Page 2/The Battalion/Thursday, October 3, 1985
Opinion
United Feature Syndicate
MAGGVUeS
C)»9»5 fvsn
ANOTHER &IS LEAGUE TRADE TOPAY.-THE WEST SENT TWO KS0 OPERATIVES
ANP A GERMAN POUGLE AGENT TO THE EAST... GETTING IN EXCHANGE ONE
DEFECTOR, TWO COUNTERSPIES-ANP A MOLE TP BE NAMEP LATER... 11
Dealing with firm foundations
(Whilst Art Buch-
wald is on vacation
we reprint some
columns from the
past.)
An esteemed
doctor friend told
me the other day
that he needed
$50,000 for a re
search project.
I was honest
and told him I didn’t have it. “Why
don’t you go to a foundation?” I said.
“That’s why I need the money,” he
replied, “to prove to the foundation that
my research is worthy of getting a
grant.”
“That’s stupid,” I said.
“You think that because you don’t
have to deal with the foundation. Origi
nally, the purpose of foundations was to
give money for projects which might or
might not work. But now the people
handing out grants have to prove to
their boards they are giving money to
successful, as opposed to unsuccessful,
research. No foundation wants to be as
sociated with experiments that don’t
pan out.”
“Wait a minute. I thought that was
what research was all about. If it was
guaranteed to work, it couldn’t be called
research.”
“That’s the way people treated re
search in the past,” my. doctor friend
said, “but this country is now very per
formance-oriented. It wants winners
from the start. Even the government
won’t give you research funds unless
you can prove the results will be posi
tive.”
“Give me an example,” I said, still not
believing him.
“Let us say I have a theory that the
lack of a protein in a cell causes the cell
to feed off the proteins in other cells.
It’s a theory, it has basis in fact. While
studying cells, we discovered weak ones
were cannibalizing healthy ones.
“Because it’s only a theory, we must
devise an experiment to see if it can be
proven or not. Last week I went to a
foundation and asked for a grant to do
this. The man in charge replied, ‘How
do you propose to prove it?’
“I told him I honestly had no idea. I
would have to start from scratch.”
“I’ll bet he didn’t like that,” I said.
“You bet he didn’t,” my doctor friend
told me. “He said, ‘What kind of foun
dation do you think this is to give you
money to experiment on a project that
you have no idea how to attack?’
“I told him, ‘If I knew how to attack
the problem I wouldn’t need the money
from the grant.’ And he said, ‘You’re
going to have to do better than that.
Suppose your theory about the cells
doesn’t fly? How do I explain that to the
board?’
The doctor continued. “I said, ‘Not
all experiments come out the way you
want them to. The only ones that do are
on television or in the movies. I have a
team ready to risk three years of their
lives on this, win or lose. If we’re wrong,
it could be just as important to science as
if we’re right.’
“The foundation man said, ‘It may be
important to science to be wrong, but
my foundation people would rather
have something with more Nobel Prize
potential. Now if you get the seed
money to prove to us your theory has a
9-to-l chance of holding up, we’ll give
you the grant money. But we’re not
going to throw away our dollars if we
can’t see a light at the end of the tun
nel.’”
“I guess that was a blow to you,” I
said.
“No,” the doctor replied, “I’ve been
through it before. Even the government
wants results before they’ll give you
grant money to study something. I
know one doctor at the National Insti
tutes of Health who was cutoff because,
by eliminating one problem, he created
three others. He was told that govern
ment scientists could no longer create
new problems in research. While there
was still money for old problems, the
word is out that if they lead to new prob
lems, NIH doesn’t want to hear about
them.”
“Do you believe,” I asked my friend,
“that with $50,000 you can prove your
theory?”
“It’s hard to say. Why do you ask?”
“Well, how can I ask my friends for
seed money for you if what you’re try
ing to do turns out to be a flop?”
Art Buchwald is a columnist for the
Los Angeles Times Syndicate.
One hand doesn’t know
what the other is leaking
Micfteafpul&M
White House ef
forts to control the
information that
flows from President
Reagan and his staff
backfired this week when officials tried
to leak information with one hand and
shut off the spigot with another.
Monday, presidential spokesman
The Battalion
USPS 045 360
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Rhonda Snider, Editor
Michelle Powe, Managing Editor
Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor
Karen Bloch, City Editor
John Hallett, Kay Mallett, News Editors
Travis Tingle, Sports Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspa
per operated as a community service to Texas A8cM and
Bryan-College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the
Editorial Board or the author, and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of Texas AScM administrators, faculty
or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for
students in reporting, editing and photography classes
within the Department of Communications.
United Press International is entitled exclusively to the
use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it.
Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein re
served.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday dur
ing Texas A8cM regular semesters, except for holiday and
examination periods. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per se
mester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Ad
vertising rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald
Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77.843.
Larry Speakes referred reporters to
news reports of the terms of the latest
Soviet arms control offer. He said-
he “wouldn’t steer you off’ accounts at
tributed to unidentified U.S. officials
who described the Soviet plan as calling
for a 50 percent reduction in nuclear
weapons arsenals.
In Speakes parlance, that served as
essential confirmation of the leaked re
ports, although he cautioned that the 50
percent figure should be examined clo
sely to determine whether it called for
an across-the-board cut or “50 percent
of something.”
He refused to be more specific, leav
ing reporters to examine the leaked re
ports in hopes of gleaning some truth
from them about the Soviet offer.
The next day, the spokesman was
even more circumspect.
“The president is very serious about
these negotiations, and if we’re to make
progress in them, the right way to pro
ceed is for both sides to discuss the So
viet ideas — and our own — in the pri
vacy of the negotiating forum in
Geneva,” Speakes said, referring to the
ongoing U.S.-Soviet arms control talks
in Switzerland.
But when asked if he himself hadn’t
referred reporters to leaked accounts
that disclosed the general terms of the
offer, Speakes said he was only trying to
head off stories suggesting the offer was
more comprehensive than U.S. analysts
said it was.
“It was not a public U.S. official” who
leaked the information in the first place,
the spokesman insisted.
“The facts are that someone had dis
cussed — not an official authorized to
do so — the 50 percent figure, which
the American press corps might have
been inclined to swallow, lock, stock and
barrel,” Speakes said. “I wanted to cau
tion you that there was more to it than
what you saw there.”
“If we had had it the way we pre
ferred it, there would have been no dis
cussion whatsoever about it,” he added.
“We did not think the leak of informa
tion to the press was helpful at all.”
Speakes’ claim is hardly supported,
however, by reliable information that at
least one source for the Soviet terms was
none other than White House chief of
staff Donald T. Regan.
Several sources, both inside and out
side the White House, acknowledged
when promised anonymity that Regan
privately furnished information about
the proposal to several reporters.
The White House often provides in
formation for reporters’ “background,”
which means it may only be attributed to
a “White House official,” “senior admin-
istration official” or some similar
agreed-upon identifier that gives the in
formation some authority while cloak
ing the actual source in anonymity and
letting the government pretend the in
formation isn’t official.
But when an administration leaks in
formation from one side of its mouth
while criticizing the leaks from the
other, it does so at its own peril.
Michael Putzel is a White House corre
spondent for The Associated Press.
Mail Call
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 500 words in length. The editorial staff resma
right to edit letters for style and length but will make every effort to maintain them
intent. Each letter must be signed and must include the address and telephone nmkl
the writer.
Look out for mopeds
EDITOR:
An open letter to Robert E.
Wiatt, Director of University Police
Department:
A serious safety problem has ari
sen on the Texas A&M campus. In
creased use of sidewalks by motor
cycles, motor scooters and mopeds
poses a dangerous threat to people
on foot. Motorized and pedestrian
traffic are incompatible. Campus
sidewalks were designed for the lat
ter and not the former. It is only a
matter of time before someone is
hurt.
If my interpretation of Article 5,
Section D, of the Motor Vehicle
Regulations is correct, it is unlawful
to operate a motor vehicle on any
campus sidewalk, mall, or lawn.
This includes motorcycles, motor
scooters, and mopeds. Why is this
regulation not enforced?
It would be reassuring to have of
ficers patrolling heavily used areas
and stopping this dangerous and
unlawful practice. As director of the
University Police Department, you
can lake steps to make the campus
sidewalks once again safe for pedes
trians. The increased safety, not to
mention revenues from citations,
would easily justify your efforts.
Should you, however, choose to
ignore this problem, some innocent
pedestrians are likely to be hit from
behind, feel assaulted by a “close
call” or startled by blips of a roaring
throttle, resulting in injuries, leg^u
conflicts or displays of hostilities.
One thing is clear: if the unchal
lenged and widespread riding and
parking upon sidewalks by moto
rized vehicles continue, this other
wise delightful campus will sadly
earn the reputation of being one of
the most dangerous major univer
sity campuses for pedestrians in the
United States.
Please respond to these concerns,
which are shared by others besides
myself, with appropriate action.
Thank you.
Dale Baum
Department of History
The other viewpoint
EDITOR:
Dr. Baum:
I am so pleased that you have ar
ticulated this problem and I concur
wholeheartedly with your letter ex
cept for your query of “Why is this
regulation not enforced?” and your
concern that it may be “ignored.”
Within the limitation of our man
power constraint we do, and have
been, enforcing the policy you
quote. In a course of a year we have
issued several hundred Justice of
the Peace citations for these viola
tions wherein the offender usually
pays a $26 fine and $13 court costs.
We also issue University citations
costing $20 for each offense.
Undoubtedly your perception of
non-enforcement is enhanced by
viewing the sheer number of people
who disregard the above admoni
tion, routinely violate it and give not
a tinker’s dam about the conse
quences to themselves or others. On
a campus where higher intellect is
presumed to abound, it is distres
sing that this behavior is prevalent.
On the other hand, the higher in
tellect is quite evident when these
offenders realize that our officers
cannot and will not follow them
over sidewalks, malls and dewy
knolls in a frenzied chase scene a la
“Starsky and Hutch,” scattering all
pedestrians except those former cit
izens who failed to avoid the escap
ing cycle or the 4-,000 pound pursu
ing patrol car. Our officers do catch
these unthinking souls as they
emerge from a sidewalk, mall or
lawn area onto a street but, for ev
ery one who stops for the officer, a
dozen more do a “U” turn and flee
where the officer cannot proceed in
“hot pursuit.”
In the past we have stationed of
ficers on the malls who then at
tempt to flag down the errant. Un
fortunately, few will stop while the
around the officer and roan
have been unable to employanyd
ficer possessing sufficiernfm
speed to overtake one of these:
niacs. We do catch some wli
other patrol units have been ini
area to “trap” him/her whem
slip out onto a street. It is then #
unto them” as appropriatecrim
charges are filed and that
spirit goes to jail.
Only a certified officer cany
form a traffic stop, notoneofi
many non-certified parking!
officers you might observe in theij
cinity of an infraction who
nothing about it.” The violatorm^
be cited while operating the vehi
and unless a credible witnesses
who can testify that that persom
the operator, the obtaining of all
cense plate is valueless. YoucaM^
cite or arrest a vehicle.
There is one solution to this!
horrent practice and thatisana
tudinal revision on the parti
who offend. Their acumen shoiil
certainly signal to them thatthiii:l
front would never be tolerait:!
much less engaged in by them,:g|
Houston’s Tranquility Park or at 10
where else in the civilized world,
alas, to many the A&M campusiH Ass
not a part of the planet Earth a HOUSTOh
their conduct becomes Neandeitklicm Wedr
and illegal. Si of ac<
I pledge to you and all other
vivors that we are doing our daraM^avi,,^ S i
dest to enforce these regulaticlyabian Bri<
but behavior modification is tkllill conti
only answer to this problem. Planters, eve
challenge, I guess, is will it ever rr ‘P the
acquired? fcllmghi
Hivision.
Robert E. Wiatt
Director of Security and Traffic
What gives A&ll
‘world class’ status
EDITOR:
As a parent of two Aggies, I sub
scribe to T he Battalion to keep
abreast of what and how my som
are being influenced at theUnivei
sity. T he paper has been comiuj
two years and I have grown to loot
forward to reading it each day.
It is good to se£ the optimistic
the positive ideas and opinions ex
pressed by its young columnistsatti
readers. It makes an old manproui
and excited about the next genen
tion that will be running this greit
country.
Additionally, I am impresset!
with a University that has such)
fine program of guest speakersasis
presented regularly through the
MSC Political Forum anel MSC
Great Issues. As young adults who
will soon assume responsible lead
ership roles, I hope you are taking
advantage of these programs. Foi
while the main goal of college ii
your career, it should include op
portunities to ask questions, toques
tion ideas and challenge the opin
ions we parents have beet
cramming down your throats for 18
plus years.
In the past couple of yearsyo»
could have heard of many interest
ing personalities, including Jesse
Jackson, Henry Kissinger, Alexan
der Haig, Abbie Hoffman andJerr)
Rubin, Jerry Falwell, Madalyn
O’Hair and, most recently, Timoth)
Leary. These speakers havedefinilf
and different ideas. Most of us just
read about these people or see a
quick news clip on TV. You havean
opportunity to see them, listen to
their views and objectively judge
their ideas. That is a wonderful op
portunity and a measure of an edit
cated person.
There has been a lot of print in
The Battalion about “world class
universities.” Programs like Political
Forum and Great Issues are a mea
sure of a “World Class University
They are elements of university life
that attracts and holds the best stU'
dents and faculty. The Texas A&M
students who support these pro
grams, the faculty and leaders wko
direct them and the administrators
who provide their support are to be
commended.
majority merely speed up, zip
As an Aggie parent, as a Texan,
as a tax payer, I am proud of this
great institution.
W. Paul Martin