Chemical Education Today
From Past Issues
Don’t Forget the Units! Kathryn R. Williams Department of Chemistry, University of Florida, PO Box 117200, Gainesville, FL 32611-7200
Some of the juiciest fare for JCE readers is found in letters, the monthly Editor’s Outlook, and opinion papers on controversial topics. Since much of this material was not consistently indexed, such finds in the early issues are often serendipitous. While looking through Volume 3, I was attracted to correspondence by Harvey A. Neville, bearing the title “The Metric System and Mr. Dale” (1926, 3, 215). This led me to find several rewarding, and often amusing, writings on the metric system. As reported in the March 1998 From Past Issues column, Neil Gordon encouraged adoption of the metric system in one of his first editorials (1924, 1, 41): “Let it be said there are no ‘slackers’ among the teachers in this most important movement.” This was followed in January 1925 by Eugene C. Bingham’s “Helping the Metric Campaign” (1925, 2, 62). Those interested in the history of this subject may wish to consult Bingham’s extensive bibliography of writings from the first quarter of the century. Later that same year, the Journal published Neville’s first paper on the subject, “Educating the Public in the Use of the Metric System” (1925, 2, 593). Neville encouraged wide adoption of the metric system, stating that, “The world is mostly metric. Only Great Britain and the United States have failed officially to recognize the advantages of a simple, sensible, yet universal system of measurement.” He also made some pointed historical references, which showed the general sentiments of that decade: “Many of [the metric system’s] opponents will become supporters when better informed, and the tradition becomes inverted when it is realized that the metric system is English and not French in origin, while the so-called English system is a German invention…. James Watt, the English scientist and engineer, originated and first published the decimal system of measurement.” Neville’s paper provoked Samuel S. Dale of Boston, MA, to write a letter expressing vehement opposition to the metric system (1925, 2, 1064). Countering Neville’s statement about almost worldwide acceptance, Dale argued that the United States and the British Empire encompassed larger land areas and populations and were far wealthier than the metric countries. Dale also made pointed attacks on Neville’s historical knowledge. Regarding James Watt, Dale wrote, “It is astounding that this statement, which has been spread broadcast by the World Trade Club, should have deceived Mr. Neville, for the truth, well known to every one with an ordinary acquaintance with the history of mathematics, must certainly be on record at the University of Illinois.” In the follow-up correspondence that originally sparked my interest, Neville pointedly responded to the Illinois slur in refuting Dale’s comparisons of English versus metric users: “It is not necessarily true that the largest and richest countries are the wisest and most progressive. The inability to distinguish between quantity and quality is often attributed to
Chart of international advance in metric usage prepared by the Metric Association in the 1920s (J. Chem. Educ. 1925, 2, 594).
the Middle West, but the error is unforgivable when emanating from Boston.” Other than his hometown, no information is given about the mysterious Mr. Dale, but the opponent of the metric system does not seem to have been a chemist. In 1923, H. E. Howe, editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, News Edition, chastised the U.S. Public Health Service for dropping the metric system from its purchasing specifications (I&EC 1923, 1[17], 4). One month later (I&EC 1923, 1[19], 5) there was a letter from Dale in which he said, “I can understand why chemists…are disposed to favor the metric system for everything. But have they taken due account of the…use of weights and measures for everything else?” This also led to some interesting responses by both Howe and Bingham (I&EC, 1923, 1(20), 4, 5). Almost the same controversy resurged in JCE a half-century later, this time over the adoption of SI units. Several articles on this subject were published in the 1970s and 1980s (including two—1976, 53, 681 and 1980, 57, 303—by the
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 3 March 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education
313
Chemical Education Today
From Past Issues current editor of the Journal), but the ones causing the most debate were the anti-SI papers of a short time by Arthur W. Adamson and until metric Jack L. Lambert, which both standards will be appeared in the October 1978 issue (1978, 55, 634–637 and legally established 638). Reminiscent (in a backfor general use in wards way) of Dale’s opinions, Adamson wrote, “No objection this country. is raised here to persons in vari— Harvey A. Neville ous areas of science using SI JCE 1925, 2, 593 units of convenience for them. The objection is to the imposition on chemists of a system of units…”. Lambert made especially good use of words writing against adoption of m3 as the fundamental volume unit: “Theoretical types, whose principal contact with reality is the point at which the graphite meets the cellulose, profess to see no problem in dealing with cubic meters of solutions. … The ordinary chemist grows up handling volumes approximating one liter, which relate easily to quarts (and in maturity, fifths).” These articles generated pro-SI papers and letters from both sides of the Atlantic. They, along with a response by Adamson, were printed on consecutive pages in the October 1979 issue (1979, 56, 661–666). Some of these arguments bore a conciliatory tone. For example, in “On Finding a Middle Ground for SI”, physics teacher Robert A. Nelson wrote, “It is very much in our best interests to come to some kind of mutual accord on our choice of units, if only to avoid It is only a matter
314
confusion among our The practicing scientist of students. Some bending on both sides will be even twenty years from necessary.” However, now will still have to be some rather pointed reconversant with the cgsmarks were also made, most notably by R. B. esu system. No matter how Heslop of the Univerofficially mandated SI sity of Manchester: “In defense of Europeans, becomes, students who are we find it mildly amusnot taught both systems ing that the countrymen will be functional illiterates of Mark Twain and Ogden Nash should in the language of science. have sponsored a unit —Arthur W. Adamson called the U.S. internaJCE 1978, 55, 637 tional ampere and not recognized it as funny. We can, and do willingly, accept Jack Nicklaus as a U.S. international golfer; the same description applied to a unit does not seem to make much sense.” Regarding Heslop’s interest in golf, a question remains. How do we measure the distance from the ball to the hole? If something from a JCE from decades past strikes your fancy, consider letting other readers know. Write it up for the From Past Issues page. Send your ideas or submissions to Kathryn R. Williams, Department of Chemistry, University of Florida, P. O. Box 117200, Gainesville, FL 32611-7200, email:
[email protected].
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 76 No. 3 March 1999 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
