AAAS

News: AAAS News & Notes

http://www.aaas.org//news/newsandnotes/inside109.shtml

25 June 2004

International

Landmark AAAS/UNESCO Forum Explores Science Education

Norman Neureiter

AAAS President-elect Gilbert S. Omenn, UNESCO Director-General Ko�chiro Matsuura and U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO Louise Oliver.

Scientists and educators from five continents gathered at UNESCO headquarters in Paris earlier this month to call on their colleagues and on political leaders worldwide to make the systemic improvements necessary to properly educate children in science and technology.

AAAS organized the event, the first major U.S.-UNESCO meeting since the United States rejoined the U.N. agency last fall after an absence of nearly 19 years. Addressing the participants from his seat between U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO Louise Oliver and AAAS President-Elect Gilbert S. Omenn, UNESCO Director General Koïchiro Matsuura described the gathering on 7 June as a watershed in U.S.-UNESCO relations.

"We must find ways…to develop among young people an appreciation of what it means to do science on an everyday basis, understanding the virtues of its methods, and recognizing the personal rewards that come from sustained engagement with problems and their solutions," said Matsuura, in opening "Science and Technology Education: Systemic Approaches to Reform."

A group of about 50 scientists and engineers from eight countries attended the two-and-a-half-day conference, which was funded by the National Science Foundation. They were joined by about 50 high-level UNESCO staff members and George Atkinson, science adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. In the end, participants agreed informally on the need for a comparative study of how countries in different regions are training children in the principles of science and engineering.

"We need to find out what elements are in place before we can figure out what needs to be done," said Shirley Malcom, AAAS Director for Education and Human Resources and co-organizer of the conference with Shere Abbott, AAAS Chief International Officer.

Wei Yu, former vice minister of education in China, reminded her colleagues that there were very tangible benefits to be had from science literacy. She described how AIDS had spread in rural China, started by individuals who reused contaminated needles to draw the blood they bought from poor and uneducated farmers.

"The farmers did not know that blood can be infected with AIDS," Wei said. "We need to pass on information on health through education in science and technology to children and through them to the parents, but we also cannot ignore the need to provide the children with an education that will open up opportunities for them in the future."

Much of the discussion centered on how to reverse declines in several countries in the numbers of young people choosing careers in science and engineering, as well as on the question of how to adapt promising new hands-on methods of teaching science and mathematics to new cultural settings, while maintaining the quality of the programs.

Participants said they had sometimes doomed their own reform efforts by failing to engage education and political officials in the process. Education experts from both India and Puerto Rico, for example, described the attempts of newly elected political leaders to dismantle well-respected programs for teaching math and science to primary schoolchildren in order to promote their administration's ideas of how children should be taught.

But Manuel Gomez, director of the Resource Center for Science and Engineering at the University of Puerto Rico, noted that ongoing assessment of the impact of reforms can prove a powerful ally in any political debate.

The two Nobel laureates at the conference--Georges Charpak of France and American Leon Lederman--have each devoted more than a decade to developing popular hands-on methods of teaching science to children, starting in the primary grades. In their presentations, Charpak and Lederman said they welcomed research to evaluate their programs and tell them how best to replicate them across cultures and national boundaries. The goal, they both noted, is not only to teach science, but to expose children to the culture of science.

"Only scientists, engineers, and mathematicians can convey the sense, meaning, and beauty of their work," Malcom said. "But it must be conveyed to teachers to be shared with children."

Such a goal would seem to fit in perfectly with UNESCO's mission, said Walter Erdelen, Assistant Director General for Natural Sciences. "Ideally, this should be the start of something bigger," Erdelen said. "We need to look at improving education processes in the developed countries and to think about our responsibility toward the countries of the south. This is where we need a commitment from the scientific community and the support of the national governments." -- Coimbra Sirica

Science and Policy

Facing the Impact of Global Warming

Island and river-delta communities are beginning to vanish beneath the waves as the Earth warms, ice melts, and sea levels rise worldwide. Native Inuit fishermen are falling through thinning Arctic ice they have traversed many times before. Climate change reportedly claimed some 150,000 lives in 2000, the World Health Organization says, and many others were sickened.

What climate conditions await our children and grandchildren--from Louisiana to India, and from London to Africa?

"It should go without saying that the vulnerability of the world's poor will be multiplied manyfold if global warming causes significant melting of one or both of the polar ice sheets," Science Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy said before a 15 June conference on climate change at the AAAS building in Washington. "Yet exacerbation of poverty around the world--whether from flooding, reduced crop yields, or increased prevalence of asthma, diarrhea, malaria, or other illnesses--is part of the climate-change story that hasn't really been told. That is why it's important to make the science underlying climate change accessible to policy-makers in parts of the world, like the United States, where much of the source of the problem lies."

Troubling perspectives on global warming emerged during the free public conference, "Qs and AAAs About Global Climate Change," organized by Kennedy and Albert Teich, director of Science & Policy for AAAS. Experts, including Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Sherwood Rowland of the University of California-Irvine, shared their latest research findings and best temperature projections.

Authoritative studies have shown that between 1990 and 2100, temperatures will rise between 1.4 and 5.8°C (2.5 to 10.4°F). Temperatures in the past century have increased between 0.4 and 0.8°C--or an increase of about 1°F to date, with most of the warming happening over the most recent decades.

"We're on the verge of a very large global-warming event," warned David Battisti, the Tamaki Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington and director of the university's Earth Initiative. "Without limits on emissions, carbon dioxide could increase by threefold in 150 years, reaching levels that were last seen 35 million years ago."

The conference marked a step by U.S. researchers toward responding to a 9 January 2004 Science article by Sir David King, the United Kingdom's Chief Scientific Adviser, which challenged America to better control greenhouse gases. (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/303/5655/176)

Many scientific questions about climate change remain, Kennedy acknowledged, but policy-makers and the public must take action now.

"We're in the middle of a large, uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have," Kennedy said, reiterating comments set forth in an editorial published 11 June in Science. "It's only natural that there is lively disagreement among scientists about what the future may hold," he added, referring to uncertainties associated with physical climate-change models that were the focus of the AAAS conference. "Unfortunately, these disagreements have often persuaded thoughtful newspaper readers that since the scientists can't agree, the issue can safely be ignored."

Other speakers at the event, which was sponsored by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Conference Board, included Thomas Crowley, Duke University; Richard Alley, Pennsylvania State University; Daniel Schrag, Harvard University; Jerry Meehl, National Center for Atmospheric Research; Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University; and Chris Field, Carnegie Institution of Washington. -- Ginger Pinholster

Report of the 2004 Council Meeting

Held on 15 February 2004 at the Sheraton Seattle Hotel and Towers in Seattle, WA

Report on Board Actions--AAAS President Mary Ellen Avery reported to the Council on the AAAS Board's activities over the last year. She reported that the Board was carefully following congressional actions with regard to stem cell research and therapeutic cloning and had taken the opportunity to reissue the AAAS statement in support of therapeutic cloning. She noted that the Board had met with a variety of scientific leaders throughout the year, including the Assistant Director-General of UNESCO, the Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and Congressman Rush Holt. She also stressed that the Board and Science staff were involved in continuing strategic discussions with regard to the future of scientific publishing.

Chief Executive Officer's Report--Alan Leshner provided a state of the association report and a highlight of current activities. He briefed the Council on the newly launched marketing/branding campaign.
He informed them of the recently awarded multiyear grant from MacArthur Foundation for the creation of a center on science and security policy. Leshner informed the Council of the Board's decision to take a more visible stance on policy issues and cited several recent issues such as genetic discrimination, and the politicization of federal science advice.

The Council also received briefings on the following AAAS activities:

EurekAlert!: Catherine O'Malley of the Office of Public Programs briefed the Council on the EurekAlert! Website, which is an online science news service that provides reporters with free and timely access to the most current science research news from around the world. She discussed the growth in public traffic to the site and noted that the majority of the visitors were students and teachers. She also demonstrated several new features, including the marine sciences portal and the multi-language portal.

Climate for Research in Post-9/11 World: Al Teich, Director of Science and Policy Programs, discussed efforts to analyze the impact of post-9/11 security policies and procedures on the conduct of science. He indicated that AAAS was working with a number of its affiliates on these issues and that working groups had been formed. Teich noted that among the issues being looked at were changes to visa procedures, rules governing handling of select agents, restrictions to attendance at international meetings, and restrictions placed on scientific publishing.

Project 2061: George DeBoer, Deputy Director of Project 2061, provided a report on the initial AAAS activities associated with a 5-year grant from the National Science Foundation to fund a center for the development of curriculum materials. He noted that the center was a collaboration of AAAS, Michigan State University, Northwestern University, and the University of Michigan. DeBoer stated that the focus of their work will be on improving the design, selection, and use of science curriculum materials and the development of new leaders in science education.

Actions Brought Forward by the Committee on Council Affairs (CCA) -- The Council voted approval of the CCA recommendation for the creation of a committee to review the AAAS fellows nomination process. Julia Phillips and Joseph Coyle are to chair the committee, and seven other members will be drawn from interested volunteers. The committee is charged with examining how best to ensure consistent criteria across sections; reviewing and making recommendations as to how best to deal with nominations in new and emerging fields; examining whether the current section structure is still appropriate; and reviewing the current mechanisms for determining yearly section fellowship quotas. The committee is to report back to the CCA by the end of the year.

Three resolutions were brought forward and approved by the Council: a resolution in favor of continuing the Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission #4; a resolution on the OMB proposal for instituting a system of peer review for all federal agencies; and a resolution in support of the declaration of 2005 as the World Year of Physics. All three resolutions are contained in the blue boxes on these pages.

Resolution Regarding Hubble Space Telescope
Servicing Mission 4

Whereas the AAAS Council believes that the Hubble Space Telescope is an international treasure that has inspired the people of America and the world for nearly fifteen years;

Whereas the Hubble Space Telescope has had substantial scientific impact; and
Whereas the American Astronomical Society has indicated that only if the Hubble Space Telescope operates at full capability through 2009 will we have the opportunity to examine astronomical sources across the electromagnetic spectrum in x-ray, ultraviolet, visible and infrared regions;

Therefore, be it resolved that the AAAS Council urges that priority consideration be given to reinstating the Servicing Mission #4.

Approved by the Council on February 15, 2004

Resolution Endorsing the Declaration of 2005
as the World Year of Physics

Whereas 1905 represented a turning point year in the genesis of modern physics with the publication of three of Albert Einstein's seminal papers;

Whereas the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has issued a declaration naming 2005 as the World Year of Physics;

Therefore, be it resolved that the AAAS endorses the declaration of 2005 as the World Year of Physics.

Approved by the Council on February 15, 2004

Resolution on the OMB Proposed Peer Review Bulletin

Whereas the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Executive Office of the President, through its "Proposed Bulletin on Peer Review and Information Quality,"1 is now considering requiring that all federal agencies institute a system of "peer review";

Whereas OMB's proposed "peer review" procedures differ markedly from those used and strongly endorsed by the scientific community;2, 3, 4, 5
Whereas there is no evidence that proposed new procedures are likely to improve the quality of science used in the regulatory process;6, 7, 8

Whereas the proposal unnecessarily limits agency discretion; is likely to result in delays in protecting the nation's health, safety and environment; 9,10,11,12,13 and may constrain public health officials from reacting quickly in times of national emergency;14, 15 and

Whereas the proposal has conflict of interest provisions that could restrict many of the nation's leading scientific experts from serving as peer reviewers;16, 17

Therefore, be it resolved that the AAAS Council is strongly opposed to the proposal, requests that OMB withdraw the proposal, and encourages other scientific organizations to oppose this proposal.

Approved by the Council on March 9, 2004.

References:

Office of Management and Budget. Proposed Bulletin on Peer Review and Information Quality Bulletin. September 15, 2003.
Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/030915.pdf
NAS President Bruce Alberts wrote to John Graham that "the highly prescriptive type of peer review that OMB is proposing differs from accepted practices of peer review in the scientific community, and if enacted in its present form is likely to be counterproductive."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/iq_list.html
"Calling their [the OMB] process peer review seems strange to us here" wrote Donald Kennedy, editor of Science magazine in "Disclosure and disinterest" (303 Science 15; January 2, 2004.) Kennedy is former President of Stanford University President and a former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. He also chairs the National Academy of Sciences' Science Technology and Law Program.
According to Sheila S. Jasanoff, Pfozheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, the OMB authors of the proposal fail to understand the difference between regulatory science and research science. "The reliability and success of regulatory, or policy-relevant, science cannot and should not necessarily be measured according to the same criteria as the reliability and credibility of ordinary research science, which is investigator-initiated or 'curiosity-driven.' …[T]he success of regulatory science includes its capacity to provide timely answers to pressing policy questions; research science operates under no comparable time pressures. Correspondingly, the procedures used to ensure the reliability and credibility may reasonably differ from one scientific context to another." [Letter to OMB, page 2] Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/iq/159.pdf
Referring to its potential impact on FDA approvals of new drug applications, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) asserted that the proposed requirements "would contribute little value and would add to the time and expense of a gatekeeper function that has historically been criticized for obstruction and delay." [Letter to OMB, page 7] Available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/iq/118.pdf
Michael R. Taylor, Senior Fellow and Director, Risk, Resource, and Environment Division, Resources for the Future; and former Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Food and Drug Administration, noted "…I do think it is striking that it offers peer review as a solution, but it doesn't define the problem that it sets out to solve…[and] the proposal does not provide any examples…of cases in which the lack of adequate peer review has had important consequences for the regulatory process or society." Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/stl/Peer_Review_Transcript.pdf [transcript p. 210]
John C. Bailar III, Professor Emeritus, Department of Health Studies, University of Chicago remarked, "I would like to see a list of situations in which peer review would have been a substantial help. If nobody can produce such a list, to create such a list, that in itself would be very informative." Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/stl/Peer_Review_Transcript.pdf [Transcript p. 269]
The Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), representing the nation's 126 accredited medical schools, 400 affiliated teaching hospitals and 94 medical societies, and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) with more than 60,000 members: "…we see no public benefit from mandating an additional layer of OMB imposition, peer review and public comment…" [Letter to OMB, page 3]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/iq_list.html
Two professors from Rutgers University, Stuart Shapiro (who had been a desk officer at OMB under Dr. Graham) and David Guston, provided an estimate of the costs and benefits of the proposal, applying the methods OMB would use if it were a proposal sent by an agency. Professors Shapiro and Guston's best estimate of the cost of the proposed peer review system is $325 million annually: the monetary value of the effects of delaying regulation that saves lives, protects the environment or produces other societal benefits. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/iq_list.html
Michael R. Taylor, Senior Fellow and Director, Risk, Resource, and Environment Division, Resources for the Future; and former Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Food and Drug Administration noted: "Public health agencies act all the time on the basis of emerging information, and in the face of scientific uncertainty. That is what we want them to do. This doesn't mean they should act capriciously or without careful review of the information before them. The stakes are too high to accept anything less than great care and allegiance to sound scientific practice. But if we want our public health agencies to act like public health agencies, we should not impose formal review requirements that may preclude their doing so. Thus, any OMB review mandate should include an explicit exception for cases in which the FDA commissioner, not the OIRA administrator, determines that action must be taken to protect public health." Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/stl/STL_Peer_Review_Agenda.html [Transcript p. 218]
Sheila Jasanoff, (noted above, and the author of The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers Harvard Univ. Press, 1990) and one of the nation's leading thinkers on the use of science in public policy warned against using peer review to "…offset the need for public-health type judgment or governmental judgment on the behalf of people, I think would be a serious mistake." Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/stl/STL_Peer_Review_Agenda.html [Transcript p. 87]
Professor Sheila Jasanoff noted further in written comments to OMB, "Through its wide-ranging application and the stringency of its requirements, the proposal is likely to have significant impact on the time and cost of policy development—and, by extension, on the capacity of regulators to effectively protect public health, safety and the environment." Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/iq_list.html
Criticizing OMB with unusually direct language, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) asserted that the proposed requirements[on FDA] "would contribute little value and would add to the time and expense of a gatekeeper function that has historically been criticized for obstruction and delay." [Letter to OMB, p. 7]
Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/iq/118.pdf
Warren M. Washington, Chair, National Science Board; Senior Scientist and Head, Climate Change Research Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research noted: "…in some of the emerging areas of innovative research, we are finding that we only have a limited number of peers to serve as reviewers. And therefore, we have to be fairly careful about overusing some of these people. …And so, we are quite seriously concerned about imposing another layer of review burden on the science community." [Transcript, p. 232] Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/stl/Peer_Review_Transcript.pdf
Michael R. Taylor, Senior Fellow and Director, Risk, Resource, and Environment Division, Resources for the Future; and former Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Food and Drug Administration said, "this is why I characterize this particular element of the bulletin as radical, because it does put in the hands of the OIRA administrator, the decision whether there is enough evidence to act on a public health issue. And that arguably [is] not the job there." Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/stl/STL_Peer_Review_Agenda.html
[Transcript page 222]
The Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), representing the nation's 126 accredited medical schools, 400 affiliated teaching hospitals and 94 medical societies, and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) with more than 60,000 members, expressed concern about "…the proposed requirements' likely interference with timely, responsible public health announcements to the detriment of the public weal. …[A]gencies in the Public Health Service must be acknowledged to have special prerogatives for evaluation and announcements of timely information important to the public health
Jeffrey M. Drazen, MD, Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, criticized the proposed bulletin because it would disqualify the most expert scientists from serving as peer reviewers. He notes, "In the United States, where the Federal Government is the single largest source of funds for cancer research, it would make no sense to disqualify scientists who had received federal funds to support their research from the peer review process." Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/83.pdf
Robbins, Anthony. "Science for Special Interests." Boston Globe, December 7, 2003.

Elections

AAAS Annual Election: Preliminary Announcement

The 2004 AAAS election of general and section officers will be held in September. All members will receive a ballot for election of the president-elect, members of the Board of Directors, and members of the Committee on Nominations. Members registered in one to three sections will receive ballots for election of the chair-elect, member-at-large of the Section Committee, and members of the Electorate Nominating Committee for each section.

Members enrolled in the following sections will also elect Council delegates: Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences; Dentistry and Oral Health Sciences; Education; General Interest in Science and Engineering; Information, Computing, and Communication; Linguistics and Language Science; Pharmaceutical Sciences; Societal Impacts of Science and Engineering; and Statistics.

Candidates for all offices are listed below. Additional names may be placed in nomination for any office by petition submitted to the Chief Executive Officer no later than 9 August. Petitions nominating candidates for president-elect, members of the Board, or members of the Committee on Nominations must bear the signatures of at least 100 members of the Association. Petitions nominating candidates for any section office must bear the signatures of at least 50 members of the section. A petition to place an additional name in nomination for any office must be accompanied by the nominee's curriculum vitae and statement of acceptance of nomination.

Biographical information for the following candidates will be enclosed with the ballots mailed to members in September.

Slate of Candidates
General Election

President-Elect: John P. Holdren, Harvard Univ.; Ernest J. Moniz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Board of Directors: Lynn W. Enquist, Princeton Univ.; Susan M. Fitzpatrick, James S. McDonnell Foundation, St. Louis; Robert W. Fri, Bethesda, MD; W. Carl Lineberger, JILA, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.

Committee on Nominations: Patricia A. Anderson, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks; Arthur Bienenstock, Stanford Univ.; Evelyn L. Hu, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara; Anthony Johnson, Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore County; Cherry Ann Murray, Lucent Technologies Bell Labs., New Providence, NJ; Sondra Schlesinger, Washington Univ.; Stephen E. Schwartz, Brookhaven National Lab.; Karen B. Strier, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.

Section Elections
Agriculture, Food, and Renewable Resources

Chair-Elect: Christopher Field, Carnegie Institution, Stanford, CA; Jan E. Leach, Kansas State Univ.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Kenneth Keegstra, Michigan State Univ.; Patrick S. Schnable, Iowa State Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Donald H. Beermann, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln; Barbara P. Glenn, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Washington, DC; Brian A. Larkins, Univ. of Arizona; Michael F. Thomashow, Michigan State Univ.

Anthropology

Chair-Elect: Karen B. Strier, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison; Emoke J. E. Szathmáry, Univ. of Manitoba.
Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Jere D. Haas, Cornell Univ.; Ellen Messer, George Washington Univ.
Electorate Nominating Committee: Sally McBrearty, Univ. of Connecticut; John H. Relethford, State Univ. of New York, Oneonta; Lisa Sattenspiel, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia; Sara Stinson, Queens College, CUNY.

Astronomy

Chair-Elect: Michael Belton, Belton Space Exploration Initiatives, LLC, Tucson, AZ; Robert W. Milkey, American Astronomical Society, Washington, DC.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Josh Grindlay, Harvard Univ.; Lee Hartmann, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
Electorate Nominating Committee: Richard Conn Henry, Johns Hopkins Univ.; Scott J. Kenyon, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory; Lucy McFadden, Univ. of Maryland, College Park; Terry D. Oswalt, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne.

Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences

Chair-Elect: Joyce E. Penner, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Alan Robock, Rutgers Univ.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Michael E. Mann, Univ. of Virginia; Joseph M. Prospero, Univ. of Miami.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Anthony J. Broccoli, Rutgers Univ.; Stephanie Pfirman, Barnard College; Stephen G. Warren, Univ. of Washington; Stephan I. Zeeman, Univ. of New England.

Council Delegate: William S. Reeburgh, Univ. of California, Irvine; Anne M. Thompson, NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center.

Biological Sciences

Chair-Elect: Joan W. Bennett, Tulane Univ.; Quentin D. Wheeler, Cornell Univ.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Ola Margaret Fincke, Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman; Joel A. Huberman, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Gene D. Block, Univ. of Virginia; Dee Boersma, Univ. of Washington; Carol A. Erickson, Univ. of California, Davis; Nancy A. Moran, Univ. of Arizona.

Chemistry

Chair-Elect: Michael A. Marletta, Univ. of California, Berkeley and San Francisco; C. Dale Poulter, Univ. of Utah.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Michael P. Doyle, Univ. of Maryland, College Park; Alanna Schepartz, Yale Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Cynthia J. Burrows, Univ. of Utah; Jean Chmielewski, Purdue Univ.; Kim D. Janda, Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA; William R. Roush, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dentistry and Oral Health Sciences

Chair-Elect: Susan W. Herring, Univ. of Washington; James E. Melvin, Univ. of Rochester.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Dennis E. Lopatin, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Harold C. Slavkin, Univ. of Southern California.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Richard J. Lamont, Univ. of Florida; Ira B. Lamster, Columbia Univ.; Maria Emanuel Ryan, State Univ. of New York, Stony Brook; Pamela C. Yelick, Harvard Univ.

Council Delegate: Philip Stashenko, Harvard Univ.; David T. Wong, Univ. of California, Los Angeles.

Education

Chair-Elect: Marcia C. Linn, Univ. of California, Berkeley; Mary B. Nakhleh, Purdue Univ.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Jane Butler Kahle, Miami Univ.; Robert Tinker, Concord Consortium, Concord, MA.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Rich Shavelson, Stanford Univ.; Eleanor D. Siebert, Mount St. Mary's College, Los Angeles; Elizabeth K. Stage, Univ. of California, Berkeley; Kendall N. Starkweather, International Technology Education Association.

Council Delegate: John R. Jungck, Beloit College; Robert L. Lichter, Merrimack Consultants, LLC, Atlanta.

Engineering

Chair-Elect: Rafael L. Bras, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Matthew Tirrell, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Frances H. Arnold, California Institute of Technology; Debra Rolison, Naval Research Lab., Washington, DC.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Bora Mikic, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Priscilla P. Nelson, National Science Foundation; Patrick G. O'Shea, Univ. of Maryland, College Park; John M. Tarbell, City College, CUNY.

General Interest in Science and Engineering

Chair-Elect: Jack Burns, Univ. of Colorado System; Carol L. Rogers, Univ. of Maryland, College Park.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Sharon Dunwoody, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison; Lily Y. Young, Rutgers Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Steven T. Case, Univ. of Mississippi Medical Center; Sharon M. Friedman, Lehigh Univ.; Barbara Gastel, Texas A&M Univ.; Linda M. Huzzey, U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

Council Delegate: Susan L. Cutter, Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia; Norine E. Noonan, College of Charleston.

Geology and Geography

Chair-Elect: Mary Lynne Bird, American Geographical Society; John (Jack) F. Shroder, Univ. of Nebraska, Omaha.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: George L. Jacobson, Jr., Univ. of Maine, Orono; Kam-biu Liu, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Daniel Belknap, Univ. of Maine, Orono; David A. Hodell, Univ. of Florida; Jian Lin, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Glen M. MacDonald, Univ. of California, Los Angeles.

History and Philosophy of Science

Chair-Elect: Tom Gieryn, Indiana Univ., Bloomington; Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, Univ. of Florida.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: James P. Collins, Arizona State Univ.; Bruce V. Lewenstein, Cornell Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Manfred D. Laubichler, Arizona State Univ.; Mary Jo Nye, Oregon Sate Univ.; Philip J. Pauly, Rutgers Univ.; Robert A. Skipper Jr., Univ. of Cincinnati.

Industrial Science and Technology

Chair-Elect: Katharine B. Gebbie, National Institute of Standards and Technology; Theodore W. Schlie, Lehigh Univ.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Gerhard Fasol, Eurotechnology Japan KK, Tokyo; Anthony Boccanfuso, Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Fran Adar, Jobin Yvon, Inc., Edison, NJ; Patricia Backer, San Jose State Univ.; Donna Fossum, RAND Corp., Arlington, VA; Ralph B. James, Brookhaven National Lab.

Information, Computing, and Communication

Chair-Elect: Rodney Brooks, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Tom M. Mitchell, Carnegie Mellon Univ.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Charles H. Davis, Indiana Univ., Bloomington; Fran Lewitter, Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Toni Carbo, Univ. of Pittsburgh; Casimir A. Kulikowski, Rutgers Univ.; Judith Messerle, Countway Library of Medicine, Boston; George O. Strawn, National Science Foundation.

Council Delegate: Lewis M. Branscomb, Concord, MA; Clifford Lynch, Coalition for Networked Information, Washington, DC.

Linguistics and Language Science

Chair-Elect: Paul G. Chapin, Santa Fe, NM; Susan Goldin-Meadow, Univ. of Chicago.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Joanne L. Miller, Northeastern Univ.; Steven Pinker, Harvard, Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Barbara Abbott, Michigan State Univ.; Ellen F. Prince, Univ. of Pennsylvania; Mabel L. Rice, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence; Philip Rubin, Haskins Labs., New Haven, CT.

Council Delegate: Eve V. Clark, Stanford Univ.; David Lightfoot, Georgetown Univ.

Mathematics

Chair-Elect: J. D. Cowan, Univ. of Chicago; De Witt L. Sumners, Florida State Univ.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: James H. Curry, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder; Mary Beth Ruskai, Tufts Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Richard A. Askey, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison; Robert C. Gunning, Princeton Univ.; Jill P. Mesirov, Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA; Nancy Reid, Univ. of Toronto.

Medical Sciences

Chair-Elect: Diane E. Griffin, Johns Hopkins Univ.; Neal Nathanson, Univ. of Pennsylvania.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Bernard Moss, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Robert R. Rich, Emory Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Warner C. Greene, Univ. of California, San Francisco; Stephen L. Hoffman, Sanaria Inc., Rockville, MD; Judy Lieberman, Harvard Medical School; Charles M. Rice, Rockefeller Univ.

Neuroscience

Chair-Elect: S. Marc Breedlove, Michigan State Univ.; Thomas J. Carew, Univ. of California, Irvine.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Dora E. Angelaki, Washington Univ.; Catherine Dulac, Harvard Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Marilyn J. Duncan, Univ. of Kentucky; David M. Holtzman, Washington Univ.; Allan I. Levey, Emory Univ.; Jeffrey D. Rothstein, Johns Hopkins Univ.

Pharmaceutical Sciences

Chair-Elect: Rodney J. Y. Ho, Univ. of Washington; Gary G. Meadows, Washington State Univ.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Corey Levenson, Ilex Oncology, Inc., San Antonio, TX; Harihara M. Mehendale, Univ. of Louisiana, Monroe.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Gary P. Carlson, Purdue Univ.; Terrence J. Kavanagh, Univ. of Washington; Gary Pollack, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Ken Thummel, Univ. of Washington.

Council Delegate: Ellen N. Cheung, Bayer Healthcare, Berkeley, CA; David C.-K. Chu, Univ. of Georgia.

Physics

Chair-Elect: Hermann A. Grunder, Argonne National Lab.; Paul S. Peercy, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Sylvester James Gates, Jr., Univ. of Maryland, College Park; Jonathan Bagger, Johns Hopkins Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Peter D. Bond, Brookhaven National Lab.; Deborah S. Jin, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder; Gail McLaughlin, North Carolina State Univ.; Gene D. Sprouse, State Univ. of New York, Stony Brook.

Psychology

Chair-Elect: Valerie F. Reyna, Univ. of Texas, Arlington; Timothy A. Salthouse, Univ. of Virginia.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Paul E. Gold, Univ. of Illinois, Champaign; Gary Marcus, New York Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Mahzarin R. Banaji, Harvard Univ.; Gary G. Berntson, Ohio State Univ., Columbus; Keith J. Holyoak, Univ. of California, Los Angeles; Janice K. Kiecolt-Glaser, Ohio State Univ., Columbus.

Social, Economic, and Political Sciences

Chair-Elect: Barry Bozeman, Georgia Institute of Technology; Roger E. Kasperson, Stockholm Environment Institute.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Richard A. Berk, Univ. of California, Los Angeles; Amy O. Tsui, Johns Hopkins Univ.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Paul D. Cleary, Harvard Medical School; Arthur Lupia, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Thomas K. Rudel, Rutgers Univ.; Philip A. Schrodt, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence.

Societal Impacts of Science and Engineering

Chair-Elect: John F. Ahearne, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Chapel Hill, NC; Kathy Hudson, Johns Hopkins Univ.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Daryl E. Chubin, National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, White Plains, NY; Jeffrey Kahn, Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Electorate Nominating Committee: E. William Colglazier, National Academy of Sciences; Eric M. Meslin, Indiana Univ., Indianapolis; Caroline S. Wagner, RAND Europe, Leiden; Gilbert F. Whittemore, Stalter & Kennedy, Boston.

Council Delegate: Anna C. Mastroianni, Univ. of Washington; Nicholas H. Steneck, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Statistics

Chair-Elect: Mark P. Becker, Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Simon Tavaré, Univ. of Southern California.

Member-at-Large of the Section Committee: Ron Brookmeyer, Johns Hopkins Univ.; Mitchell H. Gail, National Cancer Institute.

Electorate Nominating Committee: Karen Bandeen-Roche, Johns Hopkins Univ.; William F. Eddy, Carnegie Mellon Univ.; Sally C. Morton, RAND Corp., Santa Monica, CA; Terence Paul Speed, Univ. of California, Berkeley.

Council Delegate: Thomas A. Louis, Johns Hopkins Univ.; Jessica Utts, Univ. of California, Davis.