A Question of Balance
One line of historical argument suggests that the science of chemistry developed in antiquity from practical matters associated with human existence. For example, natron, primarily sodium carbonate adulterated with the chloride and sulfate, was used together with common salt and gypsum in embalming, cleansing, and food preservation as early as the fifth millenium B.C. in the Nile region. The needs of practical arts-pottery glazes, glass, metals, and alloys-and decorative arts-pigments, cosmetics-governed much of early man's interest in matter and the wavs it can be transformed. Historically, chemistry and its technological applications have been intimatelv intertwined: such associations still exist and are in fact a t t i e core of several interrelated problems. Currently, the basic laws governing the National Science Foundation are under review by Congress. Most observers would aeree that durine the past ten vears or so the technological .&premacy of &e united states, and its ability to comoete in foreign trade, has been eroding. At the same time university science departments have undergone considerable change: enrollments have leveled off or declined, fewer faculty have become available, and chemistry graduates are far more likely to be placed in business or industry. In such an environment the Foundation may he susceptible to increasing pressures for instituting significant changes in its historical role, i.e., a primary interest in basics rather than technology. Indeed, i t has been reported that the current Director of the Foundation favors an increased rate of growth fur prugram.; in engineeringa~~d applied science. Apparently tht:n, is .iom(. feeliur that the Fuundation's > I I I ) D O I ~ uf hasic research, which is $ten thought of as an investment in the future, should he augmented with a concern for innovation and productivity to insure this promise of the future. The ooint here is not to enter into this debate, tempting as it might be, hut to use the situation as an example t h i t t i e histor&al intimacv between chemistrv and technology -. still persists today. The fact that most chemistry araduates eventually become associated with industry, together with the cont&nporary attitude of students that education is the gatekeeper to a better job, has led to an often uneasy relationship between industry and academia. We learn privately, and occasionally in public letters, about the poor quality of the "training" which current graduates have received-or a t least fail to exhibit for their industrial employers. There is, after all, a difference between acquiring skills in problem solving and having the
skills to solve a problem of the moment which may have only transient-albeit financially important-ramifications. I t is natural to hope to hire a person who can solve the immediate prohlem rapidly based on his previous training, but surely it is folly to expect that a solution of this kind will he availahle for each problem that arises. The person who has both a solid knowledge base and demonstrated problem-solving skills will be the most useful employee in the long run. On the other hand, academicians often persist-knowingly or not-in denying their students practical information concerning the usefulness of chemistry in the antiquarian sense. Contemporary students often see chemistry as i t is presented in colleges and universities as irrelevant. In all probability the academicians', students', and business interests' positions all have a degree of validity, a reflection of the interrelationship between chemistry and technology which has been forged by history. This interdependence cannot be dissolved easily without causing irreparable damage to either component. Technology would soon become stagnant without the constant flow of facts, theories, and incipient ideas from basic science. Chemistry, on the other hand, deals with matter which pervades all of human experience, and we must recognize that laypersons have a legitimate interest in its findings even though such interest may lead to technological applications not conceived of by the discoverers. We must reestablish a mutual trust between chemistry and technology. The burden of this responsibility will necessarily fall largely on teachers because of their special relationships with students. Teachers can distort their students' impressions of science and technology overtly because of their personal and deeply held biases, or by default because they know no better. Thus, the teacher is uniquely situated to affect the delicate and necessary tension which should exist between chemistry and technology. The ethical question which faces teachers continually involves the balance of their personal interests against the students' need to develop their own capabilities for future situations that are necessarily ill-defined and probably undeterminable. If we as teachers could receive one gift in this month, traditionally reserved for general gift-giving, we should seek wisdom-wisdom to achieve an honest balance in our teaching efforts, wisdom to recognize when this balance is drifting-and we should seek the will to achieve the knowledge to bring us JJL back into balance.
Volume 56, Number 12, December 1979 / 769
