F
-
~
Correspondence
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PRACTICE OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY Under the foregoing headline Mr. Garfield Powell, of Columbia University, New York City, has presented a very detailed and exhaustive contribution to the teaching of organic chemistry for universities. In my opinon this paper is the first shot in the peaceful war of liberation of organic chemistry teaching from the fetters of the many evils under which it suffers today The question whether Mr. Gadeld (under the supervision and instigation of Professor J. M. Nelson) has succeeded in showing the right way of procedure is beside the point; the merit of his paper is not touched by it. If, after a lifetime of teaching organic chemistry, I am allowed to contribute the experience thus gained, and my opinions accruing from it, something may be gained in furthering the endeavor initiated by Mr. Powell. Instead of quoting the several questions raised by Mr. Powell, I take it for granted that his paper has been read with the utmost attention and that thus my references are readily understood. Let us not forget that our discussion refers solely to a course in practical organic chemistry, or, in other words, to laboratory work in this branch. It may well be asked whether laboratory work in any science or art can enter the scheme of education for general cultural purposes. What are these purposes? In the best sense they are tending to an appreciation of the results of the creative power of the human mind. Hand in hand with this appreciation goes the deeply ingrained tendency, or the desire, of imitation, resulting in the appearance of more or less valuable amateurs. But the really cultured, or shall we term them the royally cultured, are warned to despise the handling of gross material things. Thus, Philip of Macedon upbraids Alexander for playing a musical instrument so well, asking of him "whether he is not ashamed to play so well." And, in the worst of cases these general cnlturd purposes tend merely to produce talkers, who may be very pleasant conversationalists, but, as a rule, disturbas of the peace by misleading an ignorant audience. But, even so, organic chemistry of the laboratory kind may be used (and has been used) as an example of abhorrence by the fraternity of general culture, thus lifting that culture to a still higher plane. Think of it! Now let us ask: does the practice of extraction of caffeine from tea, or from coffee,or from cocoa beans receive the approbation of the culturally inclined? It seems very doubtful. If, instead, the production of ethyl alcohol from wood-fiber was practiced, or, the preparation of morphine from opium; or the obtaining of alizarin from both madder root and anthracene, the culturally minded might be interested, if they can be 568
VOL.8, NO.3
CORRESPONDENCE
569
interested at all in any practical work. Too much has so far been said about culture. If we now attack a much more important point for argument, it is the question whether we should teach starting from the general and then descending to the particular, or inversely. Wohler, in the preface to his "Examples in Mineral Analysis," has decided in the latter sense. Instead of allowing the student to work his way through all the merent determinations, quantitatively, of adds and bases, and then let them attempt for themselves to analyze some mineral, he starts from the analysis of the mineral, and allows the student to find out later on, and by himself, what principles have been followed, once and forever. From this point of view the proposal for the analysis of tea serves admirably, the underlying reasoning being always that it is customarily easier for the average mind to go from the special to the general than conversely. Of course, this depends on the previous education, beginning in public school, through high school and college, where the general trend is to start from special cases, perhaps with the exception of the study of languages. Newth, the well-known English chemist, relates in the preface of one of the editions of his "Inorganic Chemistry" tbat a Yorkshireman or one from Lancashire came to h i with his son, so as to teach the boy h m to do copper. Newth replied courteously that he was prepared to teach him chemistry, but not copper alone. Here we have an example of the so-called practical way of education rebuked. How very faulty such practical education really is can be shown by our daily experience with evening and extension classes. A large proportion of students comes from daily routine work, say in physicians' offices, or in health laboratories-to learn the underlying principles of what they are doing, being not a t all satisfied with the mere machine drudgery of urinalysis or blood analysis, or similar occupation. On the other hand, we possess books as well as the dictum of physiologists which emphasize the waste of time ordinarily indulged in by the teachers of organic chemistry in telling about a number of things, and allowing the students to perform mostly a number of experimentswhich are irrelevant to their business. All of these want to do copper. Now between the culturists to the copper men, we stand. We cannot attempt to please every one. I would advise to leave both kinds out of our consideration. Let them obtain their experience in their own way, and regret afterward. Finally: how did our great masters in chemistry arrive at their results? Almost always starting from the simple (trivial or experimental) individual case and eventually arriving at general rules. And if you look into the history of chemistry, you will find, say, starting from Boyle, that the inductive manner of procedure is, and always has been, the successful one. L. H. FRIEDBURG HUNTER COLLEGE OP TAB CITYOF NEWYORK
