DOCSLIB.ORG

Intellectual Freedom of Academic Scientists: Cases of Political Challenges Involving

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intellectual Freedom of Academic Scientists: Cases of Political Challenges Involving Intellectual Freedom of Academic Scientists: Cases of Political Challenges Involving Federally Sponsored Research on National Environmental Policies Jeffrey C. Sun Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2012 © 2012 Jeffrey C. Sun All rights reserved ABSTRACT Intellectual Freedom of Academic Scientists: Cases of Political Challenges Involving Federally Sponsored Research on National Environmental Policies Jeffrey C. Sun This study contributes to the literature on the academic profession’s intellectual freedom. Drawing significantly on two methodological approaches, comparative case study and grounded theory, this dissertation examines three controversies in which government officials challenged academic scientists’ federally sponsored research, which had implications for national environmental policies. To structure this examination, I used a two-part framework. For the first part, I investigated the evolving interpretations of events and actors’ interests, which revealed the tactics and pressures employed by government officials when challenging the academic scientists’ federally sponsored research. For the second part, I used Freidson’s theory of professional dominance to help us understand how and in what ways institutionalized arrangements within society supported the academic profession’s autonomy and authority over its work. This analysis identified the means by which the academic scientists in my three cases exerted some degree of control over scientific decisions regarding the research assumptions, methods, and analyses of their findings. The study’s key findings are presented in the form of five research claims: First, the government challengers may try – sometimes successfully – to exercise their influence over indirect participants in the federally funded research in an attempt to control the dissemination of the federally sponsored research findings. Second, the government challengers, though not scientists themselves, relied heavily on their own judgment to declare publicly the kinds of activities that can and cannot count as legitimate scientific research, rather than relying on the traditional scientific peer-review process. Third, academic scientists may involve members of the public in the dispute. When that happens, the public may help decide whether government officials or academic scientists are better equipped to address the scientific matters associated with the federal policy. Fourth, academic scientists’ political allies can support academic scientists’ efforts to defend their research within the policymakers’ setting. Fifth, academic scientists may assert academic conventions (e.g., peer review) as the standard (or possibly as the preferred) practice through which to evaluate science, even when government challengers question the validity of those conventions. Placed in context of the extant literature, these claims, taken together, suggest that the government officials tried to take actions that exceed their professional competence, specifically as boundary breakers who attempted to infiltrate the jurisdictional responsibilities of the academic scientists. In addition, despite the government officials’ attempts to engage in professional boundary-crossing activities, the academic scientists asserted institutionalized practices and standards of the profession (e.g., peer review and open dialogue) and drew on the assistance of external actors (i.e., members of the public and political allies) as countervailing forces to exert control over their research. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH ........................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 9 The Cases .................................................................................................................................. 10 Sewage Sludge Case .............................................................................................................. 11 Climate Change Case............................................................................................................. 15 Salvage Logging Case ........................................................................................................... 19 Significance of the Case Representations .............................................................................. 22 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 23 Part 1: Government Challenges ............................................................................................. 23 Part 2: Academic Scientists’ Responses ................................................................................ 26 Combining the Evolving Interpretations & Interests Frame and Freidson’s Theory of Professional Dominance ........................................................................................................ 30 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 32 Overarching Research Question ................................................................................................... 32 Research Sub-questions ................................................................................................................ 32 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 33 Organization of this Study ......................................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER II: CONCEPTUALIZING “GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES TO ACADEMIC SCIENTISTS’ FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH” ....................................................... 36 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 36 The Social Contract ............................................................................................................... 37 Three Frames of Government Challenges ................................................................................. 39 Unified Interest Frame ........................................................................................................... 39 i Competing Interests Frame .................................................................................................... 47 Evolving Interpretations and Interests Frame ........................................................................ 61 Proposing the Evolving Interpretations and Interests Frame .................................................... 72 Chapter Summary & Conclusion .............................................................................................. 76 CHAPTER III: CONCEPTUALIZING “EXERTING CONTROL OVER RESEARCH” .......... 80 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 80 Prior Frameworks ...................................................................................................................... 82 Internal Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 83 External Factors ..................................................................................................................... 90 Conceptual Omissions ........................................................................................................... 95 Searching for a More Comprehensive Framework ................................................................... 96 Academic Profession’s Work Autonomy .............................................................................. 96 Sociology of the Professions ................................................................................................. 98 Freidson’s Theory of Professional Dominance ................................................................... 100 Illustrating the Framework for the Academic Profession’s Responses ............................... 111 Chapter Summary and Conclusion .......................................................................................... 112 CHAPTER IV: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS ................................................................ 115 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 115 Conceptual Framework and Research Questions .................................................................... 115 Case Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................ 122 Federal Government Challenges ......................................................................................... 123 University-based Academic Scientists Who Work for American Universities in the United States ...................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Issues in Physics & Astronomy
    Issues in Physics & Astronomy Board on Physics and Astronomy · The National Academies · Washington, D.C. · 202-334-3520 · nationalacademies.org/bpa · Winter 2010 Unveiling the Black Hole and its Environs at the Center of the Milky Way A. Ghez, UCLA he proximity of our galaxy’s center presence of a million solar masses (Mo) • How do stars interact with super- presents us with a unique oppor- of dark matter and confined it to within a massive black holes? tunity to study a galactic nucleus radius of 0.1 pc—to a probability—when • What is the nature of the matter Twith orders of magnitude higher spatial proper motion velocity dispersion mea- flows induced by the black hole in its resolution than can be brought to bear on surements increased the inferred dark neighborhood? any other galaxy. After more than a decade mass density by 3 orders of magnitude It has been known for some time that 12 3 of diffraction-limited imaging with the to 10 Mo/pc and eliminated a cluster there is a population of young stars around rudimentary technique of speckle imag- of dark objects as a possible explana- the center of the Milky Way. The presence ing at Keck and NTT/VLT, the case for tion of the galaxy’s central dark mass of these young stars was used initially to a supermassive black hole at the galactic concentration—and finally to a certainty— argue that there could not be a black hole; center has improved dramatically. The case when individual stellar orbits confined this argument went as follows.
    [Show full text]
  • Ralph J. Cicerone 1943–2016
    Ralph J. Cicerone 1943–2016 A Biographical Memoir by Barbara J. Finlayson-Pitts, Diane E. Griffin, V. Ramanathan, Barbara Schaal, and Susan E. Trumbore ©2020 National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. RALPH JOHN CICERONE May 2, 1943–November 5, 2016 Elected to the NAS, 1990 Baseball afficinado; scientific visionary; natural leader; statesman of great integrity; convincer par excellence; half of an incredible team…this is the human treasure that was Ralph J. Cicerone. It is an enormous challenge to capture adequately Ralph’s essence and the many ways he left the world a better place. We hope in the following we have some small measure of success in this endeavor. Ralph Cicerone’s is a very American story. His grandparents were immigrants from Italy and he was born in New Castle, Pennsylvania on May 2, 1943. His father, Salvatore, was an insurance salesman who, when working in the evenings, left math problems for Ralph to solve. Ralph, who had a natural affinity for sports, became the first in his family to attend college. At MIT, he was captain of the baseball team By Barbara J. Finlayson-Pitts, while majoring in electrical engineering. Graduating with Diane E. Griffin, V. Ramanathan, a B.S. in 1965, he moved to the University of Illinois for his Barbara Schaal, Master’s (1967) and Ph.D. (1970) degrees in electrical engi- and Susan E. Trumbore neering (minoring in physics). Ralph’s start at Illinois proved to be life-changing; while standing in line to register for the class Theory of Complex Variables, he met his future life partner, Carol, and they married in 1967.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary)
    Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age (Free Executive Summary) http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12615.html Free Executive Summary Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age; National Academy of Sciences ISBN: 978-0-309-13684-6, 188 pages, 6 x 9, paperback (2009) This free executive summary is provided by the National Academies as part of our mission to educate the world on issues of science, engineering, and health. If you are interested in reading the full book, please visit us online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12615.html . You may browse and search the full, authoritative version for free; you may also purchase a print or electronic version of the book. If you have questions or just want more information about the books published by the National Academies Press, please contact our customer service department toll-free at 888-624-8373. As digital technologies are expanding the power and reach of research, they are also raising complex issues. These include complications in ensuring the validity of research data; standards that do not keep pace with the high rate of innovation; restrictions on data sharing that reduce the ability of researchers to verify results and build on previous research; and huge increases in the amount of data being generated, creating severe challenges in preserving that data for long-term use. Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age examines the consequences of the changes affecting research data with respect to three issues - integrity, accessibility, and stewardship-and finds a need for a new approach to the design and the management of research projects.
    [Show full text]
  • General Disclaimer One Or More of the Following Statements May Affect
    General Disclaimer One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as much information as possible. This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy available. This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures, which have been reproduced in black and white. This document is paginated as submitted by the original source. Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original submission. Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI) PB85-125524 Global Tropospheric Chemistry A Plan for Action National Research Council, Washington, DC Prepared for National Science Foundation, Washington, DC Oct 84 MIN.r Jodi" W.wre sr lice PB85-125524 Global Tropospheric Chemistry A PLAN FOR ACTION I III N C • REPRODUCED BY NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFOkMATION SERVICE US OEP.RRENENf OF COMMERCE SPRINCFIEIO VA. 22161 Lam Adm• te1 REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REp()NT NIL s s Reelplenre Awwon No. PAGE ISBN: 0-309-03481 -7 P885 125524 ti TRp and futARle s Roport Dow 10/84 Global Tropospheric Chemistry, A Plan for Action a 7. Author(A. s hrtorminp t Monlontlen t(opl. He, ISBN: 0-309-03481-7 2. hrtormins Ownttetlon No" and Addison I& Preled/Tesk/Werk UnR No.
    [Show full text]
  • Ralph J. Cicerone
    Honoring the Life of Ralph J. Cicerone F RIDAY , A PRIL 2 8 , 2 0 1 7 Fred Kavli Auditorium National Academy of Sciences 210068_Broch.indd 1 8/22/17 3:32 AM 210068_Broch.indd 2 8/22/17 3:32 AM Table of Contents 2 Welcome on Behalf of the National Academy of Sciences MARCIA K. MCNUTT, National Academy of Sciences 3 A Letter in Appreciation SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER 5 A Principled Visionary and a Truly Wonderful Guy C. D. (DAN) MOTE, JR., National Academy of Engineering 6 On Behalf of the National Academy of Medicine VICTOR J. DZAU, National Academy of Medicine 8 On Behalf of the Council of the National Academy of Sciences DIANE E. GRIFFIN, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 10 On Behalf of the National Research Council and its Staff BRUCE B. DARLIng, National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council 13 Scientific Legacy and a Long Friendship VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN, University of California, San Diego 15 Far-reaching Impacts on Science JANE LUBCHENCO, Oregon State University 17 When You Come to a Fork in the Road PHILIP NEEDLEMAN, Washington University 20 Fostering the Next Generation of Scientists SUSAN E. TRUmbORE Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry and University of California, Irvine 23 Impact on Science Policy as Scientist and President of the NAS JOHN P. HOLDREN, Harvard University 25 The International Science Community MARTIN REES, Cambridge University and Royal Society 27 Character: A Steady Guide in Science and Science Policy HAROLD T. SHAPIRO, Princeton University 29 A Man of History DANIEL J. KEvlES, Yale University, Emeritus 31 On Behalf of his Family CAROL AND SARA CICERONE 1 210068_Broch.indd 3 8/22/17 3:32 AM On Behalf of the National Academy of Sciences MARCIA K.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
    A RATIONAL DISCUSSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE: THE SCIENCE, THE EVIDENCE, THE RESPONSE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 17, 2010 Serial No. 111–114 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62–618PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania ALAN GRAYSON, Florida SUZANNE M.
    [Show full text]
  • National Directory of Space Grant Contacts Front Cover: Galaxies: Snapshots in Time
    If. National Aeronautics and Educational Program Space Administration Faculty, Teachers Grades K- & Students Post Doctoral Office of Human Resources and Education Education Divisi (NASA-EP-321) NATIONAL DIRECTLY N96-19287 OF SPACE GRANT CONTACTS (NASA) 107 p Unclas HI/81 0101133 National Directory of Space Grant Contacts Front Cover: Galaxies: Snapshots in Time This sequence of NASA Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images of remote galaxies offers tantalizing initial clues to the evolution of galaxies in the universe. (far left column) These are traditional spiral and elliptical-shaped galaxies that make up the two basic classes of island star cities that inhibit the universe we see in our current epoch (14 billion years after the birth of the universe in the Big Bang). Elliptical galaxies contain older stars, while spirals have vigorous ongoing star formation in their dusty, pancake-shaped disks. Our Milky Way galaxy is a typical spiral, or disk-shaped galaxy, on the periphery of the great Virgo cluster. Both galaxies in this column are a few tens of millions of light-years away, and therefore represent our current stage of the universe's evolution. (center left column) These galaxies existed in a rich cluster when the universe was approximately two-thirds its present age. Elliptical galaxies (top) appear fully evolved because they resemble today's descendants. By contrast, some spirals have a "frontier" appearance, with loosely shaped arms of young star formation. The spiral population appears more disrupted due to a variety of possible dynamical effects that result from dwelling in a dense cluster. (center right column) Distinctive spiral structure appears more vague and disrupted in galaxies that existed when the universe was nearly one-third its present age.
    [Show full text]
  • Atmospheric Circulation 2008
    Autumn 2008 Atmospheric Circulation Newsletter of the University of Washington Atmospheric Sciences Department Let It Snow! by Mark Stoelinga produced 180% of normal snow- trailer (see photo) to assess the relative percent- pack in the central Washington ages of habit types seen, and degrees of riming. Cascades, made for a very good At the same time, a series of other manned and winter of observations. automated observations were taken of precipita- The research endeavor was tion rate, new snow depth, particle size distribu- motivated by an increasing rec- tions, and particle fall speeds. Other tests were ognition of the importance of conducted on accumulated snow, such as rate snow microphysical processes in of compaction under load, and shear strength. precipitation production, coupled The key goal was to be able to relate all these with a lack of data on the prop- properties to the habit and riming composition erties of snow that relate to the of the snow particles. physics of precipitation growth, The data set collected during the observa- and a general oversimplification tional studies provides an unprecedented long- of the representation of snow term record of snow particle types that occurred properties in computer weather throughout many different orographic winter prediction models. Essentially, storms in the Cascades. One application of the most computer models treat data set is to estimate the total mass of different snow particles as “little snow habit types that comprise the snow accumula- The snow study research site at Stevens Pass balls,” or spheres of constant tion during typical storms in the Cascades. The during winter 2007/2008.
    [Show full text]
  • The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University
    The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University NSF #0937591 September 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013 PI: David H. Guston, Arizona State University Co-PIs: Elizabeth Corley, Arizona State University Deirdre Meldrum, Arizona State University Clark Miller, Arizona State University Dietram Scheufele, University of Wisconsin, Madison Jan Youtie, Georgia Institute of Technology Annual Report for the Period September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013 This report includes work conducted at three collaborating universities of NSEC/CNS-ASU: Arizona State University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Annual Report for Award #0937591 September 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013 2. Table of Contents Project Summary 3 List of Center Participants, Advisory Boards, and Participating Institutions 4 Quantifiable Outputs – Table 1 44 Mission, Significant Advances, and Broader Impacts 45 Highlights 61 Strategic Research Plan 70 Research Program, Accomplishments, and Plans 73 a. RTTA 1 73 b. RTTA 2 78 c. RTTA 3 83 d. RTTA 4 92 e. TRC 1 98 f. TRC 2 101 Center Diversity – Progress and Plans 109 Education 113 Outreach and Knowledge Transfer 128 Shared and Other Experimental Facilities 138 Personnel 141 Publications and Patents 146 Biographical Information 263 Honors and Awards 272 Fiscal Sections 274 Cost-Sharing Section 295 Leverage 307 Current and Pending Support 317 1 Annual Report for Award #0937591 September 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013 (2. Table of Contents continued) Tables Table 1 44 Table 2 108 Table 3A 127 Table 3B 127 Table 4A 144 Table 4B 145 Table 5 310 Table 6 311 2 Annual Report for Award #0937591 September 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Enstrom Email to Wessler Re
    January 22, 2016 You signed the May 7, 2010 Science letter by Peter Gleick Since May 2, 2012 Gleick https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/criminal_referral_of_peter_gleick.pdf Lindzen article on NAS UC Mission statement: The University of California System The ten campuses of the University of California system are dedicated to the fundamental missions of teaching, research and public service. Lysenko Interrelationship between Science, AAAS, and NAS Make case that secret committee nominated a self-described activist McNutt to continue recent tradition of activist Cicerone. Reveal demographics of election results, number of votes per sstate who voted to confirm McNutt. If nothing is presented at AAAS meeting ther will be effort to raise serious doubts about objectivity of McNutt,Science, AAAS, and NAS before McNutt becomes NAS Pres on July 1 and before new Science editor is appointed. December 22, 2015 Susan R. Wessler, Ph.D. Home Secretary National Academy of Sciences Distinguished Professor of Genetics Department of Botany and Plant Sciences University of California, Riverside [email protected] Dear Professor Wessler, 1 I helped Dr. Peter Wood prepare his December 9, 2015 National Association of Scholars email letter to California members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) “Concerns about the National Academy of Sciences and Scientific Dissent” (https://www.nas.org/articles/nas_letter), which you have received. I am writing to you about this email letter as both the Home Secretary of the National Academy of Sciences and a UC Riverside Distinguished Professor (http://newsroom.ucr.edu/2547). First, in your role as NAS Home Secretary, I request that you send the email letter to all NAS members, since it deals with serious concerns about suppression of scientific dissent and Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Hot Lies Al Gore
    U.S. $27.95 Can. $29.95 (continued from front flap) Red Hot Lies Horner Hot Lies Red Chris Horner: “Climate criminal.” —Greenpeace flowing. In the name of “saving the planet,” any- Praise for Red Hot Lies thing goes. LIARS “If I had to choose one global warming skeptic to go mano-a- But why the nasty tactics? Why the cover- Al Gore. ups, lies, and intimidation? Because Al Gore mano against the best of the alarmists in a winner-take-all, rumble-in-the-jungle debate to the death to settle the climate The United Nations. and his ilk want to use big government at the controversy once and for all, my pick would be Chris Horner. Red The New York Times. local, state, federal, and global level to run your Hot Lies shows why. Horner’s astonishing depth and breadth of The global warming lobby, relentless in its life, and they can brook no opposition. But the knowledge is crisply and cleverly articulated and packs amazing push for bigger government, more spending, and actual facts, as Red Hot Lies makes clear, aren’t punch. It’s no wonder the alarmists fear him.” more regulation, will use any means necessary —Steven Milloy, nearly as scary as their fiction. to scare you out of your wits—as well as your tax publisher, JunkScience.com dollars and your liberties—with threats of ris- Red Hot ing oceans, deadly droughts, and unspeakable Praise for Christopher C. Horner future consequences of “climate change.” Christopher C. Horner is and his New York Times bestseller, In pursuing their anti-energy, anti-capi- the author of the New York Times TM bestseller The Politically Incor- The Politically Incorrect Guide to talist, and pro-government agenda, the global rect GuideTM to Global Warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Seminar
    I-CARES Distinguished Speaker Series Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences Chair of the National Research Council Global Climate Change and Demand for Energy Global climate change poses threats to many areas of human endeavor as well as to the natural environment. Energy, biodiversity, agriculture, economics, national security, the future of coastal regions, and international relations are all affected, presenting one of the greatest challenges to future human well- being. The Tyson Research Center and the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES) are pleased to announce a seminar on the topic of climate change, by Dr. Ralph Cicerone, the President of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Cicerone’s research in atmospheric chemistry, climate change and energy has involved him in shaping science and environmental policy at the highest levels nationally and internationally. Ralph J. Cicerone, U.S. President of the National Academy of Sciences, delivering the PEI 2011 Taplin Environmental Lecture. (Photo: Brian Wilson) Dr. Cicerone received a BS in electrical engineering from MIT and PhD in electrical engineering, with a minor in physics from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. In his early career, he was a research scientist and held faculty positions in electrical and computer engineering at the University of Michigan. From 1980 to 1989, he was a senior scientist and director of the Atmospheric Chemistry Division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. In 1989 he joined the University of California, Irvine, where he was founding chair of the Department of Earth System Science. He was Dean of the School of Physical Sciences from 1994 to 1998 and served as Chancellor of UC Irvine from 1998 to 2005.
    [Show full text]