Editorial
Alberts' Theorem and Corollary
I
n a recent presentation at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in Washington, D.C., NAS president Bruce Alberts emphasized a major responsibility of scientists to work toward increasing the effectiveness of the scientific enterprise (as we all should) by stating a Theorem: "What is measured in highstakes assessments has a profound effect on human behavior"—and a Corollary: "We must be exceedingly careful to make sure that we measure what counts!" In the context of Alberts' lecture "human behavior" encompasses how scientists interact with one another and how they impact society, and "measure" means "what do we do?" I want to discuss this important Corollary in the context of a chemist making a choice of a research direction that is what to measure and why Whether in academics or industry, the researcher looks for choices with the potential for influencing the direction of future chemistry or technology, and ultimately of benefiting society. The most fertile choices— those "that count"—often stretch across disparate subdisciplines of chemistry or seek new bonds between chemistry and other major disciplines. Disciplinary cross-cutting syntheses are infrequent, but very significant, events in chemistry. Truly important research is, however, just as often localized within a chemical subdiscipline and propelled by a vision of how extant knowledge is fused to erase a long-standing roadblock to further evolution. Analytical chemistry has its share of both kinds of discovery; my June 1995 editorial about scavenging gave examples of how infusions of basic concepts and of technology from other areas have enhanced our subdiscipline. These are lessons that often bear repetition. The Corollary's admonition that our choices of research area—what we measure—should be ones that count means that the choices should be reasoned ones. Our individual thought processes are undoubtedly as diverse as our appearances. Some of us are better at jumping across disciplines and others of us are better at creatively mining within them. However, it is important that all researchers, chemists, and analytical chem-
ists, while choosing, articulate the underlying reason for the choices made. In terms of basic science, an academic's reasons may rest on estimates of the potential that, if certain new knowledge is gained, it will open an original area of broad inquiry. In an industrial context, the underlying science reasons may be quite similar but instead be couched in estimates of the potential technological content of the new area of inquiry. Articulating reasons for research choices is scientifically important but is ordinarily done in a context of seeking financial support for the project. Herein lies the Danger of Managerial Risk Avoidance. In applying for federal support, it is appropriate that the ultimate societal benefit be one of the reasons to support a project. The danger lies in an agency choosing a principal investigator's estimate of societal benefit as a politically more correct way to sift research proposals than that of a peer review assessment of "will this project scientifically count." Similarly, in the area of industrial support, either inhouse or extramurally, it is appropriate for managers to demand an estimation of the prospect of new technology for the company. However, a manager who demands a "risk-free estimation" is likely to avoid not only the risk but most chances for major technological gains. I believe that both science and society should fear a timidity of federal and industrial over-reliance on easy choices of obvious societal or commercial outcomes. Both sectors of the scientific enterprise should avoid a drift in this direction that tight research funds can encourage. A research plan with the potential for great impact typically has many unknowns lying in the way and intrinsically entails a great risk of unfulfilled potential. In his lecture, Alberts correctly pointed out that "measuring what counts" cannot be approached in a risk-free manner.
Analytical Chemistry News & Features, August 1, 1997 4 4 3 A
