Along with the newsletter, reports from the Federation and from APS
are being mailed to all members. Copies of these reports are at
the end of this newsletter. Shawn
The Executive Board has recommended a change in our support of federal lobbying. The recommendation is to change from the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences to the American Psychological Association. Recent information from each of the two organizations regarding their activities is included with this newsletter as a supplement. Please take the time to consider this important issue, and express your judgment using the ballot on page 7. The deadline for return of the ballot is February 28, 1997.
From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Minutes of the JDM Executive Board Meeting. . . . . . . . 3
Minutes of the JDM Society Business Meeting . . . . . . . 4
On-Line Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Lobbying Ballot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Einhorn Award Winners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
DeFinetti Award Notice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bayesian Research Conference notice . . . . . . . . . . .10
SPUDM Conference notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Position Announcements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Upcoming Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Dues and Journal Order Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
SUBMISSION DEADLINE FOR THE NEXT J/DM NEWSLETTER: March 7, 1997
Hal R. Arkes, President, <arkes@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>
Elke Weber, President-Elect, <eweber@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Barbara Mellers, Past President, <mellers.1@osu.edu>
Lola Lopes, 1995-1997, <lola-lopes@uiowa.edu>
Jonathan Baron, 1997-1998, <baron@psych.upenn.edu>
George Loewenstein, 1997-1999, <gl20@andrew.cmu.edu>
Colleen Moore, Secretary/Treasurer, <cfmoore@macc.wisc.edu>
EDITOR:
Shawn P. Curley
Department of Info. & Decision Sciences
University of Minnesota
271 19th Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 624-6546
Fax: (612) 626-1316
scurley@csom.umn.edu
DUES, ADDRESSES, AND CORRECTIONS:
Colleen F. Moore
Psychology Department
University of Wisconsin
1202 W. Johnson St.
Madison, WI 53706
(608) 263-4868
cfmoore@macc.wisc.edu
The J/DM Newsletter welcomes submissions from individuals and groups. However, we do not publish substantive papers. Book reviews will be published. If you are interested in reviewing books and related materials, please write to the editor.
There are few ground rules for submissions. The best way to send your contribution is via EMAIL or in an ASCII file on a 3.5" or 5.25" diskette. If you must send hard-copy (e.g., if you are using special graphics or do not have computer access), please submit camera-ready copy. This means that the copy should be typed single-spaced on white 8« by 11 paper. If possible, use a carbon or film ribbon. Please mail flat -- do not fold.
Advertising Rates: Advertising can be submitted to the editor. Inclusion of the ad and the space given to the ad is at the editor's discretion. The current charge is $75 per page to cover production and mailing costs. Contact Shawn Curley for details. Alternatively, you can use--
Mailing Labels: Some readers may wish to send reprint lists or other material to people listed in the directory. The current charge is $100 for a set of labels. Contact Colleen Moore for details.
Address corrections: Please check your mailing label carefully. Because the J/DM Newsletter is usually sent by bulk mail, copies with incorrect addresses or which are otherwise undeliverable are neither forwarded nor returned. Therefore, we have no way of knowing if copies are delivered. Address changes or corrections should be sent to Colleen Moore.
Subscriptions: Subscriptions are available on a calendar year basis only. Requests for information concerning membership in the Society for Judgment and Decision Making should be sent to Colleen Moore.
Foreign Air Mail: Newsletters to non-US addresses are normally sent as printed matter air mail. For an additional $10 per year, non-US subscribers can have the newsletters sent letter class air mail. To obtain this service, contact Colleen Moore or include $10 and a note with your next dues payment.
November 2, 1996 Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Present: Hal Arkes, Jon Baron, Gretchen Chapman, Terry Connolly, Shawn Curley, Robyn Dawes, Irwin Levin, Lola Lopes, Barbara Mellers, Colleen Moore, Elke Weber
115 members voted. Both elections resulted in ties. Elke Weber and Irwin Levin tied for President. After a coin toss, Elke was appointed President-Elect for 1997 and Irwin for 1988. Jon Baron and George Loewenstein tied for Executive Board. Jon will replace Elke on the board for the remaining two years of her term, and George will start a new three-year term. Bill Goldstein will be the new member of the Program Committee, replacing Eldar Shafir who has finished his term.
2. Secretary/Treasurer Report
There are 960 members of the Society, including 230 students. The treasury balance was $15,700 before collection of conference pre-registration fees. (It is expected that conference registration fees and conference costs will balance each other.) Approximately 240 members have registered for the conference: 180 pre-registered and 60 registered on-site. Because of the difficulty in planning for hotel food and beverage needs as well as handling last-minute registrations, the Board recommends a greater incentive for early registration, e.g., a $25 differential between early and on-site registrations.
3. Report on Book Series
Income from sales of current books has been $4500 this year. Several new books are under contract.
4. Newsletter Update
Newsletters come out five times per year and are now available to members via email and on the world wide web.
5. Discussion of Lobbying Funds
Our current lobbying group, the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences, charges $11 per full, U.S. paid member. Dave Johnson spoke for the Federation, urging the board to recommend continuation. After Dave left, the board engaged in a lengthy discussion focusing on the following issues: (1) Is it appropriate for the Society to engage in lobbying efforts? (2) What are our options? (3) Who deserves credit for past successes (e.g., campaigns against proposals to eliminate or reduce funding for the social sciences)? (4) What impact does our modest contribution make in comparison to larger organizations (e.g., APA)? (5) Should Society members who also belong to other societies be assessed multiple times?
The board then formulated and voted on specific proposals.
The first proposal was that we continue to devote approximately $5000 per year to lobbying efforts. This proposal was passed unanimously.
The board then rank-ordered the following specific proposals: (1) continue to give our lobbying money to the Federation; (2) switch to APS; (3) divide our money between the
Federation and APS. The last option was not ranked first by any member. The board split 9-2 in favor of the APS proposal. The Board then voted unanimously to recommend to the membership that we shift our lobbying efforts to APS.
Irwin Levin
Secretary/Treasurer
November 4, 1996 Hyatt Regency, Chicago
presiding: Barbara Mellers
Elke Weber and Irwin Levin tied in the vote for President.
Based on a coin flip, Elke will begin serving in 1997 and Irwin in 1998. Jon Baron and George Loewenstein tied in the vote for Executive Board. Jon will fill Elke's term for two years, and George will begin a new three-year term.
2. EADM/SPUDM Conference
Helmet Jungermann announced that the next SPUDM conference will be held in Leeds, England on August 18-21, 1997. Call for papers will be in their next newsletter. [See page 13 of this newsletter for the conference information.]
3. Publications Committee
Jon Baron announced that our contract with Cambridge University Press has been renewed for another five years. Jon gave the titles of five current books and two under contract. Royalties for 1996 have been $4500.
4. Secretary/Treasurer Report
Irwin Levin reported that there are 960 members, including 230 students. The balance in the treasury was $15,700 before collection of conference registration fees. Approximately $16,000 have been collected in registration fees and dues since the pre-registration period began. (An update including conference costs will appear in the next newsletter.)
5. Newsletter and Communications
Shawn Curley reported that the newsletter is now available on e-mail and on the world wide web page.
Alan Schwartz and Alan Cooke announced that the membership directory is also available on-line. They described the society web page and indicated that other societies now link to us. Archive reference pages are also included (with mostly books and chapters). We have started collecting course syllabi on the web page. Suggestions are welcome to archive Society history.
6. What's happening at NSF
John Leland reported that there was a modest increase in budget and that they do not anticipate major changes in allocation priorities. The number of proposals is down this year. A special initiative will be announced shortly in the interdisciplinary area of learning intelligent systems.
The DRMS division is looking for a replacement for Robin Cantor. Joe Young added that NSF is looking for a new Program Director for Human Cognition and Perception and that someone in JDM might be appropriate.
7. Lobbying
Barbara Mellers reported on the Executive Board's discussion of whether to invest in lobbying and, if so, how best to do it. The Executive Board voted in favor of supporting lobbying and to recommend a switch from the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences to the American Psychological Society.
Dave Johnson then presented the views of the Federation. The next Society newsletter will contain a ballot for choosing between allocating approximately $5000 per year to either the Federation or APS. In response to comments from the members present, it was agreed that information from these groups will be sent to members along with the newsletter. [See p. 7 of this newsletter for the ballot.]
8. Thanks
Barbara thanked the Program Committee (Jeff Casey, Gretchen Chapman, Sandy Schneider, and Eldar Shafir) for putting on an excellent program and announced that Bill Goldstein will be replacing Eldar whose term is expiring.
A plaque was presented to Irwin Levin in appreciation for serving as Secretary/Treasurer for the past three years. Colleen Moore will be taking over in 1997.
Plaques were presented to Alan Cooke and Alan Schwartz in appreciation of their work in setting up electronic mailing. Special thanks (and plaques) were given to Chuck Gettys and Jim Shanteau for their role in founding the Society and setting up the first meeting of the Society in St. Louis in 1980. Jim also singled out Hillel Einhorn's role.
9. Overlap between the Psychonomic Society and JDM Meetings
It was pointed out that the Psychonomic Society continues to provide JDM sessions on Saturday, but that there is an overlap between Psychonomic sessions and JDM sessions on Sunday morning. It was decided that, for now, we would keep this arrangement.
Irwin Levin
Secretary/Treasurer
We welcome suggestions and comments about new features.
Alan Cooke <acooke@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Alan Schwartz <alansz@cogsci.berkeley.edu>
Electronic Mailing Lists
To subscribe, send a message of the form:
subscribe mailing-list YOUR FULL NAME to the following address:
listproc@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu
where mailing-list is
jdm-society for members of the society in
general
jdm-grads for graduate students (Note: This is
a sublist of the entire mailing list.
Graduate students receive messages to
both lists.)
To send a message to all subscribers (including graduate students), send the message to:
jdm-society@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu
To send a message only to graduate students, send the message to:
jdm-grads@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu
To cancel your subscription, send a message to the same address as for subscriptions of the form:
unsubscribe mailing-list YOUR FULL NAME
Reference Archive
The system allows users to store and retrieve book and chapter references related to the fields of judgment and decision making. The archive is located at:
references@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu
For more information send the message "help" to this address.
World-Wide Web
The J/DM Society now has a set of pages on the World-Wide Web, providing information about the Society and Society Membership, upcoming events, all our electronic services (including course syllabi, easy-to-use forms for subscribing to SJDM mailing lists, and help with the reference archive), links to related Web sites that may be of interest to members, copies of the JDM Newsletter (for society members), and the SJDM directory with links to members' home pages. The URL (uniform resource locator) for the Web page is:
http://mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu/sjdm
Internet Subject Cooperative
This service allows researchers to fill out each other's questionnaires and surveys, for pilot studies or real data. Contact Jon Baron, the moderator of the effort
baron@cattell.psych.upenn.edu
Society Newsletters On-line
The SJDM newsletters are available on-line and through email. If you would like to receive text-only versions of the newsletter via e-mail, subscribe to the "jdm-newsletter" mailing list. Send mail to:
listproc@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu
The message should say:
subscribe jdm-newsletter YOUR FULL NAME You must be a member of the society in good standing to subscribe to this mailing list.
For approximately the last ten years, the Society for Judgment and Decision Making has provided financial support to the federal lobbying efforts of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences. At the last meeting of the JDM Executive Board, the board recommended that the JDM Society shift its support to the lobbying efforts of the American Psychological Society (APS). The Executive Board meeting minutes and Society meeting minutes appear on pp. 3-5 of this newsletter. As requested at the latter meeting, information from each lobbying group is enclosed in the mailing of this newsletter.
Please look over the information, consider this issue thoughtfully, and vote on the issue using the ballot below. An addressed mailer appears on the back of this page to ease your mailing of the ballot. The composition of the current Executive Board appears on p. 2 of the newsletter, for your reference.
Please check one of the following:
_____ We should shift our support to the lobbying efforts of
the American Psychological Society
____ We should continue to support the lobbying efforts of the
Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive
Sciences
Thank you for your participation in this important issue. Please respond with this ballot by February 28, 1997 to Colleen Moore.
Lobbying Issue Ballot Mailer
J/DM Lobbying Efforts
c/o Colleen Moore
Psychology Department
University of Wisconsin
1202 W. Johnson St.
Madison, WI 53706
The Society for Judgment and Decision Making is pleased to announce the winners of the Hillel Einhorn New Investigator Award for 1996. The winners are Michael W. Morris, Stanford University, and Richard P. Larrick, University of Chicago, for their paper "When One Cause Casts Doubts on Another: A Normative Analysis of Discounting in Causal Attribution." Their paper appeared in Psychological Review in 1995 (vol. 102, no. 2, 331-355).
Outstanding entries from around the world were evaluated by a panel of judges that included Eric Johnson (Univ. of Pennsylvania), Colleen Moore (Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison), Elke Weber (Ohio State Univ.), and chaired by Don Kleinmuntz (Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). The Society conducts the Einhorn Award competition every two years in order to recognize and encourage research by newer investigators (less than five years past the terminal degree) in the field of judgment and decision making. The next competition is scheduled for 1998.
A competition for PhD students for the best submitted research paper! The prize is open to all PhD students, including non-members of EADM. Each entrant must submit a full version of a research paper on any aspect of decision making. Students are requested to send a copy of their paper to each member of the jury.
The jury will review the papers and award the prize to the best paper (so long as it is of appropriate quality). The winner will be invited to give a presentation at SPUDM-16. In order to give more students the opportunity to submit a paper, the deadline for submission is changed to JANUARY 31, 1997. The winner will be notified before April 1, 1997.
The prize is a certificate and a check of 1500 dutch guilders which could be used to pay hotel and travel expenses!!!! (In addition, no conference fee has to be paid.)
Rules:
Please, send a copy of the paper to each member of the jury!!!!
Katrin Borcherding (chair) Psychologisches Institut Technische Hochschule Darmstadt Steubenplatz 12 64293 Darmstadt, Germany David Messick OB Kellogg School of Management Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60208 USA
Peter Ayton
Psychology Department
City University
Northampton Square
London EC1V 0HB, UK
Danielle Timmermans (representative exec.board)
Medical Decision Making Unit
Leiden University
P.O.Box 9600, K6-R
2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands
University of Southern California
Social Science Research Institute
University Park
Los Angeles, California 90089-0375
(213) 740-4252
FAX: (213) 740-8077
November 11, 1996
Memorandum to:
Scientists and practitioners interested in
Bayesian research, inference by people, machines,
or a blend, evaluation and decision making by the
same, decision support systems, expert systems for
inference and/or decision, and the like
From: Ward Edwards
Subject: 35th Annual Bayesian Research Conference
This is your invitation to come and participate in the 35th Annual Bayesian Research Conference. The dates this year are February . . .
Wake up, Ward! You can't write this letter while on autopilot, as was your habit in so many past years. This is indeed your invitation to the 35th Bayesian Research Conference. The conference will be held February 20, 21, and 22, 1997, at the Sportsmen's Lodge Event Center, Studio City, California. For those of you who remember the Valentine's Day algorithm, this does indeed violate it; the Sportsmen's Lodge Hotel made a commitment to us for a large block of rooms for a week earlier, and then sold them to someone else by mistake. But violation of the Valentine's Day algorithm is the least of what will be different this year. I might as well explain at some length.
Four years or so ago, while in a frenzy of estate planning and related activities, I started to think about what will happen to the Bayesian Conference as I get even more old and crotchety than I am now. So I asked Barb Mellers, Jim Shanteau, and Dave Schum to be a committee to advise all of us on what should happen. The following year they came back and reported to us all that my personality had become so entwined with the Conference that it probably wouldn't survive without me or someone like me to run it--and were silent when asked for nominations of "someone like me." I took that as a conclusion that the Bayes Conference should fold up and go out of existence when I can no longer run it, and am now planning accordingly--though not for a while yet!
But that wasn't all Mellers, Shanteau, and Schum had cooked up. I had let slip the opinion that a well-done Festschrift was the finest academic honor a scientist-teacher could receive on the occasion of his retirement. For those of you not acquainted with this lovely German tradition, it consists of presenting to the honoree a book, written by students or others who have fallen under the influence of the body of ideas for which the honoree is responsible. Each chapter is a serious scientific treatment of a topic, idea, experiment, etc., including a brief section showing how the work grew out of the thinking of the honoree. (That description definitely includes lines of thought like "His treatment of non-linear combination functions for utility was so primitive that I considered it essential to replace it with something that made sense.").
Mellers, Shanteau, and Schum have organized a Festschrift for me. And the upcoming Bayesian Conference is to be a celebration of it, of how far decision theory and behavioral decision theory have come in the last 45 years--and, I suppose, of my role in stimulating some of what has happened.
But it will be a Bayesian Conference, nevertheless. I have extended its length from two days to three, for this time only. That provides time in which to schedule more papers. I expect to need that time for two reasons. First, I hope that anyone who has ever attended a Bayesian Conference before will attend this one--at least to see old friends and perhaps to add to the celebration. Second, virtually all of the Festschrift volume authors will be giving versions of their papers at this meeting. The last time I looked, that included 20 of the most distinguished decision scientists the planet has to offer. The number will shrink a bit as we approach February, but the mean quality will not, since all 20 are giants of the field.
But this is a Bayesian Conference--a place for you to present a 30-minute paper about your most recent, most exciting work. Appropriate fields of research, application, or both are very diverse. We will hear about utility, probability, cognitive illusions, influence diagrams and Bayes Nets, Normative Systems, audit judgment research using these ideas, what is going on at Microsoft Research. I hope someone will try to guess how behavioral decision theory will change in the Tversky-less (and, in a few years, Edwards-less) era that lies ahead. I will probably try to explain why the coming century is the Century of Bayes by sketching out some of the events of the last 100 years, from a 22nd-century perspective.
I expect many more people than the 40-50 of the last few years. Still, I am planning for intense discussion, hospitality-room debates (the usual Wednesday evening prior to the meeting), and a liberal supply of wild ideas. Don't bring your old, tired paper that has served you so well for the last 2-3 years; bring instead the first presentation of its replacement, ers, uhs, and all. And if you want to bring axioms and theorems, please also bring ways around them for mathematical dummies like me.
That's the scientific part. We won't forget the celebration part, though I have much less control over it than over the Conference itself.
As I understand it, the main celebratory event will be a banquet at the Sportsmen's Lodge Event Center on Thursday evening, February 20. Please contact Mellers (mellers.1@osu.edu or 614-688-4071), or Shanteau (shanteau@ksu.edu or 913-532-0618) for more detail on what they have planned for that aspect of the meeting. The cost is included in your registration fee, so if you plan to attend the scientific part of the meeting, you might as well plan to attend the banquet also. In addition, for family, friends, and others there will be a dinner at Les Freres Taix Restaurant, 1911 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, on Friday night. This will be set up as a banquet for reasons of expected numbers, but will be a pay-for-yourself occasion. The distinction is that the Friday night occasion will be more personal, more focused on the University of Southern California and Los Angeles, and probably less focused on scientific achievements. Or so I speculate; the last word belongs with Mellers, Shanteau, and Schum.
There will be future Bayesian Conferences; I'm not ready to quit yet. But never again will there be one like this one. I do hope you can plan to attend. The Conference will have a registration fee of $100 per person. Please make sure to return your registration form by December 20 to Letty Baz, Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0375.
With the much larger number of participants expected this time, I simply won't be able to provide the flexibility of reservations and of spaces on the program that Bayesian Conference attendees are accustomed to. Still, I will as usual, rewrite the title of your talk in an effort to make it funny unless you save yourself from my often inept ministrations by making it funny in the first place.
If I have missed someone who should have been invited, please xerox this and pass it on directly to that person, or call Letty Baz at (213) 740-4254, or email her at baz@mizar.usc.edu. If you need to reach me, my home phone number is 818-985-4094, and my email address is wedwards@mizar.usc.edu. Now that I am emeritus, I no longer use my USC addresses.
I'll see you in the Hospitality Suite on Wednesday evening, February 19, at 6:00 pm or any time after that. Do come Wednesday evening. It's a good time to visit with old friends, meet new ones, and prepare yourself for the following day's stimulation.
P. S. To get to the Sportsmen's Lodge Hotel and Event Center, if you are driving, get to the Ventura Freeway, turn East from the San Diego Freeway or West from the Hollywood Freeway, exit at Coldwater Canyon Boulevard, drive South to Ventura Boulevard, and you are there; it is on the NE corner of that intersection. Those not driving have various options. If you fly into Burbank Airport and have a reservation, simply phone the Sportsmen's Lodge and they will send a van to pick you up, if it is before 10 pm. If you fly into LAX, various shuttle services will, for a price, take you from LAX to the Sportsmen's Lodge. Flyaway Bus Service will get you to Van Nuys, which is pretty close; from there you can take a cab.
Please note that accommodations will be at the Sportsmen Lodge Hotel and that Conference meetings will be held at the Sportsmen's Lodge Event Center right next door to the hotel.
Registration Form
35th Bayesian Research Conference
February 19-22, 1997
Name:
Email:
Address:
Please fill out and return BY DECEMBER 20 to:
Letty Baz
Social Science Research Institute
Allan Hancock Foundation, B-51
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0375
1. I plan to attend the following:
_____ Some or all of the scientific sessions on Thursday,
Friday, and Saturday
_____ Thursday night banquet, Sportsmen's Lodge Event
Center (reception 6:30 p.m., dinner 7:30 p.m.)
_____ Request vegetarian selection
_____ Friday night dinner, Taix Restaurant, 7:00 p.m.,
$25.00 per person
Dinner selection: ____ Filet Mignon
____Sea Bass
____Vegetarian
_____ All of the above
Note: Invitees who attend only the Friday night dinner
need not pay the $100 registration fee. Special
arrangements have been made for family members.
2. What accommodations would you prefer:
_____ Sportsmen's Lodge Hotel
_____ Single Room $89.00
_____ Double Room $89.00
_____ I will make my own accommodations.
3. Reservation request:
_____ Wednesday and Thursday (nights of Feb. 19 and 20)
_____ Wednesday, Thursday, & Friday (nights of Feb. 19-21)
_____ Wednesday, Thursday, friday & Saturday (nights of Feb.
19-22)
_____ Thursday and Friday (nights of Feb. 20 and 21)
_____ Other (please specify)
4. Request to be scheduled as speaker on conference program:
_____ Yes _____ No
Title:
Check one:
_____ Festschrift author
_____ Must speak
_____ Must speak to finance
_____ Would like to speak
_____ Schedule me only if time permits
5. Request to speak during banquet activities;
_____ on Thursday night _____ On Friday night
6. Audio/Visual equipment needed:
7. Additional comments: (Other appropriate invitees, please
include address, special arrangements, etc.)
Please note that in order to hold room block reservations, the registration form must be returned no later than DECEMBER 20. Your promptness will be greatly appreciated.
Registration fee is $100.00 including the Thursday night conference banquet and meeting room refreshments. Please return checks made payable to Ward Edwards along with this form. Receipts will be available at the conference.
University of Leeds, UK
August 18 - 21 1997
CALL FOR PAPERS
Submission Deadline: 31 January 1997
Organising Committee:
The bi-annual SPUDM Conference run by the European Association of Decision Making will take place in Leeds, UK between 18th and 21st August 1997. Papers are invited in any area of decision making or a related field, and may be presented either orally in the formal paper sessions, by poster, or in the workshop sessions. Those wishing to present papers are asked to submit a 1 page abstract by 31 January 1997 to Dr John Maule, Centre for Decision Research, School of Business & Economic Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT UK.
You should indicate your preferred mode of presentation (oral, poster or workshop) and for those requesting an oral presentations whether you would be willing to present the paper as a poster if the formal sessions are oversubscribed. Participants may submit more than one paper, but should indicate which they would prefer to present if limited to just one. All abstract will be reviewed by the Organising Committee and decisions communicated to authors by the end of March 1997.
In addition, the organising committee would be happy to receive suggestions for symposia and workshops. These suggestions should be made to Dr John Maule at the address above by 20 December 1996.
Workshops are currently planned in the following areas:
Duke University
The Fuqua School of Business
Decision Sciences Area
The Fuqua School of Business has possible tenure-track openings in the Decision Sciences area. Candidates should have the potential and inclination to develop a strong program of methodological research related to decision-making, with interest in both theory and application, and to teach effectively at the MBA, Ph.D, and Executive Education levels. A doctoral degree is required. The Decision Sciences area at the Fuqua School of Business is responsible for teaching statistics and decision modeling at the MBA and executive levels, and our research activities are mainly focused on decision theory and decision analysis.
Duke University is a leading center of decision research, with many decision theorists in the Fuqua School of Business, the Institute of Statistics and Decision Sciences, and other schools and departments. Duke is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and actively solicits applications from qualified minority candidates. Interested individuals should send a current resume, a vision statement describing research and teaching interests, copies of representative publications or working papers, and names of at least three references by December 31, 1996, to:
Professor Robert Nau
Fuqua School of Business
Duke University
Box 90120
Durham, NC 27708-0120
For more information, please visit our web site at <www.fuqua.duke.edu>.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign invites applications for a full-time tenure-track position in Social Psychology at the Assistant/Associate Professor level (Ph.D. required). The primary criteria for appointment will be excellence in research and teaching. The position will begin August 21, 1997. Salary is dependent upon experience and qualifications. Interested persons should send a vita, a statement of research and teaching interests, at least three letters of recommendation, and pre/reprints to David E. Irwin, Chair, Social Search Committee, University of Illinois, Department of Psychology, 603 E. Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820 (217-333-7746). For full consideration, all application materials must be received by December 15, 1996. We may interview some candidates before the application deadline, but all applications received by that date will receive full consideration. Information concerning the Psychology Department's programs, research facilities, and faculty can be obtained on the World Wide Web at <http://s.psych.uiuc.edu/index.html>. The University of Illinois is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer.
Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research
The Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research in Munich, Germany is seeking applicants for 1 Predoctoral Fellowship (tax-free stipend DM 21,600) and 1 Postdoctoral Fellowship (tax-free stipend range DM 36,000-40,000) for one year positions (with possible extension) beginning in September 1997. Candidates should be interested in modeling bounded rationality in real-world domains, and should have expertise in one of the following areas: judgment and decision making, evolutionary psychology or biology, experimental economics and social games, risk-taking. For a detailed description of our research projects and current researchers, please visit our WWW homepage at <www.mpipf-muenchen.mpg.de/ABC/abc_e.htm> or write to Dr. Peter Todd at <ptodd@mpipf-muenchen.mpg.de>. The working language of the center is English. Send applications (curriculum vitae, letters of recommendation, and reprints) by February 1, 1997 to Professor Gerd Gigerenzer, Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, Leopoldstrasse 24, 80802 Munich, Germany.
University of Oklahoma
Three faculty positions. The Department of Psychology at the University of Oklahoma seeks applications for three entry-level, tenure-track positions. Applications from women and minorities are especially welcome. Successful applicants will be expected to maintain an active research program, secure extramural funds, direct doctoral students, and participate in undergraduate education. In addition, an interest in contributing to the department's initiative to develop a focus on psychology and technology would be desirable. Applicants must have a Ph.D. by the time of appointment. (1) Applicants with a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology who specialize in any area of cognitive psychology will be considered, although some preference will be given to those with a research record in APPLIED COGNITIVE, pattern recognition, or DECISION-MAKING, especially if that research forms bridges to areas already well-represented on the faculty (i.e., language, memory, knowledge). The successful applicant will be expected to teach the cognitive core course at the undergraduate and graduate level. (2) Applicants in any area of social psychology will be considered, although the Department is particularly interested in candidates with specializations in small group behavior, intergroup relations, social aspects of individual and group performance, and/or the social-personality interface. (3) Applicants specializing in child development with expertise in social or cognitive psychology are invited to apply. Because the department has strong programs in both cognitive and social/personality psychology, applicants should be able to complement either one or both of these programs. Applicants with strong methodological skills (statistics, psychometrics, etc.) consistent with the department's orientation are encouraged to apply.
The Department consists of 14 faculty in experimental/quantitative psychology and 30 doctoral students. OU is in Norman, a college-town located 20 minutes from Oklahoma City (metropolitan area 1,000,000). Human research laboratories include a 5000 sq. ft. state-of-the-art, networked data-collection and conference facility. The University offers competitive salaries and excellent fringe benefits.
Screening will begin December 16th and continue until the positions are filled. Candidates must send a letter of intent, current vita, reprints/preprints, evidence of teaching ability, and send three letters of recommendation directly to the chair of the appropriate search committee: Social: Richard Reardon <rreardon@oupsy.psy.ou.edu>, Cognitive: Frank Durso <fdurso@ou.edu>, or Developmental: Jorge Mendoza <jmendoza@oupsy.psy.ou.edu>, Search Committee, Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-0535. Phone (405) 325-4511 and Fax (405) 325-4737. The University of Oklahoma is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.
Assistant Professor in Cognitive Psychology
The Department of Psychology at the University of Louisville invites applications for a tenure-track position in Cognitive Psychology beginning no later than August, 1997. Candidates should have active research interests in one or more of the following areas: attention, cognitive development, cognitive neuropsychology, decision making, language, memory, or reasoning. Responsibilities include graduate and undergraduate teaching and mentoring graduate students in our Ph.D. program. Candidates must have a Ph.D. in psychology (or have completed requirements prior to effective date of appointment).
African-Americans, women and other minorities are encouraged to apply. Send a brief cover letter stating your research and teaching interests, vita, three letters of recommendation, and representative reprints to: Dr. Barbara Burns, Cognitive Search Committee, Department of Psychology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292. Review of applicants will begin on January 1, 1997.
Department of Medical Education
University of Illinois at Chicago
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
Psychologist or cognate behavioral scientist with a strong
background in behavioral decision theory and/or social judgment
theory and an interest in applying these concepts and methods to
research on clinical decision making. Tenure-track, nine-month
position, with research funding for the summer offered during the
first two years of the appointment.
Responsibilities: Participate in an ongoing program of research on
clinical decision making with an emphasis on psychological
processes affecting decision making and clinical decision support
systems. Develop own research program in these or related areas.
Teach and advise in departmental master's degree in health
professions education, with emphasis on decision making, research
design and methodology, statistical methods, and measurement
issues. Collaborate on an elective in decision making for third-
and fourth-year medical students. Participate in residency
training programs.
Qualifications: PhD or equivalent degree in psychology or cognate
field, with emphasis on judgment and decision making; familiarity
with decision analysis, expected utility theory, behavioral
decision making research, and alternative theoretical approaches to
J/DM; ability to teach quantitative methods and principles of
research design; strong writing skills; potential to become an
independent investigator capable of developing his/her own research
program. Ability to collaborate effectively with physicians is
essential; knowledge of how medical schools operate and health-
related research experience are desirable.
For fullest consideration, send letter of application, CV, three
recent papers or abstracts, and names of three referees by January
1, 1997 to:
Arthur S. Elstein, Ph.D.
Department of Medical Education (m/c 591)
University of Illinois at Chicago
808 S. Wood St.
Chicago, IL 60612-7309
<aelstein@uic.edu>
fax: (312) 413-2048
Department of Medical Education
University of Illinois at Chicago
We have an opening for a postdoctoral fellow in clinical decision making research for the academic year 1997-98. We are looking for someone with a PhD in psychology or an equivalent degree in a related, quantitative behavioral science, or a health professional (MD, RN, MPH, PharmD) with an interest in behavioral decision making and requisite quantitative and computer skills. Applicants should have a strong background and interest in applying behavioral decision theory and cognitive psychology to measuring quality of life, patient preferences (utilities), and examining the effects of perceived risks and personal preferences upon treatment choices and diagnostic judgment. The applicant should be familiar with decision analysis, expected utility theory, and alternative theoretical approaches to judgment and decision making. Strong teaching and writing skills are desirable, the ability to collaborate effectively with physicians essential. The fellow will also have an opportunity to assist in department courses in research design and evaluation methods. Stipend: $35,000 per 12- month year. Maximum appointment, 2 years.
The fellow should be interested in working with clinical faculty to pursue projects in health services research and outcomes assessment. Time and mentoring will be available to develop new ideas, collaborate with other faculty and do a small amount of teaching of medical students and residents. Connections with health services research, quality assurance and practice guidelines will become evident as the year moves along. If you are interested in empirical studies of clinical reasoning and decision making, and in testing concepts and applications of cognitive theory and decision theory in a complex, practical domain, this is a good place to start.
Applicants should send a CV, a cover letter, three recent papers, and names of at least three referees by January 1, 1997 to Arthur S. Elstein, Ph.D., at the address above.
UIC is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
University of Pennsylvania: Post-Doctoral Positions in Medical Decision Making
The Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, in conjunction with the Wharton School and the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, announces two post-doctoral training positions for qualified individuals who wish to develop and enhance skills in medical decision making research. Prior research on medical topics is not required.
Post-doctoral trainees will join a very rich environment of scholars and educators in health services research at the School of Medicine, the Wharton School, the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, the Center for Bioethics, and other programs at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center. Although funding is allocated year to year, fellows generally remain in the program for two years. Fellows are provided with an annual stipend of $34,000, office space, secretarial support, and a small research budget. There are no teaching, service, or payback requirements. Fellows are expected to engage in scholarly projects of their own design under the guidance of senior program faculty. Most fellows also participate in other projects already underway at Penn and the VA.
Applicants must be US citizens and must have completed a Ph.D. in psychology, economics, management, sociology, bioethics, or a related field before the fellowship begins. Physicians are not eligible to apply. Applicants should send a letter detailing their interests, a curriculum vitae, and two or three letters of reference to David A. Asch, M.D.; 317 Ralston House; 3615 Chestnut St.; Philadelphia, PA 19104, or send e-mail to <asch@opim.wharton.upenn.edu>. The two positions begin October 1, 1997, although earlier start dates are sometimes possible. Review of applications will begin immediately and continue until the positions are filled.
MSc in Decision Sciences
Live in one of the most exciting cities in the world, study at a pre-eminent international center for research and teaching in the social sciences, and gain a qualification in the decision sciences that could open a new career for you.
Now in its third year, the MSc degree in Decision Sciences offered by the London School of Economics and Political Science provides graduate-level coverage of the theory and practice of decision making in organizations, and a training in the repertoire of methods for assisting that process. Our view is that effective decision science derives from the interaction of theory and practice: one informs and shapes the other.
At the LSE, we have pioneered applications of decision analysis to groups of people and we are a focus of research and expertise in problem structuring methods. The program of study provides unrivaled cover in both these areas. A wide range of optional courses is also on offer, covering such topics as organizational analysis, system dynamics, information systems management and the analysis of strategy.
You will have access to the LSE's software, HIVIEW and EQUITY, that is used worldwide to support multi-criteria decision making, and to our purpose-built room, the LSE Pod, in which we conduct decision conferences and workshops.
A degree from the LSE, which is part of the University of London, is recognized throughout the world. The School's outstanding reputation is reflected in its five Nobel laureates and in its excellence across the range of social sciences (not just economics and political science!). Half the students and many staff are from outside the United Kingdom, and about half are graduate students, providing a cosmopolitan, lively atmosphere for study and debate.
For more information about the course, please contact Professor Larry Phillips, telephone +44 171 955 7101, e-mail <l.phillips@lse.ac.uk>. For information about courses, facilities, financial aid, accommodation and how to apply for admission, write for the "Graduate School Prospectus", Graduate Admissions Office, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom, telephone +44 171 955 7159, fax +44 171 831 1684.
International Conference on the Foundations & Applications of Utility, Risk and Decision Theory: will be in Mons - Belgium, July 2-5, 1997. For information contact: Diana Raulier, FUR Conference, FUCAM; Chauss,e de Binche, 151; B-7000 MONS BELGIUM; +32 65 32 32 17; (fax) +32 65 31 56 91; <raulier@message.fucam.ac.be>
SPUDM-16: will be in Leeds, England, August 18-21, 1997. The abstract deadline is January 31, 1997. See the notice on page 13 of the newsletter. For information contact: John Maule; School Business/Econ Studies; Univ of Leeds; 11 Blenheim Terrace; Leeds LS2 9JT UNITED KINGDOM; 44-532 332622; (fax) 44-532 332640; <jm@bes.leeds.ac.uk>
Public Choice Society/Economic Science Association meetings: will be at the Holiday Inn Golden gateway, San Francisco CA, March 21-23, 1997. For more information contact: Carol M. Robert; Public Choice Society; Center for Study of Public Choice; 1D3 George's Hall; George Mason University; Fairfax, VA 22030 USA.
INFORMS: will be at the Town & Country Hotel, San Diego CA, May 4-7, 1997. For information contact: INFORMS San Diego, P.O. Box 6827, Providence, RI 02940 USA; (401) 274-2525; (800) 343-0062; <np246005@brownvm.brown.edu>; <www.informs.org>.
American Psychological Society: will be at the Washington Hilton & Towers, Washington DC, May 23-26, 1997. For information contact: Program Committee Chair Arie Kruglanski, (301) 405-5918, fax: (301) 314-9566, <arie@bss3.umd.edu>.
Society for Mathematical Psychology: will be at Indiana University, Bloomington IN, July 31-August 3, 1997. The abstract deadline is April 15, 1997. For more information contact: Karen Niggle, Indiana University Conference Bureau, Indiana Memorial Union 671, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA; (812) 855-6449; fax: (812) 855-8077, <kniggle@indiana.edu>, <www.socsci.uci.edu/smp>.
Cognitive Science Society: will be Stanford University, Stanford CA, August 7-10, 1997. The abstract deadline is March 4, 1997. For information contact: <cogsci97@csli.stanford.edu>; <www.ccp.uchicago.edu/cpl>.
Society for Consumer Psychology: will be at the Hyatt at Capitol Square, Columbus OH, May 2-4, 1997. For information contact: Curtis Haugtvedt; Dept of Marketing; Fisher College of Business; Ohio State University; 1775 College Rd; Columbus, OH 43210-1399 USA; (614) 292-6228; fax: (614) 292-0879; <haugtvedt.1@ou.edu>; <www.cob.ohio-state.edu/scp>.
International Conference on Thinking: will be at Singapore, June 1-6, 1997. For information contact: <think@nievax.nie.ac.sg>; <www.nie.ac.sg:8000/~wwwnie/think>.
The Psychonomic Society: Philadelphia, PA, November 21-23, 1997.
Judgment/Decision Making Society: Philadelphia, PA, November 22-24, 1997.
You can now pay your membership dues and order the journals Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making using the single form below. If you want to subscribe to either journal for 1997, just check the appropriate space(s) below. Do NOT send your journal fees, you will be billed for the amount by the publishers. Please DO send your Society membership dues.
For your dues status, please check your label. The date next to your name is the last year for which the database shows you as having paid dues.
If your label shows "1997" or later, you are fully paid.
THANK YOU!
If it is "1996" then you owe dues of $20 for 1997.
If it is "1995" or earlier then you owe back dues ($20 per
year) and $20 for 1997. Please act soon, or you
will be dropped from the mailing list.
Members residing outside the United States who incur expenses in
getting checks written in U.S. funds have the privilege of paying
in advance for multiple years. The label date should indicate if
you have done this.
Members residing in countries where getting checks written in U.S.
funds is impractical or illegal may apply to the Society for a free
membership. Such members will find a "*" next to their names on
the label.
Name
Phone
Address
City
State
ZIP
Please make checks payable to the JUDGMENT/DECISION MAKING SOCIETY. Checks must be in US dollars and payable through a US bank. Mail the form and check to:
Colleen F. Moore
Psychology Department
University of Wisconsin
1202 W. Johnson St.
Madison, WI 53706
*Students must have endorsement of a faculty member:
Faculty Signature:
Date:
Printed Name:
Institution:
I wish to subscribe to the following for 1997: [The journal will bill you later for the price of subscription at the special Society rates shown]
_____ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(12 issues, $162 US & Canada, $188 elsewhere)
_____ Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
(4 issues, $75)
J/DM NEWSLETTER
Department of Information & Decision Sciences
Carlson School of Management
University of Minnesota
271 19th Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
APS was founded in part to provide scientific psychology with an effective Washington presence and to expand federal support for the field. In its brief existence, the Society has been responsible for many legislative and agency initiatives that resulted in increased funding for behavioral and social science research. Several that would not have occurred without APS are summarized below. For more information, contact Alan Kraut, Executive Director: akraut@aps.washington.dc.us or 202-783-2077, ext 3011.
Human Capital Initiative (HCl) -- The HCI is a national behavioral science research agenda developed under the auspices of APS by representatives of more than 70 psychological, behavioral and social science organizations. It consists of a broadly-written overview report on research in the field and several more narrowly focused documents on research in particular areas. In addition to obtaining agency sponsorship of specific HCI documents in aging psychopathology, and productivity, APS's promotion of the HCI in Congress led directly to endorsements by Congressional appropriators and a set-aside of $5 million for the HCI at the National Science Foundation which has enthusiastically embraced and expanded the HCI. Most recently, APS has been asked by NSF to develop a specific HCI Document in behavioral science.
Congress explicitly recognized APS's role, both in Congressional appropriations report language supporting the HCI and in comments such as those by Rep. George Brown, then-chair of the House Science Committee, who said "APS has gone to great lengths in developing the Human Capital Initiative which represents an excellent example of this kind of effort...."
Separate Directorate for Behavioral and Social Science Research at NSF -- APS worked extensively with Congress to apply pressure that led to establishment of a separate directorate for behavioral and social science research at NSF. APS's efforts led to the introduction of legislation in both the House and Senate to create a separate directorate, and to discussion of this issue in correspondence and meetings between Congress and the agency. At our urging, the chair of the House authorizing subcommittee raised this issue with the NSF Director, a meeting cited as the final key in the decision to create the separate directorate.
APS's leading role has been acknowledged in Congress and in the press: Rep. Doug Walgren, former chair of the House subcommittee, told us that "APS should consider itself a proud godparent" of the new directorate. "To my knowledge, APS is the origin of this movement towards a separate directorate. APS really created the legislation George Brown [then chair of the full House Science Committee] and I introduced, and that legislation gave critical momentum to the effort." In addition, APS was credited in Science and Government Report with helping to bring about the change through "steady lobbying and working on Congressional friends."
APS was also instrumental in the appointment of Anne Petersen as deputy director of NSF, a Presidential appointment. petersen told APS "this never would have happened without you," noting that it was APS that first recommended her and then worked on behalf of her nomination.
Senate Support for Behavioral and Social Science at NSF -- The need for a separate directorate at NSF and a psychologist in the No. 2 spot was highlighted last year when the new chair of the house Science Committee attacked NSF's support of behavioral and social science research and proposed to eliminate the directorate. APS was instrumental in getting non-behavioral science groups to oppose this move, and worked closely with Petersen and the directorate to defeat it. In the Senate, APS initiated a colloquy--a scripted dialogue in the Congressional Record--between the chair of the NSF appropriations committee and two senior members of the NSF appropriations subcommittee, in which they agreed the directorate should not be singled out for differential treatment and encouraged NSF to continue supporting behavioral and social science, including the HCI. The colloquy was also notable as the only reference to behavioral and social science research at NSF in last year's Congressional appropriations process.
Young Psychology Investigators--APS successfully (and to our knowledge exclusively) advocated for increased research opportunities for young investigators in behavioral and social science research at the National Institute of Mental Health in order to reverse the documented "greying" of the field. In addition to working with NIMH, we raised the issue with the Senate appropriations committee which directed NIMH to increase its efforts in this area. In response, NIMH established the enormously successful B/START program (Behavioral Science Track Award for Rapid Transition). More recently, APS convinced the National Institute on Drug Abuse to establish a B/START program and we are in the process of working with several other institutes to undertake something similar. In a related development, we are now working with the new NIMH Director to increase behavioral science research training more broadly.
APS's role in B/START was documented in Science: "The American Psychological Society and NIMH have therefore mounted a joint effort to analyze the situation [referring to the decline in young
investigators] and start looking for solutions.... One obvious problem, says APS director Alan Kraut, has been the decrease in
government research training grants.... Kraut believes that 'we are in danger of losing a generation of researchers' if measures aren't taken."
Behavioral Science Task Force Report at NIMH--Psychologist Alan Leshner, former deputy director of NIMH (and current director of NIDA) credits APS with proposing the idea of developing a plan for NIMH's behavioral science research similar to NIMH's other plans in neuroscience, schizophrenia, and child and adolescent mental health. The result was a report by a blue ribbon task force convened under the auspices of the NIMH Advisory Council which recommended expansions in several directions. NIMH is now implementing the report and APS has worked to ensure strong Congressional support for the plan, which is critical during these tight fiscal times. Among other things, APS arranged for the plan to be distributed to the entire Congress under the signatures of several senators and representatives who are the chairs or senior members of the appropriations committees that oversee the NIMH budget.
Behavioral Science Research Centers at NIMH--One of APS's first accomplishments was to successfully press for the establishment of behavioral science research centers by NIMH. We raised the issue with Congress after NIMH declined our request for such centers, saying in effect that behavioral research was supported in conjunction with existing centers in other disciplines. Congressional pressure in turn led NIMH to establish two behavioral science centers.
Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research at NIH--The concept of this office originated with members of Congress who were tired of NIH's continued resistance to expanding its behavioral and social science research enterprise. (But we made sure these members of Congress were aware of NIH's resistance.) APS was invited to help rewrite the statutory mission for this office and we expanded the mission to reflect the full range of behavioral and social science research related to health to prevent NIH from continuing its traditionally narrow treatment of behavioral research. When it was clear that NIH did not welcome the office, we worked through Congress, which in turn directed NIH to establish the Office. Now that the Office is in place, we have continued to work with the Office in developing its strategic plan and in developing a standard definition for behavioral and social science research. The statutory requirement for this definition also was the result of APS's efforts.
Transfer of the Former ADAMHA Institutes to NIH--When NIMH, NIDA, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism were transferred to NIH as part of a reorganization of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, one of its biggest concerns was the impact of the transfer on behavioral and social science research. APS took several steps to protect the behavioral science missions of these institutes while at the same time ensuring that their presence would not be used by NIH to deflect Congressional pressure to fund more behavioral research. Our efforts resulted in the following instruction from the joint House- Senate conference committee that developed the final ADAMHA reorganization legislation: "Indeed, the conferees expect that the transfer of these three institutes will bring to all of the NIH institutes an increased appreciation for an emphasis on behavioral science and health services research. The conferees reiterate their strong support for psychological, behavioral, and social research in the understanding of mental, addictive, and physical disorders."
Normative Research on Ethnic Minorities and Middle Childhood Initiative at NICHD--In conjunction with the Society for Research and Child Development (whom we also represent) APS initiated legislative actions that led to the establishment of two multi- million dollar research programs at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, one on normative research on ethnic minorities and one on development in middle childhood (ages 5-11). Both programs are addressing significant gaps in the research knowledge base about child development, and these programs would not exist without APS's efforts.
Washington Coalitions--APS holds leadership position in several advocacy coalitions, making sure that scientific psychology is represented across a wide range of activities. APS Executive Director Alan Kraut is President of the Coalition for Health Funding, and sits on the steering committee of the Ad Hoc Coalition for Medical Research Funding--the two main groups advocating for the NIH budget. In addition, APS Director of Government Relations, Susan Persons, is Chair of the Friends of NICHD, a coalition of more than 100 groups. APS is also on the steering committee of the Coalition for National Science Funding which advocates for NSF.
An Update To All Members of the Federation:
Since the last Congressional election, the staff of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences has had to concentrate so much more on advocacy than had been the case previously that we've fallen behind in communicating what is going on here in Washington to the scientists who are our members. This very long two-part update is an attempt to make up for lost time. We hope soon to get back on our regular newsletter schedule. Then we will give you the news in more digestible bites. A form of this update was sent out several weeks ago, but many addresses on that list were outdated. We have updated and added to the list and have slightly modified the information that follows to take note of late breaking developments. If we inadvertently have sent this to you twice, please simply delete this copy.
The Future of the National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences: Last year when the House Budget Committee targeted the NSF Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences for elimination, the Federation initiated the grass roots campaign that blunted the attack on this research. Our action alert went out to the top 100 research universities within hours of the late Thursday evening session in which the Budget Committee took action, and faculty at those institutions rebroadcasted it widely. Letters of protest were reaching legislator's offices by the following Monday, long before most legislators had even received their own information on the budget resolution. The speed in achieving a large response demonstrated the power of electronic communication in grass roots organizing, and many or our allied organizations quickly developed their own capabilities in this area.
An important feature of our campaign was that we asked people to write to the Senate as well as the House. The Senate letters helped solidify the Senate's resolve not to place the damaging House language in its report on the Senate Budget Resolution. More importantly, it helped dissuade the Senate from writing an authorization bill for NSF. (A recommendation similar to that in the House Budget Resolution Report was placed in the House version of the NSF authorization last year, and it has been placed in the House version of the authorization again this year. The language in the Budget Resolution report does not have the force of law. It is a recommendation to the appropriations committee about how it should allocate money. The authorization, on the other hand, would, if passed, force the elimination of a directorate at NSF, and the House authorizing committee for NSF has made very clear that the eliminated directorate should be social, behavioral, and economic sciences.)
The campaign last year was strong enough that its effect has carried into this year: The Senate still does not seem inclined to take up an authorization bill for NSF. Why does that matter? Because if there is no authorization, there is no legislative vehicle to use to force the elimination of the directorate. Representative Robert Walker, Chair of the House Science Committee, is retiring at the end of this term. He is the main advocate for eliminating the directorate. If no authorization is passed until next year, it is possible that the new chair will take a more favorable view of the behavioral and social sciences and the directorate that supports this research.
Recently, Chairman Walker demanded of NSF Director Neal Lane that he submit to the House Science Committee a plan for the structure of NSF that would include eliminating a directorate. It is not clear right now what Dr. Lane will send to Mr. Walker and what effect such a draft plan might have on planning for the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. We are monitoring this exchange to determine how concerned we will need to be.
While the grass roots campaign was of tremendous help in keeping the budget resolution and the authorization from having any lasting damaging effect, the appropriation committee could still have been a problem. If they were to cut off funds for our sciences, then all the other efforts would have been for naught. Last year, and again this year, we have gone to the appropriators and asked them not to micromanage NSF by including provisions of the sort in the budget resolution and the authorization. They have agreed with our views. As a result, the appropriation bills for both last year and this year have been free of any damaging provisions. In fact, after unprecedented congressional wrangling, NSF ended up this fiscal year with a small increase in funding. That is a possibility for next fiscal year as well. The Senate Appropriations Committee has finished its work on the fiscal 97 bill and has given increases for both research and related activities and education and human resources. The House has been less generous. In particular, the House, thanks to an amendment from Congressman Walker deleted almost $10 million in funding for salaries of NSF staff. That amendment would likely result in NSF having to lay off about 120 staff people. Fortunately, the Senate Appropriations Committee has restored the money. The bill still needs to be considered on the Senate floor and then will be sent to conference with the House. There will be compromises, but the Senate (and NSF) are in a very good bargaining position. NSF should go into fiscal 97 with a small increase in funding and with all its directorates intact.
Elimination of the Army Research Institute for Basic Behavioral Science: The Federation is one of two behavioral science organizations (APA being the other) who advocate for defense department behavioral research. In addition to lobbying, we have testified on that funding before the House and the Senate for each of the past seven years. We testify specifically on the behavioral research budgets at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Office of Naval Research, and the Army Research Institute.
This year, the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Sciences is in deep trouble because an internal Pentagon review has recommended its elimination. As the review was taking place, and anticipating what its purpose might be, we scheduled two of our science seminars on Capitol Hill this year to highlight the work supported by ARI. Since the review was completed, the Army has forwarded to the Pentagon its suggestions for the fiscal year 1998 Army budget, and ARI is not included. That means for the moment that actions need to be directed at affecting decisions at the Pentagon. To try to stimulate such action from potentially influential sources, we have gone to the Assistant Director for Science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to enlist his aid and that of the White House. A number of activities are now being pursued there on behalf of ARI. If that doesn't work, we have begun informing members of Congress of the problem so that we might enlist their aid if behind-the-scenes efforts do not work. I devoted much of my DOD testimony this year to explaining why the Institute should not be eliminated and asked the House National Security Appropriations Subcommittee to place language favorable to ARI in its appropriation report. The same request was made in testimony before the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Language drafted by Liz Baldwin of the American Psychological Association was accepted and submitted by Senator Inouye. The language was published in the Senate report. It asks the Army to submit an analysis of the utility of ARI to the Senate before it takes any action to eliminate it. We hope to see similar language in the conference report on the Defense Appropriation.
The actions with Congress are in part aimed at making legislators aware of the problem so that we can get intervention from Capitol Hill to save ARI if nothing else works. Several legislators including Senator Inouye have now written to officials at the Pentagon raising their reservations about the elimination of ARI. Hopefully, these efforts will result in the Pentagon restoring ARI funding before sending the Defense appropriation request for fiscal 98 to Congress. If all else fails, we hope we will have educated legislators well enough to be able to argue convincingly that they should restore ARI funding if the Pentagon fails to do so.
ARI is a tiny funding agency in the grand scheme of things. But it is a very important agency. It is the only agency in the federal government, for example, that funds research on leadership. It is one of only a small handful of agencies that fund research on judgment and decision making and on human factors. So we are using every resource we can find to see that ARI is not shut down. Aside from the fact that losing ARI would be a real hardship for researchers in two of our societies, (Judgment and Decision Making, and Human Factors and Ergonomics) we also look at the role of individual funding agencies in the context of all funding available for behavioral and social science research. When an agency is eliminated and its research resources are lost, the pressure on all other funding sources rises because the scientists served by the eliminated program must seek funds from other agencies. That places increased pressure on the whole research funding enterprise and makes already scarce funds all the harder to win. So preserving ARI would benefit some researchers directly and many more indirectly. That is why we are fighting for preservation of ARI.
Human Factors Support at the Federal Aviation Administration: Another pocket of funding that the Federation has been carefully guarding is found in the Federal Aviation Administration. The threat to this funding has not been as severe as it has been at NSF and in the armed services. But we have consistently watched out for that funding as well. For the past two years, the Federation and APA have offered joint testimony on behalf of this funding. We have developed good relations with the people who run the program, and we believe that our network is strong enough to protect this funding should it be threatened.
NIH Funding: Fortunately, research funding for NIH has been a bright spot for us. NIH has many strong supporters in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Last year, the beginning intention in Congress had been to cut NIH funding by 5%. Thanks in large part to Senator Mark Hatfield and Congressman John Porter, NIH ended up receiving a 5% increase. The Federation was one of many groups that lent support to the Hatfield-Porter effort. We have been lobbying this year for a 6.5% increase, and it seems likely that an increase in the 4 to 6% range can be achieved for fiscal 1997. NIH is the major federal source of behavioral science funding. Much of our work on behalf of NIH occurs in the context of coalitions. We are part of four such coalitions: The Friends of NICHD, the Coalition for the Advancement of Health Through Behavioral and Social Science Research, the Mental Health Liaison Group, and the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding. Our day-to-day lobbying activity is generally carried out with fellow members of the Friends of NICHD and the Coalition for the Advancement of Health Through Behavioral and Social Science Research.
While the funding picture for NIH is good at the moment (at least in comparison with the rest of the government), there are reasons to be concerned for the future. A major source of anxiety is the pending retirement of Senator Hatfield. It is likely that the Senate will remain in the hands of the Republicans next year. Hatfield has been a real champion of NIH. His successor may not be so favorably disposed. His counterpart on the authorizing committee, Senator Nancy Kassebaum, who like Hatfield is a staunch NIH supporter, is also retiring. One of the two people most likely to replace her is extremely conservative. The other is a moderate who would, in all likelihood, support NIH as strongly as have Hatfield and Kassebaum. The fortunes of NIH may remain steady or they may be seriously compromised depending on who chairs the key committees next year. A contributing factor in this concern is the loss of Senator Dole at the head of the Senate. Dole is a moderate. His successor, Trent Lott, began his congressional career on the House side as one of a tight circle of legislators who are associated with Newt Gingrich. Under Dole, the Senate was independent of the House and would often moderate some of the more extreme measures to come from the House. With Lott's assumption of power, the independence of the Senate from the House may be lost and with it some of the inclination of the Senate to moderate the extremism of the House. One way that moderating influence could be lost would be if Lott were to exercise his power to assure that conservatives rather than moderates are placed in the chairmanships of key committees.
Research Funding at the Department of Education: The Federation worked for five years within a coalition called the Intersociety Group for Education Research to get an authorization passed for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement that would turn it into a first-class scientific research agency. That legislation finally passed two years ago and completely restructured OERI into a series of research institutes overseen by a National Science Board-like nongovernmental governing body. But there have been many challenges to the smooth implementation of this new structure. The Department of Education was targeted by the Republicans for elimination. Barring that, the effort has been to make extremely deep cuts in Department of Education funding. We have been caught in the unpleasant situation of having to decide which research to protect. Last year, as the regular appropriation bill was struggling through Congress, the Republicans went systematically through the non-OERI research budget at the D.of Ed. and slated it for elimination--about $200 million. At the same time, they intended to increase the OERI research budget substantially (but nothing close to $200 million). The catch was that Congress wanted the programs outside of OERI that were losing research money to go to OERI for the money. What we faced was the fragile new structure of OERI being suddenly deluged by requests for support from all those offices whose research budgets had been eliminated when OERI has less than adequate funds to support its own set of research priorities.
Some of the non-OERI research that was to be eliminated was not so far different from work supported through the OERI institutes that it couldn't be picked up within the OERI structure. But other areas, most particularly disabilities research, were not areas with which OERI had experience. Moreover, the disabilities research budget rivals the size of the OERI budget. We lobbied to keep disabilities research funding where it was and to give OERI the planned increase in funding.
This battle is now in a kind of limbo. Education was one of those departments for which Congress was unable to pass a regular appropriation bill. The arrangement that was worked out to keep the Department funded cut out some areas of research but not as many as was originally envisioned. OERI got a funding increase. Disabilities research remained where it was rather than being moved into OERI.
Now election year politics kick in. Republicans don't want to appear draconian to voters. They appear to have backed away from some of the most extreme cuts. The Senate voted to add $5 billion to its domestic discretionary budget, and in conference most of that increase was retained--$4 billion of it. That has eased the pressure a little bit. Funds for research in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement will likely rise to $123,600 from their current level of $107,600. The rise is greater than requested by the President. Cuts elsewhere in the Department, including cuts to the research programs attached to targeted funding elsewhere in the Department, more than offset the increase, however. Gradually, the research function is being consolidated in OERI, and eliminated elsewhere. The overall amount available for research is being reduced on the argument that consolidation brings about efficiency and efficiency saves money. The ultimate aim of Republicans is still likely to be the elimination of the Department of Education. This is most likely an election year lull. Our plan is to keep fighting to see that OERI has the time and the resources to become a strong and effective agency. We think that is how we can best assure the improvement of education research and the implementation of research-based practices in teaching and learning.
Funding is the lifeblood of research. So we devote a lot of time to trying to protect it. But matters of public policy can also have important impacts on research, and we have been working on several such issues that would be damaging to behavioral research if they were implemented.
Family Privacy Protection Act: One item in the Republican Contract With America has to do with restricting the ability of researchers to collect data in elementary and secondary schools. The Family Privacy Protection Act, H.R. 1271, would require prior written consent on the part of parents or guardians before researchers could collect data in any of seven designated areas including parental political affiliation or beliefs; mental or psychological problems; sexual behavior or attitudes; illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating behavior; appraisals of other individuals with whom the minor has a familial relationship; relationships that are legally recognized as privileged, including those with lawyers, physicians, and members of the clergy; and religious affiliations or beliefs. The current regulations governing federally sponsored research require written consent but allow waivers from an Institutional Review Board in some circumstances when the data collected would not pose a lasting risk or danger for the child. The problem for researchers of an absolute requirement for written consent is that people who turn in forms are different from people who don't. So, without extensive followup to get forms from those who aren't inclined to turn them in, the result will be skewed samples and inaccurate data. The added cost of followup to assure a proper sample would place such research beyond the financial ability of most researchers. The problem posed is critical from two vantage points. The bill will produce bad research. But much of the research that is being restricted by this legislation has to do with data gathering that is of prime importance in guiding policy makers in designing interventions to alleviate some of the most severe social problems of our time: sexual transmission of disease, drug and alcohol use, differential patterns of health care usage by various groups in our society, crime. So an added consequence of this legislation is likely to be poorly grounded public policies and programs.
Unfortunately, this bill is a kind of conservative litmus test. It pits the right of an individual to privacy against the need of a community to have information that will enable it to act in its own self-interest. We have found legislators very reluctant to vote against this bill in an election year because a vote against it would appear to be a vote against families--when in reality, a vote against it would be a vote for families. The language of this bill was passed two years ago as an amendment to the Goals 2000 bill, which was a blueprint for reforming elementary and secondary education. We fought against this provision in Goals 2000 and lost. But the provisions of that bill were restricted to research supported by the Department of Education. The Family Privacy Protection Act is much more damaging because it will affect the large scale data gathering efforts of NIH, efforts that provide the country with some of its most basic information about the health of children and adolescents.
For a brief moment, the groups working on this legislation (we call ourselves the Research and Privacy Coalition) thought victory was at hand. Heavy lobbying on the House side had resulted in the word "written" being removed in committee. Unfortunately, when the bill reached the floor, the word "written" was amended back in. The bill passed the House in that form. Recently the bill was brought up before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. The Chair of that Committee, Ted Stevens of Alaska, informed members that he wanted no amendments to the legislation. Nevertheless, Senator John Glenn with strong support from Senator Hank Levin offered an amendment that had been written by our coalition. It failed on a straight party line vote. The bill is now ready for floor consideration. We are working now to delay consideration of the bill as long as possible. There are very few legislative days left until the end of this Congress. Few appropriations bills have been passed, and they are now "stacking up" in the Senate as the House sends them over. Our hope is that this bill can be lost in the crunch of end-of-term legislation that must be passed. It is a thin reed, but it is all that stands between this bill and the President's desk. We have made initial inquiries at the White House about the possibility of a veto. It seems unlikely because the President can't appear to be against families. But it appears the White House may be willing to expend some effort to see that Democrats are unified in their opposition to the bill. We have also been able to get good cooperation from the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Management and Budget. Officials from each of the agencies have testified against the bill. And HHS Secretary Donna Shalala has written a letter to legislators detailing the basis of her department's opposition to the bill. We (the coalition) held a press conference on the bill a few weeks ago and received very favorable press coverage We are worried that we could succeed in delaying consideration of the bill and still lose the fight because the provisions of the bill can be amended into a bill that does reach the floor. There is a larger family rights bill that is also ready for floor consideration, and it would be a good target for such an amendment. We have asked friends in the Senate to inform us if they get any inkling that such a move may be afoot. In the meantime, we have been visiting moderate Republican offices in search of members who would be willing to sign a letter to the Majority Leader voicing reservations about the bill, in the hope that such a letter could aid in keeping the bill from the floor. So far there are a number of sympathetic Republicans, but none regards this bill as critical enough to risk large amounts of political capital. So, for the moment, our best chance to achieve delays lies with the Democrats. We have also seen a copy of the proposed floor schedule until the August break and it does not contain a slot for this bill. So far so good.
Indirect Cost Cap in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The bill to reauthorize programs related to the education of children with disabilities is working its way through Congress. The House bill has many severe shortcomings, including the elimination of support for technology and technology development to help those with disabilities function. The Federation is especially concerned by a provision that caps the ability of universities to recover the indirect costs of research. As the bill was being drafted, House legislators were inclined to prohibit any indirect cost recovery. As the bill went through drafts, the cap was raised to 10%. And as the bill was finally published, it was set at 25%. Our position has been that caps are artificial. They are an arbitrary fixed number in a world where the indirect cost of research can vary substantially from one institution to another and from one type of research to another. The principle should be that the cost of research should be recoverable. If that is not the case, then research institutions are being asked, in effect, to subsidize research by drawing on its other sources of revenue such as tuition and endowment to pay part of its cost. We have also contended that this cap would make a second class citizen of disabilities research. A cap at less than the real indirect cost of the research will make it unappealing to universities unless they have sufficiently low overhead. But the institutions most able to do high quality disabilities research are likely to be those with a major investment in their research infrastructure, and, thus, major indirect costs for research.
The Department of Agriculture has had some experience with the ill effects of a cap. A cap has been in effect there for about 5 years. Most agricultural research has been done in the land grant colleges whose indirect costs are partially supported by federal aid that is apart from research support. So the cap hasn't hurt the land grant colleges much. But in the last few years, the Department has been trying to expand agricultural research beyond the land grant colleges. It has encountered difficulty in doing so because its indirect cost rate is insufficient to attract applications from institutions that would not be able to recover the cost of the research. As with many of the bills we are dealing with, we have been looking to the Senate for help on this one. We put a good deal of effort into trying to convince House members that this is a bad provision, but those efforts have been no more effective than beating one's head against a brick wall. The Senate, however, experimented with such a cap a few years ago and found that it caused many more problems than was anticipated. The Senate, therefore, seems disinclined to include this provision in their bill. The Senate bill, in general, is better than the House bill. So at the moment we are favoring the Senate bill over the House bill. And we are urging Senate members to stand tough on their provisions if and when the differences between the two bills must be resolved in conference. A diverse set of organizations is working on various aspects of this bill. Some groups feel the whole process has become so flawed that it would be better to lobby against any bill and push for a simple extension of the current authorization. There is some wisdom to that since people are reasonably satisfied with the old authorization. At this point it is uncertain what direction this bill will finally take. Again, the shortness of time until the end of this Congress may make it impossible to deal with the bill this term.
Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research: The Federation was one of the groups that worked to create the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research (OBSSR) in the Office of the Director of NIH. Since its creation, we have interacted with the office in a variety of ways. Perhaps most importantly, we have commented on drafts of the office's definition of behavioral and social science and on the strategic plan for the office. The office is charged with overseeing and facilitating the support of behavioral and social science research across the institutes and centers of NIH. To do that, OBSSR set itself the task of determining how to recognize behavioral and social science. They have worked to put together a definition that they could use in examining the portfolios of the institutes and centers. The Federation has reviewed and provided constructive comments on successive drafts of the definition which is now in all but its final form. At the same time OBSSR has been trying to lay out a long-term strategy for the office. It has held internal retreats to discuss the matter. But it has also asked the views of the scientific and advocacy communities in a formal way through participation in strategic planning retreats. The Federation has been among those participating in these retreats. Our aim is to see that the Office develops into an effective mechanism for improving and expanding behavioral and social science research supported by the National Institutes of Health.
Animal Research: A number of the scientists represented by the Federation use animal models in their research. We have, therefore, paid special attention to efforts by animal rights groups to unnecessarily restrict the use of animals in research. There was a great deal of activity around animal research from 1985 when Congress revised the Animal Welfare Act until the early nineties when regulations implementing these changes were finally approved and court cases challenging the regulations were settled. Since then, much of the effort of animal rights groups has focused on states and localities. To do what we can to protect research that is carried out humanely, the Federation is part of two organizations, the National Association for Biomedical Research, which brings order to federally focused efforts to protect animal research, and Americans for Medical Progress, which focuses its efforts on state and local assaults on animal research. At least four bills aimed at restricting animal research in some way have been introduced during this term of Congress: H.R. 3393, the Family Pet Protection Act of 1996; H.R. 3398, the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1996; H.R. 3173, the Consumer Products Safe Testing Act of 1996; and H.R. 1547, the Animal Experimentation Right to Know Act. Each of these bills has been introduced in one form or another in previous congresses, but action has not been taken on them. We are not expecting action in this Congress, but monitor the status of the bills so that we can take action if it is needed. The Federation's Animal Research Committee is chaired by Neal Miller who also serves as a liaison between the Federation and the American Psychological Association's Committee on Animal Research and Ethics and the animal research committee of the Society for Neuroscience.
In addition to advocacy on behalf of research funding and advocacy on behalf of sound policy making, the Federation has as a mission to educate policy makers about what behavioral scientists do and to demonstrate why this science is deserving of federal support. We do that mainly through a long-running (15 years) science seminar series on Capitol Hill. We normally do six seminars each year, or one a month during most of the time Congress is in session. We bring the top behavioral scientists in the country here to explain their research and its implications. The seminars are geared to what we anticipate will be Congress's interests during the year. But we try to cover the range of the behavioral sciences over the course of several cycles of the series.
The series had been very successful at educating a cohort of longtime staff members of House and Senate committees. These people came to have a good working knowledge of what behavioral science is all about. Unfortunately these senior Democratic staffers lost their jobs in the change of power. They were replaced in many instances by Republican staffers who not only had no knowledge of behavioral science, but also had little knowledge of the workings of Congress.
The situation in the personal offices of members of Congress is even more fluid. A congressional staffer's average tenure is 18 months. So there is a constant need to educate new people as they assume their legislative responsibilities. And the need has become more intense since the wiping out of huge numbers of committee staffers, who had been in their positions for decades in some cases. Staffers carry out the day-to-day business of Congress, and they have profound influence over the legislators for whom they work. That is why we have chosen to concentrate on educating staffers over the years.
So far this year, we have had three seminars. The first was by Cathy Widom who spoke on her research on the influences of violence on children and on factors that protect children from long-term damage from having experienced violence. The second was by David Segal, whose research is funded by the Army Research Institute. He is one of the world's leading researchers on peacekeeping (as opposed to war making). With our troops in Bosnia, we thought this would be an apropos topic, and one that would show something of the contribution of the Army Research Institute to the mission of the Army. On June 21 Tom Tyler of U.C. Berkeley spoke about his research on why the American public has lost faith in its judicial and law enforcement system and has begun to take such matters into its own hands. Congress these days is very interested in judicial reform, and this talk shows policy makers that behavioral science can shed light on factors they should consider in their efforts to bring about reform. A decade of the Army's research on leadership is about to be published by the National Academy of Sciences. Upon the release of that book, we will have Dan Druckman from the National Academy, who oversaw the putting together of the book, talk about what has been learned about the nature of leadership. Again, we are trying to demonstrate the worth of ARI. Talks later in the year will have to do with reading literacy, with frontiers in mental health research, and with research on brain plasticity and the hope it promises for recovery from brain disorders.
As part of its education mission, the Federation has conducted the Forum on Research Management since the early 1980s. This forum is composed of senior researchers from academia and industry and mid-level science administrators in the federal government who are also behavioral scientists. Their purpose is to come together in an atmosphere of trust to work candidly on problems related to the management of research. There are few opportunities to stop and reflect on the processes that govern science. FORM is one of those rare opportunities. The group has covered many topics over the years, indirect cost reform, scientific misconduct, the structure of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, efficient and effective management of research centers; animal research, and the Human Capital Initiative, to name a few. Over this year and last year, the group has been looking at the future of behavioral science. There is great concern now that newly minted Ph.D.s aren't finding jobs, that some areas of psychological science are in decline, and that the impact of behavioral science has not been as strong as it should be. At its first meeting this year--the group meets three times per year--the group looked at the decline of methodological and quantitative preparation of behavioral scientists today. The number of quantitative specialists has been in steady decline. The number of researchers able to use the latest methodological and quantitative techniques is shrinking. And there is a thinning in the ranks of institutions that offer quantitative specialization or even quantitative training for that matter. It is expected that the deliberations of the group will be formalized in an article for the American Psychologist.
At a future meeting whose date is not set, the group will be looking more broadly at the future for graduate programs in behavioral and social sciences. The group expects to be meeting with deans and college presidents who are behavioral scientists to think together about how to achieve a strong future for these sciences.
In September, the group will be looking at what ought to be the role of databases in psychological research. Databases are a staple of some disciplines such as political science, sociology, and geography. They have not been used extensively in psychology. But the growth of meta analyses, the opportunity to use high-speed computers, and the increasing complexity of psychological research suggest it may be time to consider creating large databases that would be accessible to many researchers.
In addition to the thinking that is produced on special topics in research management, FORM has a second purpose. It is to link behavioral scientists across government who are responsible for the management of the research funding enterprise. Through FORM, people meet and get to know their counterparts across government. Represented at the table are officials from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, the White House, and the National Institutes of Health. By sitting across the table from each other, these administrators are in a position to exchange ideas among agencies that can lead to the improved functioning of the research funding enterprise.
That is a picture of what we have been doing lately on behalf of the membership. While some of you correspond with us regularly about your thoughts and desires with respect to the three prongs of our mission--advocacy, education, and information dissemination--we never hear from most of you. Don't be shy. The Federation was created by our member societies. You are the Federation. So let us know what's on your mind when you are so inclined. Our email address is:
Dave Johnson
Director
Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences