(][) LIST ANNOUNCEMENT: INTERSCI-L (][) list for empirical interconnec

[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]
                                                   INTERSCI-L
[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]
INTERSCI-L : TOPICS

THEORETICAL/EMPIRICAL ISSUES ACROSS THE SCIENCES:

LIST FOR DEALING WITH THE EMPIRICAL INTERCONNECTIONS ACROSS THE  SCIENCES:  
PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL,   PARTICULAR PROPOSALS AND CRITIQUES, 
HISTORICAL OR CONTEMPORARY;

LIST FOR THEORIZING SCIENTIFIC INTEGRATION

[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]

INTERSCI-L:

PHYSICAL SCIENCES, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, SOCIAL SCIENCES:
How do they fit together? Or who says they do?

        When I look out my university department's window, I see a 
chessboard of buildings, only a few of which I know by name, and even fewer 
of these buildings where I am familiar with what they are doing presently.  
On this chessboard, however, I am aware of what has been said about the 
role of these other sciences in relation to 'mine': whether they are given 
credit with historically setting up 'my particular science' and its 
framework of study, whether they are a continuing mentor, whether they are 
a simple 'borrowing of convenience', whether they are 'better,' and on what 
criteria; whether they are 'worse,' and on what criteria; whether they are 
considered to be on a separate planet altogether; or whether the 
relationship is based on a harsh 'war of position' where taking empirical 
territory from the other group is seen as a sign of success.  

        In what sense are they related, these pieces on the chessboard? 
And, how are they related to one another? What justified and legitimizes 
the relationships or the lack of relationships among them?  Theory? Data? 
Glory?

        What would be the similarities across the sciences? What are the 
differences? What evidence can be brought to bear, or has been brought to 
bear on these issues? What would the models of interrelationship look like? 
How does one research the interconnections, and the areas of contention?

        How do they fit together?

[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]
PHYSICAL SCIENCES, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, SOCIAL SCIENCES:
To what degree are the separations legitimate; and to what degree do they 
interpenetrate?

SOCIAL SCIENCES
        From my perspective, as a sociologist interested in questions that 
range across the sciences, my studies have irrevocably come up against the 
separations of the sciences, whether in theoretical, social, or 
organizational senses.
        Within sociology, with the balkanization of social science into 
specializations in the past twenty years or so in the 'cultural turn' of 
the social sciences, much actually has been empirically LEARNED on what 
other 'general social scientific models' of society have left out. I am 
thinking in particular of  intracacies of social stratification, ethnicity, 
identity, epistemologies of knowledge and power, environmental 
relationships, and differentials of risk assessment. This turn has opened 
the field for a wide array of detailed empirical work that were 
unfathomable before.
        Relatively, the demise of Marxism as a narrative structure of 
organizing macrohistorical projects has opened up a great deal of this 
social scientific space. The 'belief' in the 'cultural turn' was in many 
ways simply a decline of a faith in the metanarrativizations of Marx, or 
other 'grand theory' proposals. However, this 'space' for research amongst 
many competing methodologies tends to be similar to the vacuum of space - 
everything rushes apart, without any sense of codifying or interrelating 
the empirical data at hand from various 'subsections' of the sociological 
enterprise--a project once supplied, however empirically limited, by 
existing general models.

          On the one hand, the lack of codification has been responsible 
for the ensuing beneficial diversity. On the other hand, many of the 
subsequent models from these separated areas that have been offered, 
entirely  'avoid the void' (or their authors feel educationally incapable) 
of seeking to generate interconnections, whether within the social sciences 
or across the sciences in general.  


BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

        I am aware of the 'war of position' between the biological sciences 
and the social sciences, particularly over who gets to claim 'society' and 
to what degree. Out of the 1970s came a rush of sociobiological research 
with 'wars of position' between the biological and social sciences. Wilson 
is known as the major proponent of a 'sociobiology,' even though he was 
mostly only codifying what had been done before, and only his last chapter 
in his book _Sociobiology_ proclaimed the study of human societies as 
partially  subsets of biologically required 'order.'  Although there has 
been much work in ethology (animal socialization studies) before that made 
these tacit connections, coming as it did in the 1970s, with the expanding 
skepticism of social metanarrative projects and hardening social 
stratification, it was harshly greeted. These literatures have petered out. 
 From the sociological point of view, I would say that this 'assault' was 
due a wide array of biological modeli!
ng sophistication that catapulted Darwinian conceptions of natural 
selection, from theory into quantitative modeling and other 
refinements--that explored land area and islands as 'natural experiment' 
stations for natural selection.  I am thinking of Wilson and short though 
fruitful career of MacArthur, mostly, because their work particularly 
intrigues me about the role of other species as the context of natural 
selection and the predictive models they proposed for species numeration. 
        Work by Diamond on the agricultural/human/climatic interactions 
seriously challenges any 'racist' explanations for different levels of 
human social complexity around the world, historically, which has been the 
justifying discourse for imperialism [see Wallerstein, 1991; see Elias, 
1978]

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

        In terms of sociological study, the expansion of the erstwhile 
proposed paradigm change of environmental sociology [Catton and Dunlap], 
into another subsection of the hydra-headed sociological enterprise, 
revealed its lack of specificity about human/physical environmental 
relationships. However, in the ensuing years, several sociologists have 
created a niche for exploring the interrelationships between the physical 
sciences and the social sciences, typically within the world systems theory 
outlook--within raw material extraction economies. [Bunker, Cicantell, 
Williams] or raw materials within industrializing or urbanizing areas 
(Whitaker [me], in process). The realm of materials science has recently 
approached sociology, in the study of the interrelationships and 
consequences of knowledge about materials and their role in human 
societies. A book [Sass] and a textbook [Hummel] are organized in terms of 
an historical exploration of the material bases of different societi!
es, as well as the effects of different calibers and qualities of materials 
on human social organization and/or trading capacity. These studies bring 
in geography as well.

        As one can see, on the one hand, there are vast swaths of human 
knowledge and highly contentious terrain. Lots of intracate empirical 
knowledge exists that dovetails various displinary models. 

        The list aims to create a venue apart and between the sciences, so 
particular knowledge claims can be aired on the grounds of empircal 
research than on the grounds of one discipline 'or' another. I would like 
to see the 'or' in the above sentence problamatized. 
        On the other hand, there has been much work on scientific 
integration *already,* particularly in the physical and the social sciences 
in terms of social organizational relationships. Although there has been 
work done on putting biology and natural selection into a physical science 
perspective and context [_The Natural Selection of the Chemical Elements_ 
R.J.P Williand and J.R.R. Frausto da Silva], biology has ignored this 
seemingly as much as sociology has ignored biology. The abovementioned book 
treats itself as a general 'humanist' volume, with an historical social 
bent as well in the chapers on 'early views' of the physcial sciences. In 
other words, as biology was theoretically claiming sociology, biology 
itself was being claimed as a territory of the phsycial sciences.  

        This is less to say that I feel that, like the arguments have 
typically been framed, that one science is collapsible into the other, or 
the opposite claim that they are dealing with *entirely* different 
phenomena. The very existence of the contention over certain phenomena 
seems to suggest otherwise: the overlaps and competitions reveal the 
limitations of the existing disciplines in approaching how to model the 
integration (or even raw description) of the empirical world.  Actually, 
there has been empirical research dealing with the biological reification 
of social organizational status lines (serotonin, and testosterone), as 
well as anthropological theoretical assertions from ethology [Fox] in 
comparing different ape populations that certain qualities of apes lead 
them to expand more socially reticulated organizational forms, and 
political arrangements, typically off gift exchange behavior.  In both 
these senses, there are fingers of 'biological science' moving into s!
ociology, without endangering the sociological enterprise at all. ***It is 
the reductionisms, the attempt by one discipline to 'swallow' others, that 
have unfortunately set the discourse instead of a discussion/description of 
the overlaps themselves.***

        Thus, instead of positional narratives/models that discuss one 
discipline 'or' the other (which is a crutch to all research to define what 
one is doing off others intellectual boundaries instead of empirical 
phenomena), I would like to create an area where we can discuss one 
discipline 'and' another in terms of the empirical overlaps.
         This drives us back from ideological battlefields to an 
examination of the empirical interstices of the sciences, the contemporary 
and historical contested terrain, that show the way in which (I pose) 
scientific integration can proceed on a firmer empirical basis.

[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]
INTERSCI-L : Inter-science List, Who joins? What are the goals?
        
        What should this message say about this list? It should say 
something about theory/applied/modeling issues in the interests of 
discussing the interconnections of the physical, biological and social 
sciences. Ideally, I would like to see people here whose interests are 
rounder than the 'square holes' that their discipline typically models 
their views on the empirical world upon. I'm looking for people interested 
in becoming conversant (and alrady capable of being conversant) across 
physical, social, and biological sciences. I'm interested in seeing people 
who are interested in the obvious empirical interrelationships of these 
separated area studies, or would like to pose why and how they think they 
should be separate, at least to what degree.  
        Is it obvious, one might ask, that there are empirical 
interrelationships? Obvious to whom? ***I pose that since there is 
contention instead of consensus around setting the boundary lines between 
the sciences--that is evidence enough for me that shows the sciences are 
built on a combination (1) of empirical research agendas that (2) all have 
a degree of social construction to them.*** That fails to mean that the 
empirical world is unobjective and 'only' socially constructed, only that 
it is qualified by particular scientific explorations into its content and 
the selective value given by asking only specific questions. That 
scientific models have changed over the millenia, despite humans working 
with the same objective empirical world, should be proof enough that the 
sciences have an element of social construction to them. The question 
becomes are we getting better or worse in our theoretical modeling?
       
         To work towards this moderation--which I would consider as an 
integrative sciences research agenda, requires three issues: clearly 
justifying it, clearly legitimating it, and clearly institutionalizing this 
thought in some sense, so it can compete organizationally with other 
disciplines as well as serve as a formal bridge for informal linkages and 
'diplomacy' across the sciences. 
         The justifications and legitimations will be contested on the 
list. That is the point of the list, to organize and air such views. The 
organizational sense will be served by the list itself, and perhaps will 
create the critical masses for groups at specific universities to want to 
get to know 'what goes on in the other buildings.'

        I mentioned 'diplomacy' above. That's a particularly apt word here.

        I would like to see communication links established between the 
melee of the university's departments, because even if the present 
disciplines are out of each other's purviews, the essence of the empirical 
world is that these are related phenomena. I suppose the list is founded 
with this sense in mind. 
         I see the list discussions as public 'diplomatic' scientific 
community fora, in the general sense. Only one of the list's project aims 
are a discussion of macro-theoretical perspectives on the world.  
        In general, what does the list aim to achieve?

                THE LIST'S GOALS:

(][)        to provide formal 'diplomatic' connections between the sciences 
on the issue of scientific integrative models and relationships among the 
sciences, as well as identifying particular research agendas that could 
highlight, explore or test interconnections 

(][)           to popularize, formulate and discuss the empirically 
debatable 'turf,' as it relates to models of integration: the legitimation, 
the justification for such frameworks and their evidence;

(][)             keep, and introduce to each other, a membership whose 
empirical and theoretical interests fall 'across' the disciplines, and 
require other models;

(][)            discuss the various 'scientific integration' proposals that 
have been tabled historically, or those which they feel should be tabled;

(][)           'free advertizing plugs' for one's own interdisciplinary 
area, in the interests of finding someone else interested in something 
similar;  ;-)

(][)             introduce to each other people with a personal, 
organizational, or intellectual interest in 'opening' scientific models in 
general to a wider array of studies;

(][)            discuss how best to collect empirical data that could be 
used to research and test more integrative scientific models; examples of 
such research, critiques of it;

(][)            comparing such frameworks of integration with empirical 
data;

(][)            a discussion of the types of empirical data that are 
required of a  different cross scientific model approach, than we have 
presently available; 'complaints' about data gathering methods;

(][)            theorizing the empirical interrelationships between and 
across the physical. biological, and social sciences;

(][)            formulating integrative models for the sciences

(][)            list for those who have cut their teeth in many areas and 
see the use of changes in the models of the sciences in general, and see 
their modeling disagreeing with available models;

(][)            how best to collect empirical data that could be used to 
research and test more integrative scientific models
        
(][)        keep abreast of what is going on 'in the other buildings--' in 
the other sciences, that they could potentially bring to bear in the models 
used in their research interests 'back' in their discipline. 

(][)        personally, I would like to keep a list of all the various 
interdisciplinary areas that people have generated. I feel that organizing 
these would be very beneficial to understanding where the subsets of 
relationships within existing scientific models are presently.



[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]

        Historically, sciences have been justified typically in the 
framework of how they are 'different' from each other. This has been either 
a recourse to empirical argument (rarely) or ideological or philosophical 
argument (mostly, unfortunately) 'about the way things simply are'--which 
is only a beginning position which somehow defies any empirical data to 
prove or disprove it, ironically at the same time as it claims to offer 
explanations about empirical phenomena. Without testing, such assertions 
are only an alpha that claims to be an omega.  Instead of taking itself as 
a starting point for research and testing of the assertion, it in many 
cases stops there, and precedes to elaborate off that untested assertion. 

         The point of this list poses the opposite question--what are the 
interrelationship areas that can be identified--the empirical phenomena of 
contention between the sciences as the have come to abut one another?  This 
particular formulation of a theory of sciences avoids the de facto setting 
up of every science as a 'zero sum game' competing against another, 
required to justify itself in terms of taking something away from the 
other. This exploration across the sciences--on where the sciences overlap 
in empirical claimsmaking--can reveal the instances of 'model overlap' that 
can be fruitfully assumed to require integrated theoretical solutions, 
instead of the political vanquishing of one or the other group's theory on 
the issue. It requires a change from both positions. 
        It is from this foundation that a general theory of the sciences on 
this list can be addressed. At least that is my position presently.  
         Certainly, the 'zero sum game' may be the viewpoint of a 
particular theory, however, the point of this list is to offer a space for 
the discussion of the empirical phenomena which are under contention, as 
operationalized by the different theoretical science model claims laid upon 
the phenomena. 
        The only court of appeal should be how well does it explain the 
empirical phenomena. If nothing we have does capture it fully, and there is 
contention around some empirical evidence, then all the models are faulty 
in this particular empirical area, as nothing has been captured exclusively 
by a particular science.  Perhaps all parties will think seriously on this 
issue on the list.
        Without referring to the empirical world, we easily drift, 
unmoored, into the ideological shoals of setting up systems of thought that 
attempt to operationalize thoughts, instead of asking hard questions about 
'are these thoughts justified?'--and whether the words and concepts capture 
it appropriately, and what evidence we can gather.

[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]

        Typically I would see the history of these three areas--physical, 
biological, sociological--each as carving out philosophical territory of 
the preceding one for their justification, where the edges/boundaries are 
very rough all around.  I'm unsure if there are conflicts between the 
physical and the biological sciences at present (perhaps someone could tell 
me--one of the rationales for starting the list). I am more aware of 
conflicts between the biological and the social sciences, at least, I 
should add, conflicts due to existing models--*to what degree* is biology 
willing to grant something outside of biology and *to what degree* is 
sociology willing to grant that humans are biological? It's the question of 
degrees that matters on this issue. 
        At least from my view, the social sciences are the general zone of 
contention for all these issues--where both physical connections and 
biological connections models 'compete' for pieces of it, with various 
justifications and legitimations.

        I expect to create an 'open space' for knowledge airing, for 
commenting on the interconnection areas, or for those interested in keeping 
abreast of interconnections and separate/competing models, that they could 
bring to bear in the models used in their research interests 'back' in 
their discipline in a fruitful way. In other words, I see this list as a 
way to complement the existing science divisions and models--simultaneously 
as a critique. It is a complement because by themselves, the sciences are 
only battling each other over these territories.  Thus, it seems that of 
various scientific expertise should be merged in exploring these issues. 
Let's remember that balkanization is a result of having large states (the 
sciences) battling each other, instead of something to do with 'blaming' 
the area, or feeling that one area can (or is able) to take it over 
completely. ;-)

[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]

        I'd like to particularly avoid the impression of a presumed 
exclusivity here.  Many may have a sense they should shy away from such a 
list because they consider themselves a novice or they felt this list was 
only for those 'up to specs'. This is far from the actual case, since part 
of the list is of course determining and codifying what those interrelated 
specs are. ;-) 

        I would offer that much of the specialization of the sciences is 
driven by applied issues, instead of philosophical or even 'pure science' 
issues. That's part of my general theory of the sciences, I suppose.  As a 
result, the 'markets' for scientific models of (at present) 'unapplied' 
integration (that would underwrite such empirical explorations) are on the 
whole, shadowed by the short-term interests of the applied senses of all of 
the disciplinary sciences. General scientific models or research that 
proposes integration are economically  'blighted.' 

         It's the point of having a university to encourage and underwrite 
this social interchange.   And, it's the point of this list as well.  
Typically, the university has been the one responsible for abetting the 
polarization, when it has the organizational capability of setting up 
mechanisms which could be means to expand the study of the 
interrelationships, that would serve to provide useful informal contacts 
across the university. 
        Perhaps a web page will be started toward assembling and 
advertizing the presence of university groups that have achieved a 'quorum' 
at particular universities or have learned to generate these fora at their 
universities, who are interested in popularizing working groups on these 
issues at various universities, so they can get to know each other. 
Certainly any groups already working in these directions would be welcome 
on the list.


[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]
EMPIRICAL LIST TOPICS, SPECIFICALLY:

        What particular empirical phenomena am I talking about? 
Inexhaustively, I mention:

        -       sociobiology (though there are a plurality of views and 
research                     agendas in that term, instead of only one)
        -       universalism in social science? or lack of overall 
patterns, or                             something inbetween?
        -       causal modeling, correlational modeling only possible, or
                something inbetween? Where is causal and where is 
correlation
                modeling justified and why?
        -       'hard science' computer modeling: physical science flow 
chart                          models, social science models, or something 
inbetween? who and                   what are responsible for degradation 
within human societies? 
                what are the models?
        -       "social constructionism", and/or "deconstructionism": social
                science endangering the biological or physical sciences 
legitimacy,                 or simply expanding its phenomena of research? 
I note however
                that sociology in particular seems to be unwilling to look 
into
                its social science construction--hypocritically.
        -       environmental sociology, how to conceptualize the role of 
'the                        environment' in human societies, how it has 
been conceptualized
        -       long term history of the sciences, comparative
        -       theorizing social situations of scientific model change,
                        historical epistemological changes
        -       historical epistemological changes outside of the 
scientific pursuit
        -       role of model used and subsequent empirical data collection:
                is it actually testing the model's relational properties, 
or simply
                gathering evidence 'on' the model without testing the 
model? how                  to test the model appropriately. so much work 
is done that
                attempts to verify models, instead of attempt to actually 
test them.
                empirical data is used to create a one sided 'legal case' 
for an                            argument, instead of a scientific test of 
the argument.
        -       effect on societies by their  physical science knowledge, 
the                            expansion of physcal science knowledge, the 
loss of local specific                   knowledges to generalizable 
theoretical knowledge, pressures for                   this phenomena; the 
relation of knowledge and context; 
        -       theorizing the interrelationships between climate, 
geography,
                and human societies, an analysis of the data and 
perspectives
        -       social science: justifiably or unjustifiably comparative?
        -       social psychology models
        -       discussions of population genetic distributions, blood 
types, etc.                    within and across societies, their 
interrelation to human context
        -       inbuilt mental categorizations, versus socially constructed 
ones,
                        or something inbetween?  
        -       how to model evolution and natural selection, how it has 
been 
                        modeled? Darwinism as a biological specific model, 
or
                        how far and in what way does it move, in a general 
sense,
                        toward a theory of 'basic process' instead of only 
biological
                        process? research from physcial, biological, and 
social science
                        that utilize Darwinian conceptions. [Note, even 
Darwin was
                        unsure what Darwinism meant at the time of his 
writing;
                        remember, that Marx dedicated some of his work to 
Darwin.
                        What can this tell us about Marx's scientific 
milieu or project?]
        -       language, as built in, or learned, or both?
        -       are we getting better or worse at modeling the physcial 
world
                as a totality?
        -       historical and contemporary science integration agendas, 
                        expanding the range of science or shrinking it? 
inbetween?
        -       separated sciences--useful? or stultifying, debilitated and 
passe? 
                        or something inbetween? university structuring in 
general,
                        historically, and formulating structuring changes 
in the                                     sciences, ideas for change 
whether theoretcial, strategic, or      
                        structural. who decides? how?
        -       history of social science modeling

        These have typically been the areas in 'sociology' in which I have 
been curious, areas that dovetail many different areas. I aim to make 
sociology a bit more ecumenical, without removing its goal of exploring the 
'social.' I would like to see others with interests in the physcial and the 
biological sciences, who have the same relationship with their particular 
sciences.
        The topics are interrelated. The sciences tend to be otherwise. 
These areas suffer from 'intellectual blight' because all the sciences are 
unable to codify and them completely within their existing frameworks. 
         If anyone else can think of a question that typically leads to an 
uproar of disapproval, please let me know. ;-) Notice how many of the 
questions above are phrased to avoid 'easy' dichotomous solutions, along 
existing scientific lines.

        It's the point of this list to help people work toward the above 
goals, typically dealing with the above topics.

[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]
LIST PROCEDURES: Unmoderated; private instead of public warnings

        I would rather avoid seeing the list become a source of expanding 
tensions, which would eat into its purpose of alleviating tensions through 
discussing questions about the 'how' of integration, the empirical data 
itself, or a discussion of the various models available around the 
contenious areas.   I would rather see people bash each other on the head 
with empirical data as an argument, than simply stating an ideological 
position and expecting applause.   ;-)  That said, the list is unmoderated. 
        I mention the rest simply for formality's sake: as list-owner, I 
will issue private warnings instead of public warnings.  In my experience 
on lists, empirically justified arguments and responses make for a 'smooth' 
list; ad hominem arguments, or enlightening ideological positions without 
enlightening empirical data lead no where, and can lead to the departure of 
those more genuinely interested in the list's topics of keeping abreast of 
the issues, theories, and empirical evidence. 
         Furthermore, the list-owner will gladly accept any private 
messages that voice concern over the 'atmosphere,' generated by a series of 
harsh interchanges, for example. Those who have been the source of the 
offence will be privately notified and warned by the list-owner. 
Incidentally, the list-owner will sadly remove individuals from the list, 
if warnings fail to work. However, anyone who feels interested in these 
topics deserves as many second chances as possible, as tempers arise 
typically without any data arising, though there was obviously some 
relation to data in the first place.   We will likely be dealing with a 
great many personal identities that are wrapped up in particular 
'scientificized' views of the world, from whatever discipline you would 
want to mention.  In other words, I expect people to have built their 
conception of what is human off only one scientific enterprise mostly, 
instead of any sense of overall 'scientific' ethics all would share. 
        And if tempers rise? One of my solutions: sometimes what I do is 
write the email response, and read it over the next day and make changes. 
Sometimes I see little point in even sending it, on the second look, and I 
write something else instead.
         It seems that we are manipulated by our words into corners more 
often than we ever get a chance to manipulate them back into the middle of 
the room.

[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]
THIS LIST AS WHAT THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD BE ABOUT

        I have always held that the university, or science in general, is 
something different than 'the sciences'--which are defined off very 
rarefied agendas.  The sciences have defined the parameters of the 
university science experience along the separated career path model. This 
has created various separated and mutually exclusive personnel, within 
their own  'groupthink' socialization structures.   
        For me, the university is a different concept than the separate 
sciences that comprise it.  It's a social organization that encompasses all 
the sciences; it's a forum.  The university is the informal processes of 
discourse across the sciences. The university is a social process, a give 
and take, between various groups interested in scientifically exploring, 
modeling, theorizing, about the 'world.' The university is the site of 
knowledge transmission and the widening of individual and social horizons.

         Typically, the sciences work in opposition to the university 
setting, instead of taking advantage of it. 
        
        The list aims to generate a social forum, to help with the 
realization that there is more cross disciplinary discussion and interest 
on the above empirical topics than people typically realize.

[)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(]

TO SUBSCRIBE

send email to:

        majordomo@ssc.wisc.edu

with the message

        subscribe intersci-l 

TO POST

To post to the list, send email to: 

        intersci-l@ssc.wisc.edu


PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS 
OR ORGANIZATIONS. THANK YOU.

Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison
owner for INTERSCI-L