in this issue we offer reflections on the recent tragedy at Virginia Techand its implications for MIT (p. 6); two statements from the Bioengineeringfaculty (p. 13); a lighthearted look at standard measurements, “Units, Schmunits:What Do You Care?” by Eduardo Kausel (p. 16); and the revised “Policies andProcedures” of the Faculty Newsletter (p. 28).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XIX No. 6May/June 2007

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 10

Steven Lerman

From The Faculty ChairStating Our CoreValues: Does MITNeed a Statement of Ethical Principles?

continued on page 3

EditorialYour Newsletter

T H E M A R C H /A P R I L I S S U E of theFaculty Newsletter published a piecewritten by Prof. Michel DeGraff, titled“Faith vs. Facts in the Pursuit ofFairness at MIT.” The article addressedsome issues related to the Institute’sdecision to deny tenure to Prof. JamesSherley. The very public debate on thiscase has already demonstrated thatthere are many strong and divergentopinions on the process that led to thedecision. There have been several directmailings to the faculty, both before andafter the March/April issue of the FNL,by different parties to the Sherley case,including administrative officers of theInstitute, groups of faculty from theBiological Engineering Department,and various others. Many of these itemsare posted on the Newsletter Website,web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/sherley/sherley.htm.

Newsletter Staff

B I S H S A N YA L , Ford InternationalProfessor of Urban Development andPlanning and former Head of theDepartment of Urban Studies andPlanning (1994-2002), is the new Chair ofthe MIT faculty. His term runs until 2009.

Bish, whose full name is Bishwapriyain Bengali, credits contradictory forces inhis life for his intellectual journey fromKolkata, India to his nomination as theFaculty Chair. Bish was born into anorthodox Hindu family, but attended aprivate Jesuit school for 11 years. He isdeeply drawn to visual aesthetics – partic-ularly of the kind exemplified by goodarchitecture, which he studied as anundergraduate at the Indian Institute ofTechnology – and yet he is equally drawnto social sciences’ analytical traditions,which inspired him to do his doctoralstudies in international development

Bish Sanyal NewFaculty Chair

continued on page 4

B ECAUS E TH I S I S MY final columnfor the Faculty Newsletter as Chair of theFaculty, I spent a great deal time thinkingabout an appropriate theme that wouldreflect what I have learned as Chair andwhat departing message might be oflasting value. My decision was ultimatelybased largely on a series of conversationsover the past year with Mary Rowe, one ofMIT’s Ombudspersons.

The Ombuds Office provides allmembers of the MIT community with aconfidential, informal, and neutral optionto discuss concerns of all sorts, includingvarious forms of harassment, discrimina-tion, academic honesty, and researchintegrity. Everyone at MIT can go thereseeking options and support, with theguarantee of confidentiality. TheOmbuds office has no formal role at MIT.Ombuds do not investigate or make man-

Vol. XIX No. 6 May/June 2007

2

The MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Alice AmsdenUrban Studies & Planning

John BelcherPhysics

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Erik DemaineElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Olivier de WeckAeronautics & Astronautics/Engineering Systems

*Ernst G. FrankelMechanical Engineering

Stephen C. GravesManagement Science/Engineering Systems

Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

Gordon KaufmanManagement Science/Statistics

Daniel S. KempChemistry

Jonathan KingBiology

Stephen J. LippardChemistry

*David H. MarksCivil & Environmental Engineering

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

Ronald PrinnEarth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences

David ThorburnLiterature

*George VergheseElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Rosalind H. WilliamsScience, Technology, & Society/WritingDavid LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Sub-Committee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 11-268Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

Telephone 617-253-7303Fax 617-253-0458Email fnl@mit.edu

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

From The 01 Stating Our Core Values: Does MIT Need a Faculty Chair Statement of Ethical Principles?

Steven Lerman

01 Bish Sanyal New Faculty Chair

Editorial 01 Your Newsletter

M.I.T. Numbers 03 From the Senior Survey

05 MIT Communications: Diversity, Vitality, and OpennessJohn Belcher, Jonathan King, Stephen Lippard, Fred Moavenzadeh

06 MIT Responds to the Tragedy at Virginia Tech

Student Responses to Virginia Tech and How Faculty Can HelpAlan Siegel

MIT Community Confronts Issues of Safety and GrievingRobert Randolph

07 An Interview with MIT Chief of Police John DiFava

11 MIT and the World Economic ForumYossi Sheffi

12 MIT Administration Support for the Faculty NewsletterLorna J. Gibson

13 Two Statements from the Biological Engineering Faculty Regarding the Tenure Case of Prof. James L. Sherley

16 Units, Schmunits: What Do You Care?Eduardo Kausel

18 Looking Forward to Changes in the Undergraduate Commons: Perspectives from a “Large” ProgramLinda G. Griffith

MIT Poetry 21 Borderline Jesus; The DivinersJean Monahan

22 Solving the Energy ProblemWilliam Schreiber

24 The Task Force on Medical Care for the MIT Community: An Update from MIT MedicalWilliam Kettyle

26 A New Cooperative Residence for the MIT CommunityPaul E. Gray, O. Robert Simha

27 Error Results in Some Faculty Being Overcharged for Supplemental Life Insurance

28 Newsletter Adopts New Policies and Procedures:Includes Direct Election of Editorial Board Members

M.I.T. Numbers 31 Women Faculty

32 Percent of Faculty Who are Women

contents

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

3

In this context, it is not surprising thatthe Newsletter Editorial Board receivedsome comments, questions, and com-plaints from colleagues on its publicationof Prof. DeGraff ’s article. While some feltthat the article, whether or not one agreedwith it, was quite appropriate for the FNL,others questioned the propriety, fairness,or motivations of the Editorial Board inpublishing this piece.

The Faculty Newsletter was founded 19years ago with the objective of serving asan independent forum for free discussionby and for MIT faculty, on issues ofimportance and interest to the faculty.The pages of the FNL have been open tocontributions of all kinds from the entirefaculty (and from non-faculty, as andwhen appropriate). The Editorial Boardhas guided selection of contributed mate-rial and has solicited original material. It

has on occasion asked for clarifications orrewording, but the aim has always been tolet the faculty speak directly.

As a result, there have been contribu-tions over the years that have been con-tentious. Inevitably these contributionschallenge the Editorial Board to re-examine how to balance the goal of pro-viding an open forum with that ofmaintaining collegiality and fairness. TheBoard’s processes for finding the rightbalance are well-intended but not perfect,and it doesn’t necessarily always get itright. As one recourse, the FNL providesan opportunity for clarifications, rejoin-ders, or rebuttals in succeeding issues ofthe Newsletter. However, given the infre-quency of publication of the FNL, somequestion the fairness of this option andargue that the Board needs to be moreproactive in soliciting alternative view-points whenever it decides to publish apotentially contentious article. The Boardis working to improve and clarify its oper-

ating standards for such cases, keeping inmind the balance that is called for.

As a final point, the Board operatesunder the assumption that authors areresponsible for the substance of their arti-cles. For the Editorial Board to take on thetask of independently investigating thespecifics of each piece would be beyond itsmandate or ability. Published articlesexpress the opinions of their authors, notof the Editorial Board.

Editorial Sub-Committee

(March/April FNL)Nazli Choucri

Stephen C. GravesRonald Prinn

(May/June FNL)Ernst G. FrankelDavid H. MarksGeorge Verghese

Your Newslettercontinued from page 1

M.I.T. NumbersFrom the Senior Survey (2002, 2004, 2006)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall quality of instruction

Humanities and arts courses

Social science courses

Courses in major field

Opportunity to participate in research with faculty member

Engineering courses

Natural sciences and math courses

Out of class faculty availability

Tutorial help or academic assistance

Academic advising in your major

Academic advising before declaring major

Satisfaction with various aspects of college(Bars represent “generally” and “very” satisfied)

2002 2004 2006Data Source: Senior Survey (2002, 2004, 2006)Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

4

planning at the University of California atLos Angeles. In between, Bish worked forhis father’s civil engineering firm buildingbridges and managing a difficult businessenterprise at a time of major labor unrestin India. Even though this labor unrestdeeply hurt his father’s business, Bish wasmoved by the plight of the poor construc-tion laborers – men, women, and evenchildren – who relied on unpredictabledaily wages, lived in ramshackle houses,and lacked the privileges Bish grew upwith in India. Before joining MIT as anassistant professor in 1984, Bish alsoworked for the World Bank and wasposted in Zambia in south central Africato supervise five large urban projects toprovide housing and services for theurban poor in Lusaka. His doctoral disser-tation, which grew out of this experience,demonstrated a paradox: that a large per-centage of the urban labor force relied onfood they grew within the city as a step-ping stone in the process of industrializa-tion and modernization.

At MIT, as a young faculty member ina professional school, Bish was equallydrawn to both outstanding scholarswhose preoccupation was to better under-stand the role of cities in national devel-opment, and to innovative practitionerswith experience in urban planning tomake cities more efficient, equitable, andaesthetically attractive. As a result, heengaged in serious research while simulta-neously advising major internationalinstitutions, such as the UNDP (UnitedNations Development Programs),UNCHS (United Nations Center forHuman Settlements), International LaborOffice, United States Agency forInternational Development, The WorldBank, as well as the Ford Foundation andnational government agencies and univer-sities in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, andLatin America.

The ease with which Bish holds oppos-ing ideas in his mind helped him play abridging role between scholars and practi-tioners, and that is why he was asked to be

the Head of the Department of UrbanStudies and Planning in 1994, when hewas still an Associate Professor. Bishaccepted the responsibility with appre-hension, as he and his wife, who was thencommuting between New York andBoston, were then expecting their firstchild. The dual strain of new administra-tive work and family responsibilities wasdifficult at times, but overall it was amemorable learning experience, primarilybecause of the collegiality of departmentalcolleagues and his parental love for hisnewly-born daughter, a new sensationBish cherished despite the work overload.

After stepping down from theDepartment Head position in 2002, Bishenjoyed a peaceful sabbatical with shortlecture assignments in Asian andEuropean universities, and spending timewith his family who, by then, were allliving in Boston after 13 years of commut-ing to and from New York. The sabbaticalallowed Bish to complete his third book,Comparative Planning Cultures, whichhad begun as a quest to understand theplanning cultures of 12 nations. Workingon this edited volume, Bish learned thatthere is no cultural nucleus, no social genethat can be decoded to reveal the culturalDNA of planning practice. Planningculture, like the larger social culture inwhich it is embedded, is in constant flux,because of the continuous process ofsocial, political, and technologicalchanges. Bish recommends that planningcultures be viewed in this dynamic way, incontrast to traditional notions of culture

that are used to evoke a sense ofimmutability and inheritance, so as to gobeyond “cultural essentialism” which, inessence, is an exclusionary, parochial, andalso inaccurate representation of history.

Bish is currently probing this dynamicnotion of interwoven planning cultures ina program that he directs for mid-careerplanning professionals. Known by theacronym SPURS, the program wascreated in 1967 at a time very differentfrom now – politically, economically, andsocially –with regards to the United States’relationship to the rest of the world. Bishhas been trying to construct a new ration-ale for the program since 9/11, whichcreated an urgent need for better interna-tional understanding and mutual learningamong the diverse but interconnectednations of the world.

Bish is looking forward to his two-yearterm as Chair of the Faculty, which heconsiders an honor he shares with hisfellow faculty officers, Prof. MelissaNobles from HASS (Associate Chair) andProf. Bevin Engelward from the School ofEngineering (Secretary). He is somewhatapprehensive, however, about his abilityto continue conducting rigorousresearch, publish, and teach popularundergraduate courses such as D-Lab(which he co-teaches with Amy Smith) ashe assumes this new role. But, as someonewho is curious about how institutionsplan, and in particular, how academicinstitutions plan to respond to socialchanges, Bish is grateful for having theopportunity to observe this first hand. Heis also grateful that his new responsibili-ties will create opportunities for intellec-tual encounters with some of the mostcreative individuals in various fields otherthan his own urban planning. Where thisintellectual journey will lead he cannotpredict – because he is attracted to bothrigorous research and academic adminis-tration, research and writing as well asmanaging innovative programs, and ulti-mately theorizing from practice. Hehopes these somewhat opposite goals willcontinue to be a source of intellectualenergy, and wonders if their resolution isnecessary for a meaningful life.

Bish Sanyal New Faculty Chaircontinued from page 1

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

5

Fred Moavenzadeh, John Belcher,Jonathan King, Stephen Lippard

MIT Communications:Diversity, Vitality, and Openness

M IT PLAYS A VE RY I M P ORTANT andprominent role in shaping and directing theglobal agenda in higher education in generaland in science and technology in particular.Its influence in policy formulation, technol-ogy development, industrial strategy, andphysical and life sciences research and edu-cation go well beyond its campus. Whathappens in the campus is becoming of inter-est in many parts of the world and manywalks of life.

Several important steps taken byPresident Hockfield over the past year showthe Institute’s long-term commitment tothis global role of MIT and appreciation forthe critical role MIT can play in worldaffairs. Among them are MIT’s involvementin establishment of the MIT EnergyInitiative; international programs and affili-ations with other countries; and the expan-sion of MIT’s communication with theoutside world.

The recognition of the necessity for MITto better manage and expand its commit-ments to the world community is exempli-fied by the recent hiring of Deborah LoebBohren in the newly-created position ofVice President for External Affairs. Asexpressed in President Hockfield’s e-mailannouncement to the MIT community,“Ms. Bohren brings to this new positionextensive experience in public relations, gov-ernment affairs, and employee communica-tions in both the public and private sectors.”

The realization that MIT will be strength-ened by a strong, stable communicationinfrastructure is further acknowledged inPresident Hockfield’s announcement: “Inher new role at the Institute, Ms. Bohren willlead the coordination of MIT’s communica-tions with external constituencies and audi-ences including government and the media.The MIT News Office and the Office ofGovernment and Community Relations willreport to her, and she will work closely withthe MIT Washington Office in the develop-ment and implementation of our strategy forfederal relations. More broadly, she will serve

as the senior adviser to the Institute’s aca-demic and administrative leadership onpublic affairs and external communications.”

The creation of the position of VicePresident for External Affairs is most wel-comed by us, Editorial Board members of theFaculty Newsletter, as it finally acknowledgesthe need for more systematic channels ofcommunication by the Institute, and shouldbe strongly supported by the MIT commu-nity. In addition, the Institute-wideCommunication Survey administered lastMarch (the results of which we understandwill be released shortly) is likely to offerfurther insight on this important subject.However, whether Tech Talk, whose chiefmission is internal communication, shouldbe overseen by the Vice President for ExternalAffairs, needs further reflection and review.

We are also confident Ms. Bohren recog-nizes that the need to coordinate externalrelationships does not mean that the diver-sity of views and vigor of internal debate onmajor issues should be minimized orlimited. Indeed, the strength of MIT as aninstitution continues to depend on theability to encompass the diverse contribu-tions and views of talented and dedicatedfaculty and staff. We envisage that some ofthe external negotiations and arrangementswill require coming back to the faculty foradvice and consent.

Since its inception nearly 20 years ago,the Faculty Newsletter has attempted tobridge the communication gap at theInstitute by providing a channel of commu-nication for the faculty (and others) onissues of importance. The interest andenthusiasm in major issues that facultymembers have exhibited by their participa-tion in the Newsletter (writing articles,sending letters, etc.) again is evidence of thevalue of a truly open channel of communi-cation among peers and the entire MITcommunity. The importance of this openchannel is perhaps most significant when aconsensus cannot be reached on matters ofconcern, or a minority of faculty do not

accept or go along with the consensus of themajority. It is at these times that theNewsletter serves as a forum for divergingviews. Over the years it has provided anavenue for the faculty (sometimes disgrun-tled ones) to challenge the administrationon a variety of issues. The MIT administra-tion, unlike corporate administration, rec-ognizes these privileges of MIT faculty. Itdistinguishes between faculty of a universityand an employee of a corporation. This hasso far allowed for a healthy, vibrant, andproductive give and take, which should andwill continue. Although some segments ofMIT have, on occasion, been dismayed orangered by what has appeared in the pagesof the FNL, most have eventually come torecognize and respect its independence.

The results of the opening of theNewsletter Website to the entire world com-munity nearly two years ago are again evi-dence of the importance of clear channels ofcommunication. Significant additionalinterest in MIT has been generated, and col-leagues at other institutes throughout theworld have taken notice. Our Website hasregular visitors from more than 50 differentnations, and the number of “hits” we receiveincreases monthly. In addition, we are plan-ning a substantial overhaul of the Website toallow for more timely access and response,which we believe will even further increaseits importance.

The Faculty Newsletter is a window onMIT that many envy and admire. By itsindependence, by its willingness to publishunpopular articles, or articles on unpopularsubjects, we believe the Newsletter hasmostly generated admiration and respectfrom its readers.

Fred Moavenzadeh is a Professor in theDepartment of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering (moaven@mit.edu);John Belcher is a Professor in the PhysicsDepartment (jbelcher@mit.edu); Jonathan King is a Professor in the BiologyDepartment (jaking@mit.edu); Stephen Lippard is a Professor in theChemistry Department (lippard@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

6

MIT Responds to the Tragedy at Virginia Tech

Student Responses to Virginia Tech and How Faculty Can Help

Alan Siegel

I N TH E HOU R S AN D DAYS following the killings at VirginiaTech, our community began to react, especially our student pop-ulation. At first, students were sad, shocked, and some were con-fused. But soon after, they began to experience other symptoms– from feeling physically unwell, to having trouble concentratingor sleeping, to being more irritable or lonesome. As one mightexpect, the reaction in the MIT community was not immediate.As is often the case, more immediate stresses and concerns over-shadowed the feelings about the tragedy. Although the effort tocompartmentalize pain is a normal one, this psychological effortis only partially successful.

The news coverage and blog correspondence about VirginiaTech became more intense and constant. Videos made by thestudent responsible for the killings were explicit and frightening.This violence and irrationality naturally made many peoplefrightened and confused about human nature, and uncertainabout how safe we are in our own worlds. Within days, ourcampus was confronted with two additional tragedies – thedeaths of two undergraduates. Those in our community whoknew and loved these two students suffered the most immediatepain of loss and shock. “How can all these terrible thingshappen?” students and parents wondered. Our students alwaystry to make sense out of things, and yet, in these cases, our cre-ative intellectual skills seemed not to provide much help.Feelings of sadness, helplessness, guilt, responsibility, and pro-found confusion appeared in student e-mails, blogs, and in resi-dence-hall conversations. Fascination with violence, death, andpain also appeared in communications. Many of us, someparents ourselves, felt afraid for our loved ones and, perhaps, forourselves.

In responding to tragedies such as these, we know that woundsand hurts from the past, many long forgotten, can become reacti-vated and affect us. This includes any of us who have been victims

MIT Community Confronts Issues of Safety and Grieving

Robert Randolph

L A S T M O N T H W E E X P E R I E N C E D V I CA R I O U S LY theterror of the Virginia Tech tragedy. For many in our communitythe terror was not vicarious. They are graduates of Virginia Tech,had family members there and are tied to that hurting commu-nity in a myriad of ways. Some of us have wondered if such athing could happen here. The answer is not very comforting: itcould happen here. I do not think it will and I can tell you why,but tragedy is a companion in life and to pretend it is not does notserve our community well. Safety is something we desire andunderstandably so, but our reality is that total safety is an illusion.

At the same time we were grieving over what happened inBlacksburg, two of our own students died in unrelated accidents.I am wary of reducing the enormous tragedy of young lives lostto statistics, but it is important to know that each year we canexpect student deaths and while young lives lost seem particu-larly unfair, we have also lost peers, colleagues, and mentors.Grieving is always going to be part of life in a community. So inaddition to asking “How may we be safe?,” we also must ask“How are we to grieve?”

Let me comment first on safety. Over the course of nearly 30years at MIT, I have been involved in most of our acute emer-gencies. I have searched rooms for guns, asked police to removethem from rooms, talked troubled students out of labs androoms and into circumstances where they could receive help,and encouraged others when they had done the same things.These are always team efforts and possible here at MIT becausewe are a community that talks together about crises and poten-tial crises in the daily sequence of events. The right hand knowswhat the left hand is concerned about and when difficultiesdevelop there are people who can connect the dots.

We have a professional campus police cadre that are welltrained and who know the difference between the streets aroundMIT and the heart of the Institute. While tensions develop from

continued on page 8 continued on page 9

On April 16, 2007 on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 people and wounded many others.It was the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history. Generating extensive coverage worldwide, the aftermath of the massacrereopened debates about gun control, safety on university campuses, modern communication technology, and many others. At MIT,as on college campuses throughout the country, responses to news of the tragedy included fear, sorrow, and myriad questionsabout how such a thing could happen and how would MIT respond if something similar were to happen here. Following are threeperspectives from community members whose positions necessitated immediate involvement in the aftermath of the shootings: theChief of Mental Health Services, Alan Siegel, the Institute Chaplain, Bob Randolph, and the Chief of the MIT Police Department,John DiFava.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

7

FNL: When did you first hear about theevents at Virginia Tech?

JD: It turns out I was with my familyon vacation in Florida at SeaWorld whenmy cell phone rang. It was the News Officecalling and they gave me a quick overviewbut not a lot of information had come outyet. So I hung up and then called thePolice Chief at BU who was a former col-league of mine in the State Police. Thefacts were still unfolding, but he told meas much as he knew and then I called backthe News Office and filled them in. I alsotold them that even though I was on vaca-tion I was willing to do whatever wasneeded.

FNL: Were you able to effectivelymonitor the situation from Florida?

JD: Yes I was. I kept in close touch withmy staff and I also was in frequent contactwith Bill Van Schalkwyk, who is in chargeof Environmental Health and Safety.There were several meetings held that Billattended along with my Deputy Chief,John Driscoll, who went in my stead. Ioffered to return to MIT, but was told itwouldn’t be necessary. It seems the meet-ings were pretty low key. There wasn’t a lotof panic on the campus and the issueswere basically Are we prepared? Whathave we done? And people were satisfiedwith the answers.

FNL: Did the police force do anythingdifferent immediately upon hearing thenews? Was there greater vigilance or otheractions taken? Or was it more of well nothinghas happened here, let’s see how prepared weare?

JD: To be honest, it was the latter. Itwas let’s see how prepared we are.

FNL: And were we prepared?JD: Yes we were. And to be as candid as

possible, I believe one reason I was hiredwas because of the expertise I brought. Soone thing I did early on was to make surethat we were ready for any type of eventthat could happen on campus.

FNL: How did you go about doing that?JD: I started by really tearing this place

apart from our first response capabilities. Iidentified officers that I felt had the

mindset and ability to be able to respondto an active shooter type of thing. Becauseif something goes down, we’re going to bethe immediate responders. And ourresponse is really quite impressive here.We have never arrived at a scene or a callin more than three minutes. And that’sreally good in this business.

We went through the whole activeshoot-up scenario. We set up a group thatwould respond in case of a situation likethat or something similar. We did an awfullot of training with the State Police, withthe Cambridge Police – not to create anoverly aggressive organization, but to beprepared.

We also worked very closely with theCambridge Fire Department and withdepartments on campus to make sure thatthere was that flow of information. Weworked with Medical, EnvironmentalHealth and Safety, the Dean’s Office,Counseling – because we can’t work in avacuum here. We have to share informa-tion. And although we never expect anincident to happen, we do prepare for it,and I guess it’s the old mantra: prepare forthe worst, expect the best. And that’s whatI’ve always done. So when Virginia Techhappened, we sat back and we looked atour plans and our preparation. We wereabout as prepared as any organizationanywhere, and I took comfort from that.

FNL: What would you say was the mostimportant aspect of all the training?

JD: I actually believe it’s the sharing ofinformation. The other thing, and it’s soimportant for me to say this, is we thepolice are a cog in the machinery at MIT,and the one thing that impresses me noend about this place is that people talk toeach other here. I mean there was incredi-ble communication among Medical, theDean’s Office, the Counseling Deans, us.People talk. People know what’s going on.

And partially as a result, only 3% ofour work is actually criminal. That’sunheard of anywhere. And it’s reallybecause of the incredibly high quality ofthe faculty, students, and staff. So itdoesn’t call for an aggressive department.

It calls for a vigilant department. It callsfor a proactive department. It calls for avery community-oriented department.

FNL: So you really didn’t need to changeanything in response to Virginia Tech?

JD: Very honestly, should we have asimilar situation to Virginia Tech where werespond, it’s already too late. So you’ve gotto keep ahead of it. If something happenshere, you stand back, you get together andyou say oh my God, we’ve got to changethis, change that. We haven’t had to changeanything. Have we refined? Yes, we have.Have we looked into a little bit moredetail? Certainly. Have we analyzed andchecked to make sure? Yes, we have as well.But are we at the level that, should some-thing happen today, we are as prepared aswe could be? Yes, I believe we are.

FNL: Perhaps the biggest criticism of theauthorities at Virginia Tech and the greatestconcern on our campus was the question ofcommunication. How do you inform peoplerapidly as to what has occurred and whatthey should do?

JD: I agree – that’s a huge issue. Howdo we notify? And once again, this place isgreat. We’re ahead of the curve. TheInstitute has purchased a new piece ofsoftware which enables us to get the wordout through a multitude of cell phones,e-mail, and regular landline telephones.

FNL: Are we able to text message every-one with a cell phone simultaneously?

JD: Yes we are. Everybody that’s in ourdatabase can be reached at the same time.

FNL: That is if we actually have theircell phone number.

JD: You know, BU has similar software,but the students aren’t providing their cellphone numbers. But we are getting stu-dents’ phone numbers; it’s part of the registration process.

FNL: Is there anything you’d like to add?JD: Just that MIT is a fantastic place

and that it’s wonderful to work here. Andbecause of the positive, sharing attitude ofall the people and their resources, I believethat MIT is as safe a campus as it is possible for it to be.

An Interview with MIT Chief of Police John DiFava

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

8

of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse,family violence, as well as those whosefamilies have been victims of politicaloppression, torture, or gang violence.

Faculty can expect that a substantialnumber of students, and some colleagues,will be less efficient, less organized, andless productive over the next several weeksand months as we mourn for those weknow and those we did not know. Isuggest that faculty members make aspecial effort to pay attention to studentsand colleagues, and to actively inquireabout how others are doing. It is an espe-cially good time for departments, labs,and residences to have food around, andto provide opportunities for people togather informally.

In the past several years, we have madesubstantive changes in our Mental HealthServices at MIT. We made it simpler forsomeone to meet with a mental health cli-nician. Increased access, walk-in hours,and more community outreach haveallowed more students, faculty, and staffto talk with us. Clinicians in MentalHealth have worked with our colleaguesin Student Life and other departments toimprove communication and collabora-tion to help identify students in distress.

Faculty, administrative officers, anddepartmental administrators know theirstudents well. I encourage them to payclose attention to their own intuitive reac-tions to students. If you have a feeling thatsomeone is having difficulties, it is impor-tant to listen to your own reactions. Pleasetalk with others in your department to seeif they share your concerns or havenoticed any changes in the student’sdemeanor or performance. We do notexpect faculty to function as mentalhealth clinicians, but rather as the sensi-tive educators that they are. That’s why weencourage all faculty, administrative offi-cers, and departmental administrators tocontact a clinician in Mental Health (x3-2916) with any concerns. A phoneconsultation is always available. We willtalk things through with you and figure

out, together, what the best next stepmight be.

We encourage you to refer to thebooklet “for MIT faculty, How to HelpStudents in Distress” which is available onthe MIT Medical Website at: web.mit.edu/medical/pdf/faculty_brochure.pdf. Thisbooklet describes signs and symptomsthat may indicate a student in distress.These include:

Academic indicators, such as unusualabsences; decline in performance; unusualrequests for extensions; changes in con-centration or motivation; papers withunusual themes of depression, hopeless-ness, anger.

Physical/Psychological indicators, such as adecline in usual hygiene; changes in weight;overall impression of being depressed, with-drawn; change in social behavior in class andlab; more isolative; irritability.

If you have any concerns or questions –even if you are not sure of their impor-tance or relevance – please call me directlyor the clinician on call at x3-2916. It isessential that anyone who is worriedabout a student (or a colleague) not keepthat worry to themselves. Effective com-munication and collaboration among allof us are the best ways to help anyone inour community who is in distress.

The Mental Health Service has recentlyinitiated two new programs of interest.

College Pilot Study (Adapt@MIT) toAddress Rate of Suicide and Violence

This project, which involves a consor-tium of MIT and five other universities(Cornell University, Harvard University,Princeton University, Columbia University,and the University of Rochester) usessome of the successful strategies employedin the United States Air Force SuicidePrevention Program and applies them to auniversity setting. The Air Force programemphasizes the importance of commu-nity and protective social networks in pre-venting suicide, the second leading causeof death in college students. In a 1994report of the program’s first 10 years, theAir Force noted a significant reduction insuicide rates, homicide rates, and moder-ate-to-severe domestic violence.

At MIT, this project seeks to expandthe stakeholder training experiences thatwe have offered to the community, so thatall segments of the Institute communitycan learn about depression and riskfactors for suicide and violence, with thedual goals of learning how to recognizesymptoms and how to help. This inclusiveapproach centers on all members of ourcommunity caring for each other.

Online Depression Screening and InterventionThis project was developed by theAmerican Foundation for SuicidePrevention in cooperation with EmoryUniversity. Introduced at Emory severalyears ago, this online screening processreaches out to students who may bereluctant to seek mental health care.Because such students are usually hesi-tant to make their problems known, theyhave become an important population onwhich to concentrate mental health out-reach activities. Since our graduate stu-dents tend to be less connected with thelarger MIT community, we have begunthis project with outreach to this group ofstudents.

Our outreach starts with e-mail invita-tions that are sent to groups of graduatestudents (1500 to date) requesting theirparticipation in an anonymous mentalhealth screening survey. The survey isbrief and easy to complete. Based on adepression screening survey used inprimary care medical settings, we haveused focus groups to help us make thequestions more relevant to our studentpopulation. The survey has two goals: 1)to educate students about depression andstress in general, and the availability ofmental health treatment at MIT Medical;and 2) to identify students at higher riskand attempt to actively engage them intreatment.

Once the surveys have been completed,each student’s questionnaire is scored anda clinician from our Mental HealthService is alerted to the results. Studentswho score in the range indicating depres-sion are invited to come in for an inter-view. They can also communicate

Student Responses to Virginia TechSiegel, from page 6

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

9

time to time that may involve the police,the inherent stresses that affect the com-munity tend to be transitory.

Counseling services are also part of theconversation. Privacy concerns arehonored, but the bias is in favor of inter-vention when safety issues are raised. Weknow that even the best efforts of profes-sionals can be thwarted by bad luck andcircumstances that may intervene, but theframework is there for a reasonablesystem committed to the safety of ourcommunity.

But what else might we do to makethat framework even more effective?From my perspective, the most importantthing we can do is to recognize that wehave some conflicting priorities that needto be examined and rethought. We desireto be safe. We desire to be let alone andallowed to do our work. We do not like towaste time on ambiguities. We desire toencourage and promote behaviors thatare often creative but unusual because webelieve that those who often shape thefuture are sometimes a bit at variancefrom the norm. We tolerate a high degreeof eccentricity. We in fact celebrate eccen-tricity. That celebration means that some-times the behavior of students andcolleagues is not flagged as it might other-wise be. Who wants to be the one to tellBen Franklin not to take his kite out in thestorm?

What are we then to do? For severalyears now, along with a creative group ofcolleagues, we have had a program called“When Support Gets Personal” that haseducated staff on the resources availableto them when they are worried about

individuals. On average about 60 people ayear have gone through this program andthe goal is simply to help them under-stand our student community and toknow who to call when they are con-cerned and need advice – anytime, day ornight.

Those resources begin with the Deanfor Student Life at 617-253-4052 andStudent Support Services at 617-253-4861. After hours there is a Dean on Callwho can be contacted by calling theCampus Police at 617-253-1212. Facultymay also wish to touch base with MentalHealth at 617-253-2916 and consultationwith the Campus Police is not inappropri-ate. In all of these places questions may beasked and advice sought. You may con-tinue to own the problem or you mayhand it off. Better still, you may getinvolved in a process that deals with theneeds you perceive and the anxieties youfeel. Few problems are solved with a singleinteraction and over time you can developa relationship with helping resources thatwill offer comfort and solutions in situa-tions that range from the mundane to theprofound.

Things, however, may not always go aswe wish. The nature of our life togetheralso dictates that from time to time we willexperience losses that hurt terribly and forwhich there is no system that can protectus. When jolted by tragedy and loss, howdo we respond?

In January, I was appointed the firstChaplain to the Institute. Part of my jobdescription was to ask just that question:“How do we respond to loss?”When I firstcame here, the prevailing metaphor wasthat of a machine. MIT was like a hugemachine that simply kept moving. Weseldom paused and when we did there

were those who noted critically that notmuch work got done! The end result wasthat little attention was paid and we wererather callous and unreflective in ourresponses to a significant part of thehuman experience.

I am grateful that this attitude haschanged over time and the appointmentof a Chaplain speaks to that change. Partof my task will be to ask about how we areto grieve and to seek ways to help thathappen. After Virginia Tech, we held amemorial service for those lost inBlacksburg and when our own residentHokies came to share their grief, it wasclear that this was an important gesture.

If conversation protects us fromdanger, it also contributes to our healingin times of loss. To facilitate these healingconversations, we have put in place proto-cols that should help in planning memo-rial activities. More importantly, however,we all can come to recognize our need tocarve out space so we can reflect andrespond to those circumstances that chal-lenge our very being. In our lives together,the most important lessons we learn maywell be how to survive and grow throughthe sorrows that would otherwise stop usin our tracks.

So, where do these responses leave us? Ithink that total safety is an illusion, but wehave in place resources and plans thatcontribute to our wellbeing in even themost challenging circumstances. As well,we have come to realize that how we dealwith the unthinkable can contribute toour long-term wellbeing. To my mindMIT is a healthy and safe community. Iam not sure one can ask for more.

Issues of Safety and GrievingRandolph, from page 6

Robert Randolph is Institute Chaplain (randolph@mit.edu).

anonymously, via e-mail, with a clinicianwho can try to help them via e-mail or tryto persuade them to come into the clinicfor a meeting. We send responses with dif-ferent levels of urgency depending upon

the level of depression indicated by thesurvey, so we can quickly help the studentswho most urgently need help. Our dataindicate that about twice as many MITstudents are responding to the surveythan at other institutions using this spe-cific methodology. Initial data indicatethat this approach engages students who

are at risk, and who are not known to ourmental health staff.

Faculty or administrators with anyconcerns about a student, please call x3-2916 anytime for a consultation.

Student Responses to Virginia TechSiegel, from preceding page

Alan Siegel is Chief of Mental Health Services(sieg@med.mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

10

agement decisions or keep case records,but this office often helps resolve concernsbefore they escalate to formal grievances.It is an important part of the web ofmechanisms MIT has in place to help allof us work together more effectively. Maryand her colleague Toni Robinson oftenhear serious concerns about misconductthat go to the heart of the values ofintegrity, honesty, and fairness that arecentral to the MIT community.

My discussions with Mary and othershave led me to believe that MIT would bewell served by articulating what I wouldcall a “Statement of Ethical Principles”that would clearly articulate our corevalues. To be clear, I do not envision thisdocument as a detailed set of policies,processes, or quasi-judicial rulings.Rather, this statement would be brief andgeneral and, for the most part, what mostof us already implicitly understand. Itwould state the ethical principles thatapply to our teaching, research, businesspractices, and professional interactions.

Over my 38 years here at MIT (first as astudent and then as a faculty member) Ihave come to deeply respect the core valuesof our university. The vast majority of ourcommunity strives to be ethical in theirresearch, teaching, and interactions withothers who work here. We as faculty over-whelmingly strive to communicate thesevalues to our students, and we take ourethical responsibilities seriously. In our roleas supervisors, we try to treat everyone whoworks for us fairly and with respect.

However, as in any community oursize, there will inevitably be those whoignore these responsibilities. These trans-gressions range from theft of property andresearch misconduct to misrepresentationon résumés and plagiarism. They mayinclude actions that harass or discriminateagainst students, co-workers, fellowfaculty, or others in ways that cause deepand lasting harm. Or, they may involveconflicts between our own goals and oureducational obligations to our students.Almost all such actions are already viola-

tions of one or more policies at MIT (notto mention various state and federal laws),and we clearly cannot and do not toleratethem. Why then do I think we need astatement of ethical principles?

My first reason for believing a state-ment of ethical principles would be usefulis that many of the rules that we rely onare scattered across many documents thatmost of us have never read. MIT’s Policiesand Procedures, for example, embodiesmany of these core values. The prose inthis document is of necessity legalistic intone and style, and it isn’t organizedaround core ethical principles. We haveother documents that describe grievanceprocesses, academic honesty, environ-mental safety standards, and other aspectsof our expectations for behavior withinthe community that have similar features.Each of these is important and each drawsimplicitly on shared values, but none ofthem entirely abstracts out those sharedvalues.

A second feature of a statement ofethical principles is that it would applyuniversally to everyone in the community– students, staff, and faculty alike. It wouldreaffirm that we hold all members of thecommunity to ethical standards, regard-less of their reputation or status. Forexample, the Office of the Dean forUndergraduate Education published asuperb document that clarifies the defini-tion of plagiarism and appropriate attri-bution of the work of others. Thisdocument reflects some of our mostsacred principles, but by design is mostlytargeted to our students. These same prin-ciples of course apply to everyone.

Our collective belief in the universalityof our ethical principles was very muchpart of the recent tragedy involving thedismissal of our Dean of Admissions. AsPresident Hockfield made clear in herpublic statements, how could we possiblyhold our students to the highest standardsof ethical behavior unless we demon-strated that those same standards governour leadership? The application of thisstandard of conduct was necessary eventhough everyone recognized the extraor-dinary accomplishments of the person

dismissed, and wished that the outcomecould have been different.

The third feature of a statement ofethical principles is that it would create astandard for behavior that goes beyondwhat is mandated either by law or throughMIT policy. The notion that we, asmembers of the MIT community, can dowhatever isn’t explicitly prohibited is cor-rosive and should be rejected. Ethics gobeyond legal requirements and policystatements, and we should expect ethicalbehavior even when we don’t have theability to compel it. Those of us who seeunethical behavior should condemn it, andthose who undertake such behavior shouldexpect the community’s opprobrium.

The development of the statement Ihave in mind should involve representa-tives of all parts of the MIT community.Rather than try to create an initial drafthere, I instead propose a list of areas ourprinciples should cover. To be useful andcomplete, the statement needs to includeour ethical principles regarding:

• mutual respect for members of the com-munity, including promoting diversityand inclusion, and preventing harass-ment and unreasonable interferencewith the lives and work of others

• research conduct, including promotingthe highest standards of objectivity,openness, and honesty

• academic integrity, including attributionof the work of others and condemningplagiarism and cheating

• commitment to excellence in all aspectsof our work

• personal integrity, including acceptingresponsibility for our actions, preservingconfidentiality and privacy, when appro-priate, and promoting honesty inworking with each other and thoseoutside the community

• ethical financial conduct, including useof MIT funds, as well as those of donorsand research sponsors

• commitment to the health and safety ofthe community, including environmen-tal safety, workplace safety, and respectfor rules governing use of human andanimal experimental subjects

Stating Our Core ValuesLerman, from page 1

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

11

• respect for property, including thatbelonging to MIT and to other commu-nity members, as well as intellectualproperty

• responsibility for mentoring, advising,and appropriate supervision of students,staff, and faculty

• respect for the ideas of others, includingthe rights of free speech and the bound-aries of appropriate communicationswith others

• fairness and equity in how we treatothers in the community

• participation in civil society, includingrespect for rules with which we may dis-agree and commitment to public servicethat contributes to society at large.

As my last words in this column, I wantto thank my fellow faculty officers of thisyear who have served the entire faculty wellabove and beyond the call of duty. BruceTidor and Diana Henderson, who haveserved as Associate Chair and Secretary,respectively, have been wonderful to workwith and have done far more for the entire

community than most people will everknow. My special thanks also goes to LilyBurns. She has served as staff to the FacultyOfficers and has provided continuity andadvice to all of us. Finally, I want to wish theincoming officers – Bish Sanyal (Chair),Melissa Nobles (Associate Chair), andBevin Engelward (Secretary) – all the bestin their coming terms. I know MIT will bewell served by them.

Steven Lerman is Professor of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering; Faculty Chair(lerman@mit.edu).

Yossi SheffiMIT and the World Economic Forum

MIT has a long history of interactions with theWorld Economic Forum. In a 2006 Institutefaculty meeting I described our intentions forthe January 2007 Davos meeting and prom-ised a report on it. Here it is.

I N J A N UA RY 2 0 07, M I T decided toheighten its profile at the annual meetingof the World Economic Forum (WEF) inDavos, Switzerland. A small faculty plan-ning group was constituted and the deci-sion was to focus on energy,bio-technology, and robotics.

MIT’s participation in Davos includeda private MIT dinner and analumni/guests reception which drew 80guests. The private dinner consisted of apanel of three MIT faculty presentingtheir research in disruptive energy tech-nologies. Prof. Angela Belcher presentedher research on energy storage, Prof.Vladimir Bolovich talked about photo-voltaic fiber, and Prof. GregStephanopoulos presented the challengesin turning biomass to ethanol. The panelwas introduced by MIT President SusanHockfield and emceed by New York Timescolumnist Tom Friedman. We had 60guests and excellent press coverage. Indescribing the session, Time Magazine’seditor-at-large, Eric Pooley, wrote: “At acertain point during this year’s World

Economic Forum annual meeting…thegusts of self regard became a little toomuch to bear…. Fortunately…somethingcame along to remind me what Davos isgood for.” (To enjoy a great coverage ofMIT, see the full article at: www.time.com/world/article/ 0,8599,1582504,00.html.)

In addition to the dinner, Prof. AngelaBelcher participated in a panel session onlocal energy solutions and gave a briefingon nature’s power solutions. Prof. RodneyBrooks gave a briefing on robotics, mod-erated a briefing on reverse engineeringthe brain, and participated on panels onthe human lifespan and on the factors thatshape identity. Prof. Linda Griffith gave abriefing on creating new body parts andparticipated on a panel on stem cells withProf. Tyler Jacks. Prof. Jacks also gave aprogress report, in a two-speaker panel,about the progress in the fight againstcancer. Prof. Susan Lindquist gave a brief-ing on engineering simple cells and par-ticipated on a panel on genetic screening.

Other MIT faculty participated onpanels and in sessions related to theirareas of expertise, including Prof. EstherDuflo, Prof. Kristin Forbes, Prof. FredMoavenzadeh, Prof. Nick Negroponte,and Prof. Yossi Sheffi. In all, 13 facultymembers attended the WEF annualmeeting. President Hockfield had 11 one-

on-one meetings with senior corporateexecutives, five meetings with donorprospects, and a meeting with a seniorU.S. government official. She also partici-pated in four panel discussions and 15events/receptions.

The effects of MIT’s imprint on theDavos meeting are, naturally, not easy tomeasure. The Institute was featured in sixnews articles, four of which covered thedisruptive energy technologies dinner.The attending faculty had multipleopportunities to interact with very high-level industry and government officials.Some of these meetings bore short-termfruits in starting or deepening relation-ships while others have already helped togenerate funds for MIT projects. Theeffects of the faculty contacts and meet-ings in Davos are likely to also show up infuture support for the Institute as well assupport for individual labs and centers.The importance of MIT’s participation inthis conference is that it provides a uniqueopportunity for the highest level of net-working and relationship initiation andnurturing, as well as in the continuedbranding of MIT.

Yossi Sheffi is a Professor of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering and EngineeringSystems; Director of the Center forTransportation and Logistics (sheffi@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

12

Lorna J. GibsonMIT Administration Support for the Faculty Newsletter

T H E FAC U LT Y N E W S L E T T E R I S avaluable vehicle for communicationamong the faculty. It has been financiallysupported by the administration since itsinception. I am responding to an article inthe March/April 2007 issue of the FacultyNewsletter in order to provide the reader-ship with the administration’s point ofview regarding the Editorial Board and itsrequest for increase in financial supportfor the Managing Editor position.

Over the last 10 years, the FNL has hadan average of five issues per year, with con-tributions from faculty and staff and occa-sional short articles by the ManagingEditor, a part-time support position. InJune of last year, the Editorial Board madeseveral requests of President Hockfieldregarding the FNL operations. In response,President Hockfield asked Professors SteveGraves, Nazli Choucri, Robert Jaffe, DavidMarks and Dr. Kirk Kolenbrander, a groupwho had reviewed the FNL earlier in 2002,to review the Editorial Board’s request;Professors Graves, Choucri, and Marks areon the Editorial Board. In September, thegroup, led by Professor Graves, made thefollowing recommendations:

• the FNL should be placed administra-tively under the direct supervision of theProvost’s Office

• the Editorial Board should prepare a jobdescription for the Managing Editor,outlining the responsibilities, duties andexpectations which could then be thebasis for a formal proposal from theEditorial Board to the Human Resourcesdepartment to reclassify the position toadministrative staff

• the FNL should provide a justificationfor the expansion in the job from half-time to full-time

• the salary request should be referred toHuman Resources to determine what thefair salary range for such jobs is withinMIT, once the questions of the job classi-fication and of full-time versus half-timeare resolved.

At the request of Provost Reif, I tookthe lead to respond to the recommenda-tions. There was a delay in obtaining a jobdescription for the position because of amiscommunication to the EditorialBoard, for which I was responsible, that ajob description was needed. I received thejob description in early December.

As Human Resources representativesregularly do when there is a review of aparticular job position, the humanresource officer for the Provost’s officeconsulted with several members of theEditorial Board and revised the jobdescription. Based on the recommenda-tions of HR, the Managing Editor posi-tion was reclassified at the end of Januaryas a full-time administrative staff posi-tion, at a salary commensurate with thejob position responsibilities for MIT posi-tions. In addition, the FNL was placedadministratively in the Provost’s Office.The change in the status of the positionwas effective February 1, 2007.

FNL GovernanceIn our faculty governance system, facultycan become members of faculty commit-tees through two routes: by being placedon a slate of candidates selected by the

Nominations Committee, or by beingnominated by two faculty colleagues. Thefaculty vote on the membership of facultycommittees. The chairs of faculty com-mittees are appointed by the Chair of theFaculty, who is also elected by the faculty.Presently, the Editorial Board of the FNLis outside of the Institute’s usual facultycommittee system, having instead a vol-unteer board, not elected by the faculty. Inaddition, there is no connection betweenthe Editorial Board of the FNL and theelected Faculty Officers, who represent thefaculty. While this is a matter for thefaculty to decide, it is my opinion that anelected Editorial Board, with severalroutes to membership on the Board,would be more representative of the MITfaculty.

Balanced Perspectives in the FNL The FNL is a vehicle for faculty commu-nication on a wide range of topics. Someare contentious. While free expression ofideas should be advanced, some issues ofthe FNL have published one perspectiveof a contentious topic without any alter-native views. Although this is a matter forthe faculty as a whole, my view is thatthere is a need for greater balance in theFNL. This is particularly important whena topic is directed to select members ofthe MIT community. In this case, thoseindividuals should be given the opportu-nity to respond in the same issue in orderfor the readership to gain a balanced per-spective on a particular topic or set ofcircumstances.

Lorna J. Gibson is Associate Provost (ljgibson@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

13

Two Statements from the BiologicalEngineering Faculty Regarding the TenureCase of Prof. James L. Sherley

March 30, 2007

To the MIT Community, Colleagues and Friends:

AS TH E EXECUTIVE COM M ITTE E OF TH E MIT BiologicalEngineering (BE) Division, we write to address a misstatementabout independent space made by Prof. James Sherley in recentpublic communications regarding his tenure case and to clarifyother issues, such as the timing of his appointment. We believethat it is important to correct misstatements of fact in the inter-est of openness, honesty and fairness that should exist in ahealthy academic community.

Research space. From an email dated 12/21/06: “...I wasdenied independent lab space by Professor Lauffenburger for myentire 7 years on the BE faculty...The faculty members handling myrecruitment were forced to either give me their own lab space orretract my offer. I have shared lab space with them thereafter, andProfessor Lauffenburger has done nothing to rectify the situation...”

Prof. Sherley’s statement that no space was available for himuntil other faculty gave up theirs is, in fact, correct. This is typicalof space assignments for many new hires in BE and other depart-ments at MIT. Space is a complicated and constantly challengingfacet of academic life in every department, laboratory and centerat MIT, and more generally at academic research institutionseverywhere, with limited space resources under constant pressurefrom new faculty hiring and the growing research groups offaculty in all departments at MIT. Space at MIT is controlledentirely by the Provost, with department heads delegated theresponsibility of distributing space according to the needs of theirfaculty members. It is the prerogative of department heads toshift space from senior faculty, whose research programs decreasein size, for example, to new members of the faculty or otherfaculty whose programs are growing in size. It is also common forsenior faculty to give up portions of their space voluntarily tofacilitate the hiring of new members of the faculty. Prof. Sherleyand another untenured contemporary of Prof. Sherley’s in BEwere the benefactors of such space transfers due to the absence ofunassigned space at the time of their arrival at MIT. Their spacewas taken from the existing space assigned to three senior

Statement of Facts in Regard to the James Sherley Tenure Case

March 30, 2007

To the MIT Community, Colleagues and Friends:

A S S E N I O R M E M B E R S O F T H E FAC U LT Y in theBiological Engineering (BE) Division at MIT, we are writing nowas a follow up to our public statement of 2/5/07 about the tenurecase of Prof. James Sherley, to correct public misstatements offact. Several other issues, such as research space, will be addressedin a separate statement by members of the BE ExecutiveCommittee. The objective of this letter is to correct misstate-ments of fact in the interest of openness, honesty and fairnessthat should exist in a healthy academic community.

Conflicts of interest and the fairness of the tenure decision.In an email dated 12/21/06, Prof. Sherley expressed concern thata conflict of interest adversely affected his tenure case as a resultof the BE Director being married to Prof. Linda Griffith, withwhom Prof. Sherley claims to have had a hostile relationship.

Prior to or at the time of the tenure decision, we had not wit-nessed or known of any unprofessional tensions or conflictsbetween Profs. Sherley and Griffith that would call into questioneither person’s professional integrity. Further, Prof. Sherley didnot avail himself of the opportunity to alert any of us about anyconflicts prior to or during the assembly of his tenure case. Whilesome have said that a tenure candidate should not bear thatburden, only the candidate can raise issues that only the candi-date sees.

It should be noted that Prof. Griffith, through several grantson which she was the Principal Investigator, was a collaborator ofProf. Sherley’s, and a strong and longstanding financial sup-porter of his research program. Furthermore, Prof. Griffith islisted as a coauthor on one of Prof. Sherley’s published peer-reviewed papers.

In an email dated 2/10/07, Prof. Sherley also alleged that thetenure decision was determined solely by Prof. Lauffenburger.This is not the truth. The process used in all promotion cases in

continued on next page continued on page 15

Members of the faculty of the Biological Engineering Division, including the Biological Engineering Executive Committee, have submitted the following two letters for publication. These letters were previously distributed to the MIT community and appear onour Website.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

members of the BE faculty, space that wasprovided voluntarily and willingly by thesesenior faculty to facilitate the hiring ofboth Prof. Sherley and his contemporary.Racism did not play a role in the assign-ment of Prof. Sherley’s space.

From email dated 1/29/07: “...The factthat I have been allotted only 355 sq. ft. ofindependent lab space, despite repeatedrequests for adequate independent lab space toProf. Lauffenburger, is prima facie evidence ofracist MIT policies for the hire of minorityfaculty and racist practices by individuals whoadminister resources to minority faculty.”

Prof. Sherley’s claim that he had only355 sq. ft. of independent lab space isincorrect. According to official BE spacerecords and the official MIT Environ-mental Health and Safety space registra-tion, Prof. Sherley has had ~2100 sq. ft. ofindependent space under his control. Thisis more than the average of ~1800 sq. ft. ofspace to which junior faculty members inBE have access (~1100-2500 sq. ft.). The355 sq. ft. wet lab noted by Prof. Sherley ashis only independent space ignores anadditional ~510 sq. ft. comprised of a cellculture facility, his office and an office forhis students and staff, as well as ~1300 sq.ft. of space, portions of which came fromthe MIT Center for Environmental HealthSciences and portions of which wereshared with one other member of the BEfaculty (large open-design wet labs, addi-tional student/staff office; reception areafor his staff assistant).

The space assigned to Prof. Sherley istruly independent space: it was his to use ashe saw fit and it was not controlled ordetermined by another member of thefaculty.Add to this the ~1100 sq. ft. of com-munity space (conference room, lunchroom, cold room, dishwashing, autoclavespace) on the same floor as Prof. Sherley’slabs and offices, and the facilities availablefor his use as a member of theBiotechnology Process Engineering Center,the Center for Environmental HealthSciences and the Center for CancerResearch, and one concludes that his

research program was fully accommodatedand not limited by his space allotment.

As indicated above, Prof. Sherley didindeed share some of his space withanother member of the BE faculty, as domany tenured and untenured members ofthe BE faculty and the faculty of manyother departments at MIT. An untenuredcontemporary of Prof. Sherley also hadher entire allotment of 1032 sq. ft. of inde-pendent space (a large wet lab; apart fromher 166 sq. ft. office) taken from existingspace belonging to two senior members ofthe faculty, Profs. Essigmann and Wogan.Now tenured, she still uses cell culture andother space assigned to Prof. Essigmann,space that is not her independent space. InProf. Sherley’s case, all of his space, sharedand unshared, was independent. Spacesharing is commonplace due to the needto balance the immediate demand forspace when new faculty arrive with thealternative of slow, cost-prohibitiveremodeling. Prof. Dedon, for example,shares ~95% of his total ~2900 sq. ft. ofindependent space with three BE faculty(two tenured, one non-tenured), whichcompares to Prof. Sherley’s ~2100 sq. ft. ofspace of which ~40% is unshared.

Attribution as the first appointmentin BE. Prof. Sherley also expressedconcern that he was denied recognition asthe first appointment in what is now BE.Though this issue had no bearing on histenure case (or any stage of his promotionprocess), an exhaustive review was under-taken of records from two major divisionsof MIT (Whitaker College of HealthSciences and Technology; School ofEngineering). A review of the resultingtime line reveals the basis for the differingviews about Prof. Sherley’s appointment,one that paralleled the conversion of theDivision of Toxicology (then in WhitakerCollege) to the precursor of BE (in theSchool of Engineering):

5/7/97: Prof. Steven Tannenbaum,Director of Toxicology, extends an offer ofappointment to Dr. Sherley as “AssistantProfessor in the Division of Toxicology.”5/12/97: Provost Joel Moses sends a letterto Dr. Sherley acknowledging Dr. Sherley’sacceptance of Prof. Tannenbuam’s offer,

“...of a position as Assistant Professor in theDivision of Toxicology at MIT. We are happyto welcome you to the faculty...” 5/22/97: Dr.Sherley, by letter, accepts “...your offer forappointment as an Assistant Professor in theDivision of Toxicology...” 7/1/98: Toxicologymerges to form the Division ofBioengineering and EnvironmentalHealth with Profs. Tannenbaum andLauffenburger as Co-Directors. Prof.Sherley receives a new letter from the newProvost, Robert Brown, appointing him asan Assistant Professor in Bioengineeringand Environmental Health in the Schoolof Engineering. At the same time, becauseBioengineering and EnvironmentalHealth had just formed, several otherfaculty members from other MIT depart-ments simultaneously have their appoint-ments moved to the new Division. 11/98:Approval of the first new faculty searchproposed and undertaken by Bioengin-eering and Environmental Health.

This time line reveals a complicatedorganizational change occurring at the timeof Prof. Sherley’s hiring and appointment.There is ample room for concluding thatProf. Sherley was the last hire in the Divisionof Toxicology and the most junior memberof the Division of Biological Engineeringand Environmental Health (the precursor toBE). We can also see how Prof. Sherley con-sidered himself the first new appointment inBiological Engineering and EnvironmentalHealth. The different perspectives of Prof.Sherley and others did not derive fromracism, bias or conflict of interest, butinstead from the blurred semantics ofadministrative changes during a period ofInstitutional transition.

In closing, the facts show that Prof.Sherley had more than the averageamount of independent space, and thathis research program was fully accommo-dated and not limited by his space allot-ment. Racism did not play a role indetermining his share of research space.

Sincerely,

Peter DedonJohn EssigmannAlan Grodzinsky

BE Executive Committee Statementcontinued from preceding page

14

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

15

BE is similar to that of ChemicalEngineering, Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering, and the Engineering SystemsDivision. The process starts with the can-didate submitting a Faculty PersonnelRecord that accounts for all of his or herprofessional accomplishments and theDivision Head soliciting names of refereesfrom both the tenure candidate and fromsenior members of the faculty. Severalsenior members of the BE faculty recom-mended that Prof. Griffith provide a letteras an internal referee for Prof. Sherley’scase, on the basis of her extensive knowl-edge of Prof. Sherley’s research programfrom their research collaborations. It is acommon practice to solicit letters fromthe candidate’s collaborators. Prof. Sherleyhad the opportunity to provide the BEDirector with names of individuals thathe preferred not to be included as refereeson his case. To our knowledge, he did notexclude Prof. Griffith.

A package of information for Prof.Sherley’s case, as in all promotion cases inBE, was made available to senior facultyfor review more than one week before themeeting to discuss the case and vote. Inaddition, copies of the materials weremade available to all senior faculty duringthis meeting. Prof. Sherley’s case receiveda thorough, thoughtful and uncon-tentious discussion of the merits of hisaccomplishments in research and teach-ing, discussion of the many letters of eval-uation received from experts in Prof.Sherley’s research areas, and discussion ofhis service to MIT and to the broaderscience and engineering communities, asdo all promotion cases in BE. The seniorfaculty voted not to recommend Prof.Sherley’s tenure in BE and we believe thatthe outcome was fair.

As in all promotion cases in BE, theDivision Head did not vote on Prof.Sherley’s case and acted only as a modera-tor of discussion. Prof. Lauffenburger’sdecision not to carry Prof. Sherley’s caseforward reflected the vote of the faculty.All of us considered his case only on the

basis of facts and merits, and we based ourdecisions solely on the candidate’s profes-sional accomplishments and letters of ref-erence, as we stated in our previous publiccommunication of February 5, 2007.

Research publications. In every tenurecase in BE, the faculty assess the number,scientific quality and, in particular, theimpacts of peer-reviewed articles pub-lished during the tenure probationaryperiod at MIT. The issue of the number ofProf. Sherley’s publications is a matter ofpublic record readily accessible frompublic databases such as PubMed. Duringthe pre-tenure period at MIT, Prof.Sherley had published only six peer-reviewed publications describing originalresearch. Four of those publications werebased upon work done at MIT, and theother two were based upon work from hisprevious independent position at FoxChase Cancer Center. Only three of the sixpublications list Prof. Sherley as the firstor corresponding author (or anothermember of his research group as lead orfirst author), the status most highly valuedfor promotion decisions. Prof. Sherley’spublication record, while only one factorin our decision, did not meet the stan-dards required for tenure cases in BE.

Research reputation. The issue ofletters of reference was raised by Prof.Sherley in an email dated 12/21/06. As dis-cussed earlier, all tenure cases in BE involveconsideration of letters from a list of exter-nal and internal referees assembled fromrecommendations made by both the can-didate and senior members of the facultyin BE. We state here (without violatingrules of confidentiality) that the externalletters from experts in the field of stem cellbiology were not strong enough tosupport a positive tenure decision in BE.Further, the internal letters were solicitedfrom members of the MIT faculty whohad detailed knowledge of Prof. Sherley’sresearch, teaching and service activities,and not from anyone thought to be in con-flict with the candidate.

Research funding. The BE faculty alsoconsiders the level of independent, com-petitive, peer-reviewed research funding

that the candidate is able to attract. Froman email dated 1/29/07: “My program wasfunded with $747,000 per year in directcosts.” This figure is accurate only for theyear Prof. Sherley came up for tenure. Onthe basis of Prof. Sherley’s FacultyPersonnel Record and other officialrecords, Prof. Sherley’s research was sup-ported by ~$1.5 million over the entire sixyear and four month pre-tenure period(exclusive of startup funds; averaging<$250,000 per year). It is noteworthy thata large portion of this funding (~$1 million over the pre-tenure period;averaging ~$158,000 per year) wasobtained from several grants on whichProf. Linda Griffith was the PrincipalInvestigator and that did not include Prof.Sherley in the original competing grantapplication.

Prof. Sherley received the NIH PioneerAward more than a year and a half afterthe tenure decision was made.

In closing, we believe that Prof.Sherley’s tenure case was handled by theBE faculty with the utmost fairness in aprocess with the greatest integrity, as freeas humanly possible from bias and racism.The facts as we present them here supportthis conclusion.

Sincerely,

Angela BelcherPeter DedonEd DelongForbes DeweyJohn EssigmannJim FoxAlan GrodzinskyRoger KammAlex KlibanovHarvey LodishPaul MatsudairaLeona SamsonRam SasisekharanDavid SchauerPeter SoSteven TannenbaumBruce TidorDane WittrupGerald WoganYanni Yannas

Statement of Factscontinued from page 13

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

16

Eduardo KauselUnits, Schmunits: What Do You Care?A lighthearted take on standard measurements

TH E D EVE LOPM E NT AN D establish-ment of modern standard units of meas-urement, including monetary currenciesand their equivalence to weights in gold,began early in civilization, motivatedprincipally by the need to regulate com-merce between individuals as well as tradeacross borders. This culminated in the lasttwo centuries with the development andimplementation of numerous standardsand norms for the legal (or agreed) sizesof myriad objects and artifacts, and espe-cially with the institutionalization of stan-dard units of measurements for length,mass or force, and time. Nonetheless,besides meters or inches and kilogramsand pounds, there exist also a plethora ofother units still in widespread usethroughout the world, which not onlychange from country to country, but alsowithin one and the same region, even inmetric Europe. International travelers arecertainly aware of this problem when theytry to buy shoes or clothing abroad, thenumerical sizes of which vary not onlybetween the U.S. and, say Europe, but alsoacross the various countries within theEuropean Union.

Shoes, for example, have myriad num-bering schemes. Legend has it that shoesizes originated in the fourteenth centurywhen King Edward II of England orderedshoes for his child and provided the shoe-maker with the length of the child’s footmeasured in barley corns. Presumably,royal protocol prohibited access of thelowly shoemaker to the blue-bloodedprince, so an indirect podiatric measure-ment was required. Today, the meaning ofshoe sizes in the U.S. is still a mystery tomost – even to those who make a living by

selling shoes – and for reasons now lost tohistory, there exist different sizes for men,women, and children, although the latterdo use the same number for any givensize, whether boy or girl. This discrepancy

between sexes is especially an inconven-ience with sneakers or sport boots, ofwhich men and women use basically thesame type even if their numerical sizesshould not agree.

Shoe sizes are generally related to thelength of the “last,” which is a foot-shapedtemplate used for shoe fabrication. TheAmerican size of the shoe is three timesthe heel-to-toe length of the foot, meas-ured in inches, minus a constant (whatfor?), so each half size increment is 1/6 ofan inch (4.23 mm). The subtractive con-stant is 22 for men, 21 for women (or is it20.5?), and 9.75 for children (9.67?), butthe latter only up to size 13 1/2, afterwhich another constant is used! Forinstance, a man’s foot that is 10.5" longrequires an American shoe size3x10.5–22=9.5. By contrast, most coun-tries in continental Europe and in LatinAmerica follow some version of theFrench rule, which specifies a shoe sizethat is 1.5 times the length of the lastmeasured in centimeters, irrespective ofgender or age, so each step (or Paris point)is 2/3 cm (6.67 mm) long. Thus, a foot26.7 cm in length, which for comfortdemands a last that is some 2 cm longer

than the foot, would correspond to aFrench shoe size 1.5x(26.7+2) = 43. Shoesizes in the U.K. follow a similar but notidentical rule to those in the U.S., and(apparently) they do not differ between

men and women. Fortunately, and despiteregional variations, shoe sizes haveremained consistent over the years, so ashoe of a given number from a generationago is as large as a contemporary shoe ofthat same number.

Regrettably, this consistency has notheld for sizes of clothing, at least not forwomen’s clothing in the U.S.A. As youmay perhaps have noticed, in the course ofrecent years, women’s sizes in Americahave suffered considerable deflation, espe-cially in upscale and expensive boutiques,but also in discount stores. Thus, awoman’s dress size 7 today would havecorresponded to a size 11 a generationago, a phenomenon that is referred toeuphemistically as vanity sizing.Presumably, as America became morerotund over the years the industryadapted, to impress upon the buyers thegood feeling that they were as lightweightas ever. Problem is, with vanity dimen-sioning women’s sizes have largely ceasedto be meaningful, at least in the U.S., inas-much as the numbers now change sub-stantially not only from store to store, butalso across brands sold at any one store.Interestingly, no comparable vanity sizes

Thus, a woman’s dress size 7 today would havecorresponded to a size 11 a generation ago, aphenomenon that is referred to euphemisticallyas vanity sizing.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

17

have developed for men in the U.S.,despite that they too have increased inbulge, and this is because men’s sizes wereregulated early on by the government, tosatisfy the need for uniform men’s sizes inthe military.

Another source of confusion is inlumber sizes, again at least in the U.S. Aseverybody knows, a stock is not a piece oflumber of 2 by 4 inches in cross-section,but one that is instead 1 1/2 by 3 1/2inches. In larger lumber sizes, the discrep-ancy between nominal and actual sizes iseven bigger. When asked as to why the dif-ferences, people in lumber yards state that

the nominal size is that of the rough,unfinished lumber, and that finishingreduces it to the actual sizes, but it seemsrather wasteful that fully 34% of the woodin a two by four should be lost to sawing,planing, and finishing. Perhaps part of theexplanation may be that the wood is cut torough sizes in a wet condition that shrinksafter kiln drying, but then again, nothingwould impede the lumber industry fromstarting with appropriately larger roughsizes to begin with so as to attain truthfulfinished sizes. Thus, this anecdotal expla-nation is just a modern red herring thatbelongs to the type of truths that people –and the industry – come to accept merelyby virtue of its repetition. The actualreason is more pragmatic: a good numberof decades ago, sizes were graduallyreduced by mills as a way to increaseprofits and prevent cost increases withouteffecting changes in the wording of thenexisting construction norms and regula-tions. Indeed, if you were a carpenter anddid some remodeling of houses older thansome 50 years, you would find that thestuds in many of these older houses are

indeed 2 by 4 inches, a measurement thathas not shrunk to dry conditions in half acentury, so at that time at least, nominaland actual sizes indeed coincided. In lateryears, the width of 2 inches shrunk first to1 3/4, then to 1 5/8, and finally to 1 1/2.Moreover, until fairly recently, when youbought 1/2-inch plywood board, that wasthe thickness that you actually got, buttoday, the so-called 1/2-inch plywood isonly 15/32 inches in thickness, again amove by the industry to save on material.

A similar shrinking over time has takenplace with coffee cans, at least as far as thecontents are concerned. The standard

coffee can used to contain one pound (16ounces) of ground coffee. Today, however,while the size of the can has remainedexactly the same, most modern canscontain only 11 or 12 ounces. Peculiarly,when you open one of these cans, they arestill filled to the rim with coffee. How canthat be possible? This has to do with theway that modern coffee is ground. Byappropriate grinding methods, you canmake the powder occupy more space, sothe coffee now has more air in between itsparticles. This is what mathematiciansrefer to as the packing problem, of whichthe producers of coffee seem to be makingvery good use.

A curious case is also that of sheetmetal. In the U.S., metallic sheets are soldnot by thicknesses (as done elsewhere inthe world) but instead by gauge (or gage)numbers, which range anywhere from 0to 39, and the original definitions corre-sponded very roughly to the reciprocal ofthe thickness in inches. In the late nine-teenth century, sheet gauges were relatedto the weight per square foot of the sheet,presumably because of the costs of the

material and of its transport: weight andnot size of the sheets was of the essence.In addition, it was easier for the govern-ment to assess taxes for weight of metalthan for sizes or thicknesses of sheet,especially because this allowed taxing atsimilar rates both flat and corrugatedmetal sheets, which occupy rather differ-ent volumes and weights for the samethickness. At the present time, however,numerical changes in gauge not only donot translate into proportional changes inthickness, which decrease with the gaugenumber, but the actual thickness dependsalso on the material of which the sheet ismade. For example, gauge 3 correspondsto 0.2391 inches for sheet steel, 0.2294inches for aluminum, and 0.2500 forstainless steel (i.e., differences of less than10%), but at gauge 39, the thicknesses forthese three metals is 0.060, 0.040, and0.062, a dramatic difference for alu-minum. Rather peculiarly, if you were toplot modern sheet gauges against thick-ness for any given material, you wouldobserve not a smooth, monotonicallydecreasing curve, but one with obviousdiscontinuities in slope. These must haveresulted at later points in time as moregauge numbers for thinner and thickersheets were added to the standard. Thus,by now the gauge is just an arbitrarynumber used for trade that says nothingabout either average thickness or weight.Instead, these must now be read fromstandard gauge tables, which may evenchange among manufacturers.

As can be seen, and despite the signifi-cant advances that civilization has madeby creating and implementing logical andeasy-to-use measurements and sizes,much progress remains to be accom-plished before sanity prevails in the stan-dard dimensioning of objects andartifacts. But then again, perhaps com-merce may have vested interests in main-taining the status quo and the reigningconfusion: it makes shopping by pricecomparison so much more difficult.Caveat emptor!

A similar shrinking over time has taken place withcoffee cans, at least as far as the contents areconcerned. The standard coffee can used tocontain one pound (16 ounces) of ground coffee.Today, however, while the size of the can hasremained exactly the same, most modern canscontain only 11 or 12 ounces.

Eduardo Kausel is a Professor in theDepartment of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering (kausel@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

18

Linda G. GriffithLooking Forward to Changes in the Undergraduate Commons:Perspectives from a “Large” Program

I ’ D L I K E TO B E G I N by thanking theFaculty Newsletter for encouraging me tosubmit a letter for this issue. I also would liketo express, belatedly, my appreciation for theoutstanding efforts of the faculty who ledthe Task Force on the UndergraduateEducational Commons, and to the FNL forassembling the special issue presenting per-spectives on the work of the Task Force andrelated undergraduate education topics[MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XIX No. 4,February 2007].

I am also writing as Chair of theBiological Engineering (BE) Undergrad-uate Programs Committee and former Headof Area 6 (Bioengineering) in MechanicalEngineering to share some perspective onhow the discussions initiated by the TaskForce over the past two years have shapedthe evolution of the new Course 20 SB cur-riculum and the 2-A Biotrack, and to offersome suggestions for implementation of therecommendations of the Task Force. Finally,I offer a new proposal for decompressing thefirst two years of the undergraduateprogram and hope this proposal can be dis-cussed along with other Task Force recom-mendations as the faculty consider the waysto implement changes in the GIRs andimprove other aspects of the commonundergraduate experience.

The BE curriculum was approved as anew SB program in February 2005. At thattime, the curriculum included nine newcore subjects developed over about six years.Currently, BE has about 30 juniors andabout 50 sophomores. Based on the firstyear of experience (with the Class of 2008)and including input from BE teaching staffand BE undergraduate students, we haverevised our curriculum this year withchanges approved by the Committee onCurricula (CoC) in October 2006. We arevery grateful the Task Force deliberationswere proceeding during this pivotal time, as

we gained enormous insights from the dis-cussions held in workshops, presentations,and meetings of Task Force members withour department, as well as personal interac-tions with the Task Force committeemembers.

Like many other programs in the Schoolof Engineering (SoE), the BE program is“large”; that is, it allows relatively little unre-stricted elective time and has a hierarchicalstructure of required subjects that make itdifficult to complete in four years if astudent switches in from another major atthe end of sophomore year. Like many of mySoE colleagues, I believe that studentsshould have the option to choose such pro-grams of study at MIT (though I remainopen to friendly debate on this opinion).Many students thrive in highly structuredprograms, and gain additional flexibility incareer options upon graduation. With thisin mind, BE endorses the general concept ofthe new Science-Math-Engineering (SME)GIRs, in the five-out-of-five format (includ-ing the computation GIR, which is arguablylong overdue and much welcomed). Thefinal report of the Task Force outlines sixpotential new categories of SME GIRs (seeweb.mit.edu/committees/edcommons/documents/task_force_report.html fordetails) and proposes that students take sub-jects in five of these six categories. Someadjustment to the proposed plan is likely asimplementation discussions proceed, asmany faculty members (myself amongthem) have countered that a more workableplan is a format with five categories, and thatspecific content within categories (and spe-cific category titles) might be altered some-what to capture the main intent of the TaskForce recommendations.

The discussions ensuing from Task Forceactivities, combined with the experience ofadvising sophomores in the BE major, haveconvinced me unequivocally that large

major programs should provide substantialflexibility in the first two years, so that stu-dents can change majors until the end ofsophomore year without substantialpenalty. I thus welcome the general conceptof the new SME GIRs as an opportunity forthe BE program to respond to the need forflexibility in the first two years, and I havefaith that the details of the categories andcontents will be worked out in a satisfactoryway. I have also been inspired by theexample of existing large programs, such asCourse 2 and Course 2-A, that currentlyprovide flexibility for students to begin themajor in spring term, sophomore year.

I suggest that departmental programsmight achieve flexibility in the first two yearsby:

1. Offering required sophomore-year sub-jects both fall and spring terms, so thatstudents could potentially take the firstentry subject during spring term fresh-man year (for example, to get an earlysample of the major), or either term of thesophomore year.

2. Offering more subjects in the sophomoreyear that satisfy the requirements of mul-tiple departments, thus providing stu-dents with more transparency andflexibility as they decide about theirmajor. Such subjects might be co-taughtor cross-listed by a variety of depart-ments, which would make it far easier tooffer required subjects twice per year.

3. Allowing students to complete the GIRs inScience, Math, and Engineering over thefirst two years (the current expectation isthat students complete the Science Coreby the end of the first year). If depart-ments are to be allowed to specify most, ifnot all, of the SME GIRs, they will need toprovide students ample time to complete

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

19

ones that are prerequisites for departmen-tal subjects. Otherwise, we run the risk offorcing overloads on our newest students.

4. Requiring of students no more than twosubjects beyond the SME GIRs during thesophomore year (and none during fresh-man year), so that students can entertheir major during the spring term ofsophomore year without undue diffi-culty (e.g., subject overload). Assumingthat students take four HASS subjectsduring their first two years, and thatScience and Engineering students take 12subjects in addition to their HASS sub-jects during this time, this allows stu-dents to retain their two additionalunrestricted elective subjects (and avoidsthe often-used tactic by large programsin constructing curricular roadmaps: i.e.,showing HASS subjects deferred tosenior year to fit in a freshman elective).This strategy might decompress thefreshman and sophomore years andprovide choice in the spirit (if notdirectly in the means) suggested in theTask Force recommendations.

Toward these goals, several departmentshave worked together with BE to collaboratein our undergraduate teaching program. Forexample, BE and Mechanical Engineeringco-developed “Thermodynamics ofBiomolecular Systems” (20.110J/2.772J) in2003 to serve needs in both the BE core cur-riculum and the 2-A Biotrack. Co-develop-ment of this subject further strengthenedthe BE-ME collaboration begun with theteaching of biomechanics at both the gradu-ate and undergraduate level; indeed, Prof.Rohan Abeyaratne (ME Department Head)and Prof. John Lienhard (ME UG ProgramChair) have been very creative in findingways to leverage teaching between the twodepartments. Biology then added thissubject to their list of subjects that fulfilltheir departmental thermodynamicsrequirement, providing flexibility in thesophomore year for students decidingamong Course 20, Course 7, and Course 2-Aprograms. The Chemistry Depart-mentproposed an experiment to further increasetransparency by co-teaching thermodynam-

ics together with us, combining lectures forthe first half of the term with “PhysicalChemistry” (5.60) thus allowing students tocomplete both subjects in one term andgiving students additional flexibility forchoosing majors through the first half of thefall term of sophomore year. Dean BobSilbey heroically championed this experi-ment by volunteering to co-teach thissubject (with me and Prof. Darrell Irvine) inthe spring of 2005 (and even coming in onSundays to give tutorials), so that a commonsyllabus could be developed before launch ofthe fall 2005 joint subject20.110J/2.772J/5.601J. Course 2 is currentlyexploring ways in which this subject mayserve in other emerging 2-A tracks such asenergy, nanotechnology, and molecularmechanics.

A second example of working towardtransparency is the partnership betweenBiology and BE in teaching “Genetics”(7.03), with the goal of developing a spring-term offering to complement the currentoffering (the launch of the spring-termsubject has been delayed, but is planned fornext year). This plan emerged (in part)from the long-standing participation of theBiology Undergrad-uate Programs Chairon the BE Undergraduate ProgramsCommittee as an ad hoc member. BEappreciates the time that ProfessorsGraham Walker, Chris Kaiser, and HazelSive have devoted to discussing our mutualteaching interests over the past years, andfor the support of Biology DepartmentHeads Professors Bob Sauer and ChrisKaiser, as this partnership has led to manyco-taught subjects at upper levels andenthusiasm for increasing transparencybetween BE and Biology in the undergradu-ate program. Indeed, “biological engineer-ing” – engineering analysis, design, andsynthesis based in molecular life science –has emerged as a new discipline at MIT as aresult of this partnership with Biology, tomutual benefit. This engineering-biologypartnership is unique in the entire land-scape of “bioengineering” nationally andinternationally (it is certainly uniqueamong the top tier engineering schools),just as MIT is unique in many otherendeavors due to the tremendous collabo-

rative, can-do spirit that pervades theInstitute.

As a third example, the near simultane-ous emergence of “Computation andEngineering” as a possible SME GIR and thelaunch of the new subject 6.00 “Introductionto Computer Science and Programming”stimulated BE to re-think our strategy forteaching basic programming and computa-tion skills in our core curriculum, and tochange from our original strategy of includ-ing these topics in our own computationsubjects (20.180 and 20.181). By the end ofthe sophomore year, BE students need tomaster basic programming and algorithmictechniques, and to start developing anunderstanding of how to build computa-tional models that can be used to understandcomplex systems. We felt that this materialcould be most effectively learned in a dedi-cated 12-unit subject that focuses on theseskills without the distraction of discipline-specific material. In a landscape that alreadyincludes 1.00 (“Introduction to Computersand Engineering Problem-Solving”) and thenew 6.00, there is little compelling reason formy department to offer a separate subject (orsubjects) covering this foundational mate-rial. The predominant programming lan-guage used in upper-level BE subjects isPython, and algorithmic approaches toproblem-solving are important; hence, forthe average student, the Python-basedsubject 6.00 is an appropriate choice. Prof.John Guttag, who developed 6.00 and taughtit in fall 2006, was stimulated in part by theneeds of current Course 20 sophomores toteach 6.00 again this spring (6.00 has alsoattracted freshmen this term). Prof. ErnestFraenkel from Course 20 participated inteaching 6.00 this term, and contributed newlectures on data analysis and probability,mathematics topics of importance to BE(and other MIT majors) that are not coveredin the canonical 18.01/18.02/18.03 series.The EECS Department has a commitment tocontinue to develop 6.00 as a foundationalcourse offered both fall and spring terms. Wethus cancelled the BE subjects 20.180/20.181(each six units) in favor of requiring 6.00 (orequivalent) for our future majors. The avail-ability of the 6.00 lecture notes and problem

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

20

sets online facilitates reference to the subjectmaterial later in our curriculum for studentswho took a substitute subject (e.g., 1.00) inthe sophomore year.

Finally, I offer a proposal for decom-pressing the first two undergraduate yearsand increasing student exposure to differentpossible majors before being asked tocommit to one: I propose that we move thedeadline for declaring a major from the end ofthe first year to the end of fall term sophomoreyear, and feature choice of major activitiesprominently in the fall term for as-yet-undecided sophomores. This proposal isbased on two years of experience with asophomore admissions process for entryinto the Course 20 SB program.

Some BackgroundThe BE SB program was launched withresources to accommodate ~25 students peryear, with expectations that resources wouldbe increased, if needed, to accommodatedemand. Because other schools that havelaunched “bioengineering” undergraduateprograms in recent years have seen verylarge enrollments, the Committee on theUndergraduate Program (CUP) and CoCapproved a five-year plan to allow enroll-ment management in BE should demandfor the major exceed the available resources.This plan, developed over a two-year periodwith CUP, CoC, and students enrolled in theBiomedical Engineering minor, requiresstudents to apply for admission to the BEundergraduate program at the end of fallterm sophomore year after completion of aset of required subjects. The plan also allowsfor my department to conduct a randomlottery to select students for available slots ifdemand for the major is excessive. Althoughthe department has thus far been able toaccept all applicants who met the require-ments, we encouraged students to stay ontrack for an alternate major should a BElottery be required.

We scheduled the BE required subject,(“Thermodynamics of BiomolecularSystems”) at a time that would not conflictwith required fall term sophomore subjects

for most majors complementary to BE (e.g,Courses 2, 3, 6, 10). We found that a major-ity of students who indicated a seriousinterest in BE at the end of their first yearindeed applied to and ultimately enrolledin BE, and their experiences during fallterm sophomore year strengthened theircommitment. Roughly 20% of the studentswho registered for our thermodynamicssubject at the beginning of fall term withintentions to apply to BE opted for a differ-ent major after learning more about eachoption through coursework and discus-sions with faculty and other students.Likewise, many students who enrolled inthe subject without previously consideringBE as a major decided to switch in to BE atthe end of the term. Thus, in our experi-ence, roughly a third of students neededadditional flexibility during the first term oftheir sophomore year to firm up their deci-sion about their choice of major. (I wouldbe interested in hearing from those whohave other estimates of the choice of majorexperience.)

Framing the Issues Currently, students can remain “unde-clared” for their entire sophomore year, andretain their freshman advisor or pickanother advisor, so why am I proposing thatMIT consider moving the formal deadlinefor the first declaration of major to fall termof sophomore year? First, doing so maydrive the kind of structural changes Isuggest for “large” programs; i.e., depart-ments will be more motivated to structuretheir curricula to accommodate studentswho switch in to their programs midwaythrough sophomore year, as it is expectedthat about 1/3 of students may start sopho-more year undecided and undeclared.Second, doing so may drive the develop-ment of better advising and activities forstudents who need more time and informa-tion before they decide on their major. Iexpect that even with a formal change ofdeadline to sophomore year, most MIT stu-dents may still want to declare a major atthe end of freshman year, but I would like todelay the formal process to encourage themto wait. The intent of the proposal is toprovide formal institutional support for

that fraction of first year students who needmore time to explore their options.

Some Thoughts on ImplementationHow can this possibly work, given that itpotentially increases the workload of fresh-man advisors, at a time when MIT is tryingto recruit more faculty to serve as first-yearadvisors? Perhaps the cultural change in thesophomore year may work to strengthen tiesbetween faculty in the departments andfreshman year advisors, by forcing a hybridadvising system in the fall term for at leastsome sophomores. Biological Engineeringhas experimented with a modest version ofsuch a hybrid system: BE does not have aformal advising process for fall-term sopho-mores (since students cannot declare BEuntil the end of fall term), but holds advis-ing events before and during fall term (e.g.,formal information sessions, student-faculty dinners off campus), and connectsstudents individually with potential advisorsif they wish, recognizing that many studentsare in a need-for-more-info mode in fallterm. Our ad hoc experiment is clearly idio-syncratic, and I am not in a position toaddress all the organizational and adminis-trative challenges that such a hybrid systemimplies. But I hope my ideas start a discus-sion about concrete steps that might betaken to resolve the formidable advisingissues more of us will face as a new set ofGIRs is introduced.

In conclusion, I reiterate my appreciationto the members of the Task Force on theUndergraduate Educational Com-mons,and especially to Dean Bob Silbey, DeanDiana Henderson, and Dean Peggy Enders,for many stimulating discussions on under-graduate education and for providingextraordinary leadership and vision infuture directions for MIT education. I lookforward to joining my colleagues in furthercollegial discussions as we move towardmore concrete plans for implementationof the Task Force recommendations.

Some AlternativesGriffith, from preceding page

Linda G. Griffith is a School of EngineeringTeaching and Innovation Professor of Biologicaland Mechanical Engineering; Director of theBiotechnology Process Engineering Center;Chair, BE Undergraduate Programs Committee(griff@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

21

Borderline Jesus

is what my friend saidwhen she meant to say:borderline genius.Genius, Jesus. Easy

slip. Genius rides a donkeydown a row of palms,a self-crowned kingcome to the city of reckoning.

Meanwhile, Jesusgrows up misunderstood,outcast at schooland in his neighborhood.

He admires the way Geniusbreaks the rules, unshakableas a new temple. If onlyhe could master that

Genius swagger, sacred sneerand divine gaze. Littledoes he guess how Geniusfrets, his mind on the face

of perfect love. Whatmust that feel like?Genius thinks, ridinghis ass of martyrdom.

MIT Poetry

Jean Monahan, who taught part time in the LiteratureSection between 2002-05, has published three books ofpoetry: Hands, winner of the 1991 Anhinga Prize, BelieveIt or Not (Orchises Press, 1999) and most recently,Mauled Illusionist (Orchises Press, 2006), from whichthese poems are reprinted. This is her second appearancein the FNL.

The Diviners

The most gifted understoodthat everything in this world informs;the ways in which the accidental foretellswhat the gut knows, the heart holds.

Some sat out under a strong winduntil they saw the world with doubled vision.Some watched shadows, how they curledand crept, or, in the heart of black woodsthe dance of white stallions,the fall of their manes, the mark of the hoof.

For the traditional, there were dreams, linesin the palm, birth stars and meteors, moon.These were the old ways of knowingand they still worked, the way numberstold stories, dice threw fate,the way letters in a namecould rearrange into a word.

No deliberate spillof salt, no wand. Whatever they sawthey believed, looking beyond, within,for the divine. How that one laughed in the hay fieldas the sun set. Beside the barn, howthe cock crowed, and mice, out of sight, slept.

by Jean Monahan

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

22

William SchreiberSolving the Energy Problem

G LOBAL WAR M I NG I S NOW almostuniversally accepted as a serious problemcaused by human activity – mainlyburning fossil fuels - that demands strongremedial action as soon as possible. Pastevents, such as the temporary boycott bysome of the major petroleum producersin the ’70s, showed that the U.S. also has anational security problem related to bothprice and availability of one of our mainenergy sources. This note is intended as acontribution to the effort to devise a com-prehensive solution to all aspects of theenergy problem.

Many others have also recognizedvarious aspects of the problem and theneed for a rapid response. I have foundthat most workers in this field have notcompletely defined the problem, but nev-ertheless have some favorite solutions tobe exclusively pursued.

When I began my engineering educa-tion long ago, I was lucky enough to havehad the tutelage of experienced engineers,not scientists. They all said (preached,actually) that the indispensable first stepin devising a solution in the real world wasto define the problem.

What is the energy problem? It hasseveral parts.

In the early ’70s, the temporary boycottof the world market by OPEC caused theprice of petroleum to rise dramatically, aspetroleum is the most common source ofenergy used in heat generation, produc-tion, commerce, transportation, and resi-dential facilities. (1) The ability of majorpetroleum producers to withhold thesupply reveals the importance of energyindependence and price.

(2) More recently, global warming hasbecome unmistakably important withwidespread melting of ice, noticeable

climate changes, and rising sea levels. Thisis now recognized by nearly everyone ascaused by greenhouse gases, mainlycarbon dioxide, produced by burningfossil fuels such as petroleum, coal, andnatural gas. While nuclear power plantsare being advocated by some, dealing withspent nuclear fuel is as problematic asgreenhouse gases, and energy must beused to produce nuclear fuel. Note there isnow a worldwide shortage of nuclear fuel.

Others are pushing ethanol, which issuch a bad idea that it is hard to under-stand how its use has become as wide-spread as it has. Ethanol’s productionconsumes nearly as much energy as it pro-vides, and its use generates greenhousegas. With only about 1% of gasoline nowreplaced by ethanol, some growers of cornhave become rich, but many growers ofdomestic animals for food are in direstraits because of the unanticipated rise inthe price of feed corn.

Solar power, wind power, hydroelectricpower, nuclear power, hydrogen power,methane from buried organic material,and other renewable power sources areadvocated by some, but so far, no solutionhas been proposed that would be bothaffordable and complete. The purpose ofthis paper is to propose such a completesolution, the development of which requiresonly resources that we already have inabundance.

Unless, by some miracle, we find a sub-stitute for petroleum fuel that can be usedwith the same technology we use today,takes no energy to produce, has nonoxious residue, and has no unexpectedconsequences (like raising the price ofcorn) its adoption will require rebuildingour entire energy infrastructure. This willbe neither easy nor cheap, but if we hopeto preserve the Earth for our descendents,

we have no choice but to act now. This willinvolve diverting manpower and fundsfrom current uses. If we examine howthese resources are now being used, mili-tary applications will be found high onthe list. Many of us believe that such diver-sions would make our world a better placein which to live. The decisions, of course,will be political, which is beyond the scopeof this short paper.

Though expensive to build, the pro-posed system, which abandons fossil fuels,should be cheap to operate, as the fuel,which is sunlight, has no operating cost.

Some preliminariesAll the energy the earth has stored andalmost all of the energy it receives everyday comes from the Sun. About 89,000terawatts (1 TW = a million million(quadrillion) watts) falls on the Earth,while total usage (in 2004) was only 15terawatts, of which 87% was provided byfossil fuels. Their use produces most of theglobal warming that has become soobvious. If we were to get most of ouruseable energy from the Sun, we wouldsolve many of the most important prob-lems, including the price and availabilityof petroleum as well as (3) the noxious by-products associated with using nuclearpower and fossil fuels. (4) Relying on theSun rather than petroleum would alsopermit us to be much less involved withevents in the Middle East. (Anybody whodoes not realize how advantageous thiswould be is urged to read SeymourHersh’s “Annals of National Security” inThe New Yorker of 5 March 2007.)

Cleaning carbon dioxide (and othergreenhouse gases such as water vapor)from the Earth’s current atmosphere isnot one of my fields of expertise, butgreatly reducing the rate at which we

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

23

increase it is clearly a good idea. (Perhapswe shall discover that if we stop addingthese gases to the atmosphere, the existingunwanted gases will slowly dissipate.) Away to do this is to move to an electricaleconomy, producing electricity from sun-light, and then replacing as much of otherfuels as possible by electricity. There is costassociated with this, but mostly new tech-nology is not required. The one field inwhich this is not yet completely possible istransportation, where better batteries (ortheir functional equivalent) are needed.Fortunately, we still have a lot of compe-tence in developing new technology, inspite of losing a good part of our manu-facturing skills. (A very promising batteryproject is underway at MIT.)

Solar power at present is faulted forbeing available only during clear days, forrequiring expensive solar cells of limitedefficiency and life, and for not havingenough space for the receptors in crowdedareas such as cities. This proposal concen-trates on dealing with these issues.

The main idea When I was teaching in India in the ’60s, Ilearned that some irrigation pumps weresolar-powered without using any electri-cal components. Small collectors concen-trated sunlight sufficiently to producesteam of high enough temperature andpressure to operate water pumps. (Themotivation was that pilferage of electricalcomponents, even copper wire, was then aproblem in the outlying areas where theapparatus was often located.) This idea isone of the elements in the proposal. Theother is to collect the sunlight on largesteerable, focusable mirrors in geostation-ary orbit that would direct the reflectedlight onto much smaller receptors on theground. (The orbits would be inclined sothat the mirrors would never be in theshadow of the earth.) Initially, the recep-tors would be located near existing hydro-electric plants, where solar-poweredpumps would be used to move water upinto the lake(s) behind the dam(s) forenergy storage. At NASA, we have theskills to develop such devices as themirrors and perhaps even have the money

if we give up such projects as the spacestation, which produce no noticeable ben-efits for mankind. Should the initialinstallations prove workable, new plantscould be built in more remote locations.

Solar power like the kind I saw in Indiais still used to some extent in the U.S.Heating of swimming pools seems to bethe largest application. Some is used fordomestic hot water and some for spaceheating. Numerous small companies arein the business of making and selling thecollectors and the receptors for thevarious applications. The same is truetoday in India.

DetailsThe orbiting mirrors would be, perhaps, amile in diameter. They would be con-structed as transparent inflatable thin bal-loons, one of the inside surfaces of whichwould be aluminized to provide thereflecting surface for the required concavemirror. The mirrors would be lifted intoorbit while folded, the inflated shapebeing determined by the thickness of theplastic or other material and by the pres-sure. It is likely that spherical reflectorswould be adequate, and the focal lengthcould be adjusted by the pressure, thusavoiding high precision in their manufac-ture. Communication satellites alreadyuse slanted orbits and incorporate suffi-ciently accurate steering mechanisms.

Note that since the Sun apparentlymoves through the sky while the mirrorapparently remains fixed to viewers on theEarth, the angle of incidence of the sun-light on the mirror changes. Thus themirror must be constantly redirected.This is preferably done by using feedbackfrom small sensors located around theedge of the mirror to the steering mecha-nism of the satellite carrying the mirror.These same sensors can also be used toadjust the focal length of the concavereflector by adjusting the air pressureinside the plastic balloon so that the inci-dent beam just fills the receptor surface.

At the surface of the Earth, incomingsolar radiation in clear weather averagessomething over 300 watts/sq. meter, but itis much higher and nearly constant above

the atmosphere. Measurements show the“solar constant” to be about 1366watts/sq. meter. A reflector about 5000feet in diameter thus collects about 3000megawatts, which is comparable to thecapacity of a typical terrestrial electricpower plant. I am guessing that collectorsmight be 500 feet in diameter, but thismust be verified. The fraction of the col-lected power that would be received by thecollectors depends on the weather, and thefraction of that which becomes usefulheat to make steam and drive pumpsremains to be seen.

Close to populated areas, it may benecessary to stop the transmission atnight. For these reasons, storage of thecollected energy is essential, which makesthe use of dams holding pumped water avital part of these systems. The ability todefocus the mirrors is also important.

One of the reasons for using the solarenergy directly to produce steam anddrive pumps is that solar electric cells,besides being expensive, are not very effi-cient in converting light into electricity,and need replacement from time to time.At best, the efficiency is about 20%, therest of the light energy appearing as heat,which limits the intensity of light that canbe handled. There is no such limitationwhen converting the incoming power intosteam, but there probably are some limita-tions from safety considerations. Howeverthe efficiency is surely higher than that ofsolar cells.

Space debrisIt has been known for some time thatthousands of pieces of debris, some verylarge but most very small, abandonedfrom previous launches, are in orbitaround the Earth. Some objects that havebeen returned, such as shuttle vehicles,have been found to have suffered minordamage from impact with small pieces.This raises concern for us, since themirrors we propose to place in orbit areactually quite fragile. Fortunately, almostall space junk is in much lower orbit,where it will eventually burn up as itenters the Earth’s atmosphere.

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

24

William KettyleThe Task Force on Medical Care for the MIT Community: An Update from MIT Medical

FOR MOR E THAN 100 YEAR S, MIThas been providing convenient, on-sitehealthcare services. Eventually, MITMedical grew into a comprehensive,multi-specialty, group practice offeringservices to all members of the community,from the very young to the most senior.Through our various insurance plans, wecare for the entire student population,many graduate student families, andalmost half of the faculty, employees, andtheir families. We promote campus well-ness and healthy lifestyles. We plan forcampus emergencies. We advise Instituteleadership on healthcare policy andmatters related to the health of thecampus. And we care deeply for the healthof the individuals in the community andfor the health of the community as awhole.

Given the complexities of our mission,our continuum-of-care model, and theimpact we have on the lives of individuals,

we welcome occasional opportunities tolook at and learn about ourselves with thehelp of others, both those inside andoutside our community. Our goal is tohave broad input and comparative infor-mation to help us evaluate and continu-ously improve our services to the MITcommunity.

We had just such an opportunity in2004 when MIT President Charles Vestcreated the Task Force on Medical Carefor the MIT Community. Its charge was toexamine the cost and quality of medicalservices and health insurance coverageprovided by MIT to its students, faculty,employees, retirees, and post-doctoralaffiliates and fellows. In November 2005,the Task Force recommended that “theMIT Administration express its confi-dence in and strong support of the basicmodel for medical care and medicalinsurance that has served the Institute sowell for many decades.”

The following December, a multi-dis-ciplinary working group was convened toassess and address the 41 recommenda-tions included in the Task Force’s finalreport and to work diligently to assureimplementation of the ideas and sugges-tions that had been generated. In March2007, Terry Stone, MIT’s Executive VicePresident and Treasurer, announced thatthe working group had successfullyreviewed and made determinationsregarding each of the recommendationsand offered an update on each outcome.

The 41 recommendations fell into twobroad categories: those pertaining to MITMedical and those pertaining to MIT’shealth insurance programs. For MITMedical, the Task Force, in partnershipwith the working group, allowed us totake a thorough and careful look at themedical care we provide to the commu-nity. It also allowed us to look at ourinsurance programs, as well as our fiscal

There are two possible approaches todeal with this problem. One is to make themirrors less fragile by abandoning theballoon approach and providing a struc-ture to support a single-surface properlyshaped mirror. The other is to provideredundancy by placing two or moremirrors in orbit for each receiving loca-tion on the ground. The balloon approachis very attractive because it enables focusto be controlled by pressure, rather thanmaking and then placing in orbit a veryprecise mirror.

Although the redundancy approachseems better to me, my inclination is to

leave the final decisions to the engineerswho will do the actual design, hopefullyfrom NASA.

More thoughtsThis proposal need not be the only schemeused. Higher efficiency in systems that doburn carbon-containing fuels would lessen,but not eliminate contamination of theatmosphere. Conservation, wind power,tidal power, and any other schemes that donot burn fossil or carbon-containing fuelsmay also be used. I have no special knowl-edge about hydrogen fuel cells, except tonote that water vapor is also a greenhousegas. Carbon sequestration seems to involvesignificant new technology and does notfree us from the grip of OPEC.

ReferencesMany of the numbers used here are fromWikipedia, “World energy resources andconsumption,”(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy:_world_resources_and_consumption). Thepiece uses the words “energy” and“power” as synonyms in many instances,much to the discomfort of technically-trained persons, such as myself. In thisarticle, I have used these two terms only intheir technical sense. Power (typical unit iswatt) is the rate of providing energy(typical units are BTU – British thermalunits – or joules).

Solving the Energy ProblemSchreiber, from preceding page

William Schreiber is a Professor Emeritus inthe Department of Electrical Engineering andComputer Science (wfs@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

25

budgeting and resource allocationprocesses, to ensure that the fiscal founda-tion of MIT Medical was robust, healthy,comprehensive, and comprehensible.

At this point, many of the recommen-dations specific to MIT Medical havebeen successfully implemented whileothers are ongoing in nature and willrequire additional and continuing analy-sis and input. We have introduced severalnew practices and processes with the goalof improving healthcare for the MITcommunity, emphasizing a patient-cen-tered approach. I am pleased to offer anupdate on a few specific recommenda-tions that should be of particular interestto the MIT faculty.

Improving access to careEven before the Task Force released its rec-ommendations, MIT Medical wasworking diligently to increase clinicalstaffing and improve access to care andservices in key clinical areas, includingadult medicine, mental health, dental, eyeservices, and women’s health. In addition,our Center for Health Promotion andWellness continues to advance efforts topromote wellness and healthy living.

We have also enhanced our healthfinancial management systems toimprove our resource utilizationprocesses. These changes allow us tomake important decisions with muchbetter, more detailed information andclearer views of the cost implications forour patients and for the Institute. Theseenhancements allow us to partner moreeffectively with MIT’s Human ResourcesDepartment to optimize resource deploy-ment. MIT’s Human ResourcesDepartment shares our goal of matchingavailable insurance benefit packages tothe needs of the community.

Update on key recommendationsKey outcomes for each of the 41 recom-mendations are summarized in theMedical Task Force Follow-Up Worksheet(web.mit.edu/task-force/medical/), how-ever, it might be helpful to highlight a fewof the recommendations and offer moredetails:

• A recommendation was made to “continueefforts to identify and take advantage ofopportunities for reducing costs withoutreducing the quality of care.”

As a practice providing more than 25clinical specialties, we are constantly eval-uating the balance of providing the bestpossible care at the right cost. Forexample, we are working on ways tocontrol our expenses while improving ourservices in the area of “high-tech”imaging. Through advances in healthcareinformation technology, MIT Medical hasbeen able to take advantage of market-place competition within the areas of CT,MRI, and PET scanning. We have access tohigh-quality images, which improvespatient care at a lower cost. We have alsorealized some efficiency through digitalradiography; updated electronic labora-tory systems; and implementing an elec-tronic dental records system.

• A recommendation was made to “addressissues regarding access to specialists withinand outside the Medical Department.”

We have improved access to carewithin MIT Medical with the addition ofnew clinicians in the areas of InternalMedicine, Dermatology, Neurology, andOrthopedics. We are also encouragingeach of our patients to identify a primarycare provider, which will improve andexpedite access for both routine andurgent care issues. We have also improvedour specialist-referral process to helppatients more easily access medical careoutside of MIT Medical. We have beenespecially diligent in helping our patientsmake appointments for colon cancerscreening, breast cancer treatment,cardiac testing, and orthopedic care.

• A recommendation was made to “continueefforts to strengthen the measurement andassessment of objective measures of thequality of care provided by the MedicalDepartment.”

MIT Medical has developed an evi-dence-based decision support system tomeasure and report metrics of care qualityand patient outcomes at the clinician andservice level. The model has been success-

fully tested in our Internal MedicineService and will be implemented in allmajor services in 2008. This system allowsus to monitor such things as colon cancerscreening rates, management of patientswith diabetes, and patient satisfaction.This real-time quantitative and qualitativedata-reporting instrument will be avail-able to our clinicians with the goal of pro-viding the information needed to improvecare for patients across our practice.

Looking forwardThe Task Force recommendations and theefforts of the working group have estab-lished a system of processes and frame-works that will continue to enhance carefor our community in the years to come.Healthcare has changed dramatically overthe years, with an increased focus onquality of care, wellness, preventativemedicine, and patient outcomes. MITMedical will continue to partner with keystakeholders in the Institute communityincluding the senior administration, theMedical Management Board, the MedicalConsumers’ Advisory Council, and theStudent Health Advisory Council, to inte-grate ideas and suggestions to helpimprove healthcare for the community.

I very much appreciated serving on theAdvisory Committee to the Task Force onMedical Care and the opportunity to be amember of the working group. I extendmy thanks to all those who supported thismajor effort with their time, ideas, analy-ses, thoughtfulness, and creativeapproaches. In response to the carefulanalysis of the Task Force and the follow-up work of the working group, theInstitute has invested resources in MITMedical that will allow us to continue ourmission to promote wellness and providehealthcare for the diverse needs of theInstitute community.

We welcome your feedback, thoughts,and ideas. MIT Medical has created an e-mail address – MTF@med.mit.edu – foryou to share your ideas related to the workof the Task Force. Please feel free to writeto me and share your thoughts.

William Kettyle is Medical Director and Headof MIT Medical (kett@med.mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

26

Paul E. GrayO. Robert Simha

A New Cooperative Residence for the MIT Community

A Brief HistoryS I NCE TH E E N D OF WWI I there havebeen a number of initiatives that haveaddressed the vexing problem of provid-ing convenient, appropriate, and reason-ably-priced housing for MIT’s faculty andstaff. In 1948 MIT’s treasurer, HoraceFord, leased land on Memorial Drive tothe New England Life InsuranceCompany for the purpose of building 100Memorial Drive, an apartment house thathas provided rental housing to bothmembers of the faculty as well as thegeneral public. In 1951, MIT economicsprofessor W. Rupert McLaurin envisionedthe development of affordable housing foryoung MIT and Harvard faculty andgraduate students. He provided the initialfunds to establish the now famousConantum community in Concord, Mass.The buildings designed by Carl Koch, anMIT professor of architecture, provided100 homes on 190 acres. At the time,Conantum advertised that the commu-nity was but 22 minutes from HarvardSquare. In 1962, the desire for housingcloser to the campus stimulated a pro-posal to build a faculty cooperative resi-dence on land to be leased from MIT. Thisproposal was thought to be ahead of itstime and was shelved. In the years that fol-lowed, other initiatives were taken by MITto provide suitable housing for faculty inCambridge, but for the most part theyhave not survived.

A New Faculty and Alumni InitiativeBeginning in the spring of 2003, a groupof MIT and Harvard faculty and alumnimet to consider the possibility of develop-ing a residence to serve the university

community in Cambridge. In January of2004, nine members of the group organ-ized as University ResidentialCommunities, LLC (URC). In the fall of2004, URC entered into an agreementwith the Beal Companies, Boston-baseddevelopers with extensive experience inthe Cambridge market, to assist URC inthe development process. The URCfounders designated several members asmanagers, who have contributed theirtime and talents in order to bring theproject to this point. They include PaulGray, Neil Harper, and O. Robert Simha ofMIT, and Carl Sapers of Harvard. One ofthe founders, Bob Simha, has agreed toundertake substantial responsibilities asExecutive Officer through the completionof the project.

Preliminary surveys and discussionsled to the decision to locate the facilitywithin walking distance of the MITcampus. A series of meetings with theMIT Medical Department, AthleticDepartment, Alumni Office, and otherMIT agencies established an early open-ness of the MIT community to the pres-ence of a nearby residential community ofthe kind envisioned. The MIT administra-tion, while supportive of our effort, was,however, not in a position to participatefinancially in this enterprise.

The main idea behind the project wasto create a multi-generational communityof people with an affinity for universitylife and to locate the facility as near as pos-sible to the campus. The emphasis was ondeveloping a facility that would appeal topeople who shared an interest in the intel-lectual, cultural, and social life in theBoston/Cambridge area. There was also a

desire to design the facility with physicaland programmatic features that wouldenable residents to age gracefully in placeand to remain in their apartments for aslong as they wished.

Consideration of the objectives out-lined above eventually led to the decisionto organize the residential communityinto a co-operative form of ownership, anownership structure that will allowgreater control over the nature of thecommunity and greater flexibility incertain financing alternatives. Eligibilityfor membership in the cooperative willinitially be open to faculty, staff, employ-ees, graduates, and others with affiliationsat MIT, Harvard, and the MassachusettsGeneral Hospital.

For the past two years, the URC man-agers and the Beal Company have beenexploring housing site opportunitieswithin the MIT neighborhood and, inApril of 2007, we signed an agreementwith the Extell Corporation that willenable us to accomplish our objectives –in a new, eight-story cooperative residencenow being constructed at 303 Third Streetin Kendall Square Cambridge, just a shortwalk from the Kendall/MIT T station andthe entrance to East Campus.

The site is composed of two buildings:the South Building, which will be theURC co-op containing 168 units, and theNorth Building, which will be a rentalapartment building owned by the EquityResidential REIT of Chicago.

The new residence will have apart-ments varying in size from one to threebedrooms. Each unit will be fullyequipped, and the residence will have 24-hour concierge service, common rooms,

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

27

meeting rooms, a media room, a swim-ming pool, health and fitness facilities, adining club, and parking in an under-ground garage. We expect that the MITMedical Department will be available toall residents. In addition, access will beprovided to the wide range of intellectualand cultural activities on the MITcampus.

The cost of apartments will range from$510,000 to $1,500,000. Sizes range from750 square feet to over 2,000 square feet.The apartments are scheduled for occu-pancy in the fall and early winter of 2008.

Twenty-one of the units will be madeavailable to the Cambridge AffordableHousing Program at very substantial dis-counts. These units will be available on a

lottery basis to any person who meets theincome guidelines established by the City.These guidelines include income levelswhich cover many members of the MITcommunity, and we would encourage allwho qualify to apply.

We believe that the residence will offerthe opportunity to live amongst bothyounger faculty and staff beginning theircareers, and older members of the MITcommunity who wish to spend theirworking and retirement years in the stim-ulating environment that is MIT.

The goal of this new community is toprovide an opportunity for MIT faculty,staff, and alumni to be part of a congenialliving and teaching community that willprovide a range of services and amenities,

for all age groups. We believe the commu-nity will reflect one of MIT’s greateststrengths: the belief that we can continueto make contributions to learning byengaging in the life of the mind and doingthose things that enriches our lives andthe lives of others.

If you are interested in learning moreabout this residential opportunity pleasecontact either of the authors of this articleor visit the Website: web.mit.edu/ir/urc/update.html.

Newsletter StaffError Results in Some Faculty BeingOvercharged for Supplemental LifeInsurance

S EVE RAL M IT FACU LTY M E M B E R S

who reached their 65th birthday as ofJuly 1 of 2006 were inadvertently over-charged for supplemental life insuranceunder the Plan provided by MIT.

MIT provides all employees up to$50,000 of Basic Life Insurance.Additionally, all faculty (and staff) maypurchase up to 5 times their salary inSupplemental Life Insurance. However,on the July 1st following their 65th birth-day, the amount of available Basic andSupplemental Life Insurance decreases.Between the ages of 65 and 70, employedfaculty may purchase up to 3.3 times their

salary in Supplemental Insurance. Afterage 70, the amount decreases to 2.2 timestheir salary. After age 75, 1.6 times theirsalary, and so on, until after age 95 it isreduced to 0.6 times their salary.

Recently, the Faculty Newsletter learnedthat several employed faculty over the ageof 65 were mistakenly charged for theirelected 5 times salary Supplemental LifeInsurance when they were only eligible for3.3 times their salary and therefore shouldhave been paying a correspondingly lowerrate.

When contacted by the FacultyNewsletter, Vice President for Human

Resources Alison Alden replied, “I amaware of this situation and am happy thatit is being resolved. . . . In this unique cir-cumstance, the overpayment resultedwhen a necessary override prevented theautomated coverage reduction processfrom functioning correctly – so I ask thatwe keep this in mind.” The Benefits Officehas corrected this situation and is in theprocess of reimbursing affected faculty forthe overpayment.

If any faculty have specific concernsabout their life insurance they can contactElizabeth Parr by calling 3-6151.

Paul E. Gray is a Professor of ElectricalEngineering and President Emeritus(pogo@.mit.edu).

O. Robert Simha is a Research Affiliate in theDepartment of Urban Studies and Director ofPlanning Emeritus (simha@.mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

28

Newsletter Adopts New Policies andProcedures: Includes Direct Election ofEditorial Board Members

MIT Faculty Newsletter

Policies and Procedures

I. MissionII. FunctionIII. GovernanceIV. Editorial Policy

I. MissionThe mission of the MIT Faculty Newsletter (FNL) is to serve as a medium for communication amongMIT faculty, and as a voice for the diversity of faculty views within MIT as well as in the broader academic world.

II. FunctionThe Newsletter publishes articles, letters, editorials, and data deemed of interest to the faculty.Contributions are welcome from all members of the faculty and from emeritus faculty. Articles and letters represent the views of the author.

a. To carry out the above mission the FNL may publish articles deemed useful, from othersources, including members of the administration, students, research staff, and faculty at otheruniversities.

b. Essential to the function of the FNL is its ability to express views that may not reflect those ofother MIT constituencies and entities.

A S IG N I FICANTLY R EVI S E D VE R S ION of the Policies and Procedures for the MIT Faculty Newsletter was unanimously adoptedat the April 19 Editorial Board meeting.

Key changes include: the creation of the position of Secretary for the Newsletter; a staggered three-year term for Board members;appointment of a Nominations Committee for potential new Board members; and the yearly direct election by the faculty of ~1/3 ofthe Editorial Board. These changes (and others) will be implemented in the coming acadmic year.

Below are the complete Policies and Procedures as adopted at the April 19 Board meeting.

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

29

III. Governance

1) The MIT Faculty Newsletter shall be governed by an Editorial Board composed of members of thefaculty:

a. The Editorial Board shall be composed of at least 12, but not more than 15, members of the faculty.

b. Editorial Board members shall serve for staggered three-year terms, with 1/3 of the memberselected each year. Board members may be re-elected.

c. Faculty emeritus shall be eligible to serve.

d. Seven members shall constitute a quorum.

e. The Editorial Board shall meet not less than three times per year, fall, winter, and spring.

2) Nominations Committee:

a. The Editorial Board shall establish a Nominations Committee consisting of four members at theJanuary/February meeting. Members shall serve for two years with staggered appointments forcontinuity. Two members will be elected in odd years and two in even years. The Editorial Boardshall elect the Nominations Committee from among Board members. The nominees receiving themost votes among those nominated shall fill the open slots.

b. The Nominations Committee will have the responsibility of recruiting and evaluating candidatesfor the Editorial Board, taking into account the need for representation from different schools andsectors of the Institute, junior, senior, and retired faculty, male and female, underrepresentedgroups or faculty constituencies.

c. Candidates for the Editorial Board should give evidence of commitment to the integrity and independence of the faculty, and to the role of the Faculty Newsletter as an important voice of the faculty.

3) Election of the Editorial Board:

a. The Nominations Committee will present not fewer than four nor more than eight candidates tothe faculty-at-large prior to the spring meeting of the Editorial Board. Nominees shall have theopportunity of circulating a short statement of their qualifications and/or views. The nominees corresponding to the number of open seats and receiving the most votes will be elected for three-year terms.

4) Officers of the Board:

a. The Board shall elect a Chair and a Secretary at its spring meeting for two-year terms. TheChair will be responsible for ensuring circulation of an agenda for Board meetings. The Secretarywill be responsible for communicating minutes and financial reports when appropriate.

b. Among candidates nominated, the nominee receiving a majority of ballots shall be elected. Inthe case of more than two nominees, and no majority, the nominee receiving the fewest votes will

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

30

be eliminated, and further ballot taken, until one individual has received a majority of the ballotscast. The Secretary shall be responsible for counting of ballots.

c. The Chair and Secretary will be elected in alternate years following the procedure described above.

d. Between Board meetings the Chair, Secretary, and Chair of the current Editorial Sub-Committee will constitute an Executive Committee to deal with matters arising, with serious issuescommunicated electronically to the Editorial Board for rapid comment.

5) The Editorial Board shall hire and direct the work of the Managing Editor. The Chair of the FNLBoard shall serve as the formal Supervisor of the Managing Editor.

6) These Policies and Procedures can be amended by a 2/3 vote of the Editorial Board at any regularmeeting of the Board. The proposed changes should be circulated not later than 7 days before themeeting.

IV. Editorial Policies

1) The Editorial Board shall set or amend editorial policies at its regular meetings. Changes in editorialpolicies will be published in the Newsletter and posted on the Website.

2) For each issue of the Newsletter, an Editorial Sub-Committee shall be constituted consisting of atleast three and preferably four members of the Editorial Board. These committees shall choose a chairfor their duration. Each Editorial Sub-Committee will have responsibility for the content of the issuethey are supervising, and for the Editorial if they choose to write one. On salient issues, the EditorialSub-Committee may choose to poll the Board. Wherever possible, at least one member of an editorialSub-Committee will also serve on the following Sub-Committee, to provide continuity.

3) In general the pages of the Faculty Newsletter are open to all members of the faculty. The publica-tion of articles will be subject to the judgment of the Editorial Sub-Committee. Letters to the FNL willusually be published, provided they are relevant to the life of the campus, are not deemed libelous, donot report clearly erroneous information, and do not largely repeat opinions expressed in previous letters. Letters must be signed.

4) In general the views expressed in articles and letters represent the views of individuals and notthose of the Editorial Board. Only the Editorial reflects the view of the Editorial Sub-Committee orBoard.

5) The FNL will maintain a Website, the content of which will be set by the Editorial Board or Sub-Committee designated by the Editorial Board.

[This revision adopted at the meeting of the Editorial Board, April 19, 2007.]

M.I.T. NumbersWomen Faculty (as of October 2006)

School Department Total FacultyWomen as %

of TotalFaculty

TenuredFaculty

Women as %of Tenured

Faculty

Architecture andPlanning

Urban Studies and Planning 28 36% 19 26%

Architecture 31 32% 20 30%

Media Arts and Sciences 20 20% 13 15%

TToottaall AArrcchhiitteeccttuurree aanndd PPllaannnniinngg 79 30% 52 25%

Engineering

Archaeology and Materials Science and Engineering 34 29% 24 21%

Aeronautics and Astronautics 35 20% 22 14%

Biological Engineering 17 18% 12 25%

Chemical Engineering 29 14% 26 12%

Electrical Engineering and Computer Science 130 12% 95 12%

Mechanical Engineering 73 11% 62 2%

Civil and Environmental Engineering 37 8% 33 9%

Nuclear Science and Engineering 16 6% 13 8%

TToottaall EEnnggiinneeeerriinngg ((iinncclluuddeess EESSDD iinn ttoottaall)) 371 14% 287 10%

Humanities, Arts,and Social Sciences

Anthropology Program 6 67% 5 60%

Foreign Languages and Literature 9 67% 7 71%

History 13 46% 9 56%

Literature 17 35% 12 25%

Political Science 23 30% 15 20%

Science, Technology, and Society 10 30% 7 43%

Linguistics and Philosophy 24 25% 21 29%

Music and Theater Arts 12 25% 9 22%

Writing and Humanistic Studies 8 25% 5 20%

Economics 34 15% 23 13%

TToottaall HHuummaanniittiieess,, AArrttss,, aanndd SSoocciiaall SScciieenncceess 156 31% 113 30%

Science

Brain and Cognitive Sciences 36 31% 27 26%

Biology 52 23% 43 23%

Chemistry 30 20% 24 17%

Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences 33 9% 30 10%

Mathematics 50 6% 36 6%

Physics 72 6% 49 4%

TToottaall SScciieennccee 273 14% 209 13%

SSllooaann SScchhooooll ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt 96 18% 62 15%

MMIITT TTOOTTAALLSS** 998 19% 738 16%

Note: This table is an unduplicated count of faculty by primary academic department. In the case of faculty with dual appointments,individuals are counted in one department as designated by the Office of the Dean of the School.

*MIT TOTALS includes 23 faculty with appointments outside the academic departments listed.

Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2007

31

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 6

M.I.T. NumbersPercent of Faculty Who are Women* (as of October 2006)

*Note: For complete details, see preceding page.Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

Urban Studies and Planning

Architecture

Media Arts and Sciences

Total Architecture and Planning

Materials Science and Archaeology

Aeronautics and Astronautics

Biological Engineering

Chemical Engineering

Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Mechanical Engineering

Civil and Environmental Engineering

Nuclear Science and Engineering

Total Engineering

Anthropology Program

Foreign Language and Literature

History

Literature

Political Science

Science, Technology, and Society

Linguistics and Philosophy

Music and Theater Arts

Writing and Humanistic Studies

Economics

Total Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences

Brain and Cognitive Sciences

Biology

Chemistry

Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences

Mathematics

Physics

Total Science

Sloan School

Percent Institute Faculty Who Are Women

Sci

ence

Hum

aniti

es, A

rts,

and

Soc

ial S

cien

ces

Eng

inee

ring

Arc

hite

ctur

ean

d P

lann

ing

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

36%

32%

20%

30%

29%

20%

18%

14%

12%

11%

8%

6%

14%

67%

67%

46%

35%

30%

30%

25%

25%

25%

15%

31%

31%

23%

20%

9%

6%

6%

14%

18%

19%