QLhemical llngineering WALTER J . M U R P H Y f Editor
S^Ui^w&M The Chemical Industry in the News I F YOU glance through a newspaper or magazine these days very likely you will see the chemical industry and the work of chemists and chemical engineers featured in some way. Very definitely we are in the limelight and editors are keenly aware that the m a n on the street is eager to know more about the premier industry of the twentieth century. W e have come quite a long way in popular interest when Newsweek devotes two pages in the Nov. 6 issue to describing the growth of the American chemical in dustry and discusses the reasons for the current short ages of benzene, glycerol, chlorine, sulfuric acid, and ethyl alcohol. An analysis of the contents of Fortune over the past six months shows a high percentage of editorial pages devoted to the chemical industry. No longer are developments in chemistry and the chemical industry deep dark secrets shared only by those directly connected with the chemical field. We are pleased to note the growing interest of the ^oublie in the progress in chemistry and hope it will continue. It is our business to see that this interest on the part of the lay public is expanded to the point where every man, woman, and child is aware that "chemistry touches everything, nothing escapes it, its pursuit offers un limited promise in molding man's environment to his own needs." ( J u n e 1950 Chemical Facts and Figures issue of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, page 936.) There are but very few fields of human activity that are not benefiting today from the widening horizons in chemistry. The food we eat, the clothing we wear, the houses w e live in, the medicinal preparations we take when w e are ill, the communications we use, the vehicles we travel in, the printed word we read, yes, even our amusements and entertainment, all have been touched by the magic wand of chemistry. W e would not dare take a glass of water from the faucet if we did not know that chemicals had made it safer for human consumption. Yet, in spite of all our accomplishments, chemistry is still in its infancy. Chemistry can and will provide more food and better nutrition for future generations in coun tries now inhabited by millions of underfed and under nourished peoples. Modern knowledge on sanitation and medicine will bring about better health and longer lives for millions. Modern chemical technology can and will provide the means of improving the standard of living in many parts of the world yet untouched by in dustrialization as w e know it in this country. Chemical research offers all these possibilities to a world sorely in need of them. A lay public fully cog nizant of what chemistry can do for humanity will favor continued support of research. T h a t is why it is so important that w e encourage the dissemination of in formation about chemistry, the chemical industry, chem ists, and engineers. Quite naturally we wish to see the chemical profession known and respected by the public, but in all honesty we must say that this is a secondary consideration. From a practical viewpoint if we help to educate the man on the street to a proper appreciaVOLUME
2 8,
NO.
46
> NOVEMBER
13,
tion of what chemistry can do for him, he will acquire a d e e p respect for the chemical profession. Leaders of the chemical industry now recognize the necessity of publicizing the chemical industry. In his Society of Chemical Industry address entitled ' O u r Re sponsibility for Public Understanding," William Rand, president of Monsanto and head of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, summarized such responsibility in the following words: " W e who operate the plants, work in t h e laboratories, or sell the products, are the trustees of this industry. Upon our shoulders rests the responsibility for the proper employment of the 'human e l e m e n t / If the in dustry needs a better understanding, we are the ones w h o should develop it . . ." W e accept Mr. Rand's invitation to cooperate with in dustry in a united effort in whatever w a y possible to bring before the people of this country the accomplish ments and the needs of our industry. The Society's News Service has contributed much over the years and will continue to do more in the years ahead. W e would remind all interested groups that the 75th Anniversary of the ACS next year and the International Union and International Congress meetings in September of 1951 offer a special opportunity to acquaint t h e public with the contributions of the chemical profession and the chemical industry. In the words of Mr. Rand—"Ours is one of the grandest stories ever told." But let us make certain that we tell it effectively to t h e right audience.
A Thank You Note to the Times V v Ε ARE not given to the practice of bestowing Oscars, b u t w e do wish to compliment the New York Times on its editorial "The Nobel Awards" in the Oct. 28 issue. We quote the final paragraph which indicates clearly that t h e editorial writers of the Ν eta York Times have a correct understanding of the role the chemist is play i n g in medicine. W e are pleased to note that they h a v e not been taken in by the present popularity of the term "medical scientist." "The Nobel award for medicine also emphasizes t h e growing dependence of medicine on the biochemist. I n d e e d , the development of vitamins and hormones must be credited almost entirely t o chemists. T h o u g h t h e physician is by no means relegated to a place of minor importance in the development of medicine, it is more and more evident that his business is to apply t h e discoveries which have been maue in the laboratory a n d then clinically approved. Physicians struggled in vain with arthritis for centuries. It was not until Kendall a n d Reichstein came along and revealed the wealth of hor m o n e s secreted by the adrenal cortex or 'bark/ a n d not until Kendall and Hench worked together in exploiting w h a t had been accomplished in the chemical laboratory, that t h e treatment of arthritis really became scientific." T h e editorial comment in the Times is a welcome contrast to the flood of advertising copy we see in national media extolling the "medical scientist." Chem ists are proud to be called chemists a n d are not at all h a p p y when clever copy writers either through igno rance or for ulterior motives decide to describe their work as the contributions of "medical scientists."
1950
3959
