ACCOUNTS OF CHEXICY L RESEARCH" Registered in U S . Patent and Trademark Office;Copyright 1984 by the American Chemical Society
VOLUME 17
NUMBER 3
MARCH, 1984
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 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 F. 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 Department: Seldon W. Terrant, Head 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.
Quality in Research Discussions of research in industry give great attention to creativity and innovation, and how a new idea can be carried forward into a profitable process or product. That is fine. However, they say little about the importance of quality in research. Quality of research is mentioned in academia, especially in appraisal of persons being considered for an appointment, promotion, or award. Evaluators may praise the candidate for the high quality of his research. What do we mean by "quality" in research? Our common evaluation of quality in familiar objects, say, garments or tools, puts major emphasis on design, workmanship, and reliability. To a considerable extent, quality in research may be similarly judged. Reliability is obvious. The results or conclusions from research of high quality warrant confidence; experience shows that they can be repeated or confirmed. Design is also obvious. We admire an investigation conceived so as to achieve a major objective by means of a few adroit experiments, or to provide several kinds of important information simultaneously,or to utilize with profit a valid principle in an unusual context. We are less appreciative of pedestrian studies, even though they may lead to significant results. A major aspect of design, worthy of independent mention, is its creative or innovative character. Workmanship in research often pertains to the care taken to verify observations made, and as for garments or tools contributes to reliability. Special to research is the quality of intellectual analysis of the work performed. A high quality study evaluates critically the observations made, indicating their limitations as well as features deemed to be unchallengeable, and points out their significance in whatever area. In contrast, the discussion in a report of lesser quality may be vague and inconclusive. Inadequate emphasis on quality in research may be costly to industrial finns. In an occasional scenario,one scientist seelung to identify a troublesome byproduct of a process gets a piece of valid evidence (say, an IR spectrum or a gas chromatographic retention time) indicating a certain structure. The indicated structural assignment, a t that point unconfirmed, is reported. Subsequent workers in the same laboratory take that preliminary indication as though it were a compelling structural assignment, and invest perhaps months or years of additional effort to find ways of avoiding the formation of that byproduct. All this is risky, for thousands of dollars worth of effort are invested on the basis of an assignment of preliminary character. If the assignment was wrong, that money was largely wasted. Fault, if it is to be found, is probably with the second investigator in the chain who failed to scrutinize critically the first report, and to insist on confirmation of a result fundamental to subsequent efforts. Research in industry is often evaluated on the basis of results: patents, products, or processes. Although research quality contributes to such results, that criterion alone is not sufficient, for the objective of the research may be to obtain fundamental information, to identify a problem, or to explore a new area of science which turns out to be inappropriate for commercial exploitation. A rigorous assessment of quality of the research itself, probably by the scientist's peers, should be made and should enter materially into determining the individual's career and rewards. Joseph F. Bunnett
