Chemistry f o r Citizens R e p o r t of Panel IV Richard L. Wolfgang, Chairman T h e age we live in is marked by two explosively disparate trends. One is a mastery of science which increasingly dominates but fails to control our world. The other is nn indifference t o science which is st,arting t o turn into a wide-ranging rcject,ion. Our time is distinguished by tlie ability of man t o start t o understand broadly his place in the universe. That man-every man-has a deep emotional need for such uriderstnnding is nppnrent in cvcry aspect of human hist,ory and cxistcncc. The need to know mhat and why is obvious even in :I baby, and it never leaves us. To know implies to understand, but hecnusc me can never underst,and fully, this emot,ionnl nccd must often find a suhst,it,utein blind or myopic belief. Yct, a t a point. in hist,ory whcn rational underst,anding is available ns never hefore, we have the awful irony that, it secms to rcmniu limitcd to a. sm:ill group of initi;ites. .\leanwhilr tlir outsidrrs, the great majority of people, are becoming iucrensii~glyunwilling to accept science on the basis of fait,li, and some a m toying with the iden of rejecting it entirely. Science has never heeri fully ncceptrd by huni:init~y. I t l i : ~beeu tolerated bec;~nseof tlie m:rterial benefits it can provide. I h ~ iiow t it is being incre:lsinglp questio~ied\vlietht.r these pmctic:rl results of science are indrell benefits. T o many young people science is associated with ovcr~)opnl:ition,pollr~bioii,nnclear m r heads, and the creation of nn :lrtificixl environment which seems foreign t o thc spirit of man. Thus, since science is being judged solely by the girdgets it products, tolerant indifrcrcncc is being replaced by nctivc fear and oppositio~i. Antiscience is growing in the critical group where we had cxpectecl to see it least-nmoug the young, bright people. It. was their criticism that, centuries ago overthrew superstition and faith in religious hier:~rchies:IS tire dominant f x t o r in mnn's life. They seem now t o see science ns just another religion wit,li wl~iclithe estahlislime~itis t,rying t o elislave tliem. How very different this is from our conifortablc :ISsumption thnt it is self-evident thnt scic~icecan set, free the mind of I ~ M , SO self-evident in fact that tlie point must soon be automatically rccognieetl by all. This picturr ni:~-w r m ovenlrawn, aiid perlr:lps a t
22
/
Journol o f Chemicol Educofion
Members of the Panel
RICHARDL. WOLFGANG (Chairman) Yale University WILLIAMB. COOK Colorado Stale University CHRIS DEDE University of Massachusetts WILLIAMDOERING Ilarvard University
RICHARD FINK A m h e r t College EDWARDC. FULLER Beloit College F. GALLAIS Centre Nslioiml de Is Recherche Sciontifique Paris, Frnnce HARRY GRAY California Institute of Technology
J. GRIFFITH Elementary Science St,udy Center Newton, Mass. W. T. LIPPINCOTT Ohio State University RICHARD MERRILL h l t . Diahlc Unified School Uistriel, Concord, Calif. ROBERT
PLANE
Cnrnell Universit,y
DANIEL SERWER United Nsbiaw Institute for Training and Research
LEONARD SPICER University of Utah WALTERSULLIVAN The New York Timer
We could then he at, the t,lireshold of anothrr age of darlairss. The fruit,s of technology d l be accept,ed, though perhaps resentfully, but the understanding tliat made thcm possible and that can help us to livc wit,h tliem and with each ot,her and with oursclvestlris understanding d l he rejected. We are coming to tlie realization that a t t,his time t,he furtherance of science itself is no more important than its communic:ition to humanity as a whole. Yet as we go out to proselytize we recognize the time is late, for the xorld is on t,he verge of turning against us. I n the past we have relied, though perhaps not conscioud?;, on awe in the works of science to instill s fait,h in science in every man. There is :I I&d of justice in t h r f:rct tliat faith is proving an iiiadequate means of gaining acceptance of that which a t the outset rejects fait,h. The harder road of education is t,he only one left. Millions of college graduates who'were required t o tnlce a single, general science course t,o win their degree now form the backbone of public opinion. Blany of them, iii t,liis one contact wit,li science, came m a y wit'h a feeling of boredom, if not, antagouism. The spark of inquisitiveness, without wliicli science is menningless, was extinguished. Not that. education alone is t o blame for tlie current t,rend against science. The prime cause is the extent t,o which science arid scient,ists are interwoven with undesirable fcatures of modern life, from industrial
important and more difficult than attempting to instill "facts" and abstractions which seem t o have no relevance t o life.
The Need for New Attitudes
Professor Richard L. Wolfgang, Yale Univenity, Chairman o f t h e "Chemistry for Citirend
P o n d on
pollution to the absurdities of the arms race. Nevertheless, had their early. exposure t,o science been a rewarding and enlightening experience, today's citizens mould more readily discriminate between science-the quest for new understanding-and t,lie manner in which it is usedand misused. We must persuade the nonscientist that science can be regarded as one of tlie humanit,ies in that it enables him t o see himself and his place in the universe in a way that nothing else can. We must show him that science can tell us what, may be rationally known, and t,hat it can then provide a clear basis for many decisions in the running of his and the world's affairs. This is more
We need not look far t o find reasons for the growing rejection of chemistry and science by tlie public, the students, and the policymakers. Those of us who are professional chemists have done little t o check hliis alienation; indeed, until receritly we seem scarcely t o have been w a r e of it,. If the layman sees science as a powerful but sterile discipline which dries up the human spirit, it is because we have not conveyed tlie essenti:rlly human character of the process of discovery. If he sees science as a mindless, computerized juggernaut which once served him, but seems uo~vto threaten his destruction, it is because we have riot shown him that, he must), and can, share decisions on its control and uses. What is the basis of our past flrilures? The ultimate reason seems to be that we have turned inward, toward ourselves. So completely have we been tal
