a guide to writing assignments in file · web viewresearch. 28. scripted interviews. 29. topic...

A Guide to Writing Assignments in

Science, Technology, and Policy

Catherine Woytowicz

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Getting Started

Introduction 3Learning Objectives 3The “Two Cultures” 4What is Policy Writing? 6Choosing a Topic 7How the Assignments Work 8

Assignments

Dossiers 9Dossiers are used to introduce people. Briefers may pass a dossier to a principal or a briefer might want to read the dossier of a newly assigned principal.

Background Paragraphs 10These short summaries are used to provide depth to someone new to a topic or to pass current information to a briefer.

Talking Points 17Whether formal or not, talking points prepare a briefer to speak on an issue. Because they will be said aloud, they should not contain convoluted or difficult language.

Opinion Editorials 23Opinion editorials convey issues in well-developed narratives that express personal views. However, even powerful people may write them to get ahead of an issue in the media.

Briefing Books 27Briefing books are used to give principals enough information to attend a summit or a major meeting on a specific subject. They contain several sets of talking points that are targeted to meetings on subtopics.

Annexes

Research 28Scripted Interviews 29Topic Checklist 31Great Grades Checklist 32Grading Rubric 33References 34

© Catherine Woytowicz 20102

Introduction

Science, Technology, and Policy examines the practical aspects of who brings advice, what content is communicated, who uses it, and how it becomes public policy.

Students will review the key institutions, individuals, and instruments involved in science and technology (S&T) policy. The review will cover processes to create US policy, the US agenda as it has changed from administration-to-administration, and how US interests play out in international situations. During this time, students will look for an area of policy of interest to follow for the rest of the course.

Rather than traditional examinations, students will track their policy issues and engage in a number of creative exercises designed to impart a sense of what science policy analysts do. This aspect of “writing in the discipline” provides excellent preparation for anyone seeking to move into policy work. Students will develop a portfolio of professional policy skills including research methods, network building, and professional communication techniques. Students will also be challenged to keep current with developments in S&T policy while critically evaluating the media source presenting the information.

After each assignment, the instructor will conduct a discussion to allow students to outline issues that will then be related to classic case studies in science policy.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Students will learn to:

1. Understand the basic dynamics of the US interagency community2. Define who the policy players and stakeholders are and their agendas3. Identify major US policy initiatives and how they change with administrations4. Explore the role of the United States in the international policy arena5. Work through the role of science advisor and understand the support system

for principals6. Learn how to investigate major public policy issues7. Learn to give policy advice and coordinate staffers8. Learn to accept and give peer review feedback9. Develop critical thinking skills

10. Create a portfolio of real science policy products and expertise


The “Two Cultures”

British physicist and novelist Charles Percy Snow coined the term “The Two Cultures” in the title of his 1959 Rede Lecture at Cambridge. He put forward the idea that a loss of communication between the sciences and the humanities — the cultures in question — was becoming an impediment to solving the world's problems.

Consider what Snow said in 1959:

A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?

I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question — such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? — not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had.

Snow’s words may be even more important today. Consider the US Congress. In 2005, there were 2 physicists among the 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, 5 Delegates, and sole Resident Commissioner. Members are – for the most part – humanities majors with people skills galore making decisions about what to do about nuclear waste and health care and melamine in dog food.

If you are tempted simply to say that our elected officials are “stupid,” think again. They got us to elect them.

Would scientists do better? Perhaps not, according to an old joke that goes:

A man asked a physicist what time it was.

The physicist answered, “First, there was The Big Bang. Then, planets cooled. Slowly, due to mutations in response to stimuli and other factors of natural selection, man evolved. Then, the Swiss developed an inordinate interest in the metrics of time. Of course, ‘clock’ – as we all know – comes from the Celtic word ‘clocca’ meaning ‘bell’ or ‘alarm.’…”

“I asked you for the time,” the man fumed. “Not the history of time.”

Scientists love what they do in seeking truth. They see beauty in that truth and elegance in well-documented scientific findings. Their culture honors the contributions of groundbreaking predecessors. Hence, they often want to communicate, not simply an answer, but the flight of thought that led to it. Even Isaac Newton wrote:

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”


The problem here is that non-scientists, even very smart people lacking science literacy, may not see any beauty in scientific detail. They see equations that look like math and abbreviations that do not spell words. Worse, for decision makers, none of that detail answers the one burning question they have: “How do I vote?”

If scientists are not getting elected and bringing their expertise to Congress and members of Congress are not reading science trade magazines to inform their decision making, the good news is that their actions leave room for people with both sets of skills to serve in the very valuable role of “translator.”

No matter what challenges they face, science policy writers hold to a few truths:

* The science has to be real. Cold fusion is a great idea until someone asks to prove it. Because scientific methods and experiments can be duplicated by other scientists, the science used to make decisions needs to be real.

* The science needs to be comprehensible to the consumer. Policy writers need to communicate the elements of the science that make the technology work without turning off the principal as a reader.

* The science cannot be so dumbed down that it is no longer factually true. While some details may be lost in translation, the boundaries – positive and negative – of what the science is capable of doing must remain.

* The science should not be politicized. Leave spin to politicians. Instead, science policy writers must try to provide an accurate account of both the pros and cons of a new technology.


Policy Writing

The high school essay — We are familiar with the form of essay diagramed on the left: start with a broad opening and narrow to a topic sentence in the first paragraph, give three paragraphs of support, and then reverse your opening paragraph into a broad statement. That works in most academic situations.

Professional policy writing — In policy writing, we lose the broad statements and open with a “topic sentence” as illustrated on the right. By opening with your conclusion, you crystallize your thoughts. The tool to accomplish this is the policy sentence. It helps you be concise.

Policy sentences follow the form: Actor - action - outcome - meaning. While it may seem stilted, this type of sentence greatly improves the quality and clarity of your writing in short pieces. It also gives you a “hook” for examples.

Actor – This is usually the government entity responsible for a policy.

Action – The action describes what the actor is doing.

Outcome – This describes what the consequence of the action was. Some people call this the “object” or the “what.”

Meaning – The meaning provides a metric, scope, or scale to the outcome. Some people call this the “scope” or the “so what?” It tells a principal why he/she should care.

The United States demarched Sudan for human rights violations and tied compliance to $50M in sanctions.

The decentralized system of science funding within the United States has delayed implementation of the US-EU Science and Technology (S&T) Agreement at a cost of $11B in FY07.

THINK CRITICALLY — The best policy writing is that which has mulled over the issue and seeks to present balanced information to the decision maker.


Topic Guidance

What can I choose as a topic? Your topic must have a science and a policy component. Generally, some latitude may be given for work on emerging technologies. Choose something that interests you. This will likely be one of the few times in your college career that the professor allows you to study something of your choosing in depth for a semester. Take a flier. Stretch.

What about my "second" topic? Here's a weird idea but go with me a moment: consider making your "second choice" your first choice. Study Plan B and let someone else inform you of Plan A. You already know about Plan A - you have interest in it for whatever reason. This is a chance to find out a lot about Plan B. Maybe Plan B should be Plan A in your life and you're overlooking something about it simply because you're not familiar enough with the issues surrounding that topic. Explore it.

What makes a good topic? Look for science that people are talking about. Does it solve a problem? Does it create a problem? Do policy makers need to de/regulate, control, or address this issue? Are scientists studying it? Is the issue in the news? Now, look at the assignments you have to do. Do you think you can write those pieces with your topic?

How do I get started? Read everything you can get your hands on in the literature, magazines, and on-line (what are people saying about your topic?); from Congressional sources (is anyone moving legislation on your topic?); and from international news media (does the topic have "play" in the world?). Read, read, read. Once you have baseline knowledge, you can proceed to interviews.

How much time should I spend reading? Initially, during your “read in” phase, you may need to do about 50 hours of reading. Then, you should spend 20-60 minutes per day looking for updated information. If you have the capability on your computer, you may want to set up an RSS feed on your topic.

How do I focus my topic? Go to the website of the industry, trade, or professional society involved in the topic. Find out what entity within the government is working that issues. Most professional societies, non-governmental organizations, industries, and government offices have an office of public policy. Find it on the website and start reading press releases. What are the issues of concern to these offices? What are people talking about? Where is the controversy?

How do I know if a source is credible? Take a look at a website or magazine and find out who sponsors it. That's called caveating. Is the group liberal, conservative, domestic, international, old, or new? Industry-based doesn't always mean "industry biased" but you should think about WHO is telling you the information as well as what it is. Look also for iconoclasts and naysayers. They may have a very valid point - even if it's not what you want to hear about your issue.

What are some possible topics? Stem cells, technology surprise, biometrics, nuclear weapons, pharmaceutical issues, nanotechnology, biotechnology, biological collections, chemical weapons, scientific openness, clean air or water, alternative energy, and more.


How the Assignments Work Together

Building a briefing book may seem like a daunting task but it is really a stepwise, iterative process. Each step expands on the previous step and adds more detail. Things that may not fit in one assignment should not be discarded; they may have a place in the briefing book.

We start with a policy sentence that defines a paragraph. The points made in the paragraph become the lead ideas for talking points. The support sentences for talking points are expanded into backgrounders and other support documents. In the final assembly of the briefing book, additional supporting documents, graphics, and other papers may be added. If there is impending legislation or a particularly good piece of writing on the opposition’s point of view, they should be put in the briefing book.

While not added to the briefing book, the opinion editorial gives you a chance to express your own position on the issue. It offers a chance to think broadly about the subject and take a mid-course correction if your research is incomplete.


Dossiers

Dossiers, often called “bios,” are used to introduce people. Principals often have official bios with photographs. Briefers can offer them as a “get acquainted” gesture.

Template:Profile for YOUR FULL NAME

Name: Your Full Name (form of address - what you prefer to be called)

Education Summary: Institution, Degree (Concentration/major), Year or Year Expected

Program: major, affiliation, whatever brought you to class

Career goal: what would you like to do

Policy experience: what, when, where

Policy interests: be specific Disinterests: be specific

Reason for taking the class/expectations: think broadly

What should be known about you:

An example:Profile for Amanda Tanner

Name: Amanda Tanner (Mandy)

Education Summary: Northwestern University, BS (Chemistry and Physics), 2003

Program: non-degree

Career goal: changing to policy career from science

Policy experience: internship, 2006, House Science Committee

Policy interests: nanotechnology, high energy physics Disinterests: anything bio-related or environmental topics

Reason for taking the class/expectations: I would like to compile writing sample portfolio for NGO jobs. I would also like to practice my public speaking skills.

What should be known about you: I maintain contacts with the House Science Committee staffers.


Background Paragraphs

Background paragraphs provide a neutral, 360° view of the topic. What are the positives and negatives on the issue? Who are the stakeholders and what do they have to say?

Open your paragraph with a policy sentence that explains the present state of your topic. The substance of this first sentence should be supported by three to five sentences that explain single issues. Think broadly – before you write – about what needs to be communicated regarding the US position.

Use bullets to highlight your issues when appropriate. Bullets are useful when there are several related issues.

Use bold text to highlight headers and bulleted lists. If the reader does not have time to read the document completely, your issues should be easily gleaned by scanning the page. Do not use bold to emphasize random words or phrases.

Do not use editorial language. Your opinion is irrelevant to informing principals and policy makers. Editorial language can be used sparingly when writing policy recommendations.

Do not provide a link to a website in support of your summary. You must summarize the content of the website and any other information into a brief statement.

Limit your use of adjectives, adverbs, and non-essential language. Your point will be clear and concise.

Facts require references. You do not need to provide them unless asked but you must have them ready.

Ensure the science is represented properly. You must use science to support your argument without losing sight of its limitations.

Template:Title [based on the topic and centered]

[2 blank lines]Policy sentence (actor-action-outcome-meaning) followed by a few sentences that provide overarching support to this idea. This is called the “tee up” language. It sets the tone for the piece.

Subtopic Header – Open with a policy sentence. Use 1-2 sentences of facts to support this point. Boil the idea down to its most important elements. There may be 3-5 subtopics.


If appropriate, you may wish to conclude with a few sentences that outline the “next steps” for that issue.


Example:

Near-term Oil and Gas Concerns

The Department of Energy (DOE) should support new drilling technology and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) to provide an alternative to foreign oil. The short-term economic impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the subsequent spike in both oil and natural gas prices frightened consumers and reflected the consequences of future, potentially more severe shortages.

Foreign Oil — DOE estimates as much as 2/3 of the nation’s oil comes from 2nd- and 3rd-World Nations at potential risk for political instability. Consequences of an oil crisis like the one in 1973 would be more deeply felt now than ever before because imports continue to rise as a percentage of total oil consumption.

Ultra-deepwater Drilling Technology — DOE analysis shows the largely untapped supply of oil and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico could provide a stable source of fossil fuels through 2050. Both the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the New Apollo Energy Act of 2005 include provisions for funding ultra-deepwater technology.

ANWR — Both the House and Senate Bills are considering bills to open the ANWR to drilling despite the controversy surrounding potential ecological impacts. Oil would be available for commercial use approximately fifteen years after legislation permitting drilling and, at its peak, would provide the United States with 2 million barrels per day.


Example:

Implementing the US-Poland Science and Technology Agreement:Cooperation and Collaboration Issues

The decentralized system of science funding within the United States has delayed implementing the US-Poland Science and Technology (S&T) Agreement at a cost of $1.6B since the start of FY04. The Polish Government (GOP) suggested the creation of a Joint US-Poland research and development fund to centralize programs within the United States and facilitate coordination with US scientists. Science Minister Kleiber corrected that his intent was to have a Secretariat and not a granting agency. The problem of decentralized funding extends more broadly to mobility of personnel and collaboration.

Student exchange – Kleiber believes there are not enough Polish students coming to the United States to study compared to China or Korea. He suggested a central clearinghouse for assisting students applying to US schools.

Mobility of scientists – Kleiber agreed with the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) concern that not having continued collaboration facilitated by an Agreement may potentially force younger Polish scientists to look to the EU for research partners and funding.

S&T collaboration – Kleiber cited GOP’s arrangement with Germany establishing a joint panel to review projects and set funding priorities (i.e., funding separately on each side of the border). He expressed interest in pursuing such an arrangement through NSF. Kleiber will meet with NSF on May 21.

GOP brought up the closure of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Joint Fund II (MSCII) and elaborated on the idea of a new bilateral “trust fund” for science that would be created as a private enterprise. USG reminded GOP that the MSCII Fund residual, by decision of the Commissioners, was used to create a scholarship program that is about to select its first Fellow. USG further suggested that GOP look into the Czech Republic’s model, AMVIS (also created with the residual from a US Joint S&T Fund), a non-governmental organization created to foster US-Czech collaboration.


Situation Reports

A variation of the summary paragraph is the situation report (sitrep). A sitrep should include up-to-the-minute information on your topic. A sitrep also assumes that the reader is familiar enough with the topic such that many basic abbreviations need not be expanded. Ask someone knowledgeable to read your paragraph and identify missing information/provide questions that come to mind. Revise your paragraph to include those answers whenever possible. Note: in a sitrep, the actors may be people or smaller government entities.

Example:

Situation Report on the Impact of the Value Added Tax (VAT)/Customs Dutieson the US-Poland Science and Technology Agreement Negotiations

USG would like to use Poland as a test case for taxation reciprocity with the EU. The VAT/excise on assistance is the only issue preventing signing the US-Poland S&T agreement. The impasse results from Federal Law Section 579 that requires an exemption from VAT and excise that the Government of Poland (GOP) believes violates EU regulations. The GOP considers the VAT issue “marginal” and wishes to settle it as soon as possible to move past the two-year-long impasse. GOP claims to have asked (several times) for information on how other countries within the EU collaborate with the United States on S&T.

S/DAS asked GOP to work with the EC directly in assessing application of EU VAT law, particularly to foreign assistance provided by a third country. STC again asked for citations to appropriate Polish and EU law deemed inconsistent with the Congressionally mandated tax exemption provision.

American Embassy Warsaw (Post) has already requested that the GOP consult with the EC directly on this issue. Kleiber was asked if there were lawyers from Embassy Poland with EU/EC expertise who might be able to work with L on appropriate solutions to this lingering issue.

GOP suggested that Poland be deemed like France (or any other EU country exempt from VAT) or that the proposed Agreement be signed without the taxation provision (leaving this to be negotiated later). STC explained this was not possible.

STC has asked Polish Embassy lawyers to give us the language of the provision in question. USG has been working to soften the required language. One option is to change the language to center on commodities. Post has suggested that GOP consult the EC directly to see whether our language might in fact be acceptable to the EC.


Backgrounders

Another variation of the summary paragraph is the backgrounder. Backgrounders are the opposite of sitreps in a sense; writers assume that the reader lacks familiarity with the topic but needs to “get smart” on it quickly. Hence, backgrounders communicate basic information about a topic to provide a foundation for briefings or other documents to follow. Some people call these documents “primers.”

Open your paragraph with a policy sentence that explains the present state of your topic. The substance of this first sentence should be supported by three to five sentences that explain single issues. Think broadly – before you write – about “teaching” the subject to the reader.

Use bold text to highlight headers. If the reader does not have time to read the document completely, he/she will be able to scan for content. Do not use bold to emphasize random words or phrases.

Do not use editorial language. Strive for a neutral tone. Look at the writing in Scientific American or Science Illustrated for great examples.

Do not dumb down the information so much that you are no longer representing the truth. You must summarize the content of the science but communicate any caveats.

If possible, illustrate your point with a graphic. People want to understand. Many visual learners will not really “get” the point until the see a representation of the data that helps them make sense of it.

Facts require references. You do not need to provide them unless asked but you must have them ready.

Be prepared for follow-up questions. Everyone has questions when they learn new things. In professional settings, a good basic paper may lead to an invitation to brief.

Template: This form will vary with how your principal likes to receive information.

Visual: For visual learners, break the topic into parts and provide at least one graphic. Most people appreciate this format.

Reader: For people who like to read, write a short, informative essay about the subject.

Scanner: For quick scanners, follow the template of a background paragraph or break the topic into parts with short, concise bullets.


Example:

How a Top Kill Works

A "top kill" consists of pumping a heavy fluid called “drilling mud” into the wellhead to stop the leak. The mud is a carefully engineered mixture of clay and synthetic petroleum normally used as a lubricant and as a counterweight in drilling wells. Two barges will feed 50,000 barrels of the manufactured mud to a 30,000 horsepower rig which will force the mud about 5,000 feet down to the seafloor at high pressure. Because the mud is heavier than the oil and gas mixture, the challenge is to pump the mud down at enough pressure to overcome the upward pressure of the leak.

As the mud descends, it reaches a manifold that distributes the fluid through two hoses to the blowout preventer. This 48-foot-tall structure is designed to stop leaks before they happen but it failed. If the mud stops the flow of oil, it is followed with a plug of cement to seal the well. The procedure may take several days.

Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry approved the top kill attempt. While successful as a “last resort” option in stopping above-ground oil leaks where cement casings have cracked around wellheads, in 1986, a Venezuelan well in 95 feet of water was capped by a top kill shot. However, the procedure has never been used at such depth. BP CEO Tony Hayward told reporters that the chance of success is 60 to 70 percent.

The biggest risk of the top kill is that the procedure requires the use of compromised valve on the blowout preventer. The pressure of the kill shot could further damage the blowout preventer causing a new leak. Scientists from the US National Laboratories provided BP with advanced deep-sea X-ray equipment that allowed them to see inside the damaged preventer,

If the "top kill" fails, BP will try a "junk shot." The rig would force objects like "golf balls, pieces of tire and pieces of rope” into the blowout preventer. The mix of materials would form a sort of clot, stemming the flow of oil so that another top kill could be attempted.

If neither procedure works, BP will be forced to revert to other options such as attaching another blowout preventer atop the one already on the well. BP also may try to cut the leaking pipe away and place a containment dome over the leak. The dome would funnel oil to surface ships until the well could be sealed.

In the meantime, BP is drilling a pair of relief wells that will intersect with the leaking well close to its reservoir. Once through, concrete will be pumped into these wells to suppress the leak from below. The wells take about 90 days to drill.


Graphic: Top Kill Dynamics


Talking Points

Talking points are used when a principal will speak on an issue. They can be formal or informal. Because talking points are going to be said aloud, they cannot contain convoluted or difficult language. Ideally, they should reflect the speech patterns of the person using the talking points.

Talking points are best as 1-2 sentences – a policy sentence followed by a supporting fact. Each talking point should impart only one idea.

Each point must be supported with appropriate background material – usually a short paragraph to familiarize the principal with specifics or history of the idea.

Facts require references. You do not need to provide them unless asked but you must have them ready and caveat your sources when needed.

Ensure the science is represented properly. You must use science to support your argument without losing sight of its limitations.

Think “clear, readable, and retainable.” People may have to use this information in social situations (at informal negotiations) or to give an impromptu speech on the subject.


Use bold text only to highlight headers for navigation.

Put the points in approximate order of importance.

Contentious talking points should be labeled. Here are two special categories:

LANDMINE – (a topic sensitive to the audience) a landmine is an issue which, if the principal talks about it, may change the tone of the meeting by making his/her audience uncomfortable or defensive

IF RAISED – (a topic sensitive to your principal) an “if raised” is an issue for the principal to avoid but which – if raised by the audience – the speaker must be prepared to address

Template:Title [based on the topic and centered][2 blank lines]Policy sentence (actor-action-outcome-meaning). Follow with a few sentences that provide overarching support to this idea and set the tone for the talking points. This short opening paragraph is called the “tee up” language.

Subtopic Header – Begin with a policy sentence. Support you idea with 1-2 sentences of facts. Support your policy sentence with one or two bullets of examples. Usually, there are 3-5 subtopics.


Example: Note – Usually, analysts avoid calling on what “should” be done by using a more balanced approach of pros and cons that lets the policy maker decide. While these talking points - written at a time of change - border on “policy prescription,” they are an excellent treatment of the subject.

Talking Points: Increasing Human Embryonic Stem Cell (hESC) Research

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) should update its system to include all existing stem cells available for use, and limit future hESC lines to those derived from supernumerary in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures to enhance federal stem cell research programs. The National Stem Cell Bank, the sole resource of information for federally funded stem cell projects, contains only hESC lines derived prior to 9 August 2001.

Publish cell lines — In line with Executive Order 13505, NIH should maintain a complete and public listing of all currently available hESC lines to minimize the number of wasted embryos and maximize the efficiency stem cell research.

The National Stem Cell Bank only provides federal scientists with information for 21 approved hESC lines out of the hundreds that have been differentiated without federal funding after the Bush Administration’s restrictions of 2001.

Increased availability of well-characterized hESC lines would focus scientists on discovering tissue renewal procedures and other therapies vice basic characterization procedures.

Educate potential donors — NIH should provide educational resources on embryo donation to increase the number of cell lines available for research. While multiple embryos are often created for each IVF pregnancy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated in 1998 that over half of the 230 US-based IVF clinics immediately discard left over embryos.

The drafted NIH guidelines for future hESC policy prohibit hESC derived from any source besides IVF—including somatic cell nuclear transfer and parthenogenesis. Geron, a private genetic research firm, uses only supernumerary IVF embryos

that were voluntarily donated for their NIH approved clinical trials. Presently there are approximately 400,000 frozen embryos stored in IVF clinics in

the United States, which could be donated to scientific research.

Improve drug testing — NIH should call for hESC research as an alternative to animal testing in pharmaceutical research. Animal testing can prove unreliable as drugs that only possess efficacy in animals can manifest severe side effects when used by humans.

Scientists recently used heart cells created from hESC to test heart disease drugs without resorting to animal models.

It takes approximately 10 years for development and safety precautions - costing roughly $1 billion dollars - to introduce a new drug to the market. Animal testing is 10-20 percent of this cost.


Background on hESC

Bush Administration Policy - Separation of Research Institutions — In 2001, the Bush Administration created restrictions banning federally funded research from using any information from hESC lines derived after August 9, 2001 (see attachment 1). While these restrictions may have satisfied those opposed to hESC testing, it limited US scientists to working on 70 approved stem cells lines. Science reporting indicates only 21 of these lines are not contaminated with corrupting genetic material. Limited research capability created frustration throughout the scientific and medical world, giving rise to a separation of federally funded institutions and privately run institutions.

Obama’s Executive Order 13505 — On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued EO 13505, Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells (see attachment 2), revoking Bush’s ban on hESC research. At the signing, Obama stated, “We appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals.” The order requires the Director of NIH to issue new guidelines for US hESC research within 120 days from the signing

Using Supernumerary IVF Embryos for hESC Testing — Both the House and Senate are considering specific recommendations for the use of IVF embryos, initially created for reproductive purposes, in cell lines given explicit donor consent. Countries in favor of such IVF testing include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and Taiwan.

Replacing Animal Testing with hESC Testing — The Human Society of the United States reports that millions of animals per year are subjected to harmful tests, many resulting in the death of the animal. Using hESC testing would both spare these animals and provide more accurate human-modeled results. British Professor of Developmental Biology Christine Mummery, a leading advocate of this testing, specifically sees gains in testing drugs for heart disease patients. Researchers using human heart cells, derived from hESC to test new drugs, instead of testing on mice or other animals, produced more reliable toxicity data. Using hESC cells for testing pharmaceuticals before clinical human trials can decrease the likelihood of such side effects.

Note: Attachments were removed for length considerations.


Bullet Briefs

Bullet briefs are used for principals who need to be informed but who will not likely be called upon to speak. They may or may not be followed by background paragraphs.

Bullets are best as one sentence, which imparts one fact.

Use bold text to highlight only the most important point.

Put the points in approximate order of importance. Group subtopic ideas together.

Think “readable and retainable.” People may have to use this information in social situations or to give an impromptu speech.

Example:

Maria Sklodowska-Curie Joint Fund II highlights

The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Joint Fund II (MSCII) will formally close with a Commissioners meeting in Warsaw, Poland on December 2, 2002.

Poland was the first Eastern European country with which the United States signed a science and technology umbrella agreement.

A joint fund operated from the early 70s through 1981, when martial law was declared. Though political relations were strained, the United States and Poland decided to maintain relations between their scientific communities.

Established in 1987, the MSCII served as a continuation of the US commitment to supporting scientific cooperation; it supported 20 projects in its first year alone and over 350 projects during its lifetime.

Research was done in areas of mutual benefit to the United States and Poland: environment, energy, health, transportation, and information technologies.

The Fund facilitated coordinated programs, meetings, and other forms of scientific and technological cooperation. Closing the fund represents a “graduation” of sorts for a robust Polish scientific enterprise.

Polish Principal investigators who have received MSCII grants include members of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Many grantees have won prestigious awards.

Prof. Piotr Penczek [pen check] (Industrial Chemistry Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland) – studied epoxide resins Eureka Prize Awards from Polish Construction Industry


Policy Recommendations

Policy recommendations are a cross between background paragraphs and analytical pieces. While they lack the personal touch of an opinion editorial, they are crafted to give a specific perspective and well-outlined reasoning that a principal can follow to use in decision making.

Policy recommendations are used to suggest a specific course of action to a principal.

Policy recommendations should start with context.

The recommendations should have a specific action attached to a specific reason.

The ideas recommended must have scientific support.

Put the recommendations in approximate order of importance.

Think “readable and retainable.”

Template:

To: Name of principalDate: Give complete dateSubject: Give a title

Give a paragraph or two – like tee-up language – describing the background on the topic. You can be a bit more conversational in tone than with other pieces however you should maintain professionalism.

Recommendations: Number your recommendations.

Recommendation 1 (Background)Write a short paragraph describing your recommendation; it should be a blend of the background and reasoning behind this recommendation. Rank your recommendations and put the best one first.

Recommendation 2 (Background)Follow your second recommendation with a similar support paragraph.


Example:

To: The President of the United States Date: 21 April 2010Subject: Suspension of Oil Exploration in the Gulf of Mexico

The Departments of the Interior and Energy are investigating British Petroleum’s loss of the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon – including eleven employees – to ascertain whether the incident represents a hazard for the more than 3,600 oil and natural gas production platforms in the Gulf.

The US science community has mobilized to assist BP in monitoring the well and proposing containment activities. The Departments of the Interior and Energy should work with BP to coordinate containment and remediation efforts.

Recommendations: 1) support efforts to contain the leak and 2) suspend drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico

1) Support Efforts to Contain the LeakScientist from the US National Laboratory System are working with BP on solutions to the leak including the recommendation of a “top kill” procedure in which drilling mud and cement are forced into the well to overcome the upward pressure of leaking oil. The procedure has never been used in deep water and may take several days to work. However, as the extent of damage to the blowout suppressor is unknown, there is a risk that the procedure may make the leak worse or cause a new leak.

2) Suspend Drilling for Oil in the Gulf of MexicoOther oil rigs in the Gulf may be at risk for similar failures to BP’s Deepwater Horizon. The US Department of Interior may temporarily want to suspend explorative drilling for oil in waters deeper than 500 feet and granting permits for such exploration. A six-month moratorium would provide time for a review of safety procedures and an investigation into the tragedy. At present, we assess about 31 percent of total domestic oil production and 11 percent of domestic natural gas production as well as an estimated 150,000 jobs are directly related to offshore operations.


Opinion Editorials

Opinion editorials* must convey the issue clearly in a well-developed narrative. Opinion editorials are used to express your personal view on the topic but can take on more creative approaches. Once polished, you may wish to submit your assignment for publication.

Note: Opinion editorial is a “misnomer” for the original term of art – “opposite the editorial page.” In 1921, editor of The New York Evening World Herbert Bayard Swope created this page in his paper – a page opposite learned editorials – to feature editorial pieces which were not written by newspaper staffers. Many other papers followed suit.

Think “readable and retainable.” You want to bring people to your side of the issue. Win the heart to win the head.

Don’t get “too cute.” You will lose ten readers for every one that you gain.

Do not use bold or italics to highlight your point.

Use science to support your argument and cite your research.

Test your piece. Edit for:

logic order of your points language – especially “fat” writing and redundancy tone – how does the piece “come off?” grammar

Template:

This is simply an “essay” that expresses your opinion with supporting information.


example:

Agroterrorism: Threats to Agriculture and Food Industries

During last summer’s “spinach crisis,” while kids rejoiced that they didn’t have to eat their spinach, parents were confronted with the news that the contamination was not related to terrorism. Though good news, media play of the terrorism angle was food for thought.

Surveillance, detection, diagnosis, and rapid intervention are important in curbing the spread of infectious diseases including those caused by biological warfare agents.Yet, the US agricultural community seems ill prepared to defend against an act of terrorism or even guard itself from disruption. Most farms operate in a relatively open manner, seldom incorporating security measures beyond fences. Farmers are just beginning to recognize its vulnerabilities and respond to agroterrorist threats and other biosecurity issues.

While almost every stage of agribusiness lacks security, what makes US agribusiness successful can also make it vulnerable. As farms have increased in size and many activities have become semi-automated, farmers and ranchers have focused less on individual animal needs. On most farms, centralized feeding stations and milking stands are rarely secured. The density of animals in meat producing industry has increased livestock disease susceptibility and challenged surveillance and reporting systems. This trend has forced many producers to rely on aggregate data such as overall milk yield to monitor and regulate their animal populations vice as opposed to the past practices of animal check-ups and individual veterinary care – a critical link in the surveillance and detection of emerging diseases.

Further up the food production chain, things do not improve. Animal sales are often a chaotic environment purposefully designed to allow animal-human interaction. Food processing and packing plants also present few barriers. Though corporate plants may be more secure than farms, these facilities lack uniform internal quality control standards and efficient biosurveillance practices. An anti-livestock biological warfare attack in these settings could result in multiple outbreaks before detection and diagnosis.

Another concern is that farm- and food-related security deemphasizes foreign animal diseases compared with indigenous disease issues in veterinary education. The number of US veterinarians who are capable of detecting and treating foreign animal diseases is declining due to fewer student entrants as well as the lack of biosecurity curricula. This has resulted in a lack of trained and certified diagnostic veterinarians with the necessary expertise to deal with foreign animal diseases that may be used in a deliberate act of agroterrorism.

Complicating matters, the responsibility for disease reporting in the United States as well as other countries is a governmental function. While initial detection rests with the farmers and producers, the mechanisms for reporting are not uniform and communication channels can be confusing. Reporting of disease outbreaks is not the farmer’s first choice, containment and treatment may be the only hopes that a farm can stay economically viable. Without government farm supports, in the case of culling, disease reporting may act as a deterrent to good biosecurity measures. The consequence is that current systems in place do little to promote early warning and identification of outbreaks.


The introduction of animal disease can be lethal to humans as contaminated livestock moves into the food chain, or if not lethal, the outbreak can be economically ruinous to the industry. Confirmation of an animal contagion would almost certainly result in immediate termination of exports and potential banning of livestock products for export as they were in England.

Simple security practices such as padlocks, badging of workers, access points, increased record keeping and patrolling of animal yards are low-cost safety measures that could act to deter and help identify intrusions or post-exposure tracing. Properly implemented, such measures can help reduce the threat not only from states, but also from individuals and terrorist organizations. It’s time to consider our food chain as more than food for thought.


Nuclear Energy: Too Costly to Consider

With increasing concern over rising energy costs and carbon emissions, policy makers are increasingly discussing nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. While nuclear energy provides 20% of electricity in the United States, second only to coal, it is far from the clean, cost-effective solution necessary to provide a worthwhile alternative to coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Money spent on facility upgrades, new reactors, and attempts to find acceptable waste disposal, would be better used by investigating renewable energy sources.

Nuclear power is overwhelmingly expensive. The cost of building a new reactor is estimated to be as high as $14 billion, $12 billion more than a If the price of metal, forgings, and other necessary materials and labor continue to rise, as expected, not only building new nuclear reactors, but also simply expanding capacity in America’s existing reactors, will not be a viable option economically.

In October 2007, Moody’s Investor Service estimated the cost of a new reactor be around $5,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt-hour produced, markedly higher than the cost to create a new coal plant. This shocking price tag prohibits the growth of nuclear energy as a significant component in the United States’ energy mix. The cost of nuclear power is a critical factor in explaining why no new nuclear reactors have begun construction since 1977. In fact, the average age of reactors operating in the world as of October 2007 was 23 years. This mean age demonstrates a slow global phase-out of nuclear energy, strongly linked to ever-increasing cost.

Nuclear reactors produce toxic, radioactive waste - spent fuel cells. The United States disposes of high-level nuclear waste, primarily consisting of spent fuel cells, at designated facilities managed by the Department of Energy (DoE). Yet, this is by no means a long-term situation. On June 3, 2008, the DoE applied for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada that is pending approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However legal battles over safety regulations have delayed the establishment of permanent disposal facilities. The Obama administration does not believe Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for a permanent waste depository, given that scientists have been unable to prove that deep geological storage is a viable option in the long run. Concerns remain that any geological disruption, such as an earthquake, might damage the storage units and leak highly radioactive waste into the surrounding area.

Because of this potential hazard, the current administration has cut funding for research and construction of a waste depository at Yucca Mountain. As of October 2008, $9.5 billion has been spent on facilities and research for Yucca Mountain, with very little to show for it. The Department of Energy believes that another $96 billion dollars are necessary to complete construction. With the money spent on Yucca Mountain alone, we could construct 48 new coal plants producing 600mW each, more than enough to meet the rising demand for electricity in the United States. Furthermore, the 96 billion dollar estimate only includes construction. However, because of the high toxicity of nuclear waste, taxpayers will have to pay for the operation of Yucca Mountains facilities for as long as 10,000 years, according to an estimate by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Perhaps it is time to rethink nuclear.


Briefing Book Content Checklist

A briefing book is simply a collection of products that prepares a principal for a meeting, symposium, or summit that may cover several issues or many facets of one complex issue. Most briefing books have 3 – 5 subtopics and contain the following elements:

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary

For each subtopicTaking pointsBackgrounders and Science BackgroundersFigures

AppendicesGlossaryList of AcronymsList of Key ResearchersList of Key Government PersonnelList of Key LegislatorsList of Key Pieces of Legislation – regulatory and draftMaps


Research

Going online and doing a keyword search is not enough to make this type of assignment work. You have to be like a journalist or a private investigator on top of being an academic researcher.

Read, read, read — Read everything you can get your hands on about your subject.

Read again — The single biggest mistake a researcher can make is stopping once he/she finds an answer. The news changes every day so you must keep up with developments in your area.

Leverage your professors — Is there a professor on campus (or locally) who follows your topic? You should take time to meet with that person. Find out what they think are the most important (and divisive) subtopics related to your issue. Ask who the leaders are in your topic in academia, industry, the non-governmental community, and government.

Interview people — A telephone or face-to-face interview with a subject matter expert is a great way to increase your knowledge and build yourself a network. If you are not sure what you should say, you can write yourself a script. However, you should only approach experts AFTER you have done your own homework. (So, read, read, read!)

Beware the internet — “Googling” a topic is not a great way to learn about it. While you might learn some basic information, you must be aware of the biases of those who are presenting information to you. Would it surprise you to learn that an on-line dating service did research that “proved” that people do better meeting their spouses through internet dating than through other forms of social interaction if you saw it on their website?

THINK CRITICALLY — Again, the best policy writing is that which has carefully considered the issue and seeks to present balanced information to the decision maker.


Scripted Interview

Here is a basic template for a scripted interview. Once modified, it can be used over the phone or as a “lap document” – hidden by your portfolio – in person.

Introduction My name is ___. I’m a _year_ _major_ taking _name of class_ at The George Washington University. _Name of Professor_, our professor, suggested I speak with you. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me about ___.

I will need about ___ minutes. Is this a good time or should I make an appointment to call back?

Topic*Outline the issues of your topic. I think the most important issues related to ___ are ___.

*Ask you have it right. Check priority - What do you think are the most important issues related to ___? Check for breaking news - Are there any emerging topics in this field? Check timeliness - Am I focused on outdated problems? Check completeness - Have I missed any important issues related to ___?

*Ask for sources and leads. Check sources - I have read ___. I have spent time on the ___ website. Is there something else I should be reading or a website I should visit? Check experts - Who do you think are the top five experts in this field? Check contacts - Is there another expert/contact you have that I should interview?

*Be professional, polite, but firm. You can gently cycle back to questions that were evaded by saying, "I'm sorry. I don't think I captured your answer on ____ in my notes. Could you remind me what you stance is on ____ ?"

Close *Recap what your lead discussed.

*Ask if you can recontact your lead if you have any additional questions.

*Document the interview or visit with the name, complete contact information, and date/time you spoke.

The easiest thing to do is to have them send you the signature file of their email.


Interview DO’s and DON’Ts

DO make sure you’ve done your homework before calling. DO be polite and professional.DO follow a script so you don’t forget anything.DO understand that people want to help you… so there is no reason to sound “apologetic” on the phone.DO make sure this is a good time for the call. If either you or your subject have to “squeeze it in,” consider rescheduling.DO be firm about getting your questions answered.

DON’T argue. It’s great that you have knowledge of the subject and an opinion about it but you are talking to someone who makes a living in the field so show your respect.DON’T forget to get contact information and secure the possibility of a follow up.

In case of catastrophic failure, be polite and get off the phone/exit the room as quickly as possible. Send your professor a note with the person’s contact info and your account of how things went wrong. Let your professor smooth things over.


Topic Checklist

The research that you are doing is directly related to what you will need to complete your briefing book. Do not throw any information away; it all has a place. Consider the following as you “read in” on your topic:

Language - What words or acronyms are key to understanding your issue?

Key Players - Who are the key players on your issue from Congress, industry, the non-governmental community, government (agencies and individuals), academia, professional societies, and thinktanks?

Key Legislation - Who is trying to regulate your issue? Who is for the legislation and who is against it? Are there similar issues in other countries? Has an international or professional society issued “best practices” regarding your topic?

Key Issues - What are the key issues being discussed? Where is the controversy? What is being regulated and why? Which players are related to these sub-issues?

Scientific Issues - What science issue is key to understanding your topic? Who are the top scientists and which companies are working on them? Is there a knowledge gap? What is the timeline for tangible results or implementations of technology?


Great Grades Checklist

While not every assignment needs all of these elements, this checklist is an excellent reminder of the little things we often forget.

Content Were the major subtopics of the issue covered comprehensively and

professionally? Is there a “why?” to give meaning to the facts? Does the paper represent the views of the Administration or policy community? Are there sufficient details to support your points? Is there clear analysis of the issue or is it collection of facts strung together? Would the paragraph be acceptable to me – as a policy analyst – to pass on as a

primer or situation report on the topic?

Policy writing Does each paragraph open with a policy sentence that illustrates a clear arc of

thought over actor-action-outcome-meaning? Is there adequate “tee-up” language? Does the paragraph read like policy writing or a high school essay? Is the message of the paragraph clear and concise? Do the bullets support the opening sentence? Did the student give caveats when appropriate?

References Are the points made in the paper documented with references? Are figures, drawings, maps, and other illustrations properly credited? If a specific document/policy was referenced, was the text provided?

Grammar and formatting Is the grammar correct? Is the format correct? Are headers, bullets, and white space used to aid navigation on the page?

Editing Does the paper employ active voice? Is the word choice appropriate in tone? Have non-essential language and redundancy been edited out? Does it fit on “one page?”

Special to opinion editorials Is there a clearly developed and expressed personal view of the topic? Is the argument made compelling or persuasive?

Special to talking points Is the language easy to take up from the page?


General Grading Rubric

While each type of document has its own specific details, some qualities hold true for all great papers.

A — The “A” paper comprehensively covers the topic. Each section exemplifies good policy writing with an actor, action, outcome, and meaning. The paper is well researched, organized, and detailed. The science is represented faithfully. Sources are caveated and documented. Except in the case of an oped, it should represent the current view of the administration or interagency policy community. The paper contains no or few minor errors. The “A” assignment would be acceptable as the policy work of a new analyst that could be passed to a principal.

B — The “B” paper usually lacks one element throughout. It may lack a subtopic critical to understanding the topic or an element among policy actors, actions, outcomes, or meanings. The paper may require better organization or more sufficient detail. The science has suffered “spin control” or was dumbed down to miss a key point. Sources may lack caveating or documentation. The paper contains minor errors. The “B” assignment would be typical of policy work that has to be revised before being passed forward.

C — The “C” paper contains several errors throughout. It requires additional research to cover the subject. It lacks more than one element among policy actors, actions, outcomes, or meanings. The paper may be missing sources. The science is flawed or incomplete. It may also have several logical, grammatical, or technical errors. The “C” assignment requires rewriting.

D — The “D” paper has severe logical, grammatical, or technical errors. The science is missing entirely. It requires additional research and restructuring before it is rewritten.


References

Cite Your Sources! Failing to properly cite a source is a serious violation of academic and professional standards. Use quotation marks for information copied verbatim (from the writing of or interviews with any other person or persons, or from your own writing that has been published elsewhere) and identify the source fully with a footnote or endnote. You should include – as applicable - the author’s name, title of work, type of work (thesis, government report, phone call, website etc.), date, or page numbers. Incidents of plagiarism will be documented and referred to the Office of Academic Integrity with a minimum recommended sanction of a letter attached to the student’s transcript.

This guide is based on the second edition of The ACS Style Guide: A Manual for Authors and Editors (1997). For a more thorough discussion refer to The ACS Style Guide which is available at the Chemistry and Engineering Libraries (Call number QD8.5.A25 1997 Reference Section). Other professors may favor other styles of reporting sources.

References in the body of a paper can be cited by superscript that refers to an endnote. For example, a sentence could be marked in the middle1, if appropriate, or the end.2

Arrange the references in your bibliography in the numerical order that the citations were used in the paper. Do not leave blank lines between references.

Journal article titles and book chapter titles are not essential unless they distinguish the material. Use standard journal name abbreviations when needed.If a book as a whole is used, pagination is not necessary.

References to websites require access dates. Note: Wikipedia is not an appropriate source.

All references end with a period.

Book with Author(s)Basic Format:Author, A. A.; Author, B. B. Book Title (italics), Edition (if any); Publisher: Place of Publication, Year; Pagination.Dill, K. A.; Bromberg, S. Molecular Driving Forces: Statistical Thermodynamics in Chemistry and Biology; Garland Science: New York, 2003.Engel, R; Cohen, J. I. Synthesis of Carbon-Phosphorus Bonds: New Methods of Exploration; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2004; pp 54-56.Zumdahl, S. S. Chemical Principles, 4th ed.; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, 2002; p 7.

Book with Editor(s), and Entire Book is ReferencedBasic Format:Editor, A. A., Editor, B. B., Editor, C. C., Eds. Book Title (italics); Series Information (if any, including series number); Publisher: Place of Publication, Year.Lin, Q., Pearson, R. A., Hedrick, J. C., Eds. Polymers for Microelectronics and Nanoelectronics; ACS Symposium Series 874; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2004.


Authored Chapters in a Book with Editor(s)Basic Format:Author, A. A.; Author, B. B. Chapter Title. In Book Title (italics); Editor, A. A., Editor, B. B., Eds.; Series Information (if any, including series number); Publisher: Place of Publication, Year; Volume number (if any), Pagination.Downs, G. M.; Barnard, J. M. Clustering Methods and Their Uses in Computational Chemistry. In Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2002; Vol. 18, p 11.Lenhart, J. L.; Fischer, D. A.; Sambasivan, S.; Lin, E. K.; Soles, M. A. Utilizing Near Edge X-ray Absorption Fine Structure to Probe Interfacial Issues in Photolithography. In Polymers for Microelectronics and Nanoelectronics; Lin, Q., Pearson, R. A., Hedrick, J. C., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 874; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2004; pp 98-117.

Encyclopedia ArticleBasic Format:Article Title. Encyclopedia Name (italics), Edition number; Publisher: Place of Publication, Year; Volume Number, Pagination.Psychopharmacological Agents. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 4th ed.; Wiley: New York, 1996; Vol. 20, pp 455-457.

HandbooksBasic Format:Editor, A. A., Editor, B. B., Eds. Handbook Title (italics), Edition number [Online if online]; Publisher: Place of Publication, Year; Pagination or other identifying information.Budavari, S., O'Neil, M. J., Smith. A., Heckelman, P. E., Kinneary, J. F., Eds. The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals, 13th ed.; Merck & Company: Whitehouse Station, NJ, 2001; entry 5066.Lide, D. R., Ed. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 84th ed. [Online]; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2003; p 83.

Journal ArticlesBasic Format:Author, A. A; Author, B. B; Author, C. C. Title of Article. Journal Abbreviation (italics) [Online if online] Year (boldface), Volume (italics), Pagination.Borman, S. Protein Sequencing For The Masses. Chem. Eng. News [Online] 2004, 82, pp 22-23.Slunt, K. M.; Giancarlo, L. C. Student-Centered Learning: A Comparison of Two Different Methods of Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, pp 985-988.Takahaski, T. The Fate of Industrial Carbon Dioxide. Science [Online] 2004, 305, 352-353.

NewspapersBasic Format:Last name, First Name; Last Name, First Name. Article Title. Newspaper Title (italics), Complete Date, Pagination.Jones, Margot. Panel Urges NASA to Save Hubble Space Telescope. New York Times, July 16, 2004, p A1.

WebsitesBasic Format:Author, A. A. (if any). Title of Site. URL (accessed date), other identifying information. (No need to include URL of subscription sites).ChemFinder.Com. http://chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com (accessed July 14, 2004).The Combined Chemical Dictionary database, web version 2004 (1); CRC Press: Boca Raton: FL (accessed July 16, 2004).


InterviewsBasic Format: Interview with Full Name, Full Title at Place, City, State on Date (length) via Method; contact informationInterview with James Page, Senior Analyst for Medical Technologies, The Institute for Defense Analyses at The George Washington University, Washington, DC on 11 September 2011 (90 min) in person.James Page, The Institute for Defense Analyses, 2344 Rockland Ave., Vienna, VA 22033 (703) 546 – 8899 [email protected] of Maryann Sweeney, PhD, Principal Research Scientist, the Z-Machine, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM at question and answer session for AAAS National Meeting, Washington, DC on 17 February 2001 (5 min) in person.Mary Ann Sweeney, PhD, Sandia National Laboratories, Mail Stop 24-T7, Albuquerque, NM 87483 (555) 555 – 5555 (secretary – Janet) [email protected] with Michael Moore, filmmaker at Washington, DC on 7 July 2005 (75min) via telephone.

for interviews used as news stories, provide context and archive if possible:Basic Format: Interview of Full Name, Full Title by Full Name, Program on Date (length, access information)Interview of Neal Lane, PhD by Ira Flatow, “Science Friday,” National Public Radio on 10 January 2011 (7min, “Science Friday” archived at npr.org)


a guide to writing assignments in file · web viewresearch. 28. scripted interviews. 29. topic...

Documents