ACCOUAfTS OF CHEXICAL RESEARCH@ Registered in U S . Patent and Trademark Office;Copyright 1986 by the American Chemical Society
VOLUME 19
NUMBER 1
JANUARY, 1986
EDITOR JOSEPH F. BUNNETT
ASSOCIATE EDITORS Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Robert Abeles Richard Bernstein R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Charles R. Cantor Ernest R. Davidson Marshall Fixman Jenny P. Glusker Keith U. Ingold Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Stephen R. Lippard James M. McBride Josef Michl Kenneth N. Raymond Jacob F. Schaefer Richard C. Schoonmaker
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 Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development Department: Lorrin R. Garson, Head
“Silly Season in Research” From time to time a demagogue takes delight in holding certain publicly funded research projects up to ridicule. A recent example is a column by syndicated columnist Jack Anderson,’ the title of which appears above. Near the start, Anderson says: “the federal government squanders millions on silly research-money that could be better spent to advance American technology.” Then: “Federal administrators pass out grants with abandon to researchers who have studied almost everything from the habits of the hagfish to the habitat of the hackmatack.” Right here we can see that Anderson’s objective is not to inform but to deceive.2 “Hackmatack” is a folk name for American larch or tamarack, major forest trees; studying their habitat contributes to responsible forest management. As for hagfish, they are closely related to lampreys, which menace the fishing industry in the Great Lakes. Anderson’s sentence with its cute alliteration thus constitutes a pair of cheap shots, for the studies he scorns should advance American forest and fishery technology. Of the 12 further examples of “silly” grants mentioned by Anderson, the one most chemical would appear to be: “A geochemist at a Northeastern institution got $41,310 in federal funds to find out if diamonds are really forever. After cleaving 600 diamonds in half, he determined they’d been around since the earth was young.” This quote further demonstrates the columnist’s treatment of the evidence: vague and sardonic. Whatever noble qualities may be associated with Anderson’s column, if there be any, courage is not among them. His charges are so obscure as to what or whom is criticized that they would be difficult to refute; one would need to know what geochemist at what Northeastern institution received what grant in order to discover what it was really about. For 12 grants identified with similar inexactitude, the work of a team of investigators would be required just to obtain basic facts. Furthermore, the individuals slurred would have few grounds for a libel suit. Indeed, those who suffer wrong from his misrepresentations are not so much the individual scientists, but rather the whole community of researchers and indeed the whole society served by them. What can scientista do to thwart such irresponsible criticism? Direct responses, such as letters to the editors of local newspapers, have little impact because most readers of a scurrilous attack would not see the response. Nevertheless, well-argued responses may persuade editors to become more responsible in choosing what to print. Of greater long-term value would be publication in the popular press of articles tracing back the research that underlay major technological developments known to the public. The authors of such articles must understand the science involved and write well for the popular taste. Many scientists have those qualities, and should be able to do an occasional article of that sort. Also, students should be encouraged to consider entering the emerging profession of writing about science for laymen. There are a few graduate programs that train people for such careers. If the public is presented with sufficient authentic information about research and what benefits derive from it, the voices of those who take cheap shots at research will receive less attention. Joseph F. Bunnett
The American Chemical Society and its 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. Registered names and trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
(1)The column, distributed by United Feature Syndicate, appeared in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Santa Cruz, CA, Dec. 10, 1985, page A-19. (2) One must acknowledge the possibility that the deceptive language stems from incompetence rather than intent.
