this issue features an editorial on “MIT and the Nation After 9/11”(page 3); the introduction of a new feature, “MIT Profiles” featuring RoeSmith (page 8); the story of a whistle-blower by Dave Wilson (page 12);and a piece on a photo-journal available on the Newsletter Website“Vietnam and Cambodia: Three Decades Later” by Jay Keyser (page 19).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XVIII No. 2November/December 2005

AFTE R MOR E THAN A year of work,the Task Force on Medical Care for theMIT Community released its final reportin early November. The Task Force exam-ined all aspects of medical care, medicalinsurance, and related educational andcommunity support programs availableto MIT students, employees, retirees, andpost-docs through the MIT MedicalDepartment, as well as through outsidehealth insurance programs administeredby Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Tufts HealthPlan, and Delta Dental.

The Task Force concluded that theexisting MIT model for providing healthcare and health insurance has performedwell historically, that the MIT communityis generally highly satisfied with it (seeback page), and that it can continue toserve MIT well in the future if variousreforms are implemented. The final

ACA D E M I C I N T E G R I T Y I S A corevalue of scientific research and of MIT. Asfaculty, we recognize that nothing is moreessential than integrity in our educa-tional, research, and service endeavors.More than a code of behavior, integrityimbues every fiber of the fabric of ourcommunity with the strength to keep ourenterprise whole. It is therefore particu-larly painful to us as individuals and as acommunity when that integrity is chal-lenged or violated. We must do all we canto make sure that our colleagues under-stand and share this core value, and honorthose who embody it.

It is important for faculty to be awareof the Institute’s policies and proceduresin handling matters of academic miscon-duct. Here, I summarize MIT Policies andProcedures 10.1 Procedures for Dealingwith Academic Misconduct in Research

continued on page 5

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

Medical Task ForceReleases FinalReport

From The Faculty ChairScientific Integrity

continued on page 16

W H Y D O E S M I T H AV E a museum?What is it for? What is its mission? Whataudiences does it serve? And how shouldit go about serving them?

These are the sorts of questions I’vebeen asking myself since I arrived asdirector of the MIT Museum in July 2005.With the help of a lot of other people –colleagues in the Museum, faculty acrossthe Institute, and Advisory Boardmembers – I’ve recently arrived at someclear answers to these questions; and inthis short article, I’d like to share theseanswers with you and invite your supportfor the new MIT Museum we’re settingout to create.

First, the big picture. Today, the UnitedStates confronts critically importantissues relating to the place of science andtechnology in national life. Internationalchallenges – for example in relation to

The New MITMuseum: A Vision for the Future

Lorna J. GibsonJohn Durant

continued on page 4

Vol. XVIII No. 2 November/December 2005

2

The MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Alice AmsdenUrban Studies and Planning

John BelcherPhysics

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

*Erik DemaineElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Olivier de WeckAeronautics & Astronautics/Engineering Systems

Ernst G. FrankelOcean Engineering

Stephen C. GravesManagement Science and Engineering Systems

Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

Gordon KaufmanManagement Science and Statistics

Daniel S. KempChemistry

Samuel J. KeyserLinguistics & Philosophy

*Jonathan KingBiology

Stephen J. LippardChemistry

David H. MarksCivil and Environmental Engineering

*Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

Ronald PrinnEarth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

*David ThorburnLiterature

George VergheseElectrical Engineering and Computer Science

Rosalind H. WilliamsSTS and Writing

Kathryn A. WillmoreVice President and Secretary of the Corporation

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Sub-Committee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 11-268Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

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

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

01 Medical Task Force Releases Final Report

01 The New MIT Museum: A Vision for the FutureJohn Durant

From The 01 Scientific IntegrityFaculty Chair Lorna J. Gibson

Editorial 03 MIT and the Nation After 9/11

MIT Profiles 08 Merritt Roe Smith

MIT Poetry 11 Of Supreme ImportanceDavid Thorburn

12 Tyranny Against a Whistle-Blower at MITDavid Gordon Wilson

13 MIT Libraries Offer Metadata Support

14 On Values and a Caring Meritocracy for MITJoseph H. Saleh

Letters 18 The Benefits GameM.W.P. Strandberg

19 Vietnam and Cambodia: Three Decades LaterSamuel Jay Keyser

M.I.T. Numbers 20 Percentage Rating the Quality of the MIT Medical Department “Good,” “Very Good,” or “Excellent” [from the 2005 Medical Survey]

contents

Photo credits: Pages 1 and 19, Nancy Kelly; Pages 16 and 17, Beryl Rosenthal

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2005

3

EditorialMIT and the Nation After 9/11

TH E EVE NTS OF 9/11 and their after-math have influenced every aspect ofAmerican society. Government policiesin response to these events have particu-lar impact on institutions such as MIT,with its national and international rolesin science, technology, and society. Thesepolicies have an impact on our teachingpractices, our graduate programs, ourprofessional lives, and our behavior ascitizens. We need both to examine closelythe consequences of post 9/11 polices onour students, faculty, and staff, and alsoto make our contribution to the broadernational dialogue.

In the coming year, the FacultyNewsletter Editorial Board hopes tolaunch a broad discussion of these issues,focusing on specific examples of emergingdangerous trends or possibilities embed-ded in the relations between the academyand the government. We invite you tocontribute articles, letters, and commen-taries on these questions.

Some initial areas of concern are:• Graduate programs. Is the harvest of

graduate students in various departmentsdifferent from the recent past in terms ofnationality, ability to pay, country oforigin? Have stringent post-9/11 immi-gration regulations affected the body ofgraduate students in MIT’s programs?Might they?

• Professional interchange and com-munication. Have the Patriot Act andrelated legislation and regulations nega-tively affected scholarly conferences andmeetings, as much anecdotal testimonyfrom MIT professors suggests?

• Privacy and Security. Have govern-ment demands for access to MIT recordsviolated legally protected rights to privacy?

What regulations are in place within MITfor answering this sort of question?

• “Deemed exports.” Can our foreignstudents using our teaching or researchfor evil ends endanger us legally?

• Academic institutions have tradition-ally worked on the basis of trust. Studentshave accepted that faculty advisors haveoffered advice and discussed issues alwayswith the benefit and improvement of thestudent in mind. Is that trust threatenedthrough the creation of a legalistic envi-ronment due to new security concerns? Ifso, doesn’t that threaten the very founda-tion of the university?

• Are we witnessing the remilitarizationof basic research, for example in the shiftof funds from biomedical research tobioterrorism?

• What are the effects on our studentsand staff of the replacement of nationalpolicies of diplomacy, negotiation, anddevelopment assistance, with policies ofmilitary aggression, confrontation, andabrogation of international agreements?

In the coming issues we hope facultywill speak to these questions with depthand candor.

Retirement: The Other Sideof the Coin

R E C E N T I S S U E S O F T H E FacultyNewsletter have included articles on facultyretirement. These articles have raised somevery important and serious issues, such as:financial arrangements, medical benefits,and accommodations that the Instituteoffers for post-retirement, in terms ofoffice space, parking, and secretarialsupport. Although these are rather impor-

tant issues, the discussion is always one-sided, namely: What the Institute is doingor has to do to make life rather comfort-able for faculty after retirement. The otherside, which has so far been ignored, is whatthe retirees can do for MIT.

Many retirees have several remainingyears with a great deal of potential profes-sional contribution. There is also a sub-stantial amount of knowledge, know-how, and experience that most would bewilling to share with MIT for a goodcause. It is unfortunate that the Institutehas not systematically developed a strat-egy on how to exploit this tremendousreservoir of knowledge in an effective way.We believe the Faculty Newsletter is theproper medium to explore these variousopportunities available to MIT.

One potential area could be in MIT’sinternational involvement. There is sub-stantial need in the Third World for suchknowledge, know-how, and experiencesuch as MIT faculty have to offer. Theextensive development of informationtechnology and the medium of the WorldWide Web have reduced the need forphysical travel, affording an even greateropportunity for MIT to provide access tothis vast reservoir of knowledge for ThirdWorld university faculty or students. Themechanics would need to be worked out,but there are many international agencies,global enterprises, and philanthropicorganizations that could provide financialsupport for such undertakings.

We encourage submissions of otherideas for the utilization of the wisdomand experience contained within ourretiring faculty.

Editorial Sub-Committee

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVIII No. 2

4

and Scholarship (available at web.mit.edu/policies/). Confidential advice about aparticular situation can be sought fromthe MIT Ombuds Office (x3-5921) orfrom senior academic officers.

Once an allegation of possible aca-demic misconduct is reported, the VicePresident for Research appoints either afact-finding individual or committee toconduct an inquiry to determine if aninvestigation is warranted. The inquiryproduces a written report, submitted tothe Vice President for Research, summa-rizing the process, the informationreviewed, and the conclusions. The VP forResearch then recommends to the Provostwhether or not an investigation should beinitiated. If the Provost concludes that aninvestigation is warranted, he or shedirects the VP for Research to appoint anindividual or committee to perform aninvestigation. The investigation submits awritten report to the VP for Research whothen delivers the report to the Provostalong with a recommendation for disci-plinary action. The Provost then adjudi-cates the case, imposing any disciplinaryactions that are warranted. MIT’s three-step process of inquiry, investigation, andadjudication mirrors that of the federalgovernment for cases of research miscon-duct (see, for example, The Office ofScience and Technology Policy,www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html, orThe Office of Research Integrity of theDepartment of Health and HumanServices, ori.dhhs.gov/).

Inquiries, investigations, and subse-quent proceedings are to be conducted

promptly and in confidence.Confidentiality in the review processis important, both to protect the rep-utations of all parties involved duringthe inquiry and investigation, as wellas to minimize interference with thereview itself.

Recently, questions of scientific mis-conduct at MIT have received mediaattention. In one case, an MIT facultymember admitted fabricating and falsify-ing research data. The investigation deter-mined that no one else in his researchgroup was involved in the misconduct orwas aware of it when it occurred. MITmade a public statement in this case toemphasize this finding. The courage ofthose who came forward with the allega-tion of misconduct in this case con-tributed to upholding our values ofintegrity and is to be applauded.

In the other case, of an allegationagainst two scientists at LincolnLaboratory, the initial inquiry report wassubmitted to the Provost at the end of2002. This report concluded that an inves-tigation was warranted and posed anumber of questions for the investigation.As required by federal guidelines, MITthen informed the Missile Defense Agency(MDA) that it intended to start an investi-gation of the case. In April 2003, MIT wasinformed by the MDA that the inquiryreport contained classified informationand that the proposed outside investiga-tors would not be granted access to it or toother relevant classified documents. TheMIT administration is moving on twotracks in this matter, as PresidentHockfield described in her letter to thecommunity in September. As part of this

process, President Hockfield has soughtadvice several times over the last sixmonths from a faculty group comprisingan extended version of the Research PolicyCommittee (Professors Suzanne Berger,Claude Canizares, Alice Gast, LornaGibson, Dan Hastings, June Matthews,Martin Schmidt, Jeffrey Shapiro, andSheila Widnall).

The first track involves ongoing discus-sions by President Hockfield and otherswith several high government officials toidentify a mutually satisfactory process foran investigation. As this matter is stillongoing, any future investigation shouldmaintain as much confidentiality as possi-ble. On a second track, at the October 19faculty meeting, President Hockfieldannounced the formation of an ad hoccommittee to “(i) identify the factors thathave complicated and delayed the satisfac-tory resolution of the allegation of scien-tific misconduct by employees at LincolnLabs, (ii) determine the implications, ifany, for how the Institute should conductitself in the future, and (iii) recommendany changes in policy and/or practice thatwould help avoid a recurrence.” Thisreview would not address the specific alle-gation of research misconduct itself. Themembers of the review committee are:Professor Claude Canizares, AssociateProvost, Institute Professor MillieDresselhaus, Professor David Litster,former Vice President for Research, andDr. Gerald Dineen, MIT Professor ofElectrical Engineering (1971-1981) andformer Director of Lincoln Laboratory(1970-1977).

As faculty, we share a strong interest inprotecting the research environment inthe most open, thoughtful, and inventiveform possible. MIT’s policies on academicmisconduct, which have served theInstitute well over many years, seek tomaintain the integrity of the academicenterprise while preserving the rights ofthe accused.

Scientific IntegrityGibson, from page 1

Lorna J. Gibson is a Professor of MaterialScience and Engineering; Faculty Chair(ljgibson@mit.edu).

Recently, questions of scientific misconduct atMIT have received media attention. In one case,an MIT faculty member admitted fabricating andfalsifying research data.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2005

5

report offers over 40 recommendationsaimed at improving access to and qualityof health care provided by the MITMedical Department, improving satisfac-tion with health insurance options, reduc-ing the cost of providing health care andhealth insurance, and enhancing “well-ness” and related health care educationinitiatives. “We believe that some of theserecommendations require urgent attentionby the MIT Administration. Others are lessurgent but should be part of a comprehen-sive longer term implementation strategy toensure that our health care and healthinsurance policies are compatible with thepursuit of MIT’s primary goals for excel-lence in education, research, and service tosociety.”

Created by former president CharlesVest in September 2004, the members ofthe Task Force included faculty, staff, andstudents. It was chaired by Professor PaulL. Joskow, Elizabeth and James KillianProfessor of Economics and Management.The Task Force was charged to examine allaspects of the costs and quality of medicalservices and health insurance coverageprovided by MIT to its students, employ-ees, retirees, and post-docs, to solicit theviews of all segments of the MIT commu-nity, to examine alternative models forproviding health care, to develop a visionfor the future of medical care and medicalinsurance at MIT, and to make recom-mendations to realize this vision.

In response to this ambitious charge,the Task Force conducted analyses of thecosts of providing medical care andmedical insurance through the MITMedical Department, the costs of careprovided through outside insuranceoptions, developed various comparativebenchmarks of the quality of MIT’s healthinsurance benefits programs and theircosts, conducted surveys of students,employees, and faculty retirees regardingtheir satisfaction with the health care andhealth insurance available to them.Members of the Task Force interviewedphysicians and nurses employed by the

Medical Department (present and past).The task force received input from theMIT Medical Management Board and theMedical Consumers’ Advisory Counciland received numerous confidential com-munications from employees, membersof their families, and current and formerstaff of the MIT Medical Department.

Task Force RecommendationsAn important component of the TaskForce’s work was the consideration ofalternative models for providing healthcare and health insurance to the MITcommunity. After careful consideration ofthe costs and benefits of alternatives andthe views of the MIT community, the TaskForce came to a unanimous conclusion:“The Task Force recommends that MITcontinue to support our longstanding exist-ing basic model for medical insurance andmedical care delivery. It has served the com-munity well. It has been damaged some-what by arbitrary and excessive budget cutsand imperfections in the way they weremanaged. The focus should be on improvingthe quality and cost effectiveness of thismodel and MIT’s ability to put in placemore effective financial management andgovernance arrangements.”

In arriving at this conclusion, the TaskForce compared the costs of providingmedical care by the MIT MedicalDepartment through the MIT HealthPlans to the costs of the Blue Cross/BlueShield and Tufts Health Plans. Roughly55% of MIT employees on the Cambridgecampus belong to the MIT Health Plan,including nearly 80% of the faculty. Theother 45% of MIT employees are enrolledin one of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plansor the Tufts Health Plan. “The analyses

performed at the request of the Task Forcesuggest that on a risk-adjusted basis, thecare provided by the MIT MedicalDepartment is no more expensive, and maybe less expensive, than care provided underthe BC/BS and Tufts plans.” Thus, the per-ception that providing employee carethrough the MIT Medical Department is

more costly than the alternatives is notconsistent with the facts.

The 40 recommendations made by theTask Force to improve the quality and costeffectiveness of the “MIT Model” include:

1. The MIT administration shouldexpress its confidence in and strongsupport of the MIT Medical Departmentand its goals. Events over the last few yearshave created uncertainty about MIT’sconfidence in the Medical Departmentand the future of the MIT Health Plansfor employees. These uncertainties shouldbe resolved by a definitive support for thecentral role of the MIT MedicalDepartment in providing health care tothe MIT community.

2. There is an urgent need to addresources to the Medical Department’sbudget quickly to improve access to careand to provide the time and resourcesrequired by caregivers to deliver highquality care. The Task Force did not wantto micromanage the delivery of care bythe Medical Department but identifiedseveral areas where consideration shouldbe given to adding or redeploying someresources. These areas include: internalmedicine, dermatology, OB/Gyn, pedi-atrics, urgent care, clinical staff support,and mental health care provided toemployees. The Task Force recommends

Medical Task Force Reportcontinued from page 1

continued on next page

“The Task Force recommends that MIT continue tosupport our longstanding existing basic model formedical insurance and medical care delivery. It hasserved the community well. It has been damagedsomewhat by arbitrary and excessive budget cutsand imperfections in the way they were managed.”

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVIII No. 2

6

that the Medical Department submit aplan to the administration within 60 days,along with a budget and evaluation of howany additional costs will be recovered.

The recommendation to add resourcesto the Medical Department should not beinterpreted as a strategy of “back to thepast.” The U.S. health care system is

dynamic and is characterized by rapidlyincreasing costs. MIT must continue toadapt to these changes and to find ways toimprove the cost effectiveness of care pro-vided by the Medical Department as wellas care provided through outside insur-ance plans.

3. Improve central MIT administra-tion’s budgeting and financial manage-ment framework for the MedicalDepartment. The Task Force concludedthat the budgeting and financial manage-ment protocols applied by MIT to theMedical Department have serious defi-ciencies. The report outlines a new budg-eting template for the MedicalDepartment that it recommends the MITadministration use for budgeting andfinancing management purposes.

Complementary efforts to improve andintegrate the MIT Medical Department’sinternal budgeting and financial manage-ments systems and improved governancearrangements for the MedicalDepartment are also recommended.

4. Continue efforts to identify and takeadvantage of opportunities for reducingcosts or increasing productivity withoutreducing the quality of care in the MedicalDepartment. Specific areas discussed in

the report include the infirmary, medicallaboratory, dental service, pharmacy, andthe use of modern information technol-ogy. Increased investment in and use ofmodern information and communicationtechnology in particular can improve thequality, expand access to care and reducethe costs of medical records, facilitateexchanges of medical information withinthe department and with outsideproviders, and help assessments of objec-tive measures of the quality of care.

5. Expand the participation of theMedical Department in MIT’s educa-tional, wellness, environmental, healthand safety initiatives, and communityoutreach programs. MIT’s wellness pro-grams are not up to best practice in indus-try. Good wellness and related educational

programs can improve the quality of lifeof students, employees and retirees andreduce health care costs in the long run.

6. Evaluate whether and how MIT canmake more effective use of the resourcesavailable in the Boston medical commu-nity by developing a closer partnershipwith one of Boston’s major hospitalgroups.

7. Improve education about the avail-ability and effective utilization of mental

health care services for students andrespond to some students’ negative per-ceptions and concerns about the mentalhealth service. More generally, improveeducation about student medical benefits,the “smart use” of the MIT MedicalDepartment and the external Boston areahealth care system for our students.

8. Strengthen MIT’s capabilities toimplement its self-insurance strategy forsetting insurance premiums and control-ling the costs of care provided throughthe Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans, theTufts Health Plan, and Medicare supple-ment plans. MIT spends (beforeemployee contributions) over $50million per year on services providedthrough these plans. The costs of theseplans require comparable attention to

Medical Task Force Reportcontinued from preceding page

1 2 3 4 5

PediatricsLaboratory Testing

RadiologyOptometry/Ophthalmology

CardiologyPrescription Coverage

Internal MedicineSurgery

ObstetricsUrologyAllergy

GynecologyDental Services

OrthopedicsMental Health

Dermatology

Faculty Satisfaction with Individual Service AreasAll Faculty Enrolled in MIT Plans

(Excludes “Not Applicable” Response)

Satisfaction Rating (1=Very Dissatisfied to 5=Very Satisfied)

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2005

7

the costs of the Medical Department.More effective management can reducecosts.

9. Phase in changes in the way healthinsurance premiums are set consistentwith the recommendations of theStrategic Review of Benefits Committee.The proposal to reflect improved riskpooling and adjustments for demo-graphic differences across health insur-ance plans can be implemented as soon aspossible. The proposals to create alterna-tives to traditional family coverage andwage-related premiums were more con-troversial and would benefit from addi-tional analysis and consultation with theMIT community.

10. Consider offering a high deductibleand high co-payment insurance optionand a Health Savings Accounts programfor employees.

ConclusionThe entire final report of the Task Forceon Medical Care for the MIT Communitycan be found at: web.mit.edu/task-force/medical. As is abundantly clear fromboth the surveys and many interviews, theavailability of high quality and convenientmedical care at a reasonable cost is impor-tant to all segments of the MIT commu-nity. Consistent with the conclusions ofthe Committee on Faculty Quality of Life(MIT Faculty Newsletter, March/April

2005, page 7), it is also clear that the vastmajority of the MIT faculty place a highvalue on the availability of health care atthe MIT Medical Department and thatreducing the availability and quality ofthese services would be considered to be amajor reduction in the quality of life ofInstitute faculty members.

Faculty

Other Employees

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0%

“What is your overall rating of the quality of services provided by your primary care physician?”(Excludes “Not Applicable” Responses)

Good Very Good Excellent

12% 29% 53%

17% 32% 43%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0%

6%

6%

77%

71%

17%

24%

“How has the quality of care provided by the MIT Medical Department changed since you have retired?”(Broken down by year of retirement)

1996-2005

1970-1995

Year

of R

etire

men

t

Gotten Worse Stayed the Same Gotten Better

Preparation of this article included contributions

by Prof. Paul Joskow, Mandy Smith, and Janet

Snover. Charts used were prepared by members

of the Office of the Provost/Institutional

Research, from surveys commissioned by the

Task Force on Medical Care for the MIT

Community. These online surveys were adminis-

tered by Jag Patel and Jeff Schiller of IS&T.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVIII No. 2

8

MIT ProfilesMerritt Roe Smith

Merritt Roe Smith is Leverett and WilliamCutten Professor of the History ofTechnology. His research focuses on thehistory of technological innovation andsocial change. His publications includeHarpers Ferry Armory and the NewTechnology (nominated for the PulitzerPrize in History) and, most recently,Inventing America: A History of the UnitedStates (co-authored with Pauline Maier,Alex Keyssar, and Daniel Kevles). He is afellow of the American Academy of Artsand Sciences.

The following interview of Prof. Smith(MRS) by the Faculty Newsletter (FNL)was conducted on November 7, 2005.

FNL: Your new textbook is entitledInventing America: A History of the UnitedStates. How did that come about?

MRS: The project started around 1991when several colleagues in the history oftechnology and I were invited to visit theSloan Foundation to discuss what it mightdo for the field of the history of technol-ogy. In the course of making my remarks

about the need for graduate studentsupport, I happened to mention how dis-appointed I was in general Americanhistory textbooks because they gave solittle attention to science and technology. Ifinished my presentation and the conver-sation moved to other subjects. Then,about two weeks later, I got a call from aprogram officer at Sloan who told me thatif I would like to put together a team ofscholars to write the kind of Americanhistory textbook I felt was needed, thefoundation would be willing to support it.I just about fell off my chair because thatwas the last thing I was expecting. Butthat’s how the project came about. Fromthere I put together a team that included atechnological historian (me), an earlyAmerican political historian (my MITcolleague Pauline Maier), a historian ofscience (Daniel Kevles of Yale), and atwentieth-century social/political histo-rian (Alex Keyssar of the Kennedy Schoolat Harvard). We began writing in 1996. Itwas a long, tedious, and difficult process,but we finished the manuscript in 2001and saw finished books the following year.

FNL: The book comes with a CD-ROM.How is that used?

MRS: The CD enables the user to projectthe text onto a computer screen and readit that way. In addition, there are extravisuals and study materials as well asinterviews that each of us did at a famoushistorical site. For example, I went to theNational Park at Lowell and did one onthe nineteenth-century textile industry

and its implications for the advent of theindustrial revolution in America. Paulinedid one of Washington’s Mount Vernon.They turned out well.

FNL: And was it really a lot a work?

MRS: I’ll say so. I could have written twomonographs in the time it took to writeeight chapters of the textbook. If I hadknown how much work it was going toentail, I might not have done it. But I’mglad I did.

FNL: I would assume there isn’t a hugefinancial payoff.

MRS: Not huge. American history istaught in virtually every college and uni-versity in the country, and as a result thereare scores of competing textbooks avail-able. So it’s not like you’re going to bedriving a Ferrari if you author a textbook.

FNL: How widely distributed is it?

MRS: It’s done quite well. The last I heardfrom our editor, it had been adopted atover 200 colleges and universities aroundthe country. One of the really pleasantsurprises is that high schools are using it,especially advanced placement classes inAmerican history. The City of San Diego,for example, adopted it for all of itsadvanced placement classes and it’s beingused a lot in junior colleges, too.

FNL: How does your textbook differ fromother American history texts?

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2005

9

MRS: Basically what we sought to do wasto take the traditional American historynarrative format and show how the inclu-sion of science and technology reconfig-ured that narrative, without making it ahistory of science or technology text. Inother words, this is a general Americanhistory textbook that has science andtechnology integrated into mainstreamdiscussions of politics and society. Itdoesn’t cover everything. We choose ourshots and then we discuss their implica-tions. It’s our angle of vision, if you will.

We knew we wanted to bring science andtechnology to bear on American historybecause we felt that it had been neglected.But once we finished the text, we realizedthat we were advancing a common theme,viz., how innovative Americans have beenas individuals and as a society. And so thetitle, Inventing America, conveys a doublemeaning: first, the country itself as aninvention that keeps getting reinvented;and, second, the multitude of ways inwhich Americans have been inventive.Science and technology are an importantpart of this story, but not the only part.The textbook is entering a second editionin January, and we’ve expanded the inno-vation theme beyond science and technol-ogy to art, literature, music, politics,jurisprudence, and other components ofAmerican culture. I believe our approachenriches and deepens not only one’sunderstanding of American history butalso America’s place in world history. Notall the story is positive, however. History ismessy and complex, with bright sides anddark sides.

FNL: I know that some of the local highschools are attempting to integrate historyand English classes to emphasize theirinterrelatedness, so that the kids arestudying history while they’re reading lit-erature that relates to that history.

MRS: I’m really happy to learn thisbecause it signals to me that teachers arebecoming more willing to cross discipli-

nary boundaries and that learning isbecoming more integrated. I think thatrepresents the future in secondary andhigher education. When I hear SusanHockfield speak about the need forgreater interdisciplinarity at MIT, I sensethat her educational vision is for some-thing much broader and interconnectedthan has existed in the past. I think thereis a real opportunity here. MIT led theworld in introducing what becameknown as engineering science. It inte-grated science and engineering years ago,and introduced a new way of educatingengineers – for which it became justlyfamous. For the last 10 or 15 years MITfaculty have been concerned that “othersare catching up” and thus asking “what’sthe next step for us?” I think the next stepis a more pervasive form of boundarycrossing – one that involves intersectionsnot only between the schools of scienceand engineering but all the schools atMIT. The current discussions of the GIR,as difficult as they’ve been, seem to bemoving in this direction.

Other boundary crossing activities exist atthe Institute – for example, the Programon Emerging Technologies (PoET), whichinvolves the Political Science Department,the Engineering Systems Division, and theSTS Program and is supported by anIGERT grant from NSF. This graduateprogram brings engineering studentstogether with social scientists and human-ists in the classroom and on research proj-ects about the uncertainties and impactsof new technologies. It has been fascinat-ing to watch them interact and worktogether and, in the process, not onlylearn from their professors, but from oneanother. Although they retain a strongdisciplinary focus in their dissertations,each is shaped by a multi-disciplinaryexperience. More informed and percep-tive work is being produced as a result. Asfar as I’m concerned, this is the future. It’swhere MIT should lead in the twenty-firstcentury.

FNL: I understand you are a housemaster.How did that come about?

MRS: One night at dinner several yearsago I remarked to my wife, Bronwyn, thatI’d been at MIT almost 25 years and couldcount on one hand the number of times Ihad been west of Massachusetts Avenue toan undergraduate student function. I saidthat “I am at MIT but I don’t feel like I’mof MIT.” I didn’t really understand whatthe student culture was like. I knew themas students in the classroom, not aspeople. I felt that there was a big gap in mylife at the Institute. Thanks to a graduatestudent who was a GRT [GraduateResident Tutor] at MacGregor House, Iwas invited to become a faculty fellow ofEntry J. It was a wonderful experience. Ireally enjoyed interacting with the stu-dents on their turf and from then on, Iknew that I wanted to become a house-master.

FNL: So this necessitated you and yourwife moving on campus?

MRS: Yes, we are at Burton-Conner wherewe’re housemasters with some 350 under-graduate students.

FNL: Wow.

MRS: Wow is right.

FNL: I’m laughing because I’m envision-ing you being in your office and in class,and then instead of going home and relax-ing you’re in the maelstrom.

MRS: It is in the maelstrom, to be sure,but it’s also very interesting and veryrewarding. By and large MIT undergradu-ates are special. We’ve grown very fond ofthem. They tend to work hard and, attimes, play hard. It’s the latter that con-cerns us. As a housemaster, you have to beprepared that any minute you’ll get aphone call saying “we’ve got a problem”and you’ve got to drop everything andattend to it. It could be something rela-

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVIII No. 2

10

tively minor, or it could be somethingserious. We’ve experienced both. But thebest thing about being a housemaster isthe students. They’re wonderful.

FNL: What would you say is the key tobeing a successful housemaster in anundergraduate residence?

MRS: I don’t know that there is any onekey. Activism is very important. You can’tjust live in a house and build a cocoonaround yourself. If you do that, you’reasking for trouble. I try to be as visible aspossible. Every weekend I like to walk allnine floors and check in with everyone.

FNL: And what do you look for?

MRS: Nothing in particular. I just want tomake sure that things are OK and let thestudents know that I’m around and avail-able if they need me. Walking the hallsalso gives me a chance to meet studentsand strike up conversations. I also usethese occasions to remind them not toendanger themselves or others. That’s thenumber one rule of the house.

FNL: Would you recommend becoming ahousemaster to other faculty?

MRS: I would definitely recommend it,but you have to have a certain tempera-ment to be a housemaster. If you don’t likeloud music at all times of the day withstereo loudspeakers literally vibrating thefloor above you, you’re probably not goingto like being a housemaster. Students liketheir music and they raise hell periodi-cally. I don’t mind it so long as they don’thurt themselves or anyone else. That’swhere I draw the line.

FNL: Don’t you find it impinging on yourspace or quiet time?

MRS: Not really. My friends think I keepstrange hours, but they work well with ref-erence to my role as a housemaster. Iusually take a nap early in the evening,then get up and watch the news, thenwork until four or five in the morning.The most active hours for Burton-Connerstudents are between ten in the eveningand two or three in the morning. So I’mawake pretty much when the students areawake. I’m around when they need me tobe around.

FNL: Does your wife work outside theInstitute?

MRS: Bronwyn is a former editor who isvery active in her church in Newton. Shehas long been involved in preparing mealsfor homeless people and other church-related outreach activities. During the pastyear she’s been directing more and moreof her energies toward Burton-Conner.Bronwyn turns out to be really good withyoung people who are having emotionaland psychological difficulties. We make agood team because I tend to be moreadept at dealing with inter-personal anddisciplinary problems. One of the goodthings about being a housemaster are theexcellent emergency, medical, and coun-seling resources that are available 24 hoursa day. The people who provide these serv-ices are highly competent, which helpsbecause we’re not expert in student lifematters. Our job is not necessarily to solveevery problem but to know who to callwhen one arises.

FNL: That’s improved a lot in the lastseveral years.

MRS: It definitely has. I think MIT’sadministration has worked hard to makelife a whole lot better for students than itused to be. MIT has come a long way andreally puts serious effort into making surestudents are well cared for. When theyneed help, they get it.

FNL: And what does it do for you beingwith younger people in that role?

MRS: It enlivens my life. I feel much morefulfilled about being a professor here thanI did before. I feel like I’m much more apart of MIT – and not just with students.I actually meet more faculty and morepeople in the administration as a result ofbeing a housemaster. It’s nice, very nice.

FNL: A final thought?

MRS: When I first told my colleagues thatI was going to become a housemaster,several looked at me and said “are youcrazy; what in the heck are you thinkingof?” So there is an attitude among somecolleagues that housemastering is one ofthe last things an MIT professor shouldget involved with. And for some that maybe true. But I do think, as I said before,that faculty need to become involved andbetter acquainted with students in theirsocial settings. We just don’t know enoughabout them as people.

FNL: What’s interesting to me is the paral-lel between your interdisciplinary work,the Inventing America book, your advo-cacy of multidisciplinary learning, and theintegration of faculty and students in away that doesn’t separate them as teacherand student. There’s a similar theme here.

MRS: It is a convergent theme and I’mglad you’ve pointed that out because all ofthem are important to me. They aredoubtless connected. I think interdiscipli-nary teaching and research represent thefuture and that MIT is on the groundfloor. I sincerely hope that, despite all thechallenges and uncertainties, the Institutewill build in this direction. It’s an areawhere MIT could make a huge contribu-tion. I’ve seen enough in instances likePoET to know that it works.

FNL: Thank you, Professor Smith.

Merritt Roe Smithcontinued from preceding page

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2005

11

OF SUPREME IMPORTANCE

The instruction sheet for the Papco Flaring Toolfits in your palm when folded and opensto three inches by four and a half,both sides densely printed.It is protected in a plastic sleeve that's yellow nowand hard enough to cut your finger tips.Two machinist's drawings and 304 words name its parts -- including Body, Lever, Strap,Strap Bushing, Eccentric Adjusting Screw,Clamp Yoke, Indexing Ball, Cone Dowel Pin -- and explain the working of this plumber's hand-tool,how the compression screw and swivel cone swing aside for clearsighting, the hexagon clamp expanding or contracting on calibrated gears that turn precisely after seventy years.Papco Forge and Foundry, Dayton, Ohio,machined the instrument between the two World Warsand produced this tiny, illustrated biblewhich lauds one virtue of the tool,its ability to close-flare very short lengths of tubing,as "of supreme importance to refrigeration men."

-- for Arthur Mattuck

MIT Poetry

David Thorburn is Professor of Literature andDirector of the Communications Forum at MIT.

by David Thorburn

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVIII No. 2

12

David Gordon WilsonTyranny Against a Whistle-Blower at MIT

T H E FAC U LT Y N E W S L E T T E R H A S

taken the gutsy stand that Ted Postol’sserious allegations should be examined(“Taking Responsibility,” Vol. XVIII No 1,September/October 2005). What I amwriting about now concerns another veryunhappy matter: the cover-up of acts ofappalling abuse by senior people at MITagainst a whistle-blower, Jim Grinnell.

First let me give a little relevant back-ground. I came on the faculty ofMechanical Engineering in February1966, and was given a new-faculty chore:oversight of the undergraduate work-shops for a couple of years. The safetyconditions were deplorable, and I forcedthrough, against staff opposition, a bunchof safety measures. When my period ofresponsibility ended, the conditions grad-ually slipped back to those pre-existing.When Jim Grinnell was hired in 1981 toteach drafting, he had his students work inthe shops. I learned much later that at thattime he asked repeatedly for the Victorianconditions to be made safer, withoutresponse, and after one of his students wasinjured in the shops, he reported MIT toOSHA (Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration), thereby unleashing atyranny against him from his superiors.

I am writing this note because I havespent 10 years on this case. I have appealedto every possible official at MIT; from thedean of engineering to the president andthe chair of the Corporation, to the chairof the faculty, asking for a commission ofinquiry or an independent arbitrator toreview this tyranny and the reasons whythe incontrovertible evidence I producedhas been dismissed without examination.I have been rejected at every step. Thepeople I went to all apparently asked thefoxes about the welfare of the chickens.After following a request by Grinnell’s

attorney to attend a hearing on Grinnell’sbehalf which the attorney could notattend, I have been thrown out of courtand threatened with imprisonment byJudge Hiller Zobell – undoubtedly myfinest hour at MIT. (The MIT attorneyswere smirking as I left.)

You may, and I hope will, read aboutthe case, including most of the evidence,on a Website that Jim Grinnell and I havedrawn up: mitwhistleblower.homepage.nu.I will not let it continue to be considered“case closed” on the word of people wholie and perjure with apparent impunity.Their actions brought about the near totaldestruction of Jim Grinnell, a loyal, dedi-cated, and absolutely honest employee,and of his family, and, in Jim’s opinion,the suicide of one of Jim’s former stu-dents. MIT’s cover-up of this awful affairis exactly parallel to the cover-up initiallyinstigated by the Catholic Church, theU.S. Air Force Academy, Enron, ArthurAndersen, WorldCom, and other organi-zations that were touted as tops in theirfields. I am utterly revolted by it.

Jim Grinnell went to night schoolfrom 1970 to 1980 to earn his Master’sdegree in education at Fitchburg StateCollege, and he was a tenured junior highschool shop teacher in Norwell, MA,when he was hired to teach drafting atthe Institute. Despite the totally falseclaim by his supervisor in a 1998 affidavitthat Grinnell was hired to teach therequired engineering course 2.70, tran-scripts and personnel records prove thathe had no training or experience inmechanical design, calculus, physics, orengineering. This is relevant because partof the tyranny against Grinnell was torequire him to supervise a section of acourse for which he had no training orcapability.

The case against Jim was based on liesand perjuries on the part of two seniorcolleagues and on the part of lawyersworking for MIT. I have presented incon-testable evidence of these appalling liesand perjuries many times, starting with aletter to my then department head onFebruary 15, 1999, and copied to fivesenior officers at MIT including PresidentVest (these letters are all on the Website).No inquiry into the evidence I presentedhas been made to my knowledge. It is thisaspect that needs an outside commission.The fact that no one wants to examine thisproblem forces me to label it as a majorcover-up.

President Vest came across to me as athoroughly nice and decent person.However, he was surrounded by andappeared to rely on mendacious people,especially the MIT attorneys. When JimGrinnell asked me to help him in 1994 Iwas initially reluctant, because he wascomplaining of alleged actions by friendsof mine. I found, however, that one ofthem had committed multiple perjuriesin an affidavit; but he adamantly refusedto discuss the case with me. I was drawnin deeper by a phone call on May 19, 1998from Thomas Henneberry, then directorof insurance and legal affairs for MIT,who told me that I must not “as anemployee” work to help Grinnell exceptthrough the MIT attorneys (who wereaiding in promulgating the perjuries andfalsehoods). I told him that I was not anemployee, being long retired, and thateven if I were an employee I would helpsomeone who seemed to be victimized.He then phoned my department headwith the same message.

The department head invited me tomeet him on May 29, 1998. He told mewhat turned out to be several appalling

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2005

13

lies about Grinnell, among them thatGrinnell “had broken into departmentalHQ and had stolen his records.” I checkedinto these accusations (the checking tookmany months) and brought evidence tomy department head on February 10,1999 that the allegations were totallyuntrue, and that he had been repeatingthese slanders, even though his assistant,Julie Drennan, had corrected him aboutthem. He did not deny his repeated false-hoods, but said that Drennan “was nogood: I fired her.” He didn’t: she left tohave a baby and returned to work in thedepartment in good standing. However,the department head wrote to the MEfaculty repeating mendacities aboutGrinnell. I did not respond, because Ithought that one of the many other seniorpeople to whom I went would take action.They did nothing. They became part ofthe cover-up.

I have been repeatedly told that “therehave been a number of examinations ofMr. Grinnell’s claims, including judicialproceedings in which he was represented

by counsel and in which he settled hisclaims against MIT.” In fact, Grinnell wasseldom represented by counsel becausethe MIT attorneys and the departmenthead in particular practiced a series ofdirty tricks (like Henneberry’s above)starting with the naming of a three-person grievance committee that did notinclude a representative chosen byGrinnell (as stipulated by MIT’s policies)and that held its hearings without talkingto Grinnell, who by that time had beenhospitalized in a severely depressed state.

Despite these serious shortcomings,the grievance committee concluded thatGrinnell had been treated badly, a findingnot acknowledged by the departmenthead nor by the MIT attorneys. WhileGrinnell was in the hospital and while hisgrievance was supposedly being investi-gated, the department head retroactivelyfired him. As a result, Grinnell’s pay andthen his medical insurance were canceledillegally and without notice. WhenGrinnell tried to question these terriblypenalizing conditions, he was told that no

discussion could take place so long as hehad an attorney, so Grinnell fired him.Then an MIT attorney illegally obtainedGrinell’s psychologist’s notes about him.This type of action occurred throughoutGrinnell’s agonies at MIT. The SocialSecurity Administration determined thatGrinnell was mentally disabled before hewas illegally fired by our departmenthead, and he has remained disabled to thepresent. At this time, Jim Grinnell is onlong-term disability (although MIT isapparently trying to stop it); he has losthis house, his marriage, his career, and isnearly destitute. He also has a canceroustumor near his spine.

At this stage it seems that the onlymeans that will clean up the rottennessthat is within some parts of MIT is publicexposure through an independent com-mission of inquiry. It saddens me greatlyto have to ask for this.

David Gordon Wilson is a Professor ofMechanical Engineering, Emeritus(dgwilson@mit.edu).

G OV E R N M E N T- F U N D E D G R A N T S

increasingly require investigators to elec-tronically preserve and share researchresults. Providing quality metadata thatorganizes and describes research resultscan be essential to increasing the likeli-hood of securing funding and satisfyinggrant requirements.

MIT now offers an on-campus solutionfor metadata design and production. TheMIT Libraries’ Metadata Service unit(libraries.mit.edu/metadata) provides afull range of support for digital productionprojects, including large grant-fundedprojects and individual faculty initiatives.

Metadata Services can help prepareyour research for deposit in open-accessarchives and institutional repositories, likePubMed and DSpace.

Metadata Services is already playing animportant role in several MIT educationaltechnology initiatives. Their work lever-ages metadata to make MIT’s digitalresources easier to find, use, and share.

For MIT OpenCourseWare, MetadataServices provides metadata design andproduction services to share educationalresources used in MIT classrooms withthe world. Metadata Services plays anintegral part in the design of DSpacemetadata and can offer expertise inpreparing systems for integration with theinstitutional repository.

Metadata Services is also involved inongoing projects with MetaMedia, TheSingapore-MIT Alliance (SMA), TheCenter for Reflective Community Practice(CRCP), and the MIT Museum.

Find out moreInvestigators in the process of writinggrant proposals can contact MetadataServices to find out more about metadatasolutions for dissemination requirements.

Metadata Services offers:• Strategies to increase access to your

research• Consultation and project planning• Development and implementation of

metadata schemes and standards• Instruction programs that teach

metadata creation and use• Expert, cost-effective metadata pro-

duction services.For more information, contact

Robert Wolfe rwolfe@mit.edu or visit:libraries.mit.edu/metadata/.

MIT Libraries Offer Metadata Support

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVIII No. 2

14

Joseph H. SalehOn Values and a Caring Meritocracy for MIT

An invitation to the MIT community

TH E R E I S A S IG N-POST one can findin France, at train crossings or in stationsthat reads as follows: “Attention! Un trainpeut cacher un autre.” Beware! One trainmight hide/be hiding another one. I oftenfound the statement amusing, and useful.Taken figuratively, I imagined the sign toserve as an invitation to be cautious ormindful of potential negative side effectsthat can come in the wake of a commit-ment to an idea: whether one is watchinga train coming his or her way, or riding atrain heading in some direction, ordesigning the train and the tracks to headin some direction (an observer, a partici-pant, and a designer respectively), thatsignpost stood as a reminder for me to bemindful, however attractive an idea or adirection might be, of the possible hiddentrains or negative side-effects that cancome in its wake. And to do somethingabout them when I can. It is in this spiritthat I write this piece, and the train that Iwant to both celebrate and participate inmitigating its possible negative effects isMIT’s commitment to meritocracy.

I feel privileged and grateful to be part ofan institution committed to meritocracy.

Having come to the English languagethrough a couple of language hops, I haveoften found it useful, in order to under-stand a new English word, to look up itsantonyms. For meritocracy, I found nepo-tism, favoritism, preferential treatment,and discrimination: opportunities givento individuals based on other considera-tions than their personal merit. That,along with some personal experience ofthese latter attitudes, only strengthenedmy conviction of the merits of meritoc-racy, and my gratefulness for the opportu-nity to be part of an institution that shunsall these unpleasant dispositions, and pro-claims that individuals will be evaluated

based on the content of their characterand their merit, not what they have inher-ited or were born into (of wealth, of phys-ical traits). This is one train I am happy tobe on.

But then, that French sign-post comesto mind: “Attention! Un train peut cacherun autre.” And I find myself incapable ofbeing unconditionally enthusiastic aboutmeritocracy: in its wake, a few unpleasantthings can tag along if one is not careful. Ihope the following is seen as my meagerattempt to make MIT a better, morecaring place; I have a lot of affection forthis wonderful place and the people whomake it, and I hope this write-up is viewedas an attempt to start and enrich a dia-logue on meritocracy.

Performance pressure and carelessmeritocracyThere is a wonderful work ethic amongstudents, faculty, and staff at MIT. Peoplework very hard at the Institute, and feel toa varying degree, but it is undeniablythere, some performance pressure orwork-related stress. Performance pressurein turn, while useful in small doses, whenit spirals out of control, can become quitedistressful and significantly compromisethe happiness and well-being of an indi-vidual. Meritocracy, without further qual-ification, can be seen as a cold, impersonalsystem that order ranks individuals basedon some performance metric(s), and mayfoster an environment of increased com-petitiveness among individuals, thusincreasing performance pressure andwork-related stress. This is not what MITneeds, increased emphasis on perform-ance. Academic excellence and intellectualleadership are as intrinsic to MIT as theInfinite Corridor. And even when theInfinite Corridor moves out of MIT, aca-

demic excellence, I suspect, will remain.Instead, what I believe is most needed atMIT is the commitment from the facultyand senior administration to create acaring environment.

“Caring” is perhaps the most under-rated characteristic of academic institu-tions and yet I believe it is one that is mostuseful and needed. Until social scientistsprove me wrong, I will keep believing thatpeople work better and more creativelywhen they are feeling happy and empow-ered than when they are feeling sad,depressed, or helpless. And should I beproven wrong, I would prefer to foster anenvironment in which people are happyrather than “better workers.” In a recentmental health survey at Berkeley, 12% ofthe respondents reported feeling helpless,50% overwhelmed, 41% exhausted, 10%depressed, and 10% seriously contem-plated suicide.

These are very sad findings! I cannothelp but wonder what is the root cause ofthis, whether at Berkeley, MIT, or else-where, and what can be done about it. Atthe root of it, I hypothesize, there is thefollowing dangerous mixture: significantperformance pressure, coupled with acareless environment (e.g., a dysfunc-tional relationship between a student andhis or her advisor, or between a juniorfaculty and his or her senior mentors). Inorder to do something about thesenumbers, and I take it for granted that weall feel a collective responsibility towardsmaking MIT a better, happier place forstudying and working, I invite the facultyand administration to slightly shift theemphasis from (valuing only) the per-formance of an individual to the well-being of each individual. Let me proposethe following compromise: instead oftalking about meritocracy, perhaps our

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2005

15

administration can promote a “caringmeritocracy” instead.

Meritocracy without empowermentcan be a scary systemDespite my previous concerns, I remainenthusiastic about meritocracy, and evenmore so if it were a “caring meritocracy,”and feel privileged to be part of an institu-tion committed to meritocracy (the anti-nepotism, favoritism, and discrimination).

Still, that French signpost comes againto mind. And I see another potentialproblem with meritocracy. Let me tell youa story to illustrate my point. I recentlylearned that in my home country, some-time during the 1950s, a group of villagerscame to their representative, a member ofa rich and powerful family, and asked tohim to intercede with the government inorder to build schools for their communi-ties. That person replied that that shouldnot be necessary since “I am sending myson to school for you, so that he can latercare for your interests.” After my disgustsubsided, I imagined that the son, in ameritocracy, would most likely have aleadership position in his community,simply because others less privileged didnot have an opportunity to attend schooland later compete with him. This is theother potential problem with meritoc-racy: it can promote the privileged andlock those who had less fortunate initialsocio-economic conditions out of thesystem.

It seems one problem with meritocracyrevolves around the timing of meritocracy:when should it start? And when should thepromotion of inclusiveness and egalitarianethics prevail? I have no ready answer forthis, but I have a slight preference forinclusiveness and diversity before the racefor performance begins (e.g., whenrecruiting new students or faculty). Onlyafterwards, can and should the same per-formance standards apply to all. I am suredifferent groups would want to be evalu-ated according to the same standards andfigures of merit as everybody else.

I know the social structure in thiscountry is very complex and I will notventure an opinion on this vast subject. I

only hope that MIT has some thoughtfulpolicies in place to overcome legacies ofpast discriminations before a meritocracyis committed to.

Meritocracy implies transparency andconsistency on what constitutes“merit”Despite my previous concerns, I remainenthusiastic about meritocracy, and evenmore so if it were a “caring meritocracy”that first includes and empowers a diversegroup of individuals before it sets up toevaluate them based on some perform-ance measure.

But whichever way I look at it, meri-tocracy remains ill-defined until onearticulates what constitutes “merit” in anenvironment, and what are the figures ofmerit that are being evaluated. It is alsoonly fair that these figures of merit beexplicitly stated and made known toeveryone on the starting blocks (not men-tioned later during the race, or kepthidden with the evaluators).

Transparency of the figures of merit is anecessary condition for a meritocracy toactually be one. Without this transparency,favoritism and even discrimination can becloaked in a meritocratic mantle. So whatare the figures of merit in the meritocracythat MIT is committed to? I hope theadministration will articulate to the MITcommunity what constitutes “merit” (andI hope fostering a caring environment willfigure in the figures of merit for faculty).What goes without saying goes even betterby saying it.

Consistency: In addition to trans-parency, when I think about meritocracy, Iassociate with it the word “one-ness.” Onemeritocracy for all, at all times. A meritoc-racy becomes suspicious when it is tem-porarily or locally suspended (pockets ofunmeritocracy). Let me tell you anotherstory before I continue this line ofthought. There is an interesting ritual inthe space industry before a new satellite islaunched: the operators get togetherbefore the launch date and think veryhard about all the ways they can imagineto break the satellite. Once they have donethat, they use what they have come up

with as the list of what they shouldabsolutely not to do when flying the satel-lite. I feel on a similar list for a meritoc-racy, there is inconsistency: differentperformance standards applying to differ-ent people, some of the time. One guaran-teed way for breaking a meritocracy is tohave different figures of merit for differentindividuals.

Consistency and transparency on whatconstitutes merit are necessary conditionsfor a meritocracy to actually be one.

On meritocracy and valuesMy last point is not really a new one. I

have already alluded to this concern in thelast two sections: that performance meas-ures will drive, to a certain extent, somecorresponding behavior in individuals,and perhaps curtail other behaviors. Forexample, if in a galaxy far far away, a uni-versity president claims that rudeness isthe measure of merit in his or her estab-lishment, such a statement will most likelyencourage rudeness at this university andcurtail respectful interactions among itsmembers. It is also likely to attract andretain rude people. More seriously, mypoint is that meritocracy requires that wefirst articulate what constitutes “merit,”and what constitutes merit in turn shouldreflect 1) our values, 2) what kind ofpeople we want to attract and retain, and3) what kind of behaviors we want topromote and encourage. So while talkingabout meritocracy, perhaps even betterwhile talking about a “caring meritoc-racy,” we can also talk about our sharedvalues at MIT.

I hope that my take on meritocracy isseen as my meager attempt to make MIT abetter, more caring place; I recognize mer-itocracy is a delicate topic and any expres-sion of opinion about it may be subject tomisinterpretation. I am happy to furtherclarify points I raised in this write-up, tofurther discuss it, or to be convinced ofdifferent views on the subject. I hope thiswrite-up is viewed as my attempt to startand enrich a dialogue on meritocracy.

Joseph H. Saleh is Executive Director of theFord-MIT Alliance (jsaleh@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVIII No. 2

16

energy supply, global climate change, andhealth care – are being faced at a time ofboth increasing international competitionand increasing public unease about theethical and social implications of particu-lar developments. In this context, there iswidespread concern about the state ofscience and technology education in theschools, about the supply of scientists andengineers into the work force, and aboutthe prospects for preserving a climate ofpublic opinion that is conducive to pio-neering research and innovation.

As a pre-eminent center of excellencein science and technology, MIT has a par-ticular responsibility in relation to thesechallenges. Historically, MIT has alwaysrecognized an obligation to serve thenation. Today, such service needs toembrace deep commitment not only toresearch and innovation, but also to closerengagement with the wider communitiesthat have a stake in the nation’s futurewith science and technology. It would beidle, however, to pretend that MIT doesnot also face difficulties in this area. AsPresident Susan Hockfield has observedon more than one occasion, MIT appearsto be one of America’s best-kept secrets.The greater part of the Institute’s researchis “invisible” to the general public; thecampus itself is notoriously hard to navi-gate; and while there are a number of out-reach initiatives, in the main these appearto be ill focused and uncoordinated.

A Proposed InitiativeWhat, then, is needed? MIT has a uniqueopportunity to take a lead – locally,regionally, nationally – in raising thepublic profile of the scientific and techno-logical research conducted in the nation’sgreat research universities. I propose anInstitute-wide Initiative in PublicEngagement with Science andTechnology. This initiative will embrace:research and teaching in the publicdimensions of science and technology andscience communication; museum collect-ing and exhibiting in relation to current

scientific and technological researchacross the campus; new educational, adultand community programs aimed at facili-tating public engagement with the latestscientific and technological research;multi-media outreach to MIT’s globalcommunity; and last, but not least, thecreation of a new “Gateway” or portal tothe MIT campus for visitors of all kinds.

Naturally, the New MIT Museum willbe situated at the center of this Initiative.Strategically relocated within the newGateway facility, the Museum will becomea primary point of reference for visitorswho wish to know more about science,technology, and other areas of scholarshipat MIT. Through its extended presenceacross the campus, the Museum willengage visitors with the creative life of theInstitute; through its traveling exhibitions

and electronic outreach programs, it willconnect audiences worldwide with thesignificance of MIT’s work; and throughits partnerships in research and teaching,it will be an international center of excel-lence in public engagement with scientificand technological research.

I see the New MIT Museum as a newkind of museum; not only a place for cele-brating the achievements of the past(though of course we shall do that) butalso a place for participating in the chal-lenges of the present and the immediatefuture. To be sure, the New MIT Museumwill have important historical collectionsand galleries; but it will also provide direct

access to cutting-edge research and inno-vation. Virtual “port-holes” will allow vis-itors to see into labs across the campus;and even more radically, research andinnovation projects will be conductedright inside the Museum, in purpose-builtpublic laboratories where visitors will beable to interact directly with scientists andengineers as they go about their work.

Impractical, you think? Not at all.Some science museums in Europe andNorth America have already pilotedresearch in the galleries; and a new sciencemuseum in Tokyo actually combines avisitor attraction and a research labora-tory in one facility. We shall build on thesepioneering initiatives and take them to thenext stage by opening up the whole ofMIT’s research and innovation to variousforms of public access. An initiative

already in its early stages in the MITMuseum points the way. TheCollaborative Mapping Project aims to re-invent the entire Institute as an extendedelectronic “museum without walls”: visi-tors will use satellite navigation technolo-gies combined with electronic hand-helddevices to take “virtual tours,” discoveringthe history and contemporary practice ofscience and technology at the Institute asthey explore the campus.

A Strategic PlanThe New MIT Museum won’t be createdovernight. Our new 5-Year Strategic Planidentifies a series of key steps that will

The New MIT MuseumDurant, from page 1

Arthur Ganson Kinetic Sculptures (current museum exhibit)

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2005

17

steadily move the Museum closer to ourlong-term goal. Early steps involve radicalnew programs that will help open upMIT’s research to the wider community inCambridge and Boston. The first of theseis Soap Box, a series of mid-week, earlyevening salon-style conversations abouttopical issues in science and technology.Organized in partnership with The BostonGlobe, Soap Box events will comprise: aprofile of a chosen researcher and researchissue in the Health and Science section ofthe Globe on the Monday; a Soap Boxevent featuring the chosen researcher andissue in the MIT Museum on the Tuesdayor Wednesday evening; and the posting ofthe event on-line via the MIT Website andBoston.com later that same week. The firstSoap Box took place at 6:00 pm onTuesday 15th November, when BroadInstitute Professor David Altshuler dis-cussed the ethical and social implicationsof the International HapMap Project.

A second, even bolder program initia-tive on which we’re working is the cre-ation of a Cambridge Science Festival.Imagine that MIT, Harvard, and other keyplayers were to collaborate with the Cityof Cambridge in organizing a regular cel-ebration of science and technology over aperiod of a few days or a week at a well-chosen time of year. The Festival programwould include hundreds of differentevents – concerts, debates, demonstra-tions, exhibitions, lectures, plays, poetryreadings, street theater, etc., etc. – and asmaller number of key city-wide events.Perhaps one such event could be an“Open House” day, on which every

science and technology institution in thecity (including every department andcenter at MIT) opened its doors to visi-tors. Cambridge is Science City; itdeserves a Science Festival.

A Higher ProfileWe’re working to give the MIT Museum amuch higher profile in the community.One major problem is that we’re currentlytucked away on the second floor of ourmain building at 265 MassachusettsAvenue. Fortunately, an opportunity hasarisen for us to occupy a key part of theground floor of the building. If we securethis space we can bring a new, dynamicMuseum presence – not just our entrance,but also fast-changing news & viewsexhibits, educational and adult programs,and a much-needed café – right ontoMassachusetts Avenue. We’re even talkingwith WGBH Boston about filming scienceand technology shows for broadcast inthis new space! Radically improving ourvisibility as well as our offer to visitors,this move will increase visitation to theMuseum by at least fifty percent. Withoutdoubt, it’s the single most importantshort-term initiative that we intend toundertake to move the Museum in thedirection it needs to go.

I could go on. Following the expansiononto the ground floor of our presentbuilding, we plan a series of high-profiletemporary and traveling exhibitions and aperiod when the MIT Museum will go “onthe road” in the lead-up to the opening ofthe New MIT Museum in its brand newfacility.

A DreamRather than continue to describe ourplans, however, I’d like to close with adream:

It’s 2011, MIT’s 150th anniversary year,and one of East Cambridge’s best-knownand most distinctive historic buildings isopening to the public in a completely newguise. Situated at the heart of the MITCampus, the Metropolitan Warehouse hasbeen renovated and repurposed as a mag-nificent gateway to MIT.

The Main Entrance and Lobby of theMetropolitan Warehouse on MassachusettsAvenue welcome all of MIT’s many differ-ent visitors. A Central Information Deskprovides orientation and offers an electronichand-held guide to the campus; surround-ing exhibits tell the MIT story; an electronicbulletin board provides daily campus newsand views; and a cafe and restaurantprovide attractive places to pause and takeeverything in.

From the Main Entrance, visitors accessall parts of the Metropolitan Warehouse,including: “gateway” functions (e.g., infor-mation center, student admissions, commu-nity relations); academic functions (e.g.,Center for Public Engagement withScience); archival functions (e.g., the newGehry Archive); and teaching facilities (e.g.,1000-seat auditorium).

The new MIT Museum is the centerpieceof the Metropolitan Warehouse. Accesseddirectly from the Main Entrance, theMuseum introduces visitors to some ofMIT’s most important and intriguing work– past and present. In state-of-the-art gal-leries and program spaces, the Museumprovides unique access to what MIT doesbest – innovative cutting-edge researchapplied to the solution of practical problemsin the real world.

Some galleries display the Museum’s his-toric collections; others are devoted to key sci-entific and technological subjects – brain andcognition, genetics and genomics, roboticsand artificial intelligence, etc; and yet othersfeature fast-changing temporary exhibitions– on emerging technologies across theInstitute; and on topical issues at the inter-face between science, technology, and society.

continued on next page

Artist’s Rendering of Redesigned Street Level Entrance for Current MIT Museum

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVIII No. 2

18

Linked to the main galleries is a suite ofinnovative hands-on facilities designed tosupport direct public engagement with theresearch process. Live webcam “port-holes”provide direct access to research sites andstaff across the campus; and a “live science”laboratory supports research projects on thegallery floor. At the heart of the newMuseum lies The Forum, a central theaterin the round designed to facilitate a widerange of deliberative programs – Soap Boxevents, debates, town-hall meetings, etc.

The new MIT Museum is a test-bed fornew communication techniques and tech-

nologies. Associated closely with it, theCenter for Public Engagement in Sciencesupports cutting edge research on publicunderstanding of and engagement withscience, serving as a bridge between the aca-demic work of the Institute and the practicalefforts of the Museum.

The Grand Opening Ceremony of thenew MIT Museum @ The MetropolitanWarehouse is presided over by PresidentSusan Hockfield and attended by past pres-idents, senior officers of the Institute, dis-tinguished alumni, senior figures in theCities of Cambridge and Boston, and repre-sentatives of the wider academic,commercial, educational and politicalcommunities.

The new MIT Museum @ theMetropolitan Warehouse goes on to attract150,000 visitors in its first full year – thelargest number ever by a factor of 3. For thefirst time in its history, MIT has a publicplace that lives and breathes its distinctivespirit of creativity, innovation, and entre-preneurship; at last, MIT is truly “on themap” for the wider community.

This is, of course, a dream. But with theInstitute’s support, your help and lots ofhard work, I believe it can be a reality.

The New MIT MuseumDurant, from preceding page

To The Faculty Newsletter:

B E N E F I T S H A S A LWAYS B E E N astealth topic at MIT. There is the storyabout Karl Compton assigning the MITtreasurer, Horace Ford, I think, – after all,this is only gossip – the task of writingSlater’s large monthly salary check andgiving it to him privately when Comptoninduced Slater to take over the PhysicsDepartment. And there is democracy likethat in Italian universities. When I askedwhy the Italian full professors were onstrike by themselves, saying was there nodemocracy? Of course, there is democ-racy, democracy among full professors,was the reply.

After a couple of attempts at gettingbenefits by asking my administrativesuperior I concluded that effort wasbeneath my dignity and that of my super-visor. One request was for a sabbaticalleave to write a book. I was told that atMIT professors wrote books during their

regular service. One other request wasturned down with the explanation thatone did not ask for that at MIT. But I didget the benefit the next term. So to pre-serve the dignity and friendship of my col-leagues I gave myself the benefits I neededusing my consulting practice income.

I do feel sorry for the younger profes-sors who have not developed good trac-tion on the career treadmill to play thisgame that goes on now between the aca-demic who must generate a good offerfrom another university and the retentionpackage they talk about that they receivedfrom their department. It would be nice tothink of administrators generouslyrewarding a professor with what he isreally worth. But in a system in which pro-fessors are assumed to have great adminis-trative skill, this is not achieved. I ran abusiness once, and it took me a couple ofyears of intense study weekends to learnthe skills needed for the job. It has alwaysseemed to me that at MIT those skills are

assumed to be passed along with thepassing of the key to the front office,though the Sloan School seems to say ittakes years of study.

Sincerely yours,

M.W.P. StrandbergProfessor of Physics, Emeritus

The Benefits Game

letters

From The Editor

In the September/October issue of theFaculty Newsletter, we published a letterfrom Prof. Hugh Gusterson comment-ing on MIT’s response to Prof. TedPostol’s allegations of scientific fraud atLincoln Labs. In that issue, we inadver-tently omitted the information thatProf. Gusterson is a colleague of Prof.Postol in STS and that his wife is amember of Prof. Postol’s research team.

John Durant is Director, MIT Museum; AdjunctProfessor, Program in Science, Technology &Society (jdurant@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2005

19

Samuel Jay KeyserVietnam and Cambodia: Three Decades Later

A photo-journal available on the Newsletter Website

I AM NOT A traveler by nature or incli-nation. My wife, Nancy Kelly, on the otherhand, is a travel addict. I am sure this hassomething to do with the division of ourspecies into risk takers and risk avoiders. Iam four square in the latter camp. Nancy’sfeet are firmly planted in the former.When we married, I had no idea that “forbetter or for worse” meant following her toKenya (twice), Tanzania (twice), Botswana(twice), South Africa (twice), Zimbabwe(twice), Malawi, Zambia, Egypt, Sicily,Turkey, Australia, Tasmania, Indonesia(twice to Bali),New Zealand, Italy,Vietnam,Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Japan, SouthKorea and, in the coming months, theMarquesas, Tahiti, Easter Island, Morocco,and Papua New Guinea. In retrospect it isbetter that I didn’t know. It would not haveaffected my decision to marry. It wouldmerely have made it agonizing.

Nancy wants to make each trip last aslong as possible. This she accomplishes bytaking photographs. On our Vietnam/Cambodia trip, for example, she took7,200. I took up journal writing as a wayof coping with the anxieties travel visitsupon me. As Rabbi Israel Bal Shem Tov,the founder of Chasidism, wrote in KeterShem Tov,“Where a person’s thoughts are,that is where he is.” It was inevitable thatNancy and I would hit upon the idea ofcombining her photographs and my journals.

While traveling, we rarely coordinatewhat we are doing, she with a camera, mewith a keyboard – not surprising since ourmotivations are so different. Even so, ourways of looking at things are remarkablyalike. In the end our photo-journalsprovide the interested readers and viewerswith an account of how we cope with ourdemons, mine the demon of not wantingto be there, Nancy’s the demon of neverwanting to leave.

The photo-journal Vietnam andCambodia: Three Decades Later is a case in

point. From September 20 throughOctober 2, 2004, Nancy and I hosted a tripto Vietnam and Cambodia. The journey,sponsored by the MIT Alumni TravelProgram, started in Hanoi, proceeded toHo Chi Minh City, with a stop at theincredible Cu Chi Tunnels, and endedwith a seven-day boat trip up the MekongRiver into Cambodia, Siem Reap, andAngkor Wat. The resultant photo-journaloffers a glimpse into the daily life of twonations for whom until 1972 war wassimply one more way of life. The beauty oftheir ancient past, the ferociousness oftheir recent past, and the vibrancy of theirpresent are here only in part. Still Vietnamand Cambodia may offer a hint of what toexpect should your own destinies –welcome or otherwise – take you there.

Traffic in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), Vietnam

Killing Fields Memorial, outside PhnomPenh, Cambodia

Ed. Note: Visit the Newsletter Website web.mit.edu/fnl

to view and listen to the entire photo-journal.

Samuel Jay Keyser is a Professor Emeritus ofLinguistics and Philosophy and SpecialAssistant to the Chancellor (keyser@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVIII No. 2

M.I.T. Numbers

Facu

lty

Oth

er E

mpl

oyee

s

Ret

ired

Facu

lty

Gra

duat

e S

tude

nts

Und

ergr

adua

te S

tude

nts 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19%

44%

29%

21%

44%

28%

2%30

%66

%

34%

30%

11%

32%

22%

9%

Goo

dVe

ry G

ood

Exc

elle

ntN

ote:

Sho

ws

only

em

ploy

ees

enro

lled

in M

ITM

edic

al

Pla

ns, S

EI f

or S

tude

nts,

or

Med

ex fo

r R

etire

es

Sou

rce:

Offi

ce o

f the

Pro

vost

/Ins

titut

iona

l Res

earc

h

Per

cen

tag

e R

atin

g t

he

Qu

alit

y o

f th

e M

ITM

edic

al D

epar

tmen

t“G

oo

d,”

“Ver

y G

oo

d,”

or

“Exc

elle

nt”

[fr

om

th

e 20

05 M

edic

al S

urv

ey]