090302 PENNNET 650

User Manual: PENNNET 650

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 12

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA
Tuesday,
September 3, 2002
Volume 49 Number 2
www.upenn.edu/almanac/
Faculty Senate Leadership for 2002-2003

Honoring Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander:
A Role Model for Future Generations of Students

The Faculty Senate announces its leadership for this academic year: (left
to right) David Hackney is the past chair, Mitchell Marcus is the chair
and Lance Donaldson-Evans is the chair-elect. See the Senate’s Elected
Officers and Committee Members on page 2 along with a Welcome Back
message from the new Chair of the Faculty Senate.

At Penn, Over the Summer . . .
• Campus Dining Services signed a one-year management contract with
Aramark to “add flexibility, improve quality and innovate the campus dining
program” (see the July 16 issue online for this and more summer news).
• Penn and Trammell Crow Company terminated the arrangement entered into in 1998 for project management services for capital construction projects and property management and transaction services for offcampus properties as well as for the Neighborhood Preservation and Development Fund (see full story online at www.upenn.edu/almanac).
• ISC announced the implementation of a new authentication method
called Kerberos and the replacement of PennNet IDs and passwords with
PennKeys (user name) and password (for more about these security measures see the July 16 issue online).
• The campus is changing with the completion of Wharton’s Jon M.
Hunstman Hall, the 300,000 square-foot academic building as well as the
David Pottruck Health and Fitness Center, which provides an additional
65,000 square feet of recreational space joining the existing Gimbel Gymnasium. The new state-of-the-art facility will provide 115,000 square feet
of indoor recreational space to better serve the fitness needs of the Penn
community (see September AT PENN for dates and times of tours).
• GSE will assist three low-performing West Philadelphia elementary
schools under an agreement with the Philadelphia School Reform commission. GSE will receive funding to help improve student achievement
at Henry C. Lea School, Alexander Wilson School, and William C. Bryant
School by advising, assisting and providing services to the schools in
curriculum, professional and leadership development; parental and community involvement; student assessment and student academic support
and enrichment. These partnerships augment Penn’s involvement in public school education at the newly named Alexander School, the newest
public school in West Philadelphia (see story at right).
IN
2
3
4

THIS ISSUE
Welcome Back: From the Senate Chair; Senate Officers Elected for 2002-2003
Welcome Back: From the President
Deaths: Dr. Tybel Bloom, Mr. Norman Day, Mr. Warren Ford, Dr. Klaus Hummeler,
Dr. David Knight, Mrs. Joanne Lucid, Dr. Chaim Potok, and Dr. Margaret Sovie
5 Speaking Out: Biomed Communications; Personal Privacy; Prescriptions
6 Report on Human Subjects Research in the SocioBehavioral Sciences
9 Procedures Pertaining to Departments; Policy on upenn.edu Domain Space;
Research Funding; Policy of Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action
10 Three-Year Academic Calendar: 2002-2003 through 2004-2005
11 Admissions Seminars for Penn Families; Secular and Religious Holidays;
Express Modem Pool; CrimeStats; Classifieds
12 Getting Almanac in print and online
Pullout: September AT PENN

In a tribute to a woman whose lists of personal and professional
achievements are unparalleled, the PennAssisted School is now officially The Sadie
Tanner Mossell Alexander University of
Pennsylvania Partnership School. The
School Reform Commission passed a resolution in August approving the name.
The neighborhood PreK-8 university-assisted public school was created through the
collaboration of Penn, the School District and
the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, and
serves a diverse catchment area with families from nearly 20 countries.
Dr. Alexander was a pioneer for African-American women, blazing educational
and professional trails, and a role model
for anyone striving to end prejudice and
discrimination.
“I am very pleased that the School Reform Commission agreed with our recommendation to have our school named after a
woman of great recognition,” said Sheila A.
Sydnor, the school principal. “Sadie Tanner
Mossell Alexander exemplified true leaderSadie Alexander
ship, perseverance and dedication to our city
and our country. Our students will know and emulate the values of this great
lawyer, educator and pioneer as they pursue their education. Mrs. Alexander
will serve as the role model for all who will cross our threshold.”
Born in 1898 into a family whose members had fought discrimination
and segregation in Canada, Wales and the U.S., Dr. Alexander was the first
African-American woman to earn a doctorate in economics, not only at Penn,
but also in the nation. She was also the first African-American woman to
enroll in law school at Penn and earn a law degree, the first African-American woman to pass the bar and to practice law in Pennsylvania.
“She had to be better than the very best,” said Jerry Jordan, vice president of the PFT. “She had a lot of obstacles to overcome. She’s going to
be a great role model for the children who attend the school.”
President Harry S. Truman appointed Dr. Alexander to the President’s
Committee on Civil Rights, whose report, To Secure These Rights, served
as the foundation of the civil rights movement in America and was the
basis for future civil rights policy decisions and legislation. President
Jimmy Carter appointed her chairperson of the White House Conference
on Aging, charged with addressing a range of social and economic needs
of the elderly.
“There is no more fitting tribute to my mother than to name this newly
created and state-of-the-art public school in her honor,” said Rae
Alexander-Minter, Ed.D., speaking for the family. “Sadie Alexander’s
life and work and her love of education will serve as a model of excellence and high achievement for all the students who attend and graduate
from the Alexander School. May education and learning be central to
their lives and work and move them forward to lives of personal and
academic fulfillment,” she said.
The school opens this fall for grades PreK-2 and 5-6 in a newly constructed 83,000 square feet, $19 million building that can accommodate
up to 650 students in 28 classrooms. Clustered in modules, the classrooms overlook a central multi-story atrium that will also serve as a gathering place for students and community. Other features include a gymnasium/auditorium, instructional media center, science labs, music rooms,
art room and full-service cafeteria.
“This is a fantastic facility for the children of West Philadelphia and a
great place for them to learn and grow,” said Dr. Susan Fuhrman, dean of
GSE. “We’re very proud of the partnership that made this school a reality
and thrilled, of course, that it’s been named for Sadie Alexander.”
A grand opening and ribbon-cutting ceremony is planned for this fall.
(For a timeline for Sadie Alexander’s life, see www.upenn.edu/almanac)

WELCOME BACK

SENATE

From the Senate Chair

The Faculty Senate Agenda 2002-2003
On behalf of the Faculty Senate, welcome back to Penn for the beginning of the new academic year! For those of you new to Penn, the Faculty
Senate is the deliberative body and the voice of the Penn faculty. The
Senate functions primarily through the Senate Executive Committee
(SEC), an elected group which meets monthly, and through a number of
committees. SEC’s agenda and actions are published here in Almanac to
solicit your feedback.
SEC also gives advice on current issues and problems facing the University through the frequent consultations that take place between the
Senate leadership (the Chair-elect, Lance Donaldson-Evans; the Past Chair,

SENATE

From the Senate Chair

Faculty Senate Officers Elected for 2002-2003
TO:
FROM:

Members of the Standing Faculty
Mitchell Marcus, Chair

I would like to thank the Senate Nominating Committee, chaired by
David Brownlee, for their work in fulfilling their role for the Faculty
Senate. (See Almanac January 9, 2002, for members of the Nominating
Committee.)
No additional nominations were received by the deadline and therefore
the Senate Nominating Committee’s slate of nominees is hereby declared
elected. Effective immediately, the Faculty Senate Officers for this year
are:
Chair:
Mitchell Marcus (prof computer & information science)
Past Chair:
David B. Hackney (prof radiology at HUP)
Chair-elect:
Lance Donaldson-Evans (prof Romance languages)
Secretary:
Louis A. Thomas (assoc prof management)
Past Secretary: Edward L. Rubin (prof law)
Secretary-elect: Vincent Price (assoc prof communication)
Newly elected as At-large members of the Senate Executive Committee
for 3-year terms:
Barry Cooperman (prof chemistry)
Horace DeLisser (asst prof pulmonary &
critical care/medicine)
Howard Goldfine (prof microbiology/medicine)
David P. Pope (prof materials science & engineering)
For a 1-year term: Lynn H. Lees (prof history)
Newly elected as an assistant professor member of the Senate Executive
Committee for a 2-year term:
Sudipto Guha (asst prof computer & information science)
Newly elected to the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and
Responsibility for 3-year terms:
Arthur L. Caplan (Trustee prof bioethics/medicine)
Madeleine Joullie (prof chemistry)
Martin Pring (assoc prof physiology/medicine)
For a 2-year term: John W. Fantuzzo (prof education)
Newly elected to the Senate Committee on Conduct for 2-year terms:
David B. Brownlee (prof history of art)
Susan Gennaro (prof nursing)
Judy Meinkoth (assoc prof pharmacology/medicine)
Newly elected to the Senate Committee on the Economic Status of the
Faculty for 3-year terms:
Jere Behrman (prof economics)
Linda Brown (prof nursing)
The terms of the new Faculty Senate Officers and the newly elected
members of the Senate Executive Committee, the Committees on Academic
Freedom and Responsibility, Conduct, and Economic Status of the Faculty
begin immediately. Full committee memberships will be published this fall in
Almanac, or please contact the Faculty Senate Office by mail at Box 12 College
Hall/6303 or by telephone at (215) 898-6943.
2

www.upenn.edu/almanac

David Hackney; and myself) and the President and the Provost. It is quite
important to this dialogue that you keep SEC and its leadership informed
of your own concerns and views; you can contact either your SEC constituency representatives or the Senate leadership directly by phone or email. You can reach me by e-mail at mitch@cis.upenn.edu or at (215)
898-2538.
The Faculty Senate and its leadership face a major change and challenge this fall. Executive Assistant Carolyn Burdon will be retiring, after
running the Faculty Senate office for 31 years. Well beyond fulfilling her
official duties keeping the Faculty Senate office running smoothly and
her extended role in attempting to keep the annually changing Senate
leadership on track, Ms. Burdon, though not a faculty member, was in
many ways the heart and soul of the Faculty Senate. Her daily counsel
and good advice will be missed. Kristine Kelly, who most recently worked
in the President’s office, will staff the Faculty Senate office.
This fall, SEC will consider a wide range of proposed policies. Key
among these are new policies on retirement, on teaching evaluation, and
several new policies on the appropriate and ethical conduct of research.
For the past two years, a Retirement Task Force appointed by the Provost has examined aspects of retirement which resulted from the elimination in 1994 of mandatory retirement at age 70 and from policies adopted
then as a result of this uncapping. The final report of this committee,
chaired by Associate Provost Barbara Lowery and Prof. Jerry Rosenbloom,
was completed in the spring, and will appear in Almanac early this fall. I
am asking the Senate Committee on Administration to study this report
and to give SEC its evaluation. SEC’s response as a whole will be forwarded back to the Task Force and to the Provost.
Two proposals dealing with the appropriate conduct of research have
now been handed to SEC for comment. After some modification, a revision of Procedures Regarding Misconduct in Research was endorsed by
the Senate Committee on Administration last spring, and then by SEC,
contingent on a review by the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom
and Responsibility (SCAFR). After review by SCAFR early this fall, it
will be returned to SEC for final approval. The Provost has also forwarded
to SEC a proposed policy which addresses conflict of interest for faculty
participating in clinical trials, developed in consultation with the School
of Medicine administration and faculty. It will be reviewed by the Senate
Committee on Administration early this fall before being reviewed by
SEC as a whole.
Two other policies regarding research are now taking shape within
the University. Vice Provost for Research Neal Nathanson is now forming a committee to formulate policy on Institutional Conflict of Interest;
he has kept the Faculty Senate leadership well informed during this process. A working group chaired by Annenberg School Deputy Dean Larry
Gross has formulated a set of principles towards clarifying guidelines for
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for sociobehavioral research, published in this issue of Almanac. After a discussion of this study by SEC,
Vice Provost Nathanson intends to charge a committee to formalize regulations for this IRB.
The final report of a faculty-administration Committee to Assess the
Evaluation of Teaching, chaired by Deputy Provost Peter Conn and Prof.
David Pope, was presented during the summer to the Provost and the
Faculty Senate. I have asked the Senate Committee on Students and Educational Policy to study this report, and to advise SEC on what further
actions we might take on the proposed recommendations it contains.
Last year, SEC passed a resolution strongly endorsing the recommendations of the joint faculty-administration Committee on Faculty Gender
Equity chaired by Associate Provost Barbara Lowery and Prof. Phoebe
Leboy, and endorsed additional vigorous actions within the University to
maintain and further gender equity among the faculty. As a follow up to
the work of that committee, President Judith Rodin, Provost Robert Barchi
and then-Senate Chair David B. Hackney charged a joint faculty-administration Minority Equity Committee, chaired by Prof. John B. Jemmott,
to undertake a systematic review of the status of minority faculty at the
University. We hope to have a report from this committee this fall.
Beyond considering the wide range of proposed policy changes preALMANAC September 3, 2002

sented above, I am charging the Faculty Senate Committees with a range
of additional charges that include:
•

•

investigating potential negative impacts of both proposed and implemented federal regulations following the events of September 11 on the
University’s dual roles of teaching and research, and proposing steps to
ameliorate those impacts;
investigating the negative impacts of the skyrocketing cost of scholarly
journals, and proposing steps that can be taken by the Faculty and
University to ameliorate those impacts.

A tremendous level of faculty effort and thoughtfulness was required
to produce the reports mentioned above. The willingness of the faculty to
serve on committees that wrestle with difficult, sometimes contentious
issues is a prerequisite to our University functioning as a living community of scholars and teachers. I look forward to working with you this
year, as new issues move forward, and I will keep you informed throughout the year through Almanac. Have a productive and successful year!

Other policies to be examined by Senate Committees and then by SEC
include changes to faculty policies proposed last year by various of Penn’s
schools.

FROM THE PRESIDENT
The Journey to Understanding and Knowledge
Each year we welcome new students and colleagues who bring fresh
energy and ideas to the Penn community.
As an academic community, we eagerly examine and explore issues
in depth. We pick apart one another’s arguments, theories, and papers—
because we know that the impact of different views and perspectives
strengthens our work. We joyfully seize the challenge to consider society’s
most vexing and intractable problems.
No other milieu, I believe, even comes close to a university campus
for sheer intellectual exuberance. The Penn community derives its intellectual vitality from a fundamental and unshakeable commitment to freedom of thought, inquiry, association, and of expression. We provide open
forums for critical thinking and informed discussions. We also provide
safe haven for the widest possible range of opinions, from the brilliant
and sublime even to the scurrilous and ridiculous.
As we begin a new academic year so close to the first anniversary of
September 11, we continue to feel both collective anguish over the tragedy that befell our country, and collective apprehension over what is yet
to come. During these uncertain times of escalating tensions and peril, I
believe it becomes more important for all of us to reaffirm and renew our
commitment to the values of academic community.
These values include unfettered freedom of expression, the importance of civic engagement in every aspect of University’s life, and robust, honest engagement with those with whom we disagree.
The next year may put these values to the test as the Penn community
confronts many issues that undoubtedly will stir up strong emotions and
profoundly serious disagreements among us. Whether we are debating
issues right at home, such as graduate student unionization, or those that
hit close to home, such as the tragic conflict in the Middle East, we face
a very tall order: How do we encourage thoughtful discourse and debate
while at the same time allowing all voices to be heard?
As educators, we teach our students to explore issues thoroughly. We
draw distinctions between informed arguments steeped in civility and
reason on one hand, and repulsive rants steeped in hatred and nonsense
on the other. We know how much knowledge and understanding our students gain from the former. We despair over the pain and anger the latter
creates among members of the Penn community.
I expect the coming year to be filled with the kind of intrepid explorations and robust discussions worthy of a great University and its superb
faculty, students, and staff. I would also hope and expect that members
of our community will refrain from speech, gestures, or actions solely
intended to rip us asunder.
Nonetheless, we must also anticipate that someone on the Penn campus may uncork a nasty brew of vicious comments that seek to marginalize
or dehumanize a segment of our campus community.
If and when that happens, how should we respond?
Some might argue that some views are so heinous and hateful to a
community that anyone who expresses them should be condemned, punALMANAC September 3, 2002

ished, or even expelled. However, if we cherish freedom of expression as
a core academic value, then we must resist the urge to use the power of
the University or the presidency to silence any lawful speech or flatten
any speaker who expresses hateful and despicable views.
Our defense of free speech does not mean we therefore remain aloof
either to the pain felt by groups who are the targets of hate speech, or to
their deeply felt concerns for their own safety.
To the contrary, the University will go to great lengths to provide the
resources to support thoughtful, reasoned dialogue and debate. We will
not hesitate to call upon Public Safety, the Chaplain’s Office, or University Life to provide whatever protection and support is needed to promote a physically safe environment for all members of the campus community, including groups who have suffered religious and ethnic prejudice in the wake of September 11.
In the past, some members of the Penn community have mistakenly interpreted my refusal to condemn specific speech publicly as a sign of personal
or institutional insensitivity or indifference.
Privately, I churn in dismay and disgust at the offensiveness and ignorance of views expressed by a minuscule number of people in the Penn community. But I also don’t believe that presidential condemnations of specific
speech strengthen our academic community. To the contrary, they tend to
stop the debate dead in its tracks.
I believe we are better off using even the most objectionable speech
as a catalyst to a productive, illuminating, and inclusive conversation that
becomes a forum for reasoned and thoughtful ideas.
Invariably, hateful ideas will crumble under the weight of relentless
scrutiny and informed debate.
In recent years, members of the Penn community have responded to
incidents of hate speech by turning understandable outrage into creative
engagement. Just over the past year, I have observed a passionate determination by Muslims, Jews, and Christians on campus to forge a true
interfaith dialogue. I know I can always count on the Penn community to
harness its passion and acumen to remain vigorously and constructively
engaged.
Let’s begin the new academic year in this spirit of “spirited” engagement
with each other as a continuing public conversation and collective enterprise
through which we build the kind of robust and creative academic community
we all desire. The academic community of Penn, which persists in the face of
rapid and far-reaching changes, will be strengthened and enhanced to the
benefit of all. Let our journey to understanding and knowledge go forward.

www.upenn.edu/almanac

3

Deaths
Dr. Tybel Bloom, Social Work
Dr. Tybel Bloom, emeritus professor of social work,
died July 15 of pneumonia
at the age of 89.
Dr. Bloom earned her
MSW from Penn in 1944,
after having earned her BA
from the University of Minnesota in 1934 and worked
for five years at the Ramsey
County Welfare Board in
St. Paul, Minn. She subseTybel Bloom
quently worked at the Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic and then taught at
the University of Southern California before joining the Penn faculty in 1955.
Dr. Bloom earned her DSW here in 1960,
becoming associate professor in 1966 and full
professor in 1968 before becoming associate dean
for curriculum. She also published several articles,
including “Social Casework: the Functional Approach” for the Encyclopedia of Social Work in
1977. She became emeritus professor in 1979.
She is survived by a brother, Norman, and a
sister, Myra Jacobs. Memorial donations may be
made to the Senior Associates Scholarship Fund,
in care of the University of Pennsylvania, CGS,
3440 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Mr. Day, Architecture
Norman Day, emeritus associate professor of
architecture and city planning, and an urban
designer with McCormick, Taylor Associates,
died on July 16, at the age of 69.
Mr. Day received his BA in architecture from
the University of Minnesota Institute of Technology in 1955 and a MArch from MIT in 1958.
He also attended a program of study in city
planning, at the Architectural Association &
Town Planning Institute in London (1959-1960).
His fields of specialization included urban design, comprehensive urban planning, metropolitan and regional planning; urban transportation
planning and design, central area revitalization,
new community planning and design, planned
residential developments, community and environmental impact analysis.
GSFA Dean Gary Hack said “I knew Norman
for many years, beginning when he taught in the
mid-west and as a visiting critic at Illinois; he
encouraged me to pursue urban design. He taught
a generation of urban designers at Penn, and continued teaching in city planning as recently as three
years ago when he oversaw a studio working on
design around transportation station in Bogota.”
He is survived by his wife, Nancy; daughters,
Dana, Leslie, Taryn and Leah; sons, Daniel,
Joel, and Andrew; 14 grandchildren; and brothers, Ralph, Gordon, Larry and Mardell. Donations may be sent to Habitat for Humanity.

Mr. Ford, Planning & Operations SOM
Warren Ford, a special services assistant, Space Planning
and Operations in the School
of Medicine died on August 4
at the age of 59. Mr. Ford began working at Penn in 1969 as
a utility worker at SOM and
remained there until his death.
He is survived by his wife,
Warren Ford Brenda; four daughters
Cassundra, Octavia, LaToya
and Bria; 11 grandchildren; four sisters; and two
brothers. Donations may be sent to Mrs. Brenda
4

www.upenn.edu/almanac

Ford, 5027 Knox Street, Philadelphia, PA 19144.
A memorial service will be held on September 13,
from 3-4:30 p.m. in the Auditorium & Lobby of
BRB II/III.

Dr. Klaus Hummeler, Virologist
Dr. Klaus Hummeler, emeritus professor of
pediatrics at the School of Medicine and first
director of Joseph Stokes Jr. Institute at CHOP,
died July 14 at the age of 80.
Dr. Hummeler was born in Hamburg, Germany. He received a medical degree from the
University of Hamburg, then immigrated to the
United States in 1949. He came to Penn in 1952
and was named the first director of Joseph Stokes
Jr. Institute in 1972 and retired in 1989.
Dr. Hummeler is survived by his wife, Mary
Hummeler; his daughter, Deborah Dunning; his
sister; and three grandchildren.
Donations may be made to the Klaus
Hummeler Endowed Fund for Research at
CHOP, 34th and Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Dr. David Knight, Vet Medicine
Dr. David Harmon
Knight, professor emeritus of veterinary medicine,
died of a heart attack July
15 while bicycling near
his home. He was 64.
A specialist in veterinary cardiology, Dr.
Knight joined the faculty
in 1967 and spent his entire career at Penn, retiring last year. He was a
David Knight
charter member of the American College of
Internal Medicine and a member of the American Heart Association, and served as chief of the
section of cardiology in the College of Veterinary Medicine for many years.
Additionally, Dr. Knight was an accomplished athlete. He was a member of the crew
team as an undergraduate at Cornell University,
rowed for the Vesper Boat Club and Bachelor’s
Barge Club in the 1960s, and was an alternate on
the U.S. Olympic rowing team in 1964. In 1974
became the first U.S. citizen to win the gold
medal in the international Canoe Federation in
the White Water Slalom race. He won the Masters World Championship in 1982 in pairs rowing in the Netherlands with former Olympian
John B. Kelly Jr. In 1985 he was a member of the
U.S. Dragon Boat team that raced in Hong Kong.
He took up cycling two years ago.
Dr. Knight is survived by his wife of 23
years, Krystyna Wrobel Knight; two sons, Eric
and Christopher; his father, Ernest; and a brother.
A memorial service is planned for later in September at the Veterinary School.
Memorial donations may be made to University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, 3800 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Mrs. Lucid, Gregory College House
Joanne Tharalson Lucid, Associate Master of
Gregory College House, died July 31 at home
at the age of 75.
For the past four years she and her husband—
Dr. Robert Lucid, emeritus professor of English,
—served the Gregory College House community; prior to that they did the same in Hill House
since 1979. Since the inception of the Penn
Reading Project, Mrs. Lucid led a section each
fall; last summer she and her husband co-taught
a section.

Mrs. Lucid was born and raised in Oregon,
earned her BA in English from Seattle University in 1949 and a MA in teaching from Wesleyan
University in 1964.
After 31 years as a teacher in Philadelphia
public schools—29 years of them teaching at
Germantown High School, where she taught English, drama, and debate—she retired in 1995.
She had been active with the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. She was named all-time
teacher of the year in 1985.
‘Miz Lucy,’ as her school children often called
her, was known for her strength, kindness, and nononsense straight talk and to many was a valued
friend. “I do not think I go too far if I say that she
was the stuff from which we look to maintain our
besieged hopes for humanity, our ongoing desire
to still believe in ourselves through the darkest
hours and years,” Norman Mailer said in a letter.
She is survived by her husband of 48 years,
Dr. Robert Lucid, and a son, John.

Dr. Chaim Potok, Novelist
Dr. Chaim Potok, novelist, whose characters
struggled with their ties to their conservative
Jewish communities and
their desire to explore the
world outside of it, died
July 23 at his home in
Merion at the age of 73.
Having previously received an English degree
from Yeshiva University
and being ordained as a
rabbi at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Dr.
Chaim Potok
Potok received his Ph.D.
in philosophy from Penn in 1965. He was also
Baccalaureate Speaker in 1983, at which time he
received an honorary degree from Penn.
He is also remembered for classes he taught
beginning in 1992 for the General Honors Program, the first he gave analyzing The Gates of
November: Chronicles of the Slepak Family, the
biography of Solomon Slepak he was writing at
the time. He continued teaching a class entitled
The Post-Modernist Search for Self until the fall
of 2000.
Dr. Potok’s protagonists face the restrictions
placed on their lives by their conservative religious communities: one entertaining dreams of
being a psychologist, another painting crucifixions, despite the rejection they will face from
their families. These themes were visited and
revisited in best-selling works, The Chosen and
My Name is Asher Lev.
These themes, were also the author’s struggles,
whose desire to paint and write and his decision to
leave the parochial school system and attend the
Jewish Theological Seminary, conflicted with his
Orthodox family and upbringing.
In addition to writing novels, Dr. Potok served
as a U.S. Army Chaplain in Korea from 1955 to
1957, and produced non-fiction works, including
Wanderings: Chaim Potok’s History of the Jews.
Dr. Potok is survived by his wife, Adena; two
daughters, Rena, who teaches in the English
department (BA ’83, MS ’90, Ph.D. ’95) and
Naama; a son, Akiva; two grandchildren and
two sisters, Charlotte Hering and Bella
Sobolofsky.
When Dr. Potok took part last semester in the
“Spirit of Liberty Symposium” on religious liberty, he observed:
I am not so naïve as to think we can do away
with all the differences between religions, I

ALMANAC September 3, 2002

would hope to do away with the hatred those
differences have elicited. Despite our divisiveness and tawdriness, there is still here the dream
of dialogue, of listening; especially at this very
moment. If it cannot happen in America, where
on Earth can it happen?

Dr. Margaret Sovie, Nursing
Dr. Margaret D. Sovie, the Jane Delano Professor of Administration at the School of Nursing, died on August 16 of pulmonary fibrosis at
the age of 69.
Dr. Sovie was a nationally known authority
in the field of nursing administration. She graduated from the St. Lawrence State Hospital School
of Nursing in 1964, and served as a nursing supervisor at the Good Shepherd Hospital and then

as education director for
nursing services at Upstate Medical Center,
both in Syracuse. After
serving as director of
nursing at the University
of Rochester, Dr. Sovie
became chief nursing
officer at HUP in 1988,
a position she held until
1996. From 1996 until
her death she was the
Jane Delano Professor of
Margaret Sovie
Nursing Administration
and was a nurse practitioner at Penn’s health
annex at Myer Recreation Center. Dr. Sovie was

a member of the Institute of Medicine.
“Dr. Sovie was a fearless researcher. She meticulously gathered and analyzed data to advance
the science, providing information to help nurses
and hospitals do a better job caring for patients.
Never straying far from the care of the patient,
Dr. Sovie provided direct patient care herself
while maintaining a research agenda,” said Dr.
Afaf I. Meleis, dean of the School of Nursing.
Dr. Sovie is survived by her husband of 48
years, Alfred; brothers William, Maurice and
Timothy Doe; sisters Patricia Frye and Mickey
Snye. Memorial donations may be made to the
Nursing School Memorial Scholarship Fund,
School of Nursing, Development Office, 420
Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Speaking Out
On Biomed Communications

Privacy on Auction Block

loyalty and love has placed our privacy on the
auction-block.
And if ya think that accusation a mite too
harsh, how about the latest vendor mailing using
University personnel: a shameless pitch ending
with this escape clause—P.S. The University of
Pennsylvania does not endorse Answer Financial, any particular product offered, or any
available product provider. Nor do we supplement any purchases you may make through
them—all under the aegis of the University crest,
‘Human Resources’ bold as brass nails as if
we’ve just been handed an official message from
an employer expected to be above-board.
The Division of Human Resources has been
entrusted with confidential information. That
information has now blown across the continental landmass, all the way to Encino, California.
With our Faculty/Staff Telephone Directory
printed outside the United States, home address
floating around loose and who-knows-where
before arriving on-campus by mid-October, who
can say for sure what ‘increasingly sensitive
pieces of personal data’ really are off-limits?
—Jerry Briggs, Van Pelt Library

I’m mighty irked to read the Executive
Director’s, Human Resources, glib
pontifications. Leny Bader maintains, ‘the
protection of personal privacy is an important priority at Penn. This message has been
clearly conveyed to all our vendors…’
If Human Resources didn’t allow anyone
with a buck and a hustle to shop the employment records looking for fresh meat, vendors
selling names to more vendors selling names
to still more vendors wouldn’t have those
names in the first place, hence no letters to
Speaking Out howling with outrage.
I pitched a royal fit when Friends of the
Library—recipient of 10% of my takehome—shared my particulars. ‘Oh,’ soothed
the spin-doctors, ‘we don’t sell names, we
exchange donor-lists’. What a nifty little game
of fish that must be: “We’ll swap four hundred
of our suckers for four hundred of yours.”
Do let’s keep in mind your name and my
Social Security number were melded, creating ‘ghosts’. Then HUP billed Medicare for
hospitalization given these non-existing patients. We are employed by an ethical
Brigadoon. The University we serve with

We agree with Professor McDevitt’s point
about the use of social security numbers on our
Caremark prescription cards (Almanac Vol. 49,
No. 1). It is an “unacceptable misuse of our
identity information”. We were both very disturbed when we received our prescription cards
in the mail with our social security numbers
available to anyone other than us who opened
our mail or working the counter at the pharmacy.
We wonder how such an oversight on the part of
Caremark is excusable. In our opinion, no apology is enough for the misuse of sensitive information such as one’s social security number.
In addition, our recent visit to the pharmacy
was a surprise in itself! In the month of June, a
prescription refill cost $0.93. One month later,
the month of July, that same refill now costs $5
for a generic drug no less. This astronomical
increase is incomprehensible and quite frankly
infuriating. How is it that an institution such as
the University of Pennsylvania continues to do
business with a company whose prescription
drug plan increased by 400% in one month? In
addition, these price increases are made on prescriptions needed for life-preserving reasons.

I just learned that the School of Medicine
has closed my former department, Biomedical Communications. After spending 36 years
as director, and building an excellent department of photographers, illustrators and computer graphic artists, with a reputation of
excellence, I am truly dismayed at the Medical Schools decision to close an integral
service to not only the Medical Center, but to
the University as well.
Biomedical Communications was a self supporting department and never received proper
support for growth from the Medical School
administration. It was always a challenge to
create more space within the confines of the
original limited space in the Med Library. There
were many promises to expand, to allow us to
increase services and equipment, but promises
were cheap and nothing was ever done. I guess
that I retired at the proper time in July 1999. It
is truly a shame.
— Art Siegel, former Director of
Biomedical Communications

Pricy Prescriptions at Pharmacies

How can a prescription plan justify charging
a young person more than $70 for a few vials
of insulin? Imagine the surprise when, the
other day, a purchase of a drug that is needed
literally to save someone’s life, quadrupled
in price! Not only are we paying more for our
prescriptions but we are also paying more for
our health care coverage. How can this outrageous price inflation be justified?
—Sharon D’Hurieux, Law Development
— Tricia Owen, Alumni Relations

Response from HR
We have already addressed the first part
of the letter from Sharon D’Hurieux and
Tricia Owen, in the Almanac issue of July 16,
2002. This is a response to the second part of
this letter.
Because of the tremendous increase in the
prices of prescription drugs, the University—
like other organizations—has taken steps to
maintain the fiscal viability of our plan and at
the same time offer a market competitive
benefit. The increase referred to in the letter
resulted from the changes in our plan effective July 1, 2002 so that brands without
generics now have an employee’s co-insurance of 30% at retail. If purchased by mail
order, the co-insurance will be 10%. Furthermore, there is now a minimum of $5 for
generics and $15 for brands bought at retail.
This accounts for the increase from $0.93 to
$5 mentioned in the letter. These minimums
are lower with mail order purchases.
Even with these changes, benchmarking
data show that Penn’s plan is more generous
than most employers’ plans because it provides out-of-pocket limits which protect our
employees from substantial expenses. In addition, mail orders now count towards these
out-of-pocket limits. The University continues to pay a substantial portion of the costs of
prescriptions, and this can be illustrated by
requesting the full prices of these drugs from
the pharmacists.
Instructions on how to order by mail as
well as information on the drugs and their
cost can be obtained by accessing Caremark’s
website at www.rxrequest.com or calling 1800-378-0802.
—Leny Bader, Executive Director,
Human Resources, Benefits

Speaking Out welcomes reader contributions. Short, timely letters on University issues will be accepted by Thursday at noon for the following
Tuesday’s issue, subject to right-of-reply guidelines. Advance notice of intention to submit is appreciated. —Eds.

ALMANAC September 3, 2002

www.upenn.edu/almanac

5

FOR COMMENT
On October 16, 2001, a statement was published in Almanac (http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v48/n08/OR-HumanSubj.html)
setting down guidelines for Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of research in the social and behavioral sciences.
As promised in that statement, we commissioned a Working Group “to propose guidelines for the ethical use of human subjects in sociobehavioral research at the University of Pennsylvania”. The Working Group has now submitted their report
titled “Report of the Working Group on Human Subjects Research in the Sociobehavioral Sciences” which is published below.
The report contains a number of recommendations; we shall be reviewing them and undertaking to implement many of them
in the course of the next year. Comments on the report may be sent via e-mail by September 24, 2002 to
nathansn@mail.med.upenn.edu
— Neal Nathanson, Vice Provost for Research
— Mitchell Marcus, Chair, Faculty Senate

Report of the Working Group on Human Subjects Research in the
SocioBehavioral Sciences
May 2002
Current University policies, based on agreements with the Federal government, require that all research involving human subjects be subject to
review by our Institutional Review Board [IRB] system. Under the Federal government’s regulations at 45 CFR 46, research is defined as “a
systematic investigation including research development, testing and
evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.”
The requirement for IRB review extends to research conducted by faculty, staff, research fellows, and students, whether funded or unfunded. While
researchers in bio-medical sciences have long been accustomed to human
subjects review procedures, many social and behavioral researchers have not
previously been aware of, nor held to these formal requirements.
In response to the questions of policy and implementation raised by
the application of human subjects review procedures to the sociobehavioral
sciences, in Fall 2001 the Vice Provost for Research and the Chair of the
Faculty Senate appointed a Working Group comprised of University faculty drawn from several different schools and departments who represent
the variety of social and behavioral disciplines across the University. The
Working Group was charged to consider principles that guide the ethical
conduct of behavioral and social science research on human subjects,
and to offer recommendations for improvements in the human subjects
review policies and practices at the University.
Foremost in our discussions was the recognition that compliance with
University and federal rules requires the efficient processing of reviews.
The University can not expect researchers to cooperate with the review
system if it can not perform in a timely and appropriate manner. Efforts
in this direction are ongoing, and have already resulted in the establishment of an IRB devoted to social and behavioral research. In addition,
the IRB has developed a streamlined procedure for processing and approving exempt research. A new form for requesting exemption of a research project has been posted to the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA)
web site along with a diagram of what constitutes an exempt study. Still,
further steps need to be taken if the process of applying for and receiving
IRB approval is to be truly efficient.
Equally important, we believe that the community of sociobehavioral
researchers at the University and throughout the country are at the early
stages of a fundamental shift in our approach to human subjects research.
Many of us were educated and began our research careers at a time when
these issues were neither explicitly addressed nor formally imposed on
our professional practices. We must take steps to incorporate the evolving principles of ethical research practice in our teaching and our research.
Over time, as future cohorts of researchers are trained to incorporate these
principles and procedures into their practices the role of the IRB system
will become both more widely understood and less burdensome on researchers and on IRB members.
As the Working Group proceeded to consider various domains of
sociobehavioral research several themes emerged that led to a set of analyses and recommendations. Chief among these are an emphasis on the
importance of instituting educational efforts that would bring current as
well as future researchers into fuller awareness of the issues surrounding
the ethical use of human subjects in sociobehavioral research. As will be
explicated below, we are in favor of the development and implementation of web-based tutorial and certification systems analogous to those
now mandated by the Federal government for researchers funded by NIH
6

www.upenn.edu/almanac

in the biomedical sciences.
A second primary focus of our deliberations was the question of where
the line should be drawn between research that should and research that
should not be subject to IRB review, even under the “exempt from full
review” criterion [usually, if somewhat misleadingly, referred to as “exempt research”]. As we shall discuss below, we believe that it is important both for efficiency and for the credibility of the review system that we
define an appropriate threshold below which research need not be submitted even under the exempt category. At the same time, we need to reaffirm the legally mandated requirement that all research involving human subjects that rises above this threshold be submitted for IRB review,
if only under the exempt category. Here, too, we would emphasize that
such recommendations become more compelling and persuasive when
coupled with the implementation of appropriate tutorial and certification
systems to insure that they are properly understood and followed.

I. Education and Certification
While human subject protection issues may not be as prominent in the
sociobehavioral sciences as they are in the medical sciences, there is increasing pressure from inside and outside the University for sociobehavioral scientists to address these issues explicitly in their research. This
involves a need for a change of culture in the way investigators in a variety of sociobehavioral fields typically engage in research with human
beings. Most notably, sociobehavioral scientists may have to submit their
research for IRB approval, which involves a layer of review previously
not imposed on many of them. To help investigators embrace the increased
emphasis on human subject issues, the University should make available
the tools to educate its faculty, students and other personnel involved in
research activities. In addition, the University has a responsibility to monitor and document that its investigators are properly educated in the ethical conduct of human subjects research. The following recommendations
pertain to these new responsibilities faced by the University.
Recommendations:
1. Education for human subject protection: We recommend that
the University develop educational tools for helping personnel become
familiar with the issues of human subject protection, in particular as they
pertain to the sociobehavioral sciences.
2. Minimal education requirement [certification]: We recommend
that the University institute a requirement that all personnel (faculty, research fellows, students, and staff) engaging in research have documented
education regarding human subject protection. At the minimum, such
education should involve an explanation and illustration of when it is
appropriate for investigators to decide that their research does not require
IRB review, even at the exempt level. We also recommend that newly
recruited faculty be required to have documented education in the
University’s human subject protection regulations as part of their appointment process.
3. Monitoring and documentation: We recommend that the University set up a system to monitor and document its personnel’s education with regard to the protection of human subjects and the ethical conduct of research involving humans.
(continued past insert)
ALMANAC September 3, 2002

Suggestions for Implementation at the University

A. Develop a web-based tutorial for educating sociobehavioral researchers about the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects. This tutorial should have a generic component as well as parts specific to different fields within the sociobehavioral sciences [e.g. survey
research, ethnographic research, experimental research, etc.]. This tutorial should have a specific component dealing with debriefing of experimental subjects.
B. Develop an electronic IRB protocol submission system that guides
sociobehavioral researchers through all issues potentially pertaining to
their research while they are preparing the protocol submission. This could
be accomplished by (a) tailoring the submission system for specific
branches of sociobehavioral research, (b) linking the submission procedure to the web-based tutorial referred to under suggestion A, and (c)
providing a web page on the ORA website with regularly updated links to
professional societies’ web pages about (field-specific) human subject
protection and ethical conduct of research issues.
C. Spin off a new working group that will collaborate with the
PennERA development group to implement suggestion B.
D. Produce a brochure highlighting the present working group’s recommendations that the University decides to implement. This brochure
should be distributed broadly across the University and include the Schools
of Medicine and Nursing, since some of the recommendations may affect
these Schools as well.
E. Provide personnel with certification of completed components of
education in human subject protection, ethical conduct of research, and/
or IRB regulations.
F. Encourage faculty and other personnel to become members of the
IRB. This would have several benefits: personnel become more intimately
familiar with the issues of human subjects research, and the University
may improve its ability to promptly review submitted research protocols.
Such service to the University should be rewarded appropriately. The
Provost and the deans of research intensive schools should articulate their
strong support for IRB service by faculty members. Service on the IRB
should be counted favorably and explicitly towards evaluation for tenure
and/or promotion. In certain circumstances IRB service might be grounds
for a course-release.
G. Provide additional training for IRB staff regarding human subject
protection in the sociobehavioral sciences. This training should also focus on efficient and efficacious review procedures that will benefit both
the IRB and the investigators in terms of turn-around time, required effort and validity of protocol reviews.

II. Survey Research
Survey research typically raises few concerns with respect to human
subjects. In its simplest form, sampled subjects are approached for their
responses to batteries of items. Forms of approach—interviewing—may
be face-to-face or over the telephone; or questionnaires may be self-administered, as through the mail or via the Internet. Recording of responses
may be by means of “pen-and-pencil,” by tape recording, or with the
assistance of a computer. After the data collection process, the researcher
will analyze these data by statistical methods, ranging from tabulation to
the application of generalized linear models.
In common practice settings, the costs of participation to respondents
are generally low in an absolute sense: a small amount of subjects’ time
only. Benefits to participation variously include financial remuneration,
access to study results, and/or the opportunity to express opinions. In
Institutional Review Board (IRB) terms, risks are generally minimal, and
benefits generally outweigh the risks. Risks to participation are those attendant to the release of information garnered by the survey that may
embarrass or otherwise harm the human subjects, especially if individuals can be identified from the reported study results. These risks can often be mitigated by following standard research practices and professional
ethics published by the professional society of the discipline at hand.
Evolving practices and technologies within survey research can complicate the assessment and mitigation of costs and risks to participants. These
include panel studies, in which respondents are contacted on repeated
occasions; and record linkages, e.g., of survey data to administrative
records.
Recommendations:
4. IRB review in exemption category: We recommend that, by
default, survey research be considered exempt from IRB review if protection of the confidentially of research subjects is adequately demonstrated (which does not necessarily involve submitting the survey instrument to the IRB). In addition, all other applicable criteria for exemption
ALMANAC September 3, 2002

of IRB review must be fulfilled (e.g., the research must not involve vulnerable populations). This recommendation is consistent with the already
existing regulation CFR 46.101.b (1–4), but we wish to make it explicit
that submitting the survey instrument should not be necessary.
5. Waiver of written consent: We recommend that human subjects
responding to a survey be considered to have given informed consent if
the research is exempt from IRB review. In addition, in order to qualify
for a default waiver of written consent, a research protocol must have
been presented to the IRB showing that (a) the human subjects will be
informed of all applicable elements of consent prior to responding to the
survey; and (b) all the criteria for exemption of IRB review are fulfilled.
Here, too, this recommendation is already covered by existing regulation
CFR 46.116, but what is new is the ‘default’ aspect of the waiver of written consent. Investigators presenting a protocol for review in the exemption category and requesting a default waiver of consent without providing the survey instrument, must have documented training in the issues
concerning human subjects protection in survey research.
The criteria for exemption from IRB review can be found on the application for exempt status form available on the website of the Office of
Regulatory Affairs of the University of Pennsylvania. The criteria for a
waiver of written consent can be found in the Standard Operating Procedures of the IRB of the University of Pennsylvania.

III. Secondary Data Analysis
The end of the archetypal research study is often not the end of the
analysis of the data collected by the study. They may live on in the form
of secondary data analysis. It is important to distinguish the secondary
analysis of data from the practice of primary research. The practice of
secondary data analysis typically raises no human subjects protection
concerns and is properly considered to be below the standard for IRB
review. In the following, the secondary analysis of data is understood to
have the following characteristics: (1) no manipulation of human subjects; (2) no new data collection; and (3) no identification of research
subjects. This last point follows from the practice of the initial investigator (whether another investigator or the same person as conducting the
secondary analysis), who in releasing the data is presumed to have stripped
identifiers so that the confidentiality of the subjects is assured.
In some secondary data files, it is not possible to assure confidentiality, and these data files are typically distributed with the explicit understanding that other researchers must abide by certain rules to maintain
confidentiality. Such circumstances should continue to trigger IRB review. In these instances investigators should demonstrate to the IRB that
their secondary data are free of subject identifiers or other features that
raise the possibility of identification of human subjects, in order to obtain
exempt status. If this cannot be demonstrated, then investigators should
seek IRB approval for the secondary analysis of the data, through expedited or full-board review procedures.
Recommendations:
6. No IRB review required: We recommend adoption of National
Human Research Protections Advisory Committee [NHRPAC, 2001] recommendation 1. Specifically, we recommend that research on a public
use data file, that is, “non-identifiable data in a publicly available file”
not be considered human subjects research, and therefore not be “under
the purview of IRBs” [NHRPAC, 2001]. In addition, we recommend the
inclusion of non-confidential public records in the definition of a “public
use data file” regardless of whether the data in these non-confidential
public records are identifiable. Implementation of this recommendation
would require that the investigator is certified as per Recommendation 2.
7. IRB review in exemption category: We recommend adoption
of NHRPAC, 2001 recommendation 6. Specifically, we recommend that
research on a non-public use data file, that is, non-identifiable data in a
non-publicly available or proprietary file be exempt from IRB review,
unless vulnerable populations are involved. Investigators planning to study
non-public use data files must demonstrate to the IRB that confidentially
of research subjects is protected, either by direct evidence or by showing
that the data supplier already received IRB approval in which non-identifiability was considered and confirmed (which does not necessarily involve submitting the survey instrument or the original consent forms to
the IRB).
NHRPAC, 2001; Draft Recommendations Regarding Public Use Data
Files, July 2001, NHRPAC Social and Behavioral Science Working Group;
http://www.asanet.org/public/humanresearch/datafiles.html.
(continued on next page)
www.upenn.edu/almanac

7

Suggestions for Implementation at the University

H. Develop an application form for exemption from IRB review specific
for survey research and secondary analysis of non-public use data files.
I. Provide guidelines to investigators about when and how to apply
for a Certificate of Confidentiality.

IV. Evolving Research
In a broad class of research in the sociobehavioral sciences, the questions posed evolve in the course of investigation. This is the case, for
instance, in ethnography, where research questions may only be clarified
after a period of observation and where current findings drive the next
steps in the study in an evolving manner. Typically, this class of research
involves observation of human behavior in the field, with or without active participation by the investigator. While such studies may be common in the sociobehavioral sciences, they do not fit the stereotypical mold
of the hypothesis-driven, fixed-protocol research that is central to existing regulations designed for the protection of human participants. For
evolving research, such as ethnographic research, oral history, and focus
groups, among others, guidelines for when to seek IRB review, and how
to make the IRB review process efficient, can be given within the framework of existing regulations. The following recommendations are made
for clarification of the roles of investigators and the IRB in the process of
human subjects protection as it relates to evolving research.
Recommendations:
8. No IRB review required: We recommend that research involving only non-interventionist observations of publicly occurring behavior,
for which no identifying information is included in the study records, be
considered not to require review by the IRB. By default, this form of
research does not pose risk to human subjects, making it unnecessary to
have the IRB approve it, even under the exempt category. We also recommend that the definition of publicly occurring behavior be understood
to include publicly accessible parts of the Internet.
9. Evolving research certification: Consistent with Recommendation 2, we recommend that a program be established whereby investigators can become certified to conduct ethically sound evolving research.
Investigators should be allowed to use their certification as a reference
for describing evolving research studies to the IRB. This should serve to
eliminate the need to have investigators spell out the details of a dynamic
study protocol. The IRB can be assured that the research will be conducted in ethically appropriate fashion, with full protection of the human
subjects, when investigators state that research will be conducted within
the confines of the ethical framework laid out in the certification program. It should be noted that different investigations by the same
investigator(s) must be submitted to the IRB as separate research protocols, and cannot be seen as part of a single study evolving from one investigation into another.

V. Exploratory Research
As part of their professional activities, investigators typically engage
in exploratory research on a regular basis. Such research involves conceiving or refining a research question through harmless observation,
casual conservation, browsing existing data, etc. IRB regulations stipulate that “research is a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge” [Federal Policy CFR 46.102(d)]. This raises
the question whether and, if so, when exploratory research falls under the
purview of the IRB. The following recommendation is made to clarify
the role of the IRB in the review of exploratory research.
Recommendation:
10. IRB review required upon disclosure only: We recommend
that exploratory research be considered not to require review by the IRB,
even under the exempt category, if the following conditions are met:
a. The exploratory research does not involve any vulnerable populations
(e.g., children, prisoners);
b. The exploratory research involves no interventions by the investigators;
c. The exploratory research participants are not identifiable from the
study records;
d. The exploratory research data and results are not disclosed or published.

However, such research must be submitted to the IRB for retroactive
review if/when the investigator anticipates or decides to disclose the data
and/or results, or to submit them for publication—unless IRB review is
still not required on other grounds (e.g., Recommendation 8, above). Such
retroactive review should have the same procedures as if the study protocol had been submitted as a new study before the onset of the exploratory
research. If the IRB does not give approval, and appeal of the IRB’s
8

www.upenn.edu/almanac

decision does not change this, then the data and results cannot be disclosed in any form. If the investigator decides to begin a systematic investigation on the basis of exploratory research for which no IRB review
was required, then a study protocol must be submitted for IRB review as
per existing rules and regulations (unless IRB review is not required on
other grounds). Investigators are advised not to wait until the last possible moment to seek IRB approval for their exploratory research.
Suggestions for Implementation at the University

J. Develop a web-based tutorial for educating field researchers about
the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects.
K. Develop a web-based course to implement the certification program referred to in Recommendation 2 above.
L. Encourage course directors of courses on research methods or similar topics to help prepare students for taking the web-based course referred to in suggestion K above.
M. Educate the Office of Regulatory Affairs staff about what information to expect from the investigators of field research studies and how to
apply the exempt and expedited categories of review to these studies.
N. Empower the IRB to give retroactive approval of exploratory research that has reached the threshold of systematic investigation where
IRB review becomes necessary.

VI. Debriefing of Human Subjects
A frequently used technique in experimental sociobehavioral research and
other fields of inquiry is the temporary manipulation of individuals’ behavioral or perceptional states to measure or demonstrate a specific behavior,
attitude or way of thinking. Often these manipulations involve deceiving
experimental subjects about the purpose of the experiment, or about some
trait or state of the subjects themselves (e.g., giving them false feedback about
their performance). In other cases subjects might be exposed to messages
intended to alter their beliefs or attitudes. In the typical instance, at the end of
the experiment the true purpose of the research is revealed (e.g., subjects are
informed of any deception about the purpose of the experiment, about their
abilities or traits, or about the impact of the messages they were exposed to,
etc.). It is generally assumed that subjects’ temporary states are undone by
means of such debriefing. While many research studies involve some kind
of debriefing, little attention is commonly paid to whether or not the debriefing procedures accomplish the intended purpose (i.e., to undo the experimentally induced state). Yet, this issue may have important implications for human subject protection.
If debriefing is an issue, then presumably some part of the consent
procedure was omitted (e.g., subjects were not told every aspect of the
study, or they were purposely deceived about some aspects of the study).
This requires a waiver of aspects of informed consent, which automatically triggers heightened awareness among IRB reviewers. Nevertheless,
the discussion then often deals with whether or not that waiver is appropriate; it does not generally focus on the effectiveness of the debriefing
procedure. Thus, heightened awareness of the debriefing issue may help
to improve the ethical conduct of research on human beings. In some
cases, particularly when a manipulation may lead to negative effects, it
might be appropriate to require researchers to conduct follow-up investigations to assure that debriefing efforts have been successful.
Recommendation:
11. Review of debriefing: We recommend that specific attention be
paid to the debriefing of subjects during the IRB review of experimental
protocols. We also recommend that investigators be asked to address this
issue specifically in their submitted study protocols and, particularly in
the case of manipulations that may cause negative effects, to describe if
and how the effectiveness of the debriefing methods they propose to use
will be assessed.
Working Group on Human Subjects Research
in the Sociobehavioral Sciences
Jeffrey Draine, Social Work
Martha Farah, Psychology
Melanie Green, Psychology
Larry Gross, Communications, Co-Chair
Kathleen Hall, Education
Mark Liberman, Linguistics
Deborah McGuire, Nursing
Mark Pauly, Health Care Systems
Pamela Sankar, Bioethics
Herb Smith, Sociology
Greg Urban, Anthropology
Hans Van Dongen, Psychiatry, Co-Chair
Susan Watkins, Sociology
ALMANAC September 3, 2002

From the Office of the Vice Provost for Research

OF RECORD

Funding Opportunities for Research

Procedures for the Establishment, Merger and Closing of
Departments, Divisions & Similar Entities within Schools
The proposed revision to the Statutes of the Trustees and The Handbook for
Faculty and Academic Administrators, Section II.E.14, “Procedures for the
Establishment, Merger and Closing of Departments, Divisions and Similar Entities
within Schools” published For Comment on April 30, 2002 was approved without
comment, accepted Of Record, and became effective July 1, 2002.
— Barbara Lowery, Associate Provost

Policy on the Use of upenn.edu Domain Name Space
The Network Policy Committee, IT Roundtable, and the Vice Provost for
ISC wish to call your attention to a recently approved computing policy. This
policy specifies the naming requirements for domains within the upenn.edu domain name space. A structured approach to domain naming conventions will
result in less ambiguity and will reduce duplicate requests and/or contention for
domain names. The policy also provides links to documents that make the process of requesting changes easier to understand and more consistent with the
local policies of School and Center computing.
The full policy text can be found online at http://www.isc-net.upenn.edu/
policy/approved/20011108-upenndomain.html.
— Information Systems and Computing, Networking and Telecommunications

Researchers are often interested in learning about funding opportunities for support of their research programs. The Office of the Vice Provost
for Research’s website (www.upenn.edu/research/funding) provides access to a service that is available to individual Penn researchers, under a
University-wide subscription from the provider, Info-Ed. This service
consists of three parts: SPIN, GENIUS, and SMARTS.
• SPIN permits the researcher to search for program announcements in an area of her/his interest.
• GENIUS permits the researcher to enter a brief professional
profile, including a list of keywords that identify program announcements of interest to that researcher.
• Under this program, the researcher can request regular downloads
of announcements that will be sent as an e-mail, under the rubric of
SMARTS.
Since Info-Ed accesses >2,800 different sponsors, including Federal,
State, and private not for profit funding sources, a wide variety of
opportunities are available. Users can take advantage of any or all three of
the services offered according to their individual preferences. Directions
are provided on the website. Questions should be addressed to Josie Rook,
Assistant Vice Provost for Research, at rookj@pobox, or (215) 898-7236.

OF RECORD
The following policy, effective July 2000, supercedes Policy # 004, dated October 1, 1973.
For more information visit www.upenn.edu/affirm-action/.

The Policy of Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination
The University of Pennsylvania’s special character is reflected in the
diversity of the Penn community. Men and women of different races,
religions, nationalities and backgrounds are necessary to achieve the
University’s ultimate purpose: the improvement of the human condition
through the pursuit of learning and the generation of knowledge. Diversity
is prized at Penn because it helps to create the educational environment
that best prepares students to contribute to an increasingly diverse and
rapidly shrinking world. We must continue, therefore, to seek talented
faculty, students and staff who will help constitute a community at Penn
that is diverse in race, ethnicity, interests and perspectives.
The foundation for achieving, valuing, and managing diversity at Penn
is equal opportunity. We have a clear commitment to equal opportunity,
non-discrimination, and affirmative action. This policy re-affirms our
commitment in this regard. This policy of equal opportunity, affirmative
action, and non-discrimination is fundamental to the effective functioning
of the University as an institution of teaching, scholarship, and public
service.
Penn adheres to a policy that prohibits discrimination against individuals on the following protected-class bases: race, color, sex (except where
sex is a bona fide occupational qualification), sexual orientation, religion,
creed, national or ethnic origin, age (except where age is a bona fide
occupational qualification), disability (and those associated with persons
with disabilities), or status as a special disabled, Vietnam era veteran or
other eligible veteran.
Our task is to eliminate any patterns of prohibited unequal treatment
from a community that prizes diversity. We must monitor our policies,
procedures, and practices for equal opportunity and access to the services,
programs, and opportunities our community has to offer individuals.
Penn is committed to ensuring that all academic programs (except
where age or sex are bona fide occupational qualifications), including
social and recreational programs, and services are administered without
regard to an individual’s protected-class status.
Penn is also committed to ensuring that its personnel and other
employment decisions are made without regard to an individual’s
protected-class status. Personnel and other employment decisions include,
but may not be limited to, outreach and recruitment, application, selection,
promotion and other transfers, compensation, benefits administration,
layoffs and other personnel transitions, University sponsored training and
educational programs, and tuition assistance.
Penn is dedicated to an organizational strategy that supports the full
realization of equal employment opportunity for all through affirmative
action predicated on the following tenets:

1. Serious and imaginative outreach, recruitment, and advertising
methods.
2. Periodic reviews of the personnel and other employment decisions
made by hiring officers.
3. Thorough analysis of Penn’s faculty and staff workforce composition to determine areas of underutilization for which concentrated
or special effort is due.
4. Provision of professional and management development opportunities for faculty and staff that builds skills and knowledge around
equal opportunity, as well as valuing and effectively managing
Penn’s diverse work environments.
5. Provision of skill development and enhancement opportunities for
staff.
6. Provision of technical assistance on the implementation of this
policy, as needed, to schools, departments, and centers.

As a federal contractor, Penn has a written Affirmative Action Plan to
address the utilization of women and minorities and to address the
inclusion of persons with disabilities, special disabled and Vietnam era
veterans in Penn’s workforce.
This policy also recognizes an individual’s right to raise and pursue
concerns of alleged discrimination to a University resource office or to an
appropriate individual within a school, department, or center without
adverse action or retaliation for doing so. The Affirmative Action Plan
describes the University resources available to faculty, staff, students, and
applicants for employment or admission to Penn who believe they have
been discriminated against on the basis of their protected-class status.
Penn’s non-discrimination and affirmative action policies and programs are developed, administered, and monitored centrally through the
Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Programs in collaboration with the Division of Human Resources and the Office of the
Associate Provost. The Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Programs is located organizationally within the Office of the President. Questions and concerns regarding these policies and programs, as
well as requests for educational programs on affirmative action, equal
opportunity, and nondiscrimination, should be directed to the Executive
Director, Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Programs,
Sansom Place East, Suite 228, 3600 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA
19104-6106, (215) 898-6993 (Voice) or (215) 898-7803 (TIDID).
This policy covers faculty and staff, matriculated students, applicants
for faculty and staff employment, and applicants to Penn’s academic
programs and other activities.

—Judith Rodin, President
—Robert Barchi, Provost
This policy is available in alternate format upon request.
ALMANAC September 3, 2002

www.upenn.edu/almanac

9

University of Pennsylvania
Three-Year Academic Calendar, 2002-2003 through 2004-2005
Fall

2002 Fall Term

2003 Fall Term

2004 Fall Term

August 27

August 26

August 31

August 29
September 2

August 28
September 1

September 2
September 6

September 4
September 5
September 20
October 11
October 11-13
October 18-20
November 2

September 3
September 4
September 19
October 10
October 10-12
October 24-26
November 8

September 8
September 9
September 24
October 15
October 22-24
October 29-31
October 16

October 28-November 10

October 27-November 9

November 1-14

November 27
December 2
December 9
December 10-12
December 13-20
December 20

November 26
December 1
December 8
December 9-11
December 12-19
December 19

November 24
November 29
December 10 (Friday)
December 13-15 (Mon-Wed)
December 16-23 (Thu-Thu)
December 23 (Thursday)

Move-in and registration
for Transfer Students
Tuesday
Move-in for first-year students;
New Student Orientation
Thursday
Labor Day
Monday
New Student Convocation
and Opening Exercises;
Penn Reading Project
Wednesday
First Day of Classes
Thursday
Add Period Ends
Friday
Drop Period Ends
Friday
Fall Term Break
Friday-Sunday
Family Weekend
Friday-Sunday
Homecoming
Saturday
Advance Registration,
Spring Term
Monday-Sunday
Thanksgiving Break Begins
at close of classes
Wednesday
Thanksgiving Break Ends 8 a.m. Monday
Fall Term Classes End
Monday
Reading Days
Tuesday -Thursday
Final Examinations
Friday-Friday
Fall Semester Ends
Friday

Spring

2003 Spring Term

2004 Spring Term

2005 Spring Term

Spring Semester classes begin Monday
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
(observed; no classes)
Monday
Add Period Ends
Friday
Drop Period Ends
Friday
Spring Break Begins
at Close of Classes
Friday
Classes Resume
at 8 a.m.
Monday
Advance Registration for Fall and
Summer Sessions
Monday-Sunday
Spring Term Classes End
Friday
Reading Days
Monday-Wednesday
Final Examinations
Thursday-Friday
Alumni Day
Saturday
Baccalaureate
Sunday
Commencement
Monday

January 13

January 12

January 10

January 20
January 24
February 14

January 19
January 23
February 13

January 17
January 21
February 11

March 7

March 5

March 4

March 17

March 15

March 14

March 24-April 6
April 25
April 28-30
May 1-9
May 17
May 18
May 19

March 22-April 4
April 23
April 26-28
April 29-May 7
May 15
May 16
May 17

March 21-April 3
April 22
April 25-27
April 28-May 6
May 14
May 15
May 16

Summer

2003 Summer Session

2004 Summer Session

2005 Summer Session

May 19
May 20
May 26
June 27
June 30
July 4 (Friday)

May 17
May 18
May 31
June 25
June 28
July 5 (Monday)

May 16
May 17
May 30
June 24
June 27
July 4 (Monday)

August 8

August 6

August 5

12-Week Evening Session
classes begin
Monday
First Session classes begin
Tuesday
Memorial Day (no classes)
Monday
First Session classes end
Friday
Second Session classes begin Monday
Independence Day (no classes)
Second Session; 12-Week
Evening Session classes end
Friday

Note: The University’s Three-Year Academic Calendar is subject to change. In the event that changes are made,
the latest, most up-to-date version will be posted to Almanac’s website, www.upenn.edu/almanac.

10

www.upenn.edu/almanac

ALMANAC September 3, 2002

Admissions Seminars for Penn Faculty/Staff Families
College-bound teenagers and their parents often can be overwhelmed by the choices and requirements of college admissions. What courses are important to take in high school? How significant are
extracurricular activities, essays, test scores, and interviews?
The answers are right here on campus and available to Penn employees and their families, whether
their students plan to apply to Penn or elsewhere.
The Undergraduate Admissions Office will host two seminars this week for Penn families whose
teenagers are beginning the college search process. One session will be held at 5:15 p.m. on Tuesday,
September 3, in the Ben Franklin Room of Houston Hall; it will be repeated on Thursday, September 5,
also at 5:15 p.m., in the Terrace Room in Logan Hall.
The sessions will focus on the college selection process for large and small, public and private colleges.
Admissions officers will discuss what it takes to gain admission to a competitive college, how to get the most
out of a campus visit, and other issues such as financial aid.
The seminars are free, and the office requests participants to RSVP to (215) 898-7126, or
seminars@admissions.ugao.upenn.edu.
—Gwynne Lynch, Regional Director of Admissions DC, MD, VA, and Chester and Delaware Counties, PA

OF RECORD

This year Rosh Hashanah will be observed on Saturday, September 7 and Sunday, September 8.
Please remember that Jewish holidays begin at sunset on the day preceding the date given; thus the
observance of Rosh Hashanah will begin at sundown, Friday, September 6. Yom Kippur is on
Monday, September 16. Observance will begin at sundown on Sunday, September 15.

Reminder: Policy on Secular and Religious Holidays
Effective July 1, 1996; Revised March 30, 2001
1. The University recognizes/observes the following secular holidays: Martin Luther King Day,
Memorial Day, July 4, Thanksgiving and the day after, Labor Day, and New Year’s Day.
2. The University also recognizes that there are several religious holidays that affect large numbers of
University community members, including Christmas, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, the first two days of
Passover, and Good Friday. In consideration of their significance for many students, no examinations may be
given and no assigned work may be required on these days. Students who observe these holidays will be given
an opportunity to make up missed work in both laboratories and lecture courses. If an examination is given on
the first class day after one of these holidays, it must not cover material introduced in class on that holiday.
Faculty should realize that Jewish holidays begin at sundown on the evening before the published date
of the holiday. Late afternoon exams should be avoided on these days. Also, no examinations may be held
on Saturday or Sunday in the undergraduate schools unless they are also available on other days. Nor
should seminars or other regular classes be scheduled on Saturdays or Sundays unless they are also
available at other times.
3. The University recognizes that there are other holidays, both religious and secular, which are of
importance to some individuals and groups on campus. Such occasions include, but are not limited to,
Sukkot, the last two days of Passover, Shavuot, Shemini Atzerat, and Simchat Torah, as well as Chinese
New Year, the Muslim New Year, and the Islamic holidays Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha. Students who
wish to observe such holidays must inform their instructors within the first two weeks of each semester
of their intent to observe the holiday even when the exact date of the holiday will not be known until later
so that alternative arrangements convenient to both students and faculty can be made at the earliest
opportunity. Students who make such arrangements will not be required to attend classes or take examinations
on the designated days, and faculty must provide reasonable opportunities for such students to make up missed
work and examinations. For this reason it is desirable that faculty inform students of all examination dates at
the start of each semester. Exceptions to the requirement of a make-up examination must be approved in
advance by the undergraduate dean of the school in which the course is offered.
—Robert Barchi, Provost

CLASSIFIEDS—UNIVERSITY
RESEARCH
The Neuropsychiatry Program at the University
of Pennsylvania is looking for individuals with
schizophrenia and/or their family members for
brain-behavior and genetic research. If
interested, please call (215) 662-7388.
Troubled by Overeating at Nighttime? Do you
get up at night to eat? The University of
Pennsylvania’s Weight and Eating Disorders
Program is conducting a research study of the
Night Eating Syndrome. Study participants will
receive assessment and treatment. To be eligible you must be 18-65 years old, be overweight, not have an occupation requiring
nightshift work, and not be currently in a weight
reduction program. For more information, call
(215) 898-2823 or log on to www.uphs.
upenn.edu/weight.
Postmenopausal Women Needed
Postmenopausal volunteers needed for a research study examining estrogen use, memory,
and the ability to smell. $50 will be given for
approximately 3 hours of participation. Women
55 or older. For more information please call
(215) 662-6580.

Almanac is not responsible for contents of
classified ad material.

•

To place a classified ad, call (215) 898-5274.

CLASSIFIEDS—PERSONAL
FOR RENT
Furnished studio apartment to rent in Society
Hill area. All utilities included. Immediate
occupancy. Contact (215) 413-3601.
Furnished house, couple going on Fulbright,
avail. Oct.1. Built 1803, 3 bdrms, sep. living,
dining & sitting rooms, study, 2 1/2 baths, garden, fireplace, a/c, dw, w/d, $2300 mo. + util.
10 min. W. Phil. #40 bus. 9-12 mos. lease, call
(215) 923-7789.
AVAILABLE
Writer, publishing credits include Pearson Education, SAP America, Wharton Alumni magazine.
Available for writing projects, research, proofreading and profiles. sheryl.simons@wharton.
upenn.edu
Almanac is not responsible for contents
of classified ad material.

Penn Express Modem Pool Discontinued on 6/30/02
The Express Modem Pool was discontinued as planned on June 30, 2002. The termination plans
were first announced two years ago, when the regular modem pool was discontinued and users were
directed to commercial ISP services for remote access to PennNet and the Internet. The Express
Pool was used as a transitional service for the convenience of the Penn community, but employed
aging technology that did not provide the data transfer speeds that ISPs offer and that are required
to take advantage of many of Penn’s online services.
Those who had been using the Express Modem Pool as their primary ISP can learn about
alternatives at the remote access web page at www.upenn.edu/computing/remote. The web site
provides information on whom to contact with questions about the policy and how to get assistance
making the transition. A useful chart comparing service options and prices is available at
www.upenn.edu/computing/remote/help_chart.html.

The University of Pennsylvania Police Department
Community Crime Report
About the Crime Report: Almanac normally publishes all Crimes Against Persons and Crimes
Against Society from the campus report in each week’s issue. Also reported are Crimes Against
Property with full reports on the Web For the most recent week’s crimes (August 19 to August 25)
see www.upenn.edu/almanac/crimes-ABI.html Prior summer weeks’ reports are also on-line.—Ed.
This summary is prepared by the Division of Public Safety and includes all criminal incidents reported and
made known to the University Police Department. The University Police actively patrols from Market Street
to Baltimore Avenue and from the Schuylkill River to 43rd Street in conjunction with the Philadelphia Police.
In this effort to provide you with a thorough and accurate report on public safety concerns, we hope that
your increased awareness will lessen the opportunity for crime. For any concerns or suggestions regarding
this report, please call the Division of Public Safety at (215) 898-4482.

18th District Report
For the report of incidents and arrests which were reported between August 19 to August 25, 2002
by the 18th District—covering the Schuylkill River to 49th St. & Market St. to Woodland Ave—see
www.upenn.edu/almanac/crimes-ABI.html

ALMANAC September 3, 2002

Suite 211 Nichols House
3600 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6106
Phone: (215) 898-5274 or 5275 FAX: (215) 898-9137
E-Mail: almanac@pobox.upenn.edu
URL: www.upenn.edu/almanac/
The University of Pennsylvania’s journal of record, opinion and
news is published Tuesdays during the academic year, and as
needed during summer and holiday breaks. Its electronic editions on the Internet (accessible through the PennWeb) include
HTML and Acrobat versions of the print edition, and interim
information may be posted in electronic-only form. Guidelines for
readers and contributors are available on request.
EDITOR
Marguerite F. Miller
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Margaret Ann Morris
ASSISTANT EDITOR
Natalie Stevens
STUDENT ASSISTANTS
Chris McFall; William Yeoh
WPHS INTERN
Jamar Benyard
ALMANAC ADVISORY BOARD: For the Faculty Senate, Martin
Pring (Chair), Helen Davies, David Hackney, Phoebe Leboy,
Mitchell Marcus, Joseph Turow. For the Administration, Lori N.
Doyle. For the Staff Assemblies, Michele Taylor, PPSA; Karen
Pinckney, A-3 Assembly; David N. Nelson, Librarians Assembly.
The University of Pennsylvania values diversity and seeks talented
students, faculty and staff from diverse backgrounds. The University of
Pennsylvania does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual
orientation, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, or
status as a Vietnam Era Veteran or disabled veteran in the administration
of educational policies, programs or activities; admissions policies; scholarship and loan awards; athletic, or other University administered programs or employment. Questions or complaints regarding this policy
should be directed to Valerie Hayes, Executive Director, Office of Affirmative Action,3600 Chestnut Street, 2nd floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6106
or (215) 898-6993 (Voice) or (215) 898-7803 (TDD).

www.upenn.edu/almanac

11

Home on the Web
Almanac is available on the web at www.upenn.edu/almanac/. Pictured at right is
Almanac’s homepage and an explanation of what is available online from our website.
1 Search for Almanac articles from back issues since July 1995. Use quotation marks
around a phrase to narrow the search: “summer camps” yields 11 documents as
compared to 853 documents for summer camps.
2 Go to the University of Pennsylvania’s home page.
3 Get latest Almanac issue.
4 Get latest AT PENN Calendar.
5 Almanac Between Issues —Archive of breaking news items that didn’t happen in
time for publication.
6 Archive—issues and calendars both in HTML and PDF format from July 1995 to the
present, and select items before 1995.
7 Submission guidelines and deadlines for the issue, the calendar, Speaking Out
letters, and subscription info.
8 The time and current temperature in Philadelphia. Click on weather logo to get
weather information for other cities.
9 Links to some of the most wanted items from prior issues including: Academic
Calendar, Crime Reports, Emergency Closings, Recognized Holidays, and Salary
Guidelines.
10 Express Almanac: Subscribe to receive an e-mail message with links to Breaking
News, the latest issue of Almanac or the AT PENN Calendar.
11 Links to helpful Penn web sites.
12 The latest Breaking News is at the top of the page with a link to the whole article
13 A cover story from the latest issue with a link to the full story.
14 Link to the latest issue’s cover stories.
15 Print a digital replica in PDF format using free Acrobat Reader.
16 Links to more highlights of the latest issue.
17 Links to essential Penn specific information including:
Business Services, Campus Media, Directories, Facilities Services, Governance,
Human Resources, the Library, Mail Services, and Penn Police.
There are also links to major, off-campus news web sites including: Philadelphia
Inquirer, New York Times, Washington Post, Chronicle of Higher Education, U.S.
News & World Report, and CNN.
Want to enjoy campus in your spare time? The “Arts & Leisure” section contains links
to many of Penn’s art galleries, the University Museum, the Morris Arboretum, Penn
Presents, as well as Recreation and Athletics.
• Why is this issue of Almanac individually addressed?
We do this once a year to notify faculty and staff that Penn’s journal of record, opinion
and news is back in weekly production; Almanac comes out each Tuesday during the
academic year, except during breaks.
Normally Almanac is distributed in bundles to University buildings, where each department chooses its own system for further distribution. To find out how the system works,
try the departmental secretary first, or the head of the school or building mailroom.
If all else fails, mail your label to Almanac (see address above), or fax it to us at (215)
898-9137, adding your campus phone number so we can direct you to a source of help.
Almanac is also available online-for easy reference at www.upenn.edu/almanac—add
a bookmark in Netscape or add our page to Favorites in Explorer.
• Can’t wait to read the latest news?
You can have Express Almanac delivered by e-mail; just subscribe to e-almanac, at no
charge.

2

1
3

5

4

6

9

7

8

12
17

13

10
14
11

15

11
16

Suite 211 Nichols House
3600 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6106
Phone: (215) 898-5274 or 5275 FAX: (215) 898-9137
E-Mail: almanac@pobox.upenn.edu
URL: www.upenn.edu/almanac/

Visit Almanac’s website at

www.upenn.edu/almanac
12

www.upenn.edu/almanac

ALMANAC September 3, 2002



---

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.2
Linearized                      : Yes
Create Date                     : 2002:08:28 13:30:58-04:00
Modify Date                     : 2002:08:28 13:30:58-04:00
Subject                         : 090302
Page Count                      : 12
Creation Date                   : 2002:08:28 17:30:58Z
Mod Date                        : 2002:08:28 17:30:58Z
Producer                        : Acrobat Distiller 5.00 for Macintosh
Author                          : morris
Keywords                        : 
Metadata Date                   : 2002:08:28 17:30:58Z
Creator                         : morris
Title                           : 090302
Description                     : 090302

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools