So They Say

"When there is a fire, you don't check to see if the water has calcium in it," says French researcher Daniel Zagury. "You just throw it on the fire." The fire this time is AIDS, which now infects an estimated five million to 10 million people world-wide, including as much as a quarter of the young adults in some African cities. But Dr. Zagury's firefighting methods have ignited a furor be-cause he used himself as an experimental animal to test an experimental AIDS vaccine. In so doing, he breached scientific rules calling for prior published animal testing—usually in a peer-review journal. He also challenged ethical and safety traditions that discourage self-experimentation. [Zagury's action] shows clearly the schism among AIDS researchers—between those who believe the highest good lies in delivering scientifically impeccable studies and those who pursue empathy and compassion as healing tools, identifying strongly with their patients. Says one senior scientist, "Daniel's a passionate guy." Adds another: "Yes, but he broke about 140 rules." —Marilyn Chase "French AIDS Researcher in Storm's Center" The Wall Street Journal, p. 26 June 8, 1987 Don't Nuke the Nukes Mounting evidence about the warming of the earth's atmosphere known as the "greenhouse effect" makes nuclear power look like "the best environmental option," says a leading British scientist. Prof. Sir Frederick Warner calls for the Central Electricity Generating Board to carry out a report into the possibility that more nuclear power stations may have to be built, together with further exploitation of alternative power sources such as wind and wave energy. "[Given the warming of the atmosphere and subsequent melting of the polar icecaps, if I was thinking of buying a house now," said Sir Frederick, "I wouldn't want to buy one under 50 feet above sea level. People condemning nuclear power look to me like King Canute, the water is going to come in over their knees." —Charles Clover "Atom Power 'Best for Environment' The Daily Telegraph, p. 12 June 1, 1987 Let Minidictators Move the Money Money for research has to come from somewhere, be it robber barons or the taxpayer. The best way to distribute it is not through some monolithic system, however much care is taken in choosing the right recipients. This is always fallible and can waste scientists' time interminably, sitting on tedious committees. Far better to have many sources of money, with a series of minidictators to distribute it. This may be deemed undemocratic but I believe it would work and work well. What I suspect is needed is a prestigious prize for administrators, to be awarded each year to the person who has been the most far-sighted and successful in funding research. This would sharpen their minds wonderfully and keep them busily employed distributing the money while we get on with the science. —Francis Crick "Ruthless Research in a Cupboard," New Scientist, p. 68. May 21, 1987 When Knowledge Becomes Power Lord Dainton contends that Francis Bacon's aphorism 'Nam et ipsa scientiapotestas est' (knowledge itself is power) is only half right. 'Knowledge only becomes power when we learn to use it better than our competitors' he told an audience of librarians when he gave the first Dainton lecture recently. Dainton speaks on information transfer from a position of double authority: as an eminent chemist and, more recently, as chairman of the British Library board.... 'There are innumerable examples to demonstrate that seemingly trivial recorded information has later proved essential to work of vital importance. I can cite one instance from my own work just 50 years ago. The very first research I did was on the photochemistry of the alkyl nitrates. It was an honest job but I was not particularly proud of it and quickly forgot it. Imagine my surprise when some 10 years ago Sir Derek Barton, the Nobel laureate in chemistry, sent me a paper reviewing the justly famed Barton reaction. With the reprint was a covering note which said simply that I might be interested in reference number so and so for that was the paper which had alerted him to the possibility of this important reaction. That reference was to my paper published in the Transactions of the Faraday Society in 1937!' —"Knowledge Becomes Power If..." Chemistry in Britain, p. 511 June 1987 Spy Stake-Out One of the new programs to slow the flow of U.S. technical data to the Soviets is known as SAFE— Security Awareness for Employees. Launched at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) last year by the Department of Energy, it's the prototype for a program that is expected ultimately to be implemented throughout the rest of DOE's laboratories and contractors. SAFE not only aims to acquaint laboratory scientists with the notion that they may inadvertently become the targets of potential recruitment by Soviet agents, but also teaches them how foreign spies operate, what they want and how they can be foiled. There's also another goal, one not stated in the official handouts. [Explains] Edward V. Badolato, former assistant secretary for security affairs at DOE and one of the designers of the SAFE program, "We want to put the fear of God in them [DOE scientists]." Talking informally after a Heritage Foundation seminar in Washington, D.C., on the use of Soviet scientists for information gathering, Badolato voiced concern about what he sees as the dangerous naiveté of U.S. scientists in dealing with Eastern Bloc colleagues. —Janet Raloff "Coming: The Big Chill?" Science News, pp. 314-315 May 16, 1987 Responsible Referees some of us have long suggested that we go to a system of open refereeing of submitted papers. This is already done to some extent .However, I would go so far as to publish at the end of the paper the referee's names and even give them an opportunity for brief commentaries on the work. As a referee, I frequently encounter manuscripts that are more or less correct and deserving of publication in some form, but which I feel could be considerably improved. There is yet another good reason to acknowledge referees in print, and that is to give them credit and responsibility for their efforts. I estimate that I spend 20% of my available research time refereeing the papers of others. I must be a fool to do so: Under the present system of anonymity I have every incentive to shirk my responsibilities as a referee and devote myself entirely to my research … The worst part about conscientious refereeing is not that it brings no credit but that it brings still more heavy envelopes from the editors! —Joel Teffinghuisen Letter to the Editor Chemical & Engineering News, pp. 2-3 June 1, 1987 The Greatest Research Institution on Earth I have always believed that the noblest American institution—one that the most embittered radical could not despise—was our free public library system. Lately I wonder ill should add the National Institutes of Health. NIH is, as Lewis Thomas has written, the greatest research institution on earth. We forget how unique it is. Other wealthy countries support medical research in a modest way. None spends more than a fraction of the NIH budget. We also forget how "American" it is. Essentially everyone approves. One can always find political support for cutting spending on defense, space, welfare, or the environment. Attacking the NIH gets little sympathy from Congress. —Mike Oppenheim Review of Robert Kanigel's "Apprentice to Genius: The Making of a Scientific Dynasty" (Macmillian, 1986) Journal of the American Medical Association, p. 2979 June 5, 1987 Difficult Distinctions The lines between science, policy, and the areas where the two are mixed are difficult to draw not merely because science is indeterminate, but because the effort to make such distinctions is politically charged. How one characterizes an issue on the spectrum between science and policy bears on the way it is ultimately decided, both institutionally and procedurally. If an issue is understood to be scientific, then it can legitimately be resolved by expert panels working with criteria that were never exposed to the full deconstructionist force of the administrative and legal process. Alternatively, if policy elements predominate over scientific ones in a borderline issue, then it is more appropriate to let agency officials and the courts provide the authoritative reading of the disputed technical data, using procedures taken from their respective traditions. The outcome of regulation in a particular case often depends critically on the way decision-making authority is allocated among scientific and political or legal institutions. The classification of issues at the boundary of science and policy, and the procedures used to resolve them, also have a potentially grave impact on the public image of science. Hence scientists, private interest groups and members of the policy establishment all have a stake in the definition of science and non-science, and the vocabulary used by all of these parties remains subject to manipulation or 'essentially contested'. —Sheila S. Jasanoff "Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science" Social Studies of Science, p. 224, May 1987 'I'm a Mother, Dr. Graham' [Science Adviser William RI Graham said President Reagan was behind efforts to encourage rapid development of the new [superconductive] materials and that the White House had invited 2,500 people to a two-day conference on superconductors in July. But Graham was challenged by panel members who said the administration had given mixed signals about developing technologies. "I'm a mother, Dr. Graham, and my children pay a whole lot more attention to what I do than what I say," said Rep. Marilyn Lloyd (DTenn.). "You are always full of good intentions, but we are not implementing policy, we are not transferring technology from our labs." —Michael Specter "Japan Racing to Exploit Superconductor Discoveries, Congress is Told" The Washington Post, p. A17 June 11, 1987 Five Years of Freedom Part Nobel Prize, part Irish Sweepstakes. That's a view many people have of the fellowships awarded annually by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation—five years of financial support, no strings attached, to "outstandingly talented individuals." Karen K. Uhlenbeck, a professor of mathematics at the University of Chicago who was named a fellow in 1983, calls the award an inspiration. "This was the first thing that ever happened to me in my entire life that gave me a sense that anybody cared about anything a mathematician did," she says. "I've become fascinated with the connections between mathematics and reality," [Uhlenbeck] says. "Mathematicians have a difficult time trying to get across the idea that their work is not only important but also colorful and emotional, and I've been trying to find ways to do that. Five years is not a very long time for a person in a scientific discipline to learn to speak in a broader voice, but I'm taking a few steps in that direction." —Paul Desruisseaux "5 Years of Support, No Strings Attached," The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 29-30 June 3, 1987

So They Say

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of