MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XIX No. 1web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/191/fnl191.pdf · Newsletter Vol. XIX...

this issue features letters concerning the neuroscience hiring controversy(beginning on page 4); the results of the latest U.S. News rankings (page 12);recollections of being a housemaster by Jay Keyser (page 14); and our TeachTalk feature concerning MIT’s support for international graduate students (page 20).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XIX No. 1September/October 2006

Context and IntroductionI N U N IVE R S ITI E S WE G E N E RALLY view ethics in scienceand technology in terms of critically important values andprocesses to be upheld in research and publication. Above allelse, we are committed to maintaining a culture and processesthat ensure scholarly integrity and scientific objectivity. As theresearch enterprise has become larger, more global, faster, morecomplex, and associated with valuable intellectual property, thiscommitment to scientific integrity has become more importantthan ever.

At a more macroscopic level, scientific knowledge is increas-ingly critical to major public and political decisions, e.g., aboutglobal warming, embryonic stem cells, privacy of digital com-munications, nanotechnology, and genetically-modified foods. Ithink it is worth examining three past successes of science, tech-nology, and public policy – recombinant DNA, phasing out ofOzone-depleting chemicals, and deployment of the World WideWeb. Each of these involved people associated with MIT. Noneof them map directly onto today’s issues, but they offer hintsabout better ways of proceeding.

continued on page 10

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

Charles M. Vest

Science, Technology, Ethics,and Public Decision Making

continued on page 3

EditorialThe Need for Increased FacultyInvolvement in Major InstituteInitiatives

T H E R E L AT I O N S H I P B E T W E E N U N I V E R S I T I E S andexternal funding agencies, including corporations, foundations,and government, has always required a very careful balancebetween the need for research funding and the commitment toprotect academic integrity. In some cases, such as the NationalScience Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, thefundamental missions of the agencies and the research universi-ties are intimately intertwined and grew up together. In othercases we have witnessed failures in these relationships. Examplesinclude that between Novartis and the University of California atBerkeley, the ending of the Cambridge University/MIT partner-ship, and the recent dissolution of the relationship between theGovernment of Singapore and Johns Hopkins Medical School.Others are moving forward, but under considerable criticismand with malaise, such as BMW’s sponsorship of the new engi-neering program at Clemson University, and Boston University’sconstruction of a federally-funded bioterroism research facilityin downtown Boston.

Particularly problematic are relationships with foreign gov-ernments. Although perhaps technically a partnership with a

Vol. XIX No. 1 September/October 2006

2

The MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Alice AmsdenUrban Studies and Planning

John BelcherPhysics

*Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Erik DemaineElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Olivier de WeckAeronautics & Astronautics/Engineering Systems

Ernst G. FrankelOcean Engineering

Stephen C. GravesManagement Science and Engineering Systems

Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

Gordon KaufmanManagement Science and Statistics

Daniel S. KempChemistry

Samuel J. KeyserLinguistics & Philosophy

*Jonathan KingBiology

*Stephen J. LippardChemistry

David H. MarksCivil and Environmental Engineering

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

Ronald PrinnEarth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

David ThorburnLiterature

George VergheseElectrical Engineering and Computer Science

Rosalind H. WilliamsSTS and Writing

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Sub-Committee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 11-268Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

Telephone 617-253-7303Fax 617-253-0458Email [email protected]

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$20/year off campus

01 Science, Technology, Ethics, and Public Decision MakingCharles M. Vest

Editorial 01 The Need for Increased Faculty Involvement in Major Institute Initiatives

04 Neuroscience Hiring Controversy at MIT

From The 08 Welcome BackFaculty Chair Steven Lerman

12 MIT Shines in Latest U.S. News RankingNewsletter Staff

14 House Mastering Recollected in TranquilitySamuel Jay Keyser

15 Teaching this fall? You should know . . .

16 FOGS Report Highlights Graduate Student Cost IssuesNewsletter Staff

19 National Research Council to AssessU.S. Research Doctorate ProgramsLydia Snover

Teach Talk 20 Supporting MIT’s International Graduate Students:Communicating Within and Across CulturesJane Dunphy

MIT Poetry 23 Factory GirlsTunney Lee

Letters 24 Accolades for Nancy HopkinsSheila Tandon

Dental Insurance Plan for Retirees?Jerry Saltzer

In Memoriam 25 Vernon M. Ingram

26 International Development Fair ShowcasesStudents’ Global Development ExperiencesAmy McCreath, Amy Smith

M.I.T. Numbers 28 U.S. News Ranking for National Universities

contents

MIT Faculty NewsletterSeptember/October 2006

3

government agency, the emerging

Singapore/MIT alliance brings MIT into a close

relationship with the Government of Singapore.

Such initiatives target the acquisition of sub-

stantial resources. How faculty are recruited,

how funding is distributed, how research direc-

tions are prioritized, and, even more impor-

tantly, how the administrative structure is put in

place require faculty oversight. We need to be

sure that academic activities are not distorted by

the interests of Singapore’s government. Even

the World Bank recently criticized Singapore’s

government for denial of rights to non-govern-

mental organizations.

An MIT Steering Committee has been

appointed to address these questions regarding

the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and

Technology (SMART) Center to be established

in Singapore. Among the troubling issues are

the proposed size of the Center, the degree of

MIT’s commitment to it, and the 3-month to

1-year MIT faculty commitment which is being

encouraged. Certainly an assessment of the

problems that undermined the Johns Hopkins

Medical School/Singapore Alliance is needed.

Such endeavors are matters of great concern.

They are central to the intellectual mission of

the Institute and the commitment of the

faculty to scientific integrity and excellence.

These are all significant matters that require

consideration and debate among the faculty.

Is this the beginning of a long series of such

relationships with foreign governments? It is

critical that the Institute affect a balance

between those countries who are able to pay

for our services, and those that desperately

need our assistance (e.g., some African and

Latin American nations) but are financially

unable to compete. MIT must avoid the

impression of being for sale to the highest

bidder. Many countries would benefit from

such relationships, as would groups of inter-

ested MIT students and faculty. How about

Myanmar/MIT; Brazil/MIT; Venezuela/MIT;

Jamaica/MIT; Cuba/MIT; Nigeria/MIT;

Uzbhekistan/MIT; etc?

We appreciate the need to increase global

awareness among students, faculty and staff.

The international student exchange programs

such as MIT-Japan, MIT-Mexico and MIT-

France are positive steps in this direction. But

the resources devoted to the Singapore-MIT

Center appear to dwarf the very limited

resources devoted to other international collab-

orations. No “Centers”are being staffed by MIT

in those countries to our knowledge.

Traditionally, MIT has had an administra-

tive strategy which, for lack of better words,

was bottom-up, with nearly 1,000 faculty

members providing inspiration and guidance

to their appointed leaders. Faculty members

provided significant input regarding impor-

tant administrative decisions prior to action

being taken. Today the situation is different,

with decisions being made by administrative

fiat with little or no faculty consultation. All

too often, faculty are being asked to reflect on

decisions already made, rather than being an

integral part of the decision-making process.

Not all actions proceed along these lines, to be

sure, for committees are convened with the

charge to consult widely among faculty prior

to actions being taken or policies written.

Nonetheless, there is some degree of concern

expressed about the outcome of even this pro-

cedure, not yet significant, but noticeable.

Ever since the 1949 report of the Lewis

Commission (also known as the Committee

on Educational Survey) warnings have been

raised about the potential pitfalls of MIT

receiving financial support tied too closely

to government political agendas. When

Jerry Wiesner returned to the Institute after

his tenure as Science Advisor to Presidents

Eisenhower and Kennedy, he too expressed

concern that the large amounts of money

received by the Institute from the U.S.

Department of Defense might inadvertently

distort the type or direction of potential

research, emphasizing military versus civil-

ian goals.

Steps were taken to protect the openness

and collegiality of MIT, and to safeguard

against intrusion of the federal government’s

interests and regulations. Separating Lincoln

Labs and Draper Labs (formerly the

Instrumentation Laboratory) from the

Institute was a means of providing this protec-

tion. In addition, reinforcing the full under-

standing of and respect for the openness that

drives MIT served to ensure our independence.

Historically, MIT’s pursuit and preoccupa-

tion with funding resources was also primarily

faculty driven, and played a central role in the

organization and conduct of research. But over

the past few years, as mentioned above, we

note certain trends that are disturbing and run

counter to this long-established MIT tradition.

Many current research projects now require

the recruitment of faculty from a variety of

disciplines and departments. This multidisci-

plinary approach, although possibly valuable

for achieving research objectives, must not be

dictated by the heavy-handed constraints of an

administrative order, be it from an external

funding source or our own leaders. It is quite

different for a faculty colleague to request

support for a collaboration that is key to her or

his research program than it is for a dean, lab-

oratory or department head, or provost to

mandate such as part of a scheme to dictate

such interactions. The mandate is of special

concern where junior faculty or non-tenured

faculty are involved, since it runs the risk of sti-

fling their creativity or placing them in a situa-

tion where they must defer to senior colleagues

to remain funded.

Concerns expressed by Wiesner and others

years ago about potential military influence on

research are now being replaced by similar

concerns regarding Institute support from

major corporations and even foreign institu-

tions (Singapore). Again, MIT must be vigilant

to ensure that the research interests or pro-

grams of such units providing financial

support do not distract from MIT’s desired

research and educational goals.

There’s a story involving then-MIT

President Chuck Vest who was discussing a

potential major collaborative program with a

company’s CEO. Once they reached an under-

standing, the CEO stood up and shook hands

with Chuck on the agreement. “When should

we start?” asked the CEO.“For you, the negoti-

ating is at an end,” replied Vest. “For me it’s a

beginning; I now have to convince 1000 faculty

members!”

We welcome input of specific examples

from faculty, administrators, or even sponsors

that reflects or elaborates upon our view on

these issues, as well as those that run counter

to it.

Editorial Sub-Committee

The Need for Increased FacultyInvolvementcontinued from page 1

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 1

4

Neuroscience Hiring Controversy at MIT

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

June 30, 2006

Prof. S. Hockfield, PresidentM. I. T.Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear Professor Hockfield,

We write to you to express our deep concern about events surrounding the recruitment of Dr. Alla Karpova, a neuro-biologist, as Assistant Professor in the Department of Biology. Several weeks ago MIT made a verbal offer of a faculty posi-tion to Dr. Karpova, a brilliant young scientist who already had offers from Max Planck and Cal Tech, among others, butwhose top choice was MIT. Subsequently, she had a series of interactions with Prof. Susumu Tonegawa, who stronglyopposed her recruitment. He apparently conveyed to her that if she did come to MIT, he would not interact, collaborate ormentor her, and that members of his research group would not collaborate with her. Most disturbing to us is that MIT facultyand administration were not able to assure Dr. Karpova that she was wanted and welcome at MIT. Instead, subsequent dis-cussions with Dr. Karpova left her with the impression that nothing could be done about the behavior of Prof. Tonegawa andthat it would be best for her and MIT that she not accept the position. Several senior MIT faculty members in Biology andBrain and Cognitive Sciences explicitly cautioned her not to come to MIT out of concern for her future, given Tonegawa’sopposition to her appointment.

It is our collective and strongly held opinion that MIT has failed in this situation. We have allowed a senior facultymember with great power and financial resources to behave in an uncivil, uncollegial and possibly unethical manner toward atalented young scientist who deserves to be welcomed at MIT. We have acted as if this young woman were the problem, notProfessor Tonegawa. We have damaged MIT’s reputation as an institution that supports academic fairness for young facultyand jeopardized our ability to attract the best scientists to MIT. In many respects, we have failed to uphold basic standards ofacademic integrity.

The damage is great. Professor Tonegawa’s behavior, and MIT’s failure to put a stop to it, has appalled the neuro-science community. This situation is bound to hit the press soon, with further devastating effects for MIT. We urge you totake immediate action.

TH E I NTE RACTION S B ETWE E N Prof. Susumu Tonegawa and Dr. Alla Karpova, at the time a postdoctoral fellow at Cold SpringHarbor Laboratory, have been the subject of scrutiny within MIT, and through the broader scientific community (“ProfessorAllegedly Bullied MIT Prospect,” The Boston Globe, July 28, 2006) . Dr. Karpova, recruited as an assistant professor in the Departmentof Biology, originally planned to come to MIT, but declined the offer after e-mail exchanges with Prof. Tonegawa. The FacultyNewsletter, with permission of the authors, is publishing the letter from our colleagues to President Hockfield which initiated expres-sions of concern, as well as President Hockfield’s reply and the related e-mail sent to the MIT faculty by Provost Reif. An offer was alsomade to print the letter to President Hockfield from six members of the Picower Institute. Two signers declined that offer, stating:“Wefeel that enough has been said on this topic and until the report by the special committee is made to the president and provost, it’s notclear what will be gained by reiterating and printing the same three letters that have already been discussed endlessly in the media.”The committee referred to is composed of Dr. Torsten Wiesel and Professors Jacqueline N. Hewitt (chair), Marc A. Kastner, MichaelF. Rubner, and Sheila E. Widnall, and is expected to report later in the fall.


5

Most urgently, MIT should do everything in its power to reverse the harm done to Dr. Karpova. In our view, MITshould offer Dr. Karpova a formal apology, and proceed with a sincere, concerted effort, at the level of the President, tounderstand and rectify the events of the past several weeks. An overture to Dr. Karpova from you, as President of MIT,would be an important part of this process.

On a longer timescale, it is important that we repair the broader structural problems that led to this situation in thefirst place. The recruitment of Dr. Karpova is not an isolated instance where serious structural issues within the neurosciencecommunity at MIT have interfered with faculty recruitment and provided a less-than-ideal climate for research and academicfreedom. We suggest that an ad hoc committee, composed in part of members external to MIT, evaluate the administrativeand organizational structures that led to this situation, and that such a committee be charged with recommending structuralchanges to protect MIT and its faculty from similar problems in the future.

In summary, we ask you to take immediate action on these two fronts. At stake are the career of a brilliant youngscientist and the reputation of a great institution.

We are available to help in any way we can.

Sincerely,

Prof. Leigh Royden Prof. Paola RizzoliChair, Advisory Committee to Chair, Gender Equity Committee,Dean Silbey on issues pertaining School of Scienceto hiring of women faculty

Prof. Nancy Kanwisher Prof. Barbara LiskovAdvisory Committee to Chair, Gender Equity Committee,Dean Silbey on issues pertaining School of Engineeringto hiring of women faculty

Prof. Joanne Stubbe Prof. Sally HaslangerAdvisory Committee to Chair, Gender Equity Committee,Dean Silbey on issues pertaining SHASSto hiring of women faculty

Prof. Maria Zuber Prof. Terry KnightHead, Department of Earth, Chair, Gender Equity Committee,Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences School of Architecture and Urban Planning

Prof. Nancy Hopkins Prof. JoAnne YatesCo-Chair of the Council Chair, Gender Equity Committee,on Faculty Diversity Sloan School

Prof. Lotte BailynProfessor of Management


6

July 17, 2006

Prof. Lotte Bailyn Prof. Terry Knight Prof. Joanne Stubbe Room E52-502 Room 10-432M Room 18-598

Prof. Sally Haslanger Prof. Barbara Liskov Prof. JoAnne Yates Room 32-D926 Room 32-G942 Room E52-544

Prof. Nancy Hopkins Prof. Paola Rizzoli Prof. Maria Zuber Room E17-341 Room 54-1416 Room 54-918

Prof. Nancy Kanwisher Prof. Leigh Royden Room 46-4133 Room 54-826

Dear Colleagues:

Thank you for your letter concerning the issues raised by events surrounding the recruitment of Dr. Alla Karpova to theMIT faculty. You wisely point out the importance of protecting MIT’s reputation as an institution that upholds the higheststandards of academic fairness, and you have recommended correcting a situation within the MIT neuroscience communitythat threatens ongoing disruption of the collegiality of our academic enterprise.

First, as an institution of higher learning, we are unwaveringly committed to supporting and developing the careers of juniorcolleagues. We have reached out to Dr. Karpova to emphasize MIT’s high standards of collegiality and to apologize for anymisunderstanding during the recruitment process that might have made her question MIT’s commitment to young facultyand their access to Institute resources.

Second, ongoing tensions among MIT’s neuroscience entities have raised the issue of how to encourage productive workamong members of our neuroscience and biological science communities, without regard to the specific entity in which anindividual holds an appointment. This issue has broad significance because the most important intellectual challenges of ourtime call for interdisciplinary approaches. The ability to work across center, departmental and school boundaries willincreasingly determine MIT’s success in its mission of research, teaching and service. While MIT has pioneered cross-disci-plinary approaches, we must, as an institution, continually foster structures, policies and practices that will advance workacross academic and research units. I have asked the Provost to convene an ad hoc committee to look into the current situa-tion, to review the structure of MIT’s neuroscience entities, and to make recommendations for how these entities can worktogether and make faculty appointments more productively.

Finally, while your letter does not explicitly allege that gender played a role in this case, and the issues appear to be driven bythe relationships among different research activities at MIT, the question of gender-based discrimination has been raised bysome. Whether or not it played a role in this particular case, let me state here that gender-based or other discriminatory behav-ior conflicts in the deepest way with our commitment to a values-based, meritocratic institution and will not be tolerated.


7

While I have replied to those who signed your letter to me, this issue has engaged a broad set of our faculty, and so Iencourage you to share my response with those who you think might find it helpful.

With my thanks for the positive and productive way that you have brought these issues forward,

Sincerely,

Susan Hockfield

cc: Robert Desimone Christopher Kaiser L. Rafael Reif Robert J. Silbey Mriganka Sur Susumu Tonegawa

From: “L. Rafael Reif”Date: July 20, 2006 5:11:30 PM EDTTo: MIT FacultySubject: Ad hoc committee announcement

Dear colleagues,

Over the course of several years, MIT has succeeded in recruiting and developing a remarkable group of neuroscientists, whonow work and interact in a magnificent new facility. These successes attest to MIT’s commitment to identifying and recruit-ing outstanding faculty. Nevertheless, the events surrounding a recent recruitment of a junior faculty member in the BiologyDepartment and the McGovern Institute have highlighted tensions among MIT’s neuroscience entities. At the President’srequest, I am convening an ad hoc committee to:

1. Review the overall structure of, and interactions among, MIT’s neuroscience programs, including the Brain and CognitiveSciences Department, the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, and theneuroscience activities within the Biology Department;

2. Look into the recent junior faculty recruitment process, and the faculty recruitment process in general, as a window on theinteractions among the neuroscience entities at MIT; and

3. Consider how the climate for neuroscience research and the process of faculty appointments might be improved.

I am grateful to Dr. Torsten Wiesel and to Professors Jacqueline N. Hewitt (chair), Marc A. Kastner, Michael F. Rubner, andSheila E. Widnall for their willingness to serve on this important committee.

L. Rafael ReifProvost


8

Steven LermanFrom The Faculty ChairWelcome Back

I F YOU’VE B E E N AWAY from MIT thissummer, you might be wondering whythis column is being written by me ratherthan by Lorna Gibson. I am pleased to beable to tell you that Professor Gibson wasoffered and accepted the position ofAssociate Provost, effective immediately.Unfortunately, though, accepting thisposition left her unable to serve theremaining year of her term as Chair of theMIT Faculty.

According to the Rules and Regulationsof the Faculty, the NominationsCommittee acts with power in appoint-ing a Chair for the remainder of a depart-ing Chair’s term. The prior commitmentsof the other faculty officers made it diffi-cult for them to be able take on the role ofthe Chair, and the NominationsCommittee asked me to do so. Havingalready served as Chair of the Facultyfrom 2000-2002, and having enjoyed itenormously, I accepted and, as a conse-quence, I find myself unexpectedlywriting this column.

We will all benefit from havingsomeone with Lorna’s energy, talent, andexperience in the senior administration,but the truth is that we will also miss herleadership as the Faculty Chair. Lornabrought a combination of wisdom andpracticality that served all of usextremely well during the ongoing tran-sition of senior leadership at MIT. Sheworked to restructure the operations ofsome of the key committees of thefaculty, particularly in the area of gradu-ate student policy and disciplinaryreviews. She and President Hockfield alsoadded an open question and answer

session to the faculty meetings, bringinga sense of openness and spontaneity tothe meetings that was badly needed. Ihave no doubt that her breadth of experi-ence as Chair of the Faculty will makeher more effective as an AssociateProvost, but we will miss her.

Task Force on the UndergraduateEducational CommonsLooking forward, I think that some of themost substantive work we will do this yearwill probably result from the report of theTask Force on the UndergraduateEducational Commons. Under the leader-ship of Dean Robert Silbey, this commit-tee of faculty, students, and staff has beenworking for the past two years.

Paraphrasing the Task Force’s charter,the members of the Task Force have beenworking to review MIT’s educationalmission statement, define goals from thateducational mission, develop commoncurriculum requirements for all under-graduates, and recommend to the facultythe formal structure of the undergraduatecurriculum.

Once the work of the Task Force iscompleted, the faculty will need to workwith the Office of the Dean for

Undergraduate Education to consider itsrecommendations and to make appropri-ate changes to the Rules and Regulations ofthe Faculty which establish the require-ments for MIT degrees.

The governance of the educationalcommons is one of the central tasks of

those of us who teach at MIT. It is in theRules and Regulations of the Faculty thatwe set forth the requirements for MITdegrees, including the General InstituteRequirements. Ultimately, any changes inthese requirements must be voted on andapproved by the faculty. In a very realsense, we define our beliefs about what atechnological and science centered educa-tion means through our degree require-ments. Our decisions about theeducational commons will influence notonly the lives of all our undergraduates,but will also be seen as a model for otheruniversities around the world.

Though we as a faculty must approveany changes in degree requirements, anychanges in our undergraduate programforward will involve various groups,including the officers of the faculty, theCommittee on the UndergraduateProgram, the Office of the Dean for

I hope we will have a vigorous and constructivedebate about what changes in undergraduateeducation are best for our students. This willrequire a willingness to question the status quoand a vision that transcends the localizedinterests of any one department or School.


9

Undergraduate Education, departmentheads and deans, the Chair of the TaskForce, student representatives, and muchof the senior administration. The transla-tion of the difficult and time-consumingwork of the Task Force into concreteactions will occupy many of us in thecoming year and beyond.

I hope we will have a vigorous andconstructive debate about what changesin undergraduate education are best forour students. This will require a willing-ness to question the status quo and avision that transcends the localizedinterests of any one department orSchool. During this process we shouldbe mindful that the report of the TaskForce is the result of extensive research,consultations, and deliberations. Whileeach of us may not agree with every oneof the changes proposed by the TaskForce, we should view their recommen-dations as reflecting the best judgmentof some of our most deeply committedcolleagues.

My goal is to move this processforward in a positive and systematicmanner so that any changes may beapproved by the faculty during this aca-demic year. The complete implementa-tion of whatever changes we agree upon islikely to require several more years thatinclude development of new courses, newgoverning structures for the variousrequirements, and a significant commit-ment of faculty time and funds to what-ever new teaching commitments arisefrom the new requirements.

Other TopicsOf course, our work on the undergradu-ate commons is not the only thing on thefaculty agenda for the coming year. Someof the other topics we will deliberate oninclude:

• MIT’s continuing efforts to improve thediversity of our faculty and studentbody, particularly with respect to genderand racial diversity. In a resolutionapproved in May 2004, we voted “totaking a leadership position among our

peer institutions in the recruiting andsuccess of underrepresented minorityfaculty and graduate students.” This res-olution included the goals of doublingthe number of underrepresented minor-ity faculty and tripling the number ofunderrepresented minority graduatestudents within a decade. We all under-

stood, however, that these goals cannotbe met simply by voting. They requireongoing work of the faculty and admin-istration to recruit more effectively andto create an academic environment thatis welcoming and supportive of every-one. We will continue to monitor ourprogress towards our goals and to workwith the senior administration toachieve them.

• Given the global nature of research andeducation, MIT is likely to expand itsinternational partnerships and to createnew ones. We need to do this in a waythat is aligned with our core mission andopens up new opportunities for thefaculty and students. We will discusssome of these new initiatives, includingan expansion of our engagement withSingapore, in various faculty committeesand at our meetings.

• In May 2006, the Energy ResearchCouncil reported on its year-long studyof the challenges and opportunities forexpanding the Institute’s research in theenergy field. This report recommendedan ambitious initiative that will requirenew research funding and will involvefaculty from all five Schools in basicenergy science, technology, economics,and policy. How we organize and gener-

ate funding for this exciting work will bean important topic for discussionbetween the administration and thefaculty.

• MIT has committed to expanding thehousing we can make available to ourgraduate students. Work will start this

fall on a new graduate dormitory at thecorner of Albany and Pacific Streets witha space for over 500 students. When thisdorm is completed in 2008, the house-masters and students in what is nowAshdown House will move to the newbuilding, and the current building willbe converted to an undergraduate dor-mitory. This will create a more central-ized locus of graduate student life in theNorthwest area of the campus and willgive us an opportunity to expand ourundergraduate enrollments.

If history provides any guide, the list ofissues we as a faculty need to discuss willlikely get longer rather than shorter overthe year.

For me, the start of the academic yearalways has a feeling of renewal and conti-nuity. New students and new facultyarrive, and we move again into the annualcycle of teaching and research. Althoughcertainly unexpected, I find myselflooking forward to the coming year asChair of the Faculty with unabashedenthusiasm. As always, I look forward toworking with my faculty colleagues on themany things we all care deeply about.

Steven Lerman is Professor of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering; Faculty Chair([email protected]).

Given the global nature of research and education, MITis likely to expand its international partnerships and tocreate new ones. We need to do this in a way that isaligned with our core mission and opens up newopportunities for the faculty and students.


10

Recombinant DNA Recombinant DNA technology (genesplicing) was a stunning new scientifictool in the 1970s. It enables scientists totransplant genes from one species intocells of a host organism of a differentspecies. The public, and many scientists,worried that splicing together DNA fromdifferent species might create new organ-isms that would pose fundamental risks tolife on our planet. Indeed, in 1973 a groupof highly respected scientists, includingmany of the leading researchers in thefield, established a voluntary moratoriumon classes of experimentation until therisks of gene splicing could be carefullyassessed.

Subsequently, Chemistry NobelLaureate Paul Berg of Stanford chaired acommittee that considered the issues andestablished a meeting at the AsilomarConference Center in California inFebruary 1975. About 140 scientistsfrom 13 countries, including Phil Sharpand David Baltimore of MIT, as well asattorneys, government officials, andmembers of the press attended. Thepurpose of this conference was to decidewhether to lift the moratorium, and if soto define experimental conditions andprotocols for safely conducting gene-splicing work.

Indeed the conferees decided that themoratorium should be lifted. They alsooutlined strict biosafety guidelines thatwere subsequently adopted by the U.S.National Institutes of Health, and ulti-mately were adopted in many other coun-tries. These remain the basis of guidelinesfollowed today.

Recombinant DNA technology hasflourished as a ubiquitous tool in biologi-cal research, as the basis of important newdrugs, diagnostics, and therapies, andindeed as the basis for the biotechnologyindustry of which Cambridge and Bostonform a major center. In recent years therehas been some controversy, especially inEurope, about its application to agricul-ture and nutrition, but on the whole it is

an accepted basis of important and wideranging scientific, medical, and agricul-tural endeavors.

It is noteworthy that:

• The Asilomar meeting and process, inmy view, were wise and successful.

• The process was driven by key scientists.• The moratorium and conference

focused on both fundamental and prac-tical risk assessment and safety.

• The conclusions of the AsilomarConference were reached by consensus,but were not unanimous.

• Some historians and policy experts havecriticized the work as having paid insuf-ficient attention to ethical and legal con-siderations, and to implications forbiological warfare.

• National governments adopted regulationsbased on the Asilomar recommendations.

• The process engendered considerablepublic trust.

CFCs and the Ozone LayerIncredibly complex and delicate balancesmaintain our environment and the lifeforms that have evolved on earth. Inrecent history, humans have applied sci-entific knowledge and engineering princi-ples to develop technologies that extendour capabilities, help us adapt to unwel-coming environments, build oureconomies, and increase our comfort.Sometimes our technologies upset thedelicate balance in unexpected ways.Refrigeration turned out to be an unex-pected example of such unintended con-sequences.

Life on earth depends on the naturallyoccurring trace gas ozone that resides inour atmosphere and protects us frombeing exposed to too much ultravioletradiation. Refrigeration is one of themost important technological develop-ments of the last century. It enables us toship and store food, improves ourcomfort and health, and is critical tomany industries.

In the 1930s new chlofluorocarbonrefrigerants (CFCs) were developed andheralded as “wonder chemicals” because,

unlike the noxious refrigerants used inearlier refrigeration, they were nontoxic,nonflammable, and very useful.However, in 1973 at the University ofCalifornia, Irvine, Sherwood Rowlandand Mario Molina (who subsequentlymoved to MIT and became an InstituteProfessor) hypothesized that by acomplex process human-made CFCswere causing a depletion of atmosphericozone. Molina, Rowland, and PaulCrutzen shared the 1995 Nobel Prize inchemistry for this work.

These scientists engaged the public,industry, and the political process to callattention to the dangers of ozone deple-tion and to stop it and allow the environ-ment to heal. In 1977 the United Nations,through its environmental program(UNEP) established the CoordinatingCommittee on the Ozone Layer. In 1978the U.S., Canada, and severalScandinavian countries banned spraycans with CFC propellants. In 1985, theUNEP Vienna Convention on theProtection of the Ozone Layer was signedto promote cooperative research, develop-ment of alternate refrigerants, legal andpolicy matters, and to facilitate technol-ogy transfer.

In 1987, 24 countries signed theMontreal Protocol on Substances thatDeplete the Ozone Layer. This protocolfroze consumption of key CFCs at 1986levels, and reduced consumption by 50percent over 10 years. Less developednations were given a longer time to stopusing CFCs than wealthier nations.Amazingly, the elimination of CFCsaccelerated. Europe phased out CFCs by1995, and the U.S. production was zeroby 1996.

Mario Molina has stated “The Protocoldemonstrates how the different sectors ofsociety – industrialists, scientists, environ-mentalists and policy makers – can beproductive by working together, ratherthan functioning in adversary mode.”


• Science and scientists drove the process.• The U.N. played a key role.

Science, Technology, EthicsVest, from page 1


11

• The science was still somewhat specula-tive while the treaty was being negotiated.

• Industry came on board once the sciencewas clear.

• The world moved forward to reduce risk.• New technologies for replacing and recy-

cling existing CFCs were important tosolving the problem.

Deployment of the World Wide WebLet me end with a very different kind ofsuccess story – that of the World WideWeb (WWW). The Web is a world-chang-ing technology that seems to have evolvedas a public good through a remarkablysuccessful global collaboration. Its rapid,massive deployment followed an unusu-ally good path in large measure because ofthe vision and leadership of Tim Berners-Lee, and a somewhat unique culture andworldview that dominated much of thecomputer science community.

In 1980, Tim Berners-Lee began thework at CERN in Geneva that was to formthe basis of the WWW. In 1989 heauthored an internal memo, InformationManagement: A Proposal, that noted that“Many of the discussions of the future atCERN and the LHC [Large HadronCollider] era end with the question ‘Yes,but how will we ever keep track of such alarge project?’” He proposed that hyper-text would be the key, and that CERNengineers and scientists should involvethemselves with hypertext “so that indi-vidually and collectively we may under-stand what we are creating.” In my view,this latter injunction is a critically impor-tant one that all too often has not beenadvanced or heeded in development ofother technologies.

In 1993, Berners-Lee and two studentsbegan work on the line-mode browser.That same year the first World Wide WebWizards Workshop was held here inCambridge, MA. In 1994, Marc Andersenformed Mosaic Communications Corp.that later became Netscape, another inter-national conference “Woodstock of theWeb” was held at CERN, and the legislatorMartin Bangemann of Germany reportedon the European Union’s InformationSuperhighway plan.

Also in 1994, as a result of leadershipfrom our late colleague MichaelDertouzos, and many others around theworld, MIT and CERN announced anagreement to establish the World Wide

Web Consortium (W3C) to “lead theWorld Wide Web to its full potential bydeveloping protocols and guidelines thatensure long-term growth for the Web.”The W3C is headquartered in MIT’sComputer Science and ArtificialIntelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and isjointly administered by CSAIL, theEuropean Research Consortium forInformatics and Mathematics (ERCM) inFrance, and Keio University in Japan.

Few technologies have so rapidly trans-formed the way we work, live, learn, andplay as the WWW.


• Deployment of the Web was driven bykey technical players (in an engineeringand computer science culture).

• The vision for the Web was global fromthe very beginning.

• There were international discussionsthroughout.

• Informal and formal cooperation amongCERN, MIT, the European Commission,DARPA, and others enabled the estab-lishment of the W3C.

• Those who developed the Web werededicated to open, vendor-neutralstandards.

• The consortium is voluntary and global.

Questions, Lessons, andRecommendationsAmong the questions raised by these briefcase studies are:

• Could the Asilomar process work todaywhen most scientific communities are solarge and even more globally dispersedthan in the past?

• What is different about today’s globalwarming challenges and that of CFCphase out? Is it the magnitude of near-term economic consequences? Is it thegreater complexity and economics of

mitigating technologies?• Why did ideology apparently play a less

dominant role in the CFC debates thanin today’s issues?

• Could the informal, multi-national, multi-sector discussions that led to the WorldWide Web Consortium occur today?

• How should we decide when technologydeployment should be open, and when itshould be market driven?

Despite today’s changing context, theseexamples suggest some recommendationsand remind me of important responsibil-ities we have as faculty and leaders inscience, technology, and policy:

• Above all, maintain the integrity andobjectivity of research and scholarship.

• Maintain the openness of our campus,scientific communities, and scholarlycommunication.

• Promote governmental and industrialinvestment in the future and createopportunity – globally.

• Help the public to understand risk.• Maintain continual, respectful dialog

with the public and political leaders.• Fight – without arrogance – the rise of

anti-rationality.• Create cultures of innovation.• Recognize the increasing role of industry

and NGOs in policy matters, innovation,and problem solving.

• Continue to build and sustain good colleagueship with rising nations.

Charles M. Vest is President Emeritus andProfessor of Mechanical Engineering([email protected]).

Editor’s Note: This article was based on a talkgiven by Prof. Vest at a dinner sponsored bythe Ethics Lab at MIT held on April 11, 2006.

The W3C [World Wide Web Consortium] isheadquartered in MIT’s Computer Science andArtificial Intelligence Laboratory. . . .

M IT RAN KS 4TH I N the latest U.S. News& World Report undergraduate rankings,announced in the magazine’s “America’sBest Colleges” issue published in lateAugust. Tied with CalTech and Stanford,the Institute ranking is just below tradi-tional leaders Princeton, Harvard, andYale, and is significantly improved fromlast year’s decade-low ranking of 7th.

MIT is consistently ranked in the top10 of colleges, with its highest ranking of3rd occurring in 2000. See “M.I.T.Numbers” (back page) for a chartshowing the rankings over the last decade.

MIT ranked even higher when theundergraduate engineering programs andbusiness programs were considered. TheInstitute ranked 1st in the BestUndergraduate Engineering School cate-gory (see chart, next column), and 2nd inthe Best Undergraduate Business Schoolcategory (see chart, next page).

Categories (and weights) used by U.S.News to judge colleges include:

• Peer assessment (25%)• Faculty resources (20%)• Graduation and retention rate (20%)• Student Selectivity (15%)• Financial resources (10%)• Alumni giving (5%)• Graduation rate performance (5%)

U.S. News also rated individual engineer-ing and business departments. [Note thatnot all programs are rated each year.]Several of the Institute’s programs inthese areas were ranked in the top five.They are:

Engineering

• Aerospace/Aeronautical/Astronomical (1st)• Biomedical/Biomedical Engineering (4th)

[tied with Georgia Tech]• Chemical Engineering(1st)• Civil Engineering (4th) [tied with

Stanford and U. of Texas, Austin]• Computer Engineering (1st)• Electrical/Electronic/Communications (1st)• Environmental/Environmental Health (2nd)• Materials (2nd) [tied with Berkeley]• Mechanical Engineering (1st)

Business

• Entrepreneurship (5th)• Finance (5th)

• Management Information Systems (1st)• Productions/Operations Management

(1st)• Quantitative Analysis (1st)• Supply Chain (2nd)

Graduate RankingsMIT faired equally well in the U.S. Newsgraduate school rankings, announced lastApril. The Institute ranked first in the BestGraduate Engineering School category(see chart, next page) and has consistentlydone so over the past decade. The SloanSchool at MIT was ranked 4th this year inthe Best Graduate Business School cate-gory [tied with Northwestern], and hasbeen ranked between 3rd and 5th over thelast 10 years.

12

Year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ran

k

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

MIT Berkeley Stanford CalTech Illinois

Georgia Tech Michigan CarnegieMellon Purdue Cornell

Undergraduate Engineering Schools

Newsletter StaffMIT Shines in Latest U.S. News Ranking


13

Individual MIT graduate engineering andbusiness programs that were ranked in thetop five, include:

Engineering

• Aeronautics and Astronautics (2nd)• Chemical Engineering (1st)• Civil Engineering (4th) [tied with

Georgia Tech and U. of Texas, Austin]• Computer Engineering (1st)• Electrical Engineering (1st)• Materials Engineering (1st)• Mechanical Engineering (1st)• Nuclear Engineering (1st)

Business

• Information Systems (1st)• Production/Operations (1st)• Supply Chain/Logistics (1st)

In addition, non-engineering or busi-ness programs were also rated by U.S.News. Several MIT departments rankedin the top five in this category as well,including:

• Biology (2nd) [tied with Berkeley andHarvard]

• Chemistry (1st) [tied with theBerkeley]

• Computer Science (1st) [tied with theBerkeley, Carnegie-Mellon, andStanford]

• Earth Sciences (2nd) [tied withStanford]

• Math (1st)• Physics (1st) [tied with Stanford]

Preparation of this article included contribu-tions by Greg Harris. Data was taken fromthe 2007 edition of the U.S. News & WorldReport’s “America’s Best Colleges.” Chartsused were prepared by members of theOffice of the Provost/Institutional Research.

Year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ran

k

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

UPenn MIT Berkeley Michigan NYU

Texas UNC CarnegieMellon USC UVA

Undergraduate Business Schools

Year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Ran

k

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

MIT Stanford Berkeley Ga. Inst. Tech. U. Ill.-Urb.-Cham.

U. Mich-Ann Arbor Purdue CarnegieMellon USC CalTech

Graduate Engineering Schools


14

Samuel Jay KeyserHouse Mastering Recollected in Tranquility

“But that was in another country, andbeside the mensch is dead.”

IT HAS B E E N A sixth of a century sinceI was housemaster at Senior House.Times change and so does house master-ing. This is a reminiscence of what it waslike then.

The day after we moved in I received avisit from the president of the house. Ioffered him a cup of tea. He declined. Hewanted to get straight to business. He toldme that my job as housemaster was tostay in the apartment, enjoy its appoint-ments, and whenever the house neededmy help in protecting it from the greatSatan across the street – that was theInstitute – he would let me know. I toldhim that I would try in every instance tobe fair. He looked at me as if I were anexhibit at Madame Tussaud’s WaxMuseum.

The second week I gave a picnic for thestudents, a social at which the students inthe house might get to know one another(and me) better. It was held in the court-yard, a friendly, leafy area comfortablyenclosed by the house itself and the wallsthat surround the Gray House garden. Atone point two young men came up to me.I asked them about a course I knew theywere both taking. The conversation wentsomething like this:

First student: I think it’s a great course,one of the best I’ve had so far.

Second student: I think it’s a lousycourse, the worst yet.

First student: Well, you’re an ***hole.Second student: F*** you.They stalked off, leaving me with two

unclaimed hot dogs.

Life as housemaster often demandedthat you make split-second decisions onmatters of life, death, or serious injury. Inthis instance I ate one of the hot dogs andgave the second to a passing student.

There were other occasions that testedmy mettle. I recall one evening when Ireceived an urgent summons from astudent in Runkle, one of the house’s ver-tical living divisions. The student said thatI had to come over right away, that hisgirlfriend kept passing out.

When I got to the room, sure enoughshe was lying unconscious on the floor.

“She was O.K. a minute ago,” hepleaded.

I picked up the telephone and calledthe emergency number for Medical. I toldthem the situation and asked them tosend an ambulance immediately.

“Is the student conscious now?” thenurse asked.

“Yes,” I said. She had, indeed, openedher eyes.

“In that case we can’t send an ambu-lance. You’ll have to walk her over.”

“Got it,” I said.I hung up.She passed out.I punched redial.“She’s unconscious again,” I said. “Can

you get an ambulance over here rightaway?”

Just then she sat up.“Never mind,” I said.I remember this event not only

because of the oddity of a young womanpassing in and out of consciousness (inthe end she stayed awake long enough forme to walk her the one block to Medical),but because of her boyfriend. He seemed

conflicted, as if having a girlfriend whoexhibited such behavior was both a privi-lege and a problem.

About a year after this incident a mancame to my door, flashed an officiallooking badge and told me that theboyfriend had applied for a sensitive joband he needed to ask me some questions.

After a few perfunctory ones relating tothe student’s study habits and ability towork with others, he asked, “Would youtrust him with atomic weapons?”

“Absolutely not,” I blurted out.The agent’s eyebrows shot up.“Why not?”“I wouldn’t trust anyone with atomic

weapons.”Like I said, housemasters have to be

fast on their feet.I was housemaster during the heavy

drug use days. There were always peoplehanging about in the shadows of the treeson Memorial Drive, especially duringparties. One could never be sure if theywere plainclothesmen or drug dealers.One dealt with it as best one could. Iremember one incident, a student disap-pearance. The grapevine had it that thisstudent was dealing drugs in the houseand that he had somehow come into con-flict with his supplier. One winterweekend he went north with some friendsto Mt. Washington and during a trail hiketo the top, peeled off on his own. He wasnever heard from again. Search partieswent looking for him and were subse-quently called off. People were sure he hadfrozen to death. During the winter of hisdisappearance I received a call fromMedical informing me that a frozencorpse had been found up a tree on the


15

mountain. The authorities said the unfor-tunate hiker had climbed the tree to gethis bearing. He froze to death in theprocess. I was certain it wasn’t ourstudent. I was sure he had staged his owndisappearance. His body was never foundand to the best of my knowledge that isstill true.

The student’s disappearance was wellwithin the spirit of the house’s motto;namely, “Sport Death.” It appears mostfrequently on a banner at Senior House’sannual steer roast. On the banner is adeath’s head, decorated in the colors of theAmerican flag and with “Sport Death”painted in broad white strokes. I remem-ber asking the students where the mottocame from and being told that it was inmemory of a Senior House student whohad gone skydiving one weekend withseveral of his fellows. His chute didn’topen and he plummeted to his death. Thenext day his undeterred colleagues wereup in the air and skydiving to beat the

band. That was “Sport Death,” thumbingone’s nose in the face of extremity.

I was suspicious. The story soundedlike a tribal myth. I went to the Dean’sOffice and asked for the names of all stu-dents who had been killed in a skydivingincident in the last 50 years. Not surpris-ingly there was none. Armed with thisinformation I returned to Senior Houseand, when the time seemed appropriate,I laid it on the table. I might as well havetold five year olds there was no SantaClaus. That was when I learned thatscience’s relentless search for the unvar-nished truth stopped at our living groupdoor.

Every year the President of MIT –then it was Paul Gray – gave a tea in thepresident’s garden for the parents ofincoming freshmen. A high stonewallseparated the garden from the dormi-tory. Only it wasn’t high enough. Eachyear several students dressed up asfigures in the Rocky Horror Picture

Show, scaled the wall and mingled withthe parents. The idea was to snarf freefood, embarrass the President, and epaterle bourgeois. A trifecta. Of course, it fellto me to deal with it. I am sorry to saythat the best I could do was to minglewith the parents as well and, whenever Isaw a particularly uncomfortable parent,I would intervene and explain that thestudents were rehearsing for a play.

Several of my friends are housemas-ters. They have sought these positions.They have even asked my advice when itcomes to the day-to-day management ofthings. I often see them in the corridorsthese days. I notice that there are no darkpatches under their eyes, no telltalestoop of the shoulders, no desperatelook as if they were being hunted. Some-thing has changed. Maybe it’s the times.Maybe it’s me.

Samuel Jay Keyser is a Professor Emeritus ofLinguistics and Philosopy and Special Assistantto the Chancellor ([email protected]).

Teaching this fall? You should know …the faculty regulates examinations and assignments for all subjects.

Check the Web at web.mit.edu/faculty/termregs for the complete regulations.Questions: Contact Faculty Chair Steve Lerman at x3-4277 or [email protected].

First and Third Week of the TermBy the end of the first week of classes, you must provide a clear and complete description of:

• required work, including the number and kinds of assignments;• an approximate schedule of tests and due dates for major projects;• whether or not there will be a final examination; and• grading criteria.

By the end of the third week, you must provide a precise schedule of tests and major assignments.

For all Undergraduate Subjects, Tests Outside Scheduled Class Times:• may begin no earlier than 7:30 P.M., when held in the evening;• may not be held on Monday evenings;• may not exceed two hours in length; and• must be scheduled through the Schedules Office.

No Testing During the Last Week of ClassesTests after Friday, December 8 must be scheduled in the Finals Period.


16

Newsletter StaffFOGS Report Highlights Graduate StudentCost Issues

T H E C O S T O F S U P P O R T I N G aResearch Assistant (RA) on a grant orcontract at MIT is higher than for many ofits peer competitors, according to therecently released Committee on theFunding of Graduate Students at MIT(FOGS) report. Another key finding sug-gests that while MIT is somewhat uniqueamong its peers in lacking some type ofreduced tuition policy for advanced grad-uate students, the establishment of anInstitute-wide reduced tuition (“All-But-Dissertation” or ABD) rate is not finan-cially feasible due to the tuition revenuethat would be foregone. However, theCommittee recommends that MITexplore the possibility of reduced tuitionpolicies for those departments who relymore on internal funds for support.Furthermore, the Committee recom-mends that MIT consider reducing thenon-resident tuition rate, consulting withthose Schools or departments mostaffected by the policy. (The entire finalcommittee report and a list of committeemembers can be found at:web.mit.edu/provost/reports/ FOGS.pdf.)

The Increasing Cost of an RA toResearch Grants It is important to continually compare thecost of supporting a Research Assistant(RA) on a research grant at MIT with thecost at our peer universities, because thisis a key factor in calibrating the Institute’sability to compete for research funds.(Part of the reason MIT stands out from itspeers is that MIT has a larger number ofResearch Assistants [see figure, next page].)

A recent history of the cost of an RAcharged to a research grant at MIT indi-

cates that this cost has increased by 45%from FY00 to FY06, an increase that is

likely much greater than the increase ofthe average grant.

The tuition paid by research grants,currently at the rate of 55%, is a majorsource of income to MIT. At current levelsof RA appointments, every 5% change inthe academic year tuition subsidy causes a$4M variance in the tuition revenue thatMIT receives from grants. It is clear thatvarying the tuition subsidy is one way forMIT to directly influence the number ofRAs our grants can afford to support andtherefore influence the size of the gradu-ate population. However, as the compara-tive RA costs indicate, MIT’s cost iscurrently close to the most expensive

among top research universities (seefigure, below), and therefore any further

reduction in the subsidy would threatento price MIT out of the market.

Regulating the Size of the GraduatePopulationWhile variation in departmental supportprofiles certainly exists within Schoolsthemselves, it is clear that there is a con-tinuum of support profiles across MITthat ranges from support structures basedheavily on external funding of RAs tothose which are much more dependent oninternal MIT funds for graduate support(see “M.I.T. Numbers,” MIT FacultyNewsletter, Vol. XVIII, No. 5). In theSchool of Engineering and the School of

$39,360

$52,728 $53,472 $54,039$55,727

$57,604$58,806 $59,673 $59,378

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

Harvard Cornell Cal Tech Penn Yale MIT Princeton Stanford Columbia

Supporting Research Assistants on Grants and Contracts (2005-2006)Total Costs (Direct and Indirect)

$57,604


17

Science, in which the greatest number ofgraduate students reside, the majority ofgraduate support is provided in the formof RAs supported by sponsored grants

and contracts. By contrast, in the Schoolof Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences(SHASS), Architecture and Planning(with the exception of the Media Lab),and the Sloan School of Management, themajority of graduate support is providedby internal MIT funds in the form of fel-lowships and Teaching Assistantships(TAs). Furthermore, the data show thatthe School of Architecture and Planningand SHASS have considerably higher pro-portions of students receiving no supportfrom MIT than the other Schools. (A thirddistinct culture involves Master’s degreeprograms, addressed briefly in the report.)

The number of graduate students hasrisen in recent years, with the clearestgrowth in Engineering. Increases in thegraduate (and postdoctoral) populationcorrelate highly with increases in overall

research volume at MIT, yet the number offaculty have remained level. The commit-tee believes that the number of RAs shouldgenerally be allowed to increase (or

decrease) with the availability of researchfunds, in order to let “market forces”decide which areas of research ought to besupporting more (or fewer) students.Areas of MIT that depend most heavily oninternal support for graduate students(primarily within Architecture &Planning, SHASS, and Sloan) are willing tolimit enrollments over time (and haveessentially been doing so) in order to beable to secure a predictable graduatefunding base and enroll a critical mass ofPhD students.

Providing a Reasonable Standard ofLiving for our Graduate StudentsBecause the cost of living in the Bostonarea is one of the highest in the nation, itis critical for MIT to monitor these costson a regular basis and adjust its recom-

mended stipend rates accordingly. Whilewe need to support our graduate studentswith levels of income that are competitivewith our peer institutions (see figure, next

page, for comparative stipend rates), weneed to be acutely aware of the particularfinancial challenges faced by studentsliving in the Boston area and make surethat our stipend rates provide our stu-dents with the ability to meet reasonableliving standards.

Reduced Tuition Rates and Non-residentStatusWith the exception of Cornell andPrinceton, MIT is apparently uniqueamong its peer competitors in lacking areduced tuition policy (commonly knownas “All-But-Dissertation” or ABD status),once students reach a certain stage ofprogress or time in the program. One ofthe barriers to having such a policy at MIThas been its potential to erode the income

$50.0

$45.0

$40.0

$35.0

$30.0

$25.0

$20.0

$15.0

$10.0

$5.0

$0.0Columbia Princeton MIT Penn Yale CalTech Stanford Cornell Harvard

$8.6 $8.9$7.0$7.0

$35.5

$43.4

$8.1$8.1$6.0$6.0

$8.3$10.5

$14.0

$33.1

$19.5$19.5$21.0

$0.0

Foregone Tuition for RAs Tuition Revenue from RAs

Estimated Tuition Revenue and Foregone Tuition from Research Assistantships (FY2006)

Mill

ions

Princeton 430

Yale 430

Penn 494

Columbia 546

CalTech 689

Harvard 816

Cornell 1249

Stanford 1658

MIT 2445

Average Numberof RAs

continued on next page


18

stream that the Institute realizes from RAtuition charged to grants. In addition,some believe that an ABD policy may havea counterproductive impact for some stu-dents on the time taken to complete a

degree, if it were to become financiallyeasier to remain enrolled in the latterstages of the dissertation. The Committeeevaluated the fiscal impact of an ABDpolicy and results indicate that an across-the-board tuition reduction for advancedgraduate students would not be finan-cially realistic. Therefore, the Committeerecommends that MIT explore the possi-bility of negotiating reduced tuition poli-cies that are tailored to the areas of theInstitute that have limited sources of grad-uate support (especially for later-year stu-dents) and could benefit the most from anABD tuition strategy, but would havelimited impact on the overall MIT budget.

For example, the committee recom-mends exploring the possibility of disser-tation writers in selected areas of MITregistering for a minimum number ofcredit units, targeted at a reduced tuitionrate. If such options are adopted, MITshould consider limiting them to a spe-cific number of terms per student, anddesign policies that do not act as disincen-tives for students to complete theirdegrees. Thesis proposal acceptance is apossible requirement that could be an

incentive for receiving the reduced tuitionrate. Alternatively, a special dissertationyear fellowship could be established forqualified candidates who have reached thedissertation writing stage who would liketo devote full-time to writing. A disserta-tion fellowship for a limited amount oftime might ameliorate the issue of

increased time to degree due to teachingresponsibilities that can impede progressin the humanities and social science fields.The School of Architecture & Planningand SHASS have larger proportions ofstudents who take eight or more years tocomplete their degrees.

Closely related to the ABD question isthe Non-Resident tuition policy. A signifi-cant number of students choose non-resi-dent status because their departments canno longer afford to support them. But thesestudents must remain registered at MIT tomaintain student status, but may notreceive other financial support throughMIT, including loans and teaching assist-antships. Thus the non-resident statussometimes serves as a surrogate ABDstatus. In addition, if a student receives anoutside fellowship for dissertation support,they must pay the non-resident tuition andare left with very limited income.

The number of students claiming non-resident status has not significantlyincreased in recent years (see the report fordetailed data). The average number oftimes students’ claimed non-resident statusover the last three years is about 200, with

revenue realized by MIT from all non-resi-dent students averaging about $500,000per year. It seems to the Committee thatthis income is small relative to the financialhardship it seems to impose on these stu-dents. The Committee recommends thatMIT consider reducing the non-residenttuition rate. For example, if the non-resi-dent tuition rate were reduced from thecurrent 15% of the normal tuition rate to5%, this would result in a loss in annualincome to MIT of about $310,000 per year.Furthermore, any possible policy changes,both with a reduced tuition rate or non-resident status, should be negotiated withthe individual Schools or departmentsaffected by the change.

Maintaining MIT’s Status as a PremierResearch InstitutionWhile MIT-based fellowship support forfirst-year PhD students has been thenormal mode of support for several yearsin the Schools of Management,Architecture & Planning, and SHASS,there is an expressed, increasing need inScience and Engineering to make fellow-ship support available to their doctoralgraduate students – for the first year inparticular. Within its fundraising efforts,MIT should assert the importance ofgraduate student support, especially fel-lowships, and explore possible incentivesto departments designed to enhance theseefforts. This message should emphasizethe importance of our graduate studentsto the core educational and research mis-sions of MIT, and the critical need to con-tinue to attract the very best graduatestudents to MIT, regardless of field. MIT’sstrength as an educational institutionderives in large part from the great diver-sity of its academic and research pro-grams, and this diversity is reflected in thedifferent financial needs of our graduateprograms. A strong fundraising effortfocused on graduate support will be vitalto MIT’s continued strength.

Preparation of this article included contribu-tions by Doug Pfeiffer and Mandy Smith.Charts used were prepared by members of theOffice of the Provost/Institutional Research.

FOGS Reportcontinued from preceeding page

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

Cal

-B

erke

ley

Cor

nell

Har

vard

*

MIT

Prin

ceto

n*

Sta

nfor

d

TARA

Average Academic Year Graduate Stipends (2005)

*Note: Harvard’s and Princeton’s figures are based on the reported stipend amount (i.e., whattheir policy is on the standard stipend rate), rather than the actual average of what they pay.


19

Lydia SnoverNational Research Council to Assess U.S. Research Doctorate Programs

THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL,

which is part of the National Academies,has begun a project to assess U.S. researchdoctorate programs. A similar assessmentwas conducted in 1983 and 1995. In 1983MIT had 13 doctoral programs ranked.Four of the programs were ranked 1st,and no programs were ranked less than10th. In 1995, MIT had 22 programsranked with six ranked 1st and eightranked 2nd. No program was rankedlower than 14th. MIT will submit data for32 programs for the current study.

Unlike the previous efforts in 1983and 1995, which were based primarily onreputation surveys, the new study will

have no reputation component andinstead use data collected directly frominstitutions, programs and faculty. MIT’sparticipation in this project is being over-seen by Claude Canizares, AssociateProvost and Vice President for Research,and the Institutional Research group inthe Office of the Provost has been taskedwith coordinating MIT’s data collectionand submissions.

Although the NRC has not determinedhow they will use the data they collect forthis study, the rankings will rely heavily onmeasures related to faculty productivity(publications, citations, research funding)and quality (honors and awards) as well as

program characteristics, including doc-toral student support, time to degree,retention, and placement.

MIT will submit data at the institutionand program level and faculty involved indoctoral education will be asked toprovide a range of data related to theirrole in doctoral education. The initial datacollection began in the summer of 2006and is expected to conclude by late winter.Additional information on the study canbe found at: www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/index.html.

Lydia Snover is Director of InstitutionalResearch ([email protected]).

1982 NRC RANKINGS 1993 NRC RANKINGS U.S. NEWS GRADUATE PROGRAMSREPUTATIONAL RANKINGS

Discipline Faculty Quality ProgramEffectiveness Faculty Quality Program

Effectiveness1994, 1995,

or 1996 2005 or 2006

Engineering

Biomedical Engineering 1 2 4 8

Chemical Engineering 7 8 2 2.5 1 1

Civil Engineering 2 3 1 1 2 4

Materials Science 1 1 1 1

Aerospace Engineering 2 2 1 2

Electrical Engineering 1 2 2 2 1 1

Mechanical Engineering 1 2 2 3 1 1

Humanities and Social Sciences

Economics 1 1 3 1 1 1

Political Science 6 6.5 12 11 8 10

Life Sciences

Neurosciences 14 14 9

Physical Sciences and Math.

Computer Sciences 2 2 2 1 1 1

Mathematics 3 4 3 4 1 1

Physics 5 5.5 3.5 3 1 1

Chemistry 4 3 5 3 2 1

Comparison of Selected NRC and U.S. News Rankings


20

Jane DunphyTeach TalkSupporting MIT’s International GraduateStudents: Communicating Within andAcross Cultures

I N H E R P I E C E I N the March/Aprilissue of the Faculty Newsletter, DanielleGuichard-Ashbrook provides an overviewof the impact of Homeland Security’sSEVIS system on international studentapplications and visas to attend MIT. Shetouched on two central pillars of ourculture. First, international graduate stu-dents are valued partners in our missionto work with educators and researchersacross national boundaries to address theworld’s major challenges. Second, MIT iscommitted to providing an excellent edu-cational and research environment here inCambridge for all members of its diversestudent community.

Another defining feature of MIT’sculture is the assumption that all graduatestudents will contribute to MIT’s intellec-tual and creative environment in a varietyof ways, such as challenging the statusquo, collaborating in research, publishing,interacting in seminars, and teachingundergraduates. Adequate English com-munication skills are essential for engag-ing in these activities at MIT and beyond.

MIT currently has 2212 internationalstudents enrolled. Table 1 provides thenumber of students from the five coun-tries with the largest representation. Thisinformation encapsulates the range inEnglish proficiency of our internationalstudent population. Many speak Englishas a second (or additional) language (e.g.,Chinese, Korean, and French students); asubstantial number are functionally bilin-gual or native speakers, like those fromIndia and Canada.

Regardless of mother tongue, manyinternational graduate students engage

assertively and successfully in the commu-nication culture here starting in their firstsemester.

Others, however, struggle to under-stand and participate effectively in MIT’sintellectual environment. A variety of lin-guistic and cultural factors can determinewhether someone is an effective commu-nicator, in general, and whether studentscan adjust easily to MIT’s communicationculture:

• Native language • Pedagogical and communication cul-

tures of home countries• Prior exposure to English spoken and

written by native English speakers• Personality and talents• Motivation and interest • Communication environment in MIT

dorms, lab groups, and departments

How do we help international gradu-ate students participate in the com-munication culture here?There’s no question that MIT’s enteringinternational graduate students are expert

learners who have studied hard to meetthe requirements of admission. But they,and their advisors, are frequently unawarethat the English test-taking skills thatallowed them to succeed in the TOEFLtest and the GRE may be inadequate forthe flexible, interactive production ofEnglish required in this lively educationaland research community.

The first step is to ensure, in a timelymanner, that students who need helpknow that they need help. The EnglishEvaluation Test (EET), administered eachsemester by the English Language Studies(ELS) group in the Foreign Languages &Literatures section of the HumanitiesDepartment, provides each student andadvisor with an assessment of thestudent’s English skills.

The EET Since 1984, the Committee on GraduateStudent Programs (CGSP) has requiredall entering international graduate stu-dents whose primary language of instruc-tion from the age of six through highschool has not been English to take theEET. The EET focuses on academicEnglish and is composed of three partsthat measure comprehension and pro-duction: a multiple-choice assessment oflistening and reading comprehension, aswell as accuracy in sentence structure; awriting task; and an interview. The testidentifies weaknesses in discrete areas ofEnglish that may contribute to problemswith some aspects of a student’s coursework, teaching, or research.

Students do not “pass” or “fail” theEET. Rather, the assessment provides

Country# of

InternationalStudents

% of Total International

Students

China (PRC) 308 14%

Korea 226 10%

India 221 10%

Canada 200 9%

France 106 5%

Table 1. Countries with the largest studentrepresentation at MIT (2005-2006)Source: Office of the Provost/IR (2006)


21

them and their advisors with predictiveinformation to inform subject choices onRegistration Day and decisions aboutteaching and research assistantships. (SeeEET FAQs at web.mit.edu/fll/www/lan-guages/EETFAQ.html for more details.)

Course Offerings in the EnglishLanguage Studies Program (ELS)Our English language subjects aredesigned for the intermediate throughadvanced or functionally bilingualEnglish speakers that form a substantialpart of MIT’s multicultural student body.The major goal of the program is to fosteraccuracy, facility, appropriateness, andconfidence in a variety of academic andprofessional contexts. Any studentearning a degree at MIT can register forone of the subjects listed in Figure 1.These are regular grade- and credit-bearing classes that meet according to theMIT academic calendar.

All subjects are designed to provide agreat deal of practice and feedback in tar-geted skill areas. Students are not expectedto achieve native accuracy or fluency; norare they expected to “sound likeAmericans.” Those goals would be entirelyunrealistic. Instead, we focus on strength-ening or modifying the aspects of stu-dents’ English – for example, listeningcomprehension or pronunciation – thatprevent easy communication. For some stu-dents, one ELS course will be insufficient.

Generally, one course cannot be easilysubstituted for another. For example,Intermediate Spoken & WrittenCommunication (21F211) is recom-mended for students whose EET resultsindicate that their academic English skillsare inadequate in all categories. Few enter-ing MIT graduate students fall into this

category, but those who do truly need toimprove all skills as soon as possible!None of the other ELS subjects covers thesame intermediate level material.

Table 2 indicates the patterns of eligibleinternational graduate students who havetaken the EET over the past five years.Note that, in the last two years, the Englishskills of almost 1/3 of these students havebeen assessed as adequate for understand-ing lectures; teaching recitations or labs;holding office hours, interacting effec-

tively in research groups; delivering oralpresentations; and writing memos,research papers, reports and thesis.Therefore no recommendations weremade. A performance level of “Adequate”does not imply that these students will beexcellent as recitation or lab instructors,presenters of research or writers of grantproposals. Few graduate students fromany countries, including the U.S., havestudied best practices in pedagogy, aca-demic speaking or writing.

Most recommendations resulting fromthe EET are made for the three high-inter-mediate subjects in the middle tier. Astudent receiving a recommendation forany of these subjects is likely to haveenough difficulty understanding or con-tributing to essential communicationsthat action is required as soon as possible.Students acting on these recommenda-tions often start with High-IntermediateAcademic Communication (21F214),which is designed to develop accuracy andflexibility in all English skills. Some stu-dents continue with English studies insubsequent semesters, narrowing theirfocus to either writing or speaking/listen-ing comprehension at the high-interme-diate level before moving on to theadvanced subjects.

Writing Tasks Important for GraduateAcademic SuccessThe curriculum for writing instructionand practice throughout the three levels inthe ELS program is designed to develop

Intermediate Spoken andWritten Communication

(21F211)

High-IntermediateAcademic Communication

(21F214)

Workshop in WrittenCommunication

(21F219)

Listening, Speaking,Pronunciation

(21F224)

Writing for Science and Engineering

(21F225)

Writing for SocialSciences and Architecture

(21F227)

Advanced Speaking andCritical Listening

(21F232)

Figure 1. Main ELS subjects, from intermediate (top) to advanced (bottom)

Academic Year ’01-’02 ’02-’03 ’03-’04 ’04-’05 ’05-’06

InternationalStudents 2244 2283 2242 2178 2212

Students TakingEET 331 307 267 306 312

Recommendations:Intermediate

Subjects143 112 103 155 149

NoRecommendations

Made47 81 48 85 93

Table 2. Enrolled International Graduate Students and the EET (2001-2006)

continued on next page


22

and strengthen those skills identified asmost important in an extensive survey ofAmerican professors. (Source: M. Rosenfeld,R. Courtney & M. Fowles. Identifying theWriting Tasks Important for AcademicSuccess at the Undergraduate and GraduateLevels. GRE Board Report No. 00-04R.)Students should be able to :

• Credit sources appropriately• Analyze and synthesize information

from multiple sources• Organize ideas and information

coherently• Develop a well-focused, well-supported

discussion, using relevant reasons andexamples

• Use grammar and syntax that follow therules of standard written English

• Write clearly, with smooth transitions• Avoid errors in mechanics• Write precisely and concisely• Abstract or summarize essential

information • Revise and edit text to improve its clarity,

coherence, and correctness

The Advanced ELS WorkshopsThe advanced ELS workshops (21F225,21F227, and 21F232) are best suited tostudents who are managing relatively wellin MIT’s communication culture, butwho wish to fine-tune accuracy in writingor listening and speaking; build morefluency; and develop confidence. Thesesubjects are most helpful to students whoare already engaged in research activitiesat MIT, i.e., students who have been atMIT for at least two semesters and havefinished much of their coursework.Interestingly, the advanced subjects regu-larly attract bilingual students who seekinstruction, practice, and feedback in aca-demic speaking and writing, even in theabsence of EET recommendations. Infact, the relative scarcity of graduate sub-jects in academic and professional com-munication Institute wide hasoccasionally resulted in American stu-

dents asking permission to register in oneof these advanced ELS workshops.

The writing workshops provide moti-vating contexts in which students learnand practice strategies for audience analy-sis, document design, and tone. They can

write about their own work in variousconventional forms such as memos, pro-posals, journal articles, research reports,and theses.

The Advanced Speaking & CriticalListening Skills workshop (21F232)focuses on effective communication inmeetings, seminars, classrooms, postersessions, conferences, and corporate con-texts. Many activities in class arerecorded onto DVDs, allowing easy, fre-quent, and timely analysis and feedback.A major component of 21F232 is thestudy and practice of the interactiveteaching and mentoring expected of arecitation TA. As part of the workshop,the course instructor visits the recitationsof students in 21F232 who are currentlyTAs, records their teaching, and meetswith them to discuss the recordedsession.

Another option for students interestedin working on their teaching skills is athree-unit Workshop in Strategies forEffective Teaching (21F230), offered eachIAP. It provides most of the instruction,materials, and practice that are covered inthe teaching unit of 21F232.

Other possibilities for academicEnglish language study at MITAside from taking formal subjects in theELS Program, MIT provides two other

ways to study academic English. First, theLanguage Learning & Resource Center(LLARC) in Building 16-644 offers freeaccess to an excellent collection of mate-rials for self-study, from low-tech options(textbooks, cassettes, and videos) to

interactive DVDs and computer pro-grams. (The Center’s catalogue andschedule are available atllarc.mit.edu/home.) In addition, theWriting & Communication Center inBuilding 32-081 offers free, individualconsultations on any kind of speaking orwriting task at any stage in its develop-ment. Tutors there do not edit students’documents; they work with students tostrategize, analyze, and improve them.They are also available to help studentsplan and deliver presentations. Anymember of the community, includingfamily members, may take advantage ofthe material and expertise available inthese two centers.

MIT’s goals are ambitious, and theworld’s challenges are, indeed, great. Tosucceed, we need to tap the intellectualrigor and creativity of every one of us.Confidence and facility in English, aswell as familiarity with academic com-munication norms, will go a long waytoward enabling all of our internationalgraduate students to contribute fully asmembers of our Cambridge communityand as partners in our internationalmission.

Supporting International Graduate StudentsDunphy, from preceeding page

Jane Dunphy is Director of English LanguageStudies ([email protected]).

The writing workshops provide motivatingcontexts in which students learn and practicestrategies for audience analysis, documentdesign, and tone. They can write about their ownwork in various conventional forms such asmemos, proposals, journal articles, researchreports, and theses.


23

Factory Girls

farm girls

leave hometo escape

arranged marriagesmaking thirty-five cents an hour

assembling iPods and sewing skimpy bustiersfor without-a-clue teen-agers

ripping off rap songssmoking pot

picking at

pimples

theylook

out fromtheir dorm rooms

at the gibbous moonand can think only of lyrics

in sad Canto-pop songs longing for romantic lovewhile their parents left on the farm

gaze at the same moonand know that

marketdaywill

come withthe new dawn

MIT Poetry

by Tunney Lee

Tunney Lee is a Professor Emeritusin Urban Studies and Planning.


24

Accolades for Nancy Hopkins

letters

To The Faculty Newsletter:

THAN K YOU SO M UCH for this article[“Diversification of a University Faculty:Observations on Hiring Women Facultyin the Schools of Science and Engineeringat MIT,” MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XVIII, No. 4]! As a recent graduatefrom MIT (PhD Course 6, 2005) this issuereally hits home for me since I constantlyevaluate the option of pursuing an aca-

demic career. I really believe that increas-ing the numbers of female facultymembers really lies in creating an envi-ronment in which a woman can not onlysucceed academically, but can also balancea life outside of her career. This is one ofthe major reasons why I have chosen topursue industrial research though I have aserious interest in teaching and mentor-ship of younger students. My advisor ingraduate school was female and chose to

wait until she received tenure beforehaving a family. Other women work inindustry while they raise their familiesand then try entering academia at a moresenior position once their children areolder.

I think a complete study on the leakypipeline needs also to consider the reasonswhy women leaked out.

Sheila Tandon

Dental Insurance Plan for Retirees?

Dr. Seldin,

I AG R E E WITH YOU R proposal in theMay/June Faculty Newsletter [“A ModestProposal: A Dental Insurance Plan for AllStudents”] that the Institute needs to findsome way to provide dental insurance forstudents. Your arguments are compelling.

However, I would like to call yourattention to a minor error in the discus-sion: in two places you say “...studentscomprise the only sub-set of our popula-tion that goes without the benefit of adental insurance offering.” There is asecond important subset of the MIT pop-ulation that does not have the benefit of adental insurance offering: retirees. (This is

a subset of the MIT community that youwill probably join one day.)

I find this omission similarly puz-zling, especially since there appears to bea low-cost way for MIT to provide at leastsome coverage for retirees: simply makeDelta Dental plan coverage available toretirees at cost. Because Delta Dentalnegotiates favorable prices with manydentists, those favorable prices wouldsignificantly lower the overall cost ofdental care for retirees without requiringthat MIT contribute any funds otherthan the cost of administration. MITalready provides retirees with up to 18months of dental coverage at cost underCOBRA, and it would seem straightfor-

ward to arrange for that coverage to con-tinue indefinitely.

Jerry SaltzerProfessor EmeritusDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Dr. Seldin Responds:

Thank you so much for pointing out theembarrassing omission of retirees in mycampaign of advocacy on behalf of students.Your point is well taken and your proposedsolution seems entirely reasonable to me.

Ed SeldinChief of Oral Surgery


25

In MemoriamVernon Martin Ingram

TH E FOLLOW I NG I S EXCE RPTE D from a

Memorial Resolution for Vernon MartinIngram presented at the September 20, 2006

meeting of the MIT faculty.

Vernon Martin Ingram, John and Dorothy

Wilson Professor of Biochemistry, one of the

founding fathers of Molecular Medicine,

passed away on August 17, 2006 at the age of

82. Vernon had been a member of the MIT

faculty for 48 years.

Vernon was born on May 19, 1924 in

Breslau, Germany. When Vernon was 14, he

and his family moved to London. Interested in

science since an early age, Vernon studied

chemistry at Birkbeck College, London

University where he received a B.Sc. in 1945

and a Ph.D. in organic chemistry in 1949.

After two years of postdoctoral research in

the United States, first at Rockefeller University

and then at Yale University, Vernon returned to

England in 1952 to work with Max Perutz at

the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge. It was

there, in a bicycle shed converted to a labora-

tory, that Vernon made the crucial discovery

that the blood disease sickle cell anemia was

caused by a single amino acid change in hemo-

globin. This discovery is heralded to be among

the seminal discoveries in molecular biology.

Vernon came to MIT in 1958. He mentions

that he came on a one-year sabbatical. It is our

good fortune that he ended up staying at MIT

for the rest of his life.

Vernon’s research efforts were always

timely and in important areas. At MIT, Vernon

continued his work on hemoglobin and hemo-

globin-related diseases, but he was also among

the earliest to begin work on transfer RNAs at

a time when transfer RNAs were at the center

of the newly-developing field of molecular

biology. More recently, Vernon switched to

neurobiology, focusing on Huntington’s

disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Vernon took

great satisfaction in working in the laboratory

himself in spite of his advancing age, and was

working in the laboratory until the very end.

Vernon’s scientific contributions and

accomplishments have been widely acknowl-

edged through his election to The American

Academy of Arts and Sciences, The Royal

Society, London and The National Academy of

Sciences, USA.

Vernon was a true scholar and an educator

in every sense of the terms. He was totally

committed to MIT’s educational mission and

he cared deeply about the education and well

being of the students. In addition to research

and participation in the teaching programs of

the Biology Department, Vernon served as

Director of ESG, the Experimental Study

Group, from 1989-1999, as a member of the

Committee on Academic Performance from

1996-1999 and 2005 and, along with his wife,

Beth, as Housemasters at Ashdown House

from 1985-2001. He also taught a Freshman

Advising Seminar every year for the past nine

years. In all these capacities, Vernon left a

lasting impression on whomever he came in

contact.

Holly Sweet of ESG says this of Vernon:

“During his time as director of ESG, Vernon

was active in making ESG a place of educa-

tional innovation for students and staff. He

developed a biology wet lab, a biology hyper-

text book, was one of the first faculty members

to conceive of using the internet for teaching,

and supported and extended the ESG under-

graduate seminar series. He also actively pro-

moted the professional growth of ESG staff

members and helped create the ESG teaching

seminar, where students and staff trade ideas

about education and teaching experiences in

an informal and collaborative setting.”

As Housemasters at Ashdown House,

Vernon and Beth were beloved by generations

of graduate students. They advocated tirelessly

for Ashdown residents, encouraged and sup-

ported students at times of personal and aca-

demic difficulties, and celebrated

accomplishments with students. In apprecia-

tion of Vernon and Beth’s long tenure at

Ashdown House and their constant considera-

tions of the well being of the students, a former

student petitioned successfully to have an aster-

oid named after them. This asteroid, discovered

in 1981, is now officially (6285) Ingram.

Vernon also provided an example of how to

live a well-rounded life. He was a gifted pianist,

grew orchids at Ashdown, and was a highly tal-

ented photographer, who donated several of

his works to Ashdown House. He shared his

musical gifts with students during Ashdown

House concerts. In recognition of their many

contributions, a petition has been submitted to

the MIT Corporation for the naming of a

room in Ashdown House for Beth and Vernon

Ingram.

Vernon was a true Renaissance man, a

person who could be at home in a laboratory

or concert hall. He had the amazing ability to

be a well-known scientist, a top notch educator

and artist, and a warm and a compassionate

person. His get-togethers at Ashdown House

were legendary – filled with food, music, and

art. He gave a tremendous amount to the

various communities with which he was

involved, including ESG, Ashdown House, and

Rockport, where he spent his summers.

For a scientist who made one of the

seminal discoveries at an early age, Vernon was

a most humble and modest person. He

acknowledged readily the contributions of

others in his work and ascribed his most

important discovery to serendipity and

“dumb” luck. In a Perspective published in

2004, he ended the article as follows: [This

writer feels that without a lot of “dumb” luck,

the sickle-cell mutation in hemoglobin would

not have been pinned down, at least not at that

time by us. No doubt it would have been

figured out by somebody sometime. The story

leaves one with a warm feeling toward “luck”!]

Vernon leaves his wife Beth, his son Peter,

daughter Jennifer, their mother Margaret,

Vernon’s first wife, and four grandchildren.

Uttam L. RajBhandaryGene M. BrownChris A. Kaiser


26

Amy McCreathAmy Smith

International Development Fair ShowcasesStudents’ Global Development Experiences

TH I N K BACK TO YOU R undergraduateyears. Where in the world were you? Oncampus, mostly? A semester in Englandor Spain, perhaps? Here’s how some ofour undergraduates are spending theirtime:

• building bicycle ambulances in Zambia• installing early warning systems for

floods in Honduras • establishng income-generating projects

with abused teenagers in Sri Lanka.

In the last several years, MIT studentshave become increasingly interested inunderstanding the developing world anddoing work that builds civil societyaround the globe. In this era of the “flatworld,” and at a time when they are livingand studying with classmates whose back-grounds and/or connections span theglobe, MIT students are seeking out andcreating for themselves a fascinating arrayof ways to use their skills to think and actglobally.

For five years now, MIT’s InternationalDevelopment Fair (IDF) has been a show-case of the growing student interest indevelopment. Each fall, the IDF fills Lobby13 with displays and leaders representingall the development-related opportunitiesavailable to students at MIT. We seek toshowcase and celebrate this work, helpincoming students find out about theseopportunities early on, and make it possi-ble for students who share a passion forglobal change to meet and learn from oneanother.

If you come to this year’s IDF onSeptember 29th, you will find passionate

students who believe in their power tomake the world a better place, incomingundergraduates starting to wake up tothe enormous possibilities open tothem, MIT Career Services staff in deep

conversation with students who want to“make a difference” but don’t knowwhere to start, graduate students half-way through their programs who arecontemplating how their work as engi-neers will connect with larger questionsabout human community, alumni/ae somoved by the quality and value of thework they see represented that they writea check on the spot to a student group,and faculty demonstrating technologiesfor improving water quality or ruralaccess to electricity.

You will also see life-changing connec-tions being made. D-lab instructorStephanie Dalquist reports that last year, aSloan School alum and his wife “came upand asked, ‘How do we get MIT students

involved in our city?’ They had co-founded a community organization inMontevideo, Uruguay, and thought MITstudents would be ideal to help teach tech-nical skills, establish entrepreneurial

opportunities, and streamline organiza-tion processes as the organization grows.For that random connection at IDF, thereare now Public Service Center Fellowsworking in Montevideo over thesummer.”

Graduate student Kristen Bethke, aleader of the Floodsafe Hondurasproject, says she was “uplifted andencouraged by the invitation to displayFloodsafe’s work, informed aboutother projects that might be in asimilar region or concerned with asimilar problem, motivated by thegreat work others are doing, and com-forted by the fact that others facesimilar challenges in internationaldevelopment work.”

The Bicycle Ambulance at work in a village in Zambia


27

The IDF originated in conversationsbetween leaders at Technology andCulture Forum and the Graduate StudentCouncil. They put together a planningteam including leaders from MIT’s PublicService Center, the Edgerton Center, andthe student group Design that Matters(now Design for Change). Each year, othergroups have joined this core to plan theFair and publish an accompanying “Guideto International Development at MIT.”Forthe last three years, we have also gathered agroup of students involved in develop-ment-related work on the night before theFair for a dinner where they can networkwith one another and meet a few MITalums who are “in the field.” Students whoattend the dinner tell us that it is tremen-dously encouraging to them, because theyoften feel unsupported by their depart-ment or the culture of MIT in general. Thedinner creates for them a social and voca-tional network of like-minded peers. Italso leads to collaborations such as $100Kproposals, IDEAS Competition teams, andco-sponsored symposia.

As student interest in development-related work continues to grow andstudent groups in this area seek ways tosustain their communication and mutualsupport year-round, those of us who havebeen part of the core team behind IDF forfive years are creating an umbrellanetwork. This new InternationalDevelopment Network (IDN) is a collab-orative network for sharing and celebrat-ing the rich variety of development-related activities at MIT in which studentsparticipate throughout the year. Our goalis not to control or direct the trajectory ofMIT’s contribution to development; weare not an academic program, nor are weproponents of a specific theory or plan forinternational development. But we dohave a vision: that every MIT student willlearn about the wealth of opportunitiesavailable when involved with develop-ment-related work; that groups and indi-viduals doing such work at MIT will plancollaboratively and build creative partner-ships; and that through these efforts, IDNwill significantly contribute towardPresident Hockfield’s vision of makingMIT the dream of every child who wantsto make the world a better place.

What you can do

• Come to the event (from 1 to 3 pm inLobby 13 on Friday, September 29th)and send your advisees. It is a wonderfulopportunity to support excellent studentwork and learn what is on the minds of awide array of students. And, the interna-tional food is great!

• Share your ideas and advice. Tell usabout projects that are not representedthat should be.

• Talk with students about global issues,ask them what their hopes and fears areabout the future, help them realize theopportunity to study or work abroadgiven their research or departmentalconstraints.

• Think about creating new opportunitiesto incorporate development-related con-cerns into your teaching or create newopportunities for students to travel orwork on problems for communitiesabroad. The demand is there! TheService Learning Office can help withideas for projects.

For more information about theInternational Development Fair and theInternational Development Network,please visit our Website web.mit.edu/idfor e-mail us at [email protected].

Amos Winter riding his improved hand-cycle in Tanzania

Matt Orosz with his solar generator in Lesotho

Amy McCreath is Episcopal Chaplain andCoordinator of the Technology and CultureForum ([email protected]). Amy Smith is aSenior Lecturer in the Departments ofMechanical Engineering and UndergraduateEducation ([email protected]).


M.I.T. NumbersU. S. News Ranking for National Universities (1998-2007)

Princeton Harvard Yale MIT CalTech

Stanford UPenn Duke Columbia Dartmouth

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

7

9

10

11

12

Ran

k

Year

MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XIX No. 1web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/191/fnl191.pdf · Newsletter Vol. XIX...

Documents

Transcript of MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XIX No. 1web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/191/fnl191.pdf · Newsletter Vol. XIX...