I consider it to be brief but useful because ation, and Methods of Information in Medicine. Program evaluait traces the vicissitudes of the terminology in our field. It gives tion, quantitative versus qualitative measurements, and the imsome precise results of the usage and origin of some terms (such pact of the end of grant funding are all challenges which have as ''information desk,'' ''information bureau,'' ''information been faced, and often overcome, by IAIMS institutions. work,'' and especially ''information scientist,'' and ''informa-While the JASIS audience comes from a wide variety of tion science''). I agree with his opinion that it ''pushes back information environments (one of the attractions of ASIS), we the origins of information science and information scientist by wonder if reference to IAIMS would not have enhanced this half a decade'' from his research. In China, we generally recogparticular discussion. nize that the term ''information science'' first appeared in 1959, and the term ''information scientist'' appeared around 1958.
The author is due our gratitude. If the author continues his research in this area, expanding it beyond the visual field in Elizabeth H. Wood I&D into computers and communications, the results could be Joan S. Ash even more valuable.
Biomedical Information Communication Center My concern is that I still have doubts that it is correct that Oregon Health Sciences University the term ''information scientist'' should appear later than the P.O. Box 573 term ''information science,'' unlike the situation in China. In Portland, OR 97207-0573 China, some scholars are interested in this precise issue because the origin of words like ''information'' and ''intelligence'' have long created confusion in translation to or from English. Further research is needed, at least for these two important words. Comparisons in the history of these words in English and Chinese would be very useful and could be of value to scholars who