CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING
NEWS WALTER J. MURPHY, Editor
The Divisions
Pian
L· HE Divisions Plan of the Pittsburgh Section of t h e AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, described in a, paper by
H. F . Beeghly presented before the Division o f Analytical and Micro Chemistry last month in Oiicsago, offers a wonderful opportunity for medium-size sections a n d large sections to widen the scope of their present service to members. One needs but scan the Audit Bureau o f Circulation's figures for ACS publications to see the heterogeneity of the members as to occupation, and, of course, t h e adoption of the Divisions Plan at the national level many years ago recognized the need o f considerable specialization in catering to the scientific interests of the members. I t is surprising that the Divisions Plan a t the local section level did not develop y e a r s ago along somewhat parallel lines in more than one o r two instances. Now seems to be a most propitious- time, a n d we are informed t h a t several sections plan t o do so in 1948-49. The history of the movement in Pittsburgh i s interesting and presents a lesson. The analytical cXiemists in that area felt t h a t they were without an adequate mechanism for meeting t o discuss current work a n d problems of common interest and considerable i m portance to them b u t of relatively slight interest to other members of the chemical profession. Eventually the Society of Analytical Chemists of Pittsburgh w a s formed entirely outside of the frameworlc of t h e AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SOCIETY
although
the v a s t
majority of the members of the former belonged to t h e ACS. The Society for Analytical Chemists of Pittsburgh operated independently in a highly successful manner from 1942 until 1945 when a numJber of influential and foresighted individuals wbto belonged to both organizations undertook to bring a/bout t h e adoption of the Divisions Plan of the Pittsburgh Section. At present, the Pittsburgh Section has s e v e o divisions in addition to the analytical division. They a r e assured autonomy and reasonable financial security t o gether with representation in planning tlie pxogram of the section and in the selection of its officers. The plan has been very successful because it meets the varied interests of chemists and chemical engineer's in t h e Pittsburgh area.
The strength of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
lies in the fact t h a t the Society, its publications, and its divisions provide an umbrella for all members of t h e chemical profession regardless of their specialization in science. Really to round o u t the service, it should be extended to the local section level, which is for many members t h e main point of contact with the Society. Widespread adoption of the Divisions Plan by local sections would result in many benefits t o the members of the Society. Greater interest would develop in local sections. T h e Divisions Plan might also very well bring about close relationships with the national scientific divisions. A t present we have the strange anomaly t h a t a most important activity of the Society, national meetings, is the responsibility of the divisions, y e t the number of paid memberships in divisions is and indeed always has been a discouraging situation with, of course, a few exceptions. The possibility of close coordination arid cooperation between divisions and local sections is intriguing. Those who are interested in t h e details of t h e Divisions Plan of the Pittsburgh Section will find them fully explained in a booklet published by the section.
Supporting
Pure
Science
OBERT W . King, assistant to the president of the Bell Telephone Laboratories, writing in the American Scientist, Sigma Xi journal, proposes a tax credit program which, if adopted, would, he believes, revive private support of science in the United States. Briefly stated, his proposal is that "from t h e tax reductions, Congress channel perhaps 5 % to science arid education by the expedient of informing the taxpayer t h a t h e will get tax credit for any contribution u p to a certain percentage of his income which he makes t o approved agencies." T h e author is on sound ground when h e states t h a t the question a t issue is whether in t h e United States pure science can confidently look t o private philanthropy for its future support, or whether it must henceforth derive a considerable portion of its funds from the federal treasury. We believe the vast majority of citizens and a large proportion of scientists prefer t h e program outlined b y M r . King.
