ANNUAL REVIEWS ING.

DirecTrors CA NONPROFIT CORPDRATIONI , CONSULTING
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
WwW. 0. BAKER 4139 EL CAMINO WAY
1 : WILLIAM KAUFMANN

ol. BENNETT, JR PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94306, USA
aE. HOWELL
uv. LEDERBERG (4157 493-4400 CHIEF EXEcuT!ve OFFICER
WwW. K. H. PANOFSKY AND SECRETARY-TREASLRER
a. RO PAPPENHEIMER JOHN S. MCNEIL
Cc. 8. PITTENDRIGH
E. & SNELL PRODUCTION CODRDINATOR
RON, THOMAS SHARON E. HAWKES
A.M. WEINBERG
H. A. ZUCKERMAN

FOUNDING MEMBER

EMERITUS Ma 9 1977
woM. LUCK y >

Dr. Philip Handler, President
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20418

Dear Phil,

The Board of Directors of Annual Review has authorized and requested that I
begin some discussion with you about the possibility of establishing an annual
prize to help to bring a bit more honor and esteem to the role of the writer of
scientific reviews. There have, of course, been very many comments lamenting how
thankless but important a task that has been, and it occurred to us that we might
be able to use this mechanism to redress the situation in a way that would also
be beneficial to the integrity of the overall scientific effort. There are a number
of ways this might be dorfe, but it was the Board's strong preference to request
that the National Academy of Sciences be the agent for the administration of an
annual prize, the funds for which would be the responsibility of Annual Reviews,
Inc. We also have a tentative offer, still to be presented to the Board of the
Institute for Scientific Information, Inc., to share in the sponsorship of this
prize. It is quite likely that other donors might be equally enthusiastic and could
then enlarge the scope of the effort.

a

What we have in mind now, and can give you substantial assurance of a committ—
ment of funds, is an annual award of $5000 that we hope might be announced at the
occasion of the Academy's annual meeting. We could also offer an additional $500
as a direct gift to the Academy towards the inevitable incidental expenses of
assuming such a responsibility. We plan, if this can be successfully negotiated,
to offer a 5 year committment, the payments to be made year by year, to help assure

the continuity of the prize and the expectation that this might be renewable from
time to time.

It was our hope and intention that the prize might be designated as the James
Murray Luck Prize for excellence in scientific reviewing. However, Murray has by
no means given his final approval to this designation as yet, and this and every
other aspect of the suggestion are open to friendly discussion before we make a
formal offer.

Although I believe it has been some years since you took a direct part in the
work of Annual Reviews, I trust you are familiar with its fundamental style and

Annual Review. of Anthropology - Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics - Annual Review of Biochemistry - Annual Review of Bio-
physics and Bioengineering - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics - Annual Review of
Energy - Annual Review of Entomology - Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics - Annual Review of Genetics - Annual Review of Materials
Science - Annual Review of Medicine - Annual Review of Microbiology - Annual Review of Nuclear Science - Annual Review of Pharmacology
Annual Review of Physical Chemistry - Annual Review of Physiology ~ Annuc! Review of Phytopathology - Annual Review of Plant Physiology
Annual Review of Psychology - Annual Review af Sociology - The Excitement and Fascination of Science - History of Entomology
—-)-—

purposes and can understand and agree with our aims in the present initiative.

There will be a subcommittee of the Board working out the formal details
during the next few months, and in large measure awaiting the response of the
Academy to such a proposal. We had in mind that the prizes might be initiated in
spring 1979 to allow a reasonable period of time for the formalization of the
arrangement and to establish some committee to make a selection. We thought that
members of the Academy and editors of principal journals would be the ones invited
to make nominations to this committee. We thought it would be better to recognize
cumulative efforts in the writing of reviews, say over the last 10 years, rather
than be required to specify a single prizeworthy article. We thought there might
be some language to stress the desirability but not the imperative of looking par-
ticularly at the work of younger authors in a way that might enhance their self-
confidence and motivation to contribute in this fashion. We also thought, as a
practical matter, that the committee might wish to select a particular field of
science for emphasis in a given year, rather than include all of it in competition
each time. In fact, my own suggestion had been to initiate the awards in biomedical
research, but on this point I was overruled by the Board. If this is successful,
however, we might well imagine that other sponsors might be willing to fund an
expansion of such prizes and if several can be offered each year, then some dif-
ferentiation by field for each prize could readily be worked out.

We did not believe that the vehicle used for publication (for example whether
or not in Annual Reviews!) was a pertinent consideration. We will need some guidance
from you as to whether in would be appropriate to limit these awards to the United
States or Western Hemisphere residents. All these and many other questions are
issues on which we may have some inclinations but have not such a rigid view that
we would fail to benefit from your own thoughts and suggestions.

If the idea appeals to you at all, I hope you will give it some attention or
let me know to whom you have referred it for further action; and of course there
would be some merit to discussing it over the phone after you've had some time to
think about it. a

Yours cordially,

Joshua Lederberg
President, Annual Reviews, Inc.

CC: W, Kaufmann