GINEERING CHEMISTRY S H E D BY THE A M E R I C A N C H E M I C A L S O C I E T Y W A L T E R J. M U R P H Y , E D I T O R
Can We Afford the Ivory Tower?
A
translated into terms significant to the layman. Many pure research papers of highly specialized content can be made easy reading Only for the few who are familiar with the concepts involved. Let us keep in mind, too, that the public is coldly uninterested in the intricacies of profound fundamental research: it becomes aroused only when research means a better medicinal, a better cloth, more comfortable homes, a more dangerous military weapon of destruction. Real dividends of understanding and of broad and lively interest await those workers in The result of this deliberate aloofness has beea a curious state the latter field who have the vision and consideration to interpret of affairs. I n our American society the engineer has served as their work (if necessary in two or more versions) for their whole butler a t the feast which the inventors supplied from the fertile fields of scientific research. The scientists, particularly the audience. Far too few can travel the narrow trails we have physical scientists, have been a sterile priesthood in the society blazed to the present paths of science. Let us widen the paths a t served by the butlers. Although their intellectual achievements least part way so that many more may share the exhilaration of have been the most brilliant in the history of man, knowledge of the heights. these has been confined among the priesthood. No public relations council has explained to the rest of us the ultimate meaning The scientists’ problem cannot be solved entirely by accepting of their discoveries. The scientists have maintained their own Mr. Brandt’s final admonition that as they prepare to leave their qocieties, published their own magazines; they have been a feudal citadel they purchase a dictionary of the English language. world apart, regally oblivious to the feudal society below them. This may be an excellent means to an end but much more will For the truth is that, in the period of the most widespread education in the history of mankind, we have established a be required before scientiits exert any profound influence on the twentieth-century feudalism. The difference between i t and thinking and action of the world at large. And we agree aholemedieval feudalism is that it is intellectual rather than economic. heatedly with Mr. Brandt when he states that the man of learnIn the period of medieval feudalism the gulf between the lord of ing, however ill equipped he may be npw, must learn to become the manor and the villein or the serf tied to the land was both intellectual and economic; but the principal characteristic of a man of action, a politician in the larger sense, a man of the that gulf was economic. It is true, of course, that the serf had no people, speaking for people, leading people. intellectual freedom. But i t is equally true today that the averThe inevitable penalty the scientist pays for his traditional and age citizen cannot speak intelligently about, or criticize conoutmoded isolation in his ivory tower strikes home when the structively, the scientific age. The gulf between him and those who understand it is too great. And yet, as he has just discovered, burden of the creation of nuclear energy is heavy upon US, and he is tied to i t inescapably, and the penalty for forgetting that the destiny of the eternal future hangs on the policy decisions this fact is the same as in the Middle -4pes-death. and other nations must make in the next few weeks or months. We regretfully second Mr. Brandt’s charge of excesses in Our comparatively airy isolation is no solace when, in our efforts scientific verbiage as i t relates to our own profession, though we to contribute to these decisions, we sometimes only flail the thin believe that the chemical profession is less guilty of the charge air helplessly.’ Now we are earnestly seeking the basis of common than many others, and entirely innocent of any feeling of feudal understanding with our fellow man so that our exertions may be superiority. But we do see in the situation described by Mr. effective. Brandt a fundamental reason Why the voice of the chemist and Yet we scientists cannot expect the public $0 accept us in the the chemical engineer too frequently has been su faint in the ears role of political, moral, and social leaders simply because of our scientific knowledge. We must forego the almost childish belief of government and the public the past several years. The chemical professian to an unnecessarily great extent has isolated the that because we are scientists we are specially endowed to run knowledge of its achievements from the interested and intelligent the world. True, we possess objectivity to a marked degree and layman, and from other scientists, with an impenetrable thorn ability to gather facts in an orderly fashion and to evaluate them hedge of terminology. This language barrier has not arisen beproperly, but others who are not scientists have these charactercause of a conscious desire to keep the general public in the dark. istics too. All too frequently our best scientific minds are incapable of working with others in harmony and understanding-a The average scientist is so wholly absorbed in his science that he fatal characteristic in those who want to lead and influence others. defaults seriously in his obligation to interpret the significance of his work to the society of which he is an inseparable part. We can and must become leaders, but, we must realize that we For nearly a quarter of a century the AMERICAN CHEMICAL can only achieve success in the political and cultural life of the SOCIETYthrough the ACS News Service has worked diligently Nation the hard wpy-the same way that our present leaders reached pre-eminence. When we‘ really decide to make the sacrito explain the discoveries of chemistry to the public. I t s success has been gratifying. But this is a job that must be done by fices entailed then, and only then, will we assume our rightful place everyone in a position to contribute if it is to be most completely in human society. To do that we should teach others to undereffective. ’If this is the scientific age, the common man deserves stand our science, and we should show them that we understand and can cope with their everyday problems, We should prove the best knowledge of it that we can bring to him. Greater underthe underlying truth that it is one world-ne in which scientists standing for all is a worthy objective of substantid dimensions. and laymen are next-door neighbors. It is obvious, however, that not every scientific work can be
PLEA to scientists for sjmplicity in writing is the theme of a most provocative article appearing in the March issue of Harper’s Magazine. The author, Joseph A. Brandt, has had a distinguished career in the publishing field, particularly with three outstanding university presses-Princeton, Chicago, and Oklahoma-and speaks with authority. Mr. Brandt in his article entitled “I Can’t Quite Hear You, Doctor’’ presents a damning indictment of the scientists:
461
,
*
