Options
|
On-Line Comment by Membership
| Date: | Tuesday, August 31, 2004 at 20:17:32 |
| Name: | Nestor J. Zaluzec |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: |
I favor the merger and think it should be done immediately. It benefits both Societies.
|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 12:12:15 |
| Name: | SD |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: | count my vote for merger
|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 13:15:46 |
| Name: | Stuart McKernan |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: | I think the merger benefits both societies, We should go ahead and make it happen as soon as is practicable.
|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 16:44:59 |
| Name: | Owen P. Mills |
| Comment: | I am a member of both MAS and MSA and I favor the merger. I support Plan #3. I see that plan as striking a balance between maintaining the identity of MAS after the merger with minimizing overhead costs. There is no reason I can see not to implement the merger immediately. |
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 16:57:23 |
| Name: | Charles Meshul |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
I would be in favor of the merger if it means that a new meeting management organization is chosen to take over the annual meeting. At that point I would start attending the annual meeting again.
|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 17:08:25 |
| Name: | Bill Tivol |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
What fraction of MAS is devoted to microanalysis of biological specimens? If it is a sizable fraction, then it may be more appropriate to assure that one of the Directors is from MAS, but either from the Biological or Physical set rather than just replacing one of the Physical Directors with the MAS Director. I hope this comment does not further complicate what I think will be a mutually profitable merger, not only from the standpoints of management and cost-savings, but, even more importantly, from the standpoint of increasing collaboration and spreading microanalysis techniques among microscopists who otherwise might not realize the utility of these techniques. |
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 17:34:01 |
| Name: | Gary Chandler |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: |
I favor the merger. My major concern is that the LAS's will lose quite a bit of support when associated with one society rather than two. MAS has always been extremely supportive of the local societies as a way to support students entering the field, and I do not wish to see that support "diluted" by the merger. I would like to see MAS educational programs, awards, tour speaker support, etc. continued after the merger.
|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 17:34:34 |
| Name: | Paul F. Hlava |
| Society: | MAS |
| Comment: | I am against a merger on the basis of the options offerred to MAS.
Option 4, "The Federation", is the one choice that allows MAS to retain some semblance of continuing identity. Option 3 allows for a token MAS presence on council but this could easily be erased later on. All the other options are asking MAS to dissappear after giving our treasury to MSA. They are less attractive than blowing the MAS treasury on ONE BIG PARTY and dissolving the society. Those that wish may then join MSA.
I also believe that our present annual meeting structure has had an adverse effect on MAS membership numbers. |
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 17:45:24 |
| Name: | Peter Ingram |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
This merger is long overdue. It also must be done with due deliberation as soon as possible on a set date otherwise it will be confusing to everyone (members, prospective members and the continually changing Council members), let alone the legal nightmares (+ associated attorney fees!) that would likely arise.
Finally designating members as either/or Biological, Physical, Analytical is a little too neat; some of us could easily have interests covering analytical and physical and/or biological.
|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 18:01:27 |
| Name: | John V. Gilfrich |
| Society: | MAS |
| Comment: | I have never been in favor of the merging of National Societies. It seems to me that the one society which has the largest number of members frequently takes over and subjegates the smaller group. After all for 2000 members of MSA to consider a merger with the MAS of 400 members as a joining of equals seems somewhat absurd. Thus, none of the options presented have any appeal to me. To include one (or more) officers of the MAS as part of the Executive Council of a combined society seems like a small bone offered by the MSA to convince the MAS members of the desirability of the merger. To reiterate, I call on whatever status it conveys as a charter member of EPASA, to objrct most strongly to the merger. |
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 18:34:50 |
| Name: | Ralph Albrecht |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
Combining the word "Microanalysis with Microscopy" is the death knell for participation of biologists. Our Journal changed it's name to Microscopy and Microanalysis --- now it is extremely difficult to generate interest in the submission of top notch biological papers. The title should have been something like the "Journal of Biological and Analytical Microscopy." The society name should not suffer a similar fate. Nearly half the (steadily declining) membership has biologically related interests but combining "Microscopy" and "Analysis" gives the appearance of a society with primary interests in physical or material aspects of imaging sciences. |
| Date: | Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 19:27:08 |
| Name: | Philipp Pietra |
| Society: | MAS |
| Comment: | I am opposed to this merger although it seems to be a dun deal. I am certainly in the minority as some one involved in diagnostic pathology performing routine electron microscopy, immunofluorescence, enzyme histochemistry and hisotlogy. I am not someone who is making earth shattering discoveries but rather trying to do the same old thing really well. Having been active in both MSA and my local affiliate for more than a decade. I find my self more and more alienated from the society and getting less and less in return for my dues money even though my education is from an engineering background. I feel this merger will be another nail in the coffin for those of us in biological sciences. If MSA has 2800 members and only 400 involved in analysis just how many people really understand the mathematic expresions displayed in the journal? I am questioning the relevance to what we do on a daily basis. The balance has swung really far to the analytical side. Thats great "Einstein" but some of us are still developing film by hand doing the best we can with the materials we have. I can't remember the last time I found solutions to the problems I encounter in the journal. Don't forget there is an art to doing things well it's not just science.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 01:24:08 |
| Name: | Arthur A. Chodos |
| Society: | MAS |
| Comment: | Due to medical problems I am not an active member of MAS although I am an Honorary Member who goes back to the founding of EPASA (now MAS). I can understand the position of MSA but this is an extremely old issue and I see no reason for the merger that will really benefit MAS.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 04:08:55 |
| Name: | Peter Statham |
| Society: | MAS |
| Comment: | I think the merger makes sense from economies of scale and areas of common interest. The M&M conference could be improved by consolidating common areas of technique development rather than dispersing these through multiple sessions each with too wide a brief. A microanalysis conference attracts attendees interested in microanalysis and by interaction with vendors allows potential customers to influence future product development of microanalysis instrumentation. Special interest groups can still pursue emerging areas without an equipment exhibit as exemplified by the NIST/MAS topical conferences.
However, if the merger goes through then the merged society name must surely include "Microanalysis" irrespective of the organisational model otherwise the whole basis of the merger is suspect. We have to revitalise technique development and critical assessment otherwise the high ground of definitive microanalysis will be lost.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 05:32:17 |
| Name: | Peter Duncumb |
| Society: | MAS |
| Comment: |
I was present at the "Zeroth" meeting of MAS in Washington 40 years ago and greatly valued the "creative tension" of the small early meetings. Now that the subject is more mature, those days are unfortunately past and the aims of the Society may now be better served under the umbrella of MSA. To preserve its identity, I would favour the creation of a Microbeam Analysis Section within MSA, much as the Electron Microscopy and Analysis Group operates within the UK Institute of Physics. This elects its own Committee, though, because of numbers, it is not directly represented at Council level. In the case of MSA this could be so, and the nearest model appears to be that of Model 3, with possible development to Model 4 as the situation evolves. |
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 07:04:28 |
| Name: | Brian Kirkmeyer |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: | While I have no preference to either merging the societies or keeping them separate, I have noticed that the majority of MAS members favor who have posted comments here are opposed to the merger. This suggests that the MAS members of the merger committee should gather more opinions from their membership before pushing forward with this. One of the first rules of representing people should be to listen to them, and it does not sound like the MAS members want the merger, at least not in the form of the options presented to them. |
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 07:07:18 |
| Name: | Earl D. Buck |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: | I will be disappointed with the merger because I enjoyed the times MAS held its own separate meetings. It was a more concentrated time of all the "right papers" being given. However, it has also been a long time since we broke off and had our own meetings. I read with a little bit of comic humor the responses from the biologically oriented people because my early view of EMSA separate from MAS was that it was going ALL biological and I was in danger of receiving any benefit from my EMSA membership.
Since the advent of the name change to MSA and the continued infusion of the MAS membership the papers presented have, I think, had a broader focus. We (MAS) have a good portion of our needs being met while at the same time we have the opportunity to wander off and catch a glimpse of what others are doing in reseach. And all this without having to go through paper after paper after paper of rats livers, or whatever they like to talk about.
With only 400 members one wonders how long this can last. With a strong representation on MSA's board I would hope we could ensure that well balanced sessions would continue. And with this reasoning I would support the merger.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 08:10:06 |
| Name: | Dwight Erickson |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
For several years, MSA and MAS have worked together for the mutual benefit of each organization including numerous join meetings and publishing a join journal as examples. A merger is the next logical step but I also favor a merger which keeps a strong identity of "microbeam analysis" within the joint organization.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 08:38:39 |
| Name: | Lee Cohen-Gould |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: | After reading through the comments already posted, I find myself in strong agreement with Ralph Albrecht and Phillipe Peitra. Frankly, I was quite surprised to learn that MAS has just 400 members. My impression, based on the focus of both the Microscopy and Microanalysis journal and annual meetings of recent years was that they were much larger. I have found fewer and fewer articles/symposia sessions of interest to me. (I run a core research EM facility at an Ivy Leaque medical college.)
Of the models presented, I would prefer Model 2, but I am concerned about the future direction of a merged society.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 09:14:34 |
| Name: | Ev Osten |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: |
Prior to the 1996 M&M meeting in Minneapolis (a joint MSA-MAS-MSC/SMC meeting), MAS approached the Local Arrangements Committee with a concern that their interests not be lost in the interests of the larger MSA society. So we appointed two LAC Vice-Chairs, one representing MAS and one representing MSA (we also had an MSC/SMC liaison so all three societies were represented). By the 2003 M&M meeting in San Antonio there had been no need for separate representation by the various societies on the LAC for several M&M meetings. There, of course, has been representation of all participating societies on the Program Committees since 1996. The point here is that a merger-like transition has already occurred, and in areas like LACs, the business office, meeting management, the Journal, and the future Officers and Council, it makes organization and financial sense; just as separate representation on the Program Committee and transitional representation on Council also make sense.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 09:17:22 |
| Name: | Matthew Salanga |
| Comment: | I am not in favor of merging the societies. Additionally I agree with the comments made by Raplh Albrecht (Oct.12th) regarding the naming of the society. |
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 09:59:36 |
| Name: | Robert Derby |
| Society: | MAS |
| Comment: | Every since the name has changed from EMSA to MSA I have seen a drop in particapation especially those that are Certified.
I am against a merger with such a small group, I don't like any of the "plans"
My Certification number is 0744 taught by number 123.
I am biased and admit it.
my 2 cents.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 10:06:20 |
| Name: | Jaclynn M. Lett |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: | Although a merger sounds advantageous in terms of efficiency of operation, I am also among those concerned that biological topics (particularly what's considered standard TEM and SEM) will all but disappear. Every year I read the topics to be presented at the August meeting and find little to justify my attendance (I have always looked forward to opportunities to refine my techniques, and even more importantly, to learn new ones, but not much is offered there). Please don't make changes that would likely further that decline. I hope for the opposite. |
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 10:17:35 |
| Name: | Ronald W. Smith |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
I am in favor of the merger. It will strengthen the clout of microscopy.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 10:31:00 |
| Name: | Greg Hendricks |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: | Like many members my interest and research lie in both biological and analytical areas of microscopy. And I do enjoy reading and learning from the diverse articles that appear in our journal.
For years our two organizations have worked together in what can only be seen as a mutually beneficial arrangement; sponsoring joint meetings and publishing what is one of the premier microscopy journals in the world. Full merger of these two scientific organizations is the next logical step. However, we all must understand that with any merger there will be only one organization and one governing body elected by all of its members when all is said and done. There will be many groups operating within the larger context of the organization (i.e., Material Sciences Microbeam Analysis Section, Biological Microbeam Analysis Section, Imaging Sections- Electron, Confocal, Fluorescence, Force Probe Microscopy, etc.) but all under the umbrella of the parent organization. There are many examples of this kind of governance structure throughout Academia and Industry. This type of organization will allow all of its members to be better served and continue to grow.
To move forward we must also remember where we came from, to this end I submit a quote from the original Constitution and By-Laws of the Electron Microscopy Society of America: Article II. Purpose
"The purpose of the Society shall be to increase and diffuse the knowledge of electron microscopes and related instruments and results obtained through their use in whatever fields they may be found to be applicable."
This still sounds like a pretty good idea!
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 12:24:40 |
| Name: | Charles Lyman |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: | I strongly favor the merger. Both societies were founded to promote improved microscopy instrumentation and techniques. Our task now is to strengthen a merged society to be a potent force in the marketplace of microscopy ideas. Biology, materials science, and microscopy/microanalysis will increasingly interact under the banner of nanotechnology. A merged society can take full advantage of this. Incidentally, it would be useful to have a society structure like Model #4 where members of interest groups would vote for people they know.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 12:29:35 |
| Name: | Arvid Casler |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
As a metallurgist, I joined aways back to get information that I could use to better prepair samples and stay at the leading edge of information. The information presented in journals and at meetings at the more traditional societies for metallurgists was not meeting my needs. I understand and can support the 'business arguments' but I would procede with caution when it comes to what the (either) society is all about. Remember, it will not survive if it does not serve the membership. What is the topic that the membership can circle around? Is it microscopy in general? Will we have a voice to promote the education necessary to use microscopy in a responsible and correct way, will we influence education, have a voice for science in Congress?
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 13:34:56 |
| Name: | Edward A. Kenik |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: | I support the merger of the two societies and favor Model 4 (Federal), though I want to see more details on some of the issues raised by other commentors above (MAS awards, LAS support, answering concerns by potential members of the proposed Biological Section). I do not believe that the section approach gives too much power to a small group of members. Though MAS only has ~400 members, the Microbeam Analysis Section would have a much larger member base. There are obviously many MSA members that would join that section, which would presumably include more than just electron beam techniques (e.g., atom probe, scanning optical, Raman, etc). It might be the largest of the sections.
One concern that I have (that I have not seen addressed) is membership in multiple sections. I have strong ties to both Phyical and Analytical Sciences. If I wish to be active in both sections, would I have to pay additional fees (i.e., double membership or an a small additional fee similar to that for being a member of a MSA focussed interest group? |
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 15:27:06 |
| Name: | Ernie Hall |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: |
I HATE the way this is being presented. ALL of the models emphasize the divisions rather than than the commonalities. Even the question "Your main area of interest" is ridiculous - my background is in the physical sciences, I lead an analytical group using commercial equipment, and my company has just expanded into biosciences - so how would you like me to answer?
The bio/phys division is 50 year old thinking. I want to be a member of the Microscopy and Microanalysis Society of America, not a physical/analytical/commercial/bio member. I don't want to pay extra to join a FIG. Let's see some real leadership here to bring us together and completely eliminate the divisions at the top governance level, while creating structures which will ensure that each technical area gets adequate representation for programming at the M&M meeting and in other Society activities.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 16:01:50 |
| Name: | Virginia Kriho |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
Every year the number of biological presentations at the MSA conferences seem to lessen. As a biologist, I have been having a difficult time justifying my yearly attendance at these meetings. My feeling is that with a merger the situation will only worsen, with the biological sciences falling by the wayside.
|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 19:05:41 |
| Name: | Jim McGee |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: |
I am a member of both Societies and also on the "Merger" Committee (and I favor a merger). I am pleased to see the range of comments being offered up. Of the 30 or so comments posted, I tally an approximately even split pro/con amongst those who are members of just one of the Societies, and nearly unanimous favor (not surprisingly) from those that are members of both Societies. There are many good points being offered up to consider. One thing for sure, the merger is not a "done deal" and a suitable structure clearly needs to be developed. This will include Bylaws revsions, so you will still have the opportunity to voice your say again. Keep the feedback coming. |
| Date: | Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 19:41:11 |
| Name: | Myron C. Ledbetter |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
The success of MSA is unusual in the history of multi-disciplinary societies. Most such attempts have drifted in the direction of the majority, narrowed the focus, with or without a name change, or have simply disintegrated. The unique concept of EMSA/MSA, which accounts for its longevity, is its assured representation in the structure of the society from the two major interests in the biological and physical disciplines, recognizing the crossover interests between them. Any weakening of this balance, whether in publications, organizational structure, or name may set off the avalanche that has doomed other multi-disciplinary attempts.
The name - Microscopy Society of America - seems broad enough to encompass the interests of MAS. Should MAS members feel uncomfortable under that umbrella, perhaps joint meetings are the best solution, using a coordinating committee to meld mutual interests. The obvious financial advantages of a union should not override the primary objective of maintaining a stable platform for multi-disciplinary interaction. |
| Date: | Thursday, October 14, 2004 at 10:24:45 |
| Name: | Janet Henson |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
I am for the merger as long as it will strengthen both entities, and steps will be taken to address the concerns of members in both camps.
|
| Date: | Thursday, October 14, 2004 at 15:12:52 |
| Name: | Rebecca Stearns |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: | Overall I think it makes sense for the socieites to merge.
Though I am not a member of Microbeam Analysis Society, I have research interest in this area and benefit from their programs. |
| Date: | Thursday, October 14, 2004 at 18:51:59 |
| Date: | Monday, October 18, 2004 at 10:03:29 |
| Name: | Ignatius Chan |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: | This merger is long overdue. As a veteran of several major corporate mergers, here's what I've learned:
The focus should be on the future of the new society, not get bogged down on trying to preserve the "old" identity of either one. That means concentrating on incorporating the best attributes of either societies into the new one. This is the opportunity to re-design and overhaul whatever inefficiencies and build a stronger future. Take the time to critically look at the fundamental objectives for the new society and build a new one from there! |
| Date: | Monday, October 18, 2004 at 13:38:22 |
| Name: | Ian M. Anderson |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: | I strongly favor the merger, and hope that it can proceed as quickly as practicable. The interests of the two societies have been growing together as imaging has become more quantitative and as microanalysis has increasing been correlated with spatial, temporal, etc., coordinates. In the planning and execution of the annual Microscopy and Microanalysis meeting, the two societies have been acting as one for some time now. I see no reason why the best attributes of each society, for example the focussed topical meetings of MAS or the K-12 educational outreach of MSA, as well as strong partnerships between the national society and local chapters (by whatever name) cannot be integral features of a merged society.
Finally, I think that we do more to honor the contributions of past generations of microscopists and microanalysts by resolving to play a leadership role in the critical scientific issues of the future (e.g., nanoscale science and technology) than in looking back with pride - no matter how well deserved - on past accomplishments. With its strong representation from both biological and physical sciences communities, and the breadth of its representation in instrumentation and techniques, a merged society is optimally positioned to making seminal contributions to many areas of science in the coming years. |
| Date: | Monday, October 18, 2004 at 16:11:14 |
| Name: | Lucille Giannuzzi |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: | I favor the merger and the sooner the better.
|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 19, 2004 at 06:40:58 |
| Name: | Thomas A. Kubic |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: |
I wish this merger was not necessary but I can see the need. I would most like to see a system wherein the biological section does not cause the identy of the materials and analytical groups to be lost. The choice of the type of merger I need to leave to those who are actively operating the societies especially the MAS.
|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 19, 2004 at 15:48:06 |
| Name: | G.W."Bill"Bailey |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: |
As an emeritus member of both Societies I strongly support a merger.For many years now the two Societies have worked very well together, developing truly joint meetings and joint publications. I believe that it is in the best interest of both Societies that we proceed with the merger. I favor Model 4.
|
| Date: | Friday, October 22, 2004 at 12:32:47 |
| Name: | Yiping Peng |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
From the scientific point of view, simplicity is always preferred. So I vote for the merger.
|
| Date: | Saturday, October 23, 2004 at 11:25:14 |
| Name: | Harvey Freeman |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: |
As an Emeritus member of both societies and treasurer of MAS for 16 years, I strongly favor a merger providing voice to widely differing areas of interest. I also favor an interactive central society which could manage the administrative aspects of a combined society. For these reasons I support the 'federal system' Model #4 as it gives expression to somewhat limited areas of interest as well as addressing broader aims of the Society as a whole.
Specifically for MAS, I believe that we should increasingly support the local societies through improved communicatons, visiting speakers, forums and technical conferences. Throughout the merger process MAS should continue to maintain its identity and keep the treasury intact to further new purposes under a broader umbrella.
|
| Date: | Thursday, October 28, 2004 at 01:59:56 |
| Name: | Takeo Ichinokawa |
| Society: | MSA |
| Comment: |
Comment: I support the merger of the two societies. The whole society is organized by a council constructed by three sections (e.g. biology, physics, and micro-beam analysis). Each section is possible to program their directions with their identity. I favor Model 4 and the name of “Microscopy and Microanalysis Society of America”.
|
| Date: | Saturday, October 30, 2004 at 22:03:35 |
| Name: | Roseann Csencsits |
| Society: | Both |
| Comment: | Merger sounds good. But with interests in Physical science as well as Analytical where do I put myself? I would like to be in two sections. This needs to be worked out. |
|
