Afterword

Author(s):  
George J. Armelagos ◽  
Dennis P. Van Gerven

The future depends on what you do today. Mahatma Gandhi When David Greene, Bill Adams, and I proposed the Kulubnarti project to the National Science Foundation (NSF) back in 1978, we requested funds to bring the remains back to Colorado rather than leave the skeletons behind after conducting our analysis there. Our rationale was to create a collection that would support future research employing technologies yet to be invented....

In 1965 several anthropologists drew up plans for a one-year pilot study of the archeology and ethnohistory of the Wichita Indian tribes. After financial support had been generously provided by the National Science Foundation, the proposed research was carried out. This is a report on the results of that study. The pilot study was designed to: a) obtain a body of field data from the components of the Spanish Fort sites, the largest and best=documented of the historic Wichita sites in the Red River area; b) make test excavations at several other sites in order that a problem=oriented program of future research can be accurately planned; c) attempt to locate, by field reconnaissance, sites that relate to the Wichita occupation of the southern plains on both the historic and prehistoric time levels; d) make a survey of available ethnohistorical data in order (1) to compile a bibliography of documentary materials relevant to Wichita ethnohistory, (2) to make a detailed study of documents that relate specifically to the excavations being carried out at Spanish Fort and at the sites being tested, (3) to seek information that might lead to the field locations of other Wichita sites, and (4) to appraise those sources best suited for more extended examination. The co-investigators of the project were Tyler Bastian of the Museum of the Great Plains, Robert E. Bell of The University of Oklahoma, Edward B. Jelks of Southern Methodist University, and W.W. Newcomb of the Texas Memorial Museum at The University of Texas. Bastian supervised the archeological field work in Oklahoma under the direction of Bell. Jelks directed the archeological work in Texas. Newcomb directed the ethnohistorical research. Marvin E. Tong of the Museum of the Great Plains served the project as general coordinator. The main part of the ethnohistorical study consisted of a thorough search of the archives at The University of Texas for documents relating to Wichita ethnohistory. The archeological work included extensive excavations at the Longest Site in Oklahoma and at the Upper Tucker and Coyote Sites in Texas. More limited excavations were carried out at the Glass and Gas Plant Sites in Texas. Several other archeological sites were visited but not excavated beyond a test pit or two: the Devils Canyon and Wilson Springs Sites in Oklahoma, and the Gilbert, Stone, Vinson, and Womack Sites in Texas. An effort was also made to locate several sites in Oklahoma and Texas which were reported in historical documents but which had not been located in the field. After the library research and the archeological field work had been completed, a brief, general report could have been prepared to satisfy our contractual obligation to the National Science Foundation. It was felt, however, that the data which had been collected would be of interest to archeologists and ethnohistorians and, if possible, it should be made available to them in some detail without delay. Consequently, a series of descriptive papers was prepared instead of a summary report. Those papers are presented here.


Author(s):  
Glenn Geher ◽  
Rosemarie Sokol-Chang ◽  
Jennifer Waldo ◽  
David Sloan Wilson ◽  
Hadassah Mativetsky

The field of Evolutionary Studies (EvoS) stands at a significant junction. On one hand, the field has demonstrated the ability to serve as a model for a truly interdisciplinary approach to higher education. That said, evolutionary approaches outside certain areas of biology proper have been often met with skepticism and academic mistrust. In 3 discrete sections, this chapter seeks to demonstrate that EvoS provides a powerful academic framework that effectively integrates many academic areas and enhances educational outcomes in these areas. Further, the chapter seeks to demonstrate the broad reach of EvoS in terms of student success, partly by summarizing outcomes of a recent National Science Foundation grant. The final section addresses controversies in the field of EvoS. This section seeks to show how developing a sophisticated understanding of the different facets of these issues may serve a conciliatory and progressive role in the future.


AI Magazine ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Alterovitz ◽  
Sven Koenig ◽  
Maxim Likhachev

Recent years have seen significant technical progress on robot planning, enabling robots to compute actions and motions to accomplish challenging tasks involving driving, flying, walking, or manipulating objects. However, robots that have been commercially deployed in the real world typically have no or minimal planning capability. These robots are often manually programmed, teleoperated, or programmed to follow simple rules. Although these robots are highly successful in their respective niches, a lack of planning capabilities limits the range of tasks for which currently deployed robots can be used. In this article, we highlight key conclusions from a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation in October 2013 that summarize opportunities and key challenges in robot planning and include challenge problems identified in the workshop that can help guide future research towards making robot planning more deployable in the real world.


2008 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-21
Author(s):  
Robert E. O’Connor

Environmental and natural resource economists could be more effectively engaged in great research on exciting issues in environmental and natural resource management. After identifying possible obstacles to improved research, the article focuses on opportunities and obstacles associated with obtaining funding from the National Science Foundation. Opportunities abound, both ongoing and in the future, for interdisciplinary work involving environmental and natural resource economists. Keys to exploiting these opportunities for funding include a willingness to face rejection, build teams, contact program officers with specific questions, write detailed research designs, and prepare proposals that promise to go beyond narrow incremental advances.


1961 ◽  
Vol 54 (7) ◽  
pp. 547-550
Author(s):  
W. H. Myers

Having been charged with the selection of participants for two National Science Foundation Summer Institutes and having served in a department that has conducted at least eight such institutes, the author has been impressed by the many things which applicants do or fail to do which result in their being denied the right to participate. Perhaps a listing of some of the common errors will aid teachers in making successful applications in the future.


Science ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 211 (4487) ◽  
pp. 1131-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Slaughter

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document