From: Science-Week 
To: prismx@scienceweek.com ; prismx@scienceweek.com ; prismx@scienceweek.com ; prismx@scienceweek.com 
Subject: SW Focus Report - Science Education
Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 8:57 AM




-------------- Enclosure number 1 ----------------
-------------------------------------------------------
SCIENCE-WEEK FREE TRIAL SUBSCRIPTION:
This Focus Report is extracted from the full-text Email
publication SCIENCE-WEEK. If you have not had a previous free
trial subscription to SCIENCE-WEEK, you can subscribe for a
3-issue SW trial without any obligation on your part afterward.
To obtain a trial subscription to SCIENCE-WEEK, simply transmit
FREE TRIAL to . Full SCIENCE-WEEK
subscription details are appended to this file.
-------------------------------------------------------


FOCUS REPORT: SCIENCE EDUCATION

A Summary Group from SCIENCE-WEEK
-------------------------------------------------

ON THE OVERPRODUCTION OF US BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHERS
There are always practical problems concerning the training of
scientists, but two persistent questions are How many? and Where
do they work? Marincola and Solomon (2 installations, US), in a
recent editorial in the journal *Science*, review the current
problems in the training of biomedical research scientists (and
propose a solution), but the ideas are perhaps just as applicable
to physics and chemistry. The authors make the following points: 
1) Although the number of biomedical research trainees in the US
has expanded considerably over the past 20 years, the number of
tenured positions is declining. 2) The average time to obtain a
PhD rose from 4.4 years in the 1970s to 5.6 years in the 1990s.
3) Each principal investigator trains many times the single
scientist required to replace himself or herself. This intrinsic
instability could threaten the profession. 4) Many researchers
perceive that science is thriving at increasing and unacceptable
cost to those being trained. In strictly economic terms, it is in
the interest of senior investigators to maintain the number of
trainees, who work long hours in large numbers for little pay
over many years in return for the chance to develop a satisfying
career. 5) A solution may be to uncouple scientific productivity
from an investigator's ability to attract and employ trainees --
the creation of permanent research positions for scientists who
would neither compete for grants nor train others. They would be
supported through investigators who hold traditional academic
appointments. The authors give as an example the institution of
3-year positions for researchers at the Scripps Institute (US).
The essential idea, then, is the amplification of the number of
already existing non-tenure "research associate" positions, these
positions to be filled by PhDs on a continuing short-term
contract basis. The authors state: "This career track could be
recognized explicitly, legitimized, and nourished to become an
element of the research enterprise." The editorial does not
address the question of how this two-tier structure will satisfy
the career objectives of young scientists who are first-rate, but
because of lack of employment opportunities, are forced into the
second tier.
QY: Elizabeth Marincola 
(Science 31 Jul 98 281:64) (Science-Week 28 Aug 98)


ON POPULAR CULTURE AND THE THREAT TO RATIONAL INQUIRY
In an essay on current popular attitudes toward science and
scientists, Douglas R. Hofstadter (Indiana University
Bloomington, US) makes the following points: 1) Science is
currently presented to children and teens combined with
irrelevancies such as action-packed stories, rock music, amusing
quipsters, sassy jokes, sexual innuendoes, or up-to-date teen
slang -- as if science is a "bitter pill" that needs sugar-
coating. 2) Society today seems to be pervaded by a deep,
unconscious, anti-science bias. Scientists are represented in
movies, television, and books as heartless, humorless nerds who
would sooner kill than smile, sooner write abstruse formulas than
make love. 3) There is a dismissive attitude toward science as an
explanatory framework for the world, and the welcoming of so-
called "mysteries" such as after-death experiences, alien
abductions, crystal channeling, crop circles, telekinesis,
clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, or remote viewing. 4)
Movie and television viewers and readers of serious literature
are given the tacit message that the line between the natural and
supernatural is blurry, and perhaps even nonexistent. 5) The
general public no longer views science with a sense of awe and
mystery, but instead considers it conservative and mundane,
"trapped" in logical thinking. 6) The implicit message of popular
culture is that science is boring, conservative, closed-minded,
devoid of mystery, and a negative force in society. The author
concludes: "I have no quick fixes. I do not know how to quickly
and easily repair decades of damage. I do not fully understand
why the sands have shifted so radically. All I can do is look on
in sadness and worry about the future of rational inquiry,
bemoaning the loss of awe toward genuine mysteries that our
society was once lucky enough to possess."
QY: Douglas R. Hofstadter, Indiana Univ. Bloomington 812-855-4848
(Science 24 Jul 98 281:512) (Science-Week 14 Aug 98)


US NATL. ACAD. OF SCIENCES: OVERWHELMING REJECTION OF RELIGION
Although the current popular US media are fond of informing the
public that science and religion are moving closer on a common
ground, the evidence is apparently the opposite. In a letter to
the journal *Nature*, Larson and Witham (University of Georgia
Athens, US) report the results of a recent survey of scientists
who are members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The
authors report "near universal rejection" of the transcendent by
NAS natural scientists. Overall, 93 percent of NAS scientists do
not profess a belief in God (72.2 percent disbelief, 20.8
agnostic), and 92.1 percent do not profess a belief in
immortality (76.7 percent disbelief, 23.3 percent agnostic).
Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists
was 65.2 percent and 69.0 percent respectively, and among NAS
physical scientists it was 79 percent and 76.3 percent
respectively. As indicated, most of the rest define themselves as
agnostics, with only few believers. The highest percentage of
belief was found among NAS mathematicians: 14.3 percent belief in
God, 15 percent belief in immortality. Biological scientists had
the lowest rate of belief (5.5 percent in God, 7.1 percent in
immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher
(7.5 percent in God, 7.5 percent in immortality). The authors
suggest that despite recent declarations by NAS president Bruce
Albert that many outstanding members of the academy are very
religious people, the present survey indicates otherwise.
QY: Edward J. Larson 
(Nature 23 Jul 98 394:313) (Science-Week 14 Aug 98)


WOMEN ON CHEMISTRY FACULTIES: EVIDENCE OF SLOW PROGRESS
Data compiled by the American Chemical Society for 1996, the most
recent year for which data are available, indicate that in the US
30.7 percent of PhDs in chemistry were awarded to women, up from
12.5 percent in 1976. But on chemistry faculties at the major US
research universities, women are barely represented. Here are
figures for some of the major US academic research installations:
-----
(Total tenure or tenure-track chemistry faculty/Women on tenure
or tenure-track chemistry faculty 1996-1997)
University of California Berkeley            53/5
California Institute of Technology           25/3
Harvard University                           20/1
Stanford University                          21/1
Massachusetts Institute of Technology        31/2
Cornell University                           30/2
Columbia University                          19/1
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign      47/2
University of Wisconsin Madison              39/2
University of Chicago                        24/1
University of California Los Angeles         37/6
-----
QY: Mairin B. Brennan 
(Chem. & Eng. News 20 Jul 98) (Science-Week 7 Aug 98)
-------------------
Related Background:
US WOMEN IN SCIENCE LESS ACCEPTED THAN WOMEN IN BUSINESS
A meeting last month at the New York Academy of Sciences (US)
focused on the past 25 years of progress for women scientists and
engineers in the US. The apparent consensus at the conference was
that the climate for women in both industry and government has
improved much faster than in academia, with the changes in
industry mostly due to a drive by industry for diversity. The
Motorola Corporation (US) now has 43 women vice-presidents. In
1996, women were 51% of the US population, 46% of the labor
force, but only 22% of scientists and engineers. Nobel Laureate
Gertrude Elion advised women in science to follow Farragut's
order: "Damn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead."
(Chem. & Eng. News 6 Apr 98) (Science-Week 17 Apr 98)
-------------------
Related Background:
WOMEN NOW SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF ALL NEW US CHEMISTS
The latest survey of the American Chemical Society, covering
chemists and chemical engineers who graduated between July 1996
and June 1997, shows the following statistics for new women
graduates (percentage of total graduates who are women):
Chemistry Bachelor's Degree: 48.2%
Chemistry Master's Degree: 46.2%
Chemistry PhD Degree: 31.6
Chemical Engineering Bachelor's Degree: 35.4%
Chemical Engineering Master's Degree: 29.3%
Chemical Engineering PhD Degree: 22.9%
QY: Michael Heylin 
(Chem. & Eng. News 9 Mar 98)
-------------------
SWEDISH STUDY SHOWS SEX BIAS AFFECTS SCIENCE EMPLOYMENT
Two female Swedish scientists have published a study which
indicates that women must publish more often than men to compete
successfully for scientific jobs in Sweden. This is the first
scientific study of sex discrimination in the awarding of a
large number of research positions, and was financed by a
Swedish government grant. The researchers, Christine Wenneras
and Agnes Wold, are both from the University of Goteborg. The
journal Nature, which published the study, states that
the "results severely undermine the credibility of the
peer-review system, not just in Sweden but elsewhere in the
world. (Nature 22 May 97)


ON SCIENCE, POLITICS, AND ASTEROIDS
It is not often that a leading science journal invites a leading
science-fiction writer to present a lead essay in its pages. But
there are many scientists at work today who made their first
youthful contact with the adventurous aspects of science in the
novels of Arthur C. Clarke. Now 81 years old and Chancellor of
the University of Moratuwa (LK), Clarke was trained as a
scientist and originated the idea of satellite communication in a
scientific article in 1945. In a recent essay in the journal
*Science*, Clarke makes the following points: 1) For more than a
century, science and its occasionally ugly sister technology have
been the chief driving forces shaping our world. They decide the
kinds of futures that are possible. Human wisdom must decide
which are desirable. Clarke says it is "truly appalling" that so
few of our politicians have any scientific or engineering
background. 2) Clarke says, "I have encountered a few
'creationists' and because they were usually nice, intelligent
people, I have been unable to decide whether they were *really*
mad or only pretending to be mad. If I was a religious person, I
would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its
adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created the
whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading
humankind?" 3) Clarke says the scientific establishment has only
slowly understood that the history of this planet, and perhaps of
civilization itself, has been modified in important ways by
physical impacts from space, and he proposes that we embark on a
serious study of the probability of comet or asteroid impactors
on the planet Earth. 4) Concerning energy production from new
sources, Clarke says his guess is that large scale industrial
application will begin around the turn of the century -- "at
which point one can imagine the end of the fossil-fuel-nuclear
age, making concerns about global warming irrelevant, as oil-and-
coal-burning systems are phased out."
QY: Arthur C. Clarke, 25 Barnes Place, Colombo 7, LK.
(Science 5 Jun 98 280:1532) (Science-Week 26 Jun 98)


A PROPOSAL FOR A PERMANENT RECORD OF OUR CIVILIZATION
J. Lovelock (Oxford University, UK) presents an essay on
catastrophe, civilization, and information storage. The author
makes the following points: 1) We try to guard against local
hazards, but we tend to ignore threats global in scale. 2) We
fail to distinguish between the life-span of civilizations and
that of the species. Civilizations are ephemeral compared with
the species: humans have lasted a million years, but there have
been 30 civilizations in the past 5000 years. 3) As individuals,
we are amazingly ignorant and incapable. The important difference
that separates us from the social insects is that they carry the
instructions for nest building in their genes. We have no
permanent ubiquitous record of our civilization from which to
restore it should it fail. We would have to start again at the
beginning. 4) What we need is a primer on science, clearly
written and unambiguous in its meaning -- a primer for anyone
interested in the state of the Earth and how to survive and live
well on it. One that would serve also as a primary school science
text. It would be the scientific equivalent of the Bible. 5)
Modern media are more fallible instruments for long-term storage
than was the spoken word. They require the support of a
sophisticated technology that we cannot take for granted. 6) What
we need is a book written on durable paper with long-lasting
print, a book written with authority and readable enough to
ensure a place in every home, school, library, and place of
worship -- on hand whatever happened.
QY: James Lovelock, Coombe Mill, St. Giles on the Heath,
Launceton PL15 9RY, UK.
(Science 8 May 98 280:832) (Science-Week 29 May 98)


CRITICISM OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
A new report by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching (US) criticizes the leading research universities in the
US as shortchanging their undergraduate students by consigning
undergraduates to classes taught by graduate assistants and by
failing to provide students with "a coherent body of knowledge"
by the time they graduate. The report calls for an end to the
division between teaching and research, and for the involvement
of undergraduates in research beginning in their first university
year. The report was prepared by an 11-member commission from the
National Academy of Sciences, the Carnegie Foundation, the
American Council on Education, the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, and 5 different research universities. Milton
Glaser, a designer and graphic artist, is also listed as a member
of the commission. The title of the report is "Reinventing
Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research
Universities". Among the proposals in the report: 1) rewarding
faculty members more for good teaching; 2) using technology more
creatively; 3) fostering more interdisciplinary work; 4) placing
freshmen in small groups where they live together and take
courses together; 5) getting undergraduate students involved in
research with senior faculty members; 6) requiring undergraduate
students to conduct original research. Shirley Strum Kenny (State
University of New York Stony Brook), chairwoman of the
commission, says, "What we need to do is create a culture of
enquirers rather than a culture of receivers."
(New York Times 20 Apr 98) (Science-Week 24 Apr 98)


ON LINGUISTIC CHAOS IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Nomenclature anarchy in molecular biology is apparently once
again the focus of attention, although no remedies are evident.
In a recent article, Paul Smaglik writes, "Gene and protein names
often are based on the flamboyant, the descriptive, and the
intentionally obscure. For many researchers, naming their
discovery may be a rare opportunity to imbue their science with
creativity." But Lawrence Puente (University of Alberta, CA)
points out that creativity plus competition can equal confusion.
Julia A. White (University College London, UK), a member of the
Nomenclature Committee of the Human Genome Organization, says
that although the committee strives to sort out linguistic chaos,
the committee remains behind as a result of the speed and scope
of the Human Genome Project. With hundreds of thousands of genes
and proteins still to be named, molecular biology is in dire need
of nomenclature regulation.
(The Scientist 30 Mar 98) (Science-Week 17 Apr 98)
-------------------
Related Background:
MORE DISCUSSION OF ACRONYM ANARCHY IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
There are approximately 100,000 genes in the human genome, and
approximately 100,000 expressed proteins, the total certainly
enough to require a dictionary of names. Add to this total the
total of acronyms used to identify cell-lines, cell receptors,
metabolic pathways, carbohydrates, etc., and the dictionary would
require a second volume. In the early days of biochemistry and
molecular biology, when few genes and their expressed proteins
had been identified, everyone could more or less remember the
names of the macromolecular entities being studied by the people
in the laboratory down the hall. These days that is unlikely, and
made more unlikely by the tendency of many molecular biologists
to choose ad hoc names that are often more cute than technically
pertinent, and to obfuscate their research papers with acronyms
by the dozen in a single paper. We know of at least one instance
where an acronym for a cell-line in a paper from a group at the
US National Institutes of Health was not defined anywhere in the
paper, where telephone calls to molecular biologists produced no
one who knew what cell-line was involved, and where a query to
the authors of the paper did not produce a response for nearly
three weeks. As one scientist recently put it: "If you make your
paper difficult to read, at least no one can call you stupid." A
recent exchange of letters in the journal Nature revisits this
recurrent problem of nomenclature in molecular biology. It seems
there are indeed existing committees concerned with regulating
the nomenclature of molecular biology, but it also seems no one
pays any attention to them. Puente et al (Univ. of Alberta, CA)
refer to the present situation as "acronym anarchy". We agree. We
would add that if the in-house editors of the leading general
journals such as Science and Nature would refuse to publish these
unduly obfuscated papers, they would be doing a service to the
scientific community.
QY: L. Puente  (Nature 27 Nov 97)
-------------------
A CRITICISM OF NOMENCLATURE IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Nomenclature is a serious problem in all the sciences, since as
new discoveries are made, new entities identified, new concepts
formulated, new names for these things must be found so that
scientists can communicate with each other with some degree of
precision. Most sciences have nomenclature committees that meet
regularly to standardize current terminology and make decisions
about new terminology. Molecular biology, one of the most active
scientific disciplines these days, has no such constraints, and
apparently there is growing concern that the arbitrary and some-
times whimsical naming of new entities ("miranda", "prospero",
"numb", "inscrutable") in molecular biology, with the same entity
often sporting a number of names, has reached the stage of
promoting confusion and the inability of scientists to deal
efficiently with the literature. In a recent editorial critic-
izing nomenclature practices in molecular biology, the journal
Nature says, "Regrettably, molecular biologists have followed the
particle physicists' whimsy with obscurantist enthusiasm." In
particle physics, of course, we already have "quark", "strange-
ness", "charm", "color", "top", "bottom", etc., which the
editorial calls a "descent into whimsy" started by Murray Gell-
Mann in the 1960s, who evidently took the term "quark" from a
phrase in James Joyce's FINNEGAN'S WAKE. What is interesting is
that the same journal which is criticizing whimsical scientific
nomenclature is apparently quite fond of headlines involving
whimsical wordplay, puns, and metaphors when describing scient-
ific research results. If a consequence of this attention to
nomenclature will be a more rational use of language in science,
many people will no doubt be appreciative of it.
(Nature 4 Sep 97)
-------------------
PHYSICISTS ORGANIZE AGAINST IMPENETRABLE JARGON IN PHYSICS
A group of working physicists and journal editors, under the
leadership of Mitio Inokuti (Argonne National Laboratory, US) and
Ugo Fano (University of Chicago, US) has come into existence with
the objective of reforming the publication standards for papers
in physics. The problem is that physicists no longer understand
each other, their communication warped by "unexplained acronyms,
cryptic symbols, endless sentences, and monstrous graphs".
Analyzing the psychology of why this exists, Phillip Schewe
(American Institute of Physics, US) says, "You lose all your
readers, but at least you can't be accused of being an idiot.
Instead, the readers are made to feel like they're idiots." The
problem, of course, is just as severe in chemistry and biology.
(Science 15 Aug 97)


AN ESSAY ON SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY
In an essay on the scientific illiteracy of the general public,
N. Augustine (Princeton University and Lockheed Martin Corpor-
ation, US) notes the apathy concerning science and technology
that is apparently rampant in the US, and that "an indifference
toward scientific understanding is almost considered a badge of
honor." A recent US National Science Foundation survey indicates
that less than half of American adults understand that the Earth
orbits the Sun yearly; only 21% can define DNA; only 9% know what
a molecule is; 25 million Americans cannot locate the US on an
unlabeled world map. The public attitude toward science and
scientists is consistently negative. The great irony is that the
American economy and standard of living are based on a foundation
of rapid scientific advances. Augustine suggests that modern
scientists and engineers "must become as adept in dealing with
societal and political forces as they are with gravitational and
electromagnetic forces." QY: Norman Augustine, Princeton
University 609-258-3000 (Science 13 Mar 98)


PRESENT AND FUTURE US PHYSICS PHDS DISCOURAGED BY LACK OF JOBS
The American Institute of Physics 1996 Initial Employment Report
has been released, and the facts as presented are apparently
producing gloom in the physics student community. In the year
1995-1996, about 400 temporary and permanent faculty jobs in
physics in the US were filled in all degree-granting institut-
ions, and about 90% of these new placements were drawn from the
ranks of experienced physicists from industry or other univers-
ities. In other words, only about 50 tenure-track jobs in physics
each year are actually open to new graduates and postdocs. And
how many are being trained each year? In 1995-96, 1438 new PhDs
in physics were granted in the US. So the situation at present is
apparently that 97% of new PhDs in physics in the US cannot
expect to find a tenure-track position in a university physics
department, and of those who do find other employment, most of
them find it outside physics in areas such as engineering and
computer software. An American Physical Society poll indicates
that, at the moment, 40% of the junior members of the physics
community "would not advise someone to pursue a career in phys-
ics." This is, perhaps, an example of an endemic problem in Amer-
ican higher education, especially in the sciences and medicine.
The paradigm of sequential events is usually as follows: 1) a
glut of Phds (or MDs); 2) a reduction in the number of Phds (or
MDs) trained; 3) a scarcity produced by the reduction in trained
people; 4) an increase in the number of Phds (or MDs) trained; 5)
a glut of PhDs (or MDs); and so on -- with a complete cycle
usually running about 20 years. In the large, society can perhaps
tolerate this typical result of the operation of oscillating
market forces. In the small, where the security and life fulfill-
ment of individual junior scientists are involved, the result may
be intolerable. QY: James Glanz 

(Science 20 Feb 98)


ON THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
It is natural for nations seeking industrial development in order
to improve their circumstances to attempt to accomplish their
goals in a short time by rational design. But which rational
design? Since in this area of endeavor there exist neither
controlled experiments nor model historical experiences, the
question of choosing the proper road for accelerated development
is not easily answered in either the general case or the specific
case of any particular nation. In an essay on the role of science
in development, Jose Goldemberg, a physical scientist and
Brazilian government science policy administrator, points out
that after World War II, a small technical elite arose in
developing countries, an elite educated as scientists in the
industrialized world, who believed that by promoting large
enterprises in nuclear energy, electronics, pharmaceuticals, or
space research they could leap-frog the low level of development
of their countries. Goldemberg says that what his scientist
colleagues and national leaders alike failed to understand was
that industrial development does not necessarily coincide with
the possession of nuclear weapons or the capability to launch
satellites. Instead, development requires modern agriculture,
industrial systems, and education, and mere spin-offs from
nuclear energy or space programs will not convert underdeveloped
countries into 20th century industrialized states: the social
infrastructure changes required are fundamental and not
peripheral. In conclusion, Goldemberg suggests that the
transition of a country from developing to developed is a complex
process that demands facing up to the established interests in
society, and the impetus for this must come from all social
sectors. QY: Jose Goldemberg, Institute of Electronics and
Energy, Univ. of Sao Paulo, BR (Science 20 Feb 98)


ON CONFRONTING CREATIONIST FALLACIES
If there is any arena in which the interface between the
scientific community and society at large is of importance it is
the education of the public, and especially the education of the
young public. And perhaps no part of that arena in the US is of
more consequence to many citizens than the attempt by certain
groups to fashion the teaching of science according to
preconceived religious views. ... ... D. Wise (Franklin and
Marshall College, US) reviews the current controversy between the
scientific community and creationists and discusses a strategy of
intellectual confrontation. Among other things, Wise enumerates
the following creationist ideas from the Bible that are totally
irreconcilable with extant scientific data: 1) the Earth came
into existence before the sun and stars; 2) the land plants came
into existence before the Sun; 3) the first life forms were
plants; 4) fruit trees appeared before fish; 5) fish appeared
before terrestrial arthropods; 6) birds appeared before land
reptiles. Indeed, the acceptance of any of these ideas with a
restraint of consistency results in the tearing down of the
entire fabric of modern science (and the tearing down  of all
its applications, including modern medicine). Wise concludes,
"As scientists, we must emphasize repeatedly that the argument
against creationism is not against religion as such but rather
against a fringe group's attempt to force the Bible into the
public schools in the guise of a science textbook... The time
has come to stop fighting defensive skirmishes and start
challenging creationists to defend in toto what they call
science -- humorous absurdities and all."
QY: Donald U. Wise 
(American Scientist Mar/Apr 1998)


COMPARATIVE US UNIVERSITY CHEMISTRY PHDS.
The 1996 Annual Report of the American Chemical Society Committee
on Professional Training has been published. The number of PhDs
conferred in 1996 in chemistry has remained the same (at 2127),
while the number of PhDs conferred in chemical engineering has
risen from 584 to 690. The University of California Berkeley
produced the most PhD chemists (64), with the top 10 schools as
follows (numbers refer to chemistry PhDs conferred in 1996):
University of California Berkeley 64
Texas A & M College Station 46
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 43
Cornell University 38
University of Texas Austin 38
Purdue University 37
California Institute of Technology 36
University of Pennsylvania 36
Stanford University 36
University of California San Diego 30
QY: Diana Slade 
(Chem. & Eng. News 2 Feb 98)


--------------------
Copyright (c) 1997,1998 Science-Week/Spectrum Press
All Rights Reserved
for information:
http://scienceweek.com
request@scienceweek.com
--------------------


SCIENCE-WEEK Subscriptions:
-----------------------------------------------
Please note: Educational and other nonprofit institutions and
organizations are eligible for group subscription rates for
SCIENCE-WEEK: 50+ subscribers at a subscription rate of US$1 per
year per subscriber, with SW delivered individually to each
Email address. For more complete information about group
subscriptions, please query at: 
-----------------------------------------------

SCIENCE-WEEK INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION:
-------------------------------------------------

Subscriptions run for 52 issues at a cost of US$10.00 for the
year, and begin with the next issue following receipt of
payment. Email delivery is guaranteed: if at any time, for any
reason, an issue does not reach your Email address, let us know
and we will resend it. As a paid subscriber, you have will have
access to zip files of all back issues of SCIENCE-WEEK. 

----------------------------------------------------------------
CREDIT CARD:

To subscribe with a credit card (Visa or MasterCard), please
provide the following information by Email or regular mail or
voice telephone or Fax:

Your name:
Your Email address:
Type of credit card (Visa or MasterCard):
Credit card number:
Credit card expiration date:
Zip or postal code (if any) of your home address:

Please note: The credit card charge (US$10.00) will be by
Spectrum Press, the publisher of SCIENCE-WEEK.

For transmission of credit card information:
Email: request@scienceweek.com
Fax: 773-281-1419 (24 hrs.- 7 days)
Voice phone: 888-281-1419 (toll-free US) (9am-5pm M-F CST)
             773-281-1419 (outside US) (9am-5pm M-F CST)

----------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK OR MONEY ORDER:

To subscribe by check or money order (drawn in US funds on a US
bank), please provide your name and Email address, along with a
check or money order for US$10.00 payable to "Spectrum Press",
and send it to:

SCIENCE-WEEK/Spectrum Press
3023 N. Clark Street #109
Chicago, IL 60657
USA

----------------------------------------------------------------
PURCHASE ORDERS:

We will honor purchase orders from institutions, provided we
receive a purchase order number and an address to which we can
send an invoice for payment. The purchase order (and PO number)
can be sent via Email or regular mail. Please make certain the
purchase order includes the subscription Email address. Purchase
orders via regular mail can be sent to:

SCIENCE-WEEK/Spectrum Press
3023 N. Clark Street #109
Chicago, IL 60657
USA

----------------------------------------------------------------

For all subscriptions, when we receive payment, we will confirm
receipt with an Email message to your specified Email address.