260
CORRESPONDENCE More A bout Opportunities in Chemistry The May 1986 editorial by Fredric M. Menger disagrees with the major conclusions of the NRC Report Opportunities in Chemistry (hereafter, OpsinChem). It is unfortunate that this editorial fails to tell the reader that OpsinChem represents the consensus of 26 preeminent scientists from industry, federal and private laboratories, and academia. It also omits reference to the extensive consultation with the chemistry community that led to the recommendations of OpsinChem. Both prior to and subsequent to the appearance of this Report, there have been a dozen or so presentations of its contents to large audiences of chemists. As a single example, a t the 1984 Pittsburgh Conference, I spoke to an overflowing auditorium that seated about 700 people. The purpose of this talk and several others to comparably large audiences was to elicit from the chemistry community their response to our conclusions concerning the existing level of funding of chemistry and the optimum level. Many, many individuals did respond and they were unanimous in the belief that existing levels of funding are inadequate. There were a few expressions of concern that current distribution among subfields was not optimal, but not one person suggested that less funding might be a step toward improvement. Thus a few thousand chemists have had the opportunity to communicate publicly or privately any opinion that increased funding in chemistry is not warranted. Literally none did so. Instead, the chemistry community seemed to breathe an enormous sigh of relief that, at last, persuasive arguments were being made to bring funding levels up, commensurate with the existing opportunities and the public benefit that is likely to follow. On many occasions, these arguments have been publicly endorsed by scientific leaders in industry (e.g., see the Nov. 29,1985 Science editorial by the Du Pont Board Chairman, E. G. Jefferson, in which he concludes “Society will be repaid manyfold for such an investment of resources”). This broad consensus resoundingly contradicts the opinions expressed by Fredric Menger in his editorid. He contends that increases in funding for chemistry are not necessary. He goes on to suggest that a research group
“would not be seriously affected by a 2-fold reduction in size” and that, in fact, ”overall quality might improve.” Probably he is thinking of reducing someone else’s research group size-perhaps someone with a larger group than his own: the alternative is that he is judging by his own research group which he feels might product better research if it were half as large. One can search through Dr. Menger’s editorial for the reasons he would come to these contentious conclusions. He says, for example, that we are producing too much new literature to assimilate. He feels we are “choking” on new information. The opposite interpretation (and mine) is that this explosion of new information is both a symptom and a cause of the accelerating advances chemistry sees ahead. He had doubts about how much U S . industry needs more scientific talent, despite contrary views expressed by industrial research leaders. Most telling, perhaps, is his assertion that OpsinChem asks for research support “for no other reason than it is an intellectual challenge...where tangible value to the public is unnecessary or at least secondary. This charge is directly contradicted by the fact that the Report is structured around the social benefits that have been derived from chemistry. Perhaps here Dr. Menger reveals a personal lack of confidence that discovery of bew knowledge will result in new horizons for all of us and unforeseen applications to the needs of human society. The major substance of OpsinChem refutes this pessimistic view: it lists hundreds of specific examples of chemical contributions to the public welfare. It is my conviction that the entire thrust of Dr. Menger’s article is incorrect-this is a time of great opportunity for public benefit from a larger public investment in chemistry. It is also my belief that the readership of Accounts of Chemical Research overwhelmingly agrees with that conviction. In fact, it would seem that the only beneficial aspect of the appearance of Dr. Menger’s editorial is the reassurance it offers to the readership that it is not being shielded from points of view distant from the mainstream.
0001-4842/86/0119-0260$01.50/00 1986 American Chemical Society
George C. Pimentel
