EDITOR'S PAGE

What's wrong with chemistry? This should be a golden age for chemists. And in many ways it is. An unending pro­gression of new instruments and computers continues to accelerate the pace of chem­ical research. Determinations that once took years and were the stuff of doctoral theses can now be done routinely overnight. Applications of chemistry to interdisciplinary areas are multiplying both the scope of chemical research and the range of the chem­ists' contributions to the public good. The intellectual contributions of chemists to the understanding of nature remain exciting, rewarding, and boundless. The industries that chemists have created remain basically sound and progressive. The role of chem­ists in handling health and environmental problems is as vital as ever and growing.

But those in chemistry perceive their science as beset by a range of problems. These include an unsatisfactory public image, a declining quality of life in academia, a sharp­ly decreased ability to attract the best and the brightest into the field, and a science ed­ucation system that has become a national embarrassment.

The key questions for chemists are: To what extent are these problems largely out­side their control? To what extent may they be self-inflicted?

The most intangible of the problems is that of the poor public image of chemistry. Indeed, there is chemophobia in the land—an understandable human reaction to the unknown. Some concerns over the health and environmental impacts of chemicals continue to be exaggerated and are not well founded scientifically. But pooh-poohing such concerns, impugning the motives of those who raise them, and questioning the intelligence of regulators can no longer be the thrust of the chemical community's re­sponse, as many in the chemical industry now acknowledge. Also, by maintaining a low profile on some very tough chemically related social issues—such as illegal drugs—it is conceivable that the institutions of chemistry have missed an opportunity to enhance their credibility with the public.

The problems of science education and the related issue of a declining supply of trained chemists are very tangible. They can be quantified quite accurately through at least the year 2000 in terms of dwindling numbers of both qualified science teachers and of students in the Ph.D. chemistry pipeline. These situations have certainly not been helped by the growing intensity of the struggle for funds for academic research.

But there are other issues involved here—the dominance of research over teaching in the evaluation and career goals of academic chemists at leading departments and the abrogation by chemistry's elite of any responsibility for precollege science education.

Glenn Crosby, a veteran researcher and professor of chemistry at Washington State University, had something to say about this at the annual meeting of the Council for Chemical Research last October. "Once dedicated to the transmission of knowledge and the education of citizens, universities have become, in the sciences, generators of knowledge and often exploiters of students. Faculty members are urged to become en­trepreneurs, to start companies, to acquire venture capital, and to establish internation­al reputations. Success is now being determined by the ability not only to escape from students and the rigors of teaching, but from the university entirely."

Strong stuff! But Crosby has a point. It raises the issue of the responsibility of the members of every generation of chemists to hand over the science to their successors in robust shape, whatever their intellectual contributions may have been. Will the cur­rent elite of chemistry be able to do that?

Michael Heylin Editor

Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS

January 29, 1990 C&EN 3