090302 PENNNET 650

User Manual: PENNNET 650

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

UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA

Tuesday,

September 3, 2002

Volume 49 Number 2

www.upenn.edu/almanac/

At Penn, Over the Summer . . .

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.

Faculty Senate Leadership for 2002-2003 Honoring Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander:

A Role Model for Future Generations of Students

In a tribute to a woman whose lists of personal and professional

achievements are unparalleled, the Penn-

Assisted School is now officially The Sadie

Tanner Mossell Alexander University of

Pennsylvania Partnership School. The

School Reform Commission passed a reso-

lution in August approving the name.

The neighborhood PreK-8 university-as-

sisted 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 fami-

lies from nearly 20 countries.

Dr. Alexander was a pioneer for Afri-

can-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 Re-

form Commission agreed with our recom-

mendation to have our school named after a

woman of great recognition,” said Sheila A.

Sydnor, the school principal. “Sadie Tanner

Mossell Alexander exemplified true leader-

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-Ameri-

can woman to pass the bar and to practice law in Pennsylvania.

“She had to be better than the very best,” said Jerry Jordan, vice presi-

dent 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 excel-

lence 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 con-

structed 83,000 square feet, $19 million building that can accommodate

up to 650 students in 28 classrooms. Clustered in modules, the class-

rooms overlook a central multi-story atrium that will also serve as a gath-

ering place for students and community. Other features include a gymna-

sium/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)

Sadie Alexander

IN THIS ISSUE

2Welcome Back: From the Senate Chair; Senate Officers Elected for 2002-2003

3Welcome Back: From the President

4Deaths: 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

5Speaking Out: Biomed Communications; Personal Privacy; Prescriptions

6Report on Human Subjects Research in the SocioBehavioral Sciences

9Procedures 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

•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 en-

tered into in 1998 for project management services for capital construc-

tion projects and property management and transaction services for off-

campus properties as well as for the Neighborhood Preservation and De-

velopment 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 mea-

sures 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 Gym-

nasium. 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 com-

mission. 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 com-

munity involvement; student assessment and student academic support

and enrichment. These partnerships augment Penn’s involvement in pub-

lic school education at the newly named Alexander School, the newest

public school in West Philadelphia (see story at right).

ALMANAC September 3, 20022 www.upenn.edu/almanac

Faculty Senate Officers Elected for 2002-2003

TO: Members of the Standing Faculty

FROM: 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.

SENATE From the Senate Chair

On behalf of the Faculty Senate, welcome back to Penn for the begin-

ning 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 Uni-

versity through the frequent consultations that take place between the

Senate leadership (the Chair-elect, Lance Donaldson-Evans; the Past Chair,

The Faculty Senate Agenda 2002-2003

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 con-

stituency representatives or the Senate leadership directly by phone or e-

mail. 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 chal-

lenge 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 Pro-

vost has examined aspects of retirement which resulted from the elimina-

tion 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 for-

warded 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 revi-

sion 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 form-

ing a committee to formulate policy on Institutional Conflict of Interest;

he has kept the Faculty Senate leadership well informed during this pro-

cess. 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, pub-

lished in this issue of Almanac. After a discussion of this study by SEC,

Vice Provost Nathanson intends to charge a committee to formalize regu-

lations 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 Edu-

cational 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 recommen-

dations 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-admin-

istration 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 pre-

WELCOME BACK

SENATE From the Senate Chair

ALMANAC September 3, 2002 3www.upenn.edu/almanac

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 intel-

lectual vitality from a fundamental and unshakeable commitment to free-

dom 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 trag-

edy 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 impor-

tance of civic engagement in every aspect of University’s life, and ro-

bust, 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 stu-

dents 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 explora-

tions 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 cam-

pus 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, pun-

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 Univer-

sity Life to provide whatever protection and support is needed to pro-

mote a physically safe environment for all members of the campus com-

munity, including groups who have suffered religious and ethnic preju-

dice in the wake of September 11.

In the past, some members of the Penn community have mistakenly inter-

preted 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 igno-

rance of views expressed by a minuscule number of people in the Penn com-

munity. 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 deter-

mination 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.

The Journey to Understanding and Knowledge

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 imple-

mented 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.

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.

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 commu-

nity of scholars and teachers. I look forward to working with you this

year, as new issues move forward, and I will keep you informed through-

out the year through Almanac. Have a productive and successful year!

FROM THE PRESIDENT

ALMANAC September 3, 20024 www.upenn.edu/almanac

Deaths

Dr. Tybel Bloom, Social Work

Dr. Tybel Bloom, emeri-

tus 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 Min-

nesota in 1934 and worked

for five years at the Ramsey

County Welfare Board in

St. Paul, Minn. She subse-

quently worked at the Phila-

delphia Child Guidance Clinic and then taught at

the University of Southern California before join-

ing 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 Ap-

proach” 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.

Dr. David Knight, Vet Medicine

Dr. David Harmon

Knight, professor emeri-

tus of veterinary medicine,

died of a heart attack July

15 while bicycling near

his home. He was 64.

A specialist in veteri-

nary cardiology, Dr.

Knight joined the faculty

in 1967 and spent his en-

tire career at Penn, retir-

ing last year. He was a

charter member of the American College of

Internal Medicine and a member of the Ameri-

can Heart Association, and served as chief of the

section of cardiology in the College of Veteri-

nary Medicine for many years.

Additionally, Dr. Knight was an accom-

plished 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 Mas-

ters World Championship in 1982 in pairs row-

ing 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 Sep-

tember at the Veterinary School.

Memorial donations may be made to Univer-

sity of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medi-

cine, 3800 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

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, Ger-

many. 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, Phila-

delphia, PA 19104. 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 re-

ceived an English degree

from Yeshiva University

and being ordained as a

rabbi at the Jewish Theo-

logical Seminary, Dr.

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 Pro-

gram, 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 reli-

gious communities: one entertaining dreams of

being a psychologist, another painting crucifix-

ions, 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 lib-

erty, he observed:

I am not so naïve as to think we can do away

with all the differences between religions, I

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 commu-

nity; 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.

Mr. Ford, Planning & Operations SOM

Warren Ford, a special ser-

vices assistant, Space Planning

and Operations in the School

of Medicine died on August 4

at the age of 59. Mr. Ford be-

gan working at Penn in 1969 as

a utility worker at SOM and

remained there until his death.

He is survived by his wife,

Brenda; four daughters

Cassundra, Octavia, LaToya

and Bria; 11 grandchildren; four sisters; and two

brothers. Donations may be sent to Mrs. Brenda

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 Tech-

nology 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 de-

sign, comprehensive urban planning, metropoli-

tan and regional planning; urban transportation

planning and design, central area revitalization,

new community planning and design, planned

residential developments, community and envi-

ronmental 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 con-

tinued 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 broth-

ers, Ralph, Gordon, Larry and Mardell. Dona-

tions may be sent to Habitat for Humanity.

David Knight Chaim Potok

Warren Ford

Mrs. Lucid was born and raised in Oregon,

earned her BA in English from Seattle Univer-

sity 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 En-

glish, drama, and debate—she retired in 1995.

She had been active with the Philadelphia Fed-

eration 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 no-

nonsense 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.

Tybel Bloom

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.

ALMANAC September 3, 2002 5www.upenn.edu/almanac

Privacy on Auction Block

I’m mighty irked to read the Executive

Director’s, Human Resources, glib

pontifications. Leny Bader maintains, ‘the

protection of personal privacy is an impor-

tant 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 employ-

ment 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 take-

home—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, creat-

ing ‘ghosts’. Then HUP billed Medicare for

hospitalization given these non-existing pa-

tients. We are employed by an ethical

Brigadoon. The University we serve with

Pricy Prescriptions at Pharmacies

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 dis-

turbed 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 apol-

ogy is enough for the misuse of sensitive infor-

mation 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 pre-

scriptions needed for life-preserving reasons.

On Biomed Communications

I just learned that the School of Medicine

has closed my former department, Biomedi-

cal Communications. After spending 36 years

as director, and building an excellent depart-

ment of photographers, illustrators and com-

puter graphic artists, with a reputation of

excellence, I am truly dismayed at the Medi-

cal Schools decision to close an integral

service to not only the Medical Center, but to

the University as well.

Biomedical Communications was a self sup-

porting 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

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 Finan-

cial, any particular product offered, or any

available product provider. Nor do we supple-

ment 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 continen-

tal 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

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.

Speaking Out

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 effec-

tive July 1, 2002 so that brands without

generics now have an employee’s co-insur-

ance of 30% at retail. If purchased by mail

order, the co-insurance will be 10%. Fur-

thermore, 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 pro-

vides out-of-pocket limits which protect our

employees from substantial expenses. In ad-

dition, mail orders now count towards these

out-of-pocket limits. The University contin-

ues 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 1-

800-378-0802.

—Leny Bader, Executive Director,

Human Resources, Benefits

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 outra-

geous price inflation be justified?

—Sharon D’Hurieux, Law Development

— Tricia Owen, Alumni Relations

Dr. Margaret Sovie, Nursing

Dr. Margaret D. Sovie, the Jane Delano Pro-

fessor of Administration at the School of Nurs-

ing, 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 gradu-

ated from the St. Lawrence State Hospital School

of Nursing in 1964, and served as a nursing su-

pervisor at the Good Shepherd Hospital and then

as education director for

nursing services at Up-

state 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

Nursing Administration

and was a nurse practitioner at Penn’s health

annex at Myer Recreation Center. Dr. Sovie was

Margaret Sovie

a member of the Institute of Medicine.

“Dr. Sovie was a fearless researcher. She me-

ticulously 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.

would hope to do away with the hatred those

differences have elicited. Despite our divisive-

ness 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?

ALMANAC September 3, 20026 www.upenn.edu/almanac

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 sub-

jects 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

Current University policies, based on agreements with the Federal gov-

ernment, require that all research involving human subjects be subject to

review by our Institutional Review Board [IRB] system. Under the Fed-

eral 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 fac-

ulty, 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 fac-

ulty 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 establish-

ment of an IRB devoted to social and behavioral research. In addition,

the IRB has developed a streamlined procedure for processing and ap-

proving exempt research. A new form for requesting exemption of a re-

search 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 evolv-

ing 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 re-

searchers 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 analy-

ses 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 implementa-

tion of web-based tutorial and certification systems analogous to those

now mandated by the Federal government for researchers funded by NIH

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 “ex-

empt research”]. As we shall discuss below, we believe that it is impor-

tant both for efficiency and for the credibility of the review system that we

define an appropriate threshold below which research need not be sub-

mitted even under the exempt category. At the same time, we need to re-

affirm the legally mandated requirement that all research involving hu-

man 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 in-

creasing pressure from inside and outside the University for sociobe-

havioral scientists to address these issues explicitly in their research. This

involves a need for a change of culture in the way investigators in a vari-

ety 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 moni-

tor and document that its investigators are properly educated in the ethi-

cal 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, re-

search 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 appoint-

ment process.

3. Monitoring and documentation: We recommend that the Uni-

versity set up a system to monitor and document its personnel’s educa-

tion with regard to the protection of human subjects and the ethical con-

duct of research involving humans.

Report of the Working Group on Human Subjects Research in the

SocioBehavioral Sciences

May 2002

FOR COMMENT

(continued past insert)

ALMANAC September 3, 2002 7www.upenn.edu/almanac

Suggestions for Implementation at the University

A. Develop a web-based tutorial for educating sociobehavioral re-

searchers about the ethical conduct of research involving human sub-

jects. This tutorial should have a generic component as well as parts spe-

cific to different fields within the sociobehavioral sciences [e.g. survey

research, ethnographic research, experimental research, etc.]. This tuto-

rial should have a specific component dealing with debriefing of experi-

mental 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 proce-

dure 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 rec-

ommendations 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 fo-

cus on efficient and efficacious review procedures that will benefit both

the IRB and the investigators in terms of turn-around time, required ef-

fort 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-ad-

ministered, 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 at-

tendant to the release of information garnered by the survey that may

embarrass or otherwise harm the human subjects, especially if individu-

als can be identified from the reported study results. These risks can of-

ten 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 compli-

cate 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 pro-

tection of the confidentially of research subjects is adequately demon-

strated (which does not necessarily involve submitting the survey instru-

ment to the IRB). In addition, all other applicable criteria for exemption

of IRB review must be fulfilled (e.g., the research must not involve vul-

nerable 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 writ-

ten consent. Investigators presenting a protocol for review in the exemp-

tion category and requesting a default waiver of consent without provid-

ing 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 appli-

cation 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 Proce-

dures 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 sub-

jects; (2) no new data collection; and (3) no identification of research

subjects. This last point follows from the practice of the initial investiga-

tor (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 confidential-

ity, and these data files are typically distributed with the explicit under-

standing that other researchers must abide by certain rules to maintain

confidentiality. Such circumstances should continue to trigger IRB re-

view. 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 expe-

dited or full-board review procedures.

Recommendations:

6. No IRB review required: We recommend adoption of National

Human Research Protections Advisory Committee [NHRPAC, 2001] rec-

ommendation 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-identi-

fiability was considered and confirmed (which does not necessarily in-

volve 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)

ALMANAC September 3, 20028 www.upenn.edu/almanac

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 ques-

tions 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 ac-

tive participation by the investigator. While such studies may be com-

mon in the sociobehavioral sciences, they do not fit the stereotypical mold

of the hypothesis-driven, fixed-protocol research that is central to exist-

ing 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 frame-

work 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 involv-

ing 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 rec-

ommend that the definition of publicly occurring behavior be understood

to include publicly accessible parts of the Internet.

9. Evolving research certification: Consistent with Recommen-

dation 2, we recommend that a program be established whereby investi-

gators 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 con-

ducted 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 pro-

gram. It should be noted that different investigations by the same

investigator(s) must be submitted to the IRB as separate research proto-

cols, and cannot be seen as part of a single study evolving from one in-

vestigation into another.

V. Exploratory Research

As part of their professional activities, investigators typically engage

in exploratory research on a regular basis. Such research involves con-

ceiving or refining a research question through harmless observation,

casual conservation, browsing existing data, etc. IRB regulations stipu-

late that “research is a systematic investigation, including research de-

velopment, 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 proto-

col 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

decision does not change this, then the data and results cannot be dis-

closed in any form. If the investigator decides to begin a systematic in-

vestigation 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 pos-

sible 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 pro-

gram referred to in Recommendation 2 above.

L. Encourage course directors of courses on research methods or simi-

lar topics to help prepare students for taking the web-based course re-

ferred to in suggestion K above.

M. Educate the Office of Regulatory Affairs staff about what informa-

tion 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 re-

search 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’ behav-

ioral 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 debrief-

ing procedures accomplish the intended purpose (i.e., to undo the experimen-

tally induced state). Yet, this issue may have important implications for hu-

man 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 automati-

cally triggers heightened awareness among IRB reviewers. Nevertheless,

the discussion then often deals with whether or not that waiver is appro-

priate; 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 investi-

gations 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 9www.upenn.edu/almanac

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 individu-

als 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 composi-

tion to determine areas of underutilization for which concentrated

or special effort is due.

4. Provision of professional and management development opportuni-

ties 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 pro-

grams are developed, administered, and monitored centrally through the

Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Programs in collabo-

ration with the Division of Human Resources and the Office of the

Associate Provost. The Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportu-

nity Programs is located organizationally within the Office of the Presi-

dent. 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.

The Policy of Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination

OF RECORD

—Judith Rodin, President —Robert Barchi, Provost

This policy is available in alternate format upon request.

The following policy, effective July 2000, supercedes Policy # 004, dated October 1, 1973.

For more information visit www.upenn.edu/affirm-action/.

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 do-

main 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 pro-

cess 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

From the Office of the Vice Provost for Research

Funding Opportunities for Research

Researchers are often interested in learning about funding opportuni-

ties for support of their research programs. The Office of the Vice Provost

for Research’s website (www.upenn.edu/research/funding) provides ac-

cess 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 announce-

ments 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 announce-

ments 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

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

ALMANAC September 3, 200210 www.upenn.edu/almanac

University of Pennsylvania

Three-Year Academic Calendar, 2002-2003 through 2004-2005

Fall 2002 Fall Term 2003 Fall Term 2004 Fall Term

Move-in and registration

for Transfer Students Tuesday August 27 August 26 August 31

Move-in for first-year students;

New Student Orientation Thursday August 29 August 28 September 2

Labor Day Monday September 2 September 1 September 6

New Student Convocation

and Opening Exercises;

Penn Reading Project Wednesday September 4 September 3 September 8

First Day of Classes Thursday September 5 September 4 September 9

Add Period Ends Friday September 20 September 19 September 24

Drop Period Ends Friday October 11 October 10 October 15

Fall Term Break Friday-Sunday October 11-13 October 10-12 October 22-24

Family Weekend Friday-Sunday October 18-20 October 24-26 October 29-31

Homecoming Saturday November 2 November 8 October 16

Advance Registration,

Spring Term Monday-Sunday October 28-November 10 October 27-November 9 November 1-14

Thanksgiving Break Begins

at close of classes Wednesday November 27 November 26 November 24

Thanksgiving Break Ends 8 a.m. Monday December 2 December 1 November 29

Fall Term Classes End Monday December 9 December 8 December 10 (Friday)

Reading Days Tuesday -Thursday December 10-12 December 9-11 December 13-15 (Mon-Wed)

Final Examinations Friday-Friday December 13-20 December 12-19 December 16-23 (Thu-Thu)

Fall Semester Ends Friday December 20 December 19 December 23 (Thursday)

Spring 2003 Spring Term 2004 Spring Term 2005 Spring Term

Spring Semester classes begin Monday January 13 January 12 January 10

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

(observed; no classes) Monday January 20 January 19 January 17

Add Period Ends Friday January 24 January 23 January 21

Drop Period Ends Friday February 14 February 13 February 11

Spring Break Begins

at Close of Classes Friday March 7 March 5 March 4

Classes Resume

at 8 a.m. Monday March 17 March 15 March 14

Advance Registration for Fall and

Summer Sessions Monday-Sunday March 24-April 6 March 22-April 4 March 21-April 3

Spring Term Classes End Friday April 25 April 23 April 22

Reading Days Monday-Wednesday April 28-30 April 26-28 April 25-27

Final Examinations Thursday-Friday May 1-9 April 29-May 7 April 28-May 6

Alumni Day Saturday May 17 May 15 May 14

Baccalaureate Sunday May 18 May 16 May 15

Commencement Monday May 19 May 17 May 16

Summer 2003 Summer Session 2004 Summer Session 2005 Summer Session

12-Week Evening Session

classes begin Monday May 19 May 17 May 16

First Session classes begin Tuesday May 20 May 18 May 17

Memorial Day (no classes) Monday May 26 May 31 May 30

First Session classes end Friday June 27 June 25 June 24

Second Session classes begin Monday June 30 June 28 June 27

Independence Day (no classes) July 4 (Friday) July 5 (Monday) July 4 (Monday)

Second Session; 12-Week

Evening Session classes end Friday August 8 August 6 August 5

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

ALMANAC September 3, 2002 11www.upenn.edu/almanac

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; schol-

arship and loan awards; athletic, or other University administered pro-

grams or employment. Questions or complaints regarding this policy

should be directed to Valerie Hayes, Executive Director, Office of Affirma-

tive Action,3600 Chestnut Street, 2nd floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6106

or (215) 898-6993 (Voice) or (215) 898-7803 (TDD).

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 edi-

tions 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 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.

Almanac

is not responsible for contents

of classified ad material.

CLASSIFIEDS—PERSONAL

RESEARCH

CLASSIFIEDS—UNIVERSITY

Almanac

is not responsible for contents of

classified ad material.

•

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

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.

FOR RENT

Furnished studio apartment to rent in Society

Hill area. All utilities included. Immediate

occupancy. Contact (215) 413-3601.

AVAILABLE

Writer, publishing credits include Pearson Edu-

cation, SAP America, Wharton Alumni magazine.

Available for writing projects, research, proof-

reading and profiles.

sheryl.simons@wharton.

upenn.edu

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 eli-

gible you must be 18-65 years old, be over-

weight, 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.

Furnished house, couple going on Fulbright,

avail. Oct.1. Built 1803, 3 bdrms, sep. living,

dining & sitting rooms, study, 2 1/2 baths, gar-

den, fireplace, a/c, dw, w/d, $2300 mo. + util.

10 min. W. Phil. #40 bus. 9-12 mos. lease, call

(215) 923-7789.

Postmenopausal Women Needed

Postmenopausal volunteers needed for a re-

search 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.

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.

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

OF RECORD

Effective July 1, 1996; Revised March 30, 2001

Reminder: Policy on Secular and Religious Holidays

College-bound teenagers and their parents often can be overwhelmed by the choices and require-

ments 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

Admissions Seminars for Penn Faculty/Staff Families

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

18th District Report

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.

ALMANAC September 3, 200212 www.upenn.edu/almanac

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/

• 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 depart-

ment 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.

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.

1Search 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.

2Go to the University of Pennsylvania’s home page.

3Get latest

Almanac

issue.

4Get latest AT PENN Calendar.

Almanac Between Issues

—Archive of breaking news items that didn’t happen in

time for publication.

6Archive—issues and calendars both in HTML and PDF format from July 1995 to the

present, and select items before 1995.

7Submission guidelines and deadlines for the issue, the calendar, Speaking Out

letters, and subscription info.

8The time and current temperature in Philadelphia. Click on weather logo to get

weather information for other cities.

9Links to some of the most wanted items from prior issues including: Academic

Calendar, Crime Reports, Emergency Closings, Recognized Holidays, and Salary

Guidelines.

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.

Visit Almanac’s website at

www.upenn.edu/almanac

34 56 7 8

090302 PENNNET 650

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation