Genetics Society of America

1994 Records, Proceedings and Reports

Published as supplementary material in GENETICS, Volume 137

Prepared by The Secretary Shirleen Roeder Department of Biology Yale University New Haven, Connecticut s2

BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1994

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Bruce S. Baker, President Welcome Bender H. Robert Horvitz, Vice President Marian B. Carlson A. Dale Kaiser, Past President Barry S. Ganetzky Shirleen Roeder, Secretary Eric S. Lander Carol S. Newlon, Treasurer Barbara J. Meyer John W. Drake, Editor Elliot M. Meyerowitz

GENETICSEDITORIAL BOARD John W. Drake, Editor G. Brian Golding Sally Lyman Allen Iva Greenwald Karen Artzt Maureen R. Hanson David Botstein Robert K. Herman John E. Boynton Alan G. Hinnebusch Charlotte R. Bronson Martha M. Howe Anthony H. D. Brown Nancy A. Jenkins Michael Bulmer Sue Jinks-Robertson Benjamin Burr Mark Johnston Marian Carlson Elizabeth Jones Deborah Charlesworth Peter D. Keightley Peter Cherbas Cathy C. Laurie Joanne Chory Wen-Hsiung Li Arthur Chovnick Michael Lynch Andrew G. Clark Trudy F. C. Mackay Thomas W. Cline Russ Maurer Rowland H. Davis Patricia J. Pukkila Robin E. Denell Trudi Schiipbach Walter F. Eanes William F. Sheridan Warren J. Ewens Michael J. Simmons Victoria G. Finnerty Montgomery Slatkin Patricia L. Foster Gerald R. Smith Margaret T. Fuller Bruce S. Weir Roger E. Ganschow Fred Winston

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Elaine Strass, Executive Director Barbara Abbott, Membership Sharon Adler, Accounting Judy Ashton, Office Coordinator Candis Galkin, Meetings Gloria Garber, Membership Krista Koziol, Publications Edward 0. Quiriones, GSA Meetings Marsha Ryan, ASHG Meetings and Exhibits Jane Salomon, ASHG Special Projects

COMMITTEES Executive Bruce S. Baker H. Robert Horvitz A. Dale Kaiser Carol S. Newlon Shirleen Roeder s3

Affiliations Contacts Rudiger Schmitt, Chlamydomonas Representative Elizabeth H. Harris, Chlamydomonas Representative Claire Cronmiller, Drosophila Representative Allan C. Spradling, Drosophila Representative Fred Winston, Yeast Representative Mark Johnston, Yeast Representative Education Thomas R. Manney, Chair Thomas R. Mertens Leslie K. Derr Lynn S. Ripley Diane M. B. Dodd Gerold Schubiger Leland H. Hartwell Gail M. Simmons John L. Haynie Barton E. Slatko David L. Jameson William Sofer Charles Laird Vinton Thompson Genetic Stock Kathleen A. Matthews, Chair Susan E. Lewis Barbara J. Bachmann Robert K. Mortimer Nicholas W. Gillham Calvin 0. Qualset Elizabeth H. Harris Charles M. Rick Robert K. Herman Thomas B. Shows John Kinsey Ronny C. Woodruff Nominating David R. Stadler, Chair Nancy L. Craig Philip D. Harriman Shirleen Roeder, ex officio Elaine Strass, ex officio Office Management Carol S. Newlon, GSA Treasurer, Chair H. Robert Horvitz, GSA Vice President Shirleen Roeder, GSA Secretary Stephen I. Goodman, ASHG Treasurer Maimon M. Cohen, ASHG President Ann C. M. Smith, ASHG Secretary 1994 Program Jasper Rine, Chair Bruce S. Baker Jerry Feldman Elliot M. Meyerowitz Public Policy Eric S. Lander, Chair Bruce S. Baker David Botstein REPRESENTATIVES Council of the International John W. Drake Genetics Federation Bruce S. Baker, ex officio H. Robert Horvitz, ex officio Assembly of Life Sciences, Shirleen Roeder, ex officio National Research Council American Type Calvin 0. Qualset Culture Collection s4

PAST AND PRESENT OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY

President Vice-president Secretary-Treasurer 1932 L. C. Dunn E. D. Richey P. W. Whiting 1933 R. A. Emerson Sewall Wright P. W. Whiting 1934 Sewall Wright D. F. Jones P. W. Whiting 1935 D. F. Jones P. W. Whiting M. Demerec 1936 P. W. Whiting L. J. Stadler M. Demerec 1937 E. M. East L. J. Cole M. Demerec 1938 L. J. Stadler M. Demerec E. W. Lindstrom 1939 M. Demerec B. McClintock E. W. Lindstrom 1940 L. J. Cole Th. Dobzhansky E. W. Lindstrom 1941 Th. Dobzhansky E. W. Lindstrom B. P. Kaufmann 1942 E. W. Lindstrom M. M. Rhoades B. P. Kaufmann 1943 M.M. Rhoades G. W. Beadle B. P. Kaufmann 1944 A. H. Sturtevant B. P. Kaufmann L. H. Snyder 1945 B. McClintock P. C. Mangelsdorf L. H. Snyder 1946 G. W. Beadle Karl Sax L. H. Snyder 1947 H. J. Muller L. H. Snyder M. R. Irwin 1948 L. H. Snyder T. M. Sonneborn M. R. Irwin 1949 T. M. Sonneborn Curt Steven M. R. Irwin 1950 Curt Stern M. R. Irwin W. R. Singleton Secretary Treasurer 1951 M.R. Irwin J. W. Gowen W. R. Singleton E. W. Caspari 1952 J. W. Gowen R. E. Clausen W. R. Singleton E. W. Caspari 1953 R. E. Clausen W.R. Singleton C. P. Oliver E. W. Caspari 1954 J. T. Patterson R. A. Brink C. P. Oliver N. H. Giles, Jr. 1955 P. C. Mangelsdorf R. E. Cleland C. P. Oliver N. H. Giles, Jr. 1956 R. E. Cleland J. L. Bush H. B. Newcombe N. H. Giles, Jr. 1957 R. A. Brink C. P. Oliver H. B. Newcombe R. D. Owen 1958 C. P. Oliver J. F. Crow H. B. Newcombe R. D. Owen 1959 Karl Sax J. W. Boyes W. L. Russell R. D. Owen 1960 J. F. Crow H. B. Glass W. L. Russell D. Schwartz 1961 B. P. Kaufmann R. D. Owen W. L. Russell D. Schwartz 1962 R.D. Owen W. L. Russell E. B. Lewis D. Schwartz 1963 Jack Schulz S. Emerson E. B. Lewis E. Novitski 1964 S. Emerson H. L. Roman E. B. Lewis E. Novitski 1965 W. L. Russell E. W. Caspari R. P. Wagner E. Novitski 1966 E. W. Caspari E. B. Lewis R. P. Wagner A. H. Sparrow 1967 E. B. Lewis H. L. Roman R. P. Wagner A. H. Sparrow 1968 H. L. Roman C. Yanofsky B. Wallace A. H. Sparrow 1969 C. Yanofsky N. H. Giles, Jr. B. Wallace D. R. Stadler 1970 N. H. Giles, Jr. R. P. Wagner B. Wallace D. R. Stadler 1971 R. P. Wagner R. D. Hotchkiss M. W. Shaw D. R. Stadler 1972 R. D. Hotchkiss M. M. Green M. W. Shaw G. Lefevre 1973 M. M. Green B. Wallace M. W. Shaw G. Lefevre 1974 B. Wallace 0. Smithies B. H. Judd G. Lefevre 1975 0. Smithies E. S. Russell B. H. Judd D. Lindsley 1976 E. S. Russell D. D. Perkins B. H. Judd D. Lindsley 1977 D. D. Perkins M. Shaw G. R. Fink D. Lindsley 1978 M. Shaw E. Sears G. R. Fink W. Welshons 1979 E. Sears W. K. Baker G. R. Fink W. Welshons 1980 W. K. Baker B. H. Judd D. T. Suzuki W. Welshons 1981 B. H. Judd H. L. Carson D. T. Suzuki A. Chovnick 1982 H. L. Carson M. L. Pardue D. T. Suzuki A. Chovnick 1983 M. L. Pardue R. W. Allard H. W. Lewis A. Chovnick 1984 R. W. Allard I. Herskowitz H. W. Lewis R. E. Esposito 1985 I. Herskowitz D. L. Lindsley H. W. Lewis R. E. Esposito 1986 D. L. Lindsley E. W. Jones A. P. Mahowald R. E. Esposito 1987 E. W. Jones G. R. Fink A. P. Mahowald A. C. Spradling 1988 G. R. Fink D. L. Hartl A. P. Mahowald A. C. Spradling 1989 D. L. Hartl R. L. Metzenberg T. C. Kaufman A. C. Spradling 1990 R. L. Metzenberg L. H. Hartwell T. C. Kaufman C. S. Newlon 1991 L. H. Hartwell J. C. Lucchesi T. C. Kaufman C. S. Newlon 1992 J. C. Lucchesi A. D. Kaiser S. Roeder C. S. Newlon 1993 A. D. Kaiser B. S. Baker S. Roeder C. S. Newlon 1994 B. S. Baker H.R. Horvitz S. Roeder C. S. Newlon Editors G. H. Schull (1916-1925) C. Stern (1947-1951) F. W. Caspari (1968-1972) D. E. Jones (1926-1935) R. A. Brink & J. F. Crow (1952-1956) D. R. Stadler (1973-1976) L. C. Dunn (1936-1939) C. P. Oliver & W. S. Stone (1957-1962) G. Lefevre (1977-1981) M.M. Rhoades (1940-1946) D. D. Perkins (1963-1967) J. W. Drake (1982-1996) s5

BYLAWS OF THE GENETICSSOCIETY OF AMERICA

(Revised August 25, 1988)

The Genetics Society of America is organized to Each year, the Nominating Committee shall submit providefacilities for association andconference the names of at least four nominees, and the two among studentsof genetics, to promote the commu- receiving thelargest number of votes shall be nication and publication of scientific knowledge, to elected to serve for three years. promote education and research in genetics and to Terms of all officers and members of the Board encourage interaction between workers in genetics shall begin on January 1 of the year following their and those in related sciences. election and shall end on December 31 of the year ARTICLE1. Membership.-All persons interested in ending their term. geneticsshall be eligible for active membership. ARTICLE3. Meetings.-An annual meeting open to Any person who has been an active member of the the entire membership of the Society shall be held Society for 20 years and who has retired is eligible at a time and place designated by the Board of Di- foremeritus membership. Categories of member- rectors. During the annual business meeting of the ship shall be established by the Board of Directors. membership, which shall be held during the annual ARTICLE 2. Officers and Board of Directors.-The of- meeting, the Board of Directors shall make its an- ficers of the Society shallbe a President, a Vice- nual report to the membership, including the re- President who is alsoPresident-Elect, a Secretary sults of the election of officers and directors. Special and a Treasurer.They, together with the immediate meetings may be called by the Board of Directors. Past-President, the Editor of GENETICSand six other Twenty members shall constitute a quorum for any members elected by the Society shall constitute the annual or special business meeting. Board of Directors. Each Board member shall have The program shall be arrangedby the Secretary in one vote. The Board shall meet at least once each accordance with the program rules adopted by the year. Additional meetings may be called by the Pres- Board of Directors. The Board of Directors may ar- ident. range for joint programs with related scientific so- ExecutiveCommittee: The Executive Committee of cieties, and for presentation of invited papers. the Board of Directors shall consistof the President, ARTICLE4. Dues.-Annual duesfor the various Vice-president, Secretary, Treasurer and one of the classes of members shall be fixed by the Board of elected directors selected by the Board atits annual Directors.Dues shall include asubscription to meeting. The Executive Committee shall act by ma- GENETICS. Graduate studentswho provide evidence jority vote in matters that require attention between of their status are entitled to active membership at regular Board meetings. approximately half the regular dues for a periodnot Election and Terms of Office of Officers and Board exceeding five years. Husbands andwives both qual- Members: The officers of the Society shall be elected ifying for membership individually may elect a com- by a simple majority of ballots cast by members of bined membership entitling them to a single sub- the Society. Each year the Nominating Committee scriptionto GENETICS while entitlingeach to be shall submit the names of at least two nominees for listed as a member and to vote. Emeritus members each position to be filled, taking into consideration may elect to continue to receive GENETICSby paying candidates suggested to the Secretary or the Nomi- approximately half the regular dues, or they may nating Committee. The ballot, mailed to all mem- elect not toreceive the Journal andbe exempt from bers in good standing, shall list the nominees and paying dues. Payment for all classes of membership also provide spaces for write-in votes. At the end of shall be due January 1. New members shall be billed the first year of service, the Vice-president shall au- for dues from the previous January 1 and shall re- tomatically becomePresident and shall serve for ceive GENETICS for the entireyear. Members whose one year in that capacity and for oneyear thereafter dues are in arrears shall notreceive publications or asa director. Every third year the ballot shallin- communications of the Society and shall be ineligi- clude nominees for Secretary. The Treasurer shall ble to vote. Members in arrears forone year shall be be elected every third year, but not in thesame year dropped from the rolls. A member who has been as the Secretary. dropped for nonpayment of dues may be reinstated Members of the Board of Directors who hold no upon payment of dues for the year in which rein- other officeshall beelected by themembership. statement is desired. s6

ARTICLE5. Publications.-The Society shall publish the administrative office and resolution of any con- GENETICSas its official journal. Subscriptionto flicts related to it. GENETICS shall be considered an integral partof ac- ARTICLE7.-Duties of Officers and Board of Direc- tive membership. The subscription rateto nonmem- tors.-The President shall preside at the meetings bers shall be set by the Board of Directors, and shall of the Society and the Board of Directors. With not be less than the dues for active members of the the advice of the Board of Directors, the President Society. shallappoint such committees and representa- GENETICS shall be a periodical recordof investiga- tives as may be needed. The Vice-president shall tion into heredity and variation. Publication in the presidein the absence of thePresident. In the Journal shall be open to members and nonmembers event of a vacancy in the office of President, the alike.Acceptance shall be decided after editorial Vice-president shall become President for the re- review solely on merit and suitability. mainder of the unexpired term as well as for the Editorial Board.An EditorialBoard of GENETICS subsequent term. In the event of any other vacancy shall be appointed by the Board of Directors. Edi- among the officers or directors, the Board shall ap- torial Board members shall serve three-year terms point an active member to serve for the remainder which may be renewed by the Board of Directors. of the year, and the office shall be filled at the next The Editor shall be appointed by the Board of Di- annual election. rectors for a term of five years, but such appoint- The Secretary, in cooperation with the adminis- ment may be extended or terminated at any time by trative office, shall: (1) keep the records of the So- a two-thirds vote of the Board of Directors. The Ed- ciety; (2) direct the arrangement of meeting plans itor shall be consulted about the Editor’s term of in accordance with therules formulated by the appointment, but shall notvote thereon. TheBoard Board of Directors andfunction ex officio on the of Directors and the Editorial Board shall advise the Program Committee; (3) send to all membersthe Editorin matters relating to Journal policy and date and place of the annual meeting, a call for shall, with the Editor, determine editorial policy for papers to be presented at that meeting, and a call the Journal in allrespects not specified by these for suggestions for nomination for all offices to be Bylaws. filled by election. Not later than one month before The Editor of GENETICS shall carryout policy de- theannual meeting, the Secretary shallsend all cisions of the Board of Directors and shall be au- membersin good standing a ballot bearing the thorized to act for the Editorial Board in arriving at names of nomineesfor office; (4) The Secretary editorial decisions and in conducting routine busi- shall prepare minutes of the annual meeting and ness. The Editor shall arrange meetings of the Edi- shall present an annual reportto the members con- torial Board as necessary or upon written request of cerning actions of the Board of Directors, activities three members of the Editorial Board. The Editor of the Society and its committees and representa- shall preside over meetings of the Editorial Board tives, and the membership of the Society; and (5) and shall cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. The shall deposit those records of the Society no longer Editor shall, on request, communicate recommen- needed for current business in the historical collec- dations of the Board of Directors or of Society mem- tion of the Library of the American Philosophical bers to the Editorial Board and shall represent the Society. Editorial Board in dealing with the Board of Direc- The Treasurer shall: (1) have charge of all funds tors. The Editor shall submit an annual reportto the of the Society and be responsible for their invest- Society regardingthe operation of GENETICS.The ment; (2) be bondedin an appropriate amount Editor shall, in cooperationwith the Editorial Board fixed by the President; (3) send to all members bills and the Board of Directors, take measures necessary for annual dues; and (4) prepare an annual state- to assure an appropriate income from membership ment to the members of the financial status of the dues and subscriptions. Society, to be audited by a certified public accoun- ARTICLE6. Administrative Office.-An administra- tant. (5) The Treasurer shall provide the adminis- tive office shall be maintained for conducting the trative directorand the editor of GENETICSwith business of the Society. It shall attend to such other funds sufficient to operate the administrative office matters as dictated by the Board of Directors. Su- and to publish GENETICS. pervision of the administrative office shallbe the ARTICLE8. Committees: Nominating Committee.-A responsibility of theadministrative director, who Nominating Committee shall be named eachyear by shall implement the policies decided by the Board the Board of Directors and shallconsist of three of Directors. The administrative director shall pro- active Society members who are not membersof the vide staff support to assist the officers of the Society Board and who include representatives of different in carrying out their responsibilities. The President areas of genetics. In addition, the Secretary shall be shall have responsibility and ultimate authority for ex officio a non-voting member of the committee. NO s7 person shall serve as a voting member on theNom- Bylaws may be adopted at the annualbusiness meet- inating Committee more than once duringany four- ing by a two-thirds vote of the members present and year period. voting,provided that any proposedamendment, OtherCommittees: The President shall create and signed by five members, has been submitted inwrit- appoint members to such other committees as are ing to the Secretary atleast three months before the deemed necessary or advisable by the Board of Di- annual meeting andhas been communicated to the rectors. members of the Society at leasttwo weeks before the ARTICLE 9. Amendments.-Amendments tothese annual meeting. s8

REPORT OF THETREASURER

The following is the unaudited financial statement for the fiscal year 1993. The audited statement is available from the Administrative Office.

BALANCE SHEET December 31, 1993

Assets Current Assets: Cash $ 266,821 Accounts Receivable 41,530 Accrued Interest 10,942 Due from ASHG 20,953 Prepaid Annual Meetings 38,595 Other current assets 7,789 Total current assets $ 386,630 Investments 829.140 Furniture and Equipment 20,700

Total assets $ 1,236,470

Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 65,456 Accrued annual leave 12,654 Deferred dues and subscriptions 390,722 Due to publishers 45,902 Total liabilities $ 514,734

Fund balance: Unappropriated fund balance: Beginning fund balance 531,983 Net revenue over (under) expense (25,161) Ending unappropriated fund balance, unadjusted $ 506,822 Adjustment to fund balance (35,086) Ending unappropriated fund balance, adjusted 471,736 Appropriated fund balance 250,000 Total fund balance 721,736

Total liabilities and fund balance $ 1,236,470 S9 STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE For the Year Ending December 31, 1993

Revenue Member dues and subscriptions $ 218,231 Nonmember subscriptions 470,581 Registration fees 241,760 Grants and contributions 74,021 Reprints and author charges 186,722 Mail list sales 13,753 Discount publications 5,679 Investment income 72,463 Rental income 3,380 Exhibit fees 550 Miscellaneous 4,960

Total revenue $1,292,100

Expense Salary, tax and benefits 225,758 Printing and mailing 584,429 Editorial office 52,475 Reprints 49,204 Careers brochure 21,078 Subscription processing 13,574 Catered events/coffee breaks 37,932 Rent of space and equipment 56,388 Stipends 12,500 Supplies and duplicating 15,274 Board/Committees 52,756 Hotel and travel 7,341 Insurance 8,466 Repair and Maintenance 6,922 Contracted services 11,335 Accounting 14,700 Auditing 6,500 Computer services 14,734 Awards and contributions 78,985 Depreciation 9,872 Telephone and fax 6,006 Author alterations 6,622 Credit card/bank charges 7,909 Miscellaneous 16,501

Total expense $1,317,261

Net revenue (expense) $ (25,161)

CAROLS. NEWLON,Treasurer s10

PROCEEDINGS OF THE62ND ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING August 16, 1993 at the XVIIth International Congress of Genetics Birmingham, United Kingdom

The meeting was called to order at 7:OOPM by salaries since 1992.The American Society of Human Past President JohnC. Lucchesi in the absenceof A. Genetics has reimbursed GSA each quarter for the Dale Kaiser. He announced that thelast meeting of differences. the GSA Board was March 5-6, 1993, in San Fran- For 1993, membership revenue is projected to be cisco. $215,700, about $32,500 greater than the 1992 ac- tuals. The Journalis estimated to net about$37,200. Secretary’s Report (S. Roeder): The minutes of the June 18, 1992, Business Meeting were approved as The 1993 Budget: The Administrative Office bud- published in the July 1993 issue of GENETICS(Vol. get reflects basic operating expenses plus salaries, 134, No. 3). In the recent general election for Pres- taxes and benefits for 11 employees. Salaries, taxes ident and Board of Directors, Robert Horvitz was and benefits total $140,000 (4% decrease from the elected Vice Presidentfor 1994. He will succeed 1992 budget). As stated earlier the GSA 1993 Ad- BruceBaker as president in1995. The two new ministrativeOffice costs will most likely be below Boardmembers will be Eric Landerand Marian budget. Carlson. They will assume office January 1, 1994. The Board agreedthat the investment plan for At July 31, 1993, GSA had 3,959 members: 2,620 the Society shouldprovide each year interestin- Regular,511 Student, 164 Husband/Wife, 224 come to equal the cost of living increase and the Emeritus and 86 Affiliates and 354 who did not pay amount should be added to the cashreserve. For 1993 dues. The number of GSA members has re- example in 1992 the cash reserve was $82213 and the mained fairly constant over the past several years. cost of living index was 4.2%. By the end of 1993 there should be $34,500 added to the reserve. Treasurer’s Report (C. S. Newlon): The GSA is in stablefinancial condition with assets at 12/31/92 Editor’s Report (J. W. Drake): At the present time the totalling $1,174,380. This is a decrease of $26,150 in costs of producing and distributing the Journal are total assets at12/31/91. $847,494 was invested rising faster than the income. Drake proposed that ($90,678 less than at 12/31/91), primarily in certif- in addition to this immediate problem there is also icates of deposit staggered to mature over a period the long term concern that if there is not enough of four years. The Board voted to invest in the Van- cash reserve to support two years of Journal publi- guard Mutuals and $10,000 was invested by the end cation,there could be disastrous financial conse- of 1992. At present $80,000 has been invested in the quences. Drake estimated that $1.5M should be ac- Vanguard Mutuals, half in the Stock Index 500 and cumulated over thenext six years. The Board half in the Bond Fund. discussed the problem but did not vote to keep that During 1992 expenditures of$1,289,461 ex- largea cash reserve for the Journal. However,to ceeded revenue of $1,277,577 resulting in a deficit addressthe deficit, a motion was madeand sec- of $1 1,904. The Society’s revenue of $183,248 from ondedthat the nonmember subscription rate be membership dues and subscriptions was somewhat raised $30 per year for two years unless too many higher than the previous year’s accrual basis figure subscribers drop after the first increase. There will of $176,421. Excess of revenue over expenditures be no change in the page charges. The motion was for the Journal equaled $38,705-$55,495 less than carriedunanimously. The 1994 nonmembersub- the anticipated budget and$50,974 less than the net scription rate will be $270/290 and in 1995 this will of 1991. Investment income dropped from what was increase to $300/320. reportedfor 1991 with earningsat approximately The Journalis growing steadily with an increasein 7.5% of holdings. 1992 of 12% in the number of pages. Society mem- The 1992profit for Drosophila of $12,202 was bership is also increasing which addsto the total pooled with prior adjusted meeting profits and a circulation. Drosophila savings account was opened and $6,282 was deposited. The Society’s Participation in the XVIIth International The Administrative Office costs for GSA have de- Congress of Genetics: Carol Newlon submitted grant creasedsomewhat due to a closerreallocation of applications to NSF, NIH and DOE asking for sl1

$50,000 from each to support travel costs for scien- October 1994. Tom Manney will be the new chair tists and students who would not otherwise be able for this committee to succeed Lee Hartwell. to attend the meeting. The DOE granted the GSA The Committee has been publishing a newsletter $23,500, the NSF $30,000 and the NIH $4,000. An known as GENErations which has been sent to mem- announcement was published in the Journal in Jan- bers quarterly. Gail Simmons is the editor/producer uary to alert the members of the availability of the of this newsletter which has been very well received. travelmoney. Grantsfor travel support were awarded to 58 scientists. Careers Brochure Update: The careers brochure has been printed and is being distributed to most high school biology teachers in the U.S. So far, the re- GSA Generalist Meeting: The currentplan is to hold sponse to this publication has been overwhelmingly a 3-1/2 day meeting atAsilomar Conference Center positive. in Pacific Grove,California, October 9-12, 1994. Elliot Meyerowitz, Bruce Baker and Jerry Feldman Congressional Education Efforts: The GSA partici- accepted membership on the program committee pates with the American Society of Cell Biology, the for that meeting. Subsequent to the Board meeting, American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Bi- Jasper Rine agreed to chair the program committee. ology, andthe Biophysical Society onthe Joint The theme of the meeting will be developed by the Steering Committee for Public Policy. Elaine Strass program committee and approved by the Board. and Dale Kaiser have attended all its meetings to Pursuantto a previousBoard vote, theBoard represent the Society. The GSA contributes $25,000 agreed that no more than $10,000 should be spent for membership on the joint committee. Recently on the 1994 generalist meeting. FASEB announced that itwill contribute to this con- gressionaleducation effort by supportingthe ex- GSA-sponsored Organismic Meetings: penses of the Biomedical Research Caucus, which Drosophila. The 1993 Drosophila meetingwas held meets several times a year in Washington. March 31-April 4 at the Town 8c Country Hotel in A contribution of $3,000 was made in 1993 to the SanDiego, California. Over 1,100 registrants at- congressionalliaison committee which was orga- tended. GerryRubin was theprogram chair. The nized by the joint steering committee forPublic Pol- next meeting will be held April 20-24, 1994, at the icy. This will enable GSA members to voice their Sheraton Chicago. Victoria Finnerty will chair the concernsthrough the Society to their own con- program committee. gressperson. So far, 370 GSA members have indi- Yeast. The Yeast Genetics and Molecular Biology cated that they are interested in taking the message meeting, co-chaired by John Woolford and George of concerned scientists to the local office of their Sprague, was held June8-12, 1993, at the University representative. of Wisconsin, Madison. This was a very successful meeting. In 1994 the meeting will take place at the GSA and Thomas Hunt Morgan Medals: Ray Owen University of Washington,Seattle, changing the was selected as the Morgan Medal recipient for a meeting pattern from odd- to even-numberedyears. lifetime contribution to genetics. Jon Beckwith was Maize. The nextMaize meeting will be held March awarded the GSA Medal for significant contribu- 17-20, 1994, at Pheasant Run in Illinois. tions over the last 15 years. Both Owen and Beck- Chlamydomonas. Chlamy will meet May 17-22, with have agreed to accept the awards. 1994, at Granlibakken in Tahoe City, and in 1996 in Germany. Next Board Meeting: The Board will meet in January 1994 at a place to be decided by the 1994 Board of Directors. Education Committee: The GSA will be working with theNational Association of Biology Teachers The meeting was adjourned. (NABT) to link geneticists with biology teachers in communities all across the country. The GSA will Respectfully submitted, have abooth at the NABT meetingin Boston in ELAINESTRASS, Executive Director s12

REPORT OF THECOMMITTEE ON HONORS AND AWARDS

The Society makes two awards annually to honor genetics within thepast fifteen years. We are members who have made outstanding contributions pleased to announce that the 1994 Thomas Hunt to the science of genetics. The Thomas Hunt Mor- Morgan Medal will be awarded to David D. Perkins, gan Medal recognizes a lifetime contribution to ge- and the 1994 GSA Medal will be awarded to Leland netics. The Genetics Society of America Medal rec- H. Hartwell. ognizesparticular outstanding contributions to

1994 Thomas Hunt Morgan Award: David D. Perkins TheThomas Hunt MorganMedal recognizes a the cataloging of these strains for structural, cyto- lifetime contribution to genetics. It is hard to imag- logical, physiological and molecular properties. inea person better qualified for this award than At his own lab bench, David Perkins does exper- David Perkins. He seems to spendevery waking hour iments on formal genetics, but he frequently joins doing genetics in his lab or writing encouragement forces with colleagues who provide expertise in cy- and helpful advice to others who share in this pur- tology and molecular biology. He has always main- suit. And we don’t feel that we are imposing on him, tained that Neurospora provides a useful model for because he clearly loves to do it. the study of many different genetic properties of David Perkins’ interest in genetics started at the eukaryotes. And he has proved this true in collabo- University of Rochester when he was an undergrad- rating on studiesof recombination, chromosome re- uatestudying underCurt Stern. During graduate arrangements, meiotic drive and a variety of other work at Columbia he came under the influence of phenomena. He developed an elegant method for Marcus Rhoades, Theodosius Dobzhanskyand Fran- detectingand distinguishing different kinds of cis Ryan. Arriving at Stanfordforty-five years ago, he chromosomerearrangements by thepatterns of soon fell in with Ed Tatum and his team in the study abortion of the sexual spores in the crosses of rear- of Neurospora. rangement heterozygotes. For those of us who work on the genetics of Neu- Neurospora workers are not the only geneticists rospora,a day seldom passes that we don’t give who have reason to be grateful for David Perkins. thanks to a generous Providence for David Perkins. He has always taken an active role in promoting the So many times he has made life’s path a little easier GSA and the community of researchers in genetics. for us. Forty years ago he and his colleagues at Stan- He was responsible for the decision of the GSA in ford prepared thefirst complete lists of mutant loci, 1963 to take over the publication of GENETICS.As a together with all the linkage data which had been result, we now have an outstanding journal, circu- gathered up to then. They set up the stock center latedto all members of the Society ata minimal andencouraged colleagues all over the worldto price. Perkins served as president of GSA in 1977 deposit all strains which might be of interest. They and as our representative on the executive board of institutedthe periodic newsletters and stock lists the International Genetics Federation from 1978 to which keep all workers inthis field upto date. 1983. Nearly every issue of the newsletter has included a Perkins was theeditor of GENETICSfrom 1963 special gift from David Perkins like an easy method through 1967. At that time the Journal did nothave for long-term storage of stock or a multiply-marked a working editorial board, so the editor was respon- strain for detecting linkage of a new mutant to any sible for all the submitted papers. This had been of seven linkage groups. reasonable in earlier years, when all twelve monthly In 1982, he was the leader of the group that pro- issues had made up one not-too-thick volume. But duced the “compendium,” an alphabetical gazette the field had been growing and so had the number of all the loci known in Neurospora; for each locus of papers for GENETICS. Thelast two editorships be- there is a paragraph of genetic and physiological fore Perkins had been two-person teams (Crow and information,abundantly referenced. There is a Brink, 1952-1957; Oliver andStone, 1957-1962). badly worn copy of this volume in every Neurospora David Perkins took it on alone, and hewas up to the lab; it is what we grab when the fire alarm summons task. During his tenure the numbers of papers in- us to evacuate the building. creased rapidly, and the journal went to twovol- In between these activities, Perkins was tramping umes per year and then to three. The quality and aboutthe tropical world, collecting thousands of the volume of submitted work increased as authors wild strains of Neurospora. A treasure of informa- responded favorably tothe prompt and efficient tion about population genetics and evolutionawaits editorial work. WhenErnst Caspari agreed to he s13

Perkins’ replacement in 1968, he made the mistake tor, in 1973, had none of this bravado, and quickly of assuming that a mere mortal could still handle appointed a working editorial board of ten mem- the job alone.But he soon found it was impossible, bers to do the job that David Perkins had been do- and though he struggled on valiantly for five years, ing by himself. the journal fell far behind schedule. The next edi- DAVIDR. STADLER

1994 Genetics Society of America Medal: Leland H. Hartwell Lee Hartwell has been awarded the 1994 Genetics mechanisms by which anincomplete upstream Society of America Medal in recognition of his out- event generates a signal that inhibits the initiation standingcontributions to the science of genetics of downstream events. Lee’s insights into cell cycle and his loyal service to the genetics community. regulation have profound implications for our un- Lee is well known for his studies of the cell divi- derstanding of theperturbations in cell division sion cycle in Saccharomyces cereuisiae. Starting in the control that lead to carcinogenesis. late 1960’s, Lee became intrigued by the question of Although he is best known for his studies of the how events in the cell cycle are coordinated so that cell cycle, Lee has made numerous other important the events always occur in the correct sequence.For contributions to yeast molecular genetics, of which example, how does the cell guarantee that chromo- only a few can be mentioned here. Through their somesegregation always follows, and never pre- studies of mating in yeast, Lee and his coworkers cedes, DNA replication? Lee recognized that yeast have enhancedour understanding of cellularre- offers two major advantages for studies of the cell sponses to pheromones and provided insight into cycle. First, the powerful genetics of yeast facilitates the mechanisms of cell-cell recognition and cellular the isolation of mutants defective in cell cycle pro- fusion. Lee’s laboratory has also studied the mech- gression. Second, the size of the bud on ayeast cell anism and fidelity of mitotic chromosome transmis- provides a visual indicator of the position of that sion. In this realm, their accomplishments include cell in the mitotic cell cycle, making it easy to iden- the development of a colony color assay for chro- tify mutants defective at specific stages in the cycle. mosome segregation, the finding that sister chro- Lee generated a collection of temperature-sensitive matidsneed not be topologically interlocked to lethal mutants of yeast and screened these for mu- segregatecorrectly, and the demonstration that tants that arrest at a discrete stage in the cell cycle changesin the relative concentrations of CDC at the nonpermissive temperature. Inthis way, Hart- (and other) gene products can have dramatic ef- well identified many CDC (cell division cycle) genes, fects on chromosome stability and mitotic recom- each of which functions at a unique point in cell bination. Perhaps Lee’s most significant contribu- division. Thisvaluable collection of mutants has tionhas been to train and to inspire numerous served as the basis of decades of productive investi- graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, many gations in theHartwell lab and in numerous others. Lee’s subsequent elegant studies of the cdc mu- of whom are now accomplishedinvestigators in tants elucidated fundamental principles incell cycle their own right. regulation. He proposed that the cell cycle involves As befits a scientist of his distinction, Lee has re- pathways of dependent events, in which the execu- ceived numerous professional awards including the tion of a late event in the pathway depends on the Eli LillyAward in Microbiology andImmunology completion of earlier events. He showed thatthe and the Gairdner Foundation International Award. yeast cell cycle consists of two parallel pathways of Lee was elected to the NationalAcademy of Sciences dependent events, one leading to DNA replication in 1987 and he has been the American Cancer So- andnuclear division and the other to bud emer- ciety Research Professor of Genetics since 1990. gence and cytokinesis. He demonstrated that these Lee is to becommended for his service tothe pathways are integrated at the (now famous) Start scientific community and for his commitment to sci- point of the cell cycle. One way in which a pathway enceeducation. He hasserved onthe Genetics of dependent events can be achieved is through a Study Section at the National Institutes of Health substrate-product relationship in which a late event and is currently a member of the National Advisory cannot occur until its substrate is generated by the General Medical Sciences Council. Lee’s service to completion of earlier steps in the pathway. In a re- the GeneticsSociety of America includes a termas centseries of inspiredpublications, Lee demon- president in 1991 and chairman of the education strated that this is not the only way to achieve de- committeein 1992-93. Under Lee’s leadership, pendency of cell cycle events. Together with the education committee published a booklet en- postdoctoral fellow Ted Weinert, Lee documented titled Solving the Puzzle-Careers in Genetics, estab- theexistence of cell cycle checkpoints,control lishedthe GENErations newsletter,and inspired s14 the publication in this journal of a series of arti- Since that time, he has been a professor of genetics cles on Genetics in the Classroom. at the University of Washington in Seattle. Lee was born in Los Angeles and he was an un- Lee has earned the respect and admirationof the dergraduate at the California Institute of Technol- geneticscommunity forthe significance and ogy. As a graduate student in Boris Magasanik’s lab breadth of his scientific discoveries, for his commit- at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lee ment to science education and for his quiet, effec- explored the mechanism of histidase regulation in tive leadership in the laboratory and in thescientific Bacillus subtilis. Hethen did a short postdoctoral community. For Lee Hartwell, receipt of the Genet- stint in Renato Dulbecco’s lab at the Salk Institute, ics Society of America Medal is an honor that is where he studied the inductionof cellular DNA syn- richly deserved and long overdue. thesis by polyoma virus. Lee was a faculty member at the University of California at Irvine from 1965-73. SHIRLEENROEDER

Recipients of GSA Honors

Thomas Hunt Morgan Medal Genetics Society of America Medal 1981 Barbara McClintock, Marcus M. Rhoades 1981 Beatrice Mintz 1982 Sewall Wright 1982 Gerald R. Fink 1983 Edward B. Lewis 1983 Charles Yanofsky 1984 George W. Beadle, R. Alexander Brink 1984 David S. Hogness 1985 Herschel L. Roman 1985 Philip Leder 1986 Seymour Benzer 1986 Gerald M. Rubin 1987 James F. Crow 1987 Sydney Brenner 1988 Norman H. Giles 1988 David Botstein, Ira Herskowitz 1989 Dan L. Lindsley 1989 Allan C. Spradling 1990 Charles Yanofsky 1990 Nancy Kleckner 1991 Armin Dale Kaiser 1991 Bruce S. Baker 1992 Edward H. Coe, Jr. 1992 Maynard V. Olson 1993 Ray D. Owen 1993 Jonathan R. Beckwith 1994 David D. Perkins 1994 Leland H. Hartwell s15

REPORT ON THEGENETICS SOCIETY OF CANADA AWARDS

1993 Award of Excellence:Robert Haynes 1993 Young Scientist Award:Marla Sokolowski Therecipient of the1993 Award of Excellence is Therecipient of the1993 Young Scientist Award RobertHaynes, currently president and editor-in- is Marla Sokolowski, associateprofessor, depart- chief of Annual Reviews, PaloAlto, California. His mentof biology, York University. distinguished career in Canada was centered at the department of biology, York University.

REPORT OF THEEDITOR

During1993, the number of pagesfor articles was however, thatprinted articles reflect submissions 3,193 and for the Records, Proceedings and Reports was over a different and more diffuse interval. Paid cir- 17 for a total of 3,210. Pages for articles increased by culation increased by 2.6% to 5,215. 0.3% over 1992. The number of submitted manu- scripts increased by 5.7% to 535 while the number of printedarticlesincreased by 8.8% to 308; note, JOHN W. DRAKE,Editor

REPORT OF THEGENETIC STOCK COMMITTEE

Through the collaborationof the Genetics Society tential future use, most genetic collections are the of America’s Genetic Stocks Committee and the Na- products of many decades of publicly funded basic tional Science Foundation’s (NSF) Living Stock Col- researchin the U.S. Also, unlike archivalcollec- lections Program, aLiving Culture Collectionswork- tions, a high proportion of the stocks are in active shop was held on October 25 and 26, 1993, at the use with high demand for specific stocks from the NSF offices in Arlington, VA. Participants included science user community. scientists with extensive background in collections Thesecollections are a uniquely American re- issues and policy and/or intimate knowledge of the source, one that has been of tremendous benefit to management of a major research collection, along science and society in the past and will be so in the with program directors from NSF, the National In- future. Like libraries,stock centers both preserve stitutes of Health (NIH) and the United States De- knowledge and promote its advancement. Accessi- partment of Agriculture (USDA) who have respon- blecollections of characterizedand documented sibility for collections support. The purpose of the materials increase scientific productivity by encour- workshop was toaddress issues relatedto evalua- aging researchers to build on previous work while tion,funding, and preservation of genetic stocks avoiding the waste of duplicating collection or con- collections. struction and characterization costs. The combina- The study of heredity, begun in earnest early this tion of diverse geneticmaterials and expertise in century, has led to phenomenal breakthroughs in their use that centers bring together encourage sci- our understandingof biological processes. Progress entific creativity by making this capital accessible to in essentially every discipline from molecular biol- all who are interested, including scientists crossing ogy to animal behavior has been linked to the spec- traditional organismal boundaries, and those with tacularadvances in our understanding of genetic unconventional ideas to pursue. However, unlike li- mechanisms.Genetic stock centerscollect, main- brariesholding books, the information in living tain, and disseminate the characterized genetic ma- stock centers is locked up in organisms that must be terials produced by these studies of heredity, along documented, maintained and distributed as living, with the associatedinformation that makes these reproducing organisms. This requires daily mainte- materials so valuable.Unlike archival collections nance activities forsome organisms and, for all that preserve largely undefined germplasm for po- types of living stocks, highly competent curators. s16

It is difficult to convey briefly the true significance health, and advancementof science. They represent of stock centersbecause, as with mostscientific animportant and accessible componentfor the achievement, many of the scientific advances sup- preservation of biodiversity, a key to futurescientific ported by the centers are highly specialized or in- discoveries and applications. The great majority of cremental. Collections have made countless contri- these materials were producedwith public funds for butions to both basic and applied research in fields publicbenefit. The profound public interest in as diverse as plant physiology, biotechnology, and these resources must be protectedso collections can the genetic basis of disease. The literatureis replete continue to contribute to the advancement of sci- with examples of the discovery of genes that were encefor generations to come. NSF’s supportfor only possible because the critical resource was avail- genetic stock centers is a fitting reflectionof both its able in a living stock collection. Bacterial collections mission to strengthen basic research in the U.S. and availableto researchersthrough stock centers al- the central role collections play in the progress of lowed hundreds of different restriction endonucle- science. ases to be identified rapidly and exploited foruse in DNA cloning and mapping. E. coli and virus collec- Elements of Successful Centers, Sources of Support, tions have contributed to the rapid progressof clon- Concerns for the Future ing technology, providing hosts and vectors with a variety of specializedcharacteristics. When novel The group examined the operationsof a variety of naturalproducts with therapeuticproperties are stock centers with the aim of identifying common identified, such as FK506, a secondary metabolite of properties of successful collections, gauging future Streptomyces tsukubaensis found to be a powerful im- needs of these and similar centers, and identifying munosuppressant, stock centers provide the docu- possible solutions to the funding problems facedby mented materials that allow systematic searches for both collections and granting agencies. related compounds or useful variants. The accessi- Representatives of 11 major research resourcecol- bility of the bacteria Thermus aquaticus and its ther- lections described the scientific support activities of mostable DNA polymerasein the American Type their collections, their administrative organization, Culture Collection contributed to the rapid evolu- funding sources, and future directions. The projects tion of PCR from a labor intensive and impractical discussed were: procedure,requiring the addition of fresh poly- * C. eleguns collection at U. of Minnesota (R. Her- meraseafter each round of amplification,to the man) workhorse it is today. The development of high ly- * mousecollection at The JacksonLaboratory sine maize would no doubt have been long delayed (J. Sharp) and significantly more costly, if not impossible, with- * E. coli collection at Yale University (M. Berlyn) out thepreservation of genetic mutantsin the Maize * Chlamydomonas collectionat Duke University GeneticsCooperative Stock Center. The USDA (E. Harris) wheat cytogenetic stocks developed by the late E. R. * yeast collection at U.C., Berkeley (R. Mortimer) Sears and maintained for many years with NSF sup- * wheat collection at Kansas State U. (B. Gill) port has provided the critical materials for genomic * fungal collection at ATCC (S.C. Jong) mapping in this complex polyploid species. Materi- * bacteriacollection at Roche Molecular Systems als fromthe Tomato Genetics Resource Center, (G. Carter) such as wild species, classical markers,linkage * Arubidopsis collectionatOhio State U. (R. testers, and trisomics, were critical to the construc- Scholl) tion of ahigh density molecular linkage map of * tomato collection at U.C., Davis (R. Chetelat) tomato, one of the most detailed genetic maps of * Drosophilia collectionIndianaat U. (K. any plantspecies. This map makes possible posi- Matthews) tional cloning of many genes of economic impor- tance that are not amenable to conventional bio- Despitethe diversity of organisms,collection chemicalapproachescloning.Our to sizes, and user groups represented, a characteristic understanding of human diseasessuch as familial set of features and concerns emerged. The broad colon cancer, atherosclerosis, hypercholesterolemia attributesshared by successful centersare expert and cystic fibrosis has and will be expanded by the management, integration with the user community, study of mice provided by the Mouse Mutant Stocks and adequate funding. Center that carry loss-of-function mutations in the The collectionsexamined all have expertand mouse homologues of the genes that, when defec- committed management. Whether described as di- tive, produce these diseases in humans. rector, curator, or PI, each center has at least one Genetic stockcollections represent a national Ph.D.-level scientist who has a research interest in treasure that provide for national security in food, thecollected organism actively involved with the s17

operation of thecenter. These scientists evaluate come, and contributions. About a third of the to- holdings, determine and provide for the informa- mato center’s support is provided by its home insti- tion needs relative to the collection and its users, tution,the USDA providesabout a third, income and provide a wide assortment of additional advice from an endowmentcovers about 20% of costs, and and information that supports maximal use of the industry contributions provide the rest. collection. Training functions of centers are partic- The Roche bacterial collection is an example of a ularly important to researchers attempting to cross private collection maintained for in-house use. Re- discipline and organismalboundaries. When the quests for samples from outside scientists are con- relevant expertise is not available to these research- sidered on acase by case basis and grantedwhen not ers within their institutions, stock center personnel inconflict with thecompany’s interest. This re- can usually provide the information and instruction source is fully supported by Roche. needed, or suggest colleagues likely to have the nec- The workshop group recognized several areas of essary expertise. concern, even though the consensus for the centers The activities of successful collections are tightly that were reviewed was that these were highly suc- linkedto those of theresearch community they cessful. The reality of static or shrinking funding serve. These centers serve not only as a source of support was a factorin expressing thefollowing con- stocks, but also as a focus of information exchange. cerns: Centers often initiate organismal databases, main- 1.Growth potential.There are increasing de- tain the genetic mapof the collected organism, deal mandsfrom the users that the collections should with nomenclature issues, provide contact informa- increase in size. All of the collections were growing tion for colleagues, produce an organismalnewslet- in size, an expected phenomenon because research ter,or organize an organismal electronic news- is continually advancing and new genetic stocks are group.These kinds of activities contributeto the developedthat become important to an ever-in- efficiency of communication and the sharingof ma- creasing number of investigators. For example, the terials andinformation among researchers, and C. elegans collection is expected to double in size in help keep the stock center in touch with current 6 years, holding of the fungal collection will double needs and new developments among its users. in10 years, Chlamydomonas stocks are expected to The collections examined are supported by a va- double over the next 10-15 years, the number of riety of fundingmechanisms. The C. elegans and stocks provided by the Indiana University Drosophila Chlamydomonas centersare wholly supported by center is increasing by about 35% a year, and the grants from NIH and NSF, respectively. The Arabi- cryopreservation facility at theJacksonLaboratory is dopsis and Indiana University Drosophila collections in need of expansion. are funded primarily by NSF, with 5-10% of direct 2. Establishing priorities for receiving and hold- costsprovided by theirhome institutions. USDA ing accessions. This was a concern of the curators provides a special grant for theKansas State Univer- whose resourcesare limited and was especially a sity WheatGenetics Resource Center with about concern for accessions which are not in great de- 20% ofcosts covered by commercialand institu- mand by the users. tional contributions. The USDA provides total sup- 3. Providing new services. Of particular concern port for the cytogenetic stocks center at the USDA was the need to maintain and distribute molecular unit at the University of Missouri. It also maintains materials.In addition, the centers are substantial genetic stock collections of several agriculturally im- sources of information about characteristics of the portant species,for example, corn, soybeans, and stocks and about how to use them. Information net- lettuce, at other sites. works among research centers are in place for some Several centers combine grant fundswith income of thecenters, but others need further develop- generated by user fees. The E. coli center recovers ment, including electronic bulletin boards,newslet- 5-10% of direct costs from fees while NSF provides ters, and workshops. the rest. NIH provides about 75% of the yeast cen- 4. Advisory quality. The collections reviewed were ter’s direct costs, with the remainder coming from variable in advisory quality. The need for a panelof user fees. The fungal collection at ATCC recovers advisors to help establish priorities and policies for about 60% of its costs from fees,NSF provides about each collection was emphasized. 30%, and NIH supplies the remaining 10%. 5. Training of new curators. Some collections re- The Jackson Laboratory and the tomato collec- quire new staff for replacements or additions. This tion have the most diversified support bases. Jack- was a concern for someof the collections, especially son received direct support from a large numberof if institutional support eroded in the case of retire- publicand private granting agencies, including ment or budgetary constraints. NIH, NSF, HHMI, ACS,MS, CF, AHA, and MOD; 6. Relocation or phase-out of collections.Occa- otherfunds are derivedfrom user fees, sales in- sionally it is necessary to move collections and there was concern about policy for making changes, espe- ily serve biomedical or agricultural research are out- cially with respect to the extramural funding sup- side the purview of NSF. port, such as from NSF, NIH, or USDA. 5. The collection has the active involvement of a 7. Stable funding. This was perhaps the most im- scientifically qualified manager with expertise in the portant concern of the curators. Itwas more impor- organism. A fruitful research resource is dynamic tant than the amount of funds received. Only one and evolves in response to new developments and center(wheat) requested that funding levels be directions in research. Unlike strictly archival col- higher.Mechanisms for assurance of long-term lections, the contents of research collections must funding are needed and that became a significant be judged by their relevance to contemporary re- point of discussion at the workshop, leading to the search and theirlikely future significance, and these development of review criteria for funding reported judgementsmust be frequently reassessed. This below. An important aspect of stable funding was kind of guidance can only be provided by individu- that diverse sources of funding may help ensure sta- als with scientific expertisein the organisms and bility. knowledge of its current uses in research. In addi- tion, maximizing productive use of a collection re- quires that researchers have ready access to infor- Required Characteristics of Collection for Eligbility for mation and advice about available stocks and their Federal Funds appropriate use. Because of limited sources and amount of funds, 6. The collection is housed in an active research the workshop focused on characteristics of collec- environment. Research resource collections exist to tions that would establish them as eligible for fed- advanceresearch. To carry out this mission most eralfunds. The group recommends that funding effectively collections managers must be an integral priority be given to collections with the following part of theresearch community. The stimulating characteristics: flow of new information and ideas that results from 1. The species or species group collected is an seminar programs, lab meetings, and informal ex- important experimental organism for basic biologi- change with scientificcolleagues is aninvaluable cal research. The power of “model” experimental asset to a collection. organismsderives from the extensiveknowledge ’7. All relevant information about the collection is base and sophisticatedtools developed through maintained in an electronic database and that in- manyyears of concertedresearch effort on such formation is made readily available to potential us- organisms.These materials represent a major na- ers of the collection. Information is fundamental to tional investment as much of this effort is supported both the current and long term value of a collec- by Federal funding agencies. The nation will both tion. For use of a collection to be maximal and ef- increase its investment and profit by insuring the ficient, researchers must be able to readily identify full utilization of these primary resources. potentially useful stocks. Valuable but unpublished 2. The collection provides a unique resource. The information about stocks in the collection gleaned value of collections support dollars should be max- by past users of the stocks should be made available imized by avoiding duplicationof effort, bothwithin to others. Since a valuable collection will by defini- and outside the US. tion outlive any single manager it is critical that all 3. The centeris used by a majority of the potential of the relevant information about a collection be user community. The most effective collections re- recorded in a retrievable and transferable way. sult from cooperation between the resource and the 8. The collection has a strong and active advisory usercommunity. Strains andinformation flow in committee drawn from its user community. A suc- both directions. The collection facilitates research- cessful collection must be responsive to the needs of ers’ achievements, which cycle back in the form of the community it serves. While daily availability of new stocks or new informationto build and add scientific expertise at the center is important, col- valueto the collection. Use patternsreflect the lectionsalso benefit by tappingthe accumulated worth of the center to the researchers itis intended wisdom of adiverse group of scientists from the user to serve. community. A strong andactive advisory committee 4. The profile of the collection’s user community can help assess current needs and future directions is consistent with the institutional goals of the fund- of the collection and its constituency, and can me- ing agency. Collections should further the goals of diateconflicts that will inevitablyarise when re- theresearch community fostered by thefunding sources are limited. The advisory committee should agency. The long term interests of a collection are bear explicit responsibility for assuring the success- best served when federal oversight is provided by an fultransition of acollection to a new location agency directly involved with the science the collec- and/or new management when the need arises. tion supports. For example, collections that primar- 9. Issues critical to the development of a valuable s19 genetic resource are coordinated by the center if initely so it is strongly recommended that financial not otherwiseprovided for by the community.A and institutional support be sustained for the long- stock collection should be one of the primary com- term and that sufficient human resources are avail- munityassets of an organismalresearch group. able to provide the required services. While a given collection cannot provide all possible 3. Two principal types of living stock centers were community services, thecenter should take some identified at the workshop: (i) “large centers” have responsibility for assuring that coreactivities such as evolved for the major model species for biological resolution of nomenclature issues and maintenance research and have a large research user community; of the genetic map are carried out. (ii) “small centers” which include groups of organ- isms for which the user community is small and the Review Criteria for Continued Funding collections serve rather specific needs. It is appro- priate that public funds be used in both instances, Having identified the elementsof a successful liv- butthe criteria for establishing and maintaining ing stock center, it follows that the centers should these types of centers would bedeveloped sepa- beaccountable to their funding agency and user rately. Encouragement and funds should be avail- group. Thusthey should demonstrate thatthey have able to permit new collections to be made and eval- met the nine characteristics listed above when ap- uatedfor their merit for on-going research plying for continued funding. Thefollowing criteria purposes.Thus, the workshop recommended that are critical if a center is to receive continued sup- special criteria for new collections be developed, port: with an initial short-term commitment, followed by 1. Makeup of the user community (academic/in- a plan for long-term maintenance that would be dustrial, U.S./foreign, sources of research support). peer-reviewed for relevance to science. 2. Cost analysis of maintenance functions, appro- 4. Federalfunding sources. Federal funds were priateness of cost recovery program. judged to be appropriate because of the national 3. Appropriateness of database andaccessibility to use of centers, but also because it is a cost-effective users. way to provide the majority of funds needed. Fed- 4. Documentedevidence for productive use of eral sources of funds are principally fromNSF, NlH, center stocks. and USDA. However, it appears that the responsi- 5. Satisfaction level of theuser community/de- bility for funding these critical national assets now gree of support for the centerby users and potential falls disproportionatelyto NSF. This agency is users. spendingapproximately $3.6 millionannually, or 1.3% of its funds available to biological science re- Recommendations search, on genetic stocks collections. Although NIH Living stocks are the fundamental biological re- directs approximately $36.6 million annually to or- sources required forbasic research in biological sci- ganismal-related research resources, funding forge- encesand for applications in health, food, and netic stocks collections is about $5.7 million (this other areas. These resources must be comprehen- figure includes funding for ATCC, Jackson Labora- sive and accessible to the world science community. tory, Cuenorhubditis Genetics Center, Yeast Genetic The workshop developed a series of recommenda- Stock Center, and NIGMS Human Genetic Mutant tions, which are submitted as applicable to the Na- Cell Repository), or0.05% of available funds. USDA tional Science Foundation and other federal agen- has no extramural program comparable to the NSF cies. or NIH in support of living research resource col- 1. Living stock centers are repository and distri- lections. The USDA Agricultural Research Service butioncenters for organisms and information. (ARS) operatesin-house genetic stock centerson Some of the centersreviewed were more orless self- somespecies, and some University collectionsre- contained, but most of them are highly networked ceive Cooperative Agreement funds from ARS. In with scientists andinformation systems. Because one case, the wheat center reviewed at this work- these centers are used widely by public and private shop, a Special Grant through the Cooperative State organizations and by scientists with access to vari- Research Service froma specialcongressional ap- able and often very little resources, the workshop propriation provides funds. Thus, the USDA fund- concluded that it is highly appropriate that public ing is not organized uniformly and some stocks are funds support these centers. It is strongly recom- orphaned, such as the chicken geneticstocks which mended that federal public funding be used as a are widely used as modelsfor medical research primary source of support €or living stock centers (muscular dystrophy, for example). USDA funds for according to the characteristics and review criteria stock centers appear to be commingled with com- presented above. modity-oriented research programs related to ani- 2. Living stock centers must be maintained indef- mal and plant breeding. The USDA funding for ge- s20

netic stock centers appears to be less than $500,000 evaluate the potential for cost recovery through annually. user fees in conjunction with federal agency rep- The workshop recommends that all of the agen- resentatives. It is critical that user fees do notsup- cies reevaluate their support to fundamental bio- plant existing agency support for collections. logical resources and that each agency fully share 6. Review of proposals for funding. It is recom- the financial obligations of supporting collections mended that federal agencies, especially NSF, NIH, that serve that agency's constituency. It is also rec- and USDA, establish peer review panels, with inter- ommended that an interagency council be formed agency coordination, to guide their decisions for with representatives from the relevant programs to funding of living stock centers. Within NSF it is develop acoordinated approach to fundingand specifically recommended that a BiologicalRe- oversight of living stock collections and the infor- sources Panel be established within Biological In- mation systems needed to support them. strumentation and Resources/Biological Sciences 5. Other funding sources. Since living stock col- Directorate to assist in proposal review. This could lections require funding in perpetuity, the most at- be a standing panelconsisting of members with sub- tractive type of funding is one which is self-perpet- stantial expertise in management of biological re- uating, such as endowment trust funds. Such funds sources collections. Ad hoc members would be re- have been established in a few instances, mainly by cruited as neededfor reviewof proposals on the user community, as was shown for the Tomato particular species. Much of this review could be ac- Genetics Resource Center at the University of Cali- complished via conference telephonecall, thus min- fornia, Davis. Certainly the users of specific collec- imizing expenses. The workshop participants offer tions should consider this opportunity and encour- their services as appropriate for this activity. age donors to establish or support an endowment '7. Collections-based research. Efficient handling fund. At thenational level, generalendowment, of genetic resources requires that special techniques such as the National Endowment for the Humani- be developed. This may require research within the ties, provides a model for biological resources col- stock center and,of course, by scientists outside the lections. It is recommended that agency represen- centers. It is recommended that research funds, as tative and users join together to explore perpetual grants, be made available to support innovative pro- funding mechanisms. posals that would lead to more efficient handling User fees have been imposed successfully by sev- of living stocks. Initially, this would require a mod- eralcenters. These fees aresometimes structured est amount of additional funds, but the long-term such that private users pay higher fees than public savings would be substantial. Examples of research users. This formof cost recovery was judged by some topics that are currently highly relevant to collec- curators as not being cost effective. A factor to con- tions include the following: sider is that genetic resources should beavailable to * Maintenance and stability: stability of difficult to all scientists and some of themdo not have the preserve organisms, long termDNA stability, high funds to pay for the stocks they require in research. volume handling techniques. Partial cost recovery from users might provide the * Cryopreservation: cryoprotectants, chill sensitiv- funds needed for existing collections to grow and ity, developmentalfactors, improved handling valuable new collections to be developed. It is not and storage techniques. expected that centerswould become totally self-sup- * Other alternativesto standard culture methods: porting, only that a larger share of non-NSF funds diapause, artificial extension of generation time. arebrought into the system. Thefederal govern- * Rapididentification techniques: microbes, mentshould maintain a presence in the funding fungi. structure of all important genetic collections to in- sure that the national interest in these materials is upheld. It is recommended that existing centers KATHLEEN A. MATTHEWS,Chair

REPORTON THE AMERICAN TYPECULTURE COLLECTION

The ATCC is anot-for-profit organization that each year with committees of the board meeting provides genetic resources to publicand private sec- separately as needed. ATCC is a dynamic organiza- tor scientists. It operates under the authority of a tion which mustgenerate its own operating ex- board of directors, which has representatives from penses from gifts, grants and sales. It must balance 22 professionalscientific organizations and direc- its activities to provide the largest possible volume tors at large. The board of directorsmeets once of cultures to the scientific community and at the s21 same time, serve as a public preservation unit for side the Washington, D.C., area and also discontin- genetic resources that may be needed in the future. ued discussions about a USDA site in the Beltsville, A good example: the Thermus aquaticus stock used Maryland, area. In the meantime, it has expanded for PCR came “off the shelf” from ATCC. ATCC is its campus in Rockville, Maryland, by purchasing a dependent on federal agency grants to support col- building that will be renovated and thereby provide lections where user fees are insufficient. This is a temporary relief for space and power needs. Nego- continuing concern of ATCC. Present negotiations tiations are continuing for a relocation site in the with NIH have proven difficult, as have a mandated Washington area. user fee increase by the funding agency for human Dr. Raymond Cypress began his service as director hybridoma cultures. The board prepared a resolu- (cum president) of ATCC. A new management plan tion (reproduced below) requesting that scientific has been introduced to ATCC, resulting in depart- societies support a request for an NRC/NAS review mental reorganization into programs, among other of biologicalresources collections toensure that changes. ATCC remains an effective and fonvard- these resources may sufficiently support the biodi- looking organization thatis dedicated to serving the versity they represent and theaccessibility required science community. Users are urged to communi- by the science community. cate with Dr. Cypress or board members about sub- ATCC is severely limited by space and power sup- stantive matters related to microbial culture collec- ply in its current facilities. It has been studying var- tions. ious relocation options for the past several years. It has rejected several opportunities to relocate out- CALVIN0. QUALSET

Sustained Support for Germplasm Collections: a Resolution Prokaryotic and eukaryotic germplasm collections DataNetwork provide an invaluable resourceto represent assemblages of natural biological diversity document availability of “working” germplasm col- which are critically important to secure our Ameri- lections.However, it doesnot ensure germplasm can competitiveness and continuing national poten- preservation. tialfor scientific advancement,product develop- The Board of Directors of the ATCC, which in- ment, and forsolving of problems in human health, cludesrepresentatives from 23 scientificsocieties environmental quality, and agriculture for the 21st whose research anddevelopment is dependent century and beyond. A significant portion of our upon ready access to living biologicalresources, national economy is based on natural products de- submit the following resolution: rived from living organisms. Oneexample is the Given that: Prokaryotic and eukaryotic germplasm development ofPCR (polymerasechain reaction) collections areinvaluable natural resources, and sta- which was dependentupon TaqPolymerase, iso- ble funding to preserve these collections and to en- lated from the American Type Culture Collection sure growth of the collections must be obtained at accession of Thermus aquaticus (Cat. No. 25109). Nu- the national level, merous organisms provide the source for pharma- ceuticals andhence provide a “value-added” di- It is resolved that:Scientific societies, acting in mensionto germplasm resources. Manyof the concert,must act to ensuresustained and stable organisms currently in collections are isolated from funding; globallydiverse ecological niches; it is oftenno Therefore, The Board of Directors of the ATCC longer feasible nor possible to obtain the biodiver- requeststhat the professional societiesaffiliated sity that many of these organisms represent. within ATCC request a study by the National Re- Unfortunately, lack of stable funding for micro- search Council of the National Academy of Sciences bialgermplasm collections has not ensured their to address a long-term solution to sustain microbial perpetuity.Although numerous sources provide and biologicalresearch collections, thusassuring funding for basic research, funding to maintain au- theconservation of biological diversity forthe thenticated stock material upon which the research scientific and commercial value of thesegenetic is based is often unavailable. This results in neglect resources. and possible loss of biological resources and inabil- ity to ensure germplasm for future research. Efforts Approved: March 25, 1994 such as that promoted by the Microbial Germplasm ATCC Board of Directors