From heinemae@mail.nih.gov Fri Apr 4 14:49:08 2003 Received: from mxu3.u.washington.edu (mxu3.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.133]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW03.03/8.12.1+UW03.02) with ESMTP id h34Mn7Zv055674 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:49:07 -0800 Received: from ims2.hub.nih.gov (ims2.hub.nih.gov [128.231.90.112]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW03.03/8.12.1+UW03.02) with ESMTP id h34Mn5E2001683 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:49:05 -0800 Received: by ims2.hub.nih.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:49:04 -0500 Message-ID: <27C204BD76CBC142BA1AE46D62A8548EC1D64C@nihexchange9.nih.gov> From: "Heineman, Ellen (NIH/NCI)" To: "'waphgis@u.washington.edu'" Subject: RE: ESRI International Health GIS Conference Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:49:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAFC.646E2D80" X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=XXIIIIII, Probability=26%, Report="BIG_FONT, DISCLAIMER, EXCHANGE_SERVER, HTML_FONT_COLOR_BLUE, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR, MIME_NULL_BLOCK, SPAM_PHRASE_02_03, __EVITE_CTYPE, __HAS_X_MAILER" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAFC.646E2D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This is a really important issue. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I think Linda Pickle subscribes to this list, but I'll touch base with her about it. -----Original Message----- From: Francis P. Boscoe [mailto:fpb01@health.state.ny.us] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:44 AM To: waphgis@u.washington.edu Subject: ESRI International Health GIS Conference A colleague of mine had his abstract for the ESRI International Health GIS Conference rejected because he would not be illustrating his research findings using ESRI software. As it happens, the presentation was developed using software from SAS, MapInfo, Microsoft, Adobe, the University of Iowa, National Cancer Institute, and other freeware, though the first four companies are entirely incidental and were not mentioned in the abstract nor would there be any reason to mention them in the presentation. I find this troublesome on several grounds: 1) The conference literature does not state any such restriction on presentation content. References are to GIS generically and not ESRI products specifically (http://gis.esri.com/industries/health/2003/abstract_form.cfm) 2) This rule raises potential ethical concerns for the numerous public agencies participating in this conference. 3) Given the limited number of conference events specifically focused on GIS and Public Health, this conference is, by default, a major event in our field. What does it mean when our research results are vetted by a private corporation? Thoughts? [Disclaimer: I would like to state for the record that I have no particular objection to ESRI, and I have used their products in many different contexts, and will continue doing so. No doubt this same concern could be raised regarding other companies in other disciplines]. Francis P. Boscoe, Ph.D. Research Scientist Geographic Analysis Section Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology New York State Department of Health 547 River St., Room 200 Troy, NY 12180 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAFC.646E2D80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

This is a really important issue. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I think Linda Pickle subscribes to this list, but I'll touch base with her about it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis P. Boscoe [mailto:fpb01@health.state.ny.us]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:44 AM
To: waphgis@u.washington.edu
Subject: ESRI International Health GIS Conference

A colleague of mine had his abstract for the ESRI International Health GIS Conference rejected because he would not be illustrating his research findings using ESRI software. As it happens, the presentation was developed using software from SAS, MapInfo, Microsoft, Adobe, the University of Iowa, National Cancer Institute, and other freeware, though the first four companies are entirely incidental and were not mentioned in the abstract nor would there be any reason to mention them in the presentation.

I find this troublesome on several grounds:

1) The conference literature does not state any such restriction on presentation content. References are to GIS generically and not ESRI products specifically (http://gis.esri.com/industries/health/2003/abstract_form.cfm)

2) This rule raises potential ethical concerns for the numerous public agencies participating in this conference.

3) Given the limited number of conference events specifically focused on GIS and Public Health, this conference is, by default, a major event in our field. What does it mean when our research results are vetted by a private corporation?

Thoughts?

[Disclaimer: I would like to state for the record that I have no particular objection to ESRI, and I have used their products in many different contexts, and will continue doing so. No doubt this same concern could be raised regarding other companies in other disciplines].

Francis P. Boscoe, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Geographic Analysis Section
Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology
New York State Department of Health
547 River St., Room 200
Troy, NY 12180
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAFC.646E2D80-- .