single-handedly revitalized, he still acknowledges his frustration that science and technology remain largely misunderstood. "Society is so confused. It is given to magic and to aliens," says this bioengineer with a slight Italian accent. "I don't think people really understand the deeper importance of scientific research." That is, with the exception, perhaps, of residents of downtown Brooklyn, the home of Bugliarello's innovative experiment with Polytechnic University. Since taking over as president in 1973, Bugliarello has shepherded the financially strapped institution and what once was a rundown neighborhood through a $1 billion- plus program called Metrotech: 16 acres of financial institutions, technology firms, and data centers as well as the highly respected university itself. When completed, Metrotech will include 5 million square feet of office space and is expected to bring 16,000 new jobs to the area. As Metrotech evolved over two decades, the 65-year-old Bugliarello says, he became more and more interested in social technology--the interaction of technology and society with science policy. And now that the park's office towers have risen, he has taken on a mission to bring similar revelations about the benefits of technology and scientific research to the larger audience served by Sigma Xi. The society, he says, can help the public understand that "research is our best weapon to securing the future." Born in Trieste, Italy, Bugliarello came with a Fulbright scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received his doctorate in engineering in 1959. Before taking the reins of Polytechnic University, he taught at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and was dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle. --R.T. For Sigma Xi to thrive, says Bugliarello, "we have to make the society more relevant to researchers. The great strength of Sigma Xi is that we have members of every scientific discipline organized into chapters and clubs. We need to empower these researchers." "The members have urged us to be more involved in issues that directly affect them," says Ahearne. "They want to view us as the voice of the research community...and because the society has a representative cross-section of all scientific disciplines, spread out in academia, industry, and government, we have a claim to be that voice." The question for the society's leaders and members, however, is how to acquire such a voice; the very diversity and structure of the organization make it difficult to marshal support for any particular issue. There are 517 chapters and clubs spread across North America, each of which has traditionally charted its own course. And no fewer than 170 different scientific disciplines are represented in the membership. Furthermore, once a voice is created, how is it to be heard? Lobbying and a stance of advocacy are prohibited in the society's charter. These are the issues that have recently driven the agenda of the society's board of directors, its numerous member committees, and its administration. The result has been several experiments with consensus-building and opinion- sharing. For example, last November the society held a forum titled "Global Change and the Human Prospect: Issues in Population, Science, Technology, and Equity." Conceived by Sigma Xi and cosponsored by 40 other scientific and engineering societies, with a total membership of 1 million, the meeting was intended to be the start of a grass-roots network of individuals "who will affect positively the progress of the planet," according to society literature describing the forum. More than 650 attendees sought to discuss the root causes and driving forces of global change. A 292-page book of proceedings from the forum was published by the society in May and is now being widely disseminated. Also, last November Sigma Xi released a "white paper" on the use of animals in research. The document, hammered out in a year and a half of discussion among chapters, clubs, and committees, concludes that the "society recognizes the importance and value of animals in scientific research and science education, and it supports responsible use of animals in research and teaching." About 2,000 copies of the document were sent to members of Congress and the executive branch. But 1991 was also a year in which the society's growing pains were occasionally torturous. Last summer, for example, debate in Congress on the funding of the space station resulted in disagreement within the society on how extensively it should get involved in influencing national and international policy, and how much of a consensus of the membership is needed before its leaders can act in the name of the society. This debate was sparked by action that University of Maryland microbiologist Rita R. Colwell took just days after she became president of the society, when her name and new title appeared on a letter warning the United States Senate about the "excessive cost" of the proposed space station. The station's $30 billion price tag, the July 9 letter stated, threatens the vitality of fundamental science and engineering research that must compete for limited federal funds. It was unusual for 14 professional and scientific societies to pre-sent such a united front to Congress (The Scientist, Sept. 2, 1991, page 17). But an even bigger surprise was that Sigma Xi was one of the cosigners. Colwell's signature on the space station letter was a high- profile departure for the organization. But according to Colwell and Ahearne, the letter signaled the society's timely arrival as an important new player. Colwell was chosen to lead the organization in part because she was a highly visible and respected scientific leader, and she was making a mark as promised, says Ahearne. In fact, he says, the letter was only a public demonstration of the society's wish to address issues that concern its members. To others in the society, however, Colwell's signature was a sign that Sigma Xi's leadership was moving too fast, and without the backing of its members. "This is very distressing," Jack Sommer, chairman of an ad hoc Sigma Xi committee on science, government, and technology policy that acts as the society's eyes and ears in Washington, said at the time. Sommer maintained that the letter "jeopardized our current and future role by taking a stand and saying this is what Sigma Xi believes on an issue that hasn't been approved by all our members." Sommer also said that the only barometer that relates to the space station was an informal survey that he conducted in 1988, asking about the best uses of public funds for research. The results were hardly unanimous. While only 6 percent of the 3,300 members polled thought the space station should have a high priority, even fewer--4 percent and 2 percent, respectively--felt that the Human Genome Project and the superconducting supercollider deserved a top rating. In fact, the single most popular choice--"untargeted individual research awards"--garnered the support of only 23 percent of those contacted. Ahearne and Colwell defended their participation in the coalition by saying that the letter dealt less with the space station and more with the need for balanced research funding, long a concern of the society as a whole. They say that they regret being forced to act so quickly that neither the society's 30-member board of directors, nor even its seven-member executive committee, was asked for its input. But both also expressed frustration with those who urged caution. "I very much want to facilitate the process where I can speak for the society," Colwell said at the time, adding that she received only positive feedback about the society's involvement. Looking back, Ahearne says the debate was extremely limited: "With the exception of a few people in Washington, D.C., we received neither praise nor criticism." Bugliarello, however, says that the "issue boiled down to whether Sigma Xi was perceived as lobbying, and clearly people are divided in that. Although I think lobbying is a measure of last resort, sometimes it is not possible to poll members. "The picture for science is very complex now, including such problems as scientific integrity, the budget, and the role of research in the modern world. The major concern of Sigma Xi now is its ability to project those serious issues." "It's difficult to know when an organization is effective or not, and it's hard to know what issues to be involved in," says Ahearne. "We have been groping for the mechanism to figure this all out." Another problem with being the voice of grass-roots research is that it takes a long time for any message to filter back to national headquarters, say some members. And a slow response time can be a hindrance to an organization trying to influence national opinion leaders. "It gets lots of input from its clubs and chapters, and that is a very effective way to bring in opinions," says Peggie Hollingsworth, a pharmacologist at the University of Michigan, and regional director for 92 chapters and clubs in the north central U.S. "But this structure can get bottom heavy. While it's very important to have everyone's input into the issues, it's vital that the organization advise those [in Washington] who make policies and distribute funds." Much of the society's new activism is a response to both its steadily shrinking membership base--the current 101,600 membership figure compares with an all-time high of more than 119,000 in 1982--and a trend that suggests chapters at larger universities are falling off in activity, many members say. While chapters at many smaller colleges and universities have extensive programs that feature public lectures, student science fairs, and various social functions, some of the chapters at larger research universities are nearly moribund because of competition from all the other science-related activities taking place on campus. Jeffrey Sich, a microbiologist and immunologist, has seen wide variations in levels of devotion to Sigma Xi at various stops along his career. There was no active chapter at the medical school he attended in Cincinnati, he recalls, but at Denison University in Granville, Ohio, where he taught, "everything revolved around the society. It recognized and encouraged researchers, and had a large number of new initiates." At Youngstown State University, where he was on the faculty, the society "was moderately successful at cosponsoring lectures with departments," Sich says. But when he recently took a job in the science education department of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., he was shocked to find that Sigma Xi did not have a chapter there. "Small colleges and universities use Sigma Xi like a nice carrot to dangle in front of a student to reward them for their research by offering them recognition and induction. Scientists give a lot back to the society, and it works very well," says Sich. "But at larger universities and institutions, it seems that a lot of people join because it is an honor, and then they don't get involved." Sich adds: "I have a real concern that people don't see the value of Sigma Xi. As people get more specialized in their discipline, Sigma Xi, as a broad-based group, suffers. It has to become more active, speaking out on issues that the public should be aware of." His feelings correspond with the results of numerous membership surveys, including a recent one that asked members why they belong to Sigma Xi. Results indicate that members are honored to be in the society, whose membership is by invitation only, and they enjoy reading the society's 80-year-old monthly magazine, American Scientist, which comes as a benefit of the $40 annual membership fee. But they want the society to be more active. The issue of its public voice isn't the only unfamiliar territory that the society is stepping onto. Three years ago, it decided to move its offices from New Haven, Conn., breaking its long-standing ties with Yale University, and head south, to Research Triangle Park, N.C. Part of the reason for relocation was transportation difficulties around New Haven; but it was a wrenching move, during which most of the society staff quit, including the magazine editors. And because of the economy in the Northeast, the society's old headquarters remains unsold. But the result of relocation has been that Sigma Xi is looking at its future with new eyes and in new surroundings. Ahearne and his staff are designing a fund-raising campaign to make it possible for the society to build its headquarters on a tract of land not far away from the leased building they share with an automobile industry trade association. The 120-acre plot where the new headquarters would be located is owned jointly by the three universities that surround the park: Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University. All three schools were eager to have the society relocate in their state. "There is tremendous research community here to help Sigma Xi," says William Little, vice president for academic affairs at the Univeristy of North Carolina and part of the team that wooed the society. "The potential of Sigma Xi to stand as a national and international voice of science is great." The society's building plans also include a separate, as- yet-unnamed research center, modeled after the well- established National Humanities center, a private institute for advanced study in the humanities, which will be right next door. The Sigma Xi center will bring in as many as 30 researchers for visits lasting up to one year. The initial design for the center was just approved by the society's board of directors, but more planning is needed before the society staff adds it to its fund-raising campaign next year, says Ahearne. The research center is designed to jibe with the roster of research issues that the society is targeting for its new voice. These include science education, the topic of its 1990 annual meeting; global change, the focus of its first big forum last year; and ethics in science, the theme of another special forum in 1993. "We want to look at issues with generic qualities that are not discipline-specific," Ahearne says. "Ethics, Values and the Promise of Science," to be held February 25 and 26 in San Francisco, will focus on the ethical framework in which research should be conducted. Participants will explore why science should be conducted and where science should or should not lead society and why. To help ensure that the voices of chapter members are heard in these forums, the society pays the airfare of one representative delegate from each chapter and club. And as with the 1991 forum, participants' conclusions and recommendations from the 1993 gathering will provide a starting point for an ongoing interdisciplinary program on ethics and research developed by the society, Ahearne says. For example, on behalf of Sigma Xi, Colwell presented a paper at the recent Earth Summit environmental conference in Brazil, and board member Thomas Malone will host a small forum for researchers from 50 universities this fall at North Carolina State University to examine whether global change problems are being sufficiently addressed. White papers and mini-symposia will continue to address these issues, which will also be debated within the new center. Bugliarello is please with the society's decision to use conferences to "address the issues of great concern to researchers, such as scientific ethics. They will attract Sigma Xi members as well as others, and will serve as a learning mechanism with reports and proceedings." And he says that this last year has been one of "stronger consolidation, concurrence of opinion in the board and in management that we must pursue the issue of research in society, which has political, social, and environmental ramifications." But cautionary words are still being heard among the membership. "The society is not tidy. It is hard to manage; very unwieldy," says Madeline Goodman, chairwoman of the society's nominations committee and acting vice president for academic affairs at the University of Hawaii. "The is a voluntary society which only has its membership of distinguished scientists to fall back on. "Although this is a wonderful opportunity to invove members in a dialogue, if the leadership runs away with it, membership will drop," she says. "Let's hope we succeed." Renee Twombly is a freelance science writer based in Durham, N.C.

Honor Society Sigma Xi Strives To Bolster Image And Membership

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of