ACCOUNTS OF CHENICAL RESEARCH” Registered in US.Patent and Trademark Office; Copyright 1982 by the American Chemical Society
VOLUME 15
NUMBER 10
OCTOBER,1982
EDITOR
JOSEPH F. BUNNETT ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Fred Basolo R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Edward A. Collins John T. Gerig Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk Jay K. Kochi Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Ronald N. McElhaney Eva L. Menger Kurt Mislow John C. Polanyi Alexander Rich Anthony M. Trozzolo Gene G. Wubbels Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 BOOKS AND JOURNALS DIVISION
D. H. Michael Bowen, Director Journals Department: Charles R. Bertsch, Head; Marianne C. Brogan, Associate Head; Mary E. Scanlan, Assistant Manager Marketing and Sales Department: Claud K. Robinson, Head Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development Department: Seldon W. Terrant. Head The American Chemical Society and ita editors assume no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society.
Connections Last autumn my wife and I went through the emotions and reactions that apparently usually accompany sending your firstborn off to college. After considerable evaluation our daughter chose to attend a liberal arts college, intending to explore a major in one of the laboratory sciences. While standing in line to check out of a hotel after a recent meeting, I chanced to overhear two well-regarded members of the profession discussing the research of a third, who happens to be employed at one of the country’s less prestigious universities. The terms being used were not particularly flattering to the individual or the institution. What these two luminaries had temporarily forgotten, besides their manners, was how dependent all who head research groups are on the quality and talent of those who hold what some regard as lesser positions. I’m thinking particularly of high school teachers; their role in recognizing individuals who have the potential for productive carriers in science is often remarked upon but one wonders how often appreciated. My daughter was lucky to have several teachers during her high school years who held out high standards and managed to convey a sense of purpose to academic work without stifling imagination and spontaneity. How changed the country could be if every student could have even one teacher during the course of secondary schooling who could simultaneously make him or her work hard and yet generate excitement about the importance of learning and the act of discovery. In mind also are those faculty who toil at those institutions that are not regarded as being in the front rank. These institutions are kept off the lists of the “top n schools” for a variety of reasons-unsympathetic state legislatures, inept administrators, stulifying religious affilitations or, let’s face it, lack of brain power in the faculty. Producing good research is grueling under the best of circumstances. All or part of the infrastructure of services and facilities that make it a little easier at top institutions is often missing in those not at the top. Those involved with non-first rate institutions nevertheless often manage to produce useful research; they have a sometimes overlooked role in making scientific progress, for their efforts often provide the postdocs and technical support people that make the top research programs go. I am concerned that, in an era of budgetary stringency, these are suggestions that progress in research won’t be hurt too much if the extramural funds available to support research in the academic world are directed primarily toward those easily identified top 10 or 20 universities and that “zeroing” of funding for the remainder or for science education programs will somehow have negligible impact. In that collective activity we call research, most real progress is made by relatively few people working in relatively few locations. However, we must also realize the vast and largely necessary structure that supports the effort of these few. That structure may not be perfectly formed, but disparagement, in financial terms or otherwise, of those dedicated and capable individuals at the ”lower levels” who are involved in recognizing, training, and directing scientific talent “upward” will eventually weaken the entire enterprise. J. T. Gerig University of California, Santa Barbara
