ciated since the use of atmospheric sampling devices which show that such common and simple procedures as removing stoppers, expelling the last drop from a pipette, or removing plugs from a tube may produce aerosols near the laboratory bench (20). Filtra- tion of infectious material may result in contamination of a vacuum line or pump unless adequate precautions are taken, and maceration of infected tis- sue by a variety of means may produce an infectious aerosol. Blenders for mechanical disruption of infected tissue have been designed to minimize the chance of leakage and to provide a means of drawing off fluid without removing the top (21). If, in addition, the operation is performed in sterile chamber with a plastic cover over the apparatus, there should be little hazard. The opening of sealed glass ampules containing lyophilized active viral material constitutes a serious inhalation hazard in the laboratory. Special techniques have been recommended for opening such ampules. Sources of laboratory-acquired arbovirus infections are shown in Table 3. In many instances, it was known only that the individuals had been working with the agent and that the source was probably aerosol inhalation. In addi- tion to those classified as due to an aerosol, a number of infections under Other headings were probably transmitted by aerosols. Known accidents resulting from situations that could have been avoided accounted for about 10 percent of the total. The survey of laboratory-acquired infections has provided information concerning the number of cases and the identity of viruses that cause infections, Regular reporting of laboratory-acquired infections to the American Arbovirus Committee or American Public Health Association would stimulate the development of more effective measures to reduce the hazards in arbovirus laboratories. Regular testing of all members of the laboratory staff for antibodies to all viruses that they handle should be encouraged as a means of assessing the effectiveness of safety pro- cedures. The greatest hope of prevent- ing taboratory-acquired illness lies in the recognition of the sources of infec- tion; the unrecognized sources consti- tute the greatest problem. While there is no evidence that use of immunizing substances such as se- rum from convalescents or specific immunoglobulin is of any value after symptoms of arbovirus infection appear, a rationale based on studies in experimental animals has been developed for use of such substances for passive immunization immediately or soon after accidental exposure. Be- cause of the numbers of laboratory workers required to handle an increasing number of arboviruses in diagnostic and research studies, efforts are being made by the National Communicable Disease Center and the World Health Organization to collect, pool, and accumulate serums of convalescents from NEWS AND COMMENT specific arbovirus infections. These serums are being processed into specific immunoglobulins and will eventually be available on a restricted basis for use after certain types of laboratory accidents. References and Notes 1. S. E. Sulkin and R. M. Pike, New Engl, J. Med, 241, 205 (1949). , Amer. J. Public Heaith 41, 769 (1951). . S. E, Sulkin (Chairman), R. M. Pike, and M. L. Schulze. 4. Many arbovirologists made available data from their own experiences in their respective laboratories. 5. S. E. Sulkin and R. M. Pike, in Diagnostic Procedures for Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, E, H. Lennette, Ed. (Amer. Public Health Assoc., ed. 3, 1964}, pp. 67-77. 6. W. McD. Hammon and T. H. Work, in ibid., pp. 268-311. 7. American Committee on Arboviruses, Subcommittee for Exchange of Information on the Arboviruses, R. M, Taylor (Chairman), R. E. Shope, and T. H. Work. 8. A. N. Slepushkin, Probl. Virol. 4, 54 (1959). 9. T. H. Work, H. Trapido, D. P. N. Murthy, R. L. Rao, P. N. Bhatt, K. G. Kulkarni, Indian J, Med. Sci. 11, 619 (41957); L. J. Morse, S. B, Russ, C. F. Needy, E. L. Buescher, J. Immunol. 88, 240 (1962). 10. C. A. Brandly, Cornell Vet. 41, 162 (1951). 11. D. B. Lackman, personal communication to S. E. Sulkin. 12. G. Davison, C. Neubauer, E. W. Hurst, Lancet 1948-IT, 453° (1948). 13. D. I, H. Simpson, Trans. Royal Soc, Trap. Med. Hyg. 58, 335 (1964). 14, H. von Mangnus, Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. 27, 276 (1950). 15. W. Haymaker, G. E. Sather, W. McD. Hammon, Arch. Neurol. Psychol. 73, 609 (1955), 16. E. H. Lennette and H. Koprowski, J, Amer, Med, Ass, 123, 1088 (1943). 17. M. Theiler, 4an. Trep. Med. Parasitol. 24, 249 (1930); S. F. Kitchen, Amer. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 14 547 (1934); A. B. Sabin and R. W. Blumberg, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 64, 385 (1947), 18. R. M. Pike, S. E. Sulkin, M. L. Schulze, Amer. J. Public Health 55, 190 (1965). 19. R. E. Anderson, L. Stein, M. L. Moss, N. H. Gross, J, Bactertol. 64, 473 (1952) 20. A. G. Wedum, Amer. J. Public Heaith 43, 1428 (1953); M. Reitman and A. G. Wedum, Public Health Rep, U.S. 71, 659 (1956). 21. J. E. Smadel, Amer. J. Public Heaith 41, 788 (1951). en strated (19). The potential source of infection has been more fuily appre- juvenation. In the scramble to save -an- other nickel, few targets proved more tempting than federal support of re- Federal Research Funds: Science Gets Caught in a Budget Squeeze As the first session of the 90th Congress draws to a close, it is clear that President Johnson’s legislative program has been badly gutted. A number of factors—~the rising economic and emotional costs of the Vietnam war, a general fiscal squeeze, poor Democratic congressional leadership, a stronger conservative coalition, and growing an1286 tipathy between the legislative and executive branches—combined to produce a Congress this year that ignored or drastically altered many of the Presi- dent’s legislative requests. The closing months in particular have been marked by an economy wave that engulfed vir- tually all non-war-related spending re- quests. from foreign aid to urban re- search and development. As Representative Frank T. Bow (R—Ohio) expressed it: “R & D spending is a prime area for economy.” , Such attitudes made it certain that the budget and appropriations process for fiscal year 1968 would provide no bonanza for science. Thus there are probably two main points to be made in any analysis of how science fared this year: One is that science received rougher-than-usual treatment at the hands of congressional appropriations committees—though things could have been worse; the other is that things are certain to get worse, thanks to the latest budget-cutting scheme agnourided: SCYENCE, VOL. 158