From: Science-Week To: prismx@scienceweek.com ; prismx@scienceweek.com ; prismx@scienceweek.com ; prismx@scienceweek.com Subject: SW Focus Report - Science Education Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 8:57 AM -------------- Enclosure number 1 ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------- SCIENCE-WEEK FREE TRIAL SUBSCRIPTION: This Focus Report is extracted from the full-text Email publication SCIENCE-WEEK. If you have not had a previous free trial subscription to SCIENCE-WEEK, you can subscribe for a 3-issue SW trial without any obligation on your part afterward. To obtain a trial subscription to SCIENCE-WEEK, simply transmit FREE TRIAL to . Full SCIENCE-WEEK subscription details are appended to this file. ------------------------------------------------------- FOCUS REPORT: SCIENCE EDUCATION A Summary Group from SCIENCE-WEEK ------------------------------------------------- ON THE OVERPRODUCTION OF US BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHERS There are always practical problems concerning the training of scientists, but two persistent questions are How many? and Where do they work? Marincola and Solomon (2 installations, US), in a recent editorial in the journal *Science*, review the current problems in the training of biomedical research scientists (and propose a solution), but the ideas are perhaps just as applicable to physics and chemistry. The authors make the following points: 1) Although the number of biomedical research trainees in the US has expanded considerably over the past 20 years, the number of tenured positions is declining. 2) The average time to obtain a PhD rose from 4.4 years in the 1970s to 5.6 years in the 1990s. 3) Each principal investigator trains many times the single scientist required to replace himself or herself. This intrinsic instability could threaten the profession. 4) Many researchers perceive that science is thriving at increasing and unacceptable cost to those being trained. In strictly economic terms, it is in the interest of senior investigators to maintain the number of trainees, who work long hours in large numbers for little pay over many years in return for the chance to develop a satisfying career. 5) A solution may be to uncouple scientific productivity from an investigator's ability to attract and employ trainees -- the creation of permanent research positions for scientists who would neither compete for grants nor train others. They would be supported through investigators who hold traditional academic appointments. The authors give as an example the institution of 3-year positions for researchers at the Scripps Institute (US). The essential idea, then, is the amplification of the number of already existing non-tenure "research associate" positions, these positions to be filled by PhDs on a continuing short-term contract basis. The authors state: "This career track could be recognized explicitly, legitimized, and nourished to become an element of the research enterprise." The editorial does not address the question of how this two-tier structure will satisfy the career objectives of young scientists who are first-rate, but because of lack of employment opportunities, are forced into the second tier. QY: Elizabeth Marincola (Science 31 Jul 98 281:64) (Science-Week 28 Aug 98) ON POPULAR CULTURE AND THE THREAT TO RATIONAL INQUIRY In an essay on current popular attitudes toward science and scientists, Douglas R. Hofstadter (Indiana University Bloomington, US) makes the following points: 1) Science is currently presented to children and teens combined with irrelevancies such as action-packed stories, rock music, amusing quipsters, sassy jokes, sexual innuendoes, or up-to-date teen slang -- as if science is a "bitter pill" that needs sugar- coating. 2) Society today seems to be pervaded by a deep, unconscious, anti-science bias. Scientists are represented in movies, television, and books as heartless, humorless nerds who would sooner kill than smile, sooner write abstruse formulas than make love. 3) There is a dismissive attitude toward science as an explanatory framework for the world, and the welcoming of so- called "mysteries" such as after-death experiences, alien abductions, crystal channeling, crop circles, telekinesis, clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, or remote viewing. 4) Movie and television viewers and readers of serious literature are given the tacit message that the line between the natural and supernatural is blurry, and perhaps even nonexistent. 5) The general public no longer views science with a sense of awe and mystery, but instead considers it conservative and mundane, "trapped" in logical thinking. 6) The implicit message of popular culture is that science is boring, conservative, closed-minded, devoid of mystery, and a negative force in society. The author concludes: "I have no quick fixes. I do not know how to quickly and easily repair decades of damage. I do not fully understand why the sands have shifted so radically. All I can do is look on in sadness and worry about the future of rational inquiry, bemoaning the loss of awe toward genuine mysteries that our society was once lucky enough to possess." QY: Douglas R. Hofstadter, Indiana Univ. Bloomington 812-855-4848 (Science 24 Jul 98 281:512) (Science-Week 14 Aug 98) US NATL. ACAD. OF SCIENCES: OVERWHELMING REJECTION OF RELIGION Although the current popular US media are fond of informing the public that science and religion are moving closer on a common ground, the evidence is apparently the opposite. In a letter to the journal *Nature*, Larson and Witham (University of Georgia Athens, US) report the results of a recent survey of scientists who are members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The authors report "near universal rejection" of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Overall, 93 percent of NAS scientists do not profess a belief in God (72.2 percent disbelief, 20.8 agnostic), and 92.1 percent do not profess a belief in immortality (76.7 percent disbelief, 23.3 percent agnostic). Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2 percent and 69.0 percent respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79 percent and 76.3 percent respectively. As indicated, most of the rest define themselves as agnostics, with only few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians: 14.3 percent belief in God, 15 percent belief in immortality. Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5 percent in God, 7.1 percent in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5 percent in God, 7.5 percent in immortality). The authors suggest that despite recent declarations by NAS president Bruce Albert that many outstanding members of the academy are very religious people, the present survey indicates otherwise. QY: Edward J. Larson (Nature 23 Jul 98 394:313) (Science-Week 14 Aug 98) WOMEN ON CHEMISTRY FACULTIES: EVIDENCE OF SLOW PROGRESS Data compiled by the American Chemical Society for 1996, the most recent year for which data are available, indicate that in the US 30.7 percent of PhDs in chemistry were awarded to women, up from 12.5 percent in 1976. But on chemistry faculties at the major US research universities, women are barely represented. Here are figures for some of the major US academic research installations: ----- (Total tenure or tenure-track chemistry faculty/Women on tenure or tenure-track chemistry faculty 1996-1997) University of California Berkeley 53/5 California Institute of Technology 25/3 Harvard University 20/1 Stanford University 21/1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 31/2 Cornell University 30/2 Columbia University 19/1 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 47/2 University of Wisconsin Madison 39/2 University of Chicago 24/1 University of California Los Angeles 37/6 ----- QY: Mairin B. Brennan (Chem. & Eng. News 20 Jul 98) (Science-Week 7 Aug 98) ------------------- Related Background: US WOMEN IN SCIENCE LESS ACCEPTED THAN WOMEN IN BUSINESS A meeting last month at the New York Academy of Sciences (US) focused on the past 25 years of progress for women scientists and engineers in the US. The apparent consensus at the conference was that the climate for women in both industry and government has improved much faster than in academia, with the changes in industry mostly due to a drive by industry for diversity. The Motorola Corporation (US) now has 43 women vice-presidents. In 1996, women were 51% of the US population, 46% of the labor force, but only 22% of scientists and engineers. Nobel Laureate Gertrude Elion advised women in science to follow Farragut's order: "Damn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead." (Chem. & Eng. News 6 Apr 98) (Science-Week 17 Apr 98) ------------------- Related Background: WOMEN NOW SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF ALL NEW US CHEMISTS The latest survey of the American Chemical Society, covering chemists and chemical engineers who graduated between July 1996 and June 1997, shows the following statistics for new women graduates (percentage of total graduates who are women): Chemistry Bachelor's Degree: 48.2% Chemistry Master's Degree: 46.2% Chemistry PhD Degree: 31.6 Chemical Engineering Bachelor's Degree: 35.4% Chemical Engineering Master's Degree: 29.3% Chemical Engineering PhD Degree: 22.9% QY: Michael Heylin (Chem. & Eng. News 9 Mar 98) ------------------- SWEDISH STUDY SHOWS SEX BIAS AFFECTS SCIENCE EMPLOYMENT Two female Swedish scientists have published a study which indicates that women must publish more often than men to compete successfully for scientific jobs in Sweden. This is the first scientific study of sex discrimination in the awarding of a large number of research positions, and was financed by a Swedish government grant. The researchers, Christine Wenneras and Agnes Wold, are both from the University of Goteborg. The journal Nature, which published the study, states that the "results severely undermine the credibility of the peer-review system, not just in Sweden but elsewhere in the world. (Nature 22 May 97) ON SCIENCE, POLITICS, AND ASTEROIDS It is not often that a leading science journal invites a leading science-fiction writer to present a lead essay in its pages. But there are many scientists at work today who made their first youthful contact with the adventurous aspects of science in the novels of Arthur C. Clarke. Now 81 years old and Chancellor of the University of Moratuwa (LK), Clarke was trained as a scientist and originated the idea of satellite communication in a scientific article in 1945. In a recent essay in the journal *Science*, Clarke makes the following points: 1) For more than a century, science and its occasionally ugly sister technology have been the chief driving forces shaping our world. They decide the kinds of futures that are possible. Human wisdom must decide which are desirable. Clarke says it is "truly appalling" that so few of our politicians have any scientific or engineering background. 2) Clarke says, "I have encountered a few 'creationists' and because they were usually nice, intelligent people, I have been unable to decide whether they were *really* mad or only pretending to be mad. If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created the whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading humankind?" 3) Clarke says the scientific establishment has only slowly understood that the history of this planet, and perhaps of civilization itself, has been modified in important ways by physical impacts from space, and he proposes that we embark on a serious study of the probability of comet or asteroid impactors on the planet Earth. 4) Concerning energy production from new sources, Clarke says his guess is that large scale industrial application will begin around the turn of the century -- "at which point one can imagine the end of the fossil-fuel-nuclear age, making concerns about global warming irrelevant, as oil-and- coal-burning systems are phased out." QY: Arthur C. Clarke, 25 Barnes Place, Colombo 7, LK. (Science 5 Jun 98 280:1532) (Science-Week 26 Jun 98) A PROPOSAL FOR A PERMANENT RECORD OF OUR CIVILIZATION J. Lovelock (Oxford University, UK) presents an essay on catastrophe, civilization, and information storage. The author makes the following points: 1) We try to guard against local hazards, but we tend to ignore threats global in scale. 2) We fail to distinguish between the life-span of civilizations and that of the species. Civilizations are ephemeral compared with the species: humans have lasted a million years, but there have been 30 civilizations in the past 5000 years. 3) As individuals, we are amazingly ignorant and incapable. The important difference that separates us from the social insects is that they carry the instructions for nest building in their genes. We have no permanent ubiquitous record of our civilization from which to restore it should it fail. We would have to start again at the beginning. 4) What we need is a primer on science, clearly written and unambiguous in its meaning -- a primer for anyone interested in the state of the Earth and how to survive and live well on it. One that would serve also as a primary school science text. It would be the scientific equivalent of the Bible. 5) Modern media are more fallible instruments for long-term storage than was the spoken word. They require the support of a sophisticated technology that we cannot take for granted. 6) What we need is a book written on durable paper with long-lasting print, a book written with authority and readable enough to ensure a place in every home, school, library, and place of worship -- on hand whatever happened. QY: James Lovelock, Coombe Mill, St. Giles on the Heath, Launceton PL15 9RY, UK. (Science 8 May 98 280:832) (Science-Week 29 May 98) CRITICISM OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES A new report by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (US) criticizes the leading research universities in the US as shortchanging their undergraduate students by consigning undergraduates to classes taught by graduate assistants and by failing to provide students with "a coherent body of knowledge" by the time they graduate. The report calls for an end to the division between teaching and research, and for the involvement of undergraduates in research beginning in their first university year. The report was prepared by an 11-member commission from the National Academy of Sciences, the Carnegie Foundation, the American Council on Education, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and 5 different research universities. Milton Glaser, a designer and graphic artist, is also listed as a member of the commission. The title of the report is "Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities". Among the proposals in the report: 1) rewarding faculty members more for good teaching; 2) using technology more creatively; 3) fostering more interdisciplinary work; 4) placing freshmen in small groups where they live together and take courses together; 5) getting undergraduate students involved in research with senior faculty members; 6) requiring undergraduate students to conduct original research. Shirley Strum Kenny (State University of New York Stony Brook), chairwoman of the commission, says, "What we need to do is create a culture of enquirers rather than a culture of receivers." (New York Times 20 Apr 98) (Science-Week 24 Apr 98) ON LINGUISTIC CHAOS IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Nomenclature anarchy in molecular biology is apparently once again the focus of attention, although no remedies are evident. In a recent article, Paul Smaglik writes, "Gene and protein names often are based on the flamboyant, the descriptive, and the intentionally obscure. For many researchers, naming their discovery may be a rare opportunity to imbue their science with creativity." But Lawrence Puente (University of Alberta, CA) points out that creativity plus competition can equal confusion. Julia A. White (University College London, UK), a member of the Nomenclature Committee of the Human Genome Organization, says that although the committee strives to sort out linguistic chaos, the committee remains behind as a result of the speed and scope of the Human Genome Project. With hundreds of thousands of genes and proteins still to be named, molecular biology is in dire need of nomenclature regulation. (The Scientist 30 Mar 98) (Science-Week 17 Apr 98) ------------------- Related Background: MORE DISCUSSION OF ACRONYM ANARCHY IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY There are approximately 100,000 genes in the human genome, and approximately 100,000 expressed proteins, the total certainly enough to require a dictionary of names. Add to this total the total of acronyms used to identify cell-lines, cell receptors, metabolic pathways, carbohydrates, etc., and the dictionary would require a second volume. In the early days of biochemistry and molecular biology, when few genes and their expressed proteins had been identified, everyone could more or less remember the names of the macromolecular entities being studied by the people in the laboratory down the hall. These days that is unlikely, and made more unlikely by the tendency of many molecular biologists to choose ad hoc names that are often more cute than technically pertinent, and to obfuscate their research papers with acronyms by the dozen in a single paper. We know of at least one instance where an acronym for a cell-line in a paper from a group at the US National Institutes of Health was not defined anywhere in the paper, where telephone calls to molecular biologists produced no one who knew what cell-line was involved, and where a query to the authors of the paper did not produce a response for nearly three weeks. As one scientist recently put it: "If you make your paper difficult to read, at least no one can call you stupid." A recent exchange of letters in the journal Nature revisits this recurrent problem of nomenclature in molecular biology. It seems there are indeed existing committees concerned with regulating the nomenclature of molecular biology, but it also seems no one pays any attention to them. Puente et al (Univ. of Alberta, CA) refer to the present situation as "acronym anarchy". We agree. We would add that if the in-house editors of the leading general journals such as Science and Nature would refuse to publish these unduly obfuscated papers, they would be doing a service to the scientific community. QY: L. Puente (Nature 27 Nov 97) ------------------- A CRITICISM OF NOMENCLATURE IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Nomenclature is a serious problem in all the sciences, since as new discoveries are made, new entities identified, new concepts formulated, new names for these things must be found so that scientists can communicate with each other with some degree of precision. Most sciences have nomenclature committees that meet regularly to standardize current terminology and make decisions about new terminology. Molecular biology, one of the most active scientific disciplines these days, has no such constraints, and apparently there is growing concern that the arbitrary and some- times whimsical naming of new entities ("miranda", "prospero", "numb", "inscrutable") in molecular biology, with the same entity often sporting a number of names, has reached the stage of promoting confusion and the inability of scientists to deal efficiently with the literature. In a recent editorial critic- izing nomenclature practices in molecular biology, the journal Nature says, "Regrettably, molecular biologists have followed the particle physicists' whimsy with obscurantist enthusiasm." In particle physics, of course, we already have "quark", "strange- ness", "charm", "color", "top", "bottom", etc., which the editorial calls a "descent into whimsy" started by Murray Gell- Mann in the 1960s, who evidently took the term "quark" from a phrase in James Joyce's FINNEGAN'S WAKE. What is interesting is that the same journal which is criticizing whimsical scientific nomenclature is apparently quite fond of headlines involving whimsical wordplay, puns, and metaphors when describing scient- ific research results. If a consequence of this attention to nomenclature will be a more rational use of language in science, many people will no doubt be appreciative of it. (Nature 4 Sep 97) ------------------- PHYSICISTS ORGANIZE AGAINST IMPENETRABLE JARGON IN PHYSICS A group of working physicists and journal editors, under the leadership of Mitio Inokuti (Argonne National Laboratory, US) and Ugo Fano (University of Chicago, US) has come into existence with the objective of reforming the publication standards for papers in physics. The problem is that physicists no longer understand each other, their communication warped by "unexplained acronyms, cryptic symbols, endless sentences, and monstrous graphs". Analyzing the psychology of why this exists, Phillip Schewe (American Institute of Physics, US) says, "You lose all your readers, but at least you can't be accused of being an idiot. Instead, the readers are made to feel like they're idiots." The problem, of course, is just as severe in chemistry and biology. (Science 15 Aug 97) AN ESSAY ON SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY In an essay on the scientific illiteracy of the general public, N. Augustine (Princeton University and Lockheed Martin Corpor- ation, US) notes the apathy concerning science and technology that is apparently rampant in the US, and that "an indifference toward scientific understanding is almost considered a badge of honor." A recent US National Science Foundation survey indicates that less than half of American adults understand that the Earth orbits the Sun yearly; only 21% can define DNA; only 9% know what a molecule is; 25 million Americans cannot locate the US on an unlabeled world map. The public attitude toward science and scientists is consistently negative. The great irony is that the American economy and standard of living are based on a foundation of rapid scientific advances. Augustine suggests that modern scientists and engineers "must become as adept in dealing with societal and political forces as they are with gravitational and electromagnetic forces." QY: Norman Augustine, Princeton University 609-258-3000 (Science 13 Mar 98) PRESENT AND FUTURE US PHYSICS PHDS DISCOURAGED BY LACK OF JOBS The American Institute of Physics 1996 Initial Employment Report has been released, and the facts as presented are apparently producing gloom in the physics student community. In the year 1995-1996, about 400 temporary and permanent faculty jobs in physics in the US were filled in all degree-granting institut- ions, and about 90% of these new placements were drawn from the ranks of experienced physicists from industry or other univers- ities. In other words, only about 50 tenure-track jobs in physics each year are actually open to new graduates and postdocs. And how many are being trained each year? In 1995-96, 1438 new PhDs in physics were granted in the US. So the situation at present is apparently that 97% of new PhDs in physics in the US cannot expect to find a tenure-track position in a university physics department, and of those who do find other employment, most of them find it outside physics in areas such as engineering and computer software. An American Physical Society poll indicates that, at the moment, 40% of the junior members of the physics community "would not advise someone to pursue a career in phys- ics." This is, perhaps, an example of an endemic problem in Amer- ican higher education, especially in the sciences and medicine. The paradigm of sequential events is usually as follows: 1) a glut of Phds (or MDs); 2) a reduction in the number of Phds (or MDs) trained; 3) a scarcity produced by the reduction in trained people; 4) an increase in the number of Phds (or MDs) trained; 5) a glut of PhDs (or MDs); and so on -- with a complete cycle usually running about 20 years. In the large, society can perhaps tolerate this typical result of the operation of oscillating market forces. In the small, where the security and life fulfill- ment of individual junior scientists are involved, the result may be intolerable. QY: James Glanz (Science 20 Feb 98) ON THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES It is natural for nations seeking industrial development in order to improve their circumstances to attempt to accomplish their goals in a short time by rational design. But which rational design? Since in this area of endeavor there exist neither controlled experiments nor model historical experiences, the question of choosing the proper road for accelerated development is not easily answered in either the general case or the specific case of any particular nation. In an essay on the role of science in development, Jose Goldemberg, a physical scientist and Brazilian government science policy administrator, points out that after World War II, a small technical elite arose in developing countries, an elite educated as scientists in the industrialized world, who believed that by promoting large enterprises in nuclear energy, electronics, pharmaceuticals, or space research they could leap-frog the low level of development of their countries. Goldemberg says that what his scientist colleagues and national leaders alike failed to understand was that industrial development does not necessarily coincide with the possession of nuclear weapons or the capability to launch satellites. Instead, development requires modern agriculture, industrial systems, and education, and mere spin-offs from nuclear energy or space programs will not convert underdeveloped countries into 20th century industrialized states: the social infrastructure changes required are fundamental and not peripheral. In conclusion, Goldemberg suggests that the transition of a country from developing to developed is a complex process that demands facing up to the established interests in society, and the impetus for this must come from all social sectors. QY: Jose Goldemberg, Institute of Electronics and Energy, Univ. of Sao Paulo, BR (Science 20 Feb 98) ON CONFRONTING CREATIONIST FALLACIES If there is any arena in which the interface between the scientific community and society at large is of importance it is the education of the public, and especially the education of the young public. And perhaps no part of that arena in the US is of more consequence to many citizens than the attempt by certain groups to fashion the teaching of science according to preconceived religious views. ... ... D. Wise (Franklin and Marshall College, US) reviews the current controversy between the scientific community and creationists and discusses a strategy of intellectual confrontation. Among other things, Wise enumerates the following creationist ideas from the Bible that are totally irreconcilable with extant scientific data: 1) the Earth came into existence before the sun and stars; 2) the land plants came into existence before the Sun; 3) the first life forms were plants; 4) fruit trees appeared before fish; 5) fish appeared before terrestrial arthropods; 6) birds appeared before land reptiles. Indeed, the acceptance of any of these ideas with a restraint of consistency results in the tearing down of the entire fabric of modern science (and the tearing down of all its applications, including modern medicine). Wise concludes, "As scientists, we must emphasize repeatedly that the argument against creationism is not against religion as such but rather against a fringe group's attempt to force the Bible into the public schools in the guise of a science textbook... The time has come to stop fighting defensive skirmishes and start challenging creationists to defend in toto what they call science -- humorous absurdities and all." QY: Donald U. Wise (American Scientist Mar/Apr 1998) COMPARATIVE US UNIVERSITY CHEMISTRY PHDS. The 1996 Annual Report of the American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training has been published. The number of PhDs conferred in 1996 in chemistry has remained the same (at 2127), while the number of PhDs conferred in chemical engineering has risen from 584 to 690. The University of California Berkeley produced the most PhD chemists (64), with the top 10 schools as follows (numbers refer to chemistry PhDs conferred in 1996): University of California Berkeley 64 Texas A & M College Station 46 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 43 Cornell University 38 University of Texas Austin 38 Purdue University 37 California Institute of Technology 36 University of Pennsylvania 36 Stanford University 36 University of California San Diego 30 QY: Diana Slade (Chem. & Eng. News 2 Feb 98) -------------------- Copyright (c) 1997,1998 Science-Week/Spectrum Press All Rights Reserved for information: http://scienceweek.com request@scienceweek.com -------------------- SCIENCE-WEEK Subscriptions: ----------------------------------------------- Please note: Educational and other nonprofit institutions and organizations are eligible for group subscription rates for SCIENCE-WEEK: 50+ subscribers at a subscription rate of US$1 per year per subscriber, with SW delivered individually to each Email address. For more complete information about group subscriptions, please query at: ----------------------------------------------- SCIENCE-WEEK INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions run for 52 issues at a cost of US$10.00 for the year, and begin with the next issue following receipt of payment. Email delivery is guaranteed: if at any time, for any reason, an issue does not reach your Email address, let us know and we will resend it. As a paid subscriber, you have will have access to zip files of all back issues of SCIENCE-WEEK. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CREDIT CARD: To subscribe with a credit card (Visa or MasterCard), please provide the following information by Email or regular mail or voice telephone or Fax: Your name: Your Email address: Type of credit card (Visa or MasterCard): Credit card number: Credit card expiration date: Zip or postal code (if any) of your home address: Please note: The credit card charge (US$10.00) will be by Spectrum Press, the publisher of SCIENCE-WEEK. For transmission of credit card information: Email: request@scienceweek.com Fax: 773-281-1419 (24 hrs.- 7 days) Voice phone: 888-281-1419 (toll-free US) (9am-5pm M-F CST) 773-281-1419 (outside US) (9am-5pm M-F CST) ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHECK OR MONEY ORDER: To subscribe by check or money order (drawn in US funds on a US bank), please provide your name and Email address, along with a check or money order for US$10.00 payable to "Spectrum Press", and send it to: SCIENCE-WEEK/Spectrum Press 3023 N. Clark Street #109 Chicago, IL 60657 USA ---------------------------------------------------------------- PURCHASE ORDERS: We will honor purchase orders from institutions, provided we receive a purchase order number and an address to which we can send an invoice for payment. The purchase order (and PO number) can be sent via Email or regular mail. Please make certain the purchase order includes the subscription Email address. Purchase orders via regular mail can be sent to: SCIENCE-WEEK/Spectrum Press 3023 N. Clark Street #109 Chicago, IL 60657 USA ---------------------------------------------------------------- For all subscriptions, when we receive payment, we will confirm receipt with an Email message to your specified Email address.