CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 (202) 872-4600; TDD (202) 872-6355 Letters to Editor:
[email protected] C&EN Online: http://pubs.acs.org/cen EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Madeleine Jacobs MANAGING EDITOR: Rudy M. Baum ART DIRECTOR: Robin L. Braverman SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Lois R. Ember NEWS EDITOR: Janice R. Long SPECIAL FEATURES EDITOR: Celia M. Henry ONLINE EDITION: Melody Voith (Editor), Luis A. Carrillo (Editorial Assistant) EDITOR-AT LARGE: Michael Heylin CONTRIBUTING EDITORS: Susan J. Ainsworth, Wil Lepkowski, Κ. Μ. Reese ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Patricia Oates PROGRAM ASSISTANT: Stephanie Wahl BUSINESS William J. Storck, Assistant Managing Editor Northeast (732) 906-8300. Michael McCoy (Senior Editor), Marc S. Reisch (SeniorEditor), RonaldS. Rog ers (Associate Editor), Alexander H. Tullo (Assistant Editor), Rachel Eskenazi (Administrative Assistant). Houston: (281) 486-3900. Ann M. Thayer (Bureau Head). Hong Kong: 852-2984-9072. Jean-François Tremblay (Bureau Head). London: 44 20 88706884. Patricia Layman Short (Senior Editor) GOVERNMENT & POLICY David J. Hanson, Assistant Managing Editor Washington: (202) 872-4495. Bette Hileman (Senior Editor), Cheryl Hogue (Senior Editor), Jeffrey W. Johnson (Senior Editor), William G. Schulz (Associate Editor) SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY/EDUCATION Pamela S. Zurer, Assistant Managing Editor Washington: (202) 872-4411. Stuart A Borman (Senior Correspondent), Mairin B. Brennan (Senior Editor), Doron Dagani (Senior Correspondent), Rebecca L. Rawls (Senior Correspondent), A Maureen Rouhi (Senior Editor), Sophie L. Wilkinson (Associate Editor). Northeast (732) 906-8301. Stephen C. Stinson (Senior Editor). Chicago: (847) 679-1156. Mitch Jacoby (Associate Editor). West Coast (510) 849-0575. Elizabeth Κ Wilson (Associate Editor). London: 44 1256-811052. Michael Freemantle (Senior Editor) ACS NEWS Linda R. Raber (ACS News Editor), Kevin R. MacDermott (Assistant Editor) EDITING & PRODUCTION Ernest L Carpenter, Assistant Managing Editor JanetS. Dodd (Associate Editor), Robin M. Giroux (Se nior Editor), Arlene Goldberg-Gist (Associate Editor), Deanna Miller (Assistant Editor), Stephen Κ Ritter (Se nior Editor), Diana L Slade (Assistant Editor) PUBLISHING & CREATIVE SERVICES William R. Succolosky (Head), Linda Mattingly (Staff Artist). Production & Imaging: Vincent L. Parker (Manager), Meltem Akbasli (Assistant) MARKETING MANAGER: Scott Nathan ADVISORY BOARD Paul S. Anderson, Bernard D. Azoulay, Shenda M. Baker, Robert T. Betz, Ronald Breslow, Vincent A Calarco, Margaret A Cavanaugh, Jean Chmielewski, Mark E. Davis, John R. Danzeisen, Earnest W. Deavenport Jr., John G. Ekerdt, J. Michael Fitzpatrick, Renée G. Ford, Cynthia M. Friend, Lynn R. Goldman, Ryota Hamamoto, Peter R. Heinze, J. Roger Hirl, Nancy B. Jackson, Carl A. Jennings, Robert L Lichter, Chad A. Mirkin, James C. Mullen, Riccardo Pigliucci, David B. Price Jr., Douglas J. Raber, David R. Rea, Eisa Reichmanis, Mark C. Rohr, Richard R. Schrock, Ian Shott, Richard E. Smalley, Gabor A. Somorjai, Mary C. Waltham Published by AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY John Kistler Crum, Executive Director Robert D. Bovenschulte, Director, Publications Division EDITORIAL BOARD Joan E. Shields (Chair); ACS Board of Directors Chair: Henry F. Whalen; ACS President: Daryle H. Busch; Peter C. Jurs, Attila Ε. Pavlath, Barbara J. Peterson, Lura J. Powell. © Copyright 2000, American Chemical Society Canadian GST Reg. No. R127571347
•EDITOR'S PAGE
Dilemmas
M
any of myfriendsbecame chem ists because they liked the cer tainty of science—the idea that there was a right answer and a wrong an swer. My friend, Alan Lightman, a former astrophysicist and author of "Einstein's Dreams," numerous books of essays, and several novels, recently wrote an eloquent essay in the New York Times that touched on this aspect of science. He was writing about what he missed as a scientist, hav ing given up physics to become a writer. "I miss the purity," he wrote nostalgi cally. 'Theoretical physicists, and many other kinds of scientists, work in a world of the mind. .. .The equations have a pre cision and elegance, a magnificent sereni ty, an indisputable rightness. . . .Of course, other occupations also deal with ideas. But the ideas are often complicated with the ambiguity of human nature." Ambiguity, in fact, is the hallmark of most of life, and yet as humans we long for certainty—for answers that distin guish clearly between right and wrong paths. Shades of gray, uncertainty, alter native interpretations of the same data— these conditions frustrate us. I think that is one reason that some scientific debates have become so emo tional. Consider, for example, the ongoing discussions over genetically modified or ganisms. The public wants unequivocal reassurance that such plants and animals are safe, but regulators cannot provide un equivocal reassurance—and neither can scientists. Is there a right answer and a wrong answer? After reading Senior Edi tor Bette Hileman's story (see page 28) on the regulatory systems for genetically modified organisms, I concluded that pub lic interest groups may be correct: Tests required for approval and long-term moni toring of genetically modified organisms might be inadequate to protect wild plants and animals, as well as human health. But I'm not sure. Another example is global warming. Nearly all scientists who have published research on this issue agree that Earth has warmed between 0.7 and 1.4 °F since 1860 and that it likely will warm much faster—1.8 to 9.0 °F—during this century unless actions are taken. Most scientists also agree that humans are playing some role in this warming. Many companies now accept this consensus.
But now what? What are the right steps to take to prevent the predicted dire con sequences of global warming? These two cases fall into the catego ry of dilemmas. A dilemma is usually de fined as an argument presenting two or more equally conclusive alternatives, or a situation in which none of the choices is completely satisfactory. Such scientifi cally based dilemmas—especially those with high-impact outcomes—seem to be happening with increasing frequency. Earlier this month, for example, Presi dent Clinton issued an executive order that declares the U.S. government will not seek to interfere with African coun tries that may violate U.S. patent law in order to provide AIDS drugs at lower prices. Interestingly, the day after the ex ecutive order was issued, five drug com panies said they will lower the costs of providing AIDS drugs to Africa. The dilemma posed by Clinton's ex ecutive order was beautifully summarized in a Science Insights by Senior Correspon dent Stu Borman last July titled, "African AIDS tragedy: Patent rights versus hu man rights" (C&EN, July 26, 1999, page 49). Should the devastating AIDS epidem ic in Africa outweigh the need to protect intellectual property? One is tempted to say 'Yes!" given the proportions of the po tential human catastrophe, but pharma ceutical companies also make a compel ling case that an abrogation of intellectual property protection would mean less mon ey to develop new drugs. In his New York Times essay, Lightman returns to what he's lost by becom ing a writer: "I remember so often finding a sweet comfort in my equations. .. .1 miss that purity, that calm." Equations may be pure, but scientif ic debates that impact the public are not. We need, as scientists, to engage in such debates sensibly, with the understand ing that sometimes even the best data are subject to interpretation. We need to remember that we do not live in certain, or comforting, or calm times. And, some times, a dilemma is a dilemma—and we have to make decisions without the ben efit of complete information.
Editor-in-chief
/
Views expressed on this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of ACS MAY 22, 2000 C&EN
3
