Print

Print


Dear all,

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 Resources, H - Anthropology, L - History and Philosophy of Science  or X - Societal Impacts of Science and Engineering.
 
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 Engineering" 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,

Claudia

Larry
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 SftP"
and "liability".

Should we tell people at the AAAS meeting, "Hey, we all belong to the SftP
Listserve..."?

SftP used to be a vibrant organization, not without structural problems and
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, George
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 in
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 serve.
   2. There is some liability problem, i believe, in using the name.
Check w/ Jon Beckwith

herb

PS
Frankly i was initially a bit stung by the reading you guys gave my remark.
So many times from the late forties through the seventies.i returned home as
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 open
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, even
when a member of supposedly clandestine organizations, was being sullied.
Another example that hasty responses to emails are unwise.
hf

_________________________________________________________________
Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now.
http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2