Grass Roots and Instruments
T
H I S is not the f i i st timv that the tearhing of analj tical chcmiqtiv has h e m divwssed ditoiially on these pages-nor is it likely to be the 1a.t. ’4s long as thrre is an indication of conrein, ninong those n ho trarh the subject and among those who employ the products of such teaching, that education methods are falling qhoit of the desired end^, it will be a part of our responsibility to help them hear the torch hich will light up the dark corners and make them available for correction. With the continual and phenomenal advances being made in analysis, it is not prohahle that a static condition of near perfection in education of analytical chemist-to-be will be arrived a t in the foreseeable future. Four years ago the first of a very successful series of sympoqia was inaugurated a t Louisiana State University Under the guidance of Philip IT.West this annual conclave for consideration of developments in modern analytical methods has maintained the eweptionally high standards set a t its beginning. As it has tlealt with the most modern methods, a large proportion of its subject matter has been concerned 17 ith instrumental analysis. I n spite of this, there has been echoed throughout the series the undercurrent “lest n e forget,” in enthuqiasm for our neuly found slaves, the fundamentals of analytical chemistry. Dr. West himself delivered a paper a t the first meeting in 1948 n hich dealt entirely with noninstrumental analysis. Thc asqociate editor of this journal, L. T. Hallett, gave a t the second symposium an opinion that more emphasis must be placed on the teaching of chemical and physical properties of elements and compounds as related to analytical methods. Tour editor, a t the 1950 meeting, stated his faith in the belief that, although recognition by analysts of the latent possibilities of instruinentation has brought about a renaissance in analytical chemistry, the classical methods will not be abandoned. However, in the light of increased instrumentation and specialized fields of analysis, care must be taken that the broad fundamentals arc not overlooked. The answer lies partially in recognition of the difference hetween the words “supplant” and “supplement.” It is the latter that should characterize the relation of instrumental analyqis to conventional methods. It was inevitable that opinions passed at dinner tables and between session conversations should, after the fashion of the Chicago symposium in 1949, crystallize into a panel on teaching analytical chemistry. The fourth symposium, just finished, closed with such a panel discussion in n-hich 18 professors of analytical chemistry participated. Their major questions were two: (1) What is the status of the teaching of fundamental.? and (2) Where do courses in instrumental analysis best fit? I n spite of the reassurances of the past few years mentioned above, these educators still expressed alarm about the trend away from chemistry. P a r t of this is due t o an increasing nationwide consciousness of gadgets for everything, and i t is not surprising that students are attracted more t o the use of instruments not
only i)cc-;iuseof timc-saving an(l grmt potcntialitie.;, but also just because they are fun to fool with. Xnalytical methods have alir-a?-s been and will he devised on the tiasis of physical aiid chemical properties of the materials under consideration. 11any important advances are lieing made in noninstrumental methods of analysis (organic reagent,
