ACCOUNTS OF CHENICAL RESEARCH" Registered in
U.S.Patent
VOLUME 17
and Trademark Office; Copyright 1984 by the American Chemical Society
NUMBER 7
J U L Y , 1984
EDITOR JOSEPH F. BUNNETT ASSOCIATE EDITORS
A Farewell to Anger
Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Robert Abeles Richard Bernstein R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Marshall Fixman Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk Keith U. Ingold Jay K. Kochi Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Ronald N. McElhaney George W. Parshall Kenneth N. Raymond Jacob I?. Schaefer Richard C. Schoonmaker Anthony M. Trozzolo
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; Anne C. O'Melia, Assistant Editor Marketing and Sales Department: Claud K. Robinson, Head Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development DeDartment: Seldon W. Tenant, Head ~
-. ~
The American Chemical Society and ita 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.
When is the last time that you have read a severely polemical article? How long since you have heard voices raised in anger at a scientific congress? The sounds of controversy have died away in the halls of Academe, or at least in the chemistry departments. Article after article in Accounts of Chemical Research relates the tale of a research group that went out to find out new facts, not to disprove existing hypotheses. Our ancestors were not as polite as we are. The major journals of 1900 vintage are full of angry phrases. Then there were the great biochemical congresses around 1930, which were loud with the clash of rival theories. Even around 1950, I recall some strident disagreements, not so much about matters of substance but about priorities. Do chemists have better manners now, or is it just that circumstances have changed? I t is certainly true that there is less to disagree about these days, because the average lifespan of a hypothesis, i.e. the time between ita postulation and ita experimental proof or disproof, has shrunk dramatically. We all know how long van't Hoff s views about tetrahedral carbon remained a target for Kolbe to shoot at. That sort of thing cannot happen any more. You do not speculate about the shape of your latest molecule; you grow a nice crystal and then take it over to the X-ray analysts. Another change of circumstances: the world has shrunk, and we know each other better. At the beginning of the century, it took longer to travel from Lisbon to Copenhagen than now it takes from Melbourne to New York. These days, it is routine for a scientist from San Diego to meet a colleague from Nagoya who is interested in the same subject, so that any disagreements can be settled over a glass of wine rather than in the pages of a journal. And contacts thus established can be maintained by means of an efficient air mail system. In the end we all wind up working as members of a team, rather than in opposition. Thus, certainly, circumstances have helped to create a climate in which hostile controversy does not flourish. But I do think that part of the change is in ourselves. We are more sincerely disposed to see our fellow workers as allies rather than rivals. Think only of what would have happened if the debate about the nonclassical ion had broken out around 1935. Rivers of abuse would have coursed through the pages of the literature. And how about the unfortunate polywater story, which still awaits a scientific historian? Surely, around 1920, it would have set brother against brother. As it is, polywater was given a quiet burial, and no rancorous speeches were held over its grave. To sum up: the human community at large was loud with discord around 1900, and still is. The subgroup of research chemists, however, is a more friendly society now than it was then. Let us salute this small and isolated advance of civilization, and ascribe it partly to the fact that our means of communication have improved. Perhaps there is a lesson in all this for leaders of nations. Robert Schoenfeld Australian Journal of Chemistry
