EDITORIAL
Real Science The perceived hierarchy and bias among scientists (mathematician vs. physicist vs. chemist vs. biologist) have received attention in this column before (June 1986). However, in the past four years little has changed to alter anyone's feelings on the subject. The branches of science and even the divisions within chemistry are competing for media attention and branding each other with stereotypes. The type of prejudice that gives rise to superiority and inferiority labels based on field of endeavor is having a very negative effect on science. Competition is healthy and promotes achievement, but discrimination and snobbery result in poor relationships and reinforce a negative view of science among outside observers. The reality of this class structure can be seen in almost everything we do, and it is disturbing that such opinions affect the attitudes of graduate students. The prevailing notion of "good science" versus "bad science" has led to a simplistic view of the real world. Certain areas of science are looked down upon with regard to the significance of the work and the quality of the people involved. There should be no place for such thinking, and as scientists who are normally proud of our objective views, we should be particularly sensitive to such misconceptions. A good example of the absurdity of stereotypes and the class system in science can be found in the discovery and implementation of a new drug. Is the contribution of the organic chemist who discovered the molecule more significant than that of the biologist who determined its activity? What about the process chemist who made the bulk synthesis of the drug a reality? Without this contribution there would be no drug. And the analytical chemist who developed techniques to ensure an effective and contaminant-free product? The chemical engineer who turned a bulk
process into an on-line manufacturing plant? Each step alone is significant, but each step cannot stand alone; it is only after combining these steps that we see the true overall accomplishment. A student of mine related the friendly competition between two of his former professors, one an inorganic chemist and the other an organic chemist. Their argument was based on the question of the classification of ferrocene. Is this an inorganic or organic molecule? They both used a pastrami sandwich as a model for their theory. The organic chemist stated that a pastrami sandwich is not a sandwich without the rye bread above and below the meat. No one eats pastrami alone or on white bread. Therefore it is the organic component of the molecule, the rings above and below the iron, that is critical. Conclusion: Ferrocene is an organic molecule. The inorganic chemist pointed out that a pastrami sandwich without pastrami is no more than two slices of bread. The central iron atom gives ferrocene its importance and is therefore an inorganic molecule. The absurdity and humor of their friendly debate sheds light on the absurdity of the scientific class system. No one branch of science is more important than another; in fact, no one area of science can stand alone. Mathematics is not better than physics; physics utilizes the discipline of mathematics and can provide math with a connection to the world. The importance of science is in its interconnections, the way in which disciplines overlap. The contributions of all fields and investigators make the whole of science important in this world. This is the unbiased view that we as participants in science must take. If we do not, we can never expect outside observers to take an unbiased view of us.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 62, NO. 7, APRIL 1, 1990 • 417 A
