Subject: American Academy of Arts and Sciences nomination
From: "Shaw, David" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:08:58 -0400

Lynn,

It's been quite a while since we've been in contact.  Over the years,
though, I've had many occasions to explain to both technical and S&T
policy audiences why I think your work (as a computer scientist, an
electrical engineer, an educator, and perhaps most importantly, an
"anthropological engineer," as I believe you once described it) has had
such a large and lasting impact.  This has usually been in the context
of suggesting that the approaches you employed might be adopted as a
model for promulgating fundamental paradigmatic changes in various other
areas.

Given your extraordinary contributions, I was thus surprised to discover
that you haven't yet been elected a fellow of the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences (http://www.amacad.org).  This is of course silly, and
I think the situation should be rectified, if only to avoid further
embarrassment to the Academy.  Having myself been inducted a couple of
years ago, I'd consider it an honor to nominate you, or if there's
someone else you think might be in a better position to do so, to draw
this to that person's attention.

The Academy allows a candidate to be nominated by either one or two
current fellows, a list of whom is attached below:

 <<American Academy members by class and section__Nov 08__.pdf>> 
If you'd like me to nominate (or co-nominate) you, I'd be delighted to
do so, but the goal should of course be to select the nominator(s) who
can make the strongest possible case, so if you see one or more other
fellows on the list who might for any reason be more appropriate for
this purpose, please don't feel at all awkward about saying so.  If
you'd like me to serve as co-nominator along with another fellow, let me
know whether you'd prefer that I approach that person or whether you'd
rather do this yourself.  (Note that co-nominators cannot be from the
same institution as each other, though it's fine for one of them to be
from the same institution as the nominee.)

The Academy's fellows are divided into "classes," and within each class,
into "sections."  A list of these categories is attached below:

 <<American Academy classes and sections, 2010.pdf>> 
In your case, I thought the best choice might be Section 6 ("Computer
Sciences") of Class I ("Mathematical and Physical Sciences").  In the
preliminary phase of the nomination process, though, candidates can also
be considered for a second, alternate section, so I'd propose to also
put you forward for Section 5 ("Engineering Sciences and Technologies")
of Class I.  The choice should of course be yours, however, so assuming
that you're interested in pursuing this at all, just let me know which
section(s) you'd prefer to be listed under for purposes of the selection
process.

I think the nominal procedure may be to keep the candidate in the dark
about his or her nomination so as to either avoid disappointment or
provide a positive surprise, depending on the outcome.  From what I can
tell, though, the approach that's generally followed in practice is for
the nominator to obtain certain information from the candidate to
facilitate preparation of the necessary forms, etc.  Although I believe
I know enough about your qualifications to assemble a credible
nomination package on my own, I've attached below a (partially
completed) copy of the nomination form (in Microsoft Word format, for
easy editing), and would welcome any information you'd like to pass
along that might help me do so most effectively.

 <<Lynn Conway AmAcad annotated nomination form__6-09__.doc>> 
My assistant has already entered most of the mechanical data (and has
inserted notes in red in the left margin to indicate certain character
limits enforced by the online nomination form), but it's probably worth
checking to make sure it's all correct.  We'll also need to fill in
references for the five publications you'd like to list in response to
item 11, so it would be great if you could send me a list of the ones
you'd like to include.  In addition, I'd be receptive to any wording
preferences you might have with respect to the brief listing of your
"Areas of Expertise" in item 7, and to any input or draft language you
might want to provide in connection with items 8 and 12.  (Please resist
any temptation toward modesty in connection with the latter two items;
if I'm your nominator or co-nominator, I'll be either writing or editing
these myself, but I'd like to make sure that I include anything you'd
particularly like to highlight.)  Although it's formally listed as
optional, I think it would also be good to submit a one-page c.v. or
bio.  In addition, it would be useful to have a current copy of your
*full* c.v. so I can make sure, for example, that I'm aware of any
awards, appointments, or other honors that might be worth mentioning
(subject to space limitations).  

Finally, the nominator is allowed, though not required, to request a
letter of support from (at most) one additional fellow (separate from
the co-nominator, if any).  Given your stature within the field, it
wouldn't be hard for me to choose among the various fellows who could
testify to your qualifications for fellowship, but I'd guess that you'd
be in a better position than I to make an optimal choice.  (On the
chance that the fellow in question is for any reason unavailable or
unresponsive, it might be good if you could also suggest a backup
choice.)  Before submitting this individual's name to the Academy, I'd
of course check to make sure that he or she would be willing to provide
such a supporting letter, but if you'd like to feel that individual out
yourself, I don't think that would be inconsistent with what typically
happens in practice.

Nomination forms (including the nominator's recommendation and the names
of any co-nominator and/or supporting letter writer) are due by July
10th, so if you're interested in pursuing this, we should move forward
fairly quickly.  (The supporting letter itself, however, can be
submitted as late as July 17th.)  Once again, though, please don't
hesitate to let me know if you think someone else might be in a better
position to serve as your nominator(s), or if the whole thing seems like
more trouble than it's worth.  Either way, I'll look forward to hearing
from you soon.

Best regards,

David

-----

David E. Shaw, Ph.D.

Chief Scientist
D. E. Shaw Research
120 W. 45th St., 39th Floor
New York, NY 10036
(212) 478-0260
[email-masked]
www.DEShawResearch.com 

Senior Research Fellow
Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
Columbia University
1130 St. Nicholas Ave., 8th Floor
New York, NY 10032
(212) 851-4662
[email-masked]