The "liability problem" has to do with IRS-forgiven tax liability and/or
penalties with the proviso that we cease to exist. The IRS was otherwise
threatening to pick the personal pockets of our Board of Directors. Jon B.
was much closer to the issue than I and could fill in the details. The time
seems right for all of us to be aware of this existential dilemma.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Claudia Hemphill Pine <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: AAAS session and existence (?) of SftP
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:06:40 -0700
I'm trying to keep from mixing topics by separating out (1) comments to
general informational postings; (2) comments on & volunteering for SftP-list
guidelines; (3) possible Cuba trip; and (4) possible AAAS activity.
I'd like to say yes, yes, yes to something at the AAAS. A session (papers,
panel, or roundtable?) and an information table. I was just looking at
their website and remembering why this low-income adjunct instructor doesn't
have an annual membership ... and Boston is $$$$$.
Personally, I don't even know which "Section" I'd best belong in. I'm
trained as an anthropologist (MA 1983) and latterly, as a soil environmental
scientist (PhD expected '08). But my work is through the perspectives of
'Science, Technology & Society' studies (including History, Philosophy, and
esp. Sociology & Politics of science) and broader cultural studies. So I
could be sections O - Agriculture, Food, and Renewable
L - History and Philosophy of
or X - Societal Impacts of Science and
Damn I envy you guys in "classic" disciplines (but look at your politics!
You're way outside the box too.) Environmental-and-society studies go
winding through everything. Academia doesn't accommodate that very well,
although the AAAS's "Societal Impacts of Science and
Section looks like a nod to this new reality. And I like the sound of
"Section X" ...
As to approach, I do like Herb's suggestion that we go prepared with
critical questions for papers from our wide panoply of disciplines. But per
George, Jonathan, Larry, Chuck, I'd prefer an open acknowledgment of who we
are -- Larry's suggestions for possible session topics look good to me.
"Radical Science/ Science for the People 40 Years On: Retrospect, Prospect,
Practices"? I would sure happily contribute to something like that. We
might invite people from ASIPI (Assoc. for Science in the Public Interest; I
went to one awesome conference of theirs in, I think, 2003; they grew out of
Sci & Env'l Health Network, SEHN) ... and also extend opportunity to the
large membership of "4S" - Society for the Social Studies of Science.
ASIPI/SEHN include many 'practitioners', govt and NGO people, whereas 4S is
assertively multi-continent but mainly academic.
Now the new question: WHY CAN'T WE BE SFTP? Is it still 'incorporated' or
the like? Can we found a new Chapter? How did the European branch get
started with the same name, Herb?
We talked about this earlier in the spring: how can people sharing the
spirit & goals of SFTP be part of SftP?
What is the problem and how do we overcome it?
With great anticipation,
On 7/2/07, Eric Entemann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I agree with Herb, and was just about to post something similar re "no
>Should we tell people at the AAAS meeting, "Hey, we all belong to the SftP
>SftP used to be a vibrant organization, not without structural problems
>internal conflict. It was certainly a very important part of my life for
>many yy back in the day, as it was for Herb, Jon Beckwith, Bob Lange,
>Salzman and others on the listserve who were in the Boston chapter, and
>others who were in chapters of SftP in many other locations. I was also
>the Stony Brook (NY) chapter before I moved to Boston in '74.
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: herb fox <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Cuba trip and AAAS session
>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:37:05 -0400
>Apparently you guys who correctly speak for openness missed the point for
>which i must accept responsibility by not having been clear. The two
>reasons for my suggestion are:
> 1. There is no SftP. Why pretend? We are participants on a list
> 2. There is some liability problem, i believe, in using the name.
>Check w/ Jon Beckwith
>Frankly i was initially a bit stung by the reading you guys gave my
>So many times from the late forties through the seventies.i returned home
>the sole breadwinner to tell my wife and then 4 children that we'd have to
>tighten our belts for awhile 'till i found new employment because of my
>stand as a radical. Circumstances prevented me from responding to your
>emails immediately. A good thing, because later i realized it was my
>inference not your implication that my untarnished record of openness,
>when a member of supposedly clandestine organizations, was being sullied.
>Another example that hasty responses to emails are unwise.
>Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now.
Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in one