letter to the editor
A Response to an Old-Fashioned Thought Cop “There is only one good, that is knowledge; there is only one evil, that is ignorance.” —Socrates (Greek philosopher, 470–399 B.C.)
“The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.” —Sir William Bragg (British physicist, 1862–1942 A.D.)
I
nvoking frightening memories of Big Brother from 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and other repressive regimes, a Cop from the Thought Control Police (TCP), who styles himself as the Measurement Cop, chose to simultaneously attack the fields of Green Chemistry and Ionic Liquids in a pseudo-Socratic dialogue between himself and a “regular chemist”, published as an editorial in this journal (2006, 78, 2080). He doesn’t like the language (which he calls “buzzwords”, which we believe to be a buzzword for jargon); he doesn’t like the ideas; he doesn’t like the fields—perhaps originality is scary. But he has no confidence to attack the chemistry, concepts, or ideology of these fields, so he lashes out at what he believes to be an easy target. Well, we do not run away from a good argument—but we couldn’t find one! On a scale from 0 to 10, the intellectual rigour of our TCP Cop arguments scores a 0. Nevertheless, as thoughtless comments can cause inestimable damage to developing areas, we will negate whatever meaningful content that we can find, whilst noting that the editorial is dated April 1, so it may have been a poorly conceived joke. If “buzzwords” have been used with no scientific understanding, or insight, behind them, then it should be brought to the attention of those doing so. However, to attack major research initiatives because of the action of a few who mouth platitudes they neither embrace nor understand is unacceptable. Attack the use of buzzwords, but not the significant progress and hardworking scientists and engineers who are pushing the boundaries of scientific understanding and awareness.
Ionic Liquids Being among the lead players in this field, we have taken extraordinary precautions against jargon. Indeed, it would be difficult to find an area of chemistry that is so jargon-free (one of the reasons, we believe, that the area is so accessible to newcomers). If it is compared with nanotechnology (where, we are sure, the Thought Cop would never work), 3480
A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y / J U N E 1 , 2 0 0 6
ionic liquids are manifestly blameless. But let us examine our Thought Cop’s complaints one by one. “Ionic liquids” is a case of putting new paint on an old car. Ionic liquids are nothing more than room-temperature molten salts, including the imidazolium variety, that were invented decades ago but weren’t given a sexy moniker. Ionic liquids shouldn’t be written about as though they were new science. There’s a basic issue involved here: Scientists should not pretend that they have invented something new when all that has been invented is a clever new name on the door. Politicians understand the importance of labeling—deceptive or not. We scientists should avoid deceptive labels. Well, the Thought Control Cop is right—ionic liquids are (as has been explained at length in all good reviews and books on the subject) room-temperature molten salts (although they were discovered in 1914, and not “decades ago”). We are pleased that his voyage of intellectual discovery has allowed this perceptive observation. In fact, the term “ionic liquid” was introduced in the 1970s, and is not a new “sexy moniker”. Indeed, the community believes that “ionic liquids” is a much clearer term; these fluids (known by the physics community as ionic fluids) are liquids composed solely of ions, as transparently expressed by the name. We do not want to define them by their solid state, as implied by the term “molten salts”—and indeed some salts melt to form covalent liquids. So, in every sense, the term “ionic liquid” is superior: It is precise, dates back nearly 40 years, and is universally accepted by most thinking chemists. If it is also sexy and transparent—then great!! Irrespective of its perceived novelty, the term “ionic liquid” has allowed an expansion of often-narrow thought patterns into new arenas that could affect a multitude of “established” scientific disciplines. These expanding boundaries are allowing scientists and engineers to © 2006 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
letter to the editor
explore new concepts and develop new technologies unfettered by the well-meaning “mentors” who advise, “I tried that 20 years ago, and it didn’t work then and won’t work now.” Recent papers on the applications of ionic liquids range from propulsion units for space vehicles to preservation of biological samples—minds in this field are truly open. The Thought Cop thinks we are repainting an old car; we believe he wishes to call a car a horsedrawn carriage and restrict it to travelling at 10 mph. His claims of dishonesty and (in effect) plagiarism are beneath contempt and contrast strikingly with the cover and feature article in the April 24 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, which trumpets the now wellestablished industrial breakthroughs of this new technology.
Green Chemistry At least the criticisms of ionic liquids had some elements of logic, albeit a warped logic. However, when reading the comments on Green Chemistry, one felt that one had followed a white rabbit down a rabbit hole. The following comments are verbatim: COP: One complaint is that green chemists ignore the age of their subject; after all, trees and grass have been around for a while. Another complaint is that green chemistry is advertised by some as a goal of “avoiding chemicals” to protect the green environment while continuing to improve our lives. It’s false advertising because it isn’t possible to make things that improve our lives without using chemicals. Try to avoid PVC, for example—ah, your plumbing doesn’t work anymore? REGULAR CHEMIST: So, green chemistry can be like “organic vegetables”. Some advertisements in the grocery store claim that organic vegetables contain no chemicals. COP: Yeah, something like that. It’s like doing organic chemistry. Ha. Ha. We defy any of our readers to follow this logic. Does he really think Green Chemistry is the chemistry of chlorophyll? And if he thinks Green Chemistry is about “avoiding chemi-
cals”, his ignorance of the subject is incredible—our first-year undergraduates have a better understanding (but then they have read the central texts by Anastas). We would challenge the Thought Cop to step back into the lecture theatre and enjoy the thrill of teaching students the concepts and promise of Green Chemistry—to deliver its message of hope for our profession and our industry—and, in the process, learn for himself what he has so thoughtlessly disregarded. Here again, though, we wonder what message such a “mentor” could or would deliver. Would it be that Chemistry should continue as it has for the past century, or would it be to open our minds to new possibilities and to take on major challenges in sustainable development? Does our high-minded member of the TCP really believe that chemists cannot use their skills of molecular manipulation to improve our planet for future generations? Well, we know no remedy for the Thought Cop’s ignorance—he clearly fits his “moniker” in that he appears to be the archetypal caricature of a thick, flat-footed thief-taker. Perhaps it is time for him to retire and make way for a younger, more imaginative generation with a flexible approach to language and concepts. We do not need Thought Cops; we need leaders, visionaries, and guides! Robin D. Rogers Center for Green Manufacturing, The University of Alabama Kenneth R. Seddon The QUILL Centre, The Queen’s University of Belfast, U.K.
The Editor responds: I am sorry that Professors Rogers and Seddon have been offended by my satirical approach to a critique of buzzwords. Perhaps it was overly strongly stated. Unfortunately, they leap to the erroneous conclusion that I am additionally criticizing research done under the banners of ionic liquids or green chemistry. The science in these areas is vibrant and generally excellent, and there is no “attack [on] major research initiatives” present, or implied, or intended, in my April 1, 2006, editorial. In my editorials and professional life, I have always been and will continue to be a cheerleader for good science.
J U N E 1 , 2 0 0 6 / A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y
3481
