editorial
Analytical Chemistry and Risk
I
want to talk about the benefits of analytical sensors to society and how little I believe the public appreciates their limitations. Innumerable articles in the media mention the role of analytical sensors in connection with processes or programs designed to protect citizens from disease, toxic contaminations, terrorism, criminals, and indeed Mother Nature. Our discipline—with its ubiquitous sensors—is constantly portrayed as a tool in the front line of public defense. Indeed, analytical chemistry does have a responsibility to protect society. Analytical chemistry’s goal is to measure things, all kinds, transient and in tiny amounts. Research aimed at developing a capability for analytical measurements is financially supported by public taxes—it is our social contract that requires that our research efforts serve their interests. Public support has produced numerous analytical methods that inspect our foodstuffs and medicines, aid physicians’ diagnoses, lead climatologists to assess evidence for global warming, support law enforcement’s forensic sciences, warn soldiers about poisonous traps, evaluate airline passengers and their baggage, test drinking water and the air we breathe, and on and on. It is a humbling thrill to think about the scope of analytical chemistry’s involvement with improving and protecting the lives of our citizens. It is also sad to remember that not all citizens in the world’s countries are as protected as those in the developed nations. These are thoughts of the ideal world—in which those in the developed nations imagine they live. This perception of protection is heightened by the media’s reporting that I mention above. Yet I must enter a concern that the public is offered a perception that analytical sensors are perfect, which of course in reality is false. There is seldom, if ever, mention of the odds or chances of serious errors occurring in chemical
© 2008 American Chemical Societ y
sensor measurements. No sensor’s performance is perfect, as analytical chemists well know, and errors originate in manifold ways, including those associated with human users. It seems that journalists long ago decided not to learn about or to try to educate the public about the uncertainties of sensor measurements and the associated risks when you rely on them (although uncertainties in political polls are well advertised!). However, John Q. Public who builds a home in an area prone to flooding, storm, or fire pays handsomely for insurance and does gain an appreciation for the cost of risk. Why not be honest with John and explain the odds that his home smoke detector will fail, or that his dinner will contain E. coli, or worse? There are lots of data available to the public about the odds of getting cancer if you smoke or of heart attack when taking a certain medication. There shouldn’t be silence about the uncertainties of analytical measurements that matter to the public. What would be the result of a public citizenry that became aware of the possibilities that analytical sensors could fail, perhaps at a crucial time and with great public harm? I would venture that the possibilities are at least as great as a harmful mishap at a nuclear power plant—and we know that great fear exists among a portion of the public about such facilities. The result of awareness about sensor uncertainty would be—since you don’t want to do without them—to demand that they be made perfect. That would be a good thing for all concerned.
Ja nua ry 1, 2 0 0 8
/ A n a ly t i c a l C h e m i s t r y
