Common Challenges for ESL Authors - Q & A

The purpose of this post is to solicit questions and excerpts from your writing that confound you. 

Some aspects of English writing are difficult for many native English speakers as well, e.g., choosing between its and it's or using transitions between paragraphs.  Others are more difficult for Chinese authors, e.g., the use of the articles a, an and the, which are unnecessary in Mandarin or Cantonese because context provides clarity.

As a general rule, I recommend focusing first on what is essential to convey your meaning and ignoring the rest until the penultimate pass.  (Many native English speakers don't know what "penultimate" means.) Ten years ago, I was much less flexible when editing; since that time, so many ESL authors have begun publishing in American scientific journals that I find numerous deviations in print.  I've discussed this with journal copy editors and learned that--without admitting as much--standards have relaxed.

This is not due only to their being overwhelmed by the cutbacks in staffing due to the recession, but to the nature of the English language itself.  Unlike Spanish and French, for example, there is no single guide to proper usage.

The influx of papers from scientists whose native language originated in China, India, Egypt, Italy, Kenya, Brazil or Chile affects the English of today, particularly in America, a polyglot nation. 'Twas ever thus.  We are more familiar with new words than with new structures, but both types of changes have occurred for centuries as English-speaking people migrated westward and emigrants from other countries followed.  (Just reading a dictionary transports me to exotic climes for hours.)

Nevertheless, there are some hard and fast rules--I can hear you cheering!--and some guidelines are prescriptive though not proscriptive.  So send your questions and samples and we'll have fun with them as we separate the "musts" from the "maybes". 

By the way, in case you noticed that I placed the period at the end of the preceding sentence outside the final quotation mark, I follow the logical system on that rule and you can, too--except when you're submitting a paper to a journal that follows traditional American style.  According to what I've read, the only reason Americans moved the comma and period outside was to accommodate a fragile type of printing press that is no longer in use. 

The British logically include all punctuation within the final quotation mark, and so do I!  Take that, Chicago Manual of Style!  What's up, o people of the windy city? Can't you feel the punctuation paradigm shifting? Wikipedia rules! Hip hip hooray!

Communication Skills Rated Highly by Employers and Funders

-->

In a study of what employers value most for the 2012 job market, the National Association of Colleges and Employers found communication ability at the top.  The two skills most prized were the:

• Ability to work in a team structure

• Ability to verbally communicate with persons inside and outside the organization

Also considered very important were decision-making/problem-solving, obtaining/processing information, and planning/organizing/prioritizing work. All three of these skillsets are necessary for excellent scientific writing.

In the scientific community, the ability to write for the general public is increasingly important because of the impact it has on the public and its support for government funding and legislation on issues such as climate change. Basically, the taxpayers are the employers of most scientists, and their government representatives the funding decision-makers.  

Even articles published in traditional scientific journals are cited beyond the author's specialty.  Considering that works are disseminated instantly to an audience that includes those for whom English is a second language, all scientific writers are under pressure to improve the clarity of their work.

In an article by Adam Smith in the Journal for Young Investigators, Jeff Berger, manager of the communications office at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), said:

--> “You can’t take for granted that just because you know you’re doing good work that your neighbors know, that other labs know, that colleges and universities know, that newspapers know, that the funding agencies know, that customers and suppliers know,” he said. “It’s good for labs if more people know. Science writers serve as a bridge to many audiences beyond scientists and engineers. Get an article in a large-circulation newspaper or magazine and you have the potential of many thousands hearing the message.”

Eileen Patterson, managing editor for 1663 at LANL, said:

-->“The journal Nature published an article complaining about the fact that most scientists were writing so that absolutely nobody could understand them. The biggest problem is sentence structure. Most people think that vocabulary is the problem when you’re communicating science. The biggest problem is not putting things where a person expects to find them.”

A good reference for communicating with the public is Dennis Meredith's book, Explaining Research: How to Reach Key Audiences to Advance Your Work. 

 

Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Peer Reviewing

After a two-year study of reviewers of Monthly Weather Review, my co-author David M. Schultz and I published the results as an article entitled "Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Peer Reviewing" in the March 2012 issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.  The dollar value of the voluntary contributions of scientists who serve as reviewers is considerable.  Although many of them are employed by institutions that encourage them to review others' work and they benefit from the knowledge and experience they acquire by doing so, much of the effort is completed by taking away from family and social time. During the ten years I coordinated the review process for MWR, I worked with hundreds of reviewers.  Rarely was any one of them anything but courteous and sincerely dedicated to improving the communication of science.

Here is the abstract:

"A survey of 310 reviewers for Monthly Weather Review addresses how much time and effort goes into the peer-review process and provides insight into how reviewers function. Using these data, the individual and collective contributions of volunteer peer reviewers to the peer-review process can be determined. Individually, respondents to the survey review an average of 2 manuscripts a year for Monthly Weather Review, 4 manuscripts a year for AMS journals, and 8 manuscripts a year in total, although some review more than 20 manuscripts a year. Each review takes an average of 9.6 h. Summing the individual contributions of the reviewers, respondents averaged 18 h yr⁻¹ performing reviews for Monthly Weather Review, 36 h yr⁻¹ for AMS journals, and 63 h yr⁻¹ for all journals. The collective time that all of the reviewers put into the peer-review process for all manuscripts submitted to Monthly Weather Review for each year amounts to 362,179 h, or more than 4 years of voluntary labor valued at over $2.34 million. Nearly all respondents (95%) are comfortable with their current load, but only 30% said that they would be willing to perform more reviews. Because the number of submissions to journals has been increasing over time and is unlikely to decrease in the near future, this burden is anticipated to grow. Options for reducing the burden include using fewer reviewers per manuscript, increasing the number of unilateral decisions made by editors, and increasing the size of the reviewer pool (particularly from active retired and early-career scientists)."

Golden, Mary, David M. Schultz, 2012: Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Peer Reviewing. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 337–345.  doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00129.1

A new star is born: the Colorado Collaborative for Girls in STEM

The Colorado Collaborative for Girls in STEM (CoCoSTEM) is bringing together leaders from academia, industry, government and nonprofits around the state to create collaborations that work to increase gender equity in STEM. At our information meeting for northeastern Colorado in March 2012, 75 representatives of organizations affirmed the need for CoCoSTEM. 

STATEWIDE KICK-OFF WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2012

On November 28, 2012, from 9 am - 3 pm, at Metropolitan State University of Denver, CoCoSTEM will hold a kick-off that will provide professional development training and information about mini-grants to about 200 attenders from around the state. The Equity Assistance Center at MSU is sponsoring the use of the on-campus facility, St. Cajetan's Center.  For more information, email cocogirls.stem at gmail.com or visit our Facebook page.

As the director of Cool Girls Science and Art Club, I attended the first national conference of the National Girls Collaborative Project in 2010. The vision of the NGCP is to bring together organizations throughout the United States that are committed to informing and encouraging girls to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). With funding from the National Science Foundation, NGCP has created 28 regional collaboratives serving 38 states to strengthen the capacity of girl-serving STEM programs to effectively reach and serve underrepresented girls in STEM. Since 2002, NGCP has served more than 5.5 million girls in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Cool Girls is the convening organization for the new Colorado Collaborative for Girls in STEM (CoCoSTEM).  

COCOSTEM LEADERS

-->

CHAMPIONSHIP BOARD

Chair:  Connie Hoon-Barclay, Patent Agent; former Facilitator for Discovery Research / Innovation, DSM Nutritional Lipids / Martek Biosciences, Boulder

Bryan DeBates, Education Director, Space Foundation, Colorado Springs

Dr. Margaret Eisenhart, Professor of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder

Violeta Garcia, STEM Coordinator, Colorado Department of Education

April Giles, Executive Vice President, Colorado BioScience Association, Denver

Shannon Golden-Schubert, Technology, Science & e-Commerce Attorney, Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, Boulder

Dr. Vicki L. Golich, Provost and Vice President for Academic & Student Affairs, Metropolitan State University of Denver

Dr. Cher Hendricks, Research Scientist II, CEISMC, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta;      

            Georgia STEM Girls Collaborative Project, Leadership Team Member 

Jennifer Jirous, Career and Technical Education Program Director for STEM, IT, and Fine Arts, Colorado Community College System, Colorado Springs

Lauren K. “LJ” Jones, CTE-Career Guidance Specialist & Trainer, Colorado Community College System, Denver

Kevin G. MacCary, Vice President & General Counsel, United Launch Alliance, LLC­, Centennial

Terry Morreale, Associate Director, NCWIT, Boulder

Dr. Pendred Noyce, Chair, Tumblehome Learning, Inc., Weston, MA

John Sepich, STEM Education Advocate, Littleton

Gully Stanford, Director of Partnerships, College in Colorado, Boulder

Dr. Jacquelyn Sullivan, Associate Dean for Inclusive Excellence, College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Colorado, Boulder

Jud Valeski, CEO, Gnip, Inc.

LEADERSHIP TEAM

Co-Chair: Mary Golden, Director, Cool Girls Science and Art Club, Boulder

Co-Chair: Dr. Patty Quinones, Principal, Skyline High School, Longmont

Dr. Donna Charlevoix, Director, Education and Community Engagement, UNAVCO, Boulder

Dr. Stacey Forsyth, Director, CU Science Discovery, Boulder

Kristen Jensen, Coordinator of Extended Learning Opportunities, Denver Museum of Nature and Science

Dr. Heidi Loshbaugh, Dean, Center for Math and Science, Community College of Denver

Rachel Greenberg Matz, K-12 Alliance Manager, National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT), Boulder

Kathy Rigsby, Director, Region VIII Equity Assistance Center, Metropolitan State University, Denver

Dr. Mary Ann Roe, Co-Director, Colorado Coalition for Gender & IT (CCGIT); Coordinator, Workforce Education, Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Denver

Beth Ryan, Program Services Manager, Girl Scouts of Colorado, Denver

Janet Lynn Yowell, Associate Director of K-12 Engineering Education, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder 

ALSO PARTICIPATING

Stephanie Cross, Constituent Services Advocate for Senator Mark Udall, Denver

Sue Windels, District Education Advocate for Congressman Jared Polis, Boulder

Four years later....

Much has changed in my work life during the past four years, yet much has stayed the same.  The most important news was the publication by the American Meteorological Society of Dave Schultz's excellent book, Eloquent Science: A Practical Guide to Becoming a Better Writer, Speaker & Atmospheric Scientist, to which I contributed. Together with Dave, I also published my first article in a scientific publication, which was based on a two-year study of MWR reviewers: "Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Reviewing."  I retired from the AMS in May 2012, still edit scientific papers, and still teach scientific writing occasionally for ESL scientists at UCAR/NCAR.

Please see my next post for information on the new Colorado Collaborative for Girls in STEM.

How the Internet is changing reading habits of researchers

An article in the July/August issue of The Atlantic Monthly entitled, "Is Google making us stupid?" was based in part on a UK study prepared primarily for academic librarians and issued in January 2008. One of the stated goals of the study was to determine whether scholarly research methods for content are changing and, if so, its impact on libraries and publishers.

"The report Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future (PDF format; 1.67MB) shows that research-behaviour traits that are commonly associated with younger users – impatience in search and navigation, and zero tolerance for any delay in satisfying their information needs – are now becoming the norm for all age-groups, from younger pupils and undergraduates through to professors."

Based on longitudinal studies in the UK and the US, the CIBER research team at University College London reported on the need for a new library model due to changes in the way users research material, collaborations with publishers, open-sourcing and the excellent prospects for e-books.

Nicholas Carr, author of The Atlantic article, cautioned that online research may negatively impact the ability to evaluate content:

"The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking."

http://www.bl.uk/news/2008/pressrelease20080116.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

To write or not to write

Perhaps it's back to the drawing board on these long-term forecasts, eh?

" The AP contacted the emergency management agency in every coastal state from Texas to Maine and asked whether these [six-month] seasonal forecasts play any role in their preparations for the hurricane season. Their response was unanimous: They're a great way to get people thinking about the upcoming season, but that's about it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_forecasts

Microsoft provides free access to new WorldWide Telescope

Microsoft has given us a great gift, the WorldWide Telescope.

"The WorldWide Telescope (WWT) is a step toward the 'democratization' of the conduct of science. The Internet will become, as astronomers put it, 'the world´s best telescope'--a supercomputer at your desktop. "The mission of the WWT is twofold:

To aggregate scientific data from major telescopes, observatories and institutions and make temporal and multi-spectral studies available through a single cohesive Internet–based portal. To re-awaken the interest for science in the younger generations through astronomy and new technologies through the virtual observatory of the WWT. This also provides a wonderful base for teaching astronomy, scientific discovery, and computational science". ... "By connecting to the same source materials that scientists at NASA and Caltech are using for their research, WWT is a powerful 'virtual observatory' for scientists, educators, and the public. Researching the sky as easy as viewing a Web site and is accessible to everyone with an Internet connection. "WWT also contains features to help you explore the Earth, satellites, such as the Moon, and 360 degree panoramas of Yosemite’s Half Dome and other locations". http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/whatIs/whatIsWWT.aspx

How you say it can be as important as what you say, according to journal editors

Excerpt from a letter to an author:

"Both reviewers complained of technical and editorial errors throughout the manuscript. I believe very strongly that it is not the job of scientific reviewers to perform technical editing. Please take pains to make the manuscript as coherent and well written as possible. You may wish to obtain the services of a technical editor before submitting your revision.

"To protect my reviewers, I will read the revision and reject it without further review if it appears that insufficient effort has been applied to the technical editing, organization and presentation of the manuscript".

Jim Hansen, Ph.D.
Editor, Monthly Weather Review
Naval Research Laboratory
Monterey, CA

Open-source access and copyright issues

Regarding the pros and cons of open-source access to writing, I've heard two sides in the scientific community. One is that scientists need access to the results of each other's work as soon as possible, particularly in a global community. Many prestigious departments and universities have begun permitting papers to be posted on their websites as soon as they are written or vetted by the authors' respective departments. Who becomes known for a discovery first is very important in terms of prestige, honors and possible commercial offshoots. Most academic writing benefits scientists' (and other academics') careers indirectly; they are usually not paid for their writing. In fact, most academic and scientific journals charge them to publish, so much more of their time than they would like to spend goes toward seeking grants to cover such charges.

On the other hand, scientific journals say that the volunteer peer-review process is crucial to maintaining the quality and integrity of research. As for attribution, each journal article includes its submission date as verification in case of a dispute over who discovered a process or phenomenon first. Such journals are already under a great deal of pressure from their members to reduce page charges, particularly for color reproductions of charts, graphs and other illustrations. Some are now discouraging print subscriptions and trying to move individuals and institutions, including libraries, to exclusively electronic subscriptions. Surprisingly, however, publication costs do not decline as much as one might think when paper and postage are eliminated.

Another issue is that papers that are posted before peer review may be revised by the authors as more information is available. This may result in confusion over which results are accurate. The increasing use of multimedia supplements to papers also affects the publishing process. Work that is available electronically can be much richer, in terms of color, video, etc., than what can be economically printed. So a journal's dilemma becomes: Which is the official journal, the print journal academic libraries still subscribe to, or the electronic version? So far, most journals are requiring authors to pay color charges for images to be printed if they want them to be available in color electronically. Resistance to electronic-only subscriptions remains high but is declining as the advantages of cost, speed and supplementary materials are recognized.

The copyright process in scientific journals is different from other publications. Authors must transfer their copyrights to the journals upon submission, but they still retain most rights. Reprints, however, require permission from the journals. Increasingly, U.S. journals are publishing work from abroad, where copyright laws are quite different. Another trend is that many individuals and institutions are collaborating on research and publication of results. Consequently, journals are being driven to change their policies. In 2007, for example, one scientific society that publishes a number of journals began making accepted papers accessible via its website immediately upon acceptance by the peer-review editor, if desired by the author(s). Some accepted papers require considerable post-acceptance editing, which is why the production process can take several months, but at least the meat of the work will be searchable as soon as it has been validated by the peer-review process.

This helps to explain why a substantial number of academics support open-sourcing. Their self-interest is quite different from that of the typical writer. For one thing, most of their work is developed by teams and most articles are co-authored, with any financial benefits shared by their institutions. The sooner their work becomes known, the sooner they receive invitations to speak, inquiries from potential commercial interests, promotions, and funding for further research.

A matter of significance

The use of the word "significant" in scientific writing poses a unique problem because it is implicitly ambiguous in the term "statistically significant".  While the dictionary definition of "significant" does not necessarily invoke statistical measure, and its synonyms include "notable" and "important", its use in a nonstatistical sense in a scholarly article amounts to a misuse.  

This is especially true when the comparison being made could indeed be tested for statistical significance.  In such a case, the "statistical" modifier should be understood, because a statistical test should be undertaken during any serious analysis.

During broad introductions, the use of "significant" in a nonstatistical sense may be appropriate, although its use should be discouraged.  Elsewhere in scientific writing, it should absolutely be avoided unless a statistical demonstration of significance is offered.  This guideline will disambiguate a term for which there are an ample number of synonyms to be used in cases where statistical significance cannot be shown.

contributed by Dr. Ron McTaggart-Cowan
Numerical Weather Prediction Section
Meteorological Service of Canada
ron.mctaggart-cowan@ec.gc.ca

A new PAC: the Period And Comma manifesto

One of the frustrations of writers is the differing rules of grammar as used in English-speaking countries. Perhaps the spirit of activism engendered by the election year will stimulate a new PAC: the Period And Comma liberation movement!

Many rules of grammar were created not by writers or editors but by typesetters to accommodate the needs of their equipment. The placement of punctuation is one. While the period and comma appear before the final quotation mark in U.S. style books, other punctuation appears after it. I've adapted an anthem for our new PAC. To join, post a comment.

It's based on "The Internationale", of course! There! I've done it! I placed a comma after a final quotation mark! You, too, can be bold!

Arise, ye writers from your slumbers
Arise, ye prisoners of type
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of tripe.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the rule to win the prize.

So editors, do not dally
Be brave and boldly take a stand
International style unites the human race!
So editors, do not dally
To this fight we must lend a hand
International style unites the human race!

No more deluded by reaction
Tyrants of type we'll heed no more
The writers too will take fast action
They'll say farewell to guides of yore
And if those old style books keep trying
To sacrifice sense to their pride
They soon will see the marks go flying
Illogic we shall nevermore abide!

Let us stand together for tomorrow
International style unites the human race!

No savior on high will deliver
No lord have we in print or year
Our own strong minds the chains must shiver
Chains of handset movable type and fear.
To such silly rules no more we'll hark!
Put the period and the comma
Beyond the final quotation mark!
To one English style we'll say, "Hurrah!"

Let us stand together for tomorrow
International style unites the human race!

Word Choice Influences Readers

FairerScience.org focuses on gender and science. On this simply written page, the authors contrast the use of different phrases to convey meaning. Their advice is useful to avoid offending or confusing readers or listeners, whether the words represent gender or ethnicity, or even arcane concepts that might be of interest to scientists outside the narrow field of the authors of a paper.

http://www.fairerscience.org/WordsMatter.html

For authors: Tips on responding to reviews

Dr. Roger Samelson has generously provided these tips to authors of scientific papers as a guide to preparing responses to reviewers' (and editors') comments:

Here's what I would recommend, based on what has been most helpful to me as an editor and reviewer:

1. Identify each conceptually independent reviewer comment in some straightforward way: quote the first few words, refer to numbers if given, etc. In general, don't repeat or quote the entire reviewer comment. Most reviews are best read as a continuous document, and the editor or reviewer will want to refer to the original anyway.

2. For each such comment, list the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript, by section, page number, etc., as specifically as possible. If practical, quote added or edited passages in the response. Avoid general statements, such as "Section X was rewritten to address the reviewer's comments," that give little specific information as to what changes were made and to which paragraphs and sentences.

3. If no revision was made in response to a comment, say that and explain why. Recognize that if a detailed response to a reviewer comment is necessary, the inclusion of at least some portion of the response in the revision is frequently merited, even if it is a rebuttal. Most of the questions that occur to reviewers will occur to other readers.

4. In general, focus on clearly identifying what revisions were made, or requested but not made, and explaining why they were or were not made. Avoid responses that are not clearly tied to specific changes in the text or figures, or that don't specifically rebut certain suggested changes.

5. Include an introductory statement that briefly outlines the main elements of the response, especially if major changes were made, or suggested but not made. This can be helpful simply because it allows the editor or reviewer to estimate quickly how much time the review will take to complete.

Pretty simple, really! In my experience, most authors do it well.

Roger Samelson
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

http://www.coas.oregonstate.edu/faculty/samelson.html

Why early-career scientists should review papers

MWR Chief Editor Dave Schultz offers concise tips on reviewing on his blog at http://mwr-editors.blogspot.com.

Weather Coalition Town Hall Meeting 1/22/08

Is the Weather Enterprise Ready for the Next Administration?

Town Hall Meeting at the AMS Annual Meeting
Tuesday, January 22
7:15-8:15 AM (Light breakfast)
Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, Room 208

The Weather Coalition, an advocacy group composed of members from
industry, academia, and scientific and professional associations, will
hold a Town Hall Meeting to discuss coalition priorities and advocacy
strategies for the second session of the 110th Congress, and the next
Administration.

Climate change issues have gained traction in Congress.  This has
created an important opportunity for the weather enterprise to advance
its agenda – but it will take the active participation of the entire
enterprise to be successful. Legislation of relevance to our community
should move forward next year, including the NOAA Organic Act.  What
issues are important to the weather enterprise in such an act? In this
time of declining budgets, have the following community priorities
changed?

* Restore NOAA budget (FY08 below FY05 levels)
* Pass a NOAA Organic Act (including language to create a Weather
Services Advisory Committee and support for extramural research
partnerships)
* Support the NOAA Profiler Network
* Support for Observing Systems
* Pass Hurricane Research Legislation

This timely discussion will help guide our advocacy efforts for this
year and beyond.  The meeting will include an update by Joel Widder of
Lewis-Burke Associates on the outcome of the FY08 Omnibus Bill for
agencies of importance to our work and a brief presentation by Jack
Fellows on a community transition document.  We urge you to join us
for this heavy discussion and light breakfast!

For more information, contact Laura Curtis at lcurtis@ucar.edu

AMS workshop 1/20/08: Improving your writing skills -- for students and scientists

Improving Your Writing Skills -- for Students and Scientists
AMS Annual Meeting Student Conference
New Orleans, LA
Sunday, January 20, 2:00-3:30 pm
Location: Room R07
Ernest N. Morial Convention Center
Open to all attendees

presented by Dr. David M. Schultz
Chief Editor, Monthly Weather Review
Professor, University of Helsinki and Finnish Meteorological Institute

AMS journals reject 30% of submitted manuscripts. In this workshop, we will discuss several simple steps that practicing scientists and students can take to write a better scientific document. Whether it is a journal article, grant proposal, class project, or your dissertation, the skills you will learn in this workshop will produce immediate results. Among the items discussed in this workshop that attendees will learn about are:

* the publication process, and how to deal with cranky reviewers and authors
* how to attract an audience to your paper
* organizing a paper for maximum readability
* combating writer's block
* six tips to improve the flow and content of your writing
* shortening your writing and increasing its clarity
* ten rules for effective figures
* specific issues for writing meteorological papers

"The most brilliant Ph.D. thesis ever written in astronomy"

"The reward of the young scientist is the...thrill of being the first person in the history of the world to see something or to understand something.... The reward of the old scientist is the sense of having seen a vague sketch grow into a masterly landscape.... He may have roughed out part of the design, laid on a few strokes, but he has learned to accept the discoveries of others with the same delight that he experienced in his own when he was young." Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin

Payne-Gaposchkin's Ph.D. dissertation entitled "Stellar Atmospheres, A Contribution to the Observational Study of High Temperature in the Reversing Layers of Stars," was reportedly the best written on astronomy in the entire 20th century, according to noted astronomer Otto Struve. Stellar atmospheres, The Observatory, 1925; Harvard College Observatory, Monographs, no. 1.

Winner of the American Astronomical Society's Henry Norris Russell Prize in 1976, the British-American scientist achieved numerous firsts, including:

• first woman to become a full professor at Harvard
• first woman to become a department chair at Harvard
  
• first person to receive a Ph.D. in astronomy from either Radcliffe or Harvard
• first to show that the sun is composed primarily of hydrogen
  

For more information, see the website "4000 Years of Women in Science" at
http://www.astr.ua.edu/4000WS/4000WS.html
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/payne2.html

Reduced U.S. funding for scientific research and education imperil budgets for NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOE's Office of Science, and UCAR/NCAR

The following letter is reprinted with permission of its author to highlight the serious underfunding of scientific research and the need for continuing advocacy.

Dear friends and colleagues,

As you no doubt read over the holidays, Congress has completed and the president has signed into law the federal budget for FY08. While the FY08 process started out with hopes for a strong budget for science, the political differences between the Congress and the Administration led to a collapse in the process which resulted in real reductions in Federal support for research and education. These reductions will likely affect many UCAR and NCAR programs negatively over the rest of the year.

The fiscal year began officially on October 1, 2007. Government agencies were kept operating through continuing resolutions, essentially at FY07 levels. Congress and the White House were $22 billion apart (Congress budgeting the higher numbers) on discretionary spending which includes the budgets for NSF, NASA, NOAA, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. Negotiations between the White House and Congress failed to bring about any compromise, with the president, helped by a core group of Republicans, holding firm to his top line request for overall spending of $933 billion. Given the Democrats’ slim margin of control in Congress, the Congressional leadership was unable to assemble a veto-proof majority and therefore could not overcome the threatened presidential veto of a funding bill that exceeded the president’s request.

NSF was an important part of the Administration’s multi-year American Competitiveness Initiative, and its budget was slated to double over the next several years. The FY08 outcome interrupted that progress and also eliminated improvements for other science agencies. The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman David Obey (D-WI), indicated that Congress had to restore funding and "fill some of the unacceptable holes" in the President's budget request within an overall budget that essentially freezes discretionary spending. To do this, funding for many of the programs and initiatives supported by industry and the university community were reduced significantly below the levels recommended earlier this year.

NSF’s research budget will increase by only 1.2 percent over FY07, instead of the anticipated 8 percent increase. NOAA’s overall budget is $182 million below FY 2007. Recall that the FY 2007 NOAA budget was more or less frozen at the FY 2006 level. The DOE Office of Science budget received about half of its proposed increase with close to half of that modest increase for special congressional “earmarked” projects. The NASA Science Mission Directorate fares somewhat better with an overall increase of 5.4 percent over the FY07 level. The congressional attempt to supplement the NASA budget by $1 billion failed. For omnibus bill language and details on budget numbers for these agencies, please see the UCAR Government Affairs web site at http://www.ucar.edu/oga/html/budget/index.html.

Unfortunately, FY 2009 is not likely to be much better given the relationship that exists between the Congress and the White House and the fact that this is a Presidential election year. Nevertheless, it is my intent to continue to speak out, mobilize the atmospheric science community and work closely with the rest of the Nation’s research and education enterprise to convince our policy makers of the importance of investing adequately in science in order to meet our economic, environmental and health-related needs of our Nation.

Agencies are now putting together their FY08 work plans based on the new budget numbers and we must be realistic in our expectations given the disappointing outcome of the FY 08 appropriations process. UCAR and NCAR management will meet with agency leadership to continue to communicate and promote the importance of our scientific plans to the greatest extent possible. We will keep you informed of developments.

Sorry for the bad news.

Dr.Richard A. Anthes, President
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colorado

A call for a presidential debate on science and technology

"Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness," the group Science Debate 2008 is soliciting others to join in a "call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Medicine and Health, and Science and Technology Policy."

Among those supporting the effort are numerous Nobel and Crafoord Laureates, heads of scientific organizations and institutions, leading scientists, government officials, and business and publishing luminaries.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=7