Regulatory standards are already on the books at the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address health risks posed by inhaling tiny particles from smoke, vehicle exhaust, and other sources. At the same time, Congress and EPA have initiated a multimillion dollar research effort to better understand the sources of these airborne particles, the levels of exposure to people, and the ways that these particles cause damage. To provide independent guidance to the EPA, Congress asked the National Research Council to study the relevant issues. The result is a series of four reports on the particulate-matter research program. The first two books offered a conceptual framework for a national research program, identified the 10 most critical research needs, and described the recommended timing and estimated costs of such research. This, the third volume, begins the task of assessing the progress made in implementing the research program. The National Research Council ultimately concludes that the ongoing program is appropriately addressing many of the key uncertainties. However, it also identifies a number of critical specific subjects that should be given greater attention. Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter focuses on the most current and planned research projects with an eye toward the fourth and final report, which will contain an updated assessment.

As requested by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Interagency Committee for Extramural Mathematics Programs (ICEMAP), this report updates the 1984 Report known as the "David Report." Specifically, the charge directed the committee to (1) update that report, describing the infrastructure and support for U.S. mathematical sciences research; (2) assess trends and progress over the intervening five years against the recommendations of the 1984 Report; (3) briefly assess the field scientifically and identify significant opportunities for research, including cross-disciplinary collaboration; and (4) make appropriate recommendations designed to ensure that U.S. mathematical sciences research will meet national needs in coming years. Of the several components of the mathematical sciences community requiring action, its wellspring--university research departments--is the primary focus of this report. The progress and promise of research--described in the 1984 Report relative to theoretical development, new applications, and the refining and deepening of old applications--have if anything increased since 1984, making mathematics research ever more valuable to other sciences and technology. Although some progress has been made since 1984 in the support for mathematical sciences research, the goals set in the 1984 Report have not been achieved. Practically all of the increase in funding has gone into building the infractructure, which had deteriorated badly by 1984. While graduate and postdoctoral research, computer facilities, and new institutes have benefited from increased resources, some of these areas are still undersupported by the standards of other sciences. And in the area of research support for individual investigators, almost no progress has been made. A critical storage of qualified mathematical sciences researchers still looms, held at bay for the moment by a large influx of foreign researchers, an uncertain solution in the longer term. While government has responded substantially to the 1984 Report's recommendations, particularly in the support of infrastructure, the universities generally have not, so that the academic foundations of the mathematical sciences research enterprise are as shaky now as in 1984. The greatet progress has been made in the mathematics sciences community, whose members have shown a growing awareness of the problems confronting their discipline and increased interest in dealing with the problems, particularly in regard to communication with the public and government agencies and involvement in education. (AA)

The definitive career guide for grad students, adjuncts, post-docs and anyone else eager to get tenure or turn their Ph.D. into their ideal job Each year tens of thousands of students will, after years of hard work and enormous amounts of money, earn their Ph.D. And each year only a small percentage of them will land a job that justifies and rewards their investment. For every comfortably tenured professor or well-paid former academic, there are countless underpaid and overworked adjuncts, and many more who simply give up in frustration. Those who do make it share an important asset that separates them from the pack: they have a plan. They understand exactly what they need to do to set themselves up for success. They know what really moves the needle in academic job searches, how to avoid the all-too-common mistakes that sink so many of their peers, and how to decide when to point their Ph.D. toward other, non-academic options. Karen Kelsky has made it her mission to help readers join the select few who get the most out of their Ph.D. As a former tenured professor and department head who oversaw numerous academic job searches, she knows from experience exactly what gets an academic applicant a job. And as the creator of the popular and widely respected advice site The Professor is In, she has helped countless Ph.D.’s turn themselves into stronger applicants and land their dream careers. Now, for the first time ever, Karen has poured all her best advice into a single handy guide that addresses the most important issues facing any Ph.D., including: -When, where, and what to publish -Writing a foolproof grant application -Cultivating references and crafting the perfect CV -Acing the job talk and campus interview -Avoiding the adjunct trap -Making the leap to nonacademic work, when the time is right The Professor Is In addresses all of these issues, and many more.