DOCSLIB.ORG

SCIENCE at the BICENTENNIAL a Report from the Research Community

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SCIENCE at the BICENTENNIAL a Report from the Research Community SCIENCE AT THE BICENTENNIAL A Report from the Research Community 4ot.UTJcM, m 4fr . lip '?76.191 National Science Board/1976 NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD DR. NORMAN HACKERMAN (Chairman, National Science Board), President, Rice University DR. RUSSELL D. O'NEAL (Vice Chairman, National Science Board), Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, KMS Industries, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan DR. W. GLENN CAMPBELL, Director, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University DR. H. E. CARTER, Coordinator of Interdisciplinary Programs, University of Arizona DR. ROBERT A. CHARPIE, President, Cabot Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts DR. JEWEL PLUMMER COBB, Dean and Professor of Zoology, Connecticut College DR. LLOYD M. COOKE, Director of Urban Affairs and University Relations, Union Carbide Corporation, New York, New York DR. ROBERT H. DICKE, Albert Einstein Professor of Science, Department of Physics, Princeton University DR. DAVID M. GATES, Professor of Botany and Director, Biological Station, Department of Botany, University of Michigan DR. T. MARSHALL HAHN, JR., Executive Vice President, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Portland, Oregon DR. ANNA J. HARRISON, Professor of Chemistry, Mount Holyoke College DR. ROGER W. HEYNS, President, American Council on Education DR. W. N. HUBBARD, JR., President, The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan DR. SAUNDERS MAC LANE, Max Mason Distinguished Service Professor of Mathematics, University of Chicago MR. WILLIAM H. MECKLING, Dean, The Graduate School of Management, The University of Rochester DR. GROVER E. MURRAY, President, Texas Tech University and Texas Tech University School of Medicine DR. WILLIAM A. NIERENBERG, Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography DR. FRANK PRESS, Chairman, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DR. JOSEPH M. REYNOLDS, Boyd Professor of Physics and Vice President for Instruction and Research, Louisiana State University DR. DONALD B. RICE, JR., President, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California DR. L. DONALD SHIELDS, Presiclent, California State University at Fullerton DR. CHARLES P. SLICHTER, Professor of Physics and in the Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER (Member cx officio), Director, National Science Foundation DR. F. P. THIEME, Professor of Anthropology, University of Colorado DR. JAMES H. ZUMBERGE, President, Southern Methodist University * * * MISS VERNICE ANDERSON, Executive Secretary, National Science Board SCIENCE AT THE BICENTENNIAL A Report from the Research Community Report of the National Science Board/i 976 National Science Board National Science Foundation r U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1976 0-207-044 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.95 Stock No. 038-000-00280-5 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL April 30, 1976 My Dear Mr. President: The National Science Board has the honor of transmitting to you and through you to the Congress its Eighth Annual Report, Science at the Bicentennial—A Report From the Research Community. This Report has been prepared in accordance with Section 4(g) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. In response to an inquiry by the National Science Board, over 600 representatives of the research community in universities, industry, government, and independent research institutes throughout the United States provided their views on conditions affecting research or likely to affect it in the near future. Specifically, they were asked to describe critical issues or problems they believe will decrease the effectiveness of research "unless properly addressed." The many aspects of those issues or problems identified in the responses are detailed in this Report. Greatest concern centered upon dependability of funding for research, the vitality of the research system, freedom in research choices, and attitudes toward science and technology. The National Science Board believes the Report points to a need for action, in which government, the scientific community, and the public have a part, in assuring that those concerns are properly addressed. Respectfully yours, / Norman Hackerman Chairman, National Science Board The Honorable The President of the United States FOREWORD Scientific research in the United States has grown up in close relation with other parts of the national life, at once affected by and affecting intellectual, social, and economic developments. An assessment of the present state of the American research enterprise therefore merits inclusion in our national self-accounting at the Bicentennial. This Eighth Report of the National Science Board is offered as part of that accounting. Specifically, the Report is intended to show what critical problems appear to be developing in the operating research sectors that will decrease the effectiveness of research unless properly addressed. A question to that point was put to broadly-informed persons in the research community. This Report provides the means by which their responses can be made widely known. The circulation of these views initiates a two-part task. The second part, for which the first is essential, is devising the means by which the critical problems can be "properly addressed" so that any decrease in the effec­ tiveness of research in the United States may be avoided. The National Science Board undertook this collection of views in response to clear evidence that scientific research, after a period of relative well-being, is today exposed to severe stress. That stress originates in fundamental changes in such matters as age patterns in the population, the availability and distribution of economic resources, and the order of values guiding national directions. To obtain the views of the research community, the Board sent letters of inquiry to more than 900 persons active in the administration of research, and in some cases in performing research, in its four main sectors: universities, industry, Federal laboratories, and independent research institutes. Manage­ ment, policy, and the institutional environment for research were designated as the principal areas in which identification of critical issues and problems was sought, but no definite limitations were placed on the possible answers. The responses provide a rich resource for consideration by the National Science Board and the various readers to whom this Report is addressed: the President, the Congress, the scientific community, and the public. The National Science Board found two outstanding features emerging from the hundreds of replies. One feature was the commonality of judgment, V across all sectors and transcending parochial interests, as to what the major problems are. The second was the intensity of concern about these problems and about the prospects for science in the immediate future. The principal areas of common concern were these: dependability of funding for research; the maintaining of vitality in the research system; freedom in research; and current attitudes toward science and technology. This Report contains chapters on each of the four areas of concern. In these chapters the Report relies almost wholly on direct quotation of the respondents, without interpretation. This method reflects the belief of the Board that systematic discussion of the respondents' independent views as given and of additional views still to be sought must be carried out before there can be general agreement on solutions and how best to put them into effect. In the coming months the Board plans to initiate further discussions with the science community and the general public. Regional Forums under the auspices of the Board will beheld in different parts of the country. At those meetings, issues of the kind brought out here will be discussed with organizations in science and other public groups, with this Report serving as a basic document. The commonality of judgment and the intensity of concern which distinguish the responses in this Report give promise that these discussions will be a forceful stimulus for thought and action. The Board is deeply grateful for the insights contributed by its respondents. Responses were received between midsummer and midautumn 1975. No attempt was made to update those responses which in one detail or another may have been overtaken by developments since then. vi ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS The National Science Board has had the assistance of many persons in government, education, and the research community in preparing its Eighth Report. Dr. James J. Zwolenik, Division of Science Resources Studies, National Science Foundation, served as Executive Secretary and Staff Director for the NSB Committee on this Report. Staff work was shared with Dr. Donald E. Buzzelli, Office of Planning and Resources Management, National Science Foundation, while Mr. Frederic W. Collins, Public Information Branch, National Science Foundation, collaborated as an editor and writer. Outside consultants were Prof. Carroll W. Pursell, Jr., Lehigh University, on the history of science in the United States, and Prof. Albert H. Teich, State University of New York at Albany, on Federal laboratories. An indispensable contribution to this study was made by the more than 600 scientists and research administrators throughout the American research community whose thoughtful letters provided most of the material for this Report. Their names are listed in Appendix C. vii MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE ON EIGHTH NSB REPORT Dr. F. P. THIEME, Chairman,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REPORT of the TASK FORCE on the FUTURE of UMASS AMHERST
    REPORT of the TASK FORCE ON THE FUTURE OF UMASS AMHERST October 3, 2001 OUTLINE OF THE UMASS AMHERST TASK FORCE REPORT I. THE CONTEXT OF THE TASK FORCE REPORT II. A BRIEF HISTORY OF UMASS AMHERST III. CLASSIFICATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION • The Carnegie Foundation Classification (1994) • The Carnegie Foundation Classification (2000) • The Association of American Universities (AAU) IV. NATIONAL RATINGS OF UMASS AMHERST • US News and World Report • The National Research Council (NRC) • The Association of American Colleges (AAU) • The “Center” at the University of Florida V. FINANCIAL RESOURCES • A Comparison of Fiscal Resources with Peer Institutions • A Comparison of Fiscal Expenditures with Peer Institutions • Investment Decisions and Opportunities • Opportunities for Enhancing Revenue VI. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Part One THE CONTEXT OF THE TASK FORCE REPORT The decade of the nineties was a period of significant change — and at times upheaval – for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (UMA). On several fronts the campus advanced its position as an important center for teaching, research and service to the public: • The Board of Higher Education selected UMass Amherst in 1997 as the home of the statewide honors college — Commonwealth College. The first class was enrolled in 1999. • For the past two years, UMass Amherst has been named one of the institutions offering the best value for the money in the Kaplan/Newsweek college guide, and this year was also listed as a leading school supporting diversity. • The 1995 National Research Council (NRC) ranking of research doctoral programs placed UMass Amherst in the top 25% nationally in Linguistics, Materials Science, Psychology, Computer Sciences, Chemical Engineering, and Electrical Engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to DPR from the Panel Conducting the Peer Review of The
    1 May 7, 2011 Administrator Lisa Jackson United States Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460 Re: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0541, Petition to Suspend and Cancel All Registrations for the Soil Fumigant Iodomethane (Methyl Iodide) Dear Administrator Jackson, We are pleased to see that US EPA has decided to reconsider the registration of methyl iodide for its use as a soil fumigant pesticide. We remain concerned about the wisdom of widespread dispersion of methyl iodide into the environment and support the petition to cancel all uses of this chemical as a pesticide. It is one of the more hazardous chemicals used in research labs and in the chemical industry, and it seems counterintuitive that EPA would work on one hand to prevent and document relatively small releases of methyl iodide used in research and chemical manufacturing, while permitting what will likely be millions of pounds to be used annually in agriculture near homes, schools and workplaces. In our letter to EPA of September 24, 2007, (which we sent a copy of to you in February of 2009), we strongly recommended that EPA not register methyl iodide, but if the Agency chose to do so, we recommended that US EPA obtain an external scientific peer review of the risk assessment. While EPA did not commission such a review, the state of California has conducted its own risk assessment and did commission a Scientific Review Committee (SRC) to evaluate US EPA’s and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR’s) risk assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Golden Fleece, Science Education, and U.S. Science Policy1
    The Golden Fleece, Science Education, 1 and U.S. Science Policy Richard C. Atkinson President University of California was pleased to accept Roger Hahn’s kind invitation to participate in I this colloquium series. It gave me an opportunity to rethink some events I was associated with at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the 1970s. I would like to review briefly U.S. science policy since World War II from the perspective of the National Science Foundation, and in particular from the narrower perspective of science education and the social sciences at NSF. This is a personal account, not a schol- arly one, and I would be delighted if my remarks were to stimulate some aspiring young historians to undertake a more careful study of the events I am going to discuss. My story begins with World War II and the remarkable success of U.S. science in the war effort—a critical factor in our victory. President Roosevelt’s science adviser, Vannevar Bush, had been a long-term member of the faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; he was one of the key people responsible for building the quality of that institution. Bush had a close personal relationship with Roosevelt. Near the end of the war the president asked him to define a plan for American science in the postwar period. That request led to Bush’s landmark report, Science, The Endless Frontier, one of the great documents of American history. The Bush report defined science policy for the post-World War II era. What was the nature of that report? No summary could do justice to Bush’s masterful analysis, but essentially he made three principal arguments about the future of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • President's Daily Diary Collection (Box 85) at the Gerald R
    Scanned from the President's Daily Diary Collection (Box 85) at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library THE WHITE HOUSE THE DAILY DIARY OF PRESIDENT GERALD R. FORD PLACE DAY BEGAN DATE (Mo., Day, Yr.) THE WHITE HOUSE DECEMBER 16, 1976 WASHINGTON, D.C. TIME DAY 7:25 a.m. THURSDAY TIME il "C ~ ~~ ACTIVITY I----~----I ~ ~ In Out .. ~ 7:25 The President had breakfast. 7:55 The President went to the doctor's office. 8:00 The president went to the Oval Office. 8:18 8:30 The President met with: Wally A. Criswell, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas Robert Denny, General Secretary of the Baptist World Alliance, Washington, D.C. Richard S. Brannon, Staff Assistant 8:33 9:00 The President met with: George Bush, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Assistant for National Security Affairs 9:05 9:20 The President met with his Assistant, Richard B. Cheney. 9:35 10:15 The President met with: Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State Lt. Gen. Scowcroft 10:28 R The President was telephoned by Congressman John J. Rhodes (R-Arizona). The call was not cmmpleted. 10:34 The President went to the Cabinet Room. 10:34 11:30 The President participated in a meeting with members of the President's Committee on Science and Technology and other science leaders. For a list of attendees, see APPENDIX "A." Members of the press, in/out 11: 30 The President returned to the Oval Office. The President met to discuss the status of Kincheloe Air Force Base in Michigan with: 11:40 12:05 John 0 •.
    [Show full text]
  • May 25, 1963, Approved the Following
    THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS Office of the Chancellor May 7, 1963 TO THE HONORABLE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS Mrs. Johnson and Gentlemen: The Budget Dockets prepared by the component institutions listed below are herewith submitted, with my recommendation for approval, for consideration at the meeting of the Board of Regents on May 24 - 25, 1963. Main University M. D. Anderson Hospital and Texas Western College Tumor Institute Medical Branch Southwestern Medical School Dental Branch The following changes affecting Central Administration budgetary operations are recommended for approval by the Board of Regents. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS --TO THE 1962-63 BUDGET University Development Board 1. Transfer $1.250, > from the Universitv Develooment Board Publishing- and Mailing account to the University Development Board Clerical Assistants account. In prior years some of the part-time clerical employees hired on a temporary basis for special publishing and mailing projects were paid from the Publishing and Mailing account. Since the Auditor has requested that all part-time employees be paid from the Clerical Assistants account, this transfer will be necessary in order to meet clerical costs resulting from various mailing programs during the rest of this year. (RBC 87) University Lands, Geology 2. Effective April 19, 1963, accept the resignation of Mr. James Roland Mollard, Petroleum Engineer, at an annual salary rate of $6,468. (RBC 89) APPROPRIATION FOR MISCELUNEOUS COSTS - PERMANENT UNIVERSITY FUND BONDS - P -___> SERIES 1963 3, At- the April, 1963, meeting of the Board of Regents the subject bond issue in the amount of $4,000,000 was authorized and the bond counsel was named.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalysis Looks to the Future
    o.... °a CATALYSISLOOTOKTHESFUTURE -i Panel on New Directions in Catalytic Science and Technology Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology National Research Council DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1992 DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED ....... i f p -_ PANEL ON NEW DIRECTIONS IN CATALYTIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Alexis T. Bell, University of California, Berkeley, Chair Michel Boudart, Stanford University Burt D. Ensley, Envirogen David Estell, Genencor Robert H. Grubbs, California Institute of Technology L. Louis Hegedus, W. R. Grace & Co. Leo E. Manzer, E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Jule A. Rabo, UOP Tarrytown Technical Center Julius Rebek, Jr., Massachusetts Institute of Technology James F. Roth, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Gabor A. Somorjai, University of California, Berkeley Vern W..Weekman, Mobil Research & Development Company William Spindel, Study Director o.o Ill COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS Norman Hackerman, Robert A.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial Resolution: Henry Koffler (1922-2018), Department of Biological Sciences
    MEMORIAL RESOLUTION: HENRY KOFFLER (1922-2018), DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Professor Henry Koffler, Head of the Purdue University Department of Biological Sciences from 1959 to 1975, passed away in Tucson, Arizona, on Saturday, March 10, 2018 at the age of 95. Professor Koffler, born in 1922 in Vienna, Austria, came alone to the U.S. at age 17 after the Nazi annexation of Austria in 1939, and began undergraduate studies at the University of Arizona in 1940 in Agricultural Chemistry, from which he graduated in 1943. He subsequently earned M. S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Wisconsin. He joined the faculty of Purdue University in 1947 and was promoted to Full Professor in 1952, the youngest Full Professor at the University. He held a Fellowship in 1953 from the prestigious Guggenheim Foundation, and was the recipient of the Eli Lilly Award in Bacteriology and Immunology from the American Society of Bacteriology in 1957. He became the Head of the Department of Biological Sciences in 1959 at the age of 37, 12 years after obtaining his Ph.D. Leaving Purdue after 16 years as Head of Biological Sciences, he served as Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of Minnesota, Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and was appointed President of the University of Arizona in 1982, a position marked by distinctive academic achievements for the University until his retirement in 1991. Professor Koffler received Honorary Doctorate Degrees from Purdue, the University of Arizona, and Amherst College, as well as an appointment as Officer, Ordre des Palmes Académiques (France), and was selected as a Charter Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology, and as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter Template
    Copyright by Preethi Mathew 2013 The Dissertation Committee for Preethi Mathew Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: CATHODE CATALYSTS FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE FUEL CELLS: ANALYSIS OF SURFACE PHENOMENA Committee: Arumugam Manthiram, Supervisor John B Goodenough, Co-Supervisor Allen J Bard Charles B Mullins Guihua Yu CATHODE CATALYSTS FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE FUEL CELLS: ANALYSIS OF SURFACE PHENOMENA by Preethi Mathew, B.Tech., M.Tech. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December 2013 Dedication To my beloved Lord (Papa) and To my beloved parents Acknowledgement I wish to place on record my profound gratitude to my dissertation advisors, Professors John B. Goodenough and Arumugam Manthiram for their invaluable guidance, constant encouragement and inspiring discussions as well as the opportunity to continue my Doctoral degree. I am forever indebted to both of them for the freedom given to pursue my research interests. I express my gratefulness to Professors Allen J. Bard, Charles B. Mullins and Guihua Yu for serving on my dissertation committee and for their helpful suggestions and ideas. I also wish to thank Dr. Jeremy P. Meyers for his guidance and support. My sincere thanks are due to Dr. Thomas Cochell and Dr. Wei Li for stimulated discussions and their assistance on a variety of topics. I wish to thank Dr. Nathan Miller, Dr. Wei Li, Dr. Hugo Celio, Craig Milroy, and Zachary Moorhead-Rosenberg for ICP- MS, TEM, UVPES, XPS, and magnetic measurements, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • A History from 1980 to 2010
    The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences: A History from 1980 to 2010 by Roger L. Caldwell, Professor Emeritus College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Tucson, Arizona 85721 The University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences: A History from 1980 to 2010 by Roger L. Caldwell Professor Emeritus June 2011 College of Agriculture and Life Sciences University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 Published by College of Agriculture and Life Sciences University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Copyright © 2011 Arizona Board of Regents Table of Contents Table of Contents, i List of Figures, iv List of Tables, iv Foreword, v Preface, vi Highlights viii Part 1. Introduction and Historic Context, 1 Chapter 1. Introduction, 2 Chapter 2. Historical Periods of the University and College, 12 Chapter 3. The Transition Years Explored, 15 Part 1. Summary, 17 Part 2. Caretaking, Stabilizing, Refocusing and Sustaining, 18 Chapter 4. Caretaking: Looking for a Dean 1978-1980, 19 Chapter 5. Stabilizing: Adapting to a New Era 1980-1987, 20 Chapter 6. Refocusing: Growing Under New Conditions 1987-1997, 22 Chapter 7. Sustaining: Preparing for an Uncertain Future 1997-2010, 24 Part 2. Summary, 25 Part 3. Organization, Planning and Focus, 26 Chapter 8. College Structure and Management, 27 Chapter 9. Providing Recognition, 30 Chapter 10. Views on New Directions Facing Universities, 32 Chapter 11. Planning and Focus, 38 Chapter 12. Politics, Innovations, and Disruptions, 45 Part 3. Summary, 49 Part 4. History Since 1980 from Various Perspectives, 50 Chapter 13. Perspective of Academic Departments and Schools, 51 Chapter 14. Perspective of Dean’s Office, 91 Chapter 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Homecoming 1970
    Homecoming 1970 During the months of July, August that University regulations say they and September, students, faculty and shouldn't be used. administrators worked with the Com- • Advertisements of activities at mittee on Classes and Reunions to pro- Rice, in an underground newspaper, duce a Homecoming that would speak which were not authorized by any offi- to the collective mind of Rice alumni. cial body on campus. Abandoning the brunch-before-the- • Problems concerning the use of game type Homecoming of recent Rice, in a very regular fashion, by a years, they created an ambitious, mul- group of "free-university" type per- ti-faceted program of fun, food and sons who believed that they had com- education. plied with all the requirements and Judging from the response (see let- therefore could use the campus facil- ters beginning on page 4), the 900-plus ities for the 10 weeks of this semester. alumni who attended enjoyed them- • Problems of the switching of per- selves. There was plenty of food, and, sonnel without telling those involved hopefully, they came away with a little that the switch, was taking place. better understanding of the problems • Problems of switchboards which which face education and Rice in the are not open at the right time for 70's. people. • Problems of night guards who are A normal and nice not available in the right place for week for Dr. Hackerman people. President Norman Hackerman made "At the same time, I dealt with the first, and only, speech of the day. these questions: "My evaluation of Rice University Are the admissions, recruiting, fi- before I came, high as it was, was too nancial aid and registration areas low," he told alumni.
    [Show full text]
  • A Forum for Electrochemistry and Solid-State Science for 100 Years
    A Forum for Electrochemistry and Solid-State Science for 100 Years he Electrochemical Society (ECS) has a birthplace of historic distinction – Philadelphia – the home of Beginnings... BENJAMIN FRANKLIN (and his famous kite) and the birthplace of the United States. The Society originally was called the American Electrochemical Society, but, The Society’s roots can be traced farther back in time than like the nation, it had its roots in distant lands. ECS when our story begins. Relics found in the Middle East sug- Twas like the nation in other respects. It was a melting pot; in gest that, thousands of years ago, voltaic cells were being this case, a melting pot of scientific and technological disci- used. Electroplating of some sort is known to have existed in plines, and of their adherents, who came from countries from those times as well. Australia to Mexico to Russia and points in between. The following photo essay is a distillation of the Society’s 1800—ALESSANDRO VOLTA concluded that a “pile” of dissimi- history – the usual dates, names, and significant markers, but lar metals provided the electricity responsible for the twitch- also some amusing anecdotes and intriguing photographs. ing of frogs’ legs reported by Galvani. We hope you will enjoy this quick look at a society that has made its mark on the world of electrochemistry and solid- 1815—HUMPHRY DAVY used a group of these “piles” to dis- state science and technology. cover and isolate the elements potassium, sodium, and calci- um. Davy also coined the term “electrochemical.” FARADAY HALL HEROULT EDISON DOW 22 The Electrochemical Society Interface • Spring 2002 REED RICHARDS 1831—MICHAEL FARADAY was led to formulate the laws of elec- trolysis and was the first to use the terms anode, cathode, Founding..
    [Show full text]
  • College of Medicine Catalog
    1986-1987 College of Medicine Catalog Item Type Book Authors University of Arizona Publisher University of Arizona Rights Permission to use or to order reproductions must be obtained from the University of Arizona Libraries, Special Collections. Contact us at [email protected], or (520) 621-6423. Download date 30/09/2021 11:30:22 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555505 The University of Arizona Record College of Medicine Catalog 1986 -87 University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona THE COLLEGE OF MEDICINE CATALOG 1986 -1987 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA TUCSON, ARIZONA This catalog is published by the Dean's Office, College of Medicine and contains informa- tion provided by the departments of the College of Medicine as of March 3, 1986. For in- quiries concerning this catalog, please notify the Vice Dean's Office, (602) 626 -4555. THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA RECORD Vol. LXXIX, No.2 July, 1986 ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THIS CATALOG CONCERNING CURRICULUM, FEES,AND REGULATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. All colleges and departments establish certain academic requirements which must be met before a degree is granted. These requirements concern such things as curricula and courses, majors and minors, and campus residence. Advisors, directors, department heads and deans are available to help the student understand and arrange to meet these requirements, but the student is responsible for fulfilling them. At the end of a student's course of study, if requirements for graduation have not been satisfied, the degree will not be granted. For this reason it is important for each student to acquaint himself or herself with all regulations and to remain currently informed throughout his or her college career and to be responsible for completing requirements.
    [Show full text]