The future of the NYAS.

Jeffrey Mervis's profile of the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) (“How fast can an old dog learn new tricks?” News Focus, 8 March, p. [1824][1]) illustrates the challenges faced by multidisciplinary organizations in serving their members in a rapidly changing world—how to fulfill our missions and stay relevant to our members, while remaining financially healthy and independent. Mervis largely excludes what the Academy is doing to meet these challenges. While searching for a new leader, we are already putting in place several strategies that exploit our core strengths, such as expanding our program of conferences on interdisciplinary frontier issues. Under a new initiative on “mind, brain and society,” for example, we have already scheduled integrative conferences on the cell biology of Parkinson's disease and the roots of mental illness in children, as well as programs that bring biologists, social scientists, ethicists, and humanities scholars together to discuss the nature of the self, the prevention of youth violence, and the role of beauty in art and science. Our meetings in New York have been strengthened by the addition of new series of programs in “hot” areas, and we are exploring Academy-sponsored lectures and multidisciplinary meetings in different cities on issues of current interest in the United States and abroad, to allow more members to participate in activities closer to where they live. The Academy's science education efforts also are being enhanced by organization of national and international discussions and working groups on specific issues related to how students are taught and learn science. And we will continue to serve government, business, and society at large in an advisory capacity. In short, the “old dog” of your headline is well on its way to demonstrating some bright new tricks as it approaches its 200th birthday. # {#article-title-2} Mervis's article does not present a complete picture of a vital and important organization in the scientific community. From his article, it would seem that everyone on the Academy's Board of Governors is either unhappy about recent events or abandoning the ship altogether. As a current Board member and former Board chair, I can assure you that this is not the case. I believe that the majority of my colleagues are committed to the organization, confident about its ability to withstand the current storms, and excited about its future. As in any governing body, there are differing opinions about particular directions or actions to take, but there is strong endorsement of the overall strategies and support for current chairman Torsten Wiesel. Two issues before the Board repeatedly in recent years were the future of The Sciences magazine and declining membership numbers. The magazine was a respected publication that many of us loved, but it was a terrible financial drain on the Academy and it provided virtually no coverage of Academy activities or concerns. Consequently, few members of the public even knew that the magazine represented the Academy. Many of our members expressed dismay when the magazine was shut down, but the greatest decline in the Academy's membership occurred while the magazine was being published. In fact, the 12-month membership renewal rate has actually improved slightly since the magazine's demise. The Academy is 15 years away from its 200th anniversary. I believe—as do many, many others—that it will reach that milestone in fine shape, with an even stronger future ahead. # {#article-title-3} In his article about the NYAS, Mervis reports several assertions by former Academy CEO Rodney Nichols that seriously distort both the financial circumstances of the Academy's erstwhile magazine, The Sciences , and the views of Academy members toward it. Most misleading is the claim in Mervis's article that The Sciences was “losing about $750,000 annually.” Those “losses,” however, were a consequence of the way members' dues were allocated. Shortly before the magazine was shut down in May 2001, the allocations of members' dues to income for The Sciences were reduced to zero. That did indeed produce a $750,000 “loss.” Another of Nichols's misdirections, also reported by Mervis, is the claim that people who dropped their Academy membership rarely took out a subscription to The Sciences . What Nichols neglected to mention is that the Academy never tried to identify “stealth” subscribers who had once been members, nor did it ever knowingly market subscriptions to lapsed members. Most members were probably not even aware that stand-alone subscriptions were available at about $20 a year. In fact, member surveys done throughout the 1990s and continuing into 2000 consistently showed that Academy members rated The Sciences as the most important and most satisfying tangible benefit of their membership. Members also rated The Sciences as the top reason for renewing their memberships. Perhaps less relevant—but nonetheless a matter of justifiable membership pride—was that the American Society of Magazine Editors repeatedly honored the editors of The Sciences for producing one of the best magazines in America. With good will and renewed interest from the Academy, it is not impossible, even at this late date, that The Sciences could be revived. For the reasons amply documented in Mervis's article, however, the time for such a revival is growing short. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.295.5561.1824