Friday, 29 March 1991 Washington, DC
1. ACADEMY ETHICS PANEL EMBROILED IN DISPUTE OVER PREMATURE
LEAK.
Last week, the science establishment was severely
jolted by David Baltimore's retraction of a disputed paper
following release of an NIH finding that it contained fraudulent
data. It is a major embarrassment, since several scientific
review panels had earlier dismissed charges of fraud. NIH
revisited the case only after a series of sensational hearings
conducted by Rep. John Dingell's investigations subcommittee. A
National Academy of Sciences panel on "Responsible Conduct of
Scientific Research" (WN 24 Aug
90) has been seeking a better system for dealing with fraud
charges. This week, the chair of that panel, Edward David, told
a reporter that the "draft" of their report contains a
recommendation for an outside board to oversee ethics issues in
science. But other panel members complain that they have not
agreed to the idea; it was proposed to the panel by former NSF
director Erich Bloch.
2. THE LIGHTS ARE BURNING LATE IN UNIVERSITY BUSINESS
OFFICES
all over the country as university officials search
for questionable overhead charges. Having kicked the pedestal out
from under Nobel laureate David Baltimore, John Dingell turned
his guns on Donald Kennedy, the president of Stanford. Kennedy
last week apologized to Stanford supporters for the "mess" the
school has gotten into.
3. "FINAL" COST ESTIMATE FOR THE SSC MAY REQUIRE SOME
ADJUSTMENT!
A few SSC scientists are calling for an
increase in the aperture of the quadrupoles from 40 to 50 mm. An
increase in the dipole aperture contributed to the last big jump
in price. Coming as it does just one month after DOE finally
released its official $8.2B cost estimate, the question won't be
settled on technical grounds alone. There is also a problem
reaching DOE's goal of $1.60B from foreign contributors--so far
it is about $1.58B short. The L* collaboration
(WN 21 Dec 90) has large foreign
participation, but its troubles with American physicists who were
left out and the ample shadow of Carlo Rubbia, have frightened
many foreigners. New L* cospokesman Barry Barrish is expected to
soften Sam Ting's leadership, but L* has been urged to "descope"
its design by 15%. Meanwhile, Stanford and Cornell are proposing
B factories to keep high-energy physicists busy studying CP
violation while the SSC is being built. The cost is estimated at
$200M (I hear laughter).
4. ERRATUM: A QUOTE BELITTLING PROSPECTS FOR COMMERCIAL
FUSION
energy "in the lifetime of anyone in this room" was
incorrectly attributed to OTA director Jack Gibbons in the 1
March issue of WHAT'S NEW. The statement was actually made by
David Freeman of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. We
regret the error. Gibbons testimony did say that the goal of
fusion energy "remains frustrating and elusive." In fact, the
National Energy Strategy calls for an "operating commercial
fusion plant by about 2040." Given our biblical allotment of
"three-score years and ten," only those under 21 can expect to
see it. Freeman was probably right.
|
