PRESIDENT'S LETTER

by Paul Raeburn

A few weeks ago, we stuck our thumb deep into the NASW mailbag and pulled out a plum. Louis L. Lerner of Chicago, an NASW member since 1974, according to the directory, sent a note saying he thought NASW was not doing enough for Diane McGurgan. He'd read my president's letter in the last issue, in which I thanked folks for their efforts on this year's meeting and workshops, and this is what he said in his handwritten note:

"Your letter told me that NASW is not doing what it should do for Ms. McGurgan. So I will. I propose an annual Diane McGurgan Service Award in the amount of $500 for outstanding service to the NASW . . .I am also suggesting that Webster's dictionary change the spelling of service to McGurgan. I trust you agree."

At first, I was tempted to write a note saying we all agree that it's a wonderful idea. Especially the Webster's part. Then I was tempted to send a note saying, hey, sure, nice idea, but we've all got good ideas about how to spend money! But I read on . . .

"Am I sincere?" Lou wrote. "My enclosed check covering the coming five years is enclosed." Sure enough, a personal check for $2,500 slipped out of the envelope and fluttered to the floor.

Lou went on to say that he has been retired for a while but that he still sends in a membership payment. "Ms. McGurgan has never failed-never-to write a kind note of thanks," Lou said. "There is only one Diane McGurgan."

It was a wonderful tribute. I wrote Lou a note thanking him for his generosity, and the officers quickly convened and made a decision. The first award-to be presented at next year's NASW membership meeting-will go to none other than the eponymous Diane McGurgan! As of June 1, Diane has been with NASW for 23 years.

We plan to use the future awards to recognize members who have performed extraordinary service for NASW during the previous year. I will remind you next year to send us, informally, your suggestions of deserving candidates.

I like the idea of using this page not only to update you on NASW happenings, but also to say a word or two about what we do for a living. And if you will permit me, I'd like to call attention to a nice piece written recently by Catherine Arnst, a science writer and a colleague of mine at Business Week.

You may remember the story. In April, researchers announced, in more words or less, that kids in child care tend to be meaner and more aggressive than kids cared for at home. I wondered idly whether the study was fair. It was sponsored by one of the National Institutes of Health, so presumably it wasn't the work of crackpots, I thought. I shrugged it off, figuring it was one study out of many, and that the whole question was probably still far from being resolved.

Cathy didn't shrug it off. She started making some calls. She found out that the news stories were woefully off base. The study did indeed find that preschoolers, on some measure of behavior, were one notch higher in aggressiveness than stay-at-home four- and five-year-olds. But the day-care kids ranked no higher in aggressiveness than the preschool population at large. Indeed, what was apparently happening was that stay-at-home kids were slightly less aggressive than the rest of their peers-but they quickly caught up once they entered school. So if there was any effect at all, it disappeared at kindergarten.

Most of the talking at the press conference announcing the study was done by Jay Belsky of the University of London. Even some of his colleagues took issue with what he said. "We don't agree with him on his interpretation," said Sarah L. Friedman, the scientific coordinator of the study. "The data he presented was accurate but only part of the story, so that can be very misleading." Friedman went on to tell Cathy that there is no proof of cause-and-effect in the study and no evidence that a problem exists. Belsky's response was that his colleagues "are casting this as though if these [behaviors] aren't severely pathological, it doesn't matter."

I don't intend to resolve the issue in this column. I merely want to note this as an example of a good story that many of us-myself included-might have written, but didn't. I take this piece as a reminder that there is always more to the story-and it's our job as science writers to dig that out.

See you next issue.

#

Paul Raeburn is a senior writer at Business Week. He can be reached at praeburn@nasw.org.