Feb., 1922
THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
99
Criticism from Germany
Teach Appreciation
A review of Whitmore’s monograph on “Organic Mercury Compounds” was published in No. 43, p. 443 (1921) of Apotheker Zeitung. At the close of the review the author, F. Dietze, says:
For some time we chemists have been telling each other how little our science is appreciated and we have found it both profitable and necessary to use various means for popularizing chemistry. The A. C. S. News Service has been invaluable. Books like “Creative Chemistry” have done great service, and there have been feature stories, popular lectures, etc. The results have fully justified the efforts, but have we begun at the right place? It seems to us that little real progress has been made in teaching chemistry to those who may never become chemists. Potential doctors, lawyers, merchants, and chiefs are given the same courses in beginning and general chemistry as are the men who have years of chemistry definitely before them. Might we not do well to begin, even in high school, by teaching chemistry as a series of practical problems, so that an interest in the application of the science might be kindled and developed before the disjointed courses in general chemistry are started? Would it not be well also to offer chemical courses in our colleges and universities designed primarily to teach appreciation for what chemistry means, what it has done, and what it may do? We cannot prepare all men to become chemists, but it is highly important that all men have a sympathetic understanding of the subject, so that the trained chemist may be received as a professional man and given a professional man’s opportunity. There is ample material to-day from which to build lecture courses popular in nature and well illustrated, which will interest any group of people in industrial chemistry and the fundamental science upon which it rests. These courses would encourage the embryonic chemist in his own work and could be made to serve to emphasize the necessity for real fundamental research. They would certainly bring to many who can devote but an hour or two a week to the subject a real appreciation of chemistry and help to acquaint those who are to become engineers, financiers, and business men with the field occupied by the chemist and the relation of his work to theirs, Then, indeed, the chemist will step into his proper place, and when soft times pass he will not be summarily dismissed along with the plumber’s helper. Who will make this interesting experiment in pedagogy?
That American chemists should desire to create a literature of their own, independent of other coiintries, is easily understood. From different signs one can conclude, however, that this is to be done almost exclusively at the cost of German science and German industry. That the whole undertaking is in its foundation directed against Germany follows from the fact that the “Lnterallied Conference” has been godfather of the plan. The war which was ended three years ago is to be carried further in scientific and industrial lines! In view of this, one cannot welcome the publication of these monographs.
During the last half of the nineteenth century such men as J. P. Cooke, S. W. Johnson, Wolcott Gibbs, Nef, and many others still living, received their training and inspiration to research in chemistry in German laboratories. These men organized instruction and research in America after models they had seen in Germany. We owe to Germany a debt for this inspiration to research, which must never be forgotten. There is some need to recall this a t a time when, because of Germany’s glaring faults in other directions, some are inclined to belittle and condemn everything that Germany has done. I have no apology to make for Germany’s bad faith and wrong aims in the conduct oi the war, but we must be on our guard against some Americans who wish to copy her faults rather than her virtues. American students contributed a not insignificant amount to the experimental researches wliich gave Germany such preeminence in chemistry at the beginning of the twentieth century. Some American chemists thought they could secure a better audience for their papers if these were published in German and this, to superficial observers, contributed still further to the apparent volume of chemical achievements in Germany. From 1880 onward, however, R steadily increasing number of American students were trained a t home and the demand for chemists, both for teaching and for the industries, has been such that a t the beginning of the war there were nearly half as many chemists in America as in Germany. From the statistics available, there were less than one-fifth as many in England and less than one-tenth as many in France as there were in Germany. Under the conditions which obtained a t the beginning of the twentieth century it is not surprising that some German chemists assumed the attitude that chemistry was a German science and that researches not published in German could be ignored. To Americans such an attitude is very closely related to the attempt of Germany’s political leaders to impose German imperialism on other countries by force. Any similar spirit on the part of Englishmen, Frenchmen or Americans, either in the political field or in science, is just as intolerable as it was in Germans. If the determination of Americans that we shall do our full share, in friendly cooperation with other countries, in the development of chemistry, and that we shall win recognition on the basis of the genuine value of our research work and of our publications, is considered in Germany as “a continuation of the war in the scientific domain” we must acknowledge that it is our intention to do this. But German chemists will find no chemists in the world more ready than Americans to cooperate with them in a spirit of friendly rivalry for the promotion of chemical science, provided only that they will meet us in the same spirit. WILLIAMA. N o m s Editor, Scientific Series, A. C. S. Monograph
An Example A short time ago there appeared at one of our universities a dealer in scientific apparatus who urged importation, and in stressing his capabilities as an importer claimed that he was buying for all the Jesuit colleges of the United States, importing their needs from foreign sources. The position of THISJOURNALhas frequently been stated, namely, that so long as the manufacturers of American scientific apparatus and supplies deal fairly with educational institutions, we shall vigorously support the policy of buying only American-made equipment from American firms. Consequently we wanted to know how correct the importer’s statement might be, and we corresponded with one of the councilors of the Society who is in a position to determine what is taking place. As a result of his activity, questionnaires were returned to him from 41 colleges and institutions with the unanimous statement that they are committed to the exclusive purchase of American-made apparatus and supplies in so far as their needs can be met. The personal letters received with the questionnaires breathe an admirable spirit of loyalty and patriotism. It would be interesting to know to what extent the excellent example set by the Jesuit institutions is being followed at our other seats of learning.
.
