PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN

VOLUME 8   DECEMBER 1962   NUMBER 4

Administration of Modern Biology

VERNON I. CItEADLE

University of California, Santa Barbara

It is of course a great honor for me to give this retiring President's address. Though it has been held by some that these addresses tend to be very dry and uninteresting, I have found something of interest in each one I have heard. Some discourses may have seemed better than others, but in looking back over the years that I have attended these affairs, because of the great variation in the performances I have always found at least a thought or two of use to me. I suppose most of the talks could be said to have been erudite addresses and to have featured the speaker's own field of research interest. Some addresses have been exhortatory—the let-us-get-on-the-ball type—and others have been in the nature of travelogues, such as Kenneth Thimann's absorbing account of the trip he took to Russia shortly before he gave his address last year.

There must be, accordingly, some precedent among all these addresses for the type of short talk I wish to give tonight. It will consist of comments—sometimes a little disconnected—on biology and botany today, and will be entirely subjective; I shall have essentially no scientific data upon which to base my remarks. The point of view I am taking is probably an outcome of my recent desertion—or rather, near desertion—from the ranks of researchers and teachers. In this connection, incidentally, I wish to make clear that technically I still retain my professorship of botany—I mean I have tenure as a botanist—and that I shall continue to do a little research. And I am now at liberty to tell the last two or three of you who do not al-ready know that my esteemed and truly distinguished col-league at Davis, Professor Katherine Esau, is moving to Santa Barbara, I hope some time within this fiscal year. Were it not for her coming, I would probably not even attempt to carry on research of any importance. But with her as a magnificent crutch for me as well as a tremendous worker solely on her own, we shall continue, I hope, with a sizeable program on xylem and phloem in the monocotyledons, and dicotyledons, and other subjects, with considerable emphasis on electron microscopy.

My present administrative position has heightened my interest in the organization of biology and of its component parts, and that is what I wish chiefly to talk about. As everyone knows, we have in this country about every possible kind of administrative arrangement involving subject: matter in biology. Likewise, we have about every conceivable kind of higher education and therefore every conceivable kind and quality of institution purveying higher education.

Questions naturally arise as to which administrative arrangements are most effective for what kinds of biology in these various kinds of colleges, and universities, and technical institutes—and especially whether any one kind of arrangement could serve all.

I don't want to get lost in these exhaustive general subjects, so let me restrict myself to a very few points. The first two arc of a background nature.

First, presumably there are some real distinctions among two-year colleges, four-year colleges, universities, and technical institutes. I'm sure we can't agree on the distinctions, but at least we can set the two-year colleges to one side because they obviously concern themselves with but two years of college work. The four-year college frequently now becomes a five- or six-year one, with the Master's degree as its highest earned award. Furthermore, colleges tend to be small, although some large ones appear, especially in California. Universities commonly offer the doctorate as well as the masterate and/or have professional schools among their administrative components. Universities may become huge although some are resisting the forces of change and in fact arc remaining quite small. I understand that Harvard College still has less than 5,000 undergraduates, for example, and is outnumbered by the graduate and professional students in Harvard University. Technical institutes are frequently narrowly monolithic, that is, they have a restricted spectrum of interests but often go all the way with the ones they do have. As you know, the best ones tend to have small and highly selective student bodies. Two comments should be made about these different kinds of institutions in connection with later remarks I wish to make. The missions of these institutions differ remarkably in de-tail, and their enrollments vary enormously in number (and quality, for that matter).

A second point I wish to make concerns biology itself. The study of living things—even if we disregard study of the brain, including concepts of the mind—has become so complicated in some respects these days that only mathematicians, chemists, physicists, and others knowing little or nothing about it have the courage to define biology for us. Some university administrators—I guess you could call them educators, to use the term loosely—say that the first half of the twentieth century belonged to the physical scientists and that the second half will belong to the biologists. But not many physical scientists will swallow that. They are likely to say that having solved the major or glamorous problems

PAGE TWO

CHANGES OF ADDRESS: Notify the Treasurer of the Botanical Society of America. Inc., Dr. A. J. Sharp, Department of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 16, Tennessee.

SUBSCRIPTIONS for libraries and persons not members of the Botanical Society of America are obtainable at the rate of $2.o0 a year. Send orders with checks payable to "Botanical Society of America, Inc." to the Business Manager, Dr. Lawrence J. Crockett, Department of Biology, The City College, Convent Avenue and 139th Street, New York 31, New York.

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION should be typewritten. double-spaced, and sent in duplicate to the Editor. Copy should follow the style of recent issues of the Bulletin.

in the physical sciences it is now high time that they got on with settling the biological ones. And I'm not so naive as to think they may not be correct. But let us say, at least, that biology, with the help of other sciences, is in fact to hold center front on the stage during the remaining decades of the twentieth century. How should we be organized to deal with and to deliver most effectively the fruits of our complicated labors in biology?

Now before even attempting to answer this question, I must ask naively what biologists are trying to do in the various segments of our institutions of higher education.

I don't wish to attempt delivery of any profound statements in this connection. I take it that for a first objective all institutions try to introduce vital information about organisms, present and past, in their biological courses. And it is not surprising that the organisms used in such courses should have an important bearing on what is taught. In earlier days, the differences between plants and animals seemed more complete than we know them to be now. Currently in many institutions only the similarities among all organisms tend to be stressed and the biggest plays—including grandstand ones—are related to those similarities. But anyone with any breadth of understanding of biology knows there are many ways in which organisms differ—particularly higher plants and animals. How to introduce students adequately to any segment of collegiate biology, or to the discipline as a whole, is a question not easy to resolve satisfactorily; and its resolution becomes increasingly difficult. The question itself is tough enough, but perhaps sensitive toes, vested interests, and prima donna attitudes are greater obstacles to the achievement of intelligent balance in such introductory courses. Maybe we shouldn't try to arrive at any even reasonably uniform introductory courses, but I nevertheless look forward to careful study of this matter by individuals concerned about the future of biology

and of botany, and especially about the desirability of providing minimum background in biology for all who graduate from any college or university or institute of any repute.

It is interesting to note in this connection that the huge University of California will likely convene delegates from its various campuses this year to discuss elementary courses and other matters relating to academic biology.

The second objective of biology in the various kinds of collegiate institutions is, of course, research. I suppose we can agree that all in all the major part of the research in biology is done in universities, but some extremely important re-search is done elsewhere, especially in institutes (both in those with and in those without primary teaching responsibilities). The total research done covers an enormously varied fare, from practically pure chemistry—bordering on molecular biology—to the most simple sort of observations, with equipment and space needs of equal diversity.

Now with this much generalized information behind us, let_ us look quickly at biology as a modern discipline or as congeries of disciplines. It consists of almost limitless "-ologies," depending upon how the organisms are divided up, how economically important the various groups of organ-isms are, and how many methodologies, such as genetics and biochemistry, are to be considered as separate disciplines and separate administrative entities. Even that part of biology known classically as botany is extremely diverse and is itself now separated—in one kind of institution or another—into a great variety of narrow areas of specialization, almost all of which have independent existence only be-cause of their economic importance. Which reminds me of how blurred our concepts are of what is applied and what is basic science. But the point I am making at this juncture concerns how complicated our biological disciplines—let alone botanical—have become.

Having briefly considered some differences in the institutions of higher education that offer educational experiences in biology, having mentioned something of the complexity of biology today, both as regards teaching and research, presumably now we may consider the problem of (I really mean raise questions about) how to administer our biology so that we may efficiently carry out our responsibilities. What we do eventually with biology as a whole will of course have a bearing on what happens to botany, a field I shall say a few words about later. Granted the many common features of plants and animals, can we safely put all our biological eggs in one biological basket administratively? In the University of California at Davis, there are over 250 biologists—whatever else you might call them—on the academic ladder; that is, they all have full academic status. In addition, there are many other biologists not on the academic ladder, and many of them are very good scientists, indeed. Should all these biologists be in one department or division? At many smaller colleges the staff in biology may be at most ten or a dozen; should they all have residence in the same department or division? At the Santa Barbara cam-pus, we shall have twelve or fifteen thousand students in ten or twelve years, 75 per cent of whom will be under-

PAGE THREE

graduates. Shall we continue to have one biology department for all biologists at enrollments of 5,000, or 10,000, or 15,000, or 20,000 students?

Should the proportions of students in various academic levels have an important bearing on the problem? For ex-ample, if a goodly proportion of the students are on the graduate level—where specialization tends to be more narrow—does this possibly mean more divisions of biology into a group of smaller subdisciplines, such as zoology, botany, bacteriology, or microbiology? I use these just as starters in mentioning subdisciplines, for the bacteriologists started a never-ending stream of economically motivated secessions from classical biology, and many of the individuals concerned were in subdisciplines that had temporary residence in botany.

What is the cutoff point in size of staff that can be man-aged successfully? At what size are chairmen likely to fail in providing the broad-gauged but still intimate leadership necessary for satisfactory development of all aspects of a discipline as broad as biology is? I don't know and I wish you could tell me. But I believe biology is at the crossroads administratively and its management needs intensive study by those most concerned with its welfare.

In relation to management of biology, I want to make somebody angry with me so I make some bold assertions. Nothing could be more silly or naive than to think that because present administrative practices are proper and useful in certain prestige organizations they should have equal applicability in other ones or in those less prestigious. To be specific, because a given kind of organization works at Harvard or Princeton or Yale or Stanford or Michigan or California doesn't mean it would work as well anywhere else or vice versa. So let's not indulge in pontifical statements about the absolute worth of such patterns when we undertake a study of our administrative organization of biology. But neither, of course, should we disregard these experiences.

The administration of biology needs intensive study for many reasons, but I want to mention only two. First, every-body knows that many biological problems have been reduced to biochemical terms—particularly those problems dealing with activities common to all organisms. If we don't have sense enough to recognize that a good deal of our biological resources must be swept into the biochemical maw, then such research will he done only in chemical laboratories. One of the currently glamorous aspects of biology would thus be lost to biology and with it the funds which such developments almost invariably attract. Biology will be the loser. The second reason for the study of administration is that we need to keep some balance in biology or no one but nucleic acid specialists and electron microscopists will be needed in biological laboratories, either to teach or do research, and there may not he much for electron microscopists to do.

I shall say something more about biology before I conclude but I wish now to turn briefly to botany. I want to complain and overaccentuate, too, as I do so, hut I mean as well to take a positive position or two. I thought we all used to know what the word botany stood for, but when one actually looks hard at the splinter subject groups that have split away from the field botany theoretically represented, he has a hard time making any definition come out sensibly. The only assurance one has any more is that the splintering is almost certain to be related to economic importance and not to any sound academic reasoning, or any academic reasoning at all. I don't know that this is necessarily had, but it does seem to be true. Botanists in the National Academy of Science include quite a wide variety of plant science people many of whom consider themselves as something else in every day humdrum operations. So when we attempt to plan how botany ought to be organized in higher education, it is pretty hard to tell what we are trying to organize.

Surely, for example, one would say that purely botanical subjects of a basic nature should be taught in botany departments—or failing that, in biology departments. But even that outlook is becoming more difficult to maintain. Members of departments whose research and/or teaching missions were originally in the practical realm now are frequently expected to do some fundamental research if they are to be promoted, and it is easy to develop an appetite for a little fundamental teaching to go along with the research. On some campuses, especially large land-grant ones, we could thus have each of half a dozen such practically motivated departments offering the same fundamental course at the same level in the same area. And maybe the botany department might try one, too, since that happens to be its mission. So we have administrative problems. But some organization has to have charge of the mission for the development of fundamental work in the general field of botany.

Maybe a department of botany is a poor organizational device to use for teaching and research in botany. Maybe, as some mention, although I shudder with incredulity as I say it, the word botany is just outmoded and has outlived its obvious usefulness. Maybe, as some say, botany should be submerged or united with some other discipline in order to sense a more useful purpose. I emphasize the word usefulness, for the pragmatic outlook, in fact, seems to be the important one these days. We sometimes fool ourselves in this respect, however. For example, all things else being equal, if you think thirty members in one department are sure to get as much support per man as fifteen members each in two departments you are pretty uninformed. For two good departmental chairmen add up to more than twice as much. There is nothing so important, accordingly, as a noisy champion for every discipline. The big problem for a campus administrator is to define the disciplines so he knows how many champions—and therefore organizational units—he needs to get the job done on a distinguished level.

If botany were to be put in intimate association with other disciplines or subdisciplines in one organizational unit, how then do you establish reliable responsibility for maintaining balance in botany, or plant science, or whatever you want to

PAGE FOUR

call it? Who would remain to say that just because some-thing new is uncovered in botany, all else need not be dropped? Who would remain to proclaim that molecular botany is just great but that another kind or two might still be provocative? (Just because jet airplanes and rockets are here, as it were, we aren't giving up all other means of locomotion.) Who will remain to say that if someone wish-es to work on leaf hairs his research doesn't have to be linked to some ecological cliche, or a genetic abstraction of some sort, to be important enough for study? And this leads me to an especially sore point.

Why all the emphasis on the pragmatic attitude toward research in this last decade, anyway? I thought fundamental research was research we wanted to do on the nature of things. It seems eminently proper to justify expense for research by pointing out generally how one is able to carry off the research. But since when must we spend our valuable time explaining to some pragmatist why we want to do it, and what use we shall make of it. Could it be because we can't get funds if we don't explain this to some temporary bureaucrats in Washington acting as judges? Status these days, incidentally, seems to be linked with grants and especially with seats on the councils that decide who shall and who shall not do what research. Galling, isn't it. to us free spirits?

It is not surprising that the humanists wonder whether scientists ever think of anything except movement, energy. bond splitting, and the like. Is, for example, falling in love with knowledge now romantically taboo? Is, for another. the unlocking, for its own sake, of the beauty, and pattern. and continuity of nature now to be frowned upon or to be no longer intellectually respectable? If so, who made or is to make the decision? See, for one clue, the article on the Future of Botany in the AIBS Bulletin a couple of issues ago. Nobody asked me about such a decision; nobody asked a lot of other people I know. And if this in fact comes to pass, we shall he the poorer for it. Such a decision won't stop me from looking at phloem and wood and looking for just exactly what I'm interested in finding out. And by whatever means that seem proper and reasonable. And don't get the idea that I'm really worried about these money providers in Washington I mentioned, much as we seem to need them in modern financial operations. They know no more than the rest of us and have too much money avail-able to shut out very many people who write convincing applications, whatever the subject. And, it is pitiful, hut we all sooner or later recognize the key phrases and learn to lay out the revolting pragmatism without gagging.

I have made these remarks because I still have some residual idealism about freedom and independence. and because I think the remarks needed to be made to a large audience of botanists who have the same idealism.

Now I must be realistic and mindful of our bounties. Most of its now are in the game of grantsmanship and I say with no more than casual reservation that the National Science Foundation has clone a remarkable job in supporting research that could find no support elsewhere. And I guess we should be happy indeed to lind any honorable way possible to justify support of such research. We are in a new era in financing research, and we have been fortunate to have the National Science Foundation fonds avail-able.

But as we teeter back and forth trying to walk along a line between complete freedom to do what research our minds lead us to and what we can get supported, I hope we have sense enough and courage enough never to sell or desert that freedom. We may retreat temporarily here and there for the sake of some advantage, but let us not sell or desert it. Rather, let us remember, it is the heritage of universities to seek out the basic truths on all fronts. We should seek to maintain some semblance of balance, not a static balance, but one responsive to modern changes. Universities don't have to become vastly lopsided as they delve into the newest intellectual fads. Whatever any other kind of institution does, true universities—whatever they may he called—must preserve all truths, teach the truth, and, I re-peat, seek out the basic truths on all fronts—and this applies, of course, to botany.

Now that I have found a way of getting these remarks on botany off my chest—and I trust it has helped relieve others as much as it has me, as I seemingly stir myself up to an inaugural pitch—let me conclude by making some remarks again about the administration of biology and the attitude of botanists, whatever they may call themselves, concerning it.

Let us recall that we have many kinds of institutions in higher education (and outside it) doing research in biology and many teaching it under various titles. Let us emphasize to ourselves that biology is indeed entering a period of extraordinary accomplishments. Let us recognize that these notable or glamorous accomplishments are likely to be centered chiefly in the submicroscopic world—at least at first; that they will move in much closer to the ultimate answers; that they will be dealing with matters capable of the kind of "proving" that is supposed to characterize science. The accomplishments will likely be in the solving of the kinds of problems that are more and more adaptable to the application of physical and chemical laws, the kinds of problems that are farther and farther removed from the multicellular complicated organisms we recognize as the most highly evolved.

But as sure as we are sitting here tonight, these glamorous accomplishments will not provide us all the answers to the makeup and functioning of higher plants and animals. Our organizations in biology thus must make possible the incorporation of the relevant workers in submicroscopic and/or molecular biology into our midst and still leave—or make room for—the renewed efforts in classical biology that will be motivated by the findings of the molecular biologists. In this way, incidentally, biologists will ir1 fact, if they are big enough to deserve it, have the control and influence in biology. Biology should not be controlled by scientists essentially ignorant of the fact that organisms are something more than atoms and molecules, no matter how

PAGE FIVE

furiously or deviously these components react. Let me reiterate. For molecular biologists we can and should make every effort to speed up provision of curricular assignments and research opportunities in our biology departments where, in my opinion, these specialists belong.

I have no pat system of organization to suggest for today's and tomorrow's botany or biology. But don't let apathy and plaintive hand wringing inactivate us. If we can't rejustify what is being done today, or if we refuse to try, then some-body else will take the play away from us, and in that event we would have only ourselves to blame. I would like to suggest, or to make as an obvious remark, that one kind of organization is not going to do the job in all centers of higher education. Thus it would be of tremendous help to administrators if biologists would set up study groups to ponder administrative problems in biology. Eventually, these groups could provide guide lines as to the kinds of aggressive administrative ordering needed for the various groupings within modern biology. We want to provide intelligent balance and thus the greatest justice to the greatest number—for the ulimate good of biology. Yet we must pro-vide adequately for the minority facets in biology, for no one knows how long they may be minority facets. And we want to help plan these provisions for every sort of institution of higher education. I feel certain that a steering committee of some sort set up by the Governing Board of the AIBS and perhaps financially supported by the National Science Foundation could come up with an outline of administrative studies that would have the approval of the various societies in the field of biology.

Perhaps these studies would reveal that biology is in such a poor state of organization as to be hopeless administratively, but I am more optimistic than that myself.

The Botanical Society of America would demonstrate its strength, I think, by making the suggestion for a thorough study of administrative structure in biology. It would have a large stage on which to make its significance felt and to remind all biologists of the importance of a balanced pro-gram of teaching and research and how to preserve it in a truly dynamic period of change.

It seems to me that we should make this move if only to protect many of our colleagues from the petty tyranny of small-minded administrators, of which I profoundly hope I am not one.

EPILOGUE

At the conclusion of Past-President Cheadle's speech. which began in-formally by chiding President Stebbins about his idiossncracies real and otherwise, Dr. Stebbins responded by rendering a ditty in a melodious, baritone voice. Because of the matchless quality of his presentation, his ingenuity in composing it on the spot, and the salutary effect on the assembled, it is fitting that the words be recorded below along with Dr. Stebbins's dedication.

"Dedicated to Vernon I. Cheadle, Chancellor of Santa Barbara College. University of California. Tune: `The Law is the True Embodiment,' from 'Iolanthe.' Apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan.

"He told you that one torrid fall, I threw the typewriter into the hall,

He said I sang too loud and long; it really was an innocent song.

He said I was a real screwball, a botanist with no balance at all.

A kind of a nut--I was the bust of his wisecracks !hat amused you all.

BUT—I took it as a compliment, for he's stn.h a powerful Chancellor,

It really was a compliment, for he's such a POWERFUL CHANCELLOR!"

Minutes of the Business Meeting
Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon

SESSION I

August 27, 1962

1. The meeting was called to order by President Stebbins at 1:10 p.m. in the Home Economics Auditorium. Aft. proximately 70 members were present, this constituting a quorum. Since the Minutes of the 1961 Business Meeting had been published in the Plant Science Bulletin, these were not read, but were accepted as published.

2. As instructed by the Council, the Secretary presented the names of those on the second nominating ballot who stood in the top three places as a result of the balloting in which more than 1600 votes had been received. These names, listed in order, highest in each category, were as follows :

			MEMBERSHIP EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
PRESIDENT	VICE -PRESIDENT	TREASURER	(1962—1964)
C. J. Alexopoulos	A. J. Sharp	C.Heimsch	R.  Emerson
P. J.  Kramer	L. Constance	T. Delevoryas	W. H. Wagner
O. D.   Keck	A. W. Galston	H. Lewis	A. Lang

A motion was made, seconded, and carried unanimously that the candidates with the highest number of votes in each category be elected. The officers for 1963, therefore, are:

 

President:	C. J.	Alexopoulos
Vice-President:	A. J.	Sharp
Treasurer:	C.	Heimsch
Editorial Committee:	R.	Emerson

3. Dr. Stebbins thanked Dr. A. J. Sharp on behalf of the Society for his long and dedicated service as Treasurer and personally congratulated him as the new Vice-President elect.

4. President Stebbins announced that the Council, under the provisions of the By-Laws, had decided to meet with the A.I.B.S. in 1963 (Universit) of Massachusetts). But, because the International Botanical Congress is to be held in Scotland during August of 1964, the Council voted to hold the Botanical Society of America meetings with the A.A.A.S. in Boston during December of that year instead of in Boulder, Colorado with the A.I.B.S. (Note the additional action taken on this matter during Session II, Item 12, below.)

5. It was announced that various reports from the Society's Sections and Committees had been received and approved by the Council.

PACE SIX

6. Dr. Stebbins announced the appointment of Dr. Adolph Becht as the new Chairman of the Committee on Education, replacing Dr. Harriet Creighton, and the appointment of Dr. W. H. Wagner as the new Chairman of the Membership Committee, replacing Dr. W. C. Steere. The President expressed the appreciation of the Society to the retiring chairmen for their long and dedicated service.

j. The President reported that the Council had approved a lengthy report from the Committee to Consider the Establishment of a National Tropical Botanical Garden in Hawaii. He asked that the Society consider and support the following resolutions, which were read by the Chair-man of this Committee, Dr. Pierre Dansereau.

RESOLVED THAT:

(I) The Botanical Society of America recommends very strongly that a major tropical botanical garden be developed on U. S. Territory as soon as possible.

(2) The Botanical Society of America endorses the efforts of the Hawaiian Botanical Gardens Foundation towards this objective.

Dr. Constance E. Hartt, Secretary of the Hawaiian Botanical Gardens Foundation, was introduced and she spoke briefly on the question. She personally thanked the Society, and in particular, the Committee for its excellent report. Dr. Hartz emphasized that both the A.A.A.S. and A.I.13.S. had already gone on record as supporting the objectives of the Foundation.

After some additional discussion, the resolutions were passed unanimously.

8. The President reported that a new position of Pro-gram Director had been established by the Council, this initially to be a three-year appointed position, the duties of which would include that of arranging the annual pm-gram, serving as a liaison officer between the various topical sections so as to coordinate activities, etc. Under the pro-visions of Article VIII of the By-Laws, Dr. William Jensen was appointed by the Council as Program Director for a three-year term beginning in January, 1963. The Secretary was instructed to distribute to the Society, as directed by Article X of the By-Laws, proposed amendments to the By-Laws such that the Program Director might become a member of the Council and, further, serve as the fourth member of the Executive Committee.

q. In the absence of Dr. P. J. Kramer, the representative of the Society on the A.I.B.S. Governing Board, Dr. H. C. Bold, presented an oral report on the deliberations of this body which had met only the clay before. He re-ported that the Board planned to broaden the base of A.I.B.S. support by permitting membership on an individual basis, much as is done in the A.A.A.S. It was felt that this would strengthen biology as a whole and improve the journal activities of the A.I.B.S. This organizational change, if carried out, would be enacted over a fivevear period and would not affect the present status of society memberships. The A.I.B.S. Governing Board also voted to increase registration fees for next year's meetings from $5.00 to $Io.00 for full members, but retained the present $3.on registration fee for graduate students.

to. Dr. R. H. Goodwill presented an oral report on the current status of the proposed Federation of Plant Science Societies. In view of the contemplated reorganization of the A.I.B.S., and in view of the questionable relationship of the Federation within the new framework, it was felt that formal establishment of such a Federation was not desirable at this time. However, agreement was reached by the representatives of the Plant Science Societies on the Governing Board of the A.I.B.S. to meet as a group during the annual A.I.B.S. meetings to consider mutual problems. The formal resolution adopted by this group follows:

The representatives of the Plant Science Societies here assembled recommend to the President of the A.I.B.S. that the Plant Science Society representatives on the Governing Board of the A.I.B.S. meet as a Council of Plant Science Societies at the regular meetings of the Governing Board, and that the President of the A.I.B.S. appoint a chairman of this Council.

It is further recommended that each of the Plant Science Societies that is a non-member of the A.I.B.S. be invited to send a representative to the meetings of the Council.

It was noted by President Stebbins that no action by the Society was needed to implement this arrangement; there-fore, the Council merely voted a resolution to the effect that they approved, in principle, of such a meeting.

SESSION II

August 28, 1962

11. Meeting called to order by President Stebbins at 1:00 p.m.; 40 persons were present, this constituting a quorum.

12. Dr. Creighton and Dr. Cleland raised the question of the meeting site for the 1964 meetings (A.A.A.S. in Boston) which had been set by the Council in its earlier deliberations. After considerable discussion, it was the consensus of opinion that the Council of the Botanical Society of America ought to reconsider its decision to meet with the A.A.A.S. in Boston, particularly since the A.I.B.S. will have met in the Boston area during 1963. President Stebbins then announced that the item would be placed on the agenda of the Council for reconsideration at their 1963 meetings.

1 :;. The Interim Reports and Proposed Budgets of both the Treasurer and the Business Manager were approved.

14. There being no further business before the Society, the meeting stood adjourned at 1:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, B. L. Turner, Secretary

Awards, 1962

At the annual banquet of the Botanical Society of America, this year held at Oregon State University in Corvallis the following testimonials were awarded:

BOTANICAL SOCIETY MERIT AWARDS

MARCUS MORTON RI-tom es, cytogeneticist, whose funda-

PAGE SEVEN

mental contributions to our knowledge of chromosome structure and behavior, and of the relations between nucleus and cytoplasm, have greatly advanced the science of genetics, and furthered the development of improved strains of crop plants, especially of maize.

DAVID ROCKWELL GODDARD, for his perceptive investiga-

tions of respiratory enzymes and respiratory mechanisms in plants, his deep interest in problems of cellular growth, and his wise counsel to students, colleagues and fellow botanists.

COOLEY AWARD OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT TAXONOMISTS

Presented to DR. OTro T. SOLERIG, Gray Herbarium, Harvard University, for the best paper presented at the annual meeting of the A.S.P.T. Dr. Solbrig's paper was entitled, "Infraspecific variation in the Gutierrezia sarothrae complex (Compositae: Astereae)."

BROOKLYN BOTANIC GARDEN AWARD

Presented for outstanding contributions in the interpretation of botany to the general public to PAUL BIGELOW SEARS, Professor Emeritus of Botany, Yale University.

NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN AWARD

Presented for outstanding contributions to the fundamental aspects of botany to Roderic B. Park and Ming G. Pon of the University of California, Berkeley.

DARBAKER PRIZE

Presented for outstanding contributions to phycology to MARY BELLE ALLEN of the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, Richmond, California.

Report of the Committee on
Future Affairs of the
Botanical Society of America'

At the Executive Council meeting of the Botanical Society held at Corvallis, Oregon, 1962, a report was presented from the Committee on Future Affairs of the Botanical Society of America. Several of the recommendations of this report were acted upon favorably by the Council and subsequently approved by the membership of the Society at the business meeting.

The most far-reaching of the recommendations dealt with the conduct of the annual meetings. The committee felt that the size to which meetings have grown necessitates closer coordination among the various parts of the Society. This coordination can not be accomplished under the present system where each section of the Society operates independently as a separate unit in preparing programs for the Society's annual meetings. These sections initiate symposia and organize contributed paper sessions. Almost every topical section now has a full three-day meeting. The Secretary of the Society was in charge of organizing the meetings and coordinating the activities of the various sections. The job of the Secretary is, however, an exacting one and he is responsible for a large number of other demanding activities. The necessary long-range planning

'Report prepared by William A. Jcnscn, Chairman. Other committee members were: William \V. Brandt, Charles R. IT(iscr, Jr., Taylor A. Steeves, and Alfred Traverse. and coordination needed to arrange more successful future meetings appeared to the committee to be beyond the capacity of one man who is, in addition, the Secretary of the Society.

The committee, therefore, proposed that an additional officer be named in the Society to act as Program Director. It would be the responsibility of this officer to organize and coordinate the annual meeting of the Society. In this capacity he would act as chairman of a committee consisting of the officers of the various topical sections in charge of the program for each section. He would work throughout the year with the Secretary and the President of the Society to coordinate the presentation of symposia and to avoid, insofar as it is possible, any overlap between the activities of the various sections. Moreover, he would he the officer through whom coordination with other societies could be effected in the unification of the program. It was envisioned by the committee that this officer have considerable power in arranging the program and in aiding the sections in their efforts to organize their meetings. The tenure of office of the Program Director would be three years, and in the motion finally accepted by the Council. the office was designated appointive under the jurisdiction of the Council.

As it is important that the Program Director have a seat on the Council and a vote in that body, an amendment to the existing By-Laws will be circulated to the member-ship later in the year. It should be emphasized that the post of Program Director has been established by the Council and the By-Law amendment is to make the Program Director a voting member of the Council.

The Council not only posted the resolution to create the office of Program Director, but named William A. Jensen to that position. Dr. Jensen will begin his duties immediately and be the Society's Program Director for the next meeting.

The committee also recommended certain other changes which it felt would benefit the Society. These suggestions hinged on strengthening the sections of the Society. The committee believed that all sections should be represented on the Executive Council by a representative who will have a term of office greater than one year. At present, representatives of the sections feel an acute lack of continuity with the business of the Council and of having relatively little voice in the business of the Council because they have not been present at previous Council meetings during discussion of vital matters. The committee believed that the Council would more truly represent the entire Botanical Society, of America if the representation of the sections was on a more continuous basis. Several sections have already adopted this recommendation and it is hoped that additional sections will do so.

Obituaries

DANIEL GROVER CLARK

Professor Daniel Grover Clark of the Cornell Department of Botany passed away on April 13, ip6a at the age of 61. Professor Clark was born in Ithaca on August 20, 1900 and

PAGE EIGHT

obtained all of his education in Ithaca, first in the public schools, subsequently at Cornell University. He received the B.S. in 1929 and the PhD. in 1936.

Professor Clark's teaching duties were confined to plant physiology where he saw at an early date the necessity of utilizing the tools of biochemistry in physiological research. His first concern was that students recognize the need to explore all avenues to the solution of a problem. As a result of his labors the self-reliance and imagination of a host of Cornell undergraduates were tremendously stimulated.

Professor Clark's own research centered on problems of photosynthesis, enzyme activity, hormones and vitamins, biological nitrogen fixation and hybrid vigor. An out-growth of some of this work was a splendid movie film on the opening and closing of stomates.

A major share of Professor Clark's time was devoted to advising graduate students who minored in plant physiology. At the time of his death over 70 were registered with him and more than 350 came under his tutelage at various times. Dr. Clark collaborated with the late Professor Otis F. Curtis to write Introduction to plant physiology which was published in 1950.

The death of Professor Clark deprives his colleagues of a true friend and counselor, his graduate students of a skilled and devoted advisor, his undergraduates of a gifted and inspiring teacher.—HA1tu.AN P. BANKS, Cornell University.

News and Notes

ANNOUNCEMENTS

The NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION will award grants

to defray partial travel expenses for a limited number of American scientists who wish to participate in the Third International Congress of the International Society of Biometeorology. This Congress is scheduled to meet in Pau, France, September 2 through 7, 1963. Application blanks may be obtained from the National Science Foundation, Washington 25, D. C. Completed forms must be submitted by March 1, 1963.

The SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY or GROWTH_ AND DEvELOPMENT has elected the following officers for 1963: John G. Torrey, President; William A. Jensen, Secretary; Marcus Singer, Treasurer; Michael Locke, Editor of Symposium Volume; Clement Markers, Member of the Executive Committee.

The twenty-second annual symposium of the SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT will he held at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, on July 17-19, 1963. It will be devoted to the general topic, "Cellular Membranes in Development." Inquiries about the Society or the symposium may be directed to the Secretary. Dr. William A. Jensen, Department of Botany, University of California, Berkeley 4, California.

ANCIENT PACIFIC FLORAS: THE POLLEN STORY, is to be

published by the University of Hawaii Press on or about January r, 1963. This volume consists of the fourteen papers presented before the Pollen Symposium at the Tenth Pacific Science Congress held in Honolulu in August, 1961. Further information may be obtained by writing to Dr. Lucy Cranwell, 5045 East Grant Road, Tucson, Arizona.

The Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, will publish a paperback volume entitled, RECENT ADVANCES IN BOTANY. This book will contain the results of a symposium presented jointly by the Botanical Society of America and Section G of the A.A.A.S. during meetings of the latter society in Denver last December. The publication is edited by Dr. William A. Jensen and Dr. Leroy G. Kavaljian and is to appear on December 15, 1962. It will include papers by James Bonner, Lawrence Bogorad, William A. Jensen, Frank Salisbury, and Beatrice Sweeney.

Four sessions in biometry are to be held at the A.A.A.S. meetings in Philadelphia, December 26-30, 1962. These sessions are being co-sponsored by Section U (Statistics) of A.A.A.S. and E.N.A.R. under the following headings: "Some uses of high speed computers in statistics," "Some problems of mathematical biology," "Sampling for zoologists," and "Statistical problems of genetics and evolution."

PERSONALIA

DR. FRANCIS M. HUEBER has been appointed Associate Curator in the Division of Invertebrate Paleontology and Paleobotany of the Smithsonian Institution beginning November 1, 1962. It is anticipated that within a year Dr. Hueber will head up a new Division of Paleobotany in the Department of Geology of the Smithsonian. Previously, Dr. Hueber was geologist with the Geological Survey of Canada. His research interests involve studies in Devonian plant life.

MR. DAVID GREGORY has completed work toward his doctoral degree at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, and has been appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology at the University of Maine. His degree will be conferred by the Claremont Graduate School.

DR. RICHARD H. EYDE has recently been appointed to the staff of the Smithsonian Institution as Associate Curator in the Division of Woods. Dr. Eyde recently completed his doctorate at Harvard University where he worked on present-clay and fossil species of Nyssa. He intends to continue morphological and phylogenetic studies in Corn-;tceae and related families.

DR. ALBERT C. Snlrrrl, formerly Director of the Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution, was appointed Assistant Secretary on November 1, 1962. This position is secondmost only to the Secretary, the Institution's chief executive officer. Dr. Smith has previously been associated with the New York Botanical Garden, the Arnold Arboretum, and the Department of Botany of the Smithsonian where he was Curator of the Division of Phanerogams. He also served as Program Director for Systematic Biology in the National Science Foundation.

DR. A. CARL LEOPOLD is spending the fall semester of 1962 as Carnegie Visiting Professor of Plant Physiology at the University of Hawaii. In February, he will return to Purdue University where he is Professor of Physiology of Horticultural Crops.

---