 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Yale Alumni Magazine is owned and operated by Yale Alumni Publications, Inc., a nonprofit corporation independent of Yale University. The content of the magazine and its website is the responsibility of the editors and does not necessarily reflect the views of Yale or its officers. |
|
I must object to statements made in your article “Nobelist Loses to Yale in Lawsuit” (Light and Verity, May/June). First: “The dispute originated in 1989, not long after Yale ordered Fenn to accept mandatory retirement and a smaller lab space.” In fact, then-Provost Frank Turner at first said I must vacate all my lab space because Yale policy allowed emeritus faculty to have office space but not lab space. I had to surrender some 80 percent of my lab space; the remaining 20 percent was made available for my three remaining graduate students to finish their thesis research. The article also stated: “Thomas Conroy, a university spokesman, said Yale repeatedly tried to settle the dispute out of court.” That is simply not so. The applicable Yale patent policy then provided that any disputes would be resolved by either the provost or the president. After an inadequate response from the provost when I tried to settle, I made an appointment with President Levin, who canceled it at the last minute and said he was referring the problem to William Stempel, Yale’s deputy general counsel, for resolution. Stempel refused to see me for two or three months and then finally entered into negotiations with my attorney. I later learned that Stempel’s delay in seeing me was because he was waiting for Yale to complete negotiation (with Analytica of Branford, Connecticut) of a so-called “quitclaim” licensing agreement. After a year or so of the negotiation with me that finally started, my attorney and Stempel at last agreed on terms acceptable to both sides. Then Stempel announced that Yale would not sign the agreement with me (on behalf of the inventors) because it was afraid of being sued by Analytica for violating the quitclaim agreement that he had negotiated between Yale and Analytica. Perhaps the most puzzling piece in this jigsaw puzzle is revealed in the letter that Yale received from a major manufacturer of mass spectrometers not long after the patent issued. That letter offered to pay Yale the sum of $5,000 for each instrument it sold that was equipped with an Electrospray Ion Source. In return Yale would provide a license to the 538 patent for the purchaser of that instrument. Then, with that offer of $5,000 in hand, Yale signed an agreement with Analytica by which it would receive less than $500 for each mass spectrometer equipped with an Electrospray Source, one tenth of what it had been offered by the mass spectrometry company! What gives? The point is that Conroy’s assertion that “Yale had repeatedly tried to settle the dispute out of court,” is simply not true. Indeed, two years or so ago I wrote to President Levin suggesting that there was a lot of noise in a channel of communication that went from Yale to attorney to attorney to Fenn and back. Therefore, it might be a good idea if he and I sat down face to face and explored settlement possibilities. He wrote back saying that the matter was in the hands of the attorneys, so he was sure I would understand that he couldn’t talk to me. Frankly, I don’t understand, especially in light of the nice note he wrote me when I received the Wilbur Cross Medal in 2003. As co-inventors of the electrospray mass spectrometry (ESMS) technology for which John Fenn shared the 2002 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, we are amazed that the administration has accomplished the seemingly impossible: to turn perhaps the greatest achievement of Yale engineering into a major embarrassment for the university! There is more to the Yale-Fenn saga than was mentioned in your article. We recall that John did not realize the work in question might be patentable until a few months before a statutory deadline and he filed an invention disclosure report with Yale soon after this realization. Further, ESMS was then in its infancy and no one, not even John, could have predicted the commercial impact this technology would later have. Besides, many scientific breakthroughs and most patents do not have significant commercial value. While the legal issues will be sorted out eventually in the appeals process, there is a human side to this story that should be told. The John Fenn we know is respected and admired the world over for his scholarship and research achievements and for his honesty and integrity. His association with Yale dates back to 1937 when he first arrived in New Haven as a graduate student. He was a professor of chemical engineering from 1967 to 1987 and stayed on at Yale until 1993. Such a long-term and, at one time, mutually beneficial relationship with Yale should be treasured. As a professor, he did everything from giving academic-research advice to arranging first dates with future wives. He was even a surrogate father of the bride at a student’s wedding. But John is outspoken on matters of principle and was known to have ruffled some bureaucratic feathers during his tenure. Unfortunately, this affair has taken a toll on this remarkable man. John is now 88 years old. The disputed invention was made after he reached Yale’s then-mandatory retirement age. Hours after the Nobel ceremony, he suffered a major heart attack. While he was in the Stockholm hospital and having great difficulty breathing, the Yale situation was one of the first things he asked about. John was hopeful that Yale would be wise enough to resolve the dispute amicably. Regrettably, instead of lifting a heavy burden from an aging and dear colleague, it continued undeterred down the legal path. We believe this misguided policy demonstrates an inexcusable lack of compassion and common sense on the part of the administration. It is sad to reflect on how much better it would have been for John and Yale if the last ten years or so were not consumed by legal matters. The administration would do well to consider the terrible cost of its “victory” and to remember that outstanding people, like John Fenn, not policies, make Yale a great university. Vice president and general counsel Dorothy Robinson responds:
Religion reactions “Gods and Man at Yale!” I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw the latest issue of your magazine (May/June). Has nothing changed in the 30-plus years of feminism and feminist theology? Didn’t anyone look at that front cover of four clergymen and see how unrepresentative it is of Yale, of the people in the pews, and even the campus ministries these men supposedly represent? Even if William F. Buckley’s book was an impetus for the article, it would have been much more sensitive and accurate to slightly amend the title, using “Gods and (Wo)Man at Yale” to acknowledge the associate chaplains who are female, the importance of womanist and feminist theology to each of the religious traditions cited, and the fact that women are much more likely to be religiously observant. I believe an apology is in order.
I was ashamed at the cover of last month’s alumni magazine. This image offers the message that religion at Yale is controlled by male voices, and it ignores the prominent role of the women who spiritually nurture Yale students. The Reverend Cynthia Terry and Rabbi Lina Grazier-Zerbarini are but two of the female leaders who offer support to Yale College students, while at the Divinity School numerous women serve on the faculty. Our spiritual differences are not bounded solely by denominational lines; they are also dictated by hierarchy, male-dominated hierarchy. Many have spent decades trying to disabuse this institution of the old boy network power structure that once prevailed at Yale. Yet this image sends the message that Yale as an academic and spiritual center has not progressed far from the days when only men could take books out of the library, enroll in classes, and graduate with diplomas that gave them the privilege to lead congregations. Finally, the cover does a disservice to Yale students whose beliefs are bound by neither creed nor gender; it waters down religion at Yale to a patriarchy in which students are asked to conform to the God of the old boys' network rather than to embrace the plurality of the God of Sakti and Krsna, Maya and Buddha, Deborah and Abraham, Mary and Jesus, Hadija and Muhammad. Women have indeed performed prodigious religious service and scholarship at the university. But the cover reflects reality at Yale, in that the four men in the photo are the university’s Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Buddhist chaplains. No woman has yet held any of these posts. As for the title “Gods and Man at Yale,” we acknowledge its drawbacks. We discussed them before publication, but made an aesthetic choice.—Eds. As a junior in 1950 (no, I did not have any association with Bill Buckley), I was in search of a relationship with things eternal and found no real help at Yale. I talked out my problem with the dean and my college master, but they did not have what I needed. I left Yale. Fortunately, I did not burn any bridges and did return to finish. I found what I needed in a foreign country in the compound of two female Bible translators. The resulting experience at Yale was wonderful, though I did have to slip back from class of '52 to '53. The day I returned I made a beeline for Battell Chapel and went there every day at noon until I graduated. There was no fellowship and no counseling that I was aware of. I was full of zeal and I had a copy of the Bible to read every night. The articles on religion at Yale by Ms. Lassila, et al., were very meaningful to me. The days of a secular vacuum at Yale are certainly gone. And all I can say about that is “Alleluia.” I am currently trying to piece together a faith that reconciles evolution and the Bible. Some day I will read a book, yet to be published by a current member of the student body, that puts it all together in true Yale fashion. Mark Oppenheimer '96, '03PhD, remarks that his religious classmates at Yale “actually did believe in something,” in contrast to the (presumably) non-religious students who were “trying out different notions … but not really committed to any one of them in particular.” I can assure you that while those of us who are atheists do not believe in a deity, we are very committed to many other immutable beliefs: integrity, responsibility, tolerance, honesty, equal rights, and truth. The principles of morality and ethics are not unique to those of faith. While I was happy as an evangelical Christian to see an article on religion at Yale, I was disappointed after I read it. The article is very light on the actual substance of the various religions, so we have no idea why someone would become or remain a committed member of the religion of their choice. The descriptions of the various belief systems came down to food or nice people, as if the articles were describing, say, the company in the Pierson dining hall after a nice victory over Harvard. In addition, the choice of a religion is presented as merely a personal preference with no enduring consequences, as if the students were choosing a flavor of ice cream for dessert or an intramural sport to pursue for a little exercise. In Jesus I have assurance of eternal life with Him, and so I know that Christianity claims eternal consequences for its followers, and I suppose that other religions do as well. You would have done your intellectual audience a service to describe the religions at Yale seriously and let us understand their claims to enduring importance—the reasons why people have lived and died for them.
Alumni profs back TA union An open letter to President Richard Levin: Taken together, the undersigned spent a good many years as graduate students in the American studies program at Yale. Since getting our degrees, we have spent much more time teaching and writing about American history. One of the principal themes in that history has been the ongoing effort by people who earn wages, especially low wages, to organize themselves in order to gain better wages, better working conditions, and better benefits for their families. It is deeply embarrassing to us, as academics holding Yale PhDs, to see the university that has done so much to promote teaching and scholarship about the struggles of the less powerful in American society choose the wrong side of those struggles at home (see “GESO Stages a Kinder, Gentler Strike,” May/June). As one of the wealthiest universities in the world, Yale can do better. As president, you personally could provide the leadership to choose justice over stinginess. Especially since Connecticut secretary of state Susan Bysiewicz '83 has certified that clear majorities of Yale graduate teachers in the humanities and social sciences have signed union cards, your administration ought simply to recognize the Graduate Employees and Students Organization (GESO), and begin negotiating a contract. Negotiations are good things, suggesting that both parties have rights. Refusing to negotiate, by contrast, represents an arrogant assertion of powers—one that does little good for Yale and much needless harm to its reputation. Please reconsider your position.
Research animals and the law A research scientist, whose name was withheld, wanted to “assure the Yale Alumni Magazine readership of the numerous federal laws pertaining to the treatment of laboratory animals” and the fact that his/her facility was frequently inspected to insure humane standards (Letters, May/June). As a Georgetown law alumnus who has studied animal law, I would like to disabuse the readership of any assurance this scientist intends to convey about the treatment of rats, mice, and other animals in scientific laboratories. While I commend this scientist for his/her own personal humane treatment of animals, in fact the one federal law meant to protect research animals, the Animal Welfare Act, specifically excludes “(1) birds, rats, and mice, (2) horses not used for research purposes, and (3) farm animals.” Those inspectors charged with enforcement of the act (under the auspices of the USDA) for animals that are included are known within the animal welfare community as little more than a rubber stamp for these research facilities, and other monitors provided for under the act are actually appointed by these research facilities' own CEOs. Let’s not be too complacent about the government’s ensuring humane treatment of animals in laboratories, especially in those used by scientists less altruistic than he/she who wrote the letter.
Counting kingdoms You insult my education and intelligence with articles like “Puzzle in a Microbe” (Findings, May/June). First, the reference to the “five existing biological kingdoms” really needs to be explained more fully, because these days there are either three accepted kingdoms (eukaryotes, archaea, eubacteria) or five outmoded kingdoms (plants, animals, protists, fungi, bacteria), and no respectable scientist, let alone a microbiologist, would ever refer to the “five kingdoms” in current research. Next, the tRNA are not used to manufacture amino acids. That’s like saying a delivery truck prints a newspaper. Any freshman should know better. The real mystery was this: if the proteins contain these amino acids, but the machinery that delivers the amino acids to the protein manufacturing processes is absent, how does it work? I understand the need to simplify for such short articles, but these errors were really egregious. Dr. Kirkup is right on both counts. While the five-kingdom classification scheme has long been a fixture in biology textbooks, it is being replaced by the three-domain system. On the second point, it is true that tRNA does not “manufacture” amino acids; rather tRNA helps amino acids become assembled into proteins. We regret the errors.—Eds.
Classic rock I was disappointed at the literal-minded lack of imagination Aaron Betsky brought to his review of Yale in New Haven: Architecture and Urbanism by Vincent Scully et al. (Arts, May/June 2005). Of course it may not have occurred to many modern Yalies to see East Rock as the “fiery rock in the wilderness,” but then our world view is not so steeped in the world of the Bible as was that of the founders of New Haven and Yale, nor is our identity wrapped up in seeing ourselves as God’s chosen people (that role having long ago been appropriated by the American people as a whole!). East Rock is definitely red. Add to that fact any good summer sunset and you’ve got the closest thing to a “fiery rock in the wilderness” that I’ve ever seen!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
©1992–2012, Yale Alumni Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Yale Alumni Magazine, P.O. Box 1905, New Haven, CT 06509-1905, USA. yam@yale.edu |
||