genetics society of america · nancy l. craig philip d. harriman shirleen roeder, ex officio elaine...

Genetics Society of America

1994 Records, Proceedings and Reports

Published as supplementary material i n GENETICS, Volume 137

Prepared by The Secretary Shirleen Roeder

Department of Biology Yale University

New Haven, Connecticut

s2

BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1994

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Bruce S. Baker, President H. Robert Horvitz, Vice President A. Dale Kaiser, Past President Shirleen Roeder, Secretary Carol S. Newlon, Treasurer John W. Drake, Editor

GENETICS EDITORIAL BOARD John W. Drake, Editor Sally Lyman Allen Karen Artzt David Botstein John E. Boynton Charlotte R. Bronson Anthony H. D. Brown Michael Bulmer Benjamin Burr Marian Carlson Deborah Charlesworth Peter Cherbas Joanne Chory Arthur Chovnick Andrew G. Clark Thomas W. Cline Rowland H. Davis Robin E. Denell Walter F. Eanes Warren J. Ewens Victoria G. Finnerty Patricia L. Foster Margaret T. Fuller Roger E. Ganschow

Elaine Strass, Executive Director Barbara Abbott, Membership Sharon Adler, Accounting Judy Ashton, Office Coordinator Candis Galkin, Meetings Gloria Garber, Membership Krista Koziol, Publications Edward 0. Quiriones, GSA Meetings

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

COMMITTEES Executive

Welcome Bender Marian B. Carlson Barry S. Ganetzky Eric S. Lander Barbara J. Meyer Elliot M. Meyerowitz

G. Brian Golding Iva Greenwald Maureen R. Hanson Robert K. Herman Alan G. Hinnebusch Martha M. Howe Nancy A. Jenkins Sue Jinks-Robertson Mark Johnston Elizabeth Jones Peter D. Keightley Cathy C. Laurie Wen-Hsiung Li Michael Lynch Trudy F. C. Mackay Russ Maurer Patricia J. Pukkila Trudi Schiipbach William F. Sheridan Michael J. Simmons Montgomery Slatkin Gerald R. Smith Bruce S. Weir Fred Winston

Marsha Ryan, ASHG Meetings and Exhibits Jane Salomon, ASHG Special Projects

Bruce S. Baker H. Robert Horvitz A. Dale Kaiser Carol S. Newlon Shirleen Roeder

s3

Affiliations Contacts

Education

Genetic Stock

Nominating

Office Management

1994 Program

Public Policy

REPRESENTATIVES Council of the International Genetics Federation

Assembly of Life Sciences, National Research Council

American Type Culture Collection

Rudiger Schmitt, Chlamydomonas Representative Elizabeth H. Harris, Chlamydomonas Representative Claire Cronmiller, Drosophila Representative Allan C. Spradling, Drosophila Representative Fred Winston, Yeast Representative Mark Johnston, Yeast Representative

Thomas R. Manney, Chair Leslie K. Derr Diane M. B. Dodd Leland H. Hartwell John L. Haynie David L. Jameson Charles Laird

Thomas R. Mertens Lynn S. Ripley Gerold Schubiger Gail M. Simmons Barton E. Slatko William Sofer Vinton Thompson

Kathleen A. Matthews, Chair Barbara J. Bachmann Nicholas W. Gillham Elizabeth H. Harris Robert K. Herman John Kinsey

David R. Stadler, Chair Nancy L. Craig Philip D. Harriman Shirleen Roeder, ex officio Elaine Strass, ex officio

Carol S. Newlon, GSA Treasurer, Chair H. Robert Horvitz, GSA Vice President Shirleen Roeder, GSA Secretary Stephen I. Goodman, ASHG Treasurer Maimon M. Cohen, ASHG President Ann C . M. Smith, ASHG Secretary

Jasper Rine, Chair Bruce S. Baker Jerry Feldman Elliot M. Meyerowitz

Eric S. Lander, Chair Bruce S. Baker David Botstein

John W. Drake Bruce S. Baker, ex officio H. Robert Horvitz, ex officio

Shirleen Roeder, ex officio

Calvin 0. Qualset

Susan E. Lewis Robert K. Mortimer Calvin 0. Qualset Charles M. Rick Thomas B. Shows Ronny C. Woodruff

s4

1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950

1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

PAST AND PRESENT OFFICERS President

L. C. Dunn R. A. Emerson Sewall Wright D. F. Jones P. W. Whiting E. M. East L. J. Stadler M. Demerec L. J. Cole Th. Dobzhansky E. W. Lindstrom M. M. Rhoades A. H. Sturtevant B. McClintock G. W. Beadle H. J. Muller L. H. Snyder T. M. Sonneborn Curt Stern

M. R. Irwin J. W. Gowen R. E. Clausen J. T. Patterson P. C. Mangelsdorf R. E. Cleland R. A. Brink C. P. Oliver Karl Sax J. F. Crow B. P. Kaufmann R. D. Owen Jack Schulz S. Emerson W. L. Russell E. W. Caspari E. B. Lewis H. L. Roman C. Yanofsky N. H. Giles, Jr. R. P. Wagner R. D. Hotchkiss M. M. Green B. Wallace 0. Smithies E. S. Russell D. D. Perkins M. Shaw E. Sears W. K. Baker B. H. Judd H. L. Carson M. L. Pardue R. W. Allard I. Herskowitz D. L. Lindsley E. W. Jones G. R. Fink D. L. Hartl R. L. Metzenberg L. H. Hartwell J. C. Lucchesi A. D. Kaiser B. S. Baker

Editors

D. E. Jones (1926-1935) L. C. Dunn (1936-1939) M. M. Rhoades (1940-1946)

G . H. Schull (1916-1925)

Vice-president E. D. Richey Sewall Wright D. F. Jones P. W. Whiting L. J. Stadler L. J. Cole M. Demerec B. McClintock Th. Dobzhansky E. W. Lindstrom M. M. Rhoades G. W. Beadle B. P. Kaufmann P. C. Mangelsdorf Karl Sax L. H. Snyder T. M. Sonneborn Curt Steven M. R. Irwin

J. W. Gowen R. E. Clausen W. R. Singleton R. A. Brink R. E. Cleland J. L. Bush C. P. Oliver J. F. Crow J. W. Boyes H. B. Glass R. D. Owen W. L. Russell S. Emerson H. L. Roman E. W. Caspari E. B. Lewis H. L. Roman C. Yanofsky N. H. Giles, Jr. R. P. Wagner R. D. Hotchkiss M. M. Green B. Wallace 0. Smithies E. S. Russell D. D. Perkins M. Shaw E. Sears W. K. Baker B. H. Judd H. L. Carson M. L. Pardue R. W. Allard I. Herskowitz D. L. Lindsley E. W. Jones G. R. Fink D. L. Hartl R. L. Metzenberg L. H. Hartwell J. C. Lucchesi A. D. Kaiser B. S. Baker H.R. Horvitz

OF THE SOCIETY Secretary-Treasurer P. W. Whiting P. W. Whiting P. W. Whiting M. Demerec M. Demerec M. Demerec E. W. Lindstrom E. W. Lindstrom E. W. Lindstrom B. P. Kaufmann B. P. Kaufmann B. P. Kaufmann L. H. Snyder L. H. Snyder L. H. Snyder M. R. Irwin M. R. Irwin M. R. Irwin W. R. Singleton

Secretary W. R. Singleton W. R. Singleton C. P. Oliver C. P. Oliver C. P. Oliver H. B. Newcombe H. B. Newcombe H. B. Newcombe W. L. Russell W. L. Russell W. L. Russell E. B. Lewis E. B. Lewis E. B. Lewis R. P. Wagner R. P. Wagner R. P. Wagner B. Wallace B. Wallace B. Wallace M. W. Shaw M. W. Shaw M. W. Shaw B. H. Judd B. H. Judd B. H. Judd G. R. Fink G. R. Fink G. R. Fink D. T. Suzuki D. T. Suzuki D. T. Suzuki H. W. Lewis H. W. Lewis H. W. Lewis A. P. Mahowald A. P. Mahowald A. P. Mahowald T. C. Kaufman T. C. Kaufman T. C. Kaufman S. Roeder S. Roeder S. Roeder

Treasurer E. W. Caspari E. W. Caspari E. W. Caspari N. H. Giles, Jr. N. H. Giles, Jr. N. H. Giles, Jr. R. D. Owen R. D. Owen R. D. Owen D. Schwartz D. Schwartz D. Schwartz E. Novitski E. Novitski E. Novitski A. H. Sparrow A. H. Sparrow A. H. Sparrow D. R. Stadler D. R. Stadler D. R. Stadler G. Lefevre G. Lefevre G. Lefevre D. Lindsley D. Lindsley D. Lindsley W. Welshons W. Welshons W. Welshons A. Chovnick A. Chovnick A. Chovnick R. E. Esposito R. E. Esposito R. E. Esposito A. C. Spradling A. C. Spradling A. C. Spradling C. S. Newlon C. S. Newlon C. S. Newlon C. S. Newlon C. S. Newlon

C. Stern (1947-1951) F. W. Caspari (1968-1972) R. A. Brink & J. F. Crow (1952-1956) D. R. Stadler (1973-1976) C. P. Oliver & W. S. Stone (1957-1962) G. Lefevre (1977-1981) D. D. Perkins (1963-1967) J. W. Drake (1982-1996)

s5

BYLAWS OF THE GENETICS SOCIETY OF AMERICA

(Revised August 25, 1988)

The Genetics Society of America is organized to provide facilities for association and conference among students of genetics, to promote the communication and publication of scientific knowledge, to promote education and research in genetics and to encourage interaction between workers in genetics and those in related sciences.

ARTICLE 1. Membership.-All persons interested in genetics shall be eligible for active membership. Any person who has been an active member of the Society for 20 years and who has retired is eligible for emeritus membership. Categories of membership shall be established by the Board of Directors.

ARTICLE 2. Officers and Board of Directors.-The officers of the Society shall be a President, a Vice- President who is also President-Elect, a Secretary and a Treasurer. They, together with the immediate Past-President, the Editor of GENETICS and six other members elected by the Society shall constitute the Board of Directors. Each Board member shall have one vote. The Board shall meet at least once each year. Additional meetings may be called by the Pres- ident.

Executive Committee: The Executive Committee of the Board of Directors shall consist of the President, Vice-president, Secretary, Treasurer and one of the elected directors selected by the Board at its annual meeting. The Executive Committee shall act by majority vote in matters that require attention between regular Board meetings.

Election and Terms of Office of Officers and Board Members: The officers of the Society shall be elected by a simple majority of ballots cast by members of the Society. Each year the Nominating Committee shall submit the names of at least two nominees for each position to be filled, taking into consideration candidates suggested to the Secretary or the Nomi- nating Committee. The ballot, mailed to all members in good standing, shall list the nominees and also provide spaces for write-in votes. At the end of the first year of service, the Vice-president shall au- tomatically become President and shall serve for one year in that capacity and for one year thereafter as a director. Every third year the ballot shall include nominees for Secretary. The Treasurer shall be elected every third year, but not in the same year as the Secretary.

Members of the Board of Directors who hold no other office shall be elected by the membership.

Each year, the Nominating Committee shall submit the names of at least four nominees, and the two receiving the largest number of votes shall be elected to serve for three years.

Terms of all officers and members of the Board shall begin on January 1 of the year following their election and shall end on December 31 of the year ending their term.

ARTICLE 3. Meetings.-An annual meeting open to the entire membership of the Society shall be held at a time and place designated by the Board of Di- rectors. During the annual business meeting of the membership, which shall be held during the annual meeting, the Board of Directors shall make its annual report to the membership, including the results of the election of officers and directors. Special meetings may be called by the Board of Directors. Twenty members shall constitute a quorum for any annual or special business meeting.

The program shall be arranged by the Secretary in accordance with the program rules adopted by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors may arrange for joint programs with related scientific societies, and for presentation of invited papers.

ARTICLE 4. Dues.-Annual dues for the various classes of members shall be fixed by the Board of Directors. Dues shall include a subscription to GENETICS. Graduate students who provide evidence of their status are entitled to active membership at approximately half the regular dues for a period not exceeding five years. Husbands and wives both qual- ifying for membership individually may elect a com- bined membership entitling them to a single subscription to GENETICS while entitling each to be listed as a member and to vote. Emeritus members may elect to continue to receive GENETICS by paying approximately half the regular dues, or they may elect not to receive the Journal and be exempt from paying dues. Payment for all classes of membership shall be due January 1 . New members shall be billed for dues from the previous January 1 and shall receive GENETICS for the entire year. Members whose dues are in arrears shall not receive publications or communications of the Society and shall be ineligi- ble to vote. Members in arrears for one year shall be dropped from the rolls. A member who has been dropped for nonpayment of dues may be reinstated upon payment of dues for the year in which rein- statement is desired.

s6

ARTICLE 5. Publications.-The Society shall publish GENETICS as its official journal. Subscription to GENETICS shall be considered an integral part of active membership. The subscription rate to nonmembers shall be set by the Board of Directors, and shall not be less than the dues for active members of the Society.

GENETICS shall be a periodical record of investiga- tion into heredity and variation. Publication in the Journal shall be open to members and nonmembers alike. Acceptance shall be decided after editorial review solely on merit and suitability.

Editorial Board. An Editorial Board of GENETICS shall be appointed by the Board of Directors. Edi- torial Board members shall serve three-year terms which may be renewed by the Board of Directors. The Editor shall be appointed by the Board of Di- rectors for a term of five years, but such appointment may be extended or terminated at any time by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Directors. The Ed- itor shall be consulted about the Editor’s term of appointment, but shall not vote thereon. The Board of Directors and the Editorial Board shall advise the Editor in matters relating to Journal policy and shall, with the Editor, determine editorial policy for the Journal in all respects not specified by these Bylaws.

The Editor of GENETICS shall carry out policy decisions of the Board of Directors and shall be au- thorized to act for the Editorial Board in arriving at editorial decisions and in conducting routine business. The Editor shall arrange meetings of the Edi- torial Board as necessary or upon written request of three members of the Editorial Board. The Editor shall preside over meetings of the Editorial Board and shall cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. The Editor shall, on request, communicate recommendations of the Board of Directors or of Society members to the Editorial Board and shall represent the Editorial Board in dealing with the Board of Direc- tors. The Editor shall submit an annual report to the Society regarding the operation of GENETICS. The Editor shall, in cooperation with the Editorial Board and the Board of Directors, take measures necessary to assure an appropriate income from membership dues and subscriptions.

ARTICLE 6. Administrative Office.-An administrative office shall be maintained for conducting the business of the Society. It shall attend to such other matters as dictated by the Board of Directors. Su- pervision of the administrative office shall be the responsibility of the administrative director, who shall implement the policies decided by the Board of Directors. The administrative director shall provide staff support to assist the officers of the Society in carrying out their responsibilities. The President shall have responsibility and ultimate authority for

the administrative office and resolution of any conflicts related to it.

ARTICLE 7.-Duties of Officers and Board of Direc- tors.-The President shall preside at the meetings of the Society and the Board of Directors. With the advice of the Board of Directors, the President shall appoint such committees and representatives as may be needed. The Vice-president shall preside in the absence of the President. In the event of a vacancy in the office of President, the Vice-president shall become President for the remainder of the unexpired term as well as for the subsequent term. In the event of any other vacancy among the officers or directors, the Board shall appoint an active member to serve for the remainder of the year, and the office shall be filled at the next annual election.

The Secretary, in cooperation with the administrative office, shall: (1) keep the records of the So- ciety; (2) direct the arrangement of meeting plans in accordance with the rules formulated by the Board of Directors and function ex officio on the Program Committee; (3) send to all members the date and place of the annual meeting, a call for papers to be presented at that meeting, and a call for suggestions for nomination for all offices to be filled by election. Not later than one month before the annual meeting, the Secretary shall send all members in good standing a ballot bearing the names of nominees for office; (4) The Secretary shall prepare minutes of the annual meeting and shall present an annual report to the members con- cerning actions of the Board of Directors, activities of the Society and its committees and representatives, and the membership of the Society; and (5) shall deposit those records of the Society no longer needed for current business in the historical collection of the Library of the American Philosophical Society.

The Treasurer shall: (1) have charge of all funds of the Society and be responsible for their investment; (2) be bonded in an appropriate amount fixed by the President; (3) send to all members bills for annual dues; and (4) prepare an annual statement to the members of the financial status of the Society, to be audited by a certified public accoun- tant. (5) The Treasurer shall provide the administrative director and the editor of GENETICS with funds sufficient to operate the administrative office and to publish GENETICS.

ARTICLE 8. Committees: Nominating Committee.-A Nominating Committee shall be named each year by the Board of Directors and shall consist of three active Society members who are not members of the Board and who include representatives of different areas of genetics. In addition, the Secretary shall be ex officio a non-voting member of the committee. NO

s7

person shall serve as a voting member on the Nom- inating Committee more than once during any four- year period.

Other Committees: The President shall create and appoint members to such other committees as are deemed necessary or advisable by the Board of Di- rectors.

ARTICLE 9. Amendments.-Amendments to these

Bylaws may be adopted at the annual business meeting by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting, provided that any proposed amendment, signed by five members, has been submitted in writing to the Secretary at least three months before the annual meeting and has been communicated to the members of the Society at least two weeks before the annual meeting.

s8

REPORT OF THE TREASURER

The following is the unaudited financial statement for the fiscal year 1993. The audited statement is available from the Administrative Office.

BALANCE SHEET December 31, 1993

Assets Current Assets: Cash Accounts Receivable Accrued Interest Due from ASHG Prepaid Annual Meetings Other current assets

Total current assets

Investments

Furniture and Equipment

Total assets

Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable Accrued annual leave Deferred dues and subscriptions Due to publishers

Total liabilities

Fund balance: Unappropriated fund balance:

Beginning fund balance Net revenue over (under) expense Ending unappropriated fund balance, unadjusted

Ending unappropriated fund balance, adjusted Adjustment to fund balance

Appropriated fund balance Total fund balance

$ 266,821 41,530 10,942 20,953 38,595 7,789

$ 386,630

829.140

20,700

$ 1,236,470

$ 65,456 12,654

390,722 45,902

$ 514,734

531,983 (25,161)

$ 506,822 (35,086)

471,736 250,000 721,736

Total liabilities and fund balance $ 1,236,470

S9

STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE For the Year Ending December 31, 1993

Revenue Member dues and subscriptions Nonmember subscriptions Registration fees Grants and contributions Reprints and author charges Mail list sales Discount publications Investment income Rental income Exhibit fees Miscellaneous

Total revenue

Expense Salary, tax and benefits Printing and mailing Editorial office Reprints Careers brochure Subscription processing Catered events/coffee breaks Rent of space and equipment Stipends Supplies and duplicating Board/Committees Hotel and travel Insurance Repair and Maintenance Contracted services Accounting Auditing Computer services Awards and contributions Depreciation Telephone and fax Author alterations Credit card/bank charges Miscellaneous

Total expense

Net revenue (expense)

$ 218,231 470,581 241,760

74,021 186,722

13,753 5,679

72,463 3,380

550 4,960

$1,292,100

225,758 584,429 52,475 49,204 21,078 13,574 37,932 56,388 12,500 15,274 52,756

7,341 8,466 6,922

11,335 14,700 6,500

14,734 78,985 9,872 6,006 6,622 7,909

16,501

$1,317,261

$ (25,161)

CAROL S. NEWLON, Treasurer

s10

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 62ND ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING

August 16, 1993 at the XVIIth International Congress of Genetics

Birmingham, United Kingdom The meeting was called to order at 7:OO PM by

Past President John C. Lucchesi in the absence of A. Dale Kaiser. He announced that the last meeting of the GSA Board was March 5-6, 1993, in San Fran- cisco.

Secretary’s Report (S. Roeder): The minutes of the June 18, 1992, Business Meeting were approved as published in the July 1993 issue of GENETICS (Vol. 134, No. 3). In the recent general election for Pres- ident and Board of Directors, Robert Horvitz was elected Vice President for 1994. He will succeed Bruce Baker as president in 1995. The two new Board members will be Eric Lander and Marian Carlson. They will assume office January 1, 1994.

At July 31, 1993, GSA had 3,959 members: 2,620 Regular, 511 Student, 164 Husband/Wife, 224 Emeritus and 86 Affiliates and 354 who did not pay 1993 dues. The number of GSA members has re- mained fairly constant over the past several years.

Treasurer’s Report (C. S. Newlon): The GSA is in stable financial condition with assets at 12/31/92 totalling $1,174,380. This is a decrease of $26,150 in total assets at 12/31/91. $847,494 was invested ($90,678 less than at 12/31/91), primarily in certif- icates of deposit staggered to mature over a period of four years. The Board voted to invest in the Van- guard Mutuals and $10,000 was invested by the end of 1992. At present $80,000 has been invested in the Vanguard Mutuals, half in the Stock Index 500 and half in the Bond Fund.

During 1992 expenditures of $1,289,461 ex- ceeded revenue of $1,277,577 resulting in a deficit of $1 1,904. The Society’s revenue of $183,248 from membership dues and subscriptions was somewhat higher than the previous year’s accrual basis figure of $176,421. Excess of revenue over expenditures for the Journal equaled $38,705-$55,495 less than the anticipated budget and $50,974 less than the net of 1991. Investment income dropped from what was reported for 1991 with earnings at approximately 7.5% of holdings.

The 1992 profit for Drosophila of $12,202 was pooled with prior adjusted meeting profits and a Drosophila savings account was opened and $6,282 was deposited.

The Administrative Office costs for GSA have de- creased somewhat due to a closer reallocation of

salaries since 1992. The American Society of Human Genetics has reimbursed GSA each quarter for the differences.

For 1993, membership revenue is projected to be $215,700, about $32,500 greater than the 1992 ac- tuals. The Journal is estimated to net about $37,200.

The 1993 Budget: The Administrative Office budget reflects basic operating expenses plus salaries, taxes and benefits for 11 employees. Salaries, taxes and benefits total $140,000 (4% decrease from the 1992 budget). As stated earlier the GSA 1993 Ad- ministrative Office costs will most likely be below budget.

The Board agreed that the investment plan for the Society should provide each year interest income to equal the cost of living increase and the amount should be added to the cash reserve. For example in 1992 the cash reserve was $82213 and the cost of living index was 4.2%. By the end of 1993 there should be $34,500 added to the reserve.

Editor’s Report (J. W. Drake): At the present time the costs of producing and distributing the Journal are rising faster than the income. Drake proposed that in addition to this immediate problem there is also the long term concern that if there is not enough cash reserve to support two years of Journal publication, there could be disastrous financial conse- quences. Drake estimated that $1.5M should be accumulated over the next six years. The Board discussed the problem but did not vote to keep that large a cash reserve for the Journal. However, to address the deficit, a motion was made and sec- onded that the nonmember subscription rate be raised $30 per year for two years unless too many subscribers drop after the first increase. There will be no change in the page charges. The motion was carried unanimously. The 1994 nonmember subscription rate will be $270/290 and in 1995 this will increase to $300/320.

The Journal is growing steadily with an increase in 1992 of 12% in the number of pages. Society membership is also increasing which adds to the total circulation.

The Society’s Participation i n the XVIIth International Congress of Genetics: Carol Newlon submitted grant applications to NSF, NIH and DOE asking for

s l1

$50,000 from each to support travel costs for scientists and students who would not otherwise be able to attend the meeting. The DOE granted the GSA $23,500, the NSF $30,000 and the NIH $4,000. An announcement was published in the Journal in Jan- uary to alert the members of the availability of the travel money. Grants for travel support were awarded to 58 scientists.

GSA Generalist Meeting: The current plan is to hold a 3-1/2 day meeting at Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove, California, October 9-12, 1994. Elliot Meyerowitz, Bruce Baker and Jerry Feldman accepted membership on the program committee for that meeting. Subsequent to the Board meeting, Jasper Rine agreed to chair the program committee. The theme of the meeting will be developed by the program committee and approved by the Board.

Pursuant to a previous Board vote, the Board agreed that no more than $10,000 should be spent on the 1994 generalist meeting.

GSA-sponsored Organismic Meetings: Drosophila. The 1993 Drosophila meeting was held

March 31-April 4 at the Town 8c Country Hotel in San Diego, California. Over 1,100 registrants attended. Gerry Rubin was the program chair. The next meeting will be held April 20-24, 1994, at the Sheraton Chicago. Victoria Finnerty will chair the program committee.

Yeast. The Yeast Genetics and Molecular Biology meeting, co-chaired by John Woolford and George Sprague, was held June 8-12, 1993, at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. This was a very successful meeting. In 1994 the meeting will take place at the University of Washington, Seattle, changing the meeting pattern from odd- to even-numbered years.

Maize. The next Maize meeting will be held March 17-20, 1994, at Pheasant Run in Illinois.

Chlamydomonas. Chlamy will meet May 17-22, 1994, at Granlibakken in Tahoe City, and in 1996 in Germany.

Education Committee: The GSA will be working with the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) to link geneticists with biology teachers in communities all across the country. The GSA will have a booth at the NABT meeting in Boston in

October 1994. Tom Manney will be the new chair for this committee to succeed Lee Hartwell.

The Committee has been publishing a newsletter known as GENErations which has been sent to members quarterly. Gail Simmons is the editor/producer of this newsletter which has been very well received.

Careers Brochure Update: The careers brochure has been printed and is being distributed to most high school biology teachers in the U.S. So far, the response to this publication has been overwhelmingly positive.

Congressional Education Efforts: The GSA partici- pates with the American Society of Cell Biology, the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Bi- ology, and the Biophysical Society on the Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy. Elaine Strass and Dale Kaiser have attended all its meetings to represent the Society. The GSA contributes $25,000 for membership on the joint committee. Recently FASEB announced that it will contribute to this congressional education effort by supporting the expenses of the Biomedical Research Caucus, which meets several times a year in Washington.

A contribution of $3,000 was made in 1993 to the congressional liaison committee which was organized by the joint steering committee for Public Pol- icy. This will enable GSA members to voice their concerns through the Society to their own con- gressperson. So far, 370 GSA members have indi- cated that they are interested in taking the message of concerned scientists to the local office of their representative.

GSA and Thomas Hunt Morgan Medals: Ray Owen was selected as the Morgan Medal recipient for a lifetime contribution to genetics. Jon Beckwith was awarded the GSA Medal for significant contributions over the last 15 years. Both Owen and Beck- with have agreed to accept the awards.

Next Board Meeting: The Board will meet in January 1994 at a place to be decided by the 1994 Board of Directors.

The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted, ELAINE STRASS, Executive Director

s12

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HONORS AND AWARDS The Society makes two awards annually to honor

members who have made outstanding contributions to the science of genetics. The Thomas Hunt Mor- gan Medal recognizes a lifetime contribution to genetics. The Genetics Society of America Medal recognizes particular outstanding contributions to

1994 Thomas Hunt Morgan Award: David D. Perkins

The Thomas Hunt Morgan Medal recognizes a lifetime contribution to genetics. It is hard to imag- ine a person better qualified for this award than David Perkins. He seems to spend every waking hour doing genetics in his lab or writing encouragement and helpful advice to others who share in this pur- suit. And we don’t feel that we are imposing on him, because he clearly loves to do it.

David Perkins’ interest in genetics started at the University of Rochester when he was an undergrad- uate studying under Curt Stern. During graduate work at Columbia he came under the influence of Marcus Rhoades, Theodosius Dobzhansky and Fran- cis Ryan. Arriving at Stanford forty-five years ago, he soon fell in with Ed Tatum and his team in the study of Neurospora.

For those of us who work on the genetics of Neu- rospora, a day seldom passes that we don’t give thanks to a generous Providence for David Perkins. So many times he has made life’s path a little easier for us. Forty years ago he and his colleagues at Stan- ford prepared the first complete lists of mutant loci, together with all the linkage data which had been gathered up to then. They set up the stock center and encouraged colleagues all over the world to deposit all strains which might be of interest. They instituted the periodic newsletters and stock lists which keep all workers in this field up to date. Nearly every issue of the newsletter has included a special gift from David Perkins like an easy method for long-term storage of stock or a multiply-marked strain for detecting linkage of a new mutant to any of seven linkage groups.

In 1982, he was the leader of the group that produced the “compendium,” an alphabetical gazette of all the loci known in Neurospora; for each locus there is a paragraph of genetic and physiological information, abundantly referenced. There is a badly worn copy of this volume in every Neurospora lab; it is what we grab when the fire alarm summons us to evacuate the building.

In between these activities, Perkins was tramping about the tropical world, collecting thousands of wild strains of Neurospora. A treasure of information about population genetics and evolution awaits

genetics within the past fifteen years. We are pleased to announce that the 1994 Thomas Hunt Morgan Medal will be awarded to David D. Perkins, and the 1994 GSA Medal will be awarded to Leland H. Hartwell.

the cataloging of these strains for structural, cyto- logical, physiological and molecular properties.

At his own lab bench, David Perkins does exper- iments on formal genetics, but he frequently joins forces with colleagues who provide expertise in cy- tology and molecular biology. He has always maintained that Neurospora provides a useful model for the study of many different genetic properties of eukaryotes. And he has proved this true in collabo- rating on studies of recombination, chromosome rearrangements, meiotic drive and a variety of other phenomena. He developed an elegant method for detecting and distinguishing different kinds of chromosome rearrangements by the patterns of abortion of the sexual spores in the crosses of rear- rangement heterozygotes.

Neurospora workers are not the only geneticists who have reason to be grateful for David Perkins. He has always taken an active role in promoting the GSA and the community of researchers in genetics. He was responsible for the decision of the GSA in 1963 to take over the publication of GENETICS. As a result, we now have an outstanding journal, circu- lated to all members of the Society at a minimal price. Perkins served as president of GSA in 1977 and as our representative on the executive board of the International Genetics Federation from 1978 to 1983.

Perkins was the editor of GENETICS from 1963 through 1967. At that time the Journal did not have a working editorial board, so the editor was responsible for all the submitted papers. This had been reasonable in earlier years, when all twelve monthly issues had made up one not-too-thick volume. But the field had been growing and so had the number of papers for GENETICS. The last two editorships before Perkins had been two-person teams (Crow and Brink, 1952-1957; Oliver and Stone, 1957-1962). David Perkins took it on alone, and he was up to the task. During his tenure the numbers of papers increased rapidly, and the journal went to two vol- umes per year and then to three. The quality and the volume of submitted work increased as authors responded favorably to the prompt and efficient editorial work. When Ernst Caspari agreed to he

s13

Perkins’ replacement in 1968, he made the mistake tor, in 1973, had none of this bravado, and quickly of assuming that a mere mortal could still handle appointed a working editorial board of ten mem- the job alone. But he soon found it was impossible, bers to do the job that David Perkins had been do- and though he struggled on valiantly for five years, ing by himself. the journal fell far behind schedule. The next edi- DAVID R. STADLER

1994 Genetics Society of America Medal: Leland H. Hartwell

Lee Hartwell has been awarded the 1994 Genetics Society of America Medal in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the science of genetics and his loyal service to the genetics community.

Lee is well known for his studies of the cell division cycle in Saccharomyces cereuisiae. Starting in the late 1960’s, Lee became intrigued by the question of how events in the cell cycle are coordinated so that the events always occur in the correct sequence. For example, how does the cell guarantee that chromosome segregation always follows, and never pre- cedes, DNA replication? Lee recognized that yeast offers two major advantages for studies of the cell cycle. First, the powerful genetics of yeast facilitates the isolation of mutants defective in cell cycle pro- gression. Second, the size of the bud on a yeast cell provides a visual indicator of the position of that cell in the mitotic cell cycle, making it easy to identify mutants defective at specific stages in the cycle. Lee generated a collection of temperature-sensitive lethal mutants of yeast and screened these for mutants that arrest at a discrete stage in the cell cycle at the nonpermissive temperature. In this way, Hart- well identified many CDC (cell division cycle) genes, each of which functions at a unique point in cell division. This valuable collection of mutants has served as the basis of decades of productive investi- gations in the Hartwell lab and in numerous others.

Lee’s subsequent elegant studies of the cdc mutants elucidated fundamental principles in cell cycle regulation. He proposed that the cell cycle involves pathways of dependent events, in which the execu- tion of a late event in the pathway depends on the completion of earlier events. He showed that the yeast cell cycle consists of two parallel pathways of dependent events, one leading to DNA replication and nuclear division and the other to bud emer- gence and cytokinesis. He demonstrated that these pathways are integrated at the (now famous) Start point of the cell cycle. One way in which a pathway of dependent events can be achieved is through a substrate-product relationship in which a late event cannot occur until its substrate is generated by the completion of earlier steps in the pathway. In a recent series of inspired publications, Lee demonstrated that this is not the only way to achieve de- pendency of cell cycle events. Together with postdoctoral fellow Ted Weinert, Lee documented the existence of cell cycle checkpoints, control

mechanisms by which an incomplete upstream event generates a signal that inhibits the initiation of downstream events. Lee’s insights into cell cycle regulation have profound implications for our understanding of the perturbations in cell division control that lead to carcinogenesis.

Although he is best known for his studies of the cell cycle, Lee has made numerous other important contributions to yeast molecular genetics, of which only a few can be mentioned here. Through their studies of mating in yeast, Lee and his coworkers have enhanced our understanding of cellular re- sponses to pheromones and provided insight into the mechanisms of cell-cell recognition and cellular fusion. Lee’s laboratory has also studied the mechanism and fidelity of mitotic chromosome transmis- sion. In this realm, their accomplishments include the development of a colony color assay for chromosome segregation, the finding that sister chro- matids need not be topologically interlocked to segregate correctly, and the demonstration that changes in the relative concentrations of CDC (and other) gene products can have dramatic ef- fects on chromosome stability and mitotic recombination. Perhaps Lee’s most significant contribution has been to train and to inspire numerous graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, many of whom are now accomplished investigators in their own right.

As befits a scientist of his distinction, Lee has received numerous professional awards including the Eli Lilly Award in Microbiology and Immunology and the Gairdner Foundation International Award. Lee was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1987 and he has been the American Cancer So- ciety Research Professor of Genetics since 1990.

Lee is to be commended for his service to the scientific community and for his commitment to science education. He has served on the Genetics Study Section at the National Institutes of Health and is currently a member of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council. Lee’s service to the Genetics Society of America includes a term as president in 1991 and chairman of the education committee in 1992-93. Under Lee’s leadership, the education committee published a booklet entitled Solving the Puzzle-Careers in Genetics, established the GENErations newsletter, and inspired

s14

the publication in this journal of a series of articles on Genetics in the Classroom.

Lee was born in Los Angeles and he was an un- dergraduate at the California Institute of Technol- ogy. As a graduate student in Boris Magasanik’s lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lee explored the mechanism of histidase regulation in Bacillus subtilis. He then did a short postdoctoral stint in Renato Dulbecco’s lab at the Salk Institute, where he studied the induction of cellular DNA syn- thesis by polyoma virus. Lee was a faculty member at the University of California at Irvine from 1965-73.

Since that time, he has been a professor of genetics at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Lee has earned the respect and admiration of the genetics community for the significance and breadth of his scientific discoveries, for his commitment to science education and for his quiet, effective leadership in the laboratory and in the scientific community. For Lee Hartwell, receipt of the Genet- ics Society of America Medal is an honor that is richly deserved and long overdue.

SHIRLEEN ROEDER

Recipients of GSA Honors

Thomas Hunt Morgan Medal Genetics Society of America Medal 1981 Barbara McClintock, Marcus M. Rhoades 1981 Beatrice Mintz 1982 Sewall Wright 1982 Gerald R. Fink 1983 Edward B. Lewis 1983 Charles Yanofsky 1984 George W. Beadle, R. Alexander Brink 1984 David S. Hogness 1985 Herschel L. Roman 1985 Philip Leder 1986 Seymour Benzer 1986 Gerald M. Rubin 1987 James F. Crow 1987 Sydney Brenner 1988 Norman H. Giles 1988 David Botstein, Ira Herskowitz 1989 Dan L. Lindsley 1989 Allan C. Spradling 1990 Charles Yanofsky 1990 Nancy Kleckner 1991 Armin Dale Kaiser 1991 Bruce S. Baker 1992 Edward H. Coe, Jr. 1992 Maynard V. Olson 1993 Ray D. Owen 1993 Jonathan R. Beckwith 1994 David D. Perkins 1994 Leland H. Hartwell

s15

REPORT ON THE GENETICS SOCIETY OF CANADA AWARDS 1993 Award of Excellence: Robert Haynes 1993 Young Scientist Award: Marla Sokolowski

The recipient of the 1993 Award of Excellence is The recipient of the 1993 Young Scientist Award Robert Haynes, currently president and editor-in- is Marla Sokolowski, associate professor, depart- chief of Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, California. His ment of biology, York University. distinguished career in Canada was centered at the department of biology, York University.

REPORT OF THE EDITOR During 1993, the number of pages for articles was however, that printed articles reflect submissions

3,193 and for the Records, Proceedings and Reports was over a different and more diffuse interval. Paid cir- 17 for a total of 3,210. Pages for articles increased by culation increased by 2.6% to 5,215. 0.3% over 1992. The number of submitted manu- scripts increased by 5.7% to 535 while the number of printed articles increased by 8.8% to 308; note, JOHN W. DRAKE, Editor

REPORT OF THE GENETIC STOCK COMMITTEE Through the collaboration of the Genetics Society

of America’s Genetic Stocks Committee and the Na- tional Science Foundation’s (NSF) Living Stock Col- lections Program, a Living Culture Collections workshop was held on October 25 and 26, 1993, at the NSF offices in Arlington, VA. Participants included scientists with extensive background in collections issues and policy and/or intimate knowledge of the management of a major research collection, along with program directors from NSF, the National In- stitutes of Health (NIH) and the United States De- partment of Agriculture (USDA) who have responsibility for collections support. The purpose of the workshop was to address issues related to evalua- tion, funding, and preservation of genetic stocks collections.

The study of heredity, begun in earnest early this century, has led to phenomenal breakthroughs in our understanding of biological processes. Progress in essentially every discipline from molecular biology to animal behavior has been linked to the spec- tacular advances in our understanding of genetic mechanisms. Genetic stock centers collect, maintain, and disseminate the characterized genetic materials produced by these studies of heredity, along with the associated information that makes these materials so valuable. Unlike archival collections that preserve largely undefined germplasm for po-

tential future use, most genetic collections are the products of many decades of publicly funded basic research in the U.S. Also, unlike archival collections, a high proportion of the stocks are in active use with high demand for specific stocks from the science user community.

These collections are a uniquely American resource, one that has been of tremendous benefit to science and society in the past and will be so in the future. Like libraries, stock centers both preserve knowledge and promote its advancement. Accessi- ble collections of characterized and documented materials increase scientific productivity by encour- aging researchers to build on previous work while avoiding the waste of duplicating collection or con- struction and characterization costs. The combina- tion of diverse genetic materials and expertise in their use that centers bring together encourage scientific creativity by making this capital accessible to all who are interested, including scientists crossing traditional organismal boundaries, and those with unconventional ideas to pursue. However, unlike libraries holding books, the information in living stock centers is locked up in organisms that must be documented, maintained and distributed as living, reproducing organisms. This requires daily maintenance activities for some organisms and, for all types of living stocks, highly competent curators.

s16

It is difficult to convey briefly the true significance of stock centers because, as with most scientific achievement, many of the scientific advances supported by the centers are highly specialized or in- cremental. Collections have made countless contributions to both basic and applied research in fields as diverse as plant physiology, biotechnology, and the genetic basis of disease. The literature is replete with examples of the discovery of genes that were only possible because the critical resource was available in a living stock collection. Bacterial collections available to researchers through stock centers al- lowed hundreds of different restriction endonucle- ases to be identified rapidly and exploited for use in DNA cloning and mapping. E. coli and virus collections have contributed to the rapid progress of cloning technology, providing hosts and vectors with a variety of specialized characteristics. When novel natural products with therapeutic properties are identified, such as FK506, a secondary metabolite of Streptomyces tsukubaensis found to be a powerful im- munosuppressant, stock centers provide the documented materials that allow systematic searches for related compounds or useful variants. The accessibility of the bacteria Thermus aquaticus and its ther- mostable DNA polymerase in the American Type Culture Collection contributed to the rapid evolution of PCR from a labor intensive and impractical procedure, requiring the addition of fresh polymerase after each round of amplification, to the workhorse it is today. The development of high ly- sine maize would no doubt have been long delayed and significantly more costly, if not impossible, with- out the preservation of genetic mutants in the Maize Genetics Cooperative Stock Center. The USDA wheat cytogenetic stocks developed by the late E. R. Sears and maintained for many years with NSF support has provided the critical materials for genomic mapping in this complex polyploid species. Materi- als from the Tomato Genetics Resource Center, such as wild species, classical markers, linkage testers, and trisomics, were critical to the construc- tion of a high density molecular linkage map of tomato, one of the most detailed genetic maps of any plant species. This map makes possible posi- tional cloning of many genes of economic impor- tance that are not amenable to conventional bio- chemical approaches to cloning. Our understanding of human diseases such as familial colon cancer, atherosclerosis, hypercholesterolemia and cystic fibrosis has and will be expanded by the study of mice provided by the Mouse Mutant Stocks Center that carry loss-of-function mutations in the mouse homologues of the genes that, when defective, produce these diseases in humans.

Genetic stock collections represent a national treasure that provide for national security in food,

health, and advancement of science. They represent an important and accessible component for the preservation of biodiversity, a key to future scientific discoveries and applications. The great majority of these materials were produced with public funds for public benefit. The profound public interest in these resources must be protected so collections can continue to contribute to the advancement of science for generations to come. NSF’s support for genetic stock centers is a fitting reflection of both its mission to strengthen basic research in the U.S. and the central role collections play in the progress of science.

Elements of Successful Centers, Sources of Support, Concerns for the Future

The group examined the operations of a variety of stock centers with the aim of identifying common properties of successful collections, gauging future needs of these and similar centers, and identifying possible solutions to the funding problems faced by both collections and granting agencies.

Representatives of 11 major research resource collections described the scientific support activities of their collections, their administrative organization, funding sources, and future directions. The projects discussed were:

* C. eleguns collection at U. of Minnesota (R. Her-

* mouse collection at The Jackson Laboratory

* E. coli collection at Yale University (M. Berlyn) * Chlamydomonas collection at Duke University

* yeast collection at U.C., Berkeley (R. Mortimer) * wheat collection at Kansas State U. (B. Gill) * fungal collection at ATCC (S.C. Jong) * bacteria collection at Roche Molecular Systems

* Arubidopsis collection at Ohio State U. (R.

* tomato collection at U.C., Davis (R. Chetelat) * Drosophilia collection at Indiana U. (K.

man)

(J. Sharp)

(E. Harris)

(G. Carter)

Scholl)

Matthews)

Despite the diversity of organisms, collection sizes, and user groups represented, a characteristic set of features and concerns emerged. The broad attributes shared by successful centers are expert management, integration with the user community, and adequate funding.

The collections examined all have expert and committed management. Whether described as director, curator, or PI, each center has at least one Ph.D.-level scientist who has a research interest in the collected organism actively involved with the

s17

operation of the center. These scientists evaluate holdings, determine and provide for the information needs relative to the collection and its users, and provide a wide assortment of additional advice and information that supports maximal use of the collection. Training functions of centers are partic- ularly important to researchers attempting to cross discipline and organismal boundaries. When the relevant expertise is not available to these researchers within their institutions, stock center personnel can usually provide the information and instruction needed, or suggest colleagues likely to have the necessary expertise.

The activities of successful collections are tightly linked to those of the research community they serve. These centers serve not only as a source of stocks, but also as a focus of information exchange. Centers often initiate organismal databases, maintain the genetic map of the collected organism, deal with nomenclature issues, provide contact information for colleagues, produce an organismal newsletter, or organize an organismal electronic news- group. These kinds of activities contribute to the efficiency of communication and the sharing of materials and information among researchers, and help keep the stock center in touch with current needs and new developments among its users.

The collections examined are supported by a variety of funding mechanisms. The C. elegans and Chlamydomonas centers are wholly supported by grants from NIH and NSF, respectively. The Arabi- dopsis and Indiana University Drosophila collections are funded primarily by NSF, with 5-10% of direct costs provided by their home institutions. USDA provides a special grant for the Kansas State Univer- sity Wheat Genetics Resource Center with about 20% of costs covered by commercial and institutional contributions. The USDA provides total support for the cytogenetic stocks center at the USDA unit at the University of Missouri. It also maintains genetic stock collections of several agriculturally important species, for example, corn, soybeans, and lettuce, at other sites.

Several centers combine grant funds with income generated by user fees. The E. coli center recovers 5-10% of direct costs from fees while NSF provides the rest. NIH provides about 75% of the yeast center’s direct costs, with the remainder coming from user fees. The fungal collection at ATCC recovers about 60% of its costs from fees, NSF provides about 30%, and NIH supplies the remaining 10%.

The Jackson Laboratory and the tomato collection have the most diversified support bases. Jack- son received direct support from a large number of public and private granting agencies, including NIH, NSF, HHMI, ACS, MS, CF, AHA, and MOD; other funds are derived from user fees, sales in-

come, and contributions. About a third of the tomato center’s support is provided by its home insti- tution, the USDA provides about a third, income from an endowment covers about 20% of costs, and industry contributions provide the rest.

The Roche bacterial collection is an example of a private collection maintained for in-house use. Re- quests for samples from outside scientists are considered on a case by case basis and granted when not in conflict with the company’s interest. This resource is fully supported by Roche.

The workshop group recognized several areas of concern, even though the consensus for the centers that were reviewed was that these were highly successful. The reality of static or shrinking funding support was a factor in expressing the following concerns:

1. Growth potential. There are increasing de- mands from the users that the collections should increase in size. All of the collections were growing in size, an expected phenomenon because research is continually advancing and new genetic stocks are developed that become important to an ever-increasing number of investigators. For example, the C. elegans collection is expected to double in size in 6 years, holding of the fungal collection will double in 10 years, Chlamydomonas stocks are expected to double over the next 10-15 years, the number of stocks provided by the Indiana University Drosophila center is increasing by about 35% a year, and the cryopreservation facility at theJackson Laboratory is in need of expansion.

2. Establishing priorities for receiving and holding accessions. This was a concern of the curators whose resources are limited and was especially a concern for accessions which are not in great demand by the users.

3. Providing new services. Of particular concern was the need to maintain and distribute molecular materials. In addition, the centers are substantial sources of information about characteristics of the stocks and about how to use them. Information net- works among research centers are in place for some of the centers, but others need further development, including electronic bulletin boards, newsletters, and workshops. 4. Advisory quality. The collections reviewed were

variable in advisory quality. The need for a panel of advisors to help establish priorities and policies for each collection was emphasized.

5. Training of new curators. Some collections require new staff for replacements or additions. This was a concern for some of the collections, especially if institutional support eroded in the case of retire- ment or budgetary constraints.

6. Relocation or phase-out of collections. Occa- sionally it is necessary to move collections and there

was concern about policy for making changes, especially with respect to the extramural funding support, such as from NSF, NIH, or USDA.

7. Stable funding. This was perhaps the most important concern of the curators. It was more important than the amount of funds received. Only one center (wheat) requested that funding levels be higher. Mechanisms for assurance of long-term funding are needed and that became a significant point of discussion at the workshop, leading to the development of review criteria for funding reported below. An important aspect of stable funding was that diverse sources of funding may help ensure stability.

Required Characteristics of Collection for Eligbi l i ty for Federal F u n d s

Because of limited sources and amount of funds, the workshop focused on characteristics of collections that would establish them as eligible for federal funds. The group recommends that funding priority be given to collections with the following characteristics:

1. The species or species group collected is an important experimental organism for basic biological research. The power of “model” experimental organisms derives from the extensive knowledge base and sophisticated tools developed through many years of concerted research effort on such organisms. These materials represent a major national investment as much of this effort is supported by Federal funding agencies. The nation will both increase its investment and profit by insuring the full utilization of these primary resources.

2. The collection provides a unique resource. The value of collections support dollars should be max- imized by avoiding duplication of effort, both within and outside the US.

3. The center is used by a majority of the potential user community. The most effective collections result from cooperation between the resource and the user community. Strains and information flow in both directions. The collection facilitates researchers’ achievements, which cycle back in the form of new stocks or new information to build and add value to the collection. Use patterns reflect the worth of the center to the researchers it is intended to serve.

4. The profile of the collection’s user community is consistent with the institutional goals of the funding agency. Collections should further the goals of the research community fostered by the funding agency. The long term interests of a collection are best served when federal oversight is provided by an agency directly involved with the science the collection supports. For example, collections that primar-

ily serve biomedical or agricultural research are outside the purview of NSF.

5. The collection has the active involvement of a scientifically qualified manager with expertise in the organism. A fruitful research resource is dynamic and evolves in response to new developments and directions in research. Unlike strictly archival collections, the contents of research collections must be judged by their relevance to contemporary research and their likely future significance, and these judgements must be frequently reassessed. This kind of guidance can only be provided by individu- als with scientific expertise in the organisms and knowledge of its current uses in research. In addition, maximizing productive use of a collection requires that researchers have ready access to information and advice about available stocks and their appropriate use.

6. The collection is housed in an active research environment. Research resource collections exist to advance research. To carry out this mission most effectively collections managers must be an integral part of the research community. The stimulating flow of new information and ideas that results from seminar programs, lab meetings, and informal exchange with scientific colleagues is an invaluable asset to a collection.

’7. All relevant information about the collection is maintained in an electronic database and that information is made readily available to potential users of the collection. Information is fundamental to both the current and long term value of a collection. For use of a collection to be maximal and efficient, researchers must be able to readily identify potentially useful stocks. Valuable but unpublished information about stocks in the collection gleaned by past users of the stocks should be made available to others. Since a valuable collection will by defini- tion outlive any single manager it is critical that all of the relevant information about a collection be recorded in a retrievable and transferable way.

8. The collection has a strong and active advisory committee drawn from its user community. A successful collection must be responsive to the needs of the community it serves. While daily availability of scientific expertise at the center is important, collections also benefit by tapping the accumulated wisdom of a diverse group of scientists from the user community. A strong and active advisory committee can help assess current needs and future directions of the collection and its constituency, and can me- diate conflicts that will inevitably arise when resources are limited. The advisory committee should bear explicit responsibility for assuring the successful transition of a collection to a new location and/or new management when the need arises.

9. Issues critical to the development of a valuable

s19

genetic resource are coordinated by the center if not otherwise provided for by the community. A stock collection should be one of the primary community assets of an organismal research group. While a given collection cannot provide all possible community services, the center should take some responsibility for assuring that core activities such as resolution of nomenclature issues and maintenance of the genetic map are carried out.

Review Criteria for Continued Funding

Having identified the elements of a successful living stock center, it follows that the centers should be accountable to their funding agency and user group. Thus they should demonstrate that they have met the nine characteristics listed above when ap- plying for continued funding. The following criteria are critical if a center is to receive continued support:

1. Makeup of the user community (academic/in- dustrial, U.S./foreign, sources of research support).

2. Cost analysis of maintenance functions, appropriateness of cost recovery program.

3. Appropriateness of database and accessibility to

4. Documented evidence for productive use of center stocks.

5 . Satisfaction level of the user community/de- gree of support for the center by users and potential users.

users.

Recommendations

Living stocks are the fundamental biological resources required for basic research in biological sciences and for applications in health, food, and other areas. These resources must be comprehen- sive and accessible to the world science community. The workshop developed a series of recommendations, which are submitted as applicable to the Na- tional Science Foundation and other federal agencies.

1. Living stock centers are repository and distri- bution centers for organisms and information. Some of the centers reviewed were more or less self- contained, but most of them are highly networked with scientists and information systems. Because these centers are used widely by public and private organizations and by scientists with access to variable and often very little resources, the workshop concluded that it is highly appropriate that public funds support these centers. It is strongly recommended that federal public funding be used as a primary source of support €or living stock centers according to the characteristics and review criteria presented above.

2. Living stock centers must be maintained indef-

initely so it is strongly recommended that financial and institutional support be sustained for the long- term and that sufficient human resources are available to provide the required services.

3. Two principal types of living stock centers were identified at the workshop: (i) “large centers” have evolved for the major model species for biological research and have a large research user community; (ii) “small centers” which include groups of organisms for which the user community is small and the collections serve rather specific needs. It is appropriate that public funds be used in both instances, but the criteria for establishing and maintaining these types of centers would be developed separately. Encouragement and funds should be available to permit new collections to be made and eval- uated for their merit for on-going research purposes. Thus, the workshop recommended that special criteria for new collections be developed, with an initial short-term commitment, followed by a plan for long-term maintenance that would be peer-reviewed for relevance to science.

4. Federal funding sources. Federal funds were judged to be appropriate because of the national use of centers, but also because it is a cost-effective way to provide the majority of funds needed. Fed- eral sources of funds are principally from NSF, NlH, and USDA. However, it appears that the responsibility for funding these critical national assets now falls disproportionately to NSF. This agency is spending approximately $3.6 million annually, or 1.3% of its funds available to biological science research, on genetic stocks collections. Although NIH directs approximately $36.6 million annually to organismal-related research resources, funding for genetic stocks collections is about $5.7 million (this figure includes funding for ATCC, Jackson Labora- tory, Cuenorhubditis Genetics Center, Yeast Genetic Stock Center, and NIGMS Human Genetic Mutant Cell Repository), or 0.05% of available funds. USDA has no extramural program comparable to the NSF or NIH in support of living research resource collections. The USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) operates in-house genetic stock centers on some species, and some University collections receive Cooperative Agreement funds from ARS. In one case, the wheat center reviewed at this workshop, a Special Grant through the Cooperative State Research Service from a special congressional ap- propriation provides funds. Thus, the USDA funding is not organized uniformly and some stocks are orphaned, such as the chicken genetic stocks which are widely used as models for medical research (muscular dystrophy, for example). USDA funds for stock centers appear to be commingled with com- modity-oriented research programs related to animal and plant breeding. The USDA funding for ge-

s20

netic stock centers appears to be less than $500,000 annually.

The workshop recommends that all of the agencies reevaluate their support to fundamental biological resources and that each agency fully share the financial obligations of supporting collections that serve that agency's constituency. It is also recommended that an interagency council be formed with representatives from the relevant programs to develop a coordinated approach to funding and oversight of living stock collections and the information systems needed to support them.

5. Other funding sources. Since living stock collections require funding in perpetuity, the most at- tractive type of funding is one which is self-perpet- uating, such as endowment trust funds. Such funds have been established in a few instances, mainly by the user community, as was shown for the Tomato Genetics Resource Center at the University of Cali- fornia, Davis. Certainly the users of specific collections should consider this opportunity and encourage donors to establish or support an endowment fund. At the national level, general endowment, such as the National Endowment for the Humani- ties, provides a model for biological resources collections. It is recommended that agency representative and users join together to explore perpetual funding mechanisms.

User fees have been imposed successfully by several centers. These fees are sometimes structured such that private users pay higher fees than public users. This form of cost recovery was judged by some curators as not being cost effective. A factor to consider is that genetic resources should be available to all scientists and some of them do not have the funds to pay for the stocks they require in research. Partial cost recovery from users might provide the funds needed for existing collections to grow and valuable new collections to be developed. It is not expected that centers would become totally self-supporting, only that a larger share of non-NSF funds are brought into the system. The federal govern- ment should maintain a presence in the funding structure of all important genetic collections to in- sure that the national interest in these materials is upheld. It is recommended that existing centers

REPORT ON THE AMERICAN The ATCC is a not-for-profit organization that

provides genetic resources to public and private sec- tor scientists. It operates under the authority of a board of directors, which has representatives from 22 professional scientific organizations and directors at large. The board of directors meets once

evaluate the potential for cost recovery through user fees in conjunction with federal agency representatives. It is critical that user fees do not sup- plant existing agency support for collections.

6. Review of proposals for funding. It is recommended that federal agencies, especially NSF, NIH, and USDA, establish peer review panels, with interagency coordination, to guide their decisions for funding of living stock centers. Within NSF it is specifically recommended that a Biological Re- sources Panel be established within Biological In- strumentation and Resources/Biological Sciences Directorate to assist in proposal review. This could be a standing panel consisting of members with substantial expertise in management of biological resources collections. Ad hoc members would be re- cruited as needed for review of proposals on particular species. Much of this review could be accomplished via conference telephone call, thus min- imizing expenses. The workshop participants offer their services as appropriate for this activity.

'7. Collections-based research. Efficient handling of genetic resources requires that special techniques be developed. This may require research within the stock center and, of course, by scientists outside the centers. It is recommended that research funds, as grants, be made available to support innovative proposals that would lead to more efficient handling of living stocks. Initially, this would require a mod- est amount of additional funds, but the long-term savings would be substantial. Examples of research topics that are currently highly relevant to collections include the following:

* Maintenance and stability: stability of difficult to preserve organisms, long term DNA stability, high volume handling techniques.

* Cryopreservation: cryoprotectants, chill sensitiv- ity, developmental factors, improved handling and storage techniques.

* Other alternatives to standard culture methods: diapause, artificial extension of generation time.

* Rapid identification techniques: microbes, fungi.

KATHLEEN A. MATTHEWS, Chair

TYPE CULTURE COLLECTION each year with committees of the board meeting separately as needed. ATCC is a dynamic organization which must generate its own operating expenses from gifts, grants and sales. It must balance its activities to provide the largest possible volume of cultures to the scientific community and at the

same time, serve as a public preservation unit for genetic resources that may be needed in the future. A good example: the Thermus aquaticus stock used for PCR came “off the shelf” from ATCC. ATCC is dependent on federal agency grants to support collections where user fees are insufficient. This is a continuing concern of ATCC. Present negotiations with NIH have proven difficult, as have a mandated user fee increase by the funding agency for human hybridoma cultures. The board prepared a resolution (reproduced below) requesting that scientific societies support a request for an NRC/NAS review of biological resources collections to ensure that these resources may sufficiently support the biodiversity they represent and the accessibility required by the science community.

ATCC is severely limited by space and power sup- ply in its current facilities. It has been studying various relocation options for the past several years. It has rejected several opportunities to relocate out-

s21

side the Washington, D.C., area and also discontin- ued discussions about a USDA site in the Beltsville, Maryland, area. In the meantime, it has expanded its campus in Rockville, Maryland, by purchasing a building that will be renovated and thereby provide temporary relief for space and power needs. Nego- tiations are continuing for a relocation site in the Washington area.

Dr. Raymond Cypress began his service as director (cum president) of ATCC. A new management plan has been introduced to ATCC, resulting in depart- mental reorganization into programs, among other changes. ATCC remains an effective and fonvard- looking organization that is dedicated to serving the science community. Users are urged to communicate with Dr. Cypress or board members about sub- stantive matters related to microbial culture collections.

CALVIN 0. QUALSET

Sustained Support for Germplasm Collections: a Resolution

Prokaryotic and eukaryotic germplasm collections represent assemblages of natural biological diversity which are critically important to secure our Ameri- can competitiveness and continuing national potential for scientific advancement, product development, and for solving of problems in human health, environmental quality, and agriculture for the 21st century and beyond. A significant portion of our national economy is based on natural products derived from living organisms. One example is the development of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) which was dependent upon Taq Polymerase, isolated from the American Type Culture Collection accession of Thermus aquaticus (Cat. No. 25109). Nu- merous organisms provide the source for pharma- ceuticals and hence provide a “value-added” di- mension to germplasm resources. Many of the organisms currently in collections are isolated from globally diverse ecological niches; it is often no longer feasible nor possible to obtain the biodiversity that many of these organisms represent.

Unfortunately, lack of stable funding for microbial germplasm collections has not ensured their perpetuity. Although numerous sources provide funding for basic research, funding to maintain au- thenticated stock material upon which the research is based is often unavailable. This results in neglect and possible loss of biological resources and inabil- ity to ensure germplasm for future research. Efforts such as that promoted by the Microbial Germplasm

Data Network provide an invaluable resource to document availability of “working” germplasm collections. However, i t does not ensure germplasm preservation.

The Board of Directors of the ATCC, which includes representatives from 23 scientific societies whose research and development is dependent upon ready access to living biological resources, submit the following resolution:

Given that: Prokaryotic and eukaryotic germplasm collections are invaluable natural resources, and stable funding to preserve these collections and to ensure growth of the collections must be obtained at the national level,

It is resolved that: Scientific societies, acting in concert, must act to ensure sustained and stable funding;

Therefore, The Board of Directors of the ATCC requests that the professional societies affiliated within ATCC request a study by the National Re- search Council of the National Academy of Sciences to address a long-term solution to sustain microbial and biological research collections, thus assuring the conservation of biological diversity for the scientific and commercial value of these genetic resources.

Approved: March 25, 1994 ATCC Board of Directors

genetics society of america · nancy l. craig philip d. harriman shirleen roeder, ex officio elaine...

Documents