Acquiring Language Author(s): David Pesetsky, Ken Wexler, Victoria Fromkin, Steven Pinker, Lyle Jenkins, Allan Maxam,

Robin Clark, Lila Gleitman, Anthony Kroch, Jeffrey Elman, Elizabeth Bates, Jenny R. Saffran, Richard N. Aslin, Elissa L. Newport Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 276, No. 5316 (May 23, 1997), pp. 1177-1181+1276 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2893633 Accessed: 30/11/2009 06:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaas. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science.

http://www.jstor.org

L E T T E RS.~...

. .I ,", ,I. . .- 1 . . . -. .-1 1 . . 1...-...I~~..I....II.~. .

...

SOLVENT-BASED IN A . SEPARATIONS FORMAT! 96-WELL

the degree to which languagesvary, and linguisticknowledgenot attributable to the Little statisticians? environment,as well as uniformpattemsof normal and abnormal language developHow humaninfantsmightleam the comment-plus the fact that nonhumanmamponents of language, and what recent malswith goodstatisticalleamingandcomresearch results mean in light of Noam putational capacities (1) nevertheless do Chomsky's theories about language acnot develop language.These observations quisition,are debated. And readers conarecompatiblewith the resultsof Saffran et tinue to express their concem about "misplaced"crabs, along with a plant al. No matter how rich a child's innate that is not a grass. linguisticendowment,the fact that she acquiresthe languageof her communitytells us that she also has methodsfor analyzing input. No "received wisdom" has ever in this doubtedthe existence of "leaming" nontechnicalsense (2). A second and differentissue is the domain-specificity of cognitive functions. have indeed questioned Some researchers whether humans possess "generalized" leaming mechanismsnot associatedwith particular cognitive domains.In discussing this topic, Chomsky(3) and others (4) use MultiScreen? Resist piates in a technical sense to the term "leaming" makehighthroughput screeningfordrug referto generalized mechanisms of this sort. and easier. These *discovery quicker Batesand Elmanassert In theirPerspective, unique 96-well plates are resistantto that Saffranet al.'s resultssupportthe existo cleavsolvents whichare critical strong tence of this "powerful" type of "leaming," from combinatorial beads. ing products even calling that the "centralcontribution offer: MultiScreen Resist plates of the Saffranet al. report." But, as Saffran AcquiringLanguage * High recoveries et al. themselvesnote, their studymakesno The report "Statistical learning by such contribution.Becausetheir work inm Excellent h incubation capabilities 8-month-old infants" by jenny R. Saifran et volved only linguistic stimuli, it tells us * A choice of filtrate receiverplates al. (13 Dec., p. 1926) shows that, after nothing aboutothercognitivedomains,but * Highbead visibility only in listening to 2-minute strings of three-sylla- speaksto the questionof "leaming" * A single inertfilter foraqueous or ble nonsense "words,"infants listened long- the nontechnicalsense. chemicals hydrophobic er to stimuli that did not contain these David Pesetsky words than they did to strings that did and Philosophy, Department of Linguistics lowextractaFor solvent compatibility, contain these words. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, bles, and water wettability, the In the accompanying Perspective MA 02139, USA Cambridge, Resist MultiScreen platesuse a propriE-mail: pesetsk@mit.edu etary hydrophilic, "Learning rediscovered" (p. 1849), ElizaPTFE low-binding beth Bates and Jeffrey Elman state that this Ken Wexler availablein severalconmembrane, Sciences Department of BrainandCognitive report is important because the results "fly venient poresizes; 1 pmor 5 pmpore in the face of received wisdom" by showing and Department andPhilosophy, of Linguistics than sizes forretained larger particles that "babies can learn." But the appearance Massachusetts Institute of Technology particles. 10 pm,or0.4 pmforsmaller of a refutation-indeed, the appearance of a E-mail:wexler@psyche.mit.edu Callor fax for moreinformation. VictoriaFromkin controversy-arises only from Bates and ElU.S. and Canada, man's inaccurate characterization of views Department of Linguistics, with which they purport to disagree. Their Services: at LosAngeles, call Technical University of California discussion does not distinguish two senses of LosAngeles,CA 90024, USA 1-800-MILLIPORE 1645-5476). the term "learning"and consequently blurs E-mail: fromkin@ucla.edu InJapan,call: 103)5442-9716; two logically distinct issues. inAsia, call: 1852) 2803-911 1; The first issue concerns the division of References in Europe, fax: +333.88.38.91.95
labor between innate and environmental factors in language acquisition. The existence of specific biological support for language is beyond doubt. Arguments come from the nature of structural properties common to all languages, restrictions on
1. C. R. Gallistel, TheOrganization of Leaming (Massaof Technology chusetts Institute Press, Cambridge, MA,1990). 2. K.Wexler, Dev. Psychobiol. 23, 645 (1990). 3. N. Chomsky, Rulesand Representations (Columbia Univ.Press, NewYork,1980). 4. M.Piatelli-Palmarini, Cognition 31,1 (1989). * SCIENCE * VOL. 276 -

e Dru D.iscovver SIsCOVeIs s Tool Thcat To Hard Resist!

MILLIPORE
*wwwv.millipore.com/multiscreen e-mail: tech_service@Xmillipore.com Circle No. 1 on Readers' Service Card

www.sciencemag.org

That infants learn wordsby remembering sequencesof sounds is not new or controversial (1). What is the alternative?That English words are in American babies' genes, Japanesewords in Japanesebabies' genes, and so on? No one believes that, including Noam Chomsky, whose quotations were reproducedin the Perspective by Bates and Elman.Surely, when Chomsky said that "learning"is a misleading term,he was not suggestingthat Englishis in the genes;and if he were, Saffranet al.'s results would hardly be needed to refute him. Saffranet al. and Bates and Elmansuggest that if children can learn words by recordingfrequent sound sequences, they might learn grammarthe same way. But words and grammar are different.The sequence of soundsmakingup a word is not cannot be capturableby rules ("monkey" understood as a combinationof "mon" and "key"),but must be memorized. And because there are a finite numberof words, they all can be recorded. The sequence of words making up a sentence, however, is capturableby rules. (For example, "the eggplantate Chicago," wordsequence,can though an improbable be understoodfrom the meaningsof "eggplant," "ate,"and "Chicago"and the way

they are combined).Word sequencesneed not and cannot be memorized, because they form an open-ended set. Moreover, grammar does not merelysequence words, but relates each sequence to a meaning through hierarchical, cross-referenced data structures. Leaming words and leaming grammar are thus differentcomputational problems. The statistical leaming procedures that have been appliedto grammar do not behave even remotelylike people,but instead guessthe next wordof a stringin a highly simplified artificial language,rather than convertingmeaningsto real sentencesand vice versa.Realisticmodels of human languagehave all required algorithms designed to processcombinatorial rules and hierarchical meaningstructures. The contrast made by Saffran et al. between "learning" and "innatefactors"is a poor basis for understandinga process as complex as language acquisition. All partsof human psychologydepend on experience, and leaming alwaysrequiresinnate neural machineryto do the leaming. Only by analyzingwhat exactly is leamed, and what kinds of mechanismsare capable of leaming it, can we make sense of the interestingdata in the reportby Saffranet al.

Steven Pinker Sciences, of BrainandCognitive Department of Technology, Massachusetts Institute MA 02139, USA Cambridge,
References and Notes

1. Forexample,I have written,"Perhaps [word] segmentation... can be accomplishedin part by a combination of stochasticmethodsthattabulate syllable transition probabilities" [S. Pinker,Language and LanguageDevelopment(Harvard Learnability Univ.Press, Cambridge, 1984),p. 28].

Batesand Elmanassert In their Perspective, that Saffranet al. "haveproventhat babies can leam" and that "NoamChomsky,the has argued founderof generativelinguistics, for 40 yearsthat languageis unleamable." That "babiescan leam" is not a theorem andwidely buta long-known subject to proof, How babies observation. acceptedempirical leam has been the subjectof intenseinvestigation (over the last 40 years)on universal acquisigrammar, language and comparative andcreole tion andperception, signlanguage, language. Familyand twin studiesof agramaphasias; andexpressive andreceptive matism studiesof split-brain patients,linguisticsaandrechildren; vants,andlanguage-isolated searchon the electricalactivityof the brain havehelpedto shapethe field (1). All of this workconverges on the conclusionthat hu-

3:

3 n:

gel.1 flration
columns can
you
see?

count ~~~(We

Thur. )

LETTERS like any other biologicalsysman language, of geneticand froman interplay tem, results The assertion by Bates factors. environmental that "lanand Elmanthat Chomskyargued his work, misrepresents guageis unleamable" commuto the linguistics which is apparent not to the generalreader. nity, but perhaps Chomskystated that a central task for the biology of language is to develop a "leamingtheoryfor humansin the domain and has put fortha varietyof [of] language" proposalsabout this development process over the past 40 years (2). He went on to state that scientists might seek development theoriesfor other cognitive domains for humans (or for other organisms,with such theirown specialcognitivecapacities), a face, determiningthe peras recognizing a melsonalityof otherpeople,"recognizing and understandody under transposition," ing spatialrelations,for example. on the biology of lanMost researchers guagefeel that the central question is how to tease apart the genetic and environmental factorsthat interact to give us the knowledge, acquisition, use, neurological basis, and evolution of human language. Saffran et al. made some substantive remarksabout these matters.The exaggerated statementsmadeby Batesand Elman, however, were not helpful. data do not Language argument. Lyle Jenkins stimulus" Allan Maxam come packagedwith instructionsfor their Institute, own analysis;any effective leamer must Biolinguistics on its MA 02139 cometo the datawithpriorconstraints Cambridge, of the In this form,the "poverty hypotheses. ljenkins@world.std.com E-mail: stimulus" argumentis equivalentto Gold's result(1), which Bates famous mathematical References in theirPerspective. and Elmanmisinterpret Univ. Gold showedthat, for even simpleclassesof The LopsidedApe (Oxford 1. M. C. Corballis, Press, New York,1991);S. Pinker,TheLanguage or other) (statistical no procedure New York,1994);L. Jenkins,Bio- languages, Instinct (Morrow, Problem (Cambridge exists that could leam a languagewithout linguistics:The Unification 1997). Univ.Press, Cambridge, nontriviala prioriassumptions. (Columbia 2. N. Chomsky, Rulesand Representations In sum, a leaming machine can only Univ.Press, New York,1980); Powers and Prospermitsit to leam things that its structure pects (SouthEnd,Boston,MA,1996). leam; whetherthe leaming is done by stacan analyzea text based tistical means is entirelyorthogonalto the Statisticallearners the question of innate structure.While much by firstcomputing on a smallset of words of points remains to be discoveredabout language conditionalentropy(uncertainty) and its relationto generalleamaroundeach syllableand then associating acquisition of with points of high condi- ing procedures, wordboundaries the uncriticalempiricism by Saffran Bates and Ellman does not advance our tional entropy.The experiments of these matters. et al. presentevidence that human infants understanding Robin Clark learners. Whatthe experaresuchstatistical with no Lila Gteitman imentsdo not show is that a learner as to the nature of Anthony Kroch innate predispositions Science, in Cognitive for Research Institute languagecould extractfrom the text alone wordboundof Pennsylvania, University the principleitselfof assigning RathPA 19104, USA to conditional entropy. Philadelphia, ariesaccording mustbe builtfromthe beginer, the learner ning to use such a procedureto discover References 16, 447 (1967). of the 1. E. Gold,Inf.Control linguisticunits. This is the "poverty

'Who would havethought a gel columnwould makeit so filtration easy for me to get into Science," says Stacy,a post-doc working in New YorkCrty.

That may look likejust one column, but it'snot. You see, that's Superdex' inside that column. Superdex gel filtrationtechnology is based on the best of the underlyingtechnologies of Sephadex?, Superose? and Sepharose?- each already proven in thousands of published research findings.So, inside a Superdex column, you get the best technologies.

great technologies

The best

qualities of three in one: Superdex

Superdex delivers extremely rapid separations, incredibly steep selectivity curves, and truly minimalnon-specific interactions.So it's idealfor purifying oligonucleotides, peptides, proteins, or other major biomolecules. The ingenious combination of the properties of dextran and agarose makes Superdex ten times fasterthan comparable gel filtration media. The proof of this statement is defined in the new - a seventh Practices and Principles" PharmaciaBiotech "Gel Fiftration: edition handbook (that's right, edition number seven). We're sure you'll find a Superdex selectivity to satisfy your needs. After all, it's available in three selectivity ranges (prep grade in bulk). And it comes in packs and columns varying from trial-size scouting packs, through labto process-scale columns-many of which arrive pre-packed. Findout more about Superdex. Give us a call: I (800) 526-3593 in the USA; +81 3492 6949 in Japan;+46 18 16 50 1 1 in Europe and the rest of the world. Or visit us on the Intemet: http://www.biotech.pharmacia.se.We've got the best gel filtrationtechnology solution for you.

Circle No. 36 on Readers' Service Card

Db

Pharmacia Biotech
the rest of the world) .Sweden. (AndL

A E

Response: Cognitive science is at a tuming point, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the study of language. Basic assumptions that have dominated the field for 40 years are being reexamined, and exciting altematives are being developed. All fourlettersassertin various waysthat language mustbe biologically constrained, becauseonly humanscan do it. We agree,and have saidso explicitlyin ourPerspective and ( ). The centraldebatein ourfield elsewhere is not aboutinnateness perse, it is aboutthe natureof this ability.For40 years, Chomsky and his followers have argued that language can onlybe acquired withspecial mechanisms that evolved for languagealone (the Language Acquisition Device).We andothers(1, 2) have a differentview: Language evolved throughquantitative changesin social,perceptual, and cognitive abilities-including statisticalleaming-that exist in other species. These abilitieshave been recruited for language, buttheycontinueto do nonlinguistic work (that is, they have kept their "day jobs").Jenkinsand Maxamsuggestthat we have misinterpreted Chomsky,who rejects leaming only in a "technical" sense. But Chomskyhas been quite consistenton this issue(3, p. 161)

* HighPurity- sufficient forboth and fluorescent automated manual sequencing * EasyOperation-begin with prep of crudebacteria direct loading nocentrifugation culture; step e Fast-up to 24 Mini-Preps perhr. ale d 113 Soret e Consistent Results-up to 5 igg of plasmid perml.
to learn how the new,,improved 24 can automate your Mini-Prep
No.di2 on prep. readers'ServicCar Circec DNA Case closed. plasmid

larger context,althoughwe respectthe right et al. to see thingsdifferently. of Saffran In their defense of Chomsky's approach, the letter writershave taken contradictorypositions. Pesetsky et al. argue that the study by Saffran et al. provides evidence in favor of domain-specificlanguage abilities, because the stimuli that their infants learned so readily are language-like. In the same vein, Clark et al. assert that statistical information (for interpretingconditional entropy) could not be used in language without a languagespecific predispositionto do so. But the datapresentedin the studyby Saffranet al. resemble those from many other studies (with adultsas well as children) involving nonlinguisticstimuli (4, 5) and have been simulatedby connectionist networksthat Pinkertakes the are not language-specific. opposite tack, arguingthat statistical induction may work for some domains (including word learning), but cannot work for grammar. Other studiesin humansand neural networks (1, 2, 5, 6), however, demonstrate that statistical inferencing can be used to acquire grammar.Pinker (and Saffranet al. in their response) are critical of connectionist approaches to language.While we agree that this techThe evidenceseemscompelling, indeedover- nology has far to go, we are optimistic whelming, thatfundamental ofourmental about its present and its future. The enaspects andsocial aredetermined terpriseis new, and it is too soon to delife,including language, aspart of ourbiological notacquired clare failureor victory. endowment, bylearning. JeffreyElman ElizabethBates and (3, p. 4) Center in Language, for Research Certain ofourknowledge andunderstandaspects San Diego, University of Califomnia, of ourbiological ingareinnate, part endowment, La CA USA 92093, Jolla, on a parwith the elegenetically determined, E-mail:elman@crl.ucsd.edu ments ofour common thatcause nature ustogrow bates@crl.ucsd.edu arms andlegsrather thanwings. The "technical"sense of leaming that References and Notes Chomsky rejectsis the one thatmostlaymen 1. J. Elmanet al., Rethinking Innateness(Massachuunderstand: The abilityto acquire something of Technology setts Institute Press,Cambridge, MA, 1996). new in manydifferent domains.In our PerScience 275, 1599 (1997). threelinesof evidence 2. M.Seidenberg, spective,we reviewed 3. N. Chomsky,Languageand Problemsof Knowlskillsplay that such multipurpose suggesting edge: TheManagua Lectures(Massachusetts Instia majorrole in language tute of Technology leaming:(i) neural Press, Cambridge, MA,1988). network simulationsof languagedevelop- 4. A. Cleermans,Mechanismsof ImplicitLearning Institute ofTechnology Press,Cam(Massachusetts ment, (ii) large computerized corpora of bridge,MA,1993). writtenand spoken languageshowingthat 5. M.Haith of Future-Oriented et al., TheDevelopment Processes (Univ. of ChicagoPress, Chicago,1994). the input to leamers is much richer than L.Gerken and R. Gomez,paperpresented at meetpreviously believed,and (iii) demonstrations 6. ing of Society for Researchin ChildDevelopment, of the speedandpowerof statistical leaming Washington, DC,April 1997. in humaninfants.As Saffran et al. statedin 7. Inour Perspective,the pages for the firstquote of were given incorrectly as "pp. Chomsky'swriting their report,their resultsalone are insuffi138-139."Thequotewas takenfrompages 39 and cient to overtum the traditional approach. 245 of Rulesand Representations (Columbia Univ. Taken together,however,these lines of evPress. NewYork.1980). andhis followidencesuggest that Chomsky One questionraisedby these letershave underestimated the powerof leam- Response: the need to ters concerns what our research actually ing and therebyoverestimated build language-specific knowledgeinto the showed.Pinkersaysthe idea "[t]hatinfants organism in advance. The goal of our Per- learn wordsby remembering sequencesof spective was to place the report into this sounds is not new or controversial." We

Call 1-800-466-7949 now

Hi 1-8r00-46

-9i

forIot

agree (1). Our own work is, however, the that 8-monthfirstempirical demonstration the sequenold infantscan actuallyperform Our tial statisticsthat such an idearequires. learning proposal abouthow the underlying mechanism operatesis largelyequivalentto that describedby Clark et al. We do not assume,however, that learnersneed have Whether boundaries. knowledge aboutword or to language, this mechanismis particular is instead applied to many segmentation problems,is yet to be determined;as Pesetskyet al. state, our researchdoes not yet distinguishbetween these possibilities.In either case, this type of rapid and rather complex learning,while it may or may not be tied specificallyto learning languages, skill might well be the kind of remarkable that permitslanguagelearning in humans to occur. A second questionconcernshow a statistical mechanismmight apply to the acquisitionof syntax.Pinkerassumesthat an extension from words to grammarwould involve using the samesequentialstatistic; he then arguesthat this statistic is insuffiWe cient to capturethe natureof grammar. agree.In contrast,Batesand Elmanassume that infantscan performa rangeof statistical analyses,and they expressconfidence that, somewherein the mix, such capabilities will be sufficient.Ourown view is more cautious.Like Batesand Elman,we suspect that infants may be capableof performing other kinds of complex statisticalanalyses; that is an empiricalquestionthat requires furtherstudy.Such findingsalone, howevproblem. er, wouldnot solve the acquisition All of the lettersemphasize this samepoint: Linguistic structure cannot be learned through undirectedanalysesof input sentences, no matterhow complex or numerous these analyses may be. Such analyses must in some fashion be focusedor oriented by innate predispositions of the learner; otherwise,there is no way to explain why human infants are the only learnerswho can acquirehuman languagesor why landevelop certain typesof gaugesrecurrently structures.As Bates and Elman noted in their Perspective,we think that there are several interestinglydifferentways of implementing such innate predispositions: Innate biases in statisticallearningmay be different in important ways from innate knowledge of linguistic principles. But both of these implementations involve types of innateness. We find the currentstate of neuralnetworkresearchto be an interestingillustration of this point. Neural networkmodels have contributed interesting debates and freshideasto the field, but no currentmod(continuedon page 1276)

~~~~~~~*
*

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~-0.*.--

(continued fromp. 181) el is capableof leaming a language,or of leaming the way that human infants do. Their limits thereforeillustratethe important perspectivesprovidedto our field by Noam Chomsky.Chomsky's point was not rather, that thereis no suchthingas learning; learningmechait was that unconstrained learn correctly nismswill not, by themselves, babylearns justthosethingsthateveryhuman do not contradict thispoint. (2). Ourfindings of a mechaInstead, they offerthe possibility pownism that couldturnout to be suitably andconstrained, so as to erful,but alsobiased a piece of the task. perform Jenny R. Saffran Richard N. Aslin Elissa L. Newport Department of Brainand Sciences, Cognitive University of Rochester, NY 14627, USA Rochester,
References and Notes

Editorial 'Plants"?

Now that the Europeangreen crab has been retumed to the Arthropoda(Letters, 25 Apr., p. 513) after its temporary domicile in the Mollusca (Random Samples, 11 Apr., p. 203), can we also rescue Illinois' Thismia americana (Letters, 25 Apr., p. 514) from the grass family and ing. return it to the Burmanniaceae,a small We are gratefulto all those who read family much more closely related to or- Scienceso carefullyand who communicate chids than to grasses?Since this This- their concems to us, and we apologizeto mia is almost certainly extinct, its final crabs,mollusks,and Thismia enthusiasts evresting place should be in the correct erywhere. family plot. RobertOrnduff Department of Integrative Biology, University of Califomia, Letters to the Editor Berkeley, CA 94720-3140, USA E-mail:ornduff@ucjeps.herb.berkeley.edu Letters may be submitted by e-mail I too wasamusedto find greencrabsclassed as mollusksin a recent Random Samples item, but concluded that the errorwas a deliberateeditorial"plant" to see whether anyoneother than molecular biologistsstill readsScience.
Thomas Eisner fax (202(at science_letters@aaas.org), 789-4669), or regular mail (Science, 1200 New YorkAvenue, NW,Washington, DC 20005, USA). Letters are not routinely acknowledged.Fulladdresses, signatures,and daytimephone numbers should be included. Letters should be brief (300 words or less) and may be edited for reasons of clarityor space. They may appear in printand/or on the WorldWide Web. Letterwritersare not consulted before ptblication.

Editor'snote: It appearsthat Sciencehas many readersoutside the realm of molecular biology-at last count, more than 50 letters had been received about the "misplaced" Europeangreen crabs. Botanists, however, have not been heard from in such numbersabout T. americana, which was misidentified by Scienceduring edit-

1. Z. Harris, Language31, 190 (1955). perfor2. When models possess humanconstraints, foran example,see the constraint manceimproves; [Cognit. Sci. 14,11 (1990)] proposedby E. Newport and implementedby J. Elman[Cognition 48, 71 (1993)].

Division CornellUniversity, of Biology, Ithaca,NY 14853, USA E-mail:tel]4@cornell.edu

Molecular SCIENCE Medicine Society, Magazine, and TheLancetinviteyou to attend

"lState-of-the-A
INHIBITORS
Patent #4,518,528 * Z-Val-Ala-Asp-CH2F
* Z-Tyr-Val-Ala-Asp-CH2F * Z-Asp-Glu-Val-Asp-CH2F * BOC-Asp-CH2F
* Z-Phe-Ala-CH2F

"

Diseases Common Of Genehcs

June8-11,1997 * The Sheraton Grande Torrey Pines * La JoiLa,CA Markyour calendarnow for June 8-11, 1997 when the Molecular
Medicine Society, SCIENCEMagazine,and TheLancet,wiUl provide the most comprehensive update on the latest developments in the molecularunderstandingof common diseasespresented by leading experts. General sessions and workshops will focus primarily on the genetics of Cancer,Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases. * What are the newest advancesin technology?

FLUOROMETHYL KETONE
These amino acid
sequences have "OMe" sidechains

to enhance cell

* How

has the recombinant

* Z-Ile-Glu-Thr-Asp-CH2F permeability.

DNArevolution in thelast20
years led to a dramatic increase in the molecular

M ne Meici oiecuiar

of disease? understanding
What arethe latest findings in

allareas of biomedical science

_ _ _

on the molecular level?

e-mail requests to: esp@value.net

*gW?
wlt|2

Only sold direct from ESP Release date: June 1, 1997 For additionalinformation,

Foranswers to these questions, don'tmiss this excitingmeeting includingposter presentations,

]?

"

industry exhibits, tours and presentations at Scripps Research Institute and much more!
For more information call Global

THE THE 1997 OF RSHURL MEETIH6

TradeProductions, Inc., conference Circle No. 52 on Readers' Service Card