CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERIN
N E WS WALTER J. MURPHY, Editor
Professional
Mtesponsibttity
ORDS of wisdom from the lips of Warren K . Lewis are no novelty. H i s professional and moral influence has transcended his lecture room a t the Massachusetts Insti tute of Technology to the broad and all-inclusive fields of the chemical profession. W e have never listened t o a more inspiring description of the role of t h e scientist and technologist than his ad dress of acceptance of the Gold Medal of the American Institute of Chemists. We eliminate drudgery, we increase the standard of living, but the achievement of the technologist, using the term i n its broadest sense, can best b e summarized by the statement that the function of our profession is release of time for m e n . I t is the creation of leisure and of the things which can make that leisure more enjoyable and more constructive. There is a very real sense i n which one can assert that modern democracy is the creation of tech nology. W i t h o u t the material benefits which have ac crued from technological developments, the widespread leisure which is essential for t h e successful functioning of democracy could not exist. Moreover, because leisure is the stuff of which civilization i s made, our function is to furnish the material basis for a finer and nobler civilization. One of the problems that bothers men, professional men included, is the fact that t h e products of science and technology are so frequently and s o obviously used for evil ends. One must never lose sight of the fact that the products of science and industry are ethically i n them selves neutral things. Their quality, from the point of view of ultimate usefulness and value, depends upon the kind of use to which they are put. This ultimate use is outside the control of the technical man. Nevertheless, it is only b y the production of these material things that civilization can even have the possibility of coming into being and reaching its ultimate potentialities. Neutral though the things we produce m a y be, they are necessary if men are to have the opportunities for intellectual and cultural development. Continuing, Prof. Lewis pointed out t w o generally ac cepted truths: (1) that the technologist needs t o develop a deeper appreciation of the value of his social contribu tions to life; (2) that the second great defect in t h e tech nologist is the narrowness of his sense of responsibility. Prof. Lewis then offered as evidence of how narrowly the technical m a n in industry interprets his professional function, t h e fragmentation in his professional organiza tion, and suggests the possibility of a single, unified, pro fessional organization that can recognize and deal with the vast area of social problems common t o our presently fragmented professional groups. N o one will deny that the professions are in a state of fragmentation and furthermore that each profession has more than one professional and scientific group'within the profession. Prof. Lewis would agree that m o s t if not all scientific and professional societies initially and even today consider their primary function the dissemination of the scientific advances within their respective profes sions. It is probably for this reason that Prof. Lewis suggests t h e possibility of an entirely new organization embracing all the professions. But is the solution of the problem t h e one that Prof. Lewis suggests? T o be really effective it must include the overwhelming majority of the members of t h e profes sions. Otherwise it will not b e truly representative and m a y well become an instrument of a small minority en deavoring to create the impression that they have the authority to speak for the professions. Let us n o t mini-
mize this danger—such attempts at this kind of .decep tion have been tried on more than one occasion. The real difficulty stems from the fact that scientist»· and technologists are not only in a status of fragmenta tion within the scientific and professional spheres, but like any other representative group of Americans their views o n social, moral, religious, and political questions vary widely. There i s no unanimity of thought o n these ques tions within t h e professional group as a whole. There fore, how can any one organization presume to speak on such matters for the professional men and w o m e n of this country? We do agree that the professional m a n or woman should maintain closer interest in and participate in the solution of our social problems but should this not be done as individuals? · A scientific and professional. society does have every right to speak when matters affecting the profession are before the public. On occasion, when these problems are of common interest to more than one of t h e professions, s^iVntifie and professional societies have worked together i n a common cause. W e believe such joint action should b e undertaken more frequently than probably has been done in the past when a common cause is plainly indi cated. Here is probably a form of activity that can be expanded wisely and judiciously, but w e strongly believe any all-inclusive organization of professional people con cerned solely with social and political questions, even though it m i g h t have a large majority of the professional people enrolled in i t , will be suspect i n the minds of the public as primarily a propaganda organization. The public is far from ready to accept the thesis that scientists and technologists are wholly objective in their approach t o social and political problems. They see scientists and technologists varying i n their political beliefs from the extreme right t o the extreme left and can only conclude that when social and political questions are before us we exhibit the same wide differences of opinion as. do the nontechniually trained elements within our structure of society.
Mntroducing
^eomCMNtrates"
o Ν" March 10, 1946, we commented editorially that C & E N had reached a 50,000 print order in its circulation development. On April 11 of this year w e passed the 70,000 figure (actual print order 71,000) and o n last Friday 73,000 copies of this issue rolled off the presses of the Mack Printing Co. at Easton, P a . In a little more than three years w e have experienced a 46% increase in circu lation and this without benefit of any circulation promo tion effort, n o premiums, prizes, short-trial subscrip tions, etc. A publication that remains static is actually in a stage of retrogression. Readers' needs change, t h e field served changes, and editorial success requires constant aware ness on the part of editors as to what these evolutionary needs of their readers are and to supply them in the most efficient form possible. With this issue w e introduce t h e conCENtrates depart ment—"Today's news of the chemical world likely t o in fluence the happenings of tomorrow." Industrial and business leaders in the chemical and chemical process i n dustries, chemists and chemical engineers will find in this new feature a n interpretative digest of what is happening and what is likely to happen i n the fields of chemical science and technology, production, and commerce.
