The departure of acclaimed research scientist Jeffrey Skolnick from Buffalo represents the problem blurring the reputation of UB's bioinformatics program. The hype heaped upon Skolnick's "rock star" arrival, along with the program itself, led to inflated expectations that may have been impossible to live up to.
Unrealistic hopes were raised for a university center that was in its incubation period and led to the view, fairly or not, that Skolnick was failing in his role as leader of the department. After going through three office assistants in his first 18 months, fending off nepotism charges after attempting to employ his wife, and offending one of UB's major partners, Dell Computers, Skolnick is gone. His disappointing three-and-a-half-year tenure ended when he resigned in December to take a job at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Though UB officials maintain the bioinformatics program is on solid ground, students on campus are hard-pressed in understanding what this means. The abstract, vague announcements that are regularly put out by the department do not help matters. Concrete examples of what has been termed a university "flagship" program are needed to clarify what in fact constitutes success.
While there are big money partnerships with Roswell Park Cancer Institute and the Hauptman-Woodward dominating headlines, and the $63 million research facility is nearing completion, what the department is actually doing for UB is still unclear to a majority of undergraduates and the community as a whole. It's great that UB has a high profile research program, but right now it is clear there is little connection to undergraduate students.
A better connection needs to be made with students outlining what the bioinformatics center means to their UB degrees. That is the best way to generate excitement for a program that has seemed, up to now, more of a myth than reality.
Spy games hit home
Big brother continues to get bigger, and he could already be moved in
Constitutional crises do not occur often, but it looks as though we are in the midst of one right now. The Bush administrations' spy scandal has crossed the line from attempts at security to invasion of privacy. Political paranoia must not supercede the law.
Continuing disclosures are exposing a domestic spying operation carried out by the National Security Agency at the White House's behest, and it should be called out for what it is: Nixonian fear mongering. This is a bi-partisan matter that needs to be addressed with the utmost urgency by Congress and the judiciary. As the lawsuits brought forth from groups including the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union both make clear, our democracy and Constitution demand nothing less.
As Fox News stresses daily, some people say nothing is amiss with the current spying arrangement. President Bush claims that only those with connections to terrorists have reason for alarm. If you have nothing to hide, why worry?
But what about NSA efforts in coordinating Baltimore police surveillance of a meeting of Quakers conducting an anti-war rally? How does Bush's declaration square with college students being watched in California because of their anti-war stance? Do NSA intercepts of CNN broadcasters' communications help in fighting terror? Of course not. This is being done to monitor, and potentially control, dissent within public opinion.
The Bush administration has overstepped its authority by utilizing illegal spying in the war on terror. This goes hand-in-hand with the "unitary executive" theories they espouse, which has led to increased and expanded powers within the executive branch at the expense of the Congress and citizens of the United States. A conservative administration is supposed to reduce the powers of government, not expand itself to have eyes on every one of its citizens.
