HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bush@wigner.physics.upenn.edu (Judith Elaine Bush Newton)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: graduate student involvement in deparment affairs
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:29:26 GMT
Organization: Physics Dept., Univ. of Pennsylvania

I understand that it's common wisdom that graduate students are a disgruntled
bunch, but from listening to my peers it also seems that grad students are
particularly uninterested in doing anything about changing their situation in
the belief that getting that all powerful Ph.D. will simply make everything all 
better.

Unfortunately (for my advisor, for myself, for...), i really don't put up 
with (social) garbage very well. So a few of the most ambitious
visonarys/malcontents and myself have just started trying to get the graduate
students "organized." Nothing like labor/management relations going on here.
We're just looking for a way for the graduate students to actually be involved in
the direction of the department. We've been a bit impulsive, but we haven't
gotten any NEGATIVE feedback, from peers of faculty ('course apathy abounds...).

I was wondering what other science/research departments do with their graduate
students, and would appreciate email on the subject. 

It also turns out the the three of us who have been most active in trying to
change things are all women. It has been pointed out to us that "the guys" would 
probably feel we had a "secret agenda" or something along those lines and
wouldn't support any organization. { We've got 6 women in this department past
the qualifying exam stage--we all took it in June--and there are over 120 grad
students in the department. Admittedly, there are problems with being women in
this department, but none of those "women-specific" problems seem likely to be
solved without more women being present. So it goes.} If you could put yourself 
in the other [male] graduate student's shoes, do you think you would tsake
offense with this arrangement? I have to admit, i am so used to all men on
committees and so on that affect my life, and not having any problems come of
it... Well, i can see it being a concern, but i rarely have a chance to change it
when it's MY concern.  Any thoughts?

If there's much interest, I'll compile what response i get and post it here.

Thanks,

judith

bush@purcell.upenn.edu (works best.)
Xref: sparky sci.research:1069 sci.med:16936
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:10:49 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Aug28.202346.10727@maths.tcd.ie> arora@maths.tcd.ie (Ashish Arora) writes:
>
>	Do you find that good doctors (medical doctors) make good researchers,
>or is it the case that good doctors and good researchers are mutually
>exclusive groups?
>	Only comments please -- no flaming.

I have generally found that a scientifically oriented doctor is
a rare thing. A scientist has a broader view and is more likely
to be innovative whereas doctors generally perform from their
experience and their training.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Criteria for tenure (Was Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.)
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:35:06 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Aug29.123347.19743@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>
>                                                      ... What I am 
>arguing is that trashing scientific careers of junior faculty for any
>reason other then quality of teaching/research is wrong and goes 
>against the goals of a university.

I beleive that tenure decisions should be based on the candidate's over-all
contribution, and potential future contributions, to research, teaching,
and administration within the university.  Thus personality and attitude
per se should not enter into the decision.  But notice also that I did not
say research productivity, either in publications or grants.  Or research
quality.  Or teaching quality.  A candidate's influence on the research and
teaching of those around him/her is also very important, especially the
candidate's influence on graduate students, as a role model and a colleague.
I conclude from this that personality, attitude, relations to colleagues,
etc., are not irrelevant to tenure decisions, although performance should
be the main basis.  The bottom line is, will the person be an asset to
the university over the remainder of their academic career?  If the 
answer on balance is "yes", then tenure should probably be granted.

David Mark
dmark@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Authorship and honesty
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:24:23 GMT

In article <715935623.F00001@blkcat.UUCP>
Roger.Firestone@f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Roger Firestone) writes:
>My most recent paper had 3 authors listed [...]
>People who provided financing only were not acknowledged--what _science_ did
>they contribute?

     The PROVIDERS of financing (NSERC, NSF, etc.) are usually acknowledged,
but the person who wrote the grant application belongs in the author list.
Without this person, the science would never have been done in the first
place.  Besides, the person receiving the grant usually was fairly
deeply involved in the scientific genesis of the project.

>In the Renaissance and early modern period, there was a tradition of patronage
>of artists.  da Vinci never signed a painting with both his name and that of
>his patron.

     That's true, but the relationship is wrong.  We don't put NSERC (or
NSF or ...) in the author list; NSERC is the patron to use your analogy.
Da Vinci's students however routinely signed his name to their works; his
ability to convince patrons to fund his studio was the reason these
students were able to pursue art.  Things have not changed, except for
the better:  At least now, the work is cosigned by master and student.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: STIS-like service for AFOSR, ONR, DARPA, etc?
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:09:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

NSF has pretty easy access to documents through their
STIS service.  I haven't ever seen anything similar
for other funding agencies.  

Does anyone know if the military research agencies
have ftp sites for programs and awards?  I will be
writing them all anyway (unless some magic occurs
with our last proposal and it is miraculously funded...),
but would be pleased to be able to focus attention on
relevant programs right away...

Thanks for any info,

Dave

-- 
Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Newsweek Article: is Science Censored?
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:34:22 GMT

In article <1955@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.145210.694@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
writes:

>[something]
>[ditto]

You can say that again!
From: dahe@cl.cam.ac.uk (David Elworthy)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Newsweek Article: is Science Censored?
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:47:44 GMT
Reply-To: dahe@cl.cam.ac.uk (David Elworthy)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <m4hqbg9@csv.warwick.ac.uk>, csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at
CU~) writes:
|> In article <1955@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep12.145210.694@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu
(Danny Keren) writes:
|> >>'"Publicity... would certainly follow," fretted the editor of one top
|> >>journal. "A possible general panic," predicted a researcher. Both were
|> >>explaining why a a study linking childhood leukemia to flourescent
|> >>lights should not be published. That fear trumped the conclusion of
|> >>other reviewers - scientists who evaluate whether a manuscript should
|> >>be published in a journal who called the article "intriguing" and an
|> >>"extraordinary piece of deductive reasoning". The paper was rejected.'
|> >>
|> >>This is the beginning on an article in the Sep. 14 of Newsweek (p. 63)
|> >>which concerns how scientific research is sometimes barred from
|> >>publication, for fear of panic and hysteria which might occur
|> >>if the conclusions would become well known. Other examples cited
|> >>include studies relating bladder and rectal cancer to chlorine in
|> >>drinking water, and bone cancer to fluoride.
|> >
|> >On the other hand, they were not kidding about the panic.  A recent
|> >BBC program in the "Antenna" series investigated this from the other
|> >side.  One of their examples was a piece of research which seemed to
|> [long account deleted...]
|> 
|> Unfortunately, this is not a new thing. In 1980(?) Panorama did a
hatchet-job
|> on the criteria for brain-death, claiming that people were unnecessarily
|> pronounced dead so that their organs could be used. The programme was
|> scaremongering at its very worst, entirely without foundation, and it
took the
|> transplant programme in the UK about five years to recover. Several hundred
|> people died as a result of the extra shortfall in donor organs.
|> 
|> What can you say? Apart from "those F*cking journalists" that is...
|> 

What I also found striking about the Antenna program was the attitude of
the Guardian's science journalist to peer review. Roughly, he said that
peer review was all very well for academics, but he as a journalist
didn't want to wait for it: he just wanted his story. In any other
branch of respectable journalism (if that isn't an oxymoron), this would
be called not checking your sources. In fact, the research was thrown
out at the peer review stage - the authors were told to go away and get
more data.

-- david elworthy
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  5 Sep 1992 20:22 EST  

In article <1992Sep5.214036.11891@tc.cornell.edu>, 
     bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes...

>In article <5SEP199214402611@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> 
>     ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:

>>>I want only to add that I know from personal experience that such type
>>>of events are becoming only to common in academia.  I, too, was asked to
>>>include names on a paper I was to present at a conference by request of
>>>my supervisor.  Not only had they not contributed, but even inhibited the
>>>work for their own ends at the time.  However, they were a possible source
>>>of funding for my supervisor.  

>>This brings up a pertinent question: were they a source of funding for *you*?

>What does funding has to do with authorship ? If I am an author of a book 
>and a publisher chose to fund my time and publish my book, would you suggest
>that the publisher name be written as a co-author of my book ? Why not
>simply acknowledge everyone according to his contribution: the person
>or institution who funds it can be acknowledged as such, exactly like it
>is done in any intellectual work.

Here are my responses:

(1) Your example has nothing whatsoever to do with the case Mr. Mancini 
    mentioned above.  IMPO, the authorship situation is completely different.
(2) You have neglected everything else in my post, in which I carefully
    qualified the conditions under which *I* would allow a funding source
    to be listed as a co-author.  I will not repeat it - if you would know
    the answer to your question, go back and re-read the original post.
(3) Finally, all "intellectual works" are not the same.

RG
From: Roger.Firestone@f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Roger Firestone)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Agent Orange
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 00:56:00 -0500

John DiNardo posted a great deal of material from WBAI, quoting a radio
personality, Gary Null on a number of subjects, primarily that of a proposed
experiment in immunology.  One of the prefatory remarks addressed the topic of
the use of Agent Orange in Viet Nam and appeared to take it for granted that
large numbers of American military personnel were damaged by the use of this
herbicide.  I would just like to point out that it was the finding of the judge
who presided over the settlement of the case involving damages for injuries
alleged to be caused by Agent Orange that there was no evidence to support any
of the claims made for damages as having been caused by Agent Orange.  Careful
analysis of illnesses among Viet Nam veterans showed no statistical differences
between groups exposed to Agent Orange and those who were not.  This includes
birth defects among children born to these vets.  In some morbidity studies, the
veterans who were not exposed actually had the higher incidence of disease, in
fact.  
 
Given Gary Null's attitude about the truth in this one subject area, we are free
to draw conclusions about his other assertions as well, such as the immunology
experiment.  Will Mr. DiNardo's next posting identify the researchers by name? 
Will he also indicate that the ethics committee of the research institution
evaluated the proposal for hazards to human life, as is certainly required?  In
short, did Mr. Null lay himself open to the risks of a suit for libel and
slander should his charges be false, or is his discussion going to be mere
innuendo about anonymous "mad scientists" loose in our medical institutions? 
Given the ubiquity of Freedom of Information Act inquiries these days, I doubt
that any researcher would have written a letter on his research program that he
expected never to be made public.  Of course, it is possible that Mr. Null has
taken some strategic portions of the research proposal out of context to create
a greater sense of alarm and fear in his listening public. Naah--journalists
never engage in sensationalism, they just report the facts--right?  (Wm.
Randolph Hearst, call your office.)
 
In other words, just because you heard it on the radio (read it in the papers,
saw it on TV) doesn't make it true--or even half true. Let's apply our critical
faculties here before we swallow this tale wholesale.  
 
So what's in part II?
 
Dr. Roger M. Firestone (Roger.Firestone@f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org)
"I've been sent here to study you people."
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:40:36 GMT

In article <5SEP199214402611@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.082052.8993@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>, 
>     mancini@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Derrick C. Mancini) writes...
>
>>I want only to add that I know from personal experience that such type
>>of events are becoming only to common in academia.  I, too, was asked to
>>include names on a paper I was to present at a conference by request of
>>my supervisor.  Not only had they not contributed, but even inhibited the
>>work for their own ends at the time.  However, they were a possible source
>>of funding for my supervisor.  
>
>This brings up a pertinent question: were they a source of funding for *you*?

What does funding has to do with authorship ? If I am an author of a book 
and a publisher chose to fund my time and publish my book, would you suggest
that the publisher name be written as a co-author of my book ? Why not
simply acknowledge everyone according to his contribution: the person
or institution who funds it can be acknowledged as such, exactly like it
is done in any intellectual work.

Dov
From: frank@maxwell.concordia.ca ( Frank Maselli )
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Message from Concordia University
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:21:16 GMT
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal Quebec

On behalf of the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of Concordia University
I am posting the following message:


=================================================================

Subject:        Message from Dr. Patrick Kenniff, Rector and Vice-
                Chancellor  of Concordia University in response to
                queries with regard to Dr. Fabrikant


I  am  taking  the unusual step of posting a message on this medium
because  it  has  come  to  my  attention that the  allegations  of
scientific  misconduct  raised  by V.I. Fabrikant  continue  to  be
addressed  on  this  system and because I wish to inform you of the
tragic events of 24 August 1992 at our University.

V.I. Fabrikant, an Associate Professor at Concordia University, has
been  charged  with three counts of first-degree murder, two counts
of  attempted  murder, two  counts  of  hostage-taking  as  well as
uttering  death  threats and using a firearm in the commission of a
crime.  Three  of  our  colleagues are dead, one remains in serious
condition  and  the fifth is recovering from a gunshot wound to the
leg. The  families  of  the deceased and the injured as well as the
entire University community are in a  state of  shock and mourning.

The   Vice-Rector,  Academic   conducted   an   inquiry   into  the
numerous  allegations  he  raised  and  reported  to  the  Board of
Governors  in  March  1992  that  they  were  unfounded.   However,
with the continuance of Dr. Fabrikant's allegations, the University
will undertake a further review with dispatch. Let us not, however,
lose  sight of who the victims are in this tragedy. There can be no
excuse nor justification for the brutal and senseless actions of 24
August 1992.

Patrick Kenniff
Rector & Vice-Chancellor
Concordia University

==================================================================
-- 
Frank Maselli
Assistant Director, Customer Relations
Computing Services
Concordia University
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: swd0170@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Semper Paratus!)
Subject: Co-op position wanted
Reply-To: swd0170@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:37:32 GMT

Greetings,

	   I am a 3rd year physics student at the Rochester Institute of
Technology. I am wondering if anyone knows a industry, university, or government
agency hiring students for co-op (or internship) positions in the area of 
physics research for the winter quarter. Any or all information is appreciated. 
Please respond via e-mail. Thanks in advance.


  
_______________________________________________________________________________
                                       |                                   
Scott W. Davis                         |  "The world is moving so fast these 
Rochester Institute of Technology      |  days that the man who says it can't
e-mail in%"swd0170@ritvax.isc.rit.edu" |  be done is generally interrupted by
                                       |  someone doing it."
Semper Paratus!    --Coast Guard Motto |                --Harry Emerson Fosdick
_______________________________________________________________________________
Xref: sparky sci.research:1071 sci.med:16941
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:47:16 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Sep2.181049.9827@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.202346.10727@maths.tcd.ie> arora@maths.tcd.ie (Ashish Arora) writes:

>>	Do you find that good doctors (medical doctors) make good researchers,
>>or is it the case that good doctors and good researchers are mutually
>>exclusive groups?
>>	Only comments please -- no flaming.

>I have generally found that a scientifically oriented doctor is
>a rare thing. A scientist has a broader view and is more likely
>to be innovative whereas doctors generally perform from their
>experience and their training.

Another way of putting this is that the great majority of doctors only
use the established procedures that they are familiar with.  The problem
is what should one do when these procedures do not suffice?  This is why
I have called for a "non-specializing specialty" of master diagnostician.

I know that doctors call in specialists.  But a specialist in a specialty
not pertinent to the problem is of little use, at best.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: Newsweek Article: is Science Censored?
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:27:05 GMT

In article <1955@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.145210.694@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>>'"Publicity... would certainly follow," fretted the editor of one top
>>journal. "A possible general panic," predicted a researcher. Both were
>>explaining why a a study linking childhood leukemia to flourescent
>>lights should not be published. That fear trumped the conclusion of
>>other reviewers - scientists who evaluate whether a manuscript should
>>be published in a journal who called the article "intriguing" and an
>>"extraordinary piece of deductive reasoning". The paper was rejected.'
>>
>>This is the beginning on an article in the Sep. 14 of Newsweek (p. 63)
>>which concerns how scientific research is sometimes barred from
>>publication, for fear of panic and hysteria which might occur
>>if the conclusions would become well known. Other examples cited
>>include studies relating bladder and rectal cancer to chlorine in
>>drinking water, and bone cancer to fluoride.
>
>On the other hand, they were not kidding about the panic.  A recent
>BBC program in the "Antenna" series investigated this from the other
>side.  One of their examples was a piece of research which seemed to
[long account deleted...]

Unfortunately, this is not a new thing. In 1980(?) Panorama did a hatchet-job
on the criteria for brain-death, claiming that people were unnecessarily
pronounced dead so that their organs could be used. The programme was
scaremongering at its very worst, entirely without foundation, and it took the
transplant programme in the UK about five years to recover. Several hundred
people died as a result of the extra shortfall in donor organs.

What can you say? Apart from "those F*cking journalists" that is...

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Newsgroups: sci.research