Editorial
Are There Limits of Scientific Knowledge?
I
n a July issue of a well-known U.S. news paper there appeared a feature article with an underlying theme: Is science reach ing its limits of knowledge? Are there limits to what we and our cranial computers can under stand? Such questions were presented as those currently posed by scientists. Being afirmbe liever that there is no such thing as a truly ge neric scientist (or official), I read this erudite article with interest and care. The scientists be ing referred to were . . . (you guessed it) . . . physicists and mathematicians. Chemists, to the credit of the journalist's sagacity, were not mentioned. This article prompted me to express my long-held view that there is a difference in the way that physicists and chemists regard sci ence, and I sincerely hope that my physicist colleagues are not unduly offended. Many phys icists hope that they can understand every thing, and they manage to pronounce this hope with great regularity to the public. There's a certain arrogance there, but also an ambition one must respect. Chemists seem to have no such problem. The complexity of molecular behavior—the ori gin, phase state, dynamic structure and, above all, bond-making and bond-breaking reactions of molecules—amounts to a complexity equiv alent to that of a decent-sized universe. Yes, physicists, a universe. Chemists appreciate the enormity of molecular complexity very well, and they regularly say, "We don't completely
understand it, and it will be a long time before we do." Contemplating molecular complexity is a good mental exercise in humility. Chemists appear to be quite content with this well-adjusted, honest attitude—even though as scientists we are sometimes less well regarded for our admitted lack of complete comprehension of our subject. I am especially happy with the role that analytical chemistry has played and will continue to play in enhanc ing understanding of the universe of molecules by inventing ways to measure it. It is impor tant that analytical chemists do not limit their imagination to measurements that address solely the issues of quality control, environ mental assessment, or clinical analysis. These are, to be sure, terrifically important areas; but analytical chemistry must also continue to reach beyond its traditional roles and borders. New forms of chemical sensors, chemical imag ing, small space and surface analysis, and gasphase ion selection are part of this pioneer space of analytical chemistry. So I say to this question of "is the real world too complex for us?" that analytical chemists re gard molecular complexity as something that is immensely enjoyable to study and to learn how to measure. Physicists should try it.
\ έυ-κ c^ ΑΛΓ>1^ ^ A A ^ C — ^
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 66, No. 17, September 1, 1994 837 A
