American Institute Of Biological Sciences Research Articles

Connecting the Dots: Aligning human capacity through networks toward a globally interoperable Digital Extended Specimen (DES) infrastructure

Thanks to substantial support for biodiversity data mobilization in recent decades, billions of occurrence records are openly available, documenting life on Earth and enabling timely research, awareness raising, and policy-making. Initiatives across local to global scales have been separately funded to serve different, yet often overlapping audiences of data users, and have developed a variety of platforms and infrastructures to meet the needs of these audiences. The independent progress of biodiversity data providers has led to innovations as well as challenges for the community at large as we move towards connecting and linking a diversity of information from disparate sources as Digital Extended Specimens (DES). Recognizing a need for deeper and more frequent opportunities for communication and collaboration across the globe, an ad-hoc group of representatives of various international, national, and regional organizations have been meeting virtually since 2020 to provide a forum for updates, announcements, and shared progress. This group is provisionally named International Partners for the Digital Extended Specimen (IPDES), and is guided by these four concepts: Biodiversity, Connection, Knowledge and Agency. Participants in IPDES include representatives of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio), American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), Biodiversity Collections Network (BCoN), Natural Science Collections Alliance (NSCA), Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo), Atlas of Living Australia (ALA), Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC), National Specimen Information Infrastructure of China (NSII), and South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), as well as individuals involved with biodiversity informatics initiatives, natural science collections, museums, herbaria, and universities. Our global partners group strives to increase representation from around the globe as we aim to enable research that contributes to novel discoveries and addresses the societal challenges leading to the biodiversity crisis. Our overarching mission is to expand on the community-driven successes to connect biodiversity data and knowledge through coordination of a globally integrated network of stakeholders to enable an extensible technical and social infrastructure of data, tools, and working practices in support of our vision. The main work of our group thus far includes publishing a paper on the Digital Extended Specimen (Hardisty et al. 2022), organizing and hosting an array of activities at conferences, and asynchronous online work and forum-based exchanges. We aim to advance discussion on topics of broad interest to our community such as social and technical capacity building, broadening participation, expanding social and data networks, improving data models and building a backbone for the DES, and identifying international funding solutions. This presentation will highlight some of these activities and detail progress towards a roadmap for the development of the human network and technical infrastructure necessary to support the DES. It provides an opportunity for feedback from and engagement by stakeholder communities such as TDWG and other initiatives with a focus on data standards and biodiversity informatics, as we solidify our plans for the future in support of integrated and interconnected biodiversity data and credit for those doing the work.

When Zero May Not Be Zero: A Cautionary Note on the Use of Inter-Rater Reliability in Evaluating Grant Peer Review

Abstract Considerable attention has focused on studying reviewer agreement via inter-rater reliability (IRR) as a way to assess the quality of the peer review process. Inspired by a recent study that reported an IRR of zero in the mock peer review of top-quality grant proposals, we use real data from a complete range of submissions to the National Institutes of Health and to the American Institute of Biological Sciences to bring awareness to two important issues with using IRR for assessing peer review quality. First, we demonstrate that estimating local IRR from subsets of restricted-quality proposals will likely result in zero estimates under many scenarios. In both data sets, we find that zero local IRR estimates are more likely when subsets of top-quality proposals rather than bottom-quality proposals are considered. However, zero estimates from range-restricted data should not be interpreted as indicating arbitrariness in peer review. On the contrary, despite different scoring scales used by the two agencies, when complete ranges of proposals are considered, IRR estimates are above 0.6 which indicates good reviewer agreement. Furthermore, we demonstrate that, with a small number of reviewers per proposal, zero estimates of IRR are possible even when the true value is not zero.

In Their Own Words: Gene E. Likens

Abstract In Their Own Words chronicles the stories of scientists who have made great contributions to their fields, particularly within the biological sciences. These short oral histories provide our readers a way to learn from and share their experiences. Each month, we will publish in the pages of BioScience and on our podcast, BioScience Talks (http://bioscienceaibs.libsyn.com), the results of these conversations. This oral history is with Dr. Gene E. Likens, emeritus president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and a distinguished professor at the University of Connecticut. He also served as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Note: Both the text and audio versions have been edited for clarity and length.

In Their Own Words: Douglas Futuyma

Abstract In Their Own Words chronicles the stories of scientists who have made great contributions to their fields, particularly within the biological sciences. These short oral histories provide our readers a way to learn from and share their experiences. Each month, we will publish in the pages of BioScience and on our podcast, BioScience Talks (http://bioscienceaibs.libsyn.com), the results of these conversations. This oral history is with Douglas Futuyma, professor emeritus of ecology and evolution at Stony Brook University, in Stony Brook, New York. He previously served as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Note: Both the text and audio versions have been edited for clarity and length.

In Their Own Words: Judith Weis

Abstract In Their Own Words chronicles the stories of scientists who have made great contributions to their fields, particularly within the biological sciences. These short oral histories provide our readers a way to learn from and share their experiences. Each month, we will publish in the pages of BioScience and in our podcast, BioScience Talks (http://bioscienceaibs.libsyn.com), the results of these conversations. This oral history is with Dr. Judith Weis of Rutgers University. She previously served as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Note: Both the text and audio versions have been edited for clarity and length.

In Their Own Words: Gregory Anderson

Abstract In Their Own Words chronicles the stories of scientists who have made great contributions to their fields, particularly within the biological sciences. These short oral histories provide our readers a way to learn from and share their experiences. Each month, we will publish in the pages of BioScience and in our podcast, BioScience Talks (http://bioscienceaibs.libsyn.com), the results of these conversations. This oral history is with Gregory Anderson, who is with the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. He previously served as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Note: Both the text and audio versions have been edited for clarity and length.

In Their Own Words: Joel Cracraft

Abstract In Their Own Words chronicles the stories of scientists who have made great contributions to their fields, particularly within the biological sciences. These short oral histories provide our readers a way to learn from and share their experiences. Each month, we will publish in the pages of BioScience and in our podcast, BioScience Talks (http://bioscienceaibs.libsyn.com), the results of these conversations. This oral history is with Joel Cracraft, curator in the Department of Ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History. He previously served as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Note: Both the text and audio versions have been edited for clarity and length.

In Their Own Words: Susan Stafford

Abstract In Their Own Words chronicles the stories of scientists who have made great contributions to their fields, particularly within the biological sciences. These short oral histories provide our readers a way to learn from and share their experiences. Each month, we will publish in the pages of BioScience and in our podcast, BioScience Talks (http://bioscienceaibs.libsyn.com), the results of these conversations. This fourth oral history is with Dr. Susan Stafford, professor and dean emerita at the University of Minnesota. She previously served as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Note: Both the text and audio versions have been edited for clarity and length.

In Their Own Words: Kent Holsinger

Abstract In Their Own Words chronicles the stories of scientists who have made great contributions to their fields, particularly within the biological sciences. These short oral histories provide our readers a way to learn from and share their experiences. Each month, we will publish in the pages of BioScience and in our podcast, BioScience Talks (http://bioscienceaibs.libsyn.com), the results of these conversations. This second oral history is with Dr. Kent Holsinger, board of trustees distinguished professor of biology in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut. He previously served as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.

In Their Own Words: Rita Colwell

Abstract In Their Own Words chronicles the stories of scientists who have made great contributions to their fields, particularly within the biological sciences. These short oral histories provide our readers a way to learn from and share their experiences. Each month, we will publish in the pages of BioScience and in our podcast, BioScience Talks (http://bioscienceaibs.libsyn.com), the results of these conversations. This first oral history is with Dr. Rita Colwell, a distinguished environmental microbiologist and scientific administrator, who previously served as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Note: Both the text and audio versions have been edited for clarity and length.

The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey.

Scientific peer reviewers play an integral role in the grant selection process, yet very little has been reported on the levels of participation or the motivations of scientists to take part in peer review. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined the motivations and levels of participation of grant reviewers. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 scientists in AIBS's proprietary database. Of the 874 respondents, 76% indicated they had reviewed grant applications in the last 3years; however, the number of reviews was unevenly distributed across this sample. Higher review loads were associated with respondents who had submitted more grant proposals over this time period, some of whom were likely to be study section members for large funding agencies. The most prevalent reason to participate in a review was to give back to the scientific community (especially among frequent grant submitters) and the most common reason to decline an invitation to review was lack of time. Interestingly, few suggested that expectation from the funding agency was a motivation to review. Most felt that review participation positively influenced their careers through improving grantsmanship and exposure to new scientific ideas. Of those who reviewed, respondents reported dedicating 2-5% of their total annual work time to grant review and, based on their self-reported maximum review loads, it is estimated they are participating at 56-87% of their capacity, which may have important implications regarding the sustainability of the system. Overall, it is clear that participation in peer review is uneven and in some cases near capacity, and more needs to be done to create new motivations and incentives to increase the future pool of reviewers.

DiSSCo, iDigBio and the Future of Global Collaboration

Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio) is the United States’ (US) national resource and coordinating center for biodiversity specimen digitization and mobilization. It was established in 2011 through the US National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Advancing Digitization of Biodiversity Collections (ADBC) program, an initiative that grew from a working group of museum-based and other biocollections professionals working in concert with NSF to make collections' specimen data accessible for science, education, and public consumption. The working group, Network Integrated Biocollections Alliance (NIBA), released two reports (Beach et al. 2010, American Institute of Biological Sciences 2013) that provided the foundation for iDigBio and ADBC. iDigBio is restricted in focus to the ingestion of data generated by public, non-federal museum and academic collections. Its focus is on specimen-based (as opposed to observational) occurrence records. iDigBio currently serves about 118 million transcribed specimen-based records and 29 million specimen-based media records from approximately 1600 datasets. These digital objects have been contributed by about 700 collections representing nearly 400 institutions and is the most comprehensive biodiversity data aggregator in the US. Currently, iDigBio, DiSSCo (Distributed System of Scientific Collections), GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) are collaborating on a global framework to harmonize technologies towards standardizing and synchronizing ingestion strategies, data models and standards, cyberinfrastructure, APIs (application programming interface), specimen record identifiers, etc. in service to a developing consolidated global data product that can provide a common source for the world’s digital biodiversity data. The collaboration strives to harness and combine the unique strengths of its partners in ways that ensure the individual needs of each partner’s constituencies are met, design pathways for accommodating existing and emerging aggregators, simultaneously strengthen and enhance access to the world’s biodiversity data, and underscore the scope and importance of worldwide biodiversity informatics activities. Collaborators will share technology strategies and outputs, align conceptual understandings, and establish and draw from an international knowledge base. These collaborators, along with Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), will join iDigBio and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History as they host Biodiversity 2020 in Washington, DC. Biodiversity 2020 will combine an international celebration of the worldwide progress made in biodiversity data accessibility in the 21st century with a biodiversity data conference that extends the life of Biodiversity Next. It will provide a venue for the GBIF governing board meeting, TDWG annual meeting, and the annual iDigBio Summit as well as three days of plenary and concurrent sessions focused on the present and future of biodiversity data generation, mobilization, and use.

Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.

Background: Decisions about which applications to fund are generally based on the mean scores of a panel of peer reviewers. As well as the mean, a large disagreement between peer reviewers may also be worth considering, as it may indicate a high-risk application with a high return. Methods: We examined the peer reviewers' scores for 227 funded applications submitted to the American Institute of Biological Sciences between 1999 and 2006. We examined the mean score and two measures of reviewer disagreement: the standard deviation and range. The outcome variable was the relative citation ratio, which is the number of citations from all publications associated with the application, standardised by field and publication year. Results: There was a clear increase in relative citations for applications with a better mean. There was no association between relative citations and either of the two measures of disagreement. Conclusions: We found no evidence that reviewer disagreement was able to identify applications with a higher than average return. However, this is the first study to empirically examine this association, and it would be useful to examine whether reviewer disagreement is associated with research impact in other funding schemes and in larger sample sizes.

Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.

Background: Decisions about which applications to fund are generally based on the mean scores of a panel of peer reviewers. As well as the mean, a large disagreement between peer reviewers may also be worth considering, as it may indicate a high-risk application with a high return. Methods: We examined the peer reviewers' scores for 227 funded applications submitted to the American Institute of Biological Sciences between 1999 and 2006. We examined the mean score and two measures of reviewer disagreement: the standard deviation and range. The outcome variable was the relative citation ratio, which is the number of citations from all publications associated with the application, standardised by field and publication year. Results: There was a clear increase in relative citations for applications with a better mean. There was no association between relative citations and either of the two measures of disagreement. Conclusions: We found no evidence that reviewer disagreement was able to identify applications with a higher than average return. However, this is the first study to empirically examine this association, and it would be useful to examine whether reviewer disagreement is associated with research impact in other funding schemes and in larger sample sizes.

Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.

Background: Decisions about which applications to fund are generally based on the mean scores of a panel of peer reviewers. As well as the mean, a large disagreement between peer reviewers may also be worth considering, as it may indicate a high-risk application with a high return. Methods: We examined the peer reviewers' scores for 227 funded applications submitted to the American Institute of Biological Sciences between 1999 and 2006. We examined the mean score and two measures of reviewer disagreement: the standard deviation and range. The outcome variable was the relative citation ratio, which is the number of citations from all publications associated with the application, standardised by field and publication year. Results: There was a clear increase in relative citations for applications with a higher mean. There was no association between relative citations and either of the two measures of disagreement. Conclusions: We found no evidence that reviewer disagreement was able to identify applications with a higher than average return. However, this is the first study to empirically examine this association, and it would be useful to examine whether reviewer disagreement is associated with research impact in other funding schemes and in larger sample sizes.

Risk evaluation in peer review of grant applications

The process of peer review is used to identify the most scientifically meritorious research projects for funding. Impact and innovation are among the criteria used to determine overall merit. A criticism of peer review has been the perception that reviewers are biased against innovation, such as one study that found reviewers to systematically assign poorer scores to highly novel work. Moreover, reviewers’ definitions for excellent research and paradigm-shifting research are different; innovative research may not always be considered excellent. Therefore, it is clear more needs to be done to understand the decision-making processes of reviewers in evaluating risk and innovation in research. In an effort to address this gap, the American Institute of Biological Sciences developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined, in part, the differences in applicant and reviewer perceptions of review outcomes. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 reviewers and applicants, of whom 9.4% responded. Only 24% of respondent applicants indicated that innovation was addressed in their review feedback, while 81% of respondent reviewers indicated they factored innovation into selecting the best science and 73% viewed innovation as an essential component of scientific excellence. Similarly, while only 27% of respondent applicants reported receiving comments on the riskiness of their grant applications, 58% of respondent reviewers indicated that the risks associated with innovative research impacted the scores they assigned to the grant applications. These results indicate a potential source of bias in how innovation and risk are evaluated in grant applications.

Flow Management for Hydropower Extirpates Aquatic Insects, Undermining River Food Webs

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Institute of Biological Sciences 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US. The published article can be found at: http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/7/561

The Faces of Biology Documented in Annual Photo Contest

What do snowy owls, insect specimens, and Amazonian forests have in common? They are the subjects of the winning photos for the 2015 Faces of Biology Photo Contest. The photo contest, which is sponsored by the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), is an opportunity for members of the scientific community to showcase the varied forms that biological research takes. The photographs will be used to help the public and policymakers better understand the nature and importance of biological research and education. “We are increasingly talking of STEAM, not just STEM. There is a growing appreciation for the value of incorporating the arts into how we do, teach, and communicate science,” said Robert Gropp, interim co-executive director of AIBS. “I am so pleased that for the past five years, AIBS has been recognizing outstanding photographers who have the ability to help us communicate about how research is done.” Submissions must depict a person engaging in biological research or education. Entries are judged on how well they fit the theme of the contest; creativity; and composition, clarity, and technical quality. Professional photographer Florencia Mazza Ramsay has spent years photographing fashion models, but recently, she became interested in science as a subject for her photos. Last year, Mazza Ramsay spent three months in Alaska documenting Arctic research, local culture, and the impacts of climate change. Her photograph of owl researcher Denver Holt won first place in the contest and appears on the cover of this issue of BioScience. Holt was documenting a nest of 2-day-old snowy owlets. At each nest, he noted the condition of the owlets and the types of captured prey—in this photo, a rodent and a partially eaten bird are visible. As Mazza Ramsay pointed out, clearly, “their parents were doing a good job at keeping food at the nest.” Mazza Ramsay offers the following advice to scientists who want to share their research with the public through photography: “Bringing a photographer to document your work in the field might seem like a crazy idea, but I think it’s 100 percent worth it. I know nowadays everybody can carry a GoPro or even a DSLR [digital single-lens reflex camera] with them, but it’s not the same as having someone 100 percent into observing while you just worry about the science.”

The Unintended Ecological and Social Impacts of Food Safety Regulations in California's Central Coast Region

Forum DANIEL S. KARP, PATRICK BAUR, EDWARD R. ATWILL, KATHRYN DE MASTER, SASHA GENNET, ALASTAIR ILES, JOANNA L. NELSON, AMBER R. SCILIGO, AND CLAIRE KREMEN In 2006, a multistate Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to spinach grown in California’s Central Coast region caused public concerns, catalyzing far-reaching reforms in vegetable production. Industry and government pressured growers to adopt costly new measures to improve food safety, many of which targeted wildlife as a disease vector. In response, many growers fenced fields, lined field edges with wildlife traps and poison, and removed remaining adjacent habitat. Although the efficacy of these and other practices for mitigating pathogen risk have not been thoroughly evaluated, their widespread adoption has substantial consequences for rural livelihoods, biodiversity, and ecological processes. Today, as federal regulators are poised to set mandatory standards for on-farm food safety throughout the United States, major gaps persist in understanding the relationships between farming systems and food safety. Addressing food-safety knowledge gaps and developing effective farming practices are crucial for co-managing agriculture for food production, conservation, and human health. Keywords: agroecosystems, conservation, public health, Escherichia coli O157:H7, pathogen, socioecological system A n Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak in spinach in 2006 sickened hundreds and triggered systemwide reforms to the leafy greens industry (LGMA 2013). Farming practices for fresh produce in California’s Central Coast region (figure 1a), where the outbreak originated, changed markedly in response, leading to a variety of unintended social and ecological impacts. Concern that wildlife vectored the disease led to strong pressure on growers to erect fences, set out wildlife traps and poison, and remove vegetation that might harbor wildlife around their farms. Growers bore the cost not only for preventing wildlife intrusion but also for monitoring contamination, funding self-audits, maintain- ing records, hiring food-safety staff, and forfeiting suspect crops. Research to date has documented the socioecological changes generated by the food-safety reforms in the Central Coast region (Beretti and Stuart 2007, Lowell et al. 2010, Gennet et al. 2013), which can provide insight into what may happen if similar reforms are adopted on farms throughout the United States. Preventing life-threatening illness is a clear public-health priority. Our purpose in discussing the socioecological impacts of on-farm practices for food safety is to advance the conversation on the need for and opportunity to co-manage agricultural, environmental, and public-health objectives in an integrated framework. Here, we briefly discuss the development of US food-safety policy to contextualize how industry, government, and the American public responded to the 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak. We then review how and why agricultural practices have changed in the Central Coast region and identify potential externalities of produce- safety reform that deserve further scrutiny. On the basis of insights gained from the Central Coast, we then illustrate more generally how foodborne outbreaks can reverber- ate through socioecological systems. Finally, we suggest a path forward to close important knowledge gaps and move toward an agricultural system that is co-managed for mul- tiple benefits, including food safety; agricultural production of fresh, nutritious food; nature conservation; and ecosystem services. Context for the response to the 2006 E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak Although 2006 marked a turning point for produce-safety reform, produce-related illnesses have been increasing for BioScience 65: 1173–1183. © The Author(s) 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. doi:10.1093/biosci/biv152 Advance Access publication 25 November 2015 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org December 2015 / Vol. 65 No. 12 • BioScience 1173 Downloaded from http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/ at The University of British Colombia Library on November 25, 2015 The Unintended Ecological and Social Impacts of Food Safety Regulations in California’s Central Coast Region

The next century of ESA publications

The science of ecology has undergone many transitions during the 100 years since the Ecological Society of America (ESA) was initiated in 1915. New technologies have played a role in many cases, including the advent of the microcomputer, GPS resources, and other tools that we now take for granted. The way in which we share research results has also changed dramatically. If you haven't ever looked at the first few volumes of Ecology, it's worth perusing them. You'll find most papers have more natural history but no separate sections (eg methods), no theory or statistical analysis, and sometimes no citations. Another, relatively recent, change is the move from print to digital publication of science journals, including ESA's, all of which have electronic versions and two of which (Ecosphere and Ecosystem Health and Sustainability) are available only via the internet. The rapidly changing landscape we are seeing in the world of publishing has had economic impacts on ESA. While individuals have been dropping personal subscriptions to journals in favor of online access through their institutional libraries, many academic libraries have been cancelling journal subscriptions due to ongoing budgetary constraints. Because much of ESA's budget derives from its publications, the decline in subscription income over the past several years has become a point of concern for the Governing Board and Executive Director, who are responsible for overseeing ESA's operations and its financial health. An additional concern is our current reliance on outdated publishing technology, which would need to be upgraded or replaced at considerable cost. Last year, to address these concerns, the Board approved hiring a consulting firm to help us determine how we should proceed with our publications. They spent four months interviewing ESA members and staff; authors and editors; science librarians; and personnel from a select group of similar scientific societies. Their report to the Board in November made it clear that we should explore the path that numerous other societies have taken, including the British Ecological Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and the American Geophysical Union, who have stopped self-publishing their journals in favor of partnering with a large scientific publisher. At that Board meeting we decided to begin a search for a consultant to help us identify an appropriate publishing partner and, in January, we chose one who will work with ESA over the next few months to identify a partner and assist us in negotiating an agreement. A small Publications Transition Committee has been appointed to oversee the search for our new partner and to determine the details of the partnership. Members include representatives of the Governing Board, the Publications Committee, journal editors, and staff. We don't anticipate any substantial changes in the editorial oversight our journals currently enjoy, although much of the production process and journal distribution may be moved to the publishing partner. Paramount in our negotiations with publishers is a determination to maintain and grow the excellent reputation of the ESA journals, both in terms of production quality and scientific content. Partnering with a larger publisher will give us access to modern hardware and software that should facilitate the publication process, provide a better experience for our authors, and potentially increase the speed of publication. At the time this editorial was written we had not yet completed the request for proposals that will go to potential publishing partners, so it's too early to provide a definite time frame for any changes; however, we anticipate that by 2016 our new partnership will be in place. Any major change like this will likely have rough patches along the way, but the Board is heartened by the success that other scientific societies have had since deciding to partner with another publisher. We are confident that we will emerge with a stronger program that not only allows us to expand and enhance our publications but will also provide new and exciting opportunities for ESA to pursue. Scientific publishing – and the field of science in general, not just ecological science – is undergoing rapid changes. We hope ESA members will support the efforts that the Governing Board and ESA staff make to ensure that our Society responds to the variety of challenges we face going forward. We are working hard to make sure that the Society's next 100 years will be as successful as its first century. We hope to see you at the annual meeting in Baltimore in August, to help celebrate our 100th anniversary.