ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

A Respected Organization

The Scientist has in a very short time gained a reputation for informed and balanced coverage of important developments in world science. It is therefore difficult to understand why the paper should publish a misleading article on the National Science Foundation's Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS) in the July 22 issue [page 1]. The United States and international scientific communities both have much to thank SRS for in respect of its continuing role in pioneering the production of us

John Irvine

The Scientist has in a very short time gained a reputation for informed and balanced coverage of important developments in world science. It is therefore difficult to understand why the paper should publish a misleading article on the National Science Foundation's Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS) in the July 22 issue [page 1].

The United States and international scientific communities both have much to thank SRS for in respect of its continuing role in pioneering the production of useful R&D statistics. This said, all organizations "age," and undoubtedly there have been problems within SRS during the last 18 months.

However, it is questionable whether these problems have been caused primarily by cronyism, sexism, racism, and incompetence among time-serving SRS staff (as your coverage indicates) or by such other factors as the failure of NSF to replace a recently retired division director with someone possessing the requisite good management skills...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT