Corrections and clarifications

In the special section "Minorities in science: The pipeline problem" (13 Nov., p. 1175), the graph on page 1199 showing the field distribution of employed scientists and engineers by ethnicity should have been labeled "Percentage" along the x axis. Also, the designation "Engineers" should have read, "Engineers, total." Labeled correctly, the graph would indicate, for example, that among all employed white scientists and engineers in 1988, about 50% were scientists and 50% were engineers. Of employed black scientists and engineers, about 70% were scientists and only about 30% were engineers. Among Hispanics, the breakdown was about 45% scientists and 55% engineers.     

Corrections and clarifications

In the news briefing "The world's most prolific scientists" (17 Jan., p. 283), Arnold L. Rheingold, a crystallographer at the University of Delaware, was inadvertently left off the list of the top 20 most prolific scientists. The Institute for Scientific Information has corrected its list and states that Rheingold published 391 articles and other scientific communications between 1981 and the end of 1990. He should have ranked 13th on the list.     

Bioethics. Financial conflicts get more scrutiny in clinical trials

At a national conference on clinical research last week, the incoming head of the federal government's new Office for Human Research Protections, Greg Koski, surprised his audience by suggesting that some conflicts should be avoided. His support for the idea that scientists should have no financial ties to companies whose products they are testing hints at an upcoming shift in government rules that govern the relationship between scientists and the pharmaceutical industry. But most of the discussion at the conference revolved around questions of how to "manage" conflicts rather than do away with them.     

Prediction and theory evaluation: the case of light bending

Is a theory that makes successful predictions of new facts better than one that does not? Does a fact provide better evidence for a theory if it was not known before being deduced from the theory? These questions can be answered by analyzing historical cases. Einstein's successful prediction of gravitational light bending from his general theory of relativity has been presented as an important example of how "real" science works (in contrast to alleged pseudosciences like psychoanalysis). But, while this success gained favorable publicity for the theory, most scientists did not give it any more weight than the deduction of the advance of Mercury's perihelion (a phenomenon known for several decades). The fact that scientists often use the word "prediction" to describe the deduction of such previously known facts suggests that novelty may be of little importance in evaluating theories. It may even detract from the evidential value of a fact, until it is clear that competing theories cannot account for the new fact.     

中微子发现的思维过程

从物理学史的角度,阐述科学家们对β射线能谱呈连续分布的意外发现,以及由此引发的“能量和动量守恒定律”危机及对中微子存在的预言。     

Breakthrough of the year. Genomics comes of age

2000 was a banner year for scientists deciphering the "book of life"; this year saw the completion of the genome sequences of complex organisms ranging from the fruit fly to the human. Science marks the production of this torrent of genome data as the Breakthrough of 2000; it might well be the breakthrough of the decade, perhaps even the century, for all its potential to alter our view of the world we live in.     

农业科研单位提高政策利用效率的途径分析

农业科技项目是我国农业科技进步的主要推动力量,面对当前大量供应的项目和经费资源,一些农业科研单位和科技人员"消化不良"的现象越来越突出。文章分析了现象产生的主要因素,提出农业科研单位要按照农业科研规律和自身发展的特点,充分利用国家政策,加强顶层设计的建议,即用开放的理念组建创新团队、用产业的思维设计项目体系、用系统的原则建设平台和用构建"资金蓄水池"的方式运筹经费等。     

Ecosystem assessment. New survey to collect global news you can use

Researchers are hoping that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a new 4-year, $20 million project that will get under way early next year, will synthesize what's known about the world's ecosystems and help policy-makers deal with those that are under siege. The assessment will turn loose ecologists and social scientists to gather and analyze data on the state of the world's ecosystems, assess nature's ability to provide essential "services" such as food and clean water, and project environmental trends such as deforestation, loss of species, and pollution. But some say that the assessment could end up a victim of its own lofty goals--to evaluate ecosystem health, supply data to implement treaties, and sell the message that ecosystems have economic value.     

Rethinking agricultural research roles

An examination of the role ofUniversity weed scientists in herbicide efficacyresearch and long-term weed management studies raisesseveral important questions: who should do what kindof research and what kind of research should be done,and, because the university is a research institutionfunded by the public, there is also the importantquestion of who should pay for the research. Indeveloping a response to these questions, severaldimensions of the relationships within which weedscience works must be considered. The authorsexperience has demonstrated that production, thedominant value in agriculture, provides a sufficientanswer to the questions for many in weed science.However, when weed scientists claim credit forexcellence in production they must also acceptsocietys right to hold them responsible for problemsthey now treat as externalities.     

Edison and the pure science ideal in 19th-century america

Between 1878 and 1882, key members of the American scientific community played an important role in Thomas A. Edison's work on electric lighting. Impressed by his abilities, these scientists came to regard Edison as a peer and led him to see himself as a scientific man. But Edison's high standing among scientists and the American public and his professed self-image as a scientist provoked America's noted experimental physicist, Henry A. Rowland, to make a "Plea for pure science" before the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1883.     

The pure-science ideal and democratic culture

These early experiences of pure scientists will have an unmistakable ring of familiarity to anyone familiar with the current situation. Charles Sanders Peirce, with characteristic insight, had stated the fundamental dilemma of the pure scientist operating within a democratic framework. How can one ask the public to provide support, much less facilities, for the intellectual gratification of one select group? A part of the answer, of course, is simply that one cannot. As long as a group is dependent upon public support it must seek some means of contact with the values of the enveloping society, and the moment it does this it departs in some measure from the ideal purity. The schizophrenic attitude described by Dubos therefore became a professional necessity as soon as the new ideal was adopted. Since the time of Gould, scientists have been able to tell each other that the man who based science's claim to support on grounds of immediate practical utility was "no loyal follower and true friend of science" and, at the same time, to trust that the popularizers and technicians would convey a different message to the public. On the whole, they have not been disappointed in their expectation, and there has been little need for them to go beyond the standard formula : Utility is not to be a test of scientific work, but all knowledge will ultimately prove useful. Since the continued existence of scientists in this society depends upon the believability of that vague claim, there is little likelihood hood that the schizophrenia will disappear.     

The Rockefeller Foundation and the green revolution, 1941–1956

High yielding agriculture in less-industrialized countries, the green revolution, has been both honored and criticized over the past twenty years. Supporters point to the increased food supplies produced with the new practices, but detractors argue that the new technologies are environmentally destructive, unsustainable, and socially inequitable. This paper explores the origins of high yielding agriculture in order better to understand how the arguments over sustainability and equity originated. The Rockefeller Foundation was an important agency in promoting the development of the new agricultural science. Its programs in Mexico and India, initiated in 1941 and 1956, were key building blocks in creating high yielding agricultural practices. The Foundation scientists saw rapid population growth as the main source of hunger and communist subversion. In order to alleviate hunger and instability, they created a strategy of agricultural development based on increased yields but paid no attention to the problem of distribution of harvested food. Sustainability was not recognized as a problem at the time Foundation scientists began their work. Indeed the technical successes of their programs prompted the development of concerns about sustainability. Equity of distribution was brought to the attention of the Foundation before it began its work, but the scientists paid no attention to the issue.     

Terminology of cell-water relations

Use of the term "water potential" in place of "diffusion pressure deficit" would improve communication between botanists and scientists in other fields because the concept of potential is familiar to most scientists. Water potential, expressed as PsiW, is the difference in free energy or chemical potential per unit molal volume between pure water and water in cells at the same temperature. The potential of pure water is set at zero; hence the potential of water in cells and solutions is less than zero, or negative. The water potential of a cell is numerically equal to its diffusion pressure deficit, but has a negative sign.     

ECOLOGY: The Other H's

Fisheries scientists have long identified the factors implicated in salmon decline as the "four H's": hydropower dams, harvesting, habitat degradation, and hatchery misuse. According to a new plan by nine federal agencies, known as the "All-H Paper," improvements in the other three H's will provide benefits that are more certain and widespread than those from dam breaching. But addressing the other H's may be even more costly than breaching dams.     

Creative tensions in the research and development climate. Technical achievement of scientists and engineers was high under conditions that seemed antithetical

As Andrews and I examined the conditions under which scientists and engineers did effective work, we observed a number of apparent paradoxes. Achievement was high under conditions that seemed inconsistent, including on the one hand sources of stability or confidence (what I have called "security") and on the other hand sources of disruption or intellectual conflict (that is, "challenge"). It appears that, if both are present, the creative tension between them can promote technical achievement.     

The Ortega Hypothesis: Citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress

Let us consider, then, some general conclusions that may be drawn from the findings reported in this study. The data allow us to question the view stated by Ortega, Florey, and others that large numbers of average scientists contribute substantially to the advance of science through their research. It seems, rather, that a relatively small number of physicists produce work that becomes the base for future discoveries in physics. We have found that even papers of relatively minor significance have used to a disproportionate degree the work of the eminent scientists. Although the conclusions of this paper may be reasonably clear, the implications of these data for the structure of scientific activity, at least in physics, need careful consideration.     

The underclass: definition and measurement

The term "underclass" has been widely used by journalists and by some social scientists but, until recently, has not been clearly defined or quantified. Most of the recent quantitatively oriented literature on the topic has used a definition that emphasizes either the persistence ofpoverty or the number ofpeople living in neighborhoods where the incidence ofpoverty or dysfunctional behavior is high. Conclusions about the size and growth of the underclass are sensitive to the definition chosen, but most available evidence suggests that it is small but growing.     

Science and politics: free speech controversy at lawrence laboratory

The Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, one of the nation's most distinguished scientific institutions, has been struck by a series of "free speech" controversies in recent months. The laboratory, which is operated by the University of California and is almost entirely funded by the Atomic Energy Commission, has facilities in two California locations, Berkeley and Livermore. Each has been under fire for allegedly stifling open discussion of controversial issues. The Berkeley facility, a leading center for the study of high-energy physics and fundamental nuclear science, has been split by an internal debate over the right of scientists to hold formal political discussions at the laboratory during their lunch hours. The controversy has led to the banning of meetings, the circulating of petitions and counterpetitions bearing hundreds of names, the publishing of an underground newspaper, and the suspension of a controversial physicist. The Livermore facility, a major center for developing nuclear weapons, has been accused of trying to muzzle two staff scientists who contend that existing radiation standards are too lax to protect the public from nuclear radiation hazards. Livermore has also been the target of demonstrations and of a lawsuit seeking to open the weapons laboratory to allow discussions between outsiders and staff scientists concerning the implications of weapons research. The article below discusses the controversy at the Berkeley laboratory, where only unclassified research is performed. A subsequent article will discuss the conflict at security-conscious Livermore.     

One hundred years of quantum physics

This year marks the 100th anniversary of Max Planck's creation of the quantum concept, an idea so revolutionary that it took nearly 30 years for scientists to develop it into the theory that has transformed the way scientists view reality. In this month's essay, Daniel Kleppner and Roman Jackiw recount how quantum theory, which they rate as "the most precisely tested and most successful theory in the history of science," came to be, how it changed the world, and how it might continue to evolve to make the dream of ultimate understanding of the universe come true.